A progressive political action committee that typically supports veterans’ issues and Democratic-leaning veterans running for office plans to pump $45 million into the effort to reelect President Biden this fall and bolster other Democrats on the ballot.
A spokesperson for VoteVets confirmed the plans to The Hill after The New York Times first reported the effort.
A $15 million push aimed at courting veterans and active-duty military families in the presidential battleground states will be the centerpiece, according to the group.
VoteVets also identified these races among the group’s priorities: Incumbent Democratic senators in Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Ohio; Democratic Reps. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), who are running for Senate; and Rep. Andy Kim (N.J.), who is challenging embattled Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.).
Former President Trump, seen as the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, has enjoyed robust support among military members in the past, but his edge slipped from the 2016 election to the 2020 cycle.
VoteVets co-founder and chairman Jon Soltz told The Times in an interview that Trump’s vocal support for people who carried out the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and past remarks against military officials and soldiers will be highlighted in the ads.
“There’s political ramifications to all this,” he said. “There’s no other way to explain the disrespect to Gold Star families and the erratic behavior and the attacks on our law enforcement at the Capitol — these are values things.”
The group unveiled part of its plan with a 60-second spot in Pennsylvania last month that highlights remarks attributed to Trump referring to veterans as “losers” and “suckers” and features Gold Star families responding.
VoteVets has in the past shown that it’s messaging beyond military families with its efforts.
In Georgia’s 2022 Senate race, the group released an ad accusing Republican candidate and former football star Herschel Walker of defrauding the government at the expense of veterans. Walker ultimately lost to Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock.
‘The threat isn’t over’: the expert arguing to the supreme court Trump is an insurrectionist
David Smith in Washington – February 5, 2024
MoveOn members rally outside the supreme court in Washington DC on 1 February.Photograph: Paul Morigi/Getty Images for MoveOn
When Jill Habig had an office down the hall from Kamala Harris in California, Barack Obama was US president, abortion was a constitutional right and January 6 was just another date on the calendar. A lot has happened since then.
On Thursday Habig, now president of the non-profit Public Rights Project (PRP), hopes her arguments will persuade the supreme court that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist who should be disqualified from the 2024 presidential election.
Habig has filed an amicus brief on behalf of historians contending that section 3 of the 14th amendment to the constitution, which bars people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office, applies to Trump’s role in the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
The brief gives the supreme court’s originalists, who believe the constitution should be interpreted as it would have been in the era it was written, a taste of their own medicine. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are self-declared originalists while Samuel Alito has described himself as a “practical originalist”.
“Our goal was to bring an originalist historical perspective to the supreme court as it considered the meaning of section 3 of the 14th amendment,” Habig, a former special counsel to then California attorney general Harris, says by phone from Oakland. “The point we make with our historian colleagues is that the history of section 3 is actually very clear. It demonstrates that section 3 was intended to automatically disqualify insurrectionists.”
The amicus brief, led by historians Jill Lepore of Harvard and David Blight of Yale, cites debates from the time in which senators made clear that their view that the provision that would not only apply for former Confederates but to the leaders of rebellions yet to come.
Habig adds: “It was intended to apply not only to the civil war but also to future insurrections and it bars anyone who has betrayed an oath to uphold the constitution from becoming president of the United States.”
The supreme court will hear arguments on a Colorado case in which Trump was stricken from the ballot; a decision in Maine is on hold. Other states have ruled in favor of keeping Trump on the ballot. The flurry of decisions have prompted debate over whether Trump can be fairly considered to have committed insurrection even though he has not been found guilty in a court of law – at least not yet.
Habig, who founded the PRP in 2017, says yes. “It’s clear historically that there was no requirement of a conviction or even of charges, that the framers intended section 3 to be self-executing. The brief goes through a number of examples of people who had taken part in the secession and been on the Confederate side actually petitioning Congress for exceptions. There’s a lot of evidence that it was self-executing. There was no need for a particular conviction.”
She adds: “The evidence that we have seen and heard and watched with our own eyes over the last few years has made it quite clear that President Trump lost an election in 2020 and has spent the months and years since then trying to overturn the results of that election in a variety of ways, including people marching to the Capitol and invading the Capitol.”
It’s difficult to argue with a straight face that these activities don’t qualify for section 3
Jill Habig
Indeed, Blight has pointed out that the US Capitol was never breached during the civil war but was on January 6. Habig comments: “It’s difficult to argue with a straight face that these activities don’t qualify for section 3.”
Still, there are plenty of Republicans, Democrats and neutrals who warn that the 14th amendment drive is politically counterproductive, fueling a Trumpian narrative that state institutions are out to stop him and that Joe Biden is the true threat to democracy. Let the people decide at the ballot box in November, they say.
Habig counters: “It’s important to note that the American people did decide in 2020. We had a political process and then we had a president of the United States who attempted to overturn that political process. ”
Spectacular as it was, the January 6 riot did not occur in a vacuum. Habig and her work at the PRP place it in a wider context of a growing movement to harass and threaten election officials and to interfere with the administration of elections. She perceives a direct line between Trump’s “big lie” and threats to democracy across the country today.
“Regardless of this particular case, the threat isn’t over. It’s actually intensifying. We’re just seeing an array of efforts to rig the rules of the game against our democracy and it’s part of why we’re investing a lot of resources into protecting election officials this cycle, and to litigating and advancing voting rights and free and fair elections this year.”
How did America get here? A turning point was the supreme court’s 5-4 decision in 2013 to strike down a formula at the heart of the Voting Rights Act, so that voters who are discriminated against now bear the burden of proving they are disenfranchised. Since then states have engaged in a barrage of gerrymandering – manipulating district boundaries so as to favor one party – and voter suppression.
Habig reflects: “The gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the supreme court left states to themselves to rewrite the rules of the game in a variety of ways that disenfranchised voters and continued to rig maps against their systems and fair representation.
“We’ve seen the supreme court take itself out of the game of protecting other fundamental rights like abortion and throw that back into the states. What that’s creating is a lot of volatility at the state and local level as officials try to rewrite the rules or pick up the pieces and protect their constituents’ rights. What we’re trying to do is help state and local officials across the country use the power that they have to fight back and advance civil rights in all the ways that they can.”
The PRP is building a rapid response hub to provide legal support for 200 election officials to combat harassment and intimidation and targeting election deniers. It is pursuing litigation against gerrymandering, the disqualification of legitimate ballots and state officials who try to prevent voters weighing in on ballot measures to advance abortion rights.
“This is an all-out effort to make sure that we don’t have death by a thousand cuts for our democracy this year,” Habig says. “We are potentially less likely to see one central threat like we did on January 6 or even in the 2020 election. We’ve seen some of the larger counties like Maricopa county, Arizona, Philadelphia, Detroit et cetera, who have been targets in the past, have more resources to fight back.
“What we’re most concerned about is the soft underbelly of our democracy, which is the smaller, less-resourced jurisdictions that just don’t have all of the capacity they need to push back against this harassment and intimidation. Because of our decentralised system, election deniers who are intent on disrupting our elections and disrupting the outcome of our election don’t have to mount a huge effort in one place.
“They can pick apart jurisdiction by jurisdiction, invalidate 250 ballots here, and a thousand ballots there and 500 there, challenge absentee ballots, disrupt targeted polling places and that in the aggregate can actually change election results, sow disillusionment and distrust in our system and have the same or even worse aggregate outcome in terms of undermining the integrity of our election. That’s what we’re mobilising to prevent.”
There was no greater measure of America’s ailing democracy than the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v Wade, the ruling that in effect made abortion legal nationwide, by supreme court justices appointed by presidents who lost the national popular vote. But since then, in a series of ballot measures in individual states, abortion rights have prevailed.
Habig reflects: “Every single time that has been put to voters, abortion rights have won. As a result, we’re actually starting to see a lot of overlap between the reproductive rights fight and the democracy fight because this battle over abortion is fuelling additional efforts to break the rules and prevent voters from having a meaningful say in their rights. We’re mobilising on both fronts because the future of both is interconnected.”
PRP says it has worked with local elected officials to provide legal guidance and filed dozens of amicus briefs in key reproductive rights cases, secured legal access to abortion for 6.5 million people. Habig explains: “We’re working with state and local officials to overturn criminal abortion bans at the state level.
“We’re working to poke holes in existing criminal bans when there’s not a path to overturn them right away. Then we’re working to hold crisis pregnancy centers accountable for deception of women and patients; these are anti-abortion centers that masquerade as health clinics that provide comprehensive healthcare. We’re looking at this multi-pronged approach state by state and across the country.”
Habig, a political strategist who was deputy campaign manager for Harris’s first Senate election campaign in 2016, has no doubt that democracy and abortion rights will play a big part in the November election.
“I appreciate President Biden’s clarity on democracy and the constitution and his leadership on the issue. I do think it’s important for people to understand what democracy means and for their real lives. It can sound abstract sometimes and like an academic debate but bringing it down to the level of, do you have autonomy over your future and your community, do you have autonomy over your own body, is important for people.”
She adds: “That’s why we’ve seen in cases when we’re talking about the fundamental right to vote, people get that. When we’re talking about their autonomy, they get it. When they’re talking about their dignity in the workplace, people get that and feel that on a visceral level. It’s important that we work to build a democracy that actually delivers so that people can feel the value of it in their daily lives.”
ABC News hosts abruptly shuts down interview with J.D. Vance over right-wing nonsense
Gabriella Ferrigine – February 5, 2024
J.D. Vance; Donald Trump Drew Angerer/Getty Images
ABC News host George Stephanopolous abruptly ended a discussion with Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, on Sunday after the Republican alleged that a president would have the power to ignore the Supreme Court.
“Fire everyone in the government, then defy the Supreme Court? You think it’s OK to defy the Supreme Court?” the anchor asked after Vance said in 2021 that then-president Donald Trump should oust federal civil servants and disregard any Supreme Court ruling that instructed him to do otherwise. Vance at the time claimed Trump should “stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it,’” per The Daily Beast.
“That’s a fundamental component of our government, George, that whoever is in charge, agree or disagree with him, you have to follow the rules,” Vance said. “If those people aren’t following the rules, then of course, you’ve got to fire them.”
Stephanopolous in response pressed Vance to explicate whether he felt the president had to adhere to SCOTUS rulings.
“The Constitution also says the president must abide by legitimate Supreme Court rulings, doesn’t it?” Stephanopoulos asked, per ABC.
“The Constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings … but if the Supreme Court said the president of the United States can’t fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling,” Vance said.
“The Constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings but if the Supreme Court —and look, I hoped that they would not do this — but if the Supreme Court said the president of the United States can’t fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling,” Vance said. “The president has to have Article II prerogative under the Constitution to actually run the military as he sees fit. This is just basic constitutional legitimacy.”
“You’ve made it very clear — you believe the president can defy the Supreme Court,” Stephanopoulos replied. “Senator, thanks for your time this morning.”
Ahead of the conversation’s termination, Vance separately provided his thoughts on the 2020 election after Stephanopolous asked if Vance would have certified the election results if he had been acting as vice president at the time.
The GOP senator at first called the question “ridiculous” and claimed Stephanopolous was “obsessed with talking about this” before clarifying his thoughts.
“Do I think there were problems in 2020? Yes, I do,” Vance said. “If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020. I think that’s what we should have done.”
“So, he’s saying he would have engaged in the conspiracy to interfere with the lawful outcome of the election? Out loud?” tweeted former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance.
Former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., referred to Vance’s remarks as “So dangerous. So unconstitutional. So un-American. So cultish. So MAGA.”
“I’m glad JD Vance stated very explicitly that he believes we should shred American democracy and replace it with a system where the will of the voters is disregarded by partisan legislators,” MSNBC analyst Tim Miller quipped in a tweet. “A lot of Trump defenders talk around this and I appreciate his candor.”
Speaking candidly about Trump’s numerous legal woes — including the $83.3 million he was recently ordered to pay writer E. Jean Carroll in damages — Vance said he felt the former president had been partly wronged. Stephanopolous asked him to offer his thoughts on the argument that supporting Trump is, by extension supporting abusers — last spring Trump was found liable of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, who has long said he assaulted her in a New York City department store dressing room in the 1990s.
“I think it’s actually very unfair to the victims of sexual assault to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for president when what he’s trying to do, I think, is restore prosperity,” Vance said. “If you actually look at so many of the court cases against Donald Trump, George, this is not about prosecuting Trump for something that he did. It’s about throwing him off the ballot because Democrats feel that they can’t beat him at the ballot box. And so, they’re trying to defeat him in court,” he added.
“I think most Americans recognize that this is not what we want to fight the 2024 election on. Let’s fight it over issues,” Vance said.
“So juries in New York City are not legitimate when they find someone liable for … defamation and assault?” Stephanopoulos asked after Vance seemed to wave off findings by “extremely left-wing jurisdictions.”
“Well, when the cases are funded by left-wing donors and when the case has absolute left-wing bias all over it, George, absolutely I think that we should call into question that particular conclusion,” Vance said.
House Speaker Mike Johnson criticizes new bill on US border security
The New Voice of Ukraine – February 5, 2024
Mike Johnson
The bill on funding changes in immigration policy, as well as aid to Ukraine and Israel proposed by the Senate, is “even worse than we expected” and “won’t put an end to the border catastrophe,” House speaker Mike Johnson said on X (Twitter) on Feb. 5.
“This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created.” the House Speaker said.
“As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes,” he added, saying if this bill reaches the House of Representatives, it will be dead on arrival.
On Jan. 19, Johnson revealed that he often discusses border reinforcement with former US President Donald Trump, including conversations on the eve of Biden’s meeting dedicated to the border and aid to Ukraine.
On Jan. 25, the Financial Times reported that Republicans, influenced by Trump, who demands the party reject a compromise on immigration, are succumbing.
On Jan. 31, in his first official address as Speaker, Johnson stated that the Senate agreement under discussion is not sufficient to prevent migrants from Mexico entering the US. He had previously hinted that he would not unblock aid to Ukraine, calling the Senate agreement “absolutely dead.”
On Feb. 5, the US Senate unveiled a $118 billion package, including $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion in aid to Israel, nearly $5 billion to allies in the Asia-Pacific region, $20 billion for strengthening immigration policy, and humanitarian aid to civilians in the Gaza Strip.
US President Joe Biden urged the House to promptly pass the bill.
“We have now reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal, which includes the toughest and fairest package of border reforms in the last decade. I strongly support it,” said Biden.
Ex-GOP Lawmaker Has Urgent 2024 Message For Former Trump Loyalists
Josephine Harvey – February 5, 2024
Former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-Va.) says it’s time for more of Donald Trump’s former allies to throw their weight behind President Joe Biden.
On MSNBC Sunday, Riggleman said it’s “absolutely” important for those who no longer support Trump to publicly back Biden. As examples, he pointed to former Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci and former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), both of whom have said they would vote for Biden in his likely rematch with Trump this year.
“This is a person that you don’t want anywhere near … the Oval Office again,” Riggleman told MSNBC’s Alex Witt of the quadruply-indicted former president. “This is an individual that is out of touch with reality, or pretends that he’s out of touch with reality, to actually ignite the base, or to try to make the base violent, or to do things outside of what normal behavior would be.”
Riggleman said that when he considers what Trump has done and what kind of people he has surrounded himself with, “there’s nobody else who I’d vote for but Joe Biden.”
The ex-congressman announced in 2022 that he had left the Republican Party over its devotion to Trump.
Numerous former Trump associates and officials have in recent months spoken out about the former president and warned about the dangers of a potential White House return, but some have stopped short of saying they’d vote for Biden.
Riggleman later shared a RawStory editor’s tweet about his comments, writing: “Yes. I said this.”
“I am done identifying with a party,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “I am an American— and right now that means supporting Democratic institutions and our way of life no matter what.”
New US Senate bill to help Ukraine: Biden calls for it to be passed as soon as possible
Ukrainska Pravda – February 4, 2024
US Flag. Photo: Getty Images
US President Joe Biden has urged senators to vote for a bipartisan national security agreement presented by the Senate, which provides US$60 billion in aid to Ukraine, as soon as possible.
Details: The US$118 billion package comprises a policy of protecting US borders and providing assistance to Ukraine and Israel.
In particular, US$60.1 billion is earmarked to help Ukraine and more than US$14 billion to support Israel.
The bill also includes funding for humanitarian aid for operations in the Red Sea and Taiwan.
Biden said he “strongly” supports the bipartisan agreement unveiled on Sunday (4 February).
Quote from Biden: “Now we’ve reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal that includes the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades. I strongly support it…
The bipartisan national security agreement would also address two other important priorities. It allows the United States to continue our vital work, together with partners all around the world, to stand up for Ukraine’s freedom and support its ability to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.
As I have said before, if we don’t stop Putin’s appetite for power and control in Ukraine, he won’t limit himself to just Ukraine and the costs for America will rise.
This agreement also provides Israel what they need to protect their people and defend itself against Hamas terrorists. And it will provide life-saving humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people…
I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement. Get it to my desk so I can sign it into law immediately.”
Previously: Mike Johnson, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said on Saturday, 3 February, that the following week, the House will vote on a bill that will ensure Israel obtains US$17.6 billion of aid faster, without, however, making it conditional on also passing aid for Ukraine.
The US President Joe Biden’s administration has stressed that it does not support the bill to help Israel without aid to Ukraine, calling it a “cynical political manoeuvre” by Republicans.
Background:
During a press conference on 30 January, Mike Johnson denied that his position on the border security agreement with Mexico, which Republicans have linked to additional funding for Ukraine, was intended to help Donald Trump win the upcoming US presidential election.
Johnson previously said in a letter that the Senate bill on the border and aid to Ukraine, as well as other countries, will not be approved in the House of Representatives if reports of its terms are true.
Republican Representatives are demanding that the White House take decisive action to curb illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border.
Disagreement over what measures should be taken has meant that a supplemental funding package that includes US$61 billion for Ukraine has been stalled in Congress.
US Senate unveils $118 billion bill on border security, aid for Ukraine, Israel
Richard Cowan and Costas Pitas – February 4, 2024
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Senate on Sunday unveiled a $118 billion bipartisan border security bill that would also provide aid to Ukraine and Israel, but it promptly slammed into opposition from the House of Representatives.
“I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement,” President Joe Biden said, also praising the migration measures in the bill, which took months to negotiate.
However, House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson declared it “dead on arrival” if it reaches his chamber.
“This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the president has created,” he said in a statement on X, formerly called Twitter.
The Democratic and Republican Senate backers of the wide-ranging U.S. border security and foreign military aid bill pledged to push ahead, despite opposition by Donald Trump as well.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would take steps to hold an initial vote on the bill on Wednesday.
If the bill were to become law, it would mark the most significant changes in U.S. immigration and border security in decades.
Some progressive Democrats are angry the measure does nothing to provide a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented people who have lived in the U.S. for many years, including “Dreamer” immigrants who were brought in as children.
Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema told reporters the legislation would secure the U.S. southern border, including by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to temporarily “shut down” the frontier to most migrants if there are an average of more than 5,000 crossing attempts per day over seven days.
Republican Senator James Lankford, one of the negotiators on the bill, said that the border likely would remain closed for at least three weeks as the numbers of arriving immigrants drop significantly.
In addition to $20.23 billion for border security, the bill included $60.06 billion to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, $14.1 billion in security assistance for Israel, $2.44 billion to U.S. Central Command and the conflict in the Red Sea, and $4.83 billion to support U.S. partners in the Indo-Pacific facing aggression from China, according to figures from Senator Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate’s Appropriation Committee.
An additional $10 billion would provide humanitarian assistance for civilians in conflict zones including in Ukraine, Gaza and the West Bank, although the bill includes a provision barring its funds from going to the U.N. agency for Palestinians, UNRWA. The Biden administration and other nations have paused funding to the agency over allegations that some of its staff were involved in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks in southern Israel.
“The priorities in this bill are too important to ignore and too vital to allow politics to get in the way,” Schumer said in a statement. “The United States and our allies are facing multiple, complex and, in places, coordinated challenges from adversaries who seek to disrupt democracy and expand authoritarian influence around the globe.”
The key overseas security provisions of the bill largely match what Biden requested from Congress in October, when he asked for additional funds for aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
That request has been stalled by House Republicans’ insistence that it be tied to a shift in immigration policy.
With House Republicans divided over how to address the huge number of immigrant arrivals and whether to provide Ukraine with any more aid, Johnson on Saturday said he plans to hold a vote this week on a new bill providing $17.6 billion in military assistance to Israel. That measure has no new funding for Ukraine or for U.S. border security.
Meantime, Lankford said he would engage with Johnson in hopes of more House support for the Senate bill.
Schumer said the agreement would provide more frontline personnel and asylum officers and provide “faster and fair” immigration decisions. Lankford told reporters it would fund as many as 50,000 immigrant detention beds, up from the current 34,000.
The bill’s proponents said it would end the controversial “catch-and-release” practice that critics said contribute to high numbers of illegal immigrants arriving at the southern border. It would do so by speeding up the adjudication of asylum cases instead of quickly releasing apprehended migrants and allowing them to stay in the United States for years while they await hearings.
Mitch McConnell, the top Senate Republican, has supported the negotiations, saying Republicans would not get a better deal under a Republican White House.
“The Senate must carefully consider the opportunity in front of us and prepare to act,” McConnell said in a statement.
Schumer said in a news conference that he had never worked so closely with long-term Senate colleague McConnell as on the bill.
“At many occasions we thought the negotiations had fallen apart,” Schumer said.
RIGHT-WING OPPOSITION
Nonetheless, right-wing Republicans are skeptical of the new Senate bill.
“Here’s what the people pushing this ‘deal’ aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day and gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients — a magnet for more illegal immigration,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said on X.
Other congressional Republicans have said Biden can enact many of the changes they want to immigration policy through executive action, though they had previously called for legislative action.
Immigration is the second largest concern for Americans, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Wednesday, and is a top issue for Republicans specifically. The U.S. Border Patrol arrested about 2 million migrants at the border in fiscal year 2023.
Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to challenge Biden in the November election, has campaigned heavily on opposition to immigration. House Republicans are also pushing ahead with an effort to impeach Biden’s top border official, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Costas Pitas; Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Makini Brice; Writing by Simon Lewis; Editing by Scott Malone, Rosalba O’Brien, Lisa Shumaker and Himani Sarkar and Miral Fahmy)
Biden challenges House GOP to solve border crisis — or ‘keep playing politics’
Myah Ward and Jennifer Haberkorn – February 4, 2024
BLUE BELL, PENNSYLVANIA – JANUARY 5: U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event at Montgomery County Community College January 5, 2024 in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. In his first campaign event of the 2024 election season, Biden stated that democracy and fundamental freedoms are under threat if former U.S. President Donald Trump returns to the White House. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)More
President Joe Biden urged Congress to pass the bipartisan border deal unveiled Sunday night by Senate negotiators, ramping up the pressure on House Republicans who have repeatedly cast doubt on the bipartisan effort.
“Working with my administration, the United States Senate has done the hard work it takes to reach a bipartisan agreement. Now, House Republicans have to decide. Do they want to solve the problem? Or do they want to keep playing politics with the border?” Biden said in a lengthy statement.
The president’s response came not long after senators released the long-awaited $118 billion deal that would unleash stricter border and immigration policies, while sending billions of dollars to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as well as the southern border. The bill’s introduction kicks off a sprint as the White House and negotiators work to sell the deal to Republicans and progressives before it heads for a procedural vote in the Senate scheduled for Wednesday.
The president said the agreement released Sunday includes some of the “toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades,” and ones that he “strongly” supports. Biden asked Congress to pass the deal quickly — placing the fate of the deal in their hands. And he once again dared Republicans to reject the deal as it faces a make-or-break moment amid GOP fissures in both chambers.
“I’ve made my decision. I’m ready to solve the problem. I’m ready to secure the border. And so are the American people,” the president said. “I know we have our divisions at home but we cannot let partisan politics get in the way of our responsibilities as a great nation. I refuse to let that happen.”
The border has long been a challenging issue for the Biden White House. The president has seen record crossings since taking office in 2021, further straining a southern border already weighed down by irregular migration and an overwhelmed asylum processing system. Border Patrol agents reported a record 302,034 encounters with migrants over the southern border in December, according to figures released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
In addition, the fast-approaching 2024 election has piled on the pressure for Biden to take action on the border — to address the crisis but to also win the messaging battle on an issue Republicans frequently used to rally their base. Former President Donald Trump, Biden’s likely 2024 opponent, is sure to continue his efforts to combust a deal, adding another layer to efforts to sell the border legislation.
The legislation includes an authority that would effectively “close” the border if the number of migrant crossings reach a certain number over a certain period of time, although a limited number of people would still be allowed to apply for asylum at ports of entry.
Biden suggested publicly late last month that he’d be open to such an authority, vowing to “shut down the border” as soon as the bill was passed.
“I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement,” Biden said in Sunday night’s statement. “Get it to my desk so I can sign it into law immediately.”
Given the White House’s work with Senate Republicans on the legislation, Biden administration officials have focused their attention on Speaker Mike Johnson, casting him and House Republicans as the barrier to securing the border.
During the Senate talks, the Biden administration has tried to flip the long-held view — one borne out in public polling — that Republicans are better trusted on the issues of immigration and protecting the border. The administration argues the House GOP has blocked all of the president’s efforts to secure the border.
“Despite arguing for 6 straight years that presidents need new legal authority to secure the border, and despite claiming to agree with President Biden on the need for hiring more Border Patrol agents and deploying new fentanyl detection equipment, Speaker Johnson is now the chief impediment to all 3,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates wrote in a strategy memo released last week.
Johnson’s camp has blamed Biden for reversing Trump-era border regulations that led to an uptick in migrants crossing the border.
“In a desperate attempt to shift blame for a crisis their policies have induced, they have argued it’s a funding problem,” wrote Johnson spokesperson Raj Shah in a memo last month. “Clearly, they have no facts to back up their claim.”
The bill raises “credible fear” standards for migrants; if they are able to pass the more challenging and faster screening, the migrants would be released after full adjudication of their cases and be allowed to work immediately. The legislation would also provide 50,000 visas a year — a mix of family and employment visas, and include the Fend Off Fentanyl Act and the Afghan Adjustment Act.
A major sticking point in talks was the president’s humanitarian parole authority, which the administration uses to accept up to 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela each month. The legislation would not affect this program, which has been central to the administration’s border management strategy, including an agreement with Mexico to also accept 30,000 migrants a month from those four countries.
But the administration would no longer be able to offer parole grants to incentivize migrants to use the online app CBP One, which would curtail the president’s authority to allow more undocumented immigrants into the country.
“This agreement on border security and immigration does not include everything we have fought for over the past three years — and we will continue to fight for these priorities — but it shows: we can make the border more secure while preserving legal immigration, consistent with our values as a nation,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in a statement.
“No, I would say maybe it’s going to be more than that,” Trump said when asked by Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures” whether he would consider imposing a 60% tariff, as The Washington Post has reported.
As president, Trump slapped tariffs of 25% on $50 billion of Chinese goods in June 2018. Beijing countered with its own tariffs, and the spiral continued until the two countries arrived at an agreement in 2020. The Biden administration has largely kept the Trump-era tariffs in place.
The former president also said he thought China would try to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.
“I think they will, and they won’t be interfering on my behalf. We should go same-day voting, paper ballots, voter ID and no mail-in ballots,” Trump said.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping told President Joe Biden that China would not interfere in the 2024 US presidential election when the two men met in November, CNN has reported. But FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Wednesday that Chinese hackers are preparing to “wreak havoc and cause real-world harm” to the US.
Trump also praised Xi, whom he described as “a very good friend of mine during my term,” and said, “I want China to do great, I do.”
Trump would not say whether he would intervene if China tried taking over Taiwan, arguing that doing so would “jeopardize my negotiating ability with China.”
China’s ruling Communist Party views Taiwan as part of its territory, despite never having controlled it, and leader Xi has not ruled out the use of military force to “reunify” the island with the mainland.
The US, meanwhile, is obligated under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with the military means to defend itself, something Beijing regards as interference in its internal affairs.
CNN’s Jack Forrest and Brad Lendon contributed to this report.
Trump campaign pumps small-dollar donors for $55m in legal expenses, records show
Alex Woodward – February 1, 2024
Two political action committees supporting Donald Trump spent more than $55m on the former president’s legal bills in 2023, with more than half of that cash spent within the second half of the year.
Campaign finance reports filed by Trump-allied PACs on Wednesday show Mr Trump paid out millions of dollars to almost 50 firms over the last year.
Many of these firms represent the Republican Party’s likely nominee for president as he faces 91 criminal charges, a massive defamation verdict and a potentially business-crushing lawsuit.
His committees paid out nearly $30m in legal costs within the last six months, records show. By the end of the year, across all his supporting PACs, Mr Trump’s campaign had more than $70m on hand.
A massive chunk of that campaign cash came from small-dollar donors, whose contributions face a fine print that 90 cents of every dollar goes to campaign committees while 10 cents goes to his Save America PAC.
That committee, founded in the wake of his 2020 presidential election loss as the campaign waged failed legal battles to overturn the results, raised tens of millions of dollars on a spurious pledge to fight for his victory in court. It’s now effectively a bank account for his legal expenses, with many donors giving donations of less than $50 at a time.
Wednesday’s filings only scratch the surface of Mr Trump’s mounting legal expenses. Jury trials have not yet started, he is in the middle of several appeals involving at least two cases likely headed to the US Supreme Court, and he cannot legally touch PAC money to pay out civil suit judgments.
Staggering legal expenses
The campaign finance reports show Mr Trump’s campaigns paid legal bills to 46 firms last year, though eight of them earned the lion’s share of that $55m.
The firms of Chris Kise, who is defending Mr Trump in both his New York civil fraud trial and in the federal classified documents case involving his Mar-a-Lago resort, were paid nearly $5m last year. The firm of Clifford Robert, a Trump family attorney representing Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump in the civil fraud case, was paid nearly $4m.
The firm of Alina Habba, who represented Mr Trump in the fraud case and in E Jean Carroll’s defamation suit, was also paid nearly $4m.
John Lauro and Todd Blanche, attorneys in the federal criminal case involving his efforts to overturn 2020 election results, were paid $2.5m and $1.9m, respectively.
Donald Trump’s attorney Alina Habba walks outside a federal courthouse in Manhattan on 26 January. (REUTERS)
Save America PAC, which started 2022 with $105m, was burning through cash for Mr Trump’s legal bills through the first half of last year. The organisation spent more than $40m on legal fees by July.
The group asked for a refund of a $60m donation to the Trump-connected MAGA Inc. That PAC refunded $30m to Save America in the second half of the year – an average of about $5m a month – in addition to $12.5m that it gave back to Save America in the first half of the year, records show.
In all, a PAC established to re-elect Mr Trump funneled $42.5m back into a fund that is now chiefly used for paying lawyers, a total that is nearly equivalent to super PAC spending on other campaign expenses like television advertising.
The FEC filings detail Mr Trump’s web of legal obstacles and fees to attorneys wrapped up in them. Filings show payments to the firm of John Sauer, his attorney leading an appeal of a federal judge’s decision that rejected Mr Trump’s claim of “presidential immunity” to evade prosecution in his election conspiracy case. The filings also show payments to the firm that represented former Trump-allied attorney Kenneth Chesebro in the Fulton County election interference case – before he pleaded guilty.
Pumping small-dollar donors to pay lawyers and legal fees
After Mr Trump’s mugshot was released last August in the Georgia RICO case, his campaign raised more than $4.2m in online donations – his largest single-day haul of 2023, records show.
Mr Trump’s campaign has largely been powered by an aggressive fundraising operation relying on a long list of potential contributors, with only 6 per cent of his campaign cash coming in from donors who hit the $6,600 limit.
Campaign messages routinely use his mugshot and frame his legal challenges as a political attack to cast him as a victim of a Democratic conspiracy against him. He continues to baselessly cast the consequences of his alleged actions as “election interference” under President Joe Biden, who is “weaponizing” the judicial system against him.
The House select committee investigating the events surrounding the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 reported that Mr Trump’s fundraising arms collected more than $100m in the first week after Election Day in 2020 alone.
His campaign and allies raised $250m from baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him, the committee found.
Donald Trump speaks to supporters in Nevada on 27 January. (REUTERS)
As his campaign pivoted to his criminal cases and lawsuits, fundraising messages remind supporters of his legal fights and courtroom appearances to tell his supporters that their contributions help “defend our movement” against “witch hunt” trials.
His mugshot appears on “signed” posters with the words “never surrender”, $47 T-shirts, $35 mugs, and Trump-branded Christmas wrapping paper.
Last week, a jury determined he owes more than $83m in damages to E Jean Carroll, whom he repeatedly smeared after a separate jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.
The attorney general of New York also is seeking $370m from Mr Trump and his co-defendants in a separate civil case targeting his Trump Organization for fraud.
In a deposition last year, the former president described his cash stockpile as “substantially in excess” of $400m, while Bloomberg listed his liquid assets at roughly $600m, though the actual state of his financial affairs is unclear, and he won’t be able to tap PAC cash to pay civil damages.
Dave Aronberg, the state attorney in Florida’s Palm Beach County, home of Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, explained to MSNBC on Monday that Mr Trump has to post a bond just to appeal the jury verdict in Ms Carroll’s case within 30 days of the decision, “so E Jean Carroll will get her money at some point”.
“He can try to get money from his supporters, but he’s got to tell them what it’s for … He can’t say, ‘Help me with my re-election fund’ and then divert the money to E Jean Carroll,” he said. “That would be a crime.”
Competing for megadonor cash with Haley
In the final months of 2023, Mr Trump’s campaigns took in roughly $19m – less than 60 per cent of Mr Biden’s $33m haul – while paying out more than $23m.
The president’s campaign ended 2032 with $46m cash on hand, records show. By the end of the year, Biden-supporting super PAC Future Forward had roughly the same amount in the bank as MAGA Inc – $24m to MAGA’s $23.3m.
Mr Biden also can tap funding from the Democratic National Committee, while Mr Trump will have to wait until he is the Republican party’s nominee before he can formally access the Republican National Committee’s reserves.
But the RNC had its worst fundraising year in a decade, and its worst year in 30 years in inflation-adjusted figures, according to FEC filings.
Last year, the RNC raised $87.2m, spent $93.5m, and had roughly $8m on hand by the end of the year.
Mr Trump, meanwhile, is competing with Nikki Haley for a pool of campaign cash from billionaire Republican megadonors that could keep Mr Trump’s PACs afloat.
Robert Bigelow, formerly Ron DeSantis’s largest donor, told Reuters on Tuesday that he gave Mr Trump $1m to support his legal fees and agreed to donate another $20m to a Trump-aligned super PAC for campaign purposes.
“I gave him $1m towards his legal fees a few weeks ago. I made a promise to give him $20m more, that will be to the super PAC,” he told the outlet.
