Author: PolitCens

The legislature in the western U.S. state of Oregon Thursday voted 59-1 to remove a Republican lawmaker from office for his role in allowing right-wing protesters to breach the capitol during a demonstration against COVID-19 lockdowns in December.On the floor of the state House of Representatives late Thursday, Republicans voted with the majority Democrats to remove Representative Mike Nearman, with the unapologetic Nearman the only dissenting vote. He is the first legislator expelled from office in the state’s 162-year history.A special bipartisan committee appointed by Democratic House Speaker Tina Kotek to consider the expulsion had also voted earlier in the day for Nearman’s removal and sent the measure the full House for consideration.  Oregon State Police investigating the breach of the state capitol identified Nearman from a security video in which he can be seen leaving the capitol through a locked door near where protesters had gathered, allowing them to enter. The capitol was among the public buildings closed by the COVID-19 pandemic.Calls for Nearman’s resignation – many from his own party – began about a week ago after a second video surfaced showing Nearman advising potential protesters on how to get into the capitol and giving them his phone number.  In comments to Oregon media after the vote, Speaker Kotek said expelling Nearman “was the only reasonable path forward.”  She said, “The facts are clear that Mr. Nearman unapologetically coordinated and planned a breach of the Oregon State Capitol. His actions were blatant and deliberate, and he has shown no remorse for jeopardizing the safety of every person in the capitol that day.”Nearman, who argued he was only letting the public into a public building that should not have been closed, also faces two misdemeanor criminal charges and has said he will seek a trial by jury.
…

Prosecutors in the U.S. Justice Department under former president Donald Trump seized data from Apple from two Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee, as well as that of their staff and family members, The New York Times reported Thursday.Subpoenas for the communications metadata targeted congressman Adam Schiff of California, a Trump foe who was then the panel’s top Democrat and now its chairman, the paper said.Congressman Eric Swalwell told CNN on Thursday he was the second Democratic lawmaker on the committee who was targeted.”I was notified… by Apple that they did seize my records. It’s wrong,” he said.According to the Times, prosecutors working under attorney general Jeff Sessions made unusual efforts in 2017 and early 2018 to find the source of leaks of classified information regarding contacts between Trump associates and Russia.The Justice Department officials targeted electronic data not only of the lawmakers, but that of their staff and families, including one minor, possibly because investigators thought the lawmakers were using their associates’ or children’s devices to hide contacts with journalists.Ultimately, none of the data or other evidence tied the lawmakers or the House Intelligence Committee to the leaks, the Times said.Schiff, while not confirming he was a target of the investigation, called for a probe by the Justice Department’s inspector general into “this and other cases that suggest the weaponization of law enforcement by a corrupt president.”Trump “tried to use the Department as a cudgel against his political opponents and members of the media. It is increasingly apparent that those demands did not fall on deaf ears,” Schiff said in a statement.Top Democrat Nancy Pelosi also called for an investigation, describing the New York Times report as “harrowing.””These actions appear to be yet another egregious assault on our democracy waged by the former president,” she said in a statement. 
…

China and Russia’s combined military spending exceeds that of the United States when adjusted for purchasing power, which has allowed China to shorten capability gaps in its quest to become the top superpower by midcentury, the top U.S. military officer said Thursday.”Combined, the Russian and Chinese budgets exceed our budgets if all the cards are put on the table,” Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He called China’s increased spending trend “disturbing.”Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, left, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, arrive for a Senate Armed Services budget hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 10, 2021.China and Russia are the U.S. military’s two biggest competitors. Defense secretaries from Jim Mattis to Lloyd Austin have identified China as the “pacing challenge” for the U.S. military.Senator Jim Inhofe, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, wrote in a FILE – Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., attends a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup at the Capitol in Washington, May 26, 2021.”It is our obligation to defend this nation, and this proposed budget does not do so,” added Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi. Other senators, including Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, pointed to funding gaps between what was requested by several military leaders for Pacific defense and what was in the administration’s current budget request.Milley and Austin said the defense budget, which amounts to $715 billion, required the department to make tough choices, but it was a means to provide the U.S. with “an adequate defense.””We’re going after the capabilities that can match the operational concepts that we’re putting into play and allow us to be not only competitive but actually dominant in this competition,” Austin said.Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, defended the budget, telling his Republican colleagues that while the Biden budget is $6 billion smaller than the proposed Trump administration budget for this year, Trump’s military budgets actually ended up being lower as he repeatedly took money out of the Pentagon budget for “nonmilitary emergencies” such as building a wall along the southern U.S. border.’Accidental conflict’With the U.S. focus on the growing Chinese threat, Senator Angus King of Maine said Thursday that “one of the most serious risks” was an “accidental conflict with China.” The registered independent pointed to tensions over Taiwan and in the South China Sea, saying the U.S. needed an effective communication line to prevent such a conflict.”There needs to be a direct line of communication between the military and also between government officials as well,” Austin agreed.”I’m concerned about something that could happen that could spark a crisis [with China], and I think we need the ability to be able to talk with both our allies and partners, but also our adversaries or potential adversaries,” he said.
…

A long-simmering battle within the Democratic Party came to a head this week when  Democratic Senator Joe Manchin announced he will not support a sweeping package of voting rights reforms because no Republicans are willing to vote for it.   At the same time, he repeated his vow to vote to protect a Senate rule, called the filibuster, that allows a minority of the body to prevent pieces of legislation from receiving an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.  FILE – Gov. Joe Manchin, left, is sworn into office for a second term at the Capitol in Charleston, West Virginia, Jan. 19, 2009.Manchin worked his way up through state politics beginning in 1982, serving in the state’s House of Delegates and the State Senate, before being elected West Virginia’s secretary of state in 2001, and then governor in 2005. In 2010, he won a special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat that opened with the death of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.   Political leanings  While the West Virginia he grew up in was heavily Democratic, Manchin is now the sole member of his party in any statewide office, and is its only member in the state congressional delegation. In his most recent election, Manchin prevailed in 2018 with only 49.6% of the vote. By contrast, Donald Trump won West Virginia with 68% of the vote in 2016 and 69% in 2020.  That may be, in part, why Manchin is farther toward the political right than other members of his party. But political expediency may not explain everything.  A political mentor to Manchin, Byrd was the longest-serving senator in U.S. history, representing West Virginia for 51 years. He was also a dedicated Senate institutionalist who wrote two books about the body, a supporter of the filibuster, and a strong believer in the ability of senators to put party aside and work together for the good of the country.    But Byrd’s legacy — and the legacy of the filibuster — is complicated. The founder of a local Ku Klux Klan chapter in West Virginia in the 1940s, Byrd later renounced his connection to the racist organization. However, he also filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and voted against the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court. Byrd’s influence  Some of Byrd’s beliefs about the way the Senate can and should operate seem to live on in Manchin, despite dwindling evidence that meaningful cross-party cooperation is possible.  “I think he’s a guy who has certain commitments that maybe are a little out of step with the way American politics has emerged over the last decade,” said Richard Brisbin, an emeritus professor in the political science department at West Virginia University.  FILE – Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., presides over a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Sept. 26, 2007.”I really think, deep in his heart, he thinks people can come together and get along and solve problems,” Brisbin said. “And I just think that’s very difficult in the kind of political climate we have in the United States at present. And I don’t think that there are many politicians, highly visible politicians in national politics, who are in his camp, particularly among the Republicans, but also to some degree among at least half the members of his own party.”  ‘No’ vote on ending filibuster  In a Senate with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, Democrats’ advantage derives from the ability of Vice President Kamala Harris to break ties in a party-line vote. However, the filibuster requires 60 votes to end debate on a bill. This means that with a few exceptions, Democrats need to persuade 10 Republicans to side with them in order to get any legislation passed.  Republican leaders in the Senate have essentially promised to use the filibuster to block everything Democrats and Biden want to do.   “One hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week.  Continued Republican obstruction has led to increasingly loud calls from Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, which they could do with a majority vote amending the body’s rules that would be immune to the filibuster. Manchin has consistently poured cold water on his fellow party members’ hopes that he will side with them on a rule change.  By pairing a renewed commitment to saving the filibuster with the announcement that he would not vote for the Democrats’ package of voting rights legislation, Manchin sparked an especially sharp reaction from many on the left.   “Joe Manchin is doing everything in his power to stop democracy and to stop our work for the people, the work that the people sent us here to do,” Congressman Jamaal Bowman said in a CNN interview on Monday.  Early support for bill  The voting rights legislation that Manchin will not support is particularly important to Democrats in light of the multiple state-level laws being passed by Republican-dominated legislatures that will make it more difficult to vote, and in some cases, give legislators the authority to overrule local elections officials and potentially overturn the results of an election. FILE – Voters line up outside a polling place in Charleston, W.Va., Oct. 21, 2020, the first day of early in-person voting in the state for the November 3 election.What is particularly galling to Manchin’s Democratic colleagues is that his objections to the voting rights bill have nothing to do with its contents. In fact, he co-sponsored substantially identical legislation in 2019.  His objection is that the bill will not receive any Republican support in Congress, and that passing it along party lines, as he wrote, “will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy.”  Detractors point out that in 2019 when Manchin supported the bill, it also had no Republican co-sponsors and would likely have received no Republican votes on the Senate floor.  A unique position  While critics of Manchin on the Democratic side claim he is standing in the way of Congress making progress in the current session, not everyone agrees. Some expect that bipartisan cooperation isn’t only possible but likely — just not on the issues the Democratic left is most passionate about.  “Senator Manchin is a Democrat, who represents West Virginia, which is a state trending more Republican,” said Michael Thorning, associate director of governance at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. “Perhaps he is uniquely representative of the situation that we see in Congress, where you have an evenly divided Senate, and a House that is very, very tight.”  He added, “The last election did not produce a result that suggested one party had a very strong mandate. So, you take a senator like Joe Manchin, someone who has fairly moderate policy positions that match up with the voters of his state — he’s going to want to steer the federal policy debates toward that.”   Thorning said that far from dooming the Senate to a session with no progress, Manchin’s stance on the filibuster may allow senators the political space they need to compromise on other issues, including an infrastructure bill and criminal justice reform.   “Those would be big accomplishments, ones that could not be achieved in recent years,” Thorning said.  
 
…

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland warned Wednesday that ransom-motivated cyberattacks are “getting worse and worse,” echoing other top Biden administration officials who have sounded the alarm about the problem in recent weeks. 
“We have to do everything we possibly can here,” Garland told lawmakers. “This is a very, very serious threat.”  The attorney general’s warning during a Senate hearing on the Justice Department’s fiscal 2022 budget request followed a pair of high-profile ransomware attacks over the past month that have rattled the U.S. national security and law enforcement establishment and sparked calls for beefed-up cyber defenses.  In a ransomware attack, hackers lock a company’s or organization’s data, offering keys to unlock the files in exchange for a large sum of money.   FILE – Tanker trucks are parked near the entrance of Colonial Pipeline Company, in Charlotte, N.C., May 12, 2021.Last month, cybercriminals believed to be based in Russia hacked the computer networks of Colonial Pipeline, America’s largest fuel pipeline operator, disrupting supplies along the East Coast and touching off panic-buying. Colonial later said it paid $4.4 million to retrieve access to its network. On Monday, the Justice Department revealed it had seized most of the ransom. Last week, ransomware criminals struck JBS USA, the U.S. arm of the world’s largest processor of fresh beef and pork based in Brazil. JBS refused to pay a ransom and was forced to shut down its processing facilities in the United States. FILE – A JBS meatpacking plant is seen in Plainwell, Michigan, June 2, 2021.The White House has said the criminal gangs behind both attacks — known as DarkSide and REvil — are likely based in Russia, but officials have not alleged any ties to the Russian government. The Justice Department identified DarkSide as the hacking group that was targeted by law enforcement officials for retaliation and ransom recovery. The ransomware attacks are likely to hang over the June 16 meeting between President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told lawmakers on Monday that Biden will make clear to Putin that “states cannot be in the business of harboring those who are engaged in these kinds of attacks.” Once seen as a financial crime, ransomware has emerged as a growing national security threat in just the last couple of years, as cybercriminals have turned to attacking local governments, schools, hospitals and other critical service providers, and demanding millions of dollars in ransom.  According to a May 12 report by Check Point Research, ransomware attacks more than doubled this year compared with the beginning of 2020, with health care and utilities the most commonly targeted sectors.  “You can imagine what could happen if we had multiple attacks at the same time on even more fundamental infrastructure. So, I’m very worried about it, and so is the administration,” Garland said. “And that’s why we’ve asked for such a large increase in our cyber budget.” The Justice Department’s nearly $36 billion budget includes about $1.1 billion for cybersecurity. If approved by Congress, that would constitute the largest increase in cybersecurity resources for the department in more than a decade, according to Garland. In April, before the attack on Colonial, the Justice Department set up an internal task force dedicated to developing strategies to combat ransomware. Its first major operation was recapturing most of the millions of dollars paid in ransom by Colonial to DarkSide hackers, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced.  Garland called the recovery a “significant success,” but he said it is not enough. “This has to be a constant, just a constant focus,” he said, adding that he has discussed the issue with his counterparts from major U.S. allies.   
 
…

The Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that aims to boost U.S. semiconductor production and the development of artificial intelligence and other technology in the face of growing international competition, most notably from China. The 68-32 vote for the bill demonstrates how confronting China economically is an issue that unites both parties in Congress. That’s a rarity in an era of division as pressure grows on Democrats to change Senate rules to push past Republican opposition and gridlock. The centerpiece of the bill is a $50 billion emergency allotment to the Commerce Department to stand up semiconductor development and manufacturing through research and incentive programs previously authorized by Congress. The bill’s overall cost would increase spending by about $250 billion with most of the spending occurring in the first five years. Supporters described it as the biggest investment in scientific research that the country has seen in decades. It comes as the nation’s share of semiconductor manufacturing globally has steadily eroded from 37% in 1990 to about 12% now, and as a chip shortage has exposed vulnerabilities in the U.S. supply chain. FILE – Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks at the Capitol in Washington, March 6, 2021.”The premise is simple — if we want American workers and American companies to keep leading the world, the federal government must invest in science, basic research and innovation, just as we did decades after the Second World War,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.”Whoever wins the race to the technologies of the future is going to be the global economic leader, with profound consequences for foreign policy and national security, as well,” he added. FILE – U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 25, 2021.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the bill was incomplete because it did not incorporate more Republican-sponsored amendments. He nonetheless supported it. “Needless to say, final passage of this legislation cannot be the Senate’s final word on our competition with China,” he said. “It certainly won’t be mine.” President Joe Biden applauded the bill’s passage in a statement Tuesday evening, saying, “As other countries continue to invest in their own research and development, we cannot risk falling behind. America must maintain its position as the most innovative and productive nation on Earth.”  Senators slogged through days of debates and amendments leading up to Tuesday’s final vote. Schumer’s office said 18 Republican amendments will have received votes as part of passage of the bill. It also said the Senate this year has already held as many roll-call votes on amendments than it did in the last Congress when the Senate was under Republican control. While the bill enjoys bipartisan support, a core group of Republican senators has reservations about its costs. One of the bill’s provisions would create a new directorate focused on artificial intelligence and quantum science with the National Science Foundation. The bill would authorize up to $29 billion over five years for the new branch within the foundation, with an additional $52 billion for its programs. Senator Rand Paul said Congress should be cutting the foundation’s budget, not increasing it. He called the agency “the king of wasteful spending.” The agency finances about a quarter of all federally supported research conducted by America’s colleges and universities. “The bill is nothing more than a big government response that will make our country weaker, not stronger,” Paul said. FILE – Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 5, 2020.But Senator Maria Cantwell noted that a greater federal investment in the physical sciences had been called for during the administration of President George W. Bush to ensure U.S. economic competitiveness. “At the time, I’m pretty sure we thought we were in a track meet where our competitor was, oh, I don’t know, maybe half a lap behind us. I’m pretty sure now as the decade has moved on, we’re looking over our shoulder and realizing that the competition is gaining,” said Cantwell, chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. The lead Republican on the committee also weighed in to support the bill. “This is an opportunity for the United States to strike a blow on behalf of answering the unfair competition that we are seeing from communist China,” Senator Roger Wicker said. Senators have tried to strike a balance when calling attention to China’s growing influence. They want to avoid fanning divisive anti-Asian rhetoric when hate crimes against Asian Americans have spiked during the coronavirus pandemic. Other measures spell out national security concerns and target money-laundering schemes or cyberattacks by entities on behalf of the Chinese government. There are also “Buy America” provisions for infrastructure projects in the U.S.  Senators added provisions that reflect shifting attitudes toward China’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak. One would prevent federal money for the Wuhan Institute of Virology as fresh investigations proceed into the origins of the virus and possible connections to the lab’s research. The city registered some of the first coronavirus cases. It’s unclear whether the measure will find support in the Democratic-led House, where the Science Committee is expected to soon consider that chamber’s version. Congressman Ro Khanna, who has been working with Schumer for two years on legislation that’s included in the bill, called it the biggest investment in science and technology since the Apollo space flight program a half century ago. “I’m quite certain we will get a really good product on the president’s desk,” Schumer said. Biden said he looked forward to working with the House on the legislation, “and I look forward to signing it into law as soon as possible.” 
 
…

A key U.S. centrist Democratic lawmaker, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, adamantly voiced his opposition Sunday to sweeping nationalization of voting laws favored by President Joe Biden and other Democrats.Manchin, perhaps the most conservative Democrat in the 100-member U.S. Senate, said in an opinion article in a home-state newspaper, the Charleston Gazette-Mail, and in a “Fox News Sunday” television interview that he will continue to oppose the voting reforms because they are too partisan and have not drawn any Republican congressional support.In the television interview, Manchin described the measure as “the wrong piece of legislation. It will continue to divide us.”The national voting rights measure would overturn voting restrictions approved by at least 14 Republican-controlled state legislatures that would curb some expanded voting access that was deployed in the 2020 presidential election, such as extended voting hours, drive-through voting at central locations and the widespread use of mail-in balloting.In his Charleston newspaper essay, Manchin argued that “congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.”“The truth, I would argue, is that voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen,” he said.The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives has already approved the legislation. Congressional Democrats overwhelmingly support it, with Republicans equally opposed.FILE – Voting rights activists gather during a protest against Texas legislators who are advancing a slew of new voting restrictions, in Austin, Texas, May 8, 2021.Democrats have said the federal legislation is necessary, especially to ensure the voting rights of minorities, while accusing Republicans of trying to limit such voting because Blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. Republicans say the new laws are needed to protect election security although there was no evidence of any substantial irregularities in the November 2020 election.   Manchin’s opposition imperils its passage in the politically divided Senate. Democrats, voting as a 50-member bloc, have been able to push through some legislation on 51-50 votes, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote.Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has pledged to bring the voting rights legislation to a Senate floor vote in two weeks, but Republicans are likely to filibuster against it, forcing a 60-vote supermajority for passage. That would require Democrats to gain at least 11 Republican votes to support the legislation if Manchin maintains his opposition.Some progressive Democrats have called for ending Senate filibusters to ease passage of legislation by simple majority votes, but Manchin, and some other Democrats, are opposed, saying the legislative tactic has benefited them when Republicans have controlled the Senate.State passage of new voting restrictions has its roots in the November election, with some Republican state lawmakers voicing support for former President Donald Trump’s continuing baseless claims that the election was rigged and that he was cheated out of another four-year term in the White House.The federal legislation Manchin opposes would set minimum standards for early voting that was widespread before the official Election Day on November 3 and mail-in voting that could override some of the state Republican voting laws.Manchin has voiced support for these proposals but has not clarified where he stands on other provisions, such as requiring that congressional geographic redistricting every 10 years be done by nonpartisan commissions and establishing public financing for congressional campaigns.Manchin said he favors limited voting rights reform, requiring the federal government to sign off on state election law changes, but his stance so far has only drawn support from one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. 
…

A key U.S. centrist Democratic lawmaker, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, adamantly voiced his opposition Sunday to sweeping nationalization of voting laws favored by President Joe Biden and other Democrats.Manchin, perhaps the most conservative Democrat in the 100-member U.S. Senate, said in an opinion article in a home-state newspaper, the Charleston Gazette-Mail, and in a “Fox News Sunday” television interview that he will continue to oppose the voting reforms because they are too partisan and have not drawn any Republican congressional support.In the television interview, Manchin described the measure as “the wrong piece of legislation. It will continue to divide us.”The national voting rights measure would overturn voting restrictions approved by at least 14 Republican-controlled state legislatures that would curb some expanded voting access that was deployed in the 2020 presidential election, such as extended voting hours, drive-through voting at central locations and the widespread use of mail-in balloting.In his Charleston newspaper essay, Manchin argued that “congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.”“The truth, I would argue, is that voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen,” he said.The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives has already approved the legislation. Congressional Democrats overwhelmingly support it, with Republicans equally opposed.FILE – Voting rights activists gather during a protest against Texas legislators who are advancing a slew of new voting restrictions, in Austin, Texas, May 8, 2021.Democrats have said the federal legislation is necessary, especially to ensure the voting rights of minorities, while accusing Republicans of trying to limit such voting because Blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. Republicans say the new laws are needed to protect election security although there was no evidence of any substantial irregularities in the November 2020 election.   Manchin’s opposition imperils its passage in the politically divided Senate. Democrats, voting as a 50-member bloc, have been able to push through some legislation on 51-50 votes, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote.Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has pledged to bring the voting rights legislation to a Senate floor vote in two weeks, but Republicans are likely to filibuster against it, forcing a 60-vote supermajority for passage. That would require Democrats to gain at least 11 Republican votes to support the legislation if Manchin maintains his opposition.Some progressive Democrats have called for ending Senate filibusters to ease passage of legislation by simple majority votes, but Manchin, and some other Democrats, are opposed, saying the legislative tactic has benefited them when Republicans have controlled the Senate.State passage of new voting restrictions has its roots in the November election, with some Republican state lawmakers voicing support for former President Donald Trump’s continuing baseless claims that the election was rigged and that he was cheated out of another four-year term in the White House.The federal legislation Manchin opposes would set minimum standards for early voting that was widespread before the official Election Day on November 3 and mail-in voting that could override some of the state Republican voting laws.Manchin has voiced support for these proposals but has not clarified where he stands on other provisions, such as requiring that congressional geographic redistricting every 10 years be done by nonpartisan commissions and establishing public financing for congressional campaigns.Manchin said he favors limited voting rights reform, requiring the federal government to sign off on state election law changes, but his stance so far has only drawn support from one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. 
…

It’s a routine sight on the Illinois River: towboats slowly pushing barges carrying everything from salt and petroleum to corn and soybeans.”This is the backbone of our economy,” said Tom Heinold, chief of the operations division for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District. “Here in the upper Midwest, we feed the world from right here.”Heinold oversees Corps of Engineers facilities along the Illinois River, including the Starved Rock Lock and Dam near Utica. The National Waterways Foundation says the statewide system moves more than 83 million tons of freight annually, worth more than $13 billion to the U.S. economy.Using barges to transport goods on rivers is not only efficient but also environmentally friendly, reducing the need to use petroleum-guzzling trucks, Heinold said.”We can take 1,000 tractor-trailer trucks’ worth of commodities and put them on a single 15-ton barge tow,” he told VOA. “If it’s big, bulk, it’s more efficient to go on the rivers. So we see the benefits of that, that cost savings over roads and rails.”Showing their ageBut the locks, which rise and fall to allow barges to navigate a consistent depth of the river, were built nearly a century ago and are showing their age.”It is literally, in places, crumbling,” Heinold said while peering from a balcony overlooking the lock and dam. “You can see the concrete right in front of you, deteriorating. On the vertical walls, you can see the corner armor rusting. Some of it is bent.””They were built with a 50-year design life,” explained Rodney Weinzierl, a farmer in central Illinois, where the waterways are key to getting crops to foreign buyers. Weinzierl serves as executive director of the Illinois Corn Growers Association, which advocates for improving the country’s inland waterway system.”Exports are very important to Illinois and the U.S., and infrastructure is what keeps us competitive with foreign competition,” Weinzierl said. But since most taxpayers rarely engage with this part of the country’s infrastructure, he said, the waterways often get overlooked.”The public just never really sees it,” he told VOA. “It’s much lower on the list of awareness of infrastructure that’s really helped make our nation what it is today.”FILE – These are the Emsworth Locks and Dam on the Ohio River at Emsworth, Pa., April 9, 2021. They are 70 years old and in need of repair.Weinzierl says it’s crucial to improve the locks and dams so they don’t become unusable, which would impact the flow of grains and other goods — as well as the prices of those goods.But for Heinold to be able to keep things running, the system “needs some help to be reliable and safe,” he told VOA.’Long-term investments’Both President Joe Biden’s $1.7 trillion infrastructure plan and a Republican counterproposal would invest in the country’s inland waterways and ports.Previous funding allowed Heinold to oversee upgrades to the Starved Rock Lock and Dam in 2020, which closed the river to all traffic for several months. Heinold says more work is needed throughout the system, and Weinzierl understands it isn’t cheap.”Each one of these projects are several hundred million dollars,” Weinzierl explained, and he hopes enough money is allocated to perform upgrades to at least two locks along the Illinois River in the greatest need of repair.”These are long-term investments,” Weinzierl said. “The [U.S.] House [of Representatives] last year actually passed out of committee a bill to put more money in the river system, which is the first that happened in several decades. So we felt good that if there was going to be an infrastructure package that rivers were going to be a part, and we’re pleased to see that it was a part.”Heinold says he already has a list of what he would do with an infusion of funding.”It’s not that we have it spent before it gets here, but we know exactly what our capabilities are and where the funding needs to go,” he said.Biden’s infrastructure plan would dedicate $17 billion to improve waterways, ports and airports. A Senate Republican counteroffer also proposes spending billions to upgrade waterways. Efforts to advance legislation both parties can support continues in Washington.
…

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday urged Republicans to support those candidates who share his values in next year’s midterm elections as he launched a new phase of his post-presidency.Trump teased the prospect of presidential bid of his own in 2024 but vowed first to be an active presence on the campaign trail for his allies in next year’s fight for control of Congress.”The survival of America depends on our ability to elect Republicans at every level starting with the midterms next year,” Trump said.Trump delivered his latest comments in a speech to hundreds of Republican officials and activists gathered for the North Carolina GOP convention, the opening appearance in what is expected to be a new phase of rallies and public events.Democratic National Committee spokesman Ammar Moussa took a shot at Trump in a statement released ahead of his speech.”More than 400,000 dead Americans, millions of jobs lost and recklessly dangerous rhetoric is apparently not enough for Republicans to break with a loser president who cost them the White House, Senate and House,” Moussa said.Other appearances consideredThe former Republican president, who has been out of office for more than four months and banned from his preferred social media accounts, hopes to use events like the North Carolina gathering to elevate his voice ahead of another potential presidential run.His advisers are considering appearances in Ohio, Florida, Alabama and Georgia to help bolster midterm candidates and energize voters.In contrast to the mega rallies that filled sports arenas when Trump was president, he spoke to several hundred North Carolina Republicans seated at dinner tables inside the Greenville convention center Saturday night. Tens of thousands more followed along on internet streams.Invited to the stage briefly during his remarks, Trump daughter-in-law and North Carolina native Lara Trump announced she would not run for the Senate, citing family obligations.”I am saying no for now, not no forever,” she said.Minutes later, Trump announced his endorsement of loyalist Representative Ted Budd in the crowded Republican primary in the state’s 13th District, adding a slap at former Governor Pat McCrory, who has been critical of Trump’s falsehoods about the 2020 election.”You can’t pick people who have already lost two races and do not stand for our values,” Trump said.Trump devoted much of his remarks to railing against President Joe Biden, who he said was leading “the most radical left-wing administration in history.”While Trump has had to work harder to make his voice heard since leaving office, he remains a commanding force in the Republican Party.A recent Quinnipiac University national poll found that 66% of Republicans would like to see him run for reelection, though the same number of Americans overall said they would prefer he didn’t.
…

JPMorgan Chase & Co will resume making political donations to U.S. lawmakers but will not give to Republican members of Congress who voted to overturn President Joe Biden’s election victory, according to an internal memo Friday seen by Reuters.The country’s largest lender was among many corporations that paused political giving following the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot when supporters of former president Donald Trump tried to stop Congress from certifying the election.Just hours later, 147 Republicans, the vast majority of them in the House of Representatives, voted to overturn the Electoral College results which Trump falsely claimed were tainted by fraud.Following a review, JPMorgan will this month resume giving through its Political Action Committee (PAC) but will continue its freeze on donations to a “handful” of the 147 lawmakers whom it had previously supported, the bank said.The pause will last through the 2021-22 election cycle, which includes November’s midterm elections, after which JPMorgan will review whether to resume contributions to the lawmakers concerned on an individual basis, it said.”This was a unique and historic moment when we believe the country needed our elected officials to put aside strongly held differences and demonstrate unity,” the bank wrote of the Jan. 6 vote to certify Biden’s win.Also on Friday, Citigroup said it was resuming PAC contributions but did not specify how it would treat the lawmakers who tried to block Biden taking office.Citigroup said it would evaluate whether to give to all lawmakers case-by-case based on a new set of criteria which includes “character and integrity” and “a commitment to bipartisanship and democratic institutions.”JPMorgan noted that its PAC is an important tool for engaging in the political process in the United States. PACs are political committees organized for the purpose of raising cash to support or in some cases oppose election candidates.”Democracy, by its nature, requires active participation, compromise, and engaging with people with opposing views. That is why government and business must work together,” JPMorgan wrote.As part of its revamped spending strategy, the bank will also expand donations beyond lawmakers who oversee financial matters to those active on issues the bank considers “moral and economic imperatives for our country,” such as addressing the racial wealth gap, education and criminal justice reform.Spending slowly resumesSince the initial January backlash, corporations have been grappling with how to resume PAC spending, seen by lobbyists as important for gaining access to policymakers, without alienating other stakeholders, including their employees who fund the PACs.Other big financial companies that paused donations have slowly resumed spending.Morgan Stanley’s PAC resumed donations to some lawmakers in February, while the American Bankers Association PAC, one of the biggest in the country, started giving again in March, federal records show.While JPMorgan did not name lawmakers in its memo, the bank’s new policy risks alienating Republicans with sway over banking policy, some of whom are already angered by its active stance on issues like climate change and racial equity.Of the 147 lawmakers, JPMorgan gave $10,000 each to House finance committee members Blaine Luetkemeyer and Lee Zeldin, and House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, among others, during the 2019-20 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Representatives for the lawmakers did not respond to requests for comment.All told, JPMorgan’s PAC gave nearly $1 million to federal candidates and committees backing candidates during the 2019-20 election cycle, according to CRP.Of the $600,300 it gave to federal candidates, nearly 60% went to Republicans and the rest to Democrats, according to the CRP data, a mix that is likely to swing further to the left as the bank supports a broader range of social and economic issues.Commercial banks overall have ramped up political spending in recent years, dishing out $14.6 million to federal candidates in the 2020 cycle, the second highest amount since 1990, the data shows.Following the 2008 financial crisis, that mix favored Republicans but in recent years banks have increased spending on Democrats as they look to rebuild bipartisan support in Congress. 
…

A former White House counsel “shed new light” on the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. elections and the pressure he was under to stymie the federal probe, congressional Democrats said Friday. Don McGahn, who served as Donald Trump’s presidential lawyer for nearly two years before resigning in October 2018, testified in a daylong, closed-door session before the House Judiciary Committee.McGahn appeared under a subpoena issued about two years ago to testify as the committee was looking into allegations of wrongdoing by Trump. Late in 2019, the House voted to impeach Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate, then under Republican control, acquitted him.A transcript of McGahn’s testimony is due to be made public in coming days. Under an agreement with the Department of Justice, Judiciary Committee members declined to provide specifics of what he said before then.”Mr. McGahn was clearly distressed by President Trump’s refusal to follow his legal advice, again and again, and he shed new light on several troubling events today,” committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said in a statement.Republican Representative Matt Gaetz told reporters that McGahn’s testimony provided no new information, however.”The expectation was that Don McGahn would be some sort of essential witness bringing new information worthy of years of litigation and countless taxpayer dollars spent,” Gaetz said of Democrats.Democratic Representative Madeleine Dean, a senior Judiciary Committee member, told reporters McGahn “brought to life the pressure he was under, the pressure that other aides were under by the president to direct Rod Rosenstein to oust special counsel [Robert] Mueller.”At the time, Rosenstein was serving as deputy attorney general, and Mueller was probing Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign.After a lengthy investigation, Mueller found “numerous links” between the campaign and the Russians and concluded the campaign “expected it would benefit” from Moscow’s effort to tilt the vote in Trump’s favor. But Mueller said such interactions either did not amount to criminal behavior or would be difficult to prove in court.
…

One of the Biden Justice Department’s first big moves has been to alert reporters at three major news organizations that their phone records were seized as part of leak investigations under the Trump administration, with President Joe Biden saying he would abandon the practice of spying on journalists.  
But while Biden’s stated commitment that his Justice Department won’t seize reporters’ phone records has won support from press freedom groups, it remains unclear if that promise can be kept, especially because Democratic and Republican administrations alike have relied on the tactic in an effort to track down leaks of classified information. His comment last month about what law enforcement should or should not do was all the more striking given Biden’s pledge to uphold the tradition of an independent Justice Department.
“In this case, it seems bad policy to institute an absolute ban on logical investigative actions geared to finding out who violated the law, particularly in instances where the journalists themselves whose records may be at issue are not the subject or target of criminal investigation,” said David Laufman, a former Justice Department official who led the section that oversaw investigations into leaks.  
The Justice Department in recent weeks disclosed that federal investigators had secretly obtained call records of journalists at The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN in an effort to identify sources who had provided national security information published in the early months of the Trump administration.
Past administrations also have struggled to balance the media’s First Amendment newsgathering rights against government interests in safeguarding national security secrets. Inside the Justice Department, officials have on several occasions over the years revised internal guidelines to afford media organizations better protection without ever removing from their arsenal the prerogative to subpoena reporters’ records.
Biden appears to be looking to change that.
He told a reporter last month that seizing journalists’ records was “simply, simply wrong” and that the practice would be halted under his watch. After the most recent revelation — that the Justice Department in the Trump administration had secretly seized the phone records of four New York Times reporters — White House press secretary Jen Psaki reaffirmed the commitment to freedom of the press.  
But she also said discussions with the Justice Department were still underway and that no new policy was ready to be announced.
Michael Weinstein, a former Justice Department prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer in New Jersey, said he understood Biden’s comments as making clear his disdain for the practice without necessarily precluding the possibility that it could ever be used under any circumstances.
“I don’t see that he’s directing any specific case or that he’s directing that an investigation take one path or another,” Weinstein said. “He’s simply putting forth priorities and procedures, which then the Justice Department has to modify its protocols as a result.  
“I don’t think he’s saying you can never do it,” he added. “I think he’s saying the standards have to be higher.”
The Justice Department says it has now concluded notifying the media organizations whose phone records were accessed. The latest revelation came Wednesday when The Times said it had learned that investigators last year secretly obtained records for four reporters during a nearly four-month period in 2017.
The gap in time likely reflects that the Justice Department regards the seizure of phone records as a last resort when other avenues in a leak investigation have been exhausted. The department said the reporters are neither subjects nor targets of the investigation but did not reveal which leak was under investigation.  
The four reporters shared a byline on an April 2017 story that detailed the FBI’s decision-making in the final stages of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. The story included classified information about a document obtained by Russian hackers that helped persuade then-FBI Director James Comey that he, not Attorney General Loretta Lynch, should be the one to announce the investigation had concluded without criminal charges. His unusual July 2016 news conference, held at the FBI and without Lynch or other leaders, marked an extraordinary departure from protocol.
The Trump administration announced a crackdown on leaks in 2017 as part of an aggressive stance. In addition to the phone records seizures disclosed over the past month regarding the reporters, the department won guilty pleas from a former government contractor who mailed a classified report to a news organization and a former Senate committee aide who admitted lying to the FBI about his contacts with a reporter.  
Psaki said Thursday that Trump administration officials had “abused their power” and that Biden was looking to turn the page. But the same intrusive tactics of the last four years were also employed during the Obama administration, which secretly seized phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors during a leak investigation in 2013 and also labeled a Fox News reporter a co-conspirator in a separate leak probe.
Amid blowback, former Attorney General Eric Holder announced guidelines for leak investigations that among other things required sign-off by the highest levels of the department for subpoenas of journalists’ records.  
But the department’s ability to obtain those records under certain circumstances remained intact.
…

Former Vice President Mike Pence said Thursday that he wasn’t sure that he and former President Donald Trump would ever see “eye to eye” over what happened on Jan. 6 but that he would “always be proud of what we accomplished for the American people over the last four years.”Pence, speaking at a Republican dinner in the early-voting state of New Hampshire, gave his most extensive comments to date on the events of Jan. 6, when angry Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, some chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” after the vice president said he did not have the power to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s election victory.“As I said that day, Jan. 6 was a dark day in history of the United States Capitol. But thanks to the swift action of the Capitol Police and federal law enforcement, violence was quelled. The Capitol was secured,” Pence said.“And that same day, we reconvened the Congress and did our duty under the Constitution and the laws of the United States,” Pence continued. “You know, President Trump and I have spoken many times since we left office. And I don’t know if we’ll ever see eye to eye on that day.”It was a rare departure for Pence, who spent four years standing loyally beside his boss amid controversy, investigation and impeachment. It comes as Pence considers his own potential 2024 White House run and as Republicans, some of whom were angry at Trump in the days after the Jan. 6 insurrection, have largely coalesced back around the former president.Pence praised Trump several times during his nearly 35-minute speech at the Hillsborough County Republican Committee’s annual Lincoln-Reagan Awards Dinner in Manchester. He tried to turn the events of Jan. 6 back around on Democrats, saying they wanted to keep the insurrection in the news to divert attention from Biden’s liberal agenda.“I will not allow Democrats or their allies in the media to use one tragic day to discredit the aspirations of millions of Americans. Or allow Democrats or their allies in the media to distract our attention from a new administration intent on dividing our country to advance their radical agenda,” Pence said. “My fellow Republicans, for our country, for our future, for our children and our grandchildren, we must move forward, united.”He accused Biden of campaigning as a moderate but becoming the most liberal president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He said the administration forced through Congress “a COVID bill to fund massive expansion of the welfare state” and was pushing a “so-called infrastructure bill” that was really a “thinly disguised climate change bill” funded with cuts in the military and historic tax increases.FILE – President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence stand on stage during the first day of the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte, NC, Aug. 24, 2020.“I just say enough is enough,” he said, adding that “we’re going to stand strong for freedom.”Pence also hit upon several favorite themes of conservative Republicans, emphasizing the need for states to shore up voter integrity around the country. He praised law enforcement as heroes, saying: “Black lives are not endangered by police. Black lives are saved by police every day.”He also pushed back against “critical race theory,” which seeks to reframe the narrative of American history.Its proponents argue that federal law has preserved the unequal treatment of people on the basis of race and that the country was founded on the theft of land and labor. But Republicans have said concepts suggesting that people are inherently racist or that America was founded on racial oppression are divisive and have no place in the classroom.“America is not a racist country,” he said, prompting one of several standing ovations and cheers during his speech.“It is past time for America to discard the left-wing myth of systemic racism,” Pence said. “I commend state legislators and governors across the country for banning critical race theory from our schools.”His choice of states, including an April appearance in South Carolina, is aimed at increasing his visibility as he considers whether to run for the White House in 2024.Trump is increasingly acting and talking like he plans to make a run as he sets out on a more public phase of his post-presidency, beginning with a speech on Saturday in North Carolina.Since leaving office in January, Pence has been doing work with the Heritage Foundation and Young America’s Foundation. His team said he plans more trips, including stops in Texas, California and Michigan.Along with his visits to South Carolina and New Hampshire, Pence has been hitting the fundraising circuit. He is set to speak next week at another fundraiser hosted by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, will travel to North Carolina for a Heritage Foundation donor event, and will then head to California, where he will take part in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute’s speakers’ series, a Republican National Committee donor retreat and a Young America’s Foundation event, according to aides.Among other prominent Republicans, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said in April that she would stand down if Trump decided to run in 2024. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has undertaken an aggressive schedule, visiting states that will play a pivotal role in the 2024 primaries and signing a contract with Fox News Channel.
…

The House Judiciary Committee is poised to question former White House counsel Don McGahn behind closed doors on Friday, two years after House Democrats originally sought his testimony as part of investigations into former President Donald Trump.  
 
The long-awaited interview is the result of an agreement reached last month in federal court. House Democrats — then investigating whether Trump tried to obstruct the Justice Department’s probes into his presidential campaign’s ties to Russia — originally sued after McGahn defied an April 2019 subpoena on Trump’s orders.
 
That same month, the Justice Department released a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the matter. In the report, Mueller pointedly did not exonerate President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice but also did not recommend prosecuting him, citing Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president.  
 
Mueller’s report quoted extensively from interviews with McGahn, who described the president’s efforts to stifle the investigation.
 
While the Judiciary panel eventually won its fight for McGahn’s testimony, the court agreement almost guarantees they won’t learn anything new. The two sides agreed that McGahn will only be questioned about information attributed to him in publicly available portions of Mueller’s report.
 
Still, House Democrats kept the case going, even past Trump’s presidency, and are moving forward with the interview to make an example of the former White House counsel. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the agreement for McGahn’s testimony is a good-faith compromise that “satisfies our subpoena, protects the Committee’s constitutional duty to conduct oversight in the future, and safeguards sensitive executive branch prerogatives.”
 
It is unclear what House Democrats will do with the testimony, which they sought before twice impeaching Trump. The Senate acquitted Trump of impeachment charges both times.  
 
As White House counsel, McGahn had an insider’s view of many of the episodes Mueller and his team examined for potential obstruction of justice during the Russia investigation. McGahn proved a pivotal — and damning — witness against Trump, with his name mentioned hundreds of times in the text of the Mueller report and its footnotes.
 
He described to investigators the president’s repeated efforts to choke off the probe and directives he said he received from the president that unnerved him.
 
He recounted how Trump had demanded that he contact then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to order him to unrecuse himself from the Russia investigation. McGahn also said Trump had implored him to tell the deputy attorney general at the time, Rod Rosenstein, to remove Mueller from his position because of perceived conflicts of interest — and, after that episode was reported in the media, to publicly and falsely deny that demand had ever been made.
 
McGahn also described the circumstances leading up to Trump’s firing of James Comey as FBI director, including the president’s insistence on including in the termination letter the fact that Comey had reassured Trump that he was not personally under investigation.  
 
And he was present for a critical conversation early in the Trump administration, when Sally Yates, just before she was fired as acting attorney general as a holdover Obama appointee, relayed concerns to McGahn about new national security adviser Michael Flynn. She raised the possibility that Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — and his subsequent interview by the FBI — left him vulnerable to blackmail.  
 
Trump’s Justice Department fought efforts to have McGahn testify, but U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2019 rejected Trump’s arguments that his close advisers were immune from congressional subpoena. President Joe Biden has nominated Jackson to the appeals court in Washington.
…

The United States said Thursday it stands “with the people of China” in their fight for human rights on the eve of the anniversary of Beijing’s deadly Tiananmen crackdown, amid heightened tensions between the two economic giants.Secretary of State Antony Blinken said his country will “honor the sacrifices of those killed 32 years ago, and the brave activists who carry on their efforts today in the face of ongoing government repression.””The United States will continue to stand with the people of China as they demand that their government respect universal human rights,” Blinken said, while also calling for “transparency” over Tiananmen Square.This, he said, included “a full accounting of all those killed, detained, or missing.”While discussion of the tanks and troops that quelled peaceful democracy protesters in Beijing on June 4, 1989, are all but forbidden in mainland China, huge candlelight vigils have been held the last three decades in the semi-autonomous Hong Kong.The city’s traditional day of pro-democracy people power, however, has been squashed this year, with thousands of police slated to enforce a ban on protests, and officials warning that a sweeping new national security law could be wielded against those disobeying.Last year’s vigil was also banned on the grounds of the coronavirus, but tens of thousands defied the ban and rallied anyway.”The Tiananmen demonstrations are echoed in the struggle for democracy and freedom in Hong Kong, where a planned vigil to commemorate the massacre in Tiananmen Square was banned by local authorities,” Blinken said.The statement came hours after U.S. President Joe Biden expanded a blacklist of Chinese firms that are off-limits to American investors over their links to Beijing’s “military-industrial complex.”Washington is reviewing its diplomatic position with China on issues spanning trade, technological supremacy and rights, while it steps up efforts to hook Western democracies into a united diplomatic front against perceived Chinese aggression.
…

Former Vice President Mike Pence said Thursday that he wasn’t sure that he and former President Donald Trump would ever see “eye to eye” over what happened on Jan. 6 but that he would “always be proud of what we accomplished for the American people over the last four years.”Pence, speaking at a Republican dinner in the early-voting state of New Hampshire, gave his most extensive comments to date on the events of Jan. 6, when angry Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, some chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” after the vice president said he did not have the power to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s election victory.“As I said that day, Jan. 6 was a dark day in history of the United States Capitol. But thanks to the swift action of the Capitol Police and federal law enforcement, violence was quelled. The Capitol was secured,” Pence said.“And that same day, we reconvened the Congress and did our duty under the Constitution and the laws of the United States,” Pence continued. “You know, President Trump and I have spoken many times since we left office. And I don’t know if we’ll ever see eye to eye on that day.”It was a rare departure for Pence, who spent four years standing loyally beside his boss amid controversy, investigation and impeachment. It comes as Pence considers his own potential 2024 White House run and as Republicans, some of whom were angry at Trump in the days after the Jan. 6 insurrection, have largely coalesced back around the former president.Pence praised Trump several times during his nearly 35-minute speech at the Hillsborough County Republican Committee’s annual Lincoln-Reagan Awards Dinner in Manchester. He tried to turn the events of Jan. 6 back around on Democrats, saying they wanted to keep the insurrection in the news to divert attention from Biden’s liberal agenda.“I will not allow Democrats or their allies in the media to use one tragic day to discredit the aspirations of millions of Americans. Or allow Democrats or their allies in the media to distract our attention from a new administration intent on dividing our country to advance their radical agenda,” Pence said. “My fellow Republicans, for our country, for our future, for our children and our grandchildren, we must move forward, united.”He accused Biden of campaigning as a moderate but becoming the most liberal president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He said the administration forced through Congress “a COVID bill to fund massive expansion of the welfare state” and was pushing a “so-called infrastructure bill” that was really a “thinly disguised climate change bill” funded with cuts in the military and historic tax increases.FILE – President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence stand on stage during the first day of the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte, NC, Aug. 24, 2020.“I just say enough is enough,” he said, adding that “we’re going to stand strong for freedom.”Pence also hit upon several favorite themes of conservative Republicans, emphasizing the need for states to shore up voter integrity around the country. He praised law enforcement as heroes, saying: “Black lives are not endangered by police. Black lives are saved by police every day.”He also pushed back against “critical race theory,” which seeks to reframe the narrative of American history.Its proponents argue that federal law has preserved the unequal treatment of people on the basis of race and that the country was founded on the theft of land and labor. But Republicans have said concepts suggesting that people are inherently racist or that America was founded on racial oppression are divisive and have no place in the classroom.“America is not a racist country,” he said, prompting one of several standing ovations and cheers during his speech.“It is past time for America to discard the left-wing myth of systemic racism,” Pence said. “I commend state legislators and governors across the country for banning critical race theory from our schools.”His choice of states, including an April appearance in South Carolina, is aimed at increasing his visibility as he considers whether to run for the White House in 2024.Trump is increasingly acting and talking like he plans to make a run as he sets out on a more public phase of his post-presidency, beginning with a speech on Saturday in North Carolina.Since leaving office in January, Pence has been doing work with the Heritage Foundation and Young America’s Foundation. His team said he plans more trips, including stops in Texas, California and Michigan.Along with his visits to South Carolina and New Hampshire, Pence has been hitting the fundraising circuit. He is set to speak next week at another fundraiser hosted by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, will travel to North Carolina for a Heritage Foundation donor event, and will then head to California, where he will take part in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute’s speakers’ series, a Republican National Committee donor retreat and a Young America’s Foundation event, according to aides.Among other prominent Republicans, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said in April that she would stand down if Trump decided to run in 2024. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has undertaken an aggressive schedule, visiting states that will play a pivotal role in the 2024 primaries and signing a contract with Fox News Channel.
…