ReportWire

Tag: voters and voting

  • ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ or ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’——Anthony Scaramucci breaks down Trump vs. Biden in 2024

    ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ or ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’——Anthony Scaramucci breaks down Trump vs. Biden in 2024

    Ex-White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci and former presidential candidate Andrew Yang were guests at the Fortune Future of Finance conference on Thursday. The subject of the 2024 election came up. When asked about the impact that a return of former President Donald Trump would have on the business landscape if he were reelected, Scaramucci was blunt: “terrible.”

    “He would be terrible for the economy and terrible for business,” said the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital. The economy has been predictable, and favorable for businesses, because of constitutional separation of powers, Scaramucci explained. Trump wants to obliterate those separations and embrace people and functions that would allow him to have total control. So-called “unitary executive power” would give the president totalitarian powers over the executive branch of government with exclusive rights to shape and enforce laws. It would make Trump “uber powerful,” said Scaramucci, and throughout history, he said, that has been catastrophic for the economy wherever it has happened.

    “It’s a disaster for the economy, a disaster for the world, and a disaster for your business,” he said, adding that Trump would be “an orange wrecking ball for this society.”

    Similarly, former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang said Trump would “be a catastrophe” for businesses if he were elected president a second time.

    “He’s learned from his mistakes last time, which was hiring responsible adults” who tamped down Trump’s policy instincts, said Yang, co-chair of the Forward Party, a centrist political party he founded in 2021. Yet, Yang warned that if the election were held today, Trump would certainly win. The only question in his mind is whether something changes in the next six months in swing states, where Yang said Biden is underperforming relative to Trump, despite spending Biden’s considerable war chest.

    Scaramucci noted that there are currently 40 Republicans who are publicly against Trump’s reelection bid, including former Vice President Mike Pence. If dozens of people who worked at a company came together and said a product or company was awful and could kill you, he said, people would listen. Yet in this case it’s a mystery that Trump has garnered such steadfast support, he said.

    Scaramucci only worked at the White House for 11 days, from July 21 to July 31 in 2017, but related one tale about his time in the Oval Office. Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan and Trump were arguing and Trump was pointing his finger at Ryan saying, “You work for me. You work for me,” Scaramucci recalled. Ryan told Trump, “I don’t work for you.” Trump then looked to Scaramucci to confirm as if asking, “Is that right? He doesn’t work for me?” Scaramucci remembered. “And Trump doesn’t like that,” Scaramucci added, making a point about Trump’s interest in autocratic control.

    Scaramucci joked about how his short tenure at the White House has evolved into its own indicator of time. For instance, the shortest-serving prime minister in British history, Liz Truss, lasted 45 days from Sept. 6, 2022 to Oct. 20, 2022. Or, she lasted the equivalent of “4.1 Scaramuccis,” he said. “People are very sensitive,” Scaramucci said; Truss “got very upset.” 

    Joking aside, Scaramucci warned that there will be two films playing at your local cinema on Election Day. Those films are: Weekend at Bernie’s or One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, he said.

    “You can either have an elderly guy that is somewhat forgetful, or a lunatic who needs a lobotomy.”

    Amanda Gerut

    Source link

  • Andrew Young Fast Facts | CNN

    Andrew Young Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here is a look at the life of civil rights activist and former ambassador Andrew Young.

    Birth date: March 12, 1932

    Birth place: New Orleans, Louisiana

    Birth name: Andrew Jackson Young Jr.

    Father: Andrew Jackson Young, a dentist

    Mother: Daisy (Fuller) Young, a teacher

    Marriages: Carolyn (McClain) Young (April 15, 1996-present); Jean (Childs) Young (June 7, 1954-September 16, 1994, her death)

    Children: with Jean (Childs) Young: Andrea, Lisa, Paula, Andrew III

    Education: Attended Dillard University, 1947-1948; Howard University, B.S., Biology, 1951; Hartford Theological Seminary, B.D., 1955

    Began working with the National Council of Churches on voter registration and voter education projects. Young also started working with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at this time.

    Helped draft both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    Made a speech in the House of Representatives supporting President Richard Nixon’s choice of Gerald Ford as vice president. Is the only African American who voted for Ford’s confirmation.

    Quote regarding his role as UN ambassador, “There is a sense in which the United States Ambassador speaks to the United States, as well as for the United States. I have always seen my role as a thermostat, rather than a thermometer. So I’m going to be actively working…for my own concerns. I have always had people advise me on what to say, but never on what not to say.”

    1955 – Is ordained a minister in the United Church of Christ.

    mid-1950s – Pastor to several churches in Alabama and Georgia.

    1960 – Wins the Peabody Broadcasting and Film Commission Institutional Award for Radio -Television Education given to the National Council of Churches of Christ for the programs “Look Up and Live,” “Frontiers of Faith,” “Pilgrimage” and “Talk-back.”

    1961 – Moves to Atlanta and joins the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).

    May 3, 1963 – Organizes the anti-segregation march in Birmingham, Alabama, where demonstrators are hosed and set upon by dogs by order of Police Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor.

    1964 – Becomes the executive director of SCLC.

    July-August 1966 – Race riots in predominantly white neighborhoods on Chicago’s Southwest Side have Dr. King, Young, SCLC and the Coordinating Council of Community Organizations (CCCO) demonstrating to end housing discrimination.

    April 1968 – Becomes the executive vice president of SCLC after the death of Dr. King.

    August 1969 – Changes SCLC’s focus from integration and anti-segregation activities to voter registration and political activities.

    1970 – Resigns from the SCLC to run for a seat in the US House of Representatives from Georgia’s 5th congressional district. He loses by more than 20,000 votes.

    1972 – Second run for Georgia’s 5th congressional district seat. Redistricting changes the population distribution somewhat and Young wins by 7,694 votes.

    1974 – Wins reelection by 72% of the vote.

    1976 – Wins reelection by 80% of the vote.

    December 16, 1976 – President-elect Jimmy Carter nominates Young as ambassador to the United Nations.

    January 30, 1977 – Is sworn-in as the first African American and 14th US ambassador to the United Nations by Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

    August 15, 1979 – Resigns his UN ambassadorship over controversy stemming from an unauthorized July meeting with PLO representatives.

    1979 – Establishes the consulting firm Young Ideas.

    1981 – President Carter presents Young with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    October 27, 1981 – Wins Atlanta mayoral race with 65,798 votes (55.1%) beating Georgia Congressman Sidney Marcus with 53,549 votes (44.8%).

    January 5, 1982-January 2, 1990 – Mayor of Atlanta.

    October 8, 1985 – Wins reelection with 81% of the vote. In contrast to the 1981 election where 61% of the registered voters turned out, only 32% turn out for this election.

    1990 – Becomes chairman of the Atlanta Organizing Committee to bring the 1996 Summer Olympics to Atlanta.

    February 5, 1990 – Announces plans to run for Georgia governor.

    August 7, 1990 – Loses the runoff for Georgia Democratic gubernatorial nomination to Lt. Governor Zell Miller.

    September 18, 1990 – The IOC announces Atlanta as host of the 1996 Summer Olympics.

    1996 – Co-founds GoodWorks International, a consulting firm advising on responsible business development in Africa and the Caribbean.

    1998 – Serves on the US Commission on National Security in the 21st Century established by President Bill Clinton.

    2000-2001 – President of the National Council of Churches.

    2007 – Writes and produces documentary “Rwanda Rising.”

    2008 – “Andrew Young Presents,” the documentary series which Young writes and produces premieres.

    February 25, 2011 Receives a special lifetime achievement Emmy Award, the Trustee Award.

    March 9, 2013 – The Democratic Party of Georgia presents Young with the John Lewis Lifetime Achievement Award.

    August 28, 2013 – The sons of Martin Luther King Jr., Dexter King and Martin Luther King III, sue to remove Young from the board of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change. At issue is Young’s use of images of their father in a documentary produced by Young.

    May 11, 2015 – Young is taken to the hospital in Atlanta as a precaution after a cement truck overturns on his car. He is released the same day.

    May 6, 2018 – Young is taken to the hospital after becoming ill in Nashville, with what he later says was a staph infection. After a few days, he is transferred to Atlanta where he spends several days at Emory University Hospital before being released.

    October 8, 2020 – Greenwood Bank announces it has raised more than $3 million in seed funding. Young cofounded the bank with Michael “Killer Mike” Render, rapper and activist, and Ryan Glover, founder of Bounce TV network. It is inspired by the former Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma, a Black business community destroyed during the 1921 Tulsa race massacre. The business, which is owned, managed and operated by Black and Latino people, is expected to launch mid-2021.

    October 19, 2023 – Is promoted to the rank of Officer of the Legion of Honor, France’s highest honor, for “his outstanding contributions to human rights and equality.” Young received the rank of Knight in 1984.

    Source link

  • 1965 Selma to Montgomery March Fast Facts | CNN

    1965 Selma to Montgomery March Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march in Alabama.

    Throughout March of 1965, a group of demonstrators faced violence as they attempted to march from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery, Alabama, to demand the right to vote for black people.

    One of the pivotal days was March 7, when 17 people were hospitalized and dozens more injured by police, including future Congressman John Lewis who suffered a fractured skull. Since that time, March 7 has been known as “Bloody Sunday.”

    The march has been reenacted many times on its anniversary. In 2015, President Barack Obama marked the 50th anniversary of the march by delivering a speech at the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.

    It is about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from Selma to Montgomery.

    February 1965 – Marches and demonstrations over voter registration prompt Alabama Governor George C. Wallace to ban nighttime demonstrations in Selma and Marion, Alabama.

    February 18, 1965 – During a march in Marion, state troopers attack the demonstrators. State trooper James Bonard Fowler shoots and kills Jimmie Lee Jackson. Fowler was charged with murder in 2007 and pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 2010.

    March 7, 1965 – About 600 people begin a march from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery, Alabama, led by Lewis and Hosea Williams. Marchers demand an end to discrimination in voter registration. At the Edmund Pettus Bridge, state and local lawmen attack the marchers with billy clubs and tear gas, driving them back to Selma.

    Read More: Selma priest remembers Bloody Sunday.

    March 9, 1965 – Martin Luther King Jr. leads another march to the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The march is largely symbolic; as arranged previously, the crowd turns back at a barricade of state troopers. Demonstrations are held in cities across the United States to show solidarity with the Selma marchers.

    March 9, 1965 – President Lyndon Johnson speaks out against the violence in Selma and urges both sides to respect the law.

    March 9, 1965 – Unitarian Universalist minister James Reeb, in Selma to join marchers, is attacked by a group of white men and beaten. He dies of his injuries two days later.

    March 10, 1965 – The US Justice Department files suit in Montgomery, Alabama, asking for an order to prevent the state from punishing any person involved in a demonstration for civil rights.

    March 17, 1965 – Federal District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. rules in favor of the marchers. “The law is clear that the right to petition one’s government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups.”

    March 18, 1965 – Governor Wallace goes before the state legislature to condemn Johnson’s ruling. He states that Alabama cannot provide the security measures needed, blames the federal government, and says he will call on the federal government for help.

    March 19, 1965 – Wallace sends a telegram to President Johnson asking for help, saying that the state does not have enough troops and cannot bear the financial burden of calling up the Alabama National Guard.

    March 20, 1965 – President Johnson issues an executive order federalizing the Alabama National Guard and authorizes whatever federal forces the Defense Secretary deems necessary.

    March 21, 1965 – About 3,200 people march out of Selma for Montgomery under the protection of federal troops. They walk about 12 miles a day and sleep in fields at night.

    March 25, 1965 – The marchers reach the state capitol in Montgomery. The number of marchers grows to about 25,000.

    August 6, 1965 – President Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    June 4, 2015 – After a state resolution to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge is not acted upon, Lewis and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Alabama), publish an article in the Selma Times-Journal in favor of keeping the name. “Keeping the name of the bridge is not an endorsement of the man who bares its name but rather an acknowledgment that the name of the bridge today is synonymous with the Voting Rights Movement which changed the face of this nation and the world.”

    February 24, 2016 – The marchers receive a Congressional Gold Medal, Congress’ highest civilian honor.

    June 3, 2021 – The National Trust for Historic Preservation includes the campsites used by the marchers in its annual list of the most endangered historic places in the United States.

    Beaten, bloodied and murdered – Selma 50 years later

    Source link

  • Puerto Rico Fast Facts | CNN

    Puerto Rico Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a self-governing US territory located in the Caribbean.

    (from the CIA World Factbook)

    Area: 9,104 sq km

    Population: 3,057,311 (2023 est.)

    Capital: San Juan

    The people of Puerto Rico are US citizens. They vote in US presidential primaries, but not in presidential elections.

    First named San Juan Bautista by Christopher Columbus.

    The governor is elected by popular vote with no term limits.

    Jenniffer González has been the resident commissioner since January 3, 2017. The commissioner serves in the US House of Representatives, but has no vote, except in committees. Gonzalez is the first woman to hold this position.

    It is made up of 78 municipalities.

    Over 40% of the population lives in poverty, according to the Census Bureau.

    Puerto Ricans have voted in six referendums on the issue of statehood, in 1967, 1993, 1998, 2012, 2017 and 2020. The 2012 referendum was the first time the popular vote swung in statehood’s favor. Since these votes were nonbinding, no action had to be taken, and none was. Ultimately, however, Congress must pass a law admitting them to the union.

    In addition to becoming a state, options for Puerto Rico’s future status include remaining a commonwealth, entering “free association” or becoming an independent nation. “Free association” is an official affiliation with the United States where Puerto Rico would still receive military assistance and funding.

    1493-1898 – Puerto Rico is a Spanish colony.

    July 25, 1898 – During the Spanish-American War, the United States invades Puerto Rico.

    December 10, 1898 – With the signing of the Treaty of Paris, Spain cedes Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States. The island is named “Porto Rico” in the treaty.

    April 12, 1900 – President William McKinley signs the Foraker Act into law. It designates the island an “unorganized territory,” and allows for one delegate from Puerto Rico to the US House of Representatives with no voting power.

    March 2, 1917 – President Woodrow Wilson signs the Jones Act into law, granting the people of Puerto Rico US citizenship.

    May 1932 – Legislation changes the name of the island back to Puerto Rico.

    November 1948 – The first popularly elected governor, Luis Muñoz Marín, is voted into office.

    July 3, 1950 – President Harry S. Truman signs Public Law 600, giving Puerto Ricans the right to draft their own constitution.

    October 1950 – In protest of Public Law 600, Puerto Rican nationalists lead armed uprisings in several Puerto Rican towns.

    November 1, 1950 – Puerto Rican nationalists Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola attempt to shoot their way into Blair House, where President Truman is living while the White House is being renovated. Torresola is killed by police; Collazo is arrested and sent to prison.

    June 4, 1951 – In a plebiscite vote, more than three-quarters of Puerto Rican voters approve Public Law 600.

    February 1952 – Delegates elected to a constitutional convention approve a draft of the constitution.

    March 3, 1952 – Puerto Ricans vote in favor of the constitution.

    July 25, 1952 – Puerto Rico becomes a self-governing commonwealth as the constitution is put in place. This is also the anniversary of the United States invasion of Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War.

    March 1, 1954 – Five members of the House of Representatives are shot on the House floor; Alvin Bentley, (R-MI), Ben Jensen (R-IA), Clifford Davis (D-TN), George Fallon (D-MD) and Kenneth Roberts (D-AL). Four Puerto Rican nationalists, Lolita Lebron, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Andres Figueroa Cordero and Irving Flores Rodriguez, are arrested and sent to prison. President Jimmy Carter grants Cordero clemency in 1977 and commutes all four of their sentences in 1979.

    July 23, 1967 – Commonwealth status is upheld via a status plebiscite.

    1970 – The resident commissioner gains the right to vote in committee via an amendment to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.

    September 18, 1989 – Hurricane Hugo hits the island as a Category 4 hurricane causing more than $1 billion in property damages.

    November 14, 1993 – Commonwealth status is upheld via a plebiscite.

    September 21, 1998 – Hurricane Georges hits the island causing an estimated $1.75 billion in damage.

    August 6, 2009 – Sonia Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is confirmed by the US Senate (68-31). She becomes the third woman and the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

    November 6, 2012 – Puerto Ricans vote for statehood via a status plebiscite. The results are deemed inconclusive.

    August 3, 2015 – Puerto Rico defaults on its monthly debt for the first time in its history, paying only $628,000 toward a $58 million debt.

    December 31, 2015 – The first case of the Zika virus is reported on the island.

    January 4, 2016 – Puerto Rico defaults on its debt for the second time.

    May 2, 2016 – Puerto Rico defaults on a $422 million debt payment.

    June 30, 2016 – President Barack Obama signs the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), a bill that establishes a seven-member board to oversee the commonwealth’s finances. The following day Puerto Rico defaults on its debt payment.

    January 4, 2017 – The Puerto Rico Admission Act is introduced to Congress by Rep. Gonzalez.

    May 3, 2017 – Puerto Rico files for bankruptcy. It is the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history.

    June 5, 2017 – Puerto Rico declares its Zika epidemic is over. The Puerto Rico Department of Health has reported more than 40,000 confirmed cases of the Zika virus since the outbreak began in 2016.

    June 11, 2017 – Puerto Ricans vote for statehood via a status plebiscite. Over 97% of the votes are in favor of statehood, but only 23% of eligible voters participate.

    September 20, 2017 – Hurricane Maria makes landfall near Yabucoa in Puerto Rico as a Category 4 hurricane. It is the strongest storm to hit the island in 85 years. The energy grid is heavily damaged, with an island-wide power outage.

    September 22, 2017 – The National Weather Service recommends the evacuation of about 70,000 people living near the Guajataca River in northwest Puerto Rico because a dam is in danger of failing.

    October 3, 2017 – President Donald Trump visits. The trip comes after mounting frustration with the federal response to the storm. Many residents remain without power and continue to struggle to get access to food and fuel nearly two weeks after the storm hit.

    December 18, 2017 – Gov. Ricardo Rosselló orders a review of deaths related to Hurricane Maria as the number could be much higher than the officially reported number. The announcement from the island’s governor follows investigations from CNN and other news outlets that called into question the official death toll of 64.

    January 22, 2018 – Rosselló announces that the commonwealth will begin privatizing the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority.

    January 30, 2018 – More than four months after Maria battered Puerto Rico, the Federal Emergency Management Agency tells CNN it is halting new shipments of food and water to the island. Distribution of its stockpiled 46 million liters of water and four million meals and snacks will continue. The agency believes that amount is sufficient until normalcy returns.

    February 11, 2018 – An explosion and fire at a power substation causes a blackout in parts of northern Puerto Rico, according to authorities.

    May 29, 2018 – According to an academic report published in the New England Journal of Medicine, an estimated 4,645 people died in Hurricane Maria and its aftermath in Puerto Rico. The article’s authors call Puerto Rico’s official death toll of 64 a “substantial underestimate.”

    August 8, 2018 – Puerto Rican officials say the death toll from Maria may be far higher than their official estimate of 64. In a report to Congress, the commonwealth’s government says documents show that 1,427 more deaths occurred in the four months after Hurricane Maria than “normal,” compared with deaths that occurred the previous four years. The 1,427 figure also appears in a report published July 9.

    August 28, 2018 – The Puerto Rican government raises its official death toll from Maria to 2,975 after a report on storm fatalities is published by researchers at George Washington University. San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, a critic of the Trump administration, says local and federal government failed to provide needed aid. She says the botched recovery effort led to preventable deaths.

    August 29, 2018 – Trump says the federal government’s response to the disaster was “fantastic.” He says problems with the island’s aging infrastructure created challenges for rescue workers.

    September 4, 2018 – The US Government Accountability Office releases a report revealing that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was so overwhelmed with other storms by the time Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico that more than half of the workers it was deploying to disasters were known to be unqualified for the jobs they were doing in the field.

    September 13, 2018 – In a tweet, Trump denies that nearly 3,000 people died in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. He expresses skepticism about the death toll, suggesting that individuals who died of other causes were included in the hurricane count.

    July 9, 2019 – Excerpts of profanity-laden, homophobic and misogynistic messages between Rosselló and members of his inner circle are published by local media.

    July 10, 2019 – Six people, including Puerto Rico’s former education secretary and a former health insurance official, are indicted on corruption charges. The conspiracy allegedly involved directing millions of dollars in government contracts to politically-connected contractors.

    July 11, 2019 A series of protests begin in response to the leaked messages and the indictment, with calls for Rosselló to resign.

    July 13, 2019 The Center for Investigative Journalism publishes hundreds of leaked messages from Rosselló and other officials. Rosselló and members of his inner circle ridicule numerous politicians, members of the media and celebrities.

    July 24, 2019 – Rosselló announces he will resign on August 2.

    August 7, 2019 – Puerto Rico’s Justice Secretary Wanda Vázquez Garced is sworn in as the third governor Puerto Rico has had in less than a week. Earlier in the day, the August 2nd swearing-in of Rosselló’s handpicked successor, attorney Pedro Pierluisi, is thrown out by the Supreme Court, on grounds he has not been confirmed by both chambers of the legislature.

    September 27, 2019 – The federal control board that oversees Puerto Rico’s finances releases a plan that would cut the island’s debt by more than 60% and rescue it from bankruptcy. The plan targets bonds and other debt held by the government and will now go before a federal judge. The percentage of Puerto Rico’s taxpayer funds spent on debt payments will fall to less than 9%, compared to almost 30% before the restructuring.

    December 28, 2019 – A sequence of earthquakes of magnitude 2.0 or higher begin hitting Puerto Rico, including a 6.4 magnitude quake on January 7 that killed at least one man, destroyed homes and left most of the island without power.

    February 4, 2020 – A magnitude 5 earthquake strikes Puerto Rico. It is the 11th earthquake of at least that size in the past 30 days, according to the US Geological Survey.

    November 3, 2020 – Puerto Ricans vote in favor of statehood, and Pierluisi is elected governor.

    January 2, 2021 – Pierluisi is sworn in.

    April 21, 2022 – The Supreme Court rules that Congress can exclude residents of Puerto Rico from some federal disability benefits available to those who live in the 50 states.

    August 4, 2022 – Vázquez is arrested in San Juan on bribery charges connected to the financing of her 2020 campaign.

    September 18, 2022 – Hurricane Fiona makes landfall along the southwestern coast of Puerto Rico, near Punta Tocon, with winds of 85 mph, according to the National Hurricane Center. The hurricane causes catastrophic flooding, amid a complete power outage. Two people are killed.

    Source link

  • Arizona fake electors led vocal campaign to overturn the 2020 election — they’re now part of a ‘robust’ state investigation | CNN Politics

    Arizona fake electors led vocal campaign to overturn the 2020 election — they’re now part of a ‘robust’ state investigation | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    They called it “The Signing.” Eleven fake electors for President Donald Trump convened at the state Republican Party headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, on December 14, 2020. They broadcast themselves preparing to sign the documents, allegedly provided by a Trump campaign attorney, claiming that they were the legitimate representatives of the state’s electoral votes.

    By that time, Trump’s loss in the state – by less than 11,000 votes – had already been certified by the state’s Republican governor affirming that Joe Biden won Arizona in the 2020 presidential election.

    But in the weeks that followed, five of Arizona’s 11 “Republican electors,” as they called themselves, pushed an unusually vocal campaign, compared to other fake electors from states across the country, for Vice President Mike Pence to reject the legitimate Democratic slate of electors.

    Instead, they called on Pence to accept them or no electors at all, according to a CNN KFile review of their interviews, actions and comments on social media.

    Much attention has been drawn to the fake elector schemes in Georgia and Michigan where local and state authorities charged some participants for election crimes this past summer. But in no other state were there fake electors more active in publicly promoting the scheme than in Arizona.

    Now those fake electors find themselves under new legal scrutiny as the Arizona attorney general announced a broad investigation into their actions and their public campaign that could open the electors up to increased legal liability, according to experts who spoke with CNN.

    “They were more brazen,” Anthony Michael Kreis, an expert on constitutional law at Georgia State University told CNN. “There is no difficulty trying to piece together their unlawful, corrupt intent because they publicly documented their stream of consciousness bread trail for prosecutors to follow.”

    Attorney General Kris Mayes, in an interview with CNN, said she has been in contact with investigators in Michigan and Georgia and the Department of Justice.

    “It’s robust. It’s a serious matter,” Mayes, a Democrat, said of her ongoing investigation. “We’re going to make sure that we do it on our timetable, applying the resources that it requires to make sure that justice is done, for not only Arizonans, but for the entire country.”

    All 11 electors took part in multiple failed legal challenges, first asking a judge to invalidate the state’s results in a conspiracy theory-laden court case and then taking part in a last-ditch, desperate plea seeking to force Pence to help throw the election to Trump. The cases were dismissed.

    Of the 11 fake electors in Arizona, five were the most publicly vocal members advocating the scheme in the state: Kelli Ward, the chairperson of the state party and her spouse, Michael Ward; state Rep. Anthony Kern, then a sitting lawmaker; Jake Hoffman, a newly elected member of the Arizona House; and Tyler Bowyer, a top state official with the Republican National Committee.

    Each of these five publicly pushed for the legitimate electors to be discarded by Pence on January 6, 2021. One of the fake electors, Kern, took part in “Stop the Steal” rallies and was photographed in a restricted area on the Capitol steps during the riot at the Capitol.

    “The Arizona false electors left a trail here that will surely interest prosecutors,” Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who previously served as the special counsel to the general counsel at the Department of Defense, told CNN.

    Electors, a part of the Electoral College system, represent the popular vote in each state. When a candidate wins a state, the party’s designated slate of electors gets to participate in the Electoral College process. The electors meet in a ceremonial process and sign certificates, officially casting their vote for president.

    CNN reached out to all of the electors, but only received comment from two of them.

    The most publicly vocal of the fake electors, Kelli Ward called the group the “true electors,” and provided play-by-play updates on the Arizona Republican Party’s YouTube. Falsely saying the state’s electoral votes were “contested,” even though legal challenges to the count had been dismissed, she urged supporters to call on Arizona’s state legislature to decertify the state’s results.

    “We believe our votes are the ones that will count on January 6th,” she said in one interview on conservative talk radio, two days after signing the fake documents.

    Ward’s comments were echoed in tweets by her husband, Michael, also an elector and a gadfly in Arizona politics known for spreading conspiracy theories. In a post sharing a White House memo that urged Pence to reject the results from states that submitted fake electors, Michael Ward hinted at retribution for Republicans who failed to act.

    “My Holiday prayer is that every backstabbing ‘Republican’ gets paid back for their failure to act come Jan 20th!” he wrote in a tweet on December 22.

    Another prominent elector was the RNC Committeeman Bowyer, who on his Twitter account pushed false election claims and conspiracies.

    “It will be up to the President of the Senate and congress to decide,” Bowyer tweeted after signing the fake electors documents.

    In repeated comments Bowyer declared the decision would come down to Pence.

    “It’s pretty simple: The President of the United States Senate (VP) has the awesome power of acknowledging a specific envelope of electoral votes when there are two competing slates— or none at all,” wrote Bowyer in a December 28 tweet.

    “We don’t live in a Democracy. The presidential election isn’t democratic,” he added when receiving pushback.

    A spokesperson for Bowyer said that he was simply responding to a question from a user on what next steps looked like and maintained that there was precedent for a competing slate of electors.

    Bowyer urged action in the lead up to the joint session of Congress on January 6.

    “Be a modern Son of Liberty today,” he said late in the morning of January 6 – a post he deleted following the riot at the Capitol.

    The spokesperson for Bowyer said he had not directly been contacted by Mayes’s office or the DOJ.

    Newly elected state representative Hoffman sent a two-page letter to Pence on January 5, 2021, asking the vice president to order that Arizona’s electors not be decided by the popular vote of the citizens, but instead by the members of the state legislature.

    Rep. Jake Hoffman is sworn in during the opening of the Arizona Legislature at the state Capitol in 2021.

    “It is in this late hour, with urgency, that I respectfully ask that you delay the certification of election results for Arizona during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, and seek clarification from the Arizona state legislature as to which slate of electors are proper and accurate,” wrote Hoffman.

    In interviews, Hoffman repeatedly argued no electors be sent at all because “we don’t have certainty in the outcome of our election,” and to contest Democrat electors if they were sent.

    Then-state Rep. Kern, who lost his seat in the 2020 election, spent his final weeks in office sharing “stop the steal” content and participating in their rallies. He said he was “honored” to be a Trump elector.

    “On January 6th, vice President Mike Pence gets a choice on which electors he’s going to choose,” Kern told the Epoch Times in an interview in December.

    “There is no president elect until January 6th,” he added.

    Kern hadn’t changed his tune in an interview with CNN.

    “Why, why would you think alternate electors are a lie?,” Kern said.

    Kern repeatedly promoted the January 6, 2021, rally preceding the Capitol riot. Kern was in DC that day and shared a photo from the Capitol grounds as rioters gathered on the steps of the Capitol.

    “In DC supporting @realDonaldTrump and @CNN @FoxNews @MSNBC are spewing lies again. #truth,” he wrote in a tweet.

    Later Kern was seen in a restricted area of the Capitol steps during the riot. There is no indication he was violent, and he has not been charged with any crime.

    Source link

  • Former Merck CEO Ken Frazier on the responsibility of CEOs to uphold principles despite politics

    Former Merck CEO Ken Frazier on the responsibility of CEOs to uphold principles despite politics

    On this week’s episode of Fortune‘s Leadership Next podcast, co-host Alan Murray talks with former Merck CEO Ken Frazier. In a conversation recorded live at a Deloitte Next Generation CEO event in Washington, D.C., Frazier tells Murray why the decisions he made to leave former U.S. President Donald Trump’s presidential advisory council, and to vocally support voting rights, were a matter of principle, not politics.

    Frazier also discusses the challenges he faced in his first few years as CEO of Merck—and the shareholders who trusted his vision enough to support him. Finally, Frazier, who is also the cofounder and former CEO of the the OneTen Coalition and current chairman of health assurance initiatives at General Catalyst, talks about starting the OneTen Coalition after the murder of George Floyd, and because he identified a need to find a common language to talk about ESG and DEI.

    Co-host Michal Lev-Ram joins for the pre-interview chat. Listen to the episode or read the full transcript below.


    Transcript:

    [music starts]

    Alan Murray: Leadership Next is powered by the folks at Deloitte, who, like me, are exploring the changing rules of business leadership and how CEOs are navigating this change.

    Welcome to Leadership Next, the podcast about the changing rules of business leadership. I’m Alan Murray.

    [music ends]

    Michal Lev-Ram: And I’m Michal Lev-Ram. Alan, the next two episodes of Leadership Next are a little bit different and a little bit special, although our episodes are always special. That’s because each of these episodes features an interview that you recorded live earlier in October in D.C., where Deloitte, our podcast partner, hosted a Next Generation CEO event. So to start, can you give us a little bit of context? What is the next generation initiative? And what made it the right crowd for a live Leadership Next recording? 

    Murray: Well, first of all, I wish you had been there, it was really kind of magic. Yeah, this is a program that Deloitte runs for people who’ve been identified by their companies as having a shot at the top job. And it’s really designed to give them a look at what it’s like to be a CEO of one of these large companies. So you’re dealing with about 20 people who are really tuned in to what they’re hearing from the CEOs. And first up was Ken Frazier, who is the former CEO of Merck, the pharmaceutical giant. He’s currently at General Catalyst. And as you remember, Michal, Ken Frazier played a critical role in the history of the stakeholder capitalism movement. He was the one, in 2017, when the Unite the Right rally happened in Charlottesville, and the president made some ambivalent comments about who was responsible and good people on both sides. He was the one who, at that moment, made the decision to resign from the president’s Advisory Council, and really, his resignation prompted a whole bunch of other CEOs to resign as well. And within a couple of days, the whole thing had shut down. So, he is a person of strong opinions. And he really was kind of energized by the Next Generation CEOs who were in the room. So it’s really a fascinating conversation. 

    Lev-Ram: Yeah, talk about leadership. Ken is just a super fascinating person with a really interesting professional and background story. So after graduating from Harvard Law, he started his career as a lawyer for a big Philadelphia law firm. And there he made a name for himself representing a wrongfully convicted death row inmate in Alabama, named Bo Cochran. After 19 years on death row, Frazier and his team worked to get Cochran’s conviction overturned, and it’s just a really amazing story all around. While still at the Philly firm, his future employer, Merck, became one of his clients. And Merck took him on as general counsel in 1992. And he’s been there in different capacities ever since. 

    Murray: He told a fascinating story about the early days when there was an activist investor in his stock trying to push him to cut his research budget so they could make greater profits in the short term. And he stood up and said, No, that’s not the way to run a company. For the long term, we have to be about the science, we have to be about the research. You know, the other thing he did, after the George Floyd murder a couple of years ago, he helped create this OneTen project, which is an effort to take disadvantaged people and get them into good jobs in big corporations. So a fascinating CEO who cares deeply about his impact on society. 

    Lev-Ram: Don’t forget, Alan, another accolade to throw in here. He was named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People in both 2018 and again in 2021. So I’m very, very disappointed to have missed this live and in person. But looking forward to listening along with everybody else. We have an episode to get to. 

    Murray: Yeah, enough talking about Ken, let’s let Ken talk. Here’s my conversation, before a live audience with former Merck CEO Ken Frazier. 

    [music starts]

    [music ends]

    Murray: I’m Alan Murray, and I’m here today with a man who I’ve been trying to get on this podcast since February of 2020, and finally succeeded: Ken Frazier, the former CEO of Merck—you were still CEO when I first tried to get you on the show. Glad we finally got you here!

    Ken Frazier: Same here, Alan, thanks for having me. Yeah. 

    Murray: Thanks so much for doing it. I want to talk a little bit about your career as CEO at first. We have a lot of things to talk about. I mean, you’ve been involved in so many interesting corporate businesses, but also social issues over the course of the last few years. And we’re gonna get into all of that. But I just want to start by talking about how you started your career as CEO. You know, we’re here with a group of people who stand on the doorstep of becoming CEOs, they’re in the Deloitte Next Generation program. And we had a conversation earlier, that was based on the Mike Tyson quote, “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” You got punched in the face pretty early. So, talk about the beginning of your career as CEO of Merck and what you did. 

    Frazier: So, I took over Merck Jan. 1, 2011, which was kind of an auspicious time in a lot of ways in the industry. At that time, Wall Street was encouraging CEOs in the pharmaceutical biopharmaceutical engineering industry, not to invest in R&D. In fact, there was  a prominent report by one of the banks that said, the way to create value was to cut your R&D budget and to invest in non pharmaceutical assets, there was a company called Valiant, you might remember them, their stock was going through the roof. And their philosophy is, we don’t invest in science, we invest in management. The challenge that I faced is that my company had five year EPS guidance. By the way, if you ever become CEO, don’t do that.

    Murray: First piece of advice…

    Frazier: Only one and a half years had elapsed. So I had three and a half years, this EPS roadmap 25 days into the job, I decided that that was the wrong thing for Merck, in the long term, it would help keep the stock price up in the short term, because we had in fact promised our shareholders that we’d follow this EPS roadmap. So I called my board 25 days into the job. And I said that you don’t really know me that well, but I just want to let you know, I intend to withdraw the last three and a half years of our EPS guidance. All hell broke loose. Right, my lead director said, We won’t let you do that, and I said, I don’t know exactly what you think you just said to me. But I feel strongly about this. And the board went into executive session, I called my wife and I said, Honey, don’t buy the expensive formica. Okay, not clear how long this is going to last. But they let me stay, and the stock plummeted. But you know, when you look back on things, you see things that you couldn’t have seen before. Every time a share of Merck stock got sold, somebody bought it, and the people who bought it were the right patient, long-term shareholders for a company that intended to invest in R&D. So I got the right shareholders, although the process of the transition was painful.

    Murray: Did your lead director stick with you? 

    Frazier: He did stick with me…with great hesitation. You know, it’s not easy also for the board to fire a CEO 25 days into the job.  It doesn’t make them look great, either. And I’ll be honest here, for a while, this board was not about to give me more money, because they weren’t happy with the stock price performance. And but at the end of the day, I think it turned out well, because Merck has always been a science-based company. And if I cut the R&D budget, I could then talk all I wanted to the scientists about how we’re a science-based company, but they would never believe me.

    Murray: Such an important turning point, as an observer, as a journalist who was watching what was going on from the outside over that period. By 2011, there were many, many polls that showed that your industry was the most hated industry in the country. It was, you know, and it was partly because of that kind of behavior. Right? 

    Frazier: You know, the industry does a lot of great good for a lot of people. I think COVID is an incredible example of that. But I think the challenge is, and it’s not just true for the pharmaceutical industry, as we begin to have this concept that CEOs have a responsibility to maximize returns to shareholders, we sometimes miss the fact that we also have other stakeholders that we have to think about, right? And I don’t think it’s at all inconsistent or, or wrong to think about driving value for shareholders and also driving value, for example, for patients, if you’re in the pharmaceutical industry.

    Murray: You got into the CEO job, by way of a career in law. But can you talk about, I know you were particularly well known, because you took on a someone who had been on death row for 19 years and got them off? Not the usual kind of corporate law practice. Can you talk about that case? 

    Frazier: Yeah. So I represented a guy named Bo Cochran, who was 13 days before his date in Alabama, who is totally innocent of a crime. And I didn’t want to take the case, but it was either I took it or he was going to be executed without being represented, and I took the case, and turns out that we were able to demonstrate after about five or six years of going back and finding evidence that we could prove him not only not guilty, but actually factually innocent. And that was the most important thing I’ve ever done in my life as an individual. 

    Murray: What did you learn from that? 

    Frazier: Well, I learned something that I already knew from having done criminal defense work in other cases, which is that the system that we have, in which—let me put it this way, if we were going to have a system under which someone could be sentenced to death, you would expect of that system a discipline, a consistency, a rigor is the word I’m seeking, that the system completely lacks. It would have to be the most rigorous thing we do in our democracy, and frankly, the way the system works in our country often is, if you’re poor, and you’re from an underrepresented group, the state appoints a lawyer for you, that lawyer often doesn’t do a good job of representing you. The state then runs roughshod over your constitutional rights. And then when you get a lawyer at the end of the process, who wants to vindicate those processes, those rights, often the courts think the concept of finality of the verdict is more important than the factual innocence thing. And so a lot of people in our country, and, you know, the Innocence Project has gotten more than 100 people off death row or life sentences by demonstrating with DNA evidence that they didn’t commit the crime. Now, DNA evidence usually involves rape murders, which is a very small percentage of cases. So we know for a fact that there are lots of people who are on the row who are under sentence of death, who can be demonstrably shown to be innocent. 

    Murray: Let’s fast forward. 2017. Donald Trump is president, he asked you to sit on one of his advisory councils, you agree, you’re the CEO of a regulated industry, you can’t really ignore the president of the United States or the government of the United States. And the Unite the Right rally turned into a disaster, happened in Charlottesville. And the next day, the resident comes out and makes some comments that were highly ambivalent about that event. You resigned. And it had huge effects—all the other resignations, I covered this pretty closely, all the other resignations happened because you resigned the other CEOs, once they saw you walked out, felt they had to do the same. Why did you do it? 

    Frazier: So let me start by saying, you alluded to it. But you know, the country is hugely divided along political lines. We know that. The Gallup poll last year showed for the first time Americans don’t consider themselves to be fundamentally divided by race, religion, or region. They consider themselves fundamentally divided by party affiliation. And that was true in 2017. I did not want to go on the president’s council. But my colleagues at Merck said, you know, we’re representing a pharmaceutical industry. He’s a new president. He’s the only president we have, he’s asked you more than once, you ought to go. So I did that. That took a lot of criticism from my friends on the left. Okay. When the comments were made about Charlottesville, I remember I was furniture shopping with my wife, and so I was paying maybe more attention to my iPhone than I normally do. 

    Murray: Not your favorite activity.

    Frazier: I saw the president’s comments. And I knew immediately that I could not remain on the president’s ouncil because of what was happening at Charlottesville.

    Murray: But is it your choice? I mean, you represent Merck, you represent a company .

    Frazier: I do, but also represent my family. I came home and my 20-year-old son was waiting for me. He never came home from college, but he was there when I got home. And he was challenging me with what passes for a searching inquiry for a 20-year-old. He said to me, What’s up dad? What’s up? Okay, which is his way of saying, all this talk. You’ve talked all these years about standing up for principle, we’re watching, okay. But what I ended up doing was, I called my board. And I said, I intend to step down from the president’s council. I was actually advised by my PR people to do it quietly. I said, No, actually, you might remember this. I was down there several times. And he always sat me next to him. So my kids are like, Dad, you’re killing us. Right? But I said, I’m going to withdraw, and it’s going to be a noisy withdrawal. I’m going to put out a statement, I’m going to say why I’m withdrawing. I said to my board, however, I do recognize I have a responsibility to the company. And so the question I’m asking you, is in my statement, do you want me to say I’m withdrawing from the council as a matter of my personal conscience? Or do you want me also to say I’m withdrawing because of the company’s values? And I’m happy to say that. Unanimously, they said, we want you to speak to the company’s values. 

    Murray: No debate?

    Frazier: No debate whatsoever. 

    Murray: And did you know at that moment that once you stepped down all the other CEOs would step down and the council would crumble? 

    Frazier: No, I didn’t know that. But that gets to the question of principle. At the end of the day, what’s hard about these decisions that CEOs face? Is what are you making the decision for this principle? And his pragmatism? The pragmatic thing is, why would you piss off the president of the United States? Right. And by the way—

    Murray: Who’s already talking about drug pricing.

    Frazier: Right, he’s already talking about drug pricing. By the way, this is August 2017. He’d been in the White House for about seven months, I think, whether you like President Trump or no, the jury was still very much out about President Trump at that point in time. So the pragmatic decision is, why put your company in that situation? But the principle decision for me was that I felt like someone needed to take a statement, and that if I didn’t, I would be providing my own tacit approval of what the president did and did not do. So for me, that was an easy decision. But I didn’t want to speak on behalf of the company, 

    Murray: Did you get criticism for it? 

    Frazier: Oh, yeah, I got criticism, a lot of criticism. And what the most important thing that I remember thinking about that whole thing was, shortly after I stepped off the council, and then you’re right, everyone sort of followed. Because, you know, frankly, I think people’s employees, a lot of them got challenged by their employees, because someone else had stepped off. So you know, what are you doing? And I had CEOs call me and say, you should have consulted us before you went out on your own. Right? Like, you can’t have your own conscience or whatever. But I do think one of the challenges that we have about political division in this country is that we don’t find a common language to talk about what we’re talking about, or what we’re feeling. So, after I stepped off, one of the first things I wanted to do was to go to one of my manufacturing plants, one of Merck’s manufacturing plants in the south, is located in a town that’s called Stonewall, Georgia. I’ll say it again, STONEwall, Georgia, if you hear me talking, okay. And I went to that plant, I was advised not to go there. But I went there to talk to my plant workers. And I wanted to say to them, I’m the CEO of Merck. I’m not here to tell you who to vote for, or who to like. You’re Merck people. I’m a Merck person. We all have common values. I’m not judging you, you may have many reasons why you support the president, and I support whatever political views you want to have. But you’re damn sure gonna support mine. And I will tell you, when I walked in that room, people’s arms were crossed. And when we finished having that conversation, people came up to me and said, we get you. Because what they wanted to hear was that I wasn’t judging them, and I wasn’t taking a position on them. And I think a lot of the division in our country is because we deal with issues without communicating with each other, and without what I call grace. 

    [music starts]

    Murray: Jason Girzadas, the CEO of Deloitte US is the sponsor of this podcast and joins me today. Welcome, Jason. 

    Jason Girzadas: Thank you, Alan. It’s great to be here.

    Murray: Jason, everyone in business is talking about AI. It clearly has the potential to dramatically disrupt almost every industry, but a lot of companies are struggling. What are some of the barriers that companies are facing in creating business value with AI? 

    Girzadas: Yea, Alan, AI is on every client’s agenda. I think every CEO and board interaction and conversation that I’m a part of proves the fact that the promise of AI is widely held, and the hope is far and deep that it creates business value. But there are challenges, to be sure. What we’ve seen is that the probability of success increases dramatically with strong executive sponsorship and leadership, there has to be a portfolio of investments around AI as well as to link the business ownership with technology leadership to see the value of AI-related investments. Over time, we’re optimistic and confident that the value will result, but it will be a portfolio where other short term opportunities for automation improvements around productivity and cost takeout and then longer-term, medium-term opportunities for business model innovation that are truly transformational. So this is a classic case where it won’t be a single approach that realizes value for AI.

    Murray: It sounds like you take it a step at a time. 

    Girzadas: I think a step at a time, and also a portfolio recognizing that some investments will have short-term benefit where you can see immediate use cases creating financial and business impact, but longer-term opportunities to really invent different customer experiences, different business models, and ultimately create longer-term benefit that we can’t even fully appreciate at this point in time. 

    Murray: Jason, thanks for your perspective. And thanks for sponsoring Leadership Next

    Girzadas: Thank you. 

    [music ends]

    Murray: Continuing the line of conversation: Three years later, Trump is out of office, the state of Georgia decides to adopt a voting rights bill that many people felt would restrict access to minorities in the state. But it also was about as political a piece of legislation, as you could imagine, supported by every Republican, opposed by every Democrat, because it meant Republicans would get more votes and Democrats would get less.

    Frazier: And people had to subscribe to the idea that the election was stolen. That was a big part of it, too. 

    Murray: So you stepped in? My understanding is, you and I’ve never talked about this, but my understanding is you personally called Ed Bastian, the CEO of Delta, you personally talked to Jim Quincy, the CEO of Coca Cola.

    Frazier: Well, Ken Chenault and I divided up the list, Ken Chenault of American Express.

    Murray: And together, the two of you called them and said, You’ve got to speak out. You’ve got to take a stand. You have to go against this. Almost explosive—this 2017, you had Mitch McConnell go on TV saying, you CEOs, this is politics. You CEOs stay out of—stay in your own swim lane. What are you doing telling us how to run—

    Frazier: Except for political donations.

    Murray: Yeah, they’ll take those.

    Frazier: Stay out of politics except for donations to me, please. That’s a principle. 

    Murray: So again, why did you do it was the right thing to do? Did you talk to the board? How did you handle it? Were you still CEO at the time?

    Frazier: I was CEO at the time. This is what’s really hard about being a CEO. I first of all, don’t believe that CEOs or businesses want to be in the middle of political disputes. And I try to be careful about whether or not I want to get into the middle of political disputes. But I also believe that in the long run, we need to have an environment in our country that is conducive to commerce, and it’s conducive to people. And that comes down to a set of principles that we were taught early in school, if we went to school in this country, and there’s certain things like you know, the rule of law, the right to vote, equal treatment, equal opportunity. Go through that list of fundamental American values. And if it’s a fundamental American value, it is my view that if our elected officials are either abandoning or ignoring their responsibility to uphold those principles, it falls to the American people to ensure that those principles are upheld. I happen to think CEOs are among the most influential American people. So if people have a responsibility to stand up for principle, then I think CEOs ought to stand up for those principles. And from my perspective, that’s one of those things that a lot of people will disagree with, because they’ll say that was political. And I said, wait a minute, the right to vote isn’t inherently a political issue. If somebody wants to politicize that principle, that doesn’t mean I have to be quiet about it. And the example that I’ve used recently in talking to CEOs is the American business community has stood in unison for democracy in Ukraine. But we can’t speak to it in Georgia? I mean, come on. It’s the same principle. Right. So at the end of the day, we talked about this later, I think one of the things that makes it possible to make decisions, tough decisions, is to ask yourself, What are your values? Because it’s your values, from your values when you’re hearing all of these contradictory things. I believe that values help you have both the wisdom to figure out what’s right, and the courage to do what’s right. Because if it really comes down to values, and I would say to people, you know, on this issue about the right of Americans to vote, that is so fundamental to democracy. And by the way, Alan, I’m sure you read it. The statement we made was so anodyne, it was so completely unpolitical. It was like, the CEOs in this country support the right to vote. Right? It actually didn’t say anything about Georgia, we avoided …

    Murray: Because some of the critics were saying, Oh, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You haven’t read the bill. You know, the specifics. They did the same thing in Connecticut that we want to do here. You weren’t talking about the specifics. 

    Frazier: We were talking about the right to vote as a principle, a fundamental principle and as I said before, I had read the law. And I was at pains to say, there are some things in this law that are really good. But there are some things in this law that you can say without question—by the way, I’d never said they had to do with race either. Right? When I would go on television, I would say, these provisions are going to make it hard for people who live in densely populated areas to vote. Now, you could figure out who that is. That’s code for some things. But the people actually stood in line for seven, eight hours, you might remember this in order to vote, and I thought, no one should have to do that. 

    Murray: It’s not right. So both of these examples 2017, 2020—those are you taking action to stop something that you thought was negative from happening. But I want to talk about the OneTen initiative, because this happened after the George Floyd killing, and there was an outbreak, that one was instantaneous. Every CEO, and by the way, 10 years ago, 10 years before that, that would not have happened. Yeah, it was, it was a—it was a change that 2017 created. 

    Frazier: I think it was a very hopeful development in our country, if I can be so direct as an African-American. I compare George Floyd to Rodney King, when the Rodney King thing happened, Black people were in the streets. When the George Floyd thing happened, everybody was in the streets, I would see these stories about places in North Dakota, where there were no Black people living, and people were protesting. Right. And, you know, frankly, I’m being a little political here myself, I actually believe that shows that the country is moving to a place where we can empathize with one another. 

    Murray: Yeah. So all these companies, you know, put out statements that double down on their commitments to diversity, equity, inclusion, but you know, I’m interpreting, so you tell me if I’ve got this, right. But you said, Well, wait a minute, if all we do here is all these companies compete for the same talent, then that talent will get higher pay, that’s fine, but we’re not really doing what we want to do, which is restart the escalator of mobility in this country and give these people an opportunity. So you created OneTen, talk about OneTen, what it is…. 

    Frazier: OneTen Coalition, of 70 leading companies that, in the wake of the George Floyd murder, came together and said, we are going to look at our hiring practices systemically, and ask ourselves which jobs really require a four-year degree versus which jobs should be skills-based jobs. Now, how does it relate to George Floyd? Well, in the 2020 census, 76% of African-Americans at age 26 do not have a four-year degree. So, if you reflexively require a four-year degree, systemically, unintentionally, you’re keeping 76% of that population from ever having an opportunity to go to the middle class. 

    Murray: But now wait a second, Ken. So are you saying OneTen is not explicitly about race? 

    Frazier: No, I’m gonna get to that in a minute. Okay. It was initially totally about race, and it continues to focus on communities that are underrepresented. I want to talk about what we’ve done since the Supreme Court case.

    Murray: Yeah, because you’re a lawyer.

    Frazier: Right, but my wife always says, when they say you’re a lawyer, you should add, but not in a pejorative sense of the word. When these companies were saying they wanted to do something to show that they stood for racial justice, we didn’t want to put out statements, we said, What in the wheelhouse of companies is to hire people, right? And if you start hiring people from these unheard, unseen, underrepresented communities, then you can be doing something about that. So that’s how OneTen started, with Ginni Rometty of IBM, Ken Chenault and myself, and Charles Phillips, and Kevin Sherar, who’s the former CEO of Amgen. So we all got together, we’re up to about 110,000 people that we’ve hired into family-sustaining-wage jobs, that’s the key. $50,000 income adjusted, depending on whether you’re in Mobile, Alabama, or Seattle, Washington. So that’s where we went now, explicitly, it was founded, with the mission of creating opportunity for Black talent. We have now changed the mission to make it very clear that while that was what it was founded for, we don’t exclude anybody from it. 

    Murray: And this is because of the Supreme Court. 

    Frazier: It was in response to the Supreme Court. 

    Murray: And how do you feel about that Supreme Court decision? 

    Frazier: Well, that’s a complicated question. But let me try to talk about what I think. 

    Murray: That’s a lawyerly answer. 

    Frazier: I think—I think what Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion says, is that colorblindness, or race neutrality, is a good organizing and governing principle for a multiracial, multicultural society. It’s a good aspiration, is what he’s saying. And I don’t think anyone can disagree with that, at the end of the day, that we should all be judged by who we are, as Dr. King said, by the content of our character, not by our outward appearance. But at the same time, I have to say that I do think that while we are now 59 years after the passage of the seminal Civil Rights Act of ‘58, after the Voting Rights Act, the reality of the world is there are vestiges of centuries of racial oppression, slavery, that continue to affect African-Americans differentially.

    Murray: This goes back to your death row case. 

    Frazier: It goes back to the death row. It’s law enforcement. If you look at life expectancy, if you look at education—I don’t want to be autobiographical. I sit here before you because in 1963, the civil leaders of Philadelphia, the social engineers of Philadelphia, decided to engage in what they called school desegregation. My parents were too poor to buy houses that were proximate to where the good schools were. Okay. So my younger sister and I got put on buses against our will and sent across town to all-white schools, where we got an education that was different from our siblings’. That was a race-conscious decision. It wasn’t intended in any way to exclude or hurt someone. But it was a decision that was made for the purpose of addressing the past discrimination. And that’s where I disagree with Chief Justice Roberts. He says any racial classification is invidious. Well, law school professor, that’s like saying in 1964, a sign in the South that said, “Blacks are welcome” is the same as when it says “Blacks are not welcome”. We all know those two things are different. Okay. And so the challenge we have in our society is twofold. On the one hand, again, as an organizing democratic principle, it is best to avoid classifying people on the basis of race, no one can disagree with that. On the other hand, if we’re ever going to address the huge disparities that exist, that I believe no one can disagree, are vestiges of the way this country has run for years, we have to think about, how do we include people without in any way excluding people? And that’s what we try to do at OneTen. What we say is, let’s go into those communities that we normally don’t go into.

    One quick example, one of our members—I won’t identify, the CEO said to me, OneTen company, he said, I did a tour of our plants. And for all of our plants, we would hire from the community surrounding the plant. Except our plant outside Detroit, he said, and then I discovered for some reason, our plant, which is near the interstate, everybody at the Detroit plant came in from the suburbs, went into the plant inside the gate, and then went home that night, and I went to my plant manager and said, why is this plant different? Why are we not hiring from the surrounding community?

    So again, I think it’s important for us, and this is an important issue for our society, to find ways to deal with one another, in such a way as to never take into consideration external factors that really don’t go to the heart of who people are. But I also think, and again I use my own example, I am fortunate that the social engineers in Philadelphia 1963, they must have heard Martin Luther King, and they somehow it pricked their conscience and they said, some of these kids are getting an education. I don’t think that hurt anybody that they did that.

    Murray: Yeah. Ken Frazier, you have now proven I was right to, since February of 2020, push to get you on this podcast. What a fascinating conversation. 

    Frazier: Can I say one more thing, though? What’s missing is a common language in our society. Right? We have to find ways of communicating, so that the other side understands our intent and doesn’t misunderstand what we’re trying to do. I think DEI, ESG, all of those things have become politicized and toxic. And I think we have to find ways to talk about these issues. You know, I like to talk about openness, because no one’s against openness, right? Nobody’s against fairness and opportunity. We have to find a common language in our society that allows us, irrespective of our political views, to see what the other person’s good intent is.

    Murray: But let me challenge you a little bit on that. Of course we need a common language so that we can talk about these issues without descending into fights. But this has been exacerbated by a broken political system. And, and, and my experience talking to CEOs is, and this gets back to where we started this conversation. From day one, you said, Merck can’t be about making money in the short term, it has to be about the long term. And we all know in the long term, what’s good for the company, and what’s good for society are going to start to meld, right? You can’t be a successful company if the planet’s on fire. You can’t be a successful company if you’re in a country that is melting down. Every CEO I talked to these days says, Please, please, please keep me out of politics. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I don’t like it. I don’t want to be part of it. I don’t understand how that’s consistent with the long-term view of the health of the company, because surely our political dysfunction is at least as big a problem for the future of American companies.

    Frazier: I agree. And that was my point about having an environment that’s conducive to people as well as to commerce. The point I was making, though, is that rather than get dragged into the political fight, just be specific about what you’re doing. Right. Just be very specific about what it is that your company stands for, and don’t get pulled into the political debate about words. Because frankly, the good thing about the politicians is, they’re so shallow in their thinking that, if you call the thing something else, they don’t even talk about it. 

    Murray: Would you ever consider running for office yourself? 

    Frazier: Never!

    Murray: We’d all be better off. 

    Frazier: That’s kind of you to say but my wife would say, don’t go there!

    Murray: Ken Frazier, thank you so much. 

    [music starts]

    Leadership Next is edited and produced by Alexis Haut. Our theme is by Jason Snell. Our executive producer is Megan Arnold. Leadership Next is a product of Fortune Media.

    Leadership Next episodes are produced by Fortune‘s editorial team. The views and opinions expressed by podcast speakers and guests are solely their own and do not reflect the opinions of Deloitte or its personnel. Nor does Deloitte advocate or endorse any individuals or entities featured on the episodes.

    Fortune Editors

    Source link

  • Tom Emmer cast doubt on the 2020 election and supported lawsuit to throw election to Trump | CNN Politics

    Tom Emmer cast doubt on the 2020 election and supported lawsuit to throw election to Trump | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Tom Emmer, a leading Republican candidate to be speaker of the House, baselessly said there were “questionable” practices in the 2020 presidential election.

    Later, Emmer signed an amicus brief in support of a last-ditch Texas lawsuit seeking to throw out the results in key swing states.

    Though he would vote to certify the results on January 6, 2021, the comments and actions show Emmer flirted with some of the same election denial rhetoric as far-right members of the Republican caucus.

    Speaking with the radio show for the far-right publication Breitbart News 12 days after the election, Emmer baselessly suggested that mail-in ballots might have “skewed” the election against Trump.

    “I think that you will see the courts, if nothing else, this president is making sure that he stays focused and his team stays focused on these questionable election practices,” Emmer said. “We’re gonna find out – if it’s accurate – how much they skewed the outcome of the election in Georgia and elsewhere.”

    “I had one of my colleagues telling me in Georgia that where we got voter ID we’re doing great, where we can’t reasonably identify the voter, we’re getting killed,” he added, saying he hoped the state would restrict vote by mail in the then-upcoming January Georgia Senate runoff elections.

    Emmer was quieter than many Republicans in the aftermath of the 2020 election. But in interviews and public comments, reviewed by CNN’s KFile ahead of the speakership vote, Emmer refused to say Biden won the election and bashed the press for calling the race.

    Speaking to local news outlets in early December 2020 – after results had been certified in all swing states – Emmer attacked the press for calling the race for Joe Biden.

    “Everybody has the right to count every vote. Right now, we’re in a process where the media wants to call the race, the media wants to create this situation that they’re the ones that determine when people are done with the process,” Emmer said. “It’s about making sure that everybody – people that voted for Joe Biden, people who voted for Donald Trump, or people who voted for somebody else – that they know every legitimate vote is counted and they have confidence in the outcome.

    “There’s a process,” Emmer added. “The process is the votes are cast, if there’s a question, there are recounts, there are signature verifications. This time across the country, mail-in ballots threw a whole new curveball into it. And then if you have specific areas where there’s more to be done, you do have the right to go to a court to have a difference of opinion result. That’s all following the process. It’ll be resolved soon.”

    Emmer later defended signing the amicus brief in support of the Texas lawsuit filed by Attorney General Ken Paxton to invalidate 62 Electoral votes in swing states won by Biden – which would have effectively thrown the election to Trump. The lawsuit was rejected by the US Supreme Court.

    “This brief asserts the democratic right of state legislatures to make appointments to the Electoral College was violated in several states,” Emmer said in a statement published in the local St. Cloud Times. “All legal votes should be counted and the process should be followed – the integrity of current and future elections depends on this premise and this suit is a part of that process.”

    Speaking at a forum on Dec. 17, 2020, Emmer acknowledged Biden’s win was certified by the Electoral College days earlier but said the process still had yet to play out and declined to call Biden president-elect when prompted.

    “The media would like to declare the ultimate end to this process. I think certain elected officials would like to declare the end of this process, but as someone who was in a recount himself 10 years ago, I know that we need to respect the process whether you agree with it or not,” Emmer said. “Because once it’s over you’ve got people that are going to be on one side or the other, and they’ve all got to be satisfied that our election was conducted in a fair and transparent manner.”

    Source link

  • House GOP scrambles to find path forward after voting to push out Jordan as speaker nominee | CNN Politics

    House GOP scrambles to find path forward after voting to push out Jordan as speaker nominee | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans are once again scrambling with no clear path to elect a new speaker after voting to push Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan out of the race, the latest sign of the chaos and divisions that have engulfed the majority party and left the chamber in a state of paralysis.

    In a dramatic turn of events, the House GOP conference voted by secret ballot on Friday to drop Jordan as their speaker designee after he failed to win the gavel for the third time in a floor vote earlier in the day.

    The House remains effectively frozen as long as there is no elected speaker. The paralysis has created a perilous situation as Congress faces the threat of a government shutdown next month and conflict unfolds abroad. The battle for the speakership has now dragged on for more than two weeks with no end in sight.

    Jordan’s exit from the race now sets the stage for more speaker hopefuls to emerge. Republicans are expected to hold a candidate forum Monday evening. But it appears increasingly uncertain whether any lawmaker can get the 217 votes needed to win the gavel while Republicans control such a narrow majority.

    Jordan’s failure to win the gavel also highlighted the limits of former President Donald Trump’s influence in the speaker’s race after he endorsed Jordan.

    Speaking to reporters after the vote to push him out, Jordan said, “We need to come together and figure out who our speaker is going to be,” and said he told the conference, “It was an honor to be their speaker designee.”

    The move by Republicans against Jordan came after three failed floor votes for his speaker bid and vows from the Ohio Republican to remain in the race despite mounting opposition against him.

    In Friday’s floor vote, 25 House Republicans voted against Jordan – a higher number than in the two prior votes and far more than the handful of defectors Jordan could afford to lose and still win the gavel given the GOP’s narrow majority.

    When the vote count against Jordan increased to 25 House Republicans, there were three new GOP votes in opposition – Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Kean of New Jersey and Marc Molinaro of New York.

    Kean said in a statement explaining his position, “it has become evident that Chairman Jordan does not and will not have the votes to become Speaker.”

    Some Republicans who have oppose Jordan decried what they described as a pressure campaign against them by allies of the Ohio Republican. And several Republicans who opposed Jordan’s speakership bid have said they experienced angry calls, menacing messages and even death threats since casting their votes. Jordan has condemned the threats.

    A closed-door House GOP conference meeting on Thursday turned heated, multiple sources told CNN. Some members encouraged Jordan to drop out of the race. There was also an emotional discussion over the threats some Jordan holdouts are facing. Later, members leaving the meeting described it as an airing of grievances with tensions running high.

    Some Republicans looking for a way to break the impasse have suggested expanding the powers of interim Speaker Rep. Patrick McHenry – a controversial move that would put the House even further into uncharted territory. But there is widespread opposition within the Republican conference to the idea.

    Source link

  • Jim Jordan loses second vote for House speaker amid steep GOP opposition | CNN Politics

    Jim Jordan loses second vote for House speaker amid steep GOP opposition | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Republican Rep. Jim Jordan again failed to win the House speaker’s gavel in a second vote on Wednesday, faring worse than he did during the first round of voting one day earlier. The loss raises serious questions over whether the Ohio Republican has a viable path forward as he confronts steep opposition and the House remains in a state of paralysis.

    Despite the defeat, Jordan has vowed to stay in the race. The House is expected to hold a third speaker vote on Thursday at noon ET. Without a speaker, the chamber is effectively frozen, a precarious position that comes amid conflict abroad and a potential government shutdown next month.

    The conservative Republican’s struggle to gain traction has also highlighted the limits of Donald Trump’s influence in the speaker’s race after the former president endorsed Jordan.

    As pressure grows on Republicans to find a way out of the leadership crisis, some are pushing to expand the powers of the interim speaker, GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, though such a move would not be without controversy and has divided Republicans.

    During the first round of voting on Tuesday, 20 House Republicans voted against Jordan. On Wednesday, that number rose to 22, showing that the opposition against the candidate has grown. There were four new Republican votes against Jordan and two that flipped into his column. Given the narrow House GOP majority, Jordan can only afford to lose a handful of votes and the high number of votes against him puts the gavel far out of reach.

    Following his second defeat on the floor, Jordan indicated that he is dug in on pressing ahead.

    “We don’t know when we’re going to have the next vote but we want to continue our conversations with our colleagues,” he said, adding: “We’ll keep talking to members and keep working on it.”

    Jordan is a polarizing figure in the speaker’s fight, a complicating factor in his effort to lock down votes. He is a staunch ally of Trump, has a longstanding reputation as a conservative agitator and helped found the hardline House Freedom Caucus. As the chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, he has also been a key figure in House GOP-led investigations.

    It took former Speaker Kevin McCarthy 15 rounds of voting in January to secure the gavel. But Jordan faces an uphill climb amid the deep divisions within the House GOP conference and the resistance he faces.

    As the speaker battle drags on, tensions and frustration have risen among House Republicans. Some of the lawmakers who have voted against Jordan in the speaker’s race have railed against what they have described as a pressure campaign against them.

    Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas derided what he called the “attack, attack, attack” tactics of Jordan allies against his Republican opponents.

    “Frankly, just based on what I’ve been through – I can only speak to myself and what my staff has been through over the last 24 or 48 hours – it is obvious what the strategy has been: Attack, attack, attack. Attack the members who don’t agree with you, attack them, beat them into submission,” he said.

    GOP Rep. Don Bacon’s wife received anonymous text messages warning her husband to back Jordan. Bacon has been a vocal holdout against Jordan and was one of the 20 Republican members that did not back Jordan on the floor in Tuesday’s vote.

    “Your husband will not hold any political office ever again. What a disappointment and failure he is,” read one of the messages sent to Bacon’s wife and obtained by CNN through Bacon.

    Bacon’s wife responded to that text saying, “he has more courage than you. You won’t put your name to your statements.”

    GOP lawmaker voted for a congressman he didn’t want to be Speaker. Hear why

    Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa said in a statement that she has “received credible death threats and a barrage of threatening calls” after flipping her speaker vote Wednesday, instead casting a ballot for House Appropriations Chairwoman Kay Granger.

    Russell Dye, a spokesman for Jordan, condemned the threats against Miller-Meeks, saying: “This is abhorrent and has no place in civil discourse. No one should receive threats and it needs to stop. We have condemned these actions repeatedly. It is important that Republicans stop attacking each other and come together.”

    And Jordan wrote on X that “no American should accost another for their beliefs.”

    “We condemn all threats against our colleagues and it is imperative that we come together. Stop. It’s abhorrent,” he added.

    Opponents to the congressman’s bid so far have included centrist Republicans concerned that the face of the House GOP would be a conservative hardliner as well as lawmakers still furious at the small group of Republicans who forced out McCarthy and then opposed House Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s bid for the gavel.

    Scalise initially defeated Jordan inside the GOP conference to become the speaker nominee, but later dropped out of the race amid opposition to his candidacy.

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    Source link

  • Australians vote No in referendum that promised change for First Nations people but couldn’t deliver | CNN

    Australians vote No in referendum that promised change for First Nations people but couldn’t deliver | CNN


    Brisbane, Australia
    CNN
     — 

    With a two-letter word, Australians struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nation’s founding document.

    Preliminary results from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) suggested that most of the country’s 17.6 million registered voters wrote No on their ballots, and CNN affiliates 9 News, Sky News and SBS all projected no path forward for the Yes campaign.

    The proposal, to recognize Indigenous people in the constitution and create an Indigenous body to advise government on policies that affect them, needed a majority nationally and in four of six states to pass.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had championed the referendum and in a national address on Saturday night said his government remained committed to improving the lives of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders.

    “This moment of disagreement does not define us. And it will not divide us. We are not yes voters or no voters. We are all Australians,” he said.

    “It is as Australians together that we must take our country beyond this debate without forgetting why we had it in the first place. Because too often in the life of our nation, and in the political conversation, the disadvantage confronting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has been relegated to the margins.”

    “This referendum and my government has put it right at the center.”

    Supporters of the Yes vote had hailed it as an opportunity to work with First Nations people to solve problems in their most remote communities – higher rates of suicide, domestic violence, children in out-of-home care and incarceration.

    However, resistance swelled as conservative political parties lined up to denounce the proposal as lacking detail and an unnecessary duplication of existing advisory bodies.

    On Saturday, leading No campaigner Warren Mundine said the referendum should never have been called.

    “This is a referendum we should never have had because it was built on a lie that Aboriginal people do not have a voice,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

    During months of campaigning, the No vote gained momentum with slogans that appealed to voter apathy – “If you don’t know, vote No” – and a host of other statements designed to instil fear, according to experts, including that it would divide Australia by race and be legally risky, despite expert advice to the contrary.

    No shortage of high-profile voices lent their support to the Yes campaign.

    Constitutional experts, Australians of the Year, eminent retired judges, companies large and small, universities, sporting legends, netballers, footballers, reality stars and Hollywood actors flagged their endorsement. There was even an unlikely intervention by US rapper MC Hammer.

    Aussie music legend John Farnham gifted a song considered to be the unofficial Australian anthem to a Yes advertisement with a stirring message of national unity. But opinion polls continued to slide to No.

    Objections came thick and fast from the leaders of opposition political parties, who picked at loose threads of the proposal. “Where’s the detail?” they asked, knowing that would be decided and legislated by parliament.

    Some members of the Indigenous community said they didn’t want to be part of a settler document, demanding more than a body that gives the government non-binding advice. Other Australians were completely disengaged.

    Yes campaigner Marilyn Trad told CNN that volunteers making calls to prospective voters had to break the news to some – this week – that there was indeed a referendum.

    Kevin Argus, a marketing expert from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), told CNN the Yes campaign was a “case study in how not to message change on matters of social importance.”

    “From a public relations perspective, what is proposed is quite simple – an advisory group to government. Not unlike what the business council, mining groups, banking groups and others expect and gain when legislation is being drafted that affects the people they represent,” he said.

    Argus said only the No campaign had used simple messaging, maximized the reach of personal profiles, and acted decisively to combat challenges to their arguments with clear and repeatable slogans.

    Campaign signs are seen outside the voting centre at Old Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, October 14, 2023.

    The result means no constitutional change, but the referendum will have lasting consequences for the entire nation, according to experts.

    For First Nations people, it will be seen as a rejection of reconciliation by Australia’s non-Indigenous majority and tacit approval of a status quo that is widely considered to have failed them for two centuries.

    Before the vote, Senator Pat Dodson, the government’s special envoy for reconciliation, said win or lose, the country had a “huge healing process to go through.”

    “We’ve got to contemplate the impact of a No vote on the future generations, the young people,” he told the National Press Club this week. “We already know that the Aboriginal youth of this country have high suicide rates. Why? They’re not bad people. They’re good people. Why don’t they see any future?”

    Maree Teesson, director of the Matilda Center for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use at the University of Sydney, told CNN the Voice to Parliament had offered self-determination to Indigenous communities, an ability to have a say over what happens in their lives.

    “Self-determination is such a critical part of their social and emotional well-being,” she said.

    Teesson said a No vote doesn’t just maintain the status quo, it “undermines the self-determination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”

    “I do hope that we don’t lose the possibility of the hope that this gave our nation and that we somehow work to find another way to achieve that,” she said.

    Some experts say more broadly the No outcome could deter future leaders from holding referendums, as it could indicate that the bar for constitutional change – written into the document in 1901 – is too high.

    The last time Australians voted down a referendum was in 1999 when they were asked to cut ties with the British monarchy and become a republic – and little has changed on that front since then.

    “The drafters of the constitution said this is the rulebook and we’re only going to change it if the Australian people say they want to change it – we’re not going to leave it up to politicians,” said Paula Gerber, professor of Law at Monash University.

    “So that power, to change, to modernize, to update the constitution has been put in the hands of the Australian people. And if they are going to say every time, “If you don’t know, vote No,” then what politician is going to spend the time and money on a referendum that can be so easily defeated?”

    Source link

  • Pro-China candidate Mohamed Muizzu wins Maldives presidential vote | CNN

    Pro-China candidate Mohamed Muizzu wins Maldives presidential vote | CNN



    Reuters
     — 

    Opposition candidate Mohamed Muizzu has won the Maldives presidential election, beating incumbent President Ibrahim Solih in a second-round runoff that could herald a pro-China shift for the Indian Ocean archipelago from traditional partner India.

    With nearly all votes counted, the Elections Commission of the Maldives said on its website that Muizzu had received 54% of the ballots in Saturday’s vote, with 46% for Solih.

    About 85% of 282,000 eligible voters in the Maldives, known for its pristine beaches and high-end resorts, turned up at more than 586 polling stations across 187 islands.

    “I congratulate Muizzu for winning the election and thank the people for their exemplary democratic spirit,” Solih said on X, formerly known as Twitter.

    Solih, who championed an “India First” policy during his time in power, will remain as president until Muizzu’s inauguration on Nov. 17.

    The coalition backing Muizzu has supported Chinese loans and investment projects in the past.

    Former President Abdulla Yameen, who has close links to Muizzu, is serving an 11-year prison term for corruption and money laundering. Yameen’s supporters say the charges against him were politically motivated.

    “Today the people made a strong decision to win back Maldives independence,” Muizzu told reporters in the capital, Male.

    “All of us, working together with unity, Insha Allah, we will be successful.”

    Muizzu also called on President Solih to release Yameen to house arrest.

    Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi sent a congratulatory message to Muizzu following the announcement of his victory.

    “India remains committed to strengthening the time-tested India-Maldives bilateral relationship and enhancing our overall cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region,” Modi said on X.

    Source link

  • An Australian community built on racial segregation looks to the future, with or without a Voice | CNN

    An Australian community built on racial segregation looks to the future, with or without a Voice | CNN


    Cherbourg, Australia
    CNN
     — 

    Built on the land of the Wakka Wakka people, Cherbourg’s modern motto of “many tribes, one community” reflects the varied origins of its 1,700 residents, descendants of people once forced to live there under laws of segregation.

    Between 1905 and 1971, more than 2,600 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were forcibly moved from their land to Cherbourg, then known as Barambah, according to the Queensland government.

    Some were marched barefoot through the Australian bush by colonial settlers under a law that called for the removal of Indigenous people from their traditional lands to be housed and educated in colonial ways.

    Today residents live in neat rows of single story houses, their rent paid to a council that’s determined to turn the former government reserve into a thriving community where people want to live – and it seems to be working.

    “We’ve got around 260 people waiting on our waiting list,” said Cherbourg Council CEO Chatur Zala. “There’s a huge demand for social housing because our rent is pretty reasonable.

    “The rent in the big cities is so expensive, people can’t afford it.”

    Life has changed for people in Cherbourg, but a divide still exists in Australia between non-Indigenous and Indigenous people on a whole range of measures – from infant mortality to employment, suicide and incarceration.

    Indigenous people have proposed an idea they say may help close the gap, and on October 14 the entire country will vote on it.

    A Yes vote would recognize First Nations people in the constitution and create a body – a Voice to Parliament – to advise the government on issues that affect them. A No vote would mean no change.

    So how does Cherbourg, a community created from policies of segregation and assimilation, feel about what’s being billed as an historic step forward for Indigenous reconciliation?

    “My community is very, very confused,” said Mayor Elvie Sandow, from her air-conditioned office in the center of Cherbourg. “They’re confused with the Voice, and then the pathway to [a] treaty.”

    The mayor said residents will vote because if they don’t, they’ll be fined under Australia’s compulsory voting laws, then she immediately corrects herself.

    “Well, they probably won’t vote,” she said. “They’ll just go out and get their name ticked off the [electoral] roll, so that avoids them getting a fine.”

    A record number of Australians – some 17.67 million of a population of 25.69 million – have registered to vote in the country’s first referendum in almost 25 years, according to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

    Early voting has already started in remote communities, with AEC staff traveling vast distances by 4WDs, helicopters, planes and ferries to reach them.

    Campaigners for both sides – Yes and No – have also been traversing the same routes, speaking to locals, organizing rallies and spending millions of dollars on radio, television and online advertising to win their votes.

    “I think this is one of the most important events of my life,” said Erin Johnston, who was among thousands of people marching at a recent Yes rally in Brisbane, organized by the charity Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition.

    “We have an opportunity to right a big wrong,” Johnston said.

    Erin Johnston (center) with friends Michael Blair (left) and Andy Roache (right) at a Yes rally in Brisbane on Sunday, September 17, 2023.

    But with two weeks to go before the vote, polls are showing that the referendum is on track to fail, a potential blow for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who made it an election pledge.

    The prime minister has stressed that the Voice is not his idea but a “modest request” made by representatives of hundreds of Aboriginal nations who held meetings around the country in 2017.

    Together they agreed a one-page statement called the Uluru Statement from the Heart which calls for “a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.”

    “We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country,” it said.

    Aunty Ruth Hegarty remembers her early days as a child in Cherbourg. There, children did not flourish, they did not walk in two worlds, and their culture was not seen as a gift but something to be erased.

    Now 94, Aunty Ruth has written an award-winning book about growing up in the settlement. She was just a baby when her parents moved there from the Mitchell district in southwest Queensland looking for work during the Great Depression.

    On arrival, the family was separated into different areas of the settlement. Then they realized they couldn’t leave.

    A view of Cherbourg circa 1938.

    The Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) allowed authorities to remove Indigenous people to government reserves and govern almost every aspect of their lives.

    Aunty Ruth was allowed to stay with her mother in the women’s section of a crowded dormitory until she was 4-and-a-half years old.

    But after her first day at school, she was told she wouldn’t be living with her mother anymore. “You’re a schoolgirl now,” she was told, before being directed to the girls’ section where she shared beds, baths, towels and meals with other students.

    “We were not allowed to cry,” Aunty Ruth wrote. “Crying always resulted in punishment.”

    Punishment meant being caned, having their heads shaved, or being locked alone in a wooden cell at the back of the property, she wrote.

    A group of children at the girls' dormitory in Cherbourg circa 1930.

    Mothers were sent to work as domestic staff for settlers while the men did manual labor, and when she was 14, Ruth was also sent away to earn money. At 22 she applied for permission from the state to marry, and when restrictions eased in the late 1960s, she moved with her husband and six children to Brisbane to start a new life outside the settlement.

    “We escaped all right. But we had to convince my husband,” she told CNN at her home in Brisbane. “I said to him, there’s no jobs for the kids. Even if they went through high school, they wouldn’t get a job in our town. Every office in Cherbourg had White people working in it, so there’d be no jobs for them. So I had to tell him, we’re going,” she said.

    Sitting beneath a pergola surrounded by flowers in her garden, Ruth still has the energy of an activist who has spent much of her life working to improve the lives of her people.

    She wears an orange Yes badge and says she hopes the referendum will produce change.

    Aunty Ruth Hegarty, 94, grew up in the girls' dormitory in Cherbourg after being separated from her mother when she started school.

    “All I want is my constitutional recognition for me and my kids,” she said, leaning forward. “We need a change. We need change.”

    Sitting to her right, her daughter Moira Bligh, president of the volunteer Noonga Reconciliation Group, said, “We’ve overcome disadvantage, but unless we’re all at our stage, we won’t stop.”

    “I won’t stop,” Aunty Ruth added, “because I think it’s the right thing for us to do.”

    Across town on a Wednesday night, an audience of No voters at an event organized by conservative political lobby group Advance gives an indication of why this referendum is so contentious.

    Wearing No caps and T-shirts handed out at the door, they cheer loudly as the leaders of the No camp urge them to reject division.

    “The Yes campaign focuses on the past. We focus on the now and the future, the making of Australia the envy of the world,” said Nyunggai Warren Mundine, a member of the Bundjalung, Gumbaynggirr and Yuin people.

    Sitting in the back row, carpenter Blair Gilchrist says Indigenous people wouldn’t need a Voice if politicians were doing their jobs properly and spending money where it was needed. He’s not a fan of Albanese’s Labor government.

    “Money has got to be scrutinized better. I think that’s probably the main thing. That the money is spent well,” he said.

    Successive governments have spent billions of dollars to close the persistent gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in national health and welfare statistics, yet many targets aren’t being met. And on some measures, the gap is widening – including rates of incarceration, suicide and children in care.

    The Voice seeks to give non-binding advice to government about what might work to end the disparity – but critics say it’s not needed.

    “Infant mortality has dropped, life expectancy has increased, it might not be at the levels we need it, but it’s heading in that direction,” Northern Territory Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a descendant of the Warlpiri people, told the audience.

    Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price at a Conservative Political Action Conference
in August 2023.

    The death rate for Indigenous children ages 0-4 was 2.1 times as high as the rate for non-Indigenous between 2015 and 2019, according to government figures. On average, non-Indigenous men live 8.6 years longer than Indigenous men – for women it’s 7.8 years. The gap’s even wider in remote communities, statistics show.

    “The Voice, it suggests that Indigenous Australians … are inherently disadvantaged, for no other reason but because of our racial heritage,” Price said. “It’s suggested that every one of us needs special measures and [to be] placed in the constitution. That again is another lie. I mean, look at me and Warren, we’re doing all right, aren’t we?” she said.

    Both the Yes and No camps want more accountability – some proof that the billions of dollars spent each year on Indigenous programs are being used to help the most vulnerable. And both want a brighter future for the most disadvantaged Indigenous people, though they disagree about how to get there.

    Many in the Yes camp say that future needs to start with recognition that, as the world’s oldest continuous civilization, First Nations people occupied the land for 60,000 years before the arrival of British settlers just over 200 years ago.

    The official No camp believes nothing separates Australians – from First Nations people to new migrants – and changing the constitution embeds division. For the Yes camp, Indigenous people do hold a special place in the country’s history and their existence must be acknowledged, along with a permanent body that can’t be dissolved on the political whim of future governments.

    Other Indigenous people are voting No because it’s not enough – they want treaties negotiated between the land’s traditional owners and those occupying it.

    Back in Cherbourg, visitors walk through the old ration shed, where people from hundreds of Aboriginal nations once queued for their weekly allowance of tea, sugar, rice, salt, sago, tapioca, slit peas, porridge, flour and meat.

    It’s now a museum, where elders share stories of life in those days.

    Tourists visiting the Ration Shed Museum are shown the interior of the old boys' dormitory. The girls' dormitory burned down in the 1990s.

    Zala said Cherbourg Council has made gains in recent years, since Mayor Elvie was elected in 2020. The number of council jobs has doubled to 130, mostly filled by local staff, Zala said.

    “The highest employment rate of any Indigenous community,” he boasted.

    They’ve opened the first recycling center in an Indigenous community, which handles waste from surrounding areas; and the first Digital Service Center staffed by Indigenous workers, who gain experience and qualifications.

    Plans are afoot to expand the water treatment plant beyond upgrades unveiled last year. But most of all, the council is working on ways to provide new homes for the hundreds of people wanting to move there.

    It’s a tough task – Cherbourg still operates as a Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) community, meaning it relies on government funding. There’s very little private ownership – almost all homes there are owned and maintained by the council.

    For years, the council has encouraged residents to buy the homes their families have lived in for decades, but few financial incentives exist – there’s no market for houses, meaning no capital gains, and some prospective homeowners balk at the cost of private upkeep after so many years of council support, Zala said.

    As a lifelong resident, Mayor Elvie knows the issues well. Her mother lived in the Cherbourg dormitory until she was old enough to marry. By the time the future mayor was born in the 1970s, restrictions were being phased out.

    She is not afraid of change, but she doesn’t see how a Voice to Parliament in Canberra is going to help address the daily challenges she faces to keep her community employed, housed and educated.

    For that reason, she’s going to vote No.

    “I don’t make my decision lightly,” she said.”I have had a number of conversations with different mayors and communities and some mayors are for the Yes vote. It’s very divided right up the middle.

    “I’m going No because I just feel it’s a duplication. At the end of the day, I am the voice of Cherbourg because I’m the elected mayor for this community.”

    Zala is one of the newer Australians the No camp says would be done a disservice if the country’s Indigenous population was given special recognition in the constitution. Born in Gujarat, India, he moved to Australia in 2006 and has been working to close the gap in Cherbourg since 2011.

    “That’s still my motivation every day when I come here. I don’t accept why we have to be different than any other community. I always believed that we don’t want to create a community which is so much behind,” he said.

    Of the Voice, he said he’ll be voting Yes.

    “At least by voting Yes, you have hope. We don’t know the detail [of] what’s going to happen after the Voice, but it’s best to get it through and see if there might be something good come to the community,” he said. “And I think lots of people are going to do the same.”

    Source link

  • Three generations of First Nations men share their views on Australia’s referendum | CNN

    Three generations of First Nations men share their views on Australia’s referendum | CNN


    Brisbane, Australia
    CNN
     — 

    Before Australians last voted in a referendum on First Nations people in 1967, Uncle Bob Anderson set up a table and chair at a tram stop in central Brisbane.

    From his rail-side office, he’d tell anyone who would stop and listen that Australia counted its horses, cows, sheep and goats, but not its Indigenous people. “My question to you is, do you think they should be?” he’d say.

    Some 56 years later, the Ngugi Elder sat on a chair under the hot Brisbane sun on Sunday, his wispy white hair covered in a straw hat, his presence a sign of support for another referendum concerning his people.

    Nearby, thousands of people gathered for “Walk for Yes” rallies in multiple cities around Australia ahead of the October 14 vote.

    On that day, some 17.5 million registered voters will be asked whether Australia should change the constitution to include a permanent body made up of First Nations people to advise the government on matters affecting them.

    Now 94, Anderson says a Yes vote isn’t just important for him but the country.

    “By talking and walking together as a nation and as a society, we will share a common destiny,” he said.

    But less than four weeks out from the vote, polls suggest the split between the supporters and opponents is widening, in favor of no change to the constitution.

    Veteran grassroots Aboriginal activist Wayne Wharton wore the reason for his objections on his T-shirt, as he shouted at Yes supporters on a bridge in central Brisbane.

    “You’re a thief, a liar and a gatekeeper,” he yelled, to a mix of ages and races walking by. “Give back what you stole, give back what you stole, give back what you stole.”

    Aboriginal activist Wayne Wharton delivers his message to supporters at the

    The 62-year-old Kooma man told CNN on the phone that fundamentally people are being asked the wrong question.

    “In a well-meaning country and a country seeking justice, this question would never have been raised or tabled. The question that would have been offered would have been a question about [a] treaty or just occupation,” he said.

    Like Anderson, Wharton remembers the curfews that confined First Nations people to the outskirts of town between sunset and sunrise, the racial slurs hurled at him and his family, the abuse of his ancestors forced to live in missions, and the theft of First Nations children under policies of assimilation that later prompted a national apology.

    Wharton said he wants “liberation, freedom and restitution” delivered through negotiation by the hundreds of Aboriginal nations with people occupying their land.

    “I’ve seen many things change in my 60 years, and as the White bigots that created this continent of privilege die, the next generations have a greater sense of fairness and justice,” Wharton said.

    “I believe in my children’s time a lot of this will be overcome. And that’s why I want to make sure that the door of opportunity is always going to be there for those people when the opportunity comes to create a just occupation, that the mechanism will be there and that it wouldn’t have been hijacked by some desperates in 2023 that changed the constitution.”

    Other First Nations people see it differently, including Nick Harvey-Doyle, who at 31 is half the age of Wharton, and a third of the age of the Aboriginal Elder Anderson.

    From his New York apartment, Harvey-Doyle, an Anaiwan man from New South Wales, co-organized a walk across Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday, attended by more than 350 people, mostly Australians, calling for a Yes vote.

    “I’m from a really small country town that has about 10,000 people and I think there’s about 8,000 Australians in the New York tri-state area. To me, that’s almost essentially a whole country town worth of votes,” he said.

    Nick Harvey-Doyle is studying in New York and is calling for a Yes vote.

    Harvey-Doyle is a former lawyer who is studying at New York University with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship that provides funding for Indigenous students to undertake postgraduate research abroad. Sykes, who died in 2010, was the first Black Australian to study at Harvard, and fought for a Yes vote in the 1967 Referendum.

    That referendum, to count Indigenous people in Australia’s Census figures, passed with over 90% approval.

    Harvey-Doyle implored Australians living overseas to cast their votes to improve the life outcomes for First Nations people, who have lagged behind the country’s non-Indigenous population in heath and welfare statistics for decades.

    “We as Aboriginal people don’t feel like we have carriage over our most intimate and important personal affairs,” he said.

    “I think Aboriginal people do have a different way of life from non-Indigenous people and the current structures and institutions we have in place, don’t always acknowledge that and aren’t always in the best cultural place to service our needs.

    “Actually having a body that exists that is enshrined in the constitution that allows us empowerment, to give advice over our own lives and our own issues is actually super important.”

    More than 350 people walked across Brooklyn Bridge in New York to call for a Yes vote in the Australian Voice referendum.

    According to the Australian Electoral Commission, as of Sunday, more than 96,000 registered voters were outside Australia – including those living abroad and some 58,000 who have notified the commission that they’ll be traveling on October 14.

    While voting is compulsory within Australia, being overseas is considered a valid reason not to vote. More than 100 polling centers will be open worldwide to enable people to vote in person, or they can return a postal ballot. Overseas voting starts early, on October 2.

    To pass, the referendum needs the majority vote across the country, as well as the majority of people in at least four states.

    Indigenous people won’t determine the outcome of this vote – that will be up to millions of other non-Indigenous Australians, some of whom object to Indigenous people being given a special place over others within the constitution, calling the vote “divisive.”

    Wharton says the concept of millions of non-Indigenous voters deciding what’s best for 3% of the population is racist in itself.

    However, Harvey-Doyle says he’s wary of the message a no vote would send in the country and beyond.

    “If we vote No, it says that we are really happy to be apathetic towards the poor life outcomes that some average Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience, and I feel like that goes against what it means to be Australian to give everyone a fair go,” he said.

    “It’ll be a really sad global position for us to put ourselves in, if we do vote No.”

    Source link

  • Trump, who paved way for Roe v. Wade reversal, says Republicans ‘speak very inarticulately’ about abortion | CNN Politics

    Trump, who paved way for Roe v. Wade reversal, says Republicans ‘speak very inarticulately’ about abortion | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump, who paved the way for the undoing of federal abortion rights protections, said that some Republicans “speak very inarticulately” about the issue and have pursued “terrible” state-level restrictions that could alienate much of the country.

    While avoiding taking specific positions himself, Trump said in an NBC interview that if he is reelected he will try to broker compromises on how long into pregnancies abortion should be legal and whether those restrictions should be imposed on the federal or the state level.

    “I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something and we’ll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years,” he said.

    The former president targeted GOP primary rival Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in his criticism of how the Republican party has handled the issue, calling Florida’s six-week ban “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

    DeSantis’ camp hit back on Sunday, taking aim at the former president for saying he’d be willing to work with both parties on abortion.

    “We’ve already seen the disastrous results of Donald Trump compromising with Democrats: over $7 trillion in new debt, an unfinished border wall, and the jailbreak First Step Act letting violent criminals back on to the streets. Republicans across the country know that Ron DeSantis will never back down,” tweeted spokesperson Andrew Romeo.

    Trump also warned Republicans that the party would lose voters by advancing abortion restrictions without exceptions for cases of rape, incest or risks to the mother’s life.

    “Other than certain parts of the country, you can’t – you’re not going to win on this issue,” he said.

    Trump’s comments made plain the challenge for 2024 Republican presidential primary contenders: trying to balance the priorities of their conservative base, for whom the Supreme Court’s June 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade was a victory decades in the making, and those of the general electorate, which has consistently supported abortion rights – most recently in the 2022 midterms and the Wisconsin Supreme Court race this spring.

    Abortion could also be a pivotal issue this fall in Virginia’s state legislative elections, which are widely viewed as a barometer of the electorate’s mood in the lead-up to next year’s presidential election.

    Trump’s appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices paved the way to the reversal of the 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion rights across the United States through the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    That reversal left abortion rights up to the states, which has led to a patchwork of laws – including bans on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy in Florida and Iowa, the first state to vote in the GOP presidential nominating process.

    Abortion rights have been a major fault line in the 2024 Republican primary. Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, has advocated a federal abortion ban after 15 weeks. DeSantis, Trump’s top-polling rival, has touted the six-week ban he signed into law. However, other contenders, including Nikki Haley, have taken more moderate approaches, warning of the political backlash Republicans could face among the broader electorate by pursuing strict abortion restrictions.

    Trump would not commit to a specific policy preference in the interview. He deflected questions about whether he would support a federal ban – and if so, after how many weeks – or would rather the issue be left to statehouses.

    “What’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months, you’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy,” Trump said.

    Trump said he believed it was “probably better” to leave abortion restrictions up to the states instead of trying to pass federal legislation on the issue.

    “From a pure standpoint, from a legal standpoint, I think it’s probably better. But I can live with it either way,” Trump said. “It could be state or could it federal, I don’t frankly care.”

    The intra-GOP debate over abortion took center stage at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition gathering, attended by many of the state’s leading conservative evangelical activists.

    Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, one of the most vocal Trump critics among the GOP contenders, told reporters Saturday in Iowa that Trump has “taken evangelical voters for granted” and is “waffling on important issues.”

    “I think he is looking at the abortion question as not whether it’s going to win evangelical support, but what that’s going to look like down the road, and as he said he wants everybody to like him,” Hutchinson said.

    Asked about federal legislation on abortion, DeSantis continued not to engage on the topic of a national ban, instead pointing to new restrictions in states such as Iowa and Florida.

    “I’ve been a pro-life governor. I’ll be a pro-life president,” DeSantis said. “Clearly, a state like Iowa has been able to move the ball with pro-life protections. Florida has been able to move the ball.”

    Pence reiterated his support for a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy as a minimum, saying, “It’s an idea whose time has come.” He said Trump and other GOP candidates want to relegate the abortion issue to the states, “but I won’t have it.”

    ‘Personal for every woman and every man’

    However, other contenders more focused on the general electorate, including Haley – the former South Carolina governor and US ambassador to the United Nations – have sought to thread the same needle as Trump.

    Haley on Saturday told attendees at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Iowa that her beliefs are the “hard truth.” She said pursuing a federal 15-week abortion ban would have “everybody running from us.”

    While Haley opposes abortion, she has emphasized she believes Republicans and Democrats need find a consensus on abortion issues, such as banning later abortions and agreeing not to jail women who get them.

    “This issue is personal for every woman and every man. And we need to treat it that way. I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice any more than I want them to judge me for being pro-life,” she said.

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on CNN last week that he would be open to signing a federal abortion ban “if it represented consensus,” while admitting the current setbacks to reaching that consensus within the US Senate and across states.

    “I want all of the 50 states to be able to weigh in if they want to, and what their state laws should be, and then let’s see if it’s a consensus,” he said.

    Democrats, meanwhile, are eyeing abortion as one of the most important issues in the 2024 presidential election.

    CNN previously reported that President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign earlier this month made a digital advertising buy highlighting the positions of Trump and other GOP 2024 contenders on the issue.

    “As Donald Trump visits states where women are suffering the consequences of his extreme, anti-abortion agenda, this ad reminds voters in states that have passed some of the most extreme abortion bans of Trump’s key role in appointing conservative justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade,” Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, said in a statement to CNN.

    This story has been updated with additional information Sunday.

    Source link

  • Why some of Biden’s problems may be overblown at this time | CNN Politics

    Why some of Biden’s problems may be overblown at this time | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week. He’s under an impeachment inquiry, his son was indicted in Delaware, inflation seems to be tilting back up, the United Auto Workers went on strike after Biden said they wouldn’t, and the chattering class is talking about him not running for reelection.

    Some of these factors explain why my colleague Zach Wolf wrote that “Biden’s two worst weaknesses were exposed” this past week, and it’s also why I’ve written about the president’s difficulties heading into next year.

    But while Biden clearly has problems – no president with an approval rating hovering around 40% is in good shape – some of his issues appear to be overblown at this time. Here are three reasons why:

    A Washington Post op-ed by columnist David Ignatius that called on Biden not to run for reelection got a lot of play this past week.

    Putting aside whether Biden should or shouldn’t run, the fact is that he is running. A lot of people will point to polls (like those from CNN) showing that a majority of Democrats don’t think the party should renominate him.

    But these surveys only tell you so much. They’re matching Biden against himself and not anyone else. When asked in the CNN poll to name a preferred alternative to Biden, only a little more than 10% wanted someone else and could name a specific person.

    When matched up against the announced Democratic opposition (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson), Biden is crushing it. He’s over 70%, on average, in recent polling.

    Moreover, Biden’s job approval rating with Democrats hovers around 80%. That is well above the level at which past incumbents have faced strong primary challenges. Those challenges (such as when Ted Kennedy challenged incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980) came at a time when the president had an approval rating in the 50s or 60s among his own party members.

    It is worth analyzing whether the fact that a lot of Democrats don’t think Biden should be renominated masks a larger problem he could face in a general election.

    But Biden’s pulling in more than 90% of Democrats in Fox News and Quinnipiac University general election polling released this past week. In both polls, his share slightly exceeded former President Donald Trump’s among Republicans (though within the margin of error).

    The fact is Biden’s got problems, but worrying about renomination is not one of them.

    From a political point of view, Biden’s connections to his son Hunter have caused the president nothing but heartache. Most voters think Biden did something inappropriate related to his son’s business dealings.

    So, it might naturally follow that House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into the president’s ties to his son’s foreign business deals would be harmful to his political future.

    About 40% of voters, on average, think Joe Biden did something illegal. Most voters don’t.

    Some Republicans are no doubt hoping that Biden’s own troubles will make their likely nominee (Trump), who is under four indictments, look less bad by comparison. A majority of voters, however, think that Trump committed a crime.

    The public doesn’t see the Biden and Trump cases the same way.

    A Wall Street Journal poll from the end of August found that a majority of Americans (52%) did not want Biden to be impeached.

    Republicans will have to prove their case in the court of public opinion.

    It’s conceivable that Republicans will overshoot the mark like they have in the past. The impeachment inquiry into Bill Clinton in 1998 preceded one of the best performances by a president’s party in a midterm election. Clinton’s Democratic Party picked up seats in the House, which has happened three times for the president’s party in midterms over the last century.

    To see how impeachment could turn things upside down for the GOP this cycle, consider independent voters. While the vast majority of independents disapprove of the job Biden is doing as president (64%) in our latest CNN poll, only 39% think he did something illegal.

    An election about a potentially unpopular impeachment would be better for Biden than one about an issue that really hurts him (such as voters seeing him as too old).

    Stop me if you heard this one before: Biden is the president heading into an election, voters are unhappy with the state of the economy, and his party does much better in the elections than a lot of people thought.

    That’s what happened in the 2022 midterms.

    The inflation rate is lower now than it was then, but it’s on the uptick. Voters, both now and then, overwhelmingly disapprove of Biden’s handling of the economy. They even say the economy matters more than any other issue, like they did in 2022.

    What none of this data takes into account is that Americans almost always call the economy the top issue, according to Gallup.

    Believe it or not, fewer Americans say the economy is the top problem facing the country now (31%) than they have in either the median (40%) or average (45%) presidential election since 1988.

    If you think about recent presidential elections in which the economy was the big issue (1992, 2008 and 2012), the state of the economy dominated the headlines.

    But as mentioned above, right now, there are a lot of other things going on in the country, as was also the case during the 2022 midterms.

    It’s not as if the economy is helping Biden. I’m just not sure it’s hurting him.

    After all, there’s a reason why Democrats have consistently outperformed the 2020 presidential baseline in special elections this year.

    If things were really that bad for Biden and the Democrats, they’d most likely be losing elections all over the country. That simply isn’t happening at this point.

    Source link

  • CNN Poll: Biden faces negative job ratings and concerns about his age as he gears up for 2024 | CNN Politics

    CNN Poll: Biden faces negative job ratings and concerns about his age as he gears up for 2024 | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden faces continued headwinds from broadly negative job ratings overall, widespread concerns about his age and decreased confidence among Democratic-aligned voters, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

    There is no clear leader in a potential rematch between Biden and former President Donald Trump, who is widely ahead in the GOP primary. And nearly half of registered voters (46%) say that any Republican presidential nominee would be a better choice than Biden in 2024.

    Meanwhile, hypothetical matchups also suggest there would be no clear leader should Biden face one of the other major GOP contenders, with one notable exception: Biden runs behind former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

    Since Biden announced his reelection bid earlier this year – where he framed the 2024 contest as a fight against Republican extremism – his approval ratings have remained mired below the mid-40s, similar to Trump’s standing in 2019, and several points below Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton at this point ahead of their reelection campaigns.

    Still, Biden’s prospective opponents face challenges of their own: 44% of voters feel any Democratic candidate would be a better choice than Trump. Among the full public, both Biden’s and Trump’s favorability ratings stand at just 35%.

    Views of Biden’s performance in office and on where the country stands are deeply negative in the new poll. His job approval rating stands at just 39%, and 58% say that his policies have made economic conditions in the US worse, up 8 points since last fall. Seventy percent say things in the country are going badly, a persistent negativity that has held for much of Biden’s time in office, and 51% say government should be doing more to solve the nation’s problems.

    Perceptions of Biden personally are also broadly negative, with 58% saying they have an unfavorable impression of him. Fewer than half of Americans, 45%, say that Biden cares about people like them, with only 33% describing him as someone they’re proud to have as president. A smaller share of the public than ever now says that Biden inspires confidence (28%, down 7 percentage points from March) or that he has the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president (26%, down 6 points from March), with those declines driven largely by Democrats and independents.

    Roughly three-quarters of Americans say they’re seriously concerned that Biden’s age might negatively affect his current level of physical and mental competence (73%), and his ability to serve out another full term if reelected (76%), with a smaller 68% majority seriously concerned about his ability to understand the next generation’s concerns (that stands at 72% among those younger than 65, but just 57% of those 65 or older feel the same).

    A broad 67% majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters now say it’s very or extremely likely that Biden will again be the party’s presidential nominee, up from 55% who felt that way in May. But 67% also say the party should nominate someone other than Biden – up from 54% in March, though still below the high of 75% who said they were seeking an alternative last summer.

    That remains largely a show of discontent with Biden rather than support for any particular rival, with an 82% majority of those who’d prefer to see someone different saying that they don’t have any specific alternative in mind. Just 1%, respectively, name either of his two most prominent declared challengers, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. or Marianne Williamson.

    Much of the hesitation revolves around Biden’s vitality rather than his handling of the job. While strong majorities of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters continue to say that Biden cares about people like them (81%) and to approve of his overall job performance (75%), declining shares see him as inspiring confidence (51%, down 19 percentage points since March) or having the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president (49%, down 14 points from March).

    Asked to name their biggest concern about a Biden candidacy in 2024, 49% directly mention his age, with his mental acuity (7%) and health (7%) also top concerns, along with his ability to handle the job (7%) and his popularity and electability (6%). Just 5% say that they have no concerns.

    “I think he’s a trustworthy, honest person. But he’s so old and not totally with it,” wrote one 28-year-old Democratic voter who was surveyed. “Still love him though. But I also wish he was more progressive. It’s complicated.”

    Others see both positives and negatives to his age. “His age is a bit worrisome, but I would like to see a good strong Democrat as a consideration,” wrote a 66-year-old Democratic-leaning independent voter. “Otherwise I and husband will stick with Biden. He has wisdom many younger do not have nor understand.”

    Asked directly about the potential effects of his age, majorities of Democratic-aligned voters say they are seriously concerned that Biden’s age might negatively affect his current level of physical and mental competence (56%), his ability to win the 2024 general election if nominated (60%), and his ability to serve another full term as president if reelected (61%). Fewer, 43%, say they’re seriously concerned that his age would negatively affect his ability to understand the concerns of the next generation of Americans, although that rises to 59% among Democratic-aligned voters younger than 45. If reelected, Biden would take office in January 2025 at age 82.

    Most Democratic-aligned voters younger than 45 say they approve of Biden’s job performance overall. But in a break from older partisans, substantial majorities also say that Biden does not inspire confidence (63%), does not have the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively (64%), and that his policies have failed to improve the economy (64%).

    In an early gauge of a hypothetical Biden-Trump rematch, CNN’s poll finds, registered voters are currently split between Trump (47%) and Biden (46%), with the demographic contours that defined the 2020 race still prominent. Biden sees majority support among voters of color (58%), college graduates (56%), voters younger than 35 (55%) and women (53%), while Trump has majority support among Whites (53%), men (53%) and voters without a college degree (53%). Independent voters break in Biden’s favor, 47% to 38%, as do suburban women (51% Biden to 44% Trump). Trump holds wide, though not unanimous, support among voters who currently disapprove of Biden’s job performance, with 13% in this group saying they’d back Biden over Trump regardless.

    Presidential elections are decided by the state-by-state votes that determine the makeup of the electoral college rather than by national preferences, and given the distribution of electoral college votes among the states, a near-even race in the nationwide ballot is more likely to tilt to the Republican candidate in the electoral college count than the Democratic one.

    Nearly 6 in 10 registered voters say that their vote in a matchup between Trump and Biden would be largely motivated by their attitudes toward the former Republican president – 30% say they’d vote for Biden mostly to express their opposition to Trump, and 29% that they’d vote for Trump mostly in an affirmative show of support. Only about one-third, by contrast, said they’d see their votes mostly as a way to cast judgment on Biden.

    The criminal cases against Trump loom large over his candidacy, with both those motivated by support and those driven by opposition to him offering strongly held views on the charges. Those who say their support for Biden is more of an anti-Trump vote are near universal in saying the charges related to his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol (96%) and to efforts to overturn the 2020 election (93%) are disqualifying if true, while about seven in 10 of those who say their backing for Trump is to show support for him say the former president faces so many charges largely due to political abuse of the justice system (69%).

    Despite voters’ strong opinions toward Trump, Biden fares no better against any other Republican hopefuls tested in the poll. He is about even with Ron DeSantis (47% each), Mike Pence (46% Pence, 44% Biden), Tim Scott (46% Scott, 44% Biden), Vivek Ramaswamy (46% Biden, 45% Ramaswamy), and Chris Christie (44% Christie, 42% Biden). Haley stands as the only GOP candidate to hold a lead over Biden, with 49% to Biden’s 43% in a hypothetical match between the two. That difference is driven at least in part by broader support for Haley than for other Republicans among White voters with college degrees (she holds 51% of that group, compared with 48% or less for other Republicans tested in the poll).

    As of now, Republican and Republican-leaning voters are more deeply driven to vote in 2024 (71% extremely motivated) than Democratic-aligned voters (61% extremely motivated).

    The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from August 25-31 among a random national sample of 1,503 adults drawn from a probability-based panel, including 1,259 registered voters and 391 Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters. The survey included an oversample to reach a total of 898 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents; this group has been weighted to its proper size within the population. 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 3.5 points; among registered voters, the margin of sampling error is 3.6 points, and it is 6.0 for Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.

    Source link

  • Rhode Island and Utah hold special election primaries for House seats | CNN Politics

    Rhode Island and Utah hold special election primaries for House seats | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Rhode Island and Utah voters are choosing party nominees for US House seats on Tuesday with the two states each holding a special primary election.

    In Rhode Island, a crowded Democratic field will be narrowed down to one in the race to succeed Democrat David Cicilline in the state’s 1st Congressional District. Cicilline resigned in May to lead the Rhode Island Foundation.

    In Utah, Republicans will decide their nominee in the state’s 2nd Congressional District, which GOP Rep. Chris Stewart is expected to vacate on September 15. Stewart announced in June that he would be departing Congress, citing his wife’s health concerns.

    Both seats are not expected to change party hands in November, given the partisan leans of each district, so the outcome of Tuesday’s primaries will be critical to determining who their next members of Congress will be.

    Rhode Island’s general election is set for November 7, while the general election in Utah will take place on November 21.

    Rhode Island

    Rhode Island’s 1st District covers the eastern part of the state, including East and North Providence, Pawtucket and Portsmouth. Eleven Democrats are vying for the chance to succeed Cicilline.

    The district is a Democratic stronghold – Cicilline won a seventh term by 28 points last fall, and President Joe Biden would have carried the district by a similar margin in 2020 under its present lines. A Republican hasn’t held the seat since 1995.

    Former state Rep. Aaron Regunberg has raised the most funds of the Democrats currently in the race, bringing in $630,000 through August 16. Former White House official Gabe Amo and Lt. Gov. Sabina Matos trailed with $604,000 and $579,000, respectively.

    Regunberg is running on a progressive platform, focused on issues such as fighting climate change and housing insecurity. He has the backing of multiple prominent progressives, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, and the endorsement of the campaign arm of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He has faced criticism over support he’s received from a super PAC primarily funded by his father-in-law. After an unsuccessful bid for Rhode Island lieutenant governor in 2018, he earned a law degree from Harvard and worked as a judicial law clerk.

    Amo, the son of Ghanaian and Liberian immigrants, has worked in both the Obama and Biden administrations. He has received endorsements from high-profile Democrats such as former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who represented the 1st District for eight terms before Cicilline, and former White House chief of staff Ron Klain. He also has the backing of the campaign arm of the Congressional Black Caucus and Democrats Serve, which supports candidates with public service backgrounds.

    Amo, a former deputy director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, has made preventing gun violence a top priority, noting that during his White House tenure, he “was often the first call to a mayor following a mass shooting.”

    Matos, who emigrated to the US from the Dominican Republic at the age of 20, could make history as the first Afro-Latina in Congress. She has the backing of the campaign arm of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and EMILY’s List, which backs Democratic women who support abortion rights.

    Matos’ campaign endured controversy this summer following allegations her campaign had submitted falsified nominating signatures. Hundreds of signatures were thrown out, but her campaign submitted enough valid signatures to make the ballot. The incident is being investigated by the state attorney general. Matos has blamed an outside vendor for submitting the alleged false signatures.

    In another controversy leading up to the primary, businessman Don Carlson, who had loaned his campaign $600,000, ended his bid a little over a week ago following allegations of an inappropriate interaction he had with a college student in 2019. While his name remains on the ballot, the state Board of Elections ordered local boards to post a notice that he’d withdrawn, Chris Hunter, a spokesman for the state board told CNN. Carlson has endorsed state Sen. Sandra Cano, a Colombian immigrant who has made education a top priority in her campaign and has labor support.

    Marine veteran Gerry Leonard Jr., who had the endorsement of the state GOP, will win the party nomination, CNN projected Tuesday evening.

    Utah’s 2nd District covers the western portion of the state, stretching from the Salt Lake City area to St. George. Republicans are heavily favored to hold the seat – Stewart won a sixth term last fall by 26 points, while former President Donald Trump would have carried it under its current lines by 17 points in 2020.

    Three Republicans are looking to succeed Stewart: Former Utah GOP Chairman Bruce Hough, former Stewart aide Celeste Maloy and former state Rep. Becky Edwards.

    Maloy, who has Stewart’s backing, earned her spot on the ballot by winning a nominating convention in July, while Hough and Edwards qualified by collecting sufficient signatures.

    Edwards and Hough, boosted by significant self-funding, both outraised Maloy through August 16.

    Edwards raised $679,000 – $300,000 of which she loaned to her campaign – while Hough raised nearly $539,000, including $334,000 of his own money. Maloy had brought in $307,000 through August 16.

    Maloy, who worked as a counsel in Stewart’s Washington office, has faced questions over her eligibility for the special election primary ballot over voter registration issues. She was marked inactive in the state’s voter database because she did not cast a ballot in 2020 and 2022, according to The Salt Lake Tribune, after she relocated to Virginia to work for Stewart. But the state GOP submitted her name for the ballot, noting that no objections to her candidacy were filed before the convention.

    On the campaign trail, Maloy said she’s been focusing on government overreach. She has proposed defunding federal agencies to eliminate “anything they’re doing that Congress hasn’t authorized.”

    Voters are “worried that these executive branch agencies have too much power, they’re not checked and they’re too involved in our lives,” Maloy told CNN affiliate KUTV in an interview. “And I happen to agree.”

    Maloy’s campaign has received financial support from VIEW PAC, which is dedicated to recruiting and electing Republican women to Congress.

    Hough – the father of professional dancers Julianne and Derek Hough, who rose to fame on “Dancing with the Stars” – is focusing on debt reduction and deficit control, citing his family as one of the reasons why he’s running.

    “With 22 grandkids, 10 kids and a $32 trillion (US) debt, I’m very anxious about their future and about the future of all Americans and all Utahns,” Hough told ABC4 in a video posted in June. “It’s time that we actually do something about it.”

    Hough, who until recently had been Utah’s Republican national committeeman, has positioned himself as the candidate most supportive of Trump.

    Edwards, meanwhile, challenged GOP Sen. Mike Lee in a primary last year as a moderate opposed to Trump and took 30% of the vote. On the trail, she has touted her experience as a state lawmaker, focusing on priorities such as health care, education and fiscal responsibility.

    Edwards, who backed Biden in 2020, expressed “regret” for that support at a debate in June, saying she had been “extremely disappointed” with his administration, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

    The winner of Tuesday’s GOP primary will face Democratic state Sen. Kathleen Riebe in November. Riebe won her party’s nomination at a June convention.

    This story has been updated with a CNN projection.

    Source link

  • CNN Exclusive: Special counsel election probe continues with focus on fundraising, voting equipment breaches | CNN Politics

    CNN Exclusive: Special counsel election probe continues with focus on fundraising, voting equipment breaches | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Special counsel Jack Smith is still pursuing his investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election a month after indicting Donald Trump for orchestrating a broad conspiracy to remain in power, a widening of the probe that raises the possibility others could still face legal peril.

    Questions asked of two recent witnesses indicate Smith is focusing on how money raised off baseless claims of voter fraud was used to fund attempts to breach voting equipment in several states won by Joe Biden, according to multiple sources familiar with the ongoing investigation.

    In both interviews, prosecutors have focused their questions on the role of former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell.

    According to invoices obtained by CNN, Powell’s non-profit, Defending the Republic, hired forensics firms that ultimately accessed voting equipment in four swing states won by Biden: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona.

    Powell faces criminal charges in Georgia after she was indicted last month by Atlanta-area district attorney Fani Willis, who alleges that Powell helped coordinate and fund a multi-state plot to illegally access voting systems after the 2020 election.

    Powell pleaded not guilty to the charges.

    Those charges center around a voting system breach in Coffee County, Georgia, a rural, Republican district that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2020. Willis’ indictment describes the breach, and Powell’s alleged involvement, as central to the broader conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.

    Powell has also been identified by CNN as one of Trump’s un-indicted co-conspirators listed in Smith’s federal election indictment.

    New details about Smith’s ongoing investigation indicate federal prosecutors are scrutinizing a series of voting breaches following the 2020 election that state investigators have been probing for more than a year.

    Exactly how this recent line of inquiry fits into Smith’s ongoing criminal investigation remains unclear. Smith’s grand jury in Washington, DC, is set to expire on Sept. 15 but it can be extended beyond then.

    The special counsel’s office declined to comment.

    According to sources, witnesses interviewed by Smith’s prosecutors in recent weeks were asked about Powell’s role in the hunt for evidence of voter fraud after the 2020 election, including how her nonprofit group, Defending the Republic, provided money to fund those efforts.

    Powell promoted Defending the Republic as a non-profit focused on funding post-election legal challenges by Trump’s team as it disputed results in key states Biden had won. Those challenges and fundraising efforts underpinning them were all based on the premise that evidence of widespread voter fraud was already in hand.

    But according to documents reviewed by CNN and witness testimony obtained by the House select committee that investigated January, 6, 2021, the group was used to fund a desperate search to retroactively back-up baseless claims that Trump’s lawyers had already put forward in failed lawsuits challenging the results in several states.

    A series of invoices and communications obtained by election integrity groups including The Coalition for Good Governance and American Oversight show Defending the Republic contributed millions of dollars toward the push to access voting equipment in key states.

    In a court filing after her indictment in Georgia, Powell denied involvement in the Coffee County breach but acknowledged that “a non-profit she founded” paid the forensics firm hired to examine voting systems there.

    Powell did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    Smith’s team has specifically asked witnesses about certain conspiracy theories pushed by Powell including that Dominion Voting Systems had ties to former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and featured software he used to rig his own election. The software company has previously said the turnout in those Venezuelan elections, not the voting system, was manuipulated.

    One witness who met with Smith’s team earlier last month, former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik, spoke at length about how Trump allies accessed voting systems in Antrim County, Michigan, shortly after Election Day. Kerik also discussed the origins of a theory that voting machines could switch votes from one candidate to another, according to his lawyer Tim Parlatore.

    Kerik also acknowledged the breach of voting systems in Coffee County during his interview with federal prosecutors, Parlatore told CNN, adding that while his client raised the topic, the conversation did not delve into specifics.

    Kerik and another witness who met with Smith’s team in recent weeks were both asked if Powell was ever able to back-up her various claims of fraud, including conspiracy theories that foreign countries had hacked voting equipment.

    Both were also asked about Defending the Republic and how it was used as a source of funding efforts to find evidence of voter fraud, sources told CNN.

    In addition, special counsel prosecutors have also heard from other witnesses about efforts to breach voting equipment in other states.

    In April, an FBI agent and a prosecutor from Smith’s special counsel’s office interviewed a Pennsylvania resident named Mike Ryan, who used to work for a wealthy Pennsylvania Republican donor named Bill Bachenberg.

    coffee county election office vpx

    Inside the election office involved in latest Trump indictment

    During his interview, which Ryan described to CNN, Ryan says he told federal investigators that Bachenberg worked with Powell and other Trump lawyers to access voting systems in Pennsylvania and other states after the 2020 election.

    Bachenberg, who helped organize Pennsylvania’s fake electors, was subpoenaed by the House select committee last year but there is no public indication he testified. Ryan says he told federal investigators that after the 2020 election Bachenberg was in direct contact with Trump and a host of the former president’s most prominent allies – including lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman – participating in strategy calls about efforts to overturn the election results in multiple states.

    It is unclear if Bachenberg has been contacted by Smith’s team or the FBI. Bachenberg did not reply to requests for comments from CNN.

    Breaches in Pennsylvania and Michigan

    Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson also told CNN that she’s spoken to investigators at both the state and federal level about the push to access voting systems.

    Benson says when she met with Smith’s team earlier this spring, she, like Kerik, was asked specifically about efforts related to Antrim County, Michigan, where Powell and a lawyer named Stefanie Lambert helped fund a team of pro-Trump operatives who accessed voting systems shortly after Election Day in 2020.

    Stefanie Lambert listens during a court hearing in Detroit, Michigan, in October 2022.

    The operatives then produced a report claiming votes were flipped from Trump to Biden in Antrim County. That report was then used as supposed evidence to support the dozens of failed lawsuits that Powell filed on Trump’s behalf alleging voter fraud. The report was since debunked.

    “I believe the investigation at the federal level is broad and is meticulous and is looking at all the ways in which democracy was attacked in 2020. And so I would expect everything is on the table, every law that was violated,” Benson told CNN last month referring to the special counsel’s interest in efforts to access voting systems.

    Lambert was charged last month by state prosecutors in Michigan for her alleged involvement in a conspiracy to access voting machines there. Lambert is also linked to a breach in Fulton County, Pennsylvania, where she provided legal representation for the county itself after two Republican county officials secretly allowed a forensics firm to copy voting machine data in an effort to help Trump overturn his 2020 loss in the state.

    The breach is currently the subject of an ongoing probe being conducted by a prosecutor selected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

    Lambert and Bachenberg both received copies of voting system data from Fulton County during the breach, according to the recent civil lawsuit that names both individuals.

    Lambert has also been identified by CNN as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Georgia indictment, which alleges she worked with Powell to secure voting system data that was copied from Coffee County and was tasked with helping collect invoices from the forensics firm hired through Defending the Republic.

    In a statement to CNN, Lambert did not elaborate on her ties to Bachenberg but defended her election-related work, saying, “I am a zealous advocate for my clients. I haven’t broken any laws.”

    Emails obtained by American Oversight indicate Bachenberg was involved in discussions about funding for the Arizona audit and helped facilitate a similar review in Pennsylvania.

    In a September 2021 email containing a summary of the final report on the controversial election audit conducted in Arizona, Bachenberg wrote that “PA will be one of the next domino’s [sic] to fall.”

    That same month, Republicans in the Pennsylvania Senate launched a “forensic investigation” of the state’s 2020 election results.

    Source link

  • Vivek Ramaswamy has Iowa voters curious, but not yet committed, after standout debate | CNN Politics

    Vivek Ramaswamy has Iowa voters curious, but not yet committed, after standout debate | CNN Politics


    Urbandale, Iowa
    CNN
     — 

    At the conclusion of Vivek Ramaswamy’s second campaign stop here on Saturday – his sixth event out of eight over two days in Iowa – his staff rushed him towards their campaign bus. The businessman-turned-politician was late for a flight across the state to his next event. But as reporters and camera crews crowded the bus to see him off, Ramaswamy stopped and took time for questions.

    It was hardly a new occurrence. He’d held impromptu press availabilities after nearly every event on this tour up to that point. More striking was that, nearly 72 hours after playing a starring role in Wednesday’s heated and highly combative Republican primary debate, he was still taking stock of the defining moment of his campaign thus far.

    “I think it’s a major accomplishment that many people are able to pronounce my name now. That’s the true mark of a real milestone on this campaign,” Ramaswamy joked. “If we got there, anything’s possible.”

    Ramaswamy’s ascent from political unknown to attention-grabbing insurgent has been one of the most unexpected developments of the Republican primary so far. The only candidate in the race with no previous role in public life, he became a central figure in the first primary debate, standing in the middle of the stage and receiving sharp attacks from several Republican rivals after pre-debate nationwide polls of Republican voters put him in third place behind Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump, who did not attend the event.

    For many voters in Iowa, the debate was their introduction to the 38-year-old candidate. Some told CNN they came away intrigued, if not entirely convinced, by his message.

    “I’m really intrigued by this new candidate. He’s very young, very personable. There’s a spark there,” Mara Brown, a retired teacher from Des Moines, Iowa, said.

    Brown considered herself a “dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporter” heading into Wednesday night’s debate. But after seeing Ramaswamy speak, she said she’s giving his candidacy further consideration. She felt she was able to connect with Ramaswamy personally when he spoke and commended him for how he handled the barrage of attacks.

    “When it was dished out, he was able to very calmly and compassionately turn it around on the other candidates,” she said. “He is absolutely the biggest standout out of all the candidates.”

    Those who tuned in saw Ramaswamy’s policies and perspective under intense scrutiny from the other candidates on stage. Former Vice President Mike Pence called Ramaswamy a “rookie” and frequently emphasized his lack of experience in public office. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie poked at his verbose rhetorical style, comparing him to the ChatGPT artificial intelligence tool. Arguably the most piercing blow came from former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, who forcefully attacked Ramaswamy’s polarizing proposals to amend US foreign policy toward Russia, China and the Middle East at the expense of Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel respectively.

    “Under your watch, you will make America less safe,” Haley said to Ramaswamy. “You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows.”

    Yet despite being the subject of a deluge of criticisms, early indications show voters thought Ramaswamy made a strong impression. A survey of potential Republican primary voters who watched the debate conducted by The Washington Post, FiveThirtyEight and Ipsos showed 26% of voters thought Ramaswamy won the debate, second highest behind DeSantis. Ramaswamy’s favorability ratings rose among voters who watched the debate compared to their views beforehand, but his unfavorability ratings rose, too. Still, the Ramaswamy campaign said it raised $600,000 in the day after the debate, the largest single-day total since its launch.

    After the debate concluded, Ramaswamy told CNN in the spin room that he viewed the critiques against him as an indicator of the strength of his campaign.

    “I took it as a badge of honor,” he said in Milwaukee on Wednesday. “To be at center stage and see a lot of establishment politicians that threatened by my rise, I am thrilled that it actually gave me an opportunity to introduce myself to the people of this country.”

    In his first campaign stops after the debate, Iowans packed into restaurants and event halls, looking to hear more about his vision for the country. Melissa Berry, a nurse from Winterset, Iowa, came to see Ramaswamy speak in her hometown because she’d never heard his views prior to the debate but liked what she saw in his performance. She said economic issues and safety were her two biggest concerns and connected with how Ramaswamy talked about those issues.

    “I feel like all the principles that he brings forth is what I support and there wasn’t anything that I really disagreed with,” Berry said. “I like what he stands for and he’s been very successful, and I felt like that can bring a lot to our country and help our country flourish.”

    Jake Chapman, Ramaswamy’s Iowa co-chair, said the candidate’s impassioned delivery and highly-charged message are creating a unique atmosphere at his recent campaign stops.

    “There is an energy level in these rooms where people come out of the room inspired and wanting to do something,” Chapman said. “It’s one thing to go hear a boring political speech. That’s not what you get with Vivek Ramaswamy.”

    These Iowa voters thought Republican debate had a clear winner. Hear who

    Ramaswamy’s recent rise in the polls was among the biggest storylines heading into Wednesday night’s debate. A former biotechnology CEO, he first stepped into politics when he found an investment management firm that specialized in “anti-woke” asset management and refused to consider environmental, social and corporate governance factors when investing. His wife, Apoorva, told The Atlantic magazine recently that Ramaswamy hadn’t mentioned running for political office until December 2022, when he floated the idea of running for president.

    When his campaign launched in February, many Republicans didn’t seriously consider the Ohio-based entrepreneur amid a wide field of possible presidential hopefuls. A Quinnipiac poll from March showed Ramaswamy with less than 1% support from Republicans and Republican-leaning voters nationally.

    But since then, Ramaswamy has catapulted himself from unknown outsider to center stage, largely through a combination of non-stop interviews and cross-country campaign travel mixed with a willingness to embrace and engage with ideas that fall outside the mainstream principles of many of his Republican rivals.

    Ahead of the debate, national Republican primary polling showed Ramaswamy as high as third behind Trump and DeSantis, but still lagging behind in support among Republicans in Iowa.

    Milt Van Grundy, a retired physician from Marshalltown, Iowa, started to seriously consider Ramaswamy after seeing him at the debate. His wife had been intrigued by him before Wednesday, but he said he liked hearing Ramaswamy propose a forward-looking vision for the country.

    “He’s offering a new way of trying to do business in Washington, DC, that I think is good for the country,” he said.

    Van Grundy voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 but said Ramaswamy’s youth and Trump’s age have turned his head away from the former president, self-effacingly referencing his own age in explaining his thinking.

    “I’m 77, and I don’t want to be president,” he joked. “These guys that are 80 and up, not interested.”

    Ramaswamy has closely tied himself to Trump’s ideology, and, at times, to Trump himself. He has referred to the former president as a “friend” and credited him with redefining conservative thinking on a number of issues, from immigration and foreign policy to the federal bureaucracy. He has also gone further than any other candidate in defending Trump amid the multiple state and federal indictments he currently faces. Ahead of Trump’s arraignment hearing in Florida following the former president’s indictment for retaining classified documents, Ramaswamy held a news conference outside the courthouse where he pledged as president to fully pardon Trump and called on other candidates to do the same. During Wednesday’s debate, Ramaswamy praised Trump as “the best president of the 21st century.”

    When he does distance himself from Trump, he does so primarily to pitch himself as the candidate who can advance Trump’s agenda more successfully than the former president. Ramaswamy told reporters after speaking to a crowded restaurant in Indianola on Friday he believes his background – and Trump’s baggage – make him more likely to bring their overlapping worldview to a broader group of voters.

    “President Trump, through no fault of his own in my view, in large part is – when he’s in office, about 30% of this country loses their mind. They become psychiatrically ill, disagreeing with things they once agreed with, agreeing with things they never agreed with,” Ramaswamy said. “I’m not having that effect on people. I think it’s because I’m a member of a different generation, because I’m somebody who’s lived the American dream, because I speak about the country for what is possible for where we can go even though I do recognize the downward slide we’ve long been in.”

    “I think that positions me to not only unite the country, but to go further than Trump did with the America first agenda,” he added.

    Haloti Tukuafu grew up in Maui but moved to Clarion, Iowa, after his wife got a job nearby. He said he sees Ramaswamy as a “mini-Trump,” and likes that he’s reaching out to younger voters. He supported Trump in 2016 and 2020, but currently he’s split between Trump and Ramaswamy and concerned the multiple indictments against Trump could negatively affect his chances of beating President Joe Biden.

    “Trump didn’t have the younger voters. Vivek has that connection with the younger crowd to bring in more in the Republican party than anybody else,” Tukuafu said.

    Despite their different faiths, Pam McCumber – a Christian from Newton, Iowa, who came to see Ramaswamy, a practicing Hindu, speak at a Pizza Ranch restaurant in her hometown – said she feels she can connect with the Ohio-based entrepreneur, and recognizes some characteristics of the former president in him.

    “He’s got the energy that Trump does, but then he’s also got the personality that most, I say, hometown Christians want. You know, don’t have to be worried about what he’s going to say next,” McCumber said.

    His willing alignment with Trump made Ramaswamy a focal point for many of his rivals even before the debate. A strategy and research memo released by a research firm aligned with the super PAC backing DeSantis urged the Florida governor to “hammer” Ramaswamy and outlined various contradictory statements he’s made on several issues. Haley tipped off her forthcoming attack on Ramaswamy’s foreign policy views with a statement ahead of the debate highlighting his proposal to withdraw aid from Israel. And Pence helped elevate a podcast interview Ramaswamy gave earlier this month where he suggested an openness to conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks, an issue that resurfaced just ahead of the debate when The Atlantic published an interview he gave questioning whether federal officials may have been involved in the attacks.

    The underlying criticisms made by his rivals have left lingering questions in the minds of some, including Gene Smith, a retiree from Des Moines. She and her husband, Terry, like Ramaswamy’s message, but she’s concerned his lack of government experience would make it difficult for him to execute his policy vision if he became president. She cited the pushback Trump received during his four years in office toward some of the policies he tried, but ultimately failed, to enact.

    “He’s never held political office, and it is truly a swamp in DC,” she said. “I think even Trump, who’s a very experienced person, was I think blindsided by it. I think when you get into politics you are blindsided by the corruption.”

    Gay Lee Wilson, a retiree from Pleasant Hill, Iowa, and a Christian, cares deeply about Israel, and was confused by Ramaswamy’s proposal to suspend aid to the US’ strongest ally in the Middle East, a proposal Ramaswamy has since backed away from.

    “That is a big deal for me. And I thought, well, maybe somebody’s misstating, misquoting him. But then he said it himself. But then he was saying, ‘no, that isn’t exactly –’ So, I don’t know where he stands,” Wilson said.

    To her, the questions about his policy toward Israel raise questions about his broader foreign policy judgment and his commitment to protecting Judeo-Christian values.

    “I think if his thought process is of backing away from our support of Israel, that I want to know why he’s thinking that. Because as a believer, I don’t think you would think that if you knew biblically, and if you knew world politics and everything, I think you would think differently about that,” she said.

    After Ramaswamy’s prepared remarks in Winterset, Iowa, Ramaswamy took a question from Cory Christensen, who had traveled a half hour from Waukee, Iowa, to hear him speak. He said he responded to almost everything Ramaswamy said at the event but had “one residual doubt” about his proposal to negotiate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine that would see Russia take control of territory they currently occupy in Ukraine.

    “I’m hard pressed to believe that allowing Russia’s aggression to stand is in our American interests, so can you help me understand your policy?” Christensen asked.

    Ramaswamy proceeded to give a winding, intricate, nearly 10-minute long answer to Christensen’s question, touching on former President Richard Nixon’s foreign policy strategy, criticizing the US aid packages to Ukraine, warning of Chinese technology inside US critical infrastructure systems, and portraying the stark danger of a nuclear war with either Russia or China before ultimately laying out the details of his proposal to allow Russia to claim Ukrainian territory and receive assurance Ukraine would not join NATO in exchange for commitment from Russia to “exit its military alliance” with China.

    After the event, Christensen said he found Ramaswamy’s answer “persuasive.” He said he’s nearly ready to commit to caucusing for Ramaswamy and has already donated to his campaign but is holding out for now with the caucuses still over four months away.

    “I found it pretty persuasive,” Christensen said. “I’m not 100% of the way there yet, but well on the way.”

    Christensen said he much preferred to hear him speak in an unrestricted format like the event in Winterset, as opposed to hearing him at the debate, which left him with unanswered questions following his back-and-forth with Haley.

    “The tagline and attacking Nikki on you know, you’ve got your Raytheon board seat or whatever – that doesn’t help me. It didn’t help me at all. And I want to like him,” Christensen said.

    “I would have loved to see it in the debate, something, even if he condensed his argument here on Ukraine into like, five bullet points. I would rather see that than sort of just attacking her on ‘Hey, you’re just a part of the establishment,’ and those sort of superficial answers,’ he added.

    Ramaswamy acknowledged the downsides of being an inexperienced politician while speaking to reporters after an event in Clarion, Iowa, but also highlighted the benefits of approaching issues with a different perspective.

    “There’s always going to be tradeoffs, but with experience comes tiredness, defeat, status quo, biases, corruption. I don’t have any of that. And I think that that’s both an advantage and – and also, in some ways, you don’t know what you don’t know. So, I’ll admit that,” he said.

    The Ramaswamy campaign plans to continue visiting Iowa and answering voter questions like Christensen’s around the state, Chapman told CNN. He dismissed state polling that showed Ramaswamy lagging behind where he stands in the national polls and said Ramaswamy will continue to show up in towns around the state to carry his post-debate momentum forward.

    “We go from having 20 people in a room to now hitting max capacity of some of these rooms, and we’re going to continue to build that energy,” Chapman said.

    “I think here in Iowa, ultimately, we reward people who are willing to put in the hard work. And he’s willing to do that,” he added.

    Chapman says the campaign doesn’t plan on advancing Ramaswamy’s message in the state through television advertising any time soon, dismissing the traditional campaign strategy as a “short-lived tactic” that he believes only helps some candidates marginally.

    “You have career politicians that they believe they can buy elections. The more money they spend, they can get more votes, and sure, that has helped some of them here and there. But Iowans see right through that,” he said.

    Hillary Ferrer, a former teacher and writer from Pella, Iowa, said she really likes Ramaswamy’s ideas, but is concerned about his appeal to a mainstream audience and wants to support a candidate she sees as electable. She thinks more exposure to voters around the state could help him leapfrog DeSantis and Trump, but acknowledged one built-in disadvantage for Ramaswamy she encountered when spreading his message to her circle of friends.

    “I mean, he’s not lying. He’s got a hard name to say,” Ferrer said. “I couldn’t spell it out when I posted something today.”

    Source link

  • Ecuador votes in historic referendum on oil extraction in the Amazon | CNN

    Ecuador votes in historic referendum on oil extraction in the Amazon | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    The people of Ecuador are heading to the polls – but they’re voting for more than just a new president. For the first time in history, the people will decide the fate of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

    The referendum will give voters the chance to decide whether oil companies can continue to drill in one of the most biodiverse places on the planet, the Yasuní National Park, home to the last uncontacted indigenous communities in Ecuador.

    The park encompasses around one million hectares at the meeting point of the Amazon, the Andes and the Equator. Just one hectare of Yasuní land supposedly contains more animal species than the whole of Europe and more tree species than exist in all of North America.

    But underneath the land lies Ecuador’s largest reserve of crude oil.

    “We are leading the world in tackling climate change by bypassing politicians and democratizing environmental decisions,” said Pedro Bermo, the spokesman for Yasunidos, an environmental collective who pushed for the referendum.

    It’s been a decade-long battle that began when former President Rafael Correa boldly proposed that the international community give Ecuador $3.6 billion to leave Yasuní undisturbed. But the world wasn’t as generous as Correa expected. In 2016, the Ecuadorian state oil company began drilling in Block 43 – around 0.01% of the National Park – which today produces more than 55,000 barrels a day, amounting to around 12% of Ecuador’s oil production.

    Aerial picture of the Tiputini Processing Center of state-owned Petroecuador in Yasuni National Park, June 21, 2023.

    A continuous crusade of relentless campaigning and a successful petition eventually made its mark – in May, the country’s constitutional court authorized the vote to be included on the ballot of the upcoming election.

    It’s a decision that will likely be instrumental to the future of Ecuador’s economy. Supporters who want to continue drilling believe the loss of employment opportunities would be disastrous.

    “The backers of the request for crude to remain underground made it ten years ago when there wasn’t anything. 10 years later we find ourselves with 55,000 barrels per day, that’s 20 million barrels per year,” Energy Minister Fernando Santos told local radio.

    “At $60 a barrel that’s $1.2 billion,” he added. “It could cause huge damage to the country,” he said, referring to economic damage and denying there has been environmental harm.

    Alberto Acosta-Burneo, an economist and editor of the Weekly Analysis bulletin, said Ecuador would be “shooting itself in the foot” if it shut down drilling. In a video posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, he said that without cutting consumption all it would mean is another country selling Ecuador fuel.

    But ‘yes’ campaigners have ideas to fill the gap, from the promotion of eco-tourism and the electrification of public transport to eliminating tax exemptions. They claim that cutting the subsidies to the richest 10% of the country would generate four times more than what is obtained extracting oil from Yasuní.

    “This election has two faces,” explained Bermo.

    “On one hand we have the violence, the candidates, parties, and the same political mafias that governed Ecuador without significant changes.

    “On the other hand, the referendum is the contrary – a citizen campaign full of hope, joy, art, activism and a lot of collective work to save this place. We are very optimistic.”

    Among those campaigning to stop the drilling is Helena Gualinga, an indigenous rights advocate who hails from a remote village in the Ecuadorian Amazon – home of the Kichwa Sarayaku community.

    A crude oil sample taken from an oil well in Yasuní National Park, where the referendum vote could mean leaving the crude oil in the ground indefinitely.

    “This referendum presents a huge opportunity for us to create change in a tangible way,” she told CNN.

    For Gualinga, the most crucial part of the referendum is that if Yasunidos wins, the state oil company will have a one-year deadline to wrap up its operations in Block 43.

    She explained that some oil companies have left areas in the Amazon without properly shutting down operations and restoring the area.

    “This sentence would mean they have to do that.”

    Those who wish to continue drilling in the area argue that meeting the one-year deadline to dismantle operations would be impossible.

    The referendum comes as the world faces blistering temperatures, with scientists declaring July as the hottest month on record, and the Amazon approaching what studies are suggesting is a critical tipping point that could have severe implications in the fight to tackle climate change.

    And according to Antonia Juhasz, a Senior Researcher on Fossil Fuels, it’s time for Ecuador to transition to a post-oil era. Ecuador’s GDP from oil has dropped significantly from around 18% in 2008, to just over 6% in 2021.

    She believes the benefits of protecting the Amazon outweigh the benefits of maintaining dependence on oil, particularly considering the cost of regular oil spills and the consequences of worsening the climate crisis.

    “The Amazon is worth more intact than in pieces, as are its people,” she said.

    Source link