ReportWire

Tag: elections and campaigns

  • X has ditched a political misinformation reporting feature, researchers say | CNN Business

    X has ditched a political misinformation reporting feature, researchers say | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    X, the social media company formerly known as Twitter, has scrapped a feature that lets users self-report political misinformation on the platform, a research group says, marking the latest safety-focused guardrail that X has rolled back since billionaire Elon Musk took the helm.

    The move was first spotted by an Australia-based digital policy think tank, Reset Australia. The group of researchers sent an open letter to X warning of the potential harms this can cause as it came just weeks ahead of a major referendum vote on whether to change the Australian constitution to establish an Indigenous advisory group with a direct line to government.

    “There now appears to be no channel to report electoral misinformation when discovered on your platform,” the letter from Reset Australia states. “It is extremely concerning that Australians would lose the ability to report serious misinformation weeks away from a major referendum.”

    The rollback also comes as political campaigning for the United States 2024 presidential election ramps up, and concerns about the spread of misinformation online remains a keystone issue ahead of the US vote.

    X did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment Wednesday morning. X users, notably, can still report content on the platform for violations in other categories — such as “Hate,” “Abuse & Harassment,” and “Violent Speech,” among other issues. Musk has also long touted the platforms “Community Notes” feature, which lets users add context they think is missing to posts.

    The user-reporting feature initially launched as a test for a small group of users in the US, South Korea and Australia, X (then called Twitter) announced in August 2021. The feature allowed users to report a post as “it’s misleading” when they encountered problematic political content. In January 2022, the company said it was expanding the misinformation reporting feature to more countries and users.

    Musk’s rocky takeover of Twitter, meanwhile, was officially completed in October 2022.

    With Musk at the helm, the platform has also made other changes, such as reinstating controversial accounts, including those belonging to former US President Donald Trump and rapper Kanye West. Musk has long opined concerns about perceived censorship on the platform and its need to focus on promoting what he views as “free speech.”

    In other recent changes to its approach to political content, X announced last month that it will again allow political ads on the platform — for the first time since 2019 — and said that it is hiring for its safety and election teams ahead of the 2024 US presidential vote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump rages as former acolytes turn against him under legal heat | CNN Politics

    Trump rages as former acolytes turn against him under legal heat | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump’s wealth, power and fame acted like a magnet for new associates keen to enter his orbit. But now, key figures who sought a share of his reflected glory are turning against him to save themselves.

    The ex-president absorbed a trio of blows Tuesday that worsened his legal peril and underscored how the 2024 election – in which he is the front-runner for the GOP nomination – will play out in the courts rather than traditional voting battlegrounds.

    In the most significant development, ABC News reported that Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, had met federal prosecutors multiple times and had categorically undermined the ex-president’s narrative about a stolen election. Meadows was the gatekeeper to the Oval Office in the critical days when Trump was allegedly plotting to steal the 2020 election after voters rejected his bid for a second term. CNN has reached out to Meadows’ attorney for comment.

    In another damaging twist, former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis, who blanketed television networks after President Joe Biden’s victory to falsely claim he was elected because of fraud, reached a plea deal with Georgia prosecutors. Ellis on Tuesday tearfully confessed to the felony of aiding and abetting false statements that she and other lawyers told Peach State lawmakers. She was the third former Trump acolyte to agree to testify against the ex-president and others this week. The election subversion prosecution brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is now following the classic playbook of a racketeering case wherein smaller fish are peeled away for reduced sentences to secure their testimony against the alleged kingpin.

    “If I knew then what I knew now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges. I look back on this experience with deep remorse,” Ellis said.

    Ellis was a comparatively junior figure in Trump’s schemes to overthrow the election, although there is reason to believe she was in critical meetings of interest to prosecutors. Her guilty plea also looks like terrible news for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also served as a Trump lawyer after the election and with whom Ellis worked closely.

    Her repudiation of her own behavior marks an ominous omen for Trump because it shows that while falsehoods about election fraud are still a potent political force in the GOP and conservative media, it’s the truth that matters in court. Under the legal system, the former president could face a level of accountability that the US political system, which is still buckling under his influence, can’t match.

    One of Trump’s former associates was feeling no remorse when he arrived in court in New York on Tuesday seeking to undermine another Trump legal defense. The former president’s longtime fixer, Michael Cohen, came face to face with his ex-boss for the first time in five years when he took the stand in a civil trial in which prosecutors are seeking to end Trump’s ability to do business in the state. Cohen has already gone to jail for tax fraud, making false statements to Congress and campaign finance violations – some of which were linked to his work for Trump before he launched his political career. Cohen once vowed to take a bullet for his former boss but has left no doubt that he’s been itching to testify against him for many months. While his own conviction raises credibility issues about his testimony, Cohen implicated Trump on Tuesday, saying his former boss directed him to inflate his net worth on financial statements.

    “Heck of a reunion,” Cohen told reporters after testifying under Trump’s gaze.

    Each of Tuesday’s legal dramas threatened to undermine Trump’s position in separate cases, to which he has pleaded not guilty, and emphasized how the Republican front-runner’s bid to recapture the White House will be shadowed by his criminal liability.

    And for someone who has the exaggerated sense of loyalty harbored by Trump – albeit one that mostly goes one way – the spectacle of three former associates turning against him will be especially irksome.

    While the crush of legal cases bearing down on him hasn’t diminished his dominance in the GOP presidential race, there are increasing signs that the courtroom pressure is beginning to grate on a former president who, in a lifetime of business, personal and political scrapes, has made an art form of dodging accountability.

    In a rage-filled stream of consciousness on his Truth Social network on Tuesday night, Trump lashed out at the ABC report about Meadows.

    “I don’t think Mark Meadows would lie about the Rigged and Stollen 2020 Presidential Election merely for getting IMMUNITY against Prosecution (PERSECUTION!),” the former president wrote.

    “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

    This came only a day after Trump absurdly compared himself to Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in prison – much of it in a tiny cell on Robben Island – enduring forced labor in a quarry for opposing the racist apartheid system in South Africa. After his release, the Nobel Peace Prize winner remade his divided nation as president and became a symbol of unity, humility, racial healing and forgiveness – qualities rarely shown by Trump.

    “I don’t mind being Nelson Mandela, because I’m doing it for a reason,” the ex-president told supporters in New Hampshire.

    Trump’s persecution complex is revealing, however. The former president is portraying himself as a bulwark against a government that he claims is weaponized against him and his supporters. The idea that he is a political martyr who is being unfairly targeted by the Biden administration – despite 91 charges across his four criminal indictments – may be his only credible campaign tactic. After all, he may be a convicted felon by Election Day in less than 13 months. While that prospect doesn’t seem to faze Republican primary voters, it may be a serious vulnerability among a broader electorate.

    Legal watchers in Washington have speculated for months about the activity of Meadows, a former North Carolina congressman who became the last chief of staff of Trump’s turbulent White House term.

    During his testimony before a federal grand jury, Meadows was also asked about efforts to overturn the election as well as Trump’s handling of classified documents, CNN previously reported.

    But if, as ABC News has reported, he has been granted immunity by special counsel Jack Smith and met federal prosecutors multiple times, that qualifies for the over-used term of “bombshell.”

    Haberman on why latest news on Mark Meadows feels ‘different’

    Meadows is also a key figure in the Fulton County, Georgia, probe, where he made a failed effort to have his case elevated to federal court after unsuccessfully arguing his actions at the behest of Trump’s election thwarting effort fell under his official duties.

    Meadows, who met Smith’s team at least three times this year, told investigators he did not believe the election was stolen and that Trump was being “dishonest” in claiming victory shortly after polls closed in 2020, according to ABC.

    The agreement is the first publicly known in the special counsel’s investigation into the events around January 6, 2021. The exact terms of Meadows’ deal with prosecutors are not clear, but often such agreements allow a person with valuable information about an investigation immunity from prosecution in exchange for fully cooperating.

    The reported details of Meadows’ testimony could be hugely damaging for Trump because a fundamental plank of the ex-president’s defense relies on the notion that he sincerely believed that the election was stolen and that his actions were not therefore criminal because they were an exercise of his right to free speech.

    It has long been the case that while those around Trump in business and politics often find themselves slipping deep into legal trouble, he skips free. The apparent decisions of Meadows, Ellis and Cohen – together with the mass of legal threats now facing the former president – suggest that charmed life is about to meet its biggest challenge yet.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tom Vilsack Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Tom Vilsack Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    Here’s a look at the life of US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

    Birth date: December 13, 1950

    Birth place: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    Full name: Thomas James Vilsack

    Father: Bud Vilsack

    Mother: Dolly Vilsack

    Marriage: Christie (Bell) Vilsack (1973-present)

    Children: Jess and Doug

    Education: Hamilton College, B.A., 1972; Albany Law School J.D., 1975

    Was mentioned as a possible running mate for John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election process.

    Adopted as an infant from an orphanage by Bud and Dolly Vilsack.

    Ran for mayor of Mount Pleasant, Iowa, after his predecessor was shot and killed at a city council meeting.

    1975-1998 – Practices law.

    1987-1992Mayor of Mount Pleasant, Iowa.

    1992 – Elected to the Iowa Senate.

    1994 – Wins reelection to the Iowa Senate.

    1998 – Becomes the first Democrat elected governor of Iowa in more than 30 years.

    January 15, 1999-January 12, 2007 – Governor of Iowa.

    2004 – Chair of the Democratic Governors’ Association.

    November 9, 2006 – Vilsack files a statement of candidacy to run for the White House in 2008, becoming the first prominent Democrat to do so.

    February 23, 2007Drops out of the 2008 presidential race.

    March 26, 2007Endorses Hillary Clinton and becomes co-chairman of her national campaign.

    April 2007Joins Minneapolis-based international law firm Dorsey and Whitney as a managing partner.

    December 17, 2008 – Is nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to be agriculture secretary.

    January 21, 2009 – Is sworn in as the 30th secretary of the Department of Agriculture after a unanimous US Senate confirmation.

    July 19, 2010 – Calls for the resignation of USDA official Shirley Sherrod after an excerpted video clip of Sherrod is posted online, in which Sherrod discusses an incident involving a White farmer. Vilsack contends that he made the decision without conferring with the White House.

    July 21, 2010 – Vilsack apologizes to Sherrod after video of the full speech shows that her remarks from the clip were taken out of context. Vilsack offers Sherrod another job with the Department of Agriculture, which she later declines.

    January 15, 2016 – President Obama names Vilsack his Cabinet-level point person to address the problem of heroin and other opiate use in rural communities.

    January 13, 2017 – Vilsack steps down as agriculture secretary one week early.

    February 1, 2017 – Becomes the president and CEO of the US Dairy Export Council (USDEC).

    April 10, 2017 – Colorado State University announces that Vilsack and his wife, Christie Vilsack, will join the university as advisers.

    February 10, 2020 – Vilsack comes forward to claim the $150,000 Powerball prize he won on January 22 in the Iowa Lottery.

    February 23, 2021 The US Senate confirms Vilsack for a second stint as agriculture secretary by a vote of 92-7. Vilsack is sworn in on February 24.

    April 9, 2022 – Vilsack, who is fully vaccinated and boosted, announces he has tested positive for Covid-19 and has “mild” symptoms.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chris Christie Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Chris Christie Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    Here’s a look at the life of former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

    Birth date: September 6, 1962

    Birth place: Newark, New Jersey

    Birth name: Christopher James Christie

    Father: Wilbur “Bill” Christie, an accountant

    Mother: Sondra (Grasso) Christie

    Marriage: Mary Pat (Foster) Christie (1986-present)

    Children: Bridget, Patrick, Sarah and Andrew

    Education: University of Delaware, B.A., 1984; Seton Hall University, J.D., 1987

    Religion: Roman Catholic

    While serving as the US attorney for New Jersey, Christie prosecuted more than 130 public officials for corruption.

    A fan of Bruce Springsteen, Christie claims to have attended more than 100 of the New Jersey rocker’s performances.

    1977 Volunteers for Republican Tom Kean’s gubernatorial campaign.

    1987-2002 – Attorney at the law firm of Dughi and Hewit, later named Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci PC.

    1992 Co-coordinates the New Jersey reelection efforts of US President George H.W. Bush.

    1993 Becomes a partner at Dughi and Hewit.

    1995-1997 Member of the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders.

    1997Director of the Freeholder Board.

    2002-2008US attorney for New Jersey. Earns a reputation for being tough on corruption.

    November 3, 2009 Defeats Democrat Jon Corzine, winning the election for governor.

    January 19, 2010-January 16, 2018 – Republican Governor of New Jersey.

    October 31, 2012 – Two days after Hurricane Sandy hits New Jersey, President Barack Obama visits the Garden State and tours devastated beach towns with Christie.

    February 4, 2013 During an appearance on the “Late Show with David Letterman,” Christie pulls a doughnut out of his pocket and begins eating it mid-interview. Christie’s weight has often been commented on in the media and mocked by comedians.

    May 7, 2013 – Christie reveals to the New York Post that he secretly underwent lap-band surgery for the sake of his wife and kids.

    November 5, 2013 – Wins reelection.

    November 21, 2013 – Becomes the 2014 chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

    January 8, 2014 – Emails emerge from Christie’s top aides bolstering suggestions that George Washington Bridge lane closures last year that tied up traffic stemmed from a political vendetta and not bureaucratic incompetence as his administration claimed. The scandal is dubbed Bridgegate.

    June 30, 2015 – Formally announces he is running for the Republican presidential nomination during a speech in Livingston, New Jersey. On February 10, 2016, announces that he is suspending his campaign.

    February 26, 2016 – Endorses Donald Trump for president of the United States.

    May 9, 2016 – Trump announces that Christie will lead his presidential transition team, serving as chairman of the group tasked with finding candidates for jobs in a potential Trump administration.

    August 10, 2016 – In a text message, a Christie aide declares the governor “flat out lied” during a 2013 Bridgegate press conference, according to court documents filed in the criminal case against two Christie staffers accused of plotting to create a traffic jam in Fort Lee.

    November 11, 2016 – After Trump wins the election, he shakes up his transition team, demoting Christie to a supporting role and selecting Vice President-elect Mike Pence to take Christie’s place as chair.

    December 6, 2016 – A Quinnipiac University Poll indicates that 19% of voters approve of Christie’s job performance as governor and 77% disapprove. That’s the lowest score for a governor in 20 years of Quinnipiac’s polls of 11 different states.

    January 27, 2017 – The Bergen County prosecutor’s office says it won’t pursue charges of official misconduct against Christie in the Bridgegate case.

    February 16, 2017 – A Bergen County municipal judge rules that a misconduct case against Christie, stemming from a citizen’s complaint related to Bridgegate, can proceed in court.

    March 29, 2017 – Trump announces that Christie has been tapped to chair a commission that will seek ways to address the opioid crisis. On the same day, Christie’s former staffers, Bill Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly are sentenced for their roles in the Bridgegate scandal. Baroni is sentenced to two years in prison while Kelly is initially sentenced to 18 months behind bars.

    July 1, 2017 – Due to a dispute over a Christie-backed bill that would allow the state to control how Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield spends its cash reserve funds, the legislature fails to break an impasse during budget talks. As a result, Christie orders a government shutdown, closing state parks, courts, motor vehicle commission offices and unemployment offices statewide. Christie says the Democrats in the legislature created the crisis.

    July 2, 2017 – As the government shutdown continues, Christie and his family vacation at one of the state parks that is closed during the holiday weekend. Island Beach State Park has a private governor’s residence, where Christie, his wife and other family members soak up sun on an empty beach. During the afternoon, the governor travels via state helicopter to Trenton to hold a news conference and denies that he has been enjoying the beach amid the crisis. Photos published by NJ Advance Media show that Christie was sitting on a beach chair earlier in the day.

    July 3-4, 2017 – The state legislature reaches a deal to reopen the government and Christie signs the budget into law. During a press conference, Christie says that the backlash over the beach photos was unwarranted. He says that he was transparent about his plans to visit the oceanfront residence during the weekend and questions the news value of the pictures.

    January 16, 2018 – Christie leaves office after two terms, and turns control of New Jersey’s state government over to Democrats for the first time in eight years.

    January 29, 2019 – Christie’s memoir “Let Me Finish: Trump, the Kushners, Bannon, New Jersey, and the Power of In-Your-Face Politics” is published.

    April 24, 2019 – Bridget Anne Kelly, Christie’s former chief of staff, is sentenced to 13 months in prison for her involvement in the “Bridgegate” scandal. She was previously sentenced to 18 months but appealed her conviction. Following her sentencing, Kelly makes a statement: “Mr. Christie, you are a bully and the days of you calling me a liar and destroying my life are over.”

    May 7, 2020 – The US Supreme Court throws out fraud convictions against Kelly and Baroni, who were involved in the “Bridgegate” political scandal. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan says the move “jeopardized the safety of the town’s residents,” but concludes that “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”

    October 3, 2020 – Christie tells CNN he checked himself into a hospital as a precautionary measure after announcing earlier in the day that he had tested positive for Covid-19. Christie was among a group of senior Trump campaign staffers who were tested following news of the President’s positive diagnosis.

    October 15, 2020 – In a statement, Christie says he spent seven days in an intensive care unit before recovering from Covid-19.

    October 21, 2020 – In a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “I Should Have Worn a Mask,” Christie writes that mask wearing is not a “partisan or cultural symbol,” and that he was “wrong” not to wear a mask at the Supreme Court nomination ceremony of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and during debate prep with Trump.

    December 16, 2020 In an ad paid for by the COVID Collaborative, Christie says that he regrets not wearing a mask while visiting the White House, a choice he acknowledges led to him contracting the coronavirus and spending a week in the ICU.

    November 16, 2021 – Christie’s book “Republican Rescue: Saving the Party From Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden” is published.

    June 6, 2023 – Announces that he’s running for the Republican presidential nomination at a New Hampshire town hall event. Christie suspends his campaign on January 10, 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump claims he can’t get a fair trial in DC as latest indictment dominates GOP primary | CNN Politics

    Trump claims he can’t get a fair trial in DC as latest indictment dominates GOP primary | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump, who is facing charges in Washington, DC for allegedly conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election, claimed on Sunday that he wouldn’t receive a fair trial in the nation’s capital as he continues to rail against his latest indictment.

    “No way I can get a fair trial, or even close to a fair trial, in Washington, D.C. There are many reasons for this, but just one is that I am calling for a federal takeover of this filthy and crime ridden embarrassment to our nation,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

    If he were to ask in court to move his federal criminal case out of Washington, DC, the former president would join three dozen January 6, 2021, riot defendants who have asked to move their cases out of DC.

    No judges – even those appointed by Trump – have ever agreed. And appeals courts and other judges have overwhelmingly kept high-profile cases in the districts where charges are filed.

    Several January 6 defendants have argued that there’s been too much pretrial publicity in DC for a fair trial and that the jury pool in the city would be too biased.

    But the Supreme Court has previously held that trials can still be fair even if they have received widespread publicity, and the DC District Court has used specific questioning of potential jurors and instructions to try to ensure fair trials for January 6 defendants.

    Just last week, prosecutors argued against a Capitol riot defendant’s change of venue request in the DC federal court, arguing that many politically known defendants, including Trump’s adviser Roger Stone, have been fairly tried in the downtown Washington courthouse.

    The court also refused to move the trial of the co-conspirators of Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal, at a time when the city was also voting heavily Democratic.

    “The fact that most District residents voted against Donald Trump does not mean those residents could not impartially consider the evidence against those charged in connection with the events on January 6,” Justice Department prosecutors wrote in a court filing at the end of July – an assertion that the judges of the DC District Court have widely agreed.

    Still, Trump attorney John Lauro on Sunday cast doubt on the idea that Trump could receive a fair trial in the nation’s capital. In an interview on CBS’ “Face The Nation,” Lauro suggested West Virginia as a more diverse alternative.

    “We would like a diverse venue. A diverse jury … that reflects the characteristics of the American people,” Lauro said. Speaking to CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday, Lauro also advocated for cameras in the courtroom in order to show the public “what kind of prosecution is going on.”

    When Lauro expressed similar concerns about a fair trial at Trump’s arraignment last week, the magistrate judge responded: “I can guarantee everybody that there will be a fair process and fair trial in this court. So let me just respond to that comment, Mr. Lauro, I’m certain of that.”

    The DC appeals court has found that voting patterns shouldn’t play into where a trial is held and that national news coverage can work against the need to move a trial.

    “Scandal at the highest levels of the federal government is simply not a local crime of peculiar interest to the residents of the District of Columbia,” the DC Circuit Court of Appeals found about the Watergate conspirators’ trial in 1976.

    DC jurors on major January 6 cases, including an Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy case, sometimes spend days deliberating and have delivered nuanced verdicts, including some acquittals.

    Trump’s latest indictment comes against the backdrop of the 2024 GOP primary contest. Republican candidates have largely sought to walk a fine line between knocking the former president’s growing legal troubles and not alienating his base of supporters.

    GOP presidential hopeful Chris Christie on Sunday touted his experience as a prosecutor in the heavily Democratic state of New Jersey on Sunday as he told Bash he always got convictions on political corruption cases.

    “So my view is, yeah, I believe jurors can be fair. I believe in the American people. And I believe in the fact that jurors will listen fairly and impartially,” Christie said.

    Former Vice President Mike Pence, who recently made his sharpest condemnation of Trump, told CBS on Sunday he “would hope” Trump can receive a fair trial in Washington.

    Notably, according to the law in DC determined during the Watergate conspirators’ case and other appeals court decisions, defendants can ask for a change of venue, but if they are denied, they can’t appeal it until after the trial takes place.

    That’s one reason why the January 6 defendants’ trials have gone forward without delay even though so many attempted to move their cases out of Washington, DC.

    Other high-profile cases where defendants have tried and failed to move their cases then also failed to overturn their convictions later with appeals include the Enron-related trial of Jeffrey Skilling in Houston and Boston Marathon bomber Dzokhar Tsarnaev, who was tried in Boston.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Asa Hutchinson says he has qualified for the Republican debate | CNN Politics

    Asa Hutchinson says he has qualified for the Republican debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Sunday he has qualified for the first GOP primary debate, which will take place Wednesday in Milwaukee. Hutchinson joins a crowd of White House hopefuls looking for a breakout moment onstage.

    “I’m pleased to announce that we have met all the criteria that the RNC set to be on the debate stage. We’ve met the polling criteria and now we’ve met the 40,000 individual donor criteria,” Hutchinson told CNN’s Kasie Hunt on “State of the Union.”

    Hutchinson said he had submitted 42,000 individual donors to the Republican National Committee.

    To qualify for the debate, candidates must have at least 40,000 unique donors, with at least 200 unique donors per state, and must reach at least 1% in three national polls meeting the RNC’s requirements or at least 1% in two national polls and two polls from separate early voting states.

    They are also expected to sign a loyalty pledge expressing their commitment to unite and back the eventual Republican nominee, regardless of who that is.

    Hutchinson, a vocal critic of GOP front-runner and former President Donald Trump, has pushed back against the pledge, saying he did not think it should be a requirement to participate in the debates. But he told Hunt on Sunday that he will sign it, saying that he’s “confident that Donald Trump’s not going to be the nominee.”

    Hutchinson also said he expects the debate to be “even more important without Donald Trump on the stage because this is the first time voters are going to be able to contrast the candidates and their positions.”

    The former Arkansas governor had previously met the polling threshold but lagged in meeting the donor requirement. His campaign announced Friday it was raffling off movie tickets to attract sufficient contributors.

    Hutchinson has been among the most vocal critics of the RNC’s debate qualification rules and said last month that some of the inventive gambits by his fellow candidates to attract the requisite donors “illustrate how silly this whole concept is.”

    Sunday’s announcement, which comes just days ahead of the first GOP debate, will put Hutchinson onstage with the six other candidates who have qualified.

    Former Vice President Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and South Carolina Gov. Tim Scott have all qualified so far. Trump, who leads the GOP race, is expected to skip the debate and sit for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

    In an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta on Saturday, Hutchinson called Trump’s decision to skip the debate a “mistake.”

    “It looks to me like he’s just saying, ‘I’m more important than the debate. I’m more important than the party. I’m more important than presenting and defending my position for the American people.’ I think it’s a mistake on his part,” Hutchinson said.

    Also on Sunday, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo that she’s “still holding out hope that President Trump will come. I think it’s so important that the American people hear from all the candidates.”

    She added that more candidates could qualify for a spot on the stage Wednesday.

    “We’re at seven right now that have officially qualified … and then we’ve got some that are on the cusp, so we’re going to be looking at polls the next few days. There are three or four that are waiting for 1% in one more national poll to make that debate stage,” McDaniel said.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As young conservatives try to get climate on the agenda in 2024, denial takes the spotlight instead | CNN Politics

    As young conservatives try to get climate on the agenda in 2024, denial takes the spotlight instead | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    During this week’s Republican primary debate on Fox News, a young voter notably asked about the climate crisis: How would these presidential candidates assuage concerns that the Republican Party “doesn’t care” about the issue?

    The question was all but unavoidable after weeks of extreme, deadly weather. Global temperature records have been shattered, extreme heat has soared off-the-charts in the US and the Maui wildfire death toll continues to climb.

    What followed the question was one of the night’s most chaotic exchanges, demonstrating the challenge some conservatives face in getting climate policy on the 2024 GOP agenda, even as extreme weather takes its toll on millions of people across the country.

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the leader of a state that has been thrashed by deadly extreme weather in recent years, refused the moderators’ show-of-hands question on whether climate change is caused by humans. He used the moment to deride the media and President Joe Biden’s response in Maui.

    Then 38-year-old Vivek Ramaswamy – notably the youngest candidate on stage – called the “climate change agenda” a “hoax,” an answer that elicited intense boos from the audience.

    A majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents – 55% – say human activity is causing changes to the world’s climate, according to a recent Washington Post/University of Maryland poll. It also found a majority of Americans and Republicans say their area has been impacted by extreme heat in the past five years.

    But connecting the dots between climate and extreme weather is proving a more partisan issue. The poll found there are deep divides between Republicans and Democrats on the question of whether human-caused climate change is contributing to extreme weather: just 35% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they think climate change is a major factor in extremely hot days, compared with 85% of those who lean Democrat.

    After the debate, a prominent conservative climate group said Ramaswamy tried to clarify his position.

    “He came to our after-party and he blatantly told us that he believes climate change is real,” Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, told CNN. “So, he changed his position again.”

    Asked by CNN on Friday whether he believes climate change is real, Ramaswamy responded, “Climate change has existed as long as the Earth has existed. Manmade climate change has existed as long as man has existed on the earth.” In an email, Ramaswamy’s campaign spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CNN the candidate does believe climate change is real, but policies to address it “have little to do with climate change and more to do with penalizing the West as a way to achieve global ‘equity.’”

    Yet for Republicans working to make climate policy more mainstream in the GOP, Ramaswamy’s language at the debate echoed a climate crisis-denying candidate who wasn’t onstage, former President Donald Trump. Trump has called climate change itself a “hoax” and falsely claimed wind turbines cause cancer.

    “The fact that he chose the word hoax, to me, he’s emulating what President Trump had said before,” Heather Reams, president of conservative nonprofit Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, told CNN. Reams, who was sitting in the audience in Milwaukee, noted that Ramaswamy calling the “climate change agenda” a hoax didn’t go over well in a room full of Republicans.

    “The whole place booed him, so it wasn’t well received,” Reams said. “Hearing booing was actually heartening to hear that the party is really moving on, they’re seeing the economic opportunities that can be had for the United States being a leader in lowering emissions.”

    Ramaswamy’s response was an attempt to go after the older GOP voting base in the primary, Backer said. It’s the kind of audience that Fox News has historically played to when it hosts climate deniers on some of its shows or casts doubt on the connection between extreme weather and the climate crisis – but Backer said the fact the network even asked this question “just shows that the pendulum is shifting.”

    Backer warned Ramasway’s response to the question risks alienating younger conservative voters who are increasingly concerned about climate impacts.

    “I’ve in two presidential elections and I’ve never voted for a Republican president in my life, because I don’t vote for climate deniers,” Backer said, adding that climate denial “is the way of the past.”

    Several Republican presidential candidates have said they believe climate change is real and caused by human activity – a shift from previous elections.

    Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley acknowledged its reality but said foreign nations, including India and China, bear larger responsibility for addressing it. Haley, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum have all engaged frequently with conservative groups, Reams and Backer said.

    “I think that Nikki Haley provided a very clear, very positive response,” Danielle Butcher Franz, CEO of the American Conservation Coalition, told CNN. “We need to see more responses like that in the Republican Party. I think it’s important that we show the conservative environmental movement is here to stay.”

    Backer warned that Ramaswamy and other candidates risk losing young voters if they continue to engage in climate denial – or anything that sounds remotely like it.

    “There’s a lot of Republicans leading on this, but the narrative is that we don’t care,” Backer said. “And if we nominate another person who doesn’t care, young people are not going to forget that. There’s not going to be a lot of baby boomers in 20 years, so you better start thinking about the next generation.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Biden and Trump need each other in order to win in 2024 | CNN Politics

    Why Biden and Trump need each other in order to win in 2024 | 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
     — 

    Here is an often-repeated claim you’ll hear from reporters and analysts: Former President Donald Trump’s control over the Republican primary field solidified not in spite of, but because of, his four criminal indictments.

    It is a catch-22; the effort to seek accountability for his effort to stay in power despite his 2020 election loss has actually made him more politically powerful in the GOP heading into 2024.

    I went to CNN’s senior data reporter, Harry Enten, for his assessment of whether polling data bears out the claim. Did indicting Trump put him on a glide path to the Republican nomination?

    Enten’s thoughts on that point are below. But my main takeaway from our conversation actually has to do with his compelling argument that in a potential general election rematch, both President Joe Biden and Trump could be so unpopular that they need each other in order to have a chance at winning.

    It’s a symbiotic, needs-based relationship to make most Americans groan on their way to the voting booth. Can’t wait for 2024!

    Our full conversation, conducted by email, is below.

    WOLF: I have heard reporters suggest that Trump’s hold on the Republican nomination was strengthened by his four indictments. Is there data to support that?

    ENTEN: There’s actually been a lot of debate about this in polling, polling analysis and political science circles. What we know is Trump is ahead by more now than he was at the beginning of the year. The question is when exactly did that jump in the polls occur?

    Some polls (such as Fox News) seem to indicate it happened largely before any of the indictments occurred. Others (such as Quinnipiac University) seem to show a large jump post-indictment.

    On the whole, the average of polling indicates Trump did see a small bump (somewhere roughly between 5 and 10 points) in his primary polling after the first indictment in New York.

    To be clear, Trump would likely still be well ahead without any indictment bump. It’s just that he’d be in the mid- to high-40s instead of the low- to mid-50s.

    WOLF: Trump has been indicted four separate times:

    Is there anything to suggest that one or another of these indictments had a larger or smaller effect on his standing?

    ENTEN: You’ll notice in my previous answer I specifically mentioned New York. I haven’t seen any demonstrable evidence that any other indictment except the first one (maybe) gave Trump a boost. It doesn’t appear that any of the other indictments hurt his standing though.

    I will further point out that I’m talking about polling here. There’s been any number of articles written about Trump pulling in more fundraising after the different indictments. That doesn’t seem to have stopped, regardless of the charges.

    WOLF: Trump’s DC trial will get underway on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday. Is there any way for the outcome of these trials to affect the Republican primary?

    ENTEN: Funny enough, I was talking about this the other day with someone. I think the question is almost impossible to answer because this is (pardon me for saying) unprecedented. What we know from the data is that Republicans think the charges are politically motivated and haven’t moved Trump’s polling lead.

    Keep in mind Trump is not reliant on traditional campaigning in the way you might remember some candidates of past years doing retail campaigning. He’s going to dominate the media landscape and going to leave little media oxygen for the other GOP candidates.

    The only thing I can think of really shifting things would be a possible conviction, but I doubt any of the cases will move fast enough for that to happen.

    WOLF: Has a person with a Trump-level polling lead one year before Election Day ever blown it and not won the party’s nomination?

    ENTEN: The answer here is no, as measured by the margin between the leading candidate (Trump) and the candidate in second (Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis). Trump’s up by 40 points or so, which is one of the largest leads ever at this point.

    If you look at Trump’s share of the vote (in the 50s), then you could make the case that Ted Kennedy (who was in the 50s) blew his advantage over incumbent Jimmy Carter at this point.

    The Kennedy-Carter comparison to this year is an interesting one in so far as it involved an incumbent, and Trump, it could be argued, is a quasi-incumbent. Of course, in that case, it was the incumbent who made the comeback.

    WOLF: My impression is that Republican voters have largely come around to agree with Trump, despite the facts, that he won the 2020 election. Is that the kind of perception these trials could change? In other words, is a conviction the kind of thing that could break what seems like an intractable partisan divide?

    ENTEN: Again, we’re in unprecedented times, so I’ll never say never.

    I’ll give you this one, though. A CNN/SSRS poll from earlier this year asked whether Trump should drop out of the race if convicted of a federal crime. The vast majority of his own supporters (88%) said no he shouldn’t. Even most Republicans (58%) said he shouldn’t.

    Any changes to the percentage of Republicans who think he didn’t win in 2020 (even if that is a false belief) would likely be minimal, despite any conviction.

    WOLF: I’ve seen you argue that Trump would be very competitive in a general election matchup with Biden. But I wonder how the indictments have affected the outlook of independent voters?

    ENTEN: Independent voters like neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump. They’ll be, at this point, making the choice between the lesser of two evils. The indictments didn’t help Trump amongst this group, but did they hurt?

    If you look at polls conducted by Quinnipiac, Marist and Fox in August, Trump was ahead of Biden by 1 point on average (well within the margin of error).

    If you look at the average of polls conducted by Quinnipiac (the only one of these pollsters in the field) before the first indictment, Trump was ahead of Biden by 1 point on average.

    So I don’t see any real impact (for now) on the metric that I feel is most important in answering your question.

    WOLF: Finally, regarding Joe Biden … there are stories all over the place about how voters think he’s too old, they aren’t excited about him, etc. What does the historical polling data suggest about a president in his position? What tea leaves are you reading about him?

    ENTEN: General election polling at this point has not been predictive. Otherwise, Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan would have been neck and neck in the 1984 election, which Reagan won in a blowout.

    The reason Reagan ran away with the election is because he is one of a number of presidents who saw boosts in their approval ratings from now until the election (Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Reagan, etc.).

    But a president with an approval rating where Biden’s is right now on Election Day is not a president in a strong position. In fact, every president with his approval rating or worse has lost.

    But I’m honestly not sure any of those historical analogies matter because Trump is so unpopular. This is ultimately the great statistical puzzle of the 2024 election. Biden likely can only win going up against a candidate as unpopular as Trump. Trump likely can only win going up against a candidate as unpopular as Biden.

    So who wins that matchup? If you know the answer to that one, you should also tell me who wins this year’s Super Bowl.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harris allies and key Democrats rally around vice president amid party handwringing | CNN Politics

    Harris allies and key Democrats rally around vice president amid party handwringing | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Allies of Vice President Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats are sending a clear message to their fellow party members who speculate that she should be replaced as President Joe Biden’s running mate in 2024: It’s time to stop it.

    “It’s not only a distraction, it’s offensive,” Maryland Gov. Wes Moore told CNN in an interview.

    The vice president has faced renewed calls from some pundits and columnists to be dropped from the ticket amid heightened concerns about the president’s age and doubts over her ability to lead if Biden were no longer able.

    It’s at least the second major go-around of questioning whether Harris’ rightful place is by Biden’s side for the 2024 contentious race, leaving her office tired of the fraught conversation, according to a person familiar with the dynamic.

    “Everybody’s sort of over it,” the person said.

    The feeling is shared across most of the Democratic spectrum, who hope the party turns their sights on former President Donald Trump or whomever the Republican presidential nominee will be, instead of handwringing about themselves.

    A source close to the Biden campaign told CNN: “People need to get on board and recognize every time they undermine the vice president, they undermine the campaign. We cannot afford to lose to these Republicans. So, get on board.”

    There have both been private and public efforts to deliver this message.

    Privately, according to a person familiar with campaign operations, the Biden campaign contacted both former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, after neither directly answer repeated questions from CNN about whether Harris was the best running mate for Biden on the 2024 ticket. The campaign asked Pelosi and Raskin to clarify their comments and both lawmakers later cleaned up their remarks to offer direct messages of support.

    Raskin told CNN in a follow-up statement Friday that “Vice President Harris has excelled in perhaps the most ambiguous and challenging job in our constitutional system and she is unquestionably the best running mate for President Biden in 2024.”

    Pelosi’s office offered no additional statement but pointed CNN to the praise Pelosi heaped on Harris in her interview, saying she’s “very politically astute, I don’t think people give her enough credit.”

    Discussions on how best to shepherd the party along are also happening among groups like the Congressional Black Caucus, who are actively talking about how to combat the replacement chatter and other attacks against the vice president, according to a source familiar with the effort.

    “Some of us need to say that they are acting in many ways like agents for the MAGA crowd,” Rev. Al Sharpton told CNN. He plans to call on Democrats to stop during CBC weekend in Washington, DC. “I can only think that they are either politically stupid or working for the opposition.”

    And according to conversations with more than a dozen Democratic strategists, elected officials and people close to the vice president, many will join Sharpton in urging Democrats to stop their groaning over the Biden-Harris ticket and end the chatter of potentially replacing the vice president.

    Publicly, key Democrats have come out to support Harris, casting the lingering doubt as harmful to Biden and his 2024 chances.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom said “of course” Harris should be the Democratic 2024 vice presidential nominee. Newsom and Harris are old friends – and sometimes frenemies.

    “I mean, by definition, if I think this administration last two, two-and-a-half years, has been one of the most outstanding administrations the last few decades. And she’s a member of that administration, she gets to lay and claim credit to a lot of that success. The answer is absolutely,” he said in an interview to CNN earlier this week.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and a former rival who was once iced out by the vice president for her lukewarm support, said Thursday she was proud to support Harris’ campaign with Biden.

    “Vice President Harris is a passionate, clear, unyielding advocate for Americans’ freedoms, leading the administration’s efforts to protect reproductive freedom and strengthen voting rights,” Warren said in a statement. “I am proud to support her campaign with President Biden and I’m confident that the Administration’s record of delivering for American families will lead them to victory in 2024.”

    Many who CNN spoke to believe the origins of the doubt come from a place of misogyny, racism or jealousy from other Democrats who wish they were in the vice president’s spot. Harris is the first woman and first Black and South Asian person in her role.

    “There’s a lot of people in Washington who would love that job,” said Jim Messina, a Democratic operative who ran Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. “I think that a lot of the criticism at the at the vice president is borderline misogynistic and there’s a lot of people who judge her harder than they would judge a male politician (in) that role.”

    Moore, the only Black governor in the US, said, “The attacks on her, they hit different – they hit our ears differently. And I think people should remember that.”

    But others cite Harris’ low poll numbers and history of gaffes as reasons to take a second look at her position. Three prominent political columnists collectively suggested politicians like Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia as possibilities to replace Harris.

    Contacted by CNN, each Democrat rejected the notion.

    “I absolutely do not think Vice President Harris should be dropped,” Raimondo told CNN directly. “I fully support Vice President Harris on the ticket. I think she is doing an incredible job as vice president and is a strong leader for our country.”

    “Gov. Whitmer supports President Biden and Vice President Harris,” a spokesperson for the Michigan governor responded.

    “‘I’ve seen the vice president up close and in action in my state, and you couldn’t contain the excitement in the room. I’m hard-pressed to imagine a better partner for President Biden,” Warnock told CNN.

    “Kamala Harris is a tremendous leader. I was proud to introduce the Momnibus with her and am pleased we can continue to work together to end disparities in maternal health. I am on team Biden-Harris and enthusiastically support their re-election in 2024,” Underwood said in a statement.

    “Any assertion that there is anyone better qualified to run on the Democratic ticket other than President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris is absolutely ludicrous. I am excited to do my part to ensure that they are both re-elected so that we can continue delivering for the people of this country,” Bass said in a statement.

    It’s unclear whether the latest round of coalescing behind the vice president will be enough to stop all the handwringing.

    Harris and the Biden administration have spent the last several months trying to build up her public profile, bolstering her public schedule to include stops focused on the hot 2024 issue of abortion as well as being the first-in-line responder to GOP attacks on freedom. On Thursday, the White House announced she would serve as the head a newly launched, first-of-its kind White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the latest step in the Biden administration’s efforts to enact meaningful gun control against the backdrop of a deadlocked Congress.

    Harris has also beefed up her fundraising efforts, a key signal of her expanded role in the campaign.

    Biden aides see their path to victory next year embedded firmly in their ability to secure Black voters, women, young people and other groups that tend to respond warmly to Harris.

    But this most recent round of speculation comes as Republicans have frequently made Harris a central figure in their campaign trail attacks, with some – such as former US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley – insinuating that this upcoming election is really about the vice president due to Biden’s age.

    Asked earlier this month about her reaction to constant critiques, Harris said in an interview that it was “not new.”

    “They feel the need to attack because they’re scared that we will win based on the merit of the work that Joe Biden and I, and our administration, has done,” she added.

    More recently, during a conversation at a Pennsylvania community college on voting rights, Harris did not directly reference the rumbles over her place on the ticket. But in a thinly veiled moment, Harris called those who once doubted her and then-candidate Biden’s 2020 bid, “haters.”

    “So, when people turned out in 2020 – even though they were the doubters. I would say, some of the haters. Let’s keep it real,” Harris said, with some laughter.

    There was “record turnout, and it’s because you voted that Joe Biden’s president of the United States and I’m vice president of the United States,” she added to a crowd of younger voters.

    It was reflective of what appears to be her office’s larger “say nothing” stance, at least publicly.

    “They’ve been in the mode of, they’re ignoring it,” one source familiar with Harris’ office told CNN.

    And those close to Harris say, though she’s generally “very aware of what people are saying,” it’s unlikely she’ll proactively address the calls for her to leave the ticket. Instead, she’ll work through it.

    “I think she keeps her head down and keep working,” Sharpton told CNN.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who is Laphonza Butler, California’s next senator? | CNN Politics

    Who is Laphonza Butler, California’s next senator? | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Laphonza Butler, the woman selected by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to succeed the late Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, is a longtime union leader and abortion rights advocate, who also will be the first out Black lesbian to enter Congress.

    The appointment fulfills Newsom’s pledge to appoint a Black woman who had not announced plans to run for the seat, and in Butler, he picked someone with deep ties to several critical Democratic constituencies in the Golden State.

    Butler will also be the sole Black woman serving in the Senate and only the third in US history. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday the incoming senator would be sworn in this week.

    “I am humbled by the Governor’s trust,” Butler said in a statement Monday. “Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s leadership and legacy are immeasurable. I will do my best to honor her by devoting my time and energy to serving the people of California and the people of this great nation.”

    Butler previously made history in 2021 by becoming the first woman of color to lead EMILY’s List, an organization dedicated to electing Democratic women who support abortion rights.

    In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, Butler worked at SCRB Strategies – a California-based political strategy firm now known as Bearstar Strategies – where she served as a senior adviser on then-Sen. Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, according to EMILY’s List. She also served as an adviser on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, according to Butler’s LinkedIn page.

    Butler previously held multiple roles at the Service Employees International Union, most recently serving as president of SEIU Local 2015 for nearly a decade. SEIU Local 2015 represents California’s long-term care workers and is the largest labor union in the state, the governor’s office said. Prior to joining EMILY’s List, Butler was a director at Airbnb.

    Butler, who has a long history working in California politics, moved to Maryland in 2021 around the time she was chosen to lead EMILY’s List, public records show. She was registered to vote in Maryland in 2022, according to public records.

    Responding to questions about Butler’s residency, Newsom’s office said Monday she had re-registered to vote in California ahead of her Senate appointment.

    EMILY’s List board chair Rebecca Haile called Butler “a groundbreaking leader who has done terrific work” over her two years leading the group.

    “EMILYs List was created to get more Democratic pro-choice women in government and I am thrilled to see my friend put that into action by taking on this role,” Haile said in a statement.

    Butler, a Mississippi native, attended Jackson State University, according to EMILY’s List. She has served as a member of the University of California Board of Regents and as a board member of the National Children’s Defense Fund. She and her wife, Neneki, have a daughter, Nylah, Newsom’s office said.

    Newsom was under intense pressure within California to choose a Black woman to succeed Harris when she was elected to the vice presidency. He instead appointed Alex Padilla, then California’s secretary of state, who became the first Latino senator from the state.

    This year, many – including members of the Congressional Black Caucus – had urged Newsom to appoint Rep. Barbara Lee in case Feinstein’s seat became vacant. Lee filed to run for the seat after Feinstein announced earlier this year that she would not seek reelection in 2024, but Newsom said last month he would not appoint any of the candidates currently seeking the office. His office said Monday there were no conditions placed on Butler’s appointment and any decision to seek a full term next year would be her own.

    Newsom has described Butler as “an advocate for women and girls, a second-generation fighter for working people, and a trusted adviser to Vice President Harris,” who will “carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein.”

    “As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for – reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence – have never been under greater assault,” Newsom said in his announcement. “Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jim Jordan, the face of key GOP investigations, seeks the speaker’s gavel — again | CNN Politics

    Jim Jordan, the face of key GOP investigations, seeks the speaker’s gavel — again | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a key figure in House GOP-led investigations, is again seeking the speaker’s gavel as Republicans face a deepening leadership crisis and the chamber remains paralyzed without a speaker.

    Jordan has made a name for himself as a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump and was endorsed by Trump in his bid for the speakership. The Ohio Republican serves as chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee.

    Jordan has a longstanding reputation as a conservative agitator and helped found the hardline House Freedom Caucus. He has served in Congress since 2007.

    Jordan initially ran against House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and was defeated in a closed-door vote by the conference. Scalise went on to become the GOP speaker nominee – but dropped out of the race abruptly Thursday evening after facing a bloc of hardened opposition.

    The House GOP conference selected Jordan on Friday as its latest speaker-designee in a 124-81 vote over GOP Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia – who made a surprise last-minute bid. Jordan gained only 25 supporters compared to Wednesday’s vote when Scalise defeated Jordan, 113-99.

    Jordan then called a second vote asking members if they would support him on the floor, in an effort to see if that could shrink his opposition. That vote, which was cast by secret ballot, was 152-55 – laying out the long road ahead for Jordan’s speakership bid to succeed.

    In addition to chairing the Judiciary Committee, Jordan is also the chair of the select subcommittee on the “weaponization” of the federal government. When McCarthy announced a House GOP impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, he said House Oversight Chairman James Comer would lead the effort in coordination with Jordan as Judiciary chair and Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith.

    While Republicans say their investigative work is critical to informing the American public and ensuring accountability, Democrats frequently criticize Jordan as a hyper-partisan Trump defender and have accused him of using his perch to shield the former president in the run up to the 2024 presidential election.

    Rep. Jim Jordan, an ally of President Donald Trump who was recently appointed to the House Intelligence Committee, takes his seat on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, in November 2019, during the first public impeachment hearings of President Trump's efforts to tie US aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents.

    As Jordan oversees key House GOP investigations, Democrats also point to the fact that he stonewalled in response to a subpoena for his testimony from the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    Jordan as well as Scalise both supported objections to electoral college results when Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s presidential win on January 6, 2021, the same day a pro-Trump mob attacked the Capitol seeking to overturn the election.

    Jordan has downplayed concerns that he may be too conservative for some of the more moderate members of the GOP.

    “I think we are a conservative-center-right party. I think I’m the guy who can help unite that. My politics are entirely consistent with where conservatives and Republicans are across the country,” Jordan told CNN’s Manu Raju.

    CNN reported in 2020 that six former Ohio State University wrestlers said they were present when Jordan heard or responded to sexual misconduct complaints about team doctor Richard Strauss.

    Jordan has emphatically denied that he knew anything about Strauss’ abuse during his own years working at OSU, between 1987 and 1995. “Congressman Jordan never saw any abuse, never heard about any abuse, and never had any abuse reported to him during his time as a coach at Ohio State,” his congressional office said in 2018.

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • John Kerry Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    John Kerry Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of former Secretary of State John Kerry.

    Birth date: December 11, 1943

    Birth place: Aurora, Colorado

    Birth name: John Forbes Kerry

    Father: Richard Kerry, a Foreign Service officer

    Mother: Rosemary (Forbes) Kerry

    Marriages: Teresa Heinz (1995-present); Julia Thorne (1970-1988, divorced)

    Children: with Julia Thorne: Vanessa, 1976 and Alexandra, 1973

    Education: Yale University, B.A., 1966; Boston College, J.D., 1976

    Military Service: US Navy, 1966-1970, Lieutenant

    Religion: Roman Catholic

    Grew up overseas, having lived in Berlin before going to a Swiss boarding school at age 11.

    After his return from Vietnam, he became a leader of the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

    Kerry holds the record for the most miles of travel by a US secretary of state, having traveled more than 1.4 million miles when he left office in January 2017.

    Appeared in a cameo role on NBC’s “Cheers.” His last name is spelled incorrectly on the 1992 episode’s end credits, as “John Kerrey.”

    1966-1969 – Serves in the Navy in Vietnam as a gunboat officer on the Mekong Delta. Kerry is awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts.

    1971 – Speaks to members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and makes headlines at a Washington, DC protest by disposing of his medals on the Capitol lawn. Later admits the medals belonged to someone else.

    1972 – Runs unsuccessfully for Congress, Massachusetts’ 5th District.

    1976 Is admitted to the Massachusetts State Bar.

    1976-1979 – District attorney of Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

    1979-1982Partner in the law firm Kerry & Sragow in Boston.

    1982-1984 – Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts under Michael Dukakis.

    1984 – Is elected as a Democrat to the US Senate for Massachusetts.

    1990 – Wins a second term in the US Senate.

    1996 – Reelected to the Senate.

    November 5, 2002 – Is reelected to a fourth Senate term. He runs unopposed and is the first Massachusetts senator in 80 years with no major party opposition.

    February 12, 2003 – Has surgery to remove a cancerous tumor on his prostate gland. Kerry’s doctors announce the cancer had not spread and he will not have to have radiation treatments. He is released February 15.

    September 2, 2003 – Formally announces his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president. In Kerry’s announcement speech, he says President George W. Bush is taking America “in the wrong direction.”

    March 11, 2004 – CNN reports Kerry has received the exact number of Democratic delegates to assure his nomination as the candidate for president.

    July 6, 2004 – Kerry names Senator John Edwards (D-NC) as his vice presidential running mate.

    November 2, 2004 – Bush is reelected with 62,040,606 votes to Kerry’s 59,028,109. Kerry receives 252 Electoral College votes, and Bush gets 292.

    November 3, 2004 – Calls Bush to concede the White House race.

    November 1, 2006 – Apologizes after saying college students need to study hard or else they will “get stuck in Iraq.”

    January 24, 2007 – Announces he will not be running for president in the 2008 election and will run for a fifth Senate term instead.

    January 10, 2008 – Endorses Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential race, not former running mate Edwards.

    November 4, 2008 – Wins a fifth term in the US Senate.

    2009-2013Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    June 4, 2009 – The IRS files a $820,000 lien against Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign over payroll taxes.

    August 2009Has hip surgery to address chronic pain.

    August 2011 – Kerry is selected as one of 12 members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, created to work out $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction after an initial round of more than $900 billion in spending cuts.

    December 21, 2012 – Is nominated to be secretary of state by President Obama.

    January 29, 2013 – Kerry is confirmed as the next secretary of state by the US Senate; the vote is 94-3.

    February 1, 2013 – Is sworn in as the 68th secretary of state.

    May 31, 2015 – Breaks his femur while riding his bike in Scionzier, France. Kerry is flown to a nearby hospital in Geneva, Switzerland, for examination.

    June 2, 2015 – After returning to the United States early for treatment of his leg injury, Kerry participates via phone in talks with European and Middle Eastern allies about ISIS. During the summit, Kerry declares the terrorist network is “no more a state than I am a helicopter.”

    June 12, 2015 – Kerry is discharged from the hospital after undergoing surgery. Leaning on crutches, he greets the media and ensures reporters that nuclear talks with Iran will proceed as scheduled.

    July 14, 2015 – The nuclear deal with Iran is finalized after numerous deadline extensions. Discussing the deal in Vienna, where the peace talks took place, Kerry says the agreement was long in the works because the United States and its allies made tough demands. “Believe me, had we been willing to settle for a lesser deal, we would have finished this negotiation a long time ago,” Kerry tells the media at a news conference.

    July 18, 2015 – During an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Kerry declares that he has no interest in launching a 2016 presidential campaign. “Zero. Absolutely none whatsoever,” Kerry says.

    August 14, 2015 – Kerry visits Havana, Cuba, to raise the flag above the US embassy as it reopens for the first time in 54 years.

    April 11, 2016 – Kerry becomes the first sitting US secretary of state to visit the Hiroshima memorial in Japan. Hiroshima was devastated when the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city in August 1945.

    December 10, 2016 – French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault presents Kerry with the insignia of Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor at a ceremony in Paris.

    January 20, 2017 – Leaves office.

    March 1, 2017 – The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace announces that Kerry will be joining them as a visiting distinguished statesman.

    August 2017 – Serves as co-leader of the Carter Center’s mission of observers in Kenyan elections.

    October 4, 2017 – Is named chairman of the Bank of America Global Advisory Council.

    September 4, 2018 – His memoir, “Every Day Is Extra,” is published.

    December 1, 2019 – Launches World War Zero, a bipartisan initiative of world leaders and celebrities to combat the climate crisis.

    December 5, 2019 – Kerry endorses Joe Biden for president in the 2020 race, saying the former vice president has the character and leadership skills to beat President Donald Trump.

    November 23, 2020 – President-elect Biden appoints Kerry as his special presidential envoy for climate. Kerry will be a Cabinet-level official and will sit on the National Security Council (NSC), marking “the first time that the NSC will include an official dedicated to climate change,” according the Biden transition team.

    November 9, 2022 – Kerry announces a new, controversial plan to raise cash for climate action in the developing world. The plan has already attracted criticism due to the way it will be financed, with money raised in sales of carbon credits, which allow companies to pay for someone else to cut their planet-warming emissions, instead of cutting their own.

    November 18, 2022 – The State Department says Kerry has tested positive for Covid-19 at the United Nations’ COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, but is “working with his negotiations team and foreign counterparts by phone to ensure a successful outcome of COP27.”

    July 2023 – Kerry travels to Beijing for climate talks with his Chinese counterparts. In the meeting with China’s Premier Li Qiang, Kerry stresses the “need for China to decarbonize the power sector, cut methane emissions, and reduce deforestation,” a spokesperson for the US State Department says in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Iowa governor says voters won’t give Trump a pass for skipping state fair events | CNN Politics

    Iowa governor says voters won’t give Trump a pass for skipping state fair events | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said Sunday that she does not believe voters will give GOP front-runner and former President Donald Trump a pass for skipping the Iowa State Fair events that candidates usually entertain.

    Reynolds told “Fox News Sunday” that voters in her state “expect him to be here, they want to interact,” after Trump skipped events like her “fair-side chats” and the Des Moines Register soapbox.

    Reynolds said she may endorse a presidential candidate before the Iowa caucuses next year. While she has no immediate plans to make an endorsement, her popularity among Republicans in Iowa makes her a potential asset. A late endorsement from Reynolds could sway voters, adding a wrinkle of unpredictability ahead of the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses.

    “I’m remaining neutral, but I don’t want to rule it out down the road. I think it is really important right now to, as I’ve said, encourage all of the candidates to come to Iowa,” Reynolds said on Sunday. “I don’t want to rule out” an endorsement, she added.

    The GOP presidential field currently has 12 candidates and all of the major candidates competing in Iowa accepted Reynolds’ invitation to her fair-side chats – except Trump.

    The former president visited the Iowa State Fair last week but skipped the chats and soapbox opportunities. He still drew a massive crowd.

    Last month, Trump lashed out at Reynolds for remaining neutral and for even appearing alongside other candidates who have invited her to events across Iowa. In a social media post, Trump claimed credit for Reynolds’ ascent to the governorship and chastised her for not supporting him. Reynolds, as the state’s lieutenant governor, succeeded Gov. Terry Branstad in 2017 after Branstad became Trump’s ambassador to China. She was elected to a first full term the following year.

    Reynolds took umbrage with the former president taking credit for her election, noting that the 2018 midterms saw Republicans suffer substantial losses in Congress and in statehouses across the country.

    “It’s actually Iowans who made the decision to elect me in a really tough year,” Reynolds said. “2018 was not a good year for Republicans.”

    The Iowa governor said on Sunday that Republican voters “want the candidate that they think can win” the general election.

    “I think we have a great field of candidates right now and I think we don’t need more candidates in the field, we probably need less,” Reynolds said about potential late entrants into the GOP contest. “These candidates have put in a lot of time, we have a great field of candidates and we probably don’t need more.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Tim Kaine says ‘powerful argument’ 14th Amendment could disqualify Trump | CNN Politics

    Sen. Tim Kaine says ‘powerful argument’ 14th Amendment could disqualify Trump | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said Sunday “there’s a powerful argument to be made” for barring Donald Trump from the presidential ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding public office.

    “My sense is it’s probably going to get resolved in the courts,” Kaine said on “ABC This Week,” adding that Democrats’ focus should be on winning in 2024.

    Legal experts have pointed to the 14th Amendment as a potential long-shot avenue to keep Trump from becoming president. The amendment includes a post-Civil War “disqualification clause” that bars anyone from holding public office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” The Constitution does not, however, spell out how to enforce this ban and it has only been applied twice since the late 1800s, when it was used extensively against former Confederates.

    Election officials in battleground states, including attorneys general in Michigan and New Hampshire, have said they’re anticipating outside groups to file lawsuits on the matter, and are studying the legality of the provision and how it may disqualify Trump from appearing on ballots in their states.

    Liberal activists have championed the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause and have already vowed to file suits to disqualify the former president, a tactic they have used against other elected officials to little success – though some prominent conservative legal scholars have recently endorsed the idea.

    Does the 14th Amendment make Trump ineligible? Hear what law professor thinks

    Kaine voiced support for the idea, saying, “The language (of the amendment) is specific: If you give aid and comfort to those who engage in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States — it doesn’t say against the United States, it says against the Constitution. In my view, the attack on the Capitol that day was designed for a particular purpose … and that was to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power as is laid out in the Constitution.”

    Kaine also said that he had discussed using the provision with fellow senators during Trump’s second impeachment in 2021, remarking that he thought it would “have been a more productive way to go to do a declaration under that section of the 14th Amendment.”

    He floated the idea of a censure vote in Congress under the 14th Amendment as an alternative way of holding Trump accountable and keeping him from holding public office again after the Senate acquitted the former president in a failed impeachment vote. Seven GOP senators joined the chamber’s 50 Democratic and Independent members in finding Trump guilty of inciting a riot on January 6.

    Kaine noted that Virginia will host its own races later this year to decide the makeup of its split legislature in an election that will act as a window into the state of politics in the battleground state ahead of next year’s presidential race.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House GOP push to launch Biden impeachment probe runs into Senate Republican skepticism | CNN Politics

    House GOP push to launch Biden impeachment probe runs into Senate Republican skepticism | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans are not only facing resistance from within their own ranks to impeach President Joe Biden, they’re also getting a cool reception from another key constituency: Senate Republicans.

    The concerns raised from lawmakers across the Capitol – who would be the jury in an impeachment trial if it came to that – adds another layer of GOP opposition, and further exposes that Republicans are not unified in their pursuit of impeaching Biden.

    Republicans in the Senate are nervous that the push to impeach could backfire politically and give Biden a boost – all the while distracting from their efforts to paint the president as out of touch on the economy. Moreover, a number of Senate Republicans liken the Biden impeachment efforts to the two impeachments of then-President Donald Trump that they sharply criticized, even though the situations are markedly different.

    And some are deeply skeptical that House Republicans have gathered enough evidence to launch impeachment proceedings over Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings – much less charge the president with committing high crimes or misdemeanors over them.

    “We got so many things we need to be focusing on,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, said when asked about impeaching Biden. “I don’t see the glaring evidence that says we need to move forward, I didn’t see it in the Trump case and voted against it. I don’t see it in this case.”

    Indeed, even though many senators said they encouraged their Republican colleagues in the House to keep investigating the Biden family, they emphasized that time is running out and that the evidence against the president still has not met the threshold needed to move forward.

    “I’m not for going through another damn trial to be honest with you,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, told CNN.

    Pointing out that an election year is approaching Tuberville added, “I don’t think they got enough time to do it.”

    He warned Republicans in the House, “You better have an ironclad case. When you go after a former president or a president, have all of your ducks in a row. Make sure you got what you need to have. Don’t be guessing. Don’t just be throwing mud.”

    GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota also did not want to see House Republicans move too quickly.

    “They have every right to do it, and they have all of the evidence they would need to certainly start with an inquiry,” Cramer said. “What I don’t want to see them do is rush to an impeachment judgment prior to the full process.”

    Sen. Marco Rubio, a conservative Florida Republican, warned House Republicans about the dangers of pursuing impeachment.

    While Rubio conceded that an impeachment inquiry can be useful to get information that the Biden administration has refused to turn over, he added, “I still think it’s a dangerous tool.”

    Rubio told CNN: “These are extraordinary measures and deeply damage the country. So, that’s why we have term limits, that’s why we have vice presidents and that’s why we have elections. But they’re an extraordinary measure, they should not be routine.”

    Republican leadership in the Senate have also been trying to distance themselves from the House GOP effort. The House returns to session this week after a six-week summer recess, with many members clamoring to move forward with an impeachment inquiry against the president — and Speaker Kevin McCarthy signaling he’s prepared to open up a formal inquiry. The issue is just the latest divide between House and Senate Republicans, who are deeply split over spending and their posture toward Ukraine.

    It’s not uncommon for senators – who represent entire states as opposed to some of the gerrymandered districts in the House – to take different approaches to issues than their House counterparts. But the split on impeachment could undermine the lower chamber’s effort to proceed, especially as they work to convince holdouts to get on on board.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters in July that another impeachment proceeding is “not good for the country,” when asked about House Republicans inching towards an impeachment inquiry into Biden.

    “I said two years ago, when we had not one but two impeachments, that once we go down this path, it incentives the other side to do the same thing,” McConnell said.

    “Impeachment ought to be rare, rather than common,” he said. “And so I’m not surprised that having been treated the way they were, House Republicans last Congress, begin to open up the possibility of doing it again. And I think this is not good for the country, to have repeated impeachment problems.”

    Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican and member of GOP leadership, refused to say if he thought it was a good idea for the House to launch an impeachment inquiry.

    “I don’t think that Speaker McCarthy’s position,” Cornyn said when asked about his personal view about a potential impeachment inquiry. “So, I assume it’s not going to happen unless he’s on board.”

    Asked again, Cornyn sidestepped.

    “I don’t think the House particularly cares what members of the Senate think,” he told CNN. “If they actually do it, then our responsibility kicks in. But I’m not going to speculate about what they ultimately will do. I know there are some differences of opinion.”

    Asked if he believed it were politically risky to pursue impeachment, Cornyn turned to other reporters and said: “Anybody else?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Does the US prosecute more Republicans or Democrats? Here’s some data | CNN Politics

    Does the US prosecute more Republicans or Democrats? Here’s some data | 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
     — 

    Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez was indicted Friday for the second time in 10 years on bribery and corruption charges.

    In this new case, federal authorities allege he and his wife accepted a luxury Mercedes, envelopes full of cash and multiple bars of gold in exchange for influence and favors. It’s wild. Read CNN’s report.

    Menendez denies the allegations, and he has a track record of beating bribery charges. The last time the government took him to court, a jury deadlocked, a judge acquitted him of some charges and the government finally dropped that separate set of bribery charges. Menendez was able to win reelection.

    He’s up for reelection again next year, and Democrats badly need to keep his New Jersey seat if they have any hope of maintaining control of the Senate.

    The case, if nothing else, is a serious complication to former President Donald Trump’s often-repeated claim that he is the subject of a partisan “witch hunt.”

    An unusually feisty Attorney General Merrick Garland rejected any such claim during testimony on Capitol Hill this week.

    Watch Garland’s response to GOP accusations

    “Our job is not to do what is politically convenient,” he said. “Our job is not to take orders from the president, from Congress or from anyone else about who or what to criminally investigate.”

    The prosecution, again, of Menendez, which is a major headache for Democrats, could help prove this point. So should the prosecution of Hunter Biden, the president’s son, in a gun case that is rarely brought as a standalone charge.

    But it is worth looking at the recent history of Department of Justice prosecutions of lawmakers. Is one party targeted more than another?

    Here’s a look at active and recent federal cases against federal lawmakers and governors. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but it is what I could find going back to 2000 in CNN’s coverage and from other news outlets.

    There is one against a Republican, Rep. George Santos of New York, and one against a Democrat, Menendez.

    There is also a non-prosecution to mention. Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican, was informed this year by the DOJ that he would not be charged in a long-running sex trafficking probe.

    These are federal cases against current or former federal lawmakers. I was able to find nine targeting Republicans and eight targeting Democrats.

    Former Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican from Nebraska Found guilty in 2022 of three felonies in a case that centered on campaign contributions.

    Former Rep. TJ Cox, a Democrat from California – Still awaiting trial after his 2022 indictment, including for fraudulent campaign contributions.

    Former Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California Sentenced to 11 months in prison for misusing campaign funds, but later pardoned by Trump.

    Former Rep. Chris Collins, a Republican from New YorkSentenced to 26 months in prison for insider trading, but later pardoned by Trump.

    Former Rep. Corrine Brown, a Democrat from Florida Served more than two years for setting up a false charity.

    Former Rep. Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas Sentenced to 10 years in prison for multiple felonies including fraud and money laundering, but pardoned by Trump after serving part of his sentence.

    Former Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New YorkSentenced to 21 months in prison for sexting with a minor.

    Former Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Pennsylvania Sentenced to 10 years in prison for racketeering, fraud and money laundering.

    Former Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican from New York Pleaded guilty and sentenced to eight months in prison for tax evasion. Attempted to run again for Congress.

    Former Rep. Rick Renzi, a Republican from ArizonaSentenced to three years for corruption. Pardoned by Trump after he served time.

    Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey Acquitted by a judge and other charges dismissed after a jury deadlocked in a bribery case.


    Former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., a Democrat from IllinoisSentenced to 30 months in prison for misusing campaign funds.

    Former Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican from AlaskaConviction by jury for lying on ethics forms was later set aside over allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

    Former Rep. William Jefferson, a Democrat from LouisianaSentenced to 13 years for corruption and soliciting bribes. There was video of him taking $100,000 from an African official. Served multiple years in prison, but many of the charges were later vacated by a judge based on a US Supreme Court decision.

    Former Rep. Bob Ney, a Republican from Ohio – Sentenced to 30 months after a guilty plea for corruption tied to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

    Former Rep. RandyDuke” Cunningham, a Republican from CaliforniaSentenced to eight years in prison after a guilty plea for bribery. Later pardoned by Trump.

    Former Rep. James Traficant, a Democrat from Ohio Sentenced to eight years in prison for corruption after defending himself during trial. Was later expelled from the House.

    Two Republican governors and two Democratic governors have been convicted in federal courts in recent decades:

    Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, was convicted for bribery and corruption. But the US Supreme Court changed the rules in corruption and bribery cases when it threw out the case against McDonnell.

    Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, was convicted for trying to sell his power to appoint a replacement to Barack Obama’s Senate seat. His sentence was later commuted by Trump.

    Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat, was convicted by a jury of bribery and corruption and was sentenced to more than six years in prison.

    Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, was convicted on corruption charges after an FBI sting.

    Did we miss a federal lawmaker convicted or charged? Let me know at zachary.wolf@cnn.com.

    Local prosecutions – like the state or local cases against former Rep. Trey Radel, the Republican from Florida, for cocaine possession in Washington, DC, or former Sen. Larry Craig, the Republican from Idaho, for lewd behavior in the Minneapolis airport – don’t really fit here since they were not conducted by the Department of Justice.

    Some notable recent DOJ prosecutions have focused on Democrats at the state level, like Andrew Gillum, the Democrat and former Tallahassee, Florida, mayor who ran for governor and lost to Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2018. Gillum was recently acquitted of lying to the FBI.

    Former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh, also a Democrat, was sentenced to three years in prison after she pleaded guilty to charges related to a scheme in which local nonprofit organizations bought her self-published children’s book.

    Trump likes to argue he’s the subject of a conspiratorial “witch hunt” engineered by a deep state.

    Why, he will often say, was Hillary Clinton not prosecuted for her email server while he is being prosecuted for mishandling classified material?

    This forgets the history of the 2016 election, which Clinton has said she lost because of then-FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the investigation of her emails. Comey did not charge her before the election but did criticize her, and then, 11 days before Election Day, he said the investigation had been reopened.

    These whataboutisms can go on and on without changing anyone’s mind.
    This story has been updated to include additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US increases pressure on Ukraine to do more to counter corruption | CNN Politics

    US increases pressure on Ukraine to do more to counter corruption | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The US is increasingly urging Ukraine to do more to combat governmental corruption, issuing several notices to Kyiv in the last few weeks indicating that certain kinds of US economic aid will be linked to Ukraine’s progress in reforming its institutions, multiple US officials told CNN.

    The Biden administration’s commitment to supporting Ukraine’s military remains undiminished. But officials have made clear recently that other forms of US aid are potentially in jeopardy if Ukraine does not do more to address corruption.

    Congress has not yet approved the administration’s request for $24 billion in additional funding for Ukraine, with some Republicans wary of providing so much money without robust oversight and conditions attached.

    “The message to the Ukrainians has always been that if any of these funds are misappropriated, then it jeopardizes all US aid to the country,” one US official familiar with the efforts told CNN.

    The State Department issued a formal diplomatic note, also known as a demarche, to Ukraine in late summer that said the US expects Ukraine to continue pursuing various anti-corruption and financial transparency efforts in order to keep receiving direct budget support, three officials familiar with the matter told CNN. The demarche has not been previously reported.

    The US has provided Ukraine with over $23 billion in direct budget support since the war began, according to the Congressional Research Service. This money is separate from military aid and allows Ukraine to continue providing essential services to its citizens like emergency first responders, health care, and education. It is disbursed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the World Bank to the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance.

    The demarche also emphasized the need for Ukraine to implement critical reforms under Ukraine’s International Monetary Fund program, including those related to anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT), a source familiar with the matter said.

    In a statement to CNN, the Ukrainian embassy in Washington said that Ukraine has moved “ambitiously” to pass reforms, including on its IMF program.

    “We have conducted these reforms initiated by Ukraine with the help and support from the US, EU and other friends,” the statement says. “And their practical support to our Cabinet of ministers as well as our (National Bank of Ukraine), General Prosecutors office and anticorruption agencies is appreciated and valued…In all our obligations with IMF, EU and other international donors as well as USA, Ukraine delivers on this front.”

    The administration has been public about its desire to help Ukraine fight corruption throughout its war with Russia. But private diplomatic discussions about the issue have ramped up in recent weeks, as questions have swirled about whether Congress will approve the administration’s funding request for Ukraine.

    National Security adviser Jake Sullivan met with a delegation of Ukrainian anti-corruption officials to discuss their efforts just last month, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken discussed the issue with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky while in Kyiv in early September, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said on Monday.

    Asked by CNN about the US push to get Ukraine to tackle corruption, Miller said that he would not detail “specific conversations, other than to say that it continues to be a high priority for us that we raise with our Ukrainian counterparts, and it continues to be a priority for Ukraine. And we have seen them take action in response to specific requests that we have made as recently as the past few weeks.”

    Separately, the White House has drafted a list of reforms Ukraine should implement in order to continue receiving US financial assistance and move toward integrating into Europe.

    The draft, first reported by Ukrainska Pravda, was shared with the US embassy in Kyiv and members of the Donor Coordination Platform, a mechanism launched in January to better coordinate international financial support flowing into Ukraine. The reforms are not a condition for receiving military aid, a US official said.

    “This list was provided as a basis for consultation with the Government of Ukraine and key partners as part of our enduring support to Ukraine and its efforts to integrate into Europe, a goal the United States strongly supports,” the US embassy in Kyiv said in a statement.

    The White House document outlines changes Ukraine could make within three months, six months, one year and 18 months.

    Many of the proposals – including strengthening the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, enhancing the independence of the supervisory boards of Ukrainian state-owned companies, and constitutional court reform – are also requirements for EU membership and benchmarks for the IMF.

    “Reforms in the energy sector, a bastion of corruption and oligarchic control, are essential to cementing Ukraine’s European integration,” the State Department said in a strategy memo for Ukraine posted on its website in August.

    The memo added that “Ukraine must maintain stable financial management of its economy in order to continue to fight the war, rebuilt the economy, and achieve its goal to become a prosperous, democratic, western country. Ukraine must slay the corruption dragon once and for all.”

    The Ukrainian embassy said in its statement to CNN that Ukrainian officials signed an “energy memorandum” during their visit to Washington last month, and that Ukraine has passed a European-style law aimed at preventing abuses in wholesale energy markets. The White House document says implementation of that law should occur by April 2024.

    Zelensky, for his part, has been eager to show the US, EU and NATO that he is cracking down on corruption, particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He recently cleaned house at the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, firing his defense minister and several senior defense officials, and launched a number of high-profile raids earlier this year against officials suspected of graft.

    Ukraine considers the direct budget support it gets from the US and other foreign allies to be vital to keeping its economy afloat.

    “We are grateful that this money arrives as grants, because this does not affect the state debt of Ukraine, and this is a very important factor in these difficult times,” Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal told Blinken last month, referring to the US’ direct budget support for Ukraine.

    That money is also the “most closely scrutinized” form of aid to Ukraine, a senior Democratic Senate aide told CNN. “The Ukrainians know they have to account for every single penny. The Ukrainians making the decisions know that accountability is a key to their continuing to get funds. It’s been a consistent point of messaging from the administration. Which is fair considering all the support we’re giving them.”

    USAID’s inspector general and Ukraine’s Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor signed a memorandum of understanding in July aimed at strengthening USAID’s ability to probe any misuse or abuse of funds by Ukraine, including the direct budget support.

    The US intends to provide up to $3.3 billion in direct economic aid to Ukraine if Congress authorizes its $24 billion supplemental request for Ukraine.

    That supplemental request is now in limbo, however.

    Congress passed a short-term bill on Saturday to continue funding the government through mid-November, but the legislation does not include additional money for Ukraine. Republicans have increasingly questioned the wisdom of the funding and called for greater oversight of it, though some remain opposed to supporting Ukraine as a matter of principle, regardless of Kyiv’s anti-corruption efforts.

    The Pentagon, meanwhile, is also taking new steps to better monitor US military aid flowing to Ukraine. The Defense Department inspector general announced last month that it will be establishing a new team in Ukraine to monitor ongoing US security assistance to Kyiv, which has totaled more than $43.7 billion since the start of the Biden administration.

    It will mark the first time the DoD IG will have personnel based in Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, said spokeswoman Megan Reed.

    The White House noted in its draft list of priorities for Ukraine that the Ukrainian MoD should “redesign” its armament and procurement processes to better reflect NATO standards of “transparency, accountability, efficiency and competition in defense procurement.”

    Another issue that has come up in recent weeks is the question of whether Zelensky will move to hold a presidential election in March 2024. Sen. Lindsey Graham has pushed for an election, saying it will demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to freedom and democracy in the face of Russia’s invasion.

    Zelensky has said that holding an election in wartime would be complicated and expensive, noting that international observers must be allowed in to ensure the results are internationally recognized. But he said last month that he is ready to do so “if it is necessary.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Redistricting fights in these 10 states could determine which party controls the US House | CNN Politics

    Redistricting fights in these 10 states could determine which party controls the US House | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Around the country, politicians are waging high-stakes battles over new congressional lines that could influence which party controls the US House of Representatives after the 2024 election.

    In North Carolina, the Republicans who control the state legislature have crafted a map that could help them flip at least three seats. Democrats, meanwhile, could pick up seats in legal skirmishes now playing out in New York, Louisiana, Georgia and other states.

    In all, the fate of anywhere from 14 to 18 House seats across nearly a dozen states could turn on the results of these fights. Republicans currently hold just a five-seat edge in the US House. That razor-edge majority has been underscored in recent weeks by the GOP’s chaotic struggle to elect a new speaker.

    “Given that the majority is so narrow, every outcome matters to the fight for House control in 2024,” said David Wasserman, who follows redistricting closely as senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.

    And with fewer competitive districts that swing between the political parties, Wasserman added, “every line change is almost existential.”

    Experts say several other factors have helped lead to the slew of consequential – and unresolved – redistricting disputes, just months before the first primaries of the 2024 cycle.

    They include pandemic-related delays in completing the 2020 census – the once-a-decade population count that kicks off congressional and state legislative redistricting – as well as a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that threw decisions about partisan gerrymandering back to state courts.

    In addition, some litigation had been frozen in place until the US Supreme Court’s surprise ruling in June, which found that a Republican-crafted redistricting plan in Alabama disadvantaged Black voters in the state and was in violation of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.

    That decision “is functionally reanimating all of these dormant cases,” said Adam Kincaid, the president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, which supports the GOP’s redistricting efforts.

    Kincaid said it’s too soon to tell whether Republicans or Democrats will emerge with the advantage by Election Day 2024. In his view, either party could gain or lose only about two seats over redistricting.

    In many of the closely watched states where action is pending, just a single seat hangs in the balance, with two notable exceptions: North Carolina and New York, where multiple seats are at stake. Republicans control the map-drawing in the Tar Heel State, while the job could fall to Democrats in New York, potentially canceling out each party’s gains.

    “Democrats kind of need to run the table in the rest of these states” to gain any edge, said Nick Seabrook, a political scientist at the University of North Florida and the author of the 2022 book “One Person, One Vote: A Surprising History of Gerrymandering in America.”

    Here’s a state-by-state look at recent and upcoming redistricting disputes that could shape the 2024 race for control of the US House:

    In one of the cycle’s highest-profile redistricting cases, a three-judge panel in Alabama approved a map that creates a second congressional district with a substantial Black population. Before the court action, Alabama – which is 27% Black – had only one Black-majority congressional district out of seven seats.

    The fight over the map went all the way to the Supreme Court – which issued a surprise ruling, affirming a lower-court opinion that ordered Alabama to include a second Black-majority district or “something quite close to it.” Under the map that will be in place for the 2024 election, the state’s 2nd District now loops into Mobile to create a seat where nearly half the population is Black.

    The high court’s 5-4 decision in June saw two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, side with the three liberals to uphold the lower-court ruling. Their action kept intact a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act: that it’s illegal to draw maps that effectively keep Black voters from electing a candidate of their choice.

    The ruling has reverberated around the country and could affect the outcome of similar court cases underway in Louisiana and Georgia that center on whether Republican-drawn maps improperly diluted Black political power in those states.

    Given that Black voters in Alabama have traditionally backed Democrats, the party now stands a better chance of winning the newly reconfigured district and sending to of its members to Congress after next year’s elections.

    The new map – approved in recent days by the lower-court judges – also could result in two Black US House members from Alabama serving together for the first time in state history.

    A state judge in September struck down congressional lines for northern Florida that had been championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, ruling that the Republican governor’s map had improperly diluted Black voting power.

    This case, unlike the Alabama fight decided by the US Supreme Court, centers on provisions in the state constitution.

    The judge concluded that the congressional boundaries – which essentially dismantled a seat once held by Al Lawson, a Black Democrat, that connected Black communities across a northern reach of the Florida – violated the state’s Fair Districts amendments, enacted by voters. One amendment specifically bars the state from drawing a district that diminishes the ability of racial minorities “to elect representatives of their choice.”

    Arguments before an appeals court are slated for later this month, with litigants seeking a decision by late November. The case is expected to land before the all-Republican state Supreme Court, where DeSantis appointees hold most seats.

    A separate federal case – which argues that the map violates the US Constitution – is pending.

    But observers say the outcome of the state litigation is more likely than the federal case to determine whether Florida lawmakers must restore the North Florida district, given the state constitution’s especially strong protections for the voting rights of racial minorities and the lower burden of proof required to establish that those rights were abridged.

    A redistricting case now before a federal judge could create a more competitive seat for Democrats in the Atlanta suburbs.

    The plaintiffs challenging the congressional map drawn by Georgia Republicans argue that the increasingly diverse population in the Peach State should result in an additional Black-majority district, this one in the western Atlanta metro area. A trial in the case recently concluded and awaits a final ruling by US District Judge Steve Jones.

    In 2022, Jones preliminarily ruled that some parts of the Republicans’ redistricting plan likely violated federal law but allowed the map to be used in that year’s midterm elections.

    A separate federal case in Georgia challenges the congressional map on constitutional grounds and is slated to go to trial next month.

    Currently, Republicans hold nine of the 14 seats in Georgia’s congressional delegation. Black people make up a majority, or close to it, in four districts, including three in the Atlanta area.

    The Kentucky Supreme Court could soon decide whether a map drawn by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature amounts to what Democrats assert is an “extreme partisan” gerrymander in violation of the state’s constitution.

    Much of the case focuses on disputes over state legislative maps, but the congressional lines also are at stake, with critics saying lawmakers moved Kentucky’s capital city – Democratic-leaning Frankfort – out of the 6th Congressional District and into an oddly shaped – and solidly Republican – 1st District to help shore up Republican odds of holding the 6th District.

    The 6th District, represented by GOP Rep. Andy Barr, was one of the more competitive seats in Kentucky under its previous lines. (Democrat Amy McGrath came within 3 points of beating Barr in 2018; last year, Barr won a sixth term under the new lines by 29 points.)

    A lower-court judge already has ruled that the Republican-drawn map does not violate the state’s constitution.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Alabama could pave the way for a new congressional map in Louisiana ahead of the 2024 election, but the case has quickly become mired in appeals.

    Although Black people make up roughly a third of the state’s population, Louisiana has just one Black lawmaker in its six-member congressional delegation.

    A federal judge threw out the state’s Republican-drawn map in 2022, saying it likely violated the Voting Rights Act. Republican officials in the state appealed to the US Supreme Court, which put the lower-court ruling on hold until it decided the Alabama case, which it did in June this year.

    Once the high court weighed in on the Alabama case, the legal skirmishes again lurched to life in Louisiana.

    Louisiana Republicans have filed an appeal with the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals and successfully halted a district court hearing to discuss imposing a new, court-ordered map.

    On Thursday, the US Supreme Court declined to allow the federal district judge to move forward with discussions about drawing a new map while the appeal advances through the courts.

    GOP state officials say, among other things, that they are seeking time to redraw the map themselves. Critics of the state’s original map argue that Republicans are using legal maneuvers to delay a new redistricting plan, which could result in a second Democratic-leaning seat.

    Legal battles that drag on risk judges invoking the so-called Purcell Principle, a doctrine that limits changing voting procedures and boundaries too close to Election Day to guard against voter confusion.

    “Some of the reason it becomes too late is because, in many of these cases, the state is prolonging the litigation … and buying more time with an illegal map,” said Kareem Crayton, senior director for voting and representation at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.

    Republicans in New Mexico say the congressional lines drawn by the Democrats who control state government amount to an illegal gerrymander under the state’s constitution.

    At stake: a swing district along the US border with Mexico. If Republicans prevail, the seat – now held by a Democratic Rep. Gabe Vasquez – could become more favorable to Republicans.

    A state judge recently upheld the map drawn by Democrats, but the New Mexico Supreme Court is expected to review that order on appeal.

    Republicans flipped four US House seats in New York in the 2022 midterm elections, victories that helped secure their party’s majority in the chamber.

    Current legal fights in the Empire State over redistricting, however, could erase those gains.

    A state court judge oversaw last year’s process of drawing the current map following a long legal battle and the inability of New York’s bipartisan redistricting commission to agree on new lines. But Democrats scored a court victory earlier this year when a state appellate court ruled that the redistricting commission should draw new lines.

    Republicans have appealed that decision, and oral arguments are set for mid-November before New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. The commission’s map-making also is on hold.

    If Democrats prevail, it could make it easier for their party to pick up as many as six seats now held by Republicans.

    North Carolina’s legislature, where Republicans hold a supermajority, has drawn new congressional lines that observers say could prove a windfall for the GOP and boost the party’s chances of retaining its House majority next year.

    The state’s current House delegation is split 7-7 between Democrats and Republicans.

    A map that state lawmakers recently approved puts three House Democrats in what one expert called “almost impossible to win” districts.

    The affected Democrats are Reps. Jeff Jackson, who currently represents a Charlotte-area district; Wiley Nickel, who holds a Raleigh-area seat; and Kathy Manning, who represents Greensboro and other parts of north-central North Carolina.

    A fourth Democrat, Rep. Don Davis, saw his district retooled to become more friendly toward Republicans while remaining competitive for both parties.

    State-level gains in the 2022 midterm elections have given the GOP new sway over redistricting in this swing state. Last year, Republicans flipped North Carolina’s Supreme Court, whose members are chosen in partisan elections. The new GOP majority on the court this year tossed out a 2022 ruling by the then-Democratic leaning court against partisan gerrymandering.

    A map that had been created after the Democratic-led high court’s ruling resulted in the current even split in the state’s House delegation.

    Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper does not have veto power over redistricting legislation.

    A redistricting case pending before the US Supreme Court centers on the future of a Charleston-area seat held by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, who made headlines recently for joining House GOP hard-liners in voting to remove Kevin McCarthy as speaker.

    Earlier this year, a three-judge panel concluded that lines for the coastal 1st Congressional District, as drawn by state GOP lawmakers, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

    The Republican lawmakers appealed to the US Supreme Court. And, during oral arguments earlier this month, several justices in the court’s conservative majority expressed skepticism that South Carolina officials had engaged in an improper racial gerrymander and seemed inclined to reinstate the lawmakers’ map.

    The state Supreme Court, in a case it heard in July, is considering whether it even has the authority to weigh in on map-drawing decisions by the GOP-controlled state legislature.

    Republican state officials argue that the court’s power over redistricting decisions is limited.

    Advocacy groups and a handful of voters are challenging a congressional map that further carved up Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County between four decidedly Republican districts.

    Doing so, the plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit, “takes a slice of Salt Lake County and grafts it onto large swaths of the rest of Utah,” allowing Republican voters in rural areas and smaller cities far away from Salt Lake to “dictate the outcome of elections.”

    Redistricting fights over congressional maps are ongoing in several other states – ranging from Texas to Tennessee – but those cases might not be resolved in time to affect next year’s elections.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump and team seek to destroy credibility of his election subversion trial before a date is even set | CNN Politics

    Trump and team seek to destroy credibility of his election subversion trial before a date is even set | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump and his legal team are escalating efforts to discredit and delay a trial over his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election, as his fight to avert criminal convictions becomes ever more indistinguishable from his presidential campaign.

    The former president’s attorney Sunday vowed to petition to relocate the trial from Washington, DC, claiming that a local jury won’t reflect the “characteristics” of the American people. And as prosecutors seek a speedy trial, he warned that his team will seek to run out the process for years in an apparent attempt to move it past the 2024 election.

    Trump demanded the judge set to hear the case recuse herself in a flurry of assaults on the process that may fail legally, but will play into his campaign narrative that he is a victim of political persecution by the Biden administration designed to thwart a White House comeback.

    Trump pleaded not guilty when he was arraigned in Washington last week – his third such plea in a criminal case in the past four months. But his new efforts to tarnish an eventual trial in this case mirror his long-term strategy of seeking to delegitimize any institution – including the courts, the Justice Department, US intelligence agencies and the press – that contradicts his narrative or challenges his power.

    They unfolded as the precarious nature of his position after his third indictment began to sink in and the ramifications for the 2024 election widened.

    Mike Pence, speaking on CNN this weekend, did not rule out providing testimony in a Trump trial if compelled, which would be a staggering potential scenario for a vice president to provide evidence against his ex-running mate.

    Trump’s former Attorney General William Barr, meanwhile, dismissed one of the arguments the ex-president and his allies have turned to – that he was simply exercising his right to freedom of speech in seeking to reverse the election result in 2020. Barr, who told Trump there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud during his final weeks in office, also said Sunday that “of course” he would appear as a witness at the trial if asked.

    Trump’s status as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination has left his rivals with a painful political tightrope walk as they seek to take advantage of his plight while avoiding alienating GOP primary voters. But several candidates stiffened their criticism of the former president over the issue this weekend as campaigning heated up.

    Pence said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that in the tense days ahead of Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s election, Trump asked him to put loyalty to him above his oath to the Constitution and halt the process. “I’m running for president in part because I think anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Pence told Dana Bash.

    And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis went a tiny bit further in his criticism of Trump, while still arguing that the Biden administration is weaponizing justice against the former president. On a campaign swing through Iowa on Friday, DeSantis – who is battling to preserve his tottering status as the No. 2 Republican in primary polls – said Trump’s false claims about election fraud were “unsubstantiated.”

    In a subsequent interview with NBC, DeSantis added: “Whoever puts their hand on the Bible on January 20 every four years is the winner.”

    “Of course, he lost,” DeSantis said. “Joe Biden’s the president.” The Florida governor also, however, chastised people in the media and elsewhere for acting like “this was the perfect election.”

    The fast-moving developments since Trump’s indictment last week are offering a preview of one of the most monumental criminal trials in American political history. They also suggest this case, and two others in which Trump has pleaded not guilty – to mishandling of classified documents and to charges arising out of a hush money payment to an adult film actress – are certain to deepen a corrosive national political estrangement.

    Defense teams have the right to use every courtroom mechanism within legal bounds to their client’s best advantage. Attempts to delay trials with pre-trial litigation are not unusual and prosecutors and defense lawyers often differ over matters of procedure and evidence. But Trump’s case is unique, given the visibility of the accused, the fact that he’s a former president running for another White House term, and that he is using his power and fame to mount a vitriolic campaign outside the courtroom to drain public confidence in the justice system. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no distinction between his legal strategy and his political one in an election that is now consumed by his criminal exposure and the possibility of convictions.

    In posts on his Truth Social network that highlighted a furious state of mind, Trump on Sunday demanded the recusal of Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who is presiding over the case, and a venue change out of the capital. He blasted special counsel Jack Smith as “deranged” and claimed that the US was being “destroyed.” On Saturday night, in a speech in South Carolina, Trump demanded that Senate Republicans do more to protect him.

    His threatening rhetoric is already having a direct impact on pre-trial preparations as both parties shadow box ahead of a decision by the judge on a trial date.

    Smith’s prosecutors asked the court late Friday to impose strict limits on how Trump can publicize evidence that will be handed over as part of the discovery process. Trump’s team sought an extension of a Monday afternoon deadline to file on the matter, but Chutkan refused their request. Prosecutors want the judge to impose a protective order limiting how Trump could use such evidence because of his previous public statements about witnesses, judges, attorneys and others. In their filing, they included a screenshot of a Truth Social post in which Trump warned: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

    Trump’s lawyer John Lauro argued on “State of the Union” Sunday that the special counsel was seeking to withhold evidence about the case from the press and the American people that “may speak to the innocence of President Trump.”

    Trump is seeking to delay and prolong the trial so that the country won’t have a final answer on his alleged culpability until after the election. If Trump wins the White House in November 2024, he will again gain access to executive powers and status that could freeze federal prosecutions against him or mitigate any guilty verdicts.

    Lauro said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that he had not known any similar case go to trial within two or three years of an indictment. He also said on other talk show appearances that he planned to relitigate the 2020 election, which he said had never been drawn out in court, as a way of challenging Smith’s charges. Trump, however, made multiple attempts to have the 2020 result overturned in court, and judges repeatedly threw out his claims of voter fraud as having no merit.

    Lauro also further revealed his hand on defense strategy by arguing that despite being told multiple times by officials and campaign advisers that he lost the election, Trump’s actions were not criminal since he was convinced he won.

    “The defense is quite simple. Donald Trump … believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “And as any American citizen, he had a right to speak out under the First Amendment. He had a right to petition governments around the country, state governments, based on his grievances that election irregularities had occurred.”

    But Barr, a conservative Republican who had been a staunch Trump defender until the very end of his administration, said that while Smith’s case was certainly “challenging,” he didn’t think it “runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

    Trump’s prospective defense raises the possibility that any future politician could create an alternative reality that bears no relation to the facts of an election outcome, and then take actions designed to retain power.

    Barr sought to clear up what he said was confusion about the case. “This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” Barr said on “Face the Nation.”

    “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that, at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”

    Another claim by Trump’s team being amplified on conservative media is that the former president cannot get a fair trial in Washington, where he won only 5% of the vote in the 2020 election. Lauro instead suggested one of the most pro-Trump states in the union, where the ex-president racked up nearly 70% of votes cast in the last election. “I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case,” he said on CBS.

    Most legal experts think a change of venue is unlikely. Such a step would implicitly strike at the heart of the legal system since it would suggest that verdicts and juries in one jurisdiction are more valid than those elsewhere and could set a precedent that politicians could choose juries in politically advantageous regions.

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of the handful of Republicans running for the 2024 nomination on an explicitly anti-Trump platform, insisted that Trump could get a fair trial in the nation’s capital.

    “I believe jurors can be fair. I believe in the American people,” Christie said on “State of the Union.”

    Christie: I believe DC jurors can be fair to Trump

    Christie, a former federal prosecutor in a blue state, also rejected the argument that Trump’s post-election conduct is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. He argued that proof of Trump’s culpability lies in his failure to immediately seek to stop the ransacking of the US Capitol by his supporters during the certification of Biden’s victory on January 6, 2021.

    “He didn’t do that. He sat, ate his overdone hamburger in the White House Dining Room he has off the Oval Office and enjoyed watching what was going on,” Christie said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis are both itching to debate each other | CNN Politics

    Why Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis are both itching to debate each other | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Joe Biden’s aides and Sean Hannity agree on this: They both would like to see Gavin Newsom debate Ron DeSantis.

    Everyone involved knows how odd it would be to have the California governor, who is seen as a potential future Democratic presidential candidate but is very adamantly not one currently, debating the Florida governor, who launched his Republican presidential run in the spring with the air of a front-runner but has seen his campaign stall through the summer months.

    DeSantis has gone from starting out as a worrisome contrast for some Biden aides to a monthlong campaign reboot, with his own advisers fretting they may not be able to turn his political fortunes around and looking for high-profile opportunities for him to stand out. Newsom has gone from inspiring eye rolls and suspicion from many in and around the White House a year ago to coordinating with Biden aides as he attempts to goad the Republican into more problems.

    The debate, which Newsom agreed to almost on a lark after the Fox News host pressed him, and later DeSantis, on camera to agree to an event he would host – has the two governors with very different interpersonal styles fencing over debate rules and logistics, dates and locations.

    “Boy,” Newsom said in an exclusive interview with CNN as he embraced his trolling of his Florida counterpart, “if I was running his campaign, I would be quietly asking, ‘What did you just do, Gov. DeSantis? Why did you agree to this? We have other things we should be doing, more important things, than debating this guy out there in California.’”

    Responding to the DeSantis team’s proposal for a live debate audience and to substitute a two-minute-long video for opening statements, Newsom said he was not impressed.

    “No notes, no holds barred, no parameters. Just make sure we both have equal time and see where it goes, see where it takes us. No games, no shows, no videos, no cheering sections. Just an honest back-and-forth comparing, contrasting visions,” the California governor said. “And he can defend his rhetoric and record and vision, and I’ll do my best to defend mine and promote Joe Biden.”

    A topic Newsom said he is ready to discuss includes what he called the “ruthlessness” of Republicans attacking presidential son Hunter Biden, a friend of his for years and now the subject of a special counsel investigation.

    “Some of the stuff that the way the right has mocked someone with substance abuse, addictions and other demons, it sickens me to my core as a father,” Newsom said. “They’re having a difficult time debating the success of this administration, as well as the CHIPS and the infrastructure bills, the investments that are coming in, the unemployment rate dropping.”

    Newsom said he was surprised when DeSantis told Hannity in an interview that he would accept the debate.

    DeSantis was not surprised. A person close to the Republican’s campaign told CNN that the governor had fully expected the topic to come up in the interview.

    The day after the interview aired, DeSantis’ campaign emailed donors a short memo touting its eagerness for the debate, pointing to statistics about crime rates and population growth and insisting that “California embodies American decline, while Florida is the blueprint for the Great American Comeback.”

    “Ron DeSantis is debating Gavin Newsom to highlight the choice facing American voters next year. The left wants America to follow the path of California’s decline – Ron DeSantis wants to reignite the American Dream, restore sanity, and ensure our nation’s best days are ahead,” reads the memo, obtained by CNN.

    A DeSantis aide pointed to the candidate telling NBC that he thought “it would be a good debate” and that he was eager to lay out a “very different approach to crime, very different approach to illegal immigration, and very different approach to taxes, government regulation.”

    The DeSantis campaign declined to comment further on the matter.

    Newsom knows he makes the perfect boogeyman for Republicans – the high-taxing, gun-banning, Covid lockdown-proselytizing California governor with the slicked-back hair, who first got famous in 2004 for going against state law and issuing gay marriage licenses when he was mayor of San Francisco.

    For Newsom, the whole point of the debate proposal is the asymmetric warfare. He isn’t running for president. He doesn’t have to worry about how this comes off to voters in Iowa or New Hampshire or anywhere else. He’s catering to a Democratic base and social media ecosystem that throws money and adds followers whenever a punch is thrown – like the $85,000 that went into the Biden campaign off an email Newsom sent to his email list announcing that DeSantis had accepted the debate.

    And if the debate does happen, all Newsom sees is upside. Best case: He embarrasses DeSantis, adding to the doubts over whether his presidential campaign can survive. Worst case: He is the one who gets embarrassed, and DeSantis gets his moment – but against someone who isn’t running for president and can absorb blows that otherwise might have landed on Biden.

    The day before DeSantis accepted the Newsom debate, for example, Vice President Kamala Harris dismissed his invitation for a public session head-to-head over the new Florida middle-school curriculum, which includes a mention of slaves developing certain skills that “could be applied for their personal benefit.” A spokesperson for Harris did not respond to a question about what she thought of Newsom’s actions, but, at a fundraiser on Saturday, she said, “Let us not be distracted by an undebatable point, such as whether the enslaved people benefited from slavery.”

    Or Newsom could just keep poking DeSantis for not agreeing to a debate.

    Being “the reelected, term limited governor of California, he feels an enormous degree of freedom to go out and fight these fights, because someone’s got to do it,” said a Newsom adviser.

    DeSantis had wanted his big debate moment to be about taking on Donald Trump, not Newsom.

    But the governor has been unable so far to coalesce support from Republicans as Trump’s poll numbers continue to rise – a fact he’ll be reminded of later this month when he is joined on a Milwaukee debate stage by at least six other candidates, with Trump in the midst of a weekslong will-he-or-won’t-he tease about whether he will participate.

    DeSantis’ campaign also severely underestimated how Trump’s multiple indictments would galvanize Republicans and overshadow the GOP race, leaving other contenders straining for attention.

    Rather than entering the fall in a position of strength, DeSantis has limped through the summer. His team now acknowledges internally it botched a chance to consolidate support at a time when Trump has barely campaigned. Support has stalled, several donors have publicly expressed concern and withheld additional resources for now, and the campaign has frantically shed expenses after overextending on payroll and event costs. Last week, in the latest overhaul, he replaced his embattled campaign manager with his gubernatorial office chief of staff, who had already been a key adviser.

    What, in any other context, would have likely been an unimaginable sideshow, the debate with Newsom started looking like the rare chance for a breakout, a high-upside gamble for DeSantis, according to the source close to the campaign. If nothing else, it would put DeSantis in front of Fox News’ audience of Republican primary voters without Trump or anyone else in the field.

    “Right now, Trump is dominating the news, and this is a way to get in front of Republicans,” the source said. “With Trump sucking up so much oxygen, this is a way to get back some of the oxygen.”

    Last July, Newsom flew to Washington largely so he could tell then-White House chief of staff Ron Klain and first lady Jill Biden that he really meant what he had first said publicly to CNN: He was not going to run against the president despite his talk about how Democrats needed to be fighting harder than Biden appeared to be doing and despite breezing across the White House driveway with his suit jacket tossed over his shoulder as concerns circulated about the president’s age.

    When Klain, long a Newsom booster, walked him around the West Wing to introduce him to other aides, several did not do much to mask their disinterest.

    But after

    Biden made his reelection plans clear
    , it became easier for his loyalists to warm to the governor. Some still see Newsom as mugging for attention, but they have stayed in close contact, including giving the green light when Newsom’s team alerted them that he wanted to do a one-on-one interview with Hannity and push for the debate with DeSantis.

    If it happens, a Biden campaign aide said, “from our perspective, we’ve got one of our most high-profile surrogates going on Fox for 90 minutes, advocating not for his own policies and not for his own candidacy, but for the president. That’s a net positive.”

    Asked about the turnaround, Klain – now an informal outside adviser to Biden’s reelection campaign – told CNN that “the president and his team are grateful for all the things the governor does to advance their shared agenda.”

    A Newsom aide told CNN the coordination – between emails he has put his name on and in-person events – has produced almost $3 million in fundraising for Biden since April, which makes up about 4% of the reelection campaign’s total fundraising to date. Emails with Newsom’s name on them generate some of the highest response rates, according to people familiar with the fundraising. The Biden campaign declined comment on the fundraising.

    Newsom said he knows that many people will see his actions as an attempt to stay relevant. Advisers say he clams up even privately when talk turns to a possible future presidential run, and the governor told CNN that positioning for 2028 is a “trivial consideration.”

    He said he is driven by not wanting to have any regrets about not being involved – and if that means an ongoing series of debates with other Republicans after DeSantis, he’d be ready.

    “To the extent these presidential candidates want a debate, I’m happy to debate them,” Newsom said. “And if that’s where they feel they can get their best bang for the buck as they run for president, fine by me, and I’ll have the president’s back.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link