ReportWire

Tag: jamie raskin

  • Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks out on Epstein files, shutdown and gerrymandering – WTOP News

    Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin spoke to WTOP about the end of the government shutdown and newly-released emails linking Jeffrey Epstein and former associates.

    Newly-released emails from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate are stirring political tensions in D.C. Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin spoke with WTOP about the emails, fallout from the federal shutdown and the political stakes ahead.

    The email messages, disclosed by the House Oversight Committee, suggest a closer relationship between Epstein and President Donald Trump than previously acknowledged — including one email in which Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls,” though it remains unclear what he meant.

    The White House has reiterated that the president did nothing wrong and has said his association with Epstein ended in the 2000s.

    On Friday afternoon, Trump further escalated the controversy by directing the Justice Department to investigate several Democrats that he alleges had ties to Epstein, including former President Bill Clinton.

    “They (the newly released emails) confirm what I think most Americans have suspected, which is that Donald Trump indeed knew what was going on with the girls … But in any event, what we’re looking for here is a complete release of the file,” Raskin said. 

    At the same time, lawmakers are dealing with the fallout from the 43-day government shutdown that ended this week, sending hundreds of thousands of federal workers back to their jobs.

    Congress approved a short-term sending bill to keep the government open through the end of January, but the temporary deal leaves the possibility of another shutdown looming if no long-term agreement is reached.

    Discussing the government shutdown, Raskin said lawmakers had been fighting to protect health care, federal workers and SNAP benefits.

    “There was a trillion-dollar cut to Medicaid at the same time there was a trillion-dollar tax break given to the wealthiest people in the country … and we did not get everything we wanted. And we’re going to keep fighting to make sure that the health care of the people is addressed,” he said.

    Raskin criticized a clause in the spending bill that provides a small group of senators with multi-million-dollar payouts related to grand jury subpoenas. He noted that the policy differs from how ordinary citizens are treated under the law.

    “Let’s change public policy, but to say it’s completely fine for everybody else, but 100 U.S. senators have a right not to be investigated in that way … That’s just an outrage and a scandal,” he said.

    Lastly, Raskin emphasized the need to counter partisan gerrymandering in Maryland. He spoke about similar efforts in other states and highlighted the impact on minority and LGBTQ representation.

    “My point to Maryland, like to every other state, was we cannot allow this steam roller to go on without fighting back … I think Maryland, like Virginia, should be part of the process of countering this outrageous power grab,” Raskin said.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    Zsana Hoskins

    Source link

  • Maryland congressman blasts Trump for using Justice Department for personal vendettas – WTOP News

    Maryland’s Jamie Raskin is taking the Trump administration to task over a social media post that called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to go after his political enemies.

    This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker.
    In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.

    Maryland congressman blasts Trump for using DOJ for personal vendettas

    Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin is taking President Donald Trump’s administration to task over a social media post Trump sent over the weekend that called on his attorney general to go after those he considers his political enemies.

    In the post, Trump seemingly directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue legal action against New York Attorney General Letitia James, California U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and former FBI Director James Comey.

    “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” he said. Noting that he was impeached and criminally charged, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

    Shortly after the post was published, it was removed but then reposted some time later, which sparked speculation that Trump meant to send it as a direct message to Bondi but mistakenly posted it publicly.

    Trump later wrote in a follow-up post that Bondi was “doing a GREAT job.”

    Raskin, who represents the state’s 8th District, said it’s no surprise Trump would try to use the Justice Department to carry out personal vendettas.

    “He is castigating U.S. attorneys and federal prosecutors all over the country, forcing them to do his will, to indict people even if there isn’t probable cause to believe that they’ve engaged in a crime,” Raskin told WTOP in an interview.

    Raskin, the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee and part of the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, said the administration is dismantling institutions and taking rights away from Americans.

    “We have a president who is now trampling every constitutional principle and rule we’ve got,” Raskin said. “America knows that there is something profoundly wrong with what’s going on.”

    And Raskin said judges across the country agree with him.

    “Here’s the great news,” he said. “There have been more than 400 cases now brought against Trump for violating the Constitution and the rule of law. And in the district courts, we are winning more than 96% of the time with also overwhelming numbers in the appeals court.”

    Raskin was issued a pardon in the final days of former President Joe Biden’s administration for his role on the House Select Committee and in impeachment proceedings against Trump.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    Alan Etter

    Source link

  • Calls Grow For DOJ To Appoint Special Counsel To Investigate Jared Kushner

    Calls Grow For DOJ To Appoint Special Counsel To Investigate Jared Kushner

    [ad_2] Jason Easley
    Source link

  • Another Biden Impeachment Witness Blows Up In James Comer’s Face

    Another Biden Impeachment Witness Blows Up In James Comer’s Face

    Rep. James Comer’s Biden impeachment investigation failure rolled on by featuring a witness who has never spoken or communicated with the President.

    House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said in a statement about Mervyn Yan’s testimony:

    Just like every other witness in Chairman Comer’s ‘clueless investigation’—that even House Republicans are calling a ‘parade of embarrassments’ and ‘a disaster’—Mervyn Yan testified to the Committee today that he has no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden and that, to his knowledge, President Biden was not involved in, did not profit from, and took no official actions in relation to his family’s business dealings.

    Further undercutting Republicans’ lies about President Biden, Mr. Yan testified that he never once did business with or had any personal or professional communication with President Biden.

    Chairman Comer’s allegations have been disproven time and again, as he ‘continues to embarrass himself and House Republicans.’ Yet, House Republicans have spent 13 months and millions of tax dollars in feckless pursuit of political revenge demanded by former President Donald Trump.

    According to Republican investigators, these transcribed interviews and depositions are supposed to be central to closing out 13 months of ‘clueless investigation’ into President Biden, and I think they are right: Every single witness called by House Republicans has refuted their increasingly desperate and outlandish efforts to smear President Biden. It is time to end this slapstick comedy of an investigation and instead focus on delivering for the American people.

    If my Republican colleagues are interested in a private citizen’s business with CEFC, then surely they must be distressed that an American President, Donald Trump, collected at least $150,000 from CEFC and more than $5.5 million from the Chinese government and Chinese state-owned enterprise while sitting in the Oval Office and presiding over the federal government.

    House Republicans have turned on Comer and called his investigation an embarrassment and a disaster. Since Rep. Comer can’t find an impeachable offense committed by the President, he has spent more than a year going down conspiracy rabbit holes and interviewing what seems like everyone in Hunter Biden’s life even if they have never met his father.

    James Comer has no case, and apparently no idea what he is doing. Rep. Comer seems to be hoping that can string together something that sounds ominous or infers an impeachable offense, but he’s got nothing, and this Biden impeachment investigation appears to be going nowhere.

    A Special Message From PoliticusUSA

    If you are in a position to donate purely to help us keep the doors open on PoliticusUSA during what is a critical election year, please do so here. 

    We have been honored to be able to put your interests first for 14 years as we only answer to our readers and we will not compromise on that fundamental, core PoliticusUSA value.

    Jason Easley

    Source link

  • Jamie Raskin Demands Trump Return The Millions He Took From Foreign Governments As President

    Jamie Raskin Demands Trump Return The Millions He Took From Foreign Governments As President

    As Donald Trump admitted to taking millions of dollars from foreign governments as president, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) demanded that Trump return the money.

    Raskin wrote in a letter to Trump:

    I write today to demand that you immediately return to the American people the $7,886,072 that we know you have accepted from foreign governments in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause—a fact you admitted, once again, at a Fox News town hall this week.

    Given that this is a fraction of your unconstitutional collections from foreign governments and that we do not yet know the complete sum of foreign money you accepted while in office, I also demand that you give Congress a full accounting of the money, benefits and other emoluments “of any kind whatever” you pocketed from foreign governments
    or their agents during your term as President and that you return the total sum of these foreign emoluments to the American people by writing a check to the U.S. Treasury like the one attached, which you received from the Kuwaiti government.

    I note with dismay that on social media, your son, Eric Trump, referred to the Democratic staff report detailing your violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause as “a joke” and claimed: “All foreign government profits, for stays at our hotels and other properties while my father was in office, were voluntaraly [sic] donated to the United States Treasury.” To be clear, the Constitution imposes a categorical prohibition on a president’s receipt of any payments from foreign governments without Congress’s consent—a prohibition that extends to all revenues, and not merely profits attributable to spending by foreign governments.

    The Constitution does not merely forbid the receipt of “profits”—it forbids the receipt of “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever.” Hence, by its plain language, the Foreign Emoluments Clause does not give presidents any discretion to select sub-categories of foreign emoluments to return to the American people in order to keep others without Congress’s approval. If you think Congress would have swallowed your arguments that you should have been able to accept all money from foreign states other than that portion which you subjectively describe as “profits,” you should have followed the Constitution and come to Congress to ask for our permission.

    Trump Admitted To Taking Millions Of Dollars From Foreign Governments

    During his Fox News town hall, Trump said:

    I run hotels. Look at how much money I gave back. George Washington very rich man. People don’t know that. In his White House they had an office. He had a business desk and country desk. You are allowed to do that. I didn’t do it. I put everything in trust. If I have a hotel and somebody comes in from China, that is a small amount of money. I was doing services. People staying in beautiful hotels because I have the best hotels, clubs. I have great stuff. They stayed there and pay. I don’t get eight million dollars doing nothing like Hunter. I don’t get $500,000 for doing a painting. It is not a bad idea.

    Trump admitted that he violated the Constitution, and now Democrats in Congress want the money returned to the taxpayers.

    Trump’s behavior is a reason why presidents can’t be trusted to do the right thing, and Congress must change the law to prevent the sort of graft and corruption that occurred during the Trump administration.

    A Special Message From PoliticusUSA

    If you are in a position to donate purely to help us keep the doors open on PoliticusUSA during what is a critical election year, please do so here. 

    We have been honored to be able to put your interests first for 14 years as we only answer to our readers and we will not compromise on that fundamental, core PoliticusUSA value.

    Jason Easley

    Source link

  • James Comer Has Another Big Failure On Biden Impeachment

    James Comer Has Another Big Failure On Biden Impeachment

    George Bergès, the dealer who sold Hunter Biden’s art, confirmed in a transcribed interview that he has no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.

    Jamie Raskin: There’s No Evidence Of A Presidential Offense

    House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said in a statement provided to PoliticusUSA:

    Just like every other witness in this embarrassing slapstick investigation, George Bergès stated he had no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden. Hunter Biden made art that Bergès sold in his gallery, and President Biden had no knowledge of or role in these art sales.

    It’s not illegal to buy and sell abstract art in America. If Chairman Comer doesn’t like Hunter Biden’s paintings or modern art in general, he doesn’t have to buy it. But Hunter Biden is allowed to create art and sell it. The GOP’s allegations of influence peddling and money laundering are unfounded and were, once again, totally refuted by today’s witness.

    If Chairman Comer seriously wants to stop corrupt foreign influence and violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, I encourage him to check out the millions of dollars Donald Trump raked in from foreign states and murderous monarchs. Alas, Chairman Comer blocked us from getting all the discovery to which we are entitled but we got enough to know that Trump was on the take big-time from foreign states, raking in huge spoils from the royals. Meantime, George Bergès confirmed today once again that Joe Biden was not involved in, and did not profit from, his family’s business operations. We should get back to work for the American people and drop this futile investigation. Art appreciation is subjective. But the facts of this investigation aren’t open to interpretation, Mr. Chairman. There is no evidence of a presidential offense.

    James Comer Has No Witnesses To Confirm Impeachable Offenses

    If President Biden supposedly took millions of dollars and had all of these business dealings, why is there no evidence or witnesses to prove what House Republicans are claiming?

    Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer  (R-KY) has less than nothing in terms of impeachment evidence. Each witness that comes forward tells the same story. President Biden had nothing to do with his son’s business dealings.

    It is easy to see why Comer doesn’t want to hold impeachment hearings. He has no witnesses or evidence that President Biden ever did anything wrong.

    There is not going to be much to the Biden impeachment hearings without evidence and witnesses.

    Each witness is a new failure for James Comer and House Republican efforts to impeach President Biden.

     

    Jason Easley

    Source link

  • Jamie Raskin Rips James Comer For Covering Up Evidence Of Trump's Lawlessness

    Jamie Raskin Rips James Comer For Covering Up Evidence Of Trump's Lawlessness

    House Oversight Committee ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said that committee chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) has used his legislative power to cover up Trump’s lawlessness.

    Jamie Raskin Unloads On James Comer

    Ranking Member Raskin said in a statement provided to PoliticusUSA:

    Chairman Comer says it is ‘beyond parody that Democrats continue their obsession with Donald Trump,’ which is amusing because the masochistic obsession with Donald Trump obviously belongs to Chairman Comer and all the Republicans who have used their legislative power to cover up evidence of Trump’s lawlessness and to serve his demands for personal vengeance. Chairman Comer and his partisans still cannot think of anyone else in their party qualified to be president.

    They continue to promote Trump for president (or dictator) even after he was impeached for inciting a violent insurrection against the Constitution, even after he has been found to be a sexual assailant and defamer of his victim and even after it has become clear that he stole classified and top-secret government documents and refused to return them. The moment the Republicans drop Donald Trump, who is a clear and present threat to American constitutional democracy, I will be pleased to never mention his name again in a political context and simply allow the courts and his family to deal with him. Is the Chairman too obsessed to let Trump go?

    Meantime, Chairman Comer casually admits that Donald Trump was in business while president of the United States, which is precisely what is unlawful when it involves collection of millions of dollars from foreign governments and monarchs. Joe Biden, for his part has scrupulously adhered to the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause. After a year of his embarrassing wild goose chase, obsessively focused on President Biden’s son, a private citizen who never served in his father’s Administration, Comer cannot identify any wrongdoing by President Biden, let alone a single monetary payment he has received from a foreign government.

    Read the report about Trump’s systematic violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Mr. Chairman, and if you are serious about fighting corruption, I would invite you to join us in passing legislation to make sure no Commander-in-Chief again flouts the Constitution to sell out American foreign policy for personal profit to Princes, Prime Ministers, Premiers and dictators.

    Republicans Are Covering Up Corruption While Chasing Biden Impeachment

    There remains zero evidence that President Biden did anything wrong, yet House Republicans led by Rep. Comer are continuing to chase a fact-free impeachment of the President while they turn a blind eye to the volumes of evidence of Trump’s crimes and impeachable offenses.

    What House Republicans are doing is worse than abusing their political power to go after a political opponent.

    House Republicans are attempting to obstruct investigations into and prosecutions of Donald Trump.

    Democrats were unable to get more evidence of foreign payments to Trump because Comer and others stopped forcing his accountants to comply with congressional subpoenas.

    House Republicans are obsessed with Trump, and they will do anything to see him back in the White House.

    A Special Message From PoliticusUSA

    If you are in a position to donate purely to help us keep the doors open on PoliticusUSA during what is a critical election year, please do so here.

    We have been honored to be able to put your interests first for 14 years as we only answer to our readers and we will not compromise on that fundamental, core PoliticusUSA value.

    Jason Easley

    Source link

  • Maryland congressman’s new charge against Rep. George Santos: He can’t spell or write clearly

    Maryland congressman’s new charge against Rep. George Santos: He can’t spell or write clearly

    A letter New York Rep. George Santos sent to colleagues in the House of Representatives thanking them for not expelling him was copy edited and returned by Democratic Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, who had a little fun at his conservative counterpart’s expense.

    “I am writing to express my gratitude to you for standing up for the principals [sic] of due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” the GOP Rep. Santos’ thank-you note began.

    Drew Angerer/Getty Images

    Rep. George Santos (R-NY) walks back to his office after debate on the House floor on a resolution to expel him from Congress on Wednesday. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

    Raskin circled “principals” and inserted the correct spelling of that word in a copy of the note obtained by Politico.

    It was one of several corrections Raskin made to Santos’ poorly written note before writing a few words of advice to his embattled colleague.

    “I appreciate your note and only wish someone had proofread it first,” Raskin wrote. “Meantime, you should apologize to the people of New York for all of your lies and deceit.”

    Throughout his successful campaign to represent New York’s third district, Santos fabricated stories about his past including schools he attended, jobs he held and sports he played.

    Raskin, who voted against expelling Santos because of the precedent that would set, finished his response to the GOP lawmaker by writing “PS: It’s not shameful to resign.”

    A vote to boot Santos from the Long Island-based seat he lied ad nauseum to win in November 2022 came up short Wednesday, with many of his colleagues choosing to let an ongoing ethics investigation run its course before removing an elected official.

    The disgraced 35-year-old freshman congressman, also known as Anthony Devolder, further faces 23 criminal charges including wire fraud, money laundering and identity theft. He’s pleaded not guilty.

    Brian Niemietz

    Source link

  • Jamie Raskin Marks Up George Santos’ Thank-You Note With Corrections

    Jamie Raskin Marks Up George Santos’ Thank-You Note With Corrections

    Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) was apparently grateful enough that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) voted against removing him from Congress that he sent the Democrat a thank-you note.

    But he probably won’t be sending any more of them based on Raskin’s response.

    Raskin, a longtime constitutional law professor and attorney, was one of 31 Democrats who voted against expelling Santos from Congress, despite the Republican being indicted on federal charges. Raskin said that doing so would be “a terrible precedent to set” since Santos “has not been criminally convicted yet of the offenses cited in the resolution, nor has he been found guilty of ethics offenses in the House internal process.”

    On Friday, Santos sent letters thanking Raskin and the other members of Congress who voted against his expulsion for standing up “for the principals [sic] of due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”

    But if Santos thought Raskin’s vote meant he was in the Democrat’s good graces, he was sorely mistaken.

    First of all, Raskin made a point of marking up the letter, pointing out the mistakes and writing at the bottom that he wished “someone had proofread it first.”

    He also offered some personal advice to Santos in the margin: “It’s not shameful to resign.”

    You can see Santos’ letter and Raskin’s remarks below courtesy of Axios’ Andrew Solender.

    Of course, people on social media had thoughts.

    As of Friday afternoon, Santos hadn’t responded to Raskin’s corrected version of his thank-you note, but don’t expect him to take the Maryland Democrat’s career advice.

    Santos said on Friday that he plans to run for reelection in New York even if he’s expelled from Congress.

    Source link

  • Takeaways from President Biden’s first impeachment hearing by House Oversight panel | CNN Politics

    Takeaways from President Biden’s first impeachment hearing by House Oversight panel | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans kicked off their first impeachment inquiry hearing Thursday laying out the allegations they will pursue against President Joe Biden, though their expert witnesses acknowledged Republicans don’t yet have the evidence to prove the accusation they’re leveling.

    Thursday’s hearing in the House Oversight Committee didn’t include witnesses who could speak directly to Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealing at the center of the inquiry, but the hearing offered Republicans the chance to show some of the evidence they’ve uncovered to date.

    None of that evidence has shown Joe Biden received any financial benefit from his son’s business dealings, but Republicans said at Thursday’s hearing what they’ve found so far has given them the justification to launch their impeachment inquiry.

    Democrats responded by accusing Republicans of doing Donald Trump’s bidding and raising his and his family’s various foreign dealings themselves, as well as Trump’s attempts to get Ukraine to investigate in 2019 the same allegations now being raised in the impeachment inquiry.

    Here’s takeaways from Thursday’s first impeachment inquiry hearing:

    While Republicans leveled accusations of corruption against Joe Biden over his son’s business dealings, the GOP expert witnesses who testified Thursday were not ready to go that far.

    Forensic accountant Bruce Dubinsky, one of the GOP witnesses, undercut Republicans’ main narrative by saying there wasn’t enough evidence yet for him to conclude that there was “corruption” by the Bidens.

    “I am not here today to even suggest that there was corruption, fraud or wrongdoing,” Dubinsky said. “More information needs to be gathered before I can make such an assessment.”

    He said there was a “smokescreen” surrounding Hunter Biden’s finances, including complex overseas shell companies, which he said raise questions for a fraud expert about possible “illicit” activities.

    Conservative law professor Jonathan Turley also said that the House does not yet have evidence to support articles of impeachment against Joe Biden, but argued that House Republicans were justified in opening an impeachment inquiry.

    “I want to emphasize what it is that we’re here today for. This is a question of an impeachment inquiry. It is not a vote on articles of impeachment,” Turley said. “In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is something that an inquiry has to establish. But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”

    Turley said that Biden’s false statements about his knowledge of Hunter Biden’s business endeavors, as well as the unproven allegations that Biden may have benefited from his son’s business deals, were reason for the House to move forward with the impeachment inquiry. (CNN has previously reported that Joe Biden’s unequivocal denials of any business-related contact with his son have been undercut over time, including by evidence uncovered by House Republicans.)

    Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor, has repeatedly backed up Republican arguments on key legal matters in recent years, including his opposition to Trump’s first and second impeachments.

    Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, pushed Turley further on his comments, asking whether he would vote “no” today on impeachment.

    “On this evidence, certainly,” Turley said. “At the moment, these are allegations. There is some credible evidence there that is the basis of the allegations.”

    Witnesses are sworn in before the House Oversight Committee on September 28, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

    House Republicans opened their first impeachment hearing Thursday with a series of lofty claims against the president, as they try to connect him to his son’s “corrupt” business dealings overseas.

    House Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer claimed the GOP probes have “uncovered a mountain of evidence revealing how Joe Biden abused his public office for his family’s financial gain,” even though he hasn’t put forward any concrete evidence backing up that massive allegation.

    Two other Republican committee chairs further pressed their case, including by citing some of the newly released Internal Revenue Service documents, which two IRS whistleblowers claim show how the Justice Department intervened in the Hunter Biden criminal probe to protect the Biden family. However, many of their examples of alleged wrongdoing occurred during the Trump administration before Joe Biden took office.

    Ahead of the hearing, the Republican chairs released a formal framework laying out the scope of their probe, saying it “will span the time of Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency to the present, including his time out of office.”

    The document outlines specific lines of inquiry, including whether Biden engaged in “corruption, bribery, and influence peddling” – none of which Republicans have proved yet.

    The memo included four questions the Republicans are seeking to answer related to whether Biden took any action related to payments his family received or if the president obstructed the investigations into Hunter Biden.

    House Oversight Committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2023.

    At the close of the hearing Thursday, Comer announced that he was issuing subpoenas for the bank records of the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and brother, James Biden.

    The subpoenas will be for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records, a source familiar with the subpoenas confirmed.

    The subpoenas are not a surprise, as Comer has been signaling his intention to issue the subpoenas for the personal bank records. They show where Republicans will head next in their investigation as they continue to seek evidence to substantiate their unproven allegations about the president.

    Some inside the GOP expressed frustration to CNN in real time with how the House GOP’s first impeachment inquiry hearing is playing out, as the Republican witnesses directly undercut the GOP’s own narrative and admit there is no evidence that Biden has committed impeachable offenses.

    “You want witnesses that make your case. Picking witnesses that refute House Republicans arguments for impeachment is mind blowing,” one senior GOP aide told CNN. “This is an unmitigated disaster.”

    One GOP lawmaker also expressed some disappointment with their performance thus far, telling CNN: “I wish we had more outbursts.”

    The bar for Thursday’s hearing was set low: Republicans admitted they would not reveal any new evidence, but were hoping to at least make the public case for why their impeachment inquiry is warranted, especially as some of their own members remain skeptical of the push.

    But some Republicans are not even paying attention, as Congress is on the brink of a shutdown – a point Democrats hammered during the hearing.

    “I haven’t watched or listened to a moment of it,” said another GOP lawmaker. There’s a shutdown looming.”

    Rep Jim Jordan delivers remarks during the House Oversight Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on September 28, 2023 in Washington, DC.

    Democrats repeatedly pointed out that the Republican allegations about foreign payments were tied to money that went mostly Hunter Biden – but not the to the president.

    “The majority sits completely empty handed with no evidence of any presidential wrongdoing, no smoking gun, no gun, no smoke,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight committee.

    Raskin’s staff brought in the 12,000 pages of bank records the committee has received so far, as Raskin said, “not a single page shows a dime going to President Joe Biden.”

    Raskin also had a laptop open displaying a countdown clock for when the government shuts down in a little more than two days – another point Democrats used to bash Republicans for focusing on impeachment and failing to pass bills to fund the government. The Democrats passed the laptop around to each lawmaker as they had their five minutes to question the witnesses.

    Their arguments also previewed how Democrats intend to play defense for the White House as Republicans move forward on their impeachment inquiry.

    The Democrats needled Republicans for not holding a vote on an impeachment inquiry – one Democrat asked Turley whether he would recommend a vote, which Turley said he would.

    Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks on the Democratic side of the aisle, as the House Oversight Committee begins an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, Thursday, Sept. 28, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

    House Democrats’ 2019 impeachment of Trump was sparked by Trump’s attempts to push Ukraine to investigate allegations involving Biden and his son’s position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company – some of the same allegations now being probed by the House GOP.

    That led Democrats Thursday to push for testimony from Rudy Giuliani, who as Trump’s personal lawyer sought to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine in 2019.

    Twice, the Democrats forced the Oversight Committee to vote on Democratic motions to subpoena Giuliani, votes that served as stunts to try to hammer home their argument that Giuliani tried and failed to corroborate the same allegations at the heart of the Biden impeachment inquiry.

    “I ask the question: Where in the world is Rudy Giuliani?” said Rep. Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, one of the Democrats who forced the procedural vote. “That’s how we got here, ladies and gentlemen. And this committee is afraid to bring him before us and put him on the record. Shame! And the question was raised. What does this have to do with it? It has everything to do with it.”

    In addition to Giuliani, Raskin sought testimony from Lev Parnas, an associate of Giuliani’s who was indicted in 2019. Parnas subsequently cooperated with the Democratic impeachment inquiry, including providing a statement from a top official at Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company, stating, “No one from Burisma had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him.”

    Several Democrats also raised Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who worked in the White House, receiving $2 billion from Saudi Arabia through a company he formed after leaving the White House.

    The Democrats charged that Kushner’s actions were far worse than Hunter Biden’s, because Kushner worked in government, while Biden’s son did not.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    Source link

  • Rep. Jamie Raskin Dismantles Trump’s ‘Comical’ New Jan. 6 Claim

    Rep. Jamie Raskin Dismantles Trump’s ‘Comical’ New Jan. 6 Claim

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) called the latest claim by an attorney for Donald Trump “just comical” after the former president was indicted on Tuesday on four counts related to the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.

    John Lauro, an attorney for Trump, called the indictment “an attack on free speech and political advocacy” during a CNN interview.

    But Raskin said on MSNBC that Trump’s speech has nothing to do with it.

    It’s his actions that led to the indictment.

    “You have a right to say, for example, ‘Oh, I think that the meeting of the House and the Senate in joint session to count Electoral College votes is a fraud or is taking away Donald Trump’s presidency.’ You can say whatever you want,” Raskin said. “But the minute you actually try to obstruct the meeting of Congress, you crossed over from speech to conduct.”

    He offered another example:

    “It’s like, y’know, you can say, ‘Well, I think the currency is phony and everybody should be allowed to make up their own money.’ You can say that. But the minute you start printing your own money, now you’ve run afoul of the counterfeit laws. And it’s the exact same thing with the Electoral College.”

    In this case, he said, Trump didn’t simply express ideas about the election with his debunked claims of fraud but also assembled “counterfeit electors” to attempt to substitute for the real electors.

    “At that point, they’ve crossed over from speech to conduct,” he said.

    Raskin said the Jan. 6 committee last year accused Trump of aiding and abetting and giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists ― but special counsel Jack Smith didn’t charge the former president on that count.

    He said he believes it so prosecutors don’t have to argue on grounds of speech and can focus entirely on conduct.

    Raskin called the evidence against the former president “overwhelming.”

    See more of his discussion on MSNBC below:

    Source link

  • Rep. Jamie Raskin Passes on Maryland Senate Run

    Rep. Jamie Raskin Passes on Maryland Senate Run

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a leading progressive who has achieved national fame as one of the managers of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment, said Friday he would not run for his home state’s open Senate seat, arguing that his role in the House was too crucial to give up.

    Raskin would’ve been one of the leading candidates in the race to replace retiring Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), if not necessarily an outright favorite. The two major contenders for the seat are now Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks and Total Wine co-founder-turned-Rep. David Trone (D-Md.)

    “I am profoundly grateful not only to those who have encouraged me on this exciting path but also to those from all over Maryland who have strongly encouraged me to run for the U.S. Senate seat being left vacant by Senator Ben Cardin,” Raskin wrote in a lengthy statement. “If these were normal times, I am pretty sure that this is what I would be announcing now. But these are not normal times and we are still in the fight of our lives for democratic institutions, freedom and basic social progress in America.”

    Raskin is now the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, where he worked to battle Committee Chair James Comer’s (R-Ky.) efforts to investigate President Joe Biden and Biden’s son Hunter. He has also worked with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to hire summer fellows who help work on congressional campaigns and has become a sought-after campaign surrogate.

    Raskin would’ve been the clear favorite of progressive institutions in the Democratic primary, while Alsobrooks and Trone are largely seen as mainstream liberals.

    Alsobrooks has attracted the support of much of the state’s political establishment, including Reps. Steny Hoyer and Kweisi Mfume. Trone, meanwhile, is relying on his immense personal wealth and ties to liberal groups to power his own campaign.

    Maryland is a heavily Democratic state, and the winner of the Democratic primary is all but certain to win the general election.

    Source link

  • Unproven Biden Bribe Allegation ‘Has Not Been Disproven’: James  Comer

    Unproven Biden Bribe Allegation ‘Has Not Been Disproven’: James Comer

    WASHINGTON ― The FBI privately briefed lawmakers Monday about an unverified tip the bureau received in 2020 that Joe Biden had been involved in a bribery scheme when he was vice president.

    Republicans have said the source of the allegation is highly credible while admitting they don’t know whether it’s true or not.

    House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) declared after the briefing on Monday that the FBI had not determined the allegation to be untrue, though he didn’t say it had found the tip credible, either.

    “Today, FBI officials confirmed that the unclassified FBI-generated record has not been disproven and is currently being used in an ongoing investigation,” Comer told reporters after a briefing in a Capitol basement.

    But Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the committee, said he learned from the briefing that the Justice Department under President Donald Trump looked into the tip and found that it wasn’t worth a full investigation.

    “They decided there was no grounds to escalate this up the investigative-prosecutorial chain,” Raskin said. “If there’s a complaint, the complaint is with Attorney General William Barr, the Trump Justice Department and the team that the Trump administration appointed to look into it.”

    In 2020, Barr said the Justice Department was looking into material that former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani had gathered from Ukraine in an effort to find dirt on Biden. Barr said at the time that “we can’t take anything we received from Ukraine at face value.” No charges resulted from the Giuliani material, though it may have sparked an investigation into Hunter Biden in addition to one led by federal prosecutors in Delaware.

    Comer has previously said the tip, delivered to the FBI in June 2020, reflected a “very credible” allegation that Biden had something to do with a $5 million bribe involving a foreign national. The allegation has emerged as a key to Comer’s quest to tie Biden himself to the “influence peddling” of his family members, whom Comer has said received millions in sketchy payments from foreign sources.

    Comer refused the DOJ’s initial offer to let lawmakers see the document at FBI headquarters, but then agreed to take a look after the FBI offered to bring it over to the Capitol.

    Even though the FBI showed them the document on Monday, Comer said Republicans would still initiate contempt proceedings against FBI Director Christopher Wray because they weren’t allowed to keep a copy.

    “At the briefing, the FBI again refused to hand over the unclassified record to the custody of the House Oversight Committee, and we will now initiate contempt of Congress hearings this Thursday,” Comer said.

    Asked why he needed his own copy of the form, Comer complained that press accounts of the dispute emphasized that the allegation remains unverified. He stressed that the FBI’s source is highly credible and suggested reporters ought to describe the allegations that way.

    “Remember, the main reason they’re not wanting to make this public is because they’re concerned about the source,” Comer said, without explaining why it should be made public anyway.

    Raskin stressed that the source himself couldn’t vouch for the incriminating tip.

    “What we’re talking about here is a confidential human source reporting a conversation with someone else,” Raskin said. “What we’re talking about is secondhand hearsay.”

    The DOJ has maintained that the document reflects unverified claims collected by a line FBI agent, that the form itself lacks context and that disclosing the information could compromise confidential sources and investigations.

    Somehow, Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have previously seen the document, the two said last week. Grassley has repeatedly said he didn’t know if the allegations were true, just that he wanted the Justice Department to say whether it had investigated.

    “We are not interested in whether the allegations against Vice President Biden are accurate or not,” Grassley told Fox News last week. “We’re responsible for making sure the FBI does its job, and that’s what we want to know.”

    Source link

  • Jamie Raskin Forecasts Trump’s Legal Future: Indictment Is ‘Almost Inevitable’

    Jamie Raskin Forecasts Trump’s Legal Future: Indictment Is ‘Almost Inevitable’

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), one of seven Democrats who served on the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, said that an indictment of former President Donald Trump is “almost inevitable.”

    Raskin, in an interview with MSNBC on Friday, told writer Jordan Rubin that Trump is a “one-man crime wave” and suggested that he could face criminal charges beyond the four his panel recommended to the Justice Department.

    “I’d rather focus on the idea that it’s almost inevitable that there will be charges because the evidence is just so overwhelming,” said Raskin, who then talked about Trump’s “complete and obvious and naked intent” for people to interfere with the counting of Electoral College votes.

    “We think there will be charges probably on some things we didn’t even have, because we don’t have all of the prosecutorial resources that the Department of Justice has, and so we think they probably collected a lot more evidence than we got.”

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), shown here leaving the U.S. Capitol after the final vote of the week on Thursday, says it is difficult to watch as Trump escapes liability. Raskin has been sporting headwear as undergoes chemotherapy.

    Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Raskin, who previously said Trump’s role in the deadly riot was not a question of “whodunnit,” added that it’d be painful for the country to never see Trump be checked by the criminal justice system.

    “And it doesn’t make sense that more than 900 people can be charged and prosecuted and convicted and sentenced for things like assaulting federal officers and destroying federal property and seditious conspiracy, which means conspiracy to overthrow the government, and yet the guy who’s at the very top of the pyramid, who set all of the events into motion, somehow walks off scot-free. I mean, I think that is a blow to our justice system.”

    Raskin noted that Trump is facing several criminal and civil charges in other cases around the country.

    “He’s basically a one-man crime wave,” Raskin said.

    “And so he might get his comeuppance in some other jurisdictions first, I don’t know about that. But ultimately we have to believe that the justice system is going to work.”

    You can read more of Raskin’s interview with MSNBC’s “Deadline: Legal Blog” here.

    Source link

  • A Republican Congresswoman’s Lasting Regret

    A Republican Congresswoman’s Lasting Regret

    Among the things Jaime Herrera Beutler remembers about January 6, 2021, is that her husband managed to turn off the television just in time.

    He was at home with their three young children in southwestern Washington State when the riot began. It had taken him a few moments to make out the shaky footage of the mob as it tore through the Capitol. Then he started to recognize the hallways, the various corridors that he knew led to the House floor, where his wife was preparing to break from her party and speak in favor of certifying the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden. He grabbed the remote before the kids could register what was about to happen.

    It was a few moments later that Herrera Beutler, huddled among her Republican colleagues, heard the door. “I will never forget the pounding,” she told me recently: Boom, boom, boom.

    Before January 6, Herrera Beutler was a purple-district congresswoman who had spent most of her 12-year tenure removed from controversy, passing legislation on bipartisan issues such as maternal health and endangered wildlife while maintaining a social conservatism that kept her in good standing with the base. In the weeks that followed the insurrection, however, when she and nine other House Republicans voted to impeach President Donald Trump, the 44-year-old found herself the pariah of a party whose broader membership, for most of her career, had not precisely known she existed. Today, when the 118th Congress is sworn in, she, like all but two of the Republicans who voted to impeach, will find herself out of office.

    In an interview with The Atlantic about her six terms in the House and the Trump-backed primary challenge that ousted her, Herrera Beutler remained convinced of Trump’s culpability for the events of January 6. Yet she appeared still bewildered that a crisis of such magnitude had come to pass, and that not even her own constituents were immune to Trump’s propaganda about the 2020 election and the insurrection itself. “I didn’t know that I had so many people who would be like, ‘What are you talking about? This was a peaceful protest,’” she told me. “I had no idea the depth of misinformation people were receiving, especially in my own home.”

    Throughout our conversation, it was clear that the insurrection’s fallout hadn’t changed Herrera Beutler the way it had Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger, the two Republicans who sat on the January 6 committee and who have publicly committed themselves to keeping Trump out of office. These and other Republicans who retired or lost their seats after voting to impeach Trump have seemed liberated to speak about the GOP’s widespread delusion over election fraud. But Herrera Beutler is different: refusing to say that the forces of Trumpism have triggered a fundamental shift in her party, even as her own career was upended by them. Despite two years of hindsight, she seems to have rationalized her party’s continued promotion of lies concerning January 6 as a function of tactical error—believing that had Republicans and Democrats agreed to proceed with witnesses during Trump’s impeachment trial, and had she communicated the stakes differently back home, her base would have rejected the conspiracy theories and accepted Trump’s guilt. “I know a majority of the Republicans who disagree with me on impeachment, had they seen and talked to the people that I had, and had they seen what I saw—I have no doubt about where they would have come down,” she said. “I really don’t.”

    That Herrera Beutler has arrived at this conviction might seem naive but is in many ways understandable. For the better part of 12 years, she has been reinforced in the idea that the Republicans in her district are ideologically independent, cocooned from the national party as it leaps from one identity to the next. In her first bid for Congress, at the height of the Tea Party wave, she easily beat challengers from the right to become, at just 31 years old, the first Hispanic to represent Washington State in Congress. She had barely unpacked before the media christened her the future of her party. To the disappointment of the Republican leadership, however, the young and charismatic statehouse veteran wasn’t terribly interested in developing a national profile. Over the next several years, Herrera Beutler instead oriented her office around the hyperlocal work her constituents seemed to prefer—efforts such as expanding the forest-products industry and protecting the Columbia River’s salmon and steelhead runs from sea lions.

    On January 6, Herrera Beutler’s career moved onto alien terrain. Immediately after the insurrection, she directed her staff to start making calls, to find out where Trump had been during the rioting and why. Late that afternoon, she texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows for answers—“We need to hear from the president. On TV,” she sent, to no response—and, on January 11, two days before the impeachment vote, she privately pressed Kevin McCarthy for his impression of Trump’s culpability. During their conversation, the House minority leader confessed that the president had refused his pleas over the phone to call off the rioters—that as they smashed the windows of McCarthy’s office, Trump accused him of not caring enough about purported election fraud. For Herrera Beutler, it was enough to prove Trump’s guilt. In a press release the next day, and later a town hall back in her district, she invoked the conversation with McCarthy to explain her decision to vote to impeach.

    At the time, she hadn’t thought twice about airing the details of the Trump-McCarthy call. In the context of the various other things that she and the public had learned by that point, she told me, “I didn’t think it was unique or profound.” In fact, for McCarthy’s reputation, it was. The California Republican would soon make something of a penance visit to Trump at Mar-a-Lago, despite having been, according to Herrera Beutler and other (anonymous) Republican members who were privy to details of the call, terrified and livid at the height of the insurrection, acutely aware of Trump’s real-time recognition of the danger and refusal to do anything about it. Before long, Herrera Beutler’s revelation about the Trump-McCarthy call became the lead story on CNN. Jamie Raskin, the House Democrat managing Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate, suddenly wanted to know everything about this congresswoman he had hardly heard of.

    For Herrera Beutler, the attention was unlike anything she’d experienced. “I wasn’t trying to insert myself into the national conversation,” she told me. “I wasn’t trying to be the, you know …” She trailed off, seemingly trying to say something like the truth teller. She was open to testifying in the impeachment trial and contacted Nancy Pelosi’s counsel about how to proceed, according to reporting by Rachael Bade and Karoun Demirjian in Unchecked, yet the House speaker’s attorney never relayed the message to Raskin and his staff. With zero surefire commitments from Republican witnesses to Trump’s conduct during the riot, and facing pressure from his own party not to gum up the 46th president’s honeymoon period with proceedings against the 45th, Raskin rushed the trial to a close.

    If Herrera Beutler had pushed more publicly to testify, would Raskin have charged ahead and subpoenaed others? Would it have changed the final vote in the Senate? It’s impossible to say. But for Herrera Beutler, the outcome remains bound up in regret. She said it was “overwhelming” when she began to realize “that good people, honest people, amazing people that I knew” believed, for example, that antifa had orchestrated the riot. “Because, at that point, what could I do?” In retrospect, she believes that pushing ahead with a full trial, before public opinion about January 6 could “bake,” as she puts it, might have plugged the flow of conspiracies in her district and elsewhere. The implication, left unsaid, is that it also might have changed the outcome of her primary. “Had we made everything as public as we could at that moment, I think that we could have come to a better agreed-upon actual history of what happened,” she said. “That’s the only thing that I wish I had known—I moved into this thinking we all had the same information, and we didn’t.”

    Though she said she appreciates the “sense of duty” of the lawmakers on the January 6 committee—whose final report was published just before we spoke—Herrera Beutler was pessimistic about the resonance of their work. “The challenge for me with the committee was that the 70 million people who voted for Trump are never going to get anything out of that,” she said. “And that’s who I wanted to move.”

    This past August, a Trump-backed Republican and former Green Beret named Joe Kent, who had promoted the former president’s lies about the 2020 election, defeated Herrera Beutler in the Third Congressional District’s jungle primary. (Two months later, Kent narrowly lost the general election to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who will be the first Democrat in the seat since Herrera Beutler took office in 2011.) On the one hand, Herrera Beutler seems clear-eyed about the forces behind her loss. “It’s just turned into such a tit-for-tat on personality things, and I think my base has definitely at times wanted to see more of that from me,” she said. “And that’s probably part of why the guy in my race made it as far as he did, because that was his oxygen—scratching that itch and making people feel justified in their ideas.”

    On the other hand, Herrera Beutler at various times in our conversation expressed an optimism about the future of Republican politics that seemed unmoored from the fact that her party’s base had rejected her. In criticizing both Republican and Democratic lawmakers she called “members in tweet only,” she said she often wondered what their constituents think “when they don’t get anything done—like when they can’t help a local hospital with a permit, or when Grandma can’t get her spouse’s disability payment from the VA.” “I don’t know if they just speechify when they go home,” she said, “but I know that the American people are going to get tired of that. It’s just a question of when, and under what circumstance.” The broader results of the midterm elections, in which numerous Republicans in the mold of Kent ultimately lost to Democrats, would seem to prove her point. But the results of countless Republican primaries, including the victories of election deniers such as Kari Lake in Arizona, indicate that the “when” is likely still far off.

    Perhaps one reason Herrera Beutler insists that a “restoration is coming” for the Republican Party: She’s probably going to run again. She won’t say so definitively; she told me she’s looking forward to living in one place with her family and “just being functional.” “I mean, would I be shocked if I ran for something? At some point in my future? No,” she said. The sheer possibility might explain her unwillingness to speak candidly about her party’s current leaders, even two years after the cumulative letdown of January 6. Reports have suggested that her long and friendly relationship with McCarthy, for instance, ruptured after she inadvertently exposed his two-faced response to the insurrection. Bade and Demirjian have written that the House Republican leader exploded at Herrera Beutler, making her cry. (In a joint statement, McCarthy and Herrera Beutler denied that this happened.) When I asked Herrera Beutler for her thoughts about McCarthy’s current bid for the speakership, she demurred, saying, “I don’t want to be the one who comments on that.”

    It wasn’t her place, she reasoned. She no longer has a voice in how the House Republican conference chooses to lead. And in the end, even if she is reluctant to acknowledge it, few things constitute more of an indictment of her party than this. All of the qualities that once fueled Herrera Beutler’s rise are still there. She is still a young Hispanic woman in a party that skews old, white, and male. She still rhapsodizes about individual liberty, still considers herself a social conservative in a moment when the Republican stance on abortion seems as unpopular as it ever has. But in little more than a decade, Herrera Beutler has gone from being the future of the party to a casualty of one vote.

    Three thousand miles away from Capitol Hill, she begins the work of moving on. She wants to continue to serve the public, she told me, but as a private citizen for the first time since her 20s, she’s still trying to figure out what that means. “I need a cause, something that gives me something to fight for,” she said. “And I just don’t know yet what that’s going to be.”

    Elaina Plott Calabro

    Source link

  • January 6 panelist points to Electoral College reform as next priority to safeguard democracy | CNN Politics

    January 6 panelist points to Electoral College reform as next priority to safeguard democracy | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the House January 6 select committee, said reforming the Electoral College to ensure the presidential winner reflects the outcome of the popular vote would be the next step to safeguard democracy.

    “The Electoral College now – which has given us five popular-vote losers as president in our history, twice in this century alone – has become a danger, not just to democracy, but to the American people. It was a danger on January 6,” the Maryland Democrat said in an interview with Margaret Brennan on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that aired Sunday. “There are so many curving byways and nooks and crannies in the Electoral College, that there are opportunities for a lot of strategic mischief. We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, representatives, everybody else. Whoever gets the most votes wins.”

    “The truth is that we need to be continually renovating and improving our institutions,” Raskin said, later noting that he supports the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which represents a pledge made by certain states and the District of Columbia to award their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote nationwide.

    Under the US Constitution, Americans don’t select their president directly. They vote for their state’s electors, who are then expected to carry out the will of the voters when they vote for president and vice president.

    Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 both won the national popular vote in their races but lost the Electoral College vote count. Other presidential nominees who lost after winning the popular vote included Andrew Jackson (1824), Samuel Tilden (1876) and Grover Cleveland (1888).

    “The framers [of the Constitution] were great, and they were patriots, but they didn’t have the benefit of the experience that we have lived, and we know that the Electoral College doesn’t fit anymore,” Raskin said.

    Included in the sweeping spending bill that Congress passed last week was a measure aimed at making it harder to overturn a certified presidential election. Raskin described the move, which would reform the 1887 Electoral Count Act, as “necessary” and “the very least we can do and we must do.”

    “But it’s not remotely sufficient,” he said. “We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year exporting American democracy to other countries, and the one thing they never come back to us with is the idea that, ‘Oh, that Electoral College thing you have, that’s so great, we think we’ll adopt that too.’”

    Raskin’s remarks come just days after the select committee – which has investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol – issued its final report, a comprehensive overview of the bipartisan panel’s findings on how former President Donald Trump and his allies sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In a symbolic move, the committee in its last public meeting referred Trump to the Justice Department on four criminal charges.

    Raskin said the unprecedented referrals were necessary because of the “magnitude of the attack on democracy” on January 6. He also warned of a future coup attempt.

    Raskin talked about security threats members of Congress face amid rising partisan tensions.

    “There’s very dangerous rhetoric going on out there that’s a real break from everything we’ve known in our lifetimes,” he said.

    “What it means to live in a democracy with basic civic respect is that people can disagree without resorting to violence. But the internet has played a negative role, especially for the right wing, the extreme right, which now engages in very dangerous hyperbolic rhetoric that exposes people to danger.”

    Source link

  • Editions of Jan. 6 report already on Amazon best seller list

    Editions of Jan. 6 report already on Amazon best seller list

    NEW YORK — It took less than a day for the Jan. 6 report to go from public unveiling to the bestseller list on Amazon.com.

    By late Friday, three editions of the Congressional probe of the 2021 siege of the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump were in the top 30 on Amazon. The editions include one with a foreword by MSNBC anchor Ari Melber, published by Harper Paperbacks; A Celadon Books release with a foreword by New Yorker editor David Remnick and an epilogue by Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and member of the House Select Committee; and a volume by the Hachette Book Group imprint Twelve, published in coordination with The New York Times.

    The 814-page document, released late Thursday, is not copyrighted, can be published by anyone and is otherwise available for free on various government and media web sites. Previous government publications, from the Sept. 11 commission report to Robert Mueller’s probe into Trump’s ties to Russian officials when he ran for president in 2016, have been bestsellers. The Sept. 11 report was even a finalist in 2004 for the National Book Award.

    As with other government releases, publishers have rushed to get their books out quickly to capitalize on public interest. All three bestselling editions will be out within the next two weeks, along with books from Random House and Melville House Books.

    The Jan. 6 report culminates an 18-month investigation, which included more than 1,000 witness interviews and more than a million pages of source material. The committee of seven Democrats and two Republicans blamed the insurrection on Trump, finding a “multi-part conspiracy” orchestrated by the president and his closest allies in an effort to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump, a Republican, has already announced his candidacy for 2024.

    Source link

  • Don’t Party Just Yet: House Election Deniers Could Vote To Make Trump Speaker: Jamie Raskin

    Don’t Party Just Yet: House Election Deniers Could Vote To Make Trump Speaker: Jamie Raskin

    Amid celebrations of the dismal GOP midterm performance, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) warned Sunday that election deniers that will constitute more than a third of the new House could make Donald Trump their speaker.

    The numbers alone are a “statement about the political contamination of the GOP by Donald Trump,” Raskin said on “Face the Nation” on CBS.

    Raskin envisioned a wild scenario in which extremist House Republicans loyal to Trump “might just vote” for the former president to become speaker of the House (provided the GOP wins a 218 majority when all results are counted).

    “We know that the hard-right Freedom Caucus people are in search of another candidate” for House speaker, Raskin told Margaret Brennan.

    “One potential candidate whose name has been floated is Donald Trump himself because the speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the House,” he continued. “And they are talking about putting Trump right there.”

    They “talk about it repeatedly,” Raskin noted. “If Trump decided he wanted to do it, it would pose a profound problem for their party because they refuse to do the right thing.”

    CBS News has projected that at least 155 Republican election deniers will win their House seats, and nine will fill Senate positions, Brennan noted.

    HuffPost reported Saturday that a total of more than 160 GOP election deniers, both newly elected and former members of Congress, will be in the House and Senate.

    The influence of election deniers is “going to create profound cognitive and political dissonance within the GOP,” Raskin warned. “Is it really Trump’s party? Or does it stand for something else?”

    The mix will demand painful choices by Republicans, he said.

    Current House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and others within the Republican Party are “now required to make a decision about whether they’re going to try rid themselves of Donald Trump and his toxic influence on the party,” Raskin noted.

    McCarthy announced his bid to become House speaker on Nov. 9 before a Republican majority was confirmed (it still isn’t). Even if Trump isn’t in the mix, he could face a heated battle to become speaker.

    Raskin called the clash a “real problem” for McCarthy because “certain pro-Trumpists within his House caucus refuse to accept that he’s really with Trump. They want to get rid” of McCarthy.

    “They might just vote for Trump when they take the roll call for speaker,” he underscored.

    Check out Raskin’s observations below:

    Source link

  • Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin will decide on Senate run ‘before the Fourth of July’ | CNN Politics

    Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin will decide on Senate run ‘before the Fourth of July’ | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said Sunday that he is “seriously considering” a bid for Senate and expects to announce a decision before July 4.

    “I have not decided,” Raskin told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked if he would seek the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin. “I love the House of Representatives, I love the people I serve with, and I love being in the People’s House. But, as some of my House colleagues have pointed out, these Senate seats only open up every 25 or 30 years. A lot of people are encouraging me to check it out.”

    “I’m hoping, before the Fourth of July, I will have an answer for everybody,” said Raskin.

    Cardin announced last month that he would not seek reelection in 2024 after three terms in the Senate. The field of Democrats looking to succeed him in deep-blue Maryland already includes US Rep. David Trone, Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks and Montgomery County Councilmember Will Jawando.

    Former House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer, the senior member of the Maryland congressional delegation, endorsed Alsobrooks last week. Asked by Bash if that would affect his decision to run, Raskin said: “Steny Hoyer is my friend, and so I have talked to him. I have talked to all of my colleagues about it.”

    “We have got awesome political leaders in Maryland, and I would not run against anybody else,” Raskin said. “It’s totally based on the experience I have had trying to defend our democracy and our freedom and the Bill of Rights against the Trump movement, which I think is such a danger.”

    Raskin, who disclosed a cancer diagnosis in December, said he has gotten a “clean bill of health” and is in remission following his treatment and “waiting for my hair and my eyelashes and everything to come back.”

    On Monday, the Maryland Democrat and his GOP counterpart on the Oversight panel, Chairman James Comer, are expected to review an internal FBI document that some Republicans claim will shed light on an allegation that, as vice president, Joe Biden was involved in a criminal scheme with a foreign national.

    Comer subpoenaed FBI Director Christopher Wray for the document last month and has since said he plans to begin proceedings to hold Wray in contempt of Congress for failing to turn it over to the committee. Despite the FBI’s accommodation, Comer plans to move with forward with the contempt process, arguing it is not enough to satisfy the terms of his subpoena.

    “That demonstrates to me what they’re really interested in is holding the FBI director in contempt, not getting a document they’ve already seen,” Raskin told Bash, adding, “I don’t know what this document is because the majority has closed us out, the Democrats”

    “It’s all about the 2024 campaign,” Raskin said.

    Asked about concerns surrounding 80-year-old Biden’s age as he seeks reelection next year, Raskin said the president “deserves to be judged by the results of his administration.”

    “That’s what should matter to us as the people,” the congressman said.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    Source link

  • Oversight chairman halts plan to advance Wray contempt proceedings following deal over FBI document | CNN Politics

    Oversight chairman halts plan to advance Wray contempt proceedings following deal over FBI document | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    House Oversight Chairman James Comer is scrapping his plans to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress after the two sides reached an agreement over an FBI document that includes an unverified allegation that Joe Biden, while vice president, was involved in a bribery scheme involving a foreign national.

    Comer, a Kentucky Republican, accepted the FBI’s offer to allow all members on the House Oversight panel to view the internal law enforcement document he initially subpoenaed, known as an FD-1023, in exchange for halting contempt proceedings. The FBI will also make two additional documents available to Comer and the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jamie Raskin, according to Comer’s statement announcing the agreement. As a result of the deal, Comer removed Thursday’s scheduled committee meeting to refer Wray for contempt from the schedule.

    “Allowing all Oversight Committee members to review this record is an important step toward conducting oversight of the FBI and holding it accountable to the American people,” Comer said in a statement.

    In response to the deal, Raskin said in a statement, “Chairman Comer’s acceptance of these further accommodations comes after he has spent weeks attacking the FBI despite its extraordinary efforts to provide Committee Republicans the information they claim to seek.”

    CNN first reported the FBI’s offer earlier Wednesday.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had said earlier in the day that Comer and Wray were planning to speak Wednesday night to negotiate, and signaled that he would accept the FBI’s offer and cease contempt efforts if all committee members could view the document in question.

    “He needs to show it to every Republican and every Democrat on the committee. If he is willing to do that, then there’s not a need to have contempt. But if he doesn’t follow through with that, then there would be a need for contempt,” McCarthy said of Wray.

    Earlier this week, senior FBI officials briefed Comer and Raskin. Previously, Comer had said he wanted the FBI to actually turn the document over to him.

    While the FBI had previously declined to hand over a hard copy of the document, noting it contains unverified information from a confidential human source, the bureau said it was willing to hold a briefing with members of the panel and allow them to view the document as early as Wednesday, sources told CNN, in an effort to stave off contempt of Congress proceedings.

    The alleged bribery claims documented in the 1023 form surfaced years ago under the Trump administration and eventually became part of Delaware US Attorney David Weiss’ investigation of Hunter Biden, which remains ongoing, people briefed on the matter said. The 1023 includes allegations related to Hunter Biden, as well as Joe Biden, according to people familiar with matter.

    The FBI interviewed the informant, who was known to the bureau and had considered him a trusted source based on interactions in a previous investigation. Investigators were unable to corroborate the claims, but Pittsburgh US Attorney Scott Brady, who then-Attorney General William Barr had appointed to review allegations brought to the Justice Department by Rudy Giuliani, decided to send the informant’s allegations to Weiss, who was already leading the Hunter Biden probe.

    It’s unclear what additional steps the FBI took to investigate the claims, but Weiss’ investigation of Hunter Biden has since narrowed in scope to focus on alleged tax violations and a possible false statement.

    The White House has denied the allegation and dismissed the GOP probe as a political stunt.

    The decision to halt contempt proceedings comes as a number of House Republicans have been pushing to hold Wray in contempt.

    GOP Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, a member of the Oversight Committee, told CNN she plans to vote in favor of contempt.

    “I voted to hold people in contempt up here before. If you don’t follow through with the subpoena, there are consequences to it,” she said. “They’ve stonewalled, they’ve obfuscated, they’ve bullshitted, you know what I mean? It’s like, just follow the law.”

    GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, also a member of the Oversight panel, told CNN, “It’s an unclassified form. Just showing it to our chairman and to the ranking member, Congressman Raskin, that’s not enough. We subpoenaed the form. And so, the form needs to be handed over. This is his job – Chris Wray’s job.”

    “If the director of the FBI is flouting subpoenas from Congress, I’m fully supportive of every effort to enforce the subpoena,” GOP Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina, who serves on the House Judiciary Committee told CNN.

    This story and headline have been updated to reflect additional developments.

    Source link