Split (1)

train · 22.5k rows

article_text stringlengths 294 32.8k ⌀	topic stringlengths 3 42
Biden Calls Out Members of Congress ‘Sowing So Much Division They’re Willing to Shut Down the Government’ The government's fiscal year ends September 30, with no budget compromise from Congress in sight President Joe Biden criticized Congress for being unable to come to a deal and pass a government budget Saturday, calling the attitude of being willing to go into a shutdown "unacceptable." Biden blamed the potential shutdown on politicians attempting to cause partisan discord, saying in a statement on social media: "There are those in Congress right now who are sowing so much division, they’re willing to shut down the government tonight." The fiscal year for the government ends Sept. 30. The House of Representatives will reconvene Saturday morning at 10 o'clock, as Republicans attempt to cobble together enough votes to pass a budget. Their first attempt to do so would have funded the government through Oct. 31 and failed to get enough votes in the House, falling 198-232, with 21 Republicans voting against it. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of the Republican holdout votes, responded to Biden, criticizing him for "giving emergency funding to the government and war in Ukraine instead of giving emergency funding to U.S. Military troops." Former President Donald Trump criticized Biden along with Senate Republicans Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and Mitt Romney, whom he accused of trying to “bail out” Biden by putting together a budget deal. - Nikki Haley Calls for Congress Pay to Be Paused If Government Shuts Down - The Government is Set to Shut Down on Sunday and Congress Has No Plan to Avoid That - What Happens if the Federal Government Shuts Down? - House Republicans Embrace Shutting Down the Government to Protest Biden Border Policies - Gaetz Says He Will Forego Pay if Government Shuts Down - Ousting Speaker McCarthy, Shutting Down the Government, Impeaching Biden: All Under Consideration by GOP - Trump Drops Expletives While DeSantis Embraces Policy in Dueling California SpeechesPolitics - Jack Smith: Trump Needs a Narrow Gag Order to Stop His ‘Free Rein to Publicly Intimidate Witnesses and Malign’ Court, DC, ProsecutorsPolitics - Donald Trump Shares His Thoughts on Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s RelationshipEntertainment - Trump’s Spot on 2024 Ballot in Michigan Tested in 14th Amendment Lawsuit From Liberal NonprofitPolitics - IRS Contractor Charged With Stealing Trump’s Tax Returns That Got Leaked to the MediaPolitics - Trump Rips Democrats, Says Their Approach to Him is ‘Let’s Indict the Motherf—-r’Politics - Speaker McCarthy and GOP Race Toward Government ShutdownNews - In a Government Shutdown, Here’s What Happens When Soldiers Miss a PaycheckPolitics - Final Three Trump Georgia Co-Defendants Lose Bids to Move Cases to Federal CourtPolitics - Trump’s DC Case Judge Schedules Oct. 16 Hearing on Jack Smith’s ‘Narrow’ Gag Order RequestPolitics - Trump Plans to Attend First Week of New York Civil Fraud Trial ‘in Person,’ Court Docs SayPolitics - RFK Jr. Could Be Planning an Independent RunPolitics	US Congress
As House lawmakers return from a summer recess next week, with less than a month to pass a federal budget, the GOP’s hard-right flank plans to impose a thorny ultimatum on its caucus: open an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden or risk a government shutdown. The scenario is setting up a potentially combustible standoff. Republicans have only a slim five-member majority, and there are nearly twenty House GOP dissenters, according to sources familiar with the matter. Speaker Kevin McCarthy has said he would only initiate an impeachment inquiry after a full House vote. It’s a moment Official Washington has been bracing for since last November, when Republicans won control of the lower chamber and went straight for Biden’s jugular. But the House Oversight Committee’s months-long investigation has yet to find evidence that the President profited from his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings. That’s led to resistance among some powerful GOP bigwigs, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “Impeachment ought to be rare,” he said. “This is not good for the country.” None of that is slowing down the House Republicans who are hungry for Biden to endure an impeachment ordeal while Donald Trump is facing four separate court cases, all of which could go to trial over the next year. And they are mustering a strategy to flip their reluctant GOP colleagues: force a vote and subject the defectors to the wrath of a MAGA-fueled retaliation and social media onslaught. More From TIME “Let me tell you the greatest thing that can happen,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia tells TIME. “If I were Speaker of the House, I would put the impeachment inquiry vote to the floor on September 12 when we got back, whether it fails or not. Then I'd let those members who voted against it hear from their constituents. And then I'd put it back to the floor for a vote again, and I can guarantee they will sing a different tune.” It’s a tactic that has worked for Trump-allied Republicans before. In June, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna forced a vote to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who led Trump’s first impeachment and served on the Jan. 6 Committee, but the measure fell short because of 20 GOP holdouts. After Luna and her allies orchestrated a social media backlash against the Republican detractors—and removed a provision that would have fined Schiff $16 million—the Florida freshman reintroduced the motion a week later. This time, it passed on a party-line vote. Not a single Republican voted against it. Now, Republicans are exploring that same blueprint to push forward an impeachment inquiry, the formal mechanism that initiates the impeachment process. “I have no problem calling out names,” Greene says. In the interview, she cited Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Ken Buck of Colorado, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mike Lawler of New York, Tom McClintock of New York, and Darrell Issa of California as impeachment opponents. “I think people need to start taking the American people seriously instead of worrying about a bad article or the Democrats saying that it's going to hurt Republicans in re-election. I'll argue that is very much a lie.” She’s not alone. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, another staunch Trump ally, has threatened to force a vote on launching an inquiry, suggesting that his fellow Republicans could move to oust the speaker should McCarthy not put the measure on the floor. Over the summer, momentum has been building among the GOP to pursue the President’s removal after two IRS whistleblowers alleged that the Justice Department gave Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal. Their alacrity to impeach Biden intensified after discovering that he used email aliases as Vice President. Republicans like Greene and Gaetz say the Oversight Committee has turned up enough suspicious activity to warrant a full inquiry. Now, Greene insists she won’t vote to fund the government unless House Republicans do precisely that. McCarthy has vocally supported opening an impeachment inquiry but has faced pushback within his conference. Some of his members, such as Lawler, are in districts that Biden won in 2020 and worry that an inquiry will hurt their re-election chances, sources say. It’s a sentiment echoed by Democrats, who suspect they would benefit politically from the spectacle. “Go ahead. Do it, I dare you,” Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania told reporters Wednesday. “It would just be like a big circle jerk on the fringe right.” Yet other Republicans, like Bacon, say the congressional investigations have failed to prove that Biden committed a high crime or misdemeanor. “We’ve got to have some kind of direct evidence of a crime that points to the President,” Bacon tells TIME. “Or if the President doesn't answer the subpoenas or provide the information that's being requested, that would also be grounds for an inquiry.” Until then, Bacon adds, he won’t budge: “We don't want an impeachment to be this thing we do with every presidency. It shouldn't be revenge politics. Though it feels good to have revenge, it’s not good for the country.” The Biden administration has dismissed the GOP push to impeach Biden as designed more to hurt the President 2024 election prospects than to hold him accountable for alleged transgressions. “If Speaker McCarthy opens an impeachment inquiry simply to throw red meat to his most extreme far-right members, it will further prove this is nothing more than an evidence-free political stunt to baselessly attack the President,” Ian Sams, a White House spokesperson, tells TIME. Republicans, for their part, have argued that they are only asking to open an impeachment inquiry to expand their investigation into the President and his wayward son Hunter, who federal prosecutors plan to indict later this month on gun charges. “An impeachment inquiry is completely different from impeachment itself,” Greene says. “It's just an inquiry. It's like, may we ask the question? Let's take a little peak, just a little peaky peak. To me, it's absurd to not be able to vote yes for that.” Such a probe could potentially put Biden in a bind, according to Michael Conway, an attorney who served as counsel for the House Judiciary Committee’s 1974 impeachment inquiry into former President Richard Nixon. One of the three articles of impeachment that were considered against Nixon, he notes, was for defying the impeachment inquiry itself. “It’s the apex of congressional power and the President's refusal to comply with the subpoenas was itself an impeachable act,” Conway tells TIME. “We didn't have any greater ability to actually get the documents. But the Constitution gives us the House the power to impeach if you impede the impeachment inquiry. That itself is an impeachable offense. They could send any kind of subpoena and then on a partisan vote say the President didn't give us what we asked for.” For that reason, some moderate Republicans fear that once they start the process of impeaching Biden, there will be no turning back. And they are up against members of their own conference who are not afraid to hold the federal budget hostage to their demands. “The only place in America that thinks the government shutdown is a big deal is Washington D.C.,” Greene says. “Outside of Washington, D.C., if you ask regular Americans, they could care less honestly. As a matter of fact, they laugh when that is brought up. Like, who cares? We still go to work every day. We still do our jobs.” But Greene and her comrades are betting that their colleagues who say they’re dead set against an inquiry might soon fall in line, especially if it helps avoid both a shutdown and the derision of an expectant GOP base. “We have a duty to take hard votes,” Greene says, “whether we like it or not.” - The TIME100 Most Influential People in AI - Burned Out at Work? Find Someone to Split Your Job 50-50 With You - There’s Now an At-Home Menopause Test - How Europe’s Poorest Country Could Win the Green Energy Race - Is Pink Still a 'Girl Color'? An Exploration - The Most Anticipated Books, Movies, TV, and Music of Fall 2023 - Podcast: Douglas Rushkoff on How Human Behavior is Training AI - Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time	US Congress
CONCORD, N.H. -- A man charged with shooting a New Hampshire couple to death on a hiking trail last year spent months hiding from police — but over a probation violation from Utah, not the killings — and an analysis of shell casings and bullets found in the area could not conclude that his gun fired the shots, his attorney said at the start of his trial Tuesday. “They got the wrong man,” Caroline Smith said during opening statements in the trial of Logan Clegg in Concord. She said he had no connection to the couple and was not the killer. Clegg, 27, who was living in a tent near the trail at the time, is charged with second-degree murder counts of knowingly and recklessly causing the deaths of Stephen and Djeswende Reid by shooting them multiple times. The newly retired couple were killed shortly after going for a walk on the trail near their Concord apartment on April 18, 2022. Their bodies, found several days later, were dragged into the woods and covered with leaves, sticks and debris, police said. Jurors planned to visit the apartment complex and trail area on Tuesday afternoon. Clegg also is charged with several counts of falsifying physical evidence and being a convicted felon in possession of a gun. He pleaded not guilty following his arrest last October in South Burlington, Vermont, initially on a fugitive from justice charge. Lawyers said Clegg was on probation in 2021 on burglary and larceny offenses in Utah. Smith said he had gone to Portugal, and eventually came back to the United States, staying in Concord. After the Reids were reported missing, Clegg, who was questioned by investigators searching for them, burned his tent, erased information from his computer and bought a bus ticket out of Concord, prosecutor Meghan Hagaman told jurors. Investigators eventually found him in South Burlington with a one-way plane ticket to Berlin, Germany, a fake passport, and a gun in his backpack. “When he couldn't run or hide, he lied,” Hagaman said in her opening statement in Merrimack County Superior Court. Clegg said he wasn't in Concord that April 18, hadn't heard of the different name he gave police when first questioned, and didn't have a gun at the time. Hagaman said that shell casings and bullet fragments were later found at the crime scene. Shell casings also were found at a location later discovered to be Clegg's tent site. She said jurors will learn that bullets fired from Clegg's 9 mm handgun were consistent in caliber and class characteristics as bullet fragments found during the Reids' autopsies. She said a state police forensic laboratory analysis showed the casings were fired from Clegg's gun. But Smith drew attention to two casings that were found at the crime scene in plain view a month after the area had been heavily searched, suggesting that someone had put them there. She said a criminologist could not say that Clegg's gun was the one used to fire the shots. Smith also said that DNA testing on items that the killer might have touched suggests “two foreign contributors in those areas — not the Reids, and not Logan." Both lawyers also gave differing accounts of a woman who was walking on the trail with her dogs and allowed the Reids to pass her and walk ahead. She later heard gunshots, then came across a man on the trail before continuing her hike. Smith said that Clegg was shopping at a supermarket at the time. She said that items and clothing he had did not match the prosecution's description.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
Key events15m agoTrump's pick loses again after Warnock triumphs in GeorgiaShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureTrump's pick loses again after Warnock triumphs in GeorgiaGood mornings, US politics blog readers. If you are a Republican, you are probably sad about the loss of the party’s candidate Herschel Walker in Georgia’s Senate election last night – but not as sad as Donald Trump. Walker’s downfall at the hands of Democratic senator Raphael Warnock was the latest flop by one of the many candidates the former president had handpicked for a party that’s still apparently in his thrall.Yet the GOP must be wondering what Trump’s influence is good for. They barely retook the House of Representatives and failed in winning the single Senate seat necessary to create a majority in that chamber in the midterms. Trump’s mounting legal troubles are seen as one of his major liabilities as he pursues another White House run – but his lackluster endorsement record could also cost him.Here’s what’s on the agenda for today: The supreme court is hearing a case on North Carolina’s congressional maps that could have big implications for voting rights. Congress’s end-of-the-year lawmaking sprint continues, with lawmakers trying to broker an elusive immigration reform deal. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre briefs the press at 2pm eastern time.	US Federal Elections
The special grand jury in Fulton County investigating the 2020 presidential election in Georgia recommended charges against Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former GOP Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, according to the special counsel grand jury report released Friday. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis did not charge the lawmakers when she returned an indictment last month against former President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants in the sprawling racketeering case. It was up to the district attorney to decide how closely to stick to the special grand jury’s recommendations. The senators have denied any wrongdoing related to the election. Graham, who appeared before the special grand jury last year after a court battle over his testimony, spoke with Georgia election officials after the 2020 election. His phone calls with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his staff related to the possibility of finding enough fraud in the state that it could’ve tipped the election to Trump. Raffensperger testified to the House January 6 committee that his phone call with Graham made him “uncomfortable” because some of Graham’s suggestions could have led to “disenfranchising voters.” Graham repeatedly prodded Raffensperger and his colleagues on the phone about the signature-matching of ballots in the Atlanta area. Raffensperger told CNN in November 2020 that he believed Graham “implied” that he should try to “throw out” some ballots in the heavily Democratic county. Graham denies wrongdoing and disputed this characterization of the call. Graham argued in his fight against the Fulton County subpoena that his calls to Georgia officials were legislative activity directly related to his responsibilities as then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also argued that his actions should be protected by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Perdue, who lost his Senate run-off election in January 2021 while Trump was pushing his false claims of fraud, personally urged Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to convene a special session of the legislature to help Trump’s quest to overturn the election. Loeffler, who also lost her runoff election in January 2021, was also at the meeting. Last year, Perdue launched an unsuccessful Trump-backed primary challenge to unseat Kemp, which relied heavily on false claims of election fraud made during the 2020 election. Special grand juries in Georgia cannot issue indictments and instead serve as an investigative tool. This special grand jury began hearing evidence in June 2022, and Willis used it to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 election, an investigation sparked by Trump’s January 2021 phone call with Raffensperger where Trump asked him to “find” the votes he needed to win the state. The panel ultimately heard from 75 witnesses. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney previously released very limited portions of the special grand jury’s final report, holding back the full release until after Willis announced indictments.	US Political Corruption
The Biden administration is requesting more than $105 billion from Congress as part of a package it says will provide security assistance for conflicts in Ukraine and Israel while addressing “the global humanitarian impacts of Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and of Hamas’ horrific attacks on Israel, including by extending humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.” The request, the contours of which have been telegraphed to members of Congress in recent days, will also seek additional funding for the US-Mexico border and priorities in the Indo-Pacific region, two sources briefed on the details told CNN early Monday. In a letter to Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry, Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young outlined the funding request, which in addition to $61.4 billion in aid for Ukraine and $14.3 billion in aid for Israel, includes $9.15 billion in funding for humanitarian aid, $7.4 billion in funding for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region and $13.6 billion to address security at the US-Mexico border. “The world is watching and the American people rightly expect their leaders to come together and deliver on these priorities,” Young writes. “I urge Congress to address them as part of a comprehensive, bipartisan agreement in the weeks ahead.” President Joe Biden made his own impassioned plea for the funding in a primetime Oval Office address to the nation Thursday, calling the moment “an inflection point” in American history. “History has taught us that when terrorists don’t pay a price for their terror, when dictators don’t pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death and more destruction. They keep going, and the cost and the threats to America and to the world keep rising,” Biden said, warning, “If we don’t stop Putin’s appetite for power and control in Ukraine, he won’t limit himself just to Ukraine.” But the administration still faces challenges in securing the funding – both in selling it to the American public, where public support for Ukraine has lagged as the war has continued on, and to Congress, where the House of Representatives remains locked in a bitter standstill over a battle for the Speaker’s gavel. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer praised the package and said he would move quickly to pass it. “This legislation is too important to wait for the House to settle their chaos. Senate Democrats will move expeditiously on this request, and we hope that our Republican colleagues across the aisle will join us to pass this much-needed funding,” he said. Senate Republicans have signaled that they want solid changes to border policy included in the package, and it will likely have to be negotiated further. It also could be split into several bills. Funding for Ukraine and Israel Per a fact sheet shared with CNN ahead of Friday’s request, more than half of the funding allocated for Ukraine – $44.4 billion – will go to the Department of Defense to replenish stocks, which it says “will support the US industrial base,” and for “continued military, intelligence, and other defense support.” The request allocates funds for the entirety of Fiscal Year 2024, a move the administration hopes will preempt the need for more frequent fights on Capitol Hill, where Ukraine funding has emerged as a wedge issue for Republicans in the House of Representatives. Additionally, $10.6 billion of the request for Israel will go to the Pentagon for “air and missile defense support, industrial base investments, and replenishment of DOD stocks.” Per the administration, much of that will go towards procurement of Iron Dome and David’s Sling missile defense systems and components, and development of the Iron Beam system to aid Israel’s defense against rocket attacks and to replenish DOD stocks already drawn down for support to Israel in the wake of the October 7th Hamas attack. Both requests come after Biden spoke earlier this week with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and traveled to Israel, where he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s war cabinet to assess Israel’s needs. All told, more than $50 billion in funding will be invested directly into the American defense industrial base, the administration estimates. On a call with reporters previewing the budget request Friday, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said the request “invests in America as a critical component of President Biden’s foreign policy for the middle class – it will allow us to have more weapons and equipment that defend America to be made in America.” “Taken together, this budget request is critical to advancing America’s national security and ensuring the safety of the American people,” he said. Border Security The White House’s border security supplemental ask – totaling around $14 billion – reflects the administration’s repeated requests for funding to bolster personnel along the US-Mexico border, provides funds to cities supporting asylum seekers and funds new initiatives aimed at stemming the flow of migration to the United States. According to a breakdown released by the White House, the request includes resources for an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents, as well as money to hire 1,000 Customs and Border Protection officers, 375 immigration judge teams – marking the largest incremental request – and 1,600 asylum officers. It also includes funds for more detention beds, which Republicans have sought and is likely to prompt pushback from Democrats. The ask also includes $1.4 billion for shelter and services for migrants released from DHS custody who have moved to cities in the US while they go through their immigration proceedings and has become a source of tension between Democratic allies and the White House. The administration previously asked for $4 billion in supplemental funding to address needs on the US-Mexico border. The new ask encompasses FY 2024, which is why it’s higher than the supplemental request submitted by the White House over the summer, according to a source familiar. Uphill battle on Capitol Hill Friday’s letter requesting the supplemental funding is addressed to Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry – a stark reminder that the House of Representatives is now in its third week without a speaker of the House as House Republicans struggle to coalesce behind a consensus leader for their conference. Without a speaker, the House is unable to pass legislation, leaving the Biden administration’s request for funding in limbo while Republicans spar over their party’s leadership. On Friday’s call, the OMB Director declined to say if the administration had a plan for how to address the logjam if the speaker’s battle continues to draw out on Capitol Hill. “That is a matter for the House to work out,” Young told CNN. “What I will tell you is you heard the National Security Adviser lay out, you heard the president lay out last night what’s at stake here. It is the president’s job, our job is to make clear to Congress what the needs are and what happens if this critical funding is not delivered. So, we’re doing our job here by letting Congress know what the critical needs are and we expect them to act and act swiftly.” In a Capitol Hill press conference Friday, Speaker designee Jim Jordan – who has failed to convince the necessary number of Republicans to back his bid – emphasized that electing a speaker was essential to getting “the appropriations process moving, so that the key elements of our government are funded.” “And frankly, we can’t do that if the house isn’t open, and we can’t open the House until we get a Speaker,” he said. The administration also teased additional funding requests “in coming days,” to address a number of domestic priorities, including funds to replenish FEMA’s emergency relief fund, nutritional assistance programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). CNN’s Arlette Saenz contributed to this report.	US Federal Policies
LaRose, the chief elections official in Ohio, has attended almost 70 events in support of Issue 1, a ballot initiative to make it harder to amend the state's Constitution. The measure, to be voted on next week, just months before Ohio voters decide whether to enshrine abortion rights in the Constitution, is backed by Republican officials in the state. The Libertarian Party of Ohio, which opposes Issue 1, filed a complaint Monday with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel arguing that LaRose, who announced a run for Senate in July, is violating the Hatch Act by blurring the lines between his advocacy and official duties as secretary of state. The complaint points to his social media usage and a televised debate he participated in last month at which the moderators introduced him as the secretary of state. LaRose responded to the complaint on Thursday in an interview with the Washington Examiner, calling it a "completely frivolous" attempt to undermine him and Issue 1. The Hatch Act does not apply to issue advocacy, only candidate advocacy, he said, adding that he attends Issue 1 events in a personal capacity, using his own car and campaign staff. "I have lived under and been subject to the Hatch Act since I was a teenager," he said, referring to his military service and subsequent career in state politics. "I know exactly what the Hatch Act is and what it does, and I would never violate it." LaRose, elected to a second term as secretary of state in November, has become the face of Issue 1, helping to galvanize conservatives in support of it. Republicans view the measure, which would set a 60% threshold to approve constitutional amendments, rather than a simple majority, as a way to counteract activist attempts to insert language into the Constitution on everything from abortion to gun control. Democrats, meanwhile, say the "anti-democratic" ballot initiative is meant to entrench Republican power in the state. LaRose maintains that he can wear two hats, administering a free and fair election while ginning up the Republican base, but critics say the advocacy presents a conflict of interest. The ballot measure is not the first time there's been friction between LaRose and the Libertarian Party. The group faults him for a 2013 law, passed during his time in the state Senate, that set a higher bar for minor parties to appear on the ballot. “Libertarians have known all too well since 2013 that ‘Two Faced Frank’ will do whatever it takes to get ahead,” Travis Irvine, communications director for the state party, said in a statement. Yet LaRose says it's the Libertarian Party that is undermining the democratic process with its complaint. "It’s not unlike ‘cancel culture,’ and it's funny that the Libertarians who claim to be for small government, limited government, want to use the levers of government to try to silence my voice," he said. The complaint, he argued, is merely political, targeting him because of his prominence on the issue. "First of all, consider the source, right?" he said. "They don't like the fact that I'm working hard to make sure that Ohio can pass this important issue, and so they're trying to roll marbles under my feet," he added. "Well, I’ll kick their marbles out of the way — it’s not going to slow me down." The Ohio Libertarian Party did not respond to a request for comment. LaRose said he is "cautiously optimistic" Issue 1 will pass on Tuesday, though high early voting figures has raised the prospect that Democrats are turning out to oppose the measure. Historically, the party is better at mobilizing voters ahead of Election Day. LaRose, challenging Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for his U.S. Senate seat, has faced almost daily attacks from the state Democratic Party over Issue 1 as well, the ethics complaint included. To reach the general election, LaRose will first have to beat two formidable GOP candidates, businessman Bernie Moreno and state Sen. Matt Dolan, in one of the most highly anticipated primaries of the 2024 cycle.	US Local Elections
8 dead after chase of car suspected of carrying smuggled migrants Eight people in South Texas were killed on Wednesday after a car suspected of carrying smuggled migrants fled from police and crashed into an oncoming vehicle, according to local authorities. Shortly after 6:30 a.m. on Wednesday, a “suspected human smuggler” from Houston attempted to flee Zavala County deputies in a Honda Civic. The car passed a semi trailer truck on the highway in a no-passing zone and collided head-on with a Chevrolet driving in the opposite direction, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) confirmed to The Hill. The Chevrolet burst into flames, killing the driver and passenger from Georgia, a spokesperson for DPS posted to social media. The 21-year-old driver in the other vehicle and five other passengers in the car were also killed, the department said. Police confirmed multiple of those killed were from Honduras, though their identities are being withheld until next of kin is notified. Photos from the crash show the vehicles mangled, while the Chevrolet was visibly burned. Police did not immediately disclose how fast the vehicles were going. The Associated Press reported the crash — which occurred near Batesville, around 80 miles southwest of San Antonio — is the highest death toll of a crash involving migrants since a collision in Holtville, California in 2021, where 13 people died. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Texas have expressed concerns over vehicle pursuits of migrants. The union said it tracked 106 deaths resulting from Border Patrol involved vehicle pursuits from January 2010 to June 2023. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced a new vehicle pursuit policy earlier this year, which the ACLU in Texas said showed a “significant improvement,” while noting the need for training, oversight and accountability to ensure compliance with the policy. According to the union, the new policy adopts an “objective reasonableness standard,” requiring authorities to weigh both the need to apprehend someone with the potential risk a chase could pose to those inside the vehicle, law enforcement and others on the road. Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
Is George Santos ever going to be expelled from Congress? It’s a question many people have likely asked themselves on many, many occasions. For instance, when the news first broke that he had made up large portions of his résumé. Or that he’d told people his grandparents had fled the Holocaust* and that his mother was in the South Tower on 9/11. Or when the FBI opened an investigation into the matter of him allegedly swindling a veteran out of money raised for the guy’s dying dog. Or when he was charged with stealing donor identities, using their credit cards to make tens of thousands of dollars worth of charges, and wiring some of the money to his own personal bank account. On all of these occasions and more, people have probably wondered, No, really, how is this guy still around?? The answer, of course, is that Republicans have an extremely, virtually insurmountably high bar for the kind of behavior they’ll tolerate among their own. Save for some vocal New York lawmakers who are embarrassed to be geographically associated with Santos, few people in Congress actually seem inclined to give him the heave-ho without an official criminal conviction (and even then, a lot of them would probably still choose to keep him around). That was true not only for former House leader Kevin McCarthy, who was apparently just joking about his now months-old pledge to deal with Santos quickly, but also new House Speaker Mike Johnson, who suggested in an interview shortly after getting the top job that Republicans can’t kick out Santos because it would shrink their already tiny majority. Still, there is a teeny, tiny possibility that the lie-spewing, accused con man might could get the boot at some point in the near future. Per Politico: “He’ll be out,” Representative Don Bacon, who previously voted to expel Santos, told Politico. “If he is found guilty by Ethics, he’s gone.” But California’s John Duarte was less committed to the idea, telling the outlet he would consider a vote to expel if the Ethics panel concludes “there’s criminal wrongdoing,” adding: “The one thing I want to make sure we’re not doing, whether it’s expulsion or censure, is lowering the standards.” In order to actually send Santos packing, roughly 80 Republicans would need to join all Democrats in delivering him back to New York, and it’s not at all clear that 80 Republicans would sign on; earlier this month, a resolution introduced by New York Republicans to kick Santos out of the House was supported by just 24 GOP lawmakers. For his part, Santos—who is still adding new entries to his “probably bullshit” list—said last week that he is “not concerned” about the forthcoming Ethics report, or any possible push to expel him that comes from it. “Let them do it,” he said. “If they don’t have a conviction and they don’t have anything damning coming out of Ethics, and they still push that, the norm stands…that we’re creating a dangerous precedent.” Santos has pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges and his federal trial is set for September 2024. He also denies swindling the money meant for the veteran’s dying dog. *The congressman recently said in an interview that he is working on definitive proof that his grandparents really did flee Hitler, but that the “freaking war” in Ukraine is holding things up.	US Congress
The US supreme court’s decision to strike down Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan late last week “usurped the authority of Congress”, Democratic House representative Ro Khanna said on Sunday. Khanna, of California, argued that if anyone thought Biden was unduly empowered by the legislation which the president used to issue the debt relief program, “then the solution is Congress can repeal the … act”. Chief justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the supreme court “shouldn’t be overturning the will of Congress just because they think Congress gave too much power to the president,” Khanna said on Sunday on ABC’s This Week. The show’s host, Jonathan Karl, pushed back on Khanna’s stance. Karl played a clip in which former US House speaker Nancy Pelosi – Khanna’s fellow California Democrat – asserted that a president could delay debt repayment but not entirely, single-handedly forgive it. In fact, Karl said, the supreme court quoted Pelosi’s words in the decision that doomed the student debt relief program put forth by Biden. Khanna countered by saying that, after Pelosi’s remarks, the Biden administration solicited a legal analysis of the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (Heroes) Act on which the president based his debt forgiveness program. After that analysis, Biden’s staff concluded that the Heroes Act – which enables the government to provide relief to student borrowers amid a national emergency – gave the president authority to cancel or amend the loans in question, Khanna said. The progressive congressman added that he could understand arguments that the Heroes Act – which was passed about two years after the September 11 terrorist attacks – “was way too broad”. But that argument should be advanced in Congress – “it is not for unelected justices to override” federal lawmakers who were chosen by voters, Khanna said. “That’s what this court is doing,” Khanna continued. “It’s very dangerous. They are basically reinterpreting congressional statute to fit their ideological preconceptions.” Khanna’s remarks came days after he spoke to the Guardian about his wish for an extension to an October deadline to resume payments for 40 million students affected by the debt forgiveness program’s defeat. During that interview, he also said the court’s decision to invalidate Biden’s debt forgiveness program proved the institution was “regressive” and in need of reform. Additionally, he pledged to accelerate efforts to pass a bill which would establish term limits for supreme court justices, who currently enjoy lifetime appointments. Three far-right justices on the supreme court – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – were appointed during Donald Trump’s presidency. Last week, the conservative supermajority which Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett help form also struck down affirmative action in college admission as well as a Colorado law that compelled entities to afford same-sex couples equal treatment, all about a year after the court eliminated the federal abortion rights established by the landmark Roe v Wade ruling in 1973. A poll released on Sunday by This Week showed that 52% of Americans believed that supreme court justices ruled “mainly on the basis of their partisan political view rather than on the basis of the law”. That marked a significant increase from January 2022, when only 38% felt that way. However, the poll did show that a majority – 52% – of Americans approved of the decision ending affirmative action in colleges. Khanna said in the short term he would support Biden’s recently announced efforts to implement a new student debt relief plan through the Higher Education Act. That law was unaffected by the supreme court’s ruling involving the Heroes Act. Khanna also called on the president to block student loan interest from accruing beginning in the fall as well. “You have all of these students who have relied on a promise that they are going to have their student loans forgiven,” Khanna said on This Week. “This is a real hardship.” Khanna made clear that past personal experience partly explained his efforts. “I had to take out $150,000 of student loans,” Khanna said. “I’m fortunate now and been able to pay them off.”	SCOTUS
- The full special grand jury report that previewed the criminal indictment of former President Donald Trump and 18 others for trying to overturn his loss in the 2020 Georgia election is set to be released. - The special grand jury was used by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis since 2022 to gather evidence and take testimony in her investigation of Trump and his allies in that effort. - Trump separately is charged in federal court in Washington, D.C., with crimes related to his bid to reverse the national victory of President Joe Biden over him in the 2020 election. The full special grand jury report that previewed the criminal indictment of former President Donald Trump and 18 others for trying to overturn his loss in the 2020 Georgia election is set to be released Friday. The special grand jury was used by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over seven months since 2022 to gather evidence and take testimony in her investigation of Trump and his allies in that election-reversal effort. Trump and his co-defendants were indicted by a regular grand jury in Fulton County Superior Court last month on charges alleging a broad-ranging election conspiracy. Previously unsealed sections of the special grand jury's report said that members of the panel believed that some of the 75 witnesses it heard testimony from had perjured themselves. The panel recommended that Willis seek indictments for more than 12 people, but the identities of those individuals were not made public during the partial release of the report in February. Trump and the other defendants in the case have pleaded not guilty. Separately, Trump is charged in federal court in Washington, D.C., with crimes related to his bid to reverse the national victory of President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Trump is currently the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination in the upcoming presidential election, teeing up a potential rematch in 2024. This is breaking news. Check back for updates	US Political Corruption
The FBI has posted a hefty reward for a US citizen after a relative said they witnessed her being kidnapped from her home in Mexico last month. Maria del Carmen Lopez, 63, was taken from her residence in Pueblo Nuevo, Colima on Feb. 9, the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office stated in a press release. A reward of up to $20,000 is promised in exchange for information about her physical location, the agency said. Lopez, a mother of seven, has several children who live in Southern California and frequently made trips to visit them, CBS Los Angeles reported. “We’re doing everything we can still. We’re not gonna give up on my mom,” one of Lopez’s sons, Tony, told the outlet. “We’re gonna find her, one way or another.” An unnamed relative reportedly saw five people near Lopez’s home around the time law enforcement believes she was kidnapped. “There was a car that drove into the property. There was an exchange of words, they did hear her say she would not get into the car,” Lopez’s daughter Zonia told CBS Los Angeles. “Two individuals picked her up and another one came out of the van. They had their heads covered and they covered her mouth and that’s when they took her.” The family says Lopez had no criminal affiliations, and believes the alleged abduction was a crime of opportunity. “There was never any sort of threats, there was never any enemies… Anything that would indicate that she was in any kind of trouble,” Zonia said. The FBI confirmed it is investigating Lopez’s disappearance alongside law enforcement in Mexico. According to her official report, Lopez is 5’2” and 160 pounds with blonde hair, brown eyes, and tattooed eyeliner. The FBI’s reward in Lopez’s case comes amid increased public scrutiny on Mexico after four Americans were kidnapped in broad daylight in Matamoros earlier this month. Two childhood friends were killed in the ordeal, as was a bystander. The two survivors were found after a four-day search, and subsequently returned to the US for medical treatment. In addition, three women from California are still missing in Mexico after they crossed the border last month. Despite the onslaught of bad press and worries about cartel violence, however, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador insisted this week that his country was safer than the United States. “There is no issue with traveling safely through Mexico. That’s something the US citizens also know, just like our fellow Mexicans that live in the US,” he said Monday.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
Assistant Attorney General at the Wisconsin Department of Justice, Charlotte Gibson, filed a request to a judge asking for an order to block Republicans from removing Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe from her post as a lawsuit plays out. “Further official actions by Defendants to remove or attempt to remove Meagan Wolfe from the Administrator position, including appointing an interim Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, do not have legal effect, subject to a final decision of this Court,” the proposed order reads, echoing filings from Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul who argues there is no vacancy to fill. The filing cited a 2022 state Supreme Court ruling that allows officers to stay in their role indefinitely if they do not step down when their term expires, meaning Wolfe can stay in her role as ligation is underway. Last month, Wisconsin Senate Republicans voted to remove a top election official in the state, attempting to change who oversees elections in the battleground state. The full Senate voted along party lines of 22-11 to fire Wolfe on Sept. 14, days after a Republican-led committee recommended her removal. “It’s hard to believe that we’re still at a place where those now very well-analyzed and debunked claims about our system seem to still be driving decisions that are being made,” Wolfe said in a press conference held after the vote. Multiple Republicans then moved to impeach Wolfe as Wisconsin's top election administrator at the end of September, which would need approval from Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to move forward. Last week, Vos said he would not move to impeach her, urging lawmakers to appoint a replacement if the court rules there is a vacancy. “There’s no need to do an impeachment because she’s not there lawfully,” Vos said. “We need to follow the law and see what the actual rulings are from the court.” The lawsuit was brought by Kaul after the Senate vote, siding with Democrats in saying there are no legal grounds for removing her and Wolfe can stay in her role. “The Senate’s action today, where they claimed to have voted on an appointment that was not before them, has no legal effect whatsoever,” Kaul said after the vote last month. “So, she remains the administrator. The court, I’m very confident, will confirm that, but once we get that confirmation, hopefully that will end any uncertainty about this.” The fight to remove Wolfe erupted earlier this summer after the Wisconsin Elections Commission was deadlocked on renominating. Wolfe has led the agency since 2018, and the recent pushback from Republicans stems from her handling of the 2020 election, with Republicans outraged by former President Donald Trump’s loss and criticized her handling of absentee ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic.	US Local Elections
PORTLAND, Ore. -- A woman who escaped her kidnapper by punching her way out of a homemade cinder block cell at a home in southern Oregon likely saved other women from a similar fate, authorities said, by alerting them to a man they now suspect in sexual assaults in at least four more states. Negasi Zuberi posed as an undercover police officer when he kidnapped the woman in Seattle, drove hundreds of miles to his home in Klamath Falls and locked her in the garage cell until she bloodied her hands breaking the door to escape, the FBI said Wednesday. Zuberi, 29, faces federal charges that include interstate kidnapping, and authorities said they are looking for additional victims after linking him to the other assaults. Authorities have not yet said publicly in which states those attacks took place. “This woman was kidnapped, chained, sexually assaulted, and locked in a cinderblock cell,” Stephanie Shark, the assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Portland field office, said in a news release. “Police say she beat the door with her hands until they were bloody in order to break free. Her quick thinking and will to survive may have saved other women from a similar nightmare.” After the woman escaped from his home in Klamath Falls, Zuberi fled the city of roughly 22,000 people but was arrested by state police in Reno, Nevada, the next afternoon, the FBI said. Court records did not yet list an attorney who might speak on Zuberi's behalf. He has not yet been assigned a public defender in Oregon as he's still being transferred from Nevada, which can take several weeks, said Kevin Sonoff, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney's office in Oregon. A grand jury in Portland on Wednesday returned an indictment charging Zuberi with interstate kidnapping and transporting an individual across state lines with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. He could face up to life in prison if convicted. According to the FBI, Zuberi also went by the names Sakima, Justin Hyche and Justin Kouassi, and he has lived in multiple states since 2016, possibly including California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Alabama, and Nevada. According to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon, Zuberi solicited the woman, identified only as Adult Victim 1, in the early-morning hours of July 15 to engage in prostitution along Aurora Avenue in Seattle, an area known for sex work. Afterward, Zuberi told the woman he was an undercover officer, showed her a badge, pointed a stun gun at her and placed her in handcuffs and leg irons before putting her in the back of his vehicle, the complaint says. He then drove to his home, stopping along the way to sexually assault her, the complaint says. When they arrived about seven hours after he first encountered her in Seattle, he put her in the makeshift cell built from cinder blocks with a door of metal bars and said he was leaving to do paperwork. The woman “briefly slept and awoke to the realization that she would likely die if she did not attempt to escape,” the complaint says. She managed to break some of the door's welded joints, creating a small opening which she climbed through, Klamath Falls Police Capt. Rob Reynolds said at a news conference. “She repeatedly punched the door with her own hands,” Reynolds said. “She had several lacerations along her knuckles.” The victim opened Zuberi's vehicle which was in the garage, grabbed his gun and fled, leaving blood on a wooden fence she climbed over to escape, the complaint says. She flagged down a passing driver, who called 911. Two Nevada State Patrol officers tracked Zuberi down at a Walmart parking lot in Reno the next day, July 16, the complaint says. He was in his car holding one of his children in the front seat while talking to his wife, who was standing outside the vehicle. He initially refused to get out of the car when the officers asked and instead cut himself with a sharp object and tried to destroy his phone, according to the complaint. Zuberi eventually surrendered, and the child wasn't harmed. Investigators interviewed Zuberi's wife and neighbors, but authorities declined to say if there was any indication that any of them had been aware of the abduction. A search of Zuberi's home and garage turned up the Seattle woman’s purse and handwritten notes, according to investigators. One of them was labeled “Operation Take Over” and included a bullet list with entries that read, “Leave phone at home” and “Make sure they don’t have a bunch of ppl (sic) in their life. You don’t want any type of investigation.” Another handwritten document appeared to include a rough sketch for an underground structure using concrete blocks, foam insulation and waterproof concrete. The FBI said Zuberi may have used other methods of gaining control of women, including drugging their drinks. The agency said it was setting up a website asking anyone who believes they may have been a victim to come forward. The Klamath Falls rental home where Zuberi allegedly took the woman is owned by the city's mayor, Carol Westfall, and her husband, Kevin, according to property records. The house backs onto a park and is on a residential street, less than a quarter-mile (half a kilometer) from a highway. Court records show that after Zuberi’s arrest, the couple had him evicted. “We are shocked and dismayed by what has occurred,” the Westfalls, who declined to comment on their interactions with Zuberi, said in an email. “We applaud the actions of the woman who helped capture this person and prevent him from committing further atrocities.” ___ Johnson reported from Seattle. Associated Press writers Andrew Selsky in Salem, Oregon, and Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho, contributed. Claire Rush is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
The House may finally have a new Speaker, but the congressional impasse over funding for foreign aid hasn’t moved an inch. On Monday, Mike Johnson, the newly elected Republican Speaker, introduced a controversial bill that would both uncouple Israel and Ukraine funding and pull $14.3 billion in aid for Israel from the IRS’s budget. Senate Democrats, in response, predictably shot down Johnson’s belt-tightening scheme. “It’s a poison pill,” said Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, likewise called the proposal “horrifying,” adding, “The idea that somehow you would basically condition support for Israel on giveaways to wealthy tax cheats takes your breath away.” The White House has painted Johnson’s bill as a “nonstarter” and described it as an attempt to play politics with US national security. “Demanding offsets for meeting core national security needs of the United States—like supporting Israel and defending Ukraine from atrocities and Russian imperialism—would be a break with the normal, bipartisan process and could have devastating implications for our safety and alliances in the years ahead,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a Monday statement. Senate Democrats previously had issues with getting Ukraine funding through the House toward the end of Kevin McCarthy’s nine-month tenure as Speaker. But that was before military aid to Israel became a top priority following Hamas’s October 7 attack. Those disputes have only worsened under Johnson: House Republicans now hope to chip away at the nearly $80 billion in additional funding the IRS received last year from the Inflation Reduction Act, despite having already cut $21.4 billion from the agency’s budget during the debt ceiling crunch in May. “I understand their priority is to bulk up the IRS,” Johnson told Fox News on Monday. “But I think if you put this to the American people and they weigh the two needs, I think they’re going to say standing with Israel and protecting the innocent over there is in our national interest and is a more immediate need than IRS agents.” The House GOP bill directly counters the $105 billion emergency funding package requested by the Biden administration. It would provide $61.4 billion for Ukraine, $14.3 billion for Israel, $7.4 billion for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, and $13.6 billion for the US-Mexico border. Unlike their colleagues in the House, top Senate Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, have been largely supportive of Biden’s $105 billion package. Of course, opposing McConnell is likely an early priority for Johnson. He won the Speakership contest by selling himself as a pro-Trump, antiestablishment outsider. He is now apparently trying to live up to that reputation, even if it means delaying the funding for Israel that nearly every lawmaker in Washington is clamoring for.	US Congress
Republicans have voted to back Steve Scalise as the next Speaker of the House of Representatives, but it is unclear if he has enough support to win an overall majority in the chamber. He defeated hardliner Jim Jordan in a private party vote on Wednesday. Mr Scalise, 58, must now work to unite the divided Republicans and secure the backing of most of its representatives. Republicans hold a slim majority, meaning he can only afford to lose the support of five party members. It is unclear when the House will be called back for that vote. A simple majority, 217, is required to win the job. If he were to achieve that, Mr Scalise would become Speaker and end days of paralysis in the lower chamber of Congress, which began when Kevin McCarthy was ousted by hardliners in his own Republican party. The party has been plagued by infighting in recent weeks, and seemed unable to reach an agreement on Mr McCarthy's replacement. The slim margin of Mr Scalise's victory in the closed-door meeting - 113 votes to 99 - highlights the deep divisions within the party, and some lawmakers have expressed scepticism that, even now, he has the votes necessary to secure the position. Among those still opposing him is Kentucky's Thomas Massie, who told reporters that he is a "hard no", at least in the initial vote, because of disagreements with Mr Scalise on how the budget should be handled. Mr Massie added that he believed at least 20 other Republicans would also vote against Mr Scalise, significantly more than the five votes he could afford to lose. Several other Republican representatives, including Colorado's Lauren Boebert, Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene and Florida's Anna Paulina Luna, have said they do not intend to vote for Mr Scalise. Texas Congressman Chip Roy has said he too he is a "hard no" for now because the vote was "rushed" to the floor. "There are a number of votes that are very much in question for Steve," he said. "I don't think it's a good idea for us to be barrelling towards the floor." Mr Scalise is the more traditional candidate in this race. He worked his way up through the party's leadership, built a reputation as a formidable fundraiser and tried to build connections to the party's full range of interest groups and constituencies. Speaking to reporters after the private vote, he said filling the Speaker role was vital in an increasingly "dangerous world". "We need to make sure we're sending a message... that the House is open," he said. Jim Jordan was the outsider, who rose to fame with conservative television appearances, bombastic rhetoric and confrontational speeches in committee hearings. Mr Jordan was also endorsed by Mr Trump, which in the end was not enough to put him over the top. One of the anti-Scalise Republicans, Texas' Troy Nehls, cited the former president's endorsement as a reason he still planned to vote for Mr Jordan. "That's what Donald Trump wanted," he said. Mr Scalise's victory suggests that, when the doors are closed and the ballots are secret, the former president's influence within the party - at least in the House of Representatives - is not as strong as his polling popularity might indicate.	US Congress
MIAMI — A group of employers, students and community leaders expressed alarm Thursday over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' proposal to reverse a law that allows undocumented immigrants to pay in-state college and university tuition. DeSantis, who is expected to launch a bid for president, has proposed reversing the 2014 measure as part of a package of legislation cracking down on illegal immigration. “It never occurred to me in 2014 that we would be convening again to deal with the issue of in-state tuition,” Eduardo Padrón, former president of Miami Dade College, said Thursday at a news conference in Miami. The news conference was organized by the American Business Immigration Coalition, or ABIC, a bipartisan group that advocates for immigration reform. “This is an issue of fairness and common sense and it’s good for our economy. If you put roadblocks at a time when there is great need in fields like engineering, doctors, nursing, it’s an ill-advised and ill-conceived idea," said Padrón, a former board chair of the Association of American Colleges and Universities. About 40,000 students enrolled in higher education in Florida are considered undocumented, with about 12,000 eligible for DACA and about 28,000 ineligible, according to the Higher Education Immigration Portal. Each year about 5,000 Florida students who do not have permanent legal status graduate from high school in the state. DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, offers young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children temporary protection from deportation and permission to legally work. The law making in-state tuition available to Florida students who lack legal immigration status, also known as Dreamers, was signed by then-Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican now in the U.S. Senate. Although it was opposed at the time by conservatives in the Legislature, it was backed by a number of Republicans, including Lt. Gov. Jeanette Núñez, then in the Florida House of Representatives. While some Republicans who backed the law have been silent on the issue, Scott has criticized DeSantis' proposal as “unfair." He recently told reporters in Tampa that "it’s a bill that I was proud to sign. … It’s a bill I would sign again today.” Florida is one of 23 states, along with the District of Columbia, that allow students without permanent legal status who attended high school in the respective state or D.C. to pay in-state tuition. In-state tuition and affordability for Dreamers has been backed by moderate Republicans and the business sector, as well as Democrats and immigrant groups who argue that expanding educational opportunities is better for the overall economy. “Florida would only be handicapping itself by taking away in-state tuition rates for undocumented young people that the state has already invested in for their K-12 years," Mike Fernandez, chairman of MBF Healthcare Partners and co-chair of ABIC, said in a news release. "The whole point of making postsecondary education accessible to them, aside from basic fairness and decency, is to facilitate their going into the fields where Florida most desperately needs future workers," Fernandez said. "Not to mention that the more skilled they become and the more they earn, the more they’ll put into state and local tax revenues, not to mention the economy overall." DeSantis and other Republicans have shifted significantly on the issue of immigration since Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 on hard-line immigration positions. "We work really hard to make higher education affordable for Floridians, and we’re proud of that. We have the most affordable higher education in the country," DeSantis said at a news conference last week. "We have had inflation. The costs have changed. If we want to hold the line on tuition, then you've got to say, you need to be a U.S. citizen who lives in Florida. Why would we subsidize non-U.S. citizens when we want to make sure we want to keep it affordable for our own people?" Asked for comment on the criticisms, DeSantis' office referred to the governor's previous remarks. The office did not immediately respond to an NBC News request for any data or research showing the effect of the students’ paying in-state tuition on rising tuition costs. Supporters of the 2014 law say many students who do not have legal status would not attend at all if they were not given the price break. Murilo Alves, 25, is a medical school student who came from Brazil when he was 3 years old. He is enrolled in DACA, which allows young people who qualify to work and study in the U.S. The permission is temporary, has to be renewed every two years and is being challenged in court by Republicans. Alves paid in-state-tuition for his undergraduate degree at Florida Atlantic University, and is now a first-year medical school student at Nova Southeastern University. Alves credits Florida's current law for allowing him to pursue higher education. "It was very difficult to get here, but I’m very grateful. The important part is I would have not been able to do any of this if it weren’t for in-state tuition, that was crucial to get to where I am right now," he said. "I’m extremely grateful that we had that benefit. I’m hopeful now that by us sharing our stories that we can prevent this legislation that Governor DeSantis is trying to pass," Alves said.	US Local Policies
Image source, Getty ImagesRepublican Kevin McCarthy is struggling to secure enough support to ensure he wins a vote to become the new Speaker of the House of Representatives.The Californian congressman must win a majority vote in the House on Tuesday to get the role.But a group of Republicans are refusing to back him, despite him making a number of last-minute concessions.Mr McCarthy cannot afford to lose more than a handful of votes from his party if he is to win the vote.The role of Speaker of the House is one of the most important jobs in US politics. They control the legislative agenda and timetable in the House, as well as who sits on various committees.Failure to win the speakership on the first attempt could therefore weaken both Mr McCarthy and the Republicans' credibility, hampering House Republicans' plans of acting quickly to investigate the Biden administration as well as President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.How did we get here?In November's mid-term elections, the Republican Party narrowly secured control of the House of Representatives (the lower chamber of the US Congress) from the Democrats, winning 222 of the 435 seats.Following the result, the Republican Party's leader, Mr McCarthy, ran to be the party's candidate for the new Speaker, and won with 188 votes.Since then, he has been working to gain the support of Republicans ahead of the opening of the new Congress on Tuesday, when the vote will take place. 35 new US senators will also be sworn into the Senate.If Mr McCarthy wins, he will replace Democrat Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. But some right-wing Republicans are refusing to support him, making his bid for the speakership less certain.The narrowness of the Republicans' majority in the House means that Mr McCarthy can only afford to lose four of their votes if he is to secure a majority of 218 and secure the position of speaker.No Democrats are likely to vote for him.Why are some Republicans refusing to back him?Those who oppose Mr McCarthy's bid for the speakership are Trump-supporting hardliners, dubbed the "Never Kevins" by some.They include representatives Bob Good and Matt Gaetz, who believe Mr McCarthy represents too much of the mainstream and the establishment."I won't be voting for Kevin McCarthy tomorrow. He's part of the problem. He's not part of the solution," Mr Good told Fox News on Monday. "There's nothing that indicates to me that he's going to change his pattern since he's been in leadership, where he's part of the swamp cartel.""I think he's just a shill of the establishment," said Mr Gaetz in an interview with the Daily Caller website last week. "I think that Kevin McCarthy is little more than a vessel through which lobbyists and special interests operate."Some may also remain wary of his previous stance towards former President Donald Trump following the Capitol riots in 2021, having originally been critical of the then-President, who he said bore responsibility for the attack.Media caption, Then and now: Kevin McCarthy on Donald Trump and the Capitol riotWhat concessions has Mr McCarthy made?Despite the opposition, Mr McCarthy said he remained confident he would win Tuesday's vote. "I think we're going to have a good day tomorrow," he told reporters on Monday.But he has had to make a number of concessions in order to try to win over Republicans who remain opposed to him or who remain on the fence.One of the key demands Republicans have been asking for would make it easier for a small number of representatives to challenge his role as Speaker - weakening his own position in the House.Mr McCarthy initially refused to acquiesce to the demand. But with time running out to win opposing Republicans over, he unveiled a package of rule changes on Sunday, including changes to how the Speaker could be removed. The concession means that any five Republican party members can call for the Speaker's removal at any time.These, however, did not satisfy some right-wing Republicans he was attempting to win over.A letter released on Sunday, signed by nine Republicans, said Mr McCarthy's concessions come "almost impossibly late to address continued deficiencies"."Thus far, there continue to be missing specific commitments with respect to virtually every component of our entreaties, and thus, no means to measure whether promises are kept or broken," it said.What happens if no one wins a majority?No business can be undertaken within the House - not even the swearing in of new members of Congress - until a candidate has been chosen.So if Mr McCarthy does not win the first vote, members of the House will keep taking part in successive votes until someone wins a majority.Mr McCarthy has vowed to fight on even if he does not win immediately. And there is no other obvious candidate who could viably challenge for the speakership.But having to hold more than one vote to decide on the speaker would be embarrassing - not only for Mr McCarthy, but for the Republican party too.No other candidate running for the speakership for the first time has failed to win in the first vote for over 100 years, so such a failure could weaken the Republicans' credibility within the House.	US Congress
Following the announcement that Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, was chosen on Friday as the new nominee for House speaker, former Representative Adam Kinzinger shared his reaction to it on Friday. House Republicans met Wednesday in hopes of agreeing on which person to vote for to replace California Representative Kevin McCarthy, who drew conservative revolt after working with Democrats on a short-term spending bill to avert a government shutdown. The House voted to remove McCarthy after Representative Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, introduced a motion to vacate. While both House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Jordan decided to run for speaker, Scalise withdrew from consideration on Thursday, leaving Jordan to be chosen as the new nominee. In a post to X, formerly Twitter, Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, shared his reaction on Friday to the news by seemingly condemning the choice of Jordan and wrote, "Good job everyone. This country cannot have Jim Jordan as speaker." In addition to his X post, Kinzinger posted a video to his Substack detailing the behind the scenes events leading up to Jordan winning the GOP nomination and giving some insight into why he hopes Jordan is not chosen to be the next House speaker. "I made the prediction that Jim Jordan was going to be the guy. I hope this isn't the case, I still hold to that and the reason is because, the people that hold out against Jim Jordan are the moderates, kind of the normal folks so to speak and they are the ones pretty quick to collapse because they just want to go along and get along. I mean I was one of them, so I know what that's like, where you are just tired of the fight," Kinzinger said. The former GOP representative had previously stated his thoughts on Jordan becoming the next House speaker. In a Wednesday interview on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Kinzinger said, "Jim is going to be now the new litmus test of: Are you a true conservative or not? Steve Scalise won't be. It'll be Jim Jordan. And so there will be a slow acquiescence of everybody to Jim Jordan. That's my prediction." He added: "I certainly hope, for the country, I'm wrong. But I'll also say this: If he becomes speaker, it will be interesting to see how a shut-it-all-down kind of guy actually governs a country." The criticism towards Jordan comes after former GOP Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming warned Republicans that nominating Jordan for the speakership could cost them the majority in the lower chamber. In a post to X on Friday, Cheney condemned Jordan's close allyship to former President Donald Trump and his alleged involvement in efforts to keep Trump in power after losing the 2020 election. The Ohio lawmaker was previously found by the January 6 House select committee to be a "significant player," but is not facing any criminal charges. "Jim Jordan was involved in Trump's conspiracy to steal the election and seize power; he urged that Pence refuse to count lawful electoral votes," wrote Cheney, who served as one of two Republicans on the January 6 select committee alongside Kinzinger. "If Rs nominate Jordan to be Speaker, they will be abandoning the Constitution. They'll lose the House majority and they'll deserve to." Meanwhile, Trump endorsed Jordan last week in a Truth Social post, writing, "He will be a great Speaker of the House, & has my Complete & Total Endorsement." While speaking with CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju in a hallway of the U.S. Capitol after Jordan's nomination was announced, McCarthy was seemingly confident that Jordan will become the next speaker. After being asked by Raju if the Ohio representative can continue to run for speaker after only receiving 152 votes on the nominating ballot, while a candidate is required to receive at least 217 votes among the House in its entirety, McCarthy responded by saying he feels Jordan will be able to win over more House members. "Yeah, but he'll get there. I don't see a problem with him not getting there," McCarthy said. Despite the nomination, Jordan still faces more criticism as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, told reporters on Friday, "House Republicans have just elected a speaker nominee who in 16 years in Congress hasn't passed a single bill, because his focus has not been on the American people, his focus has been on peddling lies and conspiracy theories and division." Newsweek has reached out to Jordan via email for further comment.	US Congress
WASHINGTON — Ellen Weber could shave off some of the more than $100,000 she owes in student loans if President Joe Biden's debt relief plan was to ever take effect, but Republican officials in her home state of Missouri have worked hard to make sure that won't happen. Weber, 36, a therapist at a middle school just outside St. Louis, would be eligible for up to $10,000 of loan forgiveness under Biden's proposal, which faces a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. Her loan is serviced by the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, known as MOHELA, which could play an important role in the litigation. The justices will analyze two different legal challenges to Biden's plan, one of which involves Missouri. And part of the case will hinge on whether the state of Missouri, driven by Republican officials, has standing to challenge Biden's proposal, given MOHELA's role in servicing student loan debt and what it argues it would lose if loans are forgiven. The state's involvement doesn't sit well with Weber, who believes that Republican state officials, including newly appointed Attorney General Andrew Bailey, haven't considered the needs of state residents like her. "To hear that the state is fighting against my interests and the interests of other people who would benefit from this is incredibly frustrating," she said in an interview. Weber took out the loan so she could complete a master's degree in social work. The payments she has made have not made a dent in the principal she owes, meaning her total debt is more now than it was a decade ago. "It's incredibly important we recognize the inherent unfairness of that system," she said. Most experts believe that if the Supreme Court finds that at least one of the challengers has standing (meaning the challenger can demonstrate that it would suffer harm from the proposed law), then the court's 6-3 conservative majority would conclude that the program is unlawful. “Standing is crucial,” said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. Referring to the Biden administration’s legal arguments in defense of the proposal, he said it seems as if the government “has put most of its eggs in the standing basket,” as it understands that persuading the court that the program is lawful on any other grounds would be a tougher obstacle to overcome. The court is hearing two cases, one brought by six states, including Missouri, and the other brought by two people, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, who hold student loan debt. The challengers argue that the administration’s plan — announced by Biden in August and originally scheduled to take effect last fall — violates the Constitution and federal law, partly because it circumvents Congress, which they said has the power to create laws related to student loan forgiveness. The program, which would allow eligible borrowers to cancel up to $20,000 in debt, has been blocked since the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary hold in October. The administration has since closed the application process. Holders of student loan debt currently do not have to make payments as part of Covid relief measures that will remain in effect until after the Supreme Court issues its ruling. In any civil case, plaintiffs have to show they have standing by persuading the judge not only that they have been injured by the defendant’s actions but also that a favorable court ruling would redress that injury. Of the various challengers, Missouri may have the best argument for standing. The state is harmed by the Biden plan because MOHELA would lose the revenue it earns from servicing the loans if the debts are forgiven, its lawyers argue. Missouri would also be directly harmed because MOHELA has an obligation to make certain payments to the state treasury to help fund capital projects for state universities, the lawyers say. A spokeswoman for Bailey, the attorney general, did not respond to a request for comment. In court papers the state goes into great detail in describing how MOHELA is not a separate entity from the state. Lawyers argue, for example, that the agency was created by the Legislature and the governor appoints members of its board. “As such, MOHELA is part of Missouri, and the state has standing to challenge actions that impair MOHELA’s finances,” the states argue in their brief. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, said in court papers that MOHELA is a distinct legal entity from the state of Missouri and therefore cannot be considered part of any analysis of whether the state itself has standing. “Missouri may not now maintain that the State and MOHELA are one and the same merely because it believes that MOHELA has standing to challenge a policy the State opposes,” Prelogar wrote. She added that there is no evidence that MOHELA will face a significant drop in revenue or that the agency will not be able to meet its payment obligations to the state treasury. Another brief filed by supporters of the program says MOHELA hasn't made a payment to the state for a decade. 'Financial services behemoth' MOHELA has attracted scrutiny for its role in the case from Democratic lawmakers and groups that support Biden's plan. The agency has strayed far beyond its original mandate and is now a "financial services behemoth" handling one out of every 10 dollars of outstanding student loan debt, according to the Student Borrower Protection Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates for student loan relief. Persis Yu, the center's deputy executive director, said MOHELA would earn money during the loan discharge process if Biden's plan went into effect. "There are several leaps and assumptions you have to make" to conclude that MOHELA has standing, she said. MOHELA said in a letter last year that its executives were "not involved" with the decision of then-Attorney General Derek Schmidt to challenge Biden's plan. Scott Giles, MOHELA's executive director, did not respond to a request for comment. In ruling for the states, the appeals court embraced the standing argument for MOHELA, saying there were reasons to conclude it is an arm of the state. Even if it isn’t, the harm to the state caused by a decline in MOHELA’s payments into the treasury for capital projects is enough to establish standing, the court concluded. The appeals court did not decide whether the other states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and South Carolina — had standing. Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School, said that although he expects the justices to debate standing on Tuesday, such questions rarely delay them if a majority wants to decide the legal merits, especially in an "ideologically fraught case" like student loans. Major questions doctrine If the justices conclude that MOHELA has standing, then they could decide the case based on a legal argument made by the challengers that the Supreme Court has recently embraced called the “major questions doctrine.” Under that theory, federal agencies cannot initiate sweeping new policies that have a significant economic impact without having express authorization from Congress. The Biden administration says its authority comes from a 2003 law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, known as the HEROES Act. The law states that the government can provide relief to recipients of student loans when there is a "national emergency." The major questions doctrine fits neatly with the conservative majority’s skepticism about broad assertions of federal power. The court cited it last year in blocking Biden’s Covid vaccination or test requirement for larger businesses and curbing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to limit carbon emissions from power plants. The challengers say the language in the HEROES Act is not specific enough to authorize a proposal as broad as Biden's plan. It is because of the conservative bloc’s stance on such issues that most court watchers believe the student loan program is likely to be invalidated if the justices conclude that MOHELA, or any of the other challengers, have standing. "It's clearly the most likely outcome," Somin said.	US Federal Policies
Supreme Court Grants Last Opportunity To Defaulting States To Pay Arrears To Lower Court Judges The SNJPC recommendations cover the pay structure, pension and family pension and allowances, besides dealing with the issue of establishing a permanent mechanism to determine the subjects of the service conditions of the district judiciary. The Supreme Court granted a last opportunity to the defaulting states and Union territories on Thursday to clear the salary arrears and other dues of lower court judges in accordance with the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC). The SNJPC recommendations cover the pay structure, pension and family pension and allowances, besides dealing with the issue of establishing a permanent mechanism to determine the subjects of the service conditions of the district judiciary. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud noted that despite its directions dated May 19, some states have not complied either fully or in part with those. "We are, prima facie, of the view that the chief secretaries of all defaulting states and Union territories are in contempt. In order to grant one last opportunity of compliance, we direct that the directions shall be effected on or before Dec. 8, 2023, failing which the chief secretaries of all defaulting states and Union territories shall personally remain present before this court," the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said. The court also clarified that compliance shall mean actual crediting of the amount payable to each judicial officer and in the case of family pension, the surviving spouses. In another direction, the bench also allowed the High Court of Telangana to increase the superannuation age of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years, in line with that of the state government officials. Describing the district Judiciary as the backbone of the judicial system, the apex court had, on May 19, directed all the states to clear the salary arrears and other dues of lower court judges in accordance with the SNJPC's recommendations. The court, which had accepted the recommendations made in 2020 by the SNJPC headed by former apex court judge Justice P V Reddi, had directed the states to ensure that the dues under several heads are positively credited into the accounts of the judicial officers and compliance affidavits filed before it by July 30. The verdict had said the revised rates of pension, which have been approved by the court, shall be payable from July 1, 2023. "For the payment of arrears of pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits as well, following the orders dated July 27, 2022, and Jan. 18, 2023, it is directed that 25% will be paid by Aug. 31, 2023, another 25% by Oct. 31, 2023 and the remaining 50% by Dec. 31, 2023," it had said. The court had also said necessary amendments on issues, such as uniformity of cadres in the district judiciary, must be carried out in the service rules of judicial officers across all jurisdictions to implement the recommendations of the SNJPC. The litigation moved by the All India Judges Association dates back to 1993 and consequently, the need was felt to have a judicial pay commission, separate and independent from the executive, in order to ensure that a system of checks and balances is in place and the judiciary has a say in their pay and service conditions. The First National Judicial Pay Commission (FNJPC) was constituted by the government by a resolution dated March 21, 1996. Subsequently, the SNJPC was set up and it submitted its report on November 10, 2017 after acknowledging the fact that the salary of the judicial officers was not raised for more than 10 years. A report on interim relief was submitted on March 9, 2018 and considering that the judicial officers were without upgraded pay, the top court had on March 27, 2018 directed the states and the Centre to implement the recommendations of the commission with regard to the interim relief. Subsequently, on Jan. 29, 2020, the SNJPC submitted its final report to the Supreme Court.	SCOTUS
Trump Indictment Is Going to Make US Politics Even More Divisive Public faith in the criminal justice system was already eroding—thanks in large part to the former president. (Bloomberg Businessweek) -- Donald Trump’s indictment by a Manhattan grand jury on March 30 is another grim marker of American civic decline that could lead to any number of outcomes—none of them good. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged the former president with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels, sources told Bloomberg News. Anticipating his indictment, Trump had already taken to social media to urge his supporters to conduct protests and warned of “potential death and destruction” if he was charged, moves that echoed his call to arms in the days before the attack on the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. With Trump’s arrest apparently imminent, the country is rocketing forward into a new, explosive and even more bitterly divided partisan era. Trump’s latest controversy is unprecedented in American history, yet at the same time wearyingly familiar. Joe Biden may be president, but Trump still dominates headlines and shapes US politics. While he may no longer occupy the White House, his indictment guarantees he isn’t going away. This alone marks Trump as different from earlier presidents, who have traditionally withdrawn from public life after losing reelection. Trump still faces the potential of additional prosecutions for his role in inciting the Jan. 6 attack and obstructing the certification of the Electoral College votes; for his actions to try to overturn the election results in Georgia; as well as for his handling of classified documents, which led to the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago in August. The former president has dismissed them all as partisan witch hunts. More than his refusal to step back from the public stage, it’s Trump’s impunity in the face of criminal charges that represents the real break from historical norms. In the past, presidents and presidential hopefuls have always put country before party. Richard Nixon resigned from office rather than be impeached for the Watergate scandal. Gerald Ford pardoned him so that America’s “long national nightmare” might come to an end. Al Gore conceded the 2000 presidential race to George W. Bush, even as the Florida recount remained incomplete, because he believed it was the best thing for the country. To Trump and his allies, such thinking is passé. “The political elites and powerbrokers have weaponized government to try and stop him. They will fail,” Taylor Budowich, the CEO of Make America Great Again Inc., a pro-Trump super PAC, said in a statement. “He will be reelected in the greatest landslide in American history.” American politics has always had its rogues and demagogues, from charismatic populists such as Huey Long and Ross Perot to paranoid anti-communists like Joseph McCarthy. In the past, however, they were peripheral figures. Trump’s historic upset in the 2016 presidential election changed that, putting one of them into the White House and ushering in a contentious new era in American politics. Already twice impeached, Trump is now the first US president to be charged with a crime. But his current situation is no new spin on American exceptionalism. The indicted political leader with a popular following and ambitions for high office is a well-established international archetype. In 2013, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi was convicted of tax fraud and served prison time, but he returned to win a Senate seat in last year’s general election. In 2017, Brazil’s former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was convicted on money laundering and corruption charges and imprisoned, only to have the trial later nullified by the country’s Supreme Federal Court. Last year, Lula was elected president once again. Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, also mounted a stunning comeback last year, even as he faced felony corruption charges. Should Trump be convicted, there’s even a precedent for him to seek the White House from jail—though he’d surely hope to carry more than the 3.4% of the vote that Eugene Debs won in the 1920 presidential race while imprisoned in Atlanta on sedition charges. Trump’s indictment is certain to hasten Americans’ declining faith in major US institutions. In recent years, this trend has eroded public confidence in the criminal justice system in particular, which has seen a sharp drop in support. Last year, Gallup found that only 14% of respondents had a “great deal” of faith in the criminal justice system, down from 20% two years earlier. Only two institutions—television news and Congress—engender a lower level of public trust. Trump himself, of course, is a major reason why public trust has collapsed. On March 23, his campaign blasted out an email to supporters claiming his prosecution is politically motivated. “The Left’s total ABUSE of our justice system is a complete DISGRACE,” the email thundered. “But what you’re seeing is only the tip of the iceberg of the damage the Deep State is doing to our country.” Other Republicans have amplified this partisan message. On March 25, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy called the investigation “an outrageous abuse of power by a radical DA who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump” and said he would direct House committees to look into the prosecution. Even before the indictment, those Republican attacks elicited a sharp rebuke from Bragg’s office. The Democrat’s general counsel called the House Republicans’ request for information in the case “an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution” that appears to be “solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators.” That Trump reportedly directed this action, the general counsel added, made it not “a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry.” But questions about the validity of Bragg’s case are hardly limited to partisan Republicans. Legal experts stress that charges arising under federal law must be brought by federal prosecutors—something Bragg is not. Bringing state felony charges against Trump is a tricky affair. Falsification of business records is usually treated as a misdemeanor; for the charge to rise to a felony, prosecutors have the added burden of proving that it was committed in the service of another crime. Then there is the matter of Bragg’s standing in heavily Democratic New York City. Last year, two senior prosecutors in the district attorney’s office quit after he halted their efforts to seek a Trump indictment. In February one of them, Mark Pomerantz, published a tell-all book criticizing Bragg’s reluctance to bring an ambitious criminal fraud case that Pomerantz and his colleague Carey Dunne had been building against Trump. In a resignation letter leaked to the press last year, he pressured the DA by calling his unwillingness to bring charges “a grave failure of justice.” On top of that, Bragg faces an eventual reelection race. His Democratic opponent in his last primary, Tali Farhadian Weinstein, recently became board chairman of a legal nonprofit founded by none other than Pomerantz and Dunne. “She ran for DA once before, and Pomerantz’s criticism of Bragg is well-documented,” says Daniel Horwitz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office. “It does raise a question about whether there are multiple agendas at work here.” Most Americans are already convinced that the prosecution of Trump is politically tinged. A March 21 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 54% of respondents—including 80% of Republicans—believed political factors are driving the criminal case against him. (That isn’t the same thing as believing Trump is innocent: 70% of respondents, including half of Republicans, found his alleged behavior “believable.”) Regardless of the outcome, Trump’s indictment will undoubtedly shape the upcoming Republican presidential primaries—though exactly how it might alter the expected outcome of a Trump victory, and to whose benefit, is unknowable. Anything that increases the uncertainty of his nomination odds is good news for Ron DeSantis and the other GOP hopefuls looking to succeed him. On the other hand, a primary race already set to revolve around Trump is now likely to make an even tighter orbit around the same sun, not least because Bragg’s indictment may not be the last to land before Republicans choose their nominee. From Mike Pence to Nikki Haley to Ron DeSantis, the crowd of would-be Trump successors who’ve gingerly tip-toed toward the race—yearning to be recognized for their personal excellence, but too fearful of Trump to attack him directly—will now have an even harder time capturing the attention of Republican voters. A March 29 Fox News poll found Trump expanding his lead to 54%, followed by DeSantis at 24% and Pence at 6%. “This is going to suck all the oxygen out of the race for the foreseeable future,” says Alex Conant, a Republican strategist. “Every political reporter is racing to Manhattan instead of covering Mike Pence’s big speech or Tim Scott’s trip to Iowa. They’ll stay in Manhattan for the arraignment. An indictment freezes the race and makes it all about Trump—again, just like when he was president. It’s going to be hard for other candidates to make big moves when the focus is all on something else.” Of course, there’s no guarantee that Trump will survive the intense public scrutiny unscathed. The basic facts of the case don’t flatter him and aren’t seriously in dispute. His former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has already pleaded guilty and served prison time for his role in the payoff. And Cohen is now a witness for the prosecution. But the contours of US politics and the nature of voters’ polarization have both changed dramatically since the days when scandalized lawmakers resigned out of a sense of duty—or, failing that, a belief that they couldn’t maintain the support necessary to carry on. Recently, a team of political scientists conducted a wide-ranging study of survey data to better understand how the major news events of the past few years have shifted voters’ perceptions of the presidential candidates and their parties. In their book, , John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch and Lynn Vavreck concluded that polarization is now so deeply entrenched that it subsumes every big piece of news that comes along. Republicans and Democrats fit these events to their pre-existing worldview, resulting in little movement between the parties. The authors dub this phenomenon “political calcification.” There’s every reason to expect it will apply to Trump’s indictment, as well. “People today are more wedded to their predispositions and attitudes than at any time since the New Deal,” says Vavreck, the Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics and Public Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles. “So I’d be very surprised by a sudden change. Add in Trump’s strong standing in Republican primary polls, and the data is telling us that people still have an affinity for him that an indictment isn’t likely to shake.” It’s hard to imagine Trump receding from the center of controversy or the partisan anger that surrounds him ebbing anytime soon. In fact, Bragg’s case has unavoidably exposed every major political fault line in American politics. On the Republican side, it has inflamed paranoia that “deep state” liberals are abusing their governmental powers to punish their political enemies; intensified the anguish non-MAGA conservatives feel about the GOP having a corrupt standard-bearer; and put the party at even greater risk of suffering another disappointment at the ballot box next year. It has further exacerbated an intense hatred of Trump among Democrats; heightened skepticism about the Biden administration’s impartiality; and weakened an already dwindling public trust in government. Above all, it has further degraded the social fabric of a nation that finds itself unable to move beyond the damaging, never-ending controversies of its last president—who could still be, in spite of everything, its next one. About the only certainty is that Trump himself will offer no relief. It used to be the case that an indictment marked the swift end of nearly any political career. Now it just establishes the central plot line for the next election: Donald Trump versus everyone, with the future of the country hanging in the balance. — More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com ©2023 Bloomberg L.P.	US Political Corruption
- The DC Democratic Party is trying to stop an effort to implement ranked choice voting in the city. - They argued in a lawsuit that low-income and Black voters would be confused by the system. - Organizers hope to put the system up to a vote in November 2024. In a lawsuit filed earlier this month seeking to block ranked choice voting in Washington, DC, the local Democratic Party argued that implementing the system would be particularly confusing for voters in predominantly Black areas. The 33-page lawsuit filed in DC Superior Court by the District of Columbia Democratic Party argues that implementing the voting system would violate the DC Human Rights Act, a portion of local law prohibiting discrimination. In the complaint, the local party and its chair Charles Wilson pointed to voting patterns in Wards 7 and 8, which encompass predominantly-Black communities east of the Anacostia River. The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as "undervoting." "Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office," said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting "would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate." "I have a similar concern for seniors and persons with disabilities," Wilson added. The lawsuit was first reported this week by DCist. The initiative, known as the "Make All Votes Count Act," would also allow independent voters in the District to vote in either party's primary elections. Supporters of the initiative must still gather enough signatures to put the issue before voters in November 2024. The system would then go into effect with the 2026 election. Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank multiple candidates for office, creating a system in which voters can choose not just their first choice for the job, but several other candidates who they'd like to see win. Under the system, the lowest-performing candidates are sequentially eliminated and their votes are redistributed to other candidates based on voters' rankings. This continues until one candidate exceeds 50% of the vote. It's been implemented in federal and state elections in both Maine and Alaska, where it arguably helped Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola pull out a victory last year and contributed to the smooth re-election of Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Nationally, opposition to the system has mostly come from Republicans, especially after the results in Alaska. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy trashed the system during a podcast appearance with Donald Trump Jr. in January. "Someone could get the most votes, and not win!" McCarthy said at the time.. "So if you come in 3rd, you win. What? 'I got a lot of second votes, I got a lot of 3rd vote — what does that mean?'" And Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York recently introduced a bill to block the implementation of ranked-choice voting in Washington, DC. "I agree with DC Democrats on this," Lawler wrote on Twitter on Wednesday. —Mike Lawler (@lawler4ny) August 9, 2023	US Local Elections
Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Monday introduced a plan to provide $14.3bn in aid to Israel by cutting funding for the Internal Revenue Service, setting up a showdown with Democrats who control the Senate. In one of the first major policy actions under new House speaker Mike Johnson, House Republicans unveiled a standalone supplemental spending bill only for Israel, despite Joe Biden’s request for a $106bn package that would include aid for Israel, Ukraine and border security. Johnson, who voted against aid for Ukraine before he was elected House speaker last week, had said he wanted aid to Israel and Ukraine to be handled separately. He has said he wants more accountability for money that has been sent to the Kyiv government as it fights Russian invaders. Dmytro Kuleba, the Ukrainian foreign minister, said on Monday he was confident the House would back a request for additional funds for Ukraine’s military. “The main thing is the outcome – are there enough votes or not?” Kuleba told Ukrainian national television. “And at the moment we have every reason to believe that there are votes in the US House of Representatives for the bill providing Ukraine with additional support.” Kuleba said he was aware of “considerable political resistance” to the bill’s provisions and that it would be a “sin” for US lawmakers not to use the legislation to further their own interests. “Israel is a separate matter,” Johnson said in an interview on Fox News last week, describing his desire to “bifurcate” the Ukraine and Israel funding issues. Johnson has said bolstering support for Israel should top the US national security agenda in the aftermath of the 7 October attack by Hamas that killed more than 1,400 people and saw more than 200 others taken hostage. Democrats accused Republicans of stalling Congress’ ability to help Israel by introducing a partisan bill. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre issued a statement accusing Republicans of “politicizing national security” and calling their bill a non-starter. To become law, the measure would need to pass the House and the Senate and be signed by Joe Biden. “House Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent by suggesting that protecting national security or responding to natural disasters is contingent upon cuts to other programs,” Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democratic representative on the House appropriations committee, said in a statement. The House rules committee is expected to consider the Republican Israel bill on Wednesday.	US Federal Policies
Rep. Jim Jordan, the far-right chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, formally kicked off his bid for House speaker on Wednesday, hoping to succeed Kevin McCarthy. To that end, the House Republican sent a relatively brief, five-paragraph letter to his GOP colleagues, summarizing the case for his candidacy. Much of Jordan’s case was predictable. Indeed, the conspiratorial Republican insisted, among other things, that “federal agencies” have “targeted parents at school board meetings,” which, once again, is a ridiculous claim that bears no resemblance to reality. But this was the part of the congressman’s letter that stood out for me: “We agreed at the beginning of the Congress that there are three fundamental things the House must do: pass the bills that need to be passed, do the oversight, and rein in the spending. Working with Chairman Green and our leadership, I helped to deliver the most significant legislative accomplishment this Congress: the strongest immigration and border enforcement bill ever.” After it cleared the chamber, the legislation went to the Senate, where the chamber’s Democratic leaders acted swiftly — putting the bill on a shelf, never to be seen again. In other words, what Jordan considers “the most significant legislative accomplishment” of this Congress was, for all intents and purposes, a messaging bill. Republicans put together a far-right package, with no Democratic input, and without regard for what might be able to pass the Senate or generate White House support. The “Secure the Border Act” was about House Republicans thumping their chests, satisfying their base, and engaging in self-indulgent theater. To be sure, this wasn't exactly unique: Members of Congress have been thumping their chests, satisfying their base, and engaging in self-indulgent theater for generations. But lawmakers have generally understood that when they pushed partisan bills that stood no chance of becoming law — bills that weren’t even designed to become law — they weren’t actually engaging in real policymaking. Traditionally, in order for a bill to be characterized as a “significant legislative accomplishment,” it had to, among other things, actually pass. Which is what made Jordan’s boast so notable. The Ohioan, almost certainly unintentionally, offered a peek into a post-policy perspective: Failed legislation can be seen as both “significant” and “accomplishments” if they scratch an ideological itch. It doesn’t matter if bills become law, what matters is whether bill panders to partisans. The “Secure the Border Act” had no impact whatsoever on American governance, but it said what Jordan wanted it to say; it created fundraising opportunities for its champions; and it generated grist for the mill in conservative media. For the would-be House speaker, no other ingredients are necessary to concoct “the most significant legislative accomplishment this Congress.”	US Congress
U.S. regulators on Monday sued SolarWinds, a Texas-based technology company whose software was breached in a massive 2020 Russian cyberespionage campaign, for fraud for failing to disclose security deficiencies ahead of the stunning hack. The company’s top security executive was also named in the complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking unspecified civil penalties, reimbursement of “ill-gotten gains” and the executive's removal. Detected in December 2020, the SolarWinds hack penetrated U.S. government agencies including the Justice and Homeland Security departments, and more than 100 private companies and think tanks. It was a rude wake-up call that raised awareness in Washington about the urgency of stepping up efforts to better guard against intrusions. In the 68-page complaint filed in New York federal court, the SEC says SolarWinds and its then vice president of security, Tim Brown, defrauded investors and customers “through misstatements, omissions and schemes” that concealed both the company's “poor cybersecurity practices and its heightened — and increasing — cybersecurity risks.” In a statement, SolarWinds called the SEC charges unfounded and said it is “deeply concerned this action will put our national security at risk.” Brown performed his responsibilities “with diligence, integrity, and distinction,” his lawyer, Alec Koch, said in a statement. Koch added that “we look forward to defending his reputation and correcting the inaccuracies in the SEC’s complaint." Brown's current title at SolarWinds is chief information security officer. The SEC's enforcement division director, Gurbir S. Grewal, said in a statement that SolarWinds and Brown ignored “repeated red flags” for years, painting “a false picture of the company’s cyber controls environment, thereby depriving investors of accurate material information.” The very month that SolarWinds registered for an initial public offering, October 2018, Brown wrote in an internal presentation that the company's “current state of security leaves us in a very vulnerable state,” the complaint says. Among the SEC’s damning allegations: An internal SolarWinds presentation shared that year said the company’s network was “not very secure,” meaning it was vulnerable to hacking that could lead to “major reputation and financial loss." Throughout 2019 and 2020, the SEC alleged, multiple communications among SolarWinds employees, including Brown, “questioned the company's ability to protect its critical assets from cyberattacks.” SolarWinds, which is based in Austin, Texas, provides network-monitoring and other technical services to hundreds of thousands of organizations around the world, including most Fortune 500 companies and government agencies in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The nearly two-year espionage campaign involved the infection of thousands of customers by seeding malware in the update channel of the company’s network management software. Capitalizing on the supply-chain hack, the Russian cyber operators then stealthily penetrated select targets including at least nine U.S. government agencies and prominent software and telecommunications providers. In its statement, SolarWinds called the SEC action an “example of the agency’s overreach (that) should alarm all public companies and committed cybersecurity professionals across the country.” It did not explain how the SEC's action could put national security at risk, though some in the cybersecurity community have argued that holding corporate information security officers personally responsible for identified vulnerabilities could make them less diligent about uncovering and/or disclosing them — and discourage qualified people from aspiring to such positions. Under the Biden administration, the SEC has been aggressive about holding publicly traded companies to account for cybersecurity lapses and failures to disclose vulnerabilities. In July, it adopted rules requiring them to disclose within four days all cybersecurity breaches that could affect their bottom lines. Delays would be permitted if immediate disclosure poses serious national-security or public-safety risks. Victims of the SolarWinds hack whose Microsoft email accounts were violated included the New York federal prosecutors’ office, then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and members of the department’s cybersecurity staff, whose jobs included hunting threats from foreign countries.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
The photos were released due to a Daily Mail Freedom of Information Act request. The cocaine was discovered in the White House on July 2, prompting an evacuation and extensive investigation. Despite this, the owner of the substance has yet to be found. The Biden family, including first son Hunter Biden, were away at Camp David for the Fourth of July holiday when the substance was found. Though no evidence has emerged directly implicating him, critics pointed to Hunter Biden's documented drug troubles in previous years as possibly implicating him in the situation. Documents obtained by the Daily Mail also found that Deputy Director of the FBI Paul Abbate took part in the investigation. The 11-day investigation narrowed the list of suspects to fewer than 500 people, but the poor angle of security footage meant it could not be narrowed further. The cocaine was found in a tiny plastic bag and contained less than 1 gram of the substance. No usable fingerprints were found.	US Political Corruption
Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) introduced the Safeguarding Americans from Extremism Act on Thursday, seeking to prevent “Palestinian terrorists” from entering the country by halting the Department of Homeland Security from issuing visas or granting asylum to individuals seeking to enter the country with a Palestinian Authority passport. The bill would also expel any immigrants who were granted visas or entered the country on or after Oct. 1. “I don’t trust the Biden administration any more than I do the Palestinian Authority to screen who is allowed to come into the United States,” Zinke said. “This is the most anti-Hamas immigration legislation I have seen, and it’s well deserved. Given the circumstances, the threats to our immigration system, and the history of terrorists abusing refugee, asylum, and visa processes all over the world, the requirements in this bill are necessary to keep Americans safe. This bill does exactly that.” The bill would also bar the DHS from granting Palestinians temporary protected status or refugee status, according to the legislation. Additionally, the DHS secretary would be prohibited from paroling immigrants and would revoke any parole granted to Palestinian individuals who entered the country on or after Oct. 1. The legislation would direct the DHS to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to “identify and remove” any individuals “without lawful status,” including those whose status is newly revoked. The bill has 10 co-sponsors, including Reps. Andy Harris (R-MD), Aaron Bean (R-FL), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Ronny Jackson (R-TX), Bill Posey (R-FL), Barry Moore (R-AL), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ). It’s not yet clear whether the bill would be considered on the House floor, but it’s likely to receive pushback and criticism from Democrats. Even if it did pass the House, it’s unlikely to make any headway in the Democrat-led Senate. The bill comes after House Republicans introduced a similar bill last month seeking to block the Biden administration from granting visas to individuals with Palestinian passports. However, this legislation takes it a step further by blocking access to the country and removing those who had entered the country after Israel entered into a war against the Hamas militant group.	US Federal Policies
And now we wait. After eight grueling days, the 30 Texas senators who will decide the fate of Ken Paxton are deliberating in private. When they emerge, they will cast votes on each of the sixteen impeachment charges brought by the Texas House. A two-thirds majority—that’s 21 senators—on any of the sixteen will result in a conviction and Paxton’s removal from office. The standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the same as in a criminal trial. But this is no typical criminal trial, which is one of the only things that everyone can agree on. As Plano representative Jeff Leach, a House impeachment manager, pointed out in his closing argument, the “Impeachment Trial of Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr.” is a “unique mix” of the civil and the criminal. And in the end, it is a political project. Though the rules require senators to base their decision only on the facts and evidence presented during the trial, in practice that is an impossibility. Republican senators will no doubt be mindful that their decision to acquit or convict will have consequences not just for their own careers but for the fate of the Legislature and the Republican Party. Hard-right enforcers backed by Midland billionaire Tim Dunn have promised to primary any Republican who votes to convict. Their mantra: “There is no evidence.” One of the most ardent Paxton apologists, Luke Macias, has predicted a “civil war.” Professional Paxton defenders spent much of the day urging their followers to call senators’ offices, and Trump himself has weighed in to back Ken. If Paxton is convicted, the next attorney general—appointed by Governor Greg Abbott—could very well be one of these senators now deliberating on whether to convict! If Paxton stays in office, senators will take the blame if he decides to do more (alleged) crimes, or if a Democrat manages to knock him out in 2026, or if he ends up being indicted by the feds. Tony Buzbee, the unnaturally tanned, hyperaggressive attorney who leads Paxton’s defense team, understands all of this perhaps better than anyone. In his angry closing argument, Buzbee dispensed with any pretense that the senators’ decision will be high-minded. He wove a sinister tale of conspiracy and victimhood on behalf of his client. Paxton, the most effective state attorney general in the land, had been targeted unfairly by the Bushes, the media, and liberals. “I would suggest to you that this is a political witch hunt,” Buzbee said. He added: “The. Bush. Era. Ends. Today.” He tempted the GOP senators: a vote to acquit would own the libs. But wasn’t it some very conservative Paxton employees who blew the whistle on their boss? Wasn’t it Republicans in the House who impeached Paxton? Buzbee had an answer for that too. The whistleblowers and the House impeachment managers had “taken a long walk off a short pier”—they had made accusations, hoping to gather sufficient evidence later. But the evidence never came. He could have left it at that, but Buzbee seems incapable of reining in his belligerence. “We’re here because [House Speaker] Dade Phelan got his feelings hurt. He was so drunk!”—a reference to a semiviral clip of Phelan slurring his words at the dais late in the regular session. It was that kind of trial. The prosecution, on the other hand, took the high road in its closing, reviewing key evidence for each of the sixteen charges and appealing to the better angels of the Senate’s nature. Representative Andrew Murr, a mustachioed Republican from Junction who counts former Texas governor Coke Stevenson as an ancestor, told the senators, “This is the most important choice you have ever faced.” In a hundred years, he said, it is probably the only vote of theirs that will be remembered. “It’s about what public service means.” The last word, however, went to Leach, a somewhat idiosyncratic Republican. This was a smart choice by the defense. Leach is a hard-core Christian conservative. He can speak to the Republicans in the chamber in terms that go beyond evidence and argumentation. And, as he told the senators, he counts Paxton as a “dear friend, a political mentor, a brother in Christ, and a once trusted adviser.” Speaking in the language familiar to evangelicals, he told the Senate that he had “loved Ken Paxton for a long time. I’ve done life with Ken Paxton.” But, he suggested, it was time for some tough love. Paxton had to go. As someone said to me on social media—a stranger who disagreed with some mild praise I had for the prosecutors—observing the trial was like watching two different movies on the same screen. The Paxton side saw what they wanted to see: the railroading of one of America’s most reliable defenders of liberty. The absence of evidence. A witch hunt orchestrated by George P. Bush and other RINOs. Whereas the other side saw a great marshaling of evidence, a crook finally getting his accountability moment. What the senators saw? Well, we will just have to wait and see. - More About: - Politics & Policy	US Political Corruption
Good morning and happy Friday, US politics readers. The longest of weeks on Capitol Hill continues today with Kevin McCarthy still chasing the speakership after losing 11 straight House votes.The California Republican’s team has been pleading with conservative holdouts overnight, trying to reach a deal to get him to the 218 votes he needs. But the troops are growing restless, and frustration among moderates is rising at how much control McCarthy seems willing to cede to the party’s extremist fringe.“There’s only so much of this crap we can take,” one Republican lawmaker tells Politico’ Playbook after three days and nights of stalemate.The circus tent opens again when the House reconvenes at noon, and we’ll know pretty soon thereafter if McCarthy has achieved any kind of breakthrough.Also happening today: It’s the second anniversary of the deadly January 6 Capitol riot. Joe Biden will present the Presidential Citizens Medal, the nation’s second highest civilian award, to 12 people, including law enforcement officers and politicians, who stood up to Donald Trump’s insurrection. Security services are on high alert with several rallies planned to take place at or near the Capitol building. Democrats fear the safety of lawmakers and staff has been compromised by a weakening of security measures since Republicans won the House majority. Karine Jean-Pierre, White House press secretary, will deliver her final briefing of the week at 12.45pm.	US Congress
A young Florida mother was arrested after she allegedly used a parody website to hire a hitman to kill her 3-year-old son, police said. Jazmin Paez,18, is facing charges of first-degree solicitation of murder and third-degree using a communications device for an unlawful use. She’s accused of logging onto hitmanforhire.com in search of an assassin, going as far as to submit a photo of her toddler as well as his exact whereabouts, according to court documents obtained by NBC Miami. She allegedly wanted the job done before the week’s end. Investigators were alerted to Paez’s plot by the website owner, Robert Innes. He said that while he gets hundreds of hitman requests on a daily basis — many of them jokes — Paez’s solicitation stood out as too real. “The ability to research names and addresses and verify the intended target lived in a particular address,” Innes told NBC Miami. That to me is a red flag. If that information is corroborated, to me that is something that needs to be looked at and that’s why I referred it.” According to authorities, the website founder created the platform to catch and curb those looking to hire a killer. Paez eventually connected with an investigator through the site who was posing as a hitman. She offered to pay him $3,000 to murder her 3-year-old boy, CBS News reported. From there, authorities were able to track down the IP of the computer that was used to make the request and confirmed in belonged to Paez. After speaking to the child’s grandmother, who confirmed he was the boy featured in the photos submitted to the website, authorities swooped in and arrested his mother. She was booked into the Miami-Dade jail but has since been released on $50,000 bond, NBC Miami reported. Her son is currently safe and being cared for by family.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat, elicited boos and verbal attacks from anti-Israel protesters when walking past them waving an Israeli flag. Boos and shouts of "Shame!" were thrown at Fetterman as he exited the building, waving the Israeli flag while passing progressive protesters from the veterans group About Face calling for a cease-fire amid Israel's war against the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. Several protesters were in the process of being arrested outside the Russell Senate Office Building as Fetterman walked by, while others — including one wearing a keffiyeh, a symbol of Palestinian nationalism — shouted at the senator from behind police tape. "What a joke!" one protester yelled as Fetterman passed by them. Another accused Fetterman of supporting "genocide." Fetterman, however, laughed off the criticism, continuing to wave the Israeli flag and walking off as the protesters chanted for a cease-fire. "Jacka-- [Fetterman] saw veterans getting arrested and laughed," tweeted About Face, the progressive, anti-war veterans group that called for the National Guard to "stand down" to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. "We asked to see [Senator Kirsten Gillibrand]," About Face continued. "We were put in cuffs." "We need leaders who listen to veterans demanding a [cease-fire]," the group added. Fetterman's office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Neither did Gillibrand's office or About Face. Fetterman, a progressive Democrat, has been a staunch ally of Israel amid the war sparked by the October 7 surprise terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas. The senator's support for Israel has put him at odds with many in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Fetterman, who had a stroke while on the campaign trail, jabbed at a pro-Hamas activist who heckled him over his pro-Israel stance, saying the "joke" was on the protester because Fetterman "can't fully understand what you're saying." A pro-Palestinian former adjunct law professor from Pittsburgh confronted Fetterman over his stance at a bar over Halloween weekend. The professor was eventually thrown out of the bar by a man dressed in a John Fetterman Halloween costume.	US Congress
Reports: 'Glimmers of hope' for McCarthy dealKevin McCarthy’s team insists there has been progress in negotiations with the hard-right Republican rebels who have denied him the speakership through 11 straight votes, but whether it’s the breakthrough the California Republican so desperately needs is far from certain.The House reconvenes at noon Friday in what has already been the lengthiest search for a speaker in 159 years, with an increasingly anguished McCarthy offering more concessions to the holdouts to try to secure the 218 votes he needs.The Washington Post on Friday was among several media outlets reporting signs emerging of a possible deal to end the impasse yet, crucially, notes that while it reflects “considerable momentum” for McCarthy, the expectation is he “will not get all the votes necessary to become speaker”.Moderate Republicans are also growing restless after three days of voting in which McCarthy has failed to show any progress towards the winning threshold, and a group of 20 House Republicans has consistently voted against him.There is, therefore, something of a “make or break” feel to today’s proceedings.One Republican lawmaker told Politico Playbook on Friday:There is a limit to how much of this crap we can take.The website reports mounting frustration among a sizeable number of others, some of whom want to be out of Washington DC to be with sick relatives, attend family funerals or meet new babies for the first time.“There’s a lot more at stake than whether Kevin McCarthy’s going to be able to get the gavel,” the lawmaker told Playbook.“We’ve got lives that are being impacted right now, and this is tough for people.”The other area of concern is how much McCarthy seems to be giving away to the hardliners in order to make a deal.The Post, and others, say he has now consented to reduce the threshold from five to one of the number of House members needed to raise a “vacate the chair” motion, making it easier for the speaker to be ousted.Read more:Key events24m agoReports: 'Glimmers of hope' for McCarthy dealShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureToday marks the second anniversary of the deadly January 6 Capitol riot. This afternoon, Joe Biden will award the nation’s second highest civilian honor, the Presidential Citizens Medal, to 12 people, including law enforcement officers and politicians, who resisted Donald Trump’s insurrection. Ed Pilkington reports:Rusty Bowers, the former top Republican in Arizona’s house of representatives who stood up to Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and was punished for it by being unseated by his own party, is to receive America’s second-highest civilian honor on Friday.Bowers will be among 12 people who will be awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by Joe Biden at the White House at a ceremony to mark the second anniversary of the 6 January 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol. It will be the first time that the president has presented the honor, which is reserved for those who have “performed exemplary deeds of service for their country or their fellow citizens”.Rusty Bowers. Photograph: Olivier Touron/AFP/Getty ImagesAll 12 took exceptional personal risks to protect US democracy against Trump’s onslaught. Many are law enforcement officers who confronted the Capitol rioters, others are election workers and officials in key battleground states who refused to be bullied into subverting the outcome of the presidential race.Several of the recipients paid a huge personal price for their actions. Brian Sicknick will receive the presidential medal posthumously – he died the day after the insurrection having suffered a stroke; a medical examiner later found he died from natural causes, while noting that the events of January 6 had “played a role in his condition”.Bowers’ award, first reported by the Deseret News, came after he refused effectively to ignore the will of Arizona’s 3.4 million voters and switch victory from Biden to Trump. As a result, he incurred the wrath of Trump, who endorsed a rival candidate in last year’s Republican primary elections.David Farnsworth, the Trump-backed opponent, went on to defeat Bowers and usher him out of the Arizona legislature. Farnsworth is an avid proponent of the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, going so far as to tell voters that the White House had been satanically snatched by the “devil himself”.Ahead of Friday’s ceremony, Bowers described the news of his award as “something of a shock”. He said that though some of his detractors were likely to denounce his call to the White House a political stunt, he thought it was designed to “create unity and put behind us the division of the past. I’m certainly in favor of that, no matter what.”He added: “I don’t think this is to stir up division, it’s to honor those who stood up and did their job as best they could. And that’s kind of what America is about.”Read the full story:Reports: 'Glimmers of hope' for McCarthy dealKevin McCarthy’s team insists there has been progress in negotiations with the hard-right Republican rebels who have denied him the speakership through 11 straight votes, but whether it’s the breakthrough the California Republican so desperately needs is far from certain.The House reconvenes at noon Friday in what has already been the lengthiest search for a speaker in 159 years, with an increasingly anguished McCarthy offering more concessions to the holdouts to try to secure the 218 votes he needs.The Washington Post on Friday was among several media outlets reporting signs emerging of a possible deal to end the impasse yet, crucially, notes that while it reflects “considerable momentum” for McCarthy, the expectation is he “will not get all the votes necessary to become speaker”.Moderate Republicans are also growing restless after three days of voting in which McCarthy has failed to show any progress towards the winning threshold, and a group of 20 House Republicans has consistently voted against him.There is, therefore, something of a “make or break” feel to today’s proceedings.One Republican lawmaker told Politico Playbook on Friday:There is a limit to how much of this crap we can take.The website reports mounting frustration among a sizeable number of others, some of whom want to be out of Washington DC to be with sick relatives, attend family funerals or meet new babies for the first time.“There’s a lot more at stake than whether Kevin McCarthy’s going to be able to get the gavel,” the lawmaker told Playbook.“We’ve got lives that are being impacted right now, and this is tough for people.”The other area of concern is how much McCarthy seems to be giving away to the hardliners in order to make a deal.The Post, and others, say he has now consented to reduce the threshold from five to one of the number of House members needed to raise a “vacate the chair” motion, making it easier for the speaker to be ousted.Read more:Good morning and happy Friday, US politics readers. The longest of weeks on Capitol Hill continues today with Kevin McCarthy still chasing the speakership after losing 11 straight House votes.The California Republican’s team has been pleading with conservative holdouts overnight, trying to reach a deal to get him to the 218 votes he needs. But the troops are growing restless, and frustration among moderates is rising at how much control McCarthy seems willing to cede to the party’s extremist fringe.“There is a limit to how much of this crap we can take,” one Republican lawmaker tells Politico’ Playbook after three days and nights of stalemate.The circus tent opens again when the House reconvenes at noon, and we’ll know pretty soon thereafter if McCarthy has achieved any kind of breakthrough.Also happening today: It’s the second anniversary of the deadly January 6 Capitol riot. Joe Biden will present the Presidential Citizens Medal, the nation’s second highest civilian award, to 12 people, including law enforcement officers and politicians, who stood up to Donald Trump’s insurrection. Security services are on high alert with several rallies planned to take place at or near the Capitol building. Democrats fear the safety of lawmakers and staff has been compromised by a weakening of security measures since Republicans won the House majority. Karine Jean-Pierre, White House press secretary, will deliver her final briefing of the week at 12.45pm.	US Congress
WASHINGTON — Centrist Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia announced Thursday he won't run for re-election next year, a much anticipated decision that will reshape the battle for Senate control in 2024. "After months of deliberation and long conversations with my family, I believe in my heart of hearts that I have accomplished what I set out to do for West Virginia. I have made one of the toughest decisions of my life and decided that I will not be running for re-election to the United States Senate, but what I will be doing is traveling the country and speaking out to see if there is an interest in creating a movement to mobilize the middle and bring Americans together," Manchin said in a written and video statement. "To the West Virginians who have put their trust in me and fought side by side to make our state better — it has been an honor of my life to serve you. Thank you," he said. Manchin's decision all but assures Republicans a pickup in the ruby-red state of West Virginia, where the centrist Democrat has defied political gravity for years to keep the seat in his party's hands. Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said in a terse statement: “We like our odds in West Virginia.” This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.	US Federal Elections
An attorney for Donald Trump provided scathing evidence against the former president in his federal classified documents case in Florida, and CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said it may lead to a conviction once the case goes to trial. ABC News reported that Trump attorney Jennifer Little told a grand jury that she "very clearly" cautioned Trump that he must comply with a federal subpoena for classified materials he took from the White House, and that she's "absolutely" sure that he understood failing to turn them over would be a "crime." "This is a bullseye for prosecutors and right down the middle of what they have to prove for obstruction of justice," Honig, a former federal prosecutor, said of Little's comments. "Let's remember that it's the federal Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Part of the indictment relates to the mishandling of classified documents, and part of it relates to obstruction of justice," he added. Honig went on to say that a prosecutor in the case, in order to prove obstruction, would have to show that Trump knew he had a subpoena, had to comply and intentionally did not. "This witness, Trump's former — and, by the way, current lawyer — has told the grand jury straight up, no ambiguity, 'You have to comply, if you don't, it's a crime,' and he said, 'I got it, I understand,'" Honig explained, adding, "If the jury accepts that, game over, he's guilty."	US Political Corruption
After days of turmoil, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy abruptly abandoned demands for steep spending cuts from his party's hard-right flank and joined with Democrats to pass the bill, which funds government until November 17. The package was approved by the House 335-91, with most Republicans and almost all Democrats supporting. Senate passage came by an 88-9 vote. Among the Republican holdouts was Gaetz, an ally of former President Donald Trump. The Florida Republican rallied GOP lawmakers to resist McCarthy's bid to become speaker in January and had threatened to call a vote to oust the speaker if he failed to meet their demands. McCarthy is "on some tenuous ground," Gaetz told reporters on Saturday, but he has not announced a motion to oust the speaker. "If somebody wants to make a motion against me, bring it" McCarthy has said. "There has to be an adult in the room." After the shutdown was avoided, Gaetz and his allies were blasted as "clowns" who are "all talk." "Like I said, 'McCarthy and the Republicans failed to cut aid for working families because @HouseDemocrats held the line and put people above politics.' Matt Gaetz, [Rep. Andy] Biggs and the rest of them are all talk. They'll never make a motion to remove McCarthy as Speaker," wrote Rep. Jimmy Gomez, of California, in a post on X, formerly Twitter. He was responding to a post from Biggs, a Republican from Arizona who also voted against the bill. "Instead of siding with his own party today, Kevin McCarthy sided with 209 Democrats to push through a continuing resolution that maintains the Biden-Pelosi-Schumer spending levels and policies," Biggs wrote. "He allowed the DC Uniparty to win again. Should he remain Speaker of the House?" Rep. Eric Swalwell wrote: "I really admire @SpeakerMcCarthy for putting clowns like Biggs and Gaetz in an absolute box. They'll never have the courage to try and remove him. McCarthy has really played them." Journalist Molly Jong-Fast wrote: "Democrats kept the government open. Matt Gaetz must be so mad." In a statement, Biden said the deal was "good news for the American people." But he added: "I want to be clear: we should never have been in this position in the first place. Just a few months ago, Speaker McCarthy and I reached a budget agreement to avoid precisely this type of manufactured crisis. For weeks, extreme House Republicans tried to walk away from that deal by demanding drastic cuts that would have been devastating for millions of Americans. They failed." Newsweek has contacted representatives of McCarthy and Gaetz for further comment via email.	US Congress
Republicans play offense on student loans ahead of SCOTUS decision Republicans are taking advantage of a perceived opening on student loans, proposing legislation to tackle the issue in both the House and Senate this week ahead of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the legality of President Biden’s relief plan. Experts are skeptical the conservative-majority justices will uphold Biden’s forgiveness proposal, but his administration has been mum on alternative plans. “I think it’s definitely important because if Biden’s plan falls down, he hasn’t proposed any solutions that actually address the problem, the underlying cause of why students are being forced to take out so much money just to attend higher education,” a GOP Senate aide told The Hill. While Democrats have stayed quiet, likely to avoid weakening Biden’s case in front of the Supreme Court, Republicans have been on the move. On Wednesday, GOP senators proposed five bills, packaged as the “Lowering Education Costs and Debt Act,” which aim to tackle how colleges give students information before they attend and would enact changes to federal student loan options. Two of the five bills focus on the data a student is given before attending school, such as creating a uniform template for financial aid offer letters so applicants can better compare their options and requiring updates to the college reporting system that informs students of success rates in school programs. The other three bills would tackle problems with the federal student loan system, such as simplifying repayment options, setting requirements for students to be informed on how long a loan would take to pay back and how much monthly payments would be and reforming loans for graduate students. “Our federal higher education financing system contributes more to the problem than the solution. Colleges and universities using the availability of federal loans to increase their tuitions have left too many students drowning in debt without a path for success,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said. “Unlike President Biden’s student loan schemes, this plan addresses the root causes of the student debt crisis. It puts downward pressure on tuition and empowers students to make the educational decisions that put them on track to academically and financially succeed,” Cassidy added. Two of the bills were previously introduced and obtained bipartisan support, while the rest have “nothing partisan about it. It’s just good, real solutions trying to address some issues that Americans are having to deal with,” the Republican aide said. “None of this addresses the root problem,” the Student Debt Collective said in response to the legislation. “We don’t have an ‘information’ crisis. We have a student debt crisis. These bills will guarantee the crisis only gets worse for future generations. This is doubling down on debt-for-education.” While the Senate is narrowly controlled by Democrats, some members of the majority have been willing to play ball with Republicans on student loans. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.), along with Independent Sen. Krysten Sinema (Ariz.), recently voted with their GOP colleagues against Biden’s student debt relief plan. In the Republican–controlled House, the majority introduced the Federal Assistance to Initiate Repayment (FAIR) Act Thursday. Under that bill, borrowers who already paid off the original principal and interest amount on their student loans would receive debt relief. Borrowers who have defaulted can also get the mark off their credit report by enrolling in an affordable program and making their monthly payments. Other measures in the act include halting Biden’s new income-driven repayment program, simplifying the federal student loan repayment options and requiring the Department of Education to take certain steps to support student loan servicers as repayments turn back on with the termination of the pandemic-related pause at the end of the summer. “The nearly $300 billion dollar Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plan results in just two in 10 undergraduate students fully repaying their loans,” House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said. “The FAIR Act would offer an alternative to Biden’s IDR plan, providing borrowers with a predictable and affordable IDR plan, while also protecting taxpayers and bringing clarity to borrowers and servicers as the return to repayment process begins.” With the Supreme Court set to release its decision on Biden’s student loan forgiveness either next week or the one after, Republicans will now have the ability to run on their platforms as an alternative to Biden’s plan, which was expected to cost around $400 million. “Voters are anxious about the economy and their own personal pocketbooks, and there is little appetite for a massive tax increase or further government spending to pay for this student loan boondoggle,” said Robert Blizzard, a veteran Republican strategist. Democrats have not been as clear on their next steps, but Biden has already received plenty of backlash for the bipartisan debt ceiling agreement that puts an end to the student loan pause at the end of the summer. While advocates were hoping they could get the president to extend the student loan pause again, especially if the Supreme Court ruled against debt relief, payments will now officially resume in October while interest will begin accruing again in September. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced Friday they were introducing the College for All Act, which aims to make tuition free for most families at four-year institutions and community college completely free, though the measure has little chance of making it through Congress. “I am so proud to lead this legislation that would free millions of students from a lifetime of debt and transform our country’s higher education system by ensuring that everyone can afford to pursue a higher education degree,” Jayapal said. The Student Debt Collective and the NAACP are holding a Monday rally on Juneteenth as they push the Biden administration for a new plan to cancel student loans even if the Supreme Court rules against the current attempt. Before Biden released his proposal, top-level Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) were calling for $50,000 in student debt relief. On the campaign trail, Biden said he was only willing to go as high as $10,000. Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.	SCOTUS
The Illinois Senate has approved a plan to allow small modular reactors in the state, lifting a 36-year-old moratorium on new nuclear power installments. Proponents say the plan will ensure the state can meet its carbon-free power production promise by 2045. The Associated Press reports: Environmentalists have criticized the plan, noting that small modular reactors are a decade or more from viability. Sponsoring Sen. Sue Rezin, a Republican from Morris, said that's the reason, coupled with a federal permitting process of as much as eight years, her legislation is timely. "If we want to take advantage of the amazing advancements in new nuclear technology that have occurred over the past couple of decades and not fall behind the rest of the states, we need to act now," Rezin said. The House has through Thursday -- the scheduled adjournment of the General Assembly's fall session -- to OK the proposal and send it to Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Under the legislation, Illinois would allow development of small modular reactors in January 2026. That's when a report on necessary safety measures and updated guidelines would be due. The plan also tasks the Illinois Emergency Management Agency with oversight of newly installed reactors. Rezin added that layer of inspection, despite her contention that strict federal control is sufficient, to appease a concerned Pritzker. The Democrat cited the issue as one that caused him to side with environmentalists and veto initial legislation Rezin saw approved overwhelmingly last spring. The House has through Thursday -- the scheduled adjournment of the General Assembly's fall session -- to OK the proposal and send it to Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Under the legislation, Illinois would allow development of small modular reactors in January 2026. That's when a report on necessary safety measures and updated guidelines would be due. The plan also tasks the Illinois Emergency Management Agency with oversight of newly installed reactors. Rezin added that layer of inspection, despite her contention that strict federal control is sufficient, to appease a concerned Pritzker. The Democrat cited the issue as one that caused him to side with environmentalists and veto initial legislation Rezin saw approved overwhelmingly last spring.	US Local Policies
Harvard Medical School's morgue manager has been accused of selling body parts as part of a "stolen human remains" criminal network, according to a federal complaint unsealed Wednesday. Morgue manager Cedric Lodge, his wife Denise and two others — Katrina MacLean and Joshua Taylor — allegedly conspired, the documents from the Middle District of Pennsylvania state. Pauley, who was charged in August 2022 with multiple counts related to the alleged purchase and sale of corpses, allegedly bought body parts from MacLean, court documents said. Investigators then found that, since about 2018, MacLean and Taylor had been selling human parts and remains that they had purchased from the Lodges. Lodge on several occasions allegedly let Maclean and Taylor examine cadavers at the Harvard Medical School morgue so that they could pick which ones they wanted to buy, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said in a statement. Lodge also allegedly shipped human remains to Taylor and others who were not in Pennsylvania, the statement said. Harvard Medical School fired Lodge on May 6, the school's dean said in a statement. "Investigators believe that Lodge acted without the knowledge or cooperation of anyone else at HMS or Harvard," the statement said. An estimated 20,000 people donate their bodies to science for the purpose of medical research and education every year. But unlike organ donation, these— in a market with very few federal regulations. Court documents allege that MacLean and Taylor sold human body parts to numerous buyers and that MacLean also stored and sold remains in, her store in Salem, Massachusetts. The store's Instagram page says it specializes in "creepy dolls, oddities, and bone art," and one post was captioned, "If you're in the market for human bones hit me up," CBS Boston reported. In June or July of 2021, MacLean sent Pauley human skin and asked him to tan the skin to create leather, the court documents allege. MacLean then allegedly contacted Lodge at Harvard Medical School and asked him to help her locate skin for "the dude I sent the chest piece to tan." Pauleyon July 22, 2022 by East Pennsboro Township Police for abusing a corpse, receiving stolen property and other charges. Described as a "collector of oddities," Pauley posted pictures of body parts and other items on his Facebook page, Instagram account and his website, which has since been made private. The pages advertised his collection and an event in 2022 that ended up being canceled that had offered access to unique oddities at a hotel outside of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Pauley told police he obtained all of the items legally, but court documents and investigators paint a different picture. In May, police returned to Pauley's home after a federalalleged he purchased nearly $11,000 of body parts from Candace Chapman Scott, a 36-year-old former mortuary worker at Arkansas Central Mortuary Services. That indictment didn't name Pauley directly as the buyer, but police located three 5-gallon buckets containing various human remains in his basement. According to court records, Pauley is next expected to appear before a Pennsylvania Magisterial District judge for a preliminary hearing on July 5. A request for comment from Pauley's attorney wasn't immediately returned. The Lodges appeared in court in New Hampshire on Wednesday afternoon. They will next have to appear in a Pennsylvania court, CBS Boston's Kristina Rex reported. MacLean is due in federal court in Boston. — Justin Sherman contributed reporting for more features.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
After an unquestionable loss to Biden in the 2020 election, Donald Trump bought into a wild and baseless conspiracy theory pushed by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell that he could be reinstated as president before the next election. This revelation comes in ABC News’ Jonathan Karl’s upcoming book on the former president, Tired of Winning: Trump and the End of the Grand Old Party. Lindell was spreading a baseless theory that Trump would be back in power by Aug. 13, 2021, vowing that he had alleged terrabytes of “evidence” proving a grand conspiracy that Chinese hackers perpetuated widespread vote tampering. Needless to say, the evidence never surfaced, and Biden still occupies the White House. Trump’s belief that he could magically become president again went beyond his other conspiracy theories, like his claims the election was “stolen” from him. Months after leaving office, Trump became so obsessed with the theory that even some of his advisors were worried that he truly believed he could return to the White House before the 2024 election. Karl questioned Trump about the conspiracy theory during a phone call in July 2021, a month after Trump posted “2024 or before!” in one of his statements on social media. “You don’t really think there’s a way you would get reinstated before the next election?” Karl asked. “I’m not going to explain it to you, Jonathan, because you wouldn’t — you wouldn’t either understand it or write it,” Trump said in response, according to audio of the conversation. But months before Trump’s July 2021 post, Trump attorney Jenna Ellis refuted the claims, writing in a tweet, “The Constitution has only one process for removal of a sitting president: impeachment and conviction. No, President Trump is not going to be ‘reinstated.'” It’s rich that Trump believed others were interfering with the election results considering his own attempts to subvert democracy in Georgia and on Jan. 6. As special counsel Jack Smith put it last week, the former president “stands alone in American history for his alleged crimes.” Trending Also reported in Karl’s book, Trump appeared to misunderstand an insult from Angela Merkel when the then-German chancellor not-so-subtly compared him to Hitler. “She told me that there was only one other political leader who ever got crowds as big as mine,” Trump reportedly bragged to a congressman. Trump’s campaign is not a fan of the book, telling Politico in a statement that Karl’s “filth either belongs in the discount bargain bin in the fiction section of the bookstore or should be repurposed as toilet paper.”	US Federal Elections
“Weak,” “delusional,” “wimp,” “liddle,” and “gone to the Dark Side” are all insults that Donald Trump has flung at his former vice president, Mike Pence. But now that Pence has dropped out of the 2024 presidential race, Trump very much wants his endorsement. Trump, who defended his supporters chanting “Hang Mike Pence” during the Jan. 6 insurrection, spoke about the former VP at a campaign event Saturday night shortly after Pence announced the suspension of his campaign. “People are leaving [the race] now, and they’re all endorsing me,” Trump said at a campaign event in Las Vegas on Saturday night. “I don’t know about Mike Pence. He should endorse me. You know why? Because I had a great successful presidency, and he was the vice president, he should endorse me. I chose him, made him vice president. But… people in politics can be very disloyal. I’ve never seen anything like it.” Despite Trump lambasting him, Pence has remained a relatively firm Trump supporter even as he ran against him for the 2024 Republican nomination. Pence has repeatedly labeled himself a “MAGA Republican,” defended Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 as “reckless” but not “criminal” — even though he admitted that Trump “endangered my family” that day — and refused to rule out voting for Trump in 2024. So while it may seem crazy, a Pence endorsement is not entirely out of the picture. Trending In his speech announcing he was bowing out of the race, Pence called on the GOP to “give our country a Republican standard-bearer that will, as Lincoln said, ‘appeal to the better angels of our nature,’ and not only lead us to victory, but lead our nation with civility back to the time-honored principles that have always made America strong and prosperous and free.” The doomed fate of Pence’s campaign, which only lasted six months, became clear in recent weeks as the former vice president could not break through in the polls and struggled to gather more than 13 people at an Iowa Pizza Ranch.	US Federal Elections
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — The Illinois House on Thursday approved development of new nuclear reactors, reversing a 1987 moratorium and sending to Gov. J.B. Pritzker a plan that addresses the Democrat's safety concerns over the proposal. The 98-8 vote to allow construction of so-called small modular reactors beginning in 2026 came a day after developers of the only such project approved by federal regulators pulled the plug because of rising costs. The Illinois proposal is largely the same as one that earned overwhelming legislative approval but was vetoed by Pritzker last spring. It adds a study on the risks of new nuclear technology and puts a state agency in charge of oversight, issues missing from the original plan. Thursday was the final day of the Legislature's fall veto session, six days that saw a much lighter agenda than in recent years and which left on the table issues involving extending a private-school scholarship program and allowing legislative staff members to form a collective bargaining unit. Small modular reactors limited to 300 megawatts or less would be allowed under the nuclear legislation in January 2026. That's the same point at which a state study about the technology's viability and safety risks is due. After that, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency would be responsible for overseeing decommissioning of reactors, environmental monitoring and emergency preparedness. The legislation's sponsor, Rep. Lance Yednock, a Democrat from Ottawa, said nuclear has to be part of the state's mix of alternatives to fossil fuels in reaching its goal of carbon-free power production by 2045. "You’ve had multiple energy facilities shut down and there are more on the way and that is forcing us to purchase dirty generated energy for a higher price from out of state," Yednock said. "We need to be the leader in clean energy generation and small modular nuclear reactors are a potential part of that portfolio." On Wednesday, designers of a major development in the so-called advanced nuclear industry called it quits because of rising costs. NuScale had planned a campus of six 77-megawatt small modular reactors to come online in 2029 in Idaho Falls, Idaho. NuScale is the first small modular project to get federal approval and there are 20 more pending, said Sen. Sue Rezin, the Morris Republican who sponsored the Illinois legislation in the Senate. With time and technological improvement, she said, costs will drop. Environmentalists have opposed the plan for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the lack of national consensus on storing nuclear waste, a major driver of the moratorium nearly four decades ago. Rep. Lilian Jimenez, a Chicago Democrat who voted "no," also argued that the state study on safety risks should be completed and digested before ditching the moratorium. "Illinois has plenty of time to assess the risks and costs before deciding to open the door to these projects," Jimenez said. Despite continued pressure from Republicans and a constant presence around the Capitol of advocates in blue "Save My Scholarship" T-shirts, lawmakers left town without extending the $75 million "Invest in Kids" program providing needs-based scholarships to students to attend private schools. The five-year-old program, which produced about 40,000 scholarships, ends Dec. 31. Scholarships are funded by private donations which yield a 75% state income tax credit, capped at $75 million a year. Opponents, led by teachers' unions, say that money should go to public schools, denouncing "Invest in Kids" as a voucher program that harms student achievement. They routinely said there's no evidence that the program bolstered academic performance. But The Associated Press reported this week that the annual assessments required of scholarship recipients were delayed two years by the COVID-19 pandemic and the first report is not due until February. Senate Minority Leader John Curran, a Republican from Downers Grove, said the Legislature should have been consulted before assessments were skipped. Late Thursday, he issued a statement that he'll push to reignite Invest in Kids in the spring session. Throughout Thursday, Republicans on the floor vilified Democrats who refused to call a vote on legislation that would scale back the program to $50 million for the next five years. "I don’t really know how you did it, seemingly against everything: The voters, the polls, the kids, the facts, but you persevered through it all," said Republican Rep. William Hauter of Morton. "I’m new to all this. I don’t know the pressure of taking orders from special interest groups, so thank you for educating me on how this game works. At least someone’s being educated." While meeting with reporters after the House adjourned, it was suggested to Minority Leader Tony McCombie, a Republican from Savanna, that perhaps Democrats planned to put the entire $75 million from Invest in Kids into the public school fund. "I would love to hear that as the reason for the bill not being called, that that would be the commitment," McCombie said. Also left behind by legislators was a measure that would allow legislative staff members to unionize. It was brought by House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch and won approval in that chamber during the first week of the fall session. But Republicans questioned whether it was simply a case of discontent among House Democratic staff. The employees argue that they don't need a state law to allow them to organize. Democratic Senate President Don Harmon of Oak Park picked up Welch's bill but no action ensued. A spokesperson said it's under review. The legislation would create an office of legislative labor relations to start the process, but it would not begin its work until July 2025.	US Local Policies
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else. Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm. Eric Tucker, Associated Press Eric Tucker, Associated Press Leave your feedback WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge in Florida declined for now to postpone former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial but did push back several pre-trial deadlines in the case. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is at least a modest victory for special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which had vigorously rejected efforts to push off the trial beyond its scheduled start date of May 20, 2024. The case includes dozens of felony charges accusing the Republican former president of illegally retaining classified documents at his Palm Beach estate, Mar-a-Lago, and hiding them from government investigators. READ MORE: Trump’s civil fraud trial continues after lawyers fail bid for early verdict ending The decision from Cannon is notable given that she had signaled during a hearing this month that she was open to pushing back the trial date, pointing to the other trials Trump faces as well as the mounds of evidence that defense lawyers need to review. Trump’s lawyers had complained about the burden of scouring more than 1 million pages of evidence that prosecutors have produced. Prosecutors had resisted any effort to delay, saying they’d already taken steps to make the evidence easier for the defense to review. Trump is currently set for trial on March 4, 2024, in Washington on federal charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. He also faces charges in Georgia accusing him of trying to subvert that state’s vote, as well as another state case in New York accusing him of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to porn actor Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. WATCH: How Trump sees a 2nd term as a chance to promote loyalists and punish critics In addition, Trump has been sued in a business fraud case in New York, where a trial is taking place. Trump has denied wrongdoing in all of the cases, claiming without evidence that they are part of a politically motivated effort to prevent him from returning to the White House. Support Provided By: Learn more	US Political Corruption
Some Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are touting chairman Jim Jordan’s leadership on efforts to secure the besieged southern border -- just as the migrant crisis is hitting new records, and Jordan could soon be the next speaker of the House. The committee has been central in the House’s push to force the Biden administration to take what Republicans see as a stronger stance against border security and illegal immigration. Judiciary was one of the main committees involved in the Secure the Border Act, the signature Republicans border security and asylum overhaul which passed the chamber this year and which Republicans pushed hard to include in a continuing resolution last week. While it has failed to pick up Democratic support, it represents a sweeping and detailed blueprint of how GOP lawmakers want to reform the asylum system and crack down on illegal immigration at the border, with measures from E-Verify to limits on parole to border wall funding and Border Patrol agent hiring. Now, days after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted by a motion to vacate, Jordan has put his hat in the ring to replace him -- and his supporters are pointing to the committee’s work under his leadership. Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., who is backing Jordan for speaker and is on the Judiciary's immigration subcommittee, stressed Jordan's credentials on the border to Fox News Digital. "House Republicans passed the strongest border security bill in history to end the failed policy of catch-and-release, finish the border wall, reinstate Remain in Mexico, and block taxpayer financing of the open-border NGOs that are actively facilitating this invasion," he said. "This effort was spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee." "There’s no stronger person on border issues than Jim Jordan," he added. Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., who is also on both the Judiciary Committee and the immigration subcommittee, said he was specifically supporting Jordan in part due to his leadership on border security. "That's one of the reasons I'm supporting Jim Jordan for speaker. I think he'll be a great speaker and particularly on this issue," he said. Meanwhile, a source familiar with the committee’s operations pointed Fox News Digital to the work of the committee under Jordan -- including the first field hearing on the crisis in Yuma, Arizona, along with eight committee and subcommittee hearings, 10 transcribed interviews and more than 50 letters to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas pushing for information related to policy. The committee also released a detailed report into the murder of Kayla Hamilton, which it called a "case for immigration enforcement and border security." Jordan has also picked up the support of other Republicans who are hawkish on the border. Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green and Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., are among those backing Jordan. On Friday, he received the backing of former President Trump, who declared Jordan "STRONG on Crime, Borders, our Military/Vets, & 2nd Amendment." Despite the drama over the speaker’s chair, the committee is keeping going, with a transcribed interview with an ICE official due to take place next week. Officials in multiple committees have emphasized that their efforts to secure the border will not be affected. "The work that we do is essential. We cannot stop and we will not stop on the immigration," Van Drew said. "We're going to keep pushing hard because it is literally about the future of the republic." Van Drew also pointed to the grillings, both in letters and in hearings, that Mayorkas has received. "I think we've gone hard at him. I've questioned him hard. And certainly, again, the chairman has really pushed hard on this issue." Van Drew said it was an issue that Republicans needed to keep pushing on, given the severity of the crisis at the border. Sources told Fox News last week that there were more than 260,000 migrant encounters at the border in September -- marking a new record. "They're doing catch and release, but some of them don't even go through that process. Some of them are just getting in and without a doubt, documented, we have people who are part of the drug cartels and…they are now moving into the United States, establishing businesses in the United States and changing our entire fabric of our country. It is truly frightening." Van Drew emphasized he believes both Jordan and Majority Whip Steve Scalise -- also in the running for speaker -- are "great people" but that he was backing Jordan. "I think this time and this place, just for that one issue alone -- because we are in just the worst of times here and we're in a crisis situation for real. And that's why I believe we need Jim Jordan."	US Congress
In the wake of the Supreme Court's Friday ruling striking down the Biden administration's student loan debt cancellation plan, Republicans are moving forward with their own proposed solution. Conservative lawmakers from both chambers, vocally opposed to the president's landmark program, which they said was an overreach, celebrated the court's decision. Even with the 6-3 ruling against him, President Joe Biden on Friday laid out alternative options to his original call for sweeping debt forgiveness, though some specific details remain unclear. "I'm announcing today a new path consistent with today's ruling to provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible," he said. "We will ground this new approach in a different law than my original plan, the so-called Higher Education Act, that will allow [Education] Secretary [Miguel] Cardona ... to compromise, waive or release loans under certain circumstances." An on-ramp to repayment will begin later this fall, according to Biden. It will include a 12-month grace period after the pause unfreezes in September. Federal student loan borrowers should expect interest on their debts to kick back in on Sept. 1 and payments to resume starting in October, the government has said. Repayments had been paused for more than three years amid disruptions from COVID-19. Below is a look at how GOP legislators would address the same issue. Meeting with the secretary? Recently, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the ranking member of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee, and House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina requested to meet with Cardona on or before July 20 to discuss federal student aid servicer roadblocks as well as internal memos and documents about the department's strategy for the return to repayment. "The success of this return to repayment hinges on Secretary Cardona stepping up to the plate and giving borrowers and servicers clear guidance," Foxx told ABC News in a statement. "Because the Secretary has yet to do that, we are demanding a briefing from him to explain the Department's plans." Cassidy and Senate Republicans previously sent a letter to the secretary seeking to halt Biden's student debt relief plan in early June, calling it an "affront to the millions of Americans that do not have student loans." After passing the Republican-controlled House, the Senate also voted to end the federal pause on repayments and dismantle the plan under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The GOP received bipartisan support from Sens. Joe Manchin and Jon Tester, both Democrats, and Kyrsten Sinema, an independent formerly of the Democratic Party. As expected, the bill was vetoed by Biden. In February, led by Foxx and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., more than 170 lawmakers filed two separate amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in opposition to the president's debt cancellation plan. An Education Department spokesperson did not say whether Cardona would meet with the lawmakers, but the spokesperson reiterated the administration's continued focus on student loan debt. The department remains in constant contact with loan servicers and will be in direct contact with borrowers once repayment resumes, the spokesperson said: "We are fully committed to helping borrowers successfully navigate the return to repayment with the pandemic now behind us." GOP alternative Members of Foxx's committee have introduced a bill called the Federal Assistance to Initiate Repayment (FAIR) Act, which would allow student loan borrowers to access affordable and burden-free repayment options, according to the text. Among other changes, it would require the education secretary to make "at least 12 notifications" to borrowers before repayment begins -- including options for repayment, the deadline and more. The legislation would also create an income-driven repayment plan, set at 10% of borrowers' discretionary income, and would automatically have borrowers repaying based on their income. Interest would be paused and half of a borrower's payment would go toward the principal for those with adjusted gross income that is less than 300% of the federal poverty line -- or $45,675 for people under 65. The FAIR Act would also offer various deferment and forbearance options, such as medical residency and active-duty military and National Guard duty. In a joint statement, Reps. Burgess Owens, Lisa McClain and Foxx called their proposed legislation, H.R. 4144, a "fiscally responsible, targeted response to the chaos caused by the student loan scam." "This Republican solution takes important steps to fix the broken student loan system, provide borrowers with clear guidance on repayment, and protect taxpayers from the economic fallout caused by the administration's ... agenda," the joint statement reads. Student debt relief advocates rebuked the proposed House bill. "The FAIR ACT is anything but fair," student loan borrowers group We The 45 Million Executive Director Melissa Byrne told ABC News. "It's disappointing that the House Republicans once again refuse to engage with student loan borrowers and advocates to work on solving the crisis of higher education costs."	SCOTUS
This week, more than 800,000 student loan borrowers with billions of dollars in debt will start to have their loans discharged. The one-time account adjustment comes after the Biden administration last month announced it would Monday.with a combined $39 billion in federal student loan debt. These borrowers have been in income-driven repayment (IDR) plans for more than 20 years and "never got the credit they earned" under IDR plans, the White House said in a statement "Hundreds of thousands of borrowers weren't accurately getting credit for student loan payments that should have delivered them forgiveness under income-driven repayment plans," President Joe Biden said in the statement. They "will start to see their student debt canceled" this week. How will I know if my loan is forgiven? Look for an email from your loan servicing company, which began alerting people about the debt forgiveness on Monday, according to ABC News. The Biden administration has targeted borrowers enrolled in IDR plans for forgiveness because of "historical failures" of the system. IDR plans work by calculating monthly repayment sums based on the borrower's income. That payment can be as low as $0 a month, for borrowers who don't earn an income. Student loan borrowers enrolled in an IDR plan should technically be eligible for forgiveness after making either 240 or 300 monthly payments on an IDR plan or a standard repayment plan, according to Department of Education regulations. That includes borrowers with monthly payments as low as $0. However, reviews by the Education Department of IDR payment-tracking procedures "revealed significant flaws" in the system that suggested borrowers were "missing out on progress toward IDR forgiveness," according to a statement from the DOE last year. In addition, the department's review of Federal Student Aid suggested that struggling borrowers were placed into forbearance by loan servicers, in violation of DOE rules. On July 14, the Department of Education informed borrowers enrolled in income-driven repayment plans who have accumulated the equivalent of either 20 or 25 years of qualifying monthly payments that they would soon receive notices confirming. "For far too long, borrowers fell through the cracks of a broken system that failed to keep accurate track of their progress towards forgiveness," U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement at the time. The federal relief will completely wipe out student loan debt for more than 614,000 people, according to the White House statement Monday. The Education Department did not immediately reply to CBS MoneyWatch's request for comment. Who qualifies for the new student loan forgiveness? While some borrowers in IDR plans are heaving a sigh of relief this week, millions of Americans willon their student loans for the first time in more than three years. Interest will start accruing on September 1, and loan. Roughly 43.5 million Americans have taken on student loans, with the average borrower owing $37,787, Federal Reserve Bank of New York data shows. - ' Last year, President Biden announced his administration wouldfor millions of Americans, a touchstone of his presidential campaign. However, the Supreme Court in June, ending the program before discharges could begin. For those facing repayments that they're thinking of skipping,. One is the new Saving on a Valuable Education, an income-driven repayment program, which . The SAVE program was developed as an alternative for borrowers to avoid the pitfalls of traditional IDRs, such as interest that can snowball. The program could cut monthly payments in half or even to $0 for borrowers. Many will save up to $1,000 a year on repayments, according to the Biden administration. for more features.	US Federal Policies
U.S. aid to Israel is at a standstill in the U.S. Congress as lawmakers are running out of time to agree on billions of dollars in security priorities before a short-term government funding bill expires on November 17. While Democrats and Republicans are broadly in agreement about assisting Israel in the month-old conflict with Hamas, both parties have attached conditions that have prevented the aid from moving forward. The Democratic-majority Senate will not take up the $13.6 billion bill providing funding for Israel’s air and missile defense systems passed by the Republican-majority House of Representatives last week by a vote of 226-196. Democrats objected to Republicans paying for the aid to Israel by making in-kind cuts to the budget of the Internal Revenue Service, the agency responsible for taxation. The House-passed legislation was the first major U.S. legislative response to the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel under the leadership of new House Speaker Mike Johnson. “It's an urgent necessity,” Johnson told reporters on Tuesday. “Some of our Senate colleagues took issue with the pay-for that we put in there, but I made the point that we can take care of our allies and obligations and get our own fiscal house in order. Don't forget, we have a $33.6 trillion federal debt.” Most House Democrats support sending aid to Israel but voted against the bill because of the IRS budget cuts. “Instead of passing life-saving aid to Israel that had an overwhelming majority of support within the Congress, Johnson and the MAGA [Make American Great Again], Republicans — for the first time in Israel’s history — said that aid would only be available if we agreed to their demands to pass public policy changes that make it easier for billionaires to cheat on their taxes,” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar told reporters Tuesday. Senate Democrats have also called for aid to Israel to be passed as part of the White House’s broader $106 billion emergency supplemental request, which includes a new round of aid for Ukraine’s defense against Russia, funding to combat Chinese aggression in the Asia-Pacific region and more money to secure U.S. borders. “If Republicans inject partisanship into otherwise bipartisan priorities, that is only going to make it harder to avoid a shutdown, pass Israel aid, pass Ukraine aid, pass humanitarian aid for Gaza, and all of our other priorities,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. Republican support for additional aid to Ukraine has waned over recent months, prompting Democrats to argue the security priorities cannot be separated at a crucial time in the war. “We are making a decision as we speak in the next several weeks about whether Kyiv will be this time next year a Ukrainian city or a Russian city. That is how serious the decision we are making is about our support for Ukraine,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told reporters Tuesday. A group of Republican senators released a stand-alone border security proposal that could serve as a negotiating point with Democrats to compromise on aid for Ukraine. The proposal provides asylum and parole reform while resuming construction of the wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. “President Biden’s immigration policies have put American workers last and exposed our communities to crime and terrorism. This border package will cut off the flow of illegal migration, prioritize legitimate claims to entry, and restore order,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton said in a statement. Schumer said Tuesday that “making Ukraine funding conditional on the hard-right border policies that can’t ever pass Congress is a huge mistake by our Republican colleagues.” The White House said its request for $60 billion in aid to Ukraine to combat Russian aggression could not be separated from aid to Israel or its own request for $14 billion in border security funding. “The idea of an urgent supplemental is you're submitting what you think are urgent requests, and the president wants to see all of them honored, all of them acted on, all of them together. We wouldn't have submitted it that way if we didn't believe that they all weren't important,” John Kirby, White House national security spokesperson, told reporters last week.	US Congress
US conducts airstrikes against Iran-backed groups in Syria, retaliating for attacks on US troops The Pentagon and U.S. officials say the U.S. military conducted airstrikes on two locations in eastern Syria involving Iranian-backed groups, hitting a training location and a weapons facility WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military conducted airstrikes on two locations in eastern Syria involving Iranian-backed groups, hitting a training location and a weapons facility, according to the Pentagon and U.S. officials. It marks the third time in a bit more than two weeks that the U.S. has retaliated against the militants for what has been a growing number of attacks on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. In a statement, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the strikes targeted sites near Abukama and Mayadin and were used by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as Iran-backed militias. “The President has no higher priority than the safety of U.S. personnel, and he directed today’s action to make clear that the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests,” Austin said. A U.S. official said one site also included weapons storage. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of a military operation. The militant groups, many operating under the umbrella of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, have carried out nearly 50 attacks since Oct. 17 on bases housing U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria. That was the day a powerful explosion rocked a Gaza hospital, killing hundreds and triggering protests in a number of Muslim nations. The Israeli military has relentlessly attacked Gaza in retaliation for the devastating Hamas rampage in southern Israel on Oct. 7. And a number of groups have vowed retaliation against the U.S. for backing Israel in the war against Hamas. According to the Pentagon, about 56 U.S. personnel have been injured in the attacks in Syria and Iraq, but all have returned to duty. Their injuries are a combination of traumatic brain injury and other minor wounds.	US Involvement in Foreign Conflicts
As Russia lays siege to multiple Ukrainian cities and President Vladimir Putin puts his nuclear deterrent forces on alert, the United States and its NATO allies face the most severe geopolitical crisis of the post-Cold War era. These events should serve as a stark warning: The office of the presidency, with its all but unlimited authority over the decision to employ nuclear weapons, needs to be Trump-proofed well before the 2024 presidential elections. Importantly, these reforms must come in the form of congressional legislation that could not easily be undone by a future president. And with the Democrats likely to lose their majority in the 2022 midterm elections, time is running out. Whatever the outcome of the crisis, it offers an opportunity to reflect on how events might be unfolding had Putin begun rolling his tanks to the Ukrainian border while Trump was still in office. It is hard to imagine a situation that drives home the risks that Donald Trump as commander in chief posed to national and global security as clearly as Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The unfolding war requires a U.S. president who can stand tough against Putin’s aggression, maximize support for Ukraine while minimizing the risk of war between Russia and NATO, unite a fractious set of European allies and artfully utilize intelligence findings to pre-empt Russian disinformation campaigns without divulging intelligence methods or sources. Most importantly, Russia’s war on Ukraine makes evident the necessity of electing level-headed U.S. presidents capable of evaluating the potential consequences of escalating a conflict with a nuclear superpower. As a political scientist who has been conducting research in the former Soviet Union for more than two decades, I can say with confidence that on every one of these counts, the challenges posed by the Russia-Ukraine crisis would have been amplified manifold were Trump still in office. Far from standing up to Putin, he was infamous for his sycophantic statements about Russia’s president — a trend that continues to this day with Trump bizarrely praising Putin as “savvy” for his “genius” decision to recognize the sovereignty of Ukraine’s separatist regions. Meanwhile, instead of offering robust support for Ukrainian democracy, Trump had used his presidential powers to place Ukraine’s security interests at risk by withholding congressionally approved military aid in the hope of pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter. It was an act of extortion that led to Trump’s first impeachment. Trump also spent the better part of his presidency antagonizing U.S. allies and belittling the NATO alliance. And far from wielding intelligence in a sophisticated, responsible manner, he not only touted Putin’s word about Russia’s election interference over that of his own intelligence services, but also disclosed classified materials collected by a U.S. ally to Russian diplomats. It was a move that undermined the willingness of our international partners to share intelligence findings and possibly placed intelligence assets at risk. Trump’s unwillingness to stand up to dictators, his inability to build coalitions of allies, and his negligent management of classified materials would all be disastrous in the face of a major geopolitical crisis. But it is his reckless temperament and fundamental misunderstanding of strategic nuclear diplomacy that would truly endanger the civilized world should the U.S. ever find itself on the brink of a nuclear confrontation with Trump at the helm. Recall that Trump baffled foreign policy advisers during his presidential campaign with disconcerting questions about the purpose of maintaining nuclear weapons if a country has no intention of using them. Once in office, he then bragged about the size and the power of his “nuclear button,” flippantly injecting nuclear threats into Twitter spats with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. In all fairness, it is far too early to know how history will judge the Biden administration’s response to Russia’s war on Ukraine. But whatever the outcome of the crisis, it offers an opportunity to reflect on how events might be unfolding had Putin begun rolling his tanks to the Ukrainian border while Trump was still in office — and for recognition that there is a nonnegligible possibility that Trump could return to the presidency in 2024. While the decision to place national security once again in the hands of Trump is ultimately up to the American people, no president — least of all a president with the character flaws of Trump — should possess unilateral authority, free of any formal checks and balances, to launch nuclear attacks. Indeed, in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so unnerved by Trump’s state of mind that she felt compelled to contact the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to request information regarding measures that could be taken should Trump rashly seek to use nuclear weapons during his last days in office. Also spooked by Trump’s last days in office, Rep. Ted Lieu of California and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, reintroduced legislation that would, absent a nuclear attack on the U.S. or its allies, require the president to seek congressional authorization prior to launching a nuclear strike. Biden himself has expressed support for a more restrained nuclear policy, emphasizing on his presidential campaign website that “the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be deterring — and if necessary, retaliating against — a nuclear attack.” To be sure, concerns that a “sole purpose” nuclear policy could weaken deterrence against nonnuclear attacks and further embolden China and Russia deserve to be taken seriously. But resolving long-standing debates over the conditions under which the U.S. should consider resorting to nuclear warfare need not be a priority at this time. Rather, what is essential is to implement procedures to prevent an unhinged president from single-handedly determining whether to hit the nuclear launch button. With the possible exception of legislation aimed at preserving the integrity of U.S. elections, no other policy question deserves urgent attention more than the creation of a safety mechanism to safeguard against an itchy presidential nuclear trigger finger. This would be true regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. That 2024 might return Trump to the White House makes reform all the more imperative.	US Federal Policies
Why Trump Trashed Netanyahu After Hamas Terror Attack in Israel: ‘F–k Him’ The former president holds a grudge over Netanyahu's response to the 2020 elction When Donald Trump attacked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a presidential campaign rally in Florida on Wednesday, the former president’s remarks made headlines across continents. But it wasn’t news to Trump insiders, who say he has been infuriated with his one-time ally since Netanyahu unexpectedly congratulated Joe Biden just four days after Election Day 2020 for winning the presidency — when Trump was still contesting the results. "I haven’t spoken to him since. F--k him,” Trump told author Barak Ravid for his book Trump’s Peace: The Abraham Accords and the Reshaping of the Middle East, published in May 2023. “I liked Bibi. I still like Bibi. But I also like loyalty. The first person to congratulate Biden was Bibi. And not only did he congratulate him, he did it on tape," Trump told the author, using Netanyahu's nickname. “Bibi could have stayed quiet. He has made a terrible mistake." It’s an open question whether Trump himself made a political error Wednesday night by criticizing Israel leaders and intelligence officials so soon after the Saturday Hamas terrorist attacks in the country. Biden's White House, Israelis government officials and Republican rivals like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis denounced Trump. During his speech, Trump called the terrorist group Hezbollah “very smart,” labeled Israel’s defense minister “a jerk” and savaged Netanyahu by claiming the Israeli prime minister refused to support the United States' 2020 targeted assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, an accused terrorist mastermind who was the head of Iran’s Quds Force. “We had everything all set to go, and the night before it happened, I got a call that Israel will not be participating in this attack,” Trump said on stage Wednesday in West Palm Beach, adding that “nobody’s heard this story before.” - Biden Speaks With Netanyahu for 4th Time Since Israel Attacks - Trump, Republican Presidential Candidates Denounce Hamas Attack on Israel - Biden Promises ‘Unwavering’ Support for Israel Following Hamas Attack - Hamas Terror Attacks Spotlight Democratic Divisions Over Israel - ‘Hamas is ISIS’, Netanyahu Says, Vowing to Defeat Attacking Terrorist Group - WATCH LIVE: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Speaks Following Hamas Attack in Israel “I’ll never forget that Bibi Netanyahu let us down,” he said. “We were disappointed by that. Very disappointed. ... But we did the job ourselves, and it was with absolute precision, magnificent, beautiful job. And then Bibi tried to take credit for it. That didn’t make me feel too good.” Robert Greenway, a top Trump adviser on the Middle East who was involved in high-level discussions concerning Soleimani, told The Messenger he couldn’t comment. But another official with knowledge of the matter and did not want to be identified told The Messenger that “this is the first I’m hearing of that story. And I would have heard that story.” Netanyahu’s office has yet to comment, but the government’s communications minister, Shlomo Karhi, told Israel’s Channel 13 that it was “shameful that a man like that, a former U.S. president, abets propaganda and disseminates things that wound the spirit of Israel’s fighters and its citizens,” according to the Associated Press. “We don’t have to bother with him and the nonsense he spouts,” Karhi said. When asked if Trump’s comments make it clear he’s unreliable, Karhi replied, “Obviously.” A Trump adviser said he has been sharing the story for some time about Netanyahu and the killing of Soleimani. “He has been talking about Soleimani this for months,” said the adviser, who was not authorized to speak on the record to describe Trump’s private conversations. “Bibi wasn’t loyal. He has spoken about that. But it’s about more than the 2020 elections.” Trump, who worked closely with Netanyahu, withdrew from the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran and at Netanyahu's urging became the first U.S. president to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Prior to the Saturday terrorist attacks, Netanyahu was deeply unpopular in Israel. Trump advisers note that 86% of Israelis blame Netanyahu for Saturday’s security failure, according to the Jerusalem Post. Longtime Republican consultant and pollster Frank Luntz predicted Saturday on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the attack “would eventually cost Netanyahu his job.” “Bibi was disloyal. Bibi is weak. Bibi failed,” said one Trump confidant familiar with his thinking. “I can’t think of three bigger strikes in Trump’s mind.” In criticizing Trump, his opponents focused on remarks calling Hezbollah “very smart.” “Calling an Iran-backed terrorist group ‘smart’ - especially at a time like this - is unhinged and sickening,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates wrote on X. “Why in God’s name would any American do that?” DeSantis, whose state has one of the highest Jewish populations in the country, also used social media to call out Trump. “It is absurd that anyone, much less someone running for president, would choose now to attack our friend and ally, Israel,” DeSantis wrote. On Thursday, DeSantis announced he would authorize rescue missions to get Americans out of Israel. Two days before, he called for more state sanctions on Iran. Trump has a long history of controversially calling some of America’s biggest foes “tough” or “smart” and he has paid little consequence for it in the GOP. The latest polling shows him far ahead of DeSantis in the Republican primary, including in their mutual home state of Florida. - Supreme Court Weighs South Carolina Gerrymandering Case In Suit With NAACPPolitics - Mahmoud Abbas To Meet With Top US and Jordanian Officials Amid Escalating TensionsPolitics - Vivek Ramaswamy and California Rep. Ro Khanna Agree to DebatePolitics - Menendez Challenger Says Senate Should Expel Him Over Charges He Acted on Egypt’s BehalfPolitics - Trump Doubts Scalise Can Be Successful House Speaker Because of Cancer Battle: ‘I Just Don’t Know How’Politics - Water Industry, GOP Allies Defeat Government’s Push To Protect Water Supply From HackersTech - GOP Rep. Brian Mast Blasts Leadership Amid Speaker Fight: ‘I Am Not Seeing Leadership Out of Those That Have Already Asked to Lead’Politics - George Santos Leaves GOP Conference Meeting Amid Speaker Battle, Calls It ‘Waste of Time’ and ‘Embarrassing’Politics - Robert De Niro Calls Donald Trump ‘Evil’ in Pointed Statement Addressing Future of AmericaEntertainment - Blinken Addresses Families of American Victims in Tel Aviv: ‘Unrelenting Agony’Politics - Number of Americans Killed In Hamas Attack In Israel Increases to 27; 14 Remain Unaccounted ForPolitics - House Speaker Race Whiplash: From Jordan to Scalise and Back to (Maybe) Jordan AgainPolitics	US Federal Elections
Progressive group urges secretaries of state to investigate No Labels for misleading voters The progressive organization MoveOn is asking secretaries of state across the country to investigate No Labels, a group pushing for a third-party presidential candidate. “We are writing to inform you about our grave concern about the activities of a political organization called ‘No Labels’ that may be operating in your state and has been flagged by another state election official for potentially misleading voters,” wrote MoveOn Political Action’s executive director, Rahna Epting, in a letter to Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias (D), as shared with The Hill. The Messenger first reported the story. The letter asks the secretary to “investigate the work and practices of No Labels’ staff and canvassers, as they may be actively working to get on the ballot in your state” and to “ensure that No Labels’ electoral activity in your state is legal and above board.” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) alerted voters in her state back in May that some “may be unaware that they have enrolled in the No Labels Party, which is seeking party status in Maine.” She said voters were told they were signing a petition, rather than a registration form that would change their party affiliation. Bellows sent a letter to No Labels’s director of ballot access to raise “serious concerns” about the campaign’s apparent conduct “to enroll Maine voters in the No Labels Party for purposes of qualifying that party for the 2024 election.” New parties need 5,000 enrolled voters to get ballot access for 2024 primaries in Maine, according to the secretary’s office. Registering as a member of the No Labels party would prohibit voters from participating in Republican or Democratic primaries in the state. No Labels is a bipartisan group that has been looking to run a “unity ticket” in the 2024 presidential election, which would include a Republican and a Democrat. “We want to ensure these same practices cited in the Maine secretary of state’s letter are not happening in your state,” MoveOn said in its letter. No Labels has reportedly already snagged a spot on the ballot in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado and Oregon. Many on the left have raised concerns that third-party candidate could pull President Biden down in his reelection bid if he goes against the current Republican front-runner, former President Trump. No Labels has promised to end its efforts if polling shows Biden “way, way out ahead” against Trump next spring. No Labels’ chief strategist, Ryan Clancy, said in response to the letter that “In every state where No Labels is active, we are crystal clear about what we are doing and why. We are offering Americans a choice they so obviously want in 2024 and we are following both the letter and spirit of all applicable election laws,” per a statement published in The Messenger. Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.	US Political Corruption
Evan Greer is a transgender activist, musician and writer based in Boston. She’s the director of the digital rights non-profit Fight For The Future. Senator Marsha Blackburn was recently caught on camera saying the goal of her bill, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), is to "protect minor children from the transgender in this culture." That’s not that surprising. Senator Blackburn is one of the most anti-LGBTQ members of the Senate, and has said many terrible and offensive things about transgender people. What is surprising, is that Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, long seen as an LGBTQ ally, apparently wants to help Blackburn advance her legislative attack on our community. This week, Senator Warren became a co-sponsor of KOSA, a dangerous and misguided bill that will make kids less safe, not more safe. KOSA is supported by right-wing groups that have campaigned against LGBTQ rights for decades, like NCOSE and Heritage Foundation, explicitly because it will allow conservative State Attorneys General to crack down on LGBTQ content under the guise of “protecting kids.” The bill seeks to address legitimate harm, but is written in such a way that it allows trans and LGBTQ youth to be exploited for cheap political points. Senator Warren is absolutely right that Big Tech companies are out of control and need to be regulated. We’ve cheered her support for antitrust and privacy legislation. But KOSA will make the harms of Big Tech worse, not better. The bill has been roundly condemned by a broad coalition of civil society, LGBTQ rights, human rights, and racial justice organizations as well as parents of transgender children. Advocates have driven more than 300,000 emails and calls to lawmakers against KOSA, including many from young people who have been sounding the alarm about the bill on TikTok and other social media platforms. Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, a longtime champion of more privacy and safety protections for kids online, has also expressed concerns about KOSA. In the Senate Commerce Committee markup of the bill he said, "I commend the authors for their work on the bill, but I want to continue to work to modify the bill to fix the concerns that the LGBTQ community has been raising. More work needs to be done." Despite all of this, and over the objections of dozens of human rights groups like the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition and the ACLU, Senator Warren has decided to sign on as a cosponsor of KOSA. Worse, she has done so without securing a single change to the bill. Human rights and civil liberties groups are trying to hold the line to demand meaningful changes to protect LGBTQ and other marginalized groups that are being attacked in states, Senator Warren is breaking that line to help pass a deeply flawed bill. I’d like to think that this misstep was unintentional, especially given Senator Warren’s long record of purported support for the LGBTQ community. At a time when my community faces unprecedented danger, I genuinely hope that the Senator does not care more about scoring political points by posturing as tough on Big Tech than she does about the actual substance of the legislation and whether it will help or hurt marginalized communities. As a former law professor, Senator Warren should also know better than to cosponsor a bill that constitutional experts have said is blatantly unconstitutional as written. A court just found that California’s Age Appropriate Design Code, which KOSA borrows a lot from, likely violates the First Amendment, because it allows the government to dictate what content platforms can show to which users. The provisions that will almost certainly run afoul of the First Amendment are the very same provisions that will do damage to my community and that we’ve asked lawmakers to change. KOSA might be redeemable. There are good faith supporters of the bill who want to take on big tech and stop exploitative practices that harm children and adults in the name of greed. But they’ve made a bad bargain and are refusing to make common sense changes that will not only protect marginalized communities but would also make the bill less likely to be struck down in court. Unfortunately, these supporters are trading the rights of marginalized people for expediency in passing a dangerous bill. They’ve made changes to KOSA, but none of them address the bill’s deadly flaws: it requires censorship and incentivizes invasive age verification. I’d hoped Senator Warren wouldn’t make this kind of trade. It’s a deal that will have deadly consequences for the most vulnerable people in our society, especially transgender youth, who already face disproportionate rates of violence, discrimination, self-harm, and who are actively being targeted by extreme right wing legislatures and attorneys general. The very same attorneys general that KOSA will empower to censor online speech. Senator Warren is an influential member of Congress. She’s a member of Democratic leadership and a former presidential candidate. And she’s shown thoughtfulness on these issues in the past. She rightly expressed regret over her support for SESTA/FOSTA, and introduced an important bill to study the harm it did to sex workers and LGBTQ rights. I hope that Senator Warren will read the letter signed by hundreds of parents of trans and gender expansive kids, many of whom are from Massachusetts, and use her power to pressure changes in KOSA that will actually protect marginalized communities. As it stands, her cosponsorship advances policies that Sen. Blackburn and far-right hate groups hope will be used against my community.	US Federal Policies
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) vetoed a bill over the weekend that would have given striking workers unemployment benefits, part of a wider pivot to the center that has sparked rumors of a presidential campaign. Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre did not answer directly. "What I can say is the president certainly supports collective bargaining," she said. "He supports that workers should be able to ask for fair pay and fair benefits. That is something that he supports because he supporters, certainly, the right to strike." But, Jean-Pierre added, "I'm not going to get into the particulars of what Gov. Newsom signed. What I can say is the president is always supporting union workers and certainly working people." The bill that Newsom vetoed was strongly supported by Hollywood unions and other California labor organizations, but he said in his veto message that it risks draining the state's unemployment trust fund. That fund is already nearly $20 billion in debt, the Los Angeles Times reported. New York and New Jersey are the only states that allow people on strike to get unemployment pay, and it doesn't appear that anything will change soon on the federal level. The reporter also asked if Biden's visit to a United Auto Workers strike last week risked prolonging the stalemate. "He went to an active picket line to show his solidarity for union workers," Jean-Pierre said. "He was proud to do that. That doesn't change what the president has said many times. He supports collective bargaining, allowing the negotiations to continue with all parties, and making sure that they have the ability and the right to ask for fair pay and fair wages."	Labor Activism
A small western Pennsylvania water authority was just one of multiple organizations breached in the United States by Iran-affiliated hackers who targeted a specific industrial control device because it is Israeli-made, U.S. and Israeli authorities say. "The victims span multiple U.S. states," the FBI, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, known as CISA, as well as Israel's National Cyber Directorate said in an advisory emailed to The Associated Press late Friday. They did not say how many organizations were hacked or otherwise describe them. Matthew Mottes, the chairman of the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa, which discovered it had been hacked on Nov. 25, said Thursday that federal officials had told him the same group also breached four other utilities and an aquarium. Cybersecurity experts say that while there is no evidence of Iranian involvement in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas that triggered the war in Gaza they expected state-backed Iranian hackers and pro-Palestinian hacktivists to step up cyberattacks on Israeli and its allies in its aftermath. And indeed that has happened. The multiagency advisory explained what CISA had not when it confirmed the Pennsylvania hack on Wednesday — that other industries outside water and water-treatment facilities use the same equipment — Vision Series programmable logic controllers made by Unitronics — and were also potentially vulnerable. Those industries include "energy, food and beverage manufacturing and healthcare," the advisory says. The devices regulate processes including pressure, temperature and fluid flow. The Aliquippa hack promoted workers to temporarily halt pumping in a remote station that regulates water pressure for two nearby towns, leading crews to switch to manual operation. The hackers left a digital calling card on the compromised device saying all Israeli-made equipment is "a legal target." The multiagency advisory said it was not known if the hackers had tried to penetrate deeper into breached networks. The access they did get enabled "more profound cyber physical effects on processes and equipment," it said. The advisory says the hackers, who call themselves "Cyber Av3ngers," are affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which the U.S. designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 2019. The group targeted the Unitronics devices at least since Nov. 22, it said. An online search Saturday with the Shodan service identified more than 200 such internet-connected devices in the U.S. and more than 1,700 globally. The advisory notes that Unitronics devices ship with a default password, a practice experts discourage as it makes them more vulnerable to hacking. Best practices call for devices to require a unique password to be created out of the box. It says the hackers likely accessed affected devices by "exploiting cybersecurity weaknesses, including poor password security and exposure to the internet." Experts say many water utilities have paid insufficient attention to cybersecurity. In response to the Aliquippa hack, three Pennsylvania congressmen asked the U.S. Justice Department in a letter to investigate. Americans must know their drinking water and other basic infrastructure is safe from "nation-state adversaries and terrorist organizations," U.S. Sens. John Fetterman and Bob Casey and U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio said. Cyber Av3ngers claimed in an Oct. 30 social media post to have hacked 10 water treatment stations in Israel, though it is not clear if they shut down any equipment. Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war, the group has expanded and accelerated targeting Israeli critical infrastructure, said Check Point's Sergey Shykevich. Iran and Israel were engaged in low-level cyberconflict before Oct. 7. Unitronics has not responded to the AP queries about the hacks. The attack came less than a month after a federal appeals court decision prompted the EPA to rescind a rule that would have obliged U.S. public water systems to include cybersecurity testing in their regular federally mandated audits. The rollback was triggered by a federal appeals court decision in a case brought by Missouri, Arkansas and Iowa, and joined by a water utility trade group. The Biden administration has been trying to shore up the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure — more than 80% of which is privately owned — and has imposed regulations on sectors including electric utilities, gas pipelines and nuclear facilities. But many experts complain that too many vital industries are permitted to self-regulate. for more features.	US Federal Policies
A woman who was murdered by Keith Jesperson, the "Happy Face" serial killer, has been identified decades after her death, police said in a news release. Jesperson is serving multiple life sentences after confessing to murdering eight women in multiple states between 1990 and 1995, and was known as the Happy Face killer because he wrote notes to the media that he signed with a smiley face. In February 1996, he told an investigator from the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office that he had killed one of the women in 1994 and dumped her body along Interstate 10 in Oregon. Jesperson did not identify the woman, saying that he believed her name was "Susan" or "Suzette." A prison work crew found the body on Sept. 14, 1994. At the time, the only thing investigators could determine was that the body was that of a white female likely between the ages of 35 and 55. A facial reconstruction made at the time did not generate any leads. Since then, the woman has been unidentified, despite what the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office described as decades-long efforts by their investigators and those from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the District One Medical Examiner's Office. Those efforts included a facial reconstruction in 2007, additional anthrophological examination in 2008, and isotope analysis from the remains at the University of Florida in 2018. In late 2022, the medical examiner's office began working with Othram, a private company that "uses genetic genealogy to aid in identification," said Chrissy Neiten, a chief investigator with the office, in the news release. Using what Neiten described as "forensic-grade genome sequencing," Othram was able to create a comprehensive genealogical profile of the unidentified woman in 2023. This led to the identification of the woman as Suzanne Kjellenberg. Kjellenberg was 34 at the time of her death, according to Okaloosa sheriff Eric Aden. She is survived by family in Wisconsin. Jesperson has been charged with her murder. He met with investigators and officials in Sept. 2023 and provided further details about Kjellenberg's murder. Aden said that Jesperson repeated the claim that he met Kjellenberg in 1994, when he was working as a long-haul trucker. Jesperson told officials that they traveled to a rest area in the Florida panhandle, and while there, he parked next to a security guard while Kjellenberg slept in his bed. He said that she "began screaming and wouldn't stop," the sheriff's office news release said. Jesperson said he was not allowed to "have unauthorized riders" in his truck, and did not want to draw attention, so he "stopped (Kjellenberg) from breathing by pushing his fist against her neck." He later "placed zip ties around her throat." "Thanks to the tireless efforts of so many over so long, the remains of Suzanne Kjellenberg, the final unidentified victim of Jesperson's cross country murder sprees, can finally leave the Medical Examiner's Office, and return home," said Aden. Another victim of Jesperson's was identified in 2022., had been known only as "Blue Pacheco" because of the clothing found on her body, but genetic genealogy was able to identify her nearly 30 years after her remains were found along California's State Route 152. Jesperson confessed to the murder in 2006, saying in a letter to the county district attorney's office that he had sexually assaulted and killed a woman in the area. for more features.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
This story is published in partnership with The 74, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news site covering education in America. Despite overwhelming support from the Rhode Island Senate, free school breakfast and lunch for all the state’s public school children will likely not be approved, according to state legislators. Rhode Island Democratic Senator Jonathan Acosta said momentum to offer the meals will likely end once the bill is presented to the House of Representatives. Advertisement “Nobody wants to be the a--hole to say, ‘No, we’re not going to feed kids at school,’ so my guess would be that the House will protect itself by avoiding a public vote,” Acosta told The 74. LeeAnn Sennick, communications director for the Rhode Island Senate minority office, declined The 74′s request for comment on Acosta’s remarks. Rhode Island House of Representatives communications director Larry Berman told The 74 in an emailed statement, “there is no money in the budget that just passed the House Finance Committee in regards to free lunch and breakfast” for all public school children. More than 70,000 of the state’s 137,452 public school students receive free or reduced-price lunch, and around 29,000 receive free or reduced-price breakfast, according to the Rhode Island Department of Education. During the pandemic, the federal government funded free school meal programs for children throughout the country. The program expired at the start of the 2022-23 school year, leaving state governments to decide whether to pick up the cost. The House of Representatives will begin voting on the state budget Friday after it passed the Finance Committee. Acosta said the House of Representatives has other spending priorities, such as housing. Advertisement California, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and New Mexico have funded universal school meals after federal funds ran out, according to the Center for American Progress, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Nevada have passed temporary legislation in the absence of continued federal investment. “Hunger is one of the very first things that needs to be addressed. It’s one of the biggest barriers to learning, and one that’s honestly pretty easy to solve,” Allie Pearce, a K-12 education policy analyst at the center, told The 74. Under federal guidelines set for the 2023-24 academic year, a student from a three-person household is eligible for free lunch if the family’s annual income is $32,318 or less, and for reduced-price lunch if it is $45,991 or less. A student from a six-person household is eligible for free meals if the family’s annual income is $52,364 or less. “Those are just students that we know have filled out applications or that have been directly certified,” Pearce said. “There are probably so many more students that have not been able to fill out those applications or their families are in difficult or uncertain financial situations and may not qualify.” In Rhode Island, the bill, sponsored by Acosta, would require public schools to provide free lunch and breakfast to all students instead of requiring them to provide meals only for those covered by the federal government. “With the pandemic, we saw a rise in economic and food insecurity across our state,” Acosta said. “We’ve started moving back to this world where we saw the issue of lunch shaming … so in light of that we picked up where some of these folks left off and introduced this legislation.” Advertisement Pearce noted that deprioritizing free school meals will do a disservice to all Rhode Island public school students, especially those who receive reduced-price meals. “Those students will continue to have to pay a lesser amount, but one that adds up for sure,” Peace said. “It also doesn’t work to address the stigma a lot of students go through when it comes to the meal debt that they may accrue.” Rhode Island Republican Senator Jessica de la Cruz, the Senate Minority Leader, has argued the bill is unnecessary because children from low-income families already receive free school meals. “What you are doing is financing free lunches for the affluent,” Cruz told The Providence Journal. “I would be in favor of widening the eligibility, but I cannot support the lunches of the affluent.” Rhode Island Republican Senator Gordon Rogers agreed, saying the undertaking would cost the state “[up to] $40 million, not just one time, but continuing, escalating forward.” Meanwhile, Acosta is hopeful conversations around free school meals will be revived in the coming year. “The people in our state are our most valuable asset, and the more that we develop them the better the returns are going to be for all of us,” he said.	US Local Policies
Senate passes short-term government funding bill averting shutdown The vote took place in a late night session on Wednesday. Senate leaders voted Wednesday night in favor of the short-term government funding bill the House passed Tuesday night ahead of Friday's shutdown deadline. House Speaker Mike Johnson pitched a two-step plan that he described as a "laddered CR" -- or continuing resolution -- that will keep the government funded at 2023 levels. The bill extends government funding until Jan. 19 for the Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Energy departments, as well as for military construction. The rest of the government is funded until Feb. 2. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer previously announced that the upper chamber intended to work with Republicans to pass the bill as early as Wednesday. While Senate bills typically take a long, winding path before they reach a final vote on the floor, Schumer previously said he planned to work with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to see if they could expedite it. "If both sides cooperate, there's no reason we can't finish this bill even as soon as today, but we're going to keep working to see what's possible," Schumer said earlier in the day. The government was set to shut down at the end of the day Friday, but since there was zero appetite for a shutdown ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday, movement was expected to progress faster than usual. The White House had originally dismissed the GOP proposal as "unserious," but a White House official said earlier on Wednesday that President Joe Biden would sign the short-term funding bill if it passed in the Senate. The White House official had called on the GOP to "stop wasting time on extreme, partisan appropriations bills" and pass the president's supplemental aid request for Israel, Ukraine, border security, humanitarian assistance and other priorities. The House-approved bill does not include that supplemental aid for Israel or Ukraine.	US Congress
WASHINGTON -- A private bank is trying to force the Biden administration to end its pause on federal student loan payments, arguing the moratorium has no legal basis and has cost the bank, known for its refinancing business, millions of dollars in profits. In a federal lawsuit filed Friday in Washington, SoFi Bank N.A. asked a federal judge to overturn President Joe Biden’s latest extension of the payment pause. Student loan payments first were halted at the start of the pandemic by President Donald Trump's administration. The pause has been extended eight times over three years. The bank says its federal student loan refinancing business has suffered because borrowers have little incentive to refinance while payments and interest remain on hold. At a minimum, the lawsuit asks a judge to limit the pause only to borrowers who would be eligible for Biden’s cancellation plan. Biden’s latest extension, which was announced in November and could stretch as far as this summer, is unlawful on “multiple grounds,” the lawsuit claims. Unlike the first seven extensions, which were meant to help borrowers struggling as a result of the pandemic, the latest one was enacted solely in response to legal challenges to Biden’s plan for widespread student debt forgiveness, the lawsuit says. The plan is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by June. “The eighth extension does not even attempt to redress harm from the pandemic at all, but rather to alleviate ‘uncertainty’ caused by the debt-cancellation litigation,” SoFi says in the lawsuit. SoFi argues that isn't a valid reason authorized by the HEROES Act, the federal law the Biden administration has invoked to continue the pause. The bank also argues the extension violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the administration failed to invite feedback from the public. The most recent extension has cost the bank at least $6 million in lost profits, SoFi says, and it could lead to a total of $30 million in losses if it continues through August. “In essence, SoFi is being forced to compete with loans with 0% interest rates and for which any ongoing repayment of the principal is entirely optional,” the lawsuit says. The Education Department defended the legality of the pause, calling the lawsuit “an attempt by a multi-billion dollar company to make money while they force 45 million borrowers back into repayment.” “The department will continue to fight to deliver relief to borrowers, provide a smooth path to repayment and protect borrowers from industry and special interests,” the agency said in a statement. The lawsuit drew swift condemnation from borrower advocates, who called it a money grab at the expense of those struggling with student debt. “The real story here is the huge risk this poses to tens of millions of working people who SoFi would never lend to — families across the country that depend on the student loan payment pause to shield them from financial devastation,” said Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center. ___ The Associated Press education team receives support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The AP is solely responsible for all content.	US Federal Policies
Ben Carson endorses Trump 2024 at Iowa rally Former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson endorsed former President Trump in a speech in Iowa on Sunday. Ahead of Trump’s scheduled address, Carson introduced the leading 2024 GOP presidential candidate as “my friend and your friend, and a friend of America.” “As I stand here today, I want to offer my most confident and full endorsement of Donald J. Trump,” said Carson, who ran for president in 2016 and then served in Trump’s administration. “Donald Trump believes in our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms,” he added. “So we can fix our country, and we can make America great again. And President Donald J. Trump is the person to do that.” Carson quoted Benjamin Franklin, who said America is a republic if you can keep it, and he said, “The way we can keep it is we can put Donald J. Trump back in office.” Carson characterized Trump as someone who “had the courage to take on the political establishment” despite the risk of great personal and financial loss. “Donald Trump lost millions, if not billions of dollars. And he’s been attacked constantly and demonized, and yet, he’s still there. They haven’t gotten rid of him. They’re trying to do everything in their power to get rid of [him]. Because he’s the biggest threat to the administrative state and to the swamp,” Carson said. Carson dropped out of the 2016 primary race and endorsed Trump. He has been a prominent supporter of Trump’s in recent years and served in Trump’s Cabinet through the end of his term. Carson reiterated his endorsement of Trump in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, on Sunday. “Our nation is in desperate need of strong leadership. A President who fights for the American people, our freedoms, our safety, and our future. Donald J. Trump is that leader and I am proud to give him my full endorsement for President of the United States today. Join me in this fight to Make America Great Again!” Carson wrote. Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.	US Federal Elections
As he prepares a possible new presidential campaign, Donald Trump is seeking to recruit an operative who was behind a group which famously questioned the Vietnam war record of the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry, the Washington Post reported.The operative who ran Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Chris LaCivita, worked for one Trump-aligned political action committee during the 2020 election and now runs another. He is also a consultant for Ron Johnson, a Trump-supporting Wisconsin senator fighting for re-election.The Post cited four anonymous sources. It also reported LaCivita’s response: “Thank you for the opportunity but I don’t comment on rumours!!”Despite deepening legal jeopardy on numerous fronts, Trump dominates polling regarding potential Republican nominees in 2024 and continues to tease a third White House run.The Post said Trump was “telling allies he plans to run for president again” but also said many “longtime advisers do not want a role in the 2024 bid after a slate of federal investigations have ensnared many of them – and they fear a bruising battle he could lose”.A Trump spokesperson told the Post the former president “continues to fuel the Republican party’s march towards a historic midterm election” and claimed “America is rightfully hungry and excited to know what’s next”.In 2004 LaCivita, a former US Marine, organised Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which in one of the more shameless episodes in US political history, sought to cast doubt on Kerry’s record in Vietnam, a conflict the incumbent Republican president, George W Bush, had avoided.Swift boats were US navy riverine craft on which Kerry served, winning medals including the Silver Star. Kerry later became involved in protests against the Vietnam war, before entering politics and becoming a Massachusetts senator. After his failed tilt at the presidency, he was secretary of state under Barack Obama. He is now Joe Biden’s climate envoy.Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which became Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, was supposedly non-political but was in fact financed by major Republican donors.The group advanced its attacks on Kerry in TV ads and a book. The effort generated considerable controversy, with John McCain, a former prisoner of war then a Republican senator from Arizona, calling it “dishonest and dishonorable”.But the group proved an effective campaign presence, leading to the term “Swiftboating” entering the American political lexicon, denoting “an untrue or unfair political attack or smear campaign”.In one 2004 column, the New York Times examined – and thereby publicly rehashed – each claim advanced by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.Citing requests from “conservative readers”, the paper of record asked: “So is John Kerry a war hero or a medal-grabbing phony?”After an extensive and critical examination of Kerry’s military career and statements about it, the Times concluded: “Mr Kerry has stretched the truth here and there, but earned his decorations.“And the Swift Boat Veterans, contradicted by official records and virtually everyone who witnessed the incidents, are engaging in one of the ugliest smears in modern US politics.”	US Federal Elections
Lawyers for a Colorado man once charged with murder and still considered a suspect in the presumed death of his missing wife are asking for prosecutors to be disciplined for what they called intentionally withholding evidence in a bid to convict him. Barry Morphew's lawyers allege in a complaint made public Tuesday that District Attorney Linda Stanley and six prosecutors in her office pursued “a political agenda of locking up Mr. Morphew in response to a media frenzy that prosecutors themselves helped create" after the 2020 disappearance of Suzanne Morphew. The complaint was filed last month with Colorado’s Office of Regulatory Counsel, nearly a year after Stanley’s office requested that the charges against Morphew be dropped shortly before he was to have faced trial. He had also been charged with tampering with a human body, tampering with physical evidence, possession of a dangerous weapon and attempting to influence a public servant. In their complaint, Morphew's lawyers are asking for the prosecutors to face punishment up to and including disbarment. They said a decision was made to arrest Morphew in 2021 even though DNA from an unknown male was found in Suzanne Morphew's SUV. They also cited Stanley's appearances on true crime podcasts such as “Profiling Evil” to talk about the case. “She shouldn't be allowed to prosecute anyone else,” one of Morphew's lawyers, Iris Eytan, said of Stanley during a news conference called to announce the complaint. She also said she was launching a non-profit group to fight prosecutorial misconduct. The complaint was filed last month with Colorado's Office of Regulatory Counsel. The office had opened an investigation into Stanley last year because of complaints arising from the Morphew prosecution, and the lawyers’ complaint will now become part of that investigation, attorney regulation counsel Jessica Yates said. She said she could not disclose whose concerns had prompted the investigation. Last year, Stanley's office asked a judge to allow the case against Morphew to be dropped after he barred prosecutors from using most of their key witnesses for repeatedly failing to following rules for turning over evidence in the man's favor, including DNA evidence linked to sexual assault cases in other states that raised the possibility of a different person being involved. The judge allowed the case to be dismissed without prejudice, which gives prosecutors the ability to file charges against Morphew again later. Stanley was in court on Tuesday, according to her office, and did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. However, another prosecutor in the office, Mark Hurlbert, who is one of those named in the complaint, said he had not seen it yet. “We will fight it vigorously because we did nothing wrong," he said. Morphew is still considered a suspect in the case, Hurlbert said, and he added that prosecutors will keep an “open mind” as the investigation into what happened continues. Last year, Stanley said the exclusion of the witnesses was only part of the reason she asked for the charges to be dropped. She emphasized that investigators needed more time to find Suzanne Morphew's body, saying for the first time that investigators believe her remains are in an area covered deep in snow near the couple's former home in the southern Colorado mountains. However, at a later court hearing, Hurlbert told a judge that they were wrong about being close to finding the body, KUSA-TV reported in October. The hearing was held to discuss returning Morphew's property seized as evidence but prosecutors argued against that, Eytan said, in case those belongings are needed as part of the investigation some day. Eytan said she “100% believes” that Morphew is innocent.	US Political Corruption
Republican infighting is so bad that lawmakers are getting into physical altercations in the halls of Congress. NPR reporter Claudia Grisales tweeted Tuesday that while she was talking to Representative Tim Burchett after the Republican conference meeting, Kevin McCarthy walked past. As he walked behind Burchett, McCarthy shoved the Tennessee lawmaker, forcing him to lunge forward. Grisales noted that she has “NEVER seen this on Capitol Hill” and said that both she and Burchett were stunned. Burchett called McCarthy a “jerk” and said he had never done anything like that before, before chasing after the former House speaker. Burchett told Grisales it was his first interaction with McCarthy since voting to oust the California lawmaker as speaker. Burchett called McCarthy a “jerk” several more times and also called him “childish.” “He’s on a downhill spiral,” Burchett said. “That was pretty gutless of him. I’m disappointed in him.” Burchett was one of eight Republicans who voted in early October to boot McCarthy from the speakership. Tension was already running high within the GOP, and vacating the speaker clearly did nothing to improve intra-party relationships. Ironically, Burchett had warned in July that “a fistfight could break out at any moment.” He told The Daily Beast that, as a fan of professional wrestling, “it’s entertaining to think that a fistfight could break out at any movement. I kind of dig that.” At the time, Burchett was talking about tension between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert. But it looks like he still got his wish, in a way.	US Congress
Appearing on The Absolute Truth, a show on Lindell TV — a streaming service run by “MyPillow guy” and Trump pal Mike Lindell — Trump spokesperson Liz Harrington said the former president just doesn’t understand why attorneys Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell and Ken Chesboro would plead guilty. “I think [Trump is] a little confused because if you’re a lawyer, you know there’s no crimes here,” said Harrington, who is a journalist, not a lawyer. “According to the law, there’s literally nothing to plead guilty to because there’s nothing that was — no laws that were broken. Speaking out against a fraudulent election and telling people to watch hearings and petition their elected officials about fraud that was happening on camera. I mean, it’s just surprising.” Ellis, Chesboro, and Powell were charged alongside Trump and 15 others in connection with a vast racketeering scheme to undermine Georgia’s election results, and there was plenty for them to plead guilty to. Ellis pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings for her attempts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 win in the state. Ellis also admitted to the Colorado bar that she had repeatedly lied about the election. Chesboro accepted a guilty plea to one felony count of “conspiracy to commit filing false documents,” and Powell pled guilty to several misdemeanors in the state’s election interference case. As part of their deals, all three attorneys have agreed to testify truthfully for the prosecution as it brings its case against other defendants. None of the attorneys who pled guilty will face prison time. Trump has attempted to distance himself from these former allies since their guilty pleas. Last weekend, he claimed that Powell was “never” his attorney, despite his explicit past statements that she was. After Powell’s plea, Trump’s lead attorney in the Georgia case, Steve Sadow, said he is not concerned about her testifying. “Assuming truthful testimony in the Fulton County case, [her testimony] will be favorable to my overall defense strategy,” he said, according to the AP. Trending When accepting the plea agreement, a tearful Ellis said she “failed” to perform the “due diligence” that “I did not do but should have done” and expressed her “deep remorse for those failures of mine.” “I believe in and I value election integrity,” Ellis added. “If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges.”	US Political Corruption
House GOP barrels toward uncertain Speaker floor vote House Republicans are barreling toward a floor vote on their Speaker nominee — Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — this week even as the Judiciary Committee chairman remains far from the 217 votes needed to win the gavel on the House floor. Jordan clinched the nomination for Speaker in a 124-81 vote on Friday, beating his last-minute challenger, Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.). But when the conference was asked if they would support Jordan’s nomination on the floor, the vote was 152-55 — leaving Jordan well short of the 217 votes needed to win the Speakership on the House floor. The planned vote on Tuesday is setting the stage for another public clash over the gavel, similar to the four-day, 15-ballot election that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) went through in January. Some Jordan backers are hoping that bringing his nomination to the floor — and forcing Republicans on the record — will increase the Ohio Republican’s support and put him within reach of the gavel. Jordan will be up against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who Democrats unanimously nominated to be Speaker. On Wednesday, all Senators will receive a briefing on the situation in Israel and Gaza, after Hamas launched an attack on Israel earlier this month. House GOP eyes Tuesday floor vote on Speaker The office of House Majority Whip advised members on Sunday that the first floor votes of the week are expected at noon on Tuesday — even though Jordan last week fell short of the 217 votes needed to win the Speakership on the floor. Some Republicans had aimed to ensure that the conference had enough support behind their Speaker nominee before a floor vote in order to avoid another public, drawn-out floor fight like McCarthy, now ousted from the post, endured in January. But the conference rejected internal proposals to require 217 votes for nomination, and it last week saw its first Speaker nominee, Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), drop out a day after getting the nomination when it was clear that holdouts would not give him the support he needed to win on the House floor. Now, hardline GOP supporters of Jordan say the House should move on to a floor vote without delay — and some have been urging voters to call their Congressmen to support Jordan. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that while he is supporting Jordan, the “high-pressure campaign” is the “dumbest way” to get people to support Jordan. “And as somebody who wants Jim Jordan, the dumbest thing you can do is to continue pissing off those people and entrench them,” Crenshaw said. There is some bad blood and hurt feelings in the GOP conference over Scalise not getting swift universal support last week. Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who had been whipping votes for Scalise, pointed to Jordan’s hardline conservative allies withholding support for Scalise despite Jordan’s public endorsement last week as a reason to not support him. “If you can’t get your own people to follow you, on a very simple thing like this, then I think you have an issue of leadership,” Díaz-Balart said. Politico reported Sunday night that a group of House Republicans who do not support Jordan are vowing to have a challenger up against the Judiciary Committee chairman on Tuesday, which they say will deny Jordan the gavel. The House GOP conference is scheduled to meet behind closed doors at 6:30 p.m. on Monday. Supporters of Jordan are aware of the reality that the Ohio Republican, as things currently stand, does not have the votes to win the gavel on the House floor. But they are hopeful that work over the weekend will help get him to the subsequent 217 votes needed. McCarthy told Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that Jordan has been speaking with holdouts to try and get them on board. “As we walked away, he did not,” McCarhy said when asked if Jordan had the votes Sunday morning. “But that’s why we have time, walking away this weekend. I talked to Jim last night. He’s talking to every single member, assessing what their challenges are.” “I think Jim Jordan can get the — can get the votes,” he later added. But some members are already eying other nominees if Jordan, like Scalise, cannot secure the votes — or even options like empowering Speaker Pro Tem Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) to move legislation or cutting a deal with Democrats to pick a Speaker. “I think he’ll be able to get to 217. If not, we have other leaders in the House. And certainly, if there is a need if the radical, you know, almost just handful of people in the Republican side, make it unable … to be able to return to general work on the House, then I think obviously, there will be a deal [that] will have to be done,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Potential next-round GOP candidates include Republican Study Committee Chair Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), or House GOP conference Vice Chairman Mike Johnson (R-La.) — who is supporting Jordan but has been talking to colleagues about a Speaker bid if Jordan cannot win. But McCarthy shot down those two names. “I don’t — I don’t think either of them could — would come very short,” McCarthy told “Sunday Morning Futures” when asked about Hern and Johnson. Biden administration officials to brief Senators on Israel/Gaza Biden administration officials will brief all senators on the situation in Israel and Gaza on Wednesday from 3:30pm to 5pm, a Senate source confirmed to The Hill, as the upper chamber reconvenes in Washington this week for the first time since war broke out in the Middle East. Briefers include Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. C.Q. Brown. At least 30 U.S. citizens have died in Israel since war broke out on Oct. 7, a State Department official told CNN on Sunday. Thousands more have died amid the airstrikes on the Gaza Strip, according to CNN. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the highest-ranking Jewish official in U.S. history, traveled to Israel in recent days and pledged that Washington would continue to support Tel Aviv. “We say this to the Israeli people: we have your back. We feel your pain. We ache with you. And we and our country will stand by you in these difficult times. Israel is a strong nation and at this moment we say to Israel: you are not alone. The United States stands alongside you as an unrelenting partner,” Schumer said at a press conference in Israel. But Congress’s ability to support Israel amid its battle against Hamas has come into question as the House remains without a Speaker. Without a permanent Speaker in place, the House is unable to conduct legislative business. That fact has added to the increased focus on the Speaker’s race. “We want to reopen the House and get to a place where we can tackle the challenges that are in front of us domestically as well as make sure that we can stand with our close friend, Israel, during her time of need in terms of ensuring Israel’s ability to decisively defeat Hamas, a brutal terrorist organization,” Jeffries told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. Jordan, for his part, is emphasizing the need for the House GOP conference to unite so Congress can support Israel. “Chairman Jordan has made it clear that he wants to unite the conference in order to pass the bills that the American people expect by giving Israel the resources they need to destroy Hamas, securing the border, and reforming FISA. He is looking forward to working with the entire conference to do so when he’s speaker,” Jordan spokesperson Russell Dye said in a statement Sunday night. Al Weaver contributed. Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.	US Congress
Editor’s Note: John Avlon is a CNN senior political analyst and anchor. He is the author of “Lincoln and the Fight for Peace.” The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion at CNN. Threats begin when reason fails. The failed full-court press to install Republican Rep. Jim Jordan as House Speaker revealed ugly examples of how violent threats are becoming normalized inside Trump’s GOP. After Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa switched her vote on Wednesday to oppose Jordan, she issued a statement saying she received “credible death threats and a barrage of threatening calls.” Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado told NBC that he’d received death threats as well. According to Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas, the strategy behind the threats is to “Attack, attack, attack. Attack the members who don’t agree with you, attack them, beat them into submission.” This is the opposite of anything resembling deliberative democracy or politics in a civil society. (Jim Jordan, who dropped out of the race for speaker on Friday after a secret ballot found he had lost the support of his fellow Republicans as the party’s choice, condemned the death threats, saying, “It’s just wrong.”) One voicemail in particular, left for the wife of an unnamed conservative congressman — played exclusively on our colleague Jake Tapper’s show — offers a portrait of the pathology that has driven the GOP into this ditch. The caller, an aggrieved man, lets loose in a tirade that needs a close reading. The unhinged caller begins with a lot of furious cursing and standard dehumanization — describing the anonymous congressman as a “pig” because he publicly opposed Jordan. The voicemail continues, with the caller suggesting that the principled decision was due to the influence of the “deep state.” This is a tell that the caller has been drinking from the right-wing media well. But that’s basic compared to his threats to “come follow you all over the place. We’re going to be up your ass. F––king nonstop. We are now Antifa. We’re going to do what the left does.” This is a small masterpiece of projection — one that we’ve seen before in the right’s baseless claims that the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol was not the work of conservative Trump supporters, but members of the leftist group Antifa. In the run-up to that attack, members of the Proud Boys even bragged that they could dress up as Antifa. The bogeyman that is the fear of Antifa has become mainstream, with conservatives often invoking the group or other figures they associate with the left as a scapegoat for or distraction from violent actions on the right — a tactic sometimes called “aggressive defensiveness.” It’s not the only illogical mind-bender. The caller repeatedly uses an anti-gay slur to describe the congressman to his (checks notes) wife, reflecting the insecure mindset that masquerades as being uber macho, accusing those who are more left-leaning as being gay and therefore weak in that twisted worldview. That’s not all. The fanatic threatening violence also accuses the congressman of being a “warmongering piece of s–-t”— perhaps reflecting the post-Trump isolationist impulses on the far-right. In the next breath, however, he says that the war in Israel creates moral urgency to push through a Jim Jordan speakership. Then comes the threat of doxxing. The caller says that he and unnamed others are uploading the wife’s personal contact information to the internet to guarantee more harassment. This is a fear-based play from a crank who wants to seem like a member of the majority by intimidating people he disagrees with. Any sense that this was a random unhinged person without a partisan political agenda was demolished by his demand that the congressman vote for “Jim Jordan or more conservative.” This caller has explicit right-wing ideological demands. If the wife doesn’t succeed in switching the congressman’s vote, he promises that “you’re going to be f–-king molested like you can’t ever imagine.” Molested. As in sexually assaulted. And then, after a beat in which you can practically hear the gears turning in his head, the caller says, “And again, non-violently.” This is a cynical move of the kind that allows January 6th apologists to point to Trump saying the armed crowd should march on the capitol “peacefully.” It is a legalistic non-sequitur designed to distract from obvious intent. The reason I’ve run through all the elements of this threat-scape is because it reflects live-wire associations from the far-right media ecosystem. The disparate threads are all there, with the intent of intimidating people to do their will — turning over more power to the far-right. It didn’t work this time. But it has in the past. After the attack on the Capitol, a Republican member of Congress told a colleague he was afraid to vote to certify the election, despite his personal, fact-based belief that Biden’s win was legitimate, because he was afraid for the safety of his family. Similar fears drove Republicans to not vote their conscience in Trump’s second impeachment. As former Congresswoman Liz Cheney told CNN, “If you look at the vote to impeach, for example, there were members who told me that they were afraid for their own security — afraid, in some instances, for their lives.” So while it’s notable that this effort to strongarm support for Jim Jordan failed, the attempt to normalize threats of violence are still ongoing. Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, who the House select committee on January 6 found sent text messages confirming his involvement in the plot to overturn the 2020 election results, dismissed the death threats as being a “red herring.” Jake Sherman, founder of Punchbowl News, reported that Jordan ally Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio said behind closed doors that it wasn’t Jordan’s fault that members of Congress were getting death threats; they had brought it upon themselves by opposing him. This is the politics that Donald Trump’s rhetoric has wrought among his supporters in the Republican Party. It reflects the furious worldview that right-wing media sells to keep its listeners addicted to the anger and anxiety, turning much of the GOP into what Utah Sen. Mitt Romney calls “a pro-authoritarian party.” These threats of violence often use fear, promising elected officials not just physical harm, but the loss of power, reinforced by the secondary threat that they will lose their partisan primaries if they don’t bow to the base. This is unsustainable. But coming forward and refusing to be intimidated is a step toward breaking this hyper-partisan fever. It is a hopeful sign that Jordan couldn’t ultimately win even a majority of the Republican caucus when it was put to a secret ballot. Bullies only respect strength — and threats are really admissions of weakness, if they are called out with the confidence that comes from moral clarity and a determination to defend our democracy.	US Congress
A New York appeals court on Thursday temporarily blocked a gag order in former President Donald Trump's civil fraud trial that barred him from complaining about the judge's law clerk. The Appellate Division judge ordered the stay after Trump's attorneys appealed the gag order that Judge Arthur Engoron had put in place as being "unconstitutional." The pause will remain in place until at least Nov. 27, when a full panel of appeals court judges will consider the matter. Engoron imposed the gag order last month, on the second day of the $250 million New York civil fraud trial, after Trump posted a picture of the clerk and disparaged her on his social media platform Truth Social. “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I won’t tolerate it,” Engoron said after finding out about the social media post and critical comments Trump had made about the clerk to reporters covering the trial in Manhattan. The judge has fined Trump twice for a total of $15,000 after finding he violated last month's order. The judge expanded the order to include Trump’s attorneys last week, following their repeated complaints about what they described as the clerk's "inappropriate behavior," which they said included making comments and passing notes to the judge and rolling her eyes during witness testimony. Engoron said at the time that he has every right to get advice from his clerk and that Trump's lawyers were “falsely accusing her of bias against them and of improperly influencing the ongoing bench trial,” while ordering them not to refer to his staff. He said in a written ruling that his chambers had been "inundated" with threats since the trial began on Oct. 2. In their appeal, Trump's lawyers argued that the gag orders were "not narrowly tailored." "The mere potential that speech may anger or provoke others likewise does not entitle Justice Engoron to suspend wholesale the rights afforded litigants by the First Amendment and the New York Constitution," Trump attorneys wrote. "The First Amendment does not permit Justice Engoron to restrict speech based on the audience’s anticipated unruly reaction."	US Circuit and Appeals Courts
Republicans and conservatives celebrated Tuesday after Gigi Sohn, President Biden's embattled pick for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), announced she had requested the White House withdraw her nomination. Sohn's decision came hours after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said he would join all Republicans in voting against her nomination, a significant blow to her chances of receiving enough votes to be confirmed to the position. However, Sohn — who has been heavily criticized by Republican lawmakers, and a wide range of business and law enforcement groups for her past statements and positions — blamed a "dark money" political campaign. "When I accepted his nomination over sixteen months ago, I could not have imagined that legions of cable and media industry lobbyists, their bought-and-paid-for surrogates, and dark money political groups with bottomless pockets would distort my over 30-year history as a consumer advocate into an absurd caricature of blatant lies," Sohn told The Washington Post in a statement. "The unrelenting, dishonest and cruel attacks on my character and my career as an advocate for the public interest have taken an enormous toll on me and my family," she added. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Tuesday that Sohn's withdrawal was "clearly unfortunate" and that the White House was "sad to see this happen." But Sohn's withdrawal was cheered by Republicans and conservatives alike who had characterized her as an extreme and partisan selection for the powerful five-person FCC. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, the ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and a fierce opponent of Sohn's nomination, said the withdrawal was "a major victory." "The withdrawal of Ms. Sohn’s nomination is a major victory and represents a strong bipartisan agreement that we need a fair and impartial candidate who can receive the support needed for confirmation," Cruz said in a statement. "The FCC is not a place for partisan activists; free speech is too important," he continued. "Now, it’s time for the Biden administration to put forth a nominee who can be confirmed by the full Senate and is committed to serving as an even-handed and truly independent regulator." Sohn's nomination, which received unanimous opposition from Republicans, was also criticized by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who formerly chaired the Commerce Committee. The Republican said Sohn's "long record of virulent partisanship and bad judgment make her unfit to serve on the FCC." "The FCC needs an independent non-partisan nominee and that wasn’t Gigi Sohn. She exposed herself, again and again, to be a radical, extremist, hyper-partisan, with serious ethical questions looming over her nomination," said Thomas Jones, the president of conservative group American Accountability Foundation (AAF). The AAF spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ad campaign to oppose Sohn's nomination over the last year and a half. "Biden’s FCC commissioner nominee Gigi Sohn has withdrawn her nomination," Heritage Action tweeted. "This is a WIN for grassroots Americans and a result of efforts by Heritage Action and other groups who signed a letter opposing Sohn’s nomination." Cruz's special advisor for communications, Steve Guest, had some fun with the announcement by tweeting out a picture of Cruz wearing sunglasses while smoking a cigar, along with multiple "flackback" clips of Cruz slamming Sohn during confirmation hearings. Jon Schweppe, the policy director for the American Principles Project, similarly declared victory. "This was a really long fight. And we won," he tweeted. "Gigi Sohn will not serve on the FCC. Her nomination has been withdrawn." Schweppe added that it was an "enormous victory for free speech." And the National Republican Senate Committee celebrated that Biden and Senate Democrats were forced to "wave the white flag on their radical FCC nominee Gigi Sohn." Biden first selected Sohn to fill a vacant seat on the FCC in October 2021, but her nomination failed to advance past the Senate Commerce Committee. The president then nominated her for a second time in January. Over the last month, Sohn has faced criticism for her anti-police views, once sharing a tweet saying former President Trump was a "raggedy white supremacist president" and sitting on the board of an organization opposed to anti-sex trafficking laws. Additionally, Sohn has been a vocal proponent of net neutrality. The Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business industry group, has warned of Sohn's "extreme views" and reiterated its call for the Senate to reject her nomination in January. Sohn's failure to receive enough support in the Senate means the FCC will remain at a 2-2 deadlock for the foreseeable future.	US Federal Policies
‘He’ll be out': Santos’ GOP critics anxiously await report they hope will help boot him If it’s damning, as many expect, an Ethics Committee report could provide the votes to officially sever the New York Republican from the House. Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) has evaded two efforts this year to oust him from the House. A third time could end up differently, depending on the results of a long-awaited ethics report this week. The House Ethics Committee is slated to release the findings of its investigation into Santos regarding a slew of charges, including campaign finance fraud and bribery, by Friday. If it’s damning, as many expect, New York Republicans who have called for his removal are likely to move quickly against him. Their previous effort fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote, as other Republicans argued against setting the precedent of expelling a member without a conviction. His trial on federal charges isn’t set to begin for nearly a year. Plus, there’s the ever-present problem of the House GOP’s slim majority. But some members who protected Santos last time have indicated that a convincing ethics report would change their minds. First-term Rep. John Duarte (R-Calif.) said he would consider voting to expel Santos if the Ethics panel concludes “there’s criminal wrongdoing.” “The one thing I want to make sure we’re not doing, whether it’s expulsion or censure, is lowering the standards,” he added. Still, it’s unclear whether a scathing ethics report would be enough to meet the high bar — it would take roughly 80 Republicans siding with all Democrats — for expulsion. Speaker Mike Johnson himself has broadly signaled that he doesn’t want to get ahead of Santos’ trial. Plus, the new speaker and some other Republicans are loath to further narrow their majority, given their exceedingly slim margins and a slew of tough spending votes in the months ahead. But Santos’ critics remain confident. “He’ll be out,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who had previously voted for his ouster. “If he is found guilty by Ethics, he’s gone.” Santos, however, told POLITICO last week that he is “not concerned” about the conclusions of the Ethics probe nor any subsequent removal push. “Let them do it,” Santos said. “If they don’t have a conviction and they don’t have anything damning coming out of Ethics, and they still push that, the norm stands … that we’re creating a dangerous precedent.” If their efforts are successful, Santos would be the first House member in over two decades to be expelled. He would follow Ohio Democratic Rep. James A. Traficant, who was removed by his colleagues in 2002. That incident followed a conviction — he was found guilty of 10 charges, including bribery, following a federal racketeering and corruption trial. Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) earlier this month pushed a Santos expulsion resolution, the second effort after a Democratic-led attempt earlier this year. Only 24 Republicans supported D’Esposito’s measure, as well as 155 Democrats. During that push, the Ethics Committee made an unusual disclosure, saying they would announce their next steps against Santos on or before this Friday. They shared that the panel had issued 37 subpoenas, combed through more than 170,000 pages of records and reached out to about 40 witnesses as part of the ongoing probe. That was triggered in early March, after a series of news reports raised concerns that there was “unlawful activity” in his bid for office. When the probe began, then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy urged GOP members to show restraint. At the time, he said a formal removal effort should be informed by an ethics report. “I will hold him to the same standard I hold anyone else elected to Congress. If [we find] some way, when we go through Ethics, that he has broken the law, then we will remove him,” McCarthy said in January. “But it’s not my role. I believe in the rule of law. A person is innocent until proven guilty.” Now, it seems McCarthy’s successor will have to decide how to handle such an ethics report — and if it should trigger another effort for Santos’ removal. Johnson, in his first interview as speaker, previously argued Santos deserved his due process. The Louisiana Republican has not weighed in on the ethics report specifically, however, and declined to comment on the matter to POLITICO Monday. “He is not convicted. He is charged,” Johnson told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in late October. “If we’re going to expel people from Congress just because they are charged with a crime or accused, that’s a problem.” Since the internal review began, Santos has faced nearly two dozen charges, including bribery, wire fraud and identity theft. And when he faced a superseding indictment last month that increased his charge count from 13 to 23, Santos continued to maintain his innocence to reporters, vowing he will not resign or pursue a plea bargain. Santos has pleaded not guilty to all charges. He’s also signaled that he’s launching another bid for the seat. His trial is set to begin in September 2024. Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.	US Congress
Welcome to Fox News’ Politics newsletter with the latest political news from Washington D.C. and updates from the 2024 campaign trail. What's happening: - Israel agrees to ‘4-hour pauses’ in military operations in Gaza City for humanitarian reasons… - Protester shouts at Biden at Illinois autoworkers union event… - House Oversight Committee subpoenas more Hunter Biden associates, like his art dealer… Manchin stands down West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat, announced Thursday he won't seek re-election in 2024 — but he will be "traveling the country and speaking out to see if there's an interest in creating a movement to mobilize the middle and bring Americans together." For Republicans, this makes the possibility of flipping Manchin's seat (and potentially control of the Senate) look even stronger. Sen. Steve Daines, chair of the committee charged with helping Republicans win the Senate, put out a seven-word statement: "We like our odds in West Virginia." For Democrats, Manchin's announcement that he'll seek to unite both parties will only increase worries that he'll launch a third-party presidential run. Tales from the Trail FIERY SHOWDOWN: DeSantis, Haley, Vivek, Christie, and Scott face off in third debate …Read more COUNTERPROGRAMMING: Trump says opponents in GOP debate 'not watchable' …Read more 'SO PROUD': Sarah Sanders makes major endorsement in 2024 GOP presidential race …Read more 'REPUBLICAN BASTION': GOP flips blue state seat Dems held for decades causing 'political earthquake' …Read more 'I DON'T RECALL': Ivanka Trump testifies she was not involved in discussions about her father's financial statements …Read more Capitol Hill 'WOKE INVENTION': Several Hispanic Democrats join GOP on proposal to ban 'Latinx' phrase …Read more NORTHERN THREATS: GOP lawmaker warns that the holes in the US' northern border are being overlooked …Read more DIRTY DOLLARS: GOP lawmaker probes connection between pro-Palestinian charities and Hamas …Read more VOTER'S REMORSE: Progressive Democrat regrets vote against condemning antisemitic hate …Read more 'CAUSE AND EFFECT': 'Squad' Dems under fire for rhetoric fueling antisemitism …Read more The White House 'ORWELLIAN': Biden admin rolls out 'breathtaking' gender pronoun policy one expert says violates the law …Read more 'FUNDAMENTALLY ABSURD': Biden energy secretary under fire for inviting China, Russia to sensitive US nuclear testing site …Read more Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.	US Federal Elections
New Jersey man who posted threat to synagogues gets 15 months in prison A New Jersey man who admitted posting a broad online threat aimed at synagogues and Jewish schools in the state last year has been sentenced to 15 months in prison CAMDEN, N.J. -- A New Jersey man who admitted posting a broad online threat aimed at synagogues and Jewish schools in the state last year was sentenced to 15 months in prison Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Christine O'Hearn in Camden imposed the sentence on Omar Alkattoul, 19, of Sayreville who earlier pleaded guilty to transmitting a threat in interstate and foreign commerce. He had faced up to five years in prison. Federal prosecutors have said Alkattoul expressed hatred of Jews and admitted posting online that “God cursed the Jewish people and God should burn gay people.” He also told investigators he had researched how to obtain a gun, shooting ranges and mass shootings but in the days before posting his threat was “about ‘50/50’” on whether he would actually carry out an attack. “No one should be targeted for violence or with acts of hate because of how they worship," U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger said in a statement. A message seeking comment was left with the public defender representing Alkattoul. Authorities have said they did not believe Alkattoul had the means to carry out any specific attack. Alkattoul used a social media app on Nov. 1, 2022, to send a link to a document entitled “When Swords Collide,” according to prosecutors, and he admitted to the person he sent it to that he wrote the document, stating: “It’s in the context of an attack on Jews.” The FBI issued a statewide alert on Nov. 3 and announced a suspect had been identified the next day but did not identify him at that time. The warning prompted some municipalities across the state to send extra police officers to guard houses of worship and schools. Public warnings about nonspecific threats against Jewish institutions, made by groups including Christian supremacists and Islamic extremists, aren’t unusual in the New York City area, and many turn out to be false alarms. But the area has also seen deadly attacks, including the firebombings of two synagogues and an attack on a rabbi’s home in 2012, a fatal stabbing at a Hanukkah celebration in 2019, and a shooting that same year that killed three people in a kosher market and a police officer.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - Democratic and Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate said on Wednesday they would try to quickly pass legislation to keep the government funded, preventing a partial shutdown form beginning this weekend. "No drama, no delay, no government shutdown. That's our goal and we hope to have an agreement very soon," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said on the Senate floor. Leaders from both parties have said they support a stopgap spending bill that passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives by a wide bipartisan margin on Tuesday. Current funding is due to expire at midnight on Friday (0500 GMT on Saturday), and both chambers of Congress need to pass spending legislation and send it to Democratic President Joe Biden to sign into law before then to avoid disruption. Senator John Thune, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, said a vote on the House bill later in the day was possible. "Right now we're not seeing anything out there that would suggest that we couldn't process this fairly quickly," he said. But opponents could invoke the Senate's arcane rules to complicate a vote before midnight on Friday when current funding will expire. Republican Senator Rand Paul, who in the past has used parliamentary maneuvers to hold up action, said on social media that he would push for deeper spending cuts. The House bill would extend government funding at current levels through mid-January, giving lawmakers more time to work on the detailed spending bills that fund everything from the military to scientific research. More significantly, it would avoid a partial shutdown that would disrupt a wide array of government services and furlough hundreds of thousands of federal workers. Tuesday's vote was a victory for House Speaker Mike Johnson, who faced down opposition from some of his fellow Republicans who had pushed for deep spending cuts. Johnson was a little-known Louisiana lawmaker until he was elected speaker on Oct. 25 following weeks of Republican infighting. The legislation would extend funding for military construction, veterans benefits, transportation, housing, urban development, agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and energy and water programs through Jan. 19. Funding for all other federal operations - including defense - would expire on Feb. 2. Writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Scott Malone, Lisa Shumaker and Jonathan Oatis Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.	US Federal Policies
Listen to this article Produced by ElevenLabs and NOA, News Over Audio, using AI narration. This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here. In 2019, Kennedy Ndahiro, the editor of the Rwandan daily newspaper The New Times, explained to readers of The Atlantic how years of cultivated hatred had led to death on a horrifying scale. “In Rwanda,” he wrote, “we know what can happen when political leaders and media outlets single out certain groups of people as less than human.” Ndahiro pointed out that in 1959, Joseph Habyarimana Gitera, an influential political figure within the largest ethnic group in Rwanda, the Hutus, had openly called for the elimination of the Tutsi, the second-largest of Rwanda’s ethnic groups. Gitera referred to the Tutsi as “vermin.” “The stigmatization and dehumanization of the Tutsi had begun,” Ndahiro wrote. It culminated in a 100-day stretch in 1994 when an estimated 1 million people were killed, the majority of whom were Tutsi. “The worst kind of hatred had been unleashed,” Ndahiro wrote. “What began with dehumanizing words ended in bloodshed.” I THOUGHT ABOUT the events that led up to the Rwandan genocide after I heard Donald Trump, in a Veterans Day speech, refer to those he counts as his enemies as “vermin.” “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country—that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Trump said toward the end of his speech in Claremont, New Hampshire. “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American dream.” The former president continued, “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within.” When Trump finished his speech, the audience erupted in applause. Trump’s comments came only a few weeks after he had been asked about immigration and the southern border in an interview with the host of a right-wing website. “Did you ever think you would see this level of American carnage?” Trump was asked. “No. Nobody has seen anything like this,” Trump responded. “I think you could say worldwide. I think you could go to a banana republic and pick the worst one and you’re not going to see what we’re witnessing now.” The front-runner for the Republican nomination warned that immigrants pose an immediate threat. “We know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s poisoning the blood of our country.” In a September 20 speech in Dubuque, Iowa, Trump said, “What they’re doing to our country, they’re destroying it. It’s the blood of our country. What they’re doing is destroying our country.” Trump’s rhetoric is a permission slip for his supporters to dehumanize others just as he does. He portrays others as existential threats, determined to destroy everything MAGA world loves about America. Trump is doing two things at once: pushing the narrative that his enemies must be defeated while dissolving the natural inhibitions most human beings have against hating and harming others. It signals to his supporters that any means to vanquish the other side is legitimate; the normal constraints that govern human interactions no longer apply. Dehumanizers view their targets as having “a human appearance but a subhuman essence,” according to David Livingstone Smith, a philosophy professor who has written on the history and complicated psychological roots of dehumanization. “It is the dehumanizer’s nagging awareness of the other’s humanity that gives dehumanization its distinctive psychological flavor,” he writes. “Ironically, it is our inability to regard other people as nothing but animals that leads to unimaginable cruelty and destructiveness.” Dehumanized people can be turned into something worse than animals; they can be turned into monsters. They aren’t just dangerous; they are metaphysically threatening. They are not just subhuman; they are irredeemably destructive. THAT IS THE WICKEDLY SHREWD rhetorical and psychological game that Trump is playing, and he plays it very well. Alone among American politicians, he has an intuitive sense of how to inflame detestations and resentments within his supporters while also deepening their loyalty to him, even their reverence for him. Trump’s opponents, including the press, are “truly the enemy of the people.” He demanded that the parent company of MSNBC and NBC be investigated for “treason” over what he described as “one-side[d] and vicious coverage.” He insinuated on his social network, Truth Social, that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, deserved to be executed for committing treason. At a Trump event in Iowa, days after that post, one Trump supporter asked why Milley wasn’t “in there before a firing squad within a month.” Another told NBC News, “Treason is treason. There’s only one cure for treason: being put to death.” Trump has taken to mocking the violent attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, which left him with a fractured skull that required surgery and other serious injuries. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has brought two indictments against the former president, is a “Trump-hating prosecutor” who is “deranged” and a “disgrace to America”—and whose wife and family “despise me much more than he does.” The former president posted the name, photo, and private Instagram account of a law clerk serving Judge Arthur Engoron, who is currently presiding over Trump’s civil fraud trial and whom Trump despises and has repeatedly attacked, describing him as “CRAZY” and “CRAZED in his hatred of me.” (Trump later deleted the Truth Social post targeting the law clerk, whom he called a “Trump Hating Clerk,” but not until after it had been widely disseminated.) And in the first rally of his 2024 campaign, held in Waco, Texas, Trump lent his voice to a recording of the J6 Prison Choir, which is made up of men who were imprisoned for their part in the riot at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. The song “Justice for All” features Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance mixed with a rendition of the national anthem. “Our people love those people,” Trump said at the rally, speaking of those who were jailed. “What’s happening in that prison, it’s a hellhole … These are people that shouldn’t have been there.” The Washington Post “identified five of the roughly 15 men who are featured in the video. Four of them were charged with assaulting police, using weapons such as a crowbar, sticks and chemical spray, including against Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died the next day.” At the Waco rally, Trump declared, “I am your warrior. I am your justice.” He added, “For those who have been wronged and betrayed, of which there are many people out there that have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” Trump has described 2024 as “our final battle.” He means it; so do tens of millions of his supporters. TRUMP’S RHETORIC IS CLEARLY fascistic. These days, Trump is being “much more overt about becoming an authoritarian and transforming America into some version of autocracy,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at NYU, told PBS NewsHour. That doesn’t mean that if Trump were elected president in 2024, America would become a fascistic state. Our institutions may be strong enough to resist him, though it’s an open question. But Trump can do many things short of imposing fascism that can do grave harm to America. Trump, after all, has been impeached twice, indicted four times on 91 counts, and found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Courts in New York have found that he or his companies have committed bank fraud, insurance fraud, tax fraud, and charity fraud. Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. He was the catalyzing figure that led to a violent attack on the Capitol. And he has argued for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” In our nation’s history, according to former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served in four Republican administrations and was part of the Republican leadership in the House, “there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump.” That Trump would say what he’s said and done what he’s done is no surprise; he is a profoundly damaged human being, emotionally and psychologically. And he’s been entirely transparent about who he is. The most troubling aspect of this whole troubling drama has been the people in the Republican Party who, though they know better, have accommodated themselves to Trump’s corruptions time after time after time. Some cheer him on; others silently go along for the ride. A few gently criticize him and then quickly change topics. But they never leave him. By now I know how this plays out: For most Republicans to acknowledge—to others and even to themselves—what Trump truly is and still stay loyal to him would create enormous cognitive dissonance. Their mind won’t allow them to go there; instead, they find ways to ease the inner conflict. And so they embrace conspiracy theories to support what they desperately want to believe—for example, that the election was stolen, or that the investigation into Russian ties to the 2016 Trump campaign was a “hoax,” or that Joe Biden has committed impeachable offenses. They indulge in whataboutism and catastrophism—the belief that society is on the edge of collapse—to justify their support for Trump. They have a burning psychological need to rationalize why, in this moment in history, the ends justify the means. As one Trump supporter put it in an email to me earlier this month, “Trump is decidedly not good and decent”—but, he added, “good and decent isn’t getting us very far politically.” And: “We’ve tried good and decent. But at the ballot box, that doesn’t work. We need to try another way.” This sentiment is one I’ve heard many times before. In 2016, during the Republican primaries, a person I had known for many years through church wrote to me. “I think we have likely slipped past the point of no return as a country and I’m desperately hoping for a leader who can turn us around. I have no hope that one of the establishment guys would do that. That, I believe, is what opens people up to Trump. He’s all the bad things you say, but what has the Republican establishment given me in the past 16 years? First and foremost: BHO,” they said, using a derogatory acronym for Barack Obama that is meant to highlight his middle name, Hussein. If I had told this individual in 2016 what Trump would say and do over the next eight years, I’m confident he would have laughed it off, dismissing it as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”—and that he would have assured me that if Trump did do all these things, then of course he would break with him. Yet here we are. Despite Trump’s well-documented depravity, he still has a vise grip on the GOP; he carried 94 percent of the Republican vote in 2020, an increase from 2016, and he is leading his closest primary challenger nationally by more than 45 points. White evangelical Protestants are among the Republican Party’s most loyal constituencies, and in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center, more than eight in 10 white evangelical Protestant voters who frequently attend religious services voted for Trump, as had 81 percent of those who attend less frequently. That’s an increase over 2016. Trump’s support among white evangelicals is still extremely high: 81 percent hold a favorable view of him, according to a poll taken in June—after Trump was indicted for a second time. The evangelical movement in America has been reshaped by the sensibilities of Trump and MAGA world. For example, in one survey, nearly one-third of white evangelicals expressed support for the statement “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” It is a rather remarkable indictment of those who claim to be followers of Jesus that they would continue to show fealty to a man whose cruel ethic has always been antithetical to Jesus’s and becomes more so every day. Many of the same people who celebrate Christianity’s contributions to civilization—championing the belief that every human being has inherent rights and dignity, celebrating the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan, and pointing to a “transcendent order of justice and hope that stands above politics,” in the words of my late friend Michael Gerson—continue to stand foursquare behind a man who uses words that echo Mein Kampf. It doesn’t have to be this way. Taking a stand for conscience, even long after one should have, is always the right thing to do. “When we engage in dehumanizing rhetoric and promote dehumanizing images,” the best-selling author Brené Brown has written, “we diminish our own humanity in the process.” We are called to find the face of God in everyone we meet, she says, including those with whom we most deeply disagree. “When we desecrate their divinity, we desecrate our own, and we betray our humanity.” Far too many Christians in America are not only betraying their humanity; they are betraying the Lord they claim to love and serve.	US Federal Elections
President Biden on Wednesday vetoed the bill that would have scrapped his $400 billion student loan handout and vowed he wasn't "going to back down" when it came to forgiving the college debt of millions across the country. "Folks, Republican in Congress led an effort to pass a bill blocking my administration's plan to provide up to $10,000 in student debt relief and up to $20,000 for borrowers that received a Pell Grant. Nearly 90% of those relief dollars go to people making less than $75,000 a year," Biden said in a video posted on Twitter. "I'm not going to back down on my efforts to help tens of millions of working and middle class families. That's why I'm going to veto this bill," he said. Amid his railing against Republicans, Biden made no mention of the two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., who joined all Republicans in voting to advance the bill last week. Independent Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema also voted in favor with the final tally coming to 52-46. Biden also made no mention of Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., who joined Republicans in voting for the bill in the House of Representatives. The final House vote tally was 218-203. The president went on to say that some of the members who voted for the bill had "personally received loans to keep their small business afloat during the pandemic," and supported "huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy." "But when it comes to hardworking Americans trying to get ahead, dealing with student debt relief, that's where they drew the line. I think it's wrong," he said. "Let me make something really clear, I'm never going to apologize for helping working and middle class Americans as they recover from this pandemic. Never," he added before signing his veto of the bill. Biden's veto of the bill marks his fifth veto since taking office. Under the program announced last year, Biden said he would cancel up to $10,000 in student loans for people making less than $125,000, and up to $20,000 for students who received Pell Grants. That program was expected to cost the government more than $400 billion in lost debt repayment, but the program was put on hold after a court blocked it. The resolution approved by the House and Senate was written under the Congressional Review Act, which lets Congress reject an executive branch policy as long as both the House and Senate pass a resolution disapproving of that policy. Given the mostly partisan nature of the votes in the House and Senate, it's unlikely Congress will be able to find the two-thirds majority needed in each chamber to override Biden's veto. Fox News' Peter Kasperowicz contributed to this report.	US Federal Policies
Admin of $19M marketplace that sold social security numbers gets 8 years in jail 24 million Americans thought to have had their personal data stolen and sold for pennies A Ukrainian national is facing an eight year prison sentence for running an online marketplace that sold the personal data of approximately 24 million US citizens. Vitalii Chychasov, 37, was sentenced on Tuesday after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and trafficking in unauthorized access devices. In addition to the prison sentence he will forfeit $5 million in assets, the proceeds of fraud, and his control of the various marketplace domains. Attempting to enter Hungary at the time, Chychasov was arrested in March 2022 for running the SSNDOB Marketplace, which stands for "social security number, date of birth" and operated over various domains including blackjob.biz, ssndob.club, ssndob.vip, and ssndob.ws. He was later extradited to the US in July 2022, a month after SSNDOB was shut down by US, Latvian, and Cypriot authorities. The SSNDOB Marketplace dates back more than a decade and was operating as early as 2013, then on the domain ssndob.ru. At the time, full records (fulls), which included full names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth (DoB), and social security numbers (SSNs) were sold for $0.50 per individual. If these "fulls" were located by DoB, they cost $1, and if they were located by ZIP code, they cost $1.50. Consumer credit reports were also available for a loftier $15, as were background reports for $12, and driver's license records for $4. The research, led by infosec investigative journalist Brian Krebs at the time, suggested that the criminals had access to at least five different systems at US-based consumer and business data aggregators. These allegedly included Lexis-Nexis, Dun & Bradstreet, and Kroll Background America. US authorities estimate that SSNDOB alone has generated more than $19 million in sales over the source of its operation. "According to court records, Chychasov and other marketplace administrators advertised on dark web criminal forums for the marketplace's services, provided customer support functions, and regularly monitored the activities of the sites, including monitoring when purchasers deposited money into their accounts," said the US Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida. "The administrators also employed various techniques to protect their anonymity and to thwart detection of their activities, including strategically maintaining servers in various countries, and requiring buyers to use digital payment methods." SSNs were bought from the marketplace and used to commit various types of fraud: Tax fraud, unemployment insurance fraud, loan fraud, and credit card fraud. One buyer, authorities noted, used the stolen personal data to steal and later launder a sum close to $10 million. SSNDOB saw particular success during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when the US established a number of initiatives to issue relief funds to both individuals and businesses under financial strain. "Identity theft can have a devastating impact on a victim's long-term emotional and financial health," said Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon, IRS-CI Washington, D.C. Field Office at the time of the takedown. "Taking down the SSNDOB website disrupted ID theft criminals and helped millions of Americans whose personal information was compromised." As reported by El Reg when SSNDOB was shuttered, connection attempts to all four of Chychasov's domains were either denied or met with the authorities' seizure notice. - 81K people's sensitive info feared stolen from Hilb after email inboxes ransacked - Identity thieves can hunt us for 'rest of our lives,' claims suit after university data leak - You've been pwned, how much will each stolen customer SSN cost you? How about $7.5k? - Ex-Amazon manager jailed for stealing $10M using fake vendor invoices Yet, then and still to this day, the SSNDOB brand continues to live on through what appear to be copycat sites. Domains for ssndob.pro, ssndob.rg, and ssndob24.com are still alive and accepting new accounts but their legitimacy is unknown; those we tested require a minimum deposit of $20 to begin searching their records. The Justice Department previously said, however, these copycats aren't believed to be related to the SSNDOB operation administered by Chychasov. ®	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
President Biden and first lady Jill Biden are visiting Lewiston, Maine, Friday to mourn the deaths oflast week in the state's deadliest mass shooting in history. The president is scheduled to deliver remarks paying his respects to the victims and thanking first responders. He will then meet privately with families of the victims, first responders, nurses and other community members. In addition to, 13 people were injured last week when a gunman opened fire at a bar and a bowling alley. The after a two-day manhunt. After the mass shooting, Mr. Biden ordered the flags at the White House and federal buildings to fly at half staff and said in a statement, "Far too many Americans have now had a family member killed or injured as a result of gun violence. That is not normal, and we cannot accept it." Maine's Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King are traveling with the president. The president's remarks are scheduled for 4:15 p.m. ET. Biden continues to call for an assault weapons ban Despite opposition from congressional Republicans, the president has repeatedly pushed for bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. "It is within our power to once again ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, to require safe storage of guns, to end gun manufacturers' immunity from liability, and to enact universal background checks," Mr. Biden said in July after deadly shootings in Philadelphia, Fort Worth, Texas, Baltimore and Chicago. But successful action in Congress on those fronts is unlikely. Republicans control the House, and Democrats only narrowly control the Senate. Democratic, who represents Lewiston in Congress, previously opposed gun control measures but reversed his stance last week and is now calling for an assault weapons ban. Last year, Congresswith some bipartisan support, its first major gun legislation in three decades. But the president continues to insist that's insufficient. A time for Biden to "be with Americans who are in mourning," says White House press secretary "Too many times, the president and the first Lady have traveled to communities completely torn apart by gun violence," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday. "As the president said last week, this is not normal, and we can't accept it as normal. So, while Friday will be a solemn day and a time for the president to be with Americans who are in mourning, he will also continue to demand that Congress act." Mr. Biden and first lady Jill Biden visited, in May 2022, after a deadly mass shooting at an elementary school. Days before that, they visited a memorial site in Buffalo, New York, where 10 people lost their lives in a racially motivated shooting. How to watch President Biden's visit to Lewiston, Maine - What: President Biden and first lady Jill Biden visit Lewiston, Maine, to remember the victims of the mass shooting and meet with families and first responders - Date: Friday, Nov. 3, 2023 - Time: 3:45 p.m. ET meeting with first responders; remarks expected at about 4:15 p.m. ET - Location: Lewiston, Maine - On TV: A CBS News Special Report will air on local CBS stations when Mr. Biden speaks at about 4:15 p.m. ET - Online stream: Watch live on CBS News in the player above and on your mobile or streaming device - Follow: Biden's Maine visit live updates on CBSNews.com	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
The bare facts of the case cast American teenager William Leslie Arnold as a murderous villain who shot his parents because they refused to let him take their car to a drive-in in 1958. Then just 16 years old, Arnold buried their bodies in the backyard of the family’s home in Omaha, Nebraska, and went about life as normal for two weeks, until he was confronted and confessed to a crime that saw him sentenced to life in prison. From there, Arnold’s story could have followed the familiar path of a lifer – decades of incarceration before a death noted by some and mourned by few. But Arnold’s escape from prison, while still a young man in 1967, led to a totally different outcome that ended incongruously in Australia, and the death of a man by a different name, who was known as a loving father to a family who had no idea about his secret life. The murders Black and white press images from the 1950s show a slight boy being led into the garden of his home, surrounded by police officers as he pointed to where he buried his parents. Geoff Britton, chief of the Office of Law Enforcement Support in California, recalls details of the case with the vivid recollection of someone who has spent years poring over the files. The night of the murders, Arnold shot his parents before taking the car and watching a double feature with his high school girlfriend before telling everyone – even family members – that his parents had taken a trip. “He had killed his parents. And he was going to bury them in the yard later that night and he’s at the drive-in seeing ‘The Undead,’” said Britton, who worked on the case for nine years from 2004 to 2013 at the State of Nebraska Department of Correctional Services. “To kill your parents over the use of the car to go to the movies – that’s not normal. It made me wonder if something else was going on,” he told CNN. By the time Britton started on the case, Arnold had been on the run for more than three decades. In 1967, after serving just eight years of his life sentence, Arnold and a fellow inmate, James Harding, communicated with someone on the outside, through newspaper advertisements placed in local newspaper, the Lincoln Journal Star, Britton said. “I was able to identify the person that helped them get the equipment to get out of prison – it was a former parolee,” said Britton, explaining that the parolee obtained masks the prisoners used to fool guards who conducted daily head counts at the prison. “Similar to the movie ‘Escape from Alcatraz’ with Clint Eastwood,” Britton added. Newspaper reports at the time documented their daring escape over a 12-foot high wire fence in the low-security area of the prison, using a T-shirt to cover the barbed wire. A ground and air search extended across four states with helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, patrol troopers, sheriff’s deputies and police officers, according to an article in the Lincoln Journal Star dated July 15, 1967. Three months later, the Omaha World-Herald quoted a prison warden as saying theirs was the “cleanest” escape in his experience. Britton said investigators later discovered the escapees made it to Omaha, then caught a bus to Chicago, where they parted ways, according to Harding, who was captured within one year. Arnold appeared to have vanished. Over the years, investigators followed numerous leads, including hearsay that he had fled to South America, though they found no proof that he was ever there. Britton became so obsessed with the case, he continued investigating it even when he moved away from Nebraska – and he was later put in touch with Matthew Westover, a deputy United States Marshal in Nebraska, who told CNN he took over the file in 2020. “One of the guys left the office, and (when you leave) you have to hand over your cases. So one of my buddies gave me this case, as kind of a joke, you know, like ‘you’re never going find this guy,’” Westover said. Westover read stories in the Omaha World-Herald by reporter Henry J. Cordes, who covered the case extensively in a series titled “The Mystery of Leslie Arnold.” Through numerous interviews, Cordes found a more complicated story than some had been led to believe. In the series, he portrayed Arnold as a good student who had a difficult relationship with his parents. The shooting, wrote Cordes, came after a heated argument between Arnold and his mother, who disapproved of his girlfriend. In prison, Arnold followed the rules and could have qualified for early release, Cordes wrote. He was a dedicated musician and the prison music room where he spent much of his time literally became his window of escape. Along with the masks, the parolee threw hacksaws over the fence, which Arnold and Harding used to cut through the bars on the window before scaling the fence, according to Cordes. The more Westover read, the more convinced he became that he was the man to find Arnold. “From day one, I was hooked,” he said. How the law closed in on Arnold By the time the case had landed on Westover’s desk the world had changed. Arnold may have used classified ads to arrange his escape from prison, but decades on, crimes were no longer solved by poring over old newspapers. By 2020, DNA testing had become commonplace, so Westover got in the car and drove five hours across the border to find James Arnold, William Leslie Arnold’s young brother. James Arnold wasn’t home when the murders were committed, but more than 60 years later he was happy to comply with a request from Westover for a DNA sample, which the US Marshal uploaded to an ancestry site. It didn’t return anything useful. Undeterred, Westover sought out old FBI files and used Britton’s earlier research to try to piece together Arnold’s movements. As Westover dug deeper, the DNA sample he’d uploaded in 2020 finally hit a match. In 2022, Westover received an alert that James Arnold’s DNA had matched with another sample with enough similarities to be a close relative. “I noticed right away that I had a match that was way higher than anything I’d had before. It was basically exactly what I was looking for,” said Westover, who immediately reported the finding to Britton. Westover said he also received an email from the man who had uploaded it. “It said, ‘Hey, I’m trying to find out more information about my father. He was an orphan from Chicago.’” “So I pass that on to Geoff and I was like, ‘this is the guy. There’s no way this isn’t the guy.” The man behind the email The man that sent the email was Arnold’s son, whose identity both Westover and Britton are careful to protect. Westover said the son didn’t know he’d emailed a US Marshal who’d been tasked with tracking down his father. Westover said the son assumed he was a family member, as he’d used James Arnolds’ name to upload the DNA. The son said he wanted to know more about his father, who he knew as John Damon, who died in 2010. Westover said he engaged in very cautious correspondence, so as not to potentially alert Arnold that the law was closing in – if he was, in fact, still alive. “If he’s this smart, and he was able to elude police for 50 years, who’s to say he didn’t fake his death and all the photos?” Westover asked. Westover said he was finally convinced that Arnold was dead when local officials confirmed a death certificate – and that’s when Westover knew he had to tell Arnold’s son the details of his father’s darkest secret. “I felt guilty. I mean, he’s giving me all this information. And here I am holding the key to what he needed,” said Westover. “And at the same time, I’m also kind of pressed against the clock because he’s telling me that he’s reaching out to all these other family members as well that he doesn’t know.” Westover said he wanted to be the one to tell him about his father, and he arranged a video call with the man and his wife. “I just wanted to make sure that he wasn’t alone because, I mean, there’s a lot to take on,” he said. Westover said he made the call from his car, as he sat in his driveway, via a cellphone propped up on the dashboard. “I showed him who I was… then he asked me what (his father) did to be in prison. So I had to tell him,” he said. “I told him, ‘Well, he was an orphan. He didn’t lie about that, but he killed his parents, that’s why he was an orphan.’” William Leslie Arnold – aka John Damon – died age 69 and was laid to rest in Australia, thousands of miles from the fortified walls of Nebraska State Penitentiary, where he might otherwise have ended his days. Now that they know his alias, US officials are piecing together Arnold’s life from his last known location in Chicago. Westover says Arnold changed his name a few months after escaping from prison in 1967. Britton says he got a job in a restaurant, where he met his first wife and became a father to her four children. Investigators say they then moved to Cincinnati, Miami and Los Angeles before divorcing in 1978. Records show that Arnold moved to New Zealand in the 1990s, then Australia later the same decade, Westover said. Britton said his family, including his second wife, had no knowledge of his former life. “My heart goes out to that entire family,” he said. Westover says in some ways, he’s relieved Arnold is dead – after meeting his family, he would not want to have sought his arrest and deportation to the United States. Britton feels the same. “The police officer in me always wanted to arrest him and bring him in. But you know, that wasn’t the outcome,” he said. “But I gotta tell you, I have spoken to his family several times now. They are an incredible family. And I won’t say much about them out of privacy concerns, but what I will say is this … “I think ultimately he became the parent who he wanted to be, or the one he wished he had. “Because from everything I’ve noticed, it seems like he was a good provider and a good father. He raised some pretty great kids.” Arnold’s son, who asked not to be identified to protect his family’s privacy, declined to be interviewed for this piece, but provided CNN with a statement that reads: “There’s no warning label on the DNA test kit telling you that you might not like what you find,” he said. “But I don’t regret doing it, and I’m glad I now know the truth about my dad. “Although it’s shocking to know that his life began with a terrible crime, his legacy is so much more than that. “I want him to be remembered for being a good father and provider to us, and instilling in me a passion for music, and a drive to always be the best person I can be.”	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
House Education and Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) is inquiring whether or not a series of biting incidents by President Joe Biden's dog Commander have made the White House an unsafe work environment. In a Wednesday letter to the president and acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su, Foxx said that White House was obligated to maintain a safe work environment but that "it is failing to uphold this responsibility," citing a series of biting incidents involving the president's dog. "Recent reports concerning White House staff and U.S. Secret Service personnel regularly incurring dog bites indicate that occupational hazards are prevalent at the White House," Foxx wrote in her letter. "The press has reported 12 biting instances involving the President’s dog Commander since 2021, including incidents resulting in employee hospitalizations. I am concerned these incidents are an indicator of larger occupational safety and health failures at the White House that go unreported and unnoticed by the press." Foxx noted that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which oversees workplace safety, would have jurisdiction over the White House's workplace safety procedures. The agency is located within the Department of Labor, which is overseen by Foxx's committee. Commander, the president's German shepherd, was revealed last month to have bitten staff and Secret Service personnel on numerous occasions after the conservative group Judicial Watch obtained government documents through a Freedom of Information Act request. The biting incidents even resulted in at least one hospital visit for the victim. In her letter, Foxx requested that the Department of Labor provide any documents alleging that the White House was an unsafe work environment and noted that the presidential office was subject to the same workplace safety rules as the private sector. "The White House should not embrace an attitude of 'rules for thee, but not for me' when it comes to workplace safety," she wrote. "Accordingly, I am requesting the information that the White House and the Department of Labor have on file related to workplace accidents and injuries at the White House to ensure the White House is living up to its expectations of the private sector." The Washington Examiner reached out to the White House and the Department of Labor for comment.	US Federal Policies
Trump suggests Christie running because he wasn’t given WH position Former President Trump called out fellow Republican Presidential candidate Chris Christie, suggesting the former New Jersey Gov. is only running in the GOP primary because Trump didn’t give him a spot in his cabinet. “I mean, I heard they booed Christie off the stage today, is that true?” Trump asked his supporters at Saturday’s Florida Republican Party’s Freedom Summit in Kissimmee, Fla. Christie was booed on stage at the event Saturday by Trump supporters. Between jeers, he tried to tell the crowd that they could reject his arguments, he just needed to be able to say them first. He said the pettiness and anger shown by the attendees doesn’t bother him, what does, is the “atrocities that are going on in Israel.” Trump, the event’s headliner, asked the crowd who got louder boos from the crowd, Christie or former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson. The crowd replied that Christie did. “I heard they virtually booed him off the stage,” Trump said. He then questioned Christie’s campaign. “What’s it all about? Is he just doing it because I didn’t give him a job in the administration?” In the past, Christie said he turned down repeated offers from the Trump administration to join the staff, including offers to be Trump’s Homeland Security secretary, Veterans Affairs secretary and the U.S. ambassador to Italy. After ending his own campaign in 2016, Christie endorsed Trump for the Republican nomination. Their once friendship has now turned sour. Christie and Trump often criticize the other as they battle for the nomination in 2024. Trump pointed to Christie’s polling numbers, which are far below the former president’s. Trump will be skipping the third GOP debate this week and opting for a rally nearby instead. He justified his upcoming absence, as well as the previous two debates because he is polling so far ahead of the other Republican candidates. “I mean they are professional politicians, why would you debate people when you have a 55, 60, 62-point lead?” Trump said. Other GOP candidates, including former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Vivek Ramaswamy, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) also spoke at the event. The candidates will return to Florida on Wednesday, where they will participate in the third GOP primary debate in Miami. It will be hosted by NBC News on Nov. 8 at 8 p.m. Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.	US Federal Elections
Energy secretary Jennifer Granholm and her under-secretary for nuclear security Jill Hruby are expected to announce “a major scientific breakthrough” on Tuesday, the Financial Times reports, which will probably be the success of an experiment to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than was put in.While the FT’s article has three unnamed sources confirming that such a development did occur, the department tried to discourage the paper from getting ahead of its formal announcement.“Initial diagnostic data suggests another successful experiment at the National Ignition Facility. However, the exact yield is still being determined and we can’t confirm that it is over the threshold at this time,” the department told the paper.“That analysis is in process, so publishing the information … before that process is complete would be inaccurate.”Key events1h agoUS lab reportedly makes fusion breakthrough in boost to Biden's clean energy agendaShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureBernie Sanders may be a fellow independent, but he says he’s ready to take on Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema over her decision last week to leave the Democratic party, the Guardian’s Ramon Antonio Vargas reports:The popular progressive US senator Bernie Sanders would consider supporting any Democrat who might mount a challenge against his chamber colleague Kyrsten Sinema after she recently left the party and declared herself an independent like him, arguing that she has “helped sabotage” some of Congress’s most important legislation.Sanders’s comments on Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union added to the chorus of detractors against the Arizona lawmaker who has undermined the agenda of the Joe Biden White House and other progressives, including by voting down raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and reforming the Senate filibuster so that voting rights legislation can pass.The independent from Vermont who votes in line with Democratic interests told the show host, Dana Bash, that the leftwing party’s members in Arizona were “not all that enthusiastic about somebody who helped sabotage some of the most important legislation that protects the interests of working families and voting rights and so forth”.Shifting for a minute from our potentially fusion-powered future to matters that are surprisingly not in the past, Maya Yang reports that a new winner has emerged in a Massachusetts local race after all ballots cast in the 8 November election were counted again:A recount in a political race in Massachusetts has flipped a state house of representatives election from Republican to Democrat by a single vote.Democrat Kristin Kassner won against her Republican opponent and five-term incumbent Lenny Mirra earlier this week after a recount that shrank the candidates’ narrow vote deficit to one. The candidates were all vying for a seat based in the North Shore area, which is a coastal region between Boston and New Hampshire.Before the recount, Mirra led Kassner by 10 votes out of over 23,000 ballots that were cast in that region during the 8 November midterm election.The 10-vote deficit was within the legal threshold of a recount. On 30 November, the Massachusetts secretary of state, Bill Galvin, ordered hand recounts in a general area where Mirra held a slim advantage.After officials recounted the votes in question Thursday, the results emerged as 11,763 to 11,762.Kassner was ahead by the slightest of margins.Energy secretary Jennifer Granholm and her under-secretary for nuclear security Jill Hruby are expected to announce “a major scientific breakthrough” on Tuesday, the Financial Times reports, which will probably be the success of an experiment to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than was put in.While the FT’s article has three unnamed sources confirming that such a development did occur, the department tried to discourage the paper from getting ahead of its formal announcement.“Initial diagnostic data suggests another successful experiment at the National Ignition Facility. However, the exact yield is still being determined and we can’t confirm that it is over the threshold at this time,” the department told the paper.“That analysis is in process, so publishing the information … before that process is complete would be inaccurate.”US lab reportedly makes fusion breakthrough in boost to Biden's clean energy agendaGood morning, US politics readers. The price of gasoline and other energy sources are always a liability for American presidents, and Joe Biden is no exception. But what if those no longer mattered? That’s the promise from a breakthrough in fusion power made by American scientists, who managed to get more energy out of a reaction than they put in, the Financial Times reported over the weekend. The government hasn’t announced the experiment’s results yet and it will probably be years, if not decades, for fusion to become a major part of the electrical grid. Nonetheless, the breakthrough will likely be welcome news for a White House keen to tout its dedication to promoting carbon-free energy sources.Here’s what else is going on today: Congress is up against a Friday deadline to fund the government or risk a shutdown, one of a host of year-end legislative priorities the Democratic majority is trying to get through before Republicans take the House next year. Biden’s lone public event will be a visit to a Marine Corps Toys for Tots event at a military base just across the river from Washington held at 12:40 pm eastern time. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre will be joined by national security adviser Jake Sullivan at her briefing today, at 3 pm eastern time.	US Federal Policies
WASHINGTON ― Democrats are open to a temporary government funding proposal from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), lowering the prospects of a government shutdown this week. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a letter to his colleagues Monday that the Democratic leadership team is “carefully reviewing” Johnson’s proposal, which would extend current funding levels for some federal agencies into January, and for others into February. Jeffries noted that Johnson had jettisoned his “laddered” funding proposal that would have staggered agency funding in a more piecemeal fashion, setting up a cascading series of funding deadlines. “While House Republicans have abandoned a laddered funding approach with multiple expiration dates, we remain concerned with the bifurcation of the continuing resolution in January and February 2024,” Jeffries said. “In addition, the failure of House Republicans to address the national security and domestic supplemental funding priorities of the American people is also troublesome.” Jeffries said Democrats oppose spending cuts and “extreme right wing policy positions” ― things that Johnson omitted from his “continuing resolution,” to the disappointment of some far-right Republicans who said they would vote against the measure. Notably, Jeffries did not say he opposed the resolution. “We will proceed this week through the lens of making progress for everyday Americans by continuing to put people over politics,” Jeffries said. If significant numbers of Democrats support the resolution, then it would easily pass, and the big question would be whether Republican hardliners move to oust Johnson from the speaker’s office like they ousted Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) after he funded the government with Democratic votes in September. Johnson’s funding bill is by no means a sop to Democrats, since it omits key priorities, namely extra military aid for Israel and Ukraine. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the proposal “a recipe for more Republican chaos and more shutdowns,” though the White House has not issued a veto threat. A key question will be whether GOP hardliners block Johnson’s resolution in the House Rules Committee on Monday evening. The committee is typically a bill or resolution’s last stop before it moves to the House floor for a vote. If Republicans block the measure in Rules, Johnson could still move the bill to the floor under what’s known as a “suspension of the rules.” Such a move would require a supermajority for the bill to pass, and would likely antagonize the restive right-wingers in the House GOP even more than a regular vote. “That would be a very bad idea,” conservative Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the Rules Committee, told reporters on Monday.	US Federal Policies
CNN — The New Jersey attorney general’s office on Friday filed an emergent application in superior court to ask for a full recount and recheck of vote tallies in a handful of towns in Monmouth County, which was impacted by a voting system error during the November election. The New Jersey attorney general filed the paperwork in Monmouth County Superior Court on behalf of the Monmouth County Board of Elections and the Monmouth County Superintendent of Elections Office to “ask for a full recount and recheck of the four towns (Belmar, Fair Haven, Ocean Township, and Tinton Falls) affected by Election Systems and Software’s (ES&S) election software problem that allowed some votes to be counted twice,” according to a statement from the Monmouth County elections officials. “The integrity of the voting process remains the top priority of Monmouth County Election Offices,” the statement continued. CNN has reached out to the state attorney general’s office for comment. As CNN previously reported, a voting system error that caused some votes to be double-counted altered the results of a local school board race in Ocean Township, a community of about 28,000, according to the 2020 Census. The reporting error could flip the outcome of the non-partisan race. The reporting error during the November election in Monmouth County occurred when votes were uploaded from a USB flash drive, according to a statement from Election Systems and Software, the county’s election system vendor. “A technician inadvertently loaded votes twice in error,” ES&S spokesperson Katina Granger previously told CNN. “Typically our software blocks this from happening. Unfortunately, a human error in a July software reinstallment missed the step that would have flagged the mistake.” The anomaly was limited to Monmouth County, Granger said, and ES&S reviewed the data at the county’s request and found the problem. The error during the software reinstallation prevented the system from notifying officials that data had been uploaded twice at the time the mistake occurred. A later audit of the election database revealed that the votes had been loaded twice, ES&S said. A single race was impacted, the company said. The company has said it would reinstall the election management software to ensure the system is optimized to detect and block the duplication of results and “work with Monmouth County to ensure all necessary steps are taken to ensure election accuracy.” CNN’s Eric Bradner and Omar Jimenez contributed to this report.	US Local Elections
A source says that in conversation with a foreign politician, it emerged that their government assumes Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in 2024. Joe will pull out before the first primaries; it will be too late for a grassroots candidate to enter the fray; an establishment stooge will be crowned at the convention. And the name of that lucky winner? Michelle Obama. It’s a wild scenario, but if it does happen, please remember that you read it here first. This anecdote confirms what I’ve heard from UK sources, too: when governments engage with Biden they feel they are dealing with the face of an administration but not always the person in charge. Were the Democrats to drop him from their presidential ticket, the world would understand. The race is tied, which is too close for comfort; Biden is unpopular; he is ageing before our very eyes (the latest gaffe is that he called the Grand Canyon one of the “nine wonders of the world” - built, if you know your history, by the Phoenicians). Doubts about his capabilities are enhanced by the grim alternative should he expire in office. The charmless Kamala Harris is one of those deeply average people who, unaware that her limited knowledge isn’t the sum of human understanding, talks to everyone as if they were simpletons. Her latest pearl was to inform an audience that “community banks are in the community” - a revelation to those who thought they were in the Grand Canyon. We face a rematch between two unpopular nominees, Biden v Trump, which nobody really wants. So why not ask/force one of them to retire? Assuming it will never, ever be Trump - thanks to various legal troubles, his own choice is now between the White House or prison - it would be logical to persuade Joe to do the decent thing, or else dump him without letting him know. One can imagine a “Good Bye, Lenin” scenario wherein Biden is relocated to a mock-up of the Oval Office and is told he is still president. Nancy Pelosi could be wheeled in from time-to-time to ask if he’s any closer to ending the Great Depression. Swapping-out Biden would pose big challenges. There are deadlines for filing to run in primaries - Nevada, for example, is as close as October - and a Democratic convention hasn’t been properly fixed since 1968. Is Joe happy to be told what to do? Has he ever operated an independent agenda? A Michelle Obama replacement would suggest he’s always been Barack’s third term, a conspiracy theory endorsed by Barack Obama in a 2021 interview. He said: “Joe and the administration are essentially finishing the job” begun by Obama and paused by Trump, noting that “ninety per cent of the folks” who worked for him are now back at their desks. This was an exaggeration, but not by much. The figure of Obama people working for Biden, among his top 100 aides, was closer to 75 per cent. The Biden presidency has its own character; he’s spent more money and pushed the cultural issues harder. Obama was more cautious for fear of being labelled a radical. Nevertheless, journalists often joke that Obama is running the country from his iPhone, and a recent, much-read interview between reporter David Samuels and historian David Garrow highlighted a curious detail: Obama still lives in central Washington DC, violating the historical agreement that ex-presidents should move away. Samuels notes that Obama has openly lobbied on internet censorship and gun control, and suggests that he lingered in DC society to serve as a potent symbol of the legitimate political order that had been stolen by Trump (never forget how many liberals said 2016 was a fix). The interview is most famous for Garrow’s claims that, as a young man, Obama fantasised about gay sex, but more pertinent is the suggestion that Obama is the guiding hand in Biden-era foreign policy. “It’s turtles all the way down,” argues Samuels. “There are obviously large parts of White House policymaking that belong to Barack Obama because they are staffed by his people, who worked for him and no doubt report back to him.” He concludes: “personnel is policy,” adding that the arrangement is “spooky” because it operates “outside the constitutional framework.” So, a court coup to replace Biden with the next Obama available, far from being revolutionary, would reinforce the line of political continuity that stretches from 2008-2024, with only Trump’s election as a temporary aberration (Michelle has revealed that his amusing inauguration caused her to “sob uncontrollably”). Mrs Obama has always polled well. She has published two best-selling books of biography and womanly wisdom. She has served in the White House. She is known by everyone but, unlike Trump, has retained some of the enigma of privacy. She has denied that she has any intention of running for the presidency, but that’s usually a sure-fire sign that someone is interested. As for the suggestion that her overnight nomination would be too fantastical, too Hollywood - has our sense of the “possible” not been radically expanded by Donald Trump? Mrs Obama’s opponent would be spending much of the election cycle in court. There is no “normal” anymore in US politics.	US Federal Elections
Donald Trump went over the edge over the weekend and began calling for his detractors to be prosecuted or even put to death. “They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its ‘Country Threatening Treason,’” he wrote on Truth Social Sunday night. “I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States … the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events,” he said. “They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!” Trump has never been a fan of news outlets that give him the slightest bit of negative or unbiased coverage. He even turned on his once-favorite Fox News after the network confirmed Arizona voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 election. But the fact that he is threatening to censor news outlets through federal regulatory powers is terrifying, not to mention a huge violation of the Constitution. Trump’s threat to the news media was actually his second attempt to menace detractors this past weekend alone. On Friday, he slammed Mark Milley, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggesting that perhaps he also committed treason. “This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States,” Trump said on Truth Social. “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!” Trump was referring to two phone calls Milley made to Beijing, one during Trump’s last months in office and the second in the aftermath of the January 6 riot. The calls, which were to assure China that Trump was not planning to attack the country, were done at the direction of other Trump administration officials. Trump, of course, appointed Milley to his role in 2018—but since then has repeatedly lashed out at the general. His Friday comments came after The Atlantic published a profile of Milley that described how he “protected the Constitution from Donald Trump.” It should go without saying, but Trump making comments like this is incredibly dangerous. His followers have shown themselves quick to spring to action. Hundreds of January 6 defendants have said they descended on Washington because Trump personally called on them. Republican lawmakers too quickly follow the former president’s commands. Another Trump supporter, Arizona Representative Paul Gosar, has also called for Milley to face death. In his newsletter Sunday, Gosar baselessly claimed that Milley and then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had worked to delay the National Guard’s response to the January 6 riot, to make Trump look bad. “In a better society … General Milley would be hung,” Gosar wrote. “How this traitor remains in office is a question we need answered.” (If it’s any consolation for Gosar, Milley retires on October 1.) Gosar has shown himself remarkably willing to take up Trump’s call, even on the most extreme behavior. In December, Gosar posted on X, then called Twitter, backing Trump’s call to terminate the U.S. Constitution and overturn the 2020 election. He deleted the post an hour later, after it sparked backlash.	US Political Corruption
The US Treasury said on Thursday that it had began taking measures to prevent a default on government debt as the country hits its borrowing limit. Congress is gridlocked over raising this debt ceiling; the issue has been a fairly frequent feature of US politics in recent years. "I respectfully urge Congress to act promptly to protect the full faith and credit of the United States," Yellen wrote in a letter to Congressional leadership, in announcing the start of "extraordinary measures" to prevent at least a technical debt default. The Treasury has warned Congress that the tools it's employing to put a stop to new borrowing will only help for a limited time — likely not longer than six months. In Yellen's letter on Thursday, she cited June 5, as the likely cutoff date at present. How large is the US's sovereign debt burden? The debt limit is currently set at $31.4 trillion (roughly €29,000,000,000,000), more than the country's annual GDP, which stood in the region of $23 trillion in 2021, the last full year with available data. Like most national governments around the world, US borrowing levels rose substantially during the COVID pandemic — and also in the decade following the 2008 financial crisis. At the end of 2019, US debt had stood at roughly $23 trillion. At the end of 2007, it was around $9 trillion. By comparison, Germany's national debt of roughly 2.5 trillion euros is a little less than annual GDP, but it too has been rising rapidly as a share of GDP in the last couple of years. More to follow... msh/rt (AFP, Reuters)	US Federal Policies
MIAMI -- Former President Donald Trump is set to speak to some of his supporters near Mar-a-Lago Wednesday as he continues to dominate the Republican primary race for the White House despite four criminal cases against him. Trump is appearing Wednesday at a convention center in West Palm Beach, Florida, with U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a congressional ally who, with other hard-right conservatives, engineered the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. The unprecedented action has kept Congress partly shuttered. Trump has used the power vacuum to underline his lingering influence over the Republican Party. He has backed Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan to replace McCarthy. Jordan formed a close alliance with the former president, particularly during the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which Trump lost to President Joe Biden. Two of the cases against Trump, in Washington and Georgia, are over his efforts to overturn the results. Trump has continued to travel to early primary states and has been spending much of his time focused on the four criminal indictments and several civil cases he is facing. He has put pressure on his Republican challengers to drop out of the 2024 primary race to help him defeat Biden. On Tuesday, he criticized GOP candidates for meeting with donors in an event hosted by Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, who unsuccessfully challenged then-President Barack Obama in 2012 as the Republican presidential nominee, and Paul Ryan, a former congressman who was the House speaker between 2015 and 2019. “These failed candidates should have started by campaigning effectively, which they didn’t because they don’t have the skill or the talent,” Trump said on his Truth Social site. Among those 10 Republicans challenging him are Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, once a strong ally; Mike Pence, his former vice president; and Nikki Haley, who served as United Nations ambassador under Trump.	US Federal Elections
In his first appearance since being ousted from the House speakership, Rep. Kevin McCarthy told reporters Tuesday night that hardline Republicans led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., "are not conservatives." "They voted against one the greatest cut in history that Congress has ever voted for 2 trillion, they voted against work requirements, they voted against NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) reform. They voted against border security — they don't get to say they're conservative because they're angry and they're chaotic," McCarthy said. His comments come just hours after Gaetz introduced a motion to vacate McCarthy — and succeeded — with the help of hardliners in his own party and 208 House Democrat votes. McCarthy said he would not seek to be re-elected as speaker. Hardline conservatives and Democrats voted in sync to seal the deal on Tuesday, as the vote to vacate commenced after an hour of passionate debate with McCarthy's supporters and dissenters. Gaetz introduced a motion to vacate on Monday night, accusing him of breaking the promises he made to win the speaker's gavel in January. Meanwhile, Democrats condemned his "lack of interest in bipartisanship" and Republicans jabbing his failure to pass a government spending patch with additional border security provisions and not enough budget cuts. "I made a decision as speaker to keep the government open and I put something on the floor," McCarthy said. McCarthy angered hardliners over the weekend when he passed a short-term spending bill known as a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government open for 45 days, in order to avert a government shutdown and give lawmakers more time to cobble together 12 individual spending bills. Democrats signaled early on Tuesday that they were not inclined to help McCarthy. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said before the vote: "Democrats are ready to find bipartisan common ground. Our extreme colleagues have shown no willingness to do the same. They must find a way to end the House Republican Civil War." In January, it took 15 rounds of voting until McCarthy was elected. Fox News' Liz Elkind contributed to this report.	US Congress
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday hit back at the Florida backbencher who engineered his ousting just hours before, telling reporters at a press conference that the unprecedented vote to remove him from his leadership post was called for as part of a personal grudge. Mr McCarthy, a California Republican, was stripped of his office as the highest-ranking member of the GOP in the US government after eight of his own party joined with 208 Democrats in a parliamentary manoeuvre that hadn’t been tried in over a century, known as a motion to vacate the chair. The eight insurgents, led by Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, claimed that Mr McCarthy was untrustworthy because he allowed the House to avert a government shutdown on Saturday by approving legislation to keep the government running for the next 45 days. But Mr McCarthy said Mr Gaetz was lying about his motivations when he addressed reporters late on Tuesday. “You know it was personal. It had nothing to do about spending,” he said. He pointed out that Mr Gaetz was fundraising off of his move, calling the decision “not governing” and “not becoming of a member of Congress”. He added that the Floridian’s animus towards him stemmed from the existence of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee into allegations that he consumed illegal drugs and sex trafficked an underage girl. “Regardless of what you think ... it was all about his ethics,” he said. The former Speaker, who will remain in the House but will not seek to reclaim his former post, said he does not regret allowing the stopgap funding bill which passed the House on Saturday to do so with Democratic votes. “Doing the right thing isn’t always easy, but it is necessary ... I don’t regret standing up for choosing governance over grievance ... I do not regret negotiating for government is designed to find compromise, I don’t regret my efforts to build coalitions and find solutions. I was raised to solve problems, not create them,” he said. “So I may have lost the vote today, but as I walk out of this chamber, I feel fortunate to have served the American people”.	US Congress
This content comes from the latest installment of our weekly Breaking the Vote newsletter out of VICE News’ D.C. bureau, tracking the ongoing efforts to undermine the democratic process in America. Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Friday. The real stakes of impeachment Republicans are going to impeach Joe Biden, no matter what the facts show, because Donald Trump wants them to. He wants revenge, and he wants the equivalency of not being the only guy in the 2024 race to be impeached. That part is simple. The other part is simple, too. Trump may very well be a convicted felon on Election Day 2024, possibly for crimes stemming directly from his effort to overturn the last election he ran in. Between now and then, the public will see a deluge of under-oath court testimony showing that the likely GOP nominee is a criminal. The value of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s impeachment inquiry isn’t smoking-gun evidence, or even a vote. It’s the months of headlines and credulous “politics as combat” coverage it will generate that will replace the idea “Trump’s corrupt” with “well, ok, but both guys are corrupts” in voters’ minds. I have more to say about how that dynamic works (cough Benghazi!) if you care to read it. But the quest to justify and erase Trump’s anti-democratic assault through impeachment wasn’t even the most important news of the week. Because one famous GOP senator outlined the stakes. Mitt Romney is retiring from the Senate, and has been spending a lot of time with journalist McKay Coppins in the run-up to the announcement. Coppins has a book on Romney, one of the last principled holdouts of the pre-MAGA GOP, coming out soon. But if you haven’t read the excerpt timed for Romney’s announcement, you should. In addition to Romney’s strange eating habits and utter disappointment with his colleagues, there was news (not that many, many Republicans detest Trump privately but are afraid to say so. That’s not news). Coppins viewed texts from Romney to Mitch McConnell four days before Jan 6, in which Romney warned the leader of right-wing chatter threatening both men, and especially of Romney’s concern that Trump could use his power to encourage them. This was before Jan. 6. McConnell never responded. It’s hard to decide what’s more shocking here: That lawmakers had such detailed advance concerns about Jan. 6 that law enforcement dismissed, or that sitting GOP senators openly discussed the risk of the President of the United States using the security apparatus to harm them. These days, Romney, one of just seven Republicans to vote to convict Trump for Jan. 6, is attacked regularly by Trump. That translates to a particularly hostile and dangerous environment when he travels and speaks. Coppins reports that the man who a just decade ago was his party’s nominee for president, is now in enough danger that he pays $5,000 a day for protection from his own party’s voters. Romney also relates conversations with multiple House and Senate Republicans who told him they wanted to vote to impeach Trump but didn’t out of fear for their own safety and the safety of their families. Let that, as they say, sink in. Again, read the piece. It should put Kevin McCarthy’s impeachment inquiry gambit into clear light. McCarthy is launching impeachment specifically to obscure Trump’s attack on democracy, and possibly his felony convictions for it. He’s doing it to slide past voters the horror of Jan. 6, the same horror that compelled him to condemn Trump—just days before supplicating to him. MAGA Republicans are making clear that a GOP in which dissenters literally fear for their lives—and vote accordingly—is now the only game in town. McCarthy will make impeachment happen, hide the leader’s crimes and help him back into power, or risk becoming one of the dissenters himself. After reading the Romney story I thought of one of the quirky biographical tales McCarthy likes to tell. Once, as a young man, he won $5000 in a lottery jackpot. That’s a lot of cash, and back then he used it as seed money to open a deli. It’s ironic that today that $5,000 would pay for exactly 24 hours of the protection McCarthy will need if he crosses Donald Trump. Don’t forget to sign your friends up for Breaking the Vote! When you’re facing 91 felonies, in four criminal cases, with a total of 20 co-defendants, there are a lot of pre-trial motions. There are wayyy too many to keep track of here, so here are the highlights from Trump’s crime universe (BTW, check out that link for a really weird and fun VICE piece Greg Walters, Madeleine May, and I made back in the innocent days before Trump was charged). Fulton County Severmore - Trump and the 17 Fulton County co-defendants won’t be going to court with Ken Chesebro and Sidney Powell. Judge Scott McAfee ordered the two RICO-accused lawyers’ cases severed from the rest of the alleged co-conspirators. That means there won’t be the one big, giant, 19-defendant trial DA Fani Willis said she wanted. It’s not a surprise. McAfee made clear in recent weeks a unified trial under Ken (his job is just…elector) and Sid’s speedy trial request wasn’t going to happen. Keep it moving - But speaking of Chesebro and Powell, Judge McAfee also confirmed yesterday that he intends to start jury selection on Oct. 23, with a trial to start Nov. 5. Speedy trial indeed. Both of them made motions to dismiss their charges, Chesebro because he’s a lawyer and Powell because local officials said the hacking of Coffee County voting machines was okay. Good luck with that. On second thought - Mark Meadows withdrew his request to stop his prosecution while the 11th Circuit considers his appeal on federal removal. Meadows wants to remove his case to federal court, but he lost, resoundingly, in federal court. Now that decision is in expedited review at the appellate level, so stay tuned. But since his case is severed from Powell and Chesebro, the emergency stay stuff is unnecessary. Federal coup case Donald Trump is trying to get Judge Tanya Chutkan kicked off his four-count federal case. Thing is, the only person who can remove Chutkan right now is… Chutkan. Trump’s lawyers are pointing to statements Chutkan made while sentencing other Jan. 6 defendants as evidence of her incurable bias against him. In one case, Chutkan said rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man—not to the Constitution” and that the rioters had “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” According to Trump’s lawyers, that’s evidence Chutkan thinks Trump should not be free. Recusals are rare, Trump can appeal, and Judge Chutkan’s ruling is expected soon. Stormy’s hush money Merchan to his own drum - Trump’s 34-count trial for lying about hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels looks like it’s going to move. That’s not a huge surprise, since Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg signaled over the summer he’d be open to moving the March 25, 2024 trial date to accommodate the defendant’s very busy criminal dance card. Now Judge Juan Merchan, who’s presiding, put off a scheduling meeting this week citing Trump’s crowded trial schedule and all its moving parts. Mar-a-Lago We finally have a protective order governing how all the classified information in the case will be handled. The big point: Trump appears to have lost his dream to review classified evidence in the luxurious confines of Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster. Trump made a request over the summer to build a classified document review facility, called a SCIF, at Mar-a-Lago, just like he had as president. The big problem now is that Mar-a-Lago is the scene of the alleged crime, the crime being mishandling classified docs. Add onto that obstruction (moving boxes so feds can’t find them), and then obstruction of that obstruction (destroying surveillance footage so feds can’t see the box-moving). Co-defendant Walt Nauta, the valet, also won’t have access to classified information except in very limited circumstances, since he’s not charged with mishandling them. Fail seizure! Now we know why an 11th Circuit panel barred Jack Smith’s investigators from accessing much of the information on coup insider Scott Perry’s seized phone. Because he’s a congressman, Perry’s communications about the 2020 election, and presumably Trump’s effort to overturn it, are protected by the Constitution's “speech or debate” clause. The three appellate judges ruled that any communications Perry made on his phone, especially while talking with other members of Congress and staff about the Jan. 6 electoral certification, is likely protected. US District Judge Beryl Howell, who originally ruled the phone in-bounds for investigators, will have to approve individual communications from Perry’s phone on a case-by-case basis. That’s a victory for Perry, who is identified in the Jan. 6 report as a central congressional figure in the coup plot. Perry may be immune from many searches and some prosecution, but he certainly didn’t think at the time that everything he was doing was legally pure. Jack’s back Perry might be especially grateful that many of his texts and phone records are out of bounds, given that the grand jury that indicted Trump and described six co-conspirators is back in business. The secret gang got back together last week after a four-week break, and is reportedly following the money. They’re digging into how of the cash raised with a “stolen election” pitch was used to fund voting machine breaches in several locations. You’ve heard of Coffee County, where a voting machine breach is now part of the Georgia RICO indictment. But don’t forget that defendants have been charged with similar breaches in Michigan, and, of course our favorite, Mesa County, Colo. Rioters’ guilt of America The man who smashed the window Ashlee Babbitt climbed through before she was shot and killed was convicted this week. Zachary Alam, of Virginia, was found guilty of 11 charges, including 8 felonies related to the Jan. 6 insurrection. Alam smashed a window to the Speaker’s Lobby just feet from the House floor, where staff and lawmakers were holed up during the riot. He was found guilty of assaulting police officers, obstructing an official proceeding, and other charges. Meanwhile, Joseph Padilla, of Tennessee, was sentenced to six-and-a-half years for his role in the riot. Padilla was seen on camera assaulting police officers and boasting about his exploits. Prosecutors say Padilla spent more than three hours on the West Front of the Capitol, rushing barricades and, at one point, throwing a flag pole that struck an officer in the helmet. Never gonna give you up Alabama Republicans are not letting go of their dream of diluting Black voting power, no matter what that court order says. For weeks we’ve been following the Alabama GOP’s defiant refusal to obey the 11th Circuit, and SCOTUS, and change its gerrymandered congressional map to increase Black representation. Yup, as predicted, they’re headed back to SCOTUS, asking justices if they’re sure they don’t want to gut what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. Stay tuned. Peter pall Convicted Trump aide and TV coup describer Peter Navarro is trying to get a mistrial. Soon after his guilty verdicts for ignoring two January 6 committee subpoenas, Navarro’s lawyers were back in court arguing that jurors were tainted by seeing protesters outside the courthouse. Jurors took a “fresh-air” break during deliberations while protesters were in the vicinity. They returned the guilty verdicts a short time later, and Navarro’s lawyers say the experience biased the panel against ol’ Pete. Hearing will be in a couple weeks. Games, Madison Hey, why should House Republicans get to impeach all the democratically-elected officials they wish they’d beaten? Wisconsin Senate GOP leader Robin Vos is now shifting his party’s Supreme court impeachment fervor to a panel of former justices. You’ll recall Republicans have been threatening to impeach newly-elected liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz if she tries to rule on the state’s heavily GOP-gerrymandered maps. Last week Vos tried to circumvent the new liberal-majority court by offering a bill to have nonpartisan state staffers draw new maps. The Dem governor rejected that plan, so now Vos is “exploring” impeachment, kind of like how Kevin McCarthy is “inquiring” about it in Washington. Everyone’s “just asking questions!” Democracy in Wisconsin is a multi-front war. Also this week, Vos and other Republicans voted to replace Megan Wolfe, the nonpartisan head of the Wisconsin Election Commission. They want to replace her ahead of the 2024 election with their own pick. Wolfe promptly sued. Oregon trial Fox News has two new litigants lining up to sue the network for airing relentless lies about the 2020 election. New York City’s pension funds and the State of Oregon joined up in an east-meets-west lawsuit saying Fox’s “Big Lie” programming amounted to a fiduciary breach that destroyed shareholder value. Fox paid $787 million to settle a suit by Dominion Voting Systems, and another suit from Smartmatic is still pending. Basta, Shasta Back in April, VICE News went to Shasta County, Calif., where MAGA believers on the county board had just voted to outlaw Dominion voting machines and go to a full hand count for more than 110,000 registered voters. That’s a terrible, worst-practice policy based on false theories about voting machines… so California just banned it. A bill passed this week bans hand-counts in any election with more than 1,000 voters, or any special election with more than 5,000 voters. The county was planning to hand-count its local elections in November, but that plan is done as soon as the governor signs the bill. LOL, Christian soldier Good one, Mike Pence. “A very large portion of my party really doesn’t believe in the Constitution.” — Sen. Mitt Romney, who announced he’s retiring from the Senate this week. Mad sick Mike — One America News Network (OANN) and one of its top personalities settled out of court with a former executive from Dominion Voting Systems earlier this month, after the executive sued them for defamation… for all the reasons you already know. Eric Coomer also sued Mike Lindell, who was so “vulgar, threatening (and) loud” in his deposition that plaintiff’s lawyers asked to do his deposition over, this time in front of the judge. At one point, Lindell thought attorneys insulted MyPillow, which was also sued. "When you say lumpy pillows, now you’re an asshole. You got that? You’re an asshole." Givin’ em the what-fourteen — A little more than a week after one group sued under the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado, another has sued in Minnesota. Last year when this whole 14th Amendment thing was just getting off the ground, I spoke last year with Ron Fein, counsel for Free Speech for People, the group that’s suing in Minnesota. The Secretary of State there isn’t keen on the idea that his office can make the call on Trump’s eligibility. And he’s not alone. Most state officials seem to want to stay out of it, since the question is definitely going to the Supreme Court anyway. Russia to his defense — Vladmir Putin absolutely does not like how Donald Trump is being treated. FROM TPM FROM PRESS WATCH	US Political Corruption
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., is facing a complaint alleging an "ongoing failure" to "fully complete" financial disclosure reports as required by lawmakers, according to a letter provided to Fox News Digital. The American Accountability Foundation (AAF) sent the document to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics Monday, calling for an investigation into Sinema's alleged failure to disclose assets, income, and other required items related to Dr. Lindsay Buckman, whom Sinema treated as a spouse for officially related travel in the past and who the group says she still lives with. "The American people deserve to know that their elected officials are making decisions based on what benefits the American people, and not based on what benefits them financially," AAF president Tom Jones told Fox News Digital. "Yet Sen. Sinema's failure to disclose the nature of this relationship makes it impossible for the American people to have confidence in her motives." "Sen. Sinema has a moral and legal obligation to fully disclose the details of her finances," Jones said. "The fact that she hasn't done so is highly suspicious and troubling." GOP, DEMS TEAM UP TO RIP 'DELUSIONAL' SINEMA OVER 'PLAN' TO SWIPE THEIR VOTERS IN INDEPENDENT REELECTION BID AFF's complaint revolves around Buckman, who the group says Sinema reported on a 2013 trip to Israel by appearing to have "petitioned the [House Committee on Ethics] to allow Dr. Buckman to travel with her because Representative Sinema believed Dr. Buckman was a spouse in all but title." "While Senator Sinema appears to believe Dr. Buckman is just like a spouse for the purpose of $7737.15 junkets to Israel funded by outside groups, she does not seem to believe that the spousal designation applies for the purposes of financial disclosures," the complaint states. AAF complaint by JoeSchoffstall "The spousal disclosures on financial disclosure forms are required to disclose and prevent conflicts of interest," the group writes. "The Ethics in Government Act has always understood that conflicts related to holdings of a spouse should be imputed to the spouse who is a Member." AAF notes Sinema's financial disclosures "includes barely any assets, despite her having held a Congressional salary of $174,000 for over a decade" and called for the committee to open an investigation into the matter. VETERAN AIR FORCE PILOT SEEKING TO OUST VULNERABLE DEM SENATOR SAYS NATION MUST ABANDON 'WRONG LEADERS' "Further, Senator Sinema's disclosure has been so sparse as to strain credibility, failing to list items such as checking accounts or a mortgage," the letter says. "When coupled with her persistent effort to hide what she regards as marital assets, investigation by the Ethics Committee of Senator Sinema's filings is required." National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Tate Mitchell echoed AFF's concerns, saying her failure to disclose assets raises concerns. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP "Kyrsten Sinema's failure to disclose her assets and potential conflicts of interest raises serious ethical questions as she flirts with asking Arizonans for their vote again," Mitchell said. "Arizonans deserve to have an honest broker serving them in the Senate, not another shady D.C. politician." Sinema's office did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the complaint.	US Political Corruption
One House Democrat said he has some names of Republican members he'd support for House speaker over the current nominee. Fox News Digital staked out the House Democrats' conference meeting Tuesday morning and asked blue members going in if they think there is still a bipartisan speaker coalition on the table after Republicans nominated Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio. Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News Digital that he thinks "if this doesn't work with Jim Jordan, yes," he sees a potential bipartisan coalition for speaker and talked up House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. "I mean, we certainly promote and favor a bipartisan solution to this," Raskin said. "You know, I think that Hakeem Jeffries would be somebody who Republicans can work with. He's, he's true to his word. He's super well organized. He's legislatively prolific." "So, you know, that's our solution. But if they find it indigestible to vote for a Democrat, there are lots of Republicans that I, speaking for myself, could support," Raskin said. "I would think that Liz Cheney would be the natural compromise candidate. She was the chair of the Republican Conference, the number three person in their hierarchy." "And if they couldn't vote for Liz Cheney, that would be a hell of a statement about the condition of their party," Raskin said. Cheney left office in 2021 and served as the House Republican Conference chairwoman at the time of her departure. Fox News Digital pressed Raskin on if he has any other names in mind for a Republican candidate he could get behind. Raskin said "there are several of them" he could see himself getting behind but that he "wouldn't want to spoil any of their chances by stating their names publicly." The Maryland Democrat also said it "seems like any bipartisanship on the part of Republicans becomes a disqualifying factor" in their deliberations for speaker. "So I'm hoping that cooler heads will prevail, but it would be a very extreme statement for them to choose Jim Jordan as speaker," Raskin said. Fellow Democrat Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said it is possible for a bipartisan coalition but railed against Jordan. McGovern said he believes that the GOP "kind of hit rock bottom" by nominating Jordan and quipped that "Halloween is coming early." The Massachusetts Democrat also said "there's not a dime's worth of difference between Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, and Jim Jordan in terms of policy" is a "different waiter" with the "same menu." "But the bottom line is Jim Jordan I think, you know, he's stood for things more openly that quite frankly, were offensive," McGovern said. "I was the last person on the floor on January 6, and the idea that this guy is a Republican nominee to be speaker, a guy who aggressively agitated the activities that happened on January 6, I think is disgusting." California Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu told Fox News Digital "there is always an opportunity" for a bipartisan coalition while his fellow Golden State Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman did not answer the question, just saying it is "a sunny day." Meanwhile, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., as well as Democrat Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib did not answer Fox News Digital's questions on a potential bipartisan coalition. D.C. saw a cloudy Tuesday ahead of the speaker's vote that Republicans hope to see ascend Jordan to the gavel. Jordan has been making calls for days to shore up support for his gavel bid from members of his conference. The House Judiciary Committee chairman was selected by the GOP conference on Friday as their speaker nominee.	US Congress
Trump claims Sidney Powell was ‘never’ his attorney following lawyer’s Georgia plea deal Former President Trump claimed Sunday that Sidney Powell was “never” his attorney, just days after Powell took a plea deal in the Georgia election interference case. “Despite the Fake News reports to the contrary, and without even reaching out to ask the Trump Campaign, MS. POWELL WAS NOT MY ATTORNEY, AND NEVER WAS. In fact, she would have been conflicted,” the former president said in a Truth Social post. Trump reiterated false claims that he won the 2020 presidential election and said that while Powell was not his attorney, she was “one of millions and millions of people who thought, and in ever increasing numbers still” think so, as well. The former president praised Powell, though, for her representation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in 2019 following special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into the 2016 presidential election. “Ms. Powell did a valiant job of representing a very unfairly treated and governmentally abused General Mike Flynn, but to no avail,” Trump continued. “His prosecution, despite the facts, was ruthless.” Trump’s remarks come days after Powell, once a lawyer for Trump’s campaign, pled guilty to six misdemeanor counts in the Georgia 2020 election interference case last week after reaching a plea deal with prosecutors. Prosecutors sentenced Powell to six months probation, a $6,000 fine and $2,700 restitution, and she is also required to submit an apology letter to Georgia residents. Powell, 68, became the second defendant in the the Georgia election interference case to plead guilty. Scott Hall, a bail bondsman, pled guilty last month to five counts of the same charge Powell did. Trump, who is the current front-runner in the GOP 2024 presidential field, and the 16 other co-defendants in the case have denied any wrongdoing. Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.	US Political Corruption
The Justice Department charged an Internal Revenue Service consultant on Friday with stealing the tax returns of former President Donald Trump and thousands of the most wealthy Americans and leaking the information to the media. Charles Littlejohn, a 38-year old from Washington, D.C., faces one felony criminal count for the unauthorized disclosure of tax returns and return information. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. DOJ didn't specify Trump by name in its charging documents, instead referring only to a "high-ranking government official" listed as "Public Official A." But the description of the case matches news reports from September of 2020 that disclosed Trump's tax returns from the years of 2016 and 2017, according to the Wall Street Journal. A source familiar with the case also confirmed to CNN that the documents Littlejohn leaked were Trump's tax returns. The Wall Street Journal also connected Friday's charges to ProPublica reports from 2021 about the leak of tax records for wealthy Americans. According to the Journal, Littlejohn and his lawyer, Lisa Manning, declined to comment on the charges. - IRS Goes Paperless for All Tax Returns by 2025, Speeding Up Refunds - IRS Steps Up Search for Tax Cheats in Construction - The IRS Is Hunting Millionaire Tax Cheats: Here’s Who Is Most at Risk - IRS Whistleblowers to Testify On Hunter Biden Criminal Tax Probe - IRS Suspends Pandemic Tax Credit for Businesses Amid Fraud and ‘Tsunami’ of Questionable Claims - Trump Rips Democrats, Says Their Approach to Him is ‘Let’s Indict the Motherf—-r’Politics - Back to the Drawing Board for Speaker McCarthy and GOP as Clock Races to Government ShutdownNews - In a Government Shutdown, Here’s What Happens When Soldiers Miss a PaycheckPolitics - Final Three Trump Georgia Co-Defendants Lose Bids to Move Cases to Federal CourtPolitics - Trump’s DC Case Judge Schedules Oct. 16 Hearing on Jack Smith’s ‘Narrow’ Gag Order RequestPolitics - Trump Plans to Attend First Week of New York Civil Fraud Trial ‘in Person,’ Court Docs SayPolitics - RFK Jr. Could Be Planning an Independent RunPolitics - Senate Democrats Dealt ‘A Bad Week’: Indictment and Death Amid Looming ShutdownPolitics - Grounded Rockets, Discarded Experiments: How a Government Shutdown Impacts ScienceTech - White House Suggests McCarthy May Put His Paycheck ‘In A Sock Drawer’ During A ShutdownPolitics - Trump Rips Haley Following Second Debate: ‘No Loyalty’Politics - McCarthy Critics Focus On Spending First, Whether To Oust House Speaker SecondPolitics	US Political Corruption
With the world on fire, a cowardly, timid news media is a threat to U.S. democracy News organizations are using cowardly words to describe killing abroad, fascism at home — downplaying the danger to democracy. There was a shocking and incredibly important story on the front page of the New York Times last week. As reported by an A-team of journalists including two Pulitzer Prize winners, the Times warned its readers that Donald Trump — if returned to the White House in 2025 — is grooming a new team of extremist government lawyers who would be more loyal to their Dear Leader than to the rule of law, and could help Trump install a brand of American fascism. You say you didn’t hear anything about this? That’s not surprising. The editors at the Times made sure to present this major report in the blandest, most inoffensive way possible — staying true to the mantra in the nation’s most influential newsroom that the 2024 election shouldn’t be covered any differently, even when U.S. democracy is on the line. “Trump Allies Want a New Style of Lawyer if He Returns to Power,” was the original online headline for the piece, as if maybe they were talking about colorful drawling Southerners with seersucker suits, rather than rabid-dog ideologues who would do the dirty work of overturning an election that career government attorneys refused to do before Jan. 6, 2021. That “new style of lawyer” — pro-Trump, “America First” zealots who think the ultraconversative lawyers bred in the Federalist Society are too soft to carry out their leader’s autocratic call for a “final battle” against traditional democratic governance that he calls “the deep state” — was described, numbingly, by the Times as “more aggressive legal gatekeepers.” Their dangerous antidemocratic mission was blandly outlined as a plan to “take control of the government in a way unseen in presidential history.” I’m picking on this one article in the Times, and its timid, inoffensive packaging, not because it is unique, but because it is far too typical right now. In one of the most perilous moments of crisis the world has seen in 75 years, and with the basic notions of free speech under assault, most newsrooms aren’t fighting back. They are, instead, pulling their punches in a defensive, “rope-a-dope” crouch, and thus failing to truly inform — when democracy itself is at risk. Right now, Ground Zero is the horrific conflict in the Middle East, where bombing by Israel in response to a violent Hamas terror attack on Oct. 7 is killing thousands of children, yet too many newsrooms adopt a passive voice to describe the bloodshed or who is to blame for attacks. It can be hard at times to distinguish what is real — “Explosion at Gaza refugee camp leaves massive crater,” was the BBC headline for an Israeli bombing that killed or wounded scores of civilians — and what is satire. The Onion’s take — “The Onion Stands With Israel Because It Seems Like You Get In Less Trouble That Way” — felt more honest and heartful than many serious-news headlines. What worries me even more, frankly, is how the push not to offend with Middle East news coverage is emblematic of a bigger trend of newsroom timidity and even rank cowardice that also permeates domestic news coverage, at a moment when right-wing extremists are controlling the U.S. House and are on track to regain the White House and full governmental control in a chaotic election year. The mainstream, elite media seems especially flummoxed by the new Republican House Speaker, Mike Johnson of Louisiana. Johnson was an obscure back-bencher on Capitol Hill and remains a man of mystery with no apparent bank account or tangible assets. But the extremism of his Christian nationalist views — more radical than anything seen in American history — are no secret. Johnson believes that our country should be ruled by his own brand of religious fundamentalism which posits that the Earth is only 6,000 years old but inspires hateful policies toward the LGBTQ community and fringe opposition to women’s abortion rights. That danger isn’t conveyed in business-as-usual fluff pieces like the Washington Post’s “House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Louisiana hometown guided by faith and family” article in which neighbors hailed the softer side of a man who was at the center of schemes to block the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election. Another Post piece questioned whether Democrats could truly make a political boogeyman out of Johnson given “his low profile and quiet tone” — as if Christo-fascism isn’t so bad when delivered in a gentle drawl, from behind oversized dad glasses. This deference to authority is already bleeding into serious policy coverage. Far too many news outlets uncritically repeated Johnson’s first major pronouncement — that $14 billion for Israel could be paid for by cutting the number of IRS agents (who audit the GOP’s millionaire donors), when even a third-grade math student would know that reducing revenue agents would cost the government money. Getting it right isn’t only important because Johnson is now the most powerful Republican in Washington, but also because he’s a kind of a John-the-Baptist prophecy of an even more dangerous Trump 47 in 14-plus months. It’s weird because Trump is arguably the most media-covered figure in American history — even now, there’s an entire TV network built around covering his legal woes, in MSNBC — and yet there’s not nearly enough coverage of the stakes of his proposed second term. This includes an assault on democratic institutions and agencies in the guise of “dismantling the deep state,” a focus on political revenge that would include pardoning Jan. 6 insurrectionists while his Justice Department pursued political rivals, and brutal policies toward the marginalized such as refugees or the urban homeless. The world is staring into an abyss, much as it did in the 1930s. Now, as then, the global rise of right-wing authoritarians like Vladimir Putin in Russia and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel is linked to aggressive militarism that targets civilians and risks a world war. Here at home, the growing sense of chaos abroad and a broken government on Capitol Hill, with Republican Johnson poised to make matters worse, has imperiled the flawed small-d democratic government of President Joe Biden and has primed too many voters to fall into the waiting arms of a wannabe dictator. Yet the news rarely reflects the reality, or this risk. Why is that? It’s not that there aren’t a lot of remarkable individual journalists out there doing some remarkable and at times courageous work, exposing the rot in Capitol Hill or risking their lives to bring news from Israel and Gaza, where at least 36 reporters or photojournalists have paid with their lives. But the institutional caution that frames their work has been getting a lot worse. Some of it is probably business-driven — to avoid offending readers who might cancel a subscription. A lot of it seems a desire in newsrooms, after Trump’s whirlwind, lie-filled first term, to return to normalcy and the kind of balance that treats the two parties equally, which means ignoring that one has become an authoritarian cult. The now-retired Washington Post editor Marty Baron famously said during the Trump era that journalists are “not at war ... we’re at work” — which merely conceded the battlefield to the bellicose forces adopting Trump’s rallying cry that reporters are “the enemy of the people.” Growing threats to press freedom in America have metastasized in the weeks since Oct. 7, with pressure not to make any controversial comments about Israel or Palestine causing some editors and reporters to get fired or resign, which has a chilling effect on others. And my bigger fear is that this growing climate of fear is bleeding into coverage of the 2024 election and the threat to democracy. Losing the war for a free press has dire consequences that we’re already seeing. Is there any doubt that nonstop media bashing from Trump and others set the stages for the recent assaults in Kansas and Alabama, where runaway prosecutors or police have raided newsrooms or arrested journalists? And why is there not more of an uproar from the American media community about the war-crime killing of those 36 journalists in and around Gaza — almost all of them by Israel? Maybe it’s the timidity that caused NPR to write that journalists are being killed “in the war between Israel and Hamas” — dodging the fact that one side, Israel, has killed more than 90%. Yet as bad as things are for the media today, things will get worse in less than two years if journalists — as individuals, as newsrooms, and as a profession — can’t stop cowering and won’t adopt a much more aggressive posture in defending democracy, the only political system that makes a functioning news media possible. Some of it is basic stuff — more boldness in calling out a blatant lie, like Johnson’s IRS claim, or making it clear when someone is to blame, like Israel’s killing of journalists. Political reporting is useless unless it focuses a lot less on the campaign horse race and a lot more on the consequences of victory — “not the odds but the stakes,” as my friend the NYU journalism prof Jay Rosen says — by those who believe a “Red Caesar” dictatorship is needed to purge America of liberalism. I’m terrified that many angry, apathetic or ill-informed voters will wake up on Jan. 21, 2025, in a country they no longer recognize — and didn’t see coming. Others are proposing new ways of doing things. Mark Jacob, the former Chicago Tribune journalist who’s become a leading media critic, has proposed a more radical version of fact-checking that he calls “fact-crusading,” which would not just report out lies by leading political figures but challenge them and seek accountability. Meanwhile, traditional outlets like the Washington Post are promising to expand their 2024 coverage of the threats to democracy. I think that’s excellent, but a democracy beat won’t mean much unless journalists report it like our existence depends upon it. We are at war, dammit, literally and figuratively, and we can’t win this fight by hiding in the corner and absorbing the punches. There is a higher truth that doesn’t repeat lies but calls them out, doesn’t hide from accountability when there is blame to be assigned, and uses the keyboard as a weapon to fight for democracy instead of dispassionately reporting, evenhandedly, on its slow death. And if we don’t start fighting for that truth right away, the BBC might eventually be reporting on “the crater” where a free press used to stand. » READ MORE: SIGN UP: The Will Bunch Newsletter	US Congress
With the Biden administration half over and with the immediate dangers inherent to one-party rule in Washington behind us for now, it’s past time to lay the groundwork for a White House more friendly to the right. For decades, as the left has continued its march through America’s institutions, conservatives have been outgunned and outmatched when it comes to the art of government. One reason is because the Republican establishment never moved on from the 1980s. Beltway conservatives still prioritize supply-side economics and a bellicose foreign policy above all else. Belief in small government, strangely enough, has manifested itself in a belief among some conservatives that we should lead by example and not fill all political appointments. Belief in the primacy of the national security state has caused conservative administrations to defer political decisions to the generals and the intelligence community. The result has been decades of disappointment. Fortunately, this situation is changing. The conservative movement increasingly knows what time it is in America. More and more of our politicians are willing to use the government to achieve our vision, because the neutrality of “keeping the government out of it” will lose every time to the left’s vast power. The calls for a “new Church Committee” represent a momentous shift in energy; while conservatives used to lament liberal Sen. Frank Church’s original project as a kooky leftist attack against “The Brave Men And Women of Our Intelligence Community,” we’re now the ones agitating for Congress to go after the three-letter agencies. This new vigor of the right can be found at Project 2025. Organized by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 has brought together 45 (and counting) right-of-center organizations that are ready to get into the business of restoring this country through the combination of the right policies and well-trained people. The Project’s foundation is built on four interconnected pillars. The first pillar, the upcoming production of the policy book Mandate for Leadership, represents the work of more than 350 leading conservatives and outlines a vision of conservative success at each federal agency during the next administration. Presidential candidates won’t be able to ignore what the conservative movement demands in this book. The second is our online personnel database. This “Conservative LinkedIn” will launch in March and will provide an opportunity for rock-solid conservatives to place themselves in contention for roles in the next administration. This pillar will bring Mr. (and Mrs.) Smith to Washington. The third is our Presidential Administration Academy. When conservatives do finally make it into an administration, they often don’t know what to do or how to seize the gears of power effectively. Through their action, inaction, and their encyclopedic knowledge of volumes of technicalities about the federal workforce, certain career federal employees are masterful in tripping us up. Our interactive, on-demand training sessions will change that. They will turn future conservative political appointees into experts in governmental effectiveness. The fourth and final pillar of Project 2025 is our Playbook, which will take the policy ideas expressed in Mandate for Leadership and transform them into an implementation plan for each agency to advocate to the incoming administration. What regulations and executive orders must be signed on Day One? Where are the greatest needs for more political appointees? How can we effectively use the mechanisms of government to face our most challenging problems? Our Playbook will put our movement to work answering questions like these. In November 2016, American conservatives stood on the verge of greatness. The election of Donald Trump to the presidency was a triumph that offered the best chance to reverse the left’s incessant march of progress for its own sake. Many of the best accomplishments, though, happened only in the last year of the Trump administration, after our political appointees had finally figured out the policies and process of different agencies, and after the right personnel were finally in place. The usual suspects in the permanent political class will be ready for the next conservative administration. Will we be ready for them? That’s where Project 2025 comes in. We have two years, and one chance, to get this right. This piece originally appeared in The American Conservative	US Federal Policies
The FBI used a Nintendo Switch console to locate an abducted 15-year-old girl, who had been missing for 11 days back in August 2022, ABC15 reports. In a horrendous case involving kidnap and sexual exploitation, a teenage girl was found and rescued only after she logged online with her Nintendo Switch. The unidentified Virginian teenager is a homebody, said family and friends, and unlikely to run away. However, she met a stranger—then 28-year-old Ethan Roberts—on the online chatting platform Omegle in January 2022, when she was just 14 years old. The two talked for a few days, then moved their conversation to Discord and Snapchat. Roberts sent nudes of himself to the girl and requested explicit images of her as well, to which she complied. Later, Roberts traveled 2,000 miles from his apartment in Tolleson, Arizona to the young girl’s hometown. Their encounter culminated in Roberts kidnapping the girl and bringing her back to Arizona. Roberts coerced the teen, “insisting” she meet strangers on Omegle to sell them nudes via Snapchat between August 3, 2022 and August 14, 2022, according to court documents viewed by Kotaku. When the girl went missing on August 3, folks in Virginia put up fliers to locate her. Keitra Coleman, a volunteer with the local nonprofit Hear Their Voices (which helps find missing and exploited children, domestic violence victims, and people experiencing homelessness), told ABC15 they were on the case. “We immediately reached out to her family and spoke with her grandmother and her stepdad, and that next day, we were out there ‘boots on the ground.’” Coleman said. “She went through a lot in those few days [and] reminded me so much of my daughter.” Unfortunately, no one was able to pinpoint her location—until the girl booted up her Nintendo Switch to watch YouTube videos and download a game. A friend saw that she was online and informed the authorities. With Nintendo’s cooperation, the FBI culled the Switch’s IP address, uncovered her location, and moved in to arrest Roberts. Retired Arizona DPS Director Frank Milstead, who was not involved with the case, told ABC15 that police agencies often use digital device tracking info to apprehend suspected criminals and find missing people. “It’s probably nothing anybody even had thought of at this point,” Milstead said. “The fact that somebody else down the road—another child—was bright enough to go, ‘Hey, look, my friend is online, and she’s been missing, and I need to tell somebody.’ Everything’s connected to Wi-Fi [and] LTE (long-term evolution devices). A cell phone, an iPad, a watch, whatever it is—you can use those things to locate people. The bad guys need to know that the police are watching and that you’re leaving a digital footprint everywhere you go. We will find you.” Kotaku reached out to the FBI and Nintendo for comment. Roberts was indicted on four counts, including online enticement of a minor, transportation of a minor, and receipt of child pornography. He made a plea deal and has been sentenced to 30 years in federal prison this past April.	US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime
Trump’s Lawyers Preview Gag Order Oral Arguments With Claim Judge Violated His First Amendment Rights The partial gag order in the DC election subversion case 'violates a long list of the First Amendment's most basic doctrines,' the former president's attorneys argued in an appellate brief filed Friday The partial gag order in the Washington, D.C. election subversion case against Donald Trump "violates a long list of the First Amendment's most basic doctrines," the former president's attorneys argued in a new brief filed Friday and previewing a big showdown in federal appeals court set for Monday morning. In the 37-page legal brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Trump's legal team argued the restrictions on the former president's speech should be removed. "The gag order installs a single federal judge as a barrier between the leading candidate for President, President Donald J. Trump, and every American across the country," Trump's attorneys argue in the brief. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued the order Oct. 17, prohibiting not just Trump but all parties to the case from making statements that “target” prosecutors or their staff, defense lawyers or their staff, court staff and supporting personnel, and "any reasonably foreseeable witnesses or the substance of their testimony." Trump’s legal team responded to the gag order by filing an immediate appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and a separate motion asking Chutkan to remove the gag order while the appeal was pending. Chutkan temporarily paused the gag order to give both parties an opportunity to present briefings on the topic before reinstating the order in a ruling on Oct. 30. Trump’s legal team in early November escalated the matter, filing an emergency motion with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asking for the gag order to be administratively paused while their appeal is pending. - ACLU Says Trump Gag Order Violates His First Amendment Rights - Trump’s Attorneys Claim Special Counsel’s Protective Order Tramples His First Amendment Rights - Trump’s Lawyer Signals Plans to Appeal $10,000 Sanction for Violating Gag Order - Trump Slams Judge After Gag Order Reinstated: ‘Illegally and Unconstitutionally Takes Away My First Amendment’ Rights - Trump Pays $15,000 Fine for Violating Gag Order in New York - Trump Asks Judge to Remove New Gag Order While He Appeals In a Nov. 3 order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered that the partial gag order issued by Chutkan is "administratively stayed pending further order of the court." Oral arguments between the parties are scheduled for Monday morning. The three-judge panel overseeing the proceeding includes Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, both appointees of former President Barack Obama, and Judge Bradley Garcia, an appointee of President Joe Biden. Trump is charged with four federal felonies in the case alleging he obstructed the 2020 presidential election and has pleaded not guilty to all charges. His trial is scheduled to begin on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday when 14 states vote including California, Colorado, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia. This is a developing story and will be updated. - Dem Rep Debbie Dingell Says Pro-Palestine Protest Outside DNC ‘Rattled’ Her ‘More Than Jan. 6’Politics - Maine Gun Legislation Surges in Wake of Lewiston ShootingPolitics - Schwarzenegger Calls For ‘New Blood,’ Dissing Trump and Biden as ‘Flawed’Politics - Three-Quarters of Jewish Voters Support Biden Response to Israel-Hamas WarPolitics - George Santos Expulsion Resolution Filed By Ethics ChairmanPolitics - Internal Memo From Kari Lake’s Campaign Argues Arizona Is GOP’s Best Pickup Opportunity (Exclusive)Politics - Manchin Still Won’t Confirm 2024 Run, Teases He’ll Do It ‘If It Comes Down To It’Politics - Majority of Young Americans Support Palestinians, Sympathies Have Flipped Since War Began: PollNews - Chris Christie, Newsmax Host Spar Over Trump, 2024 Chances: ‘Don’t Interrupt Me!’Politics - Supreme Court Rejects Florida’s Bid to Enforce Anti-Drag Show LawPolitics - Biden Campaign Consider Joining TikTok to Reach Young Voters: ReportPolitics - Trump Leads by 28% in New Hampshire; Haley Leads Favorability RatingsPolitics	US Circuit and Appeals Courts
As the Supreme Court convenes on Tuesday to weigh whether the Biden administration can forgive billions of dollars in student debt, thousands of borrowers don’t plan to go quietly. Upwards of 100 people were already outside the courthouse on a cold and rainy Monday evening, and groups will bus in many more as President Biden’s student loan relief plan, a major campaign promise, goes before the justices. With sleeping bags and emergency blankets ready, Temple University sophomore Kayla McMonagle, a first-generation college student already $20,000 in debt, was set to be among the first in line for Tuesday’s oral arguments in two challenges to Biden’s plan. “A lot of people think about our generation that we are not motivated to do things, we are always on our phones, always in our heads,” said McMonagle, a political science major. “But this issue impacts our generation the most so far, and it will impact our children’s generation and generations to come.” As the arguments begin, organizers expect a crowd of 3,000 at a rally that will include members of Congress, borrowers and activists. Decisions in the case are likely still a few months away, but the demonstrations come as borrowers are already bracing to hear the fate of Biden’s plan. Coming from a low-income family, McMonagle said traveling to Washington, D.C., and missing midterms was well worth the trouble. “I want to go to grad school. I want to possibly get a PhD. I love learning. I love being at school. I want to make sure that I have the chance to further my education. It will be amazing for me, life-changing almost,” she said of Biden’s plan. She and several others plan to camp outside in the rain in the lead up to tomorrow morning’s “People’s Rally,” which was planned by more than 20 national organizations, including the NAACP, Debt Collective and New Georgia Project. “The People’s Rally for Student Debt Cancellation is a powerful expression of our collective will to create a more just and equitable future. By coming together we can ensure that the voices of those most affected by student debt are heard and that policymakers are able to take action,” said Natalia Abrams, president and founder of the Student Debt Crisis Center. The rally will kick off two hours before oral arguments begin at 10 a.m., when the federal government will attempt to fend off two groups of challengers to the debt relief plan: six Republican-led states and two individual borrowers who did not qualify for the full $20,000 in relief. Both groups contend the Biden administration overstepped its authority, but the case could also hinge on whether the justices believe the challengers have legal standing. Kicking off the campout as the sun set on Monday, Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), the first Generation Z member of Congress, told the largely young crowd that they were who the country needed. “I’m optimistic because I need to be, but I mean, we’ve seen the court come up with some disastrous decisions over the, obviously, the past year,” Frost said in an interview after his speech. “And so I hold optimism because we have to in this moment, and I’m hoping they won’t let us down. But I mean, we’ll see.” Frost was one of a handful of Democratic lawmakers to join the demonstrators in front of the court building. “Education is a key to racial and economic justice for so many Americans, yet it remains locked in an ivory tower,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) later told the crowd. Those protesting say they represent the 44 million student loan borrowers who will be impacted by these oral arguments and the court’s decision in these cases. Mykeisha Wells, a University of Michigan graduate student more than $60,000 in debt who attended Monday night’s rally, said it marked the first time she had taken part in a political demonstration. “Relieving up to $20,000 in debt is really significant for me, thinking about the future that I want to have: buying a house, creating generational wealth for my children,” Wells said. The support for the student debt relief has largely been divided along partisan lines, with Democrats energetic for the cause and Republicans deeming the relief as unfair. In a poll last August after Biden announced his plan, 80 percent of Democrats said they supported it, while 71 percent of Republicans were opposed. “Tens of millions of Americans are counting on President Biden to swiftly deliver the financial relief they were promised and already approved for,” said Braxton Brewington, spokesperson for the Debt Collective. “There’s no sound legal reasoning for the Supreme Court to knock down relief, but should they overstep, Biden needs to use other legal tools at his disposal to deliver relief,” he continued. “Trillions of dollars in student debt is a massive weight dragging borrowers down — that’s why we’re showing up to the court in droves.” Republicans have gone on the attack, arguing it’s not right to use taxpayer money from individuals who never went to school or already paid off their debts to relieve others’ debts. The GOP also argues the plan does not help the root cause of high college debt: college tuition prices. Democrats say the relief would be a great help to millions of middle- and lower-class Americans who struggle to pay their student loan debt every month. Its success would also fulfill one of Biden’s major campaign promises. “We are going to keep pushing and applying pressure after oral arguments are over and once we get a decision. One does not stop here,” said Maggie Bell, lead organizer for the New Georgia Project, one of the groups organizing Tuesday’s demonstrations. “Ten-thousand dollars or $20,000 of cancellation and relief is helpful but it does not fulfill our demand, right. And so we see this as the first step. But we are definitely going to keep applying pressure on leaders.”	SCOTUS
- Over 500 students are flooding the Supreme Court on Tuesday to support student-debt relief. - Democratic lawmakers are also joining a coalition of advocacy groups to support the plan. - The Supreme Court will hear arguments and likely make a final decision on the relief in May or June. The steps of the Supreme Court will be flooded on Tuesday with students, borrowers, and advocates as President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan enters the chamber. The nation's highest court is hearing arguments on the two conservative-backed lawsuits that paused Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for federal borrowers making under $125,000 a year. Just one month after Biden launched the online application to apply for relief — during which 26 million borrowers submitted forms — the lawsuits paused the implementation of the plan. Now, the nation's highest court will decide whether the plan can progress, or should be struck down. Student-loan forgiveness has long been a partisan issue. Even before Biden's announcement, Republican lawmakers and conservative groups blasted relief as costly, unfair, and illegal, but Democratic lawmakers pushed for the president to go as big as possible with relief — alongside borrower advocates. And those advocates are making their voices heard. On Tuesday, a coalition of advocacy groups including the Student Borrower Protection Center, Student Debt Crisis Center, We, The 45 Million, Rise, and the NAACP are participating in the People's Rally for Student Debt Cancellation to urge the Supreme Court to uphold student-debt relief, and according to the NAACP, 500 to 1,000 students are attending. "Education is supposed to be the key to financial freedom, not the barrier. Today, over 500 students have gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court to fight back against any attempt to restrict such freedom. Oral arguments may be underway, but one thing is clear - failure is not an option," Wisdom Cole, NAACP National Director of Youth & College, said in a statement. "Our government must relieve borrowers of the crushing weight of student debt which will keep an entire generation from reaching their full potential," he continued. "The economic mobility of over 40 million Americans is dependent on the survival of this program, and the NAACP will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that their voices are heard, and their stories are known." Some groups even camped out overnight to make sure they can get a seat in the court. Melissa Byrne, executive director of We The 45 Million, a campaign of borrowers working to win student-debt cancellation, previously told Insider that she "wanted to make sure that the justices look into the eyes of borrowers while they're doing the hearing," adding that "our actions will show that the people with debt are just regular people from around the country." Along with advocates, Democratic lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bob Menendez, and Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Max Frost will be joining the rally on Tuesday to voice their support for Biden's student-loan forgiveness. On Monday, Warren released a report highlighting how members of many of the advocacy groups participating in the rally would be impacted by student-debt relief, and it said "a financial disaster for millions of Americans" could arise should the Supreme Court strike the relief down. One borrower said in the report that "I'm putting all of my hope into this process finally getting approval. I haven't allowed myself to imagine another scenario because I may not continue even trying to exist everyday if that happens. This debt follows me daily." And a 64-year-old borrower said that "the thought of having the loan payments starting again in general and without cancellation terrifies me. It means I might have to take a second job or use my 401K retirement money to pay for the loans. I [cannot] plan for retirement." All eyes now turn to the conservative-majority Supreme Court, which will likely make a final ruling on Biden's debt relief in May or June.	SCOTUS
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio's restrictive new election law significantly shortens the window for mailed ballots to be received — despite no evidence that the extended timeline has led to fraud or any other problems — and that change is angering active-duty members of the military and their families because of its potential to disenfranchise them.The pace of ballot counting after Election Day has become a target of conservatives egged on by former President Donald Trump. He has promoted a false narrative since losing the 2020 election that fluctuating results as late-arriving mail-in ballots are tallied is a sign of fraud.Republican lawmakers said during debate on the Ohio legislation that even if Trump's claims aren't true, the skepticism they have caused among conservatives about the accuracy of election results justifies imposing new limits.The new law reduces the number of days for county election boards to include mailed ballots in their tallies from 10 days after Election Day to four. Critics say that could lead more ballots from Ohio's military voters to miss the deadline and get tossed. This issue isn't confined to Ohio. Three other states narrowed their post-election windows for accepting mail ballots last session, according to data from the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab. Similar moves pushed by Republican lawmakers are being proposed or discussed this year in Wisconsin, New Jersey, California and other states.Ohio's tightened window for receiving mailed ballots is likely to affect just several hundred of the thousands of military and overseas ballots received in any election. Critics say any number is too great.“What kind of society do we call ourselves if we are disenfranchising people from the rights that they are over there protecting?” said Willis Gordon, a Navy veteran and veterans affairs chair of the Ohio NAACP’s executive committee.Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, who championed the tightened ballot deadline, said Ohio's previous window was “an extreme outlier” nationally. She said Ohio's military and overseas voters still have ample time under the new law.“While there is certainly more work to do, this new law drastically enhances Ohio’s election security and improves the integrity of our elections, which my constituents and citizens across the state have demanded," she said.Republicans’ claims that Ohio needs to clamp down in the name of election integrity run counter to GOP officials' glowing assessments of the state's current system. Ohio reported a near-perfect tally of its 2020 presidential election results, for example, and fraud referrals represent a tiny fraction of the ballots cast.Board of elections data shows that in the state’s most populous county, which includes the capital city of Columbus, 242 absentee ballots from military and overseas voters were received after Election Day last November. Of that, nearly 40% arrived more than four days later and would have been rejected had the new law been in effect.In 2020, a federal survey administered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found that Ohio rejected just 1% of the 21,600 ballots cast by overseas and military voters with the 10-day time frame in place. That compared with 2.1% nationally, a figure attributed mostly to voters missing state ballot deadlines. All states are required to transmit ballots to registered overseas and military voters at least 45 days before an election, or as soon as possible if the request comes in after that date.Former state Rep. Connie Pillich, an Air Force veteran who leads the Ohio Democratic Party’s outreach to veterans and military families, rejects arguments that the relatively small number of affected ballots is worth the trade-off.“These guys and gals stationed overseas, living in the sandbox or wherever they are, doing their jobs, putting themselves in harm’s way, you’re making it harder for them to participate,” said Pillich, who led an unsuccessful effort to have GOP Gov. Mike DeWine veto the bill.“I can tell you everyone I've talked to is livid and upset,” she said.Those familiar with submitting military ballots said applying for, receiving and filling out a mailed ballot requires extra time for those who are deployed. Postal schedules, sudden calls to duty, even extra time needed to consult family back home about the candidates and issues are factors. Ohio’s new law also sets a new deadline — five days earlier — for voters to request a mailed ballot, a move supporters say will help voters meet the tightened return deadline.Neither the Ohio Association of Election Officials nor the state's elections chief, Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, asked lawmakers to shrink the existing 10-day window for receiving mailed ballots.Aaron Ockerman, a lobbyist for the election officials' group, said the seven-day post-election window called for in an early version of the legislation was a compromise that county election directors decided they could live with.“They felt the vast, vast majority of the ballots have arrived within eight days,” he said. The group opposed making the window any shorter, on grounds that voters — including those in the military — would be disenfranchised.Research by the Voting Rights Lab shows Ohio joined three other states — Republican-controlled Arkansas and Iowa, and Nevada, where Democrats held full control at the time — in passing laws last year that shortened the post-election return window for mailed ballots. Five states lengthened theirs.Nationwide, a little more than 911,000 military and overseas ballots were cast in 2020. Of those, about 19,000, or roughly 2%, were rejected — typically for being received after the deadline, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.The Secure Families Initiative, a national nonpartisan group advocating for military voters and their families, is trying to push state election laws in the other direction, toward broader electronic access to voting for service members and their families.Kate Marsh Lord, the group's communications director, said they were “deeply disappointed” to see DeWine sign the Ohio bill.“In fact, I’m an Ohio voter — born and raised in Columbus — and I’ve cast my Ohio ballot from as far away as Japan," she said. "HB458 set out to solve a problem that didn’t exist, and military voters will pay the price by having their ballots disqualified.”Marsh Lord, currently in South Carolina where her husband is stationed in the Air Force, said mail sometimes took weeks to reach her family when they lived in Japan.“Even if I were to get my ballot in the mail a week ahead of time, a lot of times with the military postal service and the Postal Service in general, there are delays,” she said. "So that shortened window doesn’t allow as much time for things that are really out of military voters’ control.”She said it's even more challenging for active-duty personnel deployed to remote areas — “the people on the front lines of the fight to defend our democracy and our freedom and the right to vote around the world. Those are the people who will be most impacted by this change.”___Fields reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Christina A. Cassidy in Atlanta and Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, contributed to this report.	US Federal Elections
Rep. Matt Gaetz is a “POS demagogue” for orchestrating the ouster of Kevin McCarthy from the speakership, a man who “repeatedly” lied to conservatives and, perhaps worst of all, is the “favorite Republican of the Democrat Party and their media.” Harsh words from conservative talk radio and cable news host Mark Levin. Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade recently laid into another one of the GOP mutineers, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), to start off a stunningly confrontational interview: “You were one of the eight. Speaker McCarthy had 96 percent approval rating. But that wasn’t good enough for you. Do you feel good enough about your vote?” And then there was Jeanine Pirro announcing twice that she was “furious” on Fox’s The Five, adding, “You’ve got the Republicans going out there and showing how dysfunctional they are as Matt Gaetz is engaging in fundraising.” But the truth is that angry conservative media hosts have only themselves to blame for McCarthy’s downfall and the disarray currently facing House Republicans. The leaders of conservative talk radio and cable news have spent years assailing GOP congressional leaders — including McCarthy — and they are largely responsible for turning far-right rebels like Gaetz into stars. Going back to the 1990s, conservative media created the political ecosystem in which torching and targeting Republican leaders is good politics on the right. And they’ve ensured that the next speaker, whether it’s Steve Scalise or someone else, will face the same poisonous incentive structure that took down McCarthy. In 1994, the burgeoning conservative talk radio empire provided crucial support that helped catapult the GOP to control of the House for the first time in 40 years. The contributions of talk radio were so great that the day after that fall’s electoral earthquake, a jubilant soon-to-be-speaker Newt Gingrich called Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, and thanked him for helping Republicans “overcome the elite media bias,” and arming “millions of people across the country with the facts that let them argue in October and November so successfully.” The Republican freshman class made Limbaugh an honorary member, and greeted him like a rockstar at their orientation. Yet, as soon as the celebration ended and Republicans faced responsibility for governing, tension emerged between the GOP leadership and conservative hosts. They had fundamentally different goals: Republican congressional leaders had to compromise with then-President Bill Clinton to get anything done. Meanwhile talk radio, which would be joined in 1996 by Fox News, was a business. The goal was to get the largest audience possible to tune in for the longest possible time. And that demanded entertaining, engaging programming above all else. Explaining why Republicans had to backtrack from promises and cut bipartisan deals, however, was neither entertaining nor engaging. It was dry, boring — and unsatisfying. Hosts therefore never hesitated to blast the GOP for such betrayals or to boost rank-and-file members trying to pressure leadership. Then-Freshman Rep. Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.), for example, once used a talk radio campaign in 1995 to force a vote on a term limits amendment to the Constitution. (He got his vote, but the measure failed.) The tension between conservative media and elected Republicans only grew over time. Hosts usually supported President George W. Bush — especially when it came to the War on Terror and the Iraq War — and helped him get reelected in 2004. Nonetheless, they still regularly rose up against Republican heresies, including when they played an instrumental role in torpedoing Bush’s bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2007. The relationship between conservative media and Republican leaders began to deteriorate in more fundamental ways in the late 2000s and 2010s. Two factors were at play. First, competition increased in conservative media. Fox was now a massive political and media force, while conservative talk radio shows proliferated thanks to syndication and the profitability of the format. Many cities had multiple conservative talk stations and the rise of internet streaming and podcasting meant that listeners had their pick of shows at pretty much any time of day. In 2013 and 2014, OAN and Newsmax TV, two more conservative cable networks, joined the fray. Additional competition meant pressure on hosts not to get outflanked on the right by new upstarts who could make a name for themselves by being incendiary and demanding even greater ideological purity and hardball tactics from congressional Republicans. Second, conservative talk radio hosts sensed the smoldering anger among their listeners over how four years of unified Republican governance really hadn’t produced the conservative revolution that was promised. Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land, spending was up and Bush had even added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The case that Nashville talker Steve Gill made for supporting Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections reflected his listeners’ disgruntlement. “The Republicans certainly deserve to get spanked,” he admitted to the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz at the time. But if liberals gained control of Congress, it would be “America that gets spanked.” These dynamics left hosts with every business incentive to tee off on Republican leaders. As former House Speaker John Boehner later explained to POLITICO Magazine, Levin, whose show went national in 2006, “went really crazy right and got a big audience, and he dragged [Sean] Hannity to the dark side. He dragged Rush to the dark side. And these guys—I used to talk to them all the time. And suddenly they’re beating the living shit out of me.” In 2012, Congress confronted the “fiscal cliff,” a combination of expiring tax cuts and automatic spending cuts designed to have such unpleasant consequences that legislators would be forced to act. Democrats had enormous leverage. President Barack Obama had gotten reelected after pledging to raise taxes on the wealthy, and his party had also gained seats in both houses of Congress. If ever there was a moment for Republicans to compromise, this was it. Yet, when Boehner made an initial offer to Obama, Limbaugh blasted the speaker’s press conference as a “seminar on how to surrender.” In Limbaugh’s mind, Boehner and his colleagues had “no interest” in defending conservative values because they “really aren’t conservatives.” Talk radio’s king made clear that because of the gulf between the sides, “There is no compromise. None! There is only concession. That’s all that can happen.” He repeatedly urged Republicans to stick to their principles even though they’d get blamed if the country went over the cliff. The debate illustrated how antagonistic conservative media had become toward the Republican leadership during this period. Boehner said he had one “really blunt” call with Hannity, which temporarily reduced the vitriol heaped on the speaker. But things eventually frayed again, because he “wasn’t going to be a right-wing idiot.” In addition to routinely heaping scorn on Republican leaders, talk radio hosts promoted far-right members of Congress who were all too happy to embrace the ideological purity and political warfare demanded by conservative media. These members became frequent guests, who were happy to lob rhetorical bombs, which made for good radio and good fundraising opportunities for lawmakers. Nothing epitomized the way that conservative hosts could champion fringe members willing to join their crusade at the expense of leadership than a June 2015 incident involving then-Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). The issue seemed like procedural inside baseball but led to an uprising that showed how leadership could be overpowered. Thirty-four Republicans had voted against the rule governing debate in the House on a trade bill. Lawmakers are expected to side with their party on rule votes, so this was the ultimate sin in the chamber. Meadows was one of those dissidents, and in punishment, he was stripped of his subcommittee chairmanship in the House Oversight Committee. Instead of accepting his punishment, however, Meadows blitzed the talk radio airwaves to decry what one Fox host dubbed “very Tony Soprano-ish” tactics. Hosts were outraged, none more so than Levin. During an epic rant, Levin dismissed Boehner as a “fool” and a “moron” and branded McCarthy, then the House majority leader, “the sleaziest of the bunch” — a man he wouldn’t even let “sell me a used car.” He accused Republican leaders of wanting to “destroy the conservative movement.” This was a call to action: Levin’s listeners needed to “go after” Boehner, McCarthy, and then-Majority Whip Steve Scalise. It worked. Amid the conservative uproar, Meadows was reinstated to his committee post. And the following month, Meadows took steps to oust Boehner with the motion to vacate — the same procedural maneuver Gaetz would ultimately use to dethrone McCarthy. (Boehner eventually decided to resign rather than force his members to go through with such a vote.) The whole episode underscored how conservative media portrayed politics: Far-right fighters like Meadows who scorned compromise and playing by the rules were heroes, and party leaders were traitorous, spineless villains. It became clear to ambitious young members that antagonizing leadership was the key to achieving political stardom. From Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a cadre of conservative bomb throwers became some of the biggest names in politics, despite having very little traditional influence on Capitol Hill. They routinely took to the airwaves to slam their own leaders on everything from spending to abortion, and occasionally even managed to lead their party into a government shutdown a la the futile effort to defund Obamacare. And while this alienated their peers — Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) once quipped, “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you” — they didn’t need popularity on the Hill to amass power. The message was clear: Demand political warfare, savage anyone who compromised with Democrats — no matter the situation or the consequences of not compromising — and reap the political benefits. It’s this culture that has shaped Gaetz and his allies. The only surprise might be that conservative media personalities are so aghast at McCarthy’s ouster; perhaps it’s because they’ve been painfully aware of just how hard McCarthy worked during the nine months of his speakership to cater to right-wing priorities. In the end it didn’t matter. But they only have themselves to blame. Conservative talk radio and cable hosts created the political ecosystem that precipitated McCarthy’s downfall and so long as they continue rewarding similar tactics, this incentive structure will plague whoever succeeds him.	US Congress

Subsets and Splits

List Unique Topics

Simple retrieval of unique topics from the dataset, useful for basic exploration but lacks deeper insights.