ReportWire

Tag: iab-elections

  • Trump and DeSantis to clash Friday as campaigns collide publicly in Washington and behind closed doors in Florida | CNN Politics

    Trump and DeSantis to clash Friday as campaigns collide publicly in Washington and behind closed doors in Florida | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The presidential campaigns of former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will clash out in the open and behind closed doors on Friday as their fight for the future of the GOP intensifies.

    The two leading presidential candidates are expected in Washington, D.C., for a pair of dueling appearances at two separate conservative confabs – the Pray Vote Stand Summit hosted by the Family Research Council and a gathering organized by the Concerned Women For America.

    Meanwhile, at an Orlando hotel, the Republican Party of Florida is expected to reconsider plans to require a loyalty pledge of its presidential candidates – a brewing proxy war between Trump and DeSantis that is threatening to tear apart the GOP in the state both call home.

    The collision between Trump and DeSantis on these particular battlefields over the next 24 hours is illustrative of two themes that have dominated the campaign lately: Who can capture the influential support of the evangelical community and whether anyone can loosen Trump’s grip over the GOP.

    The events in the nation’s capital will provide Trump and DeSantis an opportunity to sway Christian conservative voters who make up an outsized force in two of the early nominating states – Iowa and South Carolina. Former Vice President Mike Pence and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy also are scheduled to address the Pray Vote Stand Summitt.

    DeSantis has made courtship of the evangelical vote a top priority, particularly in Iowa, where evangelical influences have historically swung outcomes in the state’s caucuses. He and his wife Casey accompanied prominent Iowa evangelical Bob Vander Plaats to church last month. Before heading to Washington, DeSantis’ campaign on Thursday announced a “Faith and Family Coalition” and the endorsements of more than 70 faith leaders in the early nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

    After the events in Washington, DeSantis will head to the Hawkeye State on Saturday for the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition in Des Moines, an event that has attracted much of the GOP primary field, except Trump. The former president has at times clashed with faith leaders, particularly over abortion, though polls continue to show he carries strong support in states where Christian conservatives make up a sizable number of Republican voters.

    As their courtship of Christian audiences takes place in public, privately, another persuasion campaign is taking place in Florida.

    There, top leaders of the state GOP are gathered for their quarterly meeting, where a fight is expected over whether to require presidential candidates to sign a loyalty oath to appear on their primary ballot.

    The state party maneuvered quietly earlier this year to require all candidates to pledge to endorse the nominee, a move seen by Trump allies as a maneuver intended to boost DeSantis. Pro-Trump forces in the party, led by state Sen. Joe Gruters, a former chairman of the Florida GOP, are pushing for a vote Friday night to scrap the oath, which Trump is unlikely to sign.

    Whatever the party ultimately decides, it will leave either Trump or DeSantis wounded in the state where both live and have battled for fealty from its Republicans.

    The behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding as DeSantis is ratcheting up his criticism of Trump. DeSantis has lately sharpened his attacks on the former president, particularly over how the two leaders handled the coronavirus pandemic.

    After Trump in an interview distanced himself from his actions during the pandemic and attempted to pin vaccine mandates on DeSantis, the Florida governor on Thursday said it was “really pathetic to sit there and listen to that drivel.” DeSantis also ripped Trump for claiming not to know who gave Dr. Anthony Fauci a presidential commendation.

    “Give me a break, people need to take responsibility for their actions,” DeSantis said on the Steve Deace show. “They need to own what they did. And here’s the thing that’s important: Looking forward, you know, with me, all those mistakes will never be repeated again.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the second Republican presidential debate | CNN Politics

    Takeaways from the second Republican presidential debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The second 2024 Republican presidential primary debate ended just as it began: with former President Donald Trump – who hasn’t yet appeared alongside his rivals onstage – as the party’s dominant front-runner.

    The seven GOP contenders in Wednesday night’s showdown at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California provided a handful of memorable moments, including former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley unloading what often seemed like the entire field’s pent-up frustration with entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.

    “Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber for what you say,” she said to him at one point.

    Two candidates criticized Trump’s absence, as well. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was “missing in action.” Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called the former president “Donald Duck” and said he “hides behind his golf clubs” rather than defending his record on stage.

    Chris Christie takes up debate time to send Trump a clear message

    The GOP field also took early shots at President Joe Biden. South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott said Biden, rather than joining the striking auto workers’ union on the picket line Tuesday in Michigan, should be on the southern border. Former Vice President Mike Pence said Biden should be “on the unemployment line.” North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum said Biden was interfering with “free markets.”

    However, what played out in the debate, hosted by Fox Business Network and Univision, is unlikely to change the trajectory of a GOP race in which Trump has remained dominant in national and early-state polling.

    And the frequently messy, hard-to-track crosstalk could have led many viewers to tune out entirely.

    Here are takeaways from the second GOP primary debate:

    Trump might have played it safe by skipping the debates and taking a running-as-an-incumbent approach to the 2024 GOP primary.

    It’s hard to see, though, how he would pay a significant price in the eyes of the party’s voters for missing Wednesday night’s messy engagement.

    Trump’s rivals took a few shots at him. DeSantis knocked him for deficit spending. Christie mocked him during the night’s early moments, calling him “Donald Duck” for skipping the debate and then in his final comments said he would vote Trump off the GOP island.

    “This guy has not only divided our party – he’s divided families all over this country. He’s divided friends all over this country,” Christie said. “He needs to be voted off the island and he needs to be taken out of this process.”

    However, Trump largely escaped serious scrutiny of his four years in the Oval Office from a field of rivals courting voters who have largely positive views of his presidency.

    “Tonight’s GOP debate was as boring and inconsequential as the first debate, and nothing that was said will change the dynamics of the primary contest,” Trump campaign senior adviser Chris LaCivita said in a statement.

    The second GOP primary debate was beset by interruptions, crosstalk and protracted squabbles between the candidates and moderators over speaking time.

    That’s tough for viewers trying to make sense of it all but even worse for these candidates as they attempted to stand out as viable alternatives to the absentee Trump.

    Further complicating the matter, some of the highest polling candidates after Trump – DeSantis and Haley – were among those least willing to dive into the muck, especially during the crucial first hour. The moderators repeatedly tried to clear the road for the Florida governor, at least in the beginning. But he was all but absent from the proceedings for the first 15 minutes.

    Ramaswamy fared somewhat better, speaking louder – and faster – than most of his rivals. But he was bogged down repeatedly when caught between his own talking points and cross-volleys of criticisms from frustrated candidates like Scott.

    The moderator group will likely get criticism for losing control of the room within the first half-hour, but even a messy debate tells voters something about the people taking part.

    All night, Scott seemed like he was looking for a fight with somebody and he finally got that when he set his sights on fellow South Carolinian Haley.

    He began his line of attack – which Haley interjected with a “Bring it” – by accusing her of spending $50,000 on curtains in a $15 million subsidized location during her time as the US ambassador to the United Nations.

    What ensued was the two Republicans going back and forth about the curtains. “Do your homework, Tim, because Obama bought those curtains,” Haley said, while Scott repeated, “Did you send them back? Did you send them back?” Haley then responded: “Did you send them back? You’re the one who works in Congress.”

    It wasn’t the most acrimonious moment of the night, but it was up there. The feuding between the two South Carolina natives seemed deep, but it’s worth remembering that about a decade ago, when Haley was governor, she appointed Scott to the Senate seat he currently holds after Republican Jim DeMint stepped down. That confidence in Scott seems to have dissolved in this presidential race.

    Confronted by his Republican competitors for the first time in earnest, DeSantis delivered an uneven performance from the center of the stage – a spot that is considerably less secure than it was heading into the first debate in Milwaukee.

    Despite rules that allowed candidates to respond if they were invoked, DeSantis let Fox slip to commercial break when Pence seemed to blame the governor for a jury decision to award a life sentence, not the death penalty, to the mass murderer in the Parkland high school shooting. (DeSantis opposed the decision and championed a law that made Florida the state with the lowest threshold to put someone on death row going forward.) Nor did he respond when Pence accused DeSantis of inflating Florida’s budget by 30% during his tenure.

    He later let Scott get the last word on Florida’s Black history curriculum standards and struggled to defend himself when Haley – accurately – pointed out that he took steps to block fracking in Florida on his second day in office.

    Before the first debate in Milwaukee, a top strategist for a pro-DeSantis super PAC told donors that “79% of the people tonight are going to watch the debate and turn it off after 19 minutes.”

    By that measure, the Florida governor managed to first speak Wednesday night just in the nick of time – 16 minutes into the debate. And when he finally spoke, he continued the sharper attacks on the GOP front-runner that he has previewed in recent weeks.

    DeSantis equated Trump’s absence in California to Biden, who DeSantis said was “completely missing in action for leadership” on the economy, blaming him for inflation and the autoworkers strike.

    “And you know who else is missing in action? Donald Trump is missing in action,” DeSantis said. “He should be on this stage tonight. He owes it to you to defend his record.”

    But DeSantis then largely pulled back from further targeting Trump – until a post-debate Fox News appearance when he challenged the former president to a one-on-one face-off.

    DeSantis ended the debate on a strong note. He took charge by rejecting moderator Dana Perino’s attempts to get the candidates to vote one of their competitors “off the island.” He ended his night forcefully dismissing a suggestion that Trump’s lead in the polls held meaning in September.

    “Polls don’t elect presidents, voters elect presidents,” he said, before pointing a finger at Trump for Republicans’ electoral underperformance in the last three elections.

    But as the super PAC strategist previously pointed out: By then, who was watching?

    In the final minutes of the debate, co-host Ilia Calderón of Univision asked Pence how he would reach out to those Latino voters who felt the Republican Party was hostile or didn’t care about them.

    “I’m incredibly proud of the tax cut and tax reform bill,” he said, referring to Republicans’ sweeping 2017 tax law. He also cited low unemployment rates for Hispanic Americans recorded during the Trump-Pence administration.

    Scott, faced with the same question, said it was important to lead by example. “My chief of staff is the only Hispanic female chief of staff in the Senate,” he said. “I hired her because she was the best, highest-qualified person we have.”

    Calderón focused much of her time on a series of policy questions that highlighted the candidates’ records on immigration and gun violence. At times, some of them struggled to respond directly.

    She asked Pence if he would work with Congress to find a permanent solution for people who were brought to the country illegally as children. The Trump-Pence administration ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which gave those young people protected status. She repeated the question after Pence focused his answer on his work securing the border. He then talked about his time in Congress.

    “Let me tell you, I served in Congress for 12 years, although it seemed longer,” he said. “But you know, something I’ve done different than everybody on this stage is I’ve actually secured reform in Congress.”

    The candidates – and moderators – shy away from abortion talk

    It took more than a 100 minutes on Wednesday night for the first question on abortion to be asked.

    About five minutes later, the conversation had moved on. What is potentially the most potent driver (or flipper) of votes in the coming election was afforded less time than TikTok.

    Tellingly, no one onstage seemed to mind.

    Perino introduced the subject by asking DeSantis whether some Republicans were right to worry that the electoral backlash to abortion bans – or the prospect of their passage – would handicap the eventual GOP nominee.

    DeSantis, who signed a six-week ban in April, dismissed those concerns, pointing to his success in traditionally liberal parts of Florida on his way to winning a second term in 2022. Then he swiped at Trump for calling the new laws “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

    Christie took a similar path, arguing that his two terms as governor of New Jersey, a traditionally blue state, showed it was possible for anti-abortion leaders to win in a environments supportive of abortion rights.

    And with that, the abortion “debate” in Simi Valley ended abruptly. No more questions and no attempts by the rest of the candidates to interject or otherwise join the chat.

    Candidates pile on Ramaswamy

    Some of the candidates onstage didn’t want to have a repeat of the first debate, in which Ramaswamy managed to stand out as a formidable debater and showman.

    Early in Wednesday’s debate, Scott went after the tech entrepreneur, saying his business record included ties to the Chinese Communist Party and money going to Hunter Biden. The visibly annoyed Ramaswamy shifted gears from praising all the other candidates onstage to defending his business record. But Scott and Ramaswamy ended up talking over each other.

    A little later on Pence began an answer with a knock on Ramaswamy, saying, “I’m glad Vivek pulled out of his business deal in China.” At another point after Ramaswamy had responded to a question about his use of TikTok, Haley jumped in, saying, “Every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber from what you say” and then going on to say, “We can’t trust you. We can’t trust you.” As Ramaswamy tried to readopt his unity tone, Scott could be heard trying to interrupt him.

    Despite the efforts of moderators to pin them down, DeSantis and Pence struggled to respond when challenged on their respective records on health care.

    Asked about the Trump administration’s failure to end the Affordable Care Act as promised, Pence opted instead to answer a previous question about mass gun violence. When Perino pushed Pence one more time to explain why Obamacare remains not just intact but popular, the former vice president once again demurred.

    Fox’s Stuart Varney similarly pressed DeSantis to explain why 2.5 million Floridians don’t have health insurance.

    DeSantis found a familiar foil for Republicans in California: inflation. Varney, though, said it didn’t explain why Florida has one of the highest uninsurance rates in the country, to which DeSantis had little response.

    “Our state’s a dynamic state,” DeSantis said, before pointing to Florida’s population boom and the low level of welfare benefits offered there.

    Haley, though, appeared ready to debate health care, arguing for transparency in prices to lessen the power of insurance companies and providers and overhauling lawsuit rules to make it harder to sue doctors.

    “How can we be the best country in the world and have the most expensive health care in the world?” Haley said.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 2016 Presidential Debates Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    2016 Presidential Debates Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the 2016 presidential debates:

    August 3, 2015
    Event Type: Republican Forum
    Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
    Sponsors: KCRG-TV, WGIR-AM, New Hampshire Union Leader, Cedar Rapids Gazette, Post & Courier
    Moderator: Jack Heath
    Participants: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Scott Walker
    Transcript

    August 6, 2015
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Cleveland, Ohio
    Sponsors: Fox News/Facebook/Ohio Republican Party
    Moderators: Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace
    Participants (decided by polling data): First Debate – Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum; Second Debate – Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Scott Walker
    Transcript – First Debate
    Transcript – Second Debate

    September 16, 2015
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Simi Valley, California
    Sponsors: CNN/Salem Radio/Reagan Library Foundation
    Moderators: Jake Tapper; Dana Bash and Hugh Hewitt also participate
    Participants: First Debate – Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Rick Santorum; Second Debate – Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Scott Walker
    Transcript – First Debate
    Transcript – Second Debate

    October 13, 2015
    Event Type: Democratic Debate
    Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
    Sponsors: CNN/Facebook
    Moderators: Anderson Cooper; Dana Bash, Juan Carlos Lopez, Don Lemon also participate
    Participants: Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb
    Transcript

    October 28, 2015
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Title: Your Money, Your Vote: The Presidential Debate on the Economy
    Location: Boulder, Colorado
    Sponsors: CNBC/The University of Colorado Boulder
    Moderators: Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick, John Harwood
    Participants: First Debate – Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Rick Santorum; Second Debate – Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump
    Transcript – First Debate
    Transcript – Second Debate

    November 10, 2015
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Sponsors: Fox Business Network/Wall Street Journal
    Moderators: Sandra Smith, Trish Regan, Gerald Seib and Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo, Gerard Baker
    Participants: First Debate – Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum; Second Debate – Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump
    Transcript – First Debate
    Transcript – Second Debate

    November 14, 2015
    Event Type: Democratic Debate
    Location: Des Moines, Iowa
    Sponsors: CBS, KCCI and The Des Moines Register
    Moderators: John Dickerson; Nancy Cordes, Kevin Cooney, Kathie Obradovich also participate
    Participants: Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    December 15, 2015
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
    Sponsors: CNN/Salem Radio
    Moderators: Wolf Blitzer; Dana Bash and Hugh Hewitt also participate
    Participants: First Debate – Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Rick Santorum; Second Debate – Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump
    Transcript – First Debate
    Transcript – Second Debate

    December 19, 2015
    Event Type: Democratic Debate
    Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
    Sponsors: ABC and WMUR
    Moderators: David Muir and Martha Raddatz
    Participants: Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    January 14, 2016
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: North Charleston, South Carolina
    Sponsors: Fox Business Network
    Moderators: First Debate – Trish Regan and Sandra Smith; Second Debate – Neil Cavuto and Maria Bartiromo
    Participants: First Debate – Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum; Second Debate – Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump
    Transcript – First Debate
    Transcript – Second Debate

    January 17, 2016
    Event Type: Democratic Debate
    Location: Charleston, South Carolina
    Sponsors: NBC, YouTube and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute
    Moderators: Lester Holt and Andrea Mitchell
    Participants: Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    January 25, 2016
    Event Type: Democratic Presidential Candidates Town Hall Meeting
    Location: Des Moines, Iowa
    Sponsor: CNN
    Moderator: Chris Cuomo
    Participants: Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    January 28, 2016
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Des Moines, Iowa
    Sponsors: Fox News and Google
    Moderators: Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace
    Participants: First Debate – Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum; Second Debate – Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio
    Transcript – First Debate
    Transcript – Second Debate

    February 3, 2016
    Event Type: Democratic Town Hall
    Location: Derry, New Hampshire
    Sponsor: CNN
    Moderator: Anderson Cooper
    Participants: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    February 4, 2016
    Event Type: Democratic Debate
    Location: Durham, New Hampshire
    Sponsor: MSNBC
    Moderators: Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow
    Participants: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    February 6, 2016
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
    Sponsors: ABC News and IJReview
    Moderators: David Muir and Martha Raddatz
    Participants: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump
    Transcript

    February 11, 2016
    Event Type: Democratic Debate
    Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Sponsors: PBS/WETA
    Moderators: Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff
    Participants: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    February 13, 2016
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Greenville, South Carolina
    Sponsor: CBS News
    Moderator: John Dickerson
    Participants: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump
    Transcript

    February 17, 2016
    Event Type: Republican Town Hall
    Location: Greenville, South Carolina
    Sponsor: CNN
    Moderator: Anderson Cooper
    Participants: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio
    Transcript

    February 18, 2016
    Event Type: Republican Town Hall
    Location: Columbia, South Carolina
    Sponsor: CNN
    Moderator: Anderson Cooper
    Participants: Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Donald Trump
    Transcript

    February 23, 2016
    Event Type: Democratic Town Hall
    Location: Columbia, South Carolina
    Sponsors: CNN
    Moderator: Chris Cuomo
    Participants: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    February 25, 2016
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Houston, Texas
    Sponsors: CNN/Telemundo/Salem Communications
    Moderator: Wolf Blitzer
    Participants: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump
    Transcript

    March 3, 2016
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Detroit, Michigan
    Sponsors: Fox News
    Moderators: Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace
    Participants: Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump
    Transcript

    March 6, 2016
    Event Type: Democratic Debate
    Location: Flint, Michigan
    Sponsors: CNN
    Moderator: Anderson Cooper
    Participants: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    March 9, 2016
    Event Type: Democratic Debate
    Location: Miami, Florida
    Sponsors: Univision/Washington Post/Florida Democratic Party
    Moderators: Maria Elena Salinas, Jorge Ramos, Karen Tumulty
    Participants: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    March 10, 2016
    Event Type: Republican Debate
    Location: Miami, Florida
    Sponsors: CNN/Salem Media Group/The Washington Times
    Moderators: Jake Tapper; Dana Bash and Hugh Hewitt also participate
    Participants: Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump
    Transcript

    April 14, 2016
    Event Type: Democratic Debate
    Location: Brooklyn, New York
    Sponsors: CNN/NY1
    Moderators: Wolf Blitzer; Dana Bash and Errol Louis also participate
    Participants: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders
    Transcript

    September 26, 2016
    Event Type: First Presidential Debate
    Location: Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York
    Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
    Moderator: Lester Holt
    Transcript
    Viewership: The debate is the most-watched debate in American history, averaging a total of 84 million viewers across 13 of the TV channels that carried it live.

    October 4, 2016
    Event Type: Vice Presidential Debate
    Location: Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia
    Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
    Moderator: Elaine Quijano
    Transcript

    October 9, 2016
    Event Type: Second Presidential Debate
    Location: Washington University in St. Louis
    Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
    Moderators: Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz
    Transcript

    October 19, 2016
    Event Type: Third Presidential Debate
    Location: University of Nevada-Las Vegas
    Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
    Moderator: Chris Wallace
    Transcript

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • These are the 20 Republicans who voted against Jim Jordan for speaker | CNN Politics

    These are the 20 Republicans who voted against Jim Jordan for speaker | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The first vote concerning Rep. Jim Jordan’s bid to become the next speaker of the House not only fell short on Tuesday, it was, in the words of one ally of the Ohio Republican, “much worse than we expected.”

    Twenty Republicans voted against Jordan’s candidacy, far more than the handful he could afford to lose given the party’s narrow majority in Congress.

    These are the House Republicans who voted against Jordan:

    1. Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska voted for former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy

    2. Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon voted for McCarthy

    3. Rep. Anthony D’Esposito of New York voted for former Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York

    4. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida voted for Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana

    5. Rep. Jake Ellzey of Texas voted for Rep. Mike Garcia of California

    6. Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York voted for Zeldin

    7. Rep. Carlos Gimenez of Florida voted for McCarthy

    8. Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas voted for Scalise

    9. Rep. Kay Granger of Texas voted for Scalise

    10. Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania voted for Scalise

    11. Rep. Jennifer Kiggans of Virginia voted for McCarthy

    12. Rep. Nick LaLota of New York voted for Zeldin

    13. Rep. Mike Lawler of New York voted for McCarthy

    14. Rep. John Rutherford of Florida voted for Scalise

    15. Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho voted for Scalise

    16. Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas voted for Scalise

    17. Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado voted for Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota

    18. Rep. John James of Michigan voted for Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma

    19. Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California voted for McCarthy

    20. Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana voted for Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky

    [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

  • Fox executives encourage Trump to participate in first GOP presidential primary debate | CNN Politics

    Fox executives encourage Trump to participate in first GOP presidential primary debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday dined with top Fox executives at his Bedminster golf club, during which Fox News president Jay Wallace and the network’s chief executive, Suzanne Scott, encouraged him to participate in the first presidential debate the network is hosting later this month, two sources with knowledge told CNN.

    Trump, who earlier in the evening had been indicted for a third time, did not commit to participating in the debate, which will take place in Milwaukee.

    Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The New York Times first reported on the dinner.

    Trump has privately and publicly floated skipping either one or both of the first two Republican presidential primary debates, and pointed to his commanding lead in the polls as one reason he is hesitant to share the stage with his GOP challengers.

    “Why would we debate? That would be stupid to go out there with that kind of lead,” one Trump adviser previously told CNN. However, not all of Trump’s allies feel this way. Some worry that an absent Trump would give an opportunity for a lower tier candidate to have a breakout moment.

    Trump’s dinner comes after RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and David Bossie, who is in charge of the debate committee, visited Trump at Bedminster in recent weeks to encourage him to participate, according to a Trump adviser. Trump was also noncommittal on his plans during this meeting.

    Over the last year, Trump has trashed Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, the Fox Corporation chairman and controlling shareholder of the company, for not being sufficiently supportive of him.

    Murdoch, who privately holds disdain for Trump, attempted early on in the 2024 campaign to shine a bright light on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis while casting the former president on the sidelines. The hope appeared to be to seduce the Fox News audience into falling for another Republican candidate.

    But the DeSantis campaign has struggled since it officially got off the ground this year. Last month, Murdoch debuted a new Fox News lineup comprised of pro-Trump propagandists, a move that seemed to acknowledge Trump’s likely selection as the Republican Party’s presidential nominee.

    Trump has also sharply criticized the way in which Murdoch has approached his legal problems, blasting the right-wing media mogul for not doubling down on his lies while in court.

    Trump tried to call into Fox News after his supporters attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, but the network refused to put him on air, according to court filings from Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation case against the company.

    Still, Fox has amplified Trump’s lies about the validity of the 2020 election, even though Murdoch has said he did not believe Trump’s false statements, according to damning private messages revealed in the Dominion case. Murdoch floated the idea of having his influential hosts appear together in prime time to declare Joe Biden as the rightful winner of the election. Such an act, Murdoch said, “Would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election stolen.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DC grand jury that handed up 2020 election indictment against Trump meets again | CNN Politics

    DC grand jury that handed up 2020 election indictment against Trump meets again | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal grand jury reconvened on Tuesday for the first time since handing up an indictment last week against former President Donald Trump related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

    CNN spotted grand jury members at the federal courthouse in Washington, an indication that the investigation into election interference is not over.

    The grand jury has been hearing evidence in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the aftermath of the election leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol for nearly a year. In the Trump indictment, prosecutors refer to six unnamed co-conspirators, raising questions about whether they also could face charges in the case.

    One of the co-conspirators identified by CNN is ex-Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. On Monday, Bernie Kerik, a longtime Giuliani associate who coordinated with him after the 2020 election, met with investigators at the special counsel’s office. Kerik spoke with investigators about Giuliani’s efforts to try to uncover election fraud in 2020, according to his attorney Tim Parlatore.

    Prosecutors allege in the indictment that the co-conspirator identified as Giuliani “was willing to spread knowingly false claims” about supposed election fraud.

    A political adviser to Giuliani, Ted Goodman, previously told CNN that they were acting in good faith and that the indictment “eviscerates” the First Amendment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Campaign fundraiser for George Santos is indicted for impersonating top aide to House Speaker McCarthy | CNN Politics

    Campaign fundraiser for George Santos is indicted for impersonating top aide to House Speaker McCarthy | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A campaign fundraiser for indicted US Rep. George Santos has been charged for allegedly impersonating a high-ranking congressional aide to solicit contributions for the New York Republican’s campaign in 2021, according to court documents.

    A federal grand jury in Brooklyn indicted Samuel Miele, who worked for the Santos campaign during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, on four counts of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft in the alleged scheme to defraud prospective donors, according to the indictment unsealed Wednesday.

    Miele allegedly impersonated a top aide to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, according to a source familiar with the case.

    He allegedly solicited contributions from more than a dozen potential contributors using the aide’s identity in phone and email communications, the indictment says.

    Miele created an email account purporting to belong to the McCarthy staffer and sent fundraising solicitations signing the aide’s full name and title, prosecutors allege.

    Santos’ fundraiser received a 15% commission on the campaign contributions he raised, the filing says.

    According to the indictment, Miele wrote to Santos in a September 2022 letter, “Faking my identity to a big donor.”

    “High risk, high reward in everything I do,” Miele also wrote.

    An attorney for Miele, Kevin H. Marino, said in a statement to CNN that his client “is not guilty of these charges.”

    “He looks forward to complete vindication at trial as soon as possible,” Marino said.

    The latest indictment does not specifically identify Santos, McCarthy or his aide by name in the filing.

    Additional court documents clarify that the unnamed candidate in the indictment is Santos.

    Miele surrendered Wednesday morning and pleaded not guilty at an arraignment in Brooklyn federal court later in the day.

    He was released on a $150,000 bond.

    A status conference has been scheduled for August 22 in the Eastern District of New York.

    Santos himself was indicted in May on 13 counts of federal fraud and money laundering charges. He pleaded not guilty. He announced in April that he is running for reelection to his Long Island-based congressional seat.

    Representatives for McCarthy did not immediately respond for comment on the matter.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abortion divides Iowa GOP voters ahead of crucial first primary debate | CNN Politics

    Abortion divides Iowa GOP voters ahead of crucial first primary debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Sioux City, Iowa
    CNN
     — 

    Ask Lisa McGaffey if she has ever voted for a Democrat and there is no pause.

    “Oh, heavens, no,” she says quickly and emphatically. “Oh, no. There’s no – abortion. … They have to have a chance to grow up. They have to have the chance. You never know who that’s going to be.”

    McGaffey is a loyal Donald Trump supporter and is grateful for his three appointments to the conservative Supreme Court majority that erased Roe v. Wade last year and returned the question of abortion rights to the states.

    Two-hundred miles away, in the fast growing Des Moines suburbs, Betsy Sarcone takes a different view.

    Iowa, like Florida, in recent months enacted a law outlawing most abortions at six weeks. Sarcone – a single mother and a Catholic and Republican who told us, “I don’t believe in abortion” – thinks that is too restrictive.

    “I agree with a time limit,” Sarcone said in a recent interview in her West Des Moines home. “I’ve had three babies grow inside me. I agree when you feel them kicking and you feel them moving – that’s in my heart, is a time when that (a cutoff to abortion access) would be. Which is around say, like 18 weeks, something like that typically. So in my heart, that’s what I feel. I again, I just I don’t know that much further than that it’s somebody’s place to judge.”

    Abortion is among the fault lines in the 2024 Republican campaign, and a likely debate topic in Wednesday’s first primary season showdown between Republican candidates – all of whom support abortion restrictions. It’s also an issue that splits GOP voters, even those who share an opposition to the procedure. Sarcone and McGaffey, for example, are among a group of Iowa Republicans we are tracking as part of a CNN project designed to view the 2024 campaign through the eyes of voters – to see firsthand if their views change over the course of the cycle, and if so, why.

    Among that group is also Chris Mudd, a businessman in Cedar Falls and a Trump supporter, who signals a potential warning for GOP hopefuls on abortion.

    “I’m a pro-life guy,” Mudd told us. “But I think it is a losing issue for Republicans.” Of the six-week bans enacted in Florida and later in his home state of Iowa, Mudd said: “I think that was a mistake.”

    Among Republican candidates there’s some disagreement over whether a national ban should be a priority, or whether the issue is best left to the states.

    Trump, for example, has called the six-week ban signed by DeSantis in Florida “too harsh.” The GOP front-runner is choosing to skip the Milwaukee debate.

    Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina favors a federal law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Mike Pence, the former vice president and Indiana governor, supports a six-week federal ban.

    GOP rivals Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum describe themselves as staunchly “pro life” but argue the principled conservative position is that each state should make its own law. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has said she would sign a 15-week national ban, but also frequently notes the votes aren’t there in the current congressional balance of power and that the federal conversation is best put aside unless and until there is more consensus.

    Democrats see opportunity in almost any Republican conversation about abortion, citing how the issue has consistently helped galvanize voters in elections – from ballot initiatives to last year’s midterms – since the Dobbs decision.

    The last public poll on the issue in Iowa was in March, for the Des Moines Register.

    A clear majority, 61% of Iowans, said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. But the first competition here is the Republican caucuses, and the poll found that 59% of Republicans and 64% of evangelicals believed abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.

    Sarcone, a suburban Des Moines real estate agent, made a point worth remembering as the candidates debate for the first time this week.

    “I don’t know that I will have any candidate that I agree with on everything,” she said. “So the character, the leadership, the military is very important to me.”

    To that end, she listed DeSantis as her early favorite, despite her opposition to a six-week ban, but said she would consider Haley, Scott and perhaps others, too.

    Our first visit with this voter group, before the first debate, was to get a sense of how they rate the candidates and the issues early on.

    McGaffey, an administrator at the Jolly Time Pop Corn company, was the only member of the group who brought up the abortion issue in our conversations.

    Mudd, the pro-Trump businessman who’s wary of the GOP leaning too heavily into abortion, listed the economy as his lead issue.

    Similarly, attorney Priscilla Forsyth from Sioux City said abortion was not an issue on her debate priority list.

    “Issues like abortion are not my issue,” she said. “A lot of the social issues are not. It’s all the economy, really.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Francis Suarez ends campaign for Republican presidential nomination | CNN Politics

    Francis Suarez ends campaign for Republican presidential nomination | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Miami Mayor Francis Suarez announced Tuesday that he was ending his bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, becoming the first major candidate to do so.

    “While I have decided to suspend my campaign for President, my commitment to making this a better nation for every American remains,” Suarez said in a statement.

    Suarez’s move comes after he failed to fully meet the requirements set by the Republican National Committee to make the first presidential debate in Milwaukee last week. He had told CNN prior to the debate that candidates who do not make the stage should drop out – even if that included himself.

    “I look forward to keeping in touch with the other Republican presidential candidates and doing what I can to make sure our party puts forward a strong nominee who can inspire and unify the country, renew Americans’ trust in our institutions and in each other, and win,” Suarez said Tuesday.

    Suarez launched his long-shot bid for the presidency just over two months ago, in mid-June, urging Republicans to unify and evoking Ronald Reagan’s call for the party to rebuild its “big tent” coalition.

    The son of Cuban immigrants, Suarez was the lone major Hispanic candidate in the Republican primary, which includes two higher-profile fellow Floridians: former President Donald Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    “I will continue to amplify the voices of the Hispanic community – the fastest-growing voting group in our country. The Left has taken Hispanics for granted for far too long, and it is no surprise that so many are finding a home in America’s conservative movement,” he said Tuesday.

    Over his short-lived campaign, Suarez acknowledged he did not have the same name recognition as many of his GOP rivals.

    “My opponents have been national figures for many years. I’ve been a national figure for 60 days. So, you know, I’m competing from behind,” Suarez said earlier this month at the Iowa State Fair.

    He ultimately did not meet the polling criteria set by the RNC to make the Milwaukee debate stage, his campaign said. Candidates had to register at least 1% support in three national polls or in two national and two early-state polls that met the RNC’s criteria.

    Suarez said he had met the 40,000 individual donor threshold to qualify for the debate. His campaign employed some unconventional methods to meet that goal, including accepting bitcoin donations, offering $20 gift cards and raffling off tickets for soccer superstar Lionel Messi’s debut at Major League Soccer club Inter Miami. The pro-Suarez super PAC, SOS America, also offered a chance to win a free year of college with a $1 donation.

    Shortly after launching his campaign, Suarez stumbled in an interview on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, indicating that he was unfamiliar with the plight of the Uyghur Muslim ethnic minority in China, whose treatment has been the subject of worldwide condemnation for years.

    The conservative talk radio host asked Suarez if he would be “talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?”

    Suarez responded, “The what?”

    “The Uyghurs,” Hewitt said, prompting the candidate to ask, “What’s a Uyghur?”

    At the end of the interview, Suarez told Hewitt, “You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at – what was it? What’d you call it, a weeble?”

    In a later statement to CNN, Suarez denied that he had been unaware of the Uyghur situation and the accusations against China of human rights abuses.

    “Of course, I am well aware of the suffering of the Uyghurs in China. They are being enslaved because of their faith. China has a deplorable record on human rights and all people of faith suffer there. I didn’t recognize the pronunciation my friend Hugh Hewitt used,” he said.

    China denies the allegations of human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in the northwestern region of Xinjiang.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Republicans make false, misleading claims at first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Republicans make false, misleading claims at first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Republican-led House Oversight Committee is holding its first hearing Thursday in the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden – and Republicans on the committee have made a series of false and misleading claims, as well as some other claims that have left out critical context.

    Below is a CNN fact check. This article will be updated as additional fact checks are completed.

    Republican Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said in his opening remarks at the hearing on Thursday that the committee has uncovered how “the Bidens and their associates created over 20 shell companies” and “raked in over $20 million between 2014 and 2019.”

    Facts First: The $20 million figure is roughly accurate for Joe Biden’s family and associates, according to the bank records subpoenaed by the committee, but the phrase “the Bidens and their associates” obscures the fact that there is no public evidence to date that President Joe Biden himself received any of this money. And it’s worth noting that a large chunk of the money went to the “associates” – Hunter Biden’s business partners – not even Biden’s family itself.

    So far, none of the bank records obtained by the committee have shown any payments to Joe Biden. And a Washington Post analysis in August found that, of about $23 million in payments the committee had identified from foreign sources, nearly $7.5 million went to members of the Biden family – almost all of it to Hunter Biden – and the rest to people Hunter Biden did business with. (The Post also questioned the use of the vague phrase “shell companies,” noting that “virtually all of the companies” that had been listed by the committee at the time had “legitimate business interests” or “clearly identified business investments.”)

    A Republican aide for the House Oversight Committee disputed the Post’s analysis on Thursday, saying that bank records obtained by the panel actually show that, of $24 million in payments between 2014 and 2019, $15 million went to members of the Biden family and $9 million went to associates. CNN has reached out to the Post for comment; the committee has not publicly released the underlying bank records that would definitively show the breakdown in payments.

    The records obtained by the committee have shown that during and after Joe Biden’s tenure as vice president, Hunter Biden made millions of dollars through complex financial arrangements from private equity deals, legal fees and corporate consulting in Ukraine, China, Romania and elsewhere. Again, Republicans have not produced evidence that Joe Biden got paid in any of these arrangements.

    Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio repeated a false claim about Hunter Biden that CNN debunked when Jordan made the same claim last week.

    Jordan claimed that Hunter Biden himself said he was unqualified to sit on the board of directors of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings.

    “Hunter Biden’s not qualified, fact number two, to sit on the board. Not my words, his words. He said he got on the board because of the brand, because of the name,” Jordan said Thursday.

    Facts First: It’s not true that Hunter Biden himself said he wasn’t qualified to sit on the Burisma board. In fact, Hunter Biden said in a 2019 interview with ABC News that “I was completely qualified to be on the board” and defended his qualifications in detail. He did acknowledge, as Jordan said, that he would “probably not” have been asked to be on the board if he was not a Biden – but he nonetheless explicitly rejected claims that he wasn’t qualified, calling them “misinformation.”

    When the ABC interviewer asked what his qualifications for the role were, he said: “Well, I was vice chairman on the board of Amtrak for five years. I was the chairman of the board of the UN World Food Programme. I was a lawyer for Boies Schiller Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world. Bottom line is that I know that I was completely qualified to be on the board to head up the corporate governance and transparency committee on the board. And that’s all that I focused on. Basically, turning a Eastern European independent natural gas company into Western standards of corporate governance.”

    When the ABC interviewer said, “You didn’t have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself, though,” Biden responded, “No, but I think I had as much knowledge as anybody else that was on the board – if not more.”

    Asked if he would have been asked to be on the board if his last name wasn’t Biden, Biden said, “I don’t know. I don’t know. Probably not.” He added “there’s a lot of things” in his life that wouldn’t have happened if he had a different last name.

    A side note: Biden had served as the board chair for World Food Program USA, a nonprofit that supports the UN World Food Programme, not the UN program itself as he claimed in the interview.

    Jordan cited new documents obtained from IRS whistleblowers, made public by House Republicans on Wednesday, to argue that the Justice Department improperly blocked investigators from asking about Joe Biden in a 2020 search warrant related to Hunter Biden’s overseas dealings.

    “We learned yesterday, in the search warrant…examining Hunter Biden electronic communications, they weren’t allowed to ask about Political Figure 1,” Jordan said. “Political Figure number 1 is the big guy, is Joe Biden.”

    Facts First: This is highly misleading. The Justice Department official who gave this instruction said Joe Biden’s name shouldn’t be mentioned in the search warrant because there wasn’t any legal basis to do so. Furthermore, this occurred during Trump’s presidency, so it doesn’t prove pro-Biden meddling by the Biden-era Justice Department.

    The August 2020 email from a deputy to now-special counsel David Weiss, the Trump-appointed federal prosecutor who is leading the Hunter Biden probe, said the warrant was for “BS,” an apparent reference to Blue Star Strategies, a lobbying firm that represented Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company where Hunter Biden was on the board.

    The Weiss deputy said in the email that “other than the attribution, location and identity stuff at the end, none if it is appropriate and within the scope of this warrant” and that “there should be nothing about Political Figure 1 in here,” according to emails released by House Republicans. Another document released by the GOP confirm that Joe Biden is “Political Figure 1.”

    Before obtaining a search warrant, investigators need to establish probable cause and secure approval from a judge. If federal prosecutors believed the references to Joe Biden weren’t within the legal scope of what the warrant was looking for, it wouldn’t have been appropriate or lawful to include them.

    Comer said in his opening remarks that the committee recently uncovered “two additional wires sent to Hunter Biden that originated in Beijing from Chinese nationals; this happened when Joe Biden was running for president of the United States – and Joe Biden’s home is listed on the beneficiary address.”

    Facts First: This lacks important context. Comer was correct that the committee has found evidence of two wire transfers sent to Hunter Biden from Chinese nationals in the second half of 2019, during Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, but he did not explain that Joe Biden’s home being listed as the beneficiary address doesn’t demonstrate that Joe Biden received any of the money. Nor did he explain that there may well be benign reasons for the inclusion of the address. Hunter Biden has lived at his father’s Wilmington, Delaware, home at times and listed that address on his driver’s license; Hunter Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell said in a statement to CNN this week that the address was listed on these transfers simply because it was the address Hunter Biden used on the bank account the money was going to, which Lowell said Hunter Biden did “because it was his only permanent address at the time.”

    “This was a documented loan (not a distribution or pay-out) that was wired from a private individual to his new bank account which listed the address on his driver’s license, his parents’ address, because it was his only permanent address at the time,” Lowell said in the statement. “We expect more occasions where the Republican chairs twist the truth to mislead people to promote their fantasy political agenda.”

    White House spokesman Ian Sams wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Wednesday: “Imagine them arguing that, if someone stayed at their parents’ house during the pandemic, listed it as their permanent address for work, and got a paycheck, the parents somehow also worked for the employer…It’s bananas…Yet this is what extreme House Republicans have sunken to.”

    Comer told CNN this week his panel is trying to put together a timeline on where Hunter Biden was living around the time of the transfers, which occurred in July 2019 and August 2019. Joe Biden was a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary at the time.

    Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina claimed at the Thursday hearing, “We already know the president took bribes from Burisma,” a Ukrainian energy company where Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors.

    Facts First: Mace’s claim is false; we do not “already know” that Joe Biden took any bribe. The claim about a bribe from Burisma is a completely unproven allegation. The FBI informant who relayed the claim to the FBI in 2020 was merely reporting something he said he had been told by Burisma’s chief executive. Later in the hearing, a witness called by the committee Republicans, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, called “the bribery allegation” the most concerning piece of evidence he had heard today – but he immediately cautioned that “you have to only take that so far” given that it is “a secondhand account.”

    According to an internal FBI document made public by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa earlier this year over the strong objections of the FBI, the informant said in 2020 – when Donald Trump was president – that the CEO of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, had claimed in 2016 that he made a $5 million payment to “one Biden” and another $5 million payment to “another Biden.” But the FBI document did not contain any proof for the claim, and the document said the informant was “not able to provide any further opinion as to the veracity” of the claim.

    Republicans have tried to boost the credibility the allegation by saying it was in an FBI document and that the FBI had viewed the informant as highly credible. But the document merely memorialized the information provided by the informant; it does not demonstrate that the information is true. And Hunter Biden’s former business associate Devon Archer testified to the House Oversight Committee earlier this year that he had not been aware of any such payments to the Bidens; Archer characterized Zlochevsky’s reported claim as an example of the Ukrainian businessman embellishing his influence.

    Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, falsely claimed that Hunter Biden never paid taxes on his foreign income.

    He said Hunter Biden “failed to pay any taxes” on the millions of dollars he got from Ukrainian companies, and that this shows how “the Biden family doesn’t have to” pay taxes.

    “Who’s going to write the check for the money Hunter Biden didn’t pay?” Burchett asked, adding that “hardworking Americans” would end up footing the bill.

    Facts First: This is false. Hunter Biden repeatedly missed IRS deadlines, and his conduct was so egregious that federal investigators believe it was criminal, but he eventually belatedly paid all of his back taxes, plus interest and penalties, to the tune of about $2 million.

    Documents from Hunter Biden’s criminal cases indicate that he repeatedly missed tax deadlines, even though he had the funds and was repeatedly warned by his accountant and business partners. He was prepared to plead guilty to two misdemeanors in July, for failing to pay taxes on time in 2017 and 2018, before the plea deal collapsed.

    But there’s a difference between failing to pay taxes on time and failing to pay taxes at all. In 2021, while the criminal investigation was still underway and before any charges were filed, Hunter Biden paid roughly $2 million to the IRS to cover all the back taxes, plus penalties and interest.

    Hunter Biden was able to make the massive payment thanks to a roughly $2 million loan from a friend and attorney who has been supporting him during his legal troubles, according to court filings.

    Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York accused a Republican member of the committee, Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida, of cutting out “critical context” from an image of a purported text message that Donalds displayed earlier in the Thursday hearing. Ocasio-Cortez also said that Donalds had displayed a “fabricated image.”

    The dispute was over an image Donalds showed of a purported 2018 text message from the president’s brother James Biden to the president’s son Hunter Biden – provided by IRS whistleblowers and released by House Republicans on Wednesday – in which James Biden purportedly wrote, “This can work, you need a safe harbor. I can work with you father [sic] alone !! We as usual just need several months of his help for this to work.”

    After showing the image, Donalds asked a witness at the committee, “If you saw a text message like this between the president’s brother and the president’s son, wouldn’t you be concerned about them trying to give plausible deniability for the president of the United States to not have any knowledge of said business dealings?”

    Facts First: Donalds didn’t invent the James Biden text message, but Ocasio-Cortez was correct that Donalds left out critical context – specifically, context that showed there was no sign that the purported text exchange between James Biden and Hunter Biden was about business dealings. The information released by House Republicans this week appeared to show that James Biden’s purported text about getting “help” from Joe Biden came in direct response to a purported Hunter Biden text saying he could not afford alimony, school tuition for his children, food and gas “w/o [without] Dad.” Donalds did not display this purported Hunter Biden text at the Thursday hearing.

    In other words, when James Biden purportedly mentioned the possibility of several months of help from Joe Biden, he gave no indication he was referring to some sort of business transaction, much less the foreign transactions that House Republicans have been focused on in their investigations into the president. But Donalds didn’t make that clear.

    With that said, Ocasio-Cortez herself could have been clearer about what she meant when she claimed the image Donalds showed was “fabricated.”

    The contents of the purported James Biden text Donalds displayed were not made up, according to the IRS whistleblowers. What appeared to be novel was the graphic Donalds used; he showed the text in a form that made it look like a screenshot from an iPhone text conversation, with white words over a blue background bubble. The House Republican spreadsheet that the words were taken from did not include any such graphics, and, again, it did include the preceding purported Hunter Biden message that Donalds didn’t show.

    Republican Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas said at the Thursday hearing, “In an interview back in 2019 with The New Yorker, even Hunter admitted that he talked to his dad about business, specifically Burisma.”

    Facts First: This needs context. The 2019 New Yorker article in question reported that Hunter Biden said he recalled Joe Biden discussing Burisma with him “just once” in a brief exchange that consisted of this: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’”

    It’s fair for Fallon to say that this counts as Joe Biden discussing business with his son, but Fallon did not mention how brief and limited Hunter Biden said the purported discussion was.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Inside Trump’s decision to endorse Jim Jordan for House speaker | CNN Politics

    Inside Trump’s decision to endorse Jim Jordan for House speaker | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    As he traveled from a New York courtroom to his Palm Beach club this week, former President Donald Trump repeatedly asked his allies and aides for steady updates on what was happening in Washington, DC, as the man he often referred to as “my Kevin” was ousted from the House speakership in dramatic fashion and the immediate search for his replacement began.

    According to several sources, Trump hesitated to involve himself in saving Kevin McCarthy’s speakership beyond a single post on Truth Social. Instead, he immediately asked those around him about who could potentially replace McCarthy, with one underlying theme in mind: Who would be the most loyal to him?

    As Trump reveled publicly in the far-fetched notion that he should take the job, he never took the idea seriously and instead focused on putting a reliable GOP ally in the role. Trump had liked McCarthy as speaker because he knew the California Republican was unfailingly loyal to him. The prospect of someone who wasn’t unsettled him. He scoffed privately to multiple people at names being thrown around of more moderate members, like Tom Emmer, the majority whip.

    It wasn’t long before Trump began telling Republicans during multiple phone conversations that Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan was his pick, while also making clear that he didn’t want to publicly disclose that decision yet with an endorsement. Instead, he began crafting plans to travel to Washington where he would potentially make the endorsement during a GOP meeting Tuesday, two people familiar with his plans told CNN.

    That plan ran into a brick wall when Rep. Troy Nehls tweeted the following Thursday night, catching Trump and his circle off guard: “Just had a great conversation with President Trump about the Speaker’s race. He is endorsing Jim Jordan, and I believe Congress should listen to the leader of our party.”

    Though he had been reluctant to do so, that tweet forced Trump to post his own shortly after midnight, affirming that Jordan had his endorsement.

    The plan to travel to Washington was also scrapped, though people close to Trump noted he could always change his mind.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New trove of emails and documents turned over to prosecutors in Georgia election subversion case | CNN Politics

    New trove of emails and documents turned over to prosecutors in Georgia election subversion case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A trove of emails and documents uncovered by state investigators looking into a voting systems breach in Georgia is being turned over to the Fulton County prosecutors who brought the sweeping racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and his allies.

    More than 15,000 emails and documents connected to Misty Hampton, the former election supervisor for Coffee County, were discovered this month by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation – after attorneys for the rural county’s board of elections claimed the information had been lost.

    Hampton has been charged alongside Trump and 17 other co-defendants with trying to subvert the 2020 election results in Georgia. She has been accused of facilitating the unlawful breach of Coffee County’s voting systems.

    The Georgia Bureau of Investigation had been looking into the Coffee County incident since the summer of 2022. Earlier this month, the agency completed its investigation and gave the case file to Fulton County prosecutors to be included as part of discovery to be turned over to defendants in the Trump election interference case.

    While it’s unclear what’s in the trove of emails and documents, the Coffee County breach features prominently in the Fulton County indictment. Prosecutors say Trump allies illegally breached the voting systems in hopes of finding proof that the election was fraudulent. Prosecutors also have evidence tying Trump campaign lawyers to the breach.

    Sidney Powell, the former Trump campaign attorney charged with crimes stemming from the Coffee County voting systems breach, has centered her defense around the claim that access to the data was authorized by Hampton. Powell and pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro are the first two defendants to go to trial, with jury selection set to begin Friday.

    In text messages previously obtained by CNN, Hampton allegedly gave Trump attorneys a “written invitation” to access Georgia voting systems.

    RELATED: Georgia prosecutors have messages showing Trump’s team is behind voting system breach

    Hampton’s attorney Jonathan Miller said he believes that the newly discovered emails and content will exonerate her.

    “There is nothing in the 15,000 emails that would do anything to make my client culpable of a crime, and I look forward to reviewing it all,” Miller told CNN. “She was acting under authority of Georgia statutes in doing what she did, and the evidence is going to show that. She did not commit any crimes.”

    Hampton and Powell each face seven charges in Fulton County, including conspiracy to commit election fraud and computer trespassing, in addition to racketeering. A trial date for Hampton has not been set, and Miller said his client has not received a plea offer she is “willing to facilitate.”

    All but one defendant, bail bondsman Scott Hall, who has agreed to testify for the prosecution, have pleaded not guilty.

    The security of Georgia’s elections had been the subject of litigation even before the 2020 presidential contest. The Coalition for Good Governance, a nonprofit organization, sued the Georgia secretary of state over the issue in 2017. Hampton’s alleged involvement in the Coffee County breach came to light as part of that ongoing civil lawsuit.

    “Few people believed the bizarre claims made by the Coffee County Board of Elections and their attorneys that Misty Hampton’s emails were suddenly lost shortly after she was terminated in February 2021,” the coalition said in a statement.

    The board of elections did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bob Graham Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Bob Graham Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Bob Graham, former United States senator and Democratic governor of Florida.

    Birth date: November 9, 1936

    Birth place: Coral Gables, Florida

    Birth name: Daniel Robert Graham

    Father: Ernest “Cap” Graham, Florida state senator, dairy farmer and cattle rancher

    Mother: Hilda (Simmons) Graham, teacher

    Marriage: Adele (Khoury) Graham (1959-present)

    Children: Kendall, Suzanne, Cissy and Gwen

    Education: University of Florida, B.A., 1959; Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1962

    Graham’s family operates dairy, beef cattle and pecan farms in Florida and Georgia.

    Was a primary author of portions of the Patriot Act that dealt with improving and sharing intelligence between US and foreign agencies.

    Co-chaired the congressional investigation into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

    Voted against going to war with Iraq in 2003.

    Graham’s daughter, Gwen, represented Florida’s 2nd Congressional District (Tallahassee), 2015-2017.

    1966-1970 – Member of the Florida House of Representatives.

    1970-1978 – Member of the Florida Senate.

    1979-1987 – Governor of Florida.

    January 3, 1987-January 3, 2005 – US Senator representing Florida.

    2001-2003 – Chairman of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

    January 31, 2003 – Undergoes heart surgery to repair a valve.

    February 27, 2003 – Files papers to form a presidential campaign committee.

    May 6, 2003 – Formally launches his presidential campaign.

    October 6, 2003 – Announces he is dropping out of the presidential race.

    November 3, 2003 – Announces that he will not seek reelection to the Senate in 2004.

    September 2004 – Graham’s book “Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America’s War on Terror,” written with Jeff Nussbaum, is published.

    2005-2006 – Senior Research Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.

    2006 – The Bob Graham Center for Public Service at the University of Florida is established.

    May 16, 2008 – Congressional leaders appoint Graham to chair the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. In December 2008, the commission issues a report, saying it is likely a WMD attack will occur somewhere in the world by 2013 if nothing is done to enhance security.

    2009 – Graham’s book “America, The Owner’s Manual: Making Government Work for You,” written with Chris Hand, is published.

    May 2010 – President Barack Obama establishes a commission led by Graham and former Environmental Protection Agency Commissioner William Reilly on the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill and offshore drilling. The commission ends its work in January 2011.

    June 2011 – Graham’s first novel, “Keys to the Kingdom,” is published.

    September 2012 – Graham calls for the investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks be reopened. He asserts that Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the attacks has been covered up.

    January 2014 – Graham visits Cuba as part of a group sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in order to investigate Cuban plans to drill for oil offshore.

    September 9, 2016 – Graham has an op-ed in The New York Times calling for the release of more documents related to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    November 24, 2020 – Graham’s children’s book, “Rhoda the Alligator,” is published.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tom Daschle Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Tom Daschle Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    Here’s a look into the life of former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

    Birth date: December 9, 1947

    Birth place: Aberdeen, South Dakota

    Birth name: Thomas Andrew Daschle

    Father: Sebastian Daschle

    Mother: Betty Daschle

    Marriages: Linda (Hall) Daschle (1984-present); Laurie (Fulton) Daschle (divorced in 1983)

    Children: with Laurie Daschle: Kelly, Nathan and Lindsay

    Education: South Dakota State University, B.A. in Political Science, 1969

    Military: US Air Force, 1969-1972

    Serves on a number of boards, including the Center for American Progress, the National Democratic Institute, the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, the LBJ Foundation and the World Food Program USA.

    1969-1972 Serves in the Air Force as an intelligence officer in the Strategic Air Command.

    1973-1977 Aide to South Dakota Sen. James Abourezk.

    1978 Elected to the US House of Representatives in a hotly contested race. After numerous recounts, Daschle is declared the winner over Leo K. Thorsness by 105 votes.

    1982 Is reelected to House with 51.6% of the vote.

    1984 – Is reelected to House with 57.4% of the vote.

    1986 – Is elected to the US Senate with 51.6% of the vote, the exact same result as 1982.

    1989-1999 Serves as co-chair of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee with George Mitchell of Maine (1989-1995) and Harry Reid of Nevada (1995-1999).

    1992 Reelected to the Senate with 64.9% of the vote.

    1995 – Along with his wife, FAA official Linda Daschle, is involved in a scandal concerning the Federal Aviation Administration and B&L Aviation, a small airline which had trouble passing safety inspections and whose owner was a family friend. Daschle is accused of improperly asserting influence to reduce the amount of inspections B&L received. The incident is later cleared by the Transportation Department and the Senate Ethics Committee.

    1995-2001 Serves as Senate minority leader, succeeding Mitchell.

    1995-2005 – Serves as chairman of the Senate Democratic Conference.

    1996Co-chairs the Democratic National Convention with Richard Gephardt, the Democratic House minority leader.

    1998 – Reelected to a third term in the Senate with 62.1% of the vote.

    June 6, 2001Becomes Senate majority leader by one vote after Jim Jeffords quits the Republican Party.

    October 2001A Daschle aide opens a letter containing anthrax. The Hart Senate Building staff are evacuated, tested for anthrax, and given a 60-day supply of antibiotics.

    January 2003-2005 Serves as Senate minority leader.

    January 7, 2003Daschle announces that he will not be running for president in 2004 and will remain in the Senate.

    November 2, 2004 Loses his Senate seat to Republican John Thune.

    March 5, 2005-2009 Serves as special public policy adviser at the Washington branch of law firm Alston & Bird.

    December 2, 2006 Announces that he will not be running for president in 2008.

    2007 – Co-founds the Bipartisan Policy Center with George Mitchell, Bob Dole and Howard Baker.

    December 11, 2008 – US President-elect Barack Obama nominates Daschle to be secretary of Health and Human Services and director of the White House Office of Health Reform.

    January 8, 2009 Confirmation hearings for Daschle begin in the Senate.

    February 2, 2009 In a letter to the Senate Finance Committee, Daschle admits to errors on his tax returns. The issue involves Daschle’s use of a car and driver he didn’t disclose on his income taxes, and nonpayment of taxes on more than $80,000 he earned in consulting fees after leaving the Senate. He paid $146,000 in back taxes and interest to correct the errors.

    February 3, 2009 – Announces that he is withdrawing his name from consideration as secretary of Health and Human Services.

    November 18, 2009-October 2014 – Senior policy adviser for business law firm DLA Piper.

    2013 – His book “The US Senate: Fundamentals of American Government” is published.

    October 2014 – Daschle leaves DLA Piper and forms The Daschle Group, a public policy advisory of the Baker Donelson law firm.

    January 2016 – Crisis Point,” co-authored with former Sen. Trent Lott, is published.

    November 2, 2017 – Daschle and his son Nathan Daschle are named two of Capitol Hill’s top lobbyists in 2017.

    May 20, 2019 – Northern Swan Holdings, a cannabis investment firm, announces that Daschle has joined its advisory board.

    October 23, 2019 – Co-authors an Op-Ed in The Washington Post, along with Lott, titled “The Senate can hold a fair impeachment trial. We did it in 1999.”

    May 20, 2021 – Is named a special adviser to Field Trip Health Ltd, a provider of psychedelic-assisted therapy.

    November 3, 2023 – Japan’s government announces that Daschle will receive the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump has been indicted in special counsel’s 2020 election interference probe | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump has been indicted in special counsel’s 2020 election interference probe | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump has been indicted on criminal charges by a federal grand jury in a case that strikes at the former president’s efforts to remain in the White House after losing the 2020 election and undermine the long-held American tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power.

    Trump is scheduled to appear at the Washington, DC, federal courthouse at 4 p.m. ET on Thursday.

    As part of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, Trump was charged with: Conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

    “(F)or more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” the indictment states.

    “These claims were false, and the Defendant knew they were false,” it adds, referring to Trump. “But the defendant disseminated them anyway – to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”

    The plot to overturn the 2020 election shattered presidential norms and culminated in an unthinkable physical assault on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, as Congress met to certify President Joe Biden’s victory. Even before that, Trump engaged in an unprecedented pressure campaign toward state election workers and lawmakers, Justice Department officials and even his own vice president to persuade them to throw out the 2020 results.

    Smith told reporters that he will seek a “speedy trial” and encouraged members of the public to read the indictment.

    “The attack in our nation’s capital on January 6 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy, and as described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies,” Smith said in a brief statement. “Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing the bedrock function of the US government nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of a presidential election.”

    The indictment alleges that Trump and co-conspirators “exploited” the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by continuing efforts to convince members of Congress to delay the certification of the election.

    “As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims,” according to the indictment.

    The indictment also says that Trump had deceived many rioters to believe then-Vice President Mike Pence could change the election results to make Trump the victor.

    Six unindicted co-conspirators were included in the filing.

    Among the six are four unnamed attorneys who allegedly aided Trump in his effort to subvert the 2020 election. Also included is one unnamed Justice Department official who “attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.”

    The indictment also mentions an unnamed “political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.”

    The first count Trump is facing, conspiracy to defraud the United States, is brought under a statute that can be used to prosecute a broad range of conspiracies involving two or more people to violate US law.

    Two other counts relate to obstruction of an official proceeding – brought under provisions included in a federal witness tampering statute that has also been used to prosecute some of the rioters who breached the Capitol.

    Those counts carry a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment. The appropriateness of using the law to prosecute the rioters has been litigated in the Capitol breach cases.

    Trump also faces a conspiracy against rights charge under a Reconstruction-era civil rights law. The law prohibits two or more people from conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any….the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

    It carries a 10 year maximum sentence of imprisonment, unless the conspiracy results in death.

    Smith’s move to bring charges will test whether the criminal justice system can be used to hold Trump to account for his post-election conduct after he was acquitted in his impeachment trial related to his actions that day.

    The indictment is the second time in two months that Smith has brought charges against Trump. In June, Trump was charged with retention of classified documents and conspiracy with a top aide to hide them from the government and his own attorneys. And separately in March, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump on state charges of falsifying business records.

    Trump has pleaded not guilty in both cases – and is likely to do so again when he’s arraigned on the latest charges.

    The new special counsel indictment comes as Trump remains the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. The first two indictments have done little to impact his standing in the race.

    Trump’s March indictment marked the first time in US history that a former president had faced criminal charges. Now there are three separate, concurrent cases where the president is facing felony allegations, which are all going to play out as Trump seeks to return to the White House in 2024 following his loss to Biden in 2020.

    The so-called fake electors plot was an unprecedented attempt to subvert the Electoral College process by replacing electors that Biden had rightfully won with illegitimate GOP electors.

    Trump supporters in seven key states met on December 14, 2020, and signed fake certificates, falsely proclaiming that Trump actually won their state and they were the rightful electors. They submitted these fake certificates to Congress and to the National Archives, in anticipation that their false claims would be embraced during the Electoral College certification on January 6.

    At the time, their actions were largely dismissed as an elaborate political cosplay. But it eventually became clear that this was part of an orchestrated plan.

    “Under the plan, the submission of these fraudulent slates would create a fake controversy at the certification proceeding and position the Vice President-presiding on January 6 as President of the Senate to supplant legitimate electors with the Defendant’s fake electors and certify the Defendant as president,” the indictment states.

    Senior Trump campaign officials orchestrated the fake electors plot and directly oversaw the state-by-state mechanics – linking Trump’s campaign apparatus to what originally looked like a hapless political stunt by local Trump supporters.

    Federal investigators have subpoenaed the fake electors across the country, sent FBI agents to interview witnesses about their conduct, and recently granted immunity to two fake electors from Nevada to secure their grand jury testimony.

    In Michigan, the state’s attorney general charged the 16 fake electors who signed certificates falsely claiming Trump won Michigan in the 2020 election with multiple felonies. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is also expected to ask a grand jury this month to bring charges related to efforts in Georgia to subvert the election results.

    This story is breaking and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP megadonor and Anthony Scaramucci among early donors to Chris Christie super PAC | CNN Politics

    GOP megadonor and Anthony Scaramucci among early donors to Chris Christie super PAC | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Anthony Scaramucci and a GOP megadonor who paid for luxury trips for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are among the donors to the super PAC supporting former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s 2024 presidential bid.

    The Tell It Like It Is PAC reported receiving nearly $5.9 million in the first half of 2023, according to a report it filed Monday with Federal Election Commission. It only reported receiving contributions between May 30 and June 30 in this filing. Christie formally announced his presidential campaign on June 6.

    Harlan Crow, a Republican real estate magnate, contributed $100,000 to Christie’s PAC. Crow has made headlines recently for providing luxury travel for and engaging in private real-estate deals with Thomas.

    Another noteworthy donor is Scaramucci, who served briefly as Trump’s White House communications director. He also donated $100,000 to the pro-Christie PAC, the new filing shows.

    Super PACs can accept donations of any size from a wide array of sources, including corporations, but are barred from coordinating their spending decisions with the candidates they back.

    The single largest donation was $1 million from a limited liability company called SHBT LLC that was established last year in Texas. A spokesman for Christie’s super PAC did not immediately respond to a request for more information about the donor.

    Two of the PAC’s largest donors are Richard Saker, the CEO of ShopRite supermarkets in New Jersey, and Walter Buckley Jr., a political megadonor. The two donors each gave $500,000.

    Billionaire Jeff Yass, the cofounder of one of Wall Street’s largest trading firms and TikTok investor, gave the pro-Christie PAC $250,000. Yass also donated $10 million in June to the political committee associated with the anti-tax Club for Growth. An arm of the Club has blistered former President Donald Trump with attack ads.

    Another notable donor is Murray Kushner, the uncle of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has donated to Christie’s campaigns before and he’s contributed to several Democrats. In this round, Murray Kushner gave the pro-Christie PAC $10,000.

    The presidential hopeful has a long history with the Kushner family. In the early 2000s, Christie prosecuted Charles Kushner – Jared Kushner’s father and Murray Kushner’s brother. Charles and Murray Kushner have feuded over business and are reportedly estranged.

    Charles Kushner went on to spend more than a year in prison. Trump pardoned Charles Kushner in December 2020.

    The super PAC spent less than half a million dollars – nearly $430,000 – in its month of reported expenses and ended the first half of the year with nearly $5.5 million in available cash.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump shows in Iowa he still rules the GOP — despite his deepening criminal peril | CNN Politics

    Trump shows in Iowa he still rules the GOP — despite his deepening criminal peril | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump only needed 10 minutes to show why his growing pile of criminal charges is not yet loosening his grip on the Republican presidential race and why his opponents will find him so hard to beat.

    The ex-president’s growing legal peril hung Friday over the first showcase featuring all poll-leading GOP candidates on the same stage – an American Idol-style audition in Iowa, the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

    But his closest rivals didn’t dare bring up a legal quagmire that threatens to be a liability in a general election if Trump is the nominee for fear of alienating his still-massive support in the grassroots. Minor candidates with much less to lose did take on the stampeding elephants in the room – but were rewarded with silence or a torrent of boos.

    Still, Trump couldn’t escape the reality of a campaign in which he seems to be running as much to recapture the powers of the presidency to sweep away his criminal exposure, as to implement an agenda likely to be even more extreme and disruptive than that of his first term. Every candidate walked out to the Brooks & Dunn hit “Only in America.” But when Trump arrived, the lyrics echoed his uncertain future: “One kid dreams of fame and fortune. One kid helps pay the rent. One could end up going to prison. One just might be president.”

    Trump was making his first major public appearance since special counsel Jack Smith slapped him with new charges Thursday over his hoarding of classified documents at his Florida home after leaving office.

    But Trump, the only one of 13 Republican hopefuls to get a standing ovation before he even spoke, largely ignored a flurry of cases that could force him to split time between court rooms and the campaign trail next year. He did lash out at the Biden administration for what he claimed was the political weaponization of justice.

    “If I weren’t running, I would have nobody coming after me. Or if I was losing by a lot, I would have nobody coming after me,” said Trump, who has tried to turn his precarious position into a campaign trail virtue by portraying himself as a victim of political persecution.

    As well as the classified documents case, Trump has said he expects to be indicted in another special counsel investigation – into his attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss and his behavior in the run-up to the mob attack on the US Capitol by his supporters. He is also due to go on trial in March in a case in Manhattan relating to a hush money payment made to an adult film actress.

    But such is his strength in Iowa – where he has a huge lead in the polls – and nationally in the GOP that his major opponents avoided risking their own reception at Friday’s dinner and their chances in January by raising the new charges.

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis did stiffen his criticism of Trump’s legal situation – but did so offstage.

    “If the election becomes a referendum on what document was left by the toilet at Mar-a-Lago, we are not going to win,” DeSantis told ABC News. “We can’t have distractions.”

    Former Vice President Mike Pence implicitly raised questions about Trump’s suitability for future office but also avoided openly criticizing his former White House partner.

    “The allegations, including yesterday’s allegations against the president in that indictment are very serious,” Pence told Fox News with the caveat that Trump was entitled to his day in court. “But I’m never going to downplay the importance of handling our nation’s secrets. It literally goes straight to the security of this country.”

    Only candidates who are so far behind that they so far look to have little chance to win in Iowa or anywhere else directly took on Trump.

    Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson went there – but it didn’t do him any good.

    “As it stands right now, you will be voting in Iowa, while multiple criminal cases are pending against former President Trump,” Hutchinson said. “We are a party of individual responsibility, accountability and support for the rule of law. We must not abandon that.” His comment drew a single clap in an otherwise silent ballroom.

    Former Texas Rep. Will Hurd, an ex-CIA officer, left his stinging criticism of the former president for the end of his speech.

    “Donald Trump is not running for president to make America great again. Donald Trump is not running for president to represent the people that voted for him in 2016 and 2020,” Hurd said to loud boos. “Donald Trump is running to stay out of prison,” he said as jeers started to crescendo.

    “I know, I know. I know. I know. I know. Listen, I know the truth. The truth is hard,” Hurd said, adding, “If we (nominate) Donald Trump, we are willingly giving Joe Biden four more years in the White House, and America can’t handle that.”

    But judging by the snaking lines to shake Trump’s hand in his post-dinner reception and the much-smaller crowds at events hosted by his rivals, Trump remains the darling of his party. Much can change in the months before the caucuses, and it’s possible the sheer weight of legal threats could begin to weigh down Trump and convince some voters that, despite his hero status, another Republican might be a better bet. But if Trump is to be stopped, there is no sign so far that it will happen in Iowa.

    Unlike some of the other GOP candidates, Trump is not using the dinner to also hold multiple Iowa campaign stops. On Saturday, he heads to Erie, Pennsylvania, for a campaign rally before what is likely to be an even friendlier audience.

    Friday’s dinner in Des Moines, the state capital, was a rare occasion when the major GOP candidates appeared in the same place, even if they delivered 10-minute speeches one by one and never clashed onstage. Trump has warned he may skip the first Republican presidential debate on Fox News next month – a decision that might make sense given the size of his polling lead. The format of such events makes it hard for any candidate to break out. But it’s not impossible. In 2007, Sen. Barack Obama delivered a stemwinder that rescued his dawdling campaign at the equivalent Democratic event – then known as the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. A few months later, victory in the Iowa caucuses put him on the road to the 2008 Democratic nomination and the White House.

    On Friday night, the former president’s strength meant that every other candidate was battling to become the Trump alternative, with a strong showing in Iowa that might set them up for a long duel with the front-runner deep into primary season.

    The field came to Iowa with added incentive because of the wobbles of DeSantis, long seen as the top rival to Trump but who was forced to slash campaign staff amid concerns by donors about his profligate spending and his performance on the trail. DeSantis is now running a classic grassroots campaign in the Hawkeye State, holding small events and looking voters in the eye.

    Polling is sparse so far as the Iowa campaign speeds up ahead of the caucuses in January, but Trump led in a Fox Business survey this month with 46%. DeSantis had 16%, and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott had 11%. No other candidate was in double figures.

    Despite the indictments hanging over his head, Trump made the most impressive 10-minute presentation. Showing rare discipline in sticking to the script, he demonstrated how he will use the legacy of a presidency that remains hugely popular among activists to disadvantage his rivals. Unlike most of the other candidates, he also tailored his message to the Hawkeye State.

    “Hello Iowa, I’m here to deliver a simple message – there’s never been a better friend for Iowa in the White House than President Donald J. Trump,” the ex-president said, before rattling off a list of economic and other benefits, real and exaggerated, that Iowa enjoyed when he was in office. Trump also said that without him, the state would have lost its position as the first to hold a presidential nominating contest. Democrats have already decided that the mostly White, rural state does not represent the diversity of the rest of America and have changed the order of their primary calendar.

    “Without me, you would not be first in the nation right now,” Trump said.

    After a grim week filled with stories about chaos in his campaign and panic among donors about his performance, the DeSantis camp will likely be cheered by the Florida governor’s reception, and he won one of the few standing ovations of the evening after his remarks.

    He defiantly vowed to visit every Iowa county and to chase every vote, in a message to those wondering whether soaring expectations ahead of the campaign were misplaced. DeSantis turned the focus from his own plight to the Democrats, arguing that his record in Florida would translate to 2024 success.

    “I’m not budging an inch. We are going to fight back against these people, and we are not letting them take over our schools any longer. We are going to get this right as a nation,” he said.

    “Everything I promised people I would do, we did.”

    Scott, who is spoken of warmly by many Republican voters in Iowa and is seen as a bright new voice, also slammed Biden in his remarks.

    “He is tearing down every rung of the ladder that helped me climb. I was a kid trapped in poverty, who did not believe that in America all things are possible,” the Senate’s only Black Republican said.

    While most other candidates were heard politely, none appeared to boost their fortunes significantly. And former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is planting his flag in New Hampshire, didn’t even show up.

    To paraphrase Trump’s opening line, there was one message from Iowa on Friday night. The ex-president is going to be tough to beat, in the adoring world of the GOP primary – however many more indictments come raining down from the special counsel or elsewhere.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s legal team meets with special counsel as federal indictment looms | CNN Politics

    Trump’s legal team meets with special counsel as federal indictment looms | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump’s defense lawyers and special counsel Jack Smith met Thursday in Washington, DC, without the former president’s team getting any guidance about timing of a possible indictment, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    The meeting happened on the same day that the grand jury hearing evidence from the special counsel’s probe into election subversion efforts by Trump and his allies was seen at the federal courthouse.

    A court official said that there will not be any grand jury indictment returns on Thursday. Grand jury proceedings are secret and it’s unclear what Thursday’s developments mean for Smith’s investigation.

    Since receiving a letter from Smith indicating he’s a target of the investigation earlier this month, Trump had argued against a meeting between his attorneys and Smith’s team because the former president believed the indictment was already a done deal, two sources familiar with his thinking said.

    In seeking a meeting with Smith’s team, Trump’s lawyers hoped to at least delay any potential plans for the grand jury to hand up an indictment Thursday, people briefed on the plans said.

    Another source familiar with the legal team’s thinking told CNN they also expected to discuss the logistics of how a potential indictment and arraignment of the former president would work.

    “My attorneys had a productive meeting with the DOJ this morning, explaining in detail that I did nothing wrong, was advised by many lawyers, and that an Indictment of me would only further destroy our Country,” Trump said on Truth Social.

    Trump’s political and legal strategy has been to delay any possible trials – including until potentially after the 2024 election – and to put the Justice Department in an uncomfortable position where they are pursuing a prosecution of President Joe Biden’s chief 2024 rival even as primary voters are beginning to have their say.

    Every day they can push back an indictment is a day that pushes back an ultimate trial date.

    The members of Trump’s legal team who attended Thursday’s meeting with Smith were John Lauro and Todd Blanche, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Lauro recently joined the team to handle matters related to the 2020 election and the run-up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    Blanche has represented Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and the Manhattan criminal case stemming from a hush-money scheme.

    This is the second time Trump is facing potential charges brought by Smith’s team. Before Trump was charged in Florida in Smith’s probe into the mishandling of classified documents from his White House, he also was notified by prosecutors that he was a target of that investigation.

    Prosecutors aren’t required to give investigatory targets such a warning. Around the time Trump was given the heads up about the potential classified documents charges against him, his lawyers also met in early June with prosecutors for Smith’s team. The classified documents indictment was brought against him later that month.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Inside McCarthy’s sudden warming to a Biden impeachment inquiry | CNN Politics

    Inside McCarthy’s sudden warming to a Biden impeachment inquiry | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Speaker Kevin McCarthy in recent weeks has heard similar advice from both a senior House Republican and an influential conservative lawyer: prioritize the impeachment of President Joe Biden over a member of his Cabinet.

    Part of the thinking, according to multiple sources familiar with the internal discussions, is that if House Republicans are going to expend precious resources on the politically tricky task of an impeachment, they might as well go after their highest target as opposed to the attorney general or secretary of homeland security.

    And McCarthy – who sources said has also been consulting with former House GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich on the issue – has warmed up to an idea that has long been relegated to the fringes of his conference. This week, he delivered his most explicit threat yet to Biden, saying their investigations into the Biden family’s business deals appear to be rising to the level of an impeachment inquiry.

    Speaking to CNN on Tuesday, McCarthy signaled that Republicans have yet to verify the most salacious allegations against Biden, namely that as vice president he engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national in order to benefit his son Hunter Biden’s career, an allegation the White House furiously denies. But he said that launching an impeachment inquiry would unleash the full power of the House to turn over critical information, mirroring an argument advanced by House Democrats when they impeached then-President Donald Trump in 2019.

    “How do you get to the bottom of the truth? The only way Congress can do that is go to an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy said Tuesday, stopping short of formally moving to open such a probe.

    It all amounts to a consequential shift in thinking among Republican leaders, who were previously reluctant to call for Biden’s impeachment and have instead focused more energy on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Those were largely seen as lower stakes fights that could be easier to sell to the party and the public.

    Yet as some of the GOP’s investigative lines have lost momentum – border crossings are down in recent weeks, for example – and Republicans believe they have uncovered compelling new information about Hunter Biden, they increasingly see the president as their most ripe candidate for impeachment.

    Rep. Mike Johnson, a member of the GOP leadership team from Louisiana, told CNN on Tuesday that “all the evidence leads to the big guy.”

    “Speaking as a member of the Judiciary Committee, we’re certainly at the point of an impeachment inquiry. … I feel like we’re there,” Johnson said. “And so we’ll continue to investigate and see if we’re going to follow the facts where they lead we’re not going to use impeachment for a political tool, like the Democrats did in the last administration. We will not do that. But we do have an obligation on the Constitution to follow the facts.”

    As another senior GOP source put it: “When you’re going deer hunting, you don’t shoot geese in the sky.”

    Even some of the more hardline members of McCarthy’s conference said that if the GOP needs to settle on one target, it should be Joe Biden.

    “If I had to pick one, I would pick Biden,” said Rep. Andy Ogles, a Tennessee Republican and member of the House Freedom Caucus.

    The White House has maintained that Biden has had no involvement in his son’s business deals, and Republicans have yet to link Biden directly to them.

    But even with more Republicans coalescing around the idea, impeachment would still be a complicated and time consuming endeavor, given McCarthy’s razor thin majority and the need to fund the government by September 30. And there’s anxiety about impeachment backfiring with the party’s moderates while energizing the Democratic base, all for an effort that is sure to be doomed in the Senate – a similar concern shared by Democrats in 2019, when they launched their first impeachment into Trump ahead of the 2020 election, proceedings that took about three months to complete in the House.

    In moving to potentially make Biden just the fourth president in US history to get impeached, McCarthy could appease some of his sharpest critics in his conference, especially as the House will have to cut a deal in the fall to keep the government funded and prevent a shutdown. Some on his far-right, who have threatened to boot him from the speakership if he strays from their demands, are now praising his embrace of potential impeachment proceedings.

    “We probably should have moved to an impeachment inquiry probably sooner than this,” said Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, a former leader of the House Freedom Caucus. But he added: “I understand.”

    “He was reticent at first,” Biggs said of McCarthy. “We don’t want to look like our colleagues across the aisle. But as we’ve continued to amass evidence and information, I certainly think (at) a bare minimum, we should be doing an impeachment inquiry.”

    Rep. Bob Good, a Virginia Republican who tried to prevent McCarthy from winning the speakership, said of McCarthy: “I don’t think there’s any question that him speaking to that has caused a paradigm shift.”

    “I’m just glad to hear that the speaker is recognizing that that we need to follow the evidence and the truth wherever it might lead us,” Good said. “I don’t know how anyone, any objective, reasonable person couldn’t come to the conclusion that this appears to be impeachment worthy.”

    But GOP Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, a member of the Judiciary Committee and hardline Freedom Caucus who has been more skeptical of impeachment, shot back at the idea he would take impeachment cues from the speaker: “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t listened to McCarthy in years.”

    “I can’t imagine that we would start now,” he told CNN.

    With concerns among vulnerable members that impeaching Biden may not be a winning message in their districts, House Republicans would like to wrap up any such proceedings before year’s end, according to senior Republican sources familiar with the party’s thinking. But that means Republicans are going to have to make a decision soon on if – and whom – they want to impeach, given the desire among Republicans for impeachment hearings and a formal inquiry process. The House is slated to leave at the end of this week for a six-week recess.

    Getting an impeachment resolution through the narrowly divided House – where McCarthy can lose no more than four of his members on party-line votes – will only get tougher in an election year, Republicans say.

    Plus Republicans still appear to be all over the map on their impeachment strategy.

    Firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican who is not only seeking to expunge Trump’s two impeachments but also introduced a slew of impeachment articles against Biden and members of his Cabinet, told CNN: “I couldn’t prioritize one.”

    That sentiment was echoed by Rep. Ralph Norman, a hard-right South Carolina Republican who said impeaching Biden is just “the start of the list.”

    “His judgment is wrong on who he has in office,” Norman said. “They got to have to be accountable. And I think you’re seeing the accountability now.”

    But with economic concerns expected to dominate voters’ minds in next year’s elections, many in the House GOP have been skeptical about moving forward with charging the president with committing a high crime or misdemeanor.

    Nebraska GOP Rep. Don Bacon, whose district Biden carried in 2020, told CNN that the House needs to be deliberate.

    “This needs to be thoroughly vetted in the Judiciary Committee,” Bacon said, arguing the approach needs to differ from the two impeachments under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    “The Watergate profile is what we should benchmark off of, not the Pelosi method of putting it on the floor without a single committee hearing,” Bacon said. “Pelosi watered down and lowered the threshold for impeachment, and we should not follow her example. It’s not good for the country.”

    In the first Trump impeachment, House Democrats led a number of closed and open hearings before charging Trump with abuse of power and obstructing Congress. In the second impeachment, Democrats charged Trump with inciting the January 6, 2021, insurrection just days after the deadly attack in the Capitol.

    Republicans have already had a tough time convincing even members of the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment articles would originate. Indeed, one GOP Judiciary member who has been skeptical of a Mayorkas impeachment leaned over to share that assessment with a Democrat on the panel during a recent hearing.

    During a private leadership meeting on Tuesday, McCarthy stressed the difference between opening an impeachment inquiry and actually voting to impeach someone – an important distinction that could be key to convincing moderates skeptical of impeachment to back a formal inquiry. Still, McCarthy fielded questions from members during the meeting about how this could impact the party’s more vulnerable members.

    Democrats say Republicans are just using the threat of impeachment as a political stunt to help boost Trump, who remains their frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary.

    “It’s clear that Donald Trump is the real Speaker of the House,” Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Party, said in a statement. “He has made sure the House majority is little more than an arm of his 2024 campaign, and Kevin McCarthy is happy to do his bidding.”

    Indeed, McCarthy has been under pressure to placate Trump, particularly after he questioned Trump’s strength as a candidate – comments he quickly walked back. As CNN previously reported, McCarthy told Trump in a private phone call that he supports the idea of expunging his past two impeachments and said he would bring the idea up with the rest of the conference.

    But there’s no sign that GOP leadership is planning to bring such a symbolic resolution to the floor any time soon, with many Republicans pouring cold water on the idea. That has privately frustrated Trump, who called Greene earlier this month to complain about the lack of action from McCarthy, according to a source familiar with the conversation.

    McCarthy has had to walk a tightrope on the issue of impeachment amid growing frustration from his right flank, which has been itching to launch impeachment proceedings. Last month, McCarthy opted to defer a push from GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado to force a snap floor vote on impeaching Biden over his handling of the southern border and immigration problems, saying they need time to gather the facts and build a case.

    On Tuesday, Boebert took notice of the apparent shift in McCarthy’s tone.

    “The Speaker of the House is now talking impeachment,” Boebert tweeted. “The Biden corruption has risen to a level that there is no other response that can possibly be leveled against it. Impeachment is a very big deal, but these are incredibly serious crimes. I look forward to holding Joe Biden accountable for all that he’s done.”

    Hunter Biden walks to a waiting SUV after arriving with US President Joe Biden at Fort McNair in Washington, DC, on July 4.

    Republicans argue that a string of recent developments have generated new momentum that has helped bring McCarthy on board and will even satisfy the remaining holdouts.

    Last week, GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa released an internal FBI document containing unverified allegations that both Hunter and Joe Biden were involved in an illegal foreign bribery scheme that Republicans had been trying to make public for weeks, despite serious warnings from the FBI.

    The House Oversight Committee held a hearing last week that put a spotlight on two IRS whistleblowers who have claimed that the Justice Department politicized the Hunter Biden criminal probe, and has a deposition with Hunter Biden’s long-time associate and Burisma co-board member Devon Archer next week. And the House Judiciary Committee just secured assurance from the Justice Department that US Attorney David Weiss, who is overseeing the Hunter Biden criminal probe, can testify publicly before Congress this fall.

    But Republicans still have yet to tie such allegations directly to the president’s actions, which will be a major hurdle for GOP leaders to clear if they move ahead with impeaching Biden. The White House has repeatedly stated that the allegations launched by Republicans have all been debunked.

    Part of the consideration for House Republicans will be figuring out how to delineate or combine the work currently being conducted by House Oversight Chair James Comer and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who are in constant communication with each other and McCarthy, sources told CNN.

    Comer confirmed he has been regularly briefing McCarthy on his Hunter Biden probes, which he thinks helped give McCarthy the “confidence” to publicly raise the idea of an impeachment inquiry. But he said it’s ultimately “McCarthy’s decision.”

    With just three days to go before the House stands in recess for six weeks, Greene, who continues to serve as a conduit to Trump in the House and has been relentless in pushing McCarthy toward a Biden impeachment, wasted no time in making her case again on the House floor.

    And afterward, the firebrand conservative had this message to her reluctant GOP colleagues: “Any Republican that can’t move forward on impeachment with all of the information and overwhelming evidence that we have, I really don’t know why they’re here to be honest with you.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link