Archive by Author

Kari Lake, Mark Finchem formally contest Arizona election results

The GOP nominees for three statewide positions in Arizona have filed lawsuits contesting the election results in the state after all three narrowly trailed their Democratic opponents in close races from last month’s midterm elections.

Republican nominees Kari Lake, running for governor, Mark Finchem, running for secretary of state, and Abe Hamadeh, running for attorney general, filed the challenges on Friday, four days after the state certified the vote and declared winners in most races, including the gubernatorial and Senate contests. 

In the governor’s race, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) defeated Lake by about 0.6 points. In the contest to become the next secretary of state, Democrat Adrian Fontes defeated Finchem by almost 5 points. 

Democrat Kris Mayes led Hamadeh by 511 votes as of the certification, but that race is undergoing a recount, as Mayes leads by less than 0.1 points. Arizona law requires any race to automatically go to a recount if the margin is within 0.5 points. 

Recounts for the attorney general race, the state superintendent race and a state House race began on Wednesday. 

Candidates also have five days after certification to formally contest the results of an election in court. 

Lake sued Hobbs and the Maricopa County recorder, board of supervisors and director of elections in their official capacities following controversies about the country’s electoral process. 

Certain voting locations in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and is the most populous in the state, experienced issues with ballot printers where the ink was too light for tabulators to read. Election officials addressed the issue on Election Day by allowing voters to wait in line until the issue was resolved, cast a ballot at another voting center or drop their ballot in a separate box to be counted later. 

But Lake’s campaign argued some of the affected voters’ ballots would not be counted because of improper checkout procedures and blending of ballots. The campaign asked a state judge on Election Day to extend the voting in the county, but the judge rejected the request as he said he did not see any evidence that anyone was denied the opportunity to vote. 

Lake, who has refused to concede to Hobbs, said in her lawsuit that the number of “illegal votes” cast in the race “far exceeds” the roughly 17,000-vote lead that Hobbs has. She claimed that thousands of Republican voters were disenfranchised as a result of “election misconduct” at Maricopa County. 

She claimed that printer errors occurred at more than 130 of the 223 voting centers in the county, but the county suggested that only 70 experienced the issue. 

Lake said Republicans vote at a 3 to 1 ratio over Democrats and were therefore disproportionately affected by the printer problem. She said thousands of Republican voters gave up on voting due to long wait times or avoided the polls after hearing of the “chaos.” 

Lake previously sued Maricopa County elections officials to demand answers to her public records requests about the mechanical issues on Election Day. 

Finchem — along with Jeff Zink, the Republican nominee for Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District — filed his lawsuit against Fontes, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Hobbs. Gallego easily defeated Zink in their House race to represent the 3rd District, which includes parts of Maricopa County. 

Finchem and Zink argued in their filing that voters were offered “weak and unsatisfying” alternatives to the machines in Maricopa County. They said the votes that were deposited in the separate box to be counted later were likely never counted. 

They also noted that the top elections official in the state who was supervising the elections, Hobbs, was also running for governor at the same time. They said she should have recused herself, but she refused. 

“Recusal would cause her to lose control of the election she hoped to directly benefit from – a staggering appearance of impropriety and display of unethical behavior,” Finchem and Zink argued. 

Hamadeh and the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) lawsuit, filed against Hobbs and each county in Arizona’s recorders and boards of supervisors, differs from Lake and Finchem’s in that it explicitly states that the plaintiffs are not alleging fraud, manipulation or other intentional wrongdoing that affected the outcome of the race. 

But they said “certain errors and inaccuracies” in managing the polling places and tabulating some ballots occurred. The lawsuit states that elections officials in at least seven instances unlawfully denied voting to certain qualified individuals, erroneously tallied certain ballots and included certain illegal votes in the attorney general race. 

Some of the examples Hamadeh argues are Maricopa County officials improperly disqualifying early ballots from voters who were marked as having already voted as a result of poll worker error and all county elections officials improperly tabulating voters’ selections when certain ballots could not be electronically counted. 

Hamadeh and the RNC previously filed the lawsuit last month after the initial results were set, but a state judge dismissed it, ruling that it was filed prematurely. The judge said an election contest could not be filed until after the results were certified but did not consider the merits of their argument at that time. 

The judge indicated Hamadeh and the RNC did not need to wait for the recount to be concluded to file again. 

“At 511 votes out of 2.5 million, our race is the closest statewide race in Arizona history, it is currently undergoing a recount. Every legal vote deserves to be counted,” Hamadeh said in a statement upon refiling the lawsuit.

Source: TEST FEED1

Judge declines request to hold Trump team in contempt

A federal judge on Friday refused a request to hold former President Trump’s legal team in contempt for failing to comply with a May subpoena to turn over any remaining classified documents held by the former president, ABC News reported. 

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell reportedly urged the Justice Department and Trump’s lawyers to reach a resolution themselves, according to ABC. The court proceedings currently remain under seal.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that the Justice Department had asked Howell to find Trump’s legal team in contempt, following months of efforts to recover classified documents from the former president.

The Trump team has repeatedly failed to appoint a custodian of records to confirm that all classified materials have been returned to the government, according to the Post.

After the National Archives and Records Administration found classified documents among several boxes of records recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in January, the Justice Department opened an investigation into the issue.

The department eventually subpoenaed the former president in May, in response to which Trump’s lawyers turned over 38 documents with classified markings. 

While Trump lawyer Christina Bobb said in a statement at the time that all records had been returned “based upon the information that has been provided to me,” the Trump legal team declined to make a sworn statement certifying that all classified documents had been returned.

The FBI recovered more than 100 additional classified documents in August when it searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. 

An outside group hired by Trump’s legal team found two more classified documents at a storage unit in West Palm Beach, Fla., according to various reports on Wednesday. The group reportedly combed through four properties associated with Trump in search of classified materials.

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement that the former president and his counsel will “continue to be transparent and cooperative” in what he characterized as the Justice Department’s “highly weaponized and corrupt witch-hunt.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Source: TEST FEED1

Progressives fume over party switch: ‘Typical Sinema’

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s (D-Ariz.) decision to become an Independent has enraged progressives.

They’re describing her as self-interested, disloyal and happy to blunt valuable momentum from Democrats’ major Senate win in Georgia for her personal gain.

“It’s f***ed up, but also typical Sinema,” Andrew Feldman, a Democratic strategist and founder of the progressive communications firm Feldman Strategies, told The Hill on Friday shortly after the news broke. 

In Sinema, the left sees a once-progressive firebrand who rose to prominence with Green Party ideology and a story of a scrappy upstart, only to tack rightward in the age of Trumpism, hampering large portions of President Biden’s agenda and working against her party’s own stated interests.

“If Sinema can’t decide between the party of Raphael Warnock and the party of Kari Lake and Donald Trump, then she is truly lost,” said Waleed Shahid, a veteran strategist and communications director for the Justice Democrats. 

Progressives’ anger with Sinema has been simmering for several years. She was one of Democrats’ biggest headaches in the 50-50 Senate, where she had the power to stall legislation around everything from voting rights to social spending.

She failed to budge on demands to get rid of the legislative filibuster, a near party-wide push to make it easier to get Biden’s agenda through the narrow majority, and progressives accuse her of becoming cozier with corporate interests and Republicans than with her own Democratic colleagues.

The more she dug in, the more liberals resented her, leading to calls for a primary challenge and collective head scratching about her motivations – with few willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that her decision was based on genuine ideological differences and not political hubris.

“After seeing her horrifically low poll numbers with Democratic voters, Sinema is once again doing everything she can to protect herself and big corporate donors at the expense of multiracial democracy,” Shahid said.

Sinema, 46, shocked Democrats when she announced Friday that she is leaving the party and registering as an Independent just weeks after the November midterms. 

“In a natural extension of my service since I was first elected to Congress, I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington and formally registering as an Arizona Independent,” Sinema said.

She elaborated in an op-ed for the Arizona Republic, writing: “In catering to the fringes, neither party has demonstrated much tolerance for diversity of thought. Bipartisan compromise is seen as a rarely acceptable last resort, rather than the best way to achieve lasting progress. Payback against the opposition party has replaced thoughtful legislating.”

“Americans are told that we have only two choices – Democrat or Republican – and that we must subscribe wholesale to policy views the parties hold, views that have been pulled further and further toward the extremes. Most Arizonans believe this is a false choice, and when I ran for the U.S. House and the Senate, I promised Arizonans something different,” she wrote.

Sinema on Friday pledged that little would change in terms of how she votes or operates in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Friday said she would keep her committee assignments and Democrats would keep the hard-fought advantages of a 51-seat majority.

While Sinema said to Politico she doesn’t intend on caucusing with the GOP senators, liberals still see her move as cynical and aligning closer with Republicans than Democrats, who need all the manpower they can get heading into the new year in the majority.

“The level of shamelessness that it takes to do something like this at this particular moment in history, it’s really mind boggling,” said Max Berger, a progressive strategist who worked for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). 

“The White House and leadership have no choice but to treat her like a very important figure in the Senate, but they should be working to defeat her as quickly as possible,” Berger said. “No one should have the slightest amount of deference or respect for her because what she’s done is a betrayal of the voters of Arizona and of American democracy and it’s loathsome.”

Many Democrats are particularly galled that Sinema made her announcement before they’d had the chance to fully celebrate Sen. Raphael Warnock’s (D-Ga.) runoff win on Tuesday. That victory came with a sign of relief as many in the party finally saw a way to work around Sinema and her moderate colleague, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who often together create a blockade. 

“Bye Felicia,” tweeted Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) a member of the Squad. “This isn’t about the party this is about your pharma donors! Stop lying!”

And further adding to their anxiety, Sinema has declined to give any assurances about her plans for the next two years, when both she and Biden are up for re-election. 

Prior to her announcement, many on the left had called for a primary challenger like Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), a pragmatic progressive, to try and oust her from her Senate seat. Now they fear her running as an Independent could split the Democratic vote and hand the Senate seat to a Republican. 

“Either Kyrsten Sinema is actively helping the Republican Party by splitting the Democratic vote, or she is a fundamentally self-interested person who would rather throw lives under the bus than give up her political career,” said Ellen Sciales, a spokesperson for the Sunrise Movement, who wants to see Sinema challenged from the left. “We’re wondering if she’s just trying to force the Democratic Party to not challenge her in 2024 because she knows her polling is incredibly unpopular.”

“There’s a whole question about her calculus here,” said Sciales. “One thing is really clear: she’s not thinking about the people of Arizona, she’s thinking about her own political career.”

Source: TEST FEED1

What Sinema's party switch means for the Senate

The reverberations from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s (Ariz.) announcement on Friday that she has left the Democratic Party and is now an Independent are being felt across the political spectrum, but especially in the Senate itself where lawmakers are evaluating how her decision will change the dynamics of the chamber.

Sen. Raphael Warnock’s (D-Ga.) runoff victory on Tuesday gave Democrats an anticipated 51-49 majority in the upper chamber, with the one extra vote handing them a significant advantage over the current 50-50 split that ranges from subpoena power to the ability to move nominees through committees more swiftly. 

That bit of breathing room lasted a grand total of two days, with Sinema’s official independence creating potential issues for Democratic leadership and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in their quest to keep the conference united and continue to move President Biden’s agenda. 

“This is the start of a two-year-long headache for Sen. Schumer,” said Jim Manley, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) “I don’t envy what he is going to have to do to keep on board with the Democratic agenda, but as long as he keeps open the line of communication, it could work.”

That work began on Thursday when Schumer agreed to allow Sinema keep her committee assignments, saying that will in turn allow Democrats to keep much of their newly-gained power.

“Kyrsten is independent; that’s how she’s always been. I believe she’s a good and effective Senator and am looking forward to a productive session in the new Democratic majority Senate,” he said. “We will maintain our new majority on committees, exercise our subpoena power, and be able to clear nominees without discharge votes.” 

Sinema won’t be the only Independent senator Democrats rely upon. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Angus King (I-Maine) have reliably caucused with Democrats for years.

And Sinema says she will continue to vote and operate as she has in recent years, for better or, in the eyes of some on the left for worse. According to FiveThirtyEight, the Arizona senator has voted with President Biden 93.1 percent of the time — more than five other Democratic senators.

That in itself is in contrast to others who have changed parties or dropped affiliation in recent memory. Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (N.J.), who was elected as a moderate Democrat, switched parties in 2019 and has voted with the GOP ever since. 

Sinema on Friday said she would not caucus with Republicans.

“Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” she told Politico. 

The first round of remarks from top Democrats also indicates they don’t anticipate much of a systematic change either. The White House said in a statement it has “every reason to expect” that President Biden and other officials “will continue to work successfully with her.”

Others in the upper chamber concurred. 

“Sen. Sinema has always had an independent streak,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told CNN. “I don’t believe this is going to shake things up quite like everyone thinks. … Chuck Schumer is still the majority leader, and we will still be able to get a great number of the things done that we want to get done.”

“Sen. Sinema has been an independent in all intents and purposes,” Klobuchar continued, noting that the Arizona senator doesn’t usually go to the weekly caucus luncheon “except for rare moments where she’s advocating for something she cares about. That’s not going to change either.”

For two years, Sinema has been a thorn in the side of Democrats when it comes to passing the most ambitious items of the party’s agenda. She, in particular, came under fire from progressive forces in the party for her opposition to the Democratic effort to pass the Build Back Better blueprint, a multi-billion dollar social spending package that was at the center of Biden’s wish list, and to weakening the legislative filibuster in order to deal with voting rights legislation. 

In fact, Sinema has gone so far as to say the 60-vote threshold should be reinstated for all nominations, including at the judicial and administration levels.

But she has also been instrumental in negotiating and passing a number of items that have made it to Biden’s desk, including the bipartisan infrastructure law and the gun safety legislation that passed following the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Sinema also ended up supporting the Inflation Reduction Act, the slimmed-down version of the original Build Back Better plan. 

The White House rattled off that list in its own statement about Sinema’s switch. 

“As long as she votes next year to allow the Democrats to take control of the Senate, the rest of the stuff will fall in line,” Manley added. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Schumer says Sinema can keep committee assignments after leaving Democratic Party

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Friday announced he will let Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) keep her Senate committee assignments after she dropped her affiliation with the Democratic Party and said she would identify as an Independent.

Schumer added Sinema’s decision will not affect Democratic control of the Senate’s committees, including the power to issue subpoenas and discharge legislation without Republican support — powers the Democratic majority gained after winning the Senate runoff in Georgia this month.  

“Sen. Sinema informed informed me of her decision to change her affiliation to Independent. She asked me to keep her committee assignments and I agreed,” Schumer said in a statement.  

“Kyrsten is independent; that’s how she’s always been. I believe she’s a good and effective Senator and am looking forward to a productive session in the new Democratic majority Senate,” he said. “We will maintain our new majority on committees, exercise our subpoena power, and be able to clear nominees without discharge votes.” 

Sinema currently sits on the Senate Banking Committee, the Commerce Committee, the Homeland Security Committee and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

Sinema announced in an op-ed published by The Arizona Republic that she decided to leave the Democratic Party in order to separate herself from partisan politics.  

“When politician are more focused on denying the opposition party a victory than they are on improving Americans’ lives, the people who lose are everyday Americans,” she wrote. 

“That’s why I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington,” she added. “I registered as an Arizona independent.” 

Two other senators who identify as independents also receive their committee assignments from the Senate Democratic leader: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).  

Source: TEST FEED1

House COVID panel accuses Trump administration of exacerbating the pandemic in its final report

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis released its final report on Friday before Republicans take control of the House in the next upcoming Congress, providing new findings on how the Trump administration’s actions negatively impacted the U.S. response.

The report from the Democratic-led subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Jim Clyburn (S.C.), highlighted the Trump White House’s “failed stewardship over the pandemic
response and persistent pattern of political interference.”

Clyburn also announced he will be holding a final hearing on Wednesday focused on the recommendations made by his panel.

The committee determined that the previous administration failed to adapt its response to the COVID-19 pandemic as public health experts’ understanding of the virus changed — and also failed to coordinate properly with public health officials.

In particular, the report stated that the former White House’s focus on certain goals got in the way of mitigating the spread of the virus, such as its emphasis on symptomatic transmission of the virus and bringing back Americans who were overseas at the start of the outbreak.

Ann Schuchat, former principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told the panel that “a good number” of staff from various federal health agencies were focused on repatriating Americans in February of 2020, at the detriment of prioritizing viral mitigation methods.

“[W]e were trying to queue up the planning for community mitigation for — you know, in our efforts to delay the spread, we were trying to queue up the health care preparedness in terms of PPE [personal protective equipment] and reusables, and what was the strategy to get enough where we knew we didn’t have enough supply,” Schuchat said. “That couldn’t get onto the agenda because most of the conversations were, how are we going to deal with this batch of cruise ship people.”

Among the pandemic response measures that were neglected under the Trump administration were the development of an accurate COVID-19 test and the mobilization of supply chains for PPE early on, according to the committee.

The panel noted that supply chain management was delegated to former President Trump’s son-in-law, then-White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, who worked with a team of mostly young volunteers.

The COVID-19 tests that were sent out by the CDC early on in the outbreak had a 33 percent failure rate, with many labs reporting verification failures by February of 2020. Despite knowledge of these faulty tests, the CDC did not stop their delivery or issue an alert on their faulty performance.

Later on the pandemic, the committee found that the Trump administration’s economic relief efforts were not thorough or equitable, leaving millions of individuals at risk of losing housing and many small and mid-sized companies without the same measure of relief that was offered to large corporations.

“Just as its model, the Truman Committee, uncovered waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars at the Department of Defense during World War II, the Select Subcommittee has acted as an effective steward of public funds, identifying billions of taxpayer funds spent ineffectively, inefficiently, or inequitably within pandemic relief programs across the federal government,” Clyburn said in a statement.

“As this final report shows, in many instances, the Trump Administration’s poor management of relief programs left them particularly vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse,” he added.

As many people and businesses went without relief, the committee found that other entities were able to profit throughout the pandemic, pointing to two online telemedicine platforms that benefitted from misinformation popularly spread by right-wing extremists.

America’s Frontline Doctors and SpeakWithAnMD.com, on which the committee opened an investigation into last year, both prescribed medications unproven to treat COVID-19 — hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin — but were lauded by right-wing figures including Trump and Infowars host Alex Jones.

The two websites “teamed up with fringe operatives” in order to reach more customer according to the final report, reaping millions of dollars from prescriptions, as well as from consultations that did not always take place.

The overarching determination by the committee was that the U.S. had long underinvested in its public health infrastructure before the pandemic. The panel called for the country to “reinvigorate” its public health capabilities by investing in new tests, treatments and vaccines.

“I have emphasized during the Select Subcommittee’s tenure that our oversight work must ultimately be forward-looking; the coronavirus crisis will not be the last public health emergency or economic crisis that we confront,” Clyburn said.

When the 118th Congress meets next month, Republicans will have control over the House after winning a majority in the midterm elections. GOP lawmakers have vowed to carry out their own investigations into the coronavirus pandemic, including looking into the virus’s origins and how relief funds are being used.

Republicans have made it clear that they plan to investigate Anthony Fauci, longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief White House medical adviser. Fauci, who is stepping away from government work, has stated that he has ““no problem at all” with testifying before Congress, something he has done hundreds of times throughout his career.

Source: TEST FEED1

Gallego, potential Arizona Senate hopeful, hits Sinema after party switch

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) on Friday slammed newly minted Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) following her decision to leave the Democratic Party, saying she is “putting her own interests” ahead of Arizona voters with the move.

“Last month, the voters of Arizona made their voices heard loud and clear — they want leaders who put the people of Arizona first. We need Senators who will put Arizonans ahead of big drug companies and Wall Street bankers,” Gallego, who is thought to be a 2024 Senate hopeful, said in a statement.

“Whether in the Marine Corps or in Congress, I have never backed down from fighting for Arizonans. And at a time when our nation needs leadership most, Arizona deserves a voice that won’t back down in the face of struggle,” Gallego continued. “Unfortunately Senator Sinema is once again putting her own interests ahead of getting things done for Arizonans.”

Prior to Sinema’s maneuver, Gallego was considered a prime candidate to launch a primary challenge against her in 2024. The House Democrat has been one of the leading critics of Sinema over the past year, including for what he saw as Sinema’s lack of work on behalf of the party in the key state during the 2022 midterms.

Reports also emerged earlier this year that Gallego had met with some of Sinema’s top donors about the possibility of a 2024 bid. News of the meetings came as the Arizona senator stood in the way of two top priorities of leading Democrats: the party’s multitrillion-dollar social spending package and ending the legislative filibuster to pass voting rights legislation. 

Criticism also came from other corners of the Arizona Democratic operation, including the state party itself. In a statement, the Arizona Democratic Party said that while Sinema helped with the passage of high-priority items in recent years, she has fallen “dramatically short” on a number of topics, including voting rights, and is “leaving Arizonans behind.”

“Senator Sinema may now be registered as an Independent, but she has shown she answers to corporations and billionaires, not Arizonans,” the party continued. “[Her] party registration means nothing if she continues to not listen to her constituents.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Seven hard-line House Republicans lay out Speaker demands amid McCarthy opposition

A group of seven hard-line conservative House Republicans who have withheld support from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) bid for Speaker laid out a list of demands for the House they expect from a Speaker.

The letter does not specifically mention McCarthy, but comes as five other House Republicans have said or strongly indicated that they will not support the GOP leader for the gavel. As Republicans head into a narrow 222 to 212 majority, the opposition has the potential to keep him from securing the gavel.

The GOP opposition to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) Speaker bid could potentially keep him from attaining the position. (Greg Nash)

The letter sent to colleagues on Thursday came from House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry (R-Pa.) along with GOP Reps. Chip Roy (Texas), Dan Bishop (N.C.), Andrew Clyde (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.) and Reps.-elect Eli Crane (Ariz.) and Andy Ogles (Tenn.). 

“As we form the 118th Congress, any GOP Speaker candidate must make clear he or she will advance rules, policies, and an organizational structure that will result in the values listed below,” the letter said. “The House of Representatives serves as the people’s voice in our system of government and it requires leadership to unleash its full power to check the Executive Branch, push the Senate to act, and responsibly exercise its strongest tool — the power of the purse.”

The requests in the Thursday letter include:

• Restore any member’s ability to make a “Motion to Vacate the Chair” and force a vote on removing the Speaker. Former Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a founding Freedom Caucus member, helped propel former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) toward retirement by making a motion to vacate the chair in 2015.

• Require at least 72 hours from release of final bill text before it gets a vote on the House floor.

• Bar House GOP leadership and leadership-affiliated PACs from getting involved in primaries. The McCarthy-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund was active in many House primaries boosting McCarthy-friendly candidates in the 2022 cycle.

• Increase the number of Freedom Caucus members in committee chairmanships and on the House Rules Committee.

• Decline to raise debt ceiling without a plan to cap spending and balance the federal budget in 10 years.

• Do not “return to the blind embrace of earmarks.” The practice of directing federal spending to a specific recipient or project was brought back in this Congress as “community project funding” after a decadelong ban. The House Republican Conference last month overwhelmingly voted against an internal proposal to ban the practice.

• Use “must-pass” bills like the annual defense authorization bill and the farm bill as leverage to secure conservative priorities and “check the Biden administration.”

• Create a “Church Committee”-style panel to target “weaponized government.” While McCarthy and House Republicans have promised extensive investigations into the Biden administration and alleged politicization of federal agencies, some, like Roy, think the plans do not go far enough.

Many of the demands were previously articulated in a House Freedom Caucus release over the summer.

Clyde issued a separate statement about his joining the letter on Thursday, indicating that the letter was not solely aimed at McCarthy.

“Leader McCarthy is a friend, and I’ve established a good working relationship with him over the past two years as the Freshman Representative to the Elected Leadership Committee. While I continue my consideration of who I will vote for, the items presented are simply what I expect and require for anyone seeking the responsibility of serving as Speaker — as accountability of the Speaker to the membership is paramount,” Clyde said.

Members of the House Freedom Caucus are split on whether to support McCarthy. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a Freedom Caucus co-founder who is set to chair the House Judiciary Committee, is fully supporting McCarthy. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has also emerged as one of McCarthy’s most vocal supporters, warning that any alternative could be less friendly to hard-line conservatives.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has become an ardent supporter of McCarthy’s bid for the Speakership, splitting with members of her party like Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). (Greg Nash)

The lawmakers who signed on to the latest letter are separate from the five who have been more vocal that they will not support McCarthy for Speaker in a Jan. 3 floor vote: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.) and Bob Good (Va.).

The Thursday letter follows other “Dear Colleague” letters in recent days from McCarthy defenders from the Republican Governance Group, a caucus of more center-leaning members formerly known as the Tuesday Group, and the Main Street Caucus, a group of pragmatic governance-minded Republicans. The former group urged McCarthy skeptics to “put posturing aside.”

Source: TEST FEED1

FTX founder Bankman-Fried agrees to testify at House hearing on collapse

The founder and former CEO of bankrupt cryptocurrency platform FTX on Friday said he will testify before a House committee next week despite his initial reluctance.

In a Friday tweet, Sam Bankman-Fried announced he would testify before the House Financial Services Committee at its Dec. 13 hearing on the collapse of FTX. 

“I still do not have access to much of my data — professional or personal.  So there is a limit to what I will be able to say, and I won’t be as helpful as I’d like. But as the committee still thinks it would be useful, I am willing to testify on the 13th,” Bankman-Fried tweeted Friday.

He added that he will “try to be helpful” and shed light on “FTX US’s solvency and American customers,” ways to compensate international users, “what I think led to the crash,” and “my own failings.”

Bankman-Fried’s decision to testify comes after intense pressure from House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and ranking member Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.). The duo had been pushing Bankman-Fried over Twitter to appear before their panel and answer questions under oath from lawmakers after giving several high-profile interviews to journalists.

Bankman-Fried said last week he would appear before the Financial Services panel once he finished “learning and reviewing” what happened at FTX. But his answer did not fly with Waters, who insisted he bring his apology tour to the Capitol.

“Based on your role as CEO and your media interviews over the past few weeks, it’s clear to us that the information you have thus far is sufficient for testimony,” Waters said in a Monday tweet to Bankman-Fried.

“The collapse of FTX has harmed over one million people. Your testimony would not only be meaningful to Members of Congress, but is also critical to the American people.”

Bankman-Fried’s decision to appear means he will face questions from lawmakers about the FTX collapse under oath. While Congress cannot bring criminal charges against an individual, it can share potentially incriminating material with regulators and law enforcement investigating FTX. He could also face charges if he lies to lawmakers, raising the stakes of his upcoming testimony.

Bankman-Fried did not say whether he would also agree to appear before the Senate Banking Committee during its own hearing on FTX scheduled for Dec. 14. 

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and ranking Republican Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have threatened to subpoena Bankman-Fried to testify if he refuses to do so voluntarily. 

The Hill has reached out to Bankman-Fried on Twitter about whether he will also testify before the Banking panel.

Source: TEST FEED1