ReportWire

Tag: jim jordan

  • House Republicans subpoena Citibank over info shared with FBI after Jan. 6

    House Republicans subpoena Citibank over info shared with FBI after Jan. 6

    Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, conducts the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the “Report of Special Counsel John Durham,” in Rayburn Building on Wednesday, June 21, 2023.

    Tom Williams | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

    WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan issued a subpoena to Citibank on Thursday, demanding information about whether the bank gave law enforcement information about customer transactions in the days surrounding the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    The subpoena, obtained exclusively by CNBC, came after Jordan previously requested that several financial institutions, including Citibank, provide the information voluntarily. They include Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, PNC, Truist, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo.

    Citibank was the only bank that had not voluntarily complied with the committee’s request, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

    The bank’s lawyers told the committee it would only do under a subpoena, according to Jordan. A Citibank spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC.

    The wider probe into whether banks turned over data to the government to assist in the investigation and prosecution of Jan. 6 rioters was sparked by an FBI whistleblower, who disclosed that Bank of America had voluntarily provided a list of people who made transactions with a BofA credit or debit card in the Washington area between Jan. 5 and Jan. 7, 2021.

    BofA did not deny the whistleblower’s allegation, telling Fox News earlier this year that that the bank “follows all applicable laws” to “narrowly respond to law enforcement requests.”

    Now the committee wants to know if other banks did the same.

    Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

    WATCH: House committee investigating Jan. 6 riots release never-before-seen footage of insurrection

    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



    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.

    Source link

  • Republicans must overcome deep splits to choose a speaker as Israel crisis exposes failure to govern | CNN Politics

    Republicans must overcome deep splits to choose a speaker as Israel crisis exposes failure to govern | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans must mend gaping splits in their conference if they are to succeed in picking a new speaker – as dangerous global crises in Israel and Ukraine expose the steep cost of their malfunctioning majority.

    The two declared candidates, Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, must demonstrate their capacity to either control or co-opt hardliners who ousted Kevin McCarthy last week and are making the United States look like an ebbing superpower that cannot govern itself – let alone lead a world in turmoil.

    Republicans on Wednesday are meeting for internal secret ballot elections to determine who will become their nominee to be second in line to the presidency. But the gravity of outside events is apparently doing little to shake the GOP out of its endless internal conflict because serious doubts remain over whether either Scalise or Jordan can win the necessary overwhelming support of the Republican conference in an eventual floor vote of the full House.

    The House GOP already looked deeply negligent with time running out to stave off another government shutdown drama by the middle of next month. But if the House remains paralyzed much longer it will undermine the country’s capacity to respond to the horrific Hamas assault on Israel. And Ukraine’s battle to survive as a sovereign state will soon reach a critical point if its next aid package doesn’t make it through the House.

    Republican lawmakers met Tuesday night as Jordan and Scalise made their pitches. The situation is so fraught because the tiny House GOP majority means that a candidate for speaker can only lose four Republican votes and still win the gavel in a full House vote. Democrats refused to save McCarthy from a revolt by eight hardliners last week and on Tuesday named their leader, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, as candidate for speaker, suggesting they will sit on the sidelines again, content to expose the dysfunction in the GOP ahead of next year’s election.

    Rep. David Valadao, a California Republican who faces a tough reelection fight, said it could be difficult for either Scalise or Jordan to win outright. “I think both candidates are going to struggle. … But I don’t know exactly where their numbers are,” Valadao said. “It seems like they are both scrambling and they’re both working hard. So I don’t know if anyone is super confident right now.”

    The faces are different but the GOP fault line remains the same

    A week on from McCarthy’s rejection, after less than nine months as speaker, the fundamental fault line in the party remains as glaring as ever. Far-right Republicans have demands for massive spending cuts but fail to acknowledge that Democratic control of the Senate and the White House means that GOP leaders have no choice but to eventually compromise. McCarthy fell after using Democratic votes to pass a stopgap bill to keep the government open, fearing that Republicans would pay a harsh political price for a shutdown that could, over time, affect millions of Americans.

    The key question on Wednesday will be whether Scalise or Jordan can unite enough of the party behind them before a full floor vote, which could happen as soon as later that day. Republicans are conducting the initial process behind closed doors to avoid a repeat of the public demonstration of disarray that unfolded during the 15 rounds of balloting McCarthy required to win the top job in January. They’ll be debating and voting on a proposed change to conference rules to raise the threshold for winning the nomination – from a simple majority of the conference to a majority of the current House – as part of their effort to avoid January’s theatrics. Both Jordan and Scalise committed to supporting one another if they become the nominee, lawmakers said after Tuesday’s candidate forum.

    Rep. Mike Garcia of California warned after the forum that the fate of the speakership was still up in the air. “I think it’s 50/50 odds right now,” he said. Some of his colleagues were even more pessimistic. Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida said, “No one is close to 217.” Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who is backing Jordan, was asked the chances of a new speaker being selected Wednesday and replied: “I’d put it at 2%.”

    Jordan, a vehement supporter of Donald Trump who’s echoed his false claims of election fraud in 2020, has the former president’s backing. The Ohio Republican, who was a co-founder of the conservative Freedom Caucus, has devoted his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee to trying to prove Trump’s accusations that the government has been weaponized against him as he faces four criminal trials and is also a leading figure in the impeachment probe into President Joe Biden.

    Jordan said he had a plan to head off a new government funding cliff-hanger, but he’d have to reconcile the demands of right-wingers and also get such a measure through the Senate and the White House. “Nobody wants a shutdown,” Jordan said. Several lawmakers in the meeting said the Judiciary chairman said he’d pitch for a long-term stopgap plan that cut spending by 1% to allow time for passing individual spending bills.

    Rep. Don Bacon, a key moderate from Nebraska who is leaning Scalise’s way, suggested he was pleasantly surprised by Jordan’s argument. “Because of his past, I think we expected to hear the Freedom Caucus message. It was not that. It was very pragmatic,” Bacon said Tuesday.

    Scalise is also an authentic conservative and vocal supporter of Trump. (Both men voted against certifying Biden’s win in 2020.) But he’s known as less of a flamethrower than Jordan. And as a member of leadership with fundraising bona fides, he could be more palatable to moderate Republican lawmakers in more than a dozen districts that paved the way to the narrow GOP majority in last year’s midterms and that will be critical to its hopes in 2024. The Louisianan emerged from the meeting Tuesday evening warning that the country needed a Congress that can work. “What people have really liked about my approach is I’ve been a unifier,” he said, though such skills would face an extreme test if he wins the gavel.

    If neither Scalise nor Jordan is able to win sufficient support, there could be an opening for a compromise candidate that all wings of the party could get behind. Some freshmen have been pushing for a return of McCarthy. But the former speaker asked that he not be nominated in the race – without closing the door to getting his job back.

    “There are two people running in there. I’m not one of them,” the California Republican told CNN’s Manu Raju.

    Even if a new speaker does emerge on Wednesday, they will face the same relentless pressure imposed by a tiny majority, the split balance of power in Washington and a GOP that has riotously resisted the efforts of the last three Republican speakers to unify the conference and provide long-term governance.

    Most immediately, the victor will have to decide whether to try to amend the rule that any one member can call a vote to oust the speaker – a concession McCarthy had offered to hardliners in order to win the gavel in January. Then, looming a few weeks away, is a possible repeat of the crisis that led to McCarthy’s defeat and the current power vacuum in the House. Unless Congress passes more funding by November 17, the government will close down, creating a series of adverse consequences, including the possibility that troops go unpaid and public services are severely disrupted.

    To avoid this scenario, the House will either have to pass a series of complex spending bills in a month – a near impossibility given their size and the time wasted on the speaker’s race – or opt for another short-term spending patch that significant numbers of Republicans may oppose. Even if the House can manage to pass a spending plan, any measure acceptable to the entire House GOP is unlikely to win support in the Senate or the White House since hardliners are demanding cuts far below those previously agreed to by McCarthy and Biden earlier this year.

    A Speaker Scalise or Speaker Jordan – or whoever can get the job – would almost certainly have to make the same fateful choice that faced McCarthy. Do they shut down the government if they can’t jam concessions out of the White House or Senate? Or seek to punt the choice down the road with a temporary funding bill that will probably need Democratic votes to pass? Jordan’s approach that calls for 1% spending cuts would likely be a non-starter among Democrats, meaning he would need to convince moderate Republicans it was in their interests.

    The House must also soon wrestle with the president’s request for more than $20 billion in military aid to Ukraine as it fights the Russian invasion. Many Republicans oppose additional funding, and it’s another measure that would need Democratic votes to get through the House. The question has become even more complicated following the attack on Israel, with some Republicans arguing that the US should send the Jewish state as much help as it wants while being reluctant to continue propping up the Ukrainian war effort.

    Such is the complexity of the untamed nature of the GOP majority that further turmoil certainly lies ahead, even if Republicans somehow settle on a new speaker on Wednesday.

    Source link

  • House Republicans are making a gamble with a possible Jim Jordan speakership | CNN Politics

    House Republicans are making a gamble with a possible Jim Jordan speakership | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    If House Republicans elect hard-charging Jim Jordan as speaker on Tuesday, they will be picking an election denier who is known for working to shut down the government rather than running it.

    The party would be ending its two-week speakership debacle, but it’d be elevating a ringleader in former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overthrow the 2020 election into a position that is second in the line of succession behind President Joe Biden.

    A Jordan speakership would represent a huge victory for Trump, given the Judiciary chairman’s record of using his power to target Democratic presidential candidates, including Biden and 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton. Before the midterm elections last year, for instance, Jordan said at the Conservative Political Action Conference that he’d use probes into the Biden administration to “frame up the 2024 race” for Trump.

    He has been as good as his word, working to highlight the ex-president’s claims that the federal government has been “weaponized” against him in an effort to distract from the four criminal trials the GOP front-runner is now facing. And Jordan has been a prominent player in the impeachment investigation opened against Biden, despite the failure of the GOP to provide evidence that the president personally profited from the business ventures of his son in places like China and Ukraine.

    Jordan’s hopes of becoming speaker increased dramatically over the weekend as he began to turn holdouts amid an intense lobbying campaign. Some key moderates who had previously said they wouldn’t back the Ohio Republican had changed course by Monday. But given the tiny House GOP majority, Jordan can only lose a small number of Republicans and still win the job in a vote in the full House, which is expected at noon on Tuesday. Florida Rep. Gus Bilirakis will be away from the Capitol on Tuesday, further complicating the vote math for Jordan, making it so that he can only lose three Republicans.

    But this is a temporary drop until the Florida congressman returns to Washington on Tuesday evening.

    Several high-profile dissidents still insist they will only vote for former Speaker Kevin McCarthy or are firmly against Jordan, who co-founded the conservative Freedom Caucus that was instrumental in the demise of the last three Republican speakers. Jordan’s opponents have cited his role in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, insurrection – when he discussed plans to object to the results – and have concerns that his hardline positions could alienate crucial swing voters next year.

    If Jordan wins the speakership, his reputation for resistance to compromise is likely to immediately fuel fresh fears of a government shutdown caused by Republican demands for massive spending cuts. Facing a right-wing revolt, McCarthy was forced to use Democratic votes to pass a stopgap funding measure. And he paid for his effort to stave off a national crisis, which could have hurt millions of Americans, with his job. Jordan has been among the right-wing Republicans who want to use their power to bulldoze through their agenda despite the fact that Democrats control the Senate and the White House.

    As speaker, Jordan would be in control of half of one of the three branches of the US government – a role that confers duties to the Constitution and the national interest far greater than those that weigh on individual members. By definition, he’d be an insider after years as an insurgent, a switch that could be a challenge. Fellow Ohioan and former Republican House Speaker John Boehner told CBS News in a 2021 interview referring to Jordan: “I just never saw a guy who spent more time tearing things apart – never building anything, never putting anything together.”

    A Jordan victory would mark one of the most significant milestones in Washington Republicans’ embrace of an extreme right-wing populist, nationalist ideology that is more dedicated to tearing political institutions down than using them to forge change. And it would reward the eight Republicans who voted with Democrats to topple McCarthy. More broadly, it would remove power from the party’s traditional Washington, DC, political establishment, which many of the party’s grassroots voters despise, and place the Freedom Caucus at the pinnacle of power in the House.

    The shift toward Jordan over the weekend, however, may also reflect a realization by lawmakers that the optics of continued chaos in the House are disastrous for the party and sends a message of American weakness amid a raging crisis in the Middle East.

    New York Rep. Marc Molinaro, who represents a district Biden would have won in 2020 under redrawn lines, announced Monday evening that he’s backing Jordan. “What I care deeply about is getting back to governing. And having been home over the weekend, I can tell you that most people I talk to just want us to fight inflation, just want us to secure the border, just want us to govern on their behalf. And truly they just want this House to function,” he told CNN.

    And if there is anyone who could keep far-right flamethrowers in line, it is Jordan. After all, he’s one of them. If wins the speakership, he’d potentially face a choice whether to at least seek a modicum of governance to show voters that the GOP can get results ahead of the 2024 election. Just as President Richard Nixon had the political cover as a hardline anti-Communist to forge an opening to Maoist China, Jordan might have more leeway than other potential Republican leaders to make painful concessions and keep his hardliners in line.

    But choosing Jordan to end the impasse would also represent a huge risk for the GOP. His close alliance with Trump, who has endorsed the Ohio Republican for the top job, could alienate moderate voters in districts that paved the way to the party’s narrow majority in last year’s midterms. His record of full bore confrontation could exacerbate a showdown with the Democratic Senate and the White House over spending that could shut down the government by the middle of November and cause a backlash against Republicans.

    And the qualities that his supporters see in Jordan – the fearsome use of power to drum up investigations against political opponents and a pugilistic refusal to find middle ground – are not those traditionally associated with successful speakers. Jordan has no history of bringing disparate factions of his party together – quite the opposite. His brand of politics is built around his history as a champion wrestler in college. “I look at it like a wrestling match,” Jordan told the New York Times earlier this year, referring to his staccato interrogations of witnesses in hearings that made him a hero on conservative media and a Trump favorite.

    Another knock on Jordan is that he’s not known as a prolific fundraiser – one of the most important jobs of a party leader in the House. McCarthy was known for his lucrative hauls that he used to boost candidates and foster loyalty from his supporters. In fact, Jordan has actively worked against some fellow members in the past, with the political arm of the Freedom Caucus backing primary challengers to 10 GOP incumbents over the last few cycles.

    The job of the House has traditionally been to pass laws. And by that measure, Jordan is one of the least effective legislators of his generation, according to the Center For Effective Lawmaking, a joint project of the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University.

    Still, Jordan’s supporters worked to mitigate his liabilities heading into a floor vote that would force opponents to publicly renounce him at the risk of drawing primary challenges. House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers of Alabama, who had been vehemently anti-Jordan, flipped after what he described as “two cordial, thoughtful and productive” conversations with the prospective speaker and securing his support for a strong defense bill. Sources familiar with Jordan’s pitch to the GOP conference told CNN’s Annie Grayer and Melanie Zanona Monday that the Ohio congressman had promised to fundraise hard for Republicans across the country and that he would also do what he could to protect moderates – potentially by ensuring that they don’t face primary challenges next year from hardline pro-Trump candidates.

    However, Zanona and Grayer also reported that some big GOP donors had vowed not to invest in the House majority under Jordan and would instead concentrate their resources on flipping the Senate next year. That GOP coolness highlights how a 2024 Republican slate featuring Trump, the front-runner for the presidential nomination, and Jordan as the most powerful Republican in Washington could delight Democrats campaigning in the battleground districts that could decide the election.

    Rep. Don Bacon, who represents a swing district in Nebraska, emerged from a meeting of Republican lawmakers on Monday evening resolved not to support Jordan, after expressing concerns that handing him the speaker’s gavel would represent a victory for the hardliners who ended McCarthy’s tenure. Bacon said he was inclined to vote for McCarthy even though the former speaker is not standing, at least in a first ballot. “I’m going to vote tomorrow and we’ll take it after that one at a time,” Bacon said.

    Another anti-McCarthy holdout is Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, who has said “part of” the reason he is opposed to Jordan is his behavior after the 2020 election. According to the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, Jordan was a “significant player” in Trump’s efforts to overturn the election and to block the certification of Biden’s victory in Congress, including in multiple conversations with Trump and senior White House officials.

    But some key lawmakers appear to have made their peace with Jordan’s potential speakership, partly because of the damage being done to the GOP and their potential reelection prospects by self-indulgent internal battles. New York Rep. Mike Lawler, a freshman who is one of the most endangered Republicans next year and has been a strong supporter of McCarthy, called on the House to get back to work. “At the end of the day, we need to get back to the work of the American people,” Lawler told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Monday. He said he told Jordan on Friday that he was not a “hell no” and that he’d only back him if he had the votes to become speaker.

    He shrugged off attacks that are already coming from Democrats over his possible vote for Jordan.

    “They are going to attack me no matter what I do. That’s their job, that’s their objective. They want to get back into the majority,” Lawler told Tapper.

    “My constituents know who I am, they know where I stand on these issues,” Lawler said, noting how he had fought to raise the government’s borrowing limit earlier this year, averting a debt default, and to keep the government open.

    Lawler might be right. But the potential chaos and discord Jordan could sow may give voters fresh reasons to vote against Lawler by November of next year.

    This story has been updated with additional reporting.

    Source link

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

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


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

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

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

    These are the House Republicans who voted against Jordan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    7. Rep. Carlos Gimenez of Florida voted for McCarthy

    8. Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas voted for Scalise

    9. Rep. Kay Granger of Texas voted for Scalise

    10. Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania voted for Scalise

    11. Rep. Jennifer Kiggans of Virginia voted for McCarthy

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

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

    14. Rep. John Rutherford of Florida voted for Scalise

    15. Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho voted for Scalise

    16. Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas voted for Scalise

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

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

    19. Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California voted for McCarthy

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

    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



    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.

    Source link

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

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



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    Source link

  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies at House censorship hearing, denies antisemitic comments

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies at House censorship hearing, denies antisemitic comments

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. worked to defend himself Thursday against accusations that he traffics in racist and hateful online conspiracy theories, testifying at a House hearing on government censorship despite requests from outside groups to disinvite the Democratic presidential candidate after his recent antisemitic remarks.

    The Republican-led Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is amplifying GOP claims that conservatives and others are being unfairly targeted by technology companies that routinely work with the government to try to stem the spread of disinformation online. Democrats argued that free speech comes with responsibilities not to spread misinformation, particularly when it fans violence.

    In opening remarks, Kennedy invoked his famous family’s legacy in decrying the complaints of racism and antisemitism against him.

    “This is an attempt to censor a censorship hearing,” said Kennedy, the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is sworn-in during a House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing on Thursday, July 20, 2023.
    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is sworn-in during a House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing on Thursday, July 20, 2023.

    Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images


    Growing animated at times, Kennedy defended his statements, which have delved into race, vaccine safety and other issues, as neither “racist or antisemitic.” He said his family has long believed in the First Amendment right to free speech.

    “The First Amendment was not written for easy speech,” Kennedy said. “It was written for the speech that nobody likes you for.”

    Republicans are eager to elevate Kennedy after he announced in April he was mounting a long-shot Democratic primary challenge to President Biden. Kennedy’s presidential campaign chairman, Dennis Kucinich, the former congressman and past presidential contender, sat in the front row behind him during the more-than-three-hours hearing.

    The Big Tech companies have adamantly denied the GOP assertions and say they enforce their rules impartially for everyone regardless of ideology or political affiliation. And researchers have not found widespread evidence that social media companies are biased against conservative news, posts or materials.

    The top Democrat on the House panel, Del. Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands, said the Republican majority was giving a platform to Kennedy and others to promote conspiracy theories and a rallying cry for “bigotry and hate.”

    “This is not the kind of free speech I know,” Plaskett said.

    Plaskett warned against misinformation from Russia and other U.S. adversaries who have interfered in American elections and are expected to meddle again in the 2024 election.

    Often emotional and heated, Thursday’s hearing came as subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican of Ohio, portrayed what he claimed were examples of censorship, including a White House request to Twitter to remove a race-based post from Kennedy about COVID-19 vaccines.

    “It’s why Mr. Kennedy is running for president — it’s to stop, to help us expose and stop what’s going on,” Jordan said.

    A watchdog group asked Jordan to drop the invitation to Kennedy after he suggested COVID-19 could have been “ethnically targeted” to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.

    In those filmed remarks first published by The New York Post, Kennedy said “there is an argument” that COVID-19 “is ethnically targeted” and that it “attacks certain races disproportionately.”

    After the video was made public, Kennedy posted on Twitter that his words were twisted and denied ever suggesting that COVID-19 was deliberately engineered to spare Jewish people. He called for the Post’s article to be retracted.

    A clip from the video was aired at the hearing.

    Kennedy has a history of comparing vaccines — widely credited with saving millions of lives — with the genocide of the Holocaust during Nazi Germany, comments for which he has sometimes apologized.

    In heated exchanges, Democrats implored Kennedy and Republicans to consider the fallout from their words and actions — and noted that one of the posts Republicans had singled out at the hearing was not removed by any censors.

    “Hate speech has consequences,” said Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, who made reference to the mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue, among others. He called the hearing Orwellian.

    Democratic Rep. Sylvia Garcia of Texas said she received a death threat after the last hearing of the Weaponization panel.

    When Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat of Florida, read aloud Kennedy’s postings and questioned his intent, Kennedy interjected that she was “slandering me” and claimed what the congresswoman was saying was a lie.

    An organization that Kennedy founded, Children’s Health Defense, currently has a lawsuit pending against a number of news organizations, among them The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines.

    Ahead of the hearing, Jordan said that while he disagreed with Kennedy’s remarks, he was not about to drop him from the panel. Speaker Kevin McCarthy took a similar view, saying he did not want to censor Kennedy.

    The panel wants to probe the way the federal government works with technology companies to flag postings that contain false information or downright lies. Hanging over the debate is part of federal communications law, Section 230, which shields technology companies like Twitter and Facebook from liability over what’s said on their platforms.

    Lawmakers on the panel were also hearing testimony from Emma-Jo Morris, a journalist at Breitbart News, who has reported extensively on Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter Biden; and D. John Sauer, a former solicitor general in Missouri who is now a special assistant attorney general at the Louisiana Department of Justice involved in the lawsuit against the Biden administration.

    Morris tweeted part of her opening remarks in which she described an “elaborate censorship conspiracy” that she claimed sought to halt her reporting of Hunter Biden.

    A witness called by Democrats, Maya Wiley, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, implored the lawmakers to consider the platforms where Americans share views — but also “how deeply vital that they be based in fact, not fiction.”

    The U.S. has been hesitant to regulate the social media giants, even as outside groups warn of the rise of hate speech and misinformation that can be erosive to civil society.

    Source link

  • CNBC Daily Open: The long-awaited recession might not arrive

    CNBC Daily Open: The long-awaited recession might not arrive

    People walk past the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on July 12, 2023 in New York City.

    Spencer Platt | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    This report is from today’s CNBC Daily Open, our new, international markets newsletter. CNBC Daily Open brings investors up to speed on everything they need to know, no matter where they are. Like what you see? You can subscribe here.

    What you need to know today

    Waiting for earnings
    U.S. stocks
    made slight gains Monday, but trading volume was lower than average as investors braced for second-quarter earning. European markets, on the other hand, fell. The regional Stoxx 600 index declined 0.6% as most sectors and bourses in the region fell.

    Separating the wheat from the people
    Russia terminated the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which allowed Ukraine to export food and fertilizers from three Ukrainian ports, hours before the agreement expired. The prices of wheat, corn and soybean all rose on the news. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres previously described the deal as “indispensable” to global food security.

    Merger bonanza
    Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway reduced its stake in Activision Blizzard from 6.7% last year to 1.9% yesterday, according to a securities filing released Monday. The news comes as Microsoft inches closer to completing its $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision. Buffett previously revealed Berkshire added to its initial Activision stake in a bet the deal would close and cause shares to rise.

    Unraveling the Thread
    Meta’s Threads, its rival to Twitter, launched to great excitement. But not everyone is thrilled. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan has asked Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to hand over documents about content moderation on Threads, according to a letter obtained exclusively by CNBC. The request is related to an ongoing investigation of technology platform’s policies.

    [PRO] The S&P 5,400
    Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research and previously chief investment strategist at various financial institutions, thinks the S&P 500 could go on an extended bull run and hit a record high of 5,400 within the next 18 months. Here’s why the market veteran is so optimistic.

    The bottom line

    Investors were cautiously optimistic yesterday.

    Major U.S. indexes edged up. The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 0.22% to hit its highest close this year. The S&P 500 gained 0.39% and the Nasdaq Composite climbed 0.93%.

    It should be noted, however, that trading volume was muted. The SPDR S&P 500 exchange-traded fund, which tracks the overall index, traded 52.4 million shares, below its 30-day average of 79.1 million.

    The slower pace of trading makes sense. Major companies are due to release their earnings reports, starting with Bank of America and Morgan Stanley on Tuesday as well as Goldman Sachs, Netflix and Tesla on Wednesday.  

    Investors braced for those reports — and they aren’t expecting good news. Analysts think second-quarter S&P 500 earnings will be more than 7% lower than they were a year ago, according to FactSet data.

    But the good news is last quarter’s earnings might be the floor. And things are looking up, not just for markets, but the economy. The long-awaited U.S. recession? Many analysts now think it’s not merely late — it might not even show up.

    With both consumer and producer price indexes cooling more than expected, “bringing inflation down to an acceptable level will not require a recession,” Goldman Sachs’ chief economist Jan Hatzius wrote, cutting his projection of a recession from 25% to 20%.

    JPMorgan Chase’s chief global markets strategist Marko Kolanovic has been skeptical of a soft landing. But even he noted that “the resilience of the US and global expansions should remain in place,” causing the bank to “downplay near-term recession risks.”

    And Ed Yardeni thinks the recession — albeit “a rolling recession,” meaning that different sectors of the economy have taken turns to contract — is already behind us. Instead, “now … we’re in a rolling recovery,” Yardeni said.

    As earnings reports are released, don’t look at companies’ figures for the past quarter. Keep an eye out for their projections for the rest of the year. We might yet see signs of hope the economy will continue growing.

     

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Jim Jordan Stammers And Babbles During Awkward Fox News Interview

    Jim Jordan Stammers And Babbles During Awkward Fox News Interview

    Jordan and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) spoke with Hannity about hearings earlier in the day with FBI Director Christopher Wray, who is the latest target of right-wing rage due to the criminal case against Donald Trump.

    When the conversation turned to Hunter Biden, Jordan seemed to lose all train of thought.

    “That’s exactly what happened with, yuh, with the decision, the, the, uh, when it came to the uh, the decision with uh, Mr. uh,” Jordan said, then reset himself.

    “I’m drew a blank there, Sean, I apologize,” Jordan offered. “I got a huge echo in my ear, I can’t even hear.”

    Hannity typically plays up even the slightest verbal stumbles by President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris as a cause for national embarrassment, and did so on his show on Wednesday.

    But he was a lot more forgiving of Jordan.

    “Sorry about that,” Hannity said.

    Jordan’s critics piled on:

    Source link

  • Trump’s indictment divides 2024 Republican hopefuls | CNN Politics

    Trump’s indictment divides 2024 Republican hopefuls | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Republican presidential candidates Vivek Ramaswamy and Asa Hutchinson Sunday articulated vastly different plans for how they’d approach the federal indictment against former President Donald Trump should either capture the White House in 2024.

    Contenders for the GOP nomination are grappling to strike the right tone on Trump, seen as the GOP front-runner to take on President Joe Biden next year, as they look to build their support among Republican primary voters.

    Trump is facing his first federal indictment for retention of classified documents and conspiracy with a top aide to hide them from the government and his own attorneys – a total of 37 counts.

    Ramaswamy, who vowed to pardon Trump if elected president before details of the 37-count indictment were revealed, doubled down Sunday, telling CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that after “reading that indictment and looking at the selective omissions of both fact and law,” he was “even more convinced that a pardon is the right answer here.”

    Ramaswamy acknowledged that he “would not have taken those documents with me,” but the tech entrepreneur maintained there was a difference between “bad judgment and breaking the law.”

    Bash presses Ramaswamy on pledge to pardon Trump

    Those comments stood in contrast to Hutchinson, who called Ramaswamy’s vow to pardon Trump “simply wrong” in a separate interview on “State of the Union” later Sunday.

    “It is simply wrong for a candidate to use the pardon power of the United States of the president in order to curry votes, and in order to get an applause line. It is just wrong,” the former Arkansas governor told Bash.

    “We do not need to have our commander in chief of this country not protecting our nation’s secrets,” Hutchinson said, adding later, “These are things that should not be disclosed as entertainment value to a political contact that you’re speaking with.”

    Asked if he believes the indictment will help Trump in the 2024 race, Hutchinson said, “I suspect that he’s going to raise money on the indictment as he did before. And obviously with a lot of Republican leaders saying that this is selective prosecution, that this is unfair – there is a sympathy factor that is built in.”

    But, Hutchinson said, “The Republican Party stands for the rule of law and our system of justice. Let’s not undermine that by our rhetoric, by making up facts, and by accusing the Department of Justice of things that there is no evidence of.”

    Ramaswamy isn’t the only 2024 GOP contender to criticize the Justice Department in the days since Trump first disclosed the indictment.

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday accused the DOJ of “weaponization of federal law enforcement” while vowing, if elected president, to “bring accountability to the DOJ, excise political bias and end weaponization once and for all.”

    DeSantis declined to comment on the indictment Saturday at a campaign stop in Oklahoma, but he repeated his vow to end the “weaponization” of government and clean house from top to bottom” as president.

    Former Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to “stop hiding behind the special counsel and stand before the American people” to explain “this unprecedented action.”

    “We also need to hear the former president’s defense so that each of us can make our own judgment,” Pence told attendees at the North Carolina GOP convention in Greensboro, where Trump also spoke hours after addressing a similar gathering in Georgia.

    Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and Trump’s United Nations ambassador, characterized the indictment as “prosecutorial overreach” in a statement Friday, adding that it was time to move “beyond the endless drama and distractions.”

    North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who entered the GOP race last week, vowed Sunday in an interview on CBS News to “follow every rule related to handling classified documents” after potentially leaving office as president. He told Fox News on Saturday that Trump’s mishandling of documents was not something that voters want to spend their time talking about.

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a onetime ally and close adviser to Trump who has emerged as his chief critic in the 2024 race, however, described the details of the indictment as “damning.”

    “This is irresponsible conduct,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Friday, adding that “the conduct that Donald Trump engaged in was completely self-inflicted.”

    Christie is scheduled to participate in a CNN town hall hosted by Anderson Cooper in New York on Monday.

    SOTU rep jim jordan full interview_00123522.png

    Full Interview: Dana Bash presses Rep. Jim Jordan on indictment

    Trump has maintained the reliable backing of hard-line conservatives in Congress, such as House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, who fiercely defended the former president in an interview with Bash on Sunday.

    “The president’s ability to classify and control access to national security information flows from the Constitution,” the Ohio Republican said. “He alone decides. He said he declassified this material. He can put it wherever he wants. He can handle it however he wants.”

    But the laws under which the Justice Department said it was investigating possible crimes – statutes about the willful retention of national defense information, obstruction of a federal investigation, and the concealment or removal of government records – do not require documents to be classified for a crime to have been committed, CNN previously reported.

    Bash also reminded Jordan that Trump, on tape, in a 2021 meeting admitted to having a document that wasn’t declassified, a detail first reported by CNN. But Jordan repeatedly countered, claiming that saying Trump “could have” declassified material as president was not the same as saying he “didn’t” already declassify the material.

    “He has said time and time again, he’s declassified all this material,” the congressman said.

    Asked if he had evidence of Trump declassifying any documents, Jordan said, “I go on the president’s word, and he said he did.”

    Source link

  • Jordan subpoenas CDC, other federal agencies over censorship concerns | CNN Politics

    Jordan subpoenas CDC, other federal agencies over censorship concerns | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The House Judiciary Committee has sent subpoenas to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Global Engagement Center for documents as it continues to investigate whether the federal government pressured social media companies to censor certain viewpoints.

    The subpoenas mark an escalation in the panel’s inquiry, as House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan described the agencies responses to previous voluntary request in March as “inadequate” in the subpoena cover letter and said that none of the agencies have produced any documents responding to previous requests to date.

    Jordan, a Republican, has long claimed that the federal government and big tech companies have been “weaponized” against conservatives, and leads a subcommittee on that topic.

    The subpoena letters do not list any specific allegations the committee is investigating but raises the concern over censorship more broadly. The subpoenas set a document deadline of May 22 for a broad request of information and communications.

    Through the subpoenas to the CDC, CISA (which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security) and the Global Engagement Center, under the Department of State’s purview, the Judiciary panel claims to be seeking information about the extent to which the Executive Branch “pressured and colluded” with social media and other tech companies and others to “censor certain viewpoints on social and other media in ways that undermine First Amendment principles.”

    Conservative critics have said that correspondence released by Twitter owner and CEO Elon Musk late last year demonstrates a willingness by social media publishers to act on requests by government officials to suppress certain points of view. Federal officials, however, have rejected this accusation.

    “The Department of Homeland Security does not censor speech and does not request that content be taken down by social media companies,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told CNN. “Instead of working with the Department, as numerous committees have done this Congress, the House Judiciary Committee has unnecessarily escalated to a subpoena. DHS will continue cooperating appropriately with Congressional oversight requests, all while faithfully working to protect our nation from terrorism and targeted violence, secure our borders, respond to natural disasters, defend against cyberattacks, and more.”

    The Judiciary panel “made no effort to work with DHS through traditional channels” a source familiar with the backchanneling between the committee and DHS said.

    Outlining the scope of the agency, the source added that CISA provides guidance on foreign influence operations, disinformation tactics and issues of election security and shares that information with state and local election officials. In the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, CISA shared potential election security related disinformation identified by local authorities with social media companies, but did not do so in the 2022 election cycle. The source emphasized, “platforms make their own decisions according to their policies and terms of service.”

    CNN has reached out to the other agencies for comment as well.

    Jordan claims that the subpoenas will help his panel determine if legislation is needed to create “new statutory limits on the Executive Branch’s ability to work with social media platforms and other companies to restrict the circulation of content and deplatform users.”

    Source link

  • Jordan subpoenas FBI human resources official | CNN Politics

    Jordan subpoenas FBI human resources official | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has issued a subpoena to Jennifer Leigh Moore, executive assistant director of human resources at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, demanding she answer questions from the select subcommittee on the so-called weaponization of the federal government.

    Russell Dye, Jordan’s spokesperson, claimed in a statement Monday that Moore “refused to answer questions” about the FBI’s alleged retaliation against conservatives during a previous transcribed interview with the panel.

    CNN has reached out to the FBI for comment.

    Jordan and his fellow Republicans say they have heard from “whistleblowers” who disclosed that the FBI is attempting to “purge” employees with conservative views.

    “We have received protected whistleblower disclosures that the FBI is engaging in a ‘purge’ of employees with conservative views by revoking their security clearances and indefinitely suspending these employees. Many of the formal notices for these adverse personnel actions have been signed by you,” Jordan, an Ohio Republican, wrote in his September letter to Moore.

    Source link

  • House Republicans, Manhattan DA End Fight Over Trump Inquiry

    House Republicans, Manhattan DA End Fight Over Trump Inquiry

    NEW YORK (AP) — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed Friday to let Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee question an ex-prosecutor about the criminal case against former President Donald Trump.

    Under the agreement, committee members will be able to question Mark Pomerantz under oath next month in Washington. The deal resolves a lawsuit in which District Attorney Alvin Bragg had sought to block Pomerantz from testifying, ending a legal dispute that escalated to a federal appeals court just weeks after Trump’s historic indictment.

    Among the committee’s concessions, Pomerantz will be accompanied by a lawyer from Bragg’s office, which is not typically allowed in Congressional depositions.

    Bragg’s office and the Judiciary Committee reached the agreement after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay Thursday that temporarily halted enforcement of a House subpoena which had called for Pomerantz to testify.

    The appeals court had been scheduled to hear oral arguments in the dispute on Tuesday.

    Bragg’s office said the agreement, delaying Pomerantz’s testimony until May 12, preserves the district attorney’s “privileges and interests” in his ongoing Trump prosecution.

    “Our successful stay of this subpoena blocked the immediate deposition and afforded us the time necessary to coordinate with the House Judiciary Committee on an agreement that protects the District Attorney’s privileges and interests,” Bragg’s office said in a statement.

    “We are pleased with this resolution, which ensures any questioning of our former employee will take place in the presence of our General Counsel on a reasonable, agreed upon timeframe. We are gratified that the Second Circuit’s ruling provided us with the opportunity to successfully resolve this dispute,” Bragg’s office said.

    Bragg had appealed to the 2nd Circuit after a lower court judge ruled Wednesday that there was no legal basis to block the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena and that Pomerantz’s deposition must go forward as scheduled.

    Under the agreement, Bragg withdrew his appeal.

    Russell Dye, a spokesperson for committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said in a statement, “Mr. Pomerantz’s deposition will go forward on May 12, and we look forward to his appearance.”

    FILE – Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, left, speaks during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill, Feb. 9, 2023, in Washington. House Republicans on Thursday, April 6, subpoenaed one of the former Manhattan prosecutors who had been leading a criminal investigation into Donald Trump before quitting last year in a clash over the direction of the probe. Jordan ordered Mark Pomerantz to testify before the committee by April 30. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

    Pomerantz once oversaw the yearslong Trump investigation but left the job after clashing with Bragg over the direction of the case. He recently wrote a book about his work pursuing Trump and discussed the investigation in interviews on “60 Minutes” and other shows.

    Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan and the Judiciary Committee last week seeking to block the subpoena. His lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, argued that seeking Pomerantz’s testimony was part of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” Bragg and that Congress was “invading a state” to investigate a local prosecutor when it had no authority to do so.

    Boutrous said House Republicans’ interest in Bragg amounted to Congress “jumping in and haranguing the D.A. while the prosecution is ongoing.”

    The Judiciary Committee started scrutinizing Bragg’s investigation of the former president in the weeks that preceded his indictment. Jordan sent letters seeking interviews with Bragg and documents before subpoenaing Pomerantz. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, said in her ruling Wednesday that she would handle any legal fights that may arise from other subpoenas in the committee’s investigation of Bragg.

    A committee lawyer, Matthew Berry, said at that hearing that Congress has legitimate legislative reasons for wanting to question Pomerantz and examine Bragg’s prosecution of Trump, citing the office’s use of $5,000 in federal funds to pay for Trump-related investigations.

    Congress is also considering legislation, offered by Republicans in the wake of Trump’s indictment, to change how criminal cases against former presidents unfold, Berry said. One bill would prohibit prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate presidents, and another would require any criminal cases involving a former president be resolved in federal court instead of at the state level.

    FILE - Attorney Mark Pomerantz arrives at Federal Court in New York, Aug. 12, 2002. House Republicans on Thursday, April 6, subpoenaed Pomerantz, one of the former Manhattan prosecutors who had been leading a criminal investigation into Donald Trump before quitting last year in a clash over the direction of the probe. Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, ordered Pomerantz to testify before the committee by April 30, 2023. (AP Photo/David Karp, File)
    FILE – Attorney Mark Pomerantz arrives at Federal Court in New York, Aug. 12, 2002. House Republicans on Thursday, April 6, subpoenaed Pomerantz, one of the former Manhattan prosecutors who had been leading a criminal investigation into Donald Trump before quitting last year in a clash over the direction of the probe. Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, ordered Pomerantz to testify before the committee by April 30, 2023. (AP Photo/David Karp, File)

    House Republicans, Berry said, want to protect the sovereignty and autonomy of the presidency, envisioning a scenario where the commander in chief could feel obligated to make certain decisions to avoid having local prosecutors in politically unfavorable jurisdictions charge them with crimes after they leave office.

    For those reasons, Berry argued, Congress is immune from judicial intervention, citing the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    Pomerantz could refuse to answer certain questions, citing legal privilege and ethical obligations, and Jordan would rule on those assertions on a case-by-case basis, Berry said, but he shouldn’t be exempt from showing up. If Jordan were to overrule Pomerantz and he still refused to answer, he could then face a criminal referral to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress, but that wouldn’t happen immediately, Berry said.

    Trump was indicted last month on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters. He has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

    Source link

  • Former Manhattan prosecutor to testify before House committee investigating Trump case

    Former Manhattan prosecutor to testify before House committee investigating Trump case

    Manhattan DA sues Jim Jordan over subpoena


    Manhattan DA sues Rep. Jim Jordan over subpoena of former investigator

    00:34

    The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee has reached an agreement with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, whom it is investigating, to allow a former prosecutor from that office to testify in a Congressional probe into the indictment of former President Donald Trump.

    Attorneys for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, and the ex-prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, informed a federal appeals court Friday evening that they had reached an agreement which will allow Pomerantz to go forward with the testimony. The committee said in a tweet that the testimony is scheduled for May 12.

    Bragg’s office had appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Wednesday evening after a federal judge rejected his attempt to block the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of Pomerantz.

    The judge, Mary Kay Vyskocil, concluded earlier that day that she has no standing to block the subpoena. Jordan and the committee have aggressively confronted Bragg in the weeks since Trump was indicted late last month. 

    Jordan and Trump have claimed that the case brought by Bragg, a Democrat, is motivated by political retribution. On April 4, Trump entered a not guilty plea to 34 felony counts of falsification of business records.

    Pomerantz resigned from the Manhattan D.A.’s office in February 2022 after working on the Trump investigation for a year, and  subsequently penned a memoir about the job. 

    Matthew Berry, an attorney for the committee, said during a court hearing Wednesday that Pomerantz was subpoenaed as part of an effort to determine how much federal funding was used in the Manhattan probe, and if politics came into play during the investigation.

    Source link

  • Opinion: Why isn’t the House Judiciary Committee looking into red flags about Clarence Thomas? | CNN

    Opinion: Why isn’t the House Judiciary Committee looking into red flags about Clarence Thomas? | CNN

    Editor’s Note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM radio’s daily program “The Dean Obeidallah Show.” Follow him @DeanObeidallah@masto.ai. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    On Monday, the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee — chaired by Donald Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan — is set to hold a field hearing in New York City called “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan.” A statement bills the hearing as an examination of how, the Judiciary Committee says, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s policies have “led to an increase in violent crime and a dangerous community for New York City residents.”

    In response, Bragg’s office slammed Jordan’s hearing as “a political stunt” while noting that data released by the New York Police Department shows crime is down in Manhattan with respect to murders, burglaries, robberies and more through April 2, compared with the same period last year.

    In reality, this Jordan-led hearing isn’t about stopping crime but about defending Trump — who was recently charged by a Manhattan grand jury with 34 felonies. Trump pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges stemming from an investigation into a hush-money payment to an adult film actress. The former president also is facing criminal probes in other jurisdictions over efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

    Bragg sued Jordan and his committee last week in federal court, accusing the Judiciary Committee chairman of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” his office for its investigation and prosecution of Trump by making demands for confidential documents and testimony.

    While Jordan and his committee appear focused on discrediting the investigation into Trump, why aren’t they looking into two recent bombshell reports by ProPublica that raised red flags about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ financial relationship with GOP megadonor Harlan Crow? After all, the House Judiciary Committee’s website explains that it has jurisdiction over “matters relating to the administration of justice in federal courts” – for which the revelations concerning Thomas fit perfectly.

    First, we learned in early April that Crow had provided Thomas and his wife, Ginni, for decades with luxurious vacations including on the donor’s yacht and private jet to faraway places such as Indonesia and New Zealand. That information was never revealed to the public. (In a rare public statement, Thomas responded he was advised at the time that he did not have to report the trips. The justice said the guidelines for reporting personal hospitality have changed recently. “And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future,” he said.)

    Then on Thursday, ProPublica reported that Thomas failed to disclose a 2014 real estate deal involving the sale of three properties he and his family owned in Savannah, Georgia, to that same GOP megadonor, Crow. One of Crow’s companies made the purchases for $133,363, according to ProPublica. A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires Supreme Court justices and other officials to make public the details of most real estate sales over $1,000.

    As ProPublica detailed, the federal disclosure form Thomas filed for that year included a space to report the identity of the buyer in any private transaction, but Thomas left that space blank. Four ethics law experts told ProPublica that Thomas’ failure to report it appears to be a violation of the law. (Thomas did not respond to questions from ProPublica on its report; CNN reached out to the Supreme Court and Thomas for comment.)

    The House Judiciary Committee has long addressed issues such as those surrounding Thomas. In fact, the committee is where investigations and the impeachment of federal judges often commence.

    One recent example came in 2010 with Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., whom the committee investigated and recommended for impeachment.

    The committee’s Task Force on Judicial Impeachment said evidence showed Porteous “intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings.” The Senate later found Porteous guilty of four articles of impeachment and removed him from the bench.

    Yet the Judiciary Committee has neither released statements nor tweets raising alarm bells about Thomas. Instead, its Twitter feed is filled with repeated tweets whining that C-SPAN won’t cover Monday’s New York field hearing. Worse, the committee retweeted GOP Rep. Mary Miller’s tweet defending Thomas as being attacked “because he is a man of deep faith, who loves our country and believes in our Constitution.”

    Jordan’s use of his committee to assist Trump should surprise no one. The House January 6 committee’s report called the Ohio Republican “a significant player in President Trump’s efforts” to overturn the election. The report detailed the lawmaker’s efforts to assist Trump including on “January 2, 2021, Representative Jordan led a conference call in which he, President Trump, and other Members of Congress discussed strategies for delaying the January 6th joint session.” As a result, the January 6 committee subpoenaed Jordan to testify — but he refused to cooperate.

    In contrast with the House panel, the Senate Judiciary Committee — headed by Democrats — announced in the wake of the reporting on Thomas that it plans to hold a hearing “on the need to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards.” Beyond that, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia sent a letter Friday calling for a referral of Thomas to the US attorney general over “potential violations of the Ethics in Government Act 1978.”

    The House Judiciary Committee’s website notes, “The Committee on the Judiciary has been called the lawyer for the House of Representatives.” Under Jordan that description needs to be updated to state that the Committee on the Judiciary is now “the lawyer for Donald J. Trump.” And the worst part is that the taxpayers are the ones paying for Jordan’s work on Trump’s behalf.

    Source link

  • Manhattan DA sues Rep. Jim Jordan over subpoena of former investigator

    Manhattan DA sues Rep. Jim Jordan over subpoena of former investigator

    Manhattan DA sues Rep. Jim Jordan over subpoena of former investigator – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has sued Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. Bragg is seeking to block Jordan’s subpoena of a former attorney who had previously worked on the Trump probe.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • House GOP Demands Info From Former Prosecutors In Trump Case

    House GOP Demands Info From Former Prosecutors In Trump Case

    WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans on Wednesday demanded testimony and documents from two former Manhattan prosecutors who had been leading a criminal investigation into Donald Trump before quitting last year in a clash over the direction of the probe.

    Rep. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent letters to Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne as the party rallies around the former president. They request transcribed interviews and a series of communications by March 27. A grand jury in New York is weighing whether or not to bring an indictment against Trump.

    The letters, obtained by The Associated Press, are part of a larger GOP-led congressional investigation into Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg as he is wrapping up a probe into whether Trump engaged in an illegal hush money scheme involving a porn actor. Jordan and other senior Republicans have called the Bragg’s investigation a “political persecution,” and one that is without merit.

    “Last year, you resigned from the office over Bragg’s initial reluctance to move forward with charges, shaming Bragg in your resignation letter — which was subsequently leaked — into bringing charges,” Jordan, an Ohio Republican, wrote in the letter to Pomerantz late Wednesday. “It now appears that your efforts to shame Bragg have worked as he is reportedly resurrecting a so-called ‘zombie’ case against President Trump using a tenuous and untested legal theory.”

    Requests for comment from Pomerantz and Dunne were not immediately returned Wednesday night.

    FILE – Attorney Mark Pomerantz leaves court in New York on Sept. 8, 2004. Pomerantz, a prosecutor who had been leading a criminal investigation into Donald Trump before quitting, said in his resignation letter that he believes the former president is “guilty of numerous felony violations” and he disagreed with the Manhattan district attorney’s decision not to seek an indictment. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

    The outreach to Pomerantz and Dunne comes days after Jordan and two other Republican chairmen sent a letter to Bragg, a Democrat, seeking information about his actions in the Trump case, which they characterized as an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.” They requested testimony as well as documents and copies of any communications with the Justice Department.

    “No authorities wanted to take the case but then what changed? President Trump announces he’s running for president and shazam,” Jordan told reporters Monday.

    By effectively demanding transparency in the middle of a criminal investigation, House Republicans are using the power of their new majority to defend Trump — who is still seen as the leader of the party — as he mounts a second run for president.

    The Manhattan grand jury appears close to finishing its work, after hearing last week from Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, but the timing of a possible decision on whether to charge the ex-president remains uncertain. Prosecutors canceled a scheduled grand jury session Wednesday and it wasn’t clear if the panel would meet Thursday.

    Pomerantz and Dunne were top deputies tasked with running the investigation on a day-to-day basis. Both started on the probe under former District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and Bragg asked them to stay when he took office in January. Both Vance and Bragg are Democrats.

    Pomerantz released a book last month titled “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account.” In the book, he detailed how Vance authorized him in December 2021 to seek Trump’s indictment. He has portrayed the hush-money payments — made or arranged by Cohen — as perhaps the most challenging, legally fraught of the potential cases against the former president.

    Vance abandoned the hush-money angle in 2019, pivoting the investigation’s focus to other matters, but Pomerantz said he revisited it when he joined the office in January 2021, looking for a way to make more serious felony charges stick.

    He considered whether Trump could be charged with money laundering and explored if porn actor Stormy Daniels had demanded payment to remain quiet, thereby extorting him. Pomerantz said the hush-money matter became known around the office as the “zombie” case.

    Still, Pomerantz wrote, “Over the months that I and others worked on the case, we developed evidence convincing us that Donald Trump had committed serious crimes.”

    Even if a conviction wasn’t a certainty, Pomerantz said he thought they owed it the public to bring the case to trial. “Losing it would be better than not even trying,” he wrote.

    Associated Press writer Michael R. Sisak in New York contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Fact check: Republicans at CPAC make false claims about Biden, Zelensky, the FBI and children | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Republicans at CPAC make false claims about Biden, Zelensky, the FBI and children | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Conservative Political Action Conference is underway in Maryland. And the members of Congress, former government officials and conservative personalities who spoke at the conference on Thursday and Friday made false claims about a variety of topics.

    Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio uttered two false claims about President Joe Biden. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia repeated a debunked claim about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama used two inaccurate statistics as he lamented the state of the country. Former Trump White House official Steve Bannon repeated his regular lie about the 2020 election having been stolen from Trump, this time baselesly blaming Fox for Trump’s defeat.

    Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida incorrectly said a former Obama administration official had encouraged people to harass Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina inaccurately claimed Biden had laughed at a grieving mother and inaccurately insinuated that the FBI tipped off the media to its search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence. Two other speakers, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and former Trump administration official Sebastian Gorka, inflated the number of deaths from fentanyl.

    And that’s not all. Here is a fact check of 13 false claims from the conference, which continues on Saturday.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene said the Republican Party has a duty to protect children. Listing supposed threats to children, she said, “Now whether it’s like Zelensky saying he wants our sons and daughters to go die in Ukraine…” Later in her speech, she said, “I will look at a camera and directly tell Zelensky: you’d better leave your hands off of our sons and daughters, because they’re not dying over there.”

    Facts First: Greene’s claim is false. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t say he wants American sons and daughters to fight or die for Ukraine. The false claim, which was debunked by CNN and others earlier in the week, is based on a viral video that clipped Zelensky’s comments out of context.

    19-second video of Zelensky goes viral. See what was edited out

    In reality, Zelensky predicted at a press conference in late February that if Ukraine loses the war against Russia because it does not receive sufficient support from elsewhere, Russia will proceed to enter North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries in the Baltics (a region made up of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) that the US will be obligated to send troops to defend. Under the treaty that governs NATO, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and Zelensky didn’t say Americans should fight there.

    Greene is one of the people who shared the out-of-context video on Twitter this week. You can read a full fact-check, with Zelensky’s complete quote, here.

    Right-wing commentator and former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon criticized right-wing cable channel Fox at length for, he argued, being insufficiently supportive of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Among other things, Bannon claimed that, on the night of the election in November 2020, “Fox News illegitimately called it for the opposition and not Donald J. Trump, of which our nation has never recovered.” Later, he said Trump is running again after “having it stolen, in broad daylight, of which they [Fox] participate in.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. On election night in 2020, Fox accurately projected that Biden had won the state of Arizona. This projection did not change the outcome of the election; all of the votes are counted regardless of what media outlets have projected, and the counting showed that Biden won Arizona, and the election, fair and square. The 2020 election was not “stolen” from Trump.

    NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND - MARCH 03: Former White House chief strategist for the Trump Administration Steve Bannon speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on March 03, 2023 in National Harbor, Maryland. The annual conservative conference entered its second day of speakers including congressional members, media personalities and members of former President Donald Trump's administration. President Donald Trump will address the event on Saturday.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    Bannon has a harsh message for Fox News at CPAC

    Fox, like other major media outlets, did not project that Biden had won the presidency until four days later. Fox personalities went on to repeatedly promote lies that the election was stolen from Trump – even as they privately dismissed and mocked these false claims, according to court filings from a voting technology company that is suing Fox for defamation.

    Rep. Jim Jordan claimed that Biden, “on day one,” made “three key changes” to immigration policy. Jordan said one of those changes was this: “We’re not going to deport anyone who come.” He proceeded to argue that people knowing “we’re not going to get deported” was a reason they decided to migrate to the US under Biden.

    Facts First: Jordan inaccurately described the 100-day deportation pause that Biden attempted to impose immediately after he took office on January 20, 2021. The policy did not say the US wouldn’t deport “anyone who comes.” It explicitly did not apply to anyone who arrived in the country after the end of October 2020, meaning people who arrived under the Biden administration or in the last months of the Trump administration could still be deported.

    Biden did say during the 2020 Democratic primary that “no one, no one will be deported at all” in his first 100 days as president. But Jordan claimed that this was the policy Biden actually implemented on his first day in office; Biden’s actual first-day policy was considerably narrower.

    Biden’s attempted 100-day pause also did not apply to people who engaged in or were suspected of terrorism or espionage, were seen to pose a national security risk, had waived their right to remain in the US, or whom the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement determined the law required to be removed.

    The pause was supposed to be in effect while the Department of Homeland Security conducted a review of immigration enforcement practices, but it was blocked by a federal judge shortly after it was announced.

    Rep. Ralph Norman strongly suggested the FBI had tipped off the media to its August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and resort in Florida for government documents in the former president’s possession – while concealing its subsequent document searches of properties connected to Biden.

    Norman said: “When I saw the raid at Mar-a-Lago – you know, the cameras, the FBI – and compare that to when they found Biden’s, all of the documents he had, where was the media, where was the FBI? They kept it quiet early on, didn’t let it out. The job of the next president is going to be getting rid of the insiders that are undermining this government, and you’ve gotta clean house.”

    Facts First: Norman’s narrative is false. The FBI did not tip off the media to its search of Mar-a-Lago; CNN reported the next day that the search “happened so quietly, so secretly, that it wasn’t caught on camera at all.” Rather, media outlets belatedly sent cameras to Mar-a-Lago because Peter Schorsch, publisher of the website Florida Politics, learned of the search from non-FBI sources and tweeted about it either after it was over or as it was just concluding, and because Trump himself made a public statement less than 20 minutes later confirming that a search had occurred. Schorsch told CNN on Thursday: “I can, unequivocally, state that the FBI was not one of my two sources which alerted me to the raid.”

    Brian Stelter, then CNN’s chief media correspondent, wrote in his article the day after the search: “By the time local TV news cameras showed up outside the club, there was almost nothing to see. Websites used file photos of the Florida resort since there were no dramatic shots of the search.”

    It’s true that the public didn’t find out until late January about the FBI’s November search of Biden’s former think tank office in Washington, which was conducted with the consent of Biden’s legal team. But the belated presence of journalists at Mar-a-Lago on the day of the Trump search in August is not evidence of a double standard.

    And it’s worth noting that media cameras were on the scene when Biden’s beach home in Delaware was searched by the FBI in February. News outlets had set up a media “pool” to make sure any search there was recorded.

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a former college and high school football coach, said, “Going into thousands of kids’ homes and talking to parents every year recruiting, half the kids in this country – I’m not talking about race, I’m just talking about – half the kids in this country have one or no parent. And it’s because of the attack on faith. People are losing faith because, for some reason, because the attack [on] God.”

    Facts First: Tuberville’s claim that half of American children don’t have two parents is incorrect. Official figures from the Census Bureau show that, in 2021, about 70% of US children under the age of 18 lived with two parents and about 65% lived with two married parents.

    About 22% of children lived with only a mother, about 5% with only a father, and about 3% with no parent. But the Census Bureau has explained that even children who are listed as living with only one parent may have a second parent; children are listed as living with only one parent if, for example, one parent is deployed overseas with the military or if their divorced parents share custody of them.

    It is true that the percentage of US children living in households with two parents has been declining for decades. Still, Tuberville’s statistic significantly exaggerated the current situation. His spokesperson told CNN on Thursday that the senator was speaking “anecdotally” from his personal experience meeting with families as a football coach.

    Tuberville claimed that today’s children are being “indoctrinated” in schools by “woke” ideology and critical race theory. He then said, “We don’t teach reading, writing and arithmetic anymore. You know, half the kids in this country, when they graduate – think about this: half the kids in this country, when they graduate, can’t read their diploma.”

    Facts First: This is false. While many Americans do struggle with reading, there is no basis for the claim that “half” of high school graduates can’t read a basic document like a diploma. “Mr. Tuberville does not know what he’s talking about at all,” said Patricia Edwards, a Michigan State University professor of language and literacy who is a past president of the International Literacy Association and the Literacy Research Association. Edwards said there is “no evidence” to support Tuberville’s claim. She also said that people who can’t read at all are highly unlikely to finish high school and that “sometimes politicians embellish information.”

    Tuberville could have accurately said that a significant number of American teenagers and adults have reading trouble, though there is no apparent basis for connecting these struggles with supposed “woke” indoctrination. The organization ProLiteracy pointed CNN to 2017 data that found 23% of Americans age 16 to 65 have “low” literacy skills in English. That’s not “half,” as ProLiteracy pointed out, and it includes people who didn’t graduate from high school and people who are able to read basic text but struggle with more complex literacy tasks.

    The Tuberville spokesperson said the senator was speaking informally after having been briefed on other statistics about Americans’ struggles with reading, like a report that half of adults can’t read a book written at an eighth-grade level.

    Rep. Jim Jordan claimed of Biden: “The president of the United States stood in front of Independence Hall, called half the country fascists.”

    Facts First: This is not true. Biden did not denounce even close to “half the country” in this 2022 speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. He made clear that he was speaking about a minority of Republicans.

    In the speech, in which he never used the word “fascists,” Biden warned that “MAGA Republicans” like Trump are “extreme,” “do not respect the Constitution” and “do not believe in the rule of law.” But he also emphasized that “not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans.” In other words, he made clear that he was talking about far less than half of Americans.

    Trump earned fewer than 75 million votes in 2020 in a country of more than 258 million adults, so even a hypothetical criticism of every single Trump voter would not amount to criticism of “half the country.”

    Rep. Scott Perry claimed that “average citizens need to just at some point be willing to acknowledge and accept that every single facet of the federal government is weaponized against every single one of us.” Perry said moments later, “The government doesn’t have the right to tell you that you can’t buy a gas stove but that you must buy an electric vehicle.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. The federal government has not told people that they can’t buy a gas stove or must buy an electric vehicle.

    The Biden administration has tried to encourage and incentivize the adoption of electric vehicles, but it has not tried to forbid the manufacture or purchase of traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines. Biden has set a goal of electric vehicles making up half of all new vehicles sold in the US by 2030.

    There was a January controversy about a Biden appointee to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, Richard Trumka Jr., saying that gas stoves pose a “hidden hazard,” as they emit air pollutants, and that “any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.” But the commission as a whole has not shown support for a ban, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a January press briefing: “The president does not support banning gas stoves. And the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is independent, is not banning gas stoves.”

    Rep. Ralph Norman claimed that Biden had just laughed at a mother who lost two sons to fentanyl.

    “I don’t know whether y’all saw, I just saw it this morning: Biden laughing at the mother who had two sons – to die, and he’s basically laughing and saying the fentanyl came from the previous administration. Who cares where it came from? The fact is it’s here,” Norman said.

    Facts First: Norman’s claim is false. Biden did not laugh at the mother who lost her sons to fentanyl, the anti-abortion activist Rebecca Kiessling; in a somber tone, he called her “a poor mother who lost two kids to fentanyl.” Rather, he proceeded to laugh about how Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene had baselessly blamed the Biden administration for the young men’s deaths even though the tragedy happened in mid-2020, during the Trump administration. You can watch the video of Biden’s remarks here.

    Kiessling has demanded an apology from Biden. She is entitled to her criticism of Biden’s remarks and his chuckle – but the video clearly shows Norman was wrong when he claimed Biden was “laughing at the mother.”

    Rep. Kat Cammack told a story about the first hearing of the new Republican-led House select subcommittee on the supposed “weaponization” of the federal government. Cammack claimed she had asked a Democratic witness at this February hearing about his “incredibly vitriolic” Twitter feed in which, she claimed, he not only repeatedly criticized Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh but even went “so far as to encourage people to harass this Supreme Court justice.”

    Facts First: This story is false. The witness Cammack questioned in this February exchange at the subcommittee, former Obama administration deputy assistant attorney general Elliot Williams, did not encourage people to harass Kavanaugh. In fact, it’s not even true that Cammack accused him at the February hearing of having encouraged people to harass Kavanaugh. Rather, at the hearing, she merely claimed that Williams had tweeted numerous critical tweets about Kavanaugh but had been “unusually quiet” on Twitter after an alleged assassination attempt against the justice. Clearly, not tweeting about the incident is not the same thing as encouraging harassment.

    Williams, now a CNN legal analyst (he appeared at the subcommittee hearing in his personal capacity), said in a Thursday email that he had “no idea” what Cammack was looking at on his innocuous Twitter feed. He said: “I used to prosecute violent crimes, and clerked for two federal judges. Any suggestion that I’ve ever encouraged harassment of anyone – and particularly any official of the United States – is insulting and not based in reality.”

    Cammack’s spokesperson responded helpfully on Thursday to CNN’s initial queries about the story Cammack told at CPAC, explaining that she was referring to her February exchange with Williams. But the spokesperson stopped responding after CNN asked if Cammack was accurately describing this exchange with Williams and if they had any evidence of Williams actually having encouraged the harassment of Kavanaugh.

    Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana boasted about the state of the country “when Republicans were in charge.” Among other claims about Trump’s tenure, he said that “in four years,” Republicans “delivered 3.5% unemployment” and “created 8 million new jobs.”

    Facts First: This is inaccurate in two ways. First, the economic numbers for the full “four years” of Trump’s tenure are much worse than these numbers Kennedy cited; Kennedy was actually referring to Trump’s first three years while ignoring the fourth, which was marred by the Covid-19 pandemic. Second, there weren’t “8 million new jobs” created even in Trump’s first three years.

    Kennedy could have correctly said there was a 3.5% unemployment rate after three years of the Trump administration, but not after four. The unemployment rate skyrocketed early in Trump’s fourth year, on account of the pandemic, before coming down again, and it was 6.3% when Trump left office in early 2021. (It fell to 3.4% this January under Biden, better than in any month under Trump.)

    And while the economy added about 6.7 million jobs under Trump before the pandemic-related crash of March and April 2020, that’s not the “8 million jobs” Kennedy claimed – and the economy ended up shedding millions of jobs in Trump’s fourth year. Over the full four years of Trump’s tenure, the economy netted a loss of about 2.7 million jobs.

    Lara Trump, Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law and an adviser to his 2020 campaign, claimed that the last time a CPAC crowd was gathered at this venue in Maryland, in February 2020, “We had the lowest unemployment in American history.” After making other boasts about Donald Trump’s presidency, she said, “But how quickly it all changed.” She added, “Under Joe Biden, America is crumbling.”

    Facts First: Lara Trump’s claim about February 2020 having “the lowest unemployment in American history” is false. The unemployment rate was 3.5% at the time – tied for the lowest since 1969, but not the all-time lowest on record, which was 2.5% in 1953. And while Lara Trump didn’t make an explicit claim about unemployment under Biden, it’s not true that things are worse today on this measure; again, the most recent unemployment rate, 3.4% for January 2023, is better than the rate at the time of CPAC’s 2020 conference or at any other time during Donald Trump’s presidency.

    Multiple speakers at CPAC decried the high number of fentanyl overdose deaths. But some of the speakers inflated that number while attacking Biden’s immigration policy.

    Sebastian Gorka, a former Trump administration official, claimed that “in the last 12 months in America, deaths by fentanyl poisoning totaled 110,000 Americans.” He blamed “Biden’s open border” for these deaths.

    Rep. Scott Perry claimed: “Meanwhile over on this side of the border, where there isn’t anybody, they’re running this fentanyl in; it’s killing 100,000 Americans – over 100,000 Americans – a year.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that there are more than 100,000 fentanyl deaths per year. That is the total number of deaths from all drug overdoses in the US; there were 106,699 such deaths in 2021. But the number of overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids other than methadone, primarily fentanyl, is smaller – 70,601 in 2021.

    Fentanyl-related overdoses are clearly a major problem for the country and by far the biggest single contributor to the broader overdose problem. Nonetheless, claims of “110,000” and “over 100,000” fentanyl deaths per year are significant exaggerations. And while the number of overdose deaths and fentanyl-related deaths increased under Biden in 2021, it was also troubling under Trump in 2020 – 91,799 total overdose deaths and 56,516 for synthetic opioids other than methadone.

    It’s also worth noting that fentanyl is largely smuggled in by US citizens through legal ports of entry rather than by migrants sneaking past other parts of the border. Contrary to frequent Republican claims, the border is not “open”; border officers have seized thousands of pounds of fentanyl under Biden.

    Source link

  • Report: Jim Jordan’s “Weaponization” Witnesses Are Conspiracy Theorists With…No Knowledge of Government Wrongdoing

    Report: Jim Jordan’s “Weaponization” Witnesses Are Conspiracy Theorists With…No Knowledge of Government Wrongdoing

    One of the most ridiculous things Republicans have done in recent memory—and there are a lot of ridiculous things they’ve done in recent memory—was to create a House subcommittee to investigate the “Weaponization of the Federal Government.” Tasked with probing everything from the FBI’s search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago last year to what really happened on January 6, the panel operates on the assumption that agencies and officials within the federal government have abused their power to silence, punish, and hurt conservatives; chaired by Representative Jim Jordan, the committee has vowed to expose this bias against the right. And hey—if Jordan & Co. have any evidence to support their claims, they should definitely make them public! Unfortunately, at this time it appears they very much do not.

    As for the first three witnesses to testify behind closed doors to the newly formed subcommittee, a trio the GOP insists are brave whistleblowers with inside knowledge of a huge bias against conservatives within the government, Jordan may as well have picked up a few random folks at the gas station or Dunkin’ Donuts by his house on the way to work, for all they revealed. Oh, sure, the witnesses definitely thought they had the kind of damning information the committee has promised, but according to The New York Times, their collective testimony seemed to be less based on actual evidence than it was on crackpot conspiracies one can read about online.

    Per the Times:

    The trio appears to be a group of aggrieved former FBI officials who have trafficked in right-wing conspiracy theories, including about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol…. The roster of witnesses, whose interviews and statements are detailed in a 316-page report compiled by Democrats that was obtained by The New York Times, suggests that Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the panel, has so far relied on people who do not meet the definition of a whistle-blower and who have engaged in partisan conduct that calls into question their credibility.

    “Each endorses an alarming series of conspiracy theories related to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the COVID vaccine, and the validity of the 2020 election,” Democrats wrote in the heavily footnoted report, which cites scores of statements made by the witnesses. “One has called repeatedly for the dismantling of the FBI. Another suggested that it would be better for Americans to die than to have any kind of domestic intelligence program.”

    The report focuses on the testimony of George Hill, a retired supervisory intelligence analyst from the bureau’s Boston field office; Stephen Friend, an ex–special agent who worked in the Daytona Beach office; and Garret O’Boyle, a special agent from the Wichita, Kansas, field office who is currently suspended. As the Times notes, Hill has claimed on Twitter that January 6 was a “set up” and part of a “larger #Democrat plan using their enforcement arm, the #FBI.” For his part, Friend, who has also claimed FBI wrongdoing, was suspended after he refused to take part in a SWAT raid of a January 6 suspect who’d been accused of being a member of a right-wing militia group with ties to the Three Percenter movement, and who had posted a video of himself outside the Capitol on January 6 wearing body armor and a gas mask and holding an AR-15-style rifle. Friend also testified about “being asked to surveil a person attending a school board meeting, touching on a claim promoted by Republicans that the government mistreated conservative parents,” as the Times reports. Yet the Democrats’ report found, according to the Times, “Friend conceded during his interview that the man being tracked was a Three Percenter who was under counterterrorism investigation,” and the man was later arrested on charges related to the January 6 attack.

    But wait, there’s more!

    Mr. Friend also engaged with Russian propaganda outlets while he was an FBI employee, the report noted, including being quoted extensively in an article in Sputnik headlined “Under Biden Federal Agencies Turned Into Instrument of Intimidation, FBI Whistleblower Says,” and appearing for an interview with Russia Today…. The report also said that Mr. Hill had embraced a conspiracy theory that an Arizona man named Ray Epps was a federal informant who helped to instigate the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Prominent Republicans—including Mr. Trump—have widely promoted the claim, which Mr. Epps denies and the House Jan. 6 committee determined to be unfounded.

    Bess Levin

    Source link