ReportWire

Tag: international-us politics

  • Zelensky urges Trump to share Ukraine peace plan but says he won’t give territory to Russia | CNN Politics

    Zelensky urges Trump to share Ukraine peace plan but says he won’t give territory to Russia | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Volodymyr Zelensky urged Donald Trump to share his peace plans publicly if the former US president has a way to end the war between Ukraine and Russia – but the Ukrainian president cautioned in an interview Tuesday that any peace plan where Ukraine gives up territory would be unacceptable.

    “He can publicly share his idea now, not waste time, not to lose people, and say, ‘My formula is to stop the war and stop all this tragedy and stop Russian aggression,’” Zelensky told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, following his speech Tuesday at the United Nations General Assembly. “And he said, how he sees it, how to push Russian from our land. Otherwise, he’s not presenting the global idea of peace.”

    The Ukrainian president added: “So (if) the idea is how to take the part of our territory and to give Putin, that is not the peace formula.”

    Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has claimed that he would be able to cut a deal with Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. Pressed Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about whether the deal would let Putin keep the land he’s taken, Trump said, “No, no. I’d make a fair deal for everybody. Nope, I’d make it fair.”

    Trump, asked at the time whether it would be a win for Putin, said, “You know, that’s something that could have been negotiated. Because there were certain parts, Crimea and other parts of the country, that a lot of people expected could happen. You could have made a deal. So they could have made a deal where there’s lesser territory right now than Russia’s already taken, to be honest.”

    Zelensky’s trip to the United Nations comes as Ukraine is facing its stiffest headwinds in the US to date over support for the war. A faction of the House GOP conference is openly hostile to providing Ukraine with any additional military aid, and it remains unclear whether House Speaker Kevin McCarthy will be willing to sign off on more funding.

    In the interview, Zelensky gave a positive assessment of Ukraine’s ongoing counteroffensive, which has sparked concerns that it’s failing to achieve expected results. And he reiterated Ukraine’s desire to obtain long-range missiles from the US, which President Joe Biden is still considering, saying it would be “a loss” for Ukraine if they do not receive them.

    “We are on the finishing line, I’m sure of that,” Zelensky said.

    Zelensky told Blitzer that he’s planning to meet with McCarthy when he travels to Washington later this week. Asked about those skeptical of offering more funding to Ukraine, Zelensky said that it was difficult for those who have not seen war up close to compare domestic problems like civil rights or energy to the existential threat facing a country under attack.

    “It’s so difficult to understand when you are in war, and when you are not in war,” Zelensky said. “Even when you come to the war, to the country which is in war, when you come to one day, you can understand more than you live, you hear, you think, you read. No, you can’t compare. It’s different situation. That’s why I’m thinking we can’t compare these challenges.”

    Biden last month asked Congress to approve an additional $24 billion in emergency spending for Ukraine and other international needs. While there’s bipartisan support for the funding package in the Senate, there’s no sign yet that the Republican-led House will play ball.

    Following his speech Tuesday at the UN General Assembly, Zelensky is traveling to Washington, DC, where he will hold talks with Biden at the White House, along with a visit to Capitol Hill. Zelensky addressed a joint meeting of Congress in a surprise appearance last December.

    Zelensky’s trip to the Capitol this week gives him the chance to make a personal pitch to skeptical lawmakers to approve more aid for the war. The Ukrainian leader is slated to speak at an all-senators meeting, though a similar meeting is not planned for the House.

    McCarthy, who is expected to meet with Zelensky along with other House leaders, declined Tuesday to commit to more funding for Ukraine.

    “Was Zelensky elected to Congress? Is he our president? I don’t think so. I have questions for where’s the accountability on the money we’ve already spent? What is this the plan for victory?” the California Republican said.

    ‘Nobody knows’

    Asked whether a major breakthrough was possible this year in Ukraine’s military counteroffensive, Zelensky said, “I think nobody knows, really.”

    “But I think that we will have more success,” he said, noting gains Ukraine has made in the east.

    Zelensky said he remained focus on obtaining more long-range missiles from the US, arguing that Ukraine did not want them to target Russia but to keep the battlefield capabilities level between the two sides.

    Biden is expected to make a final decision soon on sending the long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems, also known as ATACMS, CNN reported earlier this month.

    “It would be a loss for us” if the weapons are not provided, Zelensky said, adding it would result in “more casualties on the battlefield and elsewhere.”

    He also reiterated the need for more air defense systems, particularly the US-made Patriot air defense system, saying they were needed to help protect civilian areas.

    Zelensky downplayed tensions between the US and Ukrainian officials over Ukraine’s military strategy in Russian-occupied Crimea, when asked about skepticism from officials in Washington over Ukraine ramping up missile strikes to try to disrupt Russian logistics and resupply efforts.

    “We think the same way,” he said.

    Still, Zelensky defended the strategy.

    “Temporary-occupied Crimea – it’s a place they store weapons to kill our civilians,” he said. “They’re shooting from Crimea into our territory. And of course, we have to see where their rockets are coming from, and we have to basically deal with it.”

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Watch Garland’s response to GOP accusations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a Republican from California – Sentenced to eight years in prison after a guilty plea for bribery. Later pardoned by Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden administration formally designates military takeover in Niger as a coup | CNN Politics

    Biden administration formally designates military takeover in Niger as a coup | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration on Tuesday formally declared that the military takeover in Niger was a coup – a determination that will keep a significant amount of US military and foreign assistance to the West African nation on hold.

    The decision was made because “we’ve exhausted all available avenues to preserve constitutional order in Niger,” a senior administration official said Tuesday.

    Niger – once a key partner to the US – saw a breakdown of democratic order in late July when military putschists seized power and placed President Mohamed Bazoum under house arrest.

    In the months since, US and international partners have urged the military junta, which calls itself the National Council for Safeguarding the Homeland (CNSP), to restore democratic leadership, but those efforts have been rebuffed.

    CNN first reported last week that the formal coup determination was expected.

    As a result of Tuesday’s decision, the foreign assistance programs to the Nigerien government that were paused in August will remain suspended. In addition, $442 million in Millennium Challenge Corporation funding has been halted, the senior administration official said.

    Humanitarian assistance will continue, the official added.

    In addition, counterterrorism operations will remain paused, a second senior administration official said, as will US “activities to build the capacity of the Nigerien armed forces through security cooperation programs.” Other security cooperation that is not subject to restrictions because of the coup determination will also remain suspended until the coup leadership “takes action towards restoring democratic governance,” this official said.

    However, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations out of Agedaz Air Base will continue “focused on force protection, monitoring for threats to our forces, including threats from violent extremist organizations,” another official said.

    The second official noted that the US military presence in Niger had already been “consolidated” into two locations, and there are not plans at this time to change the force posture.

    US Ambassador to Niger Kathleen FitzGibbon, who arrived in the country in August, will remain, the first official said. She has not presented her credentials “but she is engaging in informal discussions with CNSP leaders, mainly to protect our staff and our interests and to handle logistical issues,” they said.

    “We’ve informed the CNSP already of our need to suspend certain assistance programs” due to the coup designation, the official said.

    On Monday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with Bazoum. The first official said they have no indication of when Bazoum might be released from house arrest, but indicated he may have to leave Niger.

    In the weeks following July’s military takeover, there were some concerns that Russian mercenary groups like the Wagner Group would try to take advantage of the situation, particularly given their presence in neighboring Mali.

    “I’m sure that they (the Wagner Group) would like to try and look for openings in Niger to see if they could take advantage,” the first official said Tuesday.

    “So far, we have not seen any evidence that they have succeeded, and I think largely because the CNSP recognizes that there would be nothing positive that could result from their involvement,” they said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden leaving war planning to Israelis but asked ‘hard questions’ about ground invasion strategy this week, US official says | CNN Politics

    Biden leaving war planning to Israelis but asked ‘hard questions’ about ground invasion strategy this week, US official says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The US is allowing Israel to make its own calls on timing and strategy in its war with Hamas, but US President Joe Biden did weigh in on the matter during his visit with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the war cabinet in Tel Aviv earlier this week, according to a senior administration official.

    “He asked some hard questions” about what was being planned and what the effects would be, the official told CNN, adding: “We’re not directing the Israelis, the timeline is theirs – their thinking, their planning.”

    The White House late Friday sought to clarify a brief comment made by Biden after he was asked by a reporter whether Israel should delay a ground invasion in Gaza until more hostages can get out. As he climbed the stairs to Air Force One, the president responded, “Yes.”

    The White House immediately moved to explain the president’s comments – which could be seen as the US staking out a role in the war between Israel and Hamas that erupted on October 7.

    “The president was far away. He didn’t hear the full question. The question sounded like ‘Would you like to see more hostages released?’ He wasn’t commenting on anything else,” White House communications director Ben LaBolt said less than an hour after the president’s comment, according to the press pool.

    Earlier Friday, Hamas released two American hostages in a deal brokered by the Qatari government. A number of foreign nationals were among those kidnapped by Hamas, but information about the status, location and identity of all the hostages remains scarce.

    As CNN has reported, the US and its allies have been urging Israel to be strategic and clear about its goals if and when it launches a ground invasion of Gaza, warning against a prolonged occupation and placing a particular emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties, according to US and Western officials.

    During the October 7 attack, Hamas militants killed more than 1,400 people, including civilians and soldiers, according to Israeli authorities. It was the most deadly attack by militants in Israel’s 75-year history and revealed a staggering intelligence failure by the country’s security forces.

    Israel has since responded by enacting a blockade on Gaza and launching a barrage of airstrikes into the Palestinian enclave, sparking a humanitarian crisis. Israeli airstrikes in Gaza have killed more than 4,100 people, according to the Palestinian health ministry.

    Biden suggested earlier Friday that Hamas’ attack on Israel was in part to derail US-backed efforts to normalize Israel-Saudi relations.

    “One of the reasons Hamas moved on Israel … they knew that I was about to sit down with the Saudis,” Biden told supporters at a campaign fundraiser in Washington, according to a pool report.

    “Guess what? The Saudis wanted to recognize Israel,” Biden said at the event, which was hosted at the home of a Democratic National Committee official in Washington. The president added that the Saudis were “about to recognize Israel.”

    The president has maintained in recent weeks that the effort to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia “is still alive” and remains crucial amid the ongoing conflict, though he has said “it’s going to take time to get done.”

    “The Saudis, and the Emiratis and other Arab nations understand that their security and stability is enhanced if there’s normalization of relations with Israel,” Biden told CBS News in an interview that aired Sunday, adding that “the direction of moving into the normalization makes sense for the Arab nations as well as Israel.”

    The war between Israel and Hamas has raised concerns that it could widen into a regional conflict that could snowball into an even greater geopolitical crisis. With US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trips to multiple Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, and Biden’s visit to Israel this week, the administration has attempted to make clear that they remain hopeful and committed to a normalization deal.

    A senior US official told CNN last month that Biden and Netanyahu discussed normalization efforts “in some depth” during a September meeting. Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman expressed optimism that they were close to reaching a deal with Netanyahu telling CNN last month that the agreement would “change the Middle East forever” and would be a “quantum leap” in the region.

    However, when repeatedly asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins at the time what kind of concessions he would make to get the deal across the line, Netanyahu refused to answer. MBS had previously said a deal to recognize Israel would have to “ease the life of the Palestinians” though he stopped short of calling for an independent Palestinian state to be established, which has been the kingdom’s official position for decades.

    [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.

    1996 – Co-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, 2001 – Becomes Senate majority leader by one vote after Jim Jeffords quits the Republican Party.

    October 2001 – A 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, 2003 – Daschle 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

  • 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