ReportWire

Tag: us political parties

  • Biden and his team ramp up travel to highlight effects of infrastructure law ahead of State of the Union | CNN Politics

    Biden and his team ramp up travel to highlight effects of infrastructure law ahead of State of the Union | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden and senior administration officials are embarking on a travel swing this week, showcasing what they see as successful measures to rebuild America’s ailing infrastructure.

    In what’s been described as a preview of some of the messaging for next week’s State of the Union address, Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and Cabinet secretaries are all hitting the road to highlight the implementation of the landmark legislation signed into law during the president’s first two years in office. Among those accomplishments are the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act.

    The president traveled to Baltimore on Monday to showcase the implementation of his policies, and later this week, he’ll head to New York City and Philadelphia for similar remarks.

    The trips are taking place in the lead up to Biden’s State of the Union speech in Washington next week – a national platform where he’s expected to illustrate how his policies are successfully going into effect – and a prospective reelection announcement in the coming months. Biden’s approach is expected to be focused on touting the rebound of the American economy and taking aim at Republican proposals – while still underscoring his desire to work across the aisle.

    In Baltimore on Monday, he discussed how the infrastructure law will fund replace the 150-year-old Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, addressing the largest bottleneck for commuters on the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D C, and New Jersey. The new tunnel will be named in honor of civil rights leader and abolitionist Frederick Douglass.

    Speaking from a presidential podium set to the backdrop of an American flag and an Amtrak train on the tracks, Biden recalled that he’d made a thousand trips through the tunnel and walked through it in the 1980s.

    “When folks talk about how badly the Baltimore tunnel needs an upgrade, you don’t need me to tell you. I’ve been there and you’ve been there, too,” Biden said.

    “You ought to get inside and see,” he remarked, discussing his tour of the tunnel decades ago. “This is a 150-year-old tunnel. I wonder how in the hell it’s still standing.”

    “The structure is deteriorating. The roof is leaking. The floor is sinking. This is the United States of America, for God’s sake. We know better than that,” he continued.

    When the project is done, Biden said, trains will roll through the tunnel at 110 mph instead of 30 mph, shortening regional MARC train commutes from Baltimore to Washington to 30 minutes.

    At Monday’s project kickoff, the president announced an agreement between the state of Maryland and Amtrak, which includes a $450 million commitment for the tunnel replacement project, according to the White House. A project labor agreement between Amtrak and the Baltimore-DC Building and Construction Trades Council was unveiled to cover the first phase of the project. And he also announced an agreement between Amtrak and the North American Builders’ Trade Union “that ensures Amtrak’s large civil engineering construction projects controlled by Amtrak will be performed under union agreements,” according to the White House.

    The program is expected to cost approximately $6 billion, of which Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding could contribute up to $4.7 billion, the White House said. Biden was joined by labor leaders, state and local officials, as well as members of Congress and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

    On Tuesday, Biden travels to New York City to discuss how Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding will improve the Hudson River Tunnel, which sees 200,000 passengers passing through each weekday on Amtrak and New Jersey Transit.

    On Friday, Biden and Harris are scheduled to travel to Philadelphia to discuss how Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding is removing lead pipes and ensuring clean water across Philadelphia and the country, the official told CNN.

    According to the White House, the pair “will discuss the progress we have made and their work implementing the Biden-Harris economic agenda that continues to deliver results for the American people.”

    Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge will also travel to Chicago to discuss progress made to address homelessness as a result of provisions within the American Rescue Plan, according to the official.

    While Biden has often embarked on domestic trips to highlight his policies in action, these stops have served as a significant messaging platform since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives this year.

    In a speech at a union hall in Virginia, Biden, for example, sought to contrast his economic policies with House Republicans’ effort in the debt limit standoff.

    He asked the crowd, “(Why) in God’s name would Americans give up the progress we’ve made for the chaos they’re suggesting?”

    “MAGA Republicans,” he added, “are literally choosing to inflict this pain on the American people.”

    Despite that heavy emphasis on his warnings about GOP plans, Biden this week is expected to hone in on his ability to work across the aisle to push legislation into law. Specifically, in a preview of the travel, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre underscored Biden’s “success (in) bringing Republicans and independents and Democrats together to pass the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.”

    In Baltimore on Monday, the president brought up his recent trip to Kentucky, where he stood alongside Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to herald the implementation of the massive $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that McConnell and 18 other Senate Republicans supported.

    The policy messaging trips also carry more weight as the prospect of a presidential reelection campaign looms large over the White House.

    Biden has been working intensively on his State of the Union Speech speech – including over the weekend – which his team views as a launching pad for the reelection bid. His speeches around the East Coast week will offer a preview of his message as he touts new infrastructure projects.

    Behind the scenes, aides are building up a campaign infrastructure and the West Wing is in the process of restructuring for a politically intense two years.

    Peppered in between stops to visit projects funded though the proposals which were the bedrock of his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden will participate in events that are part of an intense fundraising push ahead of the campaign announcement.

    The travel comes as Biden also contends with a number of simmering issues in Washington – House Republican probes, investigations into classified documents found at his residence and former office and the debt ceiling standoff. The US Treasury is already taking extraordinary measures to keep the government paying its bills after the US hit the debt ceiling set by Congress.

    While the president is in Washington on Wednesday in between travel stops, he’s scheduled to meet with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Video of Nichols’ beating prompts renewed calls for police reform | CNN Politics

    Video of Nichols’ beating prompts renewed calls for police reform | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

    New York to San Francisco. Baltimore to Portland. Boston to Los Angeles, and countless cities in between.

    Protesters once again took to the streets over the weekend to decry police brutality after the release of video capturing the violent Memphis police beating that led to the death of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols.

    On Sunday morning, Nichols’ family attorney made note of the outrage as he aimed a simple but pointed message at Washington.

    “Shame on us if we don’t use [Nichols’] tragic death to finally get the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act passed,” Ben Crump said on CNN’s “State of Union.”

    President Joe Biden referenced the failed legislation in his statement about Nichols on Friday, and many leaders – from the chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio – are acknowledging a potential role for federal legislation.

    The Congressional Black Caucus is requesting a meeting with Biden this week to push for negotiations. “We are calling on our colleagues in the House and Senate to jumpstart negotiations now and work with us to address the public health epidemic of police violence that disproportionately affects many of our communities,” CBC Chair Steven Horsford, a Nevada Democrat, wrote in a statement on Sunday.

    Gloria Sweet-Love, the Tennessee State Conference NAACP president, called on Congress to step up during a Sunday evening news conference in Memphis. “By failing to craft and pass bills to stop police brutality, you’re writing another Black man’s obituary. The blood of Black America is on your hands. So stand up and do something.”

    But with Congress as divided as ever, it appears public outrage is once again on a collision course with Washington partisanship.

    Here’s what you need to know about the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, why it failed, and what chances it stands in the current political climate.

    The legislation, originally introduced in 2020 and again in 2021, would set up a national registry of police misconduct to stop officers from evading consequences for their actions by moving to another jurisdiction.

    It would ban racial and religious profiling by law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels, and it would overhaul qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that critics say shields law enforcement from accountability.

    According to a fact sheet on the legislation at the time, the measure would also allow “individuals to recover damages in civil court when law enforcement officers violate their constitutional rights by eliminating qualified immunity for law enforcement.”

    The fact sheet also states that the legislation would “save lives by banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants” and would mandate “deadly force be used only as a last resort.”

    The bill twice cleared the House under Democratic control – in 2020 and 2021 – largely along party lines. But it never went anywhere in the Senate, even after Democrats won control in 2021, in part, because of disagreements about qualified immunity, which protects police officers from being sued in civil court.

    Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina spent some six months trying to hash out a deal that could win 60 votes in the Senate, but talks were stymied by a number of complicated issues.

    “It was clear at this negotiating table, in this moment, we were not making progress,” Booker told reporters in the spring of 2021. “In fact, recent back-and-forth with paper showed me that we were actually moving away from it. The negotiations we were in stopped. But the work will continue.”

    With the legislation stuck, Biden signed a more limited executive order to overhaul policing on the second anniversary of Floyd’s death. It took several actions that can be applied to federal officers, including efforts to ban chokeholds, expand the use of body-worn cameras and restrict no-knock warrants, among other things.

    But the president cannot mandate that local law enforcement adopt the measures in his order; the executive action lays out levers the federal government can use, such as federal grants and technical assistance, to incentivize local law enforcement to get on board

    And since then, little has happened on the federal legislative front.

    Here’s the reality: the road for police reform has only become more challenging in the new Congress now that House Republicans, who have placed their priorities elsewhere, are in the majority.

    Senate Democrats picked up one more seat in last year’s midterm elections to pad their majority, but they’re still far short of the 60 votes that would be need for such an effort to succeed. That means any policing overhaul that can find meaningful support in Congress will likely be stripped of the kind of measures that protesters are calling for.

    State officials have been initiating investigations into local police departments, recognizing that the federal government can’t take on every case nationwide.

    And, in some cases, local governments have taken their own steps. In the year after Floyd was killed, at least 25 states had considered some form of qualified immunity reform. In 2021, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed into law a series of police reforms that created a system to decertify law enforcement officers found to have engaged in serious misconduct – joining the majority of states that have similar decertification authorities.

    But, for many, it’s not nearly enough. Read this CNN Opinion piece from Sonia Pruitt, a retired Montgomery County, Maryland, police captain:

    “Many have noted the police assault on Nichols is reminiscent of that on Rodney King, a Black man whose beating at the hands of Los Angeles police officers in 1991 was captured on video. But the beating of Nichols is actually much worse because it shows that after nearly 32 years, the needle of police reform has barely moved, and seemingly minor traffic violations continue to lead to the deaths of Black and other minority men and women in police encounters.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Hampshire GOP governor says he’s considering 2024 White House bid | CNN Politics

    New Hampshire GOP governor says he’s considering 2024 White House bid | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    GOP Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire said Sunday he is considering a White House bid in 2024, citing the Granite State’s “live free or die” spirit as a model for the Republican Party.

    “Yes,” Sununu said when asked by CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” whether he was considering a presidential run.

    “I really don’t have a timeline. I’m spending a lot of time naturally trying to grow the party as Republicans, talk to independents, talk to the next generation of potential Republican voters that right now no one is really reaching out to,” he said.

    So far, former President Donald Trump is the only high-profile Republican to have officially filed for a 2024 White House run, but several others, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, are considering challenging him for the nomination.

    Sununu, who won a fourth two-year term as governor by more than 15 points last fall, acknowledged Sunday that DeSantis “would probably win New Hampshire right now, without a doubt.” He said Trump, who spoke at a meeting of the New Hampshire GOP on Saturday, could win the state again but added that the former president was “not really bringing that fire, that energy, I think, that a lot of folks saw … in ’16.”

    “He’s also going to have to earn it,” Sununu said of Trump. “And that’s New Hampshire. Even if you’re the former president, you got to come and earn it, person to person.”

    Support for another Trump bid for the presidency among GOP-aligned voters declined across three CNN polls on the topic last year. In January 2022, the poll found a near-even split: 50% said they hoped Trump would be the nominee and 49% wanted someone else. By July, 44% wanted Trump to be the party’s nominee, and by December, 38% said the same.

    Sununu was asked Sunday about a recent University of New Hampshire poll that showed DeSantis leading Trump 42% to 30% among likely state GOP primary voters, with all other polled candidates, including the Granite State governor, in single digits.

    “I’m surprised other candidates, I think a lot of us, aren’t doing better,” Sununu said. “I’m surprised I’m on that poll at all, frankly.”

    Whether or not he seeks the presidential nomination, Sununu said candidates should also know when to exit the race.

    “I think there’s a lot of hope and opportunity for good candidates to get in, drive the message where it needs to be,” he said. “But the discipline is getting out too. The discipline and saying, ‘Look, you’re only polling at 5%, you got to get out.’ We don’t want a crowded field here.”

    Sununu on Sunday outlined the values that would anchor a potential White House bid as he called for Republicans to return to “believing in individual responsibility” rather than wading into cultural fights.

    “I think a lot of Republican leadership is getting behind this idea that we have to fight. And I get it, as, in a leadership position, you have to be willing to have the fight. But we cannot have leadership that is only about the fight,” he said.

    Politics runs in Sununu’s family: He is the 82nd governor of New Hampshire, while his father, John H. Sununu, was the 75th governor, serving from 1983 to 1989, before becoming President George H.W. Bush’s White House chief of staff. His older brother, John E. Sununu, represented the state in the House and Senate from 1997 to 2009.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Democrats targeted by McCarthy defend their committee assignments | CNN Politics

    House Democrats targeted by McCarthy defend their committee assignments | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The trio of Democrats whom House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has targeted for removal from committee assignments offered a unified rebuke in a joint interview on CNN that aired Sunday.

    Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, who were stripped of their positions on the House Intelligence Committee, and Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, whom McCarthy is seeking to oust from the House Foreign Affairs panel, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that the California Republican’s actions were nakedly partisan.

    “This is some Bakersfield BS,” Swalwell said in the interview, referring to the speaker’s hometown. “It’s Kevin McCarthy weaponizing his ability to commit this political abuse, because he perceives me, just like Mr. Schiff and Ms. Omar, as an effective political opponent.”

    Schiff similarly cast their ouster as “all pretextual” and a result of McCarthy “catering to the most extreme members of their conference.”

    “And I don’t accept the premise that this has anything to do with the conduct of any of the Democratic members. This is merely the weakness of Kevin McCarthy’s speakership, that he’s so reliant on these extreme members,” Schiff said.

    McCarthy has cited a “new standard” from Democrats for why he was stripping Schiff and Swalwell, both fellow Californians, of their Intelligence Committee assignments.

    The speaker said in a letter to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries that it was his “assessment that the misuse of this panel during the 116th and 117th Congresses severely undermined its primary national security and oversight missions – ultimately leaving our nation less safe.” He said he wants the panel to be one of “genuine honesty and credibility that regains the trust of the American people.”

    McCarthy specifically targeted Schiff over his handling of the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. Among other things, McCarthy said: “Adam Schiff openly lied to the American public. He told you he had proof. He told you he didn’t know the whistleblower.”

    Yet there is no evidence for McCarthy’s insinuation that Schiff lied when he said he didn’t know the anonymous whistleblower who came forward in 2019 with allegations – which were subsequently corroborated – about how Trump had attempted to use the power of his office to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, then a looming rival in the 2020 election.

    “Apparently he believes I was very effective in exposing his misconduct, Donald Trump’s misconduct. And that’s what they’re trying to stop,” Schiff told Bash. “So, I think that he benefits from having these smears repeated. And that’s part of what he gains from it. But this is a pretext, and nothing more.”

    Swalwell, meanwhile, rebuffed GOP claims that he shared sensitive information with a suspected Chinese spy – a charge McCarthy has repeatedly put forward.

    “There’s nothing there,” the California Democrat said, noting that the FBI has relayed that “all I did was help them, and, also, I was never under any suspicion of wrongdoing.”

    McCarthy was able to use his authority as speaker to unilaterally keep Schiff and Swalwell off the Intelligence panel because it is a select committee. Ousting Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee would require a vote of the full House. If all Democrats vote to oppose the move, it would only take a handful of GOP critics to block McCarthy from moving forward, given House Republicans’ razor-thin majority.

    Asked Sunday about her past comments, which were condemned by both sides of the aisle as antisemitic, Omar noted that she had apologized and said she’s hopeful that any vote against her as a result of those comments will fall short.

    “I might have used words at the time that I didn’t understand were trafficking in antisemitism. When that was brought to my attention, I apologized, I owned up to it. That’s the kind of person that I am,” the Minnesota Democrat said.

    “What I do know is that the two Republicans that have been public and some that have privately said that they are not going to vote to remove me are doing so because they don’t want to be seen as hypocrites,” she added.

    Republican Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana said last week that she opposed the push to strip the three Democrats of their committee assignments, stressing the importance of ethics probes before taking disciplinary action against any elected member of Congress. South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace has said she has concerns about the resolution to oust Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee. A third Republican, Colorado Rep. Ken Buck, has told NBC News he was “opposed to … the removal of Congresswoman Omar from committees.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel elected to fourth consecutive term | CNN Politics

    RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel elected to fourth consecutive term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Dana Point, California
    CNN
     — 

    Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel was elected to a fourth consecutive term Friday after winning the support of about two-thirds of the RNC members who gathered here for their winter meeting.

    McDaniel fended off a stronger-than-expected challenge from Harmeet Dhillon, an RNC committeewoman from California and an attorney who has represented former President Donald Trump.

    The vote was conducted by secret ballot and McDaniel needed a majority of the members casting ballots to win. After just one round of voting, the parliamentarian announced that McDaniel had received 111 of the 167 votes cast. Dhillon received 51 votes and four ballots were cast for MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a 2020 election denier and ardent Trump backer.

    Dhillon had argued the party needed to “radically reshape” its leadership amid recriminations about Republicans’ lackluster showing in the midterm elections, which compounded disappointments over the results in the previous two cycles.

    After her win Friday, McDaniel invited Dhillon and Lindell onstage for a photo op, implicitly attempting to rebut criticism about the fractured nature of the party. “With us united and all of us going together, the Democrats are going to hear us in 2024,” McDaniel said.

    But moments later, Dhillon told reporters that GOP leaders would have to reckon with widespread distrust in the party among rank-and-file voters across the country – which she said was reflected in the support she garnered as she challenged McDaniel over the past two months.

    “The results were not what we or hundreds of thousands of supporters around the country were hoping for, and I think the party is going to have to deal with that fallout of being in a disconnect from the grassroots,” Dhillon told reporters outside the RNC’s general session at the Waldorf Astoria Monarch Beach resort.

    “The party is not united, but it’s our job to try and unite the party, and that’s going to mean changes at the RNC,” Dhillon added.

    Both McDaniel and Dhillon have ties to Trump. The former president backed McDaniel when she first ran for party chair in 2017. Dhillon’s law firm represented Trump in his dealings with the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. The RNC paid more than $1 million for the legal work.

    But Trump stayed neutral in the race for RNC chair, stating that McDaniel and Dhillon should “fight it out.” On Friday, he congratulated McDaniel on her “big WIN” in a post on his Truth Social platform.

    Trump’s likely rival in the 2024 contest for the White House, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, weighed in on the race in an interview that posted Thursday, telling Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, a conservative web show host, that it was time for “some new blood in the RNC.” But the GOP governor stopped short of offering a formal endorsement of Dhillon.

    The feud between McDaniel and Dhillon has underscored the fractious nature of the Republican Party at this moment. There are broad disagreements among RNC members about how to steer the party back into a position of strength before the 2024 presidential election, with Trump already an announced candidate. Dhillon, for example, has said the party must do more to encourage early voting to compete with Democrats after years in which Trump has undermined that method of casting ballots in his quest to sow doubt in election results.

    During a speech at the beginning of Friday’s meeting, McDaniel implicitly pushed back at criticisms of her leadership record as she argued that the party must be united headed into 2024. “We’re working overtime to learn the lessons of the midterms – what went right and what went wrong,” she said.

    McDaniel won public commitments from more than 100 RNC members to back her before Friday’s secret ballot election that unfolded among other votes on party business and resolutions. Dhillon’s allies had suggested that many members would switch to the California committeewoman when the secret voting began, but that dynamic did not pan out.

    The race for RNC chair had grown increasingly contentious over the past two months with Dhillon allies raising questions about the compensation and benefits that McDaniel earned as party chair, and McDaniel supporters pointing to the lucrative payments Dhillon’s law group has received for representing both Trump and the RNC. Both women assured members that they would look closely the RNC’s spending on consultants and outside vendors as the party charts the course forward into the next cycle.

    As the GOP wrestles with how much influence Trump should exert over the party’s leadership and machinery, Trump’s candidates for RNC co-chair and treasurer were defeated during the voting on leadership positions by RNC members Friday afternoon in Dana Point, California.

    Trump’s endorsed candidate for RNC co-chair, North Carolina Republican Chairman Michael Whatley, withdrew after trailing South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick, who won after several rounds of voting. Trump had recently endorsed Whatley after crediting him with “leading North Carolina to tremendous success in the recent election” and said he was “MAGA all the way.” Trump’s choice for RNC Treasurer, Joe Gruters – the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida who had backed McDaniel in her run for a fourth consecutive term – also lost on Friday. Vicki Drummond of Alabama was reelected to a term as treasurer.

    RNC members also approved a resolution opposing “all forms of antisemitism, antisemitic statements and any antisemitic elements that seek to infiltrate the Republican Party.” The resolution explicitly condemned White supremacist Nick Fuentes and rapper Kanye West – who have well-publicized antisemitic views and dined with Trump in November at his Mar-a-Lago estate – by name.

    The resolution approved by a voice vote Friday said that the Republican National Committee “formally condemns, denounces, censures and opposes Kanye West, also known as Ye, Nicholas ‘Nick’ Fuentes, Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush and all others promoting their antisemitism beliefs.” It added that the Republican National Committee “affirms antisemitism has no place in our political party, American politics, or any political discourse.”

    Trump acknowledged that the dinner occurred in a post on Truth Social after the controversy erupted, stating that West had unexpectedly showed up with three of his friends “whom I knew nothing about” and described the dinner as “quick and uneventful.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump hits the trail in New Hampshire and South Carolina as he looks to rejuvenate 2024 campaign | CNN Politics

    Trump hits the trail in New Hampshire and South Carolina as he looks to rejuvenate 2024 campaign | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump on Saturday will deliver the keynote address at the New Hampshire Republican Party’s annual meeting as he returns to the trail looking to ramp up his 2024 presidential campaign.

    Trump will address hundreds of Republican leaders and grassroots activists at the meeting in Salem before headlining a second campaign event in South Carolina – also an early voting state – later in the day.

    The pair of events offers Trump an opportunity to reinvigorate his campaign, which has been slow-moving since he announced his candidacy in November. The former president remains the only declared major 2024 candidate, but several Republicans have been either publicly weighing or fueling speculation about potential bids.

    In New Hampshire, Trump is expected to formally announce that outgoing state GOP Chairman Stephen Stepanek will be added to his campaign operation in the Granite State as a senior adviser, a source familiar with the hire told CNN.

    Stepanek co-chaired Trump’s first presidential campaign before becoming the top GOP official in New Hampshire, serving two terms. He joins Trump’s team as the three-time presidential contender looks to repeat his 2016 victory in the first-in-the-nation primary, a task potentially complicated by waning support among state officials who are looking for a fresh face to top their party’s ticket.

    Trump’s decision to tap Stepanek was first reported by Politico.

    Stepanek had previously expressed enthusiasm about the former president’s upcoming address, saying in a statement, “President Trump has long been a strong defender of New Hampshire’s First in the Nation Primary Status and we are excited that he will join us to deliver remarks to our Members.”

    Trump’s visit comes days before the Democratic National Committee is set to meet to vote on a new proposed 2024 presidential primary calendar put forward by President Joe Biden that would strip New Hampshire of it’s first-in-the-nation primary status – a move strongly opposed by New Hampshire Democrats. Republicans have already locked in their early state lineup of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada – the same lineup Democrats previously had.

    New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, seen as a potential contender for the 2024 GOP nomination, has been sharply critical of Trump. He argued in December that Trump is “not the influence he thinks he is” and said that the Republican Party was “moving on” from him.

    After the New Hampshire event, Trump will fly to South Carolina, a state that helped pave his way to becoming the GOP nominee in 2016 and where he is expected to unveil a leadership team and a handful of endorsements. Among the top South Carolina Republicans scheduled to attend the event at the Statehouse in Columbia in support of the former president are Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gov. Henry McMaster and US Rep. Russell Fry, who won a primary last year over a GOP incumbent who had voted to impeach Trump.

    Trump continues to be investigated by the Department of Justice, and special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing the criminal probes into the retention of classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and into parts of the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol. Both investigations implicate the conduct of Trump.

    Trump’s Saturday campaign events come in the wake of recent revelations that classified documents were also found at locations tied to both Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a separate special counsel to take over the investigation into the Obama-era classified documents found at Biden’s home and former private office.

    Earlier this week, Facebook parent company Meta announced it would restore Trump’s accounts on Facebook and Instagram in the coming weeks, just over two years after suspending him in the wake of the January 6 attack.

    This story and headline have been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden delivered a Thursday speech to hail economic progress during his administration and to attack congressional Republicans for their proposals on the economy and the social safety net.

    Some of Biden’s claims in the speech were false, misleading or lacking critical context, though others were correct. Here’s a breakdown of the 14 claims CNN fact-checked.

    Touting the bipartisan infrastructure law he signed in 2021, Biden said, “Last year, we funded 700,000 major construction projects – 700,000 all across America. From highways to airports to bridges to tunnels to broadband.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “700,000” figure is wildly inaccurate; it adds an extra two zeros to the correct figure Biden used in a speech last week and the White House has also used before: 7,000 projects. The White House acknowledged his misstatement later on Thursday by correcting the official transcript to say 7,000 rather than 700,000.

    Biden said, “Well, here’s the deal: I put a – we put a cap, and it’s now in effect – now in effect, as of January 1 – of $2,000 a year on prescription drug costs for seniors.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims that this cap is now in effect and that it came into effect on January 1 are false. The $2,000 annual cap contained in the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed last year – on Medicare Part D enrollees’ out-of-pocket spending on covered prescription drugs – takes effect in 2025. The maximum may be higher than $2,000 in subsequent years, since it is tied to Medicare Part D’s per capita costs.

    Asked for comment, a White House official noted that other Inflation Reduction Act health care provisions that will save Americans money did indeed come into effect on January 1, 2023.

    – CNN’s Tami Luhby contributed to this item.

    Criticizing former President Donald Trump over his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, Biden said, “Back then, only 3.5 million people had been – even had their first vaccination, because the other guy and the other team didn’t think it mattered a whole lot.”

    Facts First: Biden is free to criticize Trump’s vaccine rollout, but his “only 3.5 million” figure is misleading at best. As of the day Trump left office in January 2021, about 19 million people had received a first shot of a Covid-19 vaccine, according to figures published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The “3.5 million” figure Biden cited is, in reality, the number of people at the time who had received two shots to complete their primary vaccination series.

    Someone could perhaps try to argue that completing a primary series is what Biden meant by “had their first vaccination” – but he used a different term, “fully vaccinated,” to refer to the roughly 230 million people in that very same group today. His contrasting language made it sound like there are 230 million people with at least two shots today versus 3.5 million people with just one shot when he took office. That isn’t true.

    Biden said Republicans want to cut taxes for billionaires, “who pay virtually only 3% of their income now – 3%, they pay.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “3%” claim is incorrect. For the second time in less than a week, Biden inaccurately described a 2021 finding from economists in his administration that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income in federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018; after CNN inquired about Biden’s “3%” claim on Thursday, the White House published a corrected official transcript that uses “8%” instead. Also, it’s important to note that even that 8% number is contested, since it is an alternative calculation that includes unrealized capital gains that are not treated as taxable income under federal law.

    “Biden’s numbers are way too low,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute think tank, though Gleckman also said we don’t know precisely what tax rates billionaires do pay. Gleckman wrote in an email: “In 2019, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabe Zucman estimated the top 400 households paid an average effective tax rate of about 23 percent in 2018. They got a lot of attention at the time because that rate was lower than the average rate of 24 percent for the bottom half of the income distribution. But it still was way more than 2 or 3, or even 8 percent.”

    Biden has cited the 8% statistic in various other speeches, but unlike the administration economists who came up with it, he tends not to explain that it doesn’t describe tax rates in a conventional way. And regardless, he said “3%” in this speech and “2%” in a speech last week.

    Biden cited a 2021 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy think tank that found that 55 of the country’s largest corporations had made $40 billion in profit in their previous fiscal year but not paid any federal corporate income taxes. Before touting the 15% alternative corporate minimum tax he signed into law in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, Biden said, “The days are over when corporations are paying zero in federal taxes.”

    Facts First: Biden exaggerated. The new minimum tax will reduce the number of companies that don’t pay any federal taxes, but it’s not true that the days of companies paying zero are “over.” That’s because the minimum tax, on the “book income” companies report to investors, only applies to companies with at least $1 billion in average annual income. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, only 14 of the companies on its 2021 list of 55 non-payers reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion.

    In other words, there will clearly still be some large and profitable corporations paying no federal income tax even after the minimum tax takes effect this year. The exact number is not yet known.

    Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, told CNN in the fall that the new tax is “an important step forward from the status quo” and that it will raise substantial revenue, but he also said: “I wouldn’t want to assert that the minimum tax will end the phenomenon of zero-tax profitable corporations. A more accurate phrasing would be to say that the minimum tax will *help* ensure that *the most profitable* corporations pay at least some federal income tax.”

    There are lots of nuances to the tax; you can read more specifics here. Asked for comment on Thursday, a White House official told CNN: “The Inflation Reduction Act ensures the wealthiest corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, precisely the corporations the President focused on during the campaign and in office. The President’s full Made in America tax plan would ensure all corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, and the President has called on Congress to pass that plan.”

    Noting the big increase in the federal debt under Trump, Biden said that his administration has taken a “different path” and boasted: “As a result, the last two years – my administration – we cut the deficit by $1.7 trillion, the largest reduction in debt in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s boast leaves out important context. It is true that the federal deficit fell by a total of $1.7 trillion under Biden in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years, including a record $1.4 trillion drop in 2022 – but it is highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for this reduction. Biden did not mention that the primary reason the deficit fell so substantially was that it had skyrocketed to a record high under Trump in 2020 because of bipartisan emergency pandemic relief spending, then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned. Independent analysts say Biden’s own actions, including his laws and executive orders, have had the overall effect of adding to current and projected future deficits, not reducing those deficits.

    Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, wrote in September that Biden’s actions will add more than $4.8 trillion to deficits from 2021 through 2031, or $2.5 trillion if you don’t count the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill of 2021.

    National Economic Council director Brian Deese wrote on the White House website last week that the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill “facilitated a strong economic recovery and enabled the responsible wind-down of emergency spending programs,” thereby reducing the deficit; David Kelly, chief global strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds, told Egan in October that the Biden administration does deserve credit for the recovery that has pushed the deficit downward. And Deese correctly noted that Biden’s signature legislation, last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, is expected to bring down deficits by more than $200 billion over the next decade.

    Still, the deficit-reducing impact of that one bill is expected to be swamped by the deficit-increasing impact of various additional bills and policies Biden has approved.

    Biden said, “Wages are up, and they’re growing faster than inflation. Over the past six months, inflation has gone down every month and, God willing, will continue to do that.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim that wages are up and growing faster than inflation is true if you start the calculation seven months ago; “real” wages, which take inflation into account, started rising in mid-2022 as inflation slowed. (Biden is right that inflation has declined, on an annual basis, every month for the last six months.) However, real wages are lower today than they were both a full year ago and at the beginning of Biden’s presidency in January 2021. That’s because inflation was so high in 2021 and the beginning of 2022.

    There are various ways to measure real wages. Real average hourly earnings declined 1.7% between December 2021 and December 2022, while real average weekly earnings (which factors in the number of hours people worked) declined 3.1% over that period.

    Biden said he was disappointed that the first bill passed by the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives “added $114 billion to the deficit.”

    Facts First: Biden is correct about how the bill would affect the deficit if it became law. He accurately cited an estimate from the government’s nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    The bill would eliminate more than $71 billion of the $80 billion in additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that Biden signed into law in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Congressional Budget Office found that taking away this funding – some of which the Biden administration said will go toward increased audits of high-income individuals and large corporations – would result in a loss of nearly $186 billion in government revenue between 2023 and 2032, for a net increase to the deficit of about $114 billion.

    The Republican bill has no chance of becoming law under Biden, who has vowed to veto it in the highly unlikely event it got through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

    Biden said that “MAGA Republicans” in the House “want to impose a 30 percent national sales tax on everything from food, clothing, school supplies, housing, cars – a whole deal.” He said they want to do that because “they want to eliminate the income tax system.”

    Facts First: This is a fair description of the Republicans’ “FairTax” bill. The bill would eliminate federal income taxes, plus the payroll tax, capital gains tax and estate tax, and replace it with a national sales tax. The bill describes a rate of 23% on the “gross payments” on a product or service, but when the tax rate is described in the way consumers are used to sales taxes being described, it’s actually right around 30%, as a pro-FairTax website acknowledges.

    It is not clear how much support the bill currently has among the House Republican caucus. Notably, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told CNN’s Manu Raju this week that he opposes the bill – though, while seeking right-wing votes for his bid for speaker in early January, he promised its supporters that it would be considered in committee. Biden wryly said in his speech, “The Republican speaker says he’s not so sure he’s for it.”

    Biden claimed the unemployment rate “is the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”

    Facts First: This is true. The unemployment rate was just below 3.5% in December, the lowest figure since 1969.

    The headline monthly rate, which is rounded to a single decimal place, was reported as 3.5% in December and also reported as 3.5% in three months of President Donald Trump’s tenure, in late 2019 and in early 2020. But if you look at more precise figures, December was indeed the lowest since 1969 – 3.47% – just below the figures for February 2020, January 2020 and September 2019.

    Biden said that the unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic Americans are “near record lows” and that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is “the lowest ever recorded” and the “lowest ever in history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims are accurate, though it’s worth noting that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities has only been released by the government since 2008.

    The Black or African American unemployment rate was 5.7% in December, not far from the record low of 5.3% that was set in August 2019. (This data series goes back to 1972.) The rate was 9.2% in January 2021, the month Biden became president. The Hispanic or Latino unemployment rate was 4.1% in December, just above the record low of 4.0% that was set in September 2019. (This data series goes back to 1973.) The rate was 8.5% in January 2021.

    The unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 5.0% in December, the lowest since the beginning of the data series in 2008. The rate was 12.0% in January 2021.

    Biden said that fewer families are facing foreclosure than before the pandemic.

    Facts First: Biden is correct. According to a report published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about 28,500 people had new foreclosure notations on their credit reports in the third quarter of 2022, the most recent quarter for which data is available; that was down from about 71,420 people with new foreclosure notations in the fourth quarter of 2019 and 74,860 people in the first quarter of 2020.

    Foreclosures plummeted in the second quarter of 2020 because of government moratoriums put in place because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Foreclosures spiked in 2022, relative to 2020-2021 levels, after the expiry of these moratoriums, but they remained very low by historical standards.

    Biden said, “More American families have health insurance today than any time in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is accurate. An analysis provided to CNN by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies US health care, found that about 295 million US residents had health insurance in 2021, the highest on record – and Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation’s director for state health reform, told CNN this week that “I expect the number of people with insurance continued to increase in 2022.”

    Tolbert noted that the number of insured residents generally rises over time because of population growth, but she added that “it is not a given” that there will be an increase in the number of insured residents every year – the number declined slightly under Trump from 2018 to 2019, for example – and that “policy changes as well as economic factors also affect these numbers.”

    As CNN’s Tami Luhby has reported, sign-ups on the federal insurance exchange created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, have spiked nearly 50% under Biden. Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan pandemic relief law and then the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act temporarily boosted federal premium subsidies for exchange enrollees, and the Biden administration has also taken various other steps to get people to sign up on the exchanges. In addition, enrollment in Medicaid health insurance has increased significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, in part because of a bipartisan 2020 law that temporarily prevented people from being disenrolled from the program.

    The percentage of residents without health insurance fell to an all-time low of 8.0% in the first quarter of 2022, according to an analysis published last summer by the federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services. That meant there were 26.4 million people without health insurance, down from 48.3 million in 2010, the year Obamacare was signed into law.

    Biden said, “And over the last two years, more than 10 million people have applied to start a small business. That’s more than any two years in all of recorded American history.”

    Facts First: This is true. There were about 5.4 million business applications in 2021, the highest since 2005 (the first year for which the federal government released this data for a full year), and about 5.1 million business applications in 2022. Not every application turns into a real business, but the number of “high-propensity” business applications – those deemed to have a high likelihood of turning into a business with a payroll – also hit a record in 2021 and saw its second-highest total in 2022.

    Trump’s last full year in office, 2020, also set a then-record for total and high-propensity applications. There are various reasons for the pandemic-era boom in entrepreneurship, which began after millions of Americans lost their jobs in early 2020. Among them: some newly unemployed workers seized the moment to start their own enterprises; Americans had extra money from stimulus bills signed by Trump and Biden; interest rates were particularly low until a series of rate hikes that began in the spring of 2022.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court releases video of attack on Paul Pelosi | CNN Politics

    Court releases video of attack on Paul Pelosi | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The San Francisco Superior Court on Friday released video and audio recorded during last year’s attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, including police body-cam footage depicting the moment of the attack and the alleged assailant’s police interview where he admitted he wanted to hold the then-House speaker hostage.

    The video and audio files were released after a California court ruled the district attorney’s office must make the materials public.

    One of the videos shows body-cam footage from officers who arrived at Pelosi’s home on October 28, 2022, when he was attacked. The footage shows the chaos of the moment in which alleged assailant David DePape attacked.

    In the video, which includes graphic and violent content, Paul Pelosi and DePape both appear to have a hand on the hammer and DePape is holding Pelosi’s arm when the officers opened the door.

    “Drop the hammer,” the officer says.

    “Uh, nope,” DePape responds.

    DePape then grabbed the hammer out of Pelosi’s hand, lunged toward him while striking him in the head. The officers rushed into the home, subduing DePape and handcuffing him.

    Court releases video of attack on Paul Pelosi

    In addition to the body-cam footage, the files include audio from a police interview with DePape, the 911 call Paul Pelosi made while DePape was in the home and surveillance video showing DePape breaking into the home.

    The files were exhibits in a preliminary court hearing. The court’s decision mandating the public release of the materials came following a motion by a coalition of news organizations, including CNN, arguing that the circumstances involving the residence of the then-speaker of the House demanded transparency.

    Lawyers for DePape argued against the public release of the audio and footage, writing it would “irreparably damage” his right to a fair trial. DePape has pleaded not guilty to a litany of state and federal crimes related to the attack, including assault and attempted murder.

    Speaking briefly to reporters Friday afternoon, Nancy Pelosi said she had “absolutely no intention of seeing the deadly assault on my husband’s life.” She said that Paul Pelosi is “making progress, but it will take more time” and that she would not be making additional public comments about the case.

    In the audio recording of a San Francisco police officer’s interview of DePape following his October arrest, DePape admitted to attacking Paul Pelosi and described his plans to hold Nancy Pelosi hostage when he broke into the couple’s San Francisco home.

    “Yeah, I mean, I’m not trying to, like, get away with this, so, you know, I know exactly what I did,” DePape said toward the beginning of the 17-minute audio clip.

    “Well, I was going to basically hold her hostage, and I was going to talk to her,” DePape said of Nancy Pelosi. “If she told the truth, I’d let her go scot-free. If she f**king lied, I was going to break her kneecaps.”

    In the interview, DePape embraced conspiracy theories about Democrats and Pelosi, complaining about a Democratic “crime spree” and baselessly claiming that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had spied on former President Donald Trump’s campaign.

    “They are the criminals,” DePape said.

    The officer walked DePape through his break-in of the Pelosi house and his encounter with Paul Pelosi. When he was asked why he didn’t leave after Paul Pelosi called the police, DePape compared himself to the Founding Fathers’ fighting the British.

    “When I left my house, I left to go fight tyranny. I did not leave to go surrender,” he said.

    DePape explained why he attacked Paul Pelosi after the police arrived, when they both were holding onto a hammer. “He thinks that I’ll just surrender, and it’s like, I didn’t come there to surrender,” DePape said. “And I told him that I would go through him. And so I basically yank it away from him and hit him.”

    In the 911 call audio, Pelosi seemed to be subtly attempting to tell the dispatcher he was in danger while DePape was listening in. CNN has previously reported Pelosi made the call when he went into his bathroom, where his cell phone was charging.

    “There’s a gentleman here just waiting for my wife to come back, Nancy Pelosi. He’s just waiting for her to come back, but she’s not going to be here for days, so I guess we’ll have to wait,” Pelosi said to the dispatcher.

    “He thinks everything’s good. I’ve got a problem, but he thinks everything’s good,” Pelosi said at another point in the 2-minute, 56-second recording.

    The dispatcher asked Pelosi if he knew who the man was, and Pelosi said he did not. “He’s telling me to put the phone down and just do what he says,” Pelosi said.

    “Who is David?” the dispatcher asked.

    “I don’t know,” Pelosi said.

    DePape then spoke up on the call. “I’m a friend of theirs,” he said.

    “He says he’s a friend. But as I said …” Pelosi said.

    “But you don’t know who he is?” the dispatcher responded.

    “No ma’am,” Pelosi said.

    In the surveillance footage, DePape is seen breaking into the Pelosi home. The scene was captured by a US Capitol Police security camera installed at Pelosi’s San Francisco residence.

    The attack on Paul Pelosi was a factor in Nancy Pelosi’s decision to step back from House Democratic leadership, she has said previously.

    nancy pelosi anderson cooper intvu solo 1107

    Exclusive: Pelosi recounts moment she learned that her husband was attacked

    Court documents revealed DePape allegedly woke Paul Pelosi shortly after 2 a.m., carrying a large hammer and several white zip ties, and demanded: “Where’s Nancy? Where’s Nancy?” He then threatened to tie up Paul Pelosi and prevented him from escaping via elevator, according to the documents. DePape later allegedly told him, “I can take you out.”

    Following the attack, Paul Pelosi underwent surgery “to repair a skull fracture and serious injuries to his right arm and hands,” a spokesman for Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. On Thursday, Nancy Pelosi said her husband’s recovery was “one day at a time.” She said she didn’t know if she would see the video when it was released.

    This story has been updated with additional reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP-led committees plan to issue subpoenas in Biden probes without consulting Democrats | CNN Politics

    GOP-led committees plan to issue subpoenas in Biden probes without consulting Democrats | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The GOP-led House Judiciary Committee and select subcommittee on the so-called weaponization of the federal government plan to adopt a rule that will allow Republican members to issue subpoenas without consulting Democrats days ahead of time, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

    The plan, articulated to GOP members of the select subcommittee by its top Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio during their first meeting Friday, will expedite the subpoena process as both panels move forward with probes of the Biden administration, two of the sources said.

    It reflects the “urgency” of Republican plans to investigate the Biden administration on several fronts, the sources added.

    A third source told CNN that the move will effectively allow Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee and select subcommittee to unilaterally issue subpoenas.

    In doing so, Republicans are taking a page from Democrats and former Oversight Committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who previously waived rules that required members of the opposite party be consulted before subpoenas were issued.

    At the time, Republicans slammed the decision by Democrats as a violation of the bipartisan agreement that governs the subpoena process for certain House committees.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy officially denies Schiff and Swalwell seats on House Intelligence Committee | CNN Politics

    McCarthy officially denies Schiff and Swalwell seats on House Intelligence Committee | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday officially denied seats on the House Intelligence Committee to Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, the former chairman of the panel.

    The decision reflects the increasingly politicized nature of one of Congress’ most important national security committees and was swiftly met with outrage by the two California Democrats, both of whom played key roles in the impeachments of former President Donald Trump.

    “I cannot put partisan loyalty ahead of national security, and I cannot simply recognize years of service as the sole criteria for membership on this essential committee. Integrity matters more,” McCarthy wrote in a letter to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries that he posted on Twitter Tuesday night.

    McCarthy has cited a “new standard” from Democrats for why he would strip Schiff and Swalwell, both of California, of their committee assignments. The Democrat-led House in 2021 removed GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona from their committees for inflammatory rhetoric, including support for violence against Democratic members of Congress.

    In the letter, McCarthy added that “it is my assessment that the misuse of this panel during the 116th and 117th Congresses severely undermined its primary national security and oversight missions – ultimately leaving our nation less safe,” and that he wants the panel to be one of “genuine honesty and credibility that regains the trust of the American people.”

    “It’s political vengeance,” Swalwell said following the decision on Tuesday. “It’s too bad because that committee has always been a bipartisan committee, and he’s taking one of the most precious pieces of glassware in the congressional cabinet and smashing it, and the damage is going to be irreparable.”

    He added that “if a Democrat advocated for violence against another member of Congress, I would support getting rid of them.”

    Schiff told reporters that “if McCarthy thinks this is going to stop me from vigorously pushing back against his efforts to tear down these institutions, he’s going to find out just how wrong he is.”

    “I think this is a terrible move on his part and once again, showing McCarthy just catering to the most extreme elements of this conference,” he added.

    Schiff will sit on the Judiciary Committee, according to a Democratic aide, while Swalwell told CNN he will sit on the Judiciary and Homeland Security panels.

    Some House Republicans have criticized McCarthy’s move ejecting Democrats from the intelligence panel. GOP Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana said in a statement that she opposes the push to remove the Democrats.

    “I appreciate these Republican members speaking out against what McCarthy is doing,” Schiff later told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on “AC360.”

    “I think it does show that there are Republicans who understand this is very ill considered. It’s just going to damage the institution, it’s not justified,” he added. “These efforts are not at all bipartisan. Indeed, the opposition to it is bipartisan.”

    The three Democrats whom McCarthy ousted or plan to oust stood in unity at a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday.

    “The three of us have chosen to stick together because this isn’t about any individual committee assignments, and this is about an institution where the speaker of the House is using his power to go after his political opponents, and to pick them off the field,” Swalwell said.

    They all seemed in agreement that the “destructive move” was especially hypocritical, given embattled Rep. George Santos has been seated on committees. Democrats and Republicans have called on Santos, a freshman Republican from New York, to resign following a series of false statements he has made including misrepresenting parts of his identity and his resume.

    “This is a Republican speaker who is seating a human fraud, George Santos, on committees, a serial fabricator about every part of his existence. He’s perfectly comfortable with it,” Schiff said.

    McCarthy on Tuesday also announced the list of GOP members he is appointing to serve on the select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government, with Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan to serve as its chair.

    GOP Reps. Dan Bishop of North Carolina and Chip Roy of Texas, who were part of the initial holdouts against McCarthy in the speakership race, also gained spots on the panel. Democrats will have the opportunity to appoint members as well.

    The speaker also announced appointments to the select subcommittee on the Coronavirus pandemic, with Greene among the members chosen.

    McCarthy expanded both of the select committees, naming more people to the rosters than initially expected due to “overwhelming interest” from members, according to a GOP source familiar. House Republicans will have to put forward a floor resolution to formally amend the ratios, the source added, but doesn’t anticipate it will be an issue.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CNN Poll: Broad majority of Americans approve of appointment of special counsel to investigate Biden documents | CNN Politics

    CNN Poll: Broad majority of Americans approve of appointment of special counsel to investigate Biden documents | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    More than 8 in 10 Americans approve of the appointment of a special counsel to investigate classified documents found at President Joe Biden’s Delaware residence and an office he used after serving as vice president, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

    The poll finds broad approval across party lines for the appointment, with 88% of Republicans, 84% of independents and 80% of Democrats saying they approve of it.

    About two-thirds of Americans consider the discovery of classified documents in a Washington, DC, office used by Biden as well as at his residence in Wilmington to be a serious problem (67% consider it very or somewhat serious), and nearly 6 in 10 (57%) say they disapprove of the way the Biden White House has handled the situation.

    There are broad partisan gaps on both of those questions. Democrats (74%) largely approve of how Biden’s administration has handled the discovery of classified documents, while most Republicans (85%) and independents (62%) disapprove. And Republicans are more likely to call the unearthing of the documents a serious problem – 89% say so, including 56% who consider it a “very serious” problem, compared with just 46% of Democrats who say it is serious, including just 10% who call it very serious.

    Only about 1 in 6 Americans (18%) consider Biden to be blameless in the situation involving these classified documents, with 81% saying he has at least done something unethical. But fewer say he acted illegally (37%) than say that he acted unethically but not illegally (44%). That isn’t the case in perceptions of former President Donald Trump’s actions around classified material found at his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago. The poll finds a majority of Americans believe Trump did something illegal in that situation.

    Most Democrats say Biden’s actions were unethical but not illegal (55%), while most Republicans say he’s acted illegally (64%). Independents tilt toward saying it was unethical rather than illegal (47% unethical, 39% illegal, 14% nothing wrong).

    But the poll also suggests that news about the discovery of the documents has had little impact thus far on baseline views of the president. Biden’s approval rating in the new survey stands at 45% approve to 55% disapprove, little changed from CNN’s December poll, in which 46% approved of his handling of the presidency.

    And overall views of Biden personally also haven’t shifted much. The new poll pegs his favorability rating at 40% favorable to 54% unfavorable, about the same as the 42% favorable to 52% unfavorable read in December.

    The survey was conducted largely before it was revealed Saturday evening that the FBI searched Biden’s Wilmington home on Friday and found additional classified materials. It was fully completed before CNN first reported Tuesday that lawyers for former Vice President Mike Pence had discovered classified documents at his home in Indiana.

    About half of Americans overall (51%) are following news about the classified documents found at Biden’s office and residence at least somewhat closely, with Republicans far more likely to say they are tuned in to news about this story than are Democrats or independents. Among Democrats (46%) and independents (45%), less than half say they are following closely. Among Republicans, though, 62% are following closely, including 20% who say they are following very closely.

    Among both Republicans and independents who say they are following at least somewhat closely, impressions that Biden has done something illegal are more widespread than among those paying less attention, while there is little difference among Democrats in views on Biden’s behavior relative to how closely they are following the story. About three-quarters of Republicans following at least somewhat closely say Biden has done something illegal (75%) compared with about half of those who say they are not as closely following the story (47%). Likewise, more independents who are closely attuned to the news about the Biden documents say they feel the president has done something illegal (50%) than do those independents who are less closely following it (31%). Among Democrats, 10% of those following at least somewhat closely say Biden has acted illegally, not significantly different from the 6% of Democrats following less closely who feel the same way.

    More Americans overall say that Trump acted illegally in the situation involving classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago than say the same of Biden. All told, 52% say Trump has done something illegal, 32% that he acted unethically but not illegally and 15% that he did nothing wrong. The FBI obtained a search warrant to search his Florida resort in August because federal investigators believed Trump had not turned over all classified material despite a subpoena and were concerned records at Mar-a-Lago were being moved around.

    The 84% overall who believe Trump engaged in at least unethical behavior suggests a broader consensus about his actions than existed in the immediate aftermath of the FBI search of his property last year, when an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that only about 6 in 10 Americans believed Trump had acted unethically or illegally. That poll did not specify that any of the documents found were classified.

    A broad 82% overall in CNN’s latest poll approve of the decision to appoint a special counsel to investigate the documents found at Trump’s resort. There is a wider partisan divide over approval of the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the former president than there is over the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Biden – 95% of Democrats approve of the special counsel investigating Trump, compared with 68% of Republicans, with independents squarely in between partisans at 82% approval.

    The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from January 19 through 22 among a random national sample of 1,004 adults drawn from a probability-based panel. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results among the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.0 points; it is larger for subgroups.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Democratic whip’s daughter arrested at protest and charged with assaulting police officer | CNN Politics

    House Democratic whip’s daughter arrested at protest and charged with assaulting police officer | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark’s daughter was arrested during a protest in Boston and has been arraigned on charges including assault on a police officer.

    Riley Dowell, 23, was found by police tagging the Parkman Bandstand monument “NO COP CITY” and “ACAB,” according to a press release from the Boston Police Department. “ACAB” is commonly known as an acronym for the anti-police slogan “All Cops Are Bastards.”

    While police tried to arrest Dowell, protesters surrounded officers and one was hit in the face and bleeding, according to the press release. The release referred to Dowell by her birth name.

    Dowell has now been arraigned and charged with assault of a police officer, according to a news release from Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden’s office.

    “Riley Dowell, 23, was arraigned in the Central Division of Boston Municipal Court today on charges of assault and battery on a police officer, vandalizing property, tagging property, vandalizing a historic marker/monument, and resisting arrest,” the release obtained by CNN affiliate WCVB said. “Judge James Coffey set bail at $500 and ordered Dowell to stay away from Boston Common.”

    Dowell is represented by attorney Chris Dearborn, according to the release. Dearborn had no comment when reached by CNN. Dowell’s next court appearance is scheduled for April 19, the release said.

    Dowell posted bail and is no longer in police custody, the Boston Municipal Court told CNN in an email Tuesday.

    Clark commented on the news in a tweet Sunday.

    “Last night, my daughter was arrested in Boston, Massachusetts. I love Riley, and this is a very difficult time in the cycle of joy and pain in parenting,” Clark wrote. “This will be evaluated by the legal system, and I am confident in that process.”

    Clark began serving as minority whip in the 118th session of Congress after House Democrats elevated her to the position.

    Clark is only the second woman after former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve in one of the top two party leadership positions in Congress.

    Previously, the congresswoman served in the leadership role of assistant speaker.

    This story is breaking and has been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP Rep. Victoria Spartz opposes McCarthy’s push to oust Democrats from committees | CNN Politics

    GOP Rep. Victoria Spartz opposes McCarthy’s push to oust Democrats from committees | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana announced on Tuesday that she opposes House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s push to remove three Democrats – Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar – from committees.

    The new House GOP majority is gearing up for a showdown with Democrats over the issue, but pushback from within the House GOP has the potential to complicate an effort to oust Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, in particular. Spartz is the second Republican to suggest she’d vote against such a move. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina signaled to CNN earlier this month she’d be unlikely to back a measure to oust Omar if it came to the floor.

    McCarthy has cited a “new standard” from Democrats for why he would strip them of their committee assignments after the Democrat-led House in 2021 removed GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona from their committees for inflammatory rhetoric and posts.

    In her statement, Spartz referenced the previous move by House Democrats, saying that “two wrongs do not make a right.”

    “Speaker Pelosi took unprecedented actions last Congress to remove Reps. Greene and Gosar from their committees without proper due process. Speaker McCarthy is taking unprecedented actions this Congress to deny some committee assignments to the Minority without proper due process again,” Spartz continued.

    “As I spoke against it on the House floor two years ago, I will not support this charade again,” the congresswoman said.

    Democratic leaders have officially renominated Schiff and Swalwell to the House Intelligence Committee. And Omar has officially requested to have a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

    McCarthy has the power to unilaterally block Schiff and Swalwell from serving on the House Intelligence Committee because it is a select committee. In a letter to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Tuesday night, McCarthy officially denied the California Democrats seats on the panel.

    Ousting Omar, however, from the House Foreign Affairs Committee would require a vote of the full House of Representatives. Democrats would oppose and it would only take a handful of GOP members to block McCarthy from moving forward given that Republicans control only a razor-thin majority in the House.

    Omar told reporters that Pelosi had been “very clear” on why Greene and Gosar had been removed.

    “It was because they threatened the lives of their colleagues,” she told reporters. “They posed danger to folks that they would serve on committees with, to the actual institution they were sworn to protect. Unless McCarthy can say how myself, Adam Schiff, and Eric Swalwell are a danger to the institution and our colleagues, then he’s not following the example that was set by Speaker Pelosi.”

    Spartz voted “present” during several rounds of votes as McCarthy was trying to lock up the support to win the speakership at the start of the new Congress. Ultimately, however, the congresswoman voted for McCarthy in the final round in which he secured the gavel.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Treasury takes more extraordinary measures to avoid debt default | CNN Politics

    Treasury takes more extraordinary measures to avoid debt default | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is taking another step to temporarily delay the US defaulting on its debt.

    Less than a week after announcing that the nation hit its $31.4 trillion debt ceiling set by Congress, Yellen wrote to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday to say that she is adding to the extraordinary measures that will allow the government to keep paying its bills on time and stall the catastrophic economic and fiscal consequences of a default.

    She will stop fully investing the Government Securities Investment Fund of the Thrift Savings Fund, part of the Federal Employees’ Retirement System, in interest-bearing securities of the US.

    This is in addition to the measures announced last week, when Yellen said Treasury will begin to sell existing investments and suspend reinvestments of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.

    These funds are invested in special-issue Treasury securities, which count against the debt limit. Treasury’s actions would reduce the amount of outstanding debt subject to the limit and temporarily allow it to continue paying the government’s bills on time and in full.

    Yellen’s actions are mainly behind-the-scenes accounting maneuvers. No federal retirees or employees will be affected, and the funds will be made whole once the impasse ends, she wrote.

    The extraordinary measures should last at least until early June, Yellen has said, though she stressed that her forecast is subject to “considerable uncertainty.”

    Despite Yellen’s warnings to Congress to act promptly, little, if any, progress toward a resolution has been made between House Republicans and the White House.

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated Monday that the Biden administration is not open to negotiating on the debt limit, pushing back against comments from West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin that the position was “a mistake.”

    “It was done three times in the past, in the past administration under Donald Trump, so this is nothing unusual,” she told CNN during a White House briefing. “This is something that should be done without conditions, and we should not be taking hostage key programs that the American people really earned and care about – Social Security, Medicare should not be put into a hostage situation.”

    McCarthy also blasted the administration’s position, tweeting last week that he’s ready to meet to discuss “a responsible debt ceiling increase to address irresponsible government spending.” He noted that he accepts President Joe Biden’s invitation to sit down, though no such meeting has been set.

    As part of the drawn-out negotiations to win the speaker vote earlier this month, McCarthy promised his conservative members that any effort to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by spending cuts.

    The Senate, meanwhile, is taking a back seat in the standoff for now. Senate Republicans say they will wait to see how the House GOP maneuvers a way to raise the borrowing limit before deciding if they need to insert themselves into the process.

    Despite the current situation, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN Monday that “we won’t default,” without elaborating.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday laid out the severe consequences of a default, saying “every single American will pay the price.” He called on House Republicans to reveal the fiscal measures they want to take.

    “Well, I say to my Republican colleagues: If you want to talk about spending cuts, then you have an obligation – an obligation – to show the American people precisely what kind of cuts you are talking about,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: McCarthy’s false, misleading and evidence-free claims since becoming House speaker | CNN Politics

    Fact check: McCarthy’s false, misleading and evidence-free claims since becoming House speaker | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Since winning a difficult battle to become speaker of the House of Representatives, Republican Kevin McCarthy has made public claims that are misleading, lacking any evidence or plain wrong.

    Here is a fact check of recent McCarthy comments about the debt ceiling, funding for the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s resort and residence in Florida, President Joe Biden’s stance on stoves and Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff.

    McCarthy’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

    McCarthy has cited the example of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, his Democratic predecessor as House speaker, while defending conservative Republicans’ insistence that any agreement to lift the federal debt ceiling must be paired with cuts to government spending – a trade-off McCarthy agreed to when he was trying to persuade conservatives to support his bid for speaker. Specifically, McCarthy has claimed that even Pelosi agreed to a spending cap as part of a deal to lift the debt ceiling under Trump.

    “When Nancy Pelosi was speaker, that’s what transpired. To get a debt ceiling, they also got a cap on spending for the next two years,” McCarthy told reporters at a press conference on January 12. When Fox host Maria Bartiromo told McCarthy in a January 15 interview that “they” would not agree to a spending cap, he responded, “Well Maria, I don’t believe that’s the case, because when Donald Trump was president and when Nancy Pelosi was speaker, that’s exactly what happened for them to get a debt ceiling lifted last time. They agreed to a spending cap.”

    Facts First: McCarthy’s claims are highly misleading. The deal Pelosi agreed to with the Trump administration in 2019 actually loosened spending caps that were already in place at the time because of a 2011 law. In other words, while congressional conservatives today want to use a debt ceiling deal to reduce government spending, the Pelosi deal allowed for billions in additional government spending above the pre-existing maximum. The two situations are nothing alike.

    Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank, said when asked about the accuracy of McCarthy’s claims: “I’m going to steer clear of characterizing the Speaker’s remarks, but as an objective matter, the deal reached in 2019 increased the spending caps set by the Budget Control Act of 2011.”

    The 2019 deal, which was criticized by many congressional conservatives, also ensured that Budget Control Act’s caps on discretionary spending – which were created as a result of a 2011 debt ceiling deal between a Democratic president and a Republican speaker of the House – would not be extended past 2021. Spending caps vanishing is the opposite of McCarthy’s suggestion that the deal “got” a spending cap.

    Pelosi spokesperson Aaron Bennett said in an email that McCarthy is “trying to rewrite history.” Bennett said, “As Republicans in Congress and in the Administration noted at the time, in 2019, Speaker Pelosi and Democrats were eager to reach bipartisan agreement to raise the debt limit and, as part of the agreement, avert damaging funding cuts for defense and domestic programs.”

    In various statements since becoming speaker, McCarthy has boasted of how the first bill passed by the new Republican majority in the House “repealed 87,000 IRS agents” or “repealed funding for 87,000 new IRS agents.”

    Facts First: McCarthy’s claims are false. House Republicans did pass a bill that seeks to eliminate about $71 billion of the approximately $80 billion in additional Internal Revenue Service funding that Biden signed into law in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act – but that funding is not going to hire 87,000 “agents.” In addition, Biden has already made clear he would veto this new Republican bill even if the bill somehow made it through the Democratic-controlled Senate, so no funding has actually been “repealed.” It would be accurate for McCarthy to say House Republicans “voted to repeal” the funding, but the boast that they actually “repealed” something is inaccurate.

    CNN’s Katie Lobosco explains in detail here why the claim about “87,000 new IRS agents” is an exaggeration. The claim, which has become a common Republican talking point, has been fact-checked by numerous media outlets over more than five months, including The Washington Post in response to McCarthy remarks earlier this January.

    Here’s a summary. While Inflation Reduction Act funding may well allow for the hiring of tens of thousands of IRS employees, far from all of these employees will be IRS agents conducting audits and investigations. Many other employees will be hired for the non-agent roles, from customer service to information technology, that make up the vast majority of the IRS workforce. And a significant number of the hires are expected to fill the vacant posts left by retirements and other attrition, not take newly created positions.

    The IRS has not yet released a detailed breakdown of how it plans to use the funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, so it’s impossible to say precisely how many new “agents” will be hired. But it is already clear that the total won’t approach 87,000.

    In his interview with Fox’s Bartiromo on January 15, McCarthy criticized federal law enforcement for executing a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence in Florida, which the FBI says resulted in the recovery of more than 100 government documents marked as classified and hundreds of other government documents. Echoing a claim Trump has made, McCarthy said of the documents: “They knew it was there. They could have come and taken it any time they wanted.”

    Facts First: It is clearly not true that the authorities could somehow have come to Mar-a-Lago at any time, without conducting a formal search, and taken all of the presidential records they were seeking from Trump. By the time of the search, the federal government – first the National Archives and Records Administration and then the Justice Department – had been asking Trump for more than a year to return government records. Even when the Justice Department went beyond asking in May and served Trump’s team with a subpoena for the return of all documents with classification markings, Trump’s team returned only some of these documents. In June, a Trump lawyer signed a document certifying on behalf of Trump’s office that all of the documents had been returned, though that was not true.

    When FBI agents and a Justice Department attorney visited Mar-a-Lago without a search warrant on that June day to accept documents the Trump team was returning in response to the subpoena, a Trump lawyer “explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room,” the department said in a court filing after the August search. In other words, according to the department, the government was not even allowed to poke around to see if there were government records still at Mar-a-Lago, let alone take those records.

    In the August court filing, the department pointedly called into question the extent to which the Trump team had cooperated: “That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the ‘diligent search’ that the former President’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter.”

    McCarthy wrote in a New York Post article published on January 12: “While President Joe Biden wants to control the kind of stove Americans can cook on, House Republicans are certainly cooking with gas.” He repeated the claim on Twitter the next morning.

    Facts First: There is no evidence for this claim; Biden has not expressed a desire to control the kind of stove Americans can cook on. McCarthy was baselessly attributing the comments of a single Biden appointee to Biden himself.

    It is true that a Biden appointee on the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, Richard Trumka Jr., told Bloomberg earlier this month that gas stoves pose a “hidden hazard,” as they emit air pollutants, and said, “Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.” But the day before McCarthy’s article was published by the New York Post, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a press briefing: “The president does not support banning gas stoves. And the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is independent, is not banning gas stoves.”

    To date, even the commission itself has not shown support for a ban on gas stoves or for any particular new regulations on gas stoves. Commission Chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric said in a statement the day before McCarthy’s article was published: “I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.” Rather, he said, the commission is researching gas emissions in stoves, “exploring new ways to address health risks,” and strengthening voluntary safety standards – and will this spring ask the public “to provide us with information about gas stove emissions and potential solutions for reducing any associated risks.”

    Trumka told CNN’s Matt Egan that while every option remains on the table, any ban would apply only to new gas stoves, not the gas stoves already in people’s homes. And he noted that the Inflation Reduction Act makes people eligible for a rebate of up to $840 to voluntarily switch to an electric stove.

    Defending his plan to bar Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff from sitting on the House Intelligence Committee, a committee Schiff chaired during the Democratic majority from early 2019 to the beginning of this year, McCarthy criticized Schiff on January 12 over his handling of the first impeachment of Trump. Among other things, McCarthy said: “Adam Schiff openly lied to the American public. He told you he had proof. He told you he didn’t know the whistleblower.”

    Facts First: There is no evidence for McCarthy’s insinuation that Schiff lied when he said he didn’t know the anonymous whistleblower who came forward in 2019 with allegations – which were subsequently corroborated about how Trump had attempted to use the power of his office to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, his looming rival in the 2020 election.

    Schiff said last week in a statement to CNN: “Kevin McCarthy continues to falsely assert I know the Ukraine whistleblower. Let me be clear – I have never met the whistleblower and the only thing I know about their identity is what I have read in press. McCarthy’s real objection is we proved the whistleblower’s claim to be true and impeached Donald Trump for withholding millions from Ukraine to extort its help with his campaign.” Schiff also made this comment to The Washington Post, which fact-checked the McCarthy claim last week, and has consistently said the same since late 2019.

    The New York Times reported in 2019 that, according to an unnamed official, a House Intelligence Committee aide who had been contacted by the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed a formal complaint did not inform Schiff of the person’s identity when conveying to Schiff “some” information about what the person had said. And Reuters reported in 2019 that a person familiar with the whistleblower’s contacts said the whistleblower hadn’t met or spoken with Schiff.

    McCarthy could have fairly repeated Republican criticism of a claim Schiff made in a 2019 television appearance about the committee’s communication with the whistleblower; Schiff said at the time “we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower” even though it soon emerged that the whistleblower had contacted the committee aide before filing the complaint. (A committee spokesperson said at the time that Schiff had been merely trying to say that the committee hadn’t heard actual testimony from the whistleblower, but that Schiff acknowledged his words “should have been more carefully phrased to make that distinction clear.”)

    Regardless, McCarthy didn’t argue here that Schiff had been misleading about the committee’s dealings with the whistleblower; he strongly suggested that Schiff lied in saying he didn’t know the whistleblower. That’s baseless. There has never been any indication that Schiff had a relationship with the whistleblower when he said he didn’t, nor that Schiff knew the whistleblower’s identity when he said he didn’t.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP Rep. Greg Steube ‘sidelined’ for several weeks after accident at Florida home | CNN Politics

    GOP Rep. Greg Steube ‘sidelined’ for several weeks after accident at Florida home | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Rep. Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, announced Monday that he will be “sidelined” in his home state for several weeks as he recovers from multiple injuries suffered in an accident at his Sarasota property last week.

    Steube wrote on Twitter that he is recovering from “a fractured pelvis, a punctured lung, and several torn ligaments in my neck.”

    “While I will be sidelined in Sarasota for several weeks, I will be carrying out as many of my congressional duties as possible, and our DC and district staff continue to be readily available to assist Floridians in FL-17,” he said in a tweet.

    With the elimination of proxy voting and a slim Republican majority in the House, Steube’s absence could impact legislation brought to the floor.

    Last Wednesday, Steube “was knocked approximately 25 feet down off a ladder while cutting tree limbs,” and spent the night in the intensive care unit, according to a statement from his office posted to his official Twitter account.

    He was discharged from the hospital over the weekend, according to a tweet from the congressman.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tweeted last week that he had spoken to Steube and “informed him he will serve on the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and he is eager to get back to work!”

    Steube was first elected to the US House in 2018. He comfortably won a third term in November representing Florida’s safely Republican 17th Congressional District.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House GOP keeps up attacks on IRS with bill to abolish the agency | CNN Politics

    House GOP keeps up attacks on IRS with bill to abolish the agency | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Republican-controlled House has made the Internal Revenue Service a political target after Democrats bolstered the agency with new funding last year.

    Within the first week of the new Congress, a dozen GOP lawmakers introduced a bill that would abolish the IRS altogether and replace the entire federal tax code with a national sales tax.

    Separately, the House voted to rescind nearly $80 billion in funding for the agency that Democrats approved last year – with many top Republicans repeating the misleading claim that the money will be used to hire 87,000 auditors.

    “Instead of adding 87,000 new agents to weaponize the IRS against small business owners and middle America, this bill will eliminate the need for the department entirely by simplifying the tax code with provisions that work for the American people and encourage growth and innovation,” said Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter, a Republican from Georgia who introduced the Fair Tax Act earlier this month.

    It’s highly unlikely that either bill will become law, given that Democrats still control the Senate. But the measures highlight how America’s two major political parties have very different strategies when it comes to addressing the embattled tax collection agency – which has seen its budget shrink by more than 15% over the past decade and has struggled to not only process returns on time but also answer taxpayers’ questions. Just 13% of phone calls were answered last year.

    Democrats have taken a different approach, making funding the IRS a priority. The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed along party lines last year, approved $80 billion for the IRS over 10 years. By using the money to crack down on tax cheats, it’s estimated that the agency could boost federal revenue by more than $124 billion over that time period.

    The Republicans’ Fair Tax Act is not a new idea. A version was first introduced in Congress in 1999. It’s never had enough support to become law, but it puts forth an appealing message to those Americans who love to hate the federal tax agency.

    It would get rid of the complicated federal tax system, doing away with the annual task of filing tax returns. Instead, the bill would replace federal taxes on individual and corporate income with a national 23% sales tax in 2025, allowing for adjustments to the rate in later years. Americans would pay Uncle Sam whenever they bought a new good or service for personal consumption.

    The bill calls for abolishing the IRS and directing states to collect the new federal tax.

    While every consumer would pay the same tax at the cash register, the bill provides for a monthly tax rebate payment, based on the poverty rate and family size. It’s meant to help offset the tax levy on low-income Americans who tend to spend a higher share of their paycheck on goods and services.

    A national sales tax appears very simple: one rate all Americans pay on new goods and services they buy.

    But some policy experts say the Fair Tax Act is more complicated than it looks.

    “Moving away from taxing income and toward taxing consumption is a step in the right direction for a pro-growth and simpler tax code,” said Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit.

    But there could still be complications. First, the tax rate would likely have to be higher than 23% in order for the federal government to pull in the same amount of tax revenue that it does now. One estimate found that a tax rate of about 30% would more likely be able to generate the same amount of revenue – or 44%, if measured the way state sales taxes are typically presented.

    Second, a nationwide sales tax could leave low- and middle-income people worse off. The current tax system is progressive, meaning it takes a larger percentage of income from high-earners than low-income groups. Even with the monthly tax rebate, a national sales tax would still be less progressive.

    A 2011 independent analysis of a similar national sales tax found that, on average, most income groups would pay more tax than they did under the federal tax system at the time – except the top 5% of earners who would see a tax cut.

    Additionally, it’s hard to imagine that lawmakers would pass a bill that does not exclude some things from the sales tax, like health care costs, for example.

    “The basic income tax is simple too,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

    It’s the deductions, credits and exclusions – like for retirement savings and charitable giving – that make it complicated.

    Plus, Americans would likely have to file some paperwork to some tax collection entity in order to receive the rebate, Gleckman said. The administration cost may be less than it is now, but it wouldn’t be zero.

    Tax filing season opens Monday and National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins expects IRS services for taxpayers to improve this year – in part due to the funding increase provided by Congress.

    Since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed in August, the IRS has hired 5,000 new customer service agents. The agency has also worked to improve its technology so that taxpayers can ask questions via an automated service online, said Treasury Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo on a call with reporters last week.

    The IRS started the year with about 400,000 unprocessed paper individual returns and about 1 million unprocessed business returns. But it’s in much better shape than the prior year, when it had a backlog of 4.7 million unprocessed individual returns and 3.2 million unprocessed business returns, according to the taxpayer advocate’s annual report to Congress.

    Taxpayer service, like answering the phones and processing returns in a timely manner, has suffered as the IRS’ budget has shrunk.

    The Covid-19 pandemic brought even more challenges for the IRS. It was tasked with administering several rounds of stimulus payments to millions of Americans with a lot of its staff working from home. This caused long delays for many taxpayers who filed a paper return. The IRS is starting to implement a scanning system so that returns filed by paper can quickly be made digital. Previously, paper returns had to be entered manually into the agency’s computer system.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arizona Democrat Ruben Gallego announces Senate bid in challenge to Kyrsten Sinema | CNN Politics

    Arizona Democrat Ruben Gallego announces Senate bid in challenge to Kyrsten Sinema | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona on Monday announced his campaign for US Senate, setting up a potential 2024 clash with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who recently switched her party affiliation from Democrat to independent.

    Gallego, a Phoenix-area congressman and retired Marine who served in Iraq, released a video of him telling a group of fellow veterans about his decision to run.

    “You’re the first group of people that are hearing this besides my family. I will be challenging Kyrsten Sinema for the United States Senate, and I need all of your support,” Gallego, 43, told the group at a veterans organization in Guadalupe, Arizona.

    Sinema has faced fierce criticism from Democrats for opposing elements of President Joe Biden’s agenda. Early last year, while the Arizona senator was still a Democrat, Gallego said some Democratic senators were urging him to run for her seat. Sinema said in December she was switching parties, though she continues to caucus with Senate Democrats and has not said publicly whether she will run for reelection.

    “Most families feel that they are one or two paychecks away from going under. That is not the way that we should be living in this country,” Gallego said in his announcement video. “The rich and the powerful, they don’t need more advocates. It’s the people that are still trying to decide between groceries and utilities that need a fighter for them.”

    Gallego, who is of Colombian and Mexican descent, would be Arizona’s first Latino senator, if elected. He spoke in both English and Spanish in his announcement video and described the hardship and financial instability his family faced when he was growing up

    Gallego said his mother, an immigrant, would “cry, like, every night, being stressed out about how she was gonna raise, like, four kids on a secretary’s salary, you know, with an absent father.”

    “Fue una experiencia muy dura,” Gallego added in Spanish, which translates to: “It was a very hard experience.”

    Gallego was first elected to the House in 2014. He is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and also chaired the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ campaign arm, BOLD PAC, during the 2022 cycle.

    The Arizona Democrat in his announcement video described suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following his deployment to Iraq in 2005.

    “Losing all my friends, consistently being shot at and people trying to blow you up all the time – you never really fully come back from war. You’re not the same person,” Gallego said. “Fighting through PTSD, there were some very low moments in my life. But I still didn’t give up. I pushed forward. I found a new way to keep serving.”

    Philip Letsou, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, responded to Gallego’s announcement in a statement: “The Democrat civil war is on in Arizona. Chuck Schumer has a choice: stand with open borders radical Ruben Gallego or back his incumbent, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.”

    Several Republicans are considering running for Sinema’s seat. Defeated Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake is considering a Senate bid, according to a source close to Lake.

    Lake lost the Arizona governor’s race in November to Democrat Katie Hobbs by less than 1 point and has not conceded, falsely claiming as recently as Sunday that she won the election. An Arizona judge in December rejected Lake’s lawsuit attempting to overturn her defeat, concluding there wasn’t clear or convincing evidence of misconduct. Lake, a serial promoter of election lies who denies the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, has appealed the court’s decision. The source told CNN that Lake will not make a final decision on a Senate run until after her court case is completed.

    Republican Blake Masters, who lost a challenge in November to incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly by almost 5 points, is also “strongly considering” running for Senate in 2024, according to a spokesperson. Masters has also denied the outcome of the 2020 election but, unlike Lake, conceded his race to Kelly.

    Karrin Taylor Robson, who lost to Lake in last year’s Republican primary despite being endorsed by the state’s GOP governor at the time, Doug Ducey, also indicated she could be open to a Senate bid.

    “Instead of providing a check on the radical Biden agenda, our Senators continue to enable his disastrous policies, which have been terrible for Arizona,” the former member of the Arizona Board of Regents told CNN in a statement. “While I’m still deciding how I can best serve the state that I love, I agree with the many Arizonans who have reached out, and who, like me, are hopeful that our party will nominate a strong, authentic conservative who will not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • No. 2 Senate Democrat agrees Biden has lost ‘high ground’ in criticism over classified documents | CNN Politics

    No. 2 Senate Democrat agrees Biden has lost ‘high ground’ in criticism over classified documents | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin agreed Sunday that Joe Biden has lost the “high ground” in the political back-and-forth over classified document storage following the discovery of additional material at the president’s home in Wilmington, Delaware. But he rejected any comparisons between Biden’s situation and that of former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents.

    “Of course. Let’s be honest about it,” the Illinois Democrat told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked if the president had “lost the high ground on this notion of classified information being where it shouldn’t be.”

    “When that information is found, it diminishes the stature of any person who is in possession of it because it’s not supposed to happen,” Durbin said. “Whether it was the fault of a staffer or an attorney, it makes no difference. The elected official bears ultimate responsibility.”

    But Durbin said that Biden’s situation was “significantly different” from the discovery of classified information at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

    “Donald Trump defied those who knew the documents were in place and ultimately led to, involuntarily, a court order and a search of his Mar-a-Lago hotel resort to find out how many documents were there,” the senator said.

    “Contrast that with Joe Biden. Embarrassed by the situation, as he should have been, he invited the government agencies in to carefully look through all the boxes he had accumulated. It’s a much different approach,” Durbin added. “It is outrageous that either occurred. But the reaction by the former president and the current president could not be in sharper contrast.”

    FBI investigators on Friday found additional classified material while conducting a search of Biden’s Wilmington home.

    Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, said in a statement that during the search, which took place over nearly 13 hours Friday, “DOJ took possession of materials it deemed within the scope of its inquiry, including six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials, some of which were from the President’s service in the Senate and some of which were from his tenure as Vice President. DOJ also took for further review personally handwritten notes from the vice-presidential years.”

    Those six items are in addition to materials previously found at Biden’s Wilmington residence and in his private office.

    The federal search of Biden’s home, while voluntary, marks an escalation of the probe into the president’s handling of classified documents and will inevitably draw comparisons to his predecessor – even if the FBI’s search of Trump’s residence was conducted under different circumstances.

    Durbin on Sunday also warned against “playing games” with the national debt and said that Biden should not negotiate with Republicans.

    The US hit the debt ceiling set by Congress on Thursday, forcing the Treasury Department to start taking “extraordinary measures” to keep the government paying its bills and escalating pressure on Capitol Hill to avoid a catastrophic default.

    The battle lines for the high-stakes fight have already been set. Hard-line Republicans, who have enormous sway in the House because of the party’s slim majority, have demanded that lifting the borrowing cap be tied to spending reductions.

    The White House, however, countered that it will not offer any concessions or negotiate on raising the debt ceiling. And with the solution to the debt ceiling drama squarely in lawmakers’ hands, fears are growing that the partisan brinksmanship could result in the nation defaulting on its debt for the first time ever – or coming dangerously close to doing so.

    “If we play games with this, if we delay this, if we have short-term extensions of the national debt, we run the very risk of the recession in this economy,” Durbin said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Foreign Affairs chairman says some members don’t understand what’s at stake in Ukraine | CNN Politics

    House Foreign Affairs chairman says some members don’t understand what’s at stake in Ukraine | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee sought Sunday to tamp down speculation that the new GOP majority will be less likely to fund aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia, though he did suggest some members of his party may need to be convinced about the need to continue US support.

    “I think there’s enough support on both sides of the aisle. Majority in the Democratic Party, majority in the Republican,” Texas Rep. Michael McCaul told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” referring to aid to Ukraine. But he added, “We have to educate our members. I don’t think they quite understand what’s at stake.”

    “If Ukraine falls, Chairman Xi in China’s going to invade Taiwan. It’s Russia, China. Iran is putting drones in Crimea, and North Korea that is putting artillery into Russia. They have to understand the case. And they talk about the border, not mutually exclusive at all. We can do both. We’re a great country. We can walk and chew gum at the same time,” McCaul said.

    Before capturing the House speakership, Rep. Kevin McCarthy said in October that Republicans might pull back funding for Ukraine if they took the House majority. But after making those comments, the GOP leader worked behind the scenes to reassure national security leaders in his conference that he wasn’t planning to abandon Ukraine aid and was just calling for greater oversight of any federal dollars.

    But McCarthy is working with an incredibly thin majority, and senior congressional Republicans who support robustly funding Ukraine are watching warily as more isolationist-minded colleagues have become increasingly vocal in recent weeks that they will heavily scrutinize – if not outright oppose – US money for Ukraine.

    Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reached a critical moment. Time is winnowing for the US and its allies to send more powerful weapons and to train Ukrainian soldiers how to use them before the second, possibly decisive, year of the war, which could see Russia launch a ferocious new offensive.

    In recent days, the Biden administration has been engaged in standoff with Germany over whether to send tanks to Ukraine.

    German officials have indicated they won’t send their Leopard tanks to Ukraine, or allow any other country with the German-made tanks in their inventory to do so, unless the US also agrees to send its M1 Abrams tanks to Kyiv – something the Pentagon has said for months it has no intention of doing given the logistical costs of maintaining them.

    McCaul on Sunday suggested the United States should send the M1 Abrams tank to Ukraine, calling it a “game changer.”

    Germany, he said, “won’t put one tank in until we give them reassurances we’re going to put our Abrams in. If we did that publicly, that would unleash so many Leopard tanks, because there are 10 other nations that are looking for Germany to sign off on the tanks that they have given them.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link