ReportWire

Tag: lindsey graham

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham Is Mercilessly Booed At South Carolina Trump Rally

    Sen. Lindsey Graham Is Mercilessly Booed At South Carolina Trump Rally

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) took the stage Saturday at a Donald Trump rally in his home state of South Carolina to massive boos from the crowd.

    Graham attempted to begin talking over the jeers, which partially drowned out his remarks in support of the former president’s bid for a second term.

    Some called Graham a traitor, according to a CNN reporter at the scene.

    Trump later offered a halfhearted defense of the senator.

    “You know, you can make mistakes on occasion. Even Lindsey down here, Sen. Lindsey Graham. We love Sen. Graham,” Trump said, prompting a fresh round of booing.

    “I know, it’s half and half,” Trump told the crowd. “But when I need some of those liberal votes, he’s always there to help me get them, OK? We’ve got some pretty liberal people, but he’s good.”

    Back in April, Trump mocked Graham as a “progressive” at a fundraiser in New Hampshire, inspiring boos from the crowd there, as well.

    Graham was a staunch ally to Trump over the bulk of his presidency, but did not parrot Trump’s false assertion that the 2020 election had been fraudulent — prompting Trump to put out a statement in 2021 saying that Graham should be “ashamed” of himself. Graham also enraged Trump supporters when he spoke harshly about Trump’s role in mobilizing the angry mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Attendees at Saturday’s rally told The Greenville News, a South Carolina newspaper, that they had tired of Graham.

    William Billew, 74, told the paper he thought the senator was unreliable and didn’t like his “wishy-washiness.”

    Over his two decades representing South Carolina in Washington, Graham has built a reputation as a fickle ally to his fellow Republicans.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lindsey Graham’s ABC News Interview About Trump Goes South In Just Seconds

    Lindsey Graham’s ABC News Interview About Trump Goes South In Just Seconds

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Sunday didn’t get off to the best of starts.

    Stephanopoulos’ very first question for Graham, a staunch defender of the former president, was if he believed Trump’s claim that he was blameless in the classified documents case, in which Trump was indicted last week.

    “Well, here is what I believe,” Graham responded, before going full whataboutism and pivoting to the right-wing talking point of Trump’s 2016 Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when secretary of state, despite clear differences in the two cases and the fact Clinton was never charged.

    “We live in an America where if you are the Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, you can set up a private server in your basement,” said Graham.

    Stephanopoulos interupted and called the senator out for not answering his question.

    “No, let me finish,” the Republican snarled.

    “I’m trying to answer the question from a Republican point of view,” he continued. “That may not be acceptable on this show.”

    Graham admitted Trump had done some things wrong but suggested he’d been over-charged.

    He later returned to attacking Clinton again.

    Conservative attorney George Conway led the criticism of Graham:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russia Issues Arrest Warrant For GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham Over Ukraine Comments

    Russia Issues Arrest Warrant For GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham Over Ukraine Comments

    [ad_1]

    MOSCOW (AP) — Russia’s Interior Ministry on Monday issued an arrest warrant for U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham following his comments related to the fighting in Ukraine.

    In an edited video of his meeting on Friday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that was released by Zelenskyy’s office, Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, noted that “the Russians are dying” and described the U.S. military assistance to the country as “the best money we’ve ever spent.”

    While Graham appeared to have made the remarks in different parts of the conversation, the short video by Ukraine’s presidential office put them next to each other, causing outrage in Russia.

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov commented Sunday by saying that “it’s hard to imagine a greater shame for the country than having such senators.”

    The Investigative Committee, the country’s top criminal investigation agency, has moved to open a criminal inquiry against Graham, and the Interior Ministry followed up by issuing a warrant for his arrest as indicated Monday by its official record of wanted criminal suspects.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham Snaps At CNN’s Dana Bash After She Corrects Him On Abortion

    Sen. Lindsey Graham Snaps At CNN’s Dana Bash After She Corrects Him On Abortion

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) lost his cool after being corrected by CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” on Sunday.

    The senator seemed unnerved after Bash asked him if abortion should be handled on “the state level,” as Donald Trump’s campaign recently suggested to The Washington Post.

    Instead of answering her question, Graham twisted the topic to third-trimester abortions.

    Graham, who introduced a federal abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy in the Senate in 2022, accused Democrats of having “barbaric” policies as he spewed several distorted claims.

    “What the Democratic Party proposes on abortion is barbaric,” he said. “Abortion up to the moment of birth, taxpayer-funded, I think is barbaric.”

    Sen. Lindsey Graham was corrected on “State of the Union” Sunday after he claimed Democrats are pushing for “abortion up to the moment of birth, taxpayer-funded.”

    STEFANI REYNOLDS via Getty Images

    Bash reminded the senator that Roe v. Wade, which was overturned by the Supreme Court last year, had only protected the right to an abortion up to the point of “viability,” which is around 24 weeks.

    Upon being corrected, Graham lashed out at the anchor, shouting, “No, quit covering for these guys,” before repeating his claims about “abortion on demand.”

    “Senator, I’m not covering for anybody, and you know that,” Bash said. “And when I have Democrats on — and I’ve had Democrats on — I have asked many, all of them about their position on where, where they believe this issue should be.”

    The issue of third-trimester abortion is somewhat of a right-wing boogeyman.

    Late-term abortions are exceptionally rare, with recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing only 1.1% of abortions take place after 21 weeks.

    Trump drew ire from the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America after his camp told The Washington Post that the Supreme Court “got it right” when they ruled abortion “should be decided at the State level.”

    The 2024 Republican contender defended himself during a Sunday speech with the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, stressing his impact on the Supreme Court.

    There, he told supporters via video, “Those justices delivered a landmark victory for protecting innocent life. Nobody thought it was going to happen.”

    See Graham and Bash’s full exchange below:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump: ‘All Arrests Are Politically Motivated As The Legal System Is The Codified Exercise Of Political Power’

    Trump: ‘All Arrests Are Politically Motivated As The Legal System Is The Codified Exercise Of Political Power’

    [ad_1]

    PALM BEACH, FL—Responding to the news that the Manhattan District Attorney had indicted him over payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, former President Donald Trump denounced the move Friday, telling reporters, “All arrests are politically motivated, as the legal system is the codified exercise of political power.” “This indictment is obviously an attempt by the Democrats to use against me the complex webs of power relations that influence the nature of rights and consequences in a given society and that we conceptualize as a legal system,” Trump said before quoting verbatim a passage from political philosopher Michel Foucault that reads, “The judges of normality are present everywhere. We are in the society of the teacher-judge, the doctor-judge, the educator-judge, the ‘social-worker’-judge; it is on them that the universal reign of the normative is based.” “This is nothing more than a political witch hunt carried out by corrupt Democratic officials using the law as a political cudgel, as it intrinsically is, because what is the law but a system by which the powerful may enforce adherence to certain rules and strictures among the less powerful? These Soros-backed Manhattanites are using the United States legal system as clarified in the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison—which established the Constitution, and therefore America’s legal system, as not merely a set of principles but as the actual law of the land—to target me for what they claim is a violation of those laws. Yet I remind them that until now no American president has ever been indicted, which is as clear an example of the politically charged nature of the law as I can think of. Legal positivism, as understood by Jeremy Bentham and others, tells us that there is not necessarily a connection between morality and the law, and so it follows that a so-called lawbreaking act that may be considered punishable in some cases is left unpunished in others. Is that discrepancy not, then, a question of political power? For even such an act as taking another human life is deemed effectively above the law in some cases, if we are to follow the Schmittian logic of the sovereign state of exception. What these partisan hacks need to get through their thick skulls is that political concerns are permitted, by general agreement, or at least by the threat of state violence standing in for democratic accord, to make legal structures and consequences selectively applicable. But this is just another example of big-city legal departments wielding the law for political aims. I mean, seriously, just look at how the law is selectively enforced on the Black populations of U.S. cities, with arrest and incarceration rates far outstripping those of whites. The critical race theories of Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and others are instructive on this point, positing that legal progress for Black people only occurs when it converges with the political interests of the white elite. Of course, I’d expect nothing less from a sad, declining country where political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” At press time, numerous Republican officials, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy, had come out in agreement that Trump’s arrest was politically motivated by tweeting passages on legal relativism from The Common Law by the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lindsey Graham Testified Trump Would’ve Believed Out-Of-This-World 2020 Claim

    Lindsey Graham Testified Trump Would’ve Believed Out-Of-This-World 2020 Claim

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump-devotee Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reportedly said the former president’s state of mind following his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden was such that he’d have probably believed extraterrestrials were to blame for his defeat.

    Graham, testifying during a special grand jury investigation into Trump’s attempts to overturn his defeat in Georgia, said that “if somebody had told Trump that aliens came down and stole Trump ballots, that Trump would’ve believed it,” according to new reporting from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    Trump has peddled multiple bogus claims about election fraud.

    But aliens influencing the vote have, to date, not been among them.

    One of the special grand jurors recalled Graham’s comment about the GOP 2024 presidential candidate in an article published by the Journal-Constitution on Wednesday.

    Five of the 23 members of the Fulton county grand jury were interviewed for the story. The quintet, who have not been identified, also revealed how they heard another taped call of Trump trying to pressure a lawmaker into reversing the election outcome.

    In its final report, jurors said they believed “one or more witnesses” committed perjury and recommended charges be brought by local prosecutors.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham Likens China Supporting Russia to “Buying a Ticket on the Titanic”

    Sen. Lindsey Graham Likens China Supporting Russia to “Buying a Ticket on the Titanic”

    [ad_1]

    South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said that China would make a huge mistake by supporting Russia, as the nation considers providing lethal aid to Russia against Ukraine. 

    “If you jump on the Putin train, you’re dumber than dirt,” Graham said referring to China in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.” 

    He added, “It would be like buying a ticket on the Titanic after you saw the movie.”

    Graham’s comments follow a speech from the Munich Security Conference, where China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, told world leaders that China is working on a peace proposal to end the conflict in Ukraine; but this information is contrary to what U.S. intelligence suggests, according to Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

    “Based on information we have that [China is] considering providing lethal support, and we’ve made very clear to them that that would cause a serious problem for us and in our relationship,” Blinken told CBS on Saturday.

    “There’s a whole gamut of things that — that fit in that category, everything from ammunition to the weapons themselves,” the Secretary of State continued. 

    Tensions between China and the United States have escalated in recent weeks, after Blinken postponed his trip to China, prompted by a Chinese surveillance balloon that flew over the United States. Blinken and Wang Yi met privately on Saturday—even after Wang Yi called the U.S.’s response “absurd and hysterical.”

    At the conference, Vice President Kamala Harris also said that the United States formally determined that Russia committed crimes against humanity during its invasion of Ukraine: “In the case of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, we have examined the evidence, we know the legal standards, and there is no doubt: these are crimes against humanity.”

    “And I say to all those who have perpetrated these crimes, and to their superiors who are complicit in those crimes – you will be held to account,” she said, adding, “Their actions are an assault on our common values, an attack on our common humanity.” 

    Graham said he wants more than just stern words coming from the U.S. government.

    “Once you call Russia being engaged in crimes against humanity, you have to have actions consistent with that statement,” Graham said. “So I’m looking for this administration to follow up on that statement by designating Russia as state sponsored terrorism under U.S. law.” 

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Currently the U.S. has designated four countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Syria.

    “What’s at stake here is the rule of law, human decency, and world order,” Graham said.

    [ad_2]

    Kelly Rissman

    Source link

  • Biden heads to Texas for firsthand look at situation along U.S.-Mexico border

    Biden heads to Texas for firsthand look at situation along U.S.-Mexico border

    [ad_1]

    Washington — President Biden is heading to the U.S.-Mexico border on Sunday, his first trip there as president after two years of hounding by Republicans who have hammered him as soft on border security while the number of migrants crossing spirals.

    Mr. Biden is due to spend a few hours in El Paso, Texas, currently the biggest corridor for illegal crossings, due in large part to Nicaraguans fleeing repression, crime and poverty in their country. They are among migrants from four countries who are now subject to quick expulsion under new rules enacted by the Biden administration in the past week.

    The president is expected to meet with border officials to discuss migration as well as the increased trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, which are driving skyrocketing numbers of overdoses in the U.S.

    Mr. Biden will visit the El Paso County Migrant Services Center and meet with nonprofits and religious groups that support migrants arriving to the U.S. It is not clear whether Mr. Biden will talk to any migrants.

    “The president’s very much looking forward to seeing for himself firsthand what the border security situation looks like,” said John Kirby, White House national security spokesman. “This is something that he wanted to see for himself.”

    Mr. Biden’s announcement on border security and his visit to the border are aimed in part at quelling the political noise and blunting the impact of upcoming investigations into immigration promised by House Republicans. But any enduring solution will require action by the sharply divided Congress, where multiple efforts to enact sweeping changes have failed in recent years.

    Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas offered faint praise for Mr. Biden’s decision to visit the border, and even that was notable in the current political climate.

    “He must take the time to learn from some of the experts I rely on the most, including local officials and law enforcement, landowners, nonprofits, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s officers and agents, and folks who make their livelihoods in border communities on the front lines of his crisis,” Cornyn said.

    Texas National Guard soldiers stand guard at the U.S.-Mexico border on Jan. 7, 2023, as viewed from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
    Texas National Guard soldiers stand guard at the U.S.-Mexico border on Jan. 7, 2023, as viewed from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

    John Moore/Getty Images


    From El Paso, Mr. Biden will continue south to Mexico City, where he and the leaders of Mexico and Canada will gather on Monday and Tuesday for a North American leaders summit. Immigration is among the items on the agenda.

    In El Paso, where migrants congregate at bus stops and in parks before traveling on, border patrol agents have stepped up security before the president’s visit.

    “I think they’re trying to send a message that they’re going to more consistently check people’s documented status, and if you have not been processed they are going to pick you up,” said Ruben Garcia of the Annunciation House aid group in El Paso.

    Migrants and asylum-seekers fleeing violence and persecution have increasingly found that protections in the United States are available primarily to those with money or the savvy to find someone to vouch for them financially.

    Jose Natera, a Venezuelan migrant in El Paso who hopes to seek asylum in Canada, said he has no prospects for finding a U.S. sponsor and that he’s now reluctant to seek asylum in the U.S. because he’s afraid of being sent to Mexico.

    Mexico “is a terrible country where there is crime, corruption, cartels and even the police persecute you,” he said. “They say that people who think about entering illegally won’t have a chance, but at the same time I don’t have a sponsor. … I came to this country to work. I didn’t come here to play.”

    The numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has risen dramatically during Mr. Biden’s first two years in office. There were more than 2.38 million stops during the year that ended Sept. 30, the first time the number topped 2 million. The administration has struggled to clamp down on crossings, reluctant to take hard-line measures that would resemble those of the Trump administration.

    The policy changes announced this past week are Mr. Biden’s biggest move yet to contain illegal border crossings and will turn away tens of thousands of migrants arriving at the border. At the same time, 30,000 migrants per month from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela will get the chance to come to the U.S. legally as long as they travel by plane, get a sponsor and pass background checks.

    The U.S. will also turn away migrants who do not seek asylum first in a country they traveled through en route to the U.S.

    The changes were welcomed by some, particularly leaders in cities where migrants have been massing. But Mr. Biden was excoriated by immigrant advocate groups, which accused him of taking measures modeled after those of the former president.

    “I do take issue with comparing us to Donald Trump,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, pointing to some of his most maligned policies, including the separation of migrant children from their parents.

    “This is not that president,” she said.

    For all of his international travel over his 50 years in public service, Mr. Biden has not spent much time at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    The only visit that the White House could point to was his drive by the border while he was campaigning for president in 2008. He sent Vice President Kamala Harris to El Paso in 2021, but she was criticized for largely bypassing the action, because El Paso wasn’t the center of crossings that it is now.

    President Barack Obama made a 2011 trip to El Paso, where he toured border operations and the Paso Del Norte international bridge, but he was later criticized for not going back as tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors crossed into the U.S. from Mexico.

    Trump, who made hardening immigration a signature issue, traveled to the border several times. During one visit, he crammed into a small border station to inspect cash and drugs confiscated by agents. During a trip to McAllen, Texas, then the center of a growing crisis, he made one of his most-often repeated claims, that Mexico would pay to build a border wall.

    American taxpayers ended up footing the bill after Mexican leaders flatly rejected the idea.

    “NO,” Enrique Peña Nieto, then Mexico’s president, tweeted in May 2018. “Mexico will NEVER pay for a wall. Not now, not ever. Sincerely, Mexico (all of us).”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jimmy Kimmel Makes A NSFW Dig At Lindsey Graham’s Affection For Herschel Walker

    Jimmy Kimmel Makes A NSFW Dig At Lindsey Graham’s Affection For Herschel Walker

    [ad_1]

    At one point the “Jimmy Kimmel Live” host showed clips of Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) relentlessly promoting Walker’s campaign website in advance of his runoff election against Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock for senator in Georgia. One segment showed Graham doing pushups as he recited the url address with Walker counting.

    “I really think that Lindsey Graham might be in love with Herschel Walker,” Kimmel said. “And by the way, 35 pushups … It’s hard to do pushups with an erection. That’s a lot.”

    Fast-forward to 4:10 for the Graham routine:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lindsey Graham appears before Georgia grand jury

    Lindsey Graham appears before Georgia grand jury

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Lindsey Graham appeared before a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, on Tuesday as part of an investigation into efforts from former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election results in that state, his spokesperson confirmed. 

    “Today, Senator Graham appeared before the Fulton County Special Grand Jury for just over two hours and answered all questions,” said Kevin Bishop, a spokesperson for Graham, in a statement. “The Senator feels he was treated with respect, professionalism and courtesy. Out of respect for the grand jury process, he will not comment on the substance of the questions.” 

    Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had sought Graham’s testimony in relation to phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger after the election.

    Raffensperger told “CBS Mornings” in November 2020 that, in a phone call, Graham suggested absentee ballots from counties with high rates of nonmatching signatures be disqualified. At the time, the South Carolina Republican denied Raffensperger’s claims and dismissed his comments as “ridiculous.” 

    Senate Votes On Same-Sex Marriage Equality Bill
    Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) speaks with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as they walk through the Senate Subway to participate in a vote on the Senate floor at the U.S. Capitol Building on Nov. 16, 2022 in Washington, D.C. 

    Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images


    Georgia had not voted for a Democrat in a presidential election since 1992. Ultimately, President Biden won the state by over 11,000 votes. Trump had zeroed in on Fulton County, which encompasses Atlanta, and alleged without evidence that there was voter fraud and that “dead people voted.”

    The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol said, during a hearing this summer, that the White House called and texted Raffensperger’s office 18 times to set up a call about a statewide audit of the vote. White House chief of staff Mark Meadows also appeared at a signature audit site in Georgia, where he met with Frances Watson, the chief investigator for the secretary of state’s office, who was supervising that audit. 

    Willis opened the investigation into Trump and his allies’ actions after a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call where Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes —  or “one more than we have” —  to win the state. 

    Graham, one of Trump’s closest allies on Capitol Hill, had sought to appeal the order to testify, arguing he was protected under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause, which shields lawmakers from some criminal or civil proceedings related to their legislative duties. But earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to halt a lower court order that Graham testify, saying that while “informal investigative fact-finding” is protected, Graham can return to district court if there is a dispute “regarding the application of the Speech or Debate Clause immunity to specific questions.”

    Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn was also ordered to appear on Tuesday, according to court documents, although CNN reported that Flynn was granted a provisional stay while he fights the supboena. 

    Melissa Quinn contributed to this report. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Things A Republican-Held Congress Plans To Do Immediately

    Things A Republican-Held Congress Plans To Do Immediately

    [ad_1]

    The GOP has rightly taken issue with the Biden administration killing foreign civilians in airstrikes and causing mass starvation in Afghanistan by freezing its government assets, not to mention the brutal sanctions on—wait, no, it will be over some Marjorie Taylor Greene bullshit.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats Keep Falling for ‘Superstar Losers’

    Democrats Keep Falling for ‘Superstar Losers’

    [ad_1]

    In the early 2000s, the Japanese racehorse Haru Urara became something of an international celebrity. This was not because of her prowess on the track. Just the opposite: Haru Urara had never won a race. She was famous not for winning but for losing. And the longer her losing streak stretched, the more famous she grew. She finished her career with a perversely pristine record: zero wins, 113 losses.

    American politics doesn’t have anyone quite like Haru Urara. But it does have Beto O’Rourke and Stacey Abrams. The two Democrats are among the country’s best known political figures, better known than almost any sitting governor or U.S. senator. And they have become so well known not by winning big elections but by losing them.

    Both Abrams and O’Rourke have won some elections, but their name recognition far surpasses their electoral accomplishments. After serving 10 years in the Georgia House of Representatives, Abrams rose to prominence in 2018, when she ran unsuccessfully for the governorship. O’Rourke served three terms as a Texas congressman before running unsuccessfully for the Senate, then the presidency. And they are both running again this year, Abrams for governor of Georgia, O’Rourke for governor of Texas. They are perhaps the two greatest exponents of a peculiar phenomenon in American politics: that of the superstar loser.

    The country’s electoral history is littered with superstar losers of one sort or another. Sarah Palin parlayed a vice-presidential nomination into a political-commentary gig, a book deal, and a series of short-lived reality-TV ventures. The landslide defeats that Barry Goldwater and George McGovern suffered made them into ideological icons. I’m talking about something a little more specific: candidates who become national stars in the course of losing a state-level race. There have been far fewer of these. There was William Jennings Bryan, who lost a race for the Senate in 1894, then ran unsuccessfully for the presidency three times. And there was the greatest of all the superstar losers, the one-term representative from Illinois whose unsuccessful Senate campaign nonetheless propelled him to the presidency two years later: Abraham Lincoln.

    But never before has such small-scale loserdom so often been sufficient to achieve such large-scale stardom. Apart from Abrams and O’Rourke, there have also been other examples in recent years. Jaime Harrison made an unsuccessful bid for the DNC chairmanship, then an unsuccessful bid to unseat Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, and then a second bid, this time successful, for the DNC chairmanship. MJ Hegar, a Texas Democrat, lost a close House race in 2018, then a not-so-close Texas Senate race in 2020. Amy McGrath likewise used a close loss for a House seat, hers in Kentucky, to launch a Senate campaign against Mitch McConnell that ended in a 20-point loss. This, it seems, is the golden age of the superstar loser.

    Superstar loserdom has not been historically tracked, so it’s hard to say with certainty whether it’s really on the rise. But the general sense among the experts I spoke with was that it is. “I do think it is something that we’ve seen more of,” John Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, told me. Why, exactly, is a complicated question, the answer to which involves various conspiring forces, some technological, some political, some demographic.

    Let’s start with Lincoln. His 1858 Senate race against Stephen Douglas produced some of the most celebrated rhetoric in American political history, but without the advent of shorthand, stenographers could not have taken down the hours-long Lincoln-Douglas debates word-for-word. Without the country’s new railroad and telegraph networks, those transcripts could not have been transmitted all across the country.

    “Earlier in the century, Lincoln couldn’t possibly have become a national figure,” Pitney told me. “He might have made the same brilliant arguments, but nobody outside of Illinois would have ever heard them.” In that sense, his superstar loserdom—and his eventual ascent to the presidency—must be credited as much to the technological advances of the preceding decades as to the power of his speeches.

    The same might be said of today’s superstar losers. Online fundraising platforms such as ActBlue and WinRed give even state-level candidates the ability to draw support from—and build a following among—donors all across the country, a phenomenon that David Karpf, a political scientist at George Washington University, told me has nationalized local and state races.

    Candidates also have other tools to thrust themselves into the spotlight in a way they never have before—cable TV, podcasts, social media. Both Abrams and O’Rourke are skilled at using social media, and he in particular is a master of the viral moment (see his interruption of a press conference that Governor Greg Abbott held after the Uvalde shooting or his recent outburst at a heckler). Even when the campaign ends, no one can stop you from posting. Unlike a generation ago, “there are lots of avenues in the media today for former candidates to keep having their views known and to continue to be a spokesperson,” Seth Masket, a political scientist at the University of Denver, told me. (Neither the Abrams campaign nor the O’Rourke campaign agreed to an interview for this story.)

    It would be wrong, though, to chalk up the staying power of superstar losers entirely to their social-media dexterity or telegenic appeal. In the end, “politics is a lot of What have you done for me lately?” Julia Azari, a political scientist at Marquette University, told me. And both Abrams and O’Rourke are also top-notch party builders. O’Rourke may not have secured a Senate seat in 2018, Azari said, but he has been credited with helping Democrats pick up seats in the Texas statehouse. Abrams, meanwhile, has founded an organization to protect voting rights and raised millions of dollars to organize and register voters. Largely as a result, she has been hailed as the driving force behind Democrats’ 2020 success in Georgia. “Anyone can tweet,” Azari said. “But the two of them behind the scenes, I think, have actually walked the walk and helped other people win, helped other people develop their campaign apparatus.”

    Even though Abrams and O’Rourke have been helpful to their party, the golden age of superstar loserdom is closely tied to our current era of what Azari has called “weak parties and strong partisanship.” For one thing, vilification of the opposition allows challengers to especially despised candidates to quickly become household names. Even in extreme-long-shot races, donors have shown a willingness to pour vast amounts of money into these boondoggles. McGrath burned $90 million on the way to her 20-point loss. Harrison raised $130 million in his Senate race and fared only slightly better. In his contest against Ted Cruz, O’Rourke raised $80 million, including $38 million in a single quarter, the most of any Senate candidate in history—all to no avail.

    Whether because they outperform expectations or because of what they’re up against, these candidates and their supporters are then able to frame the losses as moral victories. Sometimes, as for Abrams supporters, that means framing a defeat as the outcome of an unjust system. Other times, as for O’Rourke supporters, that means framing an unexpectedly good performance in an unfavorable state as a sign of things to come. This, perhaps, is one reason superstar loserdom has so far skewed Democratic, political scientists told me: Democrats desperately want to take advantage of some red states that have been trending purple. Or perhaps the disparity is a product of our post-Trumpian moment. Or perhaps something else entirely.

    For now, polls suggest that things are not looking great for either O’Rourke or Abrams. Superstar-loser status, it seems, does not convert easily into electoral wins. Still, this is likely far from the end of superstar loserdom. Both Abrams and O’Rourke emerged during the 2018 midterms cycle, when Democratic voters energized by opposition to Donald Trump turned out in large numbers to break Republicans’ stranglehold on Congress. This year, Republican voters energized by opposition to Joe Biden will probably turn out in large numbers to break Democrats’ majority in Congress. This election could produce Republicans’ answer to Abrams and O’Rourke. But John James, the Michigan conservative who has made two failed bids for the Senate and was the one contemporary Republican superstar loser political scientists mentioned to me, seems poised to win his congressional race this year.

    A meaningful defeat may be the most Abrams and O’Rourke can hope for: not so much superstar losers as losers with legacies. But losers have a special utility. Winners have to deal with the unglamorous minutiae of actual governance. They have to figure out how to translate campaign promises into concrete policies. They make mistakes, and people get disillusioned, and approval ratings decline. Losers are spared these indignities. Politically speaking, they don’t survive long enough to let anyone down. Unsullied by compromise, losers can be made into lodestars. Look at Goldwater or McGovern. Everyone, it turns out, can get behind a lost cause.

    [ad_2]

    Jacob Stern

    Source link

  • Georgia DA Asks Supreme Court To Let Lindsey Graham Testify In Election Probe

    Georgia DA Asks Supreme Court To Let Lindsey Graham Testify In Election Probe

    [ad_1]

    The Georgia prosecutor investigating possible illegal election interference in the 2020 election said Thursday that the Supreme Court should not stand in the way of U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s testimony to a grand jury.

    In a filing with the high court, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said the justices should reject Graham’s plea that they block his testimony while he continues to appeal the order to appear before a special grand jury.

    The panel is investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in the state.

    Justice Clarence Thomas issued a temporary stay of the testimony while the court more fully considers the issue. Thomas acted on his own as the justice who handles emergency appeals from Georgia. But the entire court is expected to weigh in.

    Graham has argued he is shielded from the questioning by a constitutional provision, the speech and debate clause.

    Willis said lower courts already have modified the subpoena issued to Graham to foreclose questioning about protected legislative activity, including questioning on any topics related to individual investigation by the Senator into election wrongdoing in Georgia, while allowing questioning only on topics outside the boundaries of legislative activity.

    Graham’s testimony, originally sought for late August, has been rescheduled to Nov. 17, according to a new subpoena that was attached to his Supreme Court filing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Clarence Thomas Bails Lindsey Graham Out of Testifying Against Trump, Because Of Course He Does

    Clarence Thomas Bails Lindsey Graham Out of Testifying Against Trump, Because Of Course He Does

    [ad_1]

    In November 2020, Senator Lindsey Graham placed a call to Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger and allegedly asked if the state official had the power to throw out mail-in ballots from certain counties. Out of context, that sounds pretty bad. And in context, it sounds even worse, given the plot by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the presidential election results that year. So you can probably understand why Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis, who is investigating said plot, wants Graham to testify under oath. But thanks to Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, he may never have to.

    On Monday, the court’s arch conservative—who just so happens to be married to a woman who really wanted to overturn the election results as well—temporarily froze a lower court order requiring Graham to testify before a grand jury convened by Willis. The ruling comes after Graham asked the high court on Friday to intervene on his behalf and block the subpoena, claiming his calls with Georgia officials were simply about “reviewing election-related issues” in his capacity as then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, meaning they were therefore protected by the Constitution. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, had said that “communications and coordination with the Trump campaign regarding its post-election efforts in Georgia, public statements regarding the 2020 election, and efforts to ‘cajole’ or ‘exhort’ Georgia election officials” were not protected, and therefore Graham needed to comply with a subpoena, issued months ago, for his testimony.

    While constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck told CNN that Thomas’s order does not mean Graham will never be forced to appear before the grand jury, noting that it’s “not predictive of how the full court, or even the justice who issued it, is likely to vote,” it’s nevertheless extremely disturbing that Thomas should have any say at all, considering his wife’s activities surrounding the 2020 election. In March, The Washington Post reported that Ginni Thomas “repeatedly” urged White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to try to overturn the results of the election. Over the course of more than two dozen conspiracy-riddled text messages, per the Post, she insisted that Democrats had stolen the election from Trump. In one message, she wrote: “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!…You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.” In another, she quoted a right-wing website, saying: “Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.” Ginni reportedly acknowledged these messages in a private interview with the January 6 committee last month and reiterated her belief that the election was “stolen.”

    Several constitutional law experts have come forward to criticize Justice Thomas’s order. Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe tweeted that the justice “violated 28 USC 455, requiring any ‘justice’ to recuse when his or her ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ or his or her ‘spouse is known by the justice to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome.’” Meanwhile, University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade called the move “absurd,” writing that there “is no legal basis for Graham to refuse to even appear to testify. He can invoke objection under speech or debate clause to any particular question that intrudes on legislative activities, but this investigation is about election interference, not legislation.”

    Graham’s isn’t the only phone call that’s of interest to the Fulton County DA; Willis is also reviewing a phone conversation between Trump and Raffensperger from January 2, 2021, in which the former president demanded that the Georgia secretary of state “find” him the number of votes necessary to win the state, despite the fact that he had actually lost. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state,” Trump told Raffensperger after threatening him with criminal liability. 

    In an interview with the Post last month, Willis said that “people are facing prison sentences” in her investigation. The prosecutor has also said that she is aiming to issue indictments by December.

    Ron DeSantis: not just an evil little man but something of an idiot too

    The governor of Florida and reported 2024 hopeful contains multitudes. Per the Financial Times:

    >At Yale, [DeSantis] found refuge at the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, an athlete-heavy club that featured barrels of beer and prominent former members, including the Bushes and Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh. In his recent pandemic memoir, What Just Happened: Notes on a Long Year, the author and critic Charles Finch recalled two things about his former classmate, known then as “D”: he did an uncanny impression of baseball star Jose Canseco and, according to a friend, would tell dates he liked Thai food, but pronounced it “thigh”. If they corrected him, Finch wrote, he would find an excuse to leave. “He didn’t want a girlfriend who corrected him.”  

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Appeals court rules Lindsey Graham must testify in Georgia election probe

    Appeals court rules Lindsey Graham must testify in Georgia election probe

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify before a special grand jury investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia, a federal appeals court said Thursday.

    The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paves the way for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to bring Graham in for questioning. She wants to ask the South Carolina Republican about phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the weeks after the election.

    Raffensperger said Graham asked whether he had the power to reject certain absentee ballots, something Raffensperger took as a suggestion to toss out legally cast votes. Graham has dismissed that interpretation as “ridiculous.”

    Graham could appeal the ruling to the full appellate court. An attorney for Graham deferred comment Thursday to a spokesperson for the senator’s office, which did not immediately comment on the ruling.

    Graham had challenged his subpoena, saying his position as a U.S. senator protected him from having to testify in the state investigation. He has also denied wrongdoing. In a six-page order, the judges wrote that Graham “has failed to demonstrate that this approach will violate his rights under the Speech and Debate Clause.”

    Willis opened the investigation early last year, shortly after a recording of a January 2021 phone call between Trump and Raffensperger was made public. In that call, Trump suggested Raffensperger could “find” the votes needed to overturn his narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

    Willis requested a special grand jury, saying the panel’s subpoena power would allow the questioning of people who otherwise wouldn’t cooperate with the investigation. She has since filed several rounds of paperwork with the court seeking to compel the testimony of close Trump advisers and associates.

    Some of those associates include former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who has testified before the special grand jury, according to a person familiar with Cipollone’s testimony who spoke to The Associated Press on Thursday on condition of anonymity to discuss a private appearance. Cipollone’s appearance was first reported by CNN.

    Cipollone vigorously resisted efforts to undo the election and has said he did not believe there was sufficient fraud to have affected the outcome of the race won by Biden.

    Graham was in the first group of people close to Trump whose testimony Willis sought to compel in a batch of petitions filed with the court in early July. He challenged his subpoena in federal court, but U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May refused to toss out his subpoena. Graham then appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Graham’s lawyers argued that the U.S. Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which protects members of Congress from having to answer questions about legislative activity, shields him from having to testify. He contends that the call he made to Raffensperger fare was protected because he was asking questions to inform his decisions on voting to certify the 2020 election and future legislation.

    Lawyers on Willis’ team argued that comments Graham made in news interviews at the time, as well as statements by Raffensperger, show that the senator was motivated by politics rather than by legislative factfinding.

    They also argued that the scope of the special grand jury’s investigation includes a variety of other topics that have nothing to do with the Raffensperger call. They also want to ask Graham about his briefings by the Trump campaign, including whether he was briefed on the Trump-Raffensperger call, and whether he communicated or coordinated with Trump and his campaign about efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia and elsewhere.

    Graham’s lawyers also argued that the principle of “sovereign immunity” protects a U.S. senator from being summoned by a state prosecutor.

    Even if the speech or debate clause or sovereign immunity didn’t apply, Graham’s lawyers argued, his status as a “high-ranking official” protects him from having to testify. That’s because Willis has failed to show that his testimony is essential and that the information he would provide cannot be obtained from someone else, they argued.

    In their ruling Thursday, the appellate judges ruled that Willis “can ask about non-investigatory conduct that falls within the subpoena’s scope” but “may not ask about any investigatory conduct,” noting that Graham could note any issues over specific areas at the time of his questioning.

    Others have already made their appearances before the special grand jury. Former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who’s been told he could face criminal charges in the probe, testified in August. Attorneys John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro have also appeared before the panel.

    Paperwork has been filed seeking testimony from others, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

    Associated Press writers Kate Brumback in Atlanta and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Inside Story of the GOP on January 6

    The Inside Story of the GOP on January 6

    [ad_1]

    Mitch McConnell froze when a Capitol Police officer rushed into the Senate chamber carrying a semiautomatic weapon. The majority leader had been so engrossed in the Electoral College debate happening before him that he hadn’t realized anything was amiss—until pandemonium erupted.

    Mere moments before, Mike Pence’s Secret Service detail had subtly entered the room and beckoned the vice president away from the dais where he was overseeing proceedings, a rarity for agents who usually loitered outside the doors. A hum spread through the chamber as staff shut down the debate, whispering to senators that “protesters are in the building.”

    “This is a security situation,” a security officer said into the microphone on the dais. “We’re asking that everyone remain in the chamber. It’s the safest place.”

    Suddenly, armed guards were racing to McConnell, hurriedly escorting him out of the room. With no access to a cellphone or television—neither was allowed in the Senate—McConnell had no idea what was happening, but he certainly had a guess. During a brief break in the January 6 Electoral College proceedings, he had caught a few televised snippets of Donald Trump’s speech at the Ellipse. The outgoing president, who had been spewing falsehoods that the election had been stolen from him, was spinning up his supporters, encouraging the thousands who had come to Washington to take their protest to the Capitol.

    Earlier that afternoon, McConnell had once again implored his GOP colleagues to stand down in objecting to the Electoral College. From a lectern in the Senate chamber, he noted that there was no proof of fraud on the level Trump was alleging. And he argued that “if this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.”

    Outside, unbeknownst to McConnell, at least 10,000 Trump supporters were besieging the Capitol. Agitators had broken through a series of flimsy bike racks marking the Capitol’s outer perimeter and begun scaling the sides of the Capitol building, chanting, “We want Trump! We want Trump!”

    Capitol Police tried to push them back with riot shields, dispensing tear gas into the crowd. But they were quickly overwhelmed by the swelling mob, which turned their flagpoles—bearing a mix of Confederate, American, Trump, and “Don’t Tread on Me” banners—into makeshift lances and spears.

    McConnell’s detail whisked him down to the Capitol basement and through the snakelike tunnels that weaved through the complex. As his staff updated him on the unraveling situation, officers hurried him away to an underground parking garage and shoved him in a car to get him off the property. As McConnell’s SUV pulled away from the Capitol grounds, his aides pulled up pictures and videos on their phones to show their boss the chaos outside.

    Read: America is running out of time

    McConnell was dumbfounded. For the first time in more than two centuries, the Capitol was under siege.

    In a small private room off the side of the Senate chamber, Pence was refusing to evacuate. Despite the rioters coursing through the hallways outside, when his Secret Service detail told him it was time, he said no. A few minutes later, Secret Service agents tried again. Once again, Pence refused. “The last thing I want is for these people to see a motorcade fleeing the scene,” he said. “That is not an image we want. I’m not leaving.”

    As Pence resisted his Capitol evacuation on January 6, Trump continued to taunt him on Twitter. “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify,” he wrote. “USA demands the truth!”

    Two minutes later, Pence’s Secret Service agents stopped giving him a say in the matter. Pointing to the glass panels on the chamber door, they told the vice president they could not protect him or his family there.

    “We need to go!” a Secret Service agent said.

    The officers managed to get Pence as far as the basement garage of the Capitol before the vice president began protesting his evacuation again. His security detail implored him to at least sit inside the armed limousine they had standing by. Again, Pence adamantly refused.

    Standing in the parking garage, Pence turned to his longtime chief of staff, Marc Short, to devise a plan. Trump, by design or by circumstance, wasn’t responding to the chaos unfolding above their heads inside the Capitol. Someone needed to act presidentially and end this madness.

    “Get Kevin McCarthy on the phone,” Pence instructed. Short pulled up his cell and pressed the call button.

    McCarthy, for his part, was on the phone with Trump. He screamed into the receiver at the president as his detail spirited him away from the Capitol, where protesters had overrun his office. Bombs had been discovered at the Republican and Democratic National Committees, the House minority leader told Trump. Someone had been shot.

    “You’ve got to tell these people to stop,” he said.

    Trump wasn’t interested. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” he replied blithely.

    When Trump told McCarthy that the rioters must “like Trump more than you do,” the GOP leader fumed. How many times had he bent over backwards to protect the president? How many times had he buried his head in the sand when he knew the president’s actions were wrong? Trump owed him—and all House Republicans—an intervention to stop the attack. Their lives were on the line.

    “Who the fuck do you think you’re talking to?” McCarthy yelled. Trump told McCarthy that antifa was behind the violence, not his own supporters. McCarthy was aghast.

    “They’re your people,” McCarthy said, noting that Trump supporters were at that very moment climbing through his office window. “Call them off!”

    As his car sped away from the Capitol, McCarthy tried to come up with a plan. He called the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, begging him to get to the White House and make Trump put an end to the violence. McCarthy began to think about trying to reach Trump via television. Maybe if he took to the networks, he could break through by calling the president out publicly.

    Before McCarthy could do anything, his phone rang. It was Pence. McCarthy told the vice president what Trump had just said to him.

    This is the story of Republican leaders’ rude awakening on January 6, as they realized that despite their past loyalty to Trump, their party leader would do nothing to save them. GOP leaders had spent four years defending Trump through an impeachment and an endless stream of scandals. But on the day they needed him most, the president did nothing to help even his loyal rank and file escape violence.

    Although Republicans have since rallied behind the former president, that day, the chasm between GOP leaders and Trump could not have been wider. From their lockdown off campus, in a series of previously unreported meetings, McConnell and other GOP leaders would turn to their Democratic counterparts for assistance in browbeating the Pentagon to move the National Guard to send armed troops to the Hill. Together, the bipartisan leaders of Congress, agreed in their conviction that Trump was stonewalling if not outright maneuvering against them, joined forces to do what the president would not: Save the Capitol.

    At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Trump sat in a dining room abutting the Oval Office, watching television coverage of his devotees storming the Capitol. Multiple aides were rushing in and out, begging him to make a public statement calling for peace. “This is out of control,” Pence’s national security adviser, Keith Kellogg, told Trump, imploring him to send a white flag via Twitter. His daughter Ivanka also kept running in and out of the room, pleading with her father to call off the riot. “Let it go,” she pleaded with her dad, referring to the election.

    Even Trump’s son Donald Jr., who had urged Trump’s followers to “fight” at the rally that morning, had been alarmed by the chaotic scene at the Capitol. From the airport, before he departed town, he had tweeted, “This is wrong and not who we are. Be peaceful.” He also texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, imploring him to get his dad to stop the violence.

    “He’s got to condemn this shit ASAP,” he texted. “We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.”

    Don Jr. wasn’t the only one appealing to Meadows. Fox News personalities such as Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity begged the White House chief of staff to get the president to call off the crowds. Down the hall, Meadows’s staff warned him that Trump’s supporters “are going to kill people.”

    Shortly after 2:30 p.m., Trump begrudgingly issued a tweet calling on his supporters to “please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement.” As far as Trump was concerned, the riot was Congress’s problem, he told his aides. It was their job to defend the Capitol, he said, not his. Perversely, the riot had actually buoyed Trump’s hopes that he might be able to strong-arm his way to overturning the election. When the chaos started to unfold, he began calling his GOP allies in Congress—not to check on their well-being, but to make sure they didn’t lose their nerve about objecting to the election results.

    Across the Capitol campus, in a large Senate conference room guarded by cops, tensions were reaching a boiling point. The typically even-keeled Mitt Romney was lambasting Josh Hawley, blaming him for triggering the riot by endorsing Trump’s outlandish election objections. Lindsey Graham, Trump’s closest ally in the chamber, flew into a fit of rage at the “yahoos” who had invaded the Hill and screamed at the Senate sergeant-at-arms, who was hiding in the safe room with them.

    “What the hell are you doing here? Go take back the Senate!” Graham barked at the chamber’s top security official. “You’ve got guns … Use them!”

    Graham only grew angrier upon hearing a rumor that started circulating among Trump allies in the room: that the president was refusing to send in troops to help secure the Capitol. From their lockdown, he tried to call Trump to get clarity. When the president didn’t answer, Graham phoned Ivanka, asking her whether her dad was intentionally keeping the National Guard from responding to the crisis. He couldn’t see any other reason it was taking so long for reinforcements to arrive.

    Ivanka assured Graham that this wasn’t the case, but Graham was still furious at Trump’s nonchalant response to hundreds of his followers laying waste to the Capitol. He pressed Ivanka to get her dad to do more. He then called Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, and threatened that Republicans would forcibly remove Trump from office using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment if the president continued to do nothing. Lisa Murkowski was equally shaken as she waited out the violence. The Alaska Republican had been in her private hideaway office in the Senate basement when the riot had begun. All of a sudden, she had heard someone stumbling into the bathroom next to her office and heaving into the toilet. Peeking outside, she saw a bathroom door open and a police officer washing his face in the sink.

    “Can I help you?” she asked, surprised. “Are you okay?”

    The officer had paused and looked up at her, his eyes red and swollen nearly shut from what appeared to be tear gas.

    “No, I’m okay,” he said almost frantically, racing out of the bathroom. “No, I’ve got to get out there. They need my help.”

    As she waited out the violence, hoping the marauders wouldn’t find her, Murkowski could still hear the police officer’s retching, playing like a track on repeat, over and over in her head.

    A couple of miles away, at a military installation along the Anacostia River, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were trying to figure out what was going on with the National Guard. The speaker and the minority leader had been evacuated to Fort McNair, along with the other most senior lawmakers in Congress from both parties. Since the moment they’d arrived, they had turned their holding room into a command center for their desperate operation to save the Capitol.

    Sitting around a large break room with a leather couch so worn that it was held together with red duct tape, Pelosi and Schumer tried to make sense of the unfolding situation. Pelosi had been ushered away so quickly that she’d left her cellphone on the House chamber dais. Schumer had his antiquated flip phone out and was calling his rank-and-file members and aides, asking for updates. Every few minutes, their Capitol security details hovering in the hall would race into the room with a bit of news. Lawmakers in both chambers had been led to secret holding rooms in the congressional office buildings, though there was no telling if the mob would follow and find them. There were reports that some of the rioters were armed. And a group of Pelosi’s aides had barricaded themselves in a conference room, hiding under a table as rioters yelled, “Where’s Nancy?” and tried to kick down the doors. One of Steny Hoyer’s top aides was calling him frantically, insisting that the leaders clear the Capitol.

    A large projection screen had been lowered and tuned to CNN. The leaders gaped as, for the first time, they took in the full scene outside the Capitol. It looked like a war zone—with Congress on the losing side. Outnumbered cops clashed with protesters. Rioters were breaking down doors and shattering windows. Police were getting sprayed with tear gas.

    “This is all Trump’s fault!” Hoyer cried out helplessly, to no one in particular. Pelosi agreed. The man who started all of this, she reminded them grimly, still had control of the nation’s nuclear codes.

    “I can’t believe this,” she said indignantly. “Have you ever seen anything like this?”

    Elsewhere in D.C., the head of the National Guard had put armed troops on buses as soon as the Capitol Police chief alerted him to the riot underway at the Capitol. But he had still not received required orders from the Pentagon to deploy them. Troops in Virginia and Maryland were ready to move, the Democratic leaders were hearing—yet they too had not received the green light.

    At 3:19 p.m., just over an hour after the Capitol was breached, the Democratic leaders connected via phone with top Pentagon brass and demanded answers. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy insisted that his superior, Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, had already approved mobilization of armed National Guard units. But seven minutes later, the besieged House sergeant-at-arms told them the opposite: He was still hearing from D.C. Guard leaders that no such order had been given.

    Hoyer was getting a similar message from Larry Hogan, the governor of Maryland, who had 1,000 National Guard troops on standby, ready to move. In a frantic phone call, Hoyer tried to explain to Hogan that the Pentagon had given those troops permission to mobilize—the top Army brass had just told Schumer so. But Hogan protested.

    “Steny, I’m telling you, I don’t care what Chuck says,” the governor said. “I’ve been told by the Department of Defense that we don’t have authorization.”

    The Democratic leaders looked at one another, alarmed. What the hell was really going on? They asked each other the unthinkable: Could the problem be Trump? Was it possible that the president of the United States was telling the military to stand down—or worse, helping to orchestrate the attack?

    Down the hall, Kevin McCarthy was working other channels. Pacing the conference room where GOP leaders were sequestered at Fort McNair, he screamed at Dan Scavino, a top White House aide who often handled Trump’s Twitter account. The tweet Trump had put out around 2:30 p.m. calling for calm was not good enough, McCarthy insisted. They had to do more to stop the violence.

    “Trump has got to say: ‘This has to stop,’” McCarthy growled into the phone. “He’s the only one who can do it!”

    In the GOP room, McConnell; his No. 2, John Thune; House Minority Whip Steve Scalise; and other GOP lawmakers were also on the phones trying to figure out what was happening. It was clear that McCarthy’s appeals to Trump were falling flat. They would need to find a way to work around the president—the man they had collectively defended for four years—if they wanted to get the National Guard to the Capitol.

    The GOP leaders, however, could not figure out who was in charge. They kept returning to basic questions: Who had the authority to order in the troops? Was it the Army secretary? Was it the acting defense secretary? Did they need Trump’s approval?

    Since he had arrived at Fort McNair, McCarthy had ordered his aides to get him on as many television networks as possible. He kept darting in and out of the room to take their calls, hoping Trump would be watching one of the channels he was speaking on.

    “This is so un-American,” McCarthy said in a Fox News appearance at 3:05 p.m., attempting to shame Trump into acting. “I could not be sadder or more disappointed with the way our country looks at this very moment.”

    At one point between television hits, McCarthy announced to the room that he had finally won a concession from the White House: Trump, after much begging, had begrudgingly agreed to record a video calling for calm. The news, however, was not particularly reassuring to the Republicans in the room. The president was entirely unpredictable. Would such a video help—or make it worse? they asked each other. And what of the Guard?

    Off in the corner, Scalise was scrolling through Twitter on his iPad, looking at images of the  Capitol. One photo in particular made him stop short: a rioter rappelling down the wall of the Senate chamber and onto the rostrum where Mike Pence had been presiding. Scalise held his device out so McConnell could see.

    “Look, they’re in the Senate chamber,” he said.

    McConnell’s face paled.

    Since the evacuation, McConnell had been torn between feelings of disbelief and irrepressible anger toward Trump for fomenting the assault. The Capitol had been his home for decades. The members and the staff who worked there might as well have been his family. Yet the president had put them all in mortal danger. McConnell’s aides had been texting his chief of staff, who had accompanied him to Fort McNair, about the situation at the Capitol as it grew more precarious. Rioters were banging on their office doors, claiming to be Capitol Police officers to try to gain entry. Others were scaling the scaffolding outside their windows, trying to peer inside. In the hallway outside their barricaded doors, staffers could hear a woman praying loudly that “the evil of Congress be brought to an end.”

    McConnell knew that his aides had been coordinating with Schumer’s office from their lockdown, working their Rolodexes to summon help from the federal agencies. They had been calling and sending cellphone pictures of the chaos to anyone and everyone they knew at the Pentagon and Justice Department. They’d even roused former Attorney General Bill Barr and his chief of staff to use internal channels.

    “We are so overrun, we are locked in the leader’s suite,” McConnell’s counsel Andrew Ferguson had whispered to Barr’s former chief from his hiding place, keeping his voice down so as not to be heard by rioters. “We need help. If you don’t start sending men, people might die.”

    McConnell knew that appealing to Trump directly would be a waste of time. He hadn’t spoken with the president since December 15, the day McConnell publicly congratulated Joe Biden for winning the election. Trump had called him afterward in a rage, hurling insults and expletives. “The problem you have is the Electoral College is the final word,” McConnell had told him calmly. “It’s over.”

    McConnell didn’t bother calling Trump again. Even on the morning of January 6, he purposefully ignored a phone call from the president, believing he could no longer be reasoned with. So when the Capitol came under attack, McConnell focused on getting in touch with military leaders, leaving it to his chief of staff to communicate with Meadows to enlist the White House’s help to quell the riot—if they would help at all.

    An FBI SWAT team had arrived at the Capitol campus just as the leaders of Congress were being escorted into Fort McNair. But McConnell knew they would need more manpower to stop the rampage. It was why he called the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, to implore him to help dispatch the Guard. But as far as McConnell could tell, the Guard still wasn’t moving.

    As the duty officers at Fort McNair tried in vain to hook up a television so the Republicans could watch the latest scenes of destruction at the Capitol, McConnell huddled with his staff around a telephone, trying to reach the Pentagon. “I have the majority leader on the line,” McConnell’s aide announced, trying to connect her boss with Acting Defense Secretary Miller. They were promptly put on hold, infuriating GOP lawmakers in the room who couldn’t understand why the Pentagon was dodging their inquiries.

    Around 3:40 p.m., an hour and a half after the breach occurred, McConnell’s patience gave out. He stormed out of the room and crossed the hall to find Pelosi, Schumer, and Hoyer. “What are you hearing?” McConnell asked his Democratic counterparts as the other GOP leaders followed him into the room. “Do you know what the holdup is with the Guard?”

    They didn’t know any more than he did. At a loss, Pelosi and Schumer had just signed off on a joint statement demanding that Trump call for an end to the violence. Everyone knew it was little more than a gesture. It was time to bring the combined weight of all four congressional leaders to bear on the administration.

    “Get Miller on the phone,” someone barked.

    As aides worked to set up the call, the Republicans who had just entered the room stared at the CNN footage on the projector screen. It was the first time they’d witnessed the enormity of the scenes at the Capitol on anything larger than their phone or tablet screens. The footage rolling in was shocking: Rioters, having ransacked the building, were now taking selfies and cheering. They were stealing historic artifacts as keepsakes; one even carried away the speaker’s lectern, waving with glee at the camera. On one end of the Capitol, protesters were storming the Senate chamber and rummaging through senators’ desks. On the other, insurrectionists were doing the same in Pelosi’s office.

    “That’s my desk!” one Pelosi aide blurted out when an image of a man sitting in her chair with his feet propped up by her computer flashed on the screen. “They’re going through my desk!”

    Hoyer, still furious, started lecturing Scalise that the riot was the GOP’s fault for enabling Trump.

    “This isn’t the time for that,” Scalise retorted. “Right now, we need to get the chamber back, secured and open.”

    McConnell, Schumer, and the other lawmakers, meanwhile, stood by awaiting the call. Amid the chaos of the afternoon, two special elections in Georgia had been officially called for the Democratic candidates. That meant Schumer’s party would be taking control of all of Washington—and he would soon be taking McConnell’s job. McConnell had already congratulated Schumer on his forthcoming promotion.

    A few minutes later, huddled around a cellphone, the leaders jointly excoriated Miller for his snail-like response to what had all the markings of a coup at the Capitol. It was perhaps the first time since Trump took office that the congressional leaders had presented such a united front. Why hadn’t troops been sent in already? they demanded to know. Where was the National Guard?

    “Tell POTUS to tweet, ‘Everyone should leave,’” Schumer insisted, yelling into the device over speakerphone.

    “Get help in ASAP,” McConnell said firmly. “We want the Capitol back.”

    Miller stammered that Pentagon leaders needed to formulate a “plan” before they moved troops.

    “Look, we’re trying,” Miller said. “We’re looking at how to do this.”

    His vague answer did not suffice. There was no time to waste, the leaders insisted, as they pressed him to say how soon armed troops would arrive. After demurring several times, Miller finally gave them a partial answer: It could take four hours to get the National Guard to the Capitol, and up until midnight until the building could be cleared.

    At that, Schumer lost it.

    “If the Pentagon were under attack, it wouldn’t take you four hours to formulate a plan!” he roared. “We need help now!”

    Scalise pressed Miller to tell them how many troops they could expect to arrive. When again the secretary declined to answer, Pelosi exploded.

    “Mr. Secretary, Steve Scalise just asked you a question, and you’re not answering it,” she said. “What’s the answer to that question?”

    But Miller simply dodged again, murmuring that they were trying their best.

    That the most powerful nation in the world didn’t have a plan in place to protect its own Capitol from attack was unthinkable to the leaders. And the fact that Miller was refusing to give clear answers appalled them. There was only one other person in Washington who might have more sway than they did. Hanging up on Miller, they reached out to their last hope: It was time to call Pence.

    In the parking garage in the basement of the Capitol, Pence listened as the congressional leaders beseeched him to help dispatch troops to the Capitol. As vice president, he had no authority to assume Trump’s powers as commander in chief and give orders to the secretary of defense. But he couldn’t understand why the Guard wasn’t already on its way. Something had to be done.

    “I’m going to get off this call and call them, then call you right back,” Pence told the lawmakers, hanging up to dial Miller and Milley.

    Next to him, Pence’s brother, Greg, and his chief of staff, Marc Short, were still seething at how cavalierly Trump had abandoned them. They had read the president’s most recent Twitter attack against Pence on their phones in the Senate basement, fuming that in the heat of the riot, the president had chosen to stir up more vitriol about the vice president instead of calling to check on him. Trump’s conspiratorial advisers were also emailing Pence’s team, telling them that the riot was their fault for not helping overturn the election. It was outrageous.

    The vice president, however, didn’t have time to dwell on the slights. When they’d first arrived in the garage, he had phoned McCarthy and McConnell, then Schumer and Pelosi, to make sure they all were safe. He didn’t bother dialing Trump. Short, however, angrily called Meadows to tell the White House that they were okay. And in case he or anyone else was wondering, Short added, “we are all planning to go back to the Capitol to certify the election tonight.”

    Meadows didn’t object. “That’s probably best,” he replied.

    At the White House, aides were gradually giving up hope that the president would do anything useful to restore order at the Capitol, though by mid-afternoon, the pressure on Trump to act was relentless. Republican lawmakers; longtime Trump allies, including Barr and former Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney; and conservative influencers such as Ann Coulter reamed him publicly. Even former President George W. Bush had issued a reprimand. Trump ignored all of them.

    As they worked the phones, Pence’s staff heard that a high-level meeting had been convened at the White House to discuss the chain of command and how to get the National Guard moving. The fact that the administration could not figure out who was in charge as the Capitol was overrun was beyond alarming—though, in the estimation of Pence and his team, Trump at any point could have picked up the phone and forced the Pentagon to move faster. That he hadn’t, they all agreed, spoke volumes. And because of that—and the Hill leaders’ desperation—Pence knew it was time for him to step up.

    At 4:08 p.m., Pence called the acting defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mustering his most commanding tone, he gave an order that was technically not his to issue.

    “Clear the Capitol,” he said. “Get troops here. Get them here now.”

    Back in lockdown at Fort McNair, McConnell was issuing orders of his own.

    “We are going back tonight,” he insisted to Pence and Pentagon officials on a 4:45 p.m. phone call with Hill leaders. “The thugs won’t win.”

    The vice president’s order to the military seemed to have finally snapped things into place. Pence had let congressional leaders know that armed Guard troops were on the way. It would take another half hour for them to arrive.

    McConnell had always delighted in good political combat. But when the votes were in, he believed in accepting outcomes with dignity. There was no dignity in what had happened that day—only embarrassment for the Republican Party. And McConnell was just that: embarrassed. Trump didn’t even have the decency to be sorry. That afternoon, as congressional leaders joined forces across party lines to get reinforcements to the Capitol, the president had been egging on his supporters.

    “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred land-slide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Remember this day forever!”

    Even in the video he released calling for “peace,” Trump praised his followers for revolting against a “fraudulent election,” calling them “very special” and adding, “We love you.”

    It was too much for McConnell to stomach. After the senator had spent four years trying to accommodate the president’s demands, Trump had threatened his Capitol, and McConnell was finally done with him. Congress had to certify Biden as the next president, and they had to do it that night, in prime time, he insisted. The whole country had to know that Trump had lost, and that his gambit to cling to power had failed.

    There was one major impediment to McConnell’s plan. Capitol Police were saying the building would not be secure enough to welcome lawmakers back that night. They had to sweep the chamber for bombs and ensure that no straggling rioters were hiding in a bathroom—and there was no way to do that quickly. Defense officials had even suggested busing lawmakers to Fort McNair to certify the election that night from the military base.

    To McConnell, waiting until morning was entirely out of the question. He knew that the vice president and other leaders had his back. They were just as adamant as he was that Trump’s flunkies would not push Congress out of its own Capitol. Pence had even offered the Capitol Police his own K-9 unit to help sweep the building faster.

    Given the sensitivity of the discussion, the congressional leaders had gathered in a smaller space down the hall, away from the probing eyes and ears of aides and other lawmakers who had joined them at Fort McNair. Within minutes, Pelosi had lit into the military brass, accusing them of ignoring the blaring warning signs of coming violence in the days before the attack.

    “Were you without knowledge of the susceptibility of our national security here?” Pelosi demanded of Miller, her patience dwindling.

    “We assessed it would be a rough day,” Miller said. “No idea it would be like this.”

    For a brief, resolute moment on January 6, the GOP’s leaders were prepared to do whatever they needed to do to bring Trump to heel. Pence acted that day to restore peace. Party affiliation made no difference to Republican leaders as they worked with Pelosi and Schumer to save their rank and file.

    But these flashes of defiance were fleeting. Mere days later, when Democrats moved to impeach Trump for inciting the riot, Republicans balked. Both McCarthy and McConnell voted against impeachment, and Pence, whose aides had steamed about Trump while in hiding, barred his staff from testifying at Trump’s second trial. In the months since, GOP leaders have done their utmost to bury the truth of what happened that day—leaving Republican voters with the distinct impression that Trump and his followers did nothing wrong. Meanwhile, as the country contends with the protracted consequences of their whiplash, Trump is plotting a return to the White House.


    This article has been adapted from Rachael Bade and Karoun Dimirijan’s new book, Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump.

    [ad_2]

    Rachael Bade

    Source link

  • Prosecutors argue Graham should have to testify before grand jury in Georgia 2020 investigation | CNN Politics

    Prosecutors argue Graham should have to testify before grand jury in Georgia 2020 investigation | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Fulton County district attorney’s office is pushing back on Sen. Lindsey Graham’s ongoing efforts to quash a grand jury subpoena, saying his testimony is “essential” and could reveal more information about efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.

    Graham, a South Carolina Republican, is asking the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals to put on hold a lower federal court order that Graham must testify to the grand jury, with the questions limited in scope.

    The litigation over the subpoena has been on-going for months, with Graham initially moving to quash the motion in July. Prosecutors say that, after three failed attempts to quash his subpoena, Graham is repeating the same arguments. They are asking for the matter to be remanded back to a Fulton County Superior Court, which oversees the grand jury investigation.

    “The Senator’s position, which would allow him to dictate when and where he will be immune from questioning or liability, renders him precisely the sort of unaccountable ‘super-citizen’ which the United States Supreme Court has taken care to avoid,” the Fulton County district attorney’s office said in the court filing with the 11th Circuit on Friday.

    Graham’s attorneys argue that the lower court ruling did not offer enough protection from being questioned about his role as a US senator.

    They say that his calls to Georgia officials after the election were legislative activity directly related to his committee responsibilities as the then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that his actions should be protected by the US Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.

    Atlanta-based federal Judge Leigh Martin May, who denied Graham’s motion to quash his subpoena this summer, wrote in her decision that there were “considerable areas of inquiry” that were not legislative in nature that he should have to testify about.

    Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is leading the investigation into 2020 election interference, wrote in previous court filings that she wants to question the senator about his phone calls to election officials.

    Willis is particularly interested in a call Graham made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger when – according to Raffensperger – Graham hinted that Raffensperger should discard some Georgia ballots during the state’s audit.

    Fulton County prosecutors on Friday said Graham’s claim that the call was intended to inform his vote on certifying the 2020 election amounts to “litigation-prompted hindsight” and “a product of lawyering, not legislating.”

    Graham has repeatedly denied accusations of applying any pressure to Georgia officials. Even if he were to lose this appeal, he signaled he would take the case to the Supreme Court.

    “I’ll go as far as I need to take it,” Graham told CNN last month. “I’m committed to standing up for the institution as I see it.”

    The 11th Circuit will rule on Graham’s emergency motion. The appeals court has set Tuesday as deadline for his legal team to file an opening brief on the merits of the appeal.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Graham will support replacing Feinstein on Judiciary Committee if she resigns, following precedent | CNN Politics

    Graham will support replacing Feinstein on Judiciary Committee if she resigns, following precedent | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he will follow precedent for replacing Sen. Dianne Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee if she resigns, signaling a willingness to vote to replace the California Democrat if she left the chamber altogether.

    “If she does resign, I would be in the camp of following the precedent of the Senate, replacing the person, consistent with what we have done in the past,” the South Carolina lawmaker told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    Feinstein was hospitalized in March for shingles and has yet to return to the Senate. She has asked to be “temporarily” replaced on the Senate Judiciary Committee while she is recovering but remains committed to returning to Washington.

    Democrats would need 60 votes to replace Feinstein on the panel, but senior Republicans in leadership and on the committee have made clear that they would not give them the votes to do that on a temporary basis.

    Senate Republicans blocked an effort last week by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to temporarily replace Feinstein on the Judiciary panel with Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin.

    But Graham – who objected to Schumer’s request – signaled Sunday that the situation would be different if Feinstein resigned.

    “If she resigned, I would make sure that whatever we did in the past when members resigned would be followed,” he said.

    “As to Sen. Feinstein, she is a wonderful person. She’s been a very effective senator. I hope she comes back,” the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee added.

    Feinstein is facing calls to resign from at least two House Democrats, though most congressional Democrats have remained largely supportive of her decision to remain in office while absent from the Capitol.

    More than 60 progressive organizations across California signed a letter Friday calling for Feinstein’s resignation.

    “For three decades, 39 million Californians counted on you to be our hardworking voice in Washington, day in and day out. We still need a daily voice, now more than ever,” the letter stated. ” We respectfully ask you to give one more gift of service to our great state by fully stepping back to allow a new appointee to carry forth and extend your legacy.”

    On the issue of abortion, Graham would not say Sunday whether he believes the procedure should be regulated at the state or federal level.

    “It’s a human rights issue, does it really matter where you’re conceived?,” Graham said. He added later: “I welcome this debate. I think the Republican Party will be in good standing to oppose late-term abortion.”

    Graham’s comments highlight the difficulty that Republicans have had navigating the abortion issue. The Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade last year has energized Democrats, with voters across the country rejecting ballot efforts to restrict abortion at the state level.

    which was once a popular GOP premise. After Roe v. Wade was overturned last year, voters overwhelmingly rejected further efforts to restrict abortion.

    The South Carolina senator introduced a bill in September that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

    “Here’s what I believe, that anybody running for president who has a snowball’s chance in hell in the 2024 primary is going to be with me, the American people, and all of Europe, saying late-term abortions should be off the table,” Graham, who has endorsed former President Donald Trump’s reelection bid, said Sunday. “I am confident, over time, that’s where our nominee will be.”

    The issue of abortion has continued to reverberate across the political landscape. The Supreme Court on Friday protected access to a widely used abortion drug as appeals play out by freezing lower-court rulings that had placed restrictions on its usage.

    Meanwhile, Graham, who recently traveled to the Middle East, said Sunday that he saw dramatic change while on the ground in Saudi Arabia.

    “The biggest prize, for lack of a better word, would be to get Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel and vice versa. And the Biden administration is trying to do that. And I want to help them. I think the Biden administration is right to want a normalize relationship with Saudi Arabia, based on the changes I see,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham want a new agency to regulate tech | CNN Business

    Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham want a new agency to regulate tech | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Two US senators are calling for the creation of a new federal agency to regulate tech companies such as Amazon, Google and Meta, in the latest push by members of Congress to clamp down on Big Tech.

    Under the proposal released Thursday by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, Congress would establish a new regulatory body with the power to sue platforms — or even force them to stop operating — in response to various potential harms to customers, rivals and the general public, including anticompetitive practices, violations of consumer privacy and the spread of harmful online content.

    The new regulator would have broad jurisdiction, covering not just social media platforms or e-commerce but also the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence. The bill targets tech platforms including Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok and Twitter, which now officially known as X, a Senate aide told CNN, though the companies aren’t directly named in the legislation.

    “For too long, giant tech companies have exploited consumers’ data, invaded Americans’ privacy, threatened our national security, and stomped out competition in our economy,” Warren said in a statement. “This bipartisan bill would create a new tech regulator and it makes clear that reining in Big Tech platforms is a top priority on both sides of the aisle.”

    The push comes after years of stalled attempts to impose new rules on large tech companies and multiple failed efforts to block deals on antitrust grounds. Some AI companies have openly welcomed the creation of a special-purpose AI regulator. Warren and Graham’s legislation, the Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act, would be the first bipartisan bill of its kind, though a similar proposal by Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, has been circulating since last year. Thursday’s proposal differs from Bennet’s bill, the aide said, in that it is in some ways more specific in its restrictions on the tech industry.

    The new commission would have far-reaching authority under the bill, with the ability to make regulations for the industry, investigate claims of wrongdoing and pursue enforcement actions. For the largest companies under its purview — defined by a mixture of user numbers, revenue figures, market capitalization and other metrics — the commission would issue operating licenses that could be revoked in the case of repeat offenses, according to a copy of the bill text reviewed by CNN.

    “Enough is enough. It’s time to rein in Big Tech,” Graham and Warren wrote in an op-ed in the New York Times Thursday. “And we can’t do it with a law that only nibbles around the edges of the problem. Piecemeal efforts to stop abusive and dangerous practices have failed.”

    The legislation would also ban certain practices outright and direct the new agency to police any violations. For example, companies such as Google would not be able to prioritize its own apps and services at the top of search results or use noncompete agreements to block employees from going to work for a rival startup.

    Companies covered by the legislation would also face restrictions on how they can use Americans’ personal information for targeted advertising, in a privacy-focused move.

    And the legislation seeks to address the type of national security concerns that have been linked to TikTok by forcing “dominant” platforms to be either based in the United States or controlled by US citizens, and by restricting the companies’ ability to store data in certain countries.

    In unveiling the bill, the lawmakers drew parallels between their proposed US agency and other sector-specific regulators such as the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the telecom and broadcast industries, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates nuclear power.

    But the legislation could also lead to some areas of overlap — for example, with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice overseeing antitrust issues, as well as with the FTC on consumer protection issues. The Senate aide told CNN that the bill’s intent is to see the new tech-focused commission working together with the FTC and DOJ, and that the legislation ensures both existing agencies will also be able to conduct their own enforcement as well.

    [ad_2]

    Source link