Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'politico article'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Welcome to DinarVets!
    • Rules, Announcements & Introductions
    • Questions and Tech Support
  • VIP Area
    • VIP Section
    • VIP Section
  • Iraq Topics
    • Iraq & Dinar Related News
    • Dinar Rumors
    • RV & Dinar Questions
    • Opinions, Perspectives, and Your Two Cents on the Iraqi Dinar
    • Chat Logs
    • ISX (Iraqi Stock Exchange)
    • Warka and Iraqi Banking
    • Dinar-ify me!
    • Buying and Selling Dinar
    • LOPster tank
    • Debate Section
  • General Topics
    • Off Topic posts
    • Natural Cures and Health Talk
    • Politics, 2nd Amendment (Gun Control)
    • Iraqi Inspiration and Stories of our Soldiers
    • World Economy
    • Music Videos etc
    • DV Weekly Powerballs.
  • Investing
    • Forex Discussion
    • Penny Stocks
    • Wall Street
    • Gold & Precious Metals
    • Foreign Currencies
    • Tax Discussion
    • Investment Opportunities and Wealth Management

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

  • VIP Membership Packages
  • OSI Products
  • Just a Text
  • RV Intel and the Cash In Guide!

Genres

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Phone Number (for VIP text message)


AIM


ICQ


Jabber


Location


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation


My Facebook Profile ID


My Twitter ID

Found 12 results

  1. Dems notch easy win in New Mexico special election Ally Mutnick Tue, June 1, 2021, 5:13 PM Democrat Melanie Stansbury claimed a resounding victory Tuesday night in a contested special election for Congress in New Mexico, easing her party’s fears of a closer result that could have portended a brutal midterm next year. Stansbury, a state representative, led Republican Mark Moores, 63 percent to 33 percent, when The Associated Press called the race in her favor, a little more than an hour after polls closed. While that margin was likely to narrow somewhat as additional votes were tallied, Democrats hailed her comfortable win as a sign that their base enthusiasm has not waned and that the GOP’s doubling down on “defund the police” attacks backfired. "While Mark Moores and the GOP spent this special election doing their best Trump impression, Melanie focused on building our country back better, getting folks back to work, and creating an economy for all New Mexicans," said Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The district, which includes Albuquerque and its suburbs, is deep-blue territory. Now-President Joe Biden carried it by 23 points in 2020 and the former incumbent, Democrat Deb Haaland, won it by 16 points before vacating the seat to become Interior secretary. Both candidates were nominated by local party officials at conventions. Moores, a state senator and former football player for the University of New Mexico, trailed Stansbury significantly in fundraising and spent far less on TV ads. And neither party committee — or any affiliated outside groups — spent any serious money in the race, a sign that the seat was unlikely to change hands. The parties used the district as a way to test their midterm messaging. For Democrats, that meant selling Biden’s recovery packages and a brighter post-pandemic future. But Republicans mostly repeated their 2020 strategy of portraying all Democrats as insufficiently supportive of law enforcement. Moores' campaign was centered entirely on that message. And while his lopsided loss suggests it didn’t appeal to Democratic-leaning voters in Albuquerque, the GOP hopes it will still be salient in swing districts. But Democrats now have a template to follow for warding off their attacks. Stansbury responded to the “defund the police” hit by running an ad starring a law enforcement official praising her commitment to public safety funding. She called for a comprehensive approach to criminal justice reform that addresses the underlying causes of crime. It appears to have worked, even as Moores seized on her initial support of a activist-authored proposal, the BREATHE Act, to paint her as radical and Stansbury never seemed to offer a clear answer on the trail of if she supported some of the more extreme policy prescriptions in the act that called for disbanding ICE and Border Patrol. The large win by Stansbury is a sign of relief to Democrats who have been facing uncomfortable questions about their base enthusiasm after they were shut out of a runoff in a congressional race in Texas last month. In that race, two Republicans advanced to a runoff later this summer, despite some promising signs that Democrats could compete in the fast-changing Fort Worth suburbs. Now party recruiters and strategists have a win on which to lean as they turn toward recruiting for 2022. And an encouraging proof point that Democratic voters remain motivated even with Trump out of office. In an election-night victory speech, Stansbury hailed the win as an endorsement of united Democratic government "Leaders all across the country have been watching this race because of the leadership of Secretary Haaland, because of the importance to this race for delivering for President Biden's agenda," she said. Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be eagerly awaiting Stansbury’s swearing in, after which she will have four votes to spare as she tries to hold together her thin majority on major votes throughout the summer. There will be 220 Democrats and 211 Republicans in the House, with four vacancies still outstanding. And Stansbury, who describes herself as a pragmatic progressive, will be joining the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Her win also pads their margins, though she wasn’t explicitly endorsed by some key progressive organizations, such as the Justice Democrats, who waded into an earlier special election in Louisiana. https://www.yahoo.com/news/dems-hold-mexico-house-seat-211332349.html GO RV, then BV
  2. POLITICS McKissick whips Wood in South Carolina GOP race Conspiracy theorist Lin Wood had sought to portray the incumbent state party chairman as an establishment moderate. South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Drew McKissick gestures as he speaks to the Richland County GOP convention on April 30, 2021. | Meg Kinnard/AP Photo By MARC CAPUTO 05/15/2021 12:18 PM EDT Pro-Trump lawyer Lin Wood’s bid to bring “chaos” to South Carolina’s GOP was halted on Saturday when he failed to unseat the party’s chairman after baselessly accusing the incumbent of voter fraud and a host of other slurs. Chairman Drew McKissick’s reelection was not in doubt among knowledgeable Republicans who say the party delegate rules favor longtime insiders. Wood, an accomplished trial lawyer from Georgia who turned into a conspiracy theorist, moved this year from Georgia and mounted an unexpectedly strong candidacy for a complete outsider. McKissick beat Wood by a final vote of 68-28 percent at the low-key socially distanced convention in Columbia, where coronavirus social distancing rules prevented the delegates from meeting in one large hall — something Wood pushed for to take advantage of his fire-breathing, crowd-riling style. Votes were held in satellite meetings throughout the state’s 46 counties. “Drew is a cheater,” Wood, without evidence, said to his huge following on Telegram before the vote. “If he ‘wins’ today, he will be a Fake Chairman just like Biden is a Fake President!” After the vote, Wood swiped at McKissick for telling the truth at a recent forum where he admitted Joe Biden was legitimately elected president: “Congratulations to Drew ‘Biden Won’ McKissick. Drew won the delegates in an establishment created election. I won We The People. Drew will learn in time that ALL the power belongs to We The People.” In a statement released by the state party, McKissick said: "Thanks to the grassroots activists across the state, the SCGOP is stronger than it's ever been. ... Now we can roll up our sleeves to continue what we do best–win elections." Wood’s constant attacks on McKissick, whom he trashed with a host of dark but vague innuendos, concerned some old-time Republicans because Wood attracted crowds of hundreds of conservatives who, though not delegates, could be led astray by Wood undermining the party leadership and spreading conspiracy theories at his events, which also featured National Security Adviser Mike Flynn and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, who are associated with the Q-Anon movement. Wood, a high-profile defamation lawyer, had sought to portray McKissick as not doing enough to support Trump after the November elections. McKissick, though, was twice endorsed by Trump after Wood entered the race — the final time on Friday — as Wood tried to cast doubt on the truth of the endorsements. McKissick canceled the state party primary in 2020, allowing Trump to take the state’s delegates unopposed. South Carolina holds outsized importance on the primary calendar, as it’s traditionally the first such contest held in the South. The official delegate totals in the GOP chair race: McKissick 582 votes (68%); Wood 239 votes (28%); Michael LaPierre 27 votes (3%); Mark Powell 10 votes (1%). LaPierre, a former senate candidate, ditched his clean-cut look from 2020 and took to wearing a coonskin cap during this race, earning him the nickname “Davy Crockett” from Wood. Considering Wood’s charisma and McKissick’s stature in the party, LaPierre’s cap was understandable in South Carolina’s “circus” of a GOP chairman’s race, according to veteran Republican strategist Luke Byers. “If you’re that guy, what are you going to do for attention?” Byers said. “You might have to wear a coonskin cap.” https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/15/south-carolina-gop-chair-mckissick-488485 GO RV, then BV
  3. Cheney snags victories ahead of her next battle with Trumpworld Melanie Zanona Sun, April 4, 2021, 11:30 PM Rep. Liz Cheney took on the Trump wing of her party and survived its attempt to politically kneecap her. But it's only the beginning of what looks like a yearslong fight for her place in the GOP. The Wyoming Republican became Trumpworld's public enemy No. 1 this year after her vote to impeach the former president, jeopardizing her career and leadership job. Since then, though, Cheney has racked up a string of wins that put her on more solid footing in the party — starting with her easy victory over a conservative-led effort to oust her as House GOP conference chair. Her triumphs continued late last month, when the Wyoming state legislature rejected a measure endorsed by Donald Trump Jr. that could have made it harder for Cheney to prevail in what's likely to be a crowded primary field. Big names in the GOP establishment, such as former Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan, are lining up to help her stockpile cash. And a sex trafficking probe that threatens to take down one of her chief critics, MAGA-loving Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), also gives Cheney some vindication — even inspiring viral memes about her reveling in her foe's fall. “I don’t know that Cheney would characterize it as a winning streak. She's just a fighter,” said Amy Edmonds, a former Cheney staffer and former Wyoming state legislator. That perspective may serve Cheney well, since her challenges are far from over. She still has to lock down her party’s endorsement in the deep red state of Wyoming next August, leaving plenty of time for pro-Trump forces to mobilize against her — though she's likely to benefit from multiple pro-Trump candidates competing for the same lane. If Cheney can hang on to her House seat, however, her ability to climb the leadership ranks may still be hamstrung by her vote against a former president who's said to be obsessed with taking down the Republicans who helped impeach him. “She’s been out there talking to folks [in the state]. Sometimes people are not happy," Edmonds added, "but she does not, and never will, regret that vote” against former President Donald Trump. Once a fast-rising star in the GOP, Cheney was in the mix as a future speaker; she even passed up a Senate bid last year to seek her political fortunes in the House. Now several Republicans think Cheney will struggle to clinch their No. 3 House leadership spot again next year, when she will almost certainly face a challenge for the job. “Definitely no,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), who backed February's unsuccessful effort to boot Cheney from leadership. “Doubt she wins Wyoming.” “Maybe she’ll run again in Northern Virginia,” he added, taking a jab at her residence outside D.C. Already several ambitious Republican lawmakers are nipping at Cheney’s heels. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, drafted a memo to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy last week offering a competing vision for the future of the party that appeared designed to put Cheney on notice. Banks' messaging push shows a post-Trump GOP still riven with internal tensions over its direction. Ranking member Jim Banks of Ind., speaks during a House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, hearing about Military Criminal Investigative Organization Reform Recommendations from the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee, on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, March 16, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) “You may have seen that I've been thinking a lot about the future of our party and how we capitalize on the gift Donald Trump gave us, which was his connection with working-class voters,” Banks wrote Friday in an internal email to the RSC that was obtained by POLITICO. “Because of Trump, the GOP has undergone a coalitional transformation and is now the party of the working class.” “We should embrace that. Not fight it,” Banks added. But Cheney isn’t backing down. She was asked about the Banks memo during a Congressional Institute call last week and forcefully rebutted its contents, according to sources familiar with the exchange. Cheney argued the GOP is not the party of class warfare and that dividing up society into classes is neo-Marxist and wrong. And in public and private conversations — including at a recent fundraiser with her father, former Vice President **** Cheney — sources described Cheney as clear in her view that embracing Trump is not only constitutionally indefensible but also fraught with political consequences. The GOP lost the House, Senate and White House after four years of Trump, she has noted. Cheney has a healthy amount of convincing to do, with Republicans still largely in Trump’s corner after his Senate acquittal for inciting the deadly Capitol riot. More than any other Republican who broke from the former president after Jan. 6, her future — both in Congress and back home — will show whether Trump turncoats have room to remain and even rise inside the Grand Old Party. “Yeah, there’s headwinds, but … the intensity has started to settle. And I think part of that is when you have the distance of time,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. “I think her profile has increased substantially, and her standing [in the GOP] increases every day.” It’s still unclear whether Cheney would want to stay on the GOP leadership team in the next Congress. She has publicly clashed with McCarthy, and the two have notably not appeared together at their usual weekly press conference since the awkward moment on Feb. 25 when they split over Trump’s role in the party. House Republican Conference chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., center, accompanied by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Calif., left, and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise of La., speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) Allies, however, insisted their working relationship is fine and noted that they’ve continued to have regular private leadership meetings. McCarthy and Cheney are also aligned when it comes to the GOP’s policy agenda. Some lawmakers think Cheney could seek an off-ramp in the next Congress by trying to land a top committee post, where her views on Trump would get less attention but where she could still continue to serve as a high-profile voice in the party for conservative priorities. Others think she could be positioning herself for an eventual White House bid — in 2024 or later. For now, though, Cheney has her leadership job sewn up, which has enabled her to focus on countering President Joe Biden and winning back the House majority. Last week, she and Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) toured her home state to hear from local energy-industry stakeholders. She also has thrown some red meat to the base, hammering Biden over the burgeoning migration crisis and the proposed tax hikes in his infrastructure plan. That shift, GOP lawmakers and strategists said, has helped cool some of the anger directed at Cheney and refocused Republicans on her political gifts. “She has not only weathered the storm, she has thrived in the storm,” said Doug Heye, a former spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. But, he added, “this will come in peaks and valleys. Trump is not dominating the entire political conversation right now.” Meanwhile, Gaetz — an antagonist so committed that he flew to Wyoming to troll her at a campaign rally — has his own fires to put out. The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating his alleged relationship with a 17-year-old and whether he violated sex trafficking laws or paid women for sex, and few Republicans are stepping up to defend him. “I think absolutely it hurts Gaetz’s credibility and in turn, the credibility of all these people who are trying to make this a referendum on the direction of the party,” said Matt Micheli, former chair of the Wyoming GOP. “Is this the party of Matt Gaetz or Liz Cheney? Well, let’s see, what do most people want?” Cheney's detractors argue that it will be much harder for her to beat back a leadership challenge if she's forced to face someone head-on. But they've already underestimated her once: Cheney's critics, including Gaetz, crowed about having the votes to defeat her earlier this year before she trounced them, staying in power with the support of 145 Republicans. “That’s a landslide in any election. The numbers speak for themselves,” said Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.). “Liz is going to have to decide if she wants to remain in leadership, [or] whatever she wants to run for. But considering the reports of her demise as conference chair were widespread, I would say her victory was pretty overwhelming.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/cheney-snags-victories-ahead-her-033056042.html GO RV, then BV
  4. Court voids Trump campaign's non-disclosure agreement Josh Gerstein Tue, March 30, 2021, 3:44 PM A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a broad non-disclosure agreement that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign required employees to sign is unenforceable. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe’s ruling generally steered clear of the constitutional issues presented by such agreements in the context of political campaigns. Instead, the judge — an appointee of President George W. Bush — said the sweeping, boilerplate language the campaign compelled employees to sign was so vague that the agreement was invalid under New York contract law. “As to the scope of the provision, it is — as a practical matter —unlimited. ... Accordingly, Campaign employees are not free to speak about anything concerning the Campaign,” wrote Gardephe. “The non-disclosure provision is thus much broader than what the Campaign asserts is necessary to protect its legitimate interests, and, therefore, is not reasonable.” Gardephe’s 36-page decision said a non-disparagement clause in the agreement was similarly flawed. “The Campaign’s past efforts to enforce the non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions demonstrate that it is not operating in good faith to protect what it has identified as legitimate interests,” the judge added. “The evidence before the Court instead demonstrates that the Campaign has repeatedly sought to enforce the non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions to suppress speech that it finds detrimental to its interests.” Gardephe issued the ruling in a case brought by Jessica Denson, a Hispanic outreach director for Trump in 2016 who accused the campaign of sex discrimination in separate litigation. At one point, the campaign persuaded an arbitrator to issue a $50,000 award against Denson for violating the agreement, but that award was later overturned. Denson celebrated the latest ruling, saying it dealt a death blow to a tactic Trump has long wielded to control his image. “I’m overjoyed,” Denson told POLITICO. “This president … former president spent all four years aspiring to autocracy while claiming that he was champion of freedom and free speech. ... There’s many people out there who have seen cases like mine and were terrified to speak out.” For decades, Trump required such secrecy agreements of his personal employees and staff in his companies. When he jumped into the presidential race in 2016, his lawyers continued to demand NDAs that seemed modeled on those he used previously in his personal and business affairs. The practice continued into Trump’s presidency, despite warnings from First Amendment advocates that it was unconstitutional to demand that public employees swear an oath of secrecy. Precisely who at the White House was required to sign such agreements and what they covered remains something of a mystery. The Justice Department joined in the secrecy drive last year by filing a lawsuit against Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former volunteer adviser to first lady Melania Trump, over a tell-all book Winston Wolkoff wrote. Some legal experts questioned the basis for the suit, which was based on an NDA she had signed. Days after President Joe Biden’s inauguration, the Justice Department dropped the case. Denson said she is certain that such agreements helped mute criticism of Trump during his 2016 presidential race and through his four years in office. “Just the terms of the NDA were wildly restricting and it completely stifled public debate, truthful public debate about the Trump campaign and presidency, so this is a massive victory,” the former aide said. “NDAs like this are part of the reason why we ended up with a Donald Trump candidacy and presidency in the first place.” An adviser to the former president expressed disagreement with the ruling and said Trump’s attorneys are considering their options. “We believe the court reached the wrong decision and President Trump’s lawyers are examining all potential appeals,” said the aide, who asked not to be identified. Technically, Gardephe’s decision applies only to Denson, barring the campaign from enforcing the NDA against her. But her attorneys said Tuesday they think the decision effectively nullifies all the NDAs the Trump campaign has issued. “The court rules point by point, almost entirely in our favor,” said New York lawyer David Bowles, who handled the case for Protect Democracy, an advocacy organization which formed in opposition to Trump but bills itself as non-partisan and anti-authoritarian. An attorney with the group, John Langford, said the court ruling transcends Trump and serves as a warning to any campaign considering any similar effort to gag its staffers. “From our perspective, it’s really not about politics,” Langford said. “No one should have to give up their free speech rights or swear allegiance to a candidate forever just to get a job with or volunteer on a campaign.” The court decision does not foreclose the use of narrower non-disclosure agreements to protect sensitive campaign information, which the judge said might include polling data and fundraising strategies. The Trump campaign asked Gardephe to edit the provisions if he found them unenforceable as written, but he declined. https://news.yahoo.com/court-voids-trump-campaigns-non-194447489.html GO RV, then BV
  5. Treasury Department announces sanctions tied to Giuliani’s Biden attacks Quint Forgey Mon, January 11, 2021, 11:56 AM EST The Treasury Department announced a new spate of sanctions on Monday targeting the “inner circle” of Andrii Derkach, the pro-Russian Ukrainian lawmaker who aided Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to probe unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing by President-elect Joe Biden and his family. The department had previously designated Derkach himself for sanctions related to foreign interference in the 2020 election in September. But on Monday, the department “took additional action against seven individuals and four entities” that it alleged were “part of a Russia-linked foreign influence network” associated with him. “Russian disinformation campaigns targeting American citizens are a threat to our democracy,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. “The United States will continue to aggressively defend the integrity of our election systems and processes.” In his own statement acknowledging the sanctions, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Derkach “has been an active Russian agent for more than a decade, maintaining close connections with Russian intelligence services.” Those designated for sanctions on Monday included former Ukrainian government officials Konstantin Kulyk, Oleksandr Onyshchenko and Andriy Telizhenko, as well as current Ukrainain lawmaker Oleksandr Dubinsky. Also designated for sanctions were Petro Zhuravel, a “key member of Derkach’s media team;” Dmytro Kovalchuk, a “long-time supporter” of Derkach who assisted with his media efforts; and Anton Simonenko, who “served as Derkach’s assistant for nearly a decade and helped Derkach hide financial assets,” according to the Treasury Department. Derkach met with Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, in Kyiv in December 2019. He is also suspected of sending packets of disinformation on the Bidens to prominent Trump allies around the same time. And in August 2020, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused Derkach of being part of the Russian government’s efforts to damage Biden’s presidential candidacy. https://www.yahoo.com/news/treasury-department-announces-sanctions-tied-165649477.html GO RV, then BV
  6. Georgia just delivered Democrats their most powerful weapon Caitlin Emma Fri, January 8, 2021, 4:30 AM EST Get ready to hear these two words incessantly over the next two years: budget reconciliation. It’s a powerful procedural tool that can steer billions of dollars and reshape a host of social policies all while evading the dreaded filibuster. And with Democrats clinching the Senate majority after winning the Georgia runoffs, senior lawmakers are already vowing to deploy it. “This, of course, gives us the opportunity to have a very different set of choices, and that’s what the election was all about in Georgia last night,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said Wednesday when asked about the possible use of reconciliation. Wyden is now on the cusp of chairing the Finance Committee, which would make him the Senate’s top tax policy writer. Some restrictions exist on how reconciliation can be used; it’s not all-powerful. But by allowing the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority, it will prove critical to advancing President-elect Joe Biden’s agenda. That’s particularly true if Democrats decide against nixing the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold, which is unlikely amid moderates’ resistance. And Democrats will actually have as many as have three opportunities during the 117th Congress to use reconciliation. That’s because Congress can unlock the special procedure in each budget resolution, and lawmakers never adopted a fiscal 2021 budget resolution and can still pass one for fiscal 2022 and fiscal 2023 on the horizon. Technically, Democrats could break each reconciliation attempt into three pieces of legislation — dealing with spending, revenues and the debt limit — making for a total of nine bills over two years. But it’s far from clear whether they would choose that route. There is precedent for using reconciliation twice in a single year, however. Republicans tapped reconciliation in 2017 in their failed bid to repeal Obamacare and then later to successfully pass their tax overhaul. Democrats previously used it to pass much of the Affordable Care Act after former GOP Sen. Scott Brown’s surprise victory took away Democrats’ 60th vote. Reconciliation can typically be used to speed passage for any legislation with a significant effect on the federal budget, and Democrats could use it to promote their priorities on economic stimulus, health care, climate change and other priorities. Before the election in early November, when Democrats were bullish on capturing the Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a health advocacy group that Democrats “will almost certainly be passing a reconciliation bill, not only for the Affordable Care Act, but for what we may want to do further on the pandemic and some other issues that relate to the well-being of the American people.” Democrats have also eyed reconciliation for a massive infrastructure plan backed by a prospective Biden administration. “I don’t think there’s any question of whether we’d use it, if we had to,” House Budget Chair John Yarmuth told POLITICO last year. “The possibilities are endless. I think you’d want to do it for the biggest possible package you could.” While Yarmuth will oversee budget action in the House, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — a staunch supporter of "Medicare for All" and a reconciliation fan — is next in line to chair the Senate Budget Committee. Of course, new Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will have a lot to say over whatever Sanders’ committee produces. Implementing budget reconciliation will also require Democrats to wade through thorny procedural obstacles. They will almost certainly face challenges from Republicans related to the Byrd rule, named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, which limits the scope of amendments and can kill extraneous items in reconciliation legislation that some Democrats might push to include. Meanwhile, House Republicans are already denouncing an unrelated rules change approved this week that exempts coronavirus and climate change-related legislation from so-called PAYGO budget principles, which require new spending to be offset elsewhere though it’s often waived. The change amounts to a compromise between House progressives who wanted to ditch PAYGO entirely and moderates who pushed to keep it largely intact. “It’s only the second day of the new Congress and already House Democrats are attempting to push through their radical agenda and hoping no one will notice,” Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, said earlier this week. Still, Democrats are far from unified when it comes to their fiscal priorities. House moderates this week pledged to keep an eye on the PAYGO rules change, arguing that the party shouldn’t haphazardly waive budget requirements amid rising deficits. And progressives have already promised to push for cuts to defense spending, much to the discomfort of more vulnerable members. With a narrow majority in the Senate and a smaller majority in the House, Democrats will have little room for defections. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), a chair of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition, said Wednesday that Democrats should prioritize coronavirus relief and job creation when it comes to reconciliation, including robust oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent. More broadly, the Blue Dogs have pledged to protect “against the excesses” when it comes to a one-party control of government. But progressives see an opportunity to go big that Democrats can’t afford to waste. “We have to be bold,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who leads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said last year when asked about the prospects for Democrats’ budget plans. “This is not a time for meekness. This is not a time for incremental change.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/georgia-just-delivered-democrats-most-093056374.html GO RV, then BV
  7. Congress adopts rules governing Jan. 6 Electoral College count Kyle Cheney and Melanie Zanona Sun, January 3, 2021, 1:46 PM EST The rules of Congress' Jan. 6 session governing the counting of Electoral College votes will remain identical to those used for decades, under a resolution adopted Sunday by the House and Senate. The rules, first obtained by POLITICO, were passed on voice votes in both chambers, in keeping with recent history in which they've been uncontroversial afterthoughts in the process of finalizing the results of presidential elections. As dozens of Republicans in the House and Senate threaten to challenge President-elect Joe Biden's victory — citing baseless claims of widespread fraud and irregularities — the rules have taken on new prominence, but none of those Republicans sought to block the adoption of the rules, even though some had supported an effort to block them in court. The rules were introduced amid the first indications of GOP pushback to the election challenges inside the House, where dozens of Republicans are embracing President Donald Trump's push to object to the election's certification. A group of seven House Republicans — including Freedom Caucus members such as Ken Buck (Colo.) and Chip Roy (Texas) as well as Rep.-elect Nancy Mace (S.C.) and libertarian Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — put out a rare and lengthy statement Sunday afternoon opposing the effort to challenge the election. The statement was also signed by Reps. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.). They argue that the constitution makes clear that states — not Congress — are responsible for selecting electors, though they said they "are outraged at the significant abuses in our election system." “We must respect the states’ authority here,” the lawmakers wrote in their statement, obtained by POLITICO. “Though doing so may frustrate our immediate political objectives, we have sworn an oath to promote the Constitution above our policy goals. We must count the electoral votes submitted by the states.” And Roy went further on Sunday evening, forcing a vote on whether to allow Speaker Nancy Pelosi to seat the House members in the states Trump is challenging. The move forced Republicans on the record validating the results of the House elections that occurred on the same ballots that resulted in Biden's win in November. The result was a 371-2 vote in favor of seating all of the members. A handful of Senate Republicans have come out forcefully against the Trump-driven challenges as well. In addition to Sens. Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey, who forcefully rebuked those mounting challenges, Sens. Susan Collins and Roger Wicker indicated Sunday they would oppose challenges as well. The Washington Post also revealed Sunday that Trump, a day earlier, called Georgia's secretary of state Brad Raffensperger and pressured him to "find" enough votes to reverse Biden's win in the state. Some Trump allies have sought to throw out the procedures altogether. They’ve hoped to empower Vice President Mike Pence, who will preside over the session, to unilaterally reject Biden's electors; it's unclear if those members will attempt to object to or change those rules when they come to the House and Senate floor Sunday evening. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) last week sued Pence in an effort to have the procedures thrown out, but he was unceremoniously dismissed by two federal courts. The procedures require Pence to introduce all papers "purporting" to be electoral votes. He is to read them alphabetically by state and offer lawmakers a chance to issue any objections along the way. These longstanding procedures permit as few as two lawmakers — a single House member and senator acting together — to grind the process to a halt, forcing the House and Senate to break up the joint session and debate the challenges for two hours apiece, before voting on them and returning to the joint session. In a letter to Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated that the full caucus would hold a call Monday at 9 a.m. to discuss how the Jan. 6 session will unfold, and separate strategy sessions will be convened for Democrats who hail from the states expected ot be challenged by Trump's allies, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona. "Over the years, we have experienced many challenges in the House, but no situation matches the Trump presidency and the Trump disrespect for the will of the people," Pelosi said. She indicated that Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jamie Raksin (D-Md.) and Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) had taken leadership roles in the pushback to the GOP effort. Pelosi also emphasized that Democrats shouldn't use the challenges in order to "debate the presidency of Donald Trump. "While there is no doubt as to the outcome of the Biden-Harris presidency, our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system," she said. There is virtually no doubt that the challenges to Biden’s victory will fail. The Democratically led House will oppose them, and enough Republicans in the closely divided Senate have indicated they will reject any challenges as well. But the magnitude of the push — with dozens of House Republicans and at least a quarter of the Senate GOP — will be unprecedented, aided by the full-throated backing of the sitting president, who has encouraged supporters to convene in Washington en masse on Jan. 6 to protest the session. Some Trump allies are encouraging Pence to try to take control of the session regardless of the rules and simply refuse to introduce Biden's electors in states that Trump has challenged. But Pence declined to embrace that strategy in court, and Congress would similarly refuse to entertain such an effort. The processes in the proposed rules are enshrined in a federal law passed in 1887 called the Electoral Count Act, a statute passed to address the disastrous election of 1876. The procedures have been embraced by every Congress since then to govern the Jan. 6 Electoral College certification meeting. However, constitutional scholars have debated whether the House and Senate can be bound by the 130-year-old law and whether they may supplement it to clearly define some of its vague aspects, such as Pence's authorities as the presiding officer and the law's requirements that all "purported" electoral votes be introduced. One of the questions about Pence's role is whether he intends to introduce slates of Republicans who claimed to cast electoral votes for Trump in key states that Biden won. Trump's would-be electors met on Dec. 14, the day the formal Electoral College members met in their respective state capitals and held mock sessions to cast votes for Trump. If he does, Congress would be required, by law, to count only those certified by the state governments — but it would continue to amplify Trump's efforts to delegitimize the process. https://www.yahoo.com/news/congressional-leaders-unveil-rules-governing-184634817.html GO RV, then BV
  8. Hawley vows to challenge Biden electors, forcing vote McConnell hoped to avoid Kyle Cheney Wed, December 30, 2020, 11:18 AM EST Sen. Josh Hawley on Wednesday pledged to challenge President-elect Joe Biden's victory in Pennsylvania and possibly other states on Jan. 6, when Congress is set to certify the results of the 2020 election. The Missouri Republican's announcement guarantees that both chambers will be forced to debate the results of at least one state and vote on whether to accept Biden's victory, a process that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had urged Republicans to avoid, despite pressure from President Donald Trump, who is urging Republicans to overturn the democratic results. Though Hawley's challenge will have no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the election — numerous GOP senators have accepted Biden as president-elect — it will delay the certification of Biden's victory and force every member of the House and Senate on the record affirming Biden's win. Prior to Hawley's pronouncement, all eyes had been on Sen.-elect Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who had signaled his willingness to support a challenge to Biden's victory. Trump had praised Tuberville and blasted other Republicans as "weak," threatening to end the political career of Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who told reporters that any challenges were doomed to defeat. The traditional rules of the Jan. 6 session — a joint meeting of the House and Senate — require a single House member and senator to join together to lodge a challenge. If they do, the branches are required to separate and debate the challenge before resuming the joint session. Dozens of House Republicans have already pledged to challenge the results but had yet to secure unequivocal support from a senator. The rules that govern those challenges are due to be adopted on Jan. 3. But at least some Republicans have endorsed a legal effort to scrap the rules altogether and empower Vice President Mike Pence, who will preside over the session, to unilaterally introduce electors backing Trump. House Democrats have challenged the results of the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, but only after the 2004 election did a senator — California's Barbara Boxer — join in the challenge. That year, Democrats objected to Ohio's electoral votes, which forced a two-hour debate and was ultimately defeated by a wide margin. https://www.yahoo.com/news/hawley-vows-challenge-biden-electors-161801761.html GO RV, then BV
  9. Pence declined to back Gohmert-led effort to upend election, lawyers indicate Kyle Cheney Tue, December 29, 2020, 5:41 PM EST Lawyers for Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and Arizona’s 11 Republican electors revealed Tuesday that Vice President Mike Pence declined to sign onto their plan to upend Congress’ certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. It’s the first indication that Pence is resisting some of the most extreme calls to reverse the presidential election results, thus relying on his role as the presiding officer on Jan. 6, when Congress meets to finalize Biden’s win. Gohmert and the Arizona electors sued Pence this week to throw out the procedures that Congress has relied upon since 1889 to count electoral votes. Instead, he said, Pence has the unilateral authority to determine which electors should be voted upon by Congress — raising the prospect that Pence would simply override the choices made by voters in states like Arizona and Pennsylvania that Biden won, to introduce President Donald Trump’s electors instead. But in a motion to expedite proceedings, Gohmert and the electors revealed that their lawyers had reached out to Pence’s counsel in the Office of the Vice President to attempt to reach agreement before going to court. “In the teleconference, Plaintiffs' counsel made a meaningful attempt to resolve the underlying legal issues by agreement, including advising the Vice President's counsel that Plaintiffs intended to seek immediate injunctive relief in the event the parties did not agree,” according to Gohmert’s filing. “Those discussions were not successful in reaching an agreement and this lawsuit was filed.” On Tuesday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas agreed to partially grant the request for an expedited schedule, calling for Pence to issue a response to the lawsuit by Dec. 31 at 5 p.m. and for Gohmert to issue a reply to Pence by Jan. 1 at 9 a.m. Kernodle did not agree to hold a hearing though and said none would be scheduled "absent further notice from the Court." Kernodle also ordered Gohmert and his fellow plaintiffs to immediately send a copy of the order to an attorney for Pence, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Texas. Gohmert and the electors told Kernodle they needed an expedited schedule that would result in a ruling no later than Jan. 4, so they have an opportunity to appeal ahead of the Jan. 6 session of Congress. Pence still has not publicly weighed in on his plans for presiding over the Jan. 6 session, when Congress will count electoral votes expected to certify Biden’s victory. He also has not publicly commented on Trump’s repeated calls to reverse the results of the democratic process and install himself for a second term. Gohmert’s attorneys in the case, some of whom have handled some of Trump’s lawsuits intended to overturn Biden’s victory in key swing states, indicated they’ve since been in touch with lawyers in the civil division of the Department of Justice about the administration’s formal response to the suit. Further calls were scheduled for later Tuesday. https://www.yahoo.com/news/pence-declined-back-gohmert-led-224151478.html GO RV, then BV
  10. 'Why bother?': Biden, Trump advisers see little value in White House meeting Theodoric Meyer and Daniel Lippman Mon, December 21, 2020, 5:58 PM EST As of this weekend, President Donald Trump has now waited longer than any president in nearly a century to sit down with his successor at the White House — a tradition aimed at highlighting the peaceful transfer of power that is at the core of American democracy. And advisers to Trump say he and President-elect Joe Biden may never come face to face, even on Inauguration Day, blowing up another American political ritual. But while Biden said in a CNN interview earlier this month that Trump’s presence at his inauguration would be symbolically important, neither side sees much value in the two men conversing … ever. “In normal circumstances, it is one more indication of the peaceful transfer of power and the depth of our respect for democracy,” said John Podesta, who as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff welcomed President-elect George W. Bush and his top aides to the White House on Dec. 19, 2000, a meeting that was delayed by the Florida recount and court challenges to the election results. But Biden, Podesta said, would have little to gain from meeting with Trump, who still hasn’t conceded. “My view would be, why bother?” he said. Those in Trump’s orbit aren’t any more enthusiastic than Podesta. “Talk to him about what?” said one person close to the president, when asked whether Trump might speak to Biden. Those close to Trump believe inviting Biden to the White House or even talking to him would risk being perceived as conceding the race, which Trump has been loath to do as he mulls another run in 2024. The same factors could keep him away from Biden’s inauguration next month. Trump probably won’t meet with Biden or go to his swearing-in “because Joe Biden is an illegitimate president and should never be treated in such a way,” another Trump adviser said. “That’s what the president thinks and that’s what a lot of people agree with.” Judd Deere, a White House spokesperson, declined to comment on Trump’s plans. “Anonymous sources who claim to know what the President is or is not considering have no idea,” he said in a statement. “When President Trump has an announcement about his plans for Jan. 20 he will let you know.” Biden and Trump have already gone longer without sitting down together than any president and president-elect since Herbert Hoover’s election in 1928, according to research by the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition and POLITICO. Hoover left California by ship after Election Day on a diplomatic tour of Central and South America and didn’t meet with President Calvin Coolidge until Jan. 7, 1929. President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump shake hands following their Oval Office meeting Nov. 10, 2016. Most recent presidents have met with their successors much sooner. President Barack Obama hosted Trump at the White House two days after the 2016 election. George W. Bush showed Obama the Oval Office less than a week after Election Day in 2008. Such meetings haven’t always gone smoothly. “President Carter was kind of taken aback by the meeting with Reagan,” during their post-election meeting in 1980, Jody Powell, President Jimmy Carter’s former press secretary, told The New York Times in 2008. “There was a point where he sort of wandered off and asked questions that seemed to be only tangentially related to what they were talking about.” Still, those sit-downs have given outgoing presidents the opportunity to warn their successors about potential threats they’ll confront once they take office — whether foreign policy or personnel. “I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Laden and the al Qaeda,” Clinton told the 9/11 Commission he told Bush when they met in 2000. “One of the great regrets of my presidency is that I didn’t get him [bin Laden] for you, because I tried to,” Clinton added. (Bush told the commission he was sure Clinton had mentioned terrorism, but did not remember talking about al Qaeda.) Obama, meanwhile, warned Trump when they met in 2016 not to hire Michael Flynn, whom Obama had fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Trump ignored the advice, only to oust Flynn himself weeks into his presidency. Obama also told Trump that North Korea would be the top national security issue that he would face in his presidency. But more than delving deep into particular policy issues, the traditional White House meeting is likely to set the tone for the transition between the two administrations. When Clinton came to the White House to meet with Bush after the 1992 election, their top aides huddled at the same time in the Roosevelt Room. “If ever you hear of anyone in our administration throwing sand in the gear, call me,” Transportation Secretary Andy Card, the head of Bush’s transition efforts, told Clinton’s aides, according to notes kept by Chase Untermeyer, another senior Bush aide. Card later returned to the White House with George W. Bush after the 2000 election. In an interview, Card said he thought it would be good for the world to see Trump and Biden sit down together. “I don’t know what kind of information would be transferred, but the symbolism of the meeting is important,” he said. Trump’s administration has hardly gone out of its way to be cooperative — a Trump appointee at the General Services Administration refused to recognize Biden’s victory until three weeks after the election, and Yohannes Abraham, the Biden transition’s executive director, told reporters on Friday that Biden’s team had encountered “pockets of intransigence” during their work. But top Trump and Biden aides are talking to one another, even if their bosses aren’t. Mark Meadows, Trump’s White House chief of staff, has had multiple conversations with Ron Klain, Biden’s chief of staff, in recent weeks. If Trump skips Biden’s inauguration, he’ll be the first president to do so since 1869, when President Andrew Johnson blew off Ulysses S. Grant’s swearing-in. In an interview with CNN earlier this month, Biden said that Trump’s presence at his inauguration would be “important in the sense that we are able to demonstrate, at the end of this chaos that he’s created, that there is peaceful transfer of power, with the competing parties standing there, shaking hands, and moving on.” “But it is totally his decision, and it’s — it’s of no personal consequence to me,” he added. But one of the Trump advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity suggested Trump’s presence at Biden’s swearing-in would ring false after the bitter campaign. “The Obamas and the Clintons attend the inauguration and then they spend the next years insulting Donald Trump,” the adviser said. “What does attending the inauguration mean? Maybe Donald Trump’s more honest than other people in not going.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-bother-biden-trump-aides-225838582.html GO RV, then BV
  11. 'Time for everybody to move on': Senate GOP accepts Biden's win By Marianne LeVine, Burgess Everett and Andrew Desiderio Mon, December 14, 2020, 7:23 PM EST Senate Republicans are finally starting to recognize Joe Biden as the next president of the United States — even if they waited until the very last minute. When asked on Monday afternoon whether Biden was the president-elect, some GOP senators paused and asked how far along the Electoral College count was taking place that day. Others declined to comment until results were officially certified and until Biden climbed past the necessary 270 votes. But as the day went on and the Electoral College’s verdict was made clear, an increasing number of Republican senators — though certainly not all — began to say what the leader of their party won’t and what they declined to acknowledge for weeks: Biden will take office in January. “I understand there are people who feel strongly about the outcome of this election,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), the second-ranking Senate Republican. “But in the end at some point you have to face the music. And I think that once the Electoral College settles the issue today, it’s time for everybody to move on.” “There’s clearly a constitutional president-elect,” added Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the No. 4 GOP leader. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said “the Electoral College vote today makes clear that Joe Biden is now president-elect.” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) agreed that “it’s time to turn the page and begin a new administration.” And Sen Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) was unequivocal: “Vice President Biden is the president-elect based on the electoral count.” Even as President Donald Trump continues to falsely claim he won the Nov. 3 election, the Electoral College officially certified Biden’s win Monday evening. Trump has also effectively run out of legal options in his long-shot bid to overturn the election, after the Supreme Court declined Friday to hear a case led by the Texas attorney general that would have challenged results in four battleground states. Most Senate Republicans notably steered clear of that lawsuit, unlike their House GOP counterparts. For more than a month, only a small group of Republicans has been willing to say that Biden is the president-elect, despite a clear victory and massive barriers to overturning the election results. Others have suggested that the transition should begin or that the legal process should play out. But as the inauguration approaches, more Senate Republicans are saying it’s time to throw in the towel — even if most are not pressuring Trump for an outright concession. Some House Republicans are still planning to wage a long shot challenge on Trump’s behalf when Congress counts electoral votes on Jan. 6, but that isn’t likely to get much traction in the GOP-led Senate. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said that would be a “bad mistake.” “There comes a time when you have to realize that despite your best efforts, you’ve been unsuccessful,” he said. “You’ve got to have a winner and you’ve got to have a loser. So I think once the president’s legal arguments … are exhausted, then certainly Joe Biden is on the path to the next president of the United States” Yet even at this late stage, some Senate Republicans refused to acknowledge Biden’s victory Monday, noting that Trump is still pursuing his bid to overturn the election in court. “Let’s see where the remaining legal challenges go. But it’s a very narrow path,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chair of the Judiciary Committee. Graham added that despite his support for Trump’s efforts, he is prepared to support Biden’s nominees for secretary of state, Pentagon chief and Treasury secretary. But some senators who have helped push some of Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud are inching closer to acknowledging reality. “Certainly walking down that path, isn’t it?” Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) quipped. Johnson is still preparing to hold a hearing later this week on alleged “irregularities” in the election. Republicans are trying to walk a fine line, as the president continues to falsely claim that the election was stolen. While most admit privately that the president lost, Republicans are wary of provoking Trump and losing his support in the upcoming runoff races in Georgia that will determine whether they keep their Senate majority. They’re also counting on Trump to sign an end-of-the year stimulus deal and avert a government shutdown before he leaves office. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), another member of GOP leadership, told reporters that asking about Biden’s status was a “gotcha question.” “It’s what every senator is being asked. Three weeks ago, the transition occurred in terms of … access to the briefings and access to the money. That all occurred three weeks ago. So nothing changed,” he said. “This is the Constitution and I believe in the Constitution.” Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said Trump still has every right to “get to the bottom” of any purported election discrepancies and suggested it would be weeks still before he calls Biden the president-elect. “Every legal vote needs to be counted and every illegal vote needs to be thrown out,” Daines said. “Montana cast three electoral votes for President Trump. We’ll wait now and see if Congress will certify that in January.” And Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), when asked if Biden is the president-elect, gave a terse “no.” McConnell has also yet to issue a public statement on the Nov. 3 election results. He has his weekly press conference on Tuesday where he will surely be asked about the matter; previously, he has said he will let the process play out before commenting. At a recent press conference, Biden grinned when asked if he had spoken with the Senate majority leader. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer berated McConnell and Republicans on Monday for declining to call Biden the president-elect, describing it as a "national embarrassment." “The Republican Leader of the Senate still has not referred to Joe Biden as president-elect,” Schumer. “Will he change his tune now that the Electoral College has once again confirmed his victory? Will the rest of my Republican Senate colleagues do the same?" https://www.yahoo.com/news/time-everybody-move-senate-gop-002318590.html GO RV, then BV
  12. Trump tells allies he will run in 2024, but hints he may back out By Anita Kumar Mon, December 14, 2020, 4:30 AM EST Donald Trump doesn’t need to run for president again. He just needs everyone to think he is. The president’s recent discussions with those around him reveal that he sees his White House comeback deliberations as a way to earn the commodity he needs most after leaving office: attention. The president has spent days calling a dozen or more allies to ask what they think he needs to do over the next two years to “stay part of the conversation,” according to two people, including one who spoke to the president. And while Trump has told allies he plans to run for president again, he has also indicated he could back out in two years if he determines he’ll have a tough time winning, said three people familiar with the discussions. Essentially, at this point, Trump appears just as interested in people talking about a Trump 2024 campaign as he is in actually launching a real campaign, even if he may ultimately turn his flirtation into a serious bid, according to interviews with 11 Republicans who worked for Trump or helped in his two races. Formally running for president would mean a lot of things aides say Trump doesn’t want to deal with: financial disclosure forms, building campaign infrastructure, the possibility of losing again. But simply teasing a presidential run — without actually filing the paperwork or erecting a campaign — gets Trump the attention he needs for the next two years. Attention will help sustain his business, parts of which lost millions of dollars while he was in office. Attention will help pay off his debts, which will need to be paid off in the coming years. Attention will help discredit his investigators, who are examining whether Trump illegally inflated his assets. It’s a strategy Trump has used before. Prior to his 2016 run, Trump expressed interest in at least four different presidential bids spanning all the way to the late 1980s, only to ultimately back out. “Trump has probably no idea if he will actually run, but because he only cares about himself and his association with the party has only been about his ambitions rather than what it stands for, he will try to freeze the field and keep as many people on the sidelines,” said a former White House aide. “Just for the sake of keeping his options open and, yes, keeping the attention all for himself.” Trump hasn’t announced his candidacy yet in part because he won’t acknowledge he lost, falsely asserting widespread voter fraud gave the race to President-elect Joe Biden. On Monday, electors will meet in states across the country to officially cast their votes, a move expected to cement Biden’s win and prompt more Republicans to accept the victory. That vote will train more focus on Trump’s future plans. Many in the MAGA base and even some prospective 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls have already thrown their support behind another Trump White House bid. “There’s nobody really better than him to carry the torch,” said John Fredericks, a conservative radio host who served on the Trump campaign’s 2020 advisory committee. In his calls to allies, Trump has been asking them specifically how he can campaign for four years, and soliciting advice on how to navigate the first two years. He has talked about traveling to the Middle East, a region where he would be well-received, according to the two people familiar with the calls. The visit would allow him to promote his policies there, including agreements his administration helped negotiate to normalize relations between Israel and several Arab nations. Among those he’s called are Fox News host Sean Hannity, former White House communications director Bill Shine, longtime allies Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie and former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, according to one of people familiar with the calls. None of these people are dissuading him about running, but, according to the person, Trump has already dismissed concerns from those who think it’s a bad idea. Some allies have privately urged Trump to announce he is running on Inauguration Day – as he did in 2017 — to try to take attention away from Biden and satisfy Trump’s need for attention. But Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and top aide, and Bill Stepien, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, are advising him to take his time to announce, according to two people familiar with the discussions. The Trump campaign declined to comment. The White House and those Trump called didn’t respond to messages. “He’s going to announce,” according to the person. “It’s not a question of whether he will announce. The question is when he is going to announce.” Trump’s anticipated announcement is nearly unprecedented. Most recent former presidents have shied away from the limelight after leaving office, in part to allow their successor to govern. Several presidents have tried to secure a second non-consecutive term, but Grover Cleveland is the only one to succeed, mounting a 1892 comeback after being voted out of office in 1888. “He will be astounded at how irrelevant a president becomes after losing reelection. Ask Jimmy Carter. Ask George H.W. Bush,” said presidential historian Michael Beschloss. “They become aware they are unable to affect things the way they had become accustomed to.” Hoping to stave off that irrelevancy, Trump is expected to start promoting his candidacy immediately after leaving office, basing his early messaging on the unfounded allegation the last election was stolen from him. If Trump is just technically exploring a potential candidacy, he doesn’t have to register as a candidate, even if he conducts polling, travels and calls potential supporters, according to the Federal Elections Commission and election lawyers. But if he makes declarative statements about running, purchases campaign ads or spends more than $5,000 on an actual campaign, he would have to register, they added. “I think it's important for Trump to boldly telegraph to the public that this election was a sham, that it can never happen again, and that he will lead the opposition for the next four years, including demanding election reforms,” a senior Trump campaign official said. Meanwhile, Biden has been building up his White House team, largely ignoring Trump’s remarks about the 2020 and 2024 races. “The oxygen of his life is attention,” said Steve Schale, who ran Unite the Country, a super PAC that supported Biden’s candidacy. “I’m sure that not being on the news every day is a terrifying prospect to him. … I would not be surprised if he announced because he needs it.” A former Trump aide, who doesn’t want Trump to run a third time, said the early launch would be all about “ego.” Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio agreed: “He’s not interested in running anything,” D’Antonio said. “He’s just interested in getting the attention.” Some Republicans fear Trump’s boasts about running again will crowd out the 2024 Republican field, including three people who worked in his administration: Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, preventing the party from evolving beyond him. The GOP is torn between conservatives who support Trump and moderates who are eager to distance themselves, but have held back due to fears over backlash from Trump’s base. Fifty three percent of Republicans said they would vote for Trump in a primary in 2024, according to a POLITICO and Morning Consult poll in late November. In the interviews of the 11 Republicans who worked for Trump or helped in his two races, only three would commit to supporting him this early. Some Republicans complain that Trump’s early candidacy could take money and attention from other candidates in 2022, 2021 and, more immediately, the pair of Senate runoffs in Georgia next month that will determine which party controls the upper chamber. “Donald Trump has put himself ahead of the party and the country,” said Dan Eberhart, a major Republican donor. “I am shaking my head. The speed with which Trump has rearmed post the general election makes me blush. There is no off-season anymore.” If Trump formally files paperwork to run, he could begin raising money for his race immediately. If he announces informally, he could continue to raise money for his new political organization, Save America PAC, which he created days after Biden was projected to win. Already, he’s raised tens of millions of dollars for the leadership PAC, the type of organization popular with both parties but one long derided by ethics groups because of the few restrictions on how the money they raise can be spent. A Republican who speaks to the president said Trump and his aides are discussing whether he should delay his official candidacy because of requirements to file financial disclosure reports on his businesses. The Trump Organization is presumed to have lost millions of dollars during the coronavirus outbreak just before Trump has to pay back $421 million in loans that he guaranteed, much of it to foreign creditors, according to a New York Times examination of Trump’s personal and business tax returns. Meanwhile, New York investigators are examining whether Trump improperly inflated assets, evaded taxes and paid off women alleging affairs in violation of campaign finance laws. The Republican who speaks to the president said they would advise Trump to wait to announce any candidacy, not because of his legal troubles but because he might be more desirable as a candidate. “My advice would be to let time go by,” the person said. “If he allows time to go by, then he will allow people to miss him." https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tells-allies-run-2024-093054389.html GO RV, then BV
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.