Author: PolitCens

Democrats in the U.S. Congress continued to be mired in negotiations on President Joe Biden’s major social safety net and climate control spending plan, particularly which  programs to keep and which ones to remove as well as the means to pay for them.

The president held talks at the White House Tuesday night with Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, two moderate lawmakers in Biden’s own Democratic party who have staunchly opposed much of his original $3.5 trillion Build Back Better plan that would provide the biggest expansion of government benefits to American families in five decades. 

Senate Democrats led by Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts unveiled a plan earlier Tuesday that would impose a new minimum tax on corporations, along with a new “billionaires tax” that would impose levies on individuals who own at least $1 billion in assets, or who receive $100 million in earnings for three consecutive years.  

The plan was conceived after Sinema came out against a much simpler plan to raise conventional tax rates on wealthy Americans and corporations. Sinema announced her support for the new minimum corporate tax as “a common-sense step,” but some House Democrats have raised concerns about the legality of the billionaires’ tax.  

For his part, Manchin has come out in opposition of an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, the government’s health care programs for elderly and low-income Americans, respectively, as well as providing 12 weeks of paid family leave and making the new child tax credit permanent, criticizing them as either costly or unnecessary new government “entitlements.”

Manchin is also opposed to a proposed $150 billion clean electricity program that would replace the nation’s coal and gas-fired power plants with wind, solar and nuclear energy. The program is a pillar of the president’s strategy to combat climate change, but Manchin represents one of the largest coal-producing states in the nation. His opposition has left the administration scrambling to create an alternative strategy, such as grants and loans to help utilities switch to renewable energy.  

Biden has expressed hope that he can reach agreement this week on what he has acknowledged will be a more limited spending plan of about $2 trillion or less, with some provisions, such as two tuition-free years of community college, jettisoned from the final package.  

Representative Ro Khanna of California, a key member of the House Progressive Caucus, told the U.S. cable news television program “Fox News Sunday” that the president recently told a group of lawmakers that he needs passage of both the social safety net bill and a separate $1.2 trillion measure that funds key upgrades to the nation’s physical infrastructure before he travels to Glascow, Scotland later this week for the United Nations-sponsored COP26 climate conference.   

With the 100-member Senate equally split between Republicans and Democrats, the policy agreement and votes of Manchin and Sinema are key to passage of the legislation, along with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris. Currently, no Republicans support the legislation. 

The infrastructure spending plan drew the support of 19 Republicans in the Senate, along with that of all 50 Democrats, but progressive House Democrats blocked its passage there until agreement could be reached on the social safety net legislation. 

White House press secretary Jen Psaki acknowledged the high stakes involved in the difficult negotiations Tuesday. “The alternative to what is being negotiated is not the original package — it is nothing,” she told reporters.  

Some information for this report came from the Associated Press and Reuters.
…

The Senate confirmed two prominent anti-Trump Republicans to serve in the Biden administration on Tuesday with former Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona approved to serve as the ambassador to Turkey, and Cindy McCain, the wife of the late Senator John McCain, approved to serve as the ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture. 

The Senate also voted to confirm former Democratic Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico to serve as ambassador to New Zealand, and Victoria Reggie Kennedy of Massachusetts, the widow of former Senator Ted Kennedy, to serve as ambassador to Austria. 

The nominations were approved through voice vote, a process taking only minutes that can be used so long as no senators object. Republicans, led by Senator Ted Cruz, are requiring the vast majority of Biden’s other State Department nominees to go through a much more extensive and time-consuming process. 

Democratic Senator Chris Coons thanked senators for acting quickly on the four nominations but said he remains concerned about the overall pace of confirmations for the president’s diplomatic corps. 

“There are dozens of countries where there is no confirmed American ambassador, and I hope that this moment of progress will be a predictor of other progress to come soon,” Coons said. 

Flake was a rare critic of former President Donald Trump among Senate Republicans. He served just one term in the Senate, opting not to seek reelection in the face of what was certain to be a difficult GOP primary. 

McCain endorsed Biden in the presidential election, which at the time was viewed as possibly helping Biden broaden his appeal to Republicans and independents in Arizona, a crucial swing state that her husband had represented in Congress for 35 years. 
…

The Treasury Department has hired a former JPMorgan Chase executive to head a new government program aimed at combating racial inequality issues in banking and other financial-services industries.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Monday that Janis Bowdler will be the department’s first counselor for racial equity, part of a multipronged strategy by the Biden administration to deal with systemic racism found in many parts of the economy.

Banking and finance have long had issues with racial inequity, from the lack of representation of Blacks and other minorities at the highest levels of companies to ongoing issues of getting equal access to services for non-white borrowers.

“Treasury must play a central role in ensuring that as our economy recovers from the pandemic, it recovers in a way that addresses the inequalities that existed long before anyone was infected with COVID-19,” Yellen said in a statement. 

Last week the Justice Department announced a new coordinated plan with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Comptroller of the Currency to investigate and prosecute redlining, the historic practice in which Blacks and other minorities were denied access to financing.

Before her Treasury Department appointment, Bowdler was president of the JPMorgan Chase & Co. Foundation, the arm of JPMorgan Chase that tries to target investments into underserved neighborhoods and communities. She also worked at the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy organization for Latino issues. 

 
…

U.S. President Joe Biden said Monday he is “very optimistic” on completing a deal this week on his pared-down social safety net spending plan, an assessment echoed by one of the centrist Democratic lawmakers who has been holding back on his support. 

Biden told reporters in Delaware that his Sunday meeting with West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who has sought sharp cuts in Biden’s original $3.5 trillion package, “went well.” 

They discussed final details in the package that could be trimmed to about half that amount, with Manchin insisting on a $1.5 trillion figure. 

“A few more things to work out, but it went well,” Biden said. 

Later, Manchin said that he believes there will be a “conceptual framework” on Biden’s package later in the week. Even with the spending cutbacks, it would amount to one of the largest expansions of the U.S. government’s social safety net for American families since the 1960s. 

But it remained unclear where the other Democratic holdout, Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, stands on the pared-back version. She has opposed Biden’s plan to raise taxes on corporations and individuals earning more than $400,000 a year. 

Subsequently, Biden and key Democratic lawmakers are now proposing to ramp up enforcement against tax cheaters to increase government revenue and craft new tax increases that would target the estimated 700 U.S. billionaires. 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told CNN on Sunday that the legislation would take aim at “exceptionally wealthy individuals” and likely tax their unrealized capital gains that now are only taxed when they sell assets.

The support of both Manchin and Sinema, the most politically moderate lawmakers in the Senate Democratic caucus, is essential if any Biden social safety net legislation is to win congressional approval. 

With the 100-member Senate equally split between Republicans and Democrats, all 50 Democrats would need to support the legislation, added along with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris. Currently, no Republicans support the legislation. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, told CNN on Sunday that even at half its original size the package is “still bigger than anything we have ever done in terms of addressing the needs of America’s working families,” with universal pre-kindergarten schooling and tax credits for all but the wealthiest parents. 

She said 90% of the measure “is agreed to.”

As details of the social safety net plan are finalized, the House leader said her plan is for the chamber to vote later this week on a bipartisan trillion-dollar infrastructure measure already approved by the Senate to fix the country’s deteriorating roads and bridges and expand broadband internet service throughout the United States.

“I’m optimistic we can do that,” she said.

The infrastructure spending plan drew the support of 19 Republicans in the Senate, along with that of all 50 Democrats, but progressive Democrats in the House blocked its passage there until agreement could be reached on the social safety net legislation that they consider a bigger legislative priority. 

 
…

U.S. President Joe Biden is meeting Sunday with two key senators at his home in Delaware to try to complete details of a pared-down social safety net and climate control spending plan set for introduction in Congress as soon as Monday. 

Biden is hosting Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, along with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of two pivotal lawmakers who has called for sharp cutbacks in the president’s original $3.5 trillion plan proposing the biggest expansion of government benefits to American families in five decades. 

With the 100-member Senate equally split between Republicans and Democrats, the policy agreement and votes of Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, the two most moderate members of the Democratic caucus, are key to passage of the legislation, along with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris. Currently, no Republicans support the legislation. 

Biden has expressed hope that he can reach agreement this week on what he has acknowledged will be a more limited spending plan of about $2 trillion or less, with some provisions, such as two tuition-free years of community college, jettisoned from the final package and others, such as paid worker leave and dental insurance for older Americans, trimmed or delayed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, told CNN’s “State of the Union” show, that 90% of the measure “is agreed to” and that it is being written Sunday, with final details yet to be worked out. She said it will be introduced on Monday. 

“We’re pretty much there now,” she said. 

Pelosi said that despite the likelihood that the original Biden spending proposal will be roughly cut in half, it will be “bigger than anything we’ve ever done in terms of helping families,” with extended tax credits for all but the wealthiest parents and universal pre-kindergarten schooling for three- and four-year-old children. 

As details of the social safety net plan are finalized, the House leader said her plan is for the chamber to vote later this week on a bipartisan trillion-dollar infrastructure measure already approved by the Senate to fix the country’s deteriorating roads and bridges and expand broadband internet service throughout the United States. 

“I’m optimistic we can do that,” she said. 

The infrastructure spending plan drew the support of 19 Republicans in the Senate, along with that of all 50 Democrats, but progressive Democrats in the House blocked its passage there until agreement could be reached on the social safety net legislation. 

Biden had proposed raising taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals earning more than $400,000 a year to pay for his social safety net measure, but Sinema has balked at both. That has left the White House and Democrats supporting the Biden spending plan to scramble to find other ways to pay for it. 

Pelosi said, “We have an array” of other ways to pay for the measure, including a so-called “wealth tax” targeting the estimated 700 U.S. billionaires. “We’re going to fully pay for the bill.” 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told CNN the legislation would take aim at “exceptionally wealthy individuals” and likely tax their unrealized capital gains that now are only taxed when they sell assets. She said tax payment enforcement would also be ramped up to collect more revenue. 
…

White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Friday appeared to walk back President Joe Biden’s statement on Thursday that the United States was committed to defending Taiwan should it come under Chinese attack.

“The president was not announcing any change in our policy, nor has he made a decision to change our policy,” Psaki said during a White House news briefing. “Our defense relationship with Taiwan is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act.”

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act states that the U.S. will provide arms for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. It does not say the U.S. would intervene militarily to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. 

Psaki’s statement stands in contradiction to Biden’s comment at a CNN town hall Thursday night. When asked if the U.S. would come to the defense of Taiwan, Biden said, “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.”

When asked by VOA whether the president simply misspoke or is sending a signal to Beijing, Psaki reiterated that “his policy has not changed.” In what appeared to be an attempt to calm increased tensions following the president’s comment, she echoed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s statement earlier Friday: “Nobody wants to see cross-strait issues come to blows, certainly not President Biden, and there’s no reason that it should.” 

The conflicting statements may well be in line with Washington’s long-standing policy of “strategic ambiguity” on defending Taiwan. Still, Beijing, which considers Taiwan a breakaway province, warned Washington to refrain from encouraging its independence. 

“We urge the U.S. to earnestly abide by the one-China principle and stipulations in the three China-U.S. joint communiques, be prudent with its words and actions on the Taiwan question, and avoid sending wrong signals to the ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces, lest it should seriously damage China-U.S. relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin earlier Friday.

Wang reiterated that “there is no room for China to compromise or make concessions” when it comes to sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

U.S.-China relations have been strained amid Beijing’s increased military activity in the Taiwan Strait and its recent hypersonic missile test. 

Strategic ambiguity

This is not the first time Biden said the U.S. would defend Taiwan if necessary. During an August interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, Biden said the U.S. made a “sacred commitment” to respond to action against NATO allies, “same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan.”

The defense of Taiwan, unlike that of formal treaty allies Japan and South Korea, is not explicitly stated by the U.S. After each of Biden’s remarks on defending the island, his administration has walked it back. 

While Biden may not intend to signal a change in the U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan, his statements suggest that U.S. policy may have shifted informally toward a firmer commitment to Taiwan’s security. 

The comments may be off the cuff, but they are telling, said Matthew Kroenig, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. “If China invaded Taiwan, it would be up to the president to make the final decision about what we should do, and it seems that Biden’s instinct is to defend Taiwan.” 

Biden’s remarks may also be intended to signal that the U.S. military option is not off the table, said Max Bergmann, a senior fellow at Center for American Progress.

“I think it was a clear and smart warning sign from the president to China.”

Chinese hypersonic missile

The Financial Times recently reported that in late July, China conducted a test of a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile, stunning American officials. Beijing has denied the report, saying it carried out a routine test of a space vehicle, not a missile. 

Hypersonic glide vehicles are launched from a rocket into the upper atmosphere before gliding to a target at speeds of more than Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound, about 6,200 kilometers per hour. This is slower than a ballistic missile but no less dangerous because its speed allows for a lower, adjustable trajectory that makes tracking these missiles difficult.

On Wednesday, when asked by VOA whether he was concerned about Chinese hypersonic missiles, Biden answered “yes.” 

U.S. officials have also stated concerns. Austin said earlier this week that Washington was closely watching China’s development of this advanced weapons system. And on Monday, Robert Wood, U.S. permanent representative to the Conference on Disarmament, said this type of technology is “worrisome” because the U.S. has not had to face it before.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Navy and Army tested hypersonic weapon component prototypes that the Pentagon called “successful.” But on Thursday, its booster rocket carrying a hypersonic weapon failed, people briefed on the test result told Reuters.

Analysts say that while China’s space activities are certainly a cause for concern, they reflect an already ongoing arms race. 

“Beijing appears unwilling to accept a situation in which China lags in nuclear capabilities, which might impact both nuclear and conventional balances of power,” said Zack Cooper, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “This new capability could embolden China to take more aggressive actions in non-nuclear areas.” 

Cooper noted the U.S. does not need to respond in kind since Washington already has robust capability to strike the Chinese homeland. But the administration must now seriously consider the possibility of Chinese strikes on the American homeland in a military conflict, particularly at a time when China is also ramping up other capabilities such as conventional as well as nuclear-armed submarines and nuclear-capable bombers.

“That is a new reality, and one with which we are still coming to grips,” Cooper said.

In light of this increased Chinese threat, some analysts say that Biden’s remarks on Taiwan are an effective deterrent. 

“The most likely path to war is that (Chinese) Chairman Xi miscalculates; he assumes he can get away with attacking Taiwan without U.S. interference when in fact he cannot,” said Kroenig. “He (Biden) is making it clear to Xi that an attack on Taiwan would mean a big war with the United States and, therefore, not worth the effort.” 

Carla Babb contributed to this report.
…

Nine months after taking office, President Joe Biden has seen only 20 of his appointments to the State Department confirmed by the Senate, with nearly half of the 167 American ambassadorships empty and dozens of key policy positions staffed by unconfirmed officials serving in an “acting” role. 

The number of empty desks at the State Department is partly Biden’s own fault, according to analysts. He was slow to nominate candidates for dozens of the 264 positions at State that require confirmation by the Senate, and still hasn’t named 57 of them.

However, many of the key positions remain unfilled because the process of gaining the approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has taken many nominees months to navigate.

Finally, sitting at the end of the gauntlet, is Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, who has been using Senate procedures to prevent many non-controversial nominees from receiving a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Cruz contends that the Biden administration is in flagrant violation of the law, because it has refused to enforce sanctions on a Russian natural gas pipeline. 

In addition to Cruz, Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley has also blocked a number of Biden’s nominees. 

‘Geometric level of incompetence’ 

“The administration has not covered itself with glory at the pace of its nominations,” said Ronald E. Neumann, the president of the American Academy of Diplomacy. “The Senate multiplies the problem by not moving them. Cruz then raises it to a geometric level of incompetence with his holds, and so they all reinforce each other.” 

Experts worry that the lack of confirmed senior staff is hobbling the Biden administration’s ability to conduct day-to-day diplomacy, and leaving many worried that it would be unable to respond adequately to a severe global crisis. 

“It is undoubtedly diminishing the capability of our State Department, and therefore, our country’s national security,” said Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a non-profit good government organization that tracks the nomination process closely. “It’s a big deal. And that’s not to diminish the acting officials in jobs across the State Department. They are great people, but they’re not set up for success.” 

Neumann agreed that extensive delays in filling key posts is “quite damaging” to operations. 

A former assistant secretary of state who also held three ambassadorships, Neumann said, “Not having your senior team means you don’t have the people that are going to give you the best advice. And it also means that the acting people … are going to be a little more hesitant about pushing back against things they think are dumb.” 

The current state of play 

In total, Biden has sent 106 State Department nominations to the Senate, according to the Partnership for Public Service. Twenty of those have been confirmed, and another 45 have been cleared by the Foreign Relations Committee and are awaiting a final floor vote by the full Senate. 

Biden’s 41 remaining nominees are lost somewhere in the limbo of the confirmation process, attending confirmation hearings or preparing answers to enormous numbers of written questions directed at them by members of the Senate. 

Candidates for ambassadorships have been moving particularly slowly. To date only one of Biden’s picks for an ambassadorship — the nomination of former Senator Ken Salazar to be ambassador to Mexico — has been approved. 

Of the 167 ambassadorships the Partnership for Public Service tracks, only 88 are filled, and 87 of those are “holdover” appointments who were confirmed prior to Biden’s taking office. 

Cruz controls 

Senator Cruz has been in a months-long fight with the Biden administration over its decision to waive congressionally mandated sanctions on Nord Stream 2, a controversial pipeline that delivers natural gas from Russia to Europe.

Cruz points to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, a law that passed Congress with near-unanimous support in 2017, and included language that said the president “shall” continue to enforce sanctions against Russia, including those on the pipeline.

President Donald Trump signed the legislation, though he simultaneously issued a signing statement in which he argued that the law’s elimination of the president’s discretion in enforcing the sanctions was unconstitutional. 

Cruz has relented on some specific nominations, and he has issued a standing offer to release his holds if the Biden administration resumes enforcement of the sanctions.

But Cruz has not been alone. Senator Hawley has said that he will continue blocking State Department nominees until the department’s entire senior leadership, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, resigns. His reason for demanding the resignations is the administration’s highly criticized handling of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan this summer. 

A procedural blockade 

While it simplifies matters to say that Cruz and Hawley are “blocking” a vote on Biden’s nominees, it isn’t precisely accurate. 

When the Senate operates through what is known as “regular order,” issues before the body progress on a slow path to a final vote on the floor. That path includes several preliminary votes to allow a measure to move from one step in the process to the next. This can take hours, and if the more than 1,200 positions in the federal government that require Senate confirmation were each subjected to it, it could take years to clear the backlog. 

To speed things up, the Senate uses “unanimous consent” agreements to move whole batches of nominees all at once. These agreements, as their name suggests, require every senator to agree to suspend the requirements of regular order. 

What Cruz and Hawley are doing is refusing their consent to suspend regular order when it comes to State Department nominees, forcing Democrats to go through the full process for each of Biden’s nominees. In fact, the Senate’s Democratic leadership has done that for a handful of Biden nominees, but has not been willing to set aside every other item on its agenda in order to concentrate on the State Department. 

On September 28, as the Senate was pushing a handful of nominees over the finish line, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, of New Jersey, made nine consecutive requests for unanimous consent on pending nominations, including several ambassadorships. Senator Hawley objected to each of them. 

 
…

Framed by the Capitol, President Joe Biden paid tribute Saturday to fallen law enforcement officers and honored those who fought off the Jan. 6 insurrection at that very site by declaring “because of you, democracy survived.” 

Biden spoke at the 40th Annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service to remember the 491 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty in 2019 and 2020. 

Standing where the violent mob tried to block his own ascension to the presidency, Biden singled out the 150 officers who were injured and the five who died in the attack’s aftermath.

“Nine months ago, your brothers and sisters thwarted an unconstitutional and fundamentally un-American attack on our nation’s values and our votes. Because of you, democracy survived,” Biden said. “Because of these men and women, we avoided a catastrophe, but their heroism came at a cost to you and your families.” 

Hundreds of officers and their families sat on chairs assembled on the Capitol’s west front. Some in the audience dabbed their eyes as the president drew connections with their loss and his own history of grief, including the deaths of his first wife and two children, comparing it to “losing part of your soul.”

Vows ‘more resources, not fewer’

Biden also underscored the heavy burden placed on law enforcement officers, and rebuked the “defund the police” political movement, saying that those gathered before him would get “more resources, not fewer, so you can do your job.”

“We expect everything of you and it’s beyond the capacity of anyone to meet the total expectations,” Biden said. “Being a cop today is one hell of a lot harder than it’s ever been.” 

Biden played up his working-class roots, noting that he had many childhood friends who went on to become police officers, and said he had spoken at the event many times before. But while Biden has throughout his political career sought to identify with the uniformed services, the organization that ran Saturday’s event, the National Fraternal Order of Police, endorsed Donald Trump in the 2020 election and many rank-and-file police officers supported the former president. 

Biden’s efforts to pass a police overhaul bill to tighten practices after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis collapsed, with congressional negotiators announcing in September that talks had ended without an agreement. That was a setback for the Democratic president, who campaigned on the need for policing changes and had declared it an early priority. 

Additionally, his agenda on gun violence has largely stalled and his initial pick to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives stepped aside in the face of staunch opposition. More recently, Biden has expressed hope that he can still sign a comprehensive police overhaul bill into law, while exploring more executive actions to help hold police officers accountable for breaking the law. 

At the ceremony, Biden expressed concerns for all officers in the line of duty and mentioned the three constable deputies shot in an ambush early Saturday while working at a Houston bar. One deputy was killed.
…

U.S. President Joe Biden touted his proposal for more government investment in child care during a visit to Connecticut on Friday, part of his push for a broader social spending bill that has been stalled in Congress.

“How can we compete in the world if millions of American parents, especially moms, can’t be part of the workforce because they can’t afford the cost of child care or elder care?” he asked at a child development center in the state capital of Hartford.

Biden said his plan would allow lower-income families to receive free child care and would limit child care expenses for many more Americans to less than 7% of their salaries. 

The president spoke about his own difficulties with child care when he was a young congressman after his wife and daughter were killed in a car accident. He said he “could not afford child care” for his two sons and commuted to Washington every day from his home state of Delaware so his relatives could help with child care. 

Biden’s child care proposals are part of a $3.5 trillion spending package that also addresses climate change; funds a host of social programs, including prekindergarten and paid leave; and raises taxes on corporations. The plan, called Build Back Better by the Biden administration, has been stalled in Congress over objections to the price tag by centrist Democrats and lockstep opposition by Republicans. 

The dispute over the legislation has also been holding up another bill, a $1 trillion infrastructure package. That legislation passed the Senate this summer with bipartisan support. However, House progressives say they won’t vote for the infrastructure bill unless there is progress on the social spending bill, while Democratic moderates do not want to vote on the larger spending bill until the infrastructure bill passes. 

During his trip to Connecticut, Biden is also attending the dedication of the Dodd Center for Human Rights at the University of Connecticut, which is being renamed to honor Biden’s longtime friend, former Senator Christopher Dodd, as well as Dodd’s father, former Senator Thomas Dodd. 

In additional to being a senator, the late Thomas Dodd was also a lead prosecutor for the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany, after World War II.

His son, Christopher Dodd, earned a reputation as a human rights advocate for his efforts to end abuses in Central America while serving in the Senate from 1981 to 2011.

Some information in this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters. 

 
…

Kenya is a major African player — as evidenced by U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to meet with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta on Thursday, Biden’s first in-person talks with an African leader since becoming president. 

“The U.S.-Kenya strategic partnership is essential,” Biden said, as the two leaders sat down in the Oval Office. “We both, I think, believe it is essential to addressing key regional and global challenges.”

The focus of their closed-door talks is likely to be Kenya’s next-door neighbor Ethiopia, where war has raged in the northern Tigray region for nearly a year. The conflict has killed untold numbers of people — the death toll itself is a subject of contention. But the United Nations estimates that the war has plunged 5.2 million people into humanitarian crisis and sent more than 63,000 fleeing into neighboring Sudan.

“Today, we’re going to discuss what more Kenya and the United States can do together on the Horn of Africa to advance peace and security,” Biden said. Neither leader mentioned Ethiopia by name. 

But White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the two leaders had discussed the landlocked nation and described the conflict in stark terms.

In September, Biden signed an executive order threatening to impose sanctions on “those responsible for, or complicit in, prolonging the conflict in Ethiopia, obstructing humanitarian access, or preventing a ceasefire.” The sanctions, which have not yet been imposed, would affect the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, the federal governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Amhara regional government, and other parties in the conflict.

“Obviously, what’s happening in Ethiopia, it’s an atrocity,” Psaki said, responding to a question about when the U.S. would initiate sanctions. “It’s horrific. It’s something that, frankly, I’m happy you’re asking about because there hasn’t been probably enough attention here in the United States to what’s happening.” 

African solutions to African problems?

The lack of international oversight over the conflict, both in Tigray and in Addis Ababa, is a concern. In September, Ethiopia expelled seven senior United Nations officials, indicating that the Horn of Africa power is not easily influenced by outside forces. As Ethiopian leaders and ordinary citizens are inclined to note, Ethiopia is the only African nation that has never been colonized. 

That historic mistrust, says Fergus Kell, makes a fellow African state like Kenya a smart choice to exert influence.

“Regionally, Kenya has been a long-standing partner of the U.S. in terms of counterterrorism, particularly with respect to Somalia,” said Kell, an analyst with British think tank Chatham House, speaking from Kano, Nigeria. “But increasingly, this is also about the situation in Ethiopia. As the Biden administration weighs up stronger punitive measures, Kenya has been one of the most vocal African countries on the crisis.” 

This week, Kenyatta told reporters at the United Nations that the warring sides in Ethiopia need to reach “a political resolution, because we do not believe that there is any military solution.”

‘I want to talk to you about that’ 

The White House also said the leaders discussed democracy and human rights issues as well security, economic growth, climate change and “the need to bring transparency and accountability to domestic and international financial systems.” 

The last subject is likely to touch on revelations about Kenyatta and his family’s offshore holdings. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists said in its recent Pandora Papers reports that Kenyatta’s family had stowed away about $30 million in offshore wealth. There is no evidence that the Kenyatta family stole any state assets.

When asked by VOA Wednesday about the push for transparency and the Pandora Papers revelations, press secretary Psaki said Biden “has been quite vocal, as you all know, about the inequalities in the international financial system.”

“That doesn’t mean we don’t meet with people you have disagreements on,” she said. “We have a range of interests in working with Kenya and working with them on issues in Africa, in the region, and that will be the primary focus.”

Biden said Thursday that he planned to discuss the issue with his Kenyan counterpart in private. 

“We’re also going to talk about strengthening the financial transparency and accelerating economic growth,” Biden said, as the two smiled and reclined in armchairs near artwork depicting American civil rights champions Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. “You’ve spoken to that, Mr. President; I want to talk to you about that,” Biden added.

VOA’s Chris Hannas contributed to this report.

 
…

A congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection has set a vote to recommend criminal contempt charges against former White House aide Steve Bannon after he defied the panel’s subpoena on Thursday.  

The chairman of the panel, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said the committee will vote next week to recommend the charges. That would send the recommendation to the full House for a vote.  

If the House votes to recommend the contempt charges against Bannon, the Justice Department will ultimately decide whether to prosecute. The committee had demanded documents and testimony from Bannon, who was in touch with President Donald Trump ahead of the violent attack.  

“The Select Committee will not tolerate defiance of our subpoenas, so we must move forward with proceedings to refer Mr. Bannon for criminal contempt,” Thompson said in a statement.  

The committee had scheduled a Thursday deposition with Bannon, but his lawyer said that at Trump’s direction he wouldn’t appear. Bannon also failed to provide documents to the panel by a deadline last week.  

A second witness called for a deposition Thursday, former Defense Department official Kashyap Patel, also would not appear, according to two people familiar with the confidential negotiations who were granted anonymity to discuss them. But Patel is still engaging with the committee, the people said, and the committee is not pursuing contempt charges against him.  

Two other aides who worked for Trump — former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and longtime Trump social media director Dan Scavino — are scheduled for depositions Friday. It is unclear whether they will appear. Like Patel, Meadows is speaking with the committee.

Bannon’s testimony is just one facet of an escalating congressional inquiry, with 19 subpoenas issued so far and thousands of pages of documents flowing in. But his defiance is a crucial development for the committee, whose members are vowing to restore the binding force of congressional subpoenas after they were routinely flouted during Trump’s time in office.  

“Mr. Bannon has declined to cooperate with the Select Committee and is instead hiding behind the former President’s insufficient, blanket and vague statements regarding privileges he has purported to invoke,” Rep. Thompson said in his statement. “We reject his position entirely.”  

Other witnesses are cooperating, including some who organized or staffed the Trump rally on the Ellipse behind the White House that preceded the violent riot. The committee subpoenaed 11 rally organizers and gave them a Wednesday deadline to turn over documents and records. They have also been asked to appear at scheduled depositions.

Among those responding was Lyndon Brentnall, whose firm was hired to provide Ellipse event security that day. “All the documents and communications requested by the subpoena were handed in,” he told The Associated Press.

Brentnall had previously said, “As far as we’re concerned, we ran security at a legally permitted event run in conjunction with the U.S. Secret Service and the Park Police.”

Two longtime Trump campaign and White House staffers, Megan Powers and Hannah Salem, who were listed on the Jan 6. rally permit as “operations manager for scheduling and guidance” and “operations manager for logistics and communications,” have also provided documents or are planning to do so.

It remains unclear whether the others who were subpoenaed intend to cooperate. A committee spokesperson declined to comment Wednesday on the responses it had received and how many of the 11 were complying.  

Two additional rally organizers, Ali Alexander and Nathan Martin, as well as their “Stop the Steal” organization, were also subpoenaed for documents, which are due Oct. 21.

Many of the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 marched up the National Mall after attending at least part of Trump’s rally, where he repeated his meritless claims of election fraud and implored the crowd to “fight like hell.” Dozens of police officers were injured as the Trump supporters then broke through windows and doors and interrupted the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.  

The rioters repeated Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud as they marched through the Capitol, even though the results of the election were confirmed by state officials and upheld by the courts. Trump’s own attorney general, William Barr, had said the Justice Department found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have overturned the results.

Also Wednesday, the panel issued a subpoena to a former Justice Department lawyer who positioned himself as Trump’s ally and aided the Republican president’s efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

The demands for documents and testimony from Jeffrey Clark reflect the committee’s efforts to probe not only the insurrection but also the tumult that roiled the Justice Department in the weeks leading up to it as Trump and his allies leaned on government lawyers to advance his election claims.  

Clark, an assistant attorney general in the Trump administration, has emerged as a pivotal character. A Senate committee report issued last week showed that he championed Trump’s efforts to undo the election results and clashed as a result with Justice Department superiors who resisted the pressure, culminating in a dramatic White House meeting at which Trump ruminated about elevating Clark to attorney general.

The committee’s demands of Trump aides and associates are potentially complicated by Trump’s vow to fight their cooperation on grounds of executive privilege.  

Biden has formally rejected Trump’s claim of executive privilege surrounding a tranche of documents requested from the former president’s time in the White House, and has set up the documents’ potential release to Congress in mid-November. White House Counsel Dana Remus wrote to the National Archives in a letter released Wednesday that Biden believes that “an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States.”
…

The House committee investigating the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol has issued a subpoena to a former Justice Department lawyer who positioned himself as an ally of Donald Trump and aided the Republican president’s efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

The subpoena to Jeffrey Clark, revealed Wednesday, came amid signs of an escalating congressional inquiry. At least three of the officials who were involved in organizing the rally that preceded the riot have handed over documents in response to subpoenas from the committee.  

The demands for documents and testimony from Clark reflect the committee’s efforts to probe not only the deadly insurrection but also events at the Justice Department in the weeks leading up to it as Trump and his allies leaned on government lawyers to advance his baseless claims that the election results were fraudulent. Trump loyalists stormed the Capitol in an effort to disrupt the congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory

Clark, an assistant attorney general in the Trump administration, has emerged as a pivotal character. A Senate committee report issued last week shows how he championed Trump’s efforts to undo the election results inside the Justice Department and clashed as a result with superiors who resisted the pressure, culminating in a White House meeting at which Trump floated the idea of elevating Clark to attorney general.

“The Select Committee’s investigation has revealed credible evidence that you attempted to involve the Department of Justice in efforts to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power,” the chairman of the committee, Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, wrote in a letter to Clark announcing the subpoena.

While Trump ultimately did not appoint Clark acting attorney general, Clark’s “efforts risked involving the Department of Justice in actions that lacked evidentiary foundation and threatened to subvert the rule of law,” Thompson added.

The committee has scheduled a deposition for October 29 and demanded documents by the same date. A lawyer for Clark declined to comment.

The January 6 panel has sought testimony from a number of witnesses, but its demands of Trump aides and associates are potentially complicated by Trump’s vow to fight their cooperation on grounds of executive privilege.  

One witness, Steve Bannon, has told the committee that he will not cooperate based on Trump’s directive, though the committee has said it was “engaging” with two other Trump officials — former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Defense Department official Kashyap Patel. It is unclear whether Dan Scavino, Trump’s longtime social media director and one of his most loyal aides, will cooperate.

Others are cooperating, including some of the 11 who organized or staffed the Trump rally that preceded the riot. They were given a Wednesday deadline to turn over documents and records and have been asked to appear at separate depositions the committee has scheduled beginning this month.

Among those responding to the Wednesday deadline was Lyndon Brentnall, whose firm was hired to provide event security that day.

“All the documents and communications requested by the subpoena were handed in,” he told The Associated Press.

Two longtime Trump campaign and White House staffers, Megan Powers and Hannah Salem, who were listed on the January 6 rally permit as “operations manager for scheduling and guidance” and “operations manager for logistics and communications,” have also provided documents or are planning to do so.

Powers, who served as the Trump reelection campaign’s director of operations, intends to provide the requested documentation and to meet with the committee — though it remains unclear what form such meetings will take, according to a person familiar with her response who spoke on condition of anonymity.  

Members of the committee, including Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the panel’s Republican vice chairwoman, have threatened to pursue criminal contempt charges against subpoenaed witnesses who refuse to comply. A House vote would send those charges to the Department of Justice, which would then decide whether to prosecute.  

The subpoena to Clark follows the release of a Senate Judiciary Committee report that documented extraordinary tensions within the senior ranks of the Justice Department in December and January as Trump and his allies prodded the law enforcement agency to help him in undoing the election.

The report from the committee’s Democratic majority depicts Clark as a relentless advocate for Trump’s efforts, even presenting colleagues with a draft letter pushing Georgia officials to convene a special legislative session on the election results. Clark wanted the letter sent, but superiors at the Justice Department refused.

“We need to understand Mr. Clark’s role in these efforts at the Justice Department and learn who was involved across the administration,” Thompson wrote.

Two additional organizers, Ali Alexander and Nathan Martin, as well as their “Stop the Steal” organization, were also subpoenaed for documents, which are due October 21.
…

George Barisich isn’t surprised by recent reports that President Joe Biden’s approval rating among Americans has continued to drop. A commercial fisherman outside New Orleans, Barisich has never been a Biden fan. 

“I didn’t like him from the start, and it looks like the rest of the country is figuring out what I knew all along,” he told VOA.

An aggregate of national polling compiled by the website FiveThirtyEight showed the president’s approval rating reached almost 55% in May. Since then, his popularity has dropped significantly. A Quinnipiac University poll from last week showed only 38% of its respondents approved of President Biden’s performance, with 53% disapproving. 

Robert Collins, professor of Urban Studies and Public Policy at Dillard University in New Orleans said a combination of issues is driving those declining numbers, from America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan to his administration’s handling of near-record high migration to the United States.

“Only 23% of respondents approved of his performance regarding the border crisis,” Collins said. “That’s a disaster.”

Barisich said he’s noticed a drop in enthusiasm for Biden even among his backers. 

“I was gifted these ‘President Trump’ socks I like to wear sometimes,” he said, laughing. “Up until recently, the Biden supporters I know would give me crap about them and tell me all the great things they thought the president was doing. Lately, though, they’ve been a lot more quiet.”

Policy issues

“The primary drop in Biden’s approval ratings [is] due to the Mexican border crisis, the servicemen lost in Afghanistan and the slow pace of the economic recovery,” Collins explained. “In the past, the president’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic has been his ace in the hole, but even his approval rating there has dropped below 50%.” 

Biden’s approval rating regarding his handling of pandemic topped out at 65% earlier this year, according to a May Quinnipiac poll. Their most recent poll has that number at 48%.“

It’s a massive drop,” Collins said.

The numbers get even worse on other topics. An August NBC News poll found 64% of independent voters polled felt Biden had accomplished “only some or very little in office.”

“I think he set unrealistic goals, and he definitely didn’t appreciate how bad things were at the border,” said New Orleanian Mary Chaput. A moderate voter, Chaput said she voted for Biden last year, but doesn’t imagine she’ll vote for him again. 

“In the past, he was someone who seemed to work well with Republicans as well as Democrats. But I think this is a different time, and he didn’t appreciate how difficult it would be to do that now,” she said.

Voters may want to see more from Biden, but his declining popularity has further complicated Democrats’ efforts to enact sweeping legislation, including a $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill that would massively expand America’s safety net.

Sticking with Biden

Disenchantment with Biden is far from universal. College professor Alex Hamman voted for Biden last year and said he’s likely to vote for him again.

“I’ve voted for Republicans in the past, but I just can’t imagine casting a ballot for anyone in today’s Republican Party,” he told VOA.

Hamman believes many of Biden’s struggles are a spillover from the actions and policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump.

“He basically ran against the Trump agenda, which means he has to fix all the past garbage instead of working on his own priorities. We have short memories, though, and we need to see new things accomplished,” he said.

A silver lining for the president is that much of his agenda remains popular, especially among independent voters, who helped him win the presidency last year. Fifty-seven percent of independents favor a bipartisan $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal supported by the president. Meanwhile, 48% of independents support Biden’s $3.5 trillion package for social programs, while 37% oppose it.

Currently neither bill has cleared Congress.

“He needs to cut a deal with the politicians in his own party and get a win,” Collins said. “And these particular wins would be two-fold. They’ll help the president build momentum, but also, they’ll create jobs. During peacetime, nothing is more important for approval ratings than the economy.”

Biden’s economic performance numbers have also sagged to 39% in the recent Quinnipiac poll.

A matter of trust

“I voted for Biden because I wanted to get Trump out of the White House,” Hamman said, “but I also voted for Biden because I think he’s a decent guy and about as honest as I expect any politician to be.”

Unfortunately for the president, in addition to matters of policy, the approval of important character traits — once a Biden strength in the eyes of voters — has also declined. A month before the 2020 election, a Gallup poll found that 52% of Americans saw then-candidate Biden as honest and trustworthy, while only 40% found Trump to be. 

By contrast, 44% of respondents in last week’s Quinnipiac poll found Biden to be honest; half of respondents said he was not. 

“Polling numbers on trust are normally a sign of people believing the president is hiding something from them,” Collins said, adding that the falling numbers could stem from Biden’s insistence that no one counseled him to delay the pullout from Afghanistan, an assertion contradicted by top U.S. military commanders. 

“But trust isn’t only a function of honesty. It’s a function of communication and transparency, too. More press conferences and direct communication with the American people so they understand what’s happening on a day-to-day basis could help,” the professor said.

Barisich agreed. “You never see him or hear from him,” he said. “How can you trust a guy that always seems to be in hiding?”

Looking to rebound

According to FiveThirtyEight.com, Biden has a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency than all but two presidents since 1945, one of whom was Trump. Collins said it should be a reason for concern for the president but not a cause for panic. 

“Any experienced politician knows that during the term of a president, poll numbers will be all over the place,” he said. “The only poll that really matters is the poll taken on Election Day, and we’re still a long way from that.”

The midterm elections will take place next year, but Collins cautioned that midterm elections tend to favor the political party not in control of the White House, regardless of the popularity of the sitting president. 

Whether Biden will seek reelection in 2024 remains to be seen. Rebounding from his current polling numbers will be vital for a second term in office. He could also get a boost from a familiar rival.

In the 2020 campaign, Trump’s negative ratings foreshadowed large numbers of independents voting for Biden. Even though many Americans are dissatisfied with Biden’s record, the idea of Trump or one of his allies running in 2024 could keep moderate voters open to reelecting Biden.

“If Trump or a ‘Trump person’ ran, I’d have to hold my nose and vote for Biden again,” explained Chaput, “but I really hope the Democrats will nominate someone else instead.”
…

Americans are voicing their disapproval of President Joe Biden, nearly nine months after he took office. 

In a string of national polls in the last week, an aggregate of 49.2% of voters surveyed disapproved of Biden’s handling of the presidency, while 44.5% approved, according to the FiveThirtyEight polling site. Five of the recent polls registered disapproval of the country’s 46th president at the RealClearPolitics site, with three favorable. 

Analysts say the drop in Biden’s standing has been particularly precipitous among independent voters who helped him win the White House last year over then-President Donald Trump. 

In July, at the six-month mark of his presidency, Biden enjoyed a nine-percentage point favorability edge, but by the end of August, polls showed U.S. voters were evenly divided in their views about him.

His standing has dropped more since then, with political analysts offering several explanations. 

It was a time coinciding with the chaotic U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan after 20 years of warfare, the analysts say. They also cite political rancor in Washington between Republicans and Democrats about increasing the government’s debt ceiling and between progressive and moderate Democratic lawmakers about the size and scope of a plan Biden has proposed for the biggest expansion of the country’s social safety net in more thaen five decades. 

The number of new coronavirus cases in the country also rose during recent months before receding more recently, even as nearly 70 million Americans remain unvaccinated. Biden has mandated vaccinations or frequent COVID-19 testing for workers at companies with 100 or more employees, but the mandates are controversial in some parts of the country and at some businesses and have yet to take effect. 

Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed late last week to an emergency $480 billion increase in the government’s borrowing authority through early December, at which time the issue will have to be revisited again. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers, at Biden’s behest, have been trying to pare down his $3.5 trillion social safety net spending proposal and pass it along with bipartisan infrastructure legislation by the end of October. 

Passage of the legislation and a weakening of the coronavirus threat could help Biden’s standing, but the FiveThirtyEight site noted that Biden has a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency than all but two presidents since 1945, although one of them was Trump.

Asked about Biden’s declining poll numbers, White House press secretary Jen Psaki recently told reporters, “This is a really tough time in our country. We’re still battling COVID, and a lot of people thought we’d be through it, including us.” 

“There’s no question it’s affecting a lot of issues,” she said, such as the supply chain of consumer goods coming from foreign manufacturers that are stalled at undermanned U.S. ports. She also said people are worried about their safety and well-being at work. 

Psaki added, “Our focus is getting the pandemic under control, returning to life, a version of normal.” 

 
…

President Joe Biden will not block the release of a tranche of documents sought by a House committee for its investigation into the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, setting up a showdown with former President Donald Trump, who has pledged to try to keep records from his time in the White House from being turned over to investigators.

In a letter to the Archivist of the United States, White House counsel Dana Remus writes that Biden has determined that invoking executive privilege “is not in the best interests of the United States.” This came days after Trump lawyers sought to block the testimony of former Trump officials to the House committee, citing executive privilege.

On Friday, a lawyer for Steve Bannon said the former White House aide wouldn’t comply with the House committee’s investigation because of Trump’s claim.

In August, the House committee investigating the insurrection asked for a trove of records, including communication within the White House under Trump and information about planning and funding for rallies held in Washington. Among those events was a rally near the White House featuring remarks by Trump, who egged on a crowd of thousands before loyalists stormed the Capitol.

Importance of documents

In the letter, Remus writes that the documents reviewed “shed light on events within the White House on and about January 6 and bear on the Select Committee’s need to understand the facts underlying the most serious attack on the operations of the Federal Government since the Civil War.”

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter Friday, which was first reported by NBC News.

Copies of the documents responsive to the request were turned over to the Biden White House and Trump’s lawyers for review for potential executive privilege concerns in accordance with federal law and the executive order governing presidential records.

The committee’s 10-page request to the Archives seeks “all documents and communications within the White House on January 6, 2021” related to Trump’s close advisers and family members, the rally at the nearby Ellipse and Trump’s Twitter feed. It asks for his specific movements on that day and communications, if any, from the White House Situation Room. Also sought are all documents related to claims of election fraud, as well as Supreme Court decisions on the topic.

Biden’s decision affects only the initial batch of documents reviewed by the White House. Press secretary Jen Psaki said subsequent determinations would be made on a case-by-case basis.

The current president has the final say unless a court orders the Archives to take a different action. Trump has not formally sought to invoke executive privilege over the documents, though that action is expected soon.

Trump is expected to take legal action to block the release of the documents, which, if a block was granted, would mark a dramatic expansion of the unwritten executive power. Trump will have an uphill battle, as courts have traditionally left questions of executive privilege up to the current White House occupant — though the former president’s challenges could delay the committee’s investigation.

Two witnesses ‘engaging’

Two other witnesses subpoenaed by the panel, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Pentagon aide Kash Patel, are “engaging” with the committee, according to its Democratic chairman, Mississippi Representative Bennie Thompson, and Republican vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming. Thompson and Cheney issued a statement Friday after a deadline for document production had passed.

“Though the Select Committee welcomes good faith engagement with witnesses seeking to cooperate with our investigation, we will not allow any witness to defy a lawful subpoena or attempt to run out the clock, and we will swiftly consider advancing a criminal contempt of Congress referral,” the two lawmakers said.

A spokesman for the panel declined to comment on the status of a fourth witness, former Trump communications aide Dan Scavino.

Bannon’s move sets the stage for a likely clash with House Democrats who are investigating the roles of Trump and his allies in the run-up to the riot, when a large mob of Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as Congress was certifying the results of the presidential election won by Biden, a Democrat. The committee is rapidly issuing subpoenas to individuals who are either connected to Trump or who helped plan the massive rally on the morning of January 6 at which he told his supporters to “fight like hell.”

Bannon’s refusal to comply, and Trump’s vow to litigate the testimony, will mean certain delays in the panel’s probe. But members of the committee, several of whom worked as prosecutors on Trump’s two impeachments, were prepared for the possibility and have repeatedly threatened charging witnesses with contempt. Trump often successfully fought witness testimony during his presidency but may find his legal standing shakier now that he is out of office.

A committee effort to charge witnesses with contempt would likely involve a vote of the full House and a referral to the Justice Department. It would then be up to Justice how to proceed with charges.

‘Unable to respond’

Bannon’s lawyer, Robert Costello, said in letter to the panel dated Thursday that until the issues over privilege are resolved, “we are unable to respond to your requests for documents and testimony.”

Costello wrote that Bannon, a former aide to Trump who had contact with him the week of the Capitol attack, is prepared to “comply with the directions of the courts” when and if they rule on the issue.

The letter includes excerpts from a separate letter sent to Bannon by Justin Clark, a lawyer for Trump. Clark says documents and testimony provided to the January 6 panel could include information that is “potentially protected from disclosure by executive and other privileges, including among others the presidential communications, deliberative process and attorney client privileges.”

Clark wrote to Bannon that “President Trump is prepared to defend these fundamental privileges in court.”

Spokespeople for Trump have not returned messages seeking comment. Trump said in a statement last month that he would “fight the Subpoenas on Executive Privilege and other grounds, for the good of our Country.”

As a former president, Trump cannot directly assert privilege to keep witnesses quiet or documents out of the hands of Congress. As the current president, Biden will have some say in the matter.
…

Senators in Washington passed a deal Thursday to temporarily raise the country’s debt limit, giving the U.S. Treasury Department the ability to borrow enough money for the country to keep paying its bills through the beginning of December.

The lack of agreement on the debt ceiling had been making both the Washington establishment and the financial markets nervous, as the country moved toward a crisis on Oct. 18, the day that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had warned the country might begin to struggle to pay its bills.

Debt ceiling crises have become a fairly regular feature of politics in Washington, but one that must seem strange — and even irrational — to people outside the U.S. Why does a rich and powerful country like the United States so frequently find itself on the brink of a fiscal disaster?

What follows is a brief explainer on the debt ceiling.

What, exactly, is the debt ceiling?

The United States government regularly spends more money than it takes in from taxes, fees, and other sources of revenue. That means that the country must regularly borrow money to make up the difference. The current accumulated federal debt stands at $28.4 trillion, according to the Treasury Department.

The responsibility for borrowing money falls on the Treasury, which does it by issuing different forms of debt instruments. These range from Treasury bills, that can mature in as little as a few days, to bonds that mature over 30 years.

However, the government places a cap on the total amount of debt that the Treasury can issue. The U.S. is unique among major economies in putting this restriction on the Treasury.

The existence of a debt ceiling means that Congress can pass spending laws that effectively require the Treasury to borrow money but can simultaneously withhold the authority to issue that debt by refusing to raise the statutory cap on borrowing.

Why does the U.S. have a debt ceiling in the first place?

Ironically, the debt ceiling was originally created as a mechanism that made it easier, not harder, for the Treasury to borrow money.

For the first 140 years of U.S. history, the Treasury was obliged to seek the permission of Congress every time it wanted to issue new debt. However, in 1917, when the U.S. government needed to borrow money to fund its participation in the first World War, this process became cumbersome.

Rather than demand that the Treasury seek permission for every war bond issuance, Congress gave the department blanket permission to borrow money up to a certain amount. Lawmakers would only need to get involved when and if that limit needed to be breached. After several changes to the rules over the next 20 years, a general limit was placed on all federal debt in 1939.

Raising the debt limit was treated as a routine matter for decades, but beginning in the first years of the 21st century, the issue became more politicized. Since then, the party opposed to the sitting president has often used it as convenient leverage for achieving policy concessions from the incumbent administration.

Why is raising the debt ceiling such a big deal?

The reason why potential U.S. debt defaults get so much attention is because of the disastrous effects such an interruption in payments would have, both domestically and around the world.

Domestically, default would impair the government’s ability to deliver basic services and to make payments to individual citizens and to the many contractors that do business with government entities.

In financial markets, U.S. Treasury securities are considered the closest thing there is to a risk-free asset. Any number of financial instruments and transactions are indexed to the interest rate the federal government pays on its borrowings.

If the ability of the U.S. to continue servicing its debts were compromised, it could cause a chain reaction that would drive up borrowing costs for everyone. The stock market would likely dive, impacting the retirement savings of millions of Americans. Additionally, the value of the dollar would erode, reducing the purchasing power not just of Americans, but of many people outside the U.S. who hold dollars as a reliable store of value.

Where is the disagreement?

Leaders of both political parties in the U.S. have said from the beginning of the current debt ceiling crisis that the borrowing limit must be raised, and that there can be no possibility of allowing a debt default.

However, Republicans in Congress have said that they will not provide any votes to raise the limit — not even for a preliminary vote that would allow Democrats to pass a debt ceiling increase all by themselves. They are insisting that the Democrats use an arcane legislative procedure known as “budget reconciliation” that can be brought to a vote with no Republican support.

Democrats are objecting to Republican demands, arguing that the need to raise the debt limit stems from spending commitments made in the past by both political parties, and that both parties should therefore share the responsibility of raising the limit.

Part of Republicans’ reason for demanding that Democrats use the reconciliation process is that it will require Democrats to set a fixed limit on the debt, thereby giving Republican politicians a massive number that they can use to hammer Democrats during the 2022 election season. Democrats would prefer to simply “suspend” enforcement of the debt ceiling, which would allow the amount of the country’s borrowing to increase with no fixed limit.

What happens next?

The deal that lawmakers announced Thursday would raise the debt limit by $480 billion, which is expected to cover the Treasury’s needs through about Dec. 3. It is unclear, however, when the country would again come close to defaulting. The Treasury has a number of tools it can deploy to postpone default, so the next deadline may be later than Dec. 3.

The deal does nothing to bridge the divide between the two parties on the broader issue, though, and makes it likely that in roughly six weeks, the country will again be counting the days until a catastrophic default.

Only this time, the stakes will be even higher. Dec. 3 is the same day that the federal government will be forced into a partial shutdown unless Congress can agree on a budget deal that will authorize the government to continue spending money. 
…

A review by U.S. Senate Democrats of Donald Trump’s attempt to use the Justice Department to overturn his 2020 election defeat provided new details on Thursday about an official’s bid to push out the acting attorney general to advance Trump’s false claims.

The report by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats details how Jeffrey Bossert Clark, then a senior Justice Department official, met with Trump more than once in late 2020. The then-president was growing angry that acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen would not launch a public investigation into Trump’s false claim that his defeat to now-President Joe Biden was the result of widespread fraud.

Rosen assumed his position in the final weeks of Trump’s presidency after William Barr resigned effective Dec. 23, 2020, rather than use the department to pursue Trump’s false claims, which were rejected by multiple courts, state election officials and his own administration.

“Today’s report shows the American people just how close we came to a constitutional crisis,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin said in a statement.

Rosen told the committee that Trump opened one meeting with him by saying, “One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren’t going to do anything to overturn the election.”

Trump also asked Clark if he would be willing to take over as acting attorney general, the report said, adding that Clark relayed this message to Rosen.

“Rosen recalled Clark indicating that he hadn’t yet decided whether he would accept Trump’s offer, wanted to conduct some ‘due diligence’ on certain election fraud claims, and might turn down the offer if he determined that Rosen and (Rosen’s deputy, Richard Donoghue) were correct that there was no corruption,” the report said.

The report also found that Clark sought to attend a meeting with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to ask about a baseless conspiracy theory that a Dominion voting machine “accessed the Internet through a smart thermostat.”

Clark pushed for a letter to Georgia, urging a special legislative session to contest the election results, the report said. The request was refused.

Clark’s efforts ultimately failed, after all of the department’s remaining senior leadership threatened to resign in protest if Clark were installed.

Durbin said the committee has asked Clark to testify.

Thursday’s report also contains new details about how former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows tried convince Rosen to launch “at least four categories of false election claims” in places such as Fulton County, Georgia and New Mexico.

Republicans on the committee issued their own report, which drew different conclusions.

“The available evidence shows that President Trump did what we’d expect a president to do on an issue of this importance: He listened to his senior advisers and followed their advice and recommendations,” Ranking Member Charles Grassley said.
…