Author: PolitCens

A group of centrist U.S. senators remained deadlocked Monday on trying to reach agreement on a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package to repair the country’s deteriorating roads and bridges and boost funding for broadband internet service.The Republican and Democratic lawmakers had hoped to finalize their plan but still had not reached agreement for specific funding totals for public transit, water projects, highways and broadband improvements for rural parts of the country.A month ago, President Joe Biden announced basic agreement with the senators on the plan, but negotiations have lingered on the details of the spending and how to pay for it.Biden, a Democrat now six months into his presidency, considers the infrastructure package one of his biggest legislative priorities and important as a way to show voters that he can negotiate a bipartisan deal in politically fractious Washington.Despite the new stalemate Monday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said, “It’s to be expected there would be some wrangling at the end. There are some outstanding issues.”Still, Biden told reporters, “I’m always optimistic” about passage of the legislation. 
…

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, on Sunday named a second Republican, Congressman Adam Kinzinger, to the select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by hundreds of supporters of then-President Donald Trump.
 
Kinzinger, an Illinois lawmaker, joins Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, both of them vocal critics of Trump, on the panel, which is set to start hearing testimony on Tuesday. The panel is investigating the chaos that occurred as lawmakers were certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in last November’s election to become the country’s 46th president.
 
Pelosi named Cheney to the panel weeks ago, while Kinzinger’s selection comes after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy last week pulled all five of his Republican appointments to the committee when Pelosi rejected two of them as biased against an independent review of how and why the riot occurred.
 
“Speaker Pelosi’s rejection of the Republican nominees to serve on the committee and self-appointment of members who share her pre-conceived narrative will not yield a serious investigation,” McCarthy said in a statement Sunday.FILE – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi responds to a question about her creation of a select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, during a news conference, June 30, 2021.About 800 people entered the restricted Capitol building, some rampaging past authorities, smashing windows and doors, and scuffling with police. More than 500 have been charged with an array of offenses, some as minor as trespassing, but others with assaulting police, 140 of whom were injured, and vandalizing the Capitol and congressional offices.
 
One Trump protester was shot dead by police, three other protesters died of medical emergencies and a police officer who helped defend the Capitol died the next day. Two other police officers committed suicide in the ensuing days.
 
Kinzinger’s appointment leaves seven Democrats and two Republicans on the panel, unless either Pelosi or McCarthy names more.
 
In a statement, Pelosi said Kinzinger “brings great patriotism to the committee’s mission: to find the facts and protect our democracy.”
In response, Kinzinger said, “Let me be clear, I’m a Republican dedicated to conservative values, but I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution — and while this is not the position I expected to be in or sought out, when duty calls, I will always answer.”FILE – Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois, speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, May 12, 2021.Pelosi had rejected the appointment of two vocal critics of the investigation, Congressmen Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio, because both had sought to overturn the presidential election results. Pelosi said she was willing to accept McCarthy’s three other Republican nominees, Congressmen Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas, but McCarthy withdrew their appointments.
 
Pelosi said on ABC’s “This Week” show, “I do believe that the work of this committee, in order to retain the confidence of the American people, must act in a way that has no partisanship, is all about patriotism, and I’m very proud of the members of the committee and I’m very certain they will accomplish that goal. We have to again ignore the antics of those who do not want to find the truth.”
 
Some Republicans have assailed the creation of the panel as a pre-ordained partisan Democratic exercise to find another way to attack Trump for his role in the mayhem at the Capitol. He had urged supporters to “fight like hell” to block certification of Biden’s victory.
 
Even before Pelosi named Kinzinger, Banks told the “Fox News Sunday” show that the House speaker only wants people “who will stick to her talking points” on the investigative panel.
 
“That’s why she’s picked the group that she’s already picked, and anyone that she asked to be on this committee from this point moving forward will be stuck to her narrative,” Banks said. 
…

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, on Sunday named a second Republican, Congressman Adam Kinzinger, to the select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by hundreds of supporters of then-President Donald Trump.
 
Kinzinger, an Illinois lawmaker, joins Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, both of them vocal critics of Trump, on the panel, which is set to start hearing testimony on Tuesday. The panel is investigating the chaos that occurred as lawmakers were certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in last November’s election to become the country’s 46th president.
 
Pelosi named Cheney to the panel weeks ago, while Kinzinger’s selection comes after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy last week pulled all five of his Republican appointments to the committee when Pelosi rejected two of them as biased against an independent review of how and why the riot occurred.
 
“Speaker Pelosi’s rejection of the Republican nominees to serve on the committee and self-appointment of members who share her pre-conceived narrative will not yield a serious investigation,” McCarthy said in a statement Sunday.FILE – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi responds to a question about her creation of a select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, during a news conference, June 30, 2021.About 800 people entered the restricted Capitol building, some rampaging past authorities, smashing windows and doors, and scuffling with police. More than 500 have been charged with an array of offenses, some as minor as trespassing, but others with assaulting police, 140 of whom were injured, and vandalizing the Capitol and congressional offices.
 
One Trump protester was shot dead by police, three other protesters died of medical emergencies and a police officer who helped defend the Capitol died the next day. Two other police officers committed suicide in the ensuing days.
 
Kinzinger’s appointment leaves seven Democrats and two Republicans on the panel, unless either Pelosi or McCarthy names more.
 
In a statement, Pelosi said Kinzinger “brings great patriotism to the committee’s mission: to find the facts and protect our democracy.”
In response, Kinzinger said, “Let me be clear, I’m a Republican dedicated to conservative values, but I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution — and while this is not the position I expected to be in or sought out, when duty calls, I will always answer.”FILE – Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois, speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, May 12, 2021.Pelosi had rejected the appointment of two vocal critics of the investigation, Congressmen Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio, because both had sought to overturn the presidential election results. Pelosi said she was willing to accept McCarthy’s three other Republican nominees, Congressmen Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas, but McCarthy withdrew their appointments.
 
Pelosi said on ABC’s “This Week” show, “I do believe that the work of this committee, in order to retain the confidence of the American people, must act in a way that has no partisanship, is all about patriotism, and I’m very proud of the members of the committee and I’m very certain they will accomplish that goal. We have to again ignore the antics of those who do not want to find the truth.”
 
Some Republicans have assailed the creation of the panel as a pre-ordained partisan Democratic exercise to find another way to attack Trump for his role in the mayhem at the Capitol. He had urged supporters to “fight like hell” to block certification of Biden’s victory.
 
Even before Pelosi named Kinzinger, Banks told the “Fox News Sunday” show that the House speaker only wants people “who will stick to her talking points” on the investigative panel.
 
“That’s why she’s picked the group that she’s already picked, and anyone that she asked to be on this committee from this point moving forward will be stuck to her narrative,” Banks said. 
…

As lawmakers on Capitol Hill struggle to advance a bipartisan bill to invest in the country’s critical infrastructure, the most powerful Republican in Washington signaled that his party’s cooperation with Democrats has limits.Specifically, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Wednesday that he does not expect members of his party to support a measure authorizing the government to borrow the money it will need to meet its obligations later this year.Because the amount of debt the U.S. Treasury can issue is capped by statute, whenever Congress approves spending that exceeds revenues – which it has done with every budget since 2001 – the country threatens to butt up against that limit, commonly known as the “debt ceiling.”The current national debt totals a jaw-dropping $28.5 trillion, or 26% more than the U.S. gross domestic product.Budget reconciliationIn an interview with Punchbowl News, published Wednesday, McConnell said, “I can’t imagine a single Republican in this environment that we’re in now – this free-for-all for taxes and spending – to vote to raise the debt limit.”Democrats, McConnell said, will have to take full responsibility for increasing the federal debt, suggesting that they do so using a process called “budget reconciliation,” which allows a bill to bypass the 60-vote margin in the Senate imposed by the filibuster.Later on Wednesday, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, echoed McConnell, saying “I don’t think there’s a single Republican senator who views increasing the debt limit so that Democrats can expand government and spend massive amounts as something they in the end would want to support.”Congressional Democrats furiousDemocrats in Congress were quick to point out the misdirection inherent in McConnell and Thune’s statements. Many of the obligations that the Treasury will have to meet later this year, and which will require more borrowing, have nothing to do with legislation currently being considered in Congress. Instead, they stem from decisions made in the past, when Republicans held control of one or both chambers of Congress.In particular, Democrats pointed to tax cuts passed in the first half of the Trump administration – when Republicans controlled Congress – which severely reduced federal revenue. They also point out that the government’s initial response to the coronavirus pandemic while the Republicans were in charge of the White House and the Senate was also a driver of the debt.Calling McConnell’s position “shameless, cynical, and totally political,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday, “This debt is Trump debt. It’s COVID debt. And the bottom line is that leader McConnell should not be playing political games with the full faith and credit of the United States. Americans pay their debts.”Biden disappointedAsked about McConnell’s suggestion that Republicans would not support a debt limit increase, President Joe Biden pointed out that Democrats had twice voted for debt limit increases during his predecessor’s four years in office.“I was hoping that wouldn’t be the case. You know, for the last four years, they’ve just extended the debt limit,” Biden said.“The reason for the significant debt is because of their … tax cut,” he added. “And there are going to be a couple of very difficult decisions that are going to have to be made to get through the end of the year. And one of them is the debt limit and extending the debt. So, I don’t have an answer for you, but it’s – I hope we can get by it.”Serious businessIf the United States were to fail to pay its debts on time – whether that means interest payments on bonds, Social Security benefits checks, or government payrolls – the results could be catastrophic for both the U.S. and for the broader global economy.Debt issued by the Treasury is the closest thing to a risk-free asset that investors can purchase, and is used to benchmark any number of other assets in the capital markets. Were the value of those securities to be suddenly placed in doubt, there would be severe repercussions throughout the global economy.The enormity of the fallout from a U.S. default would be so profound that many assume that it will never be allowed to happen. But lawmakers have danced very close to the edge in the past. In 2011, when House Republicans battled with Democratic President Barack Obama over the federal debt, the bond rating firm Standard & Poor’s issued the first-ever downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt, sparking a major stock market sell-off.Some hope for cooperationNot everyone believes that McConnell and Senate Republicans will necessarily succeed in forcing Democrats to shoulder full responsibility for the debt limit increase.Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said he believes that Democrats have at least a chance of persuading some Republicans to agree to a backdoor increase of the limit, which could be achieved with a vote to “suspend” it rather than increase it.“I wouldn’t rule out a bipartisan debt limit increase,” Goldwein said. “I think that’s the most likely option.” That could be achieved by attaching a suspension to the bipartisan infrastructure bill currently being written in the Senate, he said, or in a massive budget  bill at the end of the fiscal year, assuming the Treasury doesn’t run out of money beforehand.Historical accidentThe very existence of the debt limit as a sticking point in U.S. politics is an accident of history. The limit was originally intended to make issuing debt easier – not more difficult. Congress used to be required to vote on every issuance of debt by the Treasury, a process that became unwieldy as the country and government grew larger.In 1917, with the country raising money via bond issuances to support its involvement in World War I, Congress gave blanket approval to all debt issuance up to a specific amount. It was only decades later that the debt ceiling became a tool of obstruction. However, as Goldwein points out, it’s a problem the country regularly brings upon itself.“So long as we keep borrowing money, we’re going to have to keep raising the debt limit or suspending it,” he said. “That’s been a reality in the United States for a very long time.” 
…

U.S. President Joe Biden assailed the Cuban government Thursday for its crackdown on freedom protesters on the island nation and imposed sanctions on the head of the Cuban military and the internal security division that led the attacks on demonstrators.“I unequivocally condemn the mass detentions and sham trials that are unjustly sentencing to prison those who dared to speak out in an effort to intimidate and threaten the Cuban people into silence,” Biden said in announcing the sanctions.”The Cuban people have the same right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly as all people,” Biden said. “The United States stands with the brave Cubans who have taken to the streets to oppose 62 years of repression under a communist regime.”Biden’s rebuke of Cuba’s actions is an about-face for him. He had promised to try to ease relations with the country that is a mere 145 kilometers from the U.S. coastal state of Florida after former President Donald Trump had taken a tough stance against Cuba.The sanctions targeted Alvaro Lopez Miera, the Cuban minister of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, and the Cuban Ministry of the Interior’s Special National Brigade, also known as the Black Berets.The sanctions, imposed under the U.S. Global Magnitsky Act, freeze any of the Cubans’ assets under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibit travel to the U.S. As a practical effect, the action serves to publicly name and shame Cuban officials for the crackdown.U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken joined Biden in condemning the Cuban government’s response to the protests that started July 11. Hundreds of dissidents have been arrested in the most significant demonstrations in Cuba in decades. Many of the protesters remain out of touch with family members.“The actions of the Cuban security forces,” Blinken said, “lay bare the regime’s fear of its own people and unwillingness to meet their basic needs and aspirations.”He said Lopez Miera and the Special National Brigade “have been involved in suppressing the protests, including through physical violation and intimidation.”Biden said Thursday’s sanctions and condemnation of the government of President Miguel Diaz-Canel were “just the beginning – the United States will continue to sanction individuals responsible for oppression of the Cuban people.”“As we hold the Cuban regime accountable,” Biden said, “our support for the Cuban people is unwavering, and we are making sure Cuban Americans are a vital partner in our efforts to provide relief to suffering people on the island.”The U.S. leader said his administration is “working with civil society organizations and the private sector to provide internet access to the Cuban people that circumvents the regime’s censorship efforts.”In addition, Biden said the U.S. is reviewing its cash remittance policy to prevent theft of the money by Cuban officials. Expatriates have reported sending money to relatives in Cuba only to find that the government has pilfered it.Biden said the U.S. is committed to increasing the size of its embassy staff in Havana to provide consular services to Cubans after all but 10 U.S. diplomats there were withdrawn in 2017 and 2018. Numerous envoys in Havana had complained of sonic attacks that left them physically impaired.“Advancing human dignity and freedom is a top priority for my administration, and we will work closely with our partners throughout the region, including the Organization of American States, to pressure the regime to immediately release wrongfully detained political prisoners, restore internet access, and allow the Cuban people to enjoy their fundamental rights,” Biden said.
…

The Justice Department has accused Thomas Barrack, a longtime friend of former President Donald Trump and his 2017 inaugural committee chairman, of engaging in a wide-ranging scheme to favorably influence U.S. policy toward the United Arab Emirates without registering as a foreign agent as required by U.S. law. A seven-count indictment was handed down Tuesday against Barrack, 74, and two other associates, one American and the other a UAE national. Prosecutors allege that Barrack, who has known Trump since the 1980s, sought to influence him starting in April 2016, when Trump was campaigning for president, and extending through April 2018, during the first year-plus of Trump’s four-year term in the White House.  The indictment against Barrack also accuses him of obstructing justice and making numerous false statements to federal law enforcement agents when they interviewed him on June 20, 2019. After Barrack was arrested Tuesday, his lawyer told U.S. news outlets that Barrack “has made himself voluntarily available to investigators from the outset. He is not guilty and will be pleading not guilty.” Members of the media wait outside federal court building after Thomas Barrack, a billionaire friend of Donald Trump who chaired the former president’s inaugural fund, is arrested, in Los Angeles, California, July 20, 2021.Acting Assistant Attorney General Mark Lesko of the Justice Department’s National Security Division said in a statement that Barrack and his co-defendants “repeatedly capitalized on Barrack’s friendships and access to a candidate who was eventually elected president, high-ranking campaign and government officials, and the American media to advance the policy goals of (the UAE) without disclosing their true allegiances.” Lesko said their conduct “is nothing short of a betrayal of those officials in the United States, including the former president. Through this indictment, we are putting everyone — regardless of their wealth or perceived political power — on notice that the Department of Justice will enforce the prohibition of this sort of undisclosed foreign influence.”  Prosecutors allege that Barrack was an informal adviser to Trump during his 2016 campaign, chaired his inaugural committee and then “informally advised senior U.S. government officials on issues related to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.” Barrack at the time was executive chairman of a global investment management firm headquartered in Los Angeles, while one of his co-defendants, Matthew Grimes, 27, reported directly to Barrack at the investment company. The third defendant was identified as Rashid Sultan Rashid Al Malik Alshahhi, 43, a UAE national who worked as a UAE agent. Prosecutors allege that Barrack and the others took several actions to advance UAE interests without registering with the U.S. government as foreign agents. They accuse Barrack in May 2016 of inserting language praising the UAE into a Trump campaign speech about U.S. energy policy. The prosecutors say that Barrack, either directly or through Grimes or Alshahhi, was repeatedly in contact with senior UAE leaders.  The Justice Department alleges in a statement that Barrack and the others “sought and received direction and feedback, including talking points, from senior UAE officials in connection with national press appearances Barrack used to promote the interests of the UAE.” After one such public statement, Barrack emailed Alshahhi, saying, “I nailed it. . . for the home team,” referring to the UAE. On another occasion, according to the government, Barrack and Grimes sought advice from senior UAE officials before Barrack wrote an opinion piece for a national magazine in October 2016 and “removed certain language at the direction of senior UAE officials, as relayed by Alshahhi.” The government says that after Trump won the 2016 election, Barrack in December asked the UAE for a “wish list” of its short-term and longer-range goals it wanted from the incoming Trump administration. Prosecutors accuse Barrack, shortly after Trump took office, with providing Alshahhi with non-public information about the reaction of U.S. government officials after they held a White House meeting with senior UAE officials.  The indictment alleges that in September 2017, Alshahhi told Barrack that the UAE was against a proposed summit in the U.S. concerning an ongoing dispute between Qatar, the UAE and other Middle Eastern governments. The Justice Department alleges that Barrack “sought to advise” Trump about the UAE stance and the summit never occurred. Throughout his representation of the UAE, prosecutors said Barrack used a dedicated cellphone and installed a secure messaging application so he could converse with top UAE officials. During Barrack’s 2019 interview with FBI agents, the government alleged that he lied repeatedly, including denying that Alshahhi had ever requested that he take any actions advancing UAE interests. 
 
…

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday rejected two Republican nominees to sit on a committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, suggesting they would harm the integrity of the probe.”With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives [Jim] Banks and [Jim] Jordan to the Select Committee,” Pelosi said in a statement.”The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision,” she said.Later Wednesday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy responded by withdrawing all five nominees.House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., announces the withdrawal of his nominees to serve on a special committee probing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, July 21, 2021, as Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, center, and Jim Banks of Indiana stand by.“Speaker Pelosi has taken the unprecedented step of denying the minority party’s picks for the Select Committee on Jan. 6,” McCarthy said in a statement. “This represents something that has not happened in the House before for a select committee. … Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts.”On January 6, former President Donald Trump implored thousands of supporters who had come to Washington for a Save America March to “fight like hell” to overturn the certification of Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. Five people, including a federal police officer, died in connection with the subsequent riot at the Capitol.Hours after the insurrection, Banks and Jordan voted to overturn Biden’s win.Pelosi, who has the authority to approve or reject members, said she accepted McCarthy’s other nominees, Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls. Armstrong and Davis voted to certify Biden’s victory.Pelosi created the 13-member committee after House Republicans rejected earlier plans to create a bipartisan committee to investigate the insurrection.Some information for this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters.
 
…

Nearly nine months after last year’s U.S. presidential election, there’s one more loser – political polls – with a new analysis showing the 2020 surveys in advance of the November 3 vote were among the least accurate in decades.The polling industry’s professional organization, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, says that it reviewed 2,858 polls, including hundreds of national and state-level polls, and found that they consistently understated the support for then-President Donald Trump, although he lost the election to Democrat Joe Biden, now the country’s 46th president.The group found that the surveys overstated the margin between Biden and Trump by 3.9 percentage points in the national popular vote and 4.3 percentage points in state polls.The polling organization said the percentage error rate was of an “unusual magnitude,” the highest in 40 years for national popular vote surveys and at least 20 years for state-level polls.But the election outcome in the polling was entirely accurate at the end of the lengthy campaign, with all 66 surveys conducted in the two weeks prior to the vote showing that Biden would defeat Trump. Polls for Senate contests were less accurate, with pre-election surveys correctly hitting only two-thirds of the winners.In the actual vote, Biden defeated Trump by a 51.3% to 46.8% margin, a vote count of 81.3 million to 74.2 million.The polling group said, “Whether the candidates were running for president, senator, or governor, poll margins overall suggested that Democratic candidates would do better and Republican candidates would do worse relative to the final certified vote.”The pollsters say they do not know why the pre-election findings were off by the actual margins, even as Biden won, as surveys in months of polling overwhelmingly suggested a Biden victory.In 2016, pollsters underestimated Trump’s support in key states he unexpectedly won en route to a four-year term in the White House. The pollsters concluded in the aftermath of that election they had failed to take into account an education divide in American voting habits, that college educated voters tended to support Democrats more than Republicans.The authors of the 2020 polling analysis say they are not certain what caused the errors last year but suggested that the declining response rate among some people, especially Republicans, to polling inquiries, might be a key factor.Trump often assailed polls showing him losing, falsely declaring them as “fake,” or aimed at suppressing enthusiasm for his reelection.The pollsters say it is impossible to know the reasons people do not participate in polls when they are not answering pollsters’ questions in the first place.“Identifying conclusively why polls overstated the Democratic-Republican margin relative to the certified vote appears to be impossible with the available data,” the report says. 
…

The U.S. Justice Department will appeal a judge’s ruling that determined a federal program protecting young immigrants living in the U.S. from deportation is illegal, President Joe Biden said Saturday.U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, in the south-central state of Texas, invalidated former President Barack Obama’s program Friday, ruling that Obama acted unlawfully when he created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012 by executive action.In a White House statement released Saturday, Biden said Hanen’s ruling was “deeply disappointing” and renewed calls for Congress to “ensure a permanent solution.”Hanen’s ruling agreed with a group of U.S. states, led by Texas, that sued to end the DACA program.While Hanen’s order did not affect immigrants already covered by DACA, Biden said the ruling “relegates hundreds of thousands of young immigrants to an uncertain future.”DreamersDACA has enabled hundreds of thousands of young people, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children or overstayed their visas, to remain in the country. Those protected under the program are commonly known as Dreamers, based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act.The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation in March creating a pathway to citizenship for those affected, but it failed to gain traction in the Senate.Immigration advocates will try to add a provision to protect Dreamers in a comprehensive budget bill Democrats hope will be approved by Congress this year, though it is uncertain if the language will remain in the final version.Some information for this report came from Reuters and The Associated Press.
…

Even as Donald Trump faces the threat of lawsuits over his company’s business dealings and continues to be banned on social media platforms, the former president wields an outsized influence over the Republican Party.Unlike most former presidents who stay out of the political limelight, Trump is still holding rallies, attacking President Joe Biden and amplifying what his critics call the “Big Lie” — the claim that Biden stole the 2020 election.“We won the election twice,” is a refrain Trump often declares at his rallies and events.While Gallup poll shows 62% of Americans disapproved of Trump in the last month he was in office, his core base of support has remained largely intact. This solid Republican base gives him power within the party, said Thomas Schwartz, who teaches politics at Vanderbilt University.That power was in full display when House of Representatives Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy met Trump at the former president’s Bedminster resort in New Jersey this week. The meeting took place as McCarthy was considering which Republican House members to appoint to a special committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters that left five people dead and injured 140 police officers.Sorry, but your browser cannot support embedded video of this type, you can
download this video to view it offline.Download File360p | 9 MB480p | 13 MB540p | 17 MB720p | 36 MB1080p | 69 MBOriginal | 84 MB Embed” />Copy Download AudioIn May, Republican senators blocked a bill to create an independent commission to investigate the bloody siege. Only six Republicans voted with Democrats for the bill, falling short of the 10 Republican votes needed.Another presidential runIn an informal poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas last week, Trump was the first choice for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination of 70% of the attendees.Trump first hinted at another presidential run at the CPAC gathering in February, in Florida.”A Republican president will make a triumphant return to the White House. And I wonder who that will be?” he teased.The support from Trump’s base may not be enough to win an election against a Democratic candidate, but it could be enough for him to secure the Republican nomination, Schwartz said.“And that’s one of the reasons why I think Republican officeholders are approaching him very cautiously, and you only have a few who are really willing to defy him directly,” he added.Those who do cross the former president and real estate tycoon often pay the price. In May, Republicans in the House ousted Liz Cheney from her leadership position as House Republican Conference chair after she repudiated Trump for baselessly claiming that Biden won the election through fraud.“We cannot be dragged backward by the very dangerous lies of a former president,” Cheney, a conservative from Wyoming and the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, said after her ousting.Cheney was swiftly replaced by New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Trump loyalist. Stefanik thanked Trump in front of reporters and called him “a critical part of our Republican team.”My statement as the newly elected House GOP Conference Chair. pic.twitter.com/emb6lNxPRm— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) May 14, 2021Investigations and lawsuitsTrump’s presidential ambitions may be complicated by an investigation of the Jan. 6 siege, which Democrats have characterized as an insurrection.Earlier this month, Cheney was appointed by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to sit on a committee that will investigate the attack, including Trump’s role in the lead-up to the violent assault on the Capitol by his supporters.In an upcoming book, I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year by Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, the authors write that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, was concerned that Trump would try to mount a coup after losing the 2020 election.According to the book, Milley spoke to his deputies and vowed to stop it. “They may try” but won’t succeed, he said. “You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.”Trump denied the allegation.”So ridiculous! Sorry to inform you, but an Election is my form of ‘coup,’ and if I was going to do a coup, one of the last people I would want to do it with is General Mark Milley,” Trump said in a statement.In June, New York authorities placed the Trump Organization, the holding company of Trump entities including hotels, buildings and golf courses, under investigation for tax evasion, fraud and other illegal dealings.New York Attorney General Letitia James said that her office is “actively investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity,” along with Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who has been conducting a separate criminal inquiry into Trump’s business practices.Earlier this month, the company’s longtime chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg was charged with 15 felony counts including scheming to defraud, conspiracy, and grand larceny.Trump’s lawyer Alan Futerfas says the lawsuits are politically motivated.“I think in 244 years, we have not had a local prosecutor go after a former president of the United States or his employees or his company,” Futerfas said.  
…

Immigrants and advocates urged Democrats and President Joe Biden to quickly act on legislation to protect young immigrants after a federal judge in Texas on Friday ordered an end to the Obama-era program that prevents the deportation of thousands of immigrants brought into the U.S. as children.Plaintiffs have vowed to appeal the decision by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program illegal, barring the government from approving any new applications but leaving the program intact for existing recipients.Calling the ruling a “blaring siren” for Democrats, United We Dream Executive Director Greisa Martinez Rosas said they would be solely to blame if legislative reform didn’t happen.”Until the president and Democrats in Congress deliver on citizenship, the lives of millions will remain on the line,” Martinez Rosas said.Nine states suedHanen ruled in favor of Texas and eight other conservative states that sued to halt DACA, which provides limited protections to about 650,000 people.The program has faced a roller coaster of court challenges since former President Barack Obama instituted it in June 2012. The Trump administration announced it was ending the program in September 2017, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the administration hadn’t ended the program properly, keeping it alive once more.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a statement Friday evening, vowed that Democrats would continue to push for passage of protective legislation, and she called on Republicans “to join us in respecting the will of the American people and the law, to ensure that Dreamers have a permanent path to citizenship.”In Friday’s ruling, Hanen wrote that the states proved “the hardship that the continued operation of DACA has inflicted on them.”He continued: “Furthermore, the government has no legitimate interest in the continuation of an illegally implemented program.”Proposed legislationBiden has proposed legislation that would provide a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. without authorization. He also ordered agencies to make efforts to preserve the DACA program.FILE – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals supporters celebrate in front of the Supreme Court after it rejected then-President Donald Trump’s effort to end legal protections for young immigrants, in Washington, June 18, 2020.Supporters of DACA, including those who argued before Hanen to save it, have said a law passed by Congress is necessary to provide permanent relief. Hanen has said Congress must act if the U.S. wants to provide the protections in DACA to recipients commonly known as Dreamers, based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act.The House approved legislation in March creating a pathway toward citizenship for Dreamers, but the measure has stalled in the Senate. Immigration advocates hope to include a provision opening that citizenship doorway in sweeping budget legislation Democrats want to approve this year, but it’s unclear whether that language will survive.Suing alongside Texas were Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia — states that all had Republican governors or state attorneys general.They argued that Obama didn’t have the authority to create DACA because it circumvented Congress. The states also argued that the program drains their educational and health care resources.The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, which defended the program on behalf of some DACA recipients, argued Obama did have the authority and that the states lacked the standing to sue because they had not suffered any harm because of the program.Plaintiffs to appealThomas Saenz, president of MALDEF, said Friday that plaintiffs would appeal.Friday’s ruling “once more emphasizes how critically important it is that the Congress step up to reflect the will of a supermajority of citizens and voters in this country. That will is to see DACA recipients and other young immigrants similarly situated receive legislative action that will grant them a pathway to permanence and citizenship in our country,” Saenz said.Hanen rejected Texas’ request in 2018 to stop the program through a preliminary injunction. But in a foreshadowing of his latest ruling, he said he believed DACA as enacted was likely unconstitutional without congressional approval.Hanen ruled in 2015 that Obama could not expand DACA protections or institute a program shielding recipients’ parents.  While DACA is often described as a program for young immigrants, many recipients have lived in the U.S. for a decade or longer after being brought into the country without permission or overstaying visas. The liberal Center for American Progress says roughly 254,000 children have at least one parent relying on DACA. Some recipients are grandparents.Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, a progressive organization, expressed disappointment at Friday’s ruling, saying in a statement that DACA has been a big success that has transformed many lives.”Today makes absolutely clear: Only a permanent legislative solution passed by Congress will eliminate the fear and uncertainty that DACA recipients have been forced to live with for years. We call on each and every elected office to do everything within their power so that DACA recipients and their families and communities can live free from fear, and continue to build their lives here,” Schulte said.
…

California lawmakers on Thursday approved the first state-funded guaranteed income plan in the U.S., $35 million for monthly cash payments to qualifying pregnant people and young adults who recently left foster care with no restrictions on how they spend it.

The votes — 36-0 in the Senate and 64-0 in the Assembly — showed bipartisan support for an idea that is gaining momentum across the country. Dozens of local programs have sprung up in recent years, including some that have been privately funded, making it easier for elected officials to sell the public on the idea.

California’s plan is taxpayer-funded and could spur other states to follow its lead.

“If you look at the stats for our foster youth, they are devastating,” Senate Republican leader Scott Wilk said. “We should be doing all we can to lift these young people up.”

Local governments and organizations will apply for the money and run their programs.

The state Department of Social Services will decide who gets funding. California lawmakers left it up to local officials to determine the size of the monthly payments, which generally range from $500 to $1,000 in existing programs around the country.

Federal child tax credit

The vote came on the same day millions of parents began receiving their first monthly payments under a temporary expansion of the federal child tax credit many view as a form of guaranteed income.

“Now there is momentum, things are moving quickly,” said Michael Tubbs, an advisor to Governor Gavin Newsom, who was a trailblazer when he instituted a guaranteed income program as mayor of Stockton. “The next stop is the federal government.”

For decades, most government assistance programs have had strict rules about how the money could be spent, usually limiting benefits to things like food or housing. But a guaranteed income program gives money to people with no rules on how to spend it. The idea is to reduce the stresses of poverty that cause health problems and make it harder for people to find and keep work.

“It changes the philosophy from ‘big brother government knows what’s best for you,’ ” said state Senator Dave Cortese, a Democrat from San Jose. “We’ve been very prescriptive with that population as a state and as counties go. Look at the failure. Half of them don’t get their high school diplomas, let alone advance like other people their age.”

But critics like Republican Assemblyman Vince Fong of Bakersfield say guaranteed income programs “undermine incentives to work and increase dependence on government.”

No job training, skills development

“We should be pushing policies that encourage the value of work,” said Fong, who abstained from Thursday’s vote. “Guaranteed income doesn’t provide the job training and skills needed for upward mobility.”

Guaranteed income programs date to the 18th century. The U.S. government even experimented with them in the 1960s and 1970s during the Nixon administration before they fell out of favor.

But recently, guaranteed income programs have been making a comeback. Programs have been announced in New Orleans; Oakland, California; Tacoma, Washington; Gainesville, Florida; and Los Angeles, the nation’s second-largest city, which has a plan to give $1,000 a month to 2,000 needy families.

The state wants to target the money on programs that benefit pregnant people and young adults aged out of the foster care system to help them transition to life on their own. The latter includes people like Naihla De Jesus, who was removed from her mother’s custody at 17 and bounced between living with an aunt, a godmother and a boyfriend until landing in a transitional housing program.

She became ineligible for that program when she turned 24 last year, which normally would have ended her government assistance as a foster child. Instead, the taxpayers of Santa Clara County have been paying her $1,000 a month with no restrictions on how she can spend it, part of a guaranteed income program targeting former foster care children.

De Jesus is also caring for her 9-year-old brother as his temporary guardian while battling anxiety and depression. She said her condition made it hard for her to keep a job because some days she wouldn’t have enough energy to get out of bed and wouldn’t go to work.

In the workforce

Now, she has a full-time job as a client support specialist with the Bill Wilson Center, where she works with young people who are in situations like hers. She says she doesn’t worry about money like she used to, choosing to save most of what she gets from the guaranteed income program. She used some of it to buy things for her brother, whose interest in expensive electronics grows as he gets older.

And she used the money to save for a down payment for her “dream car,” a blue Subaru WRX.

“I’m proud of myself, of where I am,” she said. “I don’t have to stress and then isolate myself and overthink, ‘Oh, I’m not going to have enough money to pay my rent or pay my phone bill.’ ”

Santa Clara County’s program has cost the county $1.4 million so far. Participants get the money on a debit card, which they can use for purchases or to withdraw money from an ATM. County officials ask them to fill out surveys to monitor how they are doing, but they haven’t completed a thorough analysis, said Melanie Jimenez Perez, who oversees the program.

An analysis of a guaranteed program in Stockton found full-time employment increased among participants after the first year of receiving the money.
…

President Joe Biden made the case for his sweeping, two-track infrastructure initiative Wednesday on Capitol Hill, a day after leading Senate Democrats agreed on a $3.5 trillion plan billed as the biggest boost in decades for U.S. families. Biden joined fellow Democrats for a closed-door lunch where he sought their support and discussed strategy for passing both a FILE – Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., speaks during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Sept. 24, 2020.Biden urged senators to think about how the package would affect average Americans, said Senator Chris Murphy. “He just kept on telling us to think about his neighbors in Scranton,” Murphy said, referring to Biden’s Pennsylvania hometown. “Think about whether what we’re doing is going to pass muster with the folks that he grew up with.” An Ipsos poll conducted this month for Reuters found that most Americans want the kind of infrastructure improvements that are included in the Biden plan. It also found that nearly two-thirds of the country supports increasing taxes on “the highest-earning Americans” to pay for the improvements. Democrats face a tricky path ahead in getting the two measures approved by a narrowly divided Congress. They will need the support of all 50 of their senators — plus Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote — to pass the $3.5 trillion bill over Republican opposition in the 100-seat Senate, using a maneuver called reconciliation that gets around the chamber’s normal 60-vote threshold to pass legislation. Elements of the $3.5 trillion plan also would have to pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, who has the power to rule specific provisions ineligible for inclusion under the special reconciliation rules for that legislation’s consideration. While some of the more liberal Democrats on Wednesday said they had hoped for a bigger plan, they had yet to reject the $3.5 trillion deal. FILE – Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill, April 22, 2021.”The need is so much greater than what we’re providing. But still, this is very significant,” Senator Mazie Hirono told reporters. As the day wore on, Democrats across Capitol Hill tried to demonstrate unity over the 10-year investment framework. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it a “victory for the American people.” And just as Biden was leaving the Capitol, he got a boost from the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a nearly 100-member group of lawmakers whose support is essential. FILE – Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 29, 2020.”We are still looking at all the details, but we certainly see this as important movement forward,” said Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal, who heads the group. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, an outspoken moderate, stressed the need to offset the $3.5 trillion cost amid large budget deficits. Manchin also fretted that the plan could eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels, a key demand from progressives worried about climate change. “Anybody moving in a direction where they think they can walk away and not have any fossil in play, that’s just wrong. It won’t happen,” said the senator, who represents the coal-mining state of West Virginia. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, whose panel oversees tax legislation, said a Democratic plan to raise international taxes on corporations would raise “several hundred billion dollars” on its own. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, July 13, 2021.Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time going on the attack. “With inflation raging … [the Democrats’ budget plan] is wildly, wildly out of proportion to what the country needs right now,” he told reporters. U.S. consumer prices rose by the most in 13 years last month amid supply constraints and a rebound in the costs of travel-related services from pandemic-depressed levels as the economic recovery gathered momentum, according to data released on Tuesday. Republican Senator Rob Portman dismissed any notion that the level of spending being proposed would sink prospects for passage of the smaller, bipartisan bill. A group he leads plans to provide details on the legislation in coming days. Even if they pass the Senate, both measures would also need to make it through the House before going to Biden’s desk for signing into law. The $3.5 trillion plan agreed to by senior Democrats and White House negotiators includes a significant expansion of the Medicare health care program for the elderly — a top goal of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, who joined Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in unveiling the deal Tuesday night. FILE – Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of N.Y., right, sits next to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., during a meeting with Senate Democrats on the Budget Committee, on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 16, 2021.Senate Republicans, who assail Biden’s larger spending ambitions as unnecessary, have voiced qualified support for the narrower $1.2 trillion plan, which includes nearly $600 billion in new spending for roads, bridges, rail, public transit, water and broadband internet systems. The Senate’s 50 Republicans are not expected to back the broader infrastructure effort, which would undo Republican then-President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts by raising taxes on U.S. corporations and wealthy individuals. Asked about the Democrats’ deal on Wednesday, Republican Senator Mitt Romney said in a brief interview in the Capitol that it was “stunning. It’s a shocking figure, particularly at a time when the economy is already heating. It seems that our Democrat friends may have lost their bearings.” 
…

Former President Donald Trump is struggling to put himself back at the center of America’s attention. His recent lawsuits against Google, Facebook and Twitter highlight the platforms’ power to control digital speech, even that of world leaders. Michelle Quinn reports.Producer: Michelle Quinn.
…

U.S. President Joe Biden was in Philadelphia Tuesday to urge the passing of voting rights legislation that has stalled in Congress, but he did not outline a path to overcome Republican opposition. The speech came as Republicans in state legislatures sought to pass measures restricting access to voting. White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has this report.Produced by: Barry Unger   
…

Senate Democrats announced Tuesday that they have reached a budget agreement among themselves that envisions spending $3.5 trillion over the coming decade. The fiscal plan would pave the way for Democrats’ drive to direct a huge pool of federal resources at climate change, health care and family-service programs sought by President Joe Biden.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced the accord flanked by all 11 Democrats on the chamber’s budget committee after a two-hour evening meeting that capped weeks of bargaining among party leaders, progressives and moderates. The agreement is a major step in Democrats’ drive to turn Biden’s effort to bolster an economy that was ravaged by the pandemic and set it on a course for long-term growth. Separately, bipartisan senators have been working toward another measure that would spend around $1 trillion on roads, water systems and other infrastructure projects.  If congressional Democrats rally behind the budget agreement announced Tuesday and push it through Congress in the coming weeks, it would help them enact a subsequent, sweeping bill that would actually fund their priorities.  That’s because the budget resolution contains language that would let Democrats move the follow-up, huge spending bill through the Senate with just a simple majority, not the 60 votes Republicans could demand by using a bill-killing filibuster. “We are very proud of this plan,” Schumer told reporters. “We know we have a long road to go. We’re going to get this done for the sake of making average Americans lives a whole lot better.”  Schumer said Biden would attend a lunch at the Capitol Wednesday of all Senate Democrats “to lead us on to getting this wonderful plan” enacted. But Schumer and other lawmakers did not respond when asked if they had the support of all 50 of their party’s senators, who they will need to push the measure through the evenly divided Senate.  Schumer said the proposal would call for financing Biden’s budget priorities “in a robust way.” He also said it would include a priority of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and other progressives: an expansion of Medicare, the federal health insurance program for older people, to cover dental, vision and hearing services. Sanders called the agreement “a pivotal moment in American history” that would end an era in which, he said, rich people and big companies weren’t bearing enough of the burden of financing government programs. “Those days are gone,” said Sanders. “The wealthy and large corporations are going to start paying their fair share of taxes, so that we can protect the working families of this country.”  Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., a leading moderate who helped shape the budget package, said the measure would be fully paid for with offsetting revenue but provided no detail. The budget will include language stating that there will be no tax increases on people making less than $400,000 a year or on small businesses, according to a Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations granted anonymity to discuss them. The budget resolution sets only broad spending and revenue parameters, leaving specific decisions about which programs are affected — and by how much — for later.  
…

U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday assailed Republican-led states pushing to tighten voting rules, calling it an “unfolding assault … on liberty.” Republicans say they are tightening voting rules so that no election fraud occurs in the future and that Americans can have confidence that votes are fairly counted. But Biden, in perhaps the most emotional speech of his six-month presidency, contended that the 28 laws already adopted in 17 states “make it harder for Americans to vote.” “This is election subversion,” he declared. “It’s simply unconscionable.”Without naming him, Biden rebuked former President Donald Trump for his continuing claims that he was cheated out of another four-year term in the White House by voting and ballot-counting fraud in last November’s election. U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks at National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 13, 2021.”The big lie is just that, a big lie,” Biden declared to the loud applause of supporters gathered at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Biden chose the city for the voting rights address because it is the cradle of American democracy: It’s where the country’s Founding Fathers first declared their independence from England in 1776. “In America, if you lose, you accept the results,” Biden said of Trump, who skipped Biden’s January inauguration and has yet to publicly declare that Biden won the election. Biden called again for the Senate to pass voting-rights legislation already approved by the House of Representatives that would nationalize congressional and presidential election rules, overriding the newly enacted state restrictions that Biden and Democratic lawmakers say would especially inhibit voting by minorities, who most often vote for Democrats. But as it stands, the legislation has little chance of passage in the 100-member Senate, split evenly between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. Republicans recently blocked debate on the measure. Biden emotionally implored lawmakers, saying, “Stand up, for God’s sake, and protect the right to vote.” For the moment at least, the United States will head into next year’s congressional elections with no change in the long-standing practice whereby each of the 50 states sets its own rules on voter registration, voting hours, mail-in ballots and more. In advance of Biden’s trip to Philadelphia, the White House said that “an alarming number of states … are erecting new barriers to voting, with additional barriers threatened elsewhere.” Republicans say the laws are necessary to ensure election integrity and prevent fraud, although there were almost no irregularities found in the 2020 voting, and not anywhere close to enough to have upended Biden’s victory.  In the latest state political voting law confrontation, Republican legislators in the southwestern state of Texas, the country’s second most populous, are attempting to push through new restrictions.  Democratic lawmakers first blocked passage of the measure in May by walking out of a legislative session to deny Republicans a quorum for a vote. This week, they fled the state during a special session to visit national Democratic lawmakers in Washington and push for countrywide election rules. The Texas Democrats said they plan to stay away from their home state until the legislative session ends in early August. Empty seats are seen in the House Chamber at the Texas Capitol, July 13, 2021.The White House said other recent events are undermining voting rights, including what it called the “sham ‘audit’ in Arizona” of the 2020 presidential vote in a state that Biden won over Trump. State Republican officials in Arizona authorized the new recount there, looking for vote-counting irregularities, although official tallies were completed months ago with no evidence of consequential fraud that would have overturned Biden’s victory in the state. The White House contended that the Arizona Legislature “gave conspiracy theorists access to 2020 election ballots without consistent rules or supervision,” eroding “faith in the electoral process.” It said a recent Supreme Court voting rights decision “greatly weakened existing federal tools to combat regressive voting laws.” The government’s Justice Department recently sued the state of Georgia in an attempt to block its election changes, and Biden named Vice President Kamala Harris to lead his administration’s fight for voting rights.  She said the Texas Democratic lawmakers “have shown great courage, and certainly great conviction and commitment” in leaving the state to block passage of the proposed Republican election law changes. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday that Biden is redoubling “his commitment to using every tool at his disposal to continue to fight to protect the fundamental right of Americans to vote.” But congressional legislation remains unlikely, with Republicans opposed to the Democratic-proposed nationalization of elections, and at least two Democratic senators opposed to changing legislative voting rules to allow passage of election rules changes with a simple majority vote. 
 
…