Sen. Katie Britt votes against confirming Brendan Owens
On Monday, U.S. Senator Katie Britt today cast her first-ever vote in the Senate; when she voted against the confirmation of Brendan Owens to serve as Assistant Secretary for Energy, Installations, and Environment in the Department of Defense. Owens was originally nominated by President Joe Biden in March 2022 but failed to muster the support to get a floor vote during the 117th Congress. President Biden re-nominated Owens in January 2023 at the start of the 118th Congress. “The Biden Administration has consistently prioritized their reckless leftwing political agenda to the detriment of our military readiness,” said Sen. Britt. “This nominee would simply be the tip of the spear in continuing President Biden’s radical ‘Green New Deal’ priorities at the Department of Defense, which should be focused on ensuring our incredible men and women in uniform are the best equipped, resourced, and trained in the world. We achieve peace through strength, not wokeness. The last thing we need is a DOD appointee from the ESG movement.” The U.S. Senate confirmed Owens on Monday night with 60 “yea” and 35 “nay” votes. A number of Republicans voted to confirm Owens, including Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Mitt Romney of Utah, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Todd Young of Indiana. Britt was elected in a landslide by the voters of Alabama in November after besting four rivals in the Alabama Republican Primary last spring. Senate is the first elected office she has ever held. Britt and her husband, Wesley, live in Montgomery with their two children. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Georgia grand jury ends probe of Donald Trump, 2020 election
The special grand jury in Atlanta investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and his allies committed any crimes while trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia has finished its work, bringing the case closer to possible criminal charges against Trump and others. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, who was overseeing the panel, issued a two-page order Monday dissolving the special grand jury, saying it had completed its work and submitted a final report. The lengthy investigation has been one of several around the country that threaten legal peril for Trump as he mounts a third bid for the White House. The decision on whether to seek an indictment from a regular grand jury will be up to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Willis spokesperson Jeff DiSantis said the office had no comment on the completion of the panel’s work. McBurney wrote in his order that the special grand jury recommended that its report be made public. He scheduled a hearing for January 24 to determine whether all or part of the report should be released and said the district attorney’s office and news outlets would be given an opportunity to make arguments at that hearing. Since June, the special grand jury has heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, including numerous close Trump associates such as the former New York mayor and Trump attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Assorted high-ranking Georgia officials have also testified, among them Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Last month, the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection asserted in its final report that Trump criminally engaged in a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election and failed to act to stop his supporters from attacking the Capitol. The report concluded an extraordinary 18-month investigation into the former president and the violent attack. Special grand juries in Georgia cannot issue indictments but instead can issue a final report recommending actions to be taken. Willis opened the investigation in early 2021, shortly after a recording surfaced of a January 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Raffensperger. During that call, the president suggested the state’s top elections official could “find” the votes needed to overturn his loss in the state. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump had said. “Because we won the state.” Since then, it has become clear that Willis has been focusing on several different areas: phone calls made to Georgia officials by Trump and his allies; false statements made by Trump associates before Georgia legislative committees; a panel of 16 Republicans who signed a certificate falsely stating that Trump had won the state and that they were the state’s “duly elected and qualified” electors; the abrupt resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta in January 2021; alleged attempts to pressure a Fulton County election worker; and a breach of election equipment in a rural south Georgia county. Lawyers for Giuliani confirmed in August that prosecutors told them he could possibly face criminal charges in the case. The 16 Republican fake electors have also been told they are targets of the investigation, according to public court filings. It is possible that others have also been notified they are targets of the investigation. Trump and his allies have consistently denied any wrongdoing, with the former president repeatedly describing his call with Raffensperger as “perfect” and dismissing Willis’ investigation as a “strictly political Witch Hunt!” Willis took the unusual step in January 2022 of requesting that a special grand jury be seated to aid the investigation. She noted that a special grand jury would have subpoena power which would help compel testimony from witnesses who were otherwise unwilling to participate in the investigation. In a letter asking the court to impanel the special grand jury, Willis wrote that her office had received information indicating a “reasonable probability” that Georgia’s 2020 election, including the presidential race, “was subject to possible criminal disruptions.” Her request was granted, and the special grand jury was seated in May. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Joe Biden outpacing Donald Trump, Barack Obama with diverse judicial nominees
For the Biden White House, a quartet of four female judges in Colorado encapsulates its mission when it comes to the federal judiciary. Charlotte Sweeney is the first openly LGBT woman to serve on the federal bench west of the Mississippi River and has a background in workers’ rights. Nina Wang, an immigrant from Taiwan, is the first magistrate judge in the state to be elevated to a federal district seat. Regina Rodriguez, who is Latina and Asian American, served in a U.S. attorney’s office. Veronica Rossman, who came from the former Soviet Union with her family as refugees, is the first former federal public defender to be a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. With these four women, who were confirmed during the first two years of President Joe Biden’s term, there is a breadth of personal and professional diversity that the White House and Democratic senators have promoted in their push to transform the judiciary. “The nominations send a powerful message to the legal community that this kind of public service is open to a lot of people it wasn’t open to before,” Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, told The Associated Press. “What it says to the public at large is that if you wind up in federal court for whatever reason, you’re much more likely to have a judge who understands where you came from, who you are, and what you’ve been through.” Klain said that “having a more diverse federal bench in every single respect shows more respect for the American people.” The White House and Democratic senators are closing out the first two years of Biden’s presidency having installed more federal judges than did Biden’s two immediate predecessors. The rapid clip reflects a zeal to offset Donald Trump’s legacy of stacking the judiciary with young conservatives who often lacked in racial diversity. So far, 97 lifetime federal judges have been confirmed under Biden, a figure that outpaces both Trump (85) and Barack Obama (62) at this point in their presidencies, according to data from the White House and the office of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. D-N.Y. The 97 from the Biden presidency includes Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, that court’s first Black woman, as well as 28 circuit court judges and 68 district court judges. Three out of every four judges tapped by Biden and confirmed by the Senate in the past two years were women. About two-thirds were people of color. The Biden list includes 11 Black women to the powerful circuit courts, more than those installed under all previous presidents combined. There were also 11 former public defenders named to the circuit courts, also more than all of Biden’s predecessors combined. “It’s a story of writing a new chapter for the federal judiciary, with truly extraordinary folks representing the broadest possible types of diversity,” said Paige Herwig, a senior White House counsel. The White House prioritized judicial nominations from the start, with Biden transition officials soliciting names of potential picks from Democratic senators in late 2020. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, swiftly moved nominees through hearings and Schumer set aside floor time for votes. Particular focus was placed on nominees for the appellate courts, where the vast majority of federal cases end, and those coming from states with two Democratic senators, who could find easier consensus in a process where there’s still significant deference given to home-state officials. Democrats hope to speed up the tempo of confirmations next year, a goal more easily accomplished by a 51-49 Senate that will give them a slim majority on committees. In the past two years, votes on some of Biden’s more contested judicial nominees would deadlock in committee votes, requiring more procedural steps that ate up valuable Senate floor time. Republicans had also picked up the confirmation pace considerably in Trump’s final two years in office, after GOP senators put in place a rule change — now being used by Democrats — that significantly shortened the time required to process district court nominees. Schumer said he also hopes to install more judges in appeals courts that shifted rightward under Trump, an effort that the majority leader described as rebalancing those courts. “Trump loaded up the bench with hard right ‘MAGA’ type judges who are not only out of step with the American people, they were even out of step with the Republican Party,” Schumer said in an interview, using shorthand for Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.” Schumer added: “We had a mission, it’s not just a predilection. It was a mission to try and redress that balance.” Despite their limited power to actually derail Biden’s judicial picks, some Republicans have fought ferociously against many of them, arguing that their views were out of the legal mainstream despite Democratic arguments otherwise. The precarious 50-50 Senate, where Schumer’s plans were often thwarted by ailments or absences, meant several Biden nominees languished for months and were never confirmed before the Senate wrapped up its work this year. Democrats also say certain judicial nominees, particularly women of color, were unfairly targeted by their GOP critics, leading to tense fights in the Judiciary Committee. “The Republicans have just got a problem with this. Not all of them, some do,” Durbin said in an interview. “And when you call them out on it … ‘Why is it consistently women of color that are the object of your wrath?’ and they can’t answer.” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., a committee member, said Biden’s picks were “very, very left, but unapologetically so.” He said Durbin’s assertions about Republicans were “absurd.” “I think the president made a commitment to his base that he was going to put people who shared a very left-wing worldview, who are generally quite critical of, for instance, the criminal justice system, think that it is systemically racist,” Hawley said. Despite the strengthened Democratic majority, the White House could nonetheless confront some challenges when it comes to nominating and confirming judges over the next two
Tommy Tuberville and colleagues introduce legislation to strengthen military readiness
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville continued his drive to strengthen the armed forces and prevent COVID-19 vaccination requirements from impeding military readiness by adding his support to two pieces of legislation, the Preserving the Readiness of Our Armed Forces Act and the Stop Firing Our Servicemembers Act. “America’s military recruitment is at an all-time low, putting us further behind adversaries like China,” said Sen. Tuberville. “We should not be jeopardizing our national security by putting more restrictions on members of our military who wish to serve. I am proud to support legislation to bolster military readiness and support our men and women in uniform.” The Preserving the Readiness of Our Armed Forces Act would prohibit the involuntary dismissal of a service member for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine until each military service achieves its authorized end strength. The legislation would also require that members of the National Guard and reserves have access to pay and benefits while requests for religious or health accommodation are pending. Sen. Tuberville was joined in introducing this legislation by U.S. Sens Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). “Every year, we come into this chamber and fight as hard as we can to make our military the most lethal fighting force in the world,” Blackburn said. “We authorize billions of dollars for aircraft and equipment and advanced weaponry. The NDAA represents an incredible investment in the future of this country. But it also represents the trust the American people put in this Congress to keep them safe and to keep the enemy at bay. So it is beyond me that Joe Biden and the Democrats would undermine their own military by gutting the ranks—just to make a point.” The Stop Firing Our Servicemembers Act would prohibit federal funds from being used to require a member of the National Guard to receive a COVID-19 vaccination and prohibit the Department of Defense from taking any adverse action against the member for refusing vaccination. Tuberville was joined in introducing this legislation by Sens. Blackburn, Crapo, Braun, and Cotton, as well as James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), and Steve Daines (R-Montana). “While servicemembers now have to wonder if they’ll be able to continue serving our country, America’s adversaries are looking to exploit this new vulnerability of fewer troops able to deploy and fight,” Blackburn said. Tuberville has staunchly opposed the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for service members and defense contractors, repeatedly warning that COVID-19 vaccine mandates pose a risk to military readiness. Tuberville spoke about the unconstitutional mandates on the floor of the U.S. Senate and in letters to top administration officials. Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, and HELP Committees. He is in his first term as a U.S. Senator. Tuberville defeated incumbent Sen. Doug Jones (D-Alabama) in the 2020 general election. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville only U.S. Senator openly backing Donald Trump in 2024
Former President Donald Trump announced last week that he was indeed running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 2024. U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville has since told reporters that he will support Trump’s candidacy for president and praised his track record in the Oval Office. “He’s the leader America needs in 2024,” said Sen. Tuberville on Twitter Thursday night. “That’s why I’m proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for President of the United States!” Tuberville followed those comments with an interview on Fox News. “He stood up for the American people,” Tuberville said of Trump in a recent comment on Fox News, speaking with Maria Bartiromo, saying that he was “100%” behind Trump. Tuberville followed that up with comments to reporters from Washington, D.C. “He doesn’t have to learn the ropes,” Tuberville said. “He knows the ropes. He won’t be running again (in 2028). I like someone who will come in and say, ‘Listen, I don’t care. I will do what’s good for America.’” The other 48 Republican Senators were not so quick to jump on the Trump bandwagon. Sen. Lindsey Graham stopped short of endorsing Trump’s candidacy. “If President Trump continues this tone and delivers this message on a consistent basis, he will be hard to beat,” Graham wrote following Trump’s Mar-O-Lago speech. “His speech tonight, contrasting his policies and results against the Biden Administration, charts a winning path for him in the primaries and general election.” Graham was non-committal on endorsing Trump, though. Sen. Mitt Romney has been harshly critical of Trump. Romney called former President Donald Trump an “albatross” on electoral prospects for Republicans in the midterms. “I think President Trump was an albatross on the electoral prospects for some of our candidates,” Romney told MSNBC’s, Saul Kapur. “He helped select some of the people who turned out not to be very effective candidates.” “I understand that he’s going to run for president and announce that tomorrow. It’s like the aging pitcher who keeps losing games,” Romney added. “If we want to win, we need a different pitcher on the mound.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the party has scared off moderate Republicans and independents. Trump, for his part, has blamed McConnell for the underwhelming GOP performance in midterm Senate races. “It’s Mitch McConnell’s fault,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Spending money to defeat great Republican candidates instead of backing Blake Masters and others was a big mistake. Giving 4 trillion dollars to the Green New Deal, not infrastructure, was an even bigger mistake. He blew the Midterms, and everyone despises him and his otherwise lovely wife Coco Chow.” Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan came out strongly against another Trump run for the Presidency. “I am a Never-Again-Trumper. Why? Because I want to win, and we lose with Trump,” Ryan said in a recent interview on ABC News ‘This week.’ “It was really clear to us in ’18, in ’20, and now in 2022.” “I personally think the evidence is really clear. The biggest factor was the Trump factor … I think we would have won places like Arizona, places like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire had we had a typical, traditional conservative Republican, not a Trump Republican.” Trump is currently 76 years old. By the 2024 election, he will be older than Ronald Reagan was when Reagan was leaving office. The only President in American history who was older is President Joe Biden, who turned 80 on Sunday. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Joe Guzzardi: Pro-Environment platform a mid-term winner
The latest mid-term election polling shows that Republicans and Democrats are dead even. In January, the same polling firm Statista had the GOP ahead by four points. Other polls like 538.com indicate more or less the same outcome. But if voters have learned anything since the 2016 and 2020 elections, it would be to distrust polling firm projections. Results from 2020 polls favored Democrats, with Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) as likely losers. But Collins, 6.5 points behind, or so said the pre-election pollsters, won by 8.6 points. The other five candidates that the prognosticators wrote off as doomed won handily. Pollsters have an explanation to defend their theory that congressional Democrats might still retain the majority, despite record inflation, rising crime rates, a botched Afghanistan withdrawal, student debt forgiveness, billions of dollars squandered in support of what’s become an endless Russia-Ukraine war, and an open border. It is that the GOP has nominated poor candidates in key swing states. Among the races, pollsters are tracking most closely are Blake Masters in Arizona vs. incumbent Mark Kelly, Herschel Walker in Georgia vs. incumbent Raphael Warnock, Adam Laxalt in Nevada vs. incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto, and Mehmet Oz vs. John Fetterman in Pennsylvania, where incumbent Republican Pat Toomey is retiring. A state official who has no congressional voting record, Fetterman proudly notes that his wife’s family overstayed their visas, at which time their immigration status converted to unlawfully present, a clue that he favors more immigration. Fetterman’s website says he supports a “humane” immigration system, a vapid remark which confirms that he endorses Biden’s status quo. The GOP challengers, all within striking distance, may be getting short shrift from pollsters. The candidates were persuasive enough to capture primary nominations; they’re not too tongue-tied to debate. More important, going into the general election, the GOP has as much fodder – listed above – and primo debate material as any high-office challengers in history, thanks mostly to President Biden’s slipshod governance, and the incumbents’ whole-hearted endorsement of it. On the key open borders issue, Masters, Walker, and Laxalt have the benefit of launching an offensive against their opponents’ immigration voting records. Their rivals, Kelly, Warnock, and Cortez Masto are, like Fetterman and Biden, all-in on open borders. A review of the incumbents’ immigration votes found that each has consistently voted against reducing amnesty fraud, against curbing illegal immigrants’ rewards, against ending unnecessary employment visas, against stricter border enforcement, and against more rigorous interior enforcement. Stumping on reducing immigration can be problematic since such a focused campaign would trigger untruthful but potentially damaging racist allegations. A winning campaign would include linking immigration to unsustainable population growth, an indisputable fact that the Census Bureau confirms. Census Bureau data predicts that by the mid-21st century, the U.S. population will increase to more than 400 million from its current 333 million, a greater than 20 percent increase. More than half of that growth will be attributable to immigration and births to immigrants. For comparison’s sake, the Center for Immigration Studies’ researchers, based entirely on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements, found that in 2017 there were 35.8 million legal and illegal immigrants living in the U.S. who arrived from 1982 to 2017. Further, these immigrants had 16.9 million U.S.-born children and grandchildren. In total, immigration added 52.7 million people to the U.S. population between 1982 and 2017, accounting for a little over 56 percent of population growth during this 35-year time period. For the nation’s population to increase by more than 65 million people, as the Census Bureau predicts, in less than 30 years, creates a grave danger that will exacerbate existing environmental problems like water shortages and land lost to urban sprawl. Opinions about immigration and its effects often differ. But sentiments about the environmental future Americans want to ensure for their children and grandchildren are consistent. Americans want open spaces and nature’s bounty to remain for future generations to enjoy, a goal that ever-more immigration makes impossible. To win and to prove the pollsters wrong again, the GOP platform must emphasize immigration’s harmful, unwanted consequences of unchecked population growth and the environmental degradation that accompanies it. Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Progressives for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Lindsey Graham unveils nationwide abortion ban after 15 weeks
Upending the political debate, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced a nationwide abortion ban Tuesday, sending shockwaves through both parties and igniting fresh debate on a fraught issue weeks before the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. Graham’s own Republican Party leaders did not immediately embrace his abortion ban bill, which would prohibit the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy with rare exceptions, and has almost no chance of becoming law in the Democratic-held Congress. Democrats torched it as an alarming signal of where “MAGA” Republicans are headed if they win control of the House and Senate in November. “America’s got to make some decisions,” Graham said at a news conference at the Capitol. The South Carolina Republican said that rather than shying away from the Supreme Court’s ruling this summer overturning Roe v. Wade’s nearly 50-year right to abortion access, Republicans are preparing to fight to make a nationwide abortion ban federal law. “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, we’re going nowhere,” the senator said while flanked by female advocates from the anti-abortion movement. “We welcome the debate. We welcome the vote in the United States Senate as to what America should look like in 2022.” Reaction was swift, fierce, and unwavering from Democrats who viewed Graham’s legislation as an extreme example of the far-right’s hold on the GOP and as a political gift of self-inflicted pain for Republican candidates now having to answer questions about an abortion ban heading toward the midterm elections. “A nationwide abortion ban — that’s the contrast between the two parties, plain and simple,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said. Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington who is in her own fight for reelection, said Republicans “want to force” women to stay pregnant and deliver babies. “To anyone who thought they were safe, here is the painful reality,” she said. “Republicans are coming for your rights.” The sudden turn of events comes in a razor-tight election season as Republicans hoping to win control of Congress are struggling to recapture momentum, particularly after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision sparked deep concerns among some voters, with signs of female voters peeling away from the GOP. In a midterm election where the party out of the White House traditionally holds an advantage, even more so this year with President Joe Biden’s lackluster approval ratings, the Democrats have regained their own momentum pushing back the GOP candidates in House and Senate races. Tuesday’s announcement set up an immediate split screen with Biden and Democrats poised to celebrate their accomplishments in a ceremony at the White House after passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and Republicans forced to answer for Graham’s proposed abortion ban. “This bill is wildly out of step with what Americans believe,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement. “While President Biden and Vice President [Kamala] Harris are focused on the historic passage of the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, health care, and energy – and to take unprecedented action to address climate change — Republicans in Congress are focused on taking rights away from millions of women,” Jean-Pierre said. Graham’s legislation has almost zero chance of becoming law, but it elevates the abortion issue at a time when other Republicans would prefer to focus on inflation, border security, and Biden’s leadership. The Republican bill would ban abortions nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the physical health of the mother. Graham said it would put the U.S. on par with many countries in Europe and around the world. In particular, Graham’s bill would leave in place state laws that are more restrictive. That provision is notable because many Republicans have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling leaves the abortion issue for the states to decide. But the legislation from the Republicans makes it clear states are only allowed to decide the issue if their abortion bans are more stringent. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who is one seat away from majority control, declined to embrace Graham’s legislation. “I think every Republican senator running this year in these contested races has an answer as to how they feel about the issue,” McConnell said. He said most GOP senators prefer having the issue dealt with by the states rather than at the federal level. “So I leave it up to our candidates who are quite capable of handling this issue to determine for them what their response is.” The Democratic senators most at risk this fall and other Democratic candidates running for Congress appeared eager to fight against Graham’s proposed nationwide abortion ban. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Nevada Democrat, tweeted that Graham “and every other anti-choice extremist can take a hike.” Her Republican opponent, Adam Laxalt, has during his campaign insisted that abortion is protected in the state constitution, which it may no longer be under this bill. In Colorado, another Democrat up for reelection, Sen. Michael Bennet, tweeted: “A nationwide abortion ban is outrageous. ” Bennet pledged “to defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, no matter what ZIP code she lives in. We cannot afford to let the Republicans take back the Senate.” His opponent in Colorado, Republican Joe O’Dea, who supports putting abortion access that had been guaranteed under Roe v. Wade into law, agreed, in part: “A Republican ban is as reckless and tone deaf as is Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer’s hostility to considering any compromise on late-term abortion, parental notification or conscience protections for religious hospitals.” The races for control of Congress are tight in the split 50-50 Senate, where one seat determines majority control, and in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose only a few seats. Pelosi called Graham’s bill the “clearest signal of extreme MAGA Republicans’ intent to criminalize women’s health freedom in all 50 states and arrest doctors for providing basic care. Make no mistake: if Republicans get the chance, they will work to pass laws even more
Georgia subpoenaing Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham in 2020 election probe
The Georgia prosecutor investigating the conduct of former President Donald Trump and his allies after the 2020 election is subpoenaing U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and other members of Trump’s campaign legal team to testify before a special grand jury. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on Tuesday filed petitions with the judge overseeing the special grand jury as part of her investigation into what she alleges was “a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump Campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.” The move marks a major escalation in a case that could pose a serious legal challenge to the former president as he weighs another White House run. While the special grand jury has already heard from top state officials, Tuesday’s filings directly target several of Trump’s closest allies and advisers, including Giuliani, who led his campaign’s legal efforts to overturn the election results. “It means the investigation is obviously becoming more intense because those are trusted advisers, those are inner circle people,” said Robert James, former district attorney in DeKalb County, which neighbors Fulton. The special grand jury has been investigating whether Trump and others illegally tried to meddle in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia as he desperately tried to cling to power after Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. Trump continues to insist that the election was stolen, despite the fact that numerous federal and local officials, a long list of courts, top former campaign staff, and even Trump’s own attorney general have all said there is no evidence of the fraud he alleges. The investigation is separate from that being conducted by a congressional committee that has been examining the events surrounding the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 as well as the Department of Justice’s own sprawling probe. Trump is also facing other legal challenges, including in New York, where he, his namesake son and his daughter Ivanka have agreed to answer questions under oath beginning next week in the New York attorney general’s civil investigation into his business practices. The escalation comes as Trump has been mulling announcing a third presidential run as soon as this summer as he seeks to deflect attention from the ongoing investigations and lock in support before a long list of other potential candidates, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, make their own moves. Willis, who took this unusual step of requesting a special grand jury earlier this year, has confirmed that she and her team are looking into a January 2021 phone call in which Trump pushed Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” the votes needed for him to win the state. She has said the team is also looking at a November 2020 phone call between Graham and Raffensperger, the abrupt resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta on January 4, 2021, and comments made during December 2020 Georgia legislative committee hearings on the election. Raffensperger and other state officials have already testified before the special grand jury. Willis also filed petitions for five other potential witnesses: lawyers Kenneth Chesebro, Cleta Mitchell, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Jacki Pick Deason. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney signed off on the requests, which are similar to subpoenas, deeming them necessary to the investigation. In the petition submitted to the judge, Willis wrote that Graham, a longtime ally of the former president, actually made at least two telephone calls to Raffensperger and members of his staff in the weeks after the November 2020 election. During those calls, Graham asked about reexamining certain absentee ballots “in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump,” she wrote. A Graham spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. In the petition for Giuliani’s testimony, Willis identifies him as both a personal attorney for Trump and “a lead attorney for the Trump Campaign’s legal efforts seeking to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.” As part of those efforts, she wrote, he and others presented a Georgia state Senate subcommittee with a video recording of election workers that Giuliani alleged showed them producing “suitcases” of unlawful ballots from unknown sources, outside the view of election poll watchers. Within 24 hours of the hearing on December 3, 2020, Raffensperger’s office had debunked the video and said that it had found that no voter fraud had taken place at the arena. Nevertheless, Giuliani continued to make statements to the public and in subsequent legislative hearings claiming widespread voter fraud using that debunked video, Willis wrote. “There is evidence that (Giuliani’s) appearance and testimony at the hearing was part of a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump Campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere,” the petition says. Giuliani’s attorney, Bob Costello, said he had no comment and that his client had not been served with any subpoena. To compel the testimony of an out-of-state witness, a prosecutor in Georgia has to file a petition and then a judge has to sign a certificate approving the petition, said Danny Porter, a former longtime district attorney in Gwinnett County in Atlanta’s suburbs. The next step is to deliver the petition to a prosecutor wherever the witness lives, and serve it to the witness, who is entitled to a hearing. If the person objects to going to Georgia to testify, they have to be able to show that either their testimony isn’t needed or that it would be an undue hardship for them, Porter said. Special grand juries are impaneled in Georgia to investigate complex cases with large numbers of witnesses and potential logistical concerns. They can compel evidence and subpoena witnesses for questioning and, unlike regular grand juries, can also subpoena the target of an investigation to appear before it. When its investigation is complete, the special grand jury issues a final report and can recommend action. It’s then up to the district attorney to decide whether to ask a regular grand jury for an indictment. It’s
Tommy Tuberville, colleagues stand up for agriculture producers
On Monday, Sen. Tommy Tuberville joined 31 colleagues in sending a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to push back against overreach that would place climate disclosure regulations on farmers, ranchers, and agriculture producers. The senators are concerned about the proposed rule on “Enhanced and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.” The proposed rule would require publicly-traded companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports. The group believes this will impose burdensome greenhouse gas reporting requirements on all entities within a company’s value chain, including farmers and ranchers who fall outside of the SEC’s congressionally-provided authority. “The SEC’s congressionally-mandated mission is to protect investors; foster fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation,” the senators wrote. “However, this proposed rule moves well beyond the SEC’s traditional regulatory authority by mandating climate change reporting requirements that will not only regulate publicly traded companies, but will impact every company in the value chain. Should the SEC move forward with this rule, it would be granted unprecedented jurisdiction over America’s farms and ranches, creating an impractical regulatory burden for thousands of businesses outside of the scope of the SEC’s purview, including our nation’s farmers and ranchers,” they continued. Other signers include U.S. Senators John Hoeven (R-ND), Tim Scott (R-SC), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Roger Marshall (R-KS), James Risch (R-ID), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Steve Daines (R-MT), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Richard Burr (R-NC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Barrasso (R-WY), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Rick Scott (R-FL), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), John Kennedy (R-LA), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Mike Braun (R-IN), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Joni Ernst (R-IA), James Lankford (R-OK), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Todd Young (R-Ind.), John Boozman (R-AR) and Josh Hawley (R-MO).
House passes gun control bill after Buffalo, Uvalde attacks
The House passed a wide-ranging gun control bill Wednesday in response to recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, that would raise the age limit for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle and prohibit the sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds. The legislation passed by a mostly party-line vote of 223-204. It has almost no chance of becoming law as the Senate pursues negotiations focused on improving mental health programs, bolstering school security, and enhancing background checks. But the House bill does allow Democratic lawmakers a chance to frame for voters in November where they stand on policies that polls show are widely supported. “We can’t save every life, but my God, shouldn’t we try? America, we hear you, and today in the House, we are taking the action you are demanding,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas. “Take note of who is with you and who is not.” The push comes after a House committee heard wrenching testimony from recent shooting victims and family members, including from 11-year-old girl Miah Cerrillo, who covered herself with a dead classmate’s blood to avoid being shot at the Uvalde elementary school. The seemingly never-ending cycle of mass shootings in the United States has rarely stirred Congress to act. But the shooting of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde has revived efforts in a way that has lawmakers from both parties talking about the need to respond. “It’s sickening, it’s sickening that our children are forced to live in this constant fear,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Pelosi said the House vote would “make history by making progress.” But it’s unclear where the House measure will go after Wednesday’s vote, given that Republicans were adamant in their opposition. “The answer is not to destroy the Second Amendment, but that is exactly where the Democrats want to go,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. The work to find common ground is mostly taking place in the Senate, where support from 10 Republicans will be needed to get a bill signed into law. Nearly a dozen Democratic and Republican senators met privately for an hour Wednesday in hopes of reaching a framework for compromise legislation by week’s end. Participants said more conversations were needed about a plan that is expected to propose modest steps. In a measure of the political peril that efforts to curb guns pose for Republicans, five of the six lead Senate GOP negotiators do not face reelection until 2026. They are Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The sixth, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, is retiring in January. It’s also notable that none of the six is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. While Cornyn has said the talks are serious, he has not joined the chorus of Democrats saying the outlines of a deal could be reached by the end of this week. He told reporters Wednesday that he considers having an agreement before Congress begins a recess in late June to be “an aspirational goal.” The House bill stitches together a variety of proposals Democrats had introduced before the recent shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde. The suspects in the shootings at the Uvalde elementary school and Buffalo supermarket were both just 18, authorities say, when they bought the semi-automatic weapons used in the attacks. The bill would increase the minimum age to buy such weapons to 21. “A person under 21 cannot buy a Budweiser. We should not let a person under 21 buy an AR-15 weapon of war,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif. Republicans have noted that a U.S. appeals court ruling last month found California’s ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons to adults under 21 was unconstitutional. “This is unconstitutional, and it’s immoral. Why is it immoral? Because we’re telling 18, 19, and 20-year-olds to register for the draft. You can go die for your country. We expect you to defend us, but we’re not going to give you the tools to defend yourself and your family,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. The House bill also includes incentives designed to increase the use of safe gun storage devices and creates penalties for violating safe storage requirements, providing for a fine and imprisonment of up to five years if a gun is not properly stored and is subsequently used by a minor to injure or kill themselves or another individual. It also builds on the Biden administration’s executive action banning fast-action “bump-stock” devices and “ghost guns” that are assembled without serial numbers. The House is also expected to approve a bill Thursday that would allow families, police, and others to ask federal courts to order the removal of firearms from people who are believed to be at extreme risk of harming themselves or others. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia currently have such “red flag laws.” Under the House bill, a judge could issue an order to temporarily remove and store the firearms until a hearing can be held no longer than two weeks later to determine whether the firearms should be returned or kept for a specific period. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
House panel taking up gun bill in wake of mass shootings
The House is beginning to put its stamp on gun legislation in response to mass shootings in Texas and New York by 18-year-old assailants who used semi-automatic rifles to kill 31 people, including 19 children. The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Thursday to advance legislation that would raise the age limit for purchasing a semi-automatic centerfire rifle from 18 to 21. The bill would make it a federal offense to import, manufacture or possess large-capacity magazines and would create a grant program to buy back such magazines. It also builds on the executive branch’s ban on bump-stock devices and so-called ghost guns that are privately made without serial numbers. The Democratic legislation, called the Protecting Our Kids Act, was quickly added to the legislative docket after last week’s school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. A vote by the full House could come as early as next week.ADVERTISEMENT With Republicans nearly in lockstep in their opposition, the House action will mostly be symbolic, serving to put lawmakers on record about gun control ahead of this year’s elections. The Senate is taking a different course, with a bipartisan group striving toward a compromise on gun safety legislation that can win enough GOP support to become law. But Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, defends the proposals as being popular with Americans. He says it’s time for Congress to act. “You say that it is too soon to take action? That we are ‘politicizing’ these tragedies to enact new policies?” Nadler said in prepared remarks for Thursday’s hearing obtained by The Associated Press. “It has been 23 years since Columbine. Fifteen years since Virginia Tech. Ten years since Sandy Hook. Seven years since Charleston. Four years since Parkland and Santa Fe and Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh.” He added: “Too soon? My friends, what the hell are you waiting for?” Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the ranking Republican on the committee, told Fox News he’ll press his GOP colleagues to oppose the bill. “I’m going to do everything I can to encourage my colleagues to oppose this … hodgepodge of bills that I don’t think would have made one difference in tragedies that we’ve seen recently,” Jordan said. Any legislative response to the Uvalde and Buffalo, New York shootings will have to get through the evenly divided Senate, where support from at least 10 Republicans would be needed to advance the measure to a final vote. A group of senators has been working behind the scenes this week in hopes of finding a consensus. Ideas under discussion include expanded background checks for gun purchases and incentivizing red-flag laws that allow family members, school officials, and others to go into court and secure an order requiring the police to seize guns from people considered a threat to themselves or others. The broader bipartisan group of almost ten senators met again Wednesday — “a very productive call,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., in an interview. “There’s a tenor and tone, as well as real substantive discussion that seems different,” he said. Blumenthal has been working with a Republican member of the group, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, on a proposal to send resources to the states for red-flag laws. He said he was “excited and encouraged” by the response from the group. “It really is time for our Republican colleagues to put up or shut up,” Blumenthal said. “We’ve been down this road before.” President Joe Biden was asked Wednesday if he was confident Congress would take action on gun legislation. “I served in Congress for 36 years. I’m never confident, totally,” Biden said. “It depends, and I don’t know. I’ve not been in on the negotiations as they’re going on right now.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Ketanji Brown Jackson seems headed for confirmation, says no ‘agendas’
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson faced a barrage of Republican questioning Wednesday about her sentencing of criminal defendants, as her history-making bid to join the Supreme Court veered from lofty constitutional questions to attacks on her motivations as a judge. She declared she would rule “without any agendas” as the high court’s first Black female justice, rejecting Republican efforts to paint her as soft on crime in her decade on the federal bench. Democrats defended her and heralded the historic nature of her nomination. “America is ready for the Supreme Court glass ceiling to shatter,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in Jackson’s second and last day answering questions at her confirmation hearings. Though her approval seems all but sure — Democrats are aiming for a vote before Easter — Republicans keep trying to chip away at her record. In more than 12 hours of testimony on Tuesday, and long into the day on Wednesday, GOP senators aggressively questioned her on the sentences she has handed down to child pornography offenders, her legal advocacy on behalf of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, her thoughts on critical race theory and even her religious views. In response to questioning about a case over affirmative action at Harvard University, her alma mater where she now serves on the Board of Overseers, Jackson said she would recuse herself. “That’s my plan,” she responded when Texas Sen. Ted Cruz asked her about it. The court will, in the fall, take up challenges to the consideration of race in college admissions in lawsuits filed by Asian American applicants to Harvard, a private institution, and the University of North Carolina, a state school. The court currently plans to hear the suits against the two schools together but could separate them and give Jackson a chance to take part in what will be one of next term’s biggest issues. Tempers rose at Wednesday’s hearing as the day wore on, with Durbin slamming down his gavel at one point when Cruz refused to yield after his time expired while he was grilling Jackson on the specifics of cases. “You can bang it as long as you want,” Cruz snapped, shouting that he just wanted Jackson to answer his question. “At some point, you have to follow the rules,” Durbin shot back. In another round of tense questioning, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham interrogated Jackson on the punishment she believes appropriate for people convicted of child pornography. Like Cruz and others on the committee, Graham said she had been too lenient on those criminals. Graham frequently interrupted her as she tried to speak; at one point, he said judges should simply “put their a— in jail!” The focus on her sentencing was part of a larger effort by the committee’s Republicans — several of whom are potential presidential candidates — to characterize Jackson’s record and her judicial philosophy as too empathetic and soft on criminals who commit the worst offenses. It was also part of an emerging emphasis on crime in GOP midterm election campaigns. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said she seemed like “a very kind person” — but “there’s at least a level of empathy that enters into your treatment of a defendant that some could view as maybe beyond what some of us would be comfortable with, with respect to administering justice.” The sustained focus on her record suggested that, contrary to Democratic hopes, Jackson’s confirmation vote in the full Senate is unlikely to garner much, if any, Republican support. Still, several Republicans acknowledged that she is likely to be on the court. Democrats can confirm her without any bipartisan support in the 50-50 Senate as Vice President Kamala Harris can cast the tie-breaking vote. Jackson, backed by committee Democrats, forcefully defended her record and said that the Republicans were mischaracterizing her decisions. Asked if her rulings were endangering children, she told the committee on Tuesday: “Nothing could be further from the truth.” She said she bases sentences on many factors, not just federal guidelines. Sentencing is not a “numbers game,” she said, noting that there are no mandatory sentences for sex offenders and that there has been significant debate on the subject. Some of the cases have given her nightmares, she said, and were “among the worst that I have seen.” Jackson said that if she is confirmed, she will do what she has done as a federal judge, “which is to rule from a position of neutrality, to look carefully at the facts and the circumstances of every case without any agendas, without any attempt to push the law in one direction or the other.” She reminded the committee that her brother and two uncles served as police officers and that “crime and the effect on the community, and the need for law enforcement — those are not abstract concepts or political slogans to me.” Defending her, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware told Jackson that the Republican lines of questioning are “an attempt to distract from your broad support, your deep record, your outstanding intellectual and legal credentials.” President Joe Biden chose Jackson in February, fulfilling a campaign pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court for the first time in American history. She would take the seat of Justice Stephen Breyer, who announced in January that he would retire this summer after 28 years on the court. Jackson would be the third Black justice, after Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and the sixth woman. Her confirmation would maintain the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court. Democrats have been full of praise for Jackson, noting that she would not only be the first Black woman but also the first public defender on the court and the first with experience representing indigent criminal defendants since Marshall. Jackson said that having a diverse judicial branch is important because it “bolsters public confidence in our system” and “lends confidence that the rulings that the court is handing down are fair and just.” She spoke of her parents often
