Author: PolitCens

U.S. President Joe Biden believes steps are needed to safeguard privacy, bolster innovation and deal with other problems created by big technology platforms, the White House said Tuesday, signaling his support for legislation concerning Big Tech.Biden is encouraged by bipartisan work under way in Congress to tackle these issues, the official said, a day before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee votes on a package of antitrust bills, some of which target the market power of large tech firms.”These platforms have transformed our daily lives, and showcase our country’s ingenuity and potential, but also create real problems for users, small businesses and tech startups,” said the White House official.”The president believes we need to address the problems these platforms create to protect privacy, generate more innovation and make sure the great tech companies of the future can emerge and grow right here in the U.S.,” the official said.The House Judiciary Committee will vote Wednesday on a package of six antitrust bills, including two that address the issue of giant companies, such as Amazon and Google, creating a platform for other businesses and then competing against those same businesses.The legislation drew fire Tuesday from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest U.S. business group, which warned it would have “dangerous consequences for America.”It said antitrust laws “should not be rigged against a small number of companies.”The White House hoped the bipartisan proposals would move forward in the legislative process and looked forward to working with Congress on the issue, the official added.In a separate development, the Federal Trade Commission, whose new chairperson has been critical of Amazon, has decided to review the company’s planned purchase of U.S. movie studio MGM, a source familiar with the matter said.Lina Khan was sworn in as FTC chair June 15 in what was broadly seen as a victory for progressives seeking tougher antitrust enforcement.
…

Republicans in the U.S. Senate are expected to block the advancement of a major voting rights bill Tuesday.
 
The Senate top’s Democrat, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, set a procedural vote for the so-called For the People Act, but with 60 votes required to advance the bill for debate and Republicans opposing the measure in the evenly split 100-member chamber, the bill as it stands is set to stall.
 
There are ongoing efforts to put forth a revised version, led by Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat. His proposed changes include adding a national voter ID requirement and cutting a public campaign financing provision from the original version.
 
The Democratic push for election reform comes as Republican-controlled legislatures in many states enact new restrictions following the 2020 election that saw President Donald Trump repeatedly make false claims of election fraud.
 
The Senate bill, which passed the Democrat-majority House of Representatives in March, would make it easier for people to register to vote, require states to hold at least 15 days of early voting, allow people to cast absentee ballots without giving a reason, and put the redrawing of congressional districts in the hands of nonpartisan commissions and not state legislatures.
 
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said the bill is an attempt by Democrats to “rig the rules of American elections permanently” in their favor.
 
“Ever since Democrats got the election outcome they wanted last fall, we’ve watched our colleagues update the rationale for their partisan power-grab: states must be stopped from exercising control over their own election laws,” McConnell said Monday.
 
Schumer said Monday that voting rights are “under assault from one end of the country to the other,” and that the Republican-led efforts in the various states are an attempt to give Republicans “a partisan advantage at the polls by making it harder for Democratic-leaning voters to vote.”  He urged Senate Republicans to allow debate on the voting rights bill.
…

Republicans in the U.S. Senate are expected to block the advancement of a major voting rights bill Tuesday.
 
The Senate top’s Democrat, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, set a procedural vote for the so-called For the People Act, but with 60 votes required to advance the bill for debate and Republicans opposing the measure in the evenly split 100-member chamber, the bill as it stands is set to stall.
 
There are ongoing efforts to put forth a revised version, led by Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat. His proposed changes include adding a national voter ID requirement and cutting a public campaign financing provision from the original version.
 
The Democratic push for election reform comes as Republican-controlled legislatures in many states enact new restrictions following the 2020 election that saw President Donald Trump repeatedly make false claims of election fraud.
 
The Senate bill, which passed the Democrat-majority House of Representatives in March, would make it easier for people to register to vote, require states to hold at least 15 days of early voting, allow people to cast absentee ballots without giving a reason, and put the redrawing of congressional districts in the hands of nonpartisan commissions and not state legislatures.
 
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said the bill is an attempt by Democrats to “rig the rules of American elections permanently” in their favor.
 
“Ever since Democrats got the election outcome they wanted last fall, we’ve watched our colleagues update the rationale for their partisan power-grab: states must be stopped from exercising control over their own election laws,” McConnell said Monday.
 
Schumer said Monday that voting rights are “under assault from one end of the country to the other,” and that the Republican-led efforts in the various states are an attempt to give Republicans “a partisan advantage at the polls by making it harder for Democratic-leaning voters to vote.”  He urged Senate Republicans to allow debate on the voting rights bill.
…

This Tuesday, local voters will cast their ballots in a primary election on the path to selecting the next mayor of New York. Some experts call the country’s biggest city and its financial capital a bellwether, despite the city’s overwhelmingly liberal lean.  VOA’s Arash Arabasadi has more.
…

Eleven U.S. mayors said Friday they are committed to paying reparations for slavery but gave few details on how they would accomplish the task.The group, led by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, announced a coalition to pursue reparations, Mayors Organized for Reparations and Equity (MORE).“Our coalition stands on the belief that cities can — and should — act as laboratories for bold ideas that can be transformative for racial and economic justice on a larger scale,” the group said on its website.It said the 11 cities would create local commissions comprised of representatives from Black-led organizations that would determine how to implement the reparations. Questions that would need to be decided include who would qualify for reparations, how much money would be spent and who would pay for the reparations.The mayors said on their website that city programs would vary in “style and scope” but would “serve as high-profile demonstrations for how the country can more quickly move from conversation to actions” on the issue.They noted that the conversation “has hardly moved beyond theory since the end of the Civil War.”Garcetti said during a news conference Friday that “cities will never have the funds to pay for reparations on our own,” according to the Associated Press.“When we have the laboratories of cities show that there is much more to embrace than to fear, we know that we can inspire national action as well,” Garcetti said.The other mayors involved in the coalition are from St. Louis, Missouri; Tullahassee, Oklahoma; Providence, Rhode Island; Austin, Texas; Durham, North Carolina; Asheville, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri, Sacramento, California, and St. Paul, Minnesota.The formation of the coalition comes as the nation marks Juneteenth, a celebration of the end of slavery in the United States. President Joe Biden signed a bill this week creating a federal holiday on Juneteenth — June 19. 
…

The U.S. Supreme Court for the third time rejected a challenge to the country’s chief health insurance law that provides millions of Americans with coverage to help pay their medical costs.The court, in a 7-2 decision, dismissed on Thursday a bid by 18 Republican-led states and the administration of former President Donald Trump to upend the 2010 Affordable Care Act.It was the signature legislative achievement of former President Barack Obama, Trump’s immediate predecessor, and is popularly known in the U.S. as Obamacare.The country’s highest court also rejected challenges to the law in 2012 and 2015, with all three decisions keeping in place such politically popular provisions as allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance policies until they turn 26 and ensuring coverage for patients with preexisting health conditions. As originally approved by Congress, the law required people to pay a penalty if they chose to not buy health insurance. But Congress in 2017 set that penalty — the so-called individual mandate — at zero.Republican state attorneys general, and the Trump administration, contended that removing the penalty provision made the whole law unconstitutional.The court did not consider the validity of the claims made against the law but ruled that the states opposed to it did not have legal standing to make the challenge.The majority decision was written by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by two of the three conservative justices appointed to the court by Trump — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The third Trump appointee, Neil Gorsuch, joined Justice Samuel Alito in dissent.President Joe Biden has said he will attempt to add provisions to the Affordable Care Act, which was approved when he was Obama’s vice president.
 
Biden called the decision “a victory for more than 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions and millions more who were in immediate danger of losing their health care in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic.”
 
Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra praised the Supreme Court decision, saying it was “a victory for all Americans, especially people with a preexisting condition or anyone who was worried they could be forced to choose between their health and making ends meet. Health care should be a right — not a privilege — just for the healthy and wealthy.”
 
In a separate decision Thursday on religious rights, the court ruled that the eastern city of Philadelphia was wrong to terminate a foster care services contract with Catholic Social Services, which refuses to work with same-sex couples because of its religious beliefs.
 
All nine justices agreed with the outcome, but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a majority of six that Philadelphia violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion in ending the contract with the Catholic organization.
 
Roberts said the organization only sought “an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”
 
“The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with [Catholic Social Services] for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment to the Constitution,” Roberts wrote. 
…

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill Thursday that would repeal the authorization of use of military force in Iraq that has been in effect since 2002.  Supporters of the measure say the repeal is necessary to restrict presidential war powers.The 268-161 House vote came one day after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced his support of the legislation, saying it would prevent acts of “military adventurism” like President Donald Trump’s authorization of a 2020 aerial attack on a Baghdad airport.
Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was killed in the attack.
 
“The Iraq War has been over for nearly a decade,” Schumer said. “The authorization passed in 2002 is no longer necessary in 2021.”
 
Schumer said he planned a Senate vote on the repeal measure later this year, while the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said it would consider it at a meeting next week.
 
The White House said in a statement Monday it supported the legislation and emphasized that current military operations do not rely on the 2002 authorization.
 
Republican Congressman Michael McCaul indicated he would oppose the House bill. The lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee agreed reform “is needed” but added that a serious effort would have included talks with national security leaders and a new strategy to tackle the evolving war on terrorism.
 
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war. That power has shifted to the president, however, as Congress approved “forever war” AUMFs (Authorization for Use of Military Force), which have not expired.  
 
Examples include the 2002 Iraqi war and the fight against al-Qaida and affiliates after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
 
Some legislators say the 2001 resolution to combat terrorism that was approved after the September 11 attacks, should also be reassessed.
…

The U.S. Supreme Court for the third time on Thursday upheld the legality of the country’s chief health insurance law that provides millions of Americans with coverage to help pay their medical costs. The court, in a 7-to-2 decision, rejected a bid by 18 Republican-led states and the administration of former President Donald Trump to upend the 2010 Affordable Care Act. It was the signature legislative achievement of former President Barack Obama, Trump’s immediate predecessor, and is popularly known in the U.S. as Obamacare. The country’s highest court had also rejected legal challenges in 2012 and 2015, with all three decisions keeping in place such politically popular provisions as allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance policies until they turn 26 and ensuring coverage for patients with preexisting health conditions. As originally approved by Congress, the law required people to pay a penalty if they chose to not buy health insurance. But Congress in 2017 set that penalty — the so-called individual mandate — at zero. Republican state attorneys general, and the Trump administration, contended that removing the penalty provision made the whole law unconstitutional. The court did not consider the validity of the claims made against the law but ruled that the states opposed to it did not have legal standing to make the challenge. The majority decision was written by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, and joined by two of the three conservative justices appointed to the court by Trump, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The third Trump appointee, Neil Gorsuch, joined Justice Samuel Alito in dissent. President Joe Biden has said he will attempt to add on provisions to the Affordable Care Act, which was approved when he was Obama’s vice president. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra praised the Supreme Court decision, saying it was “a victory for all Americans, especially people with a pre-existing condition or anyone who was worried they could be forced to choose between their health and making ends meet. Health care should be a right — not a privilege — just for the healthy and wealthy.” 
…

The United States faces a growing threat from domestic violent extremists, according to a strategy released this week by the Biden administration. The warning comes as U.S. lawmakers continue to investigate the January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump seeking to derail the Electoral College vote count confirming Joe Biden’s presidential victory. VOA Congressional Correspondent Katherine Gypson has more.Producer: Katherine Gypson.
…

The United States will soon have a new federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the nation.The House voted 415-14 Wednesday to make Juneteenth, or June 19, the 12th federal holiday. The bill now goes to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law.Juneteenth commemorates when the last enslaved African Americans learned they were free. Confederate soldiers surrendered in April 1865, but word didn’t reach the last enslaved Black people until June 19, when Union soldiers brought the news of freedom to Galveston, Texas. That was also about 2½ years after the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the Southern states.It’s the first new federal holiday since Martin Luther King Jr. Day was created in 1983.”Our federal holidays are purposely few in number and recognize the most important milestones,” said U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney. “I cannot think of a more important milestone to commemorate than the end of slavery in the United States.”Standing tallSpeaking next to a large poster of a Black man whose back bore massive scarring from being whipped, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, said she would be in Galveston this Saturday to celebrate along with Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas.”Can you imagine?” said the rather short Jackson Lee. “I will be standing maybe taller than Senator Cornyn, forgive me for that, because it will be such an elevation of joy.”FILE – New Orleans baby dolls dance at the ancestor oak tree in Congo Square, in celebration of Juneteenth, a holiday that marks the end of U.S. slavery in 1865, in New Orleans, June 20, 2020. Juneteenth will soon be an official national holiday.The Senate passed the bill a day earlier under a unanimous consent agreement that expedites the process for considering legislation. It takes just one senator’s objection to block such agreements.”Please, let us do as the Senate. Vote unanimously for passage,” Representative David Scott of Georgia pleaded at one point with his colleagues.The bill was sponsored by Senator Edward Markey, a Democrat, and had 60 co-sponsors. Democratic leaders moved quickly to bring the bill to the House floor.Some Republican lawmakers opposed the effort. Representative Matt Rosendale of Montana said creating the federal holiday was an effort to celebrate “identity politics.””Since I believe in treating everyone equally, regardless of race, and that we should be focused on what unites us rather than our differences, I will vote no,” he said in a press release.Most states recognize Juneteenth as a holiday or have an official observance of the day, and most hold celebrations. Juneteenth is a paid holiday for state employees in Texas, New York, Virginia and Washington.Official nameUnder the legislation, the federal holiday would be known as Juneteenth National Independence Day.Republican Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana said that he would vote for the bill and that he supported the establishment of a federal holiday, but he was upset that the name of the holiday included the word “independence” rather than “emancipation.” “Why would the Democrats want to politicize this by co-opting the name of our sacred holiday of Independence Day?” Higgins said.”I want to say to my white colleagues on the other side: Getting your independence from being enslaved in a country is different from a country getting independence to rule themselves,” Representative Brenda Lawrence, a Michigan Democrat, replied, adding, “We have a responsibility to teach every generation of Black and white Americans the pride of a people who have survived, endured and succeeded in these United States of America despite slavery.”
…

A top Army leader defended the Pentagon’s response to the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, telling a House panel Tuesday that the National Guard was delayed for hours because they had to properly prepare for the deployment and that senior military leaders had determined beforehand that there was “no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.” Lieutenant General Walter Piatt, director of the Army staff, echoed comments from other senior military leaders about the perception of soldiers being used to secure the election process. He said the Pentagon wanted to be careful about their response in part because of concerns about military helicopters that had flown low over Washington streets during protests over the death of George Floyd at the hands of police in the summer of 2020. It also took several hours for Guardsmen to be equipped and given a plan for how to secure a building overrun by hundreds of supporters of former president Donald Trump, Piatt said.  “When people’s lives are on the line, two minutes is too long,” he said. “But we were not positioned to respond to that urgent request. We had to reprepare so we would send them in prepared for this new mission.” FILE – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., walks to a news conference at the Capitol, Feb. 25, 2021.Piatt’s testimony comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will step up its investigations into the deadly insurrection. She said Tuesday that the House “can’t wait any longer” to do a comprehensive investigation after Senate Republicans blocked legislation to create an independent commission. “Whether we have a commission today, tomorrow or the next day over in the Senate or not, the work of the committees will be very important in what we’re seeking for the American people — the truth,” Pelosi said.  One option under consideration is a select committee on the January 6 attack, a setup that would put majority Democrats in charge. More than three dozen Republicans in the House and seven Senate Republicans wanted to avoid a partisan probe and supported the legislation to create an independent, bipartisan commission outside Congress.  But those numbers weren’t strong enough to overcome GOP opposition in the Senate, where support from 10 Republicans is needed to pass most bills. Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer has said he may hold a second vote after the legislation failed to advance last month, but there’s no indication that Democrats can win the necessary support from three additional Republicans.  “We can’t wait any longer,” Pelosi said. “We will proceed.”  Meanwhile, most Republicans are making clear they want to move on from the January 6 attack, brushing aside the many unanswered questions about the insurrection, including how the government and law enforcement missed intelligence leading up to the rioting, and the role of Trump before and during the attack.  FILE – FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies on Capitol Hill, June 10, 2021.The hearing Tuesday in the House Oversight and Reform Committee was to examine “unexplained delays and unanswered questions” about the siege, with public testimony from FBI Director Christopher Wray, Piatt and General Charles E. Flynn, who was previously Army deputy chief of staff.  All three men were involved that day as the Capitol Police begged for backup. The National Guard did not arrive for several hours, as police were overwhelmed and beaten by the rioters.  Piatt insisted that he did not deny or have the authority to deny Guard help during a call with former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who has previously said he believed Piatt and other Army leaders were concerned about the optics of soldiers surrounding the building. According to the Defense Department, military leadership approved activation of the full D.C. National Guard at 3:04 p.m., about 40 minutes after the call with Sund.  FILE – Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 11, 2020.Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who chairs the committee, criticized Wray for not providing documents her staff had requested and asked him if he believed the FBI should be blamed for the law enforcement failures on January 6.  “Our goal is to bat 1.000, and any time there’s an attack, much less an attack as horrific and spectacular as what happened on January 6, we consider that to be unacceptable,” Wray replied.  Seven people died during and after the rioting, including a Trump supporter who was shot and killed as she tried to break into the House chamber and two police officers who died by suicide in the days that followed. A third officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, collapsed and later died after engaging with the protesters, but a medical examiner determined he died of natural causes. 
 
…

President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced his nominees to be ambassadors to Israel, Mexico and NATO, as he moves to strengthen U.S. alliances in tough regions. Among a slate of names announced by the White House on Tuesday were Thomas Nides, a Morgan Stanley vice chairman who served as a deputy secretary of state under former President Barack Obama, to serve as the ambassador to Israel. The close U.S. ally is welcoming a new government after Israel’s parliament ended Benjamin Netanyahu’s 12-year run as prime minister on Sunday. Biden also picked Ken Salazar, a former U.S. senator from Colorado and interior secretary, as his ambassador to Mexico. The country is one of the United States’ biggest trading partners and the Biden administration is working to manage immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border. He also chose security expert Julianne Smith to represent the United States on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a key Western bulwark against Russia. Biden and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Geneva on Wednesday at a time of increased tensions between the two powers. The White House also said Biden picked C. B. “Sully” Sullenberger to be an ambassador and serve as the U.S. representative on the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization. Sullenberger rose to fame in 2009 after gliding his Airbus A320 to a safe landing on the Hudson River after hitting a flock of geese shortly after takeoff, in what became known as the “Miracle on the Hudson.” He also joined Biden on the campaign trail when he was running for president. Biden also named his ambassador picks to Sri Lanka, Gambia, Guinea, Paraguay and Costa Rica. 
 
…

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene apologized Monday for affronting people with recent comments comparing the required wearing of safety masks in the House to the horrors of the Holocaust.
“I’m truly sorry for offending people with remarks about the Holocaust,” the Georgia Republican told reporters outside the Capitol, saying she had visited Washington’s U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum earlier in the day. “There’s no comparison and there never ever will be.”
Greene’s comments were a rare expression of regret by the conservative agitator, a freshman whose career has included the embrace of violent and offensive conspiracy theories and angry confrontations with progressive colleagues.
Her apology came more than three weeks after appearing on a conservative podcast and comparing COVID-19 safety requirements adopted by Democrats controlling the House to “a time and history where people were told to wear a gold star.” She said they were “put in trains and taken to gas chambers in Nazi Germany. This is exactly the type of abuse that Nancy Pelosi is talking about.” Pelosi, D-Calif., is House speaker.
Greene’s comments were condemned by Republican leaders,  including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who called the comparison “appalling.”
GOP leaders have often been reluctant to castigate Greene, a close ally of former President Donald Trump. After social media posts were unearthed in which Greene suggested support for executing some Democratic leaders, McCarthy and most Republicans stood by her when the House took the unusual step of stripping her of her committee assignments  in February.  
But as House members returned to the Capitol on Monday after a three-week break, Greene was contrite.
“Anti-Semitism is true hate,” she said. “And I saw that today at the Holocaust Museum.”  
In 2018, two years before her election to Congress, she speculated on Facebook that California wildfires may have been caused by “lasers or blue beams of light” controlled by a left-wing cabal tied to a powerful Jewish family.
On Monday, she told reporters that when she was 19, she visited the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp in what during World War II was Nazi-occupied Poland. “It isn’t like I learned about it today,” she said of the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews and huge numbers of other people were killed. “I went today because I thought it was important,” she said, and wanted to talk about it as she apologized.
House leaders have recently said vaccinated people no longer must wear masks in the chamber.  
Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., said he would introduce a resolution in the House this week to censure Greene.  
In addition, Republicans may try forcing a vote to punish Rep. Ilhan Omar. The Minnesota Democrat recently made remarks criticized by top House Democrats and Jewish lawmakers for seeming to compare the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban. Omar said she didn’t mean to draw that parallel.
…

In the last weeks of his administration, former U.S. President Donald Trump and his aides pressured the Justice Department to investigate his unfounded voting fraud complaints and upend his election loss, newly released documents Tuesday show. Nearly five months after leaving office, Trump still contends he was cheated out of another four-year term in the White House by voting irregularities. According to the House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee, before he left office, Trump, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and a private attorney, Kurt Olsen, all sought to enlist the Justice Department to pursue election irregularities that had already been rejected in dozens of court claims.However, the agency, which was being run by Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen in the last weeks of Trump’s presidency, rejected the Trump-led demands.FILE – Acting Assistant U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Clark speaks as he stands next to Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Oct. 21, 2020.”These documents show that President Trump tried to corrupt our nation’s chief law enforcement agency in a brazen attempt to overturn an election that he lost,” said Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat.Trump made the demands even after outgoing Attorney General William Barr had already concluded by December 1 that “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” Barr left office December 23 and was replaced by Rosen, who had been deputy attorney general.The documents released by the committee show that Trump, through an assistant, sent Rosen an email on December 14 with documents contending there was election fraud in northern Michigan — a debunked allegation that a federal judge had already rejected.Two weeks later, Trump also unsuccessfully sought to get Justice Department lawyers to file a draft legal brief written by Olsen with the U.S. Supreme Court contending that voting law changes made by the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania to expand mail-in voting during the COVID-19 pandemic were illegal.The new documents showing Trump pressing his election fraud claims occurred about the same time Meadows, the White House chief of staff, was asking Rosen to examine other baseless conspiracy theories about the election.Among them, according to The New York Times, was one that claimed people linked to an Italian defense contractor used satellite technology based in Europe to tamper with U.S. voting equipment from Europe to switch votes from Trump to Joe Biden, who won the election and was inaugurated January 20.
…

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Monday that President Joe Biden would not get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed in 2024 if Republicans regain control of the chamber and a vacancy arises during that presidential election year. “It’s highly unlikely. In fact, no, I don’t think either party, if it were different from the president, would confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of an election,” McConnell told syndicated conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. McConnell could return as majority leader if Republicans regain control of the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections. While serving as majority leader, McConnell blocked Democratic former President Barack Obama from filling a vacancy left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, saying it would be improper to confirm a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year. McConnell and his fellow Senate Republicans refused to consider Obama’s nominee — Merrick Garland, who now serves as Biden’s attorney general — in a move with little precedent in U.S. history. That enabled Donald Trump, the winner of the November 2016 election, to appoint conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017. Democrats accused McConnell of hypocrisy last year when he allowed the Senate to confirm Trump’s conservative Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September about six weeks before the 2020 presidential election. Trump, a Republican, was defeated by Biden, a Democrat, in the election, and Democrats also took control of the Senate. McConnell signaled that a Biden nominee could have problems even outside an election year. When Hewitt asked if a Republican-controlled Senate would give “a normal mainstream liberal” nominee a fair shot at a confirmation hearing if a vacancy opened in 2023, McConnell replied: “Well, we’d have to wait and see what happens.” He described his decision to keep Scalia’s seat open until after Trump was elected as “the single most consequential thing I’ve done in my time as majority leader of the Senate.” McConnell made confirmation of Trump’s conservative judicial nominees a high priority. Trump appointed three justices, also including Brett Kavanaugh, to the Supreme Court, which now has a 6-3 conservative majority. Criticism from DemocratsDemocrats denounced McConnell’s comments, with some even using them to solicit campaign donations. “He would change the rules a third time if he could to make sure they (Republicans) would get the choice for the next Supreme Court justice. He’s not much for precedent and tradition when it doesn’t serve him politically,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat. FILE – U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) speaks at Logan Airport in Boston, Jan. 21, 2019.Democratic Senator Ed Markey wrote on Twitter: “Mitch McConnell is already foreshadowing that he’ll steal a 3rd Supreme Court seat if he gets the chance. He’s done it before, and he’ll do it again. We need to expand the Supreme Court.” Some Democrats have proposed expanding the number of justices in order to end the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. Some liberal activists have urged liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, at 82 the court’s oldest member, to retire now while the Senate remains in Democratic hands. Biden during the election campaign vowed to name a Black woman to the court, which would be a historic first. The Senate was due later on Monday to vote on the confirmation of Washington-based U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to an influential federal appellate court. Jackson, among the most prominent Black women in the federal judiciary, is considered a potential Supreme Court pick for Biden. The 100-seat Senate is currently split 50-50, with Democrats in control only because Vice President Kamala Harris wields a tie-breaking vote. 
 
…

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland warned Friday that the Justice Department would vigorously oppose state efforts to impose new curbs on voting rights for many Americans, particularly Blacks and other minorities.“We’re scrutinizing new laws that seek to curb access, and where we see violations, we will not hesitate to act,” Garland said in a speech at the Justice Department in which he announced his agency would double its voting rights enforcement staff over the next 30 days.“We’re also scrutinizing current laws and practices in order to determine whether they discriminate against Black voters and other voters of color,” Garland said, adding that of particular concern is research showing that nonwhite voters wait “substantially longer” than their white counterparts to cast their ballots.U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks about voting rights at the Justice Department in Washington, June 11, 2021.Garland blasted recent Republican audits of repeatedly counted and certified votes cast in the November 2020 election, saying they jeopardize the integrity of the voting process and undermine public confidence in elections.The Justice Department recently sent a letter to a top Republican lawmaker in Arizona expressing concern about the legality of a post-election audit in the state’s largest county, Garland said. In response, Republicans put on hold plans to canvass voters as part of the audit.The attorney general also expressed concern about a “dramatic increase in violent threats” against election administrators and workers, vowing that the Justice Department would investigate and prosecute any violations of federal law.Republican election officials and members of their families in Georgia, for example, have been targeted with threatening messages from supporters of former President Donald Trump months after Trump lost the state and the election.“Such threats undermine our electoral process and violate a myriad of federal laws,” Garland said.Garland’s speech signals the degree to which the Justice Department under President Joe Biden has elevated the importance of civil rights and voting rights after Trump for years denounced the election system as fraudulent and insisted the only way he could lose the election was if he were cheated out of it.Garland told lawmakers this week that the department’s budget request for fiscal year 2022 included the largest increase ever in funds for civil rights efforts: $177.2 million over the 2021 spending level, according to DOJ figures.The speech came as Republican legislators across the country have introduced hundreds of bills this year that critics say make it harder for many voters to cast ballots — especially minority voters and the elderly — and could adversely impact the Democrats’ prospects for retaining control of the House and Senate in 2022.Many of these provisions — designed to restrict voting by mail, early voting and other innovations that resulted in record turnouts during the coronavirus pandemic — were pushed by Republican lawmakers who echo Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen through widespread fraud.As of late May, lawmakers have introduced at least 389 restrictive bills in 48 states in the 2021 legislative sessions, with 14 states passing 22 new laws this year, according to the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.Activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of arguments in a key voting rights case involving a challenge to Ohio’s policy of purging infrequent voters from voter registration rolls, in Washington, Jan. 10, 2018.With 61 bills making their way through state legislatures, the FILE – This Jan. 3, 2019 file photo shows Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., during a swearing-in ceremony of Congressional Black Caucus members of the 116th Congress in Washington.That provision required states with a history of discrimination against African Americans to get preapproval from the Justice Department or the federal court in Washington before changing their voting procedures. But the Supreme Court struck down the provision in 2013, leading to what Garland called a “dramatic rise in legislative efforts” that make it harder for millions of Americans to vote.Garland, a former federal judge whose 2016 nomination to the Supreme Court was blocked by Senate Republicans, said the 2013 high court decision eliminated “the department’s most effective tool to protect voting rights over the past half century.”He urged Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, saying it would give the department the tools it needs to enforce voting rights laws.The bill, named after Representative John Lewis, the late civil rights icon, would establish new criteria for determining which states must get approval from the Justice Department before changing their voting laws.But the legislation, like the For the People Act, remains stalled in the evenly split Senate, with only one Republican so far supporting the measure. To pass, the bill requires the support of at least 10 Republicans to end a filibuster.Last week, Biden, marking the 100th anniversary of a race massacre in Tulsa, Oklahoma, called on Congress to pass the voting rights measures, saying the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would provide “new legal tools to combat the new assault on the right to vote.”But this week Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell came out against the John Lewis bill, all but quashing hopes of its immediate passage.“There’s no threat to the Voting Rights Act. It’s against the law to discriminate in voting on the basis of race already, and so I think it’s unnecessary,” McConnell said Tuesday.
…

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General says it is beginning a review of the department’s use of subpoenas to obtain communication records of U.S. lawmakers and members of the media.The review comes after Democratic Representatives Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell were informed that the Justice Department had taken their metadata from Apple in 2018 as part of a crackdown on leaks in the Russia probe and other national security issues, according to The Associated Press. The news agency attributed the information to three sources with knowledge of the seizures.House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., talks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 3, 2020.“The review will examine the department’s compliance with applicable DOJ policies and procedures, and whether any such uses, or the investigations, were based upon improper considerations,” DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said in a Friday statement.“If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider other issues that may arise during the review. The review will not substitute the OIG’s judgment for the legal and investigative judgments made in the matters under OIG review.”Senate Democratic leaders insisted Friday that the two attorneys general who served in the Trump administration testify about the covert seizure of data from House Democrats in 2018.FILE – Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., pauses to speak with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 16, 2018.In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said former Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr “must testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.” The Senate leaders described the seizures as “a gross abuse of power and an assault on the separation of powers.”The Democratic senators threatened to issue subpoenas if Sessions and Barr refuse to testify.On Friday, Barr told Politico he was “not aware of any congressman’s records being sought in a leak case.”He also said Trump never encouraged him to investigate the Democratic representatives.Swalwell and Schiff, the current chairperson of the House Intelligence Committee, were members of the committee at the time of the seizures. The actions by the Trump-era Justice Department indicate that the executive branch was using its investigative prosecutorial powers to spy on the legislative branch, the AP said.
…