ReportWire

Tag: elections and campaigns

  • Paul Ryan invents a new category of anti-Trumpism | CNN Politics

    Paul Ryan invents a new category of anti-Trumpism | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    You know all about the “Never Trumpers” – that rump group of Republicans who have loudly spoken out against former President Donald Trump and what he has done to the GOP.

    Now meet the “Never-Again Trumpers.”

    That’s how former House Speaker Paul Ryan described himself in an interview with ABC News that aired over the weekend. Here’s what he said:

    “I’m proud of the accomplishments [during the Trump administration] – of the tax reform, the deregulation and criminal justice reform – I’m really excited about the judges we got on the bench, not just the Supreme Court, but throughout the judiciary. But I am a Never-Again Trumper. Why? Because I want to win, and we lose with Trump. It was really clear to us in ’18, in ‘20 and now in 2022.”

    Ryan, who left Congress in 2019, has grown increasingly outspoken about his feelings about Trump and the future of the Republican Party.

    Paul Ryan slams ‘horrifying’ end of Trump’s presidency (May, 2021)

    In late October, he told Fox Business Network that the “new swing voter in American politics is the suburban voter, and it’s really clear the suburban voter doesn’t like Trump, but they like Republicans.” And he added: “So I think anybody not named Trump, I think is so much more likely to win the White House for us.”

    (Worth noting: Trump won suburban voters over Hillary Clinton in 2016 and lost them narrowly to Joe Biden in 2020, according to the national exit polls. In the 2022 midterm elections, Republicans won suburban voters 52%-46%.)

    And back in June at an event for South Carolina GOP Rep. Tom Rice, who voted to impeach Trump in 2021, Ryan was deeply critical of those within the GOP who didn’t vote that way. “There are a lot of people who say they’re going to vote their conscience, they’re going to vote for the Constitution, they’re going to vote for their convictions but when it gets hard to do that they don’t do it,” he said at the time. (Rice went on to lose the Republican primary in his district to a Trump-backed challenger.)

    Trump, as he does, has attacked Ryan in the past too. “As a Republican, having Paul Ryan on your side almost guarantees a loss, for both you, the Party, and America itself,” Trump wrote in a statement last year after Ryan gave a speech suggesting the party needed to move on from the former president.

    Attacks aside, Ryan’s position on Trump is an interesting one. It gives the former president credit for what he accomplished in office while suggesting he is neither the present nor the future of the GOP.

    Which is where, I think, some of the more serious challengers to Trump in 2024 will land. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, would do well to echo Ryan’s viewpoint – give Trump credit for what he did as president while making clear that his political appeal has shrunk to the point where it would be a mistake for Republicans to nominate him again.

    At the core of Ryan’s position as a “Never-Again Trumper” is something that I have often wondered doesn’t get more attention: Trump’s win-loss record.

    Trump famously bragged that “we are going to start winning again and we are going to win so much,” but the truth is that since the 2016 election, he has been much more closely identified with losing. In Trump’s time in office, Republicans lost control of the House and Senate. Republicans did retake the House majority in 2022, but their victory was far narrower than expected. And Democrats managed to hang on to their narrow Senate majority, with several Trump-backed candidates falling short in key races.

    That decided lack of winning seems to be a clear weak spot for Trump as he looks to rally support for his third presidential bid. And DeSantis already appears to be moving to exploit it. Following a crushing reelection victory this month, DeSantis said of his critics: “I would just tell people to go check out the scoreboard from last Tuesday night.”

    Maybe DeSantis is part of the “Never Again Trump” movement too?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • World’s longest-ruling leader looks set to secure new term after 43 years in power | CNN

    World’s longest-ruling leader looks set to secure new term after 43 years in power | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Preliminary election results released by Equatorial Guinea’s government on Monday showed the ruling party winning over 99% of votes counted so far in presidential, legislative, and municipal elections held on Sunday.

    The tiny, authoritarian, oil-producing Central African state is run by President Teodoro Obiang, the world’s longest-ruling head of state, who is seeking to extend his 43 years in office.

    “What you sow is what you reap,” said Obiang, 80, who has regularly won more than 90 percent of the vote in elections conducted over the course of five terms since he seized power from his uncle in a coup in 1979.

    “I am sure that the victory is for PDGE,” he said, referring to his party.

    Two opposition candidates are standing: Buenaventura Monsuy Asumu, who has already stood in the previous five elections, and Andrés Esono Ondo, who is running for the first time.

    Early, partial results showed Obiang’s ruling Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea (PDGE) and coalition with 67,012 votes out of 67,196 counted so far. The count will continue on Monday, said a statement on the government website.

    More than 400,000 people registered to vote in the country of about 1.5 million, which is split between the island of Bioko in the Gulf of Guinea and a coastal mainland sandwiched between Cameroon and Gabon.

    “It is a total fraud,” Esono Ondo told Reuters by phone, saying his party would challenge the result in court.

    He said some semblance of fair voting was taking place in the island capital Malabo, but his party had evidence that officials elsewhere were casting ballots on voters’ behalf or forcing them to vote for the ruling party.

    Government and officials of Equatorial Guinea’s election directorate could not be reached for comment.

    Maja Bovcon, a senior Africa analyst at risk intelligence company Verisk Maplecroft, said the election outcome was in no doubt: “The closure of the borders and the harassment and arrests of opposition supporters have been paving the way for the extension of Obiang’s 43-year rule.”

    The United States and the European Union called for a free and fair election and raised concern over reports of harassment and intimidation of the opposition and civil society groups. The government rejected the accusations as interference in its electoral process.

    Closing his campaign on Friday, Obiang said he decided to bring the presidential election forward by several months and hold it together with the legislative and municipal elections, to save money due to the economic crisis.

    Oil and gas production accounts for around three quarters of revenues in the OPEC member state. But output has dwindled in recent years to around 93,000 barrels per day (bpd), from around 160,000 bpd in 2015, as oil fields mature.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kinzinger says he doesn’t think McCarthy will ‘last very long’ if he becomes House speaker | CNN Politics

    Kinzinger says he doesn’t think McCarthy will ‘last very long’ if he becomes House speaker | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois lambasted House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Sunday, saying he does not think the California Republican will last long if he’s elected House speaker next year.

    “I think he has cut so many deals with bad people to get to this position that I think he’s not going to be a leader at all. I think he’ll be completely hostage to kind of the extreme wings of the Republican Party,” Kinzinger, who is retiring from Congress, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” “And I frankly don’t think he’s going to last very long.”

    “It’s sad to see a man that I think has so much potential, just totally sell himself – he’s the one that resurrected Donald Trump the second he went to Mar-a-Lago, like a week or two after January 6,” added Kinzinger, a noted Trump critic.

    House Republicans voted last week for McCarthy to continue leading their conference following an underwhelming midterm election performance. While Republicans had anticipated big gains in the House earlier this month, they are currently on track to only hold a slim majority.

    But McCarthy beat back a long-shot challenge to his leadership position by Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, a former chairman of the hard-line conservative House Freedom Caucus. Biggs received 31 votes to McCarthy’s 188, according to multiple sources in the room. It was a secret ballot, and McCarthy only needed support from a simple majority of the conference to prevail. In January, however, McCarthy must win 218 votes, or a majority of the House, to become speaker.

    Kinzinger also warned on Sunday that he wouldn’t be surprised if McCarthy had to make deals with Democrats in order to get things done in the next Congress, with more hard-line elements of the House GOP newly empowered by the party’s narrow majority.

    “I would not be surprised if Kevin McCarthy has to cut deals with Democrats, which is something he needs to keep in mind, because he’s not going to get 218 votes for everything he wants to pass, including government funding,” Kinzinger said.

    Former House Speaker Paul Ryan expressed confidence in McCarthy to become the next speaker, saying in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, “There isn’t anybody better suited to running this conference than Kevin McCarthy.”

    “He’s been good for conservatives, frankly. But he’s also a person who really understands how to manage a conference,” the Wisconsin Republican added.

    Ryan backed McCarthy’s plan to conduct oversight of the Justice Department and of the president’s son, Hunter Biden, but added, “That’s not a substitute for an agenda.”

    He applauded current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “impressive legacy,” saying, “She has an incredible legacy and career to look back on.”

    Ryan blamed Donald Trump for Republicans’ disappointing performance this election cycle and predicted that the former president would not win the GOP nomination in 2024, saying, “It’s pretty clear. With Trump, we lose.”

    “The evidence is really clear. The biggest factor was the Trump factor,” he said when asked to reflect on his prediction that Republicans would pick up 15 seats. “It’s palpable right now. We get past Trump, we start winning elections. We stick with Trump, we keep losing elections.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Anti-abortion activists say Trump will still need to win them over in 2024 | CNN Politics

    Anti-abortion activists say Trump will still need to win them over in 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Anti-abortion proponents who believe Donald Trump’s crowning achievement was the overturning of Roe v. Wade say the newly declared 2024 contender will still have to earn their support in the upcoming Republican presidential primary – and he may be off to a rocky start.

    In his more-than-hour-long speech announcing his candidacy, the former president omitted any mention of his anti-abortion credentials or his appointment of three of the conservative Supreme Court justices who ultimately abolished federal abortion protections. Within hours, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a leading anti-abortion group, released a statement pointedly dismissing candidates “who shy away from this fight.”

    Though the group did not mention Trump by name, its message was clear: No matter what he did to advance the anti-abortion cause during his first term, he must continue to prove his commitment as he seeks a second term or risk losing some conservative coalition support.

    Trump “raised the bar very high for what it meant to be a pro-life president,” SBA president Marjorie Dannenfelser told CNN in an interview this week. For that reason, Dannenfelser said, she was “surprised” the former president didn’t do more to tout his anti-abortion bona fides in his campaign announcement.

    “It’s a deep moral failure not to step up in the most important moment for our movement and if you think you can breeze through Iowa and South Carolina without a strong pro-life national vision, you’re just wrong,” she said, naming two of the early voting states that can buoy or tank a presidential candidate’s bid.

    Others said Trump, who has confided to aides that he believes the abortion issue may be hurting Republican candidates, passed on a layup by touting some of his core achievements in the conservative policy sphere but declining to mention his first-term efforts to limit abortion access. Instead, Trump highlighted his deliverance of tax cuts and deregulatory and counterterrorism actions by his administration as he addressed throngs of loyalists in the ballroom of his Mar-a-Lago estate on Tuesday.

    “For sure it was a missed opportunity,” said Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life. “President Trump has done many, many things we are grateful for but regardless, whoever gets our vote will have to earn it.”

    “We expect to be courted in the primary process and the person we want to get behind will be unapologetic in speaking up to defend the pre-born and calling for federal protections,” Hawkins said.

    The demand among leading abortion opponents for unflinching advocates comes as Trump, whose muted reaction to the overturning of Roe did not go unnoticed among anti-abortion conservatives, is expected to face primary challengers whose advancement of anti-abortion efforts date much further back than his own and may be more willing to embrace more stringent restrictions on abortion access in the months to come, possibly at the federal level. Trump has also found himself weakened in the wake of midterm defeats as some deep-pocketed GOP donors and elected Republicans call for the party to move on from him, underscoring the importance of keeping the conservative grassroots in his corner.

    “He does not want to risk any loss in the pro-life, evangelical or Catholic spheres,” Dannenfelser said.

    “I think Republicans who are running away from the issue right now are wrong,” added Tom McClusky, director of government affairs at CatholicVote, an advocacy organization that opposes abortion and spent $9.7 million in the 2020 presidential contest to boost Trump over Joe Biden.

    Trump’s apparent lack of interest in promoting his anti-abortion achievements is not new, McClusky added, saying that “he didn’t mention all that unless prodded during his presidency.” After the Supreme Court ended federal abortion rights this summer – kicking authority on the issue to state governments – Trump took a brief victory lap, declaring in a statement that the landmark ruling wouldn’t have happened without him “nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.”

    Meanwhile, other elements of Trump’s reaction to the ruling raised questions among abortion opponents about his support for new laws restricting the procedure, particularly after the former president had previously sidestepped questions about whether he supported a controversial Texas law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for life-threatening medical emergencies.

    “This brings everything back to the states where it has always belonged,” Trump told Fox News in the wake of the June 24 Dobbs decision.

    At a September campaign rally in Ohio for then-Senate GOP hopeful J.D. Vance, Trump once again affirmed his believe that abortion rights or restrictions should be determined “in the states,” adding that “Republicans have to get smart with that issue.”

    “It’s turned over to the states and it’s working out… The places where it’s not working out, it will work out,” Trump said.

    But if he repeats that in the primary, Trump could land himself in hot water with anti-abortion groups that have been championing efforts to legislate abortion at the federal level.

    “One thing that will not be satisfactory and a disqualifier is any candidate who says this is a state issue,” said Dannenfelser, who has remained in touch with Trump since he left office.

    Others simply want to see Republican presidential candidates – including Trump – talking about abortion as much as possible in the months to come. Prior to the midterms elections, however, Trump expressed concern to advisers that the reversal of Roe would backfire on GOP candidates by injecting a jolt of energy into the Democratic base, according to two people familiar with his comments.

    One of those sources said Trump has since griped to aides that his prediction was right, partly blaming the GOP’s underwhelming midterm performance on the attention abortion received from voters. CNN exit poll data found that 61 percent of voters were displeased with the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and about seven in 10 of those voters backed Democratic candidates running for Congress.

    A Trump campaign spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

    “A lot of folks seemed skittish about talking about abortion immediately after Roe’s reversal. We believe that it’s dangerous for Republicans not when you talk about it but when you don’t talk,” said Hawkins.

    Democrats have similarly taken note of Trump’s caution around the abortion subject, noting that they will continue to highlight his record.

    “It’s no surprise Donald Trump is terrified about talking about his own record of paving the way for abortion bans across the country,” said Ammar Moussa, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, adding that “Democrats will remind voters how [Trump] said there should be ‘some form of punishment’ for women who get an abortion’” during his 2016 presidential campaign.

    With Trump kicking off the 2024 primary earlier this week, several abortion opponents have said they have already been impressed with at least one of his potential rivals – former Vice President Mike Pence – and are closely watching to see how others handle the issue as they near possible campaigns of their own.

    That includes Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, potentially Trump’s leading foe if he mounts a campaign, who signed a 15-week abortion ban into law this past April but hasn’t committed to including additional legislative restrictions in an upcoming special session of the Florida state legislature, despite calls from abortion opponents to do so.

    “We would like to see him do more and see him speak more loudly,” said Hawkins, who remains hopeful that DeSantis’ sweeping reelection victory will embolden him “to take on additional measures in this coming legislative session.”

    Pence, for his part, has long charted a political identity with anti-abortion advocacy at its core since his days as a conservative congressman from Indiana. Just weeks after the Dobbs decision was handed down, the former vice president traveled to South Carolina to deliver a speech outlining a Republican policy blueprint for “post-Roe America.” He and his wife Karen have also been quietly raising funds for crisis pregnancy centers across the country and in keynote remarks at a gala for Susan B. Anthony Pro-life America in September, Pence also appeared to endorse Republican efforts to shepherd a national abortion ban through Congress.

    “I welcome any and all efforts to advance the cause of life in state capitals or in the nation’s capital,” Pence said at the time.

    At a CNN town hall this week, Pence praised the Dobbs decision, saying it gave “the American people a new beginning for life.” While suggesting that laws around abortion had been “returned to the states and the American people, where it belongs,” Pence also said he remains hopeful that all 50 states will eventually “stand for the sanctity of life.”

    Marc Short, a top adviser to the former vice president, said Pence will continue to train a spotlight on the issue whether or not he decides to run for president in 2024.

    “He’s always said we now have to take our case to the American people in a winsome way, while others have said, ‘just stop talking about it,’” Short said, adding that abortion “has never been a comfortable issue for President Trump and one he thinks of as a political loser.”

    While Pence’s intense focus on the issue has scored him points with abortion opponents, Short said it has also rankled some donors who don’t want to see third rail issues “highlighted as much [or] don’t necessarily agree with his position.” Pence, who is in the midst of promoting his new book “So Help Me God” that chronicles his time as vice president, has “loyal supporters who don’t necessarily share his views on life” but continue to support him because they consider him “a role model in public service,” Short said.

    After federal abortion rights were overturned, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – another possible 2024 contender – tweeted that conservatives would soon see “which politicians supported the pro-life cause to win elections, and which actually believed it.” But in a September interview with the Sioux City Journal during one of several visits he has made to Iowa, Pompeo also declined to offer support for Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds’ push to outlaw abortion after six weeks in her state.

    “Iowa will sort through it for itself, the state of Kansas will sort through it for itself,” said Pompeo, a former congressman from Kansas, which earlier this year rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment that could have paved the way for a statewide ban on abortion. Pompeo described the vote as “very confusing.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Trump responds to special counsel news with debunked claim about Obama and the Bushes | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Trump responds to special counsel news with debunked claim about Obama and the Bushes | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In former President Donald Trump’s first extended response to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Friday announcement that he had appointed a special counsel to oversee the criminal investigation into Trump’s retention of government documents after he left office, Trump defended himself with dishonesty – repeating his false and thoroughly debunked claims about how other ex-presidents handled official records.

    Trump, speaking Friday night at a gala at his Mar-a-Lago resort and residence, asked why there is not an investigation into “all of the other presidents that preceded me,” including but not limited to Republicans George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. He claimed that these previous presidents “kept documents,” and he continued: “In one case, they had it in a Chinese restaurant with broken windows. And in another case they had a Chinese restaurant connected to a bowling alley. This is where the documents were kept. They took documents with them. President Obama took documents.”

    Merrick Garland announces special counsel to oversee Trump investigations

    Facts First: Trump’s claims are, again, false – and they have been debunked by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) itself. As NARA explained in an August statement, Barack Obama did not take the presidential documents Trump claimed Obama had taken. Rather, NARA itself moved documents from the Obama administration to a NARA-managed facility in the Chicago area, near where Obama’s presidential library is being built. NARA similarly explained in a statement in October, after Trump added other past presidents to the baseless narrative, that neither of the Bushes took the documents Trump claimed they had taken. Again, it was NARA that took the Bushes’ presidential documents to facilities that NARA managed near the future locations of their presidential libraries.

    In other words, there is no equivalence between Trump’s situation – in which he allegedly took hundreds of classified documents, plus numerous other presidential records, to the Mar-a-Lago resort and residence – and the situations, or really non-situations, of his predecessors.

    Trump used the Friday speech to deliver a variety of other criticism of Garland’s decision to appoint the special counsel, veteran prosecutor Jack Smith. Smith will also oversee a second criminal investigation that involves Trump, that one into whether anybody “unlawfully interfered” with the transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election or with the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the Electoral College “on or about” January 6, 2021. (Smith won’t oversee the investigations or prosecutions of people who physically breached the Capitol that day.)

    Trump’s suggestion that past presidents’ documents were stored in an insecure manner is also false.

    The facility where George H.W. Bush’s presidential documents were temporarily stored, in College Station, Texas, was indeed a former bowling alley connected to a former Chinese restaurant. But by the time Bush’s records arrived, the building had been turned by NARA into a professional archiving facility with extensive security measures and no more bowling lanes or equipment.

    Though Trump has repeatedly claimed or suggested that the College Station facility was not secure – this time he said it had “broken windows” – this narrative is baseless, too. In its October statement, NARA said that all of the temporary facilities where it stored past presidents’ documents “met strict archival and security standards.” NARA said that “reports that indicate or imply that those Presidential records were in the possession of the former Presidents or their representatives, after they left office, or that the records were housed in substandard conditions, are false and misleading.”

    You don’t have to take NARA’s recent word for it. The Associated Press reported in 1994: “Uniformed guards patrol the premises. There are closed-circuit television monitors and sophisticated electronic detectors along walls and doors. Some printed material is classified and will remain so for years; it is open only to those with top-secret clearances.”

    Finally, it is not a revelation that the facility had a colorful past as a restaurant and alley; NARA officials publicly joked about this at the time. It’s normal for NARA to lease large buildings that formerly had some other purpose. The Washington Post reported in 1993: “There aren’t any lanes anymore. No gutters, no pins, no beer. Thanks to a rush remodeling job after last November’s election, there are a few simple offices, a massive, fire-resistant vault and row after row of steel shelves filled with cardboard boxes and wooden crates.”

    Trump has continued making these false claims about his predecessors not only despite the NARA statements debunking them but despite numerous fact-checks from major media outlets. He also made the claim about Obama supposedly taking documents in the Tuesday speech in which he announced his 2024 presidential candidacy; CNN fact-checked it then, too.

    PALM BEACH, FLORIDA - NOVEMBER 08: Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media during an election night event at Mar-a-Lago on November 08, 2022 in Palm Beach, Florida. Trump spoke as the nation awaits the results of voting in the midterm elections.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

    Legal experts in new report conclude there’s a ‘strong basis’ to charge Trump

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk restores Donald Trump’s Twitter account | CNN Business

    Elon Musk restores Donald Trump’s Twitter account | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former US President Donald Trump’s Twitter account has been reinstated on the platform.

    The account, which Twitter banned following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, was restored after Twitter CEO and new owner Elon Musk posted a poll on Twitter on Friday night asking the platform’s users if Trump should be reinstated.

    “The people have spoken. Trump will be reinstated,” Musk tweeted Saturday night. “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” Latin for “the voice of the people is the voice of God.”

    The final poll results on Saturday night showed 51.8% in favor and 48.2% opposed. The poll included 15 million votes.

    The much-anticipated decision from the new owner sets the stage for the former president’s return to the social media platform where he was previously its most influential, if controversial user, with almost 90 million followers and tweets that often moved the markets, set the news cycle and drove the agenda in Washington.

    Trump has previously said he would remain on his platform, Truth Social, instead of rejoining Twitter, but a change in his approach could hold major political implications. The former president announced this month that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, aiming to become only the second commander in chief ever elected to two nonconsecutive terms.

    Asked on Saturday what he thought of Musk purchasing Twitter and his own future on the platform, Trump praised Musk but questioned whether the site would survive its current crises.

    “They have a lot of problems,” Trump said in Las Vegas at the Republican Jewish Coalition meeting. “You see what’s going on. It may make it, it may not make it.”

    Still, Trump said he liked Musk and “liked that he bought (Twitter.)”

    “He’s a character and I tend to like characters,” the former president said of Musk. “But he’s smart.”

    Throughout Trump’s White House tenure, Twitter was central to his presidency, a fact that also benefited the company in the form of countless hours of user engagement. Twitter often took a light-touch approach to moderating his account, arguing at times that as a public official, the then-president must be given wide latitude to speak.

    But as Trump neared the end of his term – and increasingly tweeted misinformation alleging election fraud – the balance shifted. The company began applying warning labels to his tweets in an attempt to correct his misleading claims ahead of the 2020 presidential election. And following the US Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, the platform banned him indefinitely.

    “After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” Twitter said at the time. “In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action.”

    The decision followed two tweets by Trump that, according to Twitter, violated the company’s policy against glorification of violence. The tweets, Twitter said at the time, “must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.”

    The first tweet – a statement about Trump’s supporters, who he called “75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me” – suggested that “he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election,” Twitter had said.

    The second, which indicated he did not plan to attend Joe Biden’s inauguration, could be viewed as a further statement that the election was not legitimate and could be interpreted as Trump saying that the inauguration would be a “safe” target for violence because he would not be attending, according to Twitter.

    Soon after Trump’s Twitter ban, he was also restricted from Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, which could also restore his accounts as soon as January 2023.

    On November 18, Musk tweeted that he had reinstated several controversial accounts on the platform, but that a “Trump decision has not yet been made.”

    “New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach,” he said at the time. “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter. You won’t find the tweet unless you specifically seek it out, which is no different from rest of Internet.”

    Musk had previously said he disagreed with Twitter’s permanent ban policy, and could also return other accounts that had been removed from the platform for repeated rules violations.

    “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald  Trump; I think that was a mistake,” Musk said at a conference in May, pledging to reverse the ban were he to become the company’s owner.

    Jack Dorsey, who was the CEO of Twitter when the company banned Trump but has since left, responded to Musk’s comments saying he agreed that there should not be permanent bans. Banning the former president, he said, was a “business decision” and it “shouldn’t have been.”

    NAACP President Derrick Johnson called on advertisers still funding Twitter to immediately stop all ad buys.

    “In Elon Musk’s Twittersphere, you can incite an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, which led to the deaths of multiple people, and still be allowed to spew hate speech and violent conspiracies on his platform,” Johnson said in a statement. “If Elon Musk continues to run Twitter like this, using garbage polls that do not represent the American people and the needs of our democracy, God help us all.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Malaysia faces hung parliament for first time in history | CNN

    Malaysia faces hung parliament for first time in history | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Malaysia was facing a hung parliament for the first time in its history as support for a conservative Islamic alliance prevented major coalitions from winning a simple majority in a general election.

    Without a clear winner, political uncertainty could persist as Malaysia faces slowing economic growth and rising inflation. It has had three prime ministers in as many years.

    Failure by the main parties to win a majority means a combination of them would have to build a majority alliance to form a government. Malaysia’s constitutional monarch may also get involved, as he has the power to appoint as Prime Minister a lawmaker whom he believes can command a majority.

    Longtime opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s coalition won the most seats in Saturday’s general election, results from the Election Commission showed.

    The biggest surprise came from former premier Muhyiddin Yassin who led his Perikatan Nasional bloc to a strong showing, pulling support from the incumbent government’s traditional strongholds.

    Muhyiddin’s alliance includes a Malay-centric conservative party and an Islamist party that has touted shariah or Islamic law. Race and religion are divisive issues in Malaysia, where the Muslim ethnic-Malay population make up the majority and ethnic Chinese and Indians the minorities.

    Both Anwar and Muhyiddin claimed to have the support to form government, though they did not disclose which parties they had allied with.

    Muhyiddin said he hoped to finish discussions by Sunday afternoon. His alliance is a junior partner in incumbent Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s ruling coalition and could work with them again.

    Anwar said he would submit a letter to Malaysia’s King Al-Sultan Abdullah detailing his support.

    If Anwar clinches the top job, it would cap a remarkable journey for a politician who, in 25 years, went from heir apparent, to the premiership, to a prisoner convicted of sodomy to the country’s leading opposition figure.

    Since 2015, Malaysian politics has been overshadowed by the 1MDB corruption scandal, which saw billions of dollars of taxpayers money embezzled out of the country. It brought down former prime minister, Najib Razak, who is now serving a 12-year prison sentence for corruption.

    Three prime ministers have governed the Southeast Asian country since a febrile election with a record turnout was fought four years ago on the key issue of corruption.

    Malaysia has 222 parliamentary seats but polls were held only for 220 on Saturday.

    The Election Commission said Anwar’s multi-ethnic Pakatan Harapan coalition won a total of 82 seats, while Muhyiddin’s Perikatan Nasional alliance won 73 seats. Ismail’s Barisan coalition got 30. One seat was unannounced as of 2100 GMT.

    “The key takeaway from this election is that Perikatan has successfully disrupted the two party system,” said Adib Zalkapli, a director with political consultancy Bower Group Asia.

    Barisan and Pakatan have long been Malaysia’s main blocs.

    Barisan said it accepted the people’s decision, but stopped short of conceding defeat. The coalition said in a statement it remains committed to forming a stable government.

    Veteran leader Mahathir Mohamad meanwhile was dealt his first election defeat in 53 years in a blow that could mark the end of a seven-decade political career, losing his seat to Muhyiddin’s alliance.

    A record number of Malaysians voted on Saturday, hoping to end a spate of political uncertainty that has resulted in three prime ministers amidst uncertain economic times and the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The political landscape has been rocky since Barisan lost the 2018 election after governing for 60 years from independence.

    Anwar made his name as a student activist in various Muslim youth groups in Kuala Lumpur in the late 1960s, as the country reeled from the protracted Communist insurgency of the Malayan Emergency.

    Arrested in 1974 in student protests against rural poverty, Anwar was sentenced to 20 months in jail. Despite his firebrand reputation, he later confounded liberal supporters in 1982 by joining the conservative United Malays National Organization (UMNO) led by Mahathir.

    The freed politician was the heir apparent to then-premier Mahathir until 1998, when he was sacked and charged for corruption and sodomy. He was found guilty the following year, a ruling that led to mass street demonstrations.

    The sodomy conviction was overturned, but the corruption verdict was never lifted, barring him from running for political post until a decade later.

    In 2008, once his ban on political participation was lifted, he was hit with further sodomy charges.

    Following an appeal of the acquittal of those charges he was convicted again and jailed in 2015. Human rights groups were highly critical when the conviction was upheld, calling it politically motivated – a claim the government denied.

    Anwar was released from prison in 2018 after joining with old foe Mahathir and Muhyiddin to defeat Barisan for the first time in Malaysia’s history, amid public anger at the government over the multibillion-dollar 1MDB scandal.

    That coalition collapsed after 22 months in power due to infighting over a promise by Mahathir to hand the premiership to Anwar. Muhyiddin briefly became premier, but his administration collapsed last year, paving the way for Barisan’s return to power with Ismail at the helm.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who is Jack Smith, the special counsel named in the Trump investigations | CNN Politics

    Who is Jack Smith, the special counsel named in the Trump investigations | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Jack Smith, the special counsel announced by Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday to oversee the criminal investigations into the retention of classified documents at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and parts of the January 6, 2021, insurrection, is a long-time prosecutor who has overseen a variety of high-profile cases during a career that spans decades.

    Smith’s experience ranges from prosecuting a sitting US senator to bringing cases against gang members who were ultimately convicted of murdering New York City police officers. In recent years, Smith has prosecuted war crimes at The Hague. His career in multiple parts of the Justice Department, as well as in international courts, has allowed him to keep a relatively low-profile in the oftentimes brassy legal industry.

    His experience and resume will allow him, at least at first, to fly underneath the type of political blowback that quickly met former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team. It also shows he is adept at managing complex criminal cases related to both public corruption and national security – and that he has practice making challenging decisions with political implications.

    Smith is widely expected to be tasked with making policy decisions around whether to charge a former president of the United States. Garland’s statements on Friday and the recent steps taken in the Mar-a-Lago and January 6 investigations have signaled that, at the very least, Donald Trump is under investigation and could potentially be charged with a crime.

    “He knows how to do high-profile cases. He’s independent. He will not be influenced by anybody,” said Greg Andres, a former member of Mueller’s team.

    Andres, who has known Smith since the late 1990s when they started at a US attorney’s office together and ultimately became co-chiefs of the office’s criminal division, said it’s the breadth of Smith’s experience that will enable him to withstand the public scrutiny and make tough judgment calls.

    “He will evaluate the evidence and understand what type of case should be charged or not. He has the type of experience to make those judgments,” said Andres.

    “He understands the courtroom. He understands how to try a case. He knows how to prove a case,” he added. “Particularly in these circumstances it will be critical to understand what types of evidence is required to prove the case in court.”

    In a statement following his announcement, Smith pledged to conduct the investigations “independently and in the best traditions of the Department of Justice.”

    “The pace of the investigations will not pause or flag under my watch. I will exercise independent judgment and will move the investigations forward expeditiously and thoroughly to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate,” Smith said.

    One former colleague highlighted that Smith has prosecuted members of both parties.

    “He’s going to be really aggressive,” the person said, adding that “things are going to speed up.” Smith, they said, “operates very quickly” and has a unique ability to quickly determine the things that are important to a case and doesn’t waste time “hand-wringing over things that are real sideshows.”

    In court, Smith comes off as very down-to-earth and relatable, this person said, characterizing that as a good attribute to have as a prosecutor.

    Smith also will not care about the politics surrounding the case, they said, adding he has very thick skin and will “do what he’s going to do.”

    Smith began his career as an assistant district attorney with the New York County District Attorney’s Office in 1994. He worked in the Eastern District of New York in 1999 as an assistant US attorney, where he prosecuted cases including civil rights violations and police officers murdered by gangs, according to the Justice Department.

    As a prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York, one of Smith’s biggest and most high-profile cases was prosecuting gang member Ronell Wilson for the murder of two New York City police department detectives during an undercover gun operation in Staten Island.

    Wilson was convicted and sentenced to death, the first death penalty case in New York at the time in 50 years, though a judge later found he was ineligible for the death penalty.

    Moe Fodeman, who worked with Smith at EDNY, called him “one of the best trial lawyers I have ever seen.”

    “He is a phenomenal investigator; he leaves no stone unturned. He drills down to get to the true facts,” Fodeman said.

    Fodeman, who is still friends with Smith, said he is a “literally insane” cyclist and triathlete.

    Beginning in 2008, Smith worked for the International Criminal Court and oversaw war crimes investigations under the Office of the Prosecutor for two years.

    In 2010, he became chief of the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department, where he oversaw litigation of public corruption cases. Lanny Breuer, the former assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Criminal Division who recruited Smith, said his onetime employee was “a terrific prosecutor” with a “real sense of fairness.”

    “If you are going to have a special counsel, in my view, and you want someone who is going to be fearless, but fair, and not going to be intimidated and not overly bureaucratic, that’s Jack – he is all of these things,” Breuer told CNN.

    “Smith brings cases quickly. … He doesn’t sit on cases. He is a person of action,” Breuer added.

    After his stint at the Public Integrity Section, Smith was appointed first assistant US attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee in 2015.

    Though he is not widely known in Washington, DC, legal circles, Smith is described as a consummate public servant.

    About a decade ago, he hired waves of line prosecutors into the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department, supervising dozens over his years in charge there.

    Brian Kidd, whom Smith hired at the unit, recalled how his boss walked him through every step of a complicated racketeering case against corrupt police officers.

    “He was not going to tolerate a politically motivated prosecution,” Kidd said. “And he has an incredible ability to motivate the people working with him and under him. He’s incredibly supportive of his team.”

    Smith handled some of the most high-profile political corruption cases in recent memory – to mixed outcomes.

    He was the head of the public integrity unit when then-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was indicted in 2014, and was in meetings with the defense team and involved in decision-making leading up to the charges, according to a person familiar with the case.

    McDonnell was initially convicted of receiving gifts for political favors, but then his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.

    Smith was also at the helm of the unit when the DOJ failed to convict at trial former Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

    A Republican source familiar with Smith’s oversight of the investigation into former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay commended Smith’s non-biased approach, saying that he ultimately made a “just” decision to conclude the investigation without alleging DeLay committed any crime.

    In recent years while working at The Hague, he has not lived in the United States. He’s no longer on the US Triathlon team but is still a competitive biker.

    Smith took over as acting US Attorney when David Rivera departed in early 2017 before leaving the Justice Department later that year and becoming vice president of litigation for the Hospital Corporation of America. In 2018, he became chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague, where he investigated war crimes in Kosovo.

    “Throughout his career, Jack Smith has built a reputation as an impartial and determined prosecutor, who leads teams with energy and focus to follow the facts wherever they lead,” Garland said during the announcement on Friday. “Mr. Smith is the right choice to complete these matters in an even-handed and urgent manner.”

    In May 2014, the House Oversight Committee interviewed Smith behind closed doors as part of the Republican-led investigation into the alleged IRS targeting of conservative groups. Then-Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa launched the probe following a 2013 inspector general report that found delays in the processing of applications by certain conservative groups and requesting information from them that was later deemed unnecessary.

    Republicans sought testimony from Smith, who at the time was Public Integrity section chief, due to his involvement with arranging a 2010 meeting between Justice Department officials and then-IRS official Lois Lerner, the official at the center of the IRS scandal. The meeting had been convened to discuss the “evolving legal landscape” of campaign finance law following the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, according to a May 2014 letter written by Issa and Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who is expected to be House Judiciary chairman next year.

    “It is apparent that the Department’s leadership, including Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith, was closely involved in engaging with the IRS in wake of Citizens United and political pressure from prominent Democrats to address perceived problems with the decision,” Issa and Jordan wrote in the letter seeking Smith’s testimony.

    Smith testified that his office “had a dialogue” with the FBI about opening investigations related to politically active non-profits following the meeting with Lerner, but did not ultimately do so, according to a copy of his interview obtained by CNN.

    Smith explained that he had asked for the meeting with the IRS because he wanted to learn more about the legal landscape of political non-profits following the Citizens United decision because he was relatively new to the public integrity section. He said that Lerner explained it would be difficult if not impossible to bring a case on the abuse of tax-exempt status.

    Smith repeated at several points in the interview that the Justice Department did not pursue any investigations due to politics.

    “I want to be clear – it would be more about looking at the issue, looking at whether it made sense to open investigations,” he said. “If we did, you know, how would you go about doing this? Is there predication, a basis to open an investigation? Things like that. I can’t say as I sit here now specifically, you know, the back-and-forth of that discussion. I can just tell you that – because I know one of your concerns is that organizations were targeted. And I can tell you that we, Public Integrity, did not open any investigations as a result of those discussions and that we certainly, as you know, have not brought any cases as a result of that.”

    Smith also testified that he was not aware of anyone at the Justice Department placing pressure on the IRS – and that he was never pressured to investigate any political groups.

    “No. And maybe I can stop you guys. I know there’s a series of these questions. I’ve never been asked these things, and anybody who knows me would never even consider asking me to do such a thing,” Smith said.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What a Republican-controlled House could mean for Silicon Valley | CNN Business

    What a Republican-controlled House could mean for Silicon Valley | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN Business
     — 

    With Republicans projected to take control of the House as a result of the midterm elections, tech giants such as Amazon, Google and Meta, who’ve been in the crosshairs of Democrats in recent years, are soon set to face a very different — but no less hostile — political climate in Washington.

    Under the current Democratic-led Congress, top tech executives have been hauled before lawmakers to testify on everything from their companies’ market dominance to social media’s impact on teen mental health. Democrats have hammered away at online platforms’ handling of hate speech and white nationalism, while promoting legislation that could drastically affect the business models of big tech companies.

    In the lame duck session, Democratic lawmakers could renew their attempts at passing tech-focused antitrust legislation that the industry’s biggest players have spent millions lobbying against.

    Republicans aren’t likely to let up the pressure, policy analysts say. But a change in power in the House would likely mean renewed focus on some political priorities — primarily allegations of anti-conservative social media bias — and perhaps an increased emphasis on China and related national security risks, too.

    Here’s what the results of the midterm elections could mean for Big Tech and the push to regulate it.

    In general, tech companies may face more political noise with a Republican House but potentially less policy risk.

    “Republican gains would be good for megacap tech like Google and Apple,” said Paul Gallant, an industry analyst at Cowen Inc. “Republicans will hold hearings about content bias, but they’re not likely to pass antitrust legislation, which is the biggest threat the companies have faced in years.”

    Expect more of the uncomfortable ritual grillings that have made tech CEOs and their lieutenants a frequent sight in Washington, said one industry official who requested anonymity in order to speak more freely.

    “I think the content moderation debate will not just look at how companies make decisions on their platforms, but also how they’ve interacted with the Biden administration,” the official predicted. “The focus will be, ‘Are you too cozy with, and is your content moderation policy led by, feedback you get from the Biden administration?’”

    One company that may see a reprieve is Twitter, whose new owner, Elon Musk, has won plaudits from conservatives for suggesting he could restore former President Donald Trump’s banned Twitter account, among others, and has used his account to endorse voting for Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections.

    The hearings could culminate in more sweeping proposals to roll back Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that grants tech platforms broad latitude to moderate online content as they see fit.

    In the past, Democrats have called for narrowing Section 230, thus exposing tech platforms to more lawsuits, for not removing hate speech and extremist content more aggressively. Republicans have called for expanding platform liability over allegations that social media companies unfairly remove conservative speech.

    Previous legislative proposals to scale back Section 230 have tended to run into constitutionality questions or failed to attract bipartisan support, and those hurdles still remain. But some digital rights advocates who have defended Section 230 aren’t taking anything for granted, saying that if they squint, they can still see a path forward for legislation that might curtail the law.

    “The thing I’m most worried about in the next Congress is a bad Section 230 bill that’s framed as being about ‘protecting kids’ or ‘stopping opioid sales’ or something that sounds non-controversial, but could have far-reaching negative effects” that may unintentionally result in more conservative speech being removed, not less, said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, a digital privacy group.

    Given President Joe Biden’s criticism of Section 230 — a position the White House reiterated as recently as September — he might even be willing to sign such a hypothetical bill. But that scenario is far too premature to consider right now, according to other analysts who point to the Supreme Court, not Congress, as the center of gravity on Section 230.

    There are two high-profile cases pending before the Court that could powerfully affect the law’s scope. The cases have to do with whether tech platforms can be sued in connection with federal anti-terrorism laws; if the Court finds that they can, it would effectively mean a significant narrowing of Section 230’s protections. And it could create openings for others to continue chipping away at the law.

    “Republicans in Congress certainly have their views on content moderation, but the big thing to look for is what the Supreme Court does,” said Andy Halataei, executive vice president of government affairs for the Information Technology Industry Council, a tech-backed advocacy group. “That will drive either the opportunity or the consensus for Congress to move forward.”

    Both parties have been hawkish on China, but expect Republicans to make it a pillar of their agenda. Within the first few days, Republicans could seek to establish a new select committee devoted to China and its impact on US supply chains, according to the industry official.

    The new committee would likely look at the economic leverage China may have over the United States and the national security risks that could pose, ranging from China’s dominance in the rare earth minerals market to agricultural products, the official said.

    And while Republicans would likely bring even greater scrutiny to businesses with links to China, including TikTok, they also would have a substantial impact on the semiconductor industry by exploring further ways to restrict Chinese access to US technology.

    “Republican gains wouldn’t be great for the chips and tools companies because the China hawks will gain power,” said Gallant.

    In a subsequent research note for investors, Gallant added: “For some China hawks — including likely House Foreign Affairs Chair Mike McCaul — Biden can’t go far enough,” suggesting Republicans could try to introduce even more restrictions on China exports through legislation.

    Multiple Congress-watchers told CNN that support for federal privacy legislation is still bipartisan and the area remains one of a handful where lawmakers could make progress in the next Congress.

    One proposal, known as the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, would enshrine the nation’s first-ever consumer data privacy right into US law. It was approved by a key House committee this year and policy analysts say it could see more opportunities to advance next year.

    The privacy issue is becoming more salient to consumers by the day, said Greer, as the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made the security of location data, search histories and other personal information a critical safety matter.

    “Hot button tech policy fights like data privacy, antitrust, and content moderation have massive implications for core issues like abortion access, voting rights, racial justice, and LGBTQ+ protections,” Greer said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Asia must not become arena for ‘big power contest,’ says China’s Xi as APEC summit gets underway | CNN

    Asia must not become arena for ‘big power contest,’ says China’s Xi as APEC summit gets underway | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Bangkok, Thailand
    CNN
     — 

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has stressed the need to reject confrontation in Asia, warning against the risk of cold war tensions, as leaders gather for the last of three world summits hosted in the region this month.

    Xi began the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ summit in Bangkok by staking out his wish for China to be viewed as a driver of regional unity in a written speech released ahead of Friday’s opening day – which also appeared to make veiled jabs at the United States.

    The Asia-Pacific region is “no one’s backyard” and should not become “an arena for big power contest,” Xi said in the statement, in which he also decried “any attempt to politicize and weaponize economic and trade relations.”

    “No attempt to wage a new cold war will ever be allowed by the people or by our times,” he added in the remarks, which were addressed to business leaders meeting alongside the summit and did not name the US.

    Xi struck a milder tone in a separate address to APEC leaders on Friday morning as the main event got underway, calling for stability, peace and the development of a “more just world order.”

    Leaders and representatives from 21 economies on both sides of the Pacific meeting in the Thai capital for the two-day summit will grapple with that question of how best to promote stability, in a region sitting on the fault lines of growing US-China competition and grappling with regional tensions and the economic fallout of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

    Those challenges were palpable Friday morning, as North Korea launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the second weapons test by Kim Jong Un’s regime in two days amid increased provocation from Pyongyang.

    US Vice President Kamala Harris gathered on the sidelines of the summit with leaders from Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada to condemn the launch in an unscheduled media briefing.

    In a speech Friday to business leaders, Harris said the US had a “profound stake” in the region, and described America as a “strong partner” to its economies and a “major engine of global growth.”

    Without mentioning China in her address, she also promoted American initiatives to counter Beijing’s regional influence, including the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, launched by Washington earlier this year, and the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment.

    “The US is here to stay,” said the vice president, who is representing the US at the summit after US President Joe Biden returned home for a family event after attending meetings around the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia and the G20 summit in Bali in recent days.

    Despite the US-China rivalry, the three summits have also brought opportunities to defuse rising tensions and strained communication between the world’s top two powers.

    US-China relations have deteriorated sharply in recent years, with the two sides clashing over Taiwan, the war in Ukraine, North Korea, and the transfer of technology among other issues.

    In August, following a visit by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, China fired multiple missiles into waters around the self-governing island and ramped up naval and warplane exercises in the surrounding area. Beijing claims the democratic island as its territory, despite never having controlled it, and suspended a number of dialogues with the US over the visit.

    A landmark meeting between Xi and Biden on the sidelines of the G20 in Bali on Monday – the leaders’ first since Biden took office – ended with the two sides agreeing to bolster communication and collaborate on issues like climate and food security.

    After landing in Bangkok Thursday, Chinese leader Xi sat down with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, in the first meeting between leaders of the two Asian countries in nearly three years. Both sides called for more cooperation following a breakdown in communication over points of contention from Taiwan to disputed islands.

    At stake in the broader meeting, however, is whether leaders can find consensus on how to treat Russia’s aggression in a concluding document, or whether differences in views between the broad grouping of nations will stymie such a result, despite months of discussion between APEC nations’ lower-level officials.

    In an address to business leaders alongside the summit Friday morning, French President Emmanuel Macron, who was invited by host country Thailand, called for consensus and unity against Moscow’s aggression.

    “Help us to convey the same message to Russia: stop the war, respect the international order and come back to the table,” he said.

    Macron also called out the US-China rivalry, warning of the risk to peace if countries are forced to choose between the two great powers.

    “We need a single global order,” Macron said to applause from business leaders.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Inside the White House’s months of prep-work for a GOP investigative onslaught | CNN Politics

    Inside the White House’s months of prep-work for a GOP investigative onslaught | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    More than four months before voters handed Republicans control of the House of Representatives, top White House and Department of Homeland Security officials huddled in the Roosevelt Room to prepare for that very scenario.  

    The department and its secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, had emerged as top targets of Republican ire over the Biden administration’s border security policies – ire that is certain to fuel aggressive congressional investigations with Republicans projected to narrowly reclaim the House majority and the subpoena power that comes with it.  

    Sitting around the large conference table in the Roosevelt Room, White House lawyers probed senior DHS officials about their preparations for the wide-ranging Republican oversight they had begun to anticipate, including Republicans’ stated plans to impeach Mayorkas, two sources familiar with the meeting said.  

    Convened by Richard Sauber, a veteran white-collar attorney hired in May to oversee the administration’s response to congressional oversight, the meeting was one of several the White House has held since the summer with lawyers from across the administration – including the Defense Department, State Department and Justice Department.

    The point, people familiar with the effort said, has been to ensure agencies are ready for the coming investigative onslaught  and to coordinate an administration-wide approach. 

    While President Joe Biden and Democrats campaigned to preserve their congressional majorities, a small team of attorneys, communications strategists and legislative specialists have spent the past few months holed up in Washington preparing for the alternative, two administration officials said.  

    The preparations, largely run out of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near the White House, are among the earliest and most comprehensive by any administration ahead of a midterm election and highlight how far-reaching and aggressive Republican investigations are expected to be.

    Along with Sauber, this spring the White House hired veteran Democratic communications aide Ian Sams as spokesman for the White House counsel’s office. Top Biden adviser Anita Dunn returned to the White House in the spring, in part to oversee the administration’s preparations for a GOP-controlled Congress.

    The Justice Department is also bracing for investigations, bringing in well-known government transparency attorney Austin Evers to help respond to legislative oversight. Evers is the founder of the group American Oversight and served as its executive director until this year, and previously handled the oversight response at the State Department.

    The White House is preparing to hire additional lawyers and other staff to beef up its oversight response team in the next two months, before the new Congress convenes in January, administration officials said. The hires will bolster Sauber’s current team of about 10 lawyers, a source familiar with the matter said.

    In piecing together GOP targets and strategy, the team has paid close attention to Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and James Comer of Kentucky, the two Republicans who are likely to lead much of the investigations under a GOP-controlled House and have spent months telegraphing their intentions in TV interviews and oversight letters.   

    Jim Jordan and James Comer.

    Their opening salvo came Thursday, when Comer and Jordan hosted a joint news conference to preview the various investigations into President Joe Biden’s family.  

    “In the 118th Congress, this committee will evaluate the status of Joe Biden’s relationship with his family’s foreign partners and whether he is a president who is compromised or swayed by foreign dollars and influence” said Comer, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee. “I want to be clear: This is an investigation of Joe Biden, and that’s where the committee will focus in this next Congress.”

    Comer, flanked by Jordan and other Republicans on the Oversight Committee, said Republicans have made connections between the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and the president whom they believe requires further investigation. 

    The White House accused Comer of pursuing “long-debunked conspiracy theories.”

    Even though the Republican majority is poised to be much thinner than expected – with a likely margin of just a couple seats – all indications are that House Republicans are poised to push ahead with a wide-ranging set of investigations into all corners of the Biden administration, including the messy US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Covid-19 vaccine mandates and the Justice Department’s handling of the various investigations related to Donald Trump. 

    Republicans are also intent on investigating the president’s family, particularly his son, Hunter Biden. 

    With little chance of passing much legislation in a deadlocked Congress, investigations are shaping up to be the focal point of how a House Republican majority wields its power.  

    “You’re gonna have a bunch of chairmen who are totally on their own, doing whatever the hell they want without regard for what the national political implications are,” said Brendan Buck, a former top adviser to House Speaker Paul Ryan, who said he believes GOP leader Kevin McCarthy will have “very little leash” to rein in those investigative pursuits.  

    House Republicans have already sent over 500 letters to the administration requesting that they preserve documents, key committees have hired new legal counsels to help with investigations, and leadership has hosted classes for staffers on how to best use the oversight tools at their disposal.

    Meanwhile, McCarthy’s office has been working with likely committee chairs over the last several months to delegate who is going to be investigating what, according to a source familiar with the matter. 

    “It’s like a clearing house,” the source said. 

    But the GOP’s push for aggressive investigations could run into resistance from the moderate wing of the GOP, who want to use their newfound majority to address key legislative priorities – not just pummel Hunter Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci. While McCarthy has vowed to conduct rigorous oversight, he will have to strike a delicate balance between the demands of the competing factions in his party.

    White House officials believe Republicans are bound to overstep and that their investigative overreach will backfire with the American public. In the meantime, they are prepared to push back forcefully, believing that many proposed investigations are based on conspiracy theories and politically motivated charges.

    “President Biden is not going to let these political attacks distract him from focusing on Americans’ priorities, and we hope congressional Republicans will join us in tackling them instead of wasting time and resources on political revenge,” Sams, the spokesman for the White House counsel’s office, said in a statement to CNN. 

    The House’s expected razor-thin majority is likely to make it more difficult to take steps like impeaching members of Biden’s Cabinet – or even the president himself. But that doesn’t mean, sources told CNN, they’re not going to try, particularly when it comes to the border and Mayorkas.  

    Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, on Capitol Hill on May 04, 2022.

    On Tuesday, the House Homeland Security Committee provided a preview of what is to come. Over the course of a marathon four-hour hearing, Republican lawmakers grilled Mayorkas over the influx of migrants at the southern border, the number of people who evade Border Patrol capture, and encounters with people on the border who are on the terror watch list. 

    Throughout, Mayorkas stood his ground, maintaining that the border is “secure” and batting down criticism that it’s “open” as Republicans have claimed. 

    At one point, Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana foreshadowed more testimony next year, telling Mayorkas: “We look forward to seeing you in January.”  

    Mayorkas, officials said, remains undeterred by the threats of impeachment and intends to stay at the helm of the department, a point he reiterated Tuesday. Still, one person close to Mayorkas told CNN that the DHS chief is “nervous” about impending GOP investigations and the potential of being continually hauled before Congress by hostile Republican committee chairs. 

    “Don’t let the bastards win,” one US official familiar with Mayorkas’ thinking said when asked to sum up the DHS chief’s attitude toward potential GOP investigations on border issues and impeachment.   

    “We will respond to legitimate inquiries,” the official said. “We’re not going to feed into what might wind up as kabuki theater.”  

    DHS already responds to hundreds of congressional inquiries per month, according to a Homeland Security official, who added the department has been preparing for months for any potential increase in congressional activity. The department is also ready to “aggressively respond to attempts to mischaracterize the strong record” of the DHS work force, as well as “politically motivated attempts to attack the secretary,” the official said.

    DHS officials considered hiring outside legal counsel to prepare for the potential onslaught of Republican scrutiny but ultimately chose not to, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.   Ricki Seidman, a senior counselor to Mayorkas and former senior Justice Department official, has been involved in DHS’s preparation for the GOP oversight, the source added.

     Another Homeland Security official said that the Border Patrol along with Customs and Border Protection “are going to take the most heat.” 

    The most politically charged investigations next year are poised to be those into the president’s son Hunter Biden.  

    Top Republicans have largely been more than happy for Comer to take on the leading role of investigating Hunter Biden, multiple sources said.  Jordan does not plan to be intimately involved in the Hunter Biden probe but will provide public support for Comer, including appearing with him at the upcoming press conference.  

    “We’re going to lay out what we have thus far on Hunter Biden, and the crimes we believe he has committed,” Comer told CNN earlier this month just before the election. “And then we’re going to be very clear and say what we are investigating, and who we’re gonna ask to meet with us for transcribed interviews.”

    Hunter Biden has denied wrongdoing in his business activities.

    Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, attends a ceremony at the White House on Thursday, July 7, 2022.

    Behind the scenes though, Jordan and other soon-to-be powerful Republican lawmakers – including likely chairman of House Intelligence Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio – have sought to distance their committees from the Hunter Biden investigation in favor of other investigative pursuits they deem to be “more serious,” the sources said. 

    The handling of Republican investigations related to Hunter Biden will fall to Hunter Biden’s own attorneys, while Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, will handle related matters related to Joe Biden’s personal capacity that do not touch on his official duties. Bauer, who is married to Dunn, and White House attorneys have already met to divvy up workflow over potential lines of inquiries to ensure there are clear lanes of responsibility between investigations that touch on Joe Biden’s official role as president and vice president and his personal life. 

    Another key point of interest is likely to be the administration’s handling of the August 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, which led to the death of 13 Marines and nearly 200 Afghans when a bomb exploded at the Kabul airport.  

    At the State Department, a small group of officials has already begun planning for the coming investigations into Afghanistan, officials said. While that group will work with Sauber’s team at the White House, State Department officials expect to take the lead in handling GOP inquiries into Afghanistan.     

    The department has not hired new people to work on these efforts, but certain officials who are already at the department expect to spend a lot more of their time responding to the congressional inquiries, officials said.  

    The Republican investigation into the withdrawal is likely to be led by Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs committee. McCaul and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have historically had a good relationship, which State Department officials are hoping will be an important factor.

    US soldiers stand guard behind barbed wire as Afghans sit on a roadside near the military part of the airport in Kabul on August 20, 2021

    Administration officials said they plan to take McCaul’s inquiry seriously because they expect he will demonstrate a seriousness of purpose, instead of making bombastic demands like some other Republicans. And House Republican aides said they plan to explore the administration’s willingness to work with them before issuing subpoenas.

    “If they’ll meet us in the middle by giving us some documents instead of all documents, or agreeing to turn over certain individuals but not all of the individuals for interviews, then that’s a start,” said one of the GOP aides familiar with the plans. “But if they just want to be completely obstructive and say no to every single request, then you’ll see subpoenas fairly soon.”

    The department concluded its own review of the withdrawal in March, but the findings of that report have not been shared publicly, officials said. While it was expected to be put out earlier this year, State Department officials said the White House is making that determination, and they are unsure of where that decision stands. House Republicans want to see that report.

    At the Pentagon, officials are bracing for the possibility of public grilling at televised hearings on everything from Afghanistan to views about “wokeness” in the force and the discharging of troops who refused to take the Covid-19 vaccine. 

    “We know it’s coming,” one administration official said. 

     Both Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose term expires at the end of September 2023, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who appears determined to stay until the end of the Biden administration, have faced sharp criticism from congressional Republicans and know the coming months may be a rough political ride, officials said.    

    Milley has been a particular target for Republicans for his well-known efforts to keep the final weeks of the Trump presidency from careening into a national security crisis. 

    Both Milley and Austin have pushed back forcefully on GOP accusations that the military is “woke,” a topic that’s likely to become a focal point for some Republicans in the coming months.

    “This is going to be a Congress under Republican control like no other,” said Rafi Prober, a congressional investigations specialist with the law firm Akin Gump who previously worked in the Obama administration.    

    Aaron Cutler, the head of the Washington government investigations group at law firm Hogan Lovells and a former Republican congressional leadership staffer, said the partisan investigations serve to “feed the base red meat.”

    But Cutler said he has heard from conservatives that the tepid result for Republicans in the midterm elections may translate to less “silliness in politics,” he said. “The American people are pushing back, and saying we want government to work.”   

    That is exactly the calculation the White House and congressional Democrats are making. A senior House Democratic source said that aggressive attacks on Biden’s son could backfire, adding that congressional Democrats were gearing up to defend the president by calling out “lies and hypocrisy.”

    Still, with the GOP investigations in mind, a team of White House lawyers has in recent weeks and months advised senior White House staff on how “not to be seen as influencing politically sensitive missions at (departments and agencies),” a source familiar with the matter told CNN.  

    Asked at his press conference last week about the prospect of GOP investigations, including into his son, Biden said: “I think the American people will look at all of that for what it is. It’s just almost comedy. … Look, I can’t control what they’re going to do.”

    This story has been updated with comments from Rep. Comer on Thursday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nancy Pelosi announces she won’t run for leadership post, marking the end of an era | CNN Politics

    Nancy Pelosi announces she won’t run for leadership post, marking the end of an era | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Thursday that she will relinquish her leadership post, after leading House Democrats for two decades, building a legacy as one of the most powerful and polarizing figures in American politics.

    Pelosi, the first and only woman to serve as speaker, said that she would continue to serve in the House, giving the next generation the opportunity to lead the House Democrats, who will be in the minority next year despite a better-than-expected midterm election performance.

    “I will not seek reelection to Democratic leadership in the next Congress,” said Pelosi in the House chamber. “For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect, and I’m grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility.”

    Pelosi, 82, rose to the top of the House Democratic caucus in 2002, after leading many in her party against a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. She then guided Democrats as they rode the waves of popular opinion, seeing their power swell to a 257-seat majority after the 2008 elections, ultimately crash to a 188-seat minority, and then rise once again.

    Her political career was marked by an extraordinary ability to understand and overcome those political shifts, keeping conflicting factions of her party united in passing major legislation. She earned the Speaker’s gavel twice – after the 2006 and 2018 elections – and lost it after the 2010 elections.

    Of late, she has conducted a string of accomplishments with one of the slimmest party splits in history, passing a $1.9 trillion pandemic aid package last year and a $750 billion health care, energy and climate bill in August.

    Her legislative victories in the Biden era cemented her reputation as one of the most successful party leaders in Congress. During the Obama administration, Pelosi was instrumental to the passage of the massive economic stimulus bill and the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which provides over 35 million Americans health care coverage.

    Over the past 20 years, the California liberal has been relentlessly attacked by Republicans, who portray her as the personification of a party for the coastal elite. “We have fired Nancy Pelosi,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Fox News on Wednesday, after Republicans won back the chamber.

    In recent years, the anger directed toward her has turned menacing. During the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, pro-Trump rioters searched for her — and last month, a male assailant attacked Paul Pelosi, the speaker’s husband, with a hammer at the couple’s home in San Francisco, while she was in Washington.

    Pelosi told CNN’s Anderson Cooper this month that her decision to retire would be influenced by the politically motivated attack. Paul Pelosi was released from the hospital two weeks ago after surgery to repair a skull fracture and injuries to his arm and hands.

    After thanking her colleagues for their well-wishes for Paul, the House chamber broke out into a standing ovation.

    Pelosi’s long reign became a source of tension within her own party. She won the gavel after the 2018 elections by promising her own party that she would leave her leadership post by 2022.

    Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, who previously tried to oust Pelosi, told CNN it’s time for a new chapter.

    “She’s a historic speaker who’s accomplished an incredible amount, but I also think there are a lot of Democrats ready for a new chapter,” said Moulton.

    But some Democrats praised Pelosi and said they wished she would remain leader. Asked about her decision, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer clutched his chest and said he had pleaded with her to stay.

    “I told her when she called me and told me this and all that, I said ‘please change your mind. We need you here,’” Schumer said.

    House Democrats appear likely to choose New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, 52, to succeed Pelosi as leader, though Democrats won’t vote until November 30.

    After her speech, Pelosi wouldn’t tell reporters who’d she support. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn announced they would also step down from their leadership posts, and endorsed Jeffries to succeed Pelosi. Hoyer said Jeffries “will make history for the institution of the House and for our country.” Clyburn added that he hoped Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark and California Rep. Pete Aguilar would join Jeffries in House Democratic leadership.

    Before Pelosi’s announcement, Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told CNN that she expects her caucus to throw their support behind Jeffries, and help him become the first Black House Democratic leader.

    “If she steps aside, I’m very clear that Hakeem Jeffries is the person that I will be voting for and leading the Congressional Black Caucus to vote for,” said Beatty.”I don’t always speak for everybody, but I’m very comfortable saying I believe that every member of the Congressional Black Caucus would vote for Hakeem Jeffries.”

    Retiring North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a former CBC chairman, told CNN that Jeffries “is prepared for the moment” if Pelosi steps aside. Butterfield said he thought Jeffries would run.

    The longtime Democratic leader told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” on Sunday that members of her caucus had asked her to “consider” running in the party’s leadership elections at the end of the month, adding: “But, again, let’s just get through the election.”

    Any decision to run again, Pelosi said, “is about family, and also my colleagues and what we want to do is go forward in a very unified way, as we go forward to prepare for the Congress at hand.”

    “Nonetheless, a great deal is at stake because we’ll be in a presidential election. So my decision will again be rooted in the wishes of my family and the wishes of my caucus,” she continued. “But none of it will be very much considered until we see what the outcome of all of this is. And there are all kinds of ways to exert influence.”

    Pelosi is a towering figure in American politics with a history-making legacy of shattering glass ceilings as the first and so far only woman to be speaker of the US House of Representatives.

    Pelosi was first elected to the House in 1987, when she won a special election to fill a seat representing California’s 5th Congressional District.

    When she was first elected speaker, Pelosi reflected on the significance of the event and what it meant for women in the United States.

    “This is an historic moment,” she said in a speech after accepting the speaker’s gavel. “It’s an historic moment for the Congress. It’s an historic moment for the women of America.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Now that CNN has projected Republicans will win the House of Representatives, it’s time to consider a Washington where both parties have some control.

    Despite underperforming on Election Day, the GOP gains will have a major impact on what’s accomplished in the coming two years.

    Additional climate change policy? Don’t count on it. National abortion legislation? Not a chance. Voting rights? Not likely.

    Plus, Republicans have indicated they will use any leverage they can find – including the debt ceiling – to force spending cuts.

    While you might immediately think this is all a recipe for a stalemate in Washington, I was surprised to read the argument, backed up by research, that the US government actually overperforms during periods of divided government.

    Those periods are coming more and more frequently, by the way. While there used to be relatively long periods of a decade or more during which one party controlled all of Washington, recent presidents have lost control of the House.

    Barack Obama, Donald Trump and George W. Bush each saw their party lose the House. President Joe Biden will join that club.

    The two Republicans in the ’80s and ‘90s – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush – both had productive presidencies and never enjoyed a sympathetic congressional majority. The last president to enjoy unified government throughout his presidency was Democrat Jimmy Carter, and voters did not look very kindly on him in the final analysis.

    What’s below are excerpts from separate phone conversations conducted before the midterm election with Frances Lee and James Curry, authors of the 2020 book, “The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era.” Lee is a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, and Curry is a political science professor at the University of Utah. What led me to them was their 2020 argument that divided government overperforms and unified government underperforms expectations.

    What should Americans know about divided government?

    LEE: It’s the normal state of affairs in our politics in the modern era. Since 1980, something like two-thirds of the time we’ve had a divided government.

    And yet you think about all the things that government has undertaken in the years since the Second World War. The role and scope of the US government is so much greater now than it was then. And a lot of that happened in divided government. Most of that has been under divided government time. …

    Unified government usually results in disappointment for the party in power, which is just exactly what we’ve seen here in (this) Congress. Democrats were unable to deliver on their bold agenda, and that’s not different than what Republicans faced when they had unified government and couldn’t pass repeal and replace of Obamacare.

    Now hold on. Republicans passed a massive tax cut bill with unified government. Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which included spending to address climate change. Those are the major accomplishments of recent years, no?

    CURRY: I think we’re making a mistake when we say that those are the three biggest things that have happened. For instance, earlier you talked about the American Rescue Plan (another Covid relief bill passed with only Democratic support) – it is not as significant as the CARES Act, which was the first major Covid relief legislation passed by Congress. It passed in March of 2020, and it passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis.

    A lot of what was included in the American Rescue Plan were things that were initially set out under the CARES Act. Arguably the CARES Act was the single most important legislative accomplishment that we’ve had in this country in several decades.

    And there are other examples too … things like criminal justice reform that was passed with bipartisan support in 2018, and many others things that are just as significant from a public policy standpoint, including also the bipartisan infrastructure bill that Congress passed last year.

    They don’t have as much political significance, foremost because they were passed on a single-party basis. But I don’t think you can make the case that they’re necessarily more significant in terms of policy consequences for the country.

    (In a follow-up email, Curry said that Congress often flies its bipartisanship accomplishments under the radar as part of larger bills, which means they don’t get as much attention. He pointed to big-ticket items that passed quietly in 2019 as part of larger spending bills, including raising the age to buy tobacco to 21, pushing through the first major pay raise for federal employees in years and repealing unpopular Obamacare taxes. He has similar examples for each recent year. But if they are not contentious, they get less attention, he said.)

    Your argument is counter to the current narrative of American politics – that parties enact more on their own. Is that a media problem? A partisanship problem?

    LEE: I’m still blown away by how much was done on Covid. Basically the United States government spent 75% more in 2020 than it spent in 2019. All that was Covid.

    You’re talking about New Deal levels of spending and yet people just didn’t even seem to notice it because it was done on a bipartisan basis. We basically had a universal basic income in response to Covid and all the small business aid – it’s just extraordinary – and yet, it just seemed to pass people by as though nothing important occurred.

    I don’t think it’s just a media story. The media wrote stories about the Covid aid bills, but it just didn’t capture people’s attention.

    And I think that’s because it didn’t cut in favor of or against either party. When you don’t have a story that drives a partisan narrative, most people are just not that interested in it. Most people that pay attention to politics are not that interested in it. It lacks a rooting interest.

    What about the big things that need action? Immigration reform has eluded Congress for decades and climate change is an existential threat. How can divided government be preferable if Congress can’t come together to address these problems?

    CURRY: I’m not saying divided government is preferable, which I think is important. I’m just saying it doesn’t make that big a difference on a lot of these issues.

    So we’ve seen that list of issues you just mentioned – climate change, immigration, etc. These are issues that Congress has equally struggled to take big, bold action on under divided or unified government.

    On climate change, for instance, Democrats want to do big, bold things, but they aren’t able to go as far as they want to, because not only are there disagreements between the parties on how to address climate change, there are disagreements among Democrats about the best way to address climate and environmental legislation.

    On immigration, you have clear divisions across party lines, but also divisions within each party.

    LEE: Congress can pass legislation spending money or cutting taxes. The problem is it’s difficult to do things that create backlash. It’s hard to do serious climate legislation without being prepared to accept a backlash.

    Isn’t this just a structural problem then? If there was no requirement for a filibuster supermajority, couldn’t a simple majority of lawmakers be more effective?

    LEE: On the two examples that you just put forward – on immigration and climate – the filibuster has not been the obstacle to recent efforts.

    In immigration reform that Republicans attempted to do (under Trump), they couldn’t get majorities in either the House or Senate. Democrats were way short of a Senate majority when they tried to do climate legislation under Obama. They barely got out of the House.

    (Curry and Lee’s research shows the filibuster is not the primary culprit standing in the way of four out of five of the priorities that parties have failed to enact since 1985.)

    CURRY: We found a more common reason why the parties fail on the things that can be accomplished is because they are unable to unify internally about what to do. The filibuster matters, but it is far from the most significant thing.

    But certainly the legislation that passes under divided government is different than what would have passed under a unified government. The parties must compromise more. Whether the government is unified or divided matters, right?

    CURRY: It makes a difference certainly for precisely what is in these final policy bills. It certainly makes a difference for the politics of the moment. It really makes a difference for each side of the aisle in terms of being able to say, we got this much done or that much done that matches my hopes and dreams as a Democrat or a Republican.

    But it’s just sort of an overstated story that unified government means big, bold things happen and divided government means they don’t.

    Wouldn’t Washington work better if one party was more easily able to deliver on its goals when voters gave it power?

    CURRY: Whether it would be better if we had a situation like you have in more parliamentary-style governments where a party takes control, they pass what they will and stand to voters, I think it’s just in the eye of the beholder.

    On one hand, potentially, yes, because it’s very clear and clean from a party responsibility or electoral responsibility standpoint, where parties pass things and then voters can hold them accountable or not. On the other hand, then you would see more wild swings in policy from election to election.

    Does the growing number of swings in power in Congress mean American voters consciously prefer divided government?

    CURRY: I don’t think that Americans necessarily have a preference for divided government. That’s something that people sometimes say. It sounds nice.

    But the reality is that roughly since the 1980s and early 1990s, it’s been the case that electoral margins are really tight – you have relatively even numbers of Americans that prefer Democrats and Republicans. And so from election to election, based on turnout and swings back and forth, you get this constant back and forth of our electoral politics where one party is in control for two to four years and then the other party is in control.

    That’s really important because it has massive implications for our politics. If you have a political system and political dynamic like we have today, where each party thinks they can constantly win back control or lose control of the House, the Senate and the presidency, it ups the stakes for every single decision that’s going to be made.

    Everything is considered through a lens of how will this affect our partisan fortunes in the next election, and that makes things just naturally more contentious.

    Can we agree that ours is not a very effective way to govern?

    CURRY: It is certainly the case that Congress does not pass every single thing that every person wants it to. But I don’t think that is ever true of any government. Nor do I think that’s a reasonable bar to set a government against.

    The reality is Congress does a lot of stuff and does a lot more than people give it credit for, but it also fails to take action on a lot of policies. I think that’s just politics. That’s just government. It’s not just an American problem, and it’s not just a facet of our specific political system.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • G20’s criticism of Russia shows the rise of a new Asian power. And it isn’t China | CNN

    G20’s criticism of Russia shows the rise of a new Asian power. And it isn’t China | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    When world leaders at the Group of 20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, issued a joint statement condemning Russia’s war in Ukraine, a familiar sentence stood out from the 1,186-page document.

    “Today’s era must not be of war,” it said, echoing what Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Russian leader Vladimir Putin during a face-to-face meeting in September.

    Media and officials in the country of 1.3 billion were quick to claim the inclusion as a sign that the world’s largest democracy had played a vital role in bridging differences between an increasingly isolated Russia, and the United States and its allies.

    “How India united G20 on PM Modi’s idea of peace,” ran a headline in the Times of India, the country’s largest English-language paper. “The Prime Minister’s message that this is not the era of war… resonated very deeply across all the delegations and helped bridge the gap across different parties,” India’s Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra told reporters Wednesday.

    The declaration came as Indonesian President Joko Widodo handed over the G20 presidency to Modi, who will host the next leaders’ summit in the Indian capital New Delhi in September 2023 – about six months before he is expected to head to the polls in a general election and contest the country’s top seat for a third time.

    As New Delhi deftly balances its ties to Russia and the West, Modi, analysts say, is emerging as a leader who has been courted by all sides, winning him support at home, while cementing India as an international power broker.

    “The domestic narrative is that the G20 summit is being used as a big banner in Modi’s election campaign to show he’s a great global statesmen,” said Sushant Singh, a senior fellow at New Delhi-based think tank Center for Policy Research. “And the current Indian leadership now sees themselves as a powerful country seated at the high table.”

    On some accounts, India’s presence at the G20 was overshadowed by the much anticipated meeting between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden, and the scramble to investigate the killing of two Polish citizens after what Warsaw said was a “Russian-made missile” landed in a village near the NATO-member’s border with Ukraine.

    Global headlines covered in detail how Biden and Xi met for three hours on Monday, in an attempt to prevent their rivalry from spilling into open conflict. And on Wednesday, leaders from the G7 and NATO convened an emergency meeting in Bali to discuss the explosion in Poland.

    Modi, on the other hand, held a series of discussions with several world leaders, including newly appointed British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, ranging from food security and environment, to health and economic revival – steering largely clear of condemning Putin’s aggression outright, while continuing to distance his country from Russia.

    British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi hold a bilateral meeting on November 16, 2022 in Nusa Dua, Indonesia.

    While India had a “modest agenda” for the G20 revolving around the issues of energy, climate, and economic turmoil as a result of the war, Western leaders “are listening to India as a major stakeholder in the region, because India is a country that is close to both the West and Russia,” said Happymon Jacob, associate professor of diplomacy and disarmament at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi.

    New Delhi has strong ties with Moscow dating back to the Cold War, and India remains heavily reliant on the Kremlin for military equipment – a vital link given India’s ongoing tensions at its shared Himalayan border with an increasingly assertive China.

    At the same time, New Delhi has been growing closer to the West as leaders attempt to counter the rise of Beijing, placing India in a strategically comfortable position.

    “One of the ways in which India had an impact at the G20 is that it seems to be one of the few countries that can engage all sides,” said Harsh V. Pant, professor in international relations at King’s College London. “It’s a role that India has been able to bridge between multiple antagonists.”

    Since the start of the war, India has repeatedly called for a cessation of violence in Ukraine, falling short of condemning Russia’s invasion outright.

    But as Putin’s aggression has intensified, killing thousands of people and throwing the global economy into chaos, analysts say India’s limits are being put to the test.

    Observers point out Modi’s stronger language to Putin in recent months was made in the context of rising food, fuel and fertilizer prices, and the hardships that was creating for other countries. And while this year’s G20 was looked at through the lens of the war, India could bring its own agenda to the table next year.

    “India’s taking over the presidency comes at a time when the world is placing a lot of focus on renewable energy, rising prices and inflation,” Jacob from JNU said. “And there is a feeling that India is seen as a key country that can provide for the needs of the region in South Asia and beyond.”

    US President Joe Biden, India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Indonesia's President Joko Widodo, Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and China's leader Xi Jinping attend the G20 leaders' summit in Bali, Indonesia, on November 15.

    Soaring global prices across a number of energy sources as a result of the war are hammering consumers, who are already grappling with rising food costs and inflation.

    Speaking at the end of the G20 summit on Wednesday, Modi said India was taking charge at a time when the world was “grappling with geopolitical tensions, economic slowdown, rising food and energy prices, and the long-term ill-effects of the pandemic.”

    “I want to assure that India’s G20 presidency will be inclusive, ambitious, decisive, and action-oriented,” he said in his speech.

    India’s positioning of next year’s summit is “very much of being the voice of the developing world and the global South,” Pant, from King’s College London, said.

    “Modi’s idea is to project India as a country that can respond to today’s challenges by echoing the concerns that some of the poorest countries have about the contemporary global order.”

    As India prepares to assume the G20 presidency, all eyes are on Modi as he also begins his campaign for India’s 2024 national election.

    Domestically, his Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) populist politics have polarized the nation.

    While Modi remains immensely popular in a country where about 80% of the population is Hindu, his government has been repeatedly criticized for a clampdown on free speech and discriminatory policies toward minority groups.

    Amid those criticisms, Modi’s political allies have been keen to push his international credentials, portraying him as a key player in the global order.

    “(The BJP) is taking Modi’s G20 meetings as a political message that he is bolstering India’s image abroad and forging strong partnerships,” said Singh, from the Center for Policy Research.

    This week, India and Britain announced they are going ahead with a much anticipated “UK-India Young Professionals Scheme,” which will allow 3,000 degree-educated Indian nationals between 18 and 30 years old to live and work in the United Kingdom for up to two years.

    At the same time, Modi’s Twitter showed a flurry of smiling photographs and video of the leader with his Western counterparts.

    “His domestic image remains strong,” Singh said, adding it remains to be seen whether Modi can keep up his careful balancing act as the war progresses.

    “But I think his international standing comes from his domestic standing. And if that remains strong, then the international audience is bound to respect him.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump faces billionaires in retreat and tabloid trolling a day after campaign announcement | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump faces billionaires in retreat and tabloid trolling a day after campaign announcement | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A day after Donald Trump announced his third bid for the presidency, he faced public defections from billionaire backers and vicious trolling from a once-friendly New York tabloid – underscoring his early challenges in mounting a political comeback nearly two years after the end of his divisive presidency.

    Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of the private equity firm Blackstone and a one-time Trump ally, announced Wednesday that he would not support Trump’s bid for the Republican nomination, saying it’s time “for the Republican party to turn to a new generation of leaders.”

    A spokesman for another billionaire supporter – cosmetic heir Ronald Lauder – confirmed to CNN on Wednesday that Lauder would not back Trump’s bid to become only the second US president elected to two nonconsecutive terms.

    And in another sign that the once-supportive conservative media empire controlled by Rupert Murdoch has moved on from Trump, the New York Post on Wednesday topped its story of his campaign announcement with a brutal headline, “Been there, Don That.” (By contrast, a front-page Post headline last week heralded Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as “DeFuture,” after the Republican cruised to a second term.)

    The pullback by some donors shows that some of the party’s elite figures are open to alternatives two years out from the next presidential election. Trump, who has relied on a small-donor base to fuel his political ambitions, remains a formidable fundraising force. In an unprecedented move, he never stopped fundraising after leaving the White House, and his array of political committees has amassed more than $100 million in cash reserves.

    Trump is the first major Republican candidate to announce his candidacy. Over the weekend, DeSantis – a potential rival for the nomination – is slated to address one of the Republican Party’s most influential donor groups when he delivers a speech at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual gala dinner. Former US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, another Republican viewed as a possible presidential contender, also is slated to speak at the Saturday night event in Las Vegas.

    Trump remains a “big factor” in Republican politics and has earned accolades from coalition members for his staunch support of Israel, said Matthew Brooks, RJC’s executive director.

    But “people are window-shopping right now,” Brooks added. “There are people who are asking if we need a new direction and a new face.”

    Brooks said Trump was invited to the RJC gathering but had a scheduling conflict.

    CNN has reached out to Trump aides for comment.

    Schwarzman’s retreat from Trump is particularly significant because he’s one of the biggest donors in Republican politics and contributed $3 million in 2020 to a super PAC supporting Trump’s unsuccessful reelection campaign.

    In the midterms alone, Schwarzman donated more than $35 million to Republican candidates and groups active in federal elections, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit group that tracks political money.

    “America does better when its leaders are rooted in today and tomorrow, not today and yesterday,” Schwarzman said in his statement, first reported by Axios. Schwarzman said he would support one of the GOP’s “new generation of leaders” but did not say whom he is considering backing.

    Another Republican megadonor, Citadel’s Ken Griffin, recently indicated he would back DeSantis in 2024, should the Florida governor seek the GOP nomination.

    Lauder, a long-time Trump friend and financial supporter of Republican candidates and causes, has not indicated who would win his support.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump is no Grover Cleveland | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump is no Grover Cleveland | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump wants to do a full Grover Cleveland and match the only US president to lose a presidential election and then rise from the ashes to regain the White House four years later.

    Other examples of former presidents trying to regain power have gone poorly. Theodore Roosevelt’s progressive rebellion split open a schism in the GOP; neither Herbert Hoover nor Martin Van Buren could get nominations from their parties after previous losses.

    With the announcement of his third White House run, Trump is trying to emulate Cleveland, who won, lost and then won the White House in 1884, 1888 and 1892.

    In many other ways, Trump, a native New Yorker, and Cleveland, the only president born in New Jersey, have little in common. Most of what’s below comes from reading about Cleveland at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center and also the University of California Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project.

    Trump, a Republican, lost the popular vote twice. He lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote to Joe Biden in 2020, but Trump also got fewer popular votes compared with Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and first lady, when he beat her in the Electoral College in 2016.

    Cleveland, a Democrat, won the popular vote three times. He got more popular votes than his opponent when he won the White House in 1884 and 1892, and while he lost the Electoral College vote to Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Cleveland beat him in the popular vote. Regardless of the popular vote, Cleveland’s first win in 1884 was thanks to an extremely narrow 1,200-vote margin that delivered him New York’s decisive electoral votes.

    Trump rejected his loss. The former president skipped Biden’s inauguration, still won’t admit he lost in 2020 and has infected the Republican Party with a vein of denialism.

    Cleveland held the umbrella as his opponent became president. At a rainy inauguration in March 1889, Cleveland held an umbrella over Harrison’s head as the latter took the oath of office.

    Trump is one of the oldest presidents. Seventy when he took office in 2017, Trump would be 78 if he wins and takes office again in January 2025. That would make him the second-oldest president after Biden.

    Cleveland was a young president. Just 47 when he first took the oath of office, Cleveland was 55 when he won reelection. Cleveland died at 71, an age at which Trump was in the first half of his term.

    Trump revels in the campaign. He lives for winding speeches eaten up by adoring crowds.

    Cleveland barely campaigned. Candidates of the day didn’t campaign as much, but when he first won the White House in 1884, Cleveland gave just two campaign speeches.

    He was similarly disinterested in campaigning four years later, which could explain his defeat in 1888, but doesn’t explain how he won again in 1892.

    Trump is famous for denying scandals. One example: He disputed paying hush money to women who alleged affairs with him despite the confirmation of his former attorney Michael Cohen, who set up the payments.

    Cleveland admitted an affair. Attacked by Republicans in 1884, Cleveland admitted he may in fact have fathered an illegitimate child with a woman later sent to an insane asylum.

    “Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa,” went the attack ad of the day. Cleveland turned honesty into a campaign attribute and urged supporters to tell the truth.

    Trump imposed tariffs. One of Trump’s lasting policy legacies are the tariffs he imposed on China and other countries.

    Cleveland fought tariffs. A reason he lost in 1892 was Cleveland’s opposition to high tariffs, an unpopular position exploited by Harrison.

    There are, however, some other similarities between Trump and Cleveland.

    Cleveland and Frances Folsom's wedding in June of 1886 was the only marriage of a sitting president in the White House. She was 21 and had been his ward.

    They both married younger women. Melania Trump is 24 years younger than her husband, Donald. Cleveland married his wife Frances during his first term in the White House, still the only marriage of a sitting president conducted at the White House. Frances Cleveland was 21 at the time and had been Cleveland’s ward after her father, Cleveland’s former law partner, died.

    They both considered using troops on Americans. Trump considered calling out the military on protesters in front of the White House, and some of his advisers considered trying to impose martial law as they sought to overturn his defeat in 2020.

    Cleveland called out federal troops to put down the Pullman railcar strike, a controversial and unprecedented use of force against striking workers.

    (Related: Today, the odds of a railroad union strike are on the rise after a third union rejected a proposed contract. Read more.)

    They both promised to clean up Washington. Trump won in 2016 promising to “drain the swamp” in Washington, and Cleveland’s main issue was to put corrupt Republicans in check, something that resonated with anti-corruption Republicans known as the “Mugwumps.”

    They both cut down on some immigration. The issue that most animated Trump was building a wall at the southern border. He also curbed legal immigration to the US and imposed a travel ban on certain countries. Cleveland renewed the Chinese Exclusion Act and prevented Chinese laborers from returning to the US. But Cleveland rejected a law that would have imposed a literacy test on immigrants.

    They both relied on the South. Trump could not win his home state of New York like Cleveland did, but both men relied on a southern base of support for their political power.

    Joshua Zeitz wrote for Politico recently that when Cleveland ran in 1892 after losing in 1888, it was largely out of boredom. Trump, meanwhile, seems to be more interested in revenge for what he falsely calls a fraudulent election.

    CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correct Martin Van Buren’s political party. He was a Democrat.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump offers a dark vision voters have already rejected as he launches his 2024 campaign | CNN Politics

    Trump offers a dark vision voters have already rejected as he launches his 2024 campaign | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    It’s American carnage, round three.

    Ex-President Donald Trump on Tuesday dragged Americans back into his dystopian worldview of a failing nation scarred by crime-ridden cities turned into “cesspools of blood,” and swamped by immigrants. He added a scary new twist at a time of global tensions, claiming the country was on the verge of tumbling into nuclear war.

    Launching his bid for a third consecutive Republican presidential nomination, Trump conversely painted his own turbulent single term, which ended in his attempt to destroy democracy and a mismanaged pandemic, as a “golden age” of prosperity and American global dominance.

    The new Trump – for the 2024 campaign – is the same as the old Trump.

    He pounded out a message of American decline, highlighted raging inflation and slammed President Joe Biden as aged, weak, and disrespected by US enemies, while highlighting his own chummy ties with global dictators, like North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who seek to weaken American power.

    When the 76-year-old former property tycoon, reality star and commander in chief promised a new “quest to save our country,” he encapsulated the challenges that his new campaign poses for his own party and the rest of the United States.

    To begin with, in the gold-leafed ballroom of his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump steered clear of the election denialism that helped doom multiple Republican nominees in the midterm elections and that has inspired skepticism of his viability among GOP lawmakers in Washington.

    But as usual, his self-discipline didn’t hold, as he descended further into his personal obsessions the longer he went on, portraying himself as a “victim,” raising new suspicion about the US election system and slamming ongoing criminal probes against him as politicized and deeply unfair. The speech lacked the riotous nature and energy of his campaign rallies. But Trump’s material was a familiar rhetorical cocktail of grievance certain to enthuse his base supporters.

    However, it may have come across to many of the swing voters in the states that he lost in 2020 as authoritarian demagoguery. Many of those voters deserted Republicans yet again last week, as the party failed to win back the Senate and as it still waits to confirm it will win only a slim majority in the House. Many GOP lawmakers squarely blame the lack of a red wave on Trump – for foisting extreme, election-denying candidates on the party in key states. That’s why there is increasing interest in potential alternative candidates like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who roared to reelection last week, and has recently proved, unlike Trump, that he can build a broad coalition with Trump-style policies but without the chaos epitomized by the 45th president.

    And yet by launching his campaign so early – before the 2022 election is even finalized – the ex-president is seeking to freeze the GOP field. And there is so far no evidence that his devoted supporters will desert him.

    What could be the opening acts of a new election clash between Trump and Biden unfolded over multiple time zones. As Trump was speaking, the current president – who confounded historic expectations of a midterm election drubbing – was at another beach resort, in Bali, Indonesia.

    Biden spent the moments leading up to Trump’s speech huddled with other world leaders seeking a united response to a possibly alarming escalation in the war in Ukraine after an explosion on the territory of NATO ally Poland. There was some irony to the fact that Biden was leading the same Western alliance at a moment of peril that Trump frequently had undermined while in office. (Biden said after a day of rising global tensions that first indications were that the missile that fell onto a Polish farm, killing two people, did not originate in Russia.)

    Epitomizing the gulf between a president’s duties and the frivolity of the campaign trail, Biden, when asked if he had a comment on Trump’s launch, replied: “No, not really.”

    Trump referred briefly to the FBI search of his home at Mar-a-Lago for his hoard of highly classified documents and subpoenas sent to his family members. It was a reminder that his campaign raises the extraordinary scenario of a candidate for president running for a new term while facing multiple criminal investigations and the possibility of indictment by the Justice Department. Trump, who has not been charged with a crime, is being investigated over the classified documents, the run-up to the US Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021, and in Georgia over his attempt to steal Biden’s win in the crucial swing state in 2020.

    Trump has already claimed that he is being persecuted because Biden wants to stop him from becoming president again – an accusation likely to be embraced by his millions of supporters. Thus, the clash between his campaign and various investigations into his conduct promises to inflict even more damage on political and legal institutions that he kept under continuous assault as president.

    One thing noticeably missing from Trump’s speech was acknowledgment of his unprecedented attempt to interrupt 250 years of peaceful transfers of power between presidents. But the Capitol insurrection is an indelible stain that is sure to haunt his campaign. CNN has exclusively reported that top DOJ officials have considered whether a special counsel would be needed during the Trump campaign to avoid potential political conflicts of interest.

    Trump is trying to pull off a historic feat accomplished by only one previous president – Grover Cleveland, who became the only commander in chief to serve nonconsecutive terms after he won a return to the White House in 1892.

    A Trump victory in 2024 would represent a stunning rebound given that he is the only president to have been impeached twice – once for trying to coerce Ukraine into investigating Biden, and secondly for inciting the mob attack on the Capitol, one of the most flagrant assaults ever on US democracy.

    A return to the Oval Office for Trump would stun the world. His record of disdaining US allies and coddling dictators such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un fractured decades of US foreign policy and made the United States – long a force for stability in the world – into one of its most erratic powers.

    Trump left office in disgrace in 2021, after the assault on the Capitol, not even bothering to attend the inauguration of his successor and insisting ever since that the election was corrupt – despite no evidence and against the findings of multiple courts and his own Justice Department.

    Ever since, the ex-president has made his lies about the 2020 election the centerpiece of a political movement that still has millions of followers – as was seen with the primary victories of some of his handpicked candidates in this year’s midterm elections.

    But many Trump-backed candidates failed to win competitive general elections. And Trump’s 2024 campaign will test whether there are Republicans who, while they may be drawn in by Trump’s bulldozing style and populist, nationalist instincts, will tire of the drama and chaos that surround him. It will also pose a question of whether a new generation of Republicans, who have tapped into his political base and the “America first” principles of Trumpism – like DeSantis, for example – are ready to challenge the movement’s still wildly popular founder.

    Trump was already rejected by a broad general election audience once – he lost by more than 7 million votes in 2020. The same pattern appeared to exert itself as the GOP fell short of expectations in the midterms, which ironically will give Trump-aligned lawmakers strong leverage in what’s likely to be a narrow House Republican majority.

    And even if he secures the nomination again, it’s an open question whether he’ll be able to recreate his 2016 winning coalition after alienating moderate and suburban voters or whether a combination of motivated base voters and previously disaffected Republicans returning to the fold will be able to make up the difference.

    Trump’s first term between 2017 and 2021 was one of the most tumultuous periods in American political history.

    He shattered the traditions and restraints of his office, subjecting political institutions – designed by the Founders to guard against exactly his brand of autocratic egotism – to their ultimate test.

    The 45th president’s reputation was also stained by his negligent denial and mismanagement of a once-in-100-years pandemic. He skipped over his failed leadership in the emergency during his speech on Tuesday night.

    Trump’s flouting of science and public health guidelines came back to haunt him as he contracted Covid-19 in the fall of 2020. He survived a serious bout with the help of experimental drugs before theatrically ripping off his mask in a White House photo op when he returned from the hospital.

    One important aspect of his pandemic strategy was a success, however. An early White House bet to invest big in vaccine development by private firms and scientists, under the title of Operation Warp Speed, put the US in better position than many other industrialized nations.

    The coronavirus destroyed the roaring economy Trump had hoped to ride to reelection, leaving as his most important achievement the shaping of a conservative Supreme Court majority, which has already dramatically altered American society with its overturning of Roe v. Wade and could last a generation.

    But history will most remember him for his two impeachments, both following abuses of power designed to manipulate the free and fair elections that are at the root of America’s democratic system in order to prolong his tenure in office. 

    The House select committee investigating the insurrection has uncovered damning evidence in Trump’s inner circle about his behavior in the run-up to January 6 and during the insurrection. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, for instance, testified that chief of staff Mark Meadows said Trump thought Vice President Mike Pence deserved the calls for him to be hanged by insurrectionists. There was also evidence of Trump’s vicious pressure on local officials and election workers in states such as Georgia.

    Yet there remain questions about whether the committee will be able to hold accountable a man who has always dodged responsibility in a wild and whirling life in business, reality television and politics.

    Even if the committee advises the Justice Department that prosecuting Trump is merited, it’s unknown whether the evidence it has collected would be sufficient to secure a conviction. And Attorney General Merrick Garland would be faced with a massive dilemma given the extraordinary implications of bringing criminal charges against an active presidential candidate.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The simple reason why Ron DeSantis should run for president in 2024 | CNN Politics

    The simple reason why Ron DeSantis should run for president in 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In the week since he easily won reelection, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis hasn’t said much about his political future.

    He hasn’t had to. Speculation is rampant that DeSantis is considering a presidential bid, using the momentum gained from his sweeping victory in Florida as a springboard for a national campaign.

    Donald Trump is paying attention, too.

    “I would tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering – I know more about him than anybody – other than, perhaps, his wife,” Trump said on Election Day.

    Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, echoed that sentiment on Monday. “I can tell you, those primaries get very messy and very raw,” she said. “So wouldn’t it be nicer for him, and I think he knows this, to wait until 2028?”

    While the Trump wing of the party wants DeSantis to wait until at least 2028 to launch a White House bid, there’s a simple reason why he shouldn’t – and it all comes down to timing.

    Politics is all about timing. And history proves that.

    When Barack Obama announced that he would run for president less than two years after being elected to the Senate, skeptics were legion – insisting that he hadn’t put his time in to earn the right to run.

    Those skeptics didn’t go away. But Obama was entirely unhindered by the notion that he was too inexperienced for a national campaign and, in fact, it was something that appealed to some voters.

    Obama understood that the timing was right, even though Hillary Clinton was the heavy favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Timing was everything.

    On the flip side, think of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. He was heavily courted to run for president in 2012 as Republicans fretted that they didn’t have the right candidate who could beat Obama.

    Christie eventually decided against the race. “Now is not my time,” Christie said in October 2011. “I have a commitment to New Jersey that I simply will not abandon.”

    Christie did eventually run for president – in 2016. And it didn’t go well. He dropped out after a disastrous sixth-place finish in the New Hampshire primary. Then Christie endorsed Trump and spent the rest of the campaign subservient to him, tarnishing his image. Now Christie is trying to reinvent himself as someone willing to speak truth to Trump. But the damage is done.

    The examples of Obama (on the positive end) and Christie (on the negative end) should guide DeSantis as he makes his decision. Four years is a very long time. Things change in politics. Who has momentum now may not have that same momentum in a year, much less four years.

    DeSantis is, at the moment, the hottest thing going in the Republican Party. To do anything other than run for president given that status – even if that means running against Trump – could well look like a massive mistake in two years’ time.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Katie Hobbs will win Arizona governor’s race, CNN projects, defeating Trump favorite Kari Lake | CNN Politics

    Katie Hobbs will win Arizona governor’s race, CNN projects, defeating Trump favorite Kari Lake | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democrat Katie Hobbs will win Arizona’s governor’s race, CNN projects, defeating one of the most prominent defenders of former President Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election.

    Calling the 2020 election rigged, Republican Kari Lake had repeatedly said she would not have certified Joe Biden’s win in Arizona in 2020. Hobbs, as Arizona’s secretary of state, had rejected GOP lies about the election.

    Lake’s defeat follows the defeat of two other high-profile election deniers in the state – Republican Senate nominee Blake Masters and secretary of state nominee Mark Finchem.

    “Democracy is worth the wait,” Hobbs tweeted after the race was called Monday night. “Thank you, Arizona. I am so honored and so proud to be your next Governor.”

    Lake did not acknowledge Hobbs’ victory, instead tweeting, “Arizonans know BS when they see it.”

    The Republican nominee had already begun sowing doubts about the 2022 results. During an appearance on Fox News Monday before the race was called, Lake baselessly called the election “botched.”

    “I don’t believe that people of Arizona would vote for her and that she would win. But if that’s what happens at the end of the day, how could you certify an election that is this botched?” Lake said.

    During an appearance on right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s talk show Thursday, she said, “I hate that they’re slow-rolling and dragging their feet and delaying the inevitable. They don’t want to put out the truth, which is that we won.”

    There is no evidence that the election officials were delaying the reporting of results. At a news conference Thursday, Bill Gates, chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, called out Lake’s comments. “It is offensive for Kari Lake to say that these people behind me are slow-rolling this when they are working 14-18 hours,” Gates, a Republican, said, gesturing to the election workers who were involved in tallying the ballots behind him through a glass window.

    Lake had continued to stoke questions about the vote tabulation and Hobbs’ eventual role in certifying the vote as secretary of state hours before the race was projected for Hobbs. “Shouldn’t election officials be impartial,” Lake tweeted, a reference to the office that Hobbs holds. “The guys running the Election have made it their mission to defeat America First Republicans. Unbelievable.”

    Arizona Assistant Secretary of State Allie Bones refuted Lake’s suggestion that Hobbs should recuse herself from overseeing the election. In an interview with CNN Monday night, she noted that Arizona elections are “highly decentralized” and the “counties are responsible for administering the elections and tabulating the votes.”

    When pressed by CNN’s John King about exactly what the Arizona secretary of state’s role is in certifying the election, Bones said the process has worked the same way for years: all 15 counties will report their results to the secretary of state’s office, then the secretary’s office compiles those results and puts together the state-wide canvass. At that point “the secretary does sign off on that,” Bones said, but the governor, the attorney general and the chief justice of the state Supreme Court will also sign off on those final results.

    Lake, a former news anchor at Fox 10 in Phoenix, ascended quickly to become one of the most prominent Republicans in the 2022 cycle as she and Hobbs vied to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Doug Ducey. The outgoing governor had endorsed Lake’s primary opponent, but then backed Lake in the general election.

    Hobbs, a former social worker who worked with victims of domestic violence before becoming a state lawmaker, ran a far more low-key and understated campaign, limiting her access to reporters and holding small, intimate events with supporters. She made democracy and abortion rights her central focus, portraying Lake as an “extreme” and “dangerous” figure who could jeopardize the sanctity of the 2024 presidential election by refusing to certify the results.

    She had help in the latter effort from GOP Rep. Liz Cheney, whose political action committee put $500,000 behind an ad urging Arizona voters to reject Lake and Finchem. Lake subsequently posted a sarcastic letter on Twitter thanking Cheney for her “in-kind contribution” – claiming the ad was actually helping her campaign. On Monday night when the race was called for Hobbs, Cheney responded to Lake’s October 28 tweet with a simple retort: “You’re welcome.”

    Barrett Marson, an Arizona GOP consultant who worked for Masters during the Senate primary, spoke to the wisdom of following Trump Monday night. “It’s over. The only thing Kari Lake should do now is graciously concede. This election tells us one thing: following Trump over the cliff will not win elections.”

    Lake hewed closely to the Trump playbook on more than just the 2020 election. She promised to declare an “invasion” at the border – in what she described as an effort to amass greater power for the governor’s office to address the migrant crisis – and she called for the arrest of both of Dr. Anthony Fauci and her Democratic opponent.

    Before announcing her bid, Lake left her anchor job in 2021 – stating that she didn’t like the direction that journalism was going – after becoming a household name in Phoenix. In one of her campaign videos, she said she was taking a sledgehammer to “leftist lies and propaganda,” as she destroyed television sets with the tool in stiletto boots.

    She dispatched her primary opponents with her forceful denunciations of Democratic leaders’ handling of the Covid-19 pandemic – blasting restrictions like masking as unnecessary and harmful to children. She welcomed comparisons to Trump all the way through the end of the campaign – professing at one event that she was delighted when one admirer called her “Trump in a dress.”

    Lake had painted Hobbs as a coward after Hobbs refused to debate her opponent this fall. Hobbs’ campaign argued that a debate with Lake “would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling.”

    Hobbs noted in an interview with CNN that Lake had repeatedly called for her arrest and said that her rhetoric had led to “violent threats and harassment against me.” Lake, in turn, portrayed her opponent’s answers as weakness, arguing that if Hobbs wouldn’t agree to debate her, “she can’t stand up against the cartels.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s 2024 bid gets harsh reaction among Hill Republicans | CNN Politics

    Trump’s 2024 bid gets harsh reaction among Hill Republicans | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Many House and Senate Republicans recoiled on Monday at the prospect of former President Donald Trump launching a third run for the presidency this week, a sign of his waning support on Capitol Hill after years of controversy and scandal and following their party’s disappointing midterm performance.

    In interviews with a couple dozen Republicans in both chambers, very few were eager to embrace a 2024 run – instead pointing to their hope that another candidate will emerge or that the field will be big enough so voters can choose someone else who could appeal to middle-of-the-road voters.

    “I want someone who is going to unite our party,” said South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, refusing to say if he would back Trump. “That’s how we win elections. A reasonable person who would unite the party.”

    Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson added of Trump: “Let’s see who runs. Personally, I don’t think it’s good for the party. … I think his policies were good. I just don’t need all the drama with it.”

    That sentiment was echoed up and down-the-line by one-time allies of the former president – underscoring how the de facto leader of their party has grown increasingly alienated on Capitol Hill – especially after last Tuesday’s elections.

    “Still?” Texas GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw said when asked about the prospect of Trump running again.

    Asked if he would get involved in the primary, Crenshaw said: “Hell no.”

    “None of us are entitled to these jobs,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a Trump ally and North Dakota Republican when asked about the likely 2024 bid. “He’s certainly not entitled to it. And I certainly won’t be making any decision (to endorse) this soon.”

    Cramer said it would be better if more candidates ran in 2024. “I think we’re all better if there’s more of them up on the stage.”

    Others began floating rival candidates. GOP Sen. Jerry Moran said he had his eyes on fellow Kansan and ex-secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, as well as South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott.

    “I think we have lots of Republicans who are interested in being our nominee for president,” Moran said when asked about Trump. “And I’m interested in letting the American people make this decision. … And I’m interested in seeing those people rise to the top.”

    Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Florida Republican, dodged on whether she would support Trump and said: “Let me tell you something: I do know the next Republican presidential contender is coming from Florida.” (The state’s newly reelected governor, Ron DeSantis, is becoming a favorite among Washington Republicans.)

    Several Republicans on Monday blamed Trump for pushing forward lackluster candidates and obsessing about his 2020 election loss as undercutting the case they tried to make against Democrats this year.

    South Dakota Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said that it’s clear that “relitigating the 2020 election is not a winning strategy.”

    Others agreed.

    “I think looking forward is always a better campaign strategy,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. “Looking back to 2020 obviously didn’t work out.”

    In private, the view was harsher. One moderate-leaning GOP lawmaker said of a Trump presidential bid: “It’s like we’re on season 7, 8 of ‘The Apprentice.’ People are sick of it, they want to turn the channel. Let’s find something else.”

    And other long-time Trump critics, like Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, wanted nothing to do with a Trump 2024 bid.

    “I think that President Trump and election denying was an albatross around Republican necks,” Romney said. “And frankly, I think he’s been on the mountain too long. We’ve lost three races with him. And I’d like to see someone from the bench, come up and take his place and lead our party and help lead the country.”

    Others were slow to embrace the former president.

    “That’s his decision,” said Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul when asked about Trump 2024. “I think every member will have to look and see what’s in the field out there.”

    But Trump’s former vice president has at least one backer in the Capitol – his brother.

    “I’m for my brother,” Rep. Greg Pence, an Indiana Republican, said of former Vice President Mike Pence. “Absolutely. I hope my brother runs.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link