ReportWire

Tag: international-us politics

  • US pauses certain assistance programs to Niger’s government | CNN Politics

    US pauses certain assistance programs to Niger’s government | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The United States “is pausing certain foreign assistance programs benefiting the government of Niger” amid the military takeover in the West African country, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced Friday.

    Blinken described it as an “interim measure” and said it does not impact all foreign assistance programs.

    “Most importantly, the provision of life-saving humanitarian and food assistance will continue,” Blinken said in a statement. “Further, we are continuing U.S. government activities in Niger where feasible to do so, including diplomatic and security operations, for the protection of U.S. personnel.”

    “This is consistent with steps taken by ECOWAS and the African Union,” he said. “The U.S. government will continue to review our foreign assistance and cooperation as the situation on the ground evolves consistent with our policy objectives and legal restrictions.”

    “As we have made clear since the outset of this situation, the provision of U.S. assistance to the government of Niger depends on democratic governance and respect for constitutional order,” Blinken said.

    Indeed, Blinken and others have reiterated that US assistance is at risk unless the coup leaders restore democratically elected President Mohamed Bazoum to power.

    The US and partners have been engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts to try to restore democratic rule to Niger, which had become a point of stability in the Sahel region. The Economic Community of West African States has warned that they will use military force unless the coup leaders back down by Sunday.

    “We’re working hard with ECOWAS to coordinate the negotiations,” a senior State Department official said Thursday. “We have our own equities as well, so, we’re also working with them, the military in Niger, to understand the consequences of, if this succeeds, what that would mean for our partnership going forward.”

    In recent days, the US State Department ordered the departure of non-emergency personnel and family members from the country, though the embassy remains open and the roughly 1,100 US troops stationed in Niger remain there.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘They are going off the Richter scale, both sides’: Manchin flirts with becoming an independent | CNN Politics

    ‘They are going off the Richter scale, both sides’: Manchin flirts with becoming an independent | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Sen. Joe Manchin, the moderate West Virginia Democrat who has yet to decide whether to run for reelection next year or mount a long-shot third party bid for the White House, said Thursday that he’s “thinking seriously” about becoming an independent.

    Manchin has long flirted with the idea of leaving the Democratic Party, something he reiterated on Hoppy Kercheval’s radio show on Thursday, saying he’s “absolutely” considering it.

    If Manchin became an independent and caucused with Democrats, the chamber would still have a 51-49 Democratic majority. If he decided not to caucus with Democrats, he would lose his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, so he’s unlikely to go that route.

    “I would think very seriously about that. I’ve been thinking about that for quite some time,” he said when asked if he’d become an independent. “I haven’t made any decisions whatsoever on any of my political direction. I want to make sure that my voice is truly an independent voice.”

    In the interview, Manchin tried to portray both parties as beholden to their most extreme voices, while also suggesting there could be room for a third party presidential candidate if President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are the only two choices.

    “They are going off the Richter scale, both sides, so I’m – Hoppy, I just can’t, I can’t accept either party, to be honest with you, right now,” he said.

    Manchin added: “I’m thinking seriously, what’s the best – for me, I have to have peace of mind, basically. The brand has become so bad, the ‘D’ brand and ‘R’ brand. In West Virginia, the ‘D’ brand, because it’s national brand. It’s not the Democrats in West Virginia, it’s the Democrats in Washington or the Washington policies of the Democrats.”

    See why Dems are worried about this potential third-party candidate

    If Manchin announces that he is running for reelection in 2024, he’ll will have a difficult road in a state that Trump resoundingly carried twice.

    Manchin, who appeared at an event for the third party group “No Labels” last month, also pushed back on the idea that a third party candidate would help Trump’s chances of taking back the White House. “I don’t see that favoring either side because you just can’t tell how this is going to break,” he said.

    He added, “If we can create a movement, a party that people understand, we could have a voice, we can make a big, big splash, and maybe bring the traditional parties of the Democrat, Republican Party (to) what they used to be, back to what they should be today.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden’s lawyers argue deal to resolve felony gun charge is still ‘valid and binding’ despite collapse of plea talks | CNN Politics

    Hunter Biden’s lawyers argue deal to resolve felony gun charge is still ‘valid and binding’ despite collapse of plea talks | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Hunter Biden’s lawyers said in a court filing Sunday that they believe their deal with the Justice Department to resolve a felony gun charge is still “valid and binding,” though it’s unclear if the newly appointed special counsel agrees with their interpretation.

    The filing comes two days after David Weiss, the Trump-appointed US attorney investigating the president’s son, was granted special counsel status following a breakdown in plea talks to resolve tax and gun charges. By naming Weiss as a special counsel, Attorney General Merrick Garland gave him more powers than a typical US attorney and further independence from the Justice Department as he embarks on an unprecedented potential trial against the son of the sitting president, and as Republicans claim the department is politicized.

    The parties had previously struck two deals amid a sprawling Justice Department investigation: A “plea agreement” where Biden would plead guilty to two federal tax misdemeanors, and a “diversion agreement” where prosecutors would drop a felony gun charge in two years if he passed drug tests and stayed out of legal trouble.

    The probe had appeared to reach its conclusion when a plea deal was announced in June. But the deal dramatically unraveled in court last month under scrutiny from the federal judge overseeing the case, and the resumed negotiations collapsed last week.

    Lawyers for Biden argued in the filing Sunday that Weiss decided “on Friday to renege on the previously agreed-upon Plea Agreement,” referring to the tax deal, after negotiations fell apart earlier in the week.

    But in their view, the gun deal was fully “executed” when it was signed by both parties and presented to a federal judge at a court hearing last month in Delaware. A copy of the deal that was previously posted to the docket was signed by Biden, his attorney Chris Clark and federal prosecutor Leo Wise – but the line for a signature from a probation officer is blank.

    “The parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement,” Hunter Biden’s lawyers wrote to the judge, referring to the gun deal, and adding that their client “intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement.”

    They also said that it was the prosecutors – not them – who crafted the two intertwining agreements that District Judge Maryellen Noreika balked at last month’s court hearing, which ended after she said she wasn’t ready to accept the deals.

    Earlier Sunday, a lawyer for Biden said a trial is “not inevitable,” days after the Trump-appointed US attorney investigating the president’s son was granted special counsel status following a breakdown in plea talks to resolve tax and gun charges.

    “We were trying to avoid one all along and so were the prosecutors who came forward to us and we’re the ones to say: ‘Can there be a resolution short of a prosecution?’ So they wanted it and maybe they still do want it,” Abbe Lowell, Biden’s attorney, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

    Lowell defended Hunter Biden’s defense attorneys, placing the blame on federal prosecutors for the deal falling through. “What group of experienced defense lawyers would allow their client to plead guilty to a misdemeanor on a Monday, keeping in mind that they knew that there could be a felony charge on a Wednesday? That wouldn’t happen,” he said.

    Lowell described President Joe Biden as “nothing other than a loving father,” and said the evidence to indict the president in his son’s potential crimes “doesn’t exist.”

    The gun charge revolves around a firearm that Hunter Biden purchased in 2018 – he lied on a federal form when he swore that he was not using, and was not addicted to, illegal drugs. The tax offenses stem from Hunter Biden repeatedly missing IRS deadlines to pay his taxes on time, though he eventually paid roughly $2 million to settle his debts, along with penalties and interest.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and top Republicans on Capitol Hill were swift to criticize Garland’s decision to grant Weiss special counsel status and vowed to continue their own investigations.

    New York Rep. Dan Goldman, a member of the Democratic Oversight Committee, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” Sunday that “if Hunter Biden has committed crimes, he should be charged with them. I’m a Democrat saying that.”

    “You don’t hear any currently elected Republican saying that, if Donald Trump committed crimes, he should be charged with them and held accountable. And that’s a critical distinction that the public needs to understand,” he added.

    “And this is just another reflection of the true independence of this Department of Justice. A Trump-appointed U.S. attorney is investigating the president’s son. That is pretty remarkable. And you don’t hear from the other side a respect for the fact that Joe Biden has stayed out of this investigation,” Goldman said.

    Republican presidential candidate Will Hurd, a former Texas congressman, told Tapper in a separate interview on “State of the Union” that “the immediate family of a president should not be allowed to be lobbyists or consultants when their father or their husband is the president of the United States.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lyft and Uber say they will leave Minneapolis if the mayor signs a minimum wage bill for drivers | CNN Business

    Lyft and Uber say they will leave Minneapolis if the mayor signs a minimum wage bill for drivers | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Lyft and Uber threatened to stop doing business in Minneapolis after the city council adopted a new rule Thursday that would set a minimum wage for rideshare drivers.

    In a 7-5 vote, the Minneapolis City Council passed an ordinance that includes a number of rideshare worker protections, including a minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers. Mayor Jacob Frey has the opportunity to veto the ordinance and has until next Wednesday, August 23, to do so.

    The proposed ordinance mandates at least $1.40 per mile and $0.51 per minute within Minneapolis be paid to drivers. Minneapolis is debating the minimum wage as gig workers across the country are advocating for fair wages and job benefits. In recent years, states and cities have attempted to pass legislation regarding the growing “gig economy,” or freelance work through apps like Uber and Grubhub, but have generally met with fierce opposition.

    On Tuesday, Lyft sent a letter to the council saying “Should this proposal become law, Lyft will be forced to cease operations in the City of Minneapolis on its effective date of January 1, 2024.”

    Lyft, according to a statement sent to CNN Thursday, said the bill would be detrimental to drivers, who would ultimately earn less, “because prices could double and only the most wealthy could still afford a ride.”

    The company said the bill had been “jammed through the Council” and urged Frey to veto the bill and instead allow time for the state’s rideshare task force to complete its research.

    Uber sent an email to its drivers on Monday, urging them to contact the Mayor and City Council to ask them to oppose the move. Uber said its drivers sent over 700 emails on Thursday, but did not specify what was in those emails.

    In its email, Uber said the legislation could “greatly limit” its ability to remove unsafe drivers from the platform and increase the cost of rides.

    “If this bill were to pass, we would unfortunately have no choice but to greatly reduce service, and possibly shut down operations entirely,” Uber wrote.

    In an email to City Council on Wednesday, Frey said he was concerned about the ordinance.

    “This ordinance stands to significantly impact our city in terms of worker protections, public safety, disability rights, and transportation mode shift goals,” he said. After meeting with a broad group of stakeholders, Frey said “It is clear that we must allow more time for deliberation.”

    After the ordinance passed on Thursday, Ally Peters, spokesperson for the Office of Mayor Frey told CNN via email, “As the mayor laid out in his letter to the City Council yesterday, he supports drivers being paid more.

    In recent years, states have attempted to pass legislation regarding the growing “gig economy,” or freelance work through apps like Uber and Grubhub.

    In 2020, California passed Prop. 22, backed by more than $200 million from the most influential gig economy companies. The controversial ballot measure allows the companies to treat drivers as independent contractors rather as employees. Though it was a major win for the likes of Uber and Lyft, it did include a minimum earnings guarantee (though it doesn’t include the time a driver spends waiting for a gig).

    In June, New York City announced a new minimum pay-rate for app food delivery workers amid the rise in use of services like Uber Eats and DoorDash since the pandemic. Uber and other food delivery apps sued the city in July, maintaining that the law would hurt delivery workers more than help them.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump already taped Tucker Carlson interview that is expected to air on GOP debate night, sources say | CNN Politics

    Trump already taped Tucker Carlson interview that is expected to air on GOP debate night, sources say | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump has already taped an interview with Tucker Carlson that is expected to be used as counterprogramming for the first GOP primary debate Wednesday, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    Trump confirmed Sunday he will not participate in the debate in Milwaukee. Stating that the public already “knows who I am,” Trump wrote on his social media platform: “I will therefore not be doing the debates!”

    It is unclear what platform the interview with Carlson will be published on. The sources said that it would be released around the time of the debate Wednesday night.

    For weeks, the former president had privately and publicly floated skipping Wednesday’s debate, given his lead in the polls. He is expected to spend Wednesday evening at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

    CNN previously reported that Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel and David Bossie, who heads the RNC debate committee, visited Trump at his Bedminster home in recent weeks to encourage him to participate, according to a Trump adviser. The former president was noncommittal on his plans during this meeting.

    Fox News President Jay Wallace and the network’s chief executive, Suzanne Scott, had also encouraged Trump to participate in the debate. Trump has feuded with Fox News, as has former prime-time host Carlson, who was ousted from the network in April.

    Fox News informed the Trump campaign on Monday that they will no longer provide credentials to some surrogates of the former president to attend the spin room at the debate given Trump is not planning on participating, three sources with direct knowledge of the matter told CNN.

    Fox News is in charge of credentials for the spin room. However, the RNC manages credentials for the actual debate, and sources said those tickets are still expected be honored.

    Several of Trump’s advisers and top surrogates had been planning to attend both the debate and represent the former president in the spin room despite his absence, CNN previously reported. Some of Trump’s surrogates are credentialed through outside media groups and will not be impacted. Former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, Reps. Byron Donalds and Matt Gaetz of Florida and other Republicans are slated to attend the debate.

    Members of Trump’s campaign, including senior advisers Jason Miller, Steven Cheung and Chris LaCivita, were also planning on being in the spin room.

    Members of Trump’s teams and his surrogates, however, are still planning on traveling to Milwaukee and are working on a resolution with the network as well as the RNC, two Trump advisers told CNN. The former president’s aides also believe they will be able to find new credentials, one of the advisers said, and are confident they will be in the spin room on Wednesday.

    Fox News did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    Trump’s absence leaves former Vice President Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on the debate stage.

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

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

    The GOP field has used Trump’s expected absence to throw shots at the former president, with DeSantis on Monday saying Trump “owes it to people” to debate, arguing voters – even ones who appreciate the former president’s record – won’t “look kindly” at him sitting this one out.

    In a recent interview, Haley said it would be “hard to earn” voters’ support “if you’re absent.”

    And Christie told Newsmax earlier this month that if Trump “didn’t show up, it would be much more trouble for him, adding: “I doubt that I’ll miss an opportunity to bring his name up, especially if he decides to chicken out and not show up.”

    Ramaswamy, a frequent defender of Trump, struck a different tone than his opponents Monday night. “I have no issue with him skipping the first couple of debates,” the entrepreneur told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on “The Source,” noting that he thought the former president should debate at some point this year.

    “The truth is, many people in this country didn’t know who I was six months ago, so, this is a good opportunity for me to introduce myself to the country,” he said.

    CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect that some Trump surrogates can still attend the debate itself but not appear in the spin room, which would require credentials from Fox.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge rejects Mark Meadows’ bid to move Georgia election interference case to federal court | CNN Politics

    Judge rejects Mark Meadows’ bid to move Georgia election interference case to federal court | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Friday rejected former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to move his Georgia criminal case to federal court, a significant setback for Meadows and a troubling sign for former President Donald Trump.

    US District Judge Steve Jones found that the allegations against Meadows contained in the Fulton County district attorney’s indictment on election subversion charges were largely “related to political activities” and not to Meadows’ role as White House chief of staff.

    “The evidence before the Court overwhelmingly suggests that Meadows was not acting in his scope of executive branch duties during most of the Overt Acts alleged,” wrote Jones, a Barack Obama appointee.

    The Friday ruling has significant implications for the former president and his 18 co-defendants in the Fulton County district attorney’s sprawling racketeering case, though the judge said the ruling did not apply to the other defendants. Meadows was the first of five defendants who already filed motions to move the case to federal court – and Trump is expected to do so, too.

    Meadows unsuccessfully argued that his case, now playing out in Georgia state court, should be moved because the allegations in the indictment were connected to his official duties as White House chief of staff. His lawyers wanted the case in federal court so they could try to get it dismissed altogether, invoking federal immunity extended to certain individuals who are prosecuted or sued for conduct tied to their US government roles.

    The judge’s decision could set the tone for the other defendants also trying to move their cases. It’s an ominous sign for the defendants who are hoping to invoke the same federal immunity protections.

    The judge explicitly stated in his ruling that he is not offering any opinion about Fulton County’s underlying criminal case against Meadows, who has pleaded not guilty.

    Jones wrote in the decision that Meadows had not met even the “‘quite low’ threshold for removal” to federal court, because his activities for the Trump campaign were outside the scope of his federal role as White House chief of staff.

    “The Court finds that the color of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff did not include working with or working for the Trump campaign, except for simply coordinating the President’s schedule, traveling with the President to his campaign events, and redirecting communications to the campaign,” Jones wrote. “Thus, consistent with his testimony and the federal statutes and regulations, engaging in political activities is exceeds the outer limits of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.”

    The Hatch Act, which prohibits federal officials from engaging in political activity as part of their official duties, was “helpful in defining the outer limits of the scope the White House Chief of Staff’s authority,” the judge said.

    “These prohibitions on executive branch employees (including the White House Chief of Staff) reinforce the Court’s conclusion that Meadows has not shown how his actions relate to the scope of his federal executive branch office. Federal officer removal is thereby inapposite,” the judge wrote in the decision.

    Meadows on Friday swiftly appealed the ruling to the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The indictment identifies eight overt acts Meadows allegedly took in furtherance of the scheme to overturn the 2020 election results. Meadows argued that these actions were part of his federal duties – and thus, the case should be moved to federal court – but Jones disagreed.

    “The Court finds insufficient evidence to establish that the gravamen, or a heavy majority of overt acts alleged against Meadows relate to his role as White House Chief of Staff,” Jones wrote, adding that “Meadows failed to provide sufficient evidence that these actions related to any legitimate purpose of the executive branch.”

    One of Meadows’ most critical actions was his participation in Trump’s phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in early January 2021, when Trump infamously prodded Raffensperger to “find” enough votes for him to overcome Joe Biden’s margin of victory.

    Jones ruled that this phone call “was made regarding private litigation brought by President and his campaign” and was “therefore outside Meadows’ federal role as an executive branch officer.”

    Meadows other actions in late 2020, including contacts with state lawmakers that Trump hoped would help him undermine the election results, also weren’t tied to his government role, Jones concluded.

    “The Court finds that the underlying substance of those meetings and calls were related to political activities and not to the scope of Meadows’s federal office,” the judge wrote.

    The ruling is also a personal blow to Meadows, who took a significant risk by testifying about the removal bid at a recent hearing, where he was questioned under oath by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ team. Prosecutors could potentially use his testimony against him in future proceedings.

    After the charges against Trump and his 18 co-defendants were filed, the former president’s lawyers signaled they intended to try to move Trump’s case to federal court, just as Trump had unsuccessfully sought to do in his New York criminal case. Trump’s lawyers told the judge overseeing the state case on Thursday that he may seek to move the case to federal court, but they haven’t filed the legal motions yet.

    Trump has 30 days from the time he entered his not-guilty plea to file to move his case.

    CNN has reached out to lawyers for Meadows and Trump for comment.

    In addition to Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, the former Trump administration DOJ official, and three Georgia GOP officials who served as Trump’s fake electors have also filed to move their cases to federal court. Former Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer and former GOP Coffee County Chairwoman Cathy Latham have a joint hearing scheduled on September 20, while the third fake elector seeking federal removal – Shawn Still, a Georgia state senator – has a hearing on September 18.

    While Meadows’ motion was rejected, Shafer, Still and Latham have made a slightly different argument: They say they acted as fake electors at Trump’s direction. But unlike Meadows, who worked in the White House in 2020, the fake electors have a more tenuous link to the federal government, as nominees to serve as real electors for Trump if he won Georgia, who would’ve participated in the federally mandated Electoral College process.

    In his decision Friday, Jones noted that his ruling regarding Meadows “does not, at this time, have any effect on” the other defendants who are also trying to move their case to federal court. Those motions are still pending before Jones, and evidentiary hearings are scheduled for later this month.

    “The Court will assess these Defendants’ arguments and evidence following the forthcoming hearings…. independent of its conclusion” in the Meadows case, Jones wrote.

    There are several reasons why it would be advantageous for Meadows and the other defendants to move their cases to federal court. In addition to making immunity claims under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, a federal trial would likely have a jury pool more sympathetic to Trump and his co-defendants.

    While the state courthouse for this case is based in deep-blue Fulton County, the federal court district that includes Fulton also contains the more-Republican northern part of the state.

    At his hearing last month, Meadows surprisingly took the stand trying to help move his case to federal court, testifying for more than three hours about what happened in the White House after the 2020 election.

    Meadows tried to argue that all of his work as the president’s top adviser fit into his role as chief of staff – even when it spilled into politics.

    “It’s still part of my job to make sure that the president is safe and secure and able to perform his job. And that’s what I was doing,” Meadows said, later adding, “serving the president of the United States and … it takes on all kinds of forms.”

    But the Fulton County prosecutors peppered Meadows with questions about how his official job involved things like setting up phone calls involving campaign lawyers, such as Trump’s infamous January 2021 phone call Raffensperger.

    Jones concluded that some of Meadows’ high-stakes testimony on the witness stand was lacking – and even used some of it against him in the ruling.

    “When questioned about the scope of his authority, Meadows was unable to explain the limits of his authority, other than his inability to stump for the President or work on behalf of the campaign,” Jones wrote, saying he would give Meadows’ testimony on that topic “less weight” than the other evidence.

    Jones also cited Meadows’ acknowledgment that the lawyers he included in the phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state were working for Trump or his campaign – not the government.

    Fulton County prosecutors also subpoenaed Raffensperger to testify at Meadows’ hearing, where Raffensperger said plainly there was no role for the federal government in certifying Georgia’s elections.

    “It was a campaign call,” Raffensperger testified.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tuberville’s hold on military promotions would take hundreds of hours to process individually, memo says | CNN Politics

    Tuberville’s hold on military promotions would take hundreds of hours to process individually, memo says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    It would take the Senate approximately 700 hours of floor time to individually process and vote on hundreds of military officers whose promotions are being blocked by Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, the Congressional Research Service concluded in a memo released on Tuesday.

    The number of pending nominations has only increased since the memo was written in late August, from 273 to over 300 today.

    Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, asked the CRS to estimate the amount of time it would take to process each of the nominees individually, instead of taking them up and confirming them as a group by unanimous consent – “the only way to process multiple nominations quickly,” according to the CRS.

    The Senate has been unable to confirm the nominees by unanimous consent because Tuberville has said he would object. He has placed a blanket hold on the nominations in protest of the Pentagon’s reproductive health policies, and the pending promotions of the military officers continue to pile up, leaving dozens of service members in limbo.

    Tuberville has repeatedly responded to criticism of his hold by saying that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer could theoretically bring each nominee to the floor, one-by-one, and confirm them.

    While technically true, doing so “would take the Senate approximately 689 hours and 20 minutes of floor consideration, plus two days of session at the start of the process for cloture to mature on all 273 nominations,” the Congressional Research Service concluded in its memo.

    “This total represents approximately 30 days and 17 hours to process all 273 military nominations, assuming the Senate worked 24 hours a day without break or interruption by other business. Alternatively, based on the above assumptions, if the Senate exclusively processed these nominations during eight-hour session days, it would take approximately 89 days to confirm all 273 nominees,” the memo stated.

    Democratic senators have also signaled they are not willing to vote on only the most high-profile nominees, because that would send the wrong message to the rank-and-file.

    “To vote on 300 non-controversial nominations, with Senator Tuberville demanding maximum time on each, could take us to the end of the year,” Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, told CNN last week.

    “The other offer someone said is, why don’t you pick some of the top people like the service chiefs and vote on them and then just let Sen. Tuberville punish those down the ranks?” Kaine added. “That is not the way the military operates. Officers say, officers eat last. You don’t punish the people down the ranks to advantage people up the ranks.”

    Republicans have criticized Tuberville’s hold, too. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Mike McCaul, a Texas Republican,

    told
    CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday that the senator’s hold is “paralyzing” and a “national security problem.”

    “The idea that one man in the Senate can hold this up for months … is paralyzing the Department of Defense,” McCaul said. “I think that is a national security problem and a national security issue.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s indictments — and mug shot — are deepening his supporters’ anger and revving up their support | CNN Politics

    Trump’s indictments — and mug shot — are deepening his supporters’ anger and revving up their support | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Phil Jensen wore a bright red T-shirt with Donald Trump’s mug shot and “NEVER SURRENDER!” printed on it to the former president’s rally in Rapid City, South Dakota, last week. The longtime state legislator loved the shirt so much, he planned on giving half a dozen to his friends and family.

    “He looks defiant,” Jensen said of the photo taken at an Atlanta jail after Trump was indicted over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.

    “And I love it because he has every right to be,” the South Dakota Republican said. “He was railroaded.”

    In more than 40 interviews with CNN in Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota and Texas, Trump supporters said the 91 criminal charges in four separate cases against him have only deepened their support of the former president. They repeated Trump’s unfounded claims that he was the subject of a politically motivated “witch hunt” and said they believed the charges showed the system was rigged against him – and, by extension, them.

    A majority of Americans think that the charges against Trump are valid and that he should be prosecuted, recent polls show, but Trump maintains a tight grip on the Republican Party and his front-runner status in the 2024 GOP presidential primary is undisputed.

    “What they’re doing to him is persecution,” said Corey Bonner of Texas. “They’re going after an old American president, they’ve been going after him since the beginning, they haven’t stopped, and they’re not going to stop. And this is where we have to stand up and fight.”

    At a summer gathering for Alabama Republicans, 81-year-old retired schoolteacher Carolyn McNeese echoed Trump’s attacks on the prosecutors who have charged him and said she thought they were “evil.”

    “They want him out because they’re scared of him,” McNeese said.

    Those interviewed said they believed that President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was the one who needed to be charged and that Republicans faced a different standard under the justice system. And some said that perhaps Trump did commit crimes, but it didn’t change their opinion of him because, as Texas resident Bobby Wilson put it, “We all have sinned; we all have some things that we’ve done.”

    “He’s probably guilty, but it doesn’t matter,” said Jace Kirschenman, an 18-year-old in South Dakota who works in construction.

    He said nothing could deter him from voting for Trump next year.

    “You show me a perfect person in this world, and I’ll show you a blue pig with wings,” said Corey Shawgo, a 34-year-old truck driver in Pennsylvania who attended Trump’s rally in Erie. “Everyone makes mistakes.”

    Like many other Trump supporters interviewed, Scott Akers of Alabama immediately pointed to Hunter Biden when asked about Trump’s mounting legal peril.

    “We have something finally start to come out about the connection between Hunter Biden’s shady dealings and his father and then, like two days later, there’s a federal indictment,” Akers said. “The timing of it is very ironic.”

    The president’s son has been the subject of investigations by House Republicans and the federal Justice Department. The House GOP probe has so far failed to surface any evidence showing Joe Biden profited from his son’s business dealings, but it has found that the younger Biden used his father’s names to help advance deals. Separately, Hunter Biden was indicted on Thursday by special counsel David Weiss in connection to a gun he purchased in 2018.

    Intertwined with their outrage over the indictments, some Trump supporters are raising the specter of heightened political violence if Trump were to be convicted.

    “This country’s a powder keg. You know, we’ve ‘bout had it,” said Frank Yurisic, 76, who attended Trump’s Pennsylvania rally.

    “I think there could very well possibly be violence,” Yurisic said. “If they march on Washington, I’ll be one of the ones there. I don’t think they realize how upset the people are in this country about what’s going on.”

    The predictions of possible violence made by some Trump supporters in interviews with CNN echo Trump’s warnings of what could happen were he to be convicted.

    Before Trump’s first indictment in March, he had warned about “potential death and destruction” if a Manhattan grand jury were to indict him on charges related to a hush money payment to an adult film star. When asked in an Iowa radio interview in July how he thought his supporters would react if he did ultimately end up behind bars, Trump said, “I think it’s a very dangerous thing to even talk about because we do have a tremendously passionate group of voters.”

    “There’ll be backlash, and it’ll probably be severe,” said Jim Vanoy, an 80-year-old Trump supporter who lives in Alabama. He said he thought there would be a “good degree of violence” if Trump is convicted.

    Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow in the democracy, conflict and governance program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the US has seen “vastly increased” political violence since Trump took office in 2017.

    “He unleashed some of the worst parts of the American id in normalizing violence as a way to solve political differences. And so we’re seeing neighbors killing neighbors, people killing business owners over political disputes all over the country,” she said.

    But Kleinfeld pointed to the lengthy prison sentences meted out to some participants in the deadly January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol as a potential deterrent to political violence. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the far-right militia group Oath Keepers, was sentenced to 18 years in prison and Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the far-right Proud Boys, was sentenced to 22 years. Kleinfeld also noted the two-and-a-half-year prison sentence handed down to an Iowa man for threatening Arizona’s attorney general and a Phoenix-area election official.

    “What we’re seeing now is a summer of a lot of accountability, where people are starting to be held to account for violence, and that is the best possible thing for reducing future violence,” she said.

    Trump supporter Amanda Hamak-Leon and her boyfriend are seen at his Rapid City, South Dakota, rally on September 8, 2023.

    Trump continues to defend his supporters who were part of the January 6 mob and said in a recent interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson that there was “love and unity” among those who had gathered in Washington that day.

    His lies about the 2020 election, which fueled the riot at the Capitol, were repeated on the campaign trail by his supporters in interviews with CNN. Many said they felt confident in Trump’s chances in a rematch with Biden in 2024.

    “Unless they convict him of something, I don’t care,” said Mark Roling, 63, of Pennsylvania. “In fact, I kind of like it. Every time they indict him, he gets stronger.”

    Trump has widened his polling lead over the rest of the GOP field since his first criminal charges were announced this spring, and his campaign has reported fundraising boosts in the wake of his indictments. That has vexed many Democrats, independents and more moderate Republican voters, who question how his supporters aren’t turned off by the serious and numerous criminal charges against Trump and believe the indictments should disqualify him from a second term as president.

    “He’s making a psychic connection between his troubles with government and people’s troubles with government. And it’s working,” said Craig Shirley, who has written four books on former President Ronald Reagan and has been a Republican strategist for decades.

    “So many Americans have had bad experiences with government over the years,” Shirley said. “They’ve had bad experiences with the IRS. They’ve had bad experiences with police forces. They’ve had bad experiences with school boards. They’ve had bad experiences with any manifestation of some form of government, and that has made them more and more anti-establishment.”

    Trump has been intentional on the campaign trail about making his supporters feel like his indictments are personal to them. “I’m being indicted for you,” he says at every rally. “They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you, and I’m just standing in their way.”

    “It’s very much like a family protecting one of their own,” Whit Ayres, a veteran GOP pollster, said of how Trump’s supporters have rallied around the former president.

    “He came down the escalator in 2015, saying, ‘I am doing this for you. I am your protector. I am the only one looking out for you. And an attack on me is an attack on you.’ And he has been beating that drum now for eight years, and it’s accepted as true by millions of his supporters,” Ayres said.

    The day after Trump was booked at the Fulton County jail in Atlanta, his campaign said it had the highest-grossing fundraising day of the entire campaign to date, raising $4.18 million. A few days later, the campaign said it had raked in nearly $3 million off mug shot merchandise alone.

    A vendor sells T-shirts featuring Trump's mug shot outside his Rapid City, South Dakota, rally on September 8, 2023.

    But the market for mug shot merchandise extends well beyond the official campaign store as private vendors see their sales skyrocket.

    “This is the new ‘Let’s Go Brandon,’” said Sam Smith, a private vendor at Trump’s Rapid City rally, referring to the right-wing slogan used to insult Joe Biden. Smith, who travels around the country to sell merchandise outside the former president’s events, said he made solid money for two years off “Let’s Go Brandon” products.

    Longtime Trump supporter Amanda Hamak-Leon bought matching mug shot T-shirts on Amazon that said “WANTED FOR PRESIDENT” for her and her boyfriend to wear to Trump’s rally in Rapid City.

    “It really ticked me off,” Hamak-Leon said of Trump’s indictments. “I just feel like now for six-plus years they’ve been going after him with anything that they can, taking shots in the dark. It just makes me like him more that he just keeps going and is not letting this stop him.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Democrats weigh risky strategy: Whether to save McCarthy | CNN Politics

    House Democrats weigh risky strategy: Whether to save McCarthy | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Democrats have begun internal discussions about how to deal with the prospects of a chaotic situation: The possibility that Speaker Kevin McCarthy could lose his job in an unprecedented vote on the floor.

    While no decisions have been made, some of the party’s moderates are privately signaling they’d be willing to cut a deal to help McCarthy stave off a right-wing revolt – as long as the speaker meets their own demands.

    Publicly, Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has not weighed in on how he’d want his members to manage a challenge to McCarthy’s speakership, saying it’s hypothetical at this point. But privately, Jeffries has counseled his members to keep their powder dry, according to multiple sources, a recognition it’s better for Democrats to keep their options open as the government funding fight plays outs.

    “If somehow Democrats are asked to be helpful, it’s not just going to have to be out of the kindness of our hearts,” Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan, told CNN. “If Kevin can’t govern with just his part – which clearly he can’t – and he wants to have a conversation with us about how to do that, we are going to have a policy conversation.”

    Asked recently by CNN if he would need to rely on Democrats to help save him, McCarthy would not say.

    “I am not worried about that,” he said.

    The private discussions have picked up steam in recent days, as a handful of hardline GOP members dig in against a series of spending bills – an effort that could catapult the government into a shutdown – and as any move the speaker takes to advance a short-term spending bill with Democrats could trigger the end of his speakership.

    If McCarthy’s position was threatened with a so-called motion to vacate, and there were five Republicans backing it, Democrats would have a major role in deciding McCarthy’s fate.

    But members who spoke to CNN made clear that any Democratic help would come at a cost. And their asking price for saving his speakership, Democratic members say, is a bipartisan deal to avoid a shutdown – a route McCarthy is not yet prepared to take, as Republicans are still trying to find consensus on a GOP plan to fund the government.

    “I think it is fair to say Democrats have a responsibility to be preparing for the possibility that there will be some sort of upheaval,” one Democratic member told CNN.

    One of the strategies being discussed by Democrats is to vote “present” or vote to kill it all together if a motion to oust McCarthy is brought to the floor. Voting present would change the threshold and make it harder for McCarthy’s critics to oust him, which would require a majority of those voting in order to succeed.

    It’s a complicated dance for Democrats, who don’t want to be seen as saving McCarthy – especially after he just launched an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden – and could open them up to backlash on the left. But some Democrats also fear the potential alternative: a government shutdown and the prospect of an even more right-wing lawmaker ascending to the speakership if McCarthy is ousted – or the House being paralyzed with no candidate able to win 218 votes to be elected speaker.

    “If he just jams us with something awful, and they still try to kill him, and that’s gonna be his approach to work with the Freedom Caucus, there’s less incentive (to help him),” said one Democrat. “Still, even then, you’re gonna have a lot of people who say: ‘Well I think what’s behind door No. 3 might be a lot worse.’”

    “I think if he’s willing to work together on things,” the member said, adding, “There will be enough of us to protect him.”

    It’s still not clear when or if McCarthy’s detractors would try and push the issue. Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida – one of McCarthy’s most vocal critics – would not specify Wednesday when he would move to force a vote on removing McCarthy as speaker. But he warned McCarthy against working with Democrats, and said House Republicans who work with Democrats to avoid a shutdown would be signing their own “political death warrant.”

    “If Speaker McCarthy relies on Democrats to pass a continuing resolution, I would call the Capitol moving truck to his office pretty soon because my expectation would be he’d be out of the speaker’s office quite promptly,” said Gaetz, who privately told his colleagues Wednesday there are seven Republicans who would vote against any stop-gap measure, enough to kill it if all Democrats oppose a conservative plan.

    With less than two weeks before a government shutdown, Democrats are watching the speaker’s actions carefully on spending and taking whether McCarthy is willing to cut his right flank lose in pursuit of a bipartisan deal on spending – short-handed on Capitol Hill as a continuing resolution or a CR – into consideration for how they’d act on the floor if a motion to vacate were brought forward.

    “If we were actually part of the deal, like actually part of a commonsense agreement on CR and budget, I think you would find a significant group of people willing to vote present,” one Democrat said.

    Meanwhile, as frustration in the GOP has reached a fever pitch, private talks between moderate Democrats and Republicans about a bipartisan funding deal have grown more serious: the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus has developed a framework for a plan, and Jeffries stopped by their meeting on Wednesday.

    Leaving the meeting, Jeffries called for a bipartisan agreement in line with what was already negotiated in the debt ceiling package – a deal cut by McCarthy but later abandoned amid pressure from his right flank to seek deeper cuts.

    “We need to find a bipartisan agreement consistent with what was previously reached,” he said.

    But the mechanism for putting such a bill on the floor is complicated. One possible option is for GOP members of the group to sign onto a so-called discharge petition, a complicated and time-consuming procedural mechanism. If five Republicans did so, it would trigger a process that could force the bill onto the floor for a vote without McCarthy having to do it. But that process would likely take too long at this point to avert a shutdown.

    Members are also discussing other procedural options with the House parliamentarian, lawmakers told CNN.

    “Failure is not an option. We’re gonna do everything we can to prevent a shutdown,” said Republican Rep. Don Bacon, who represents a swing district in Nebraska.

    Bacon warned that he would cut a deal with Democrats if they reach an impasse with conservative hardliners.

    “Well, in the end, if not, we will have to work across the aisle and get it done. I think people got that message,” he said.

    But the growing consensus is that with time running out, the most viable path to avoid a government shutdown is for the speaker to cut his right flank loose and make a deal with the middle – and then Democrats could bail McCarthy out from the inevitable vote to oust him that would be triggered by that scenario.

    Democrats considering bailing out McCarthy say it wouldn’t necessarily stop there.

    “We are having pretty broad conversations about like, use your imagination in terms of how you re-envision … this place is not working,” the member said. “I don’t think it would ever be as transactional as ‘OK, I get a vote on my bill and I am done …’ because you can’t trust him. I think then it becomes everything from what is committee presentation to how bills get pulled to the floor and how are those decisions made?”

    An opportunity to extract concessions from McCarthy, however, likely would never be enough for some Democrats. For Democrats, extending a lifeline to McCarthy could mean facing a primary challenge back home, not to mention the fact that any goodwill McCarthy might have still had with some Democrats evaporated with his announcement he was launching an impeachment inquiry into Biden.

    “There is not a chance in hell I would vote for the speaker. I barely have words. What reasonable thing has he done? What demonstrable outreach has he made to try to bring the House together, to work together in a deliberative and cooperative way,” Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida told CNN. “The real answer is I don’t see a scenario right now in which he would warrant my support, but I also would never say never.”

    Democratic Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota recently said “right now, no,” he and other Democrats would not come to McCarthy’s rescue if he faced a motion to vacate from his own party.

    “If you’d asked about two months ago I would have said absolutely. But I think sadly his behavior is unprincipled, it’s unhelpful to the country,” he said.

    He continued later: “I understand the position he’s in but these are times when people have to make a choice. Do you pander to the few or do you take care of the many?”

    Several Democrats argued that past Republican speakers – like Paul Ryan or John Boehner – may have been worth saving. But McCarthy, they argue is different.

    If McCarthy were challenged, it may only take a handful of Democrats to save him. Aside from voting “present,” they could also just vote to table the resolution – a procedural workaround that would essentially kill the effort. But, letting members walk the plank alone could be politically dangerous for moderates. Voting in total Democratic unison could shield members from the base.

    “I think we need to have a party position on it. I don’t think that has been resolved yet. It is still evolving,” Democratic Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts told CNN.

    Many Democrats are still weighing their options.

    “You know there are so many variables right now, I really don’t have an answer,” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania told CNN.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bipartisan House caucus leaders say ‘all options are on the table’ as shutdown looms | CNN Politics

    Bipartisan House caucus leaders say ‘all options are on the table’ as shutdown looms | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    With government funding slated to run out September 30, the leaders of the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus told CNN on Sunday that “all options are on the table” to force a vote on their alternative stopgap plan to avert a shutdown.

    There is no consensus plan to keep the government funded, and persistent opposition by a bloc of conservatives to House GOP leadership’s agenda has made any effort to pass a stopgap bill in the House a major challenge.

    While the caucus leaders, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick and Josh Gottheimer, said they hope House Speaker Kevin McCarthy puts the measure on the floor, they said they have spoken with the parliamentarian about other avenues and raised the possibility of using a discharge petition – an arcane procedural step – to force a vote.

    The procedural tool can be used to force a floor vote, but only if a majority of House members sign on in support. Discharge petitions rarely succeed because of how high the threshold is to clear.

    “We’re going to do whatever it takes to get that bill on the floor. … A discharge petition is one of several options, and a group of us met with the parliamentarian this past week to discuss all the options we have to force a vote on our bill,” Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, added: “I think our plan is reasonable. And it deals with the extremes and … instead of burning the place down as, Speaker McCarthy said of the far right, it actually provides a reasonable, commonsense solution working with people like Brian Fitzpatrick who want to get things done.”

    The caucus last week endorsed a potential backup plan if House Republicans are unable to pass their stopgap bill alone. The bill would fund the government through January 11 and include Ukraine aid, disaster response and border security provisions.

    “This is a decision the speaker is gonna have to make. He can bring that reasonable bill to the floor that we’ve proposed, and I guarantee you’re gonna get Democrats (and) Republicans coming together to support it and we can keep the lights on,” Gottheimer said.

    McCarthy, who is under pressure and has faced threats of an ouster, said Saturday he still lacks support from a handful of GOP hardliners to put a stopgap measure on the floor, making a shutdown likely.

    Rep. Tim Burchett, one of the holdouts, told CNN on Sunday he is still a “no” on passing a stopgap funding bill.

    “No, ma’am,” the Tennessee Republican told Bash. “I think it’s completely blowing away our duties. We have a duty to pass a budget.”

    He also said he would strongly consider support for ousting McCarthy if the California Republican cuts a deal with Democrats to keep the government open.

    “That would be something I’d look strongly at, ma’am, if we do away with our duty that we said we’re going to do,” Burchett said.

    McCarthy has been hoping the momentum of a handful of appropriations bills, which will head to the House floor this week, would bring some of those holdouts into the fold. But Burchett’s comments Sunday are the latest indication that hope may be in vain.

    “We’re sticking to our guns and all of a sudden we’re the bad guys because we want to balance our budget,” Burchett said.

    Another holdout, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, said Sunday that McCarthy is in “breach” of promises he made regarding government spending when elected speaker.

    “We should have separate single-subject spending bills. Kevin McCarthy promised that in January, he is in breach of that promise, so I’m not here to hold the government hostage, I’m here to hold Kevin McCarthy to his word,” Gaetz said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

    Gaetz added it would be fine if some departments shut down for a few days if it meant measures such as the Homeland Security appropriations bill passed first.

    “If, you know, the (departments) of Labor and Education have to shut down for a few days as we get their appropriations in line, that’s certainly not something that is optimal, but I think it’s better than continuing on the current path we are to America’s financial ruin,” Gaetz said.

    The holdouts’ comments come as the White House urges Republicans to find a solution, warning that a government shutdown could threaten crucial federal programs.

    “Funding the government is one of the most basic responsibilities of Congress, and it’s time for Republicans to start doing the job America elected them to do,” President Joe Biden said Sunday at an event held by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

    Speaking on Sunday to CNN’s Bash, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called on House Republicans to “come to their senses and keep the government running.”

    “This is something that can and should be prevented,” Buttigieg said on “State of the Union.” He echoed Biden administration talking points, saying Republicans should hold up their end of the agreement made this year during debt ceiling negotiations.

    The White House has warned of massive disruptions to air travel if the government shuts down, as tens of thousands of air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration personnel will have to work without pay.

    “They’re under enough stress as it is doing that job without having to come into work with the added stress of not receiving a paycheck,” Buttigieg said of air traffic controllers.

    He added, “The American people don’t want to shutdown. From what I can tell, the Senate is ready to go. The administration is ready to go. House Republicans need to come to their senses and keep the government running.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy faces a threat to oust him as speaker. Here’s how that could work | CNN Politics

    McCarthy faces a threat to oust him as speaker. Here’s how that could work | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Following a showdown on Capitol Hill over government funding, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is heading toward a significant leadership test.

    The California Republican faces tough vote math, major challenges and the potential threat of a conservative revolt against his speakership.

    House Republicans control only a narrow majority, a dynamic that has left McCarthy with little room to maneuver and has given hardline conservatives outsized influence to exert pressure over the speaker.

    To win over critics and secure the speaker’s gavel in January, McCarthy and his allies made a series of concessions to conservatives. One major concession was to restore the ability of any one member to offer what’s known as a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair – a move that can trigger a House floor vote to oust the speaker.

    Firebrand Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, moved ahead in his attempt to oust McCarthy from the top leadership post Monday, offering a motion to vacate the chair on the House floor. Here’s what that means:

    In practical terms, a motion to vacate the chair takes the form of a resolution to remove the speaker by declaring the speakership to be vacant. It is a rarely used procedural tool – and no House speaker has ever been ousted through the passage of a resolution to remove them. But threats over its use can be a powerful way to apply pressure to a speaker.

    Any member can file a House resolution to remove the speaker. According to House precedent, a resolution to remove the speaker would be considered privileged, a designation that gives it priority over other issues. But simply filing the resolution does not force a vote on its own, though it would be sure to ignite a political firestorm and a debate over the speaker’s future.

    To force a vote, a member would need to come to the House floor and announce their intent to offer the resolution to remove the speaker. Doing that would then require the speaker to put the resolution on the legislative schedule within two legislative days – setting up a showdown on the floor over the issue.

    If a member introduces a resolution, but does not announce it from the floor, that would not force a vote or have any immediate impact – making it more of a symbolic threat or warning shot to the speaker.

    A vote on the resolution to remove the speaker would require a majority vote to succeed and oust the speaker from their leadership post.

    A vote on a resolution to remove the speaker could still be preempted, however, even once it is on track to come to the floor for consideration.

    For example, when the resolution is called up on the floor, a motion to table – or kill – the resolution could be offered and would be voted on first. That vote would also only require a simple majority to succeed – and if it did succeed then there would not be a vote directly on the resolution to remove the speaker because the resolution would instead be tabled.

    According to the reference guide “House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House,” the speaker is required to submit a confidential list to the Clerk of people “in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy.”

    Should McCarthy suddenly find himself out of his job as speaker, the Clerk will then pull out that list, and the number one name on that list becomes the interim speaker. His or her first order of business: The election of a new speaker – and once again, the House will have to vote as many times as it takes to get someone to 218 votes, or a majority of those present and voting for a speaker.

    The last time a high-profile showdown played out on Capitol Hill over a motion to vacate was in 2015 when then-GOP Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina filed a resolution to declare the office of speaker vacant while John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, was serving as speaker. It was not brought to a floor vote, however.

    Not long after the resolution was filed, Boehner downplayed its significance, calling it “no big deal.” But a few months later, he announced that he had decided to resign, saying that he had planned to step down at the end of the year but that turmoil within his caucus prompted him to resign earlier than planned.

    Another notable incident took place in 1910, when then-House Speaker Joseph Cannon, an Illinois Republican, held onto the speakership after a resolution to remove the speaker came to a vote on the House floor and failed – 155 to 192.

    While Gaetz’s push to oust McCarthy poses a major political threat, there are a number of factors that would make it challenging for such an effort to ultimately succeed in removing the speaker.

    “It’s probably harder to remove a speaker using a privileged resolution than people think,” said Matthew Green, a professor of politics at Catholic University in Washington, DC, and author of the book “The Speaker of the House: A Study of Leadership.”

    “It requires a pivotal bloc of members of the majority willing to withstand criticism and peer pressure from their partisan colleagues for introducing the resolution, bipartisan agreement that the incumbent speaker should be ousted, and a majority willing to select someone else to replace the speaker.”

    “It remains a potent threat as long as people believe it is a viable tool to remove a speaker. If it is actually brought to the floor and fails, it will lose its potency,” Green said.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-Trump Org. executive testifies that Eric Trump led him to inflate values of some properties | CNN Politics

    Ex-Trump Org. executive testifies that Eric Trump led him to inflate values of some properties | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The former controller of the Trump Organization says that Eric Trump directed him to make certain decisions that led to the inflated valuations of several Trump properties.

    Jeff McConney, also a co-defendant of former President Donald Trump, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., testified Friday as the first week of the civil fraud trial came to an end.

    Internal Trump Org. spreadsheets shown in court Friday show notations by McConney that say Eric Trump directed McConney in phone conversations about certain property valuations that would later appear on the financial statements the judge in this case has ruled fraudulent.

    McConney testified that in those phone calls that Eric Trump directed him to factor certain things into the calculations that ultimately led to what the New York attorney general says are inflated valuations of properties including Seven Springs and the Trump National Golf Club Westchester.

    (Attorneys for Eric Trump have argued he was not aware that any phone conversations with McConney were used to formulate value assets in the financial statements for Trump properties.)

    The testimony came at the end of a dramatic week in New York. The former president attended the trial for three days, turning the trial into a media circus. He was also issued a gag order after making false allegations about one of Judge Arthur Engoron’s clerks.

    “I can tell you this trial, in all my 33 years, it’s chaos,” Trump attorney Christopher Kise said during a separate appeals court hearing Friday afternoon.

    Allen Weisselberg, Trump’s long-time chief financial officer who served 5 months in prison for his role in a decade-long tax fraud scheme after making a plea deal, is expected to testify when the trial resumes Tuesday.

    During his testimony McConney testified to the methodologies that he used to compute asset valuations like Mar-A-Lago which the attorney general’s office highlighted to the court as improper.

    Under questioning by special counsel to the New York attorney general Andrew Amer, McConney said he calculated Mar-A-Lago’s valuation as though it could be sold as a private residence.

    McConney testified that he did not know at the time that Trump had deeded away his right to develop the property beyond its use as a social club in 2005.

    McConney also said that he and Weisselberg consciously agreed to calculate the value of apartments at Trump Park Avenue, without factoring in that the units were rent stabilized, which significantly lowers the real-estate value because they cannot be rented at market price.

    The former controller said that he and Weisselberg increased the value of multiple Trump golf clubs by adding what they considered the value of Trump’s name on the properties, called a brand premium.

    Amer produced the annual statements of financial condition that contained a note stating, “The goodwill attached to the Trump name has significant financial value that has not been reflected in the preparation of this financial statement.”

    McConney confirmed he was aware that disclaimer was on the annual financial statements.

    He also testified when valuing Trump’s Seven Springs development beginning in 2011, he included the value of seven homes not yet built at the property. He said he did this at the direction of Eric Trump, who oversaw the project.

    Spreadsheets shown in court show McConney’s phone conversations detailing the methodology of the Seven Springs valuation.

    McConney similarly included 71 unbuilt units as realized profits in the valuation for Trump’s Briarcliff, New York golf course. He did this on more than one financial statement even when the development approval of those units had been paused, he testified.

    Amer also rehashed McConney’s testimony from the Trump Organization criminal tax fraud trial last year when the former controller said that he committed fraud at the behest of Weisselberg because he was afraid he’d lose his job.

    Over defense objections, Amer reminded the judge that McConney admitted that he knew it was illegal to help Weisselberg commit fraud when he helped him not only cheat taxes but also cut a payroll check to Weisselberg’s wife so she could illegally receive social security benefits.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US intel agencies hunt for evidence of Iranian role in Hamas attack on Israel | CNN Politics

    US intel agencies hunt for evidence of Iranian role in Hamas attack on Israel | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The US intelligence community is digging through its stores of data and tasking the nation’s spy agencies to hunt for fresh clues to determine whether Iran played a direct role in Saturday’s deadly attack on Israel by Hamas, a senior Biden administration official said Tuesday.

    Even as the US believes Iran is “complicit” in the attack, given its years of support to the Palestinian militant group, national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Tuesday that the administration still does not have direct evidence linking Tehran to the planning and execution of the assault.

    “We’re looking to acquire further intelligence,” Sullivan told reporters at the White House. “But as I stand here today, while Iran plays this broad role – sustained, deep and dark role in providing all of this support and capabilities to Hamas – in terms of this particular gruesome attack on October 7, we don’t currently have that information.”

    Privately, multiple intelligence, military and congressional officials with access to classified intelligence tell CNN the same thing that Sullivan said publicly: No direct evidence has been found indicating Iran was directly involved.

    “Waiting to see if we get a smoking gun in the intel,” said one military official.

    Israeli intelligence is also going back and examining previous evidence, a senior Israeli official told CNN.

    “I doubt that Iran had no knowledge whatsoever,” the official said. “We’ve seen meetings and we’ve seen the close coordination between them.”

    US and Israeli intelligence had no advance warning of the attack – something US officials say is stunning given the scale of the assault – and now, the Biden administration is treading cautiously.

    Iran has for years been Hamas’ chief benefactor, providing it with tens of millions of dollars, weapons and components smuggled into Gaza, as well as broad technical and ideological support.

    Hamas maintains a degree of independence from the Iranian regime. Tehran doesn’t have advisers on the ground in blockaded Gaza, according to former security officials and other regional analysts, and it doesn’t command the group’s activities.

    But the unprecedented scale of the weekend’s attack – combined with analysts’ broad belief that Iran sees the attack as a net positive for its interests in the region – have fueled questions of whether Hamas could have pulled off such a sophisticated operation without direct Iranian assistance.

    “We spend a lot of time and resources worrying about what Iran is doing and how to counter what Iran is doing,” a State Department official said. “This certainly opens up a new chapter in that discussion.”

    In 2022, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said publicly that the group had received about $70 million from Iran that year and that it used the money to build rockets. A State Department report from 2020 found that Iran provided about $100 million annually to Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas.

    Former US officials say there is little question the massive stockpile of weapons used in Saturday’s attack was acquired and assembled with help from Iran.

    “Hamas didn’t build the guidance system and those missiles in Gaza,” said retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, the former commander of US Central Command. “They got them from somewhere. And the technology assistance to put it together certainly came from Iran – where else would it have come from?”

    Still, the Biden administration has for days stopped short of attributing a role in the tactical planning and execution of the attack to Tehran, and current and former US intelligence analysts who spoke to CNN cautioned that past Iranian support to the group isn’t enough evidence to prove its direct involvement.

    “Even if they didn’t give the instruction, you see it in the support,” said Zohar Palti, the former head of the Political-Military Bureau at Israel’s Ministry of Defense. “Is Hamas a complete Iranian proxy that does everything Iran wants? No. But the relationship is much closer than it was even three years ago.”

    Tehran has denied any involvement in the attack, even as it has lauded it publicly. Israel has also expressed caution publicly.

    “We have no evidence or proof” that Iran was behind the attack, Maj. Nir Dinar, a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, told Politico on Monday. “We are 100 percent sure that the Iranians were not surprised.”

    Privately, some US officials believe it’s likely Iran had at least some involvement in the planning of the attack. But those personal assessments are largely based on the belief that Iran would likely look for any opportunity to disrupt the fragile negotiations that had been in the works to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saturday’s attack is widely seen as having endangered those talks.

    Other analysts say it’s equally likely that Iran would have wanted to maintain its distance from any Hamas operation against Israel — even if it was aware of the attack in advance.

    It is not in Iran’s interest to have more direct involvement, said Norm Roule, the former national intelligence manager for Iran at the CIA.

    “Iran identifies regional proxies and then provides them with the political, financial and security support to dominate their particular geography,” Roule said. “Iran encourages military operations, but its proxies manage those actions.”

    Fire burns in Ashkelon, Israel. after rockets were launched from the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023.

    It’s possible that Iran provided some operational and planning support in advance of the attack, but that it told Hamas, “You’re on your own once it happens,” said Mike Knights, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute who specializes in Iran-backed proxy groups.

    “This looks like Hamas learned some very significant new tricks from someone else and that may well have been the Iranians,” Knights said. “But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Iran is up for broadening the war.”

    The relationship between Iran and Hamas has evolved over the years. In the early days of the Syrian civil war a decade ago, Hamas and Iran found themselves on opposite sides of the conflict.

    For years, the two had a fraught relationship driven by two different Islamist ideologies: Sunni Muslim Hamas and Shia Muslim Iran. But Hamas saw Iran’s influence expanding in the region, especially as America’s shrinking role in the Middle East created a power vacuum for Tehran to exploit, according to Michael Milshtein, the former head of the Department for Palestinian Affairs in the Israeli military’s intelligence directorate.

    More recently, Tehran has stepped up the training assistance it provides Hamas inside Iran, according to a former Western defense official. “Iran was being more proactive in logistics and training of these people,” the former official said. “They’ve gone full on in last few years … with explicit desire to destabilize” the region.

    According to Knights, the closest relationship that Shia Iran now has with any Sunni group is Hamas. Tehran has “provided Hamas with precision loitering munitions drone systems that it has not even provided the Iraqi militias, (with) which it has had relationships since the 1980s.”

    “This suggests a level of actual operational arming, training, equipping that we’ve only previously seen with Lebanese Hezbollah, and then with the Houthis in Yemen,” Knights said.

    But Hamas is not a proxy of Iran, Milshtein said. Unlike terror groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas maintains a large degree of independence from Tehran, even as the assistance has dramatically expanded.

    “Hamas became comfortable getting close to Iran,” Milshtein said, but the relationship remains largely based on military cooperation. Hamas received Iranian weapons and military technology, and learned from the Iranians about planning operations. But the power to make a decision remained with Hamas’ leadership.

    “Everything we have seen in the last four days, we can’t say it’s an Iranian plan or an Iranian effort,” Milshtein said. “It’s a Hamas plan that got Iranian help.”

    US intelligence officials are also working to understand Hamas’ immediate motivation for launching the attack. Unlike the Palestinian Authority, the militant group does not recognize Israel and is committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.

    Broadly, the more than 2 million residents of the Gaza Strip live in crowded and substandard conditions, partly as a result of a yearslong Israeli blockade and recurring airstrikes on the densely populated enclave.

    McKenzie and others said Hamas was likely motivated by its own parochial cause more than it was by any interest in disrupting normalization talks.

    “I think the Hamas calculation is very little on normalization,” McKenzie said. “I think it’s less the larger geostrategic things in the theater.

    “It’s the Hamas-Israeli relationship, not the larger, ‘What does this mean to Saudi Arabia?’”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • When Joe Biden met Golda Meir, it was a much different time of unrest | CNN Politics

    When Joe Biden met Golda Meir, it was a much different time of unrest | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

    It’s a story President Joe Biden has told repeatedly in recent days, and it’s meant to demonstrate his long history supporting Israel.

    Biden frequently recounts his meeting with Golda Meir, the trailblazing first and only woman to serve as Israel’s prime minister.

    When they met in 1973, she was in her 70s, and Biden, then 30, was in his first year of a decades-long Senate career.

    When he told the story Wednesday during an appearance in Tel Aviv with Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, he told it correctly, noting that it was just before the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

    The important part of the story is the ending, which occurs as they’re standing shoulder to shoulder while a photograph is being taken. (Note: CNN’s photo editors were unable to find a photo of Biden and Meir standing together.)

    BIDEN: Without her looking at me, she said to me, knowing I’d hear her, “Why do you look so worried, Senator Biden?” And I said, “Worried?” Like, “Of course, I’m worried.” And she looked at me and – she didn’t look, she said, “We don’t worry, senator. We Israelis have a secret weapon. We have nowhere else to go.”

    Well, today, I say to all of Israel: The United States isn’t going anywhere either. We’re going to stand with you.

    He told the same story earlier in the day, although he was off on a key detail. Speaking before he met with Israelis impacted by the terror attacks there, he said the meeting took place “just before the Six-Day War,” which occurred in 1967, before Meir was prime minister and before Biden was a senator.

    But the ending of the story is always essentially the same. Here’s how he told it during the community event.

    BIDEN: And we’re standing there having a photograph taken like you and I are standing, looking at the press. And she – without looking at me, she turned and she – like this, and she said, “You look worried, Senator.” I said, “I am.” She said, “Don’t worry, we Jews have a secret weapon in our fight: We have no place else to go.”

    Well, the truth of the matter is, if there weren’t an Israel, we’d have to invent one. The truth of the matter is that I believe that yo- – as I went home and said – I got in trouble at the time, but it was true: You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.

    He has conflated these two events – the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the Six-Day War of 1967 – before, as CNN’s fact-check team reported in 2021.

    Coincidentally, there’s a new movie version of Meir’s story, “Golda,” starring Helen Mirren and focused on the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

    It is worth learning some of the history of these two conflicts because they still have importance today.

    It was during the June 1967 Six-Day War that Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, Syria and Jordan and seized control of the Gaza Strip, which had been under the control of Egypt, along with Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Syria’s Golan Heights and Jordan’s West Bank, including the entire city of Jerusalem.

    During the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar with the aim of reclaiming land. The war led to an oil embargo by Arab nations against the US when the US supported Israel.

    RELATED: Gaza explained

    While the war ended in less than three weeks, it would take nearly nine more years for Israel to cede back control of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, a process that was completed in 1982 after the 1978 Camp David Accords led to a peace treaty between the countries.

    Israel continued to occupy the Gaza Strip until 2005, when it withdrew soldiers and settlers. Jordan, which had once controlled the other Palestinian area, the West Bank, recognized Israel in 1994, and Israelis have continued to build settlements there.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US escalates tech battle by cutting China off from AI chips | CNN Business

    US escalates tech battle by cutting China off from AI chips | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Sign up for CNN’s Meanwhile in China newsletter which explores what you need to know about the country’s rise and how it impacts the world.


    Hong Kong/Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration is reducing the types of semiconductors that American companies will be able to sell to China, citing the desire to close loopholes in existing regulations announced last year.

    On Tuesday, the US Commerce Department unveiled new rules that further tighten a sweeping set of export controls first introduced in October 2022.

    The updated rules “will increase effectiveness of our controls and further shut off pathways to evade our restrictions,” US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said in a statement. “We will keep working to protect our national security by restricting access to critical technologies, vigilantly enforcing our rules, while minimizing any unintended impact on trade flows.”

    Advanced artificial intelligence chips, such as Nvidia’s H800 and A800 products, will be affected, according to a regulatory filing from the US company.

    The regulations also expand export curbs beyond mainland China and Macao to 21 other countries with which the United States maintains an arms embargo, including Iran and Russia.

    The measures, which have affected the shares of major American chipmakers, are set to take effect in 30 days.

    The original rules had sought to hamper China’s ability to procure advanced computing chips and manufacture advanced weapons systems. Since then, senior administration officials have suggested they needed to be adjusted due to technological developments.

    Raimondo, who visited China in August, said the administration was “laser-focused” on slowing the advancement of China’s military. She emphasized that Washington had opted not to go further in restricting chips for other applications.

    Chips used in phones, video games and electric vehicles were purposefully carved out from the new rules, according to senior administration officials.

    But these assurances are unlikely to placate Beijing, which has vowed to “win the battle” in core technologies in order to bolster the country’s position as a tech superpower.

    China’s Foreign Ministry criticized the Biden administration’s new rules Monday, before they were officially unveiled.

    “The US needs to stop politicizing and weaponizing trade and tech issues and stop destabilizing global industrial and supply chains,” spokesperson Mao Ning told a press briefing. “We will closely follow the developments and firmly safeguard our rights and interests.”

    As part of ongoing dialogue established by Raimondo and other US officials with their Chinese counterparts, Beijing was informed of the impending updates, according to a senior administration official.

    “We let the Chinese know for clarity that these rules were coming, but there was no negotiation with them,” the official told reporters.

    The tech rivalry between the world’s two largest economies has been heating up. In recent months, the United States has enlisted its allies in Europe and Asia in restricting sales of advanced chipmaking equipment to China.

    In July, Beijing hit back by imposing its own curbs on exports of germanium and gallium, two elements essential for making semiconductors.

    Shares of US chipmakers fell Tuesday following the announcement of new export controls.

    Nvidia’s (NVDA) stock closed down 4.7%, while Intel (INTC) slipped 1.4%. AMD (AMD) shares ended 1.2% lower.

    In its filing, Nvidia said the rules imposed new licensing requirements for exports to China and other markets such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.

    The company said its A800 chip, which was reportedly created for Chinese customers in order to circumvent last year’s restrictions, would be among the components affected.

    However, “given the strength of demand for our products worldwide, we do not anticipate that the additional restrictions will have a near-term meaningful impact on our financial results,” Nvidia said.

    The broader US chipmaking industry is also examining the impact of the new rules.

    The Semiconductor Industry Association said in a statement Tuesday that while it recognized the need to protect national security, “overly broad, unilateral controls risk harming the US semiconductor ecosystem without advancing national security as they encourage overseas customers to look elsewhere.”

    “We urge the administration to strengthen coordination with allies to ensure a level playing field for all companies,” added the group, which represents 99% of the US chip sector.

    The measures are also being reviewed in Europe. On Tuesday, ASML, the Dutch chipmaking equipment manufacturer, said it was evaluating the implications of the rules, though it did not expect them “to have a material impact on our financial outlook for 2023.”

    During a call Wednesday about the company’s third-quarter results, ASML chief executive Peter Wennink said the updated export restrictions would affect between 10% and 15% of the firm’s sales to China.

    On Tuesday, the US Department of Commerce added 13 Chinese entities to a list of firms with which US companies may not do business for national security reasons.

    They include two Chinese startups, Biren Technology and Moore Thread Intelligent Technology, and their subsidiaries.

    The department alleges that these companies are “involved in the development of advanced computing chips that have been found to be engaged in activities contrary to US national security.”

    CNN has reached out to Biren and Moore Thread for comment.

    — Anna Cooban contributed reporting.

    [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

  • 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

  • Biden’s student loan policies continue to face legal challenges | CNN Politics

    Biden’s student loan policies continue to face legal challenges | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Legal challenges are continuing to target some of President Joe Biden’s student loan policies.

    While the president’s major student loan forgiveness program was blocked by the Supreme Court in late June, the Biden administration is also facing lawsuits over some of its other policy changes aimed at making it easier for borrowers to pay back their loans.

    On Monday, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked new provisions that were meant to be implemented in July, which would make it easier for borrowers to get their debts erased when they’re misled or defrauded by their college under a rule known as borrower defense to repayment.

    The rule has been in place for decades. But the lawsuit targets new provisions – including one allowing for automatic debt discharges a year after a college’s closure date and another that bans colleges from requiring borrowers to agree to mandatory arbitration – which are now blocked.

    The emergency injunction request was made by Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, a group of for-profit universities. The appeals court order did not explain the reasoning for the decision but said that the case will be heard on November 6.

    Student loan borrowers may still submit applications for debt relief under the borrower defense rule during this time, but the Department of Education “will not adjudicate or process affected applications under the new regulations while the court’s order is in place,” according to the agency’s website.

    Aaron Ament, president of the nonprofit National Student Legal Defense Network, warned that “countless students are at risk of being taken advantage of by higher ed profiteers” until the protections are restored.

    Meanwhile, in a separate lawsuit filed last week, two conservative groups sued to stop the Biden administration from carrying out a one-time adjustment to some borrowers’ accounts, which was aimed at more accurately counting certain payments made previously under an income-driven repayment plan.

    These plans calculate payments based on a borrower’s income and family size – regardless of the person’s total outstanding debt. Generally, they lower monthly payments to help borrowers avoid defaulting on their loans and wipe away remaining balances after qualifying payments are made for 20 to 25 years.

    What the administration has referred to as “fixes” are expected to result in the cancellation of $39 billion worth of federal student loan debt for 804,000 borrowers, according to the Department of Education.

    The lawsuit, which was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of the conservative groups Cato Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argues that one-time adjustment “is substantively and procedurally unlawful” – similar, it says, to the broader student loan forgiveness program struck down by the Supreme Court.

    The Department of Education announced in July – weeks after the other forgiveness program was blocked – that it would begin to notify the 804,000 borrowers of their forthcoming debt cancellation.

    But the one-time adjustment had been planned for more than a year. First announced in April 2022, the move was meant to help borrowers whose payments were miscounted and were already eligible for debt relief under an income-driven repayment plan.

    The changes followed a Government Accountability Office report that found that the Department of Education had trouble tracking borrowers’ payments and hadn’t done enough to ensure that all eligible borrowers receive the forgiveness to which they are entitled. In fact, 7,700 loans in repayment, or about 11% of loans analyzed, could have potentially already been eligible for forgiveness.

    In a statement sent to CNN, the Department of Education said the lawsuit “is nothing but a desperate attempt from right wing special interests to keep hundreds of thousands of borrowers in debt, even though these borrowers have earned the forgiveness that is promised through income-driven repayment plans.”

    This latest legal challenge does not appear to immediately impact the Biden administration’s new income-driven repayment plan known as SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education), which launched last week.

    Once the SAVE plan is fully phased in, which is expected to happen next year, some borrowers could see their monthly bills cut in half and remaining debt canceled after making at least 10 years of payments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden administration defends communications with social media companies in high-stakes court fight | CNN Business

    Biden administration defends communications with social media companies in high-stakes court fight | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration on Thursday defended its communications with social media giants in court, arguing those channels must stay open so that the federal government can help protect the public from threats to election security, Covid-19 misinformation and other dangers.

    The closely watched court fight reflects how social media has become an informational battleground for major social issues. It has revealed the messy challenges for social media companies as they try to manage the massive amounts of information on their platforms.

    And it has highlighted warnings by independent researchers, watchdog groups and government officials that malicious actors will continue to try to disrupt the country’s democracy by flooding the internet with bogus and divisive material ahead of the 2024 elections.

    In oral arguments before a New Orleans-based federal appeals court, the US government challenged a July injunction that blocked several federal agencies from discussing certain social media posts and sharing other information with online platforms, amid allegations by state governments that those communications amounted to a form of unconstitutional censorship.

    The appeals court last month temporarily blocked the injunction from taking effect. But the outcome of Thursday’s arguments will determine the ultimate fate of the order, which placed new limits on the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and other federal agencies’ ability to coordinate with tech companies and civil society groups.

    If upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the injunction would suppress a broad range of public-private partnerships and undermine the US government’s mission to protect the public, the Biden administration argued.

    “For example, if there were a natural disaster, and there were untrue statements circulating on social media that were damaging to the public interest, the government would be powerless under the injunction to discourage social media companies from further disseminating those incorrect statements,” said Daniel Tenny, a Justice Department lawyer.

    Now, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit is set to decide how executive agencies may respond to those threats.

    At issue is whether the US government unconstitutionally pressured social media platforms into censoring users’ speech, particularly when the government flagged posts to the platforms that it believed violated the companies’ own terms of service.

    During more than an hour of oral arguments Thursday, the three judges handling the appeal gave little indication of how they would rule in the case, with one judge asking just a couple of questions during the hearing. The other two spent much of the time pressing attorneys for the Biden administration and the plaintiffs in the case on issues concerning the scope of the injunction and whether the states even had the legal right – or standing – to bring the lawsuit.

    Before them is not only the request to reverse the lower court injunction, but also one from the administration to issue a more lasting pause on that injunction while the judges weigh the challenge to it.

    In briefs submitted to the court ahead of Thursday’s hearing, the Biden administration argued that a lower court judge was wrong to have identified the government communications with social media companies as potentially, in his words, “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ [sic] history.”

    “There is a categorical, well-settled distinction between persuasion and coercion,” the administration’s lawyers wrote, adding that the lower court “equated legitimate efforts at persuasion with illicit efforts to coerce.”

    The administration’s opponents in the case, which include the states of Missouri and Louisiana, have argued that the federal government’s communications with social media companies are a violation of the First Amendment because even “‘encouragement short of compulsion’ can transform private conduct [by social media companies] into government action” that infringes on users’ speech rights.

    “Every one of these federal agencies has insinuated themselves into the content moderation decisions of major social media platforms,” D. John Sauer, an attorney representing the state of Louisiana, told the judges on Thursday. Hypothetically speaking, he added: “The Surgeon General can say, ‘All this speech is terrible, it’s awful.’ …. But what he can’t do is pick up the phone and say, ‘Take it down.’”

    In addition to the states, five individuals are also plaintiffs in the suit. They include three doctors who have been critical of state and federal pandemic-era restrictions, a Louisiana woman who claims she was censored by social media companies for her online criticisms of Covid health measures and a man who runs a far-right website known for pushing conspiracy theories.

    Much of Thursday’s oral arguments hinged on the definition of coercive communication and how courts have analyzed government pressure against private parties in past cases.

    But the states also claimed that there could be a pathway to finding a constitutional violation if the court agreed that social media companies, in heeding the administration’s calls to action, had been effectively turned into agents of the US government.

    In the past month, after District Judge Terry Doughty issued his injunction, current and former US officials, along with outside researchers and academics, have worried that the order could lead to a chilling effect for efforts to protect US elections.

    “There is no serious dispute that foreign adversaries have and continue to attempt to interfere in our elections and that they use social media to do it,” FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to the House Judiciary Committee in July. “President Trump himself in 2018 declared a national emergency to that very effect, and the Senate Intelligence Committee — in a bipartisan, overwhelmingly bipartisan way — not only found the same thing but called for more information-sharing between us and the social media.”

    Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, the panel’s chair, remains unconvinced. Earlier this week, he and other Republican lawmakers filed their own brief to the appeals court, accusing the Biden administration of a campaign to stifle speech.

    “On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes—including memes and jokes,” Jordan and the other lawmakers wrote. “Of course, Big Tech companies often required little coercion to do the Administration’s bidding on some issues. Generally eager to please their ideological allies and overseers in the federal government, these companies and other private entities have repeatedly censored accurate speech on important public issues.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link