Archive by Author

The unintended – and lethal – consequences of California’s Safer Streets for All Act

California passed Senate Bill 357 – the “Safer Streets for All Act” – on July 1st with the stated objective of repealing “a discriminatory law that makes it a crime to loiter with the intent to engage in sex work, given that it fails to prevent street-based sex work and disproportionately results in the criminalization of transgender people and communities of color.”

Everyone should have the right to live freely and express themselves within the confines of the Constitution. Furthermore, no one should be discriminated against based on race or sexual orientation. But these are self-evident truths – that we are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights – and the advocates of SB 357 are using the auspices of “reducing discrimination” to advance a dangerous agenda that will only result in more hurt and sorrow for the marginalized.

We need to start with an accurate understanding of the factors that lead people to engage in prostitution. While some argue that “sex work” is voluntary and a sustainable career path, anyone who works with and cares for victims of abuse and human trafficking knows that the overwhelming majority of those on the streets are not there by choice.

A large body of scientific research has found a close connection between prostitution and human trafficking. Even if prostitution begins voluntarily for some, a 2012 report prepared for the National Institute of Justice describes it as the “front door” to sexual slavery and trafficking. Furthermore, numerous scientific studies, including the most comprehensive empirical analysis to date covering 150 countries, found that, “on average, countries that legalized prostitution experience a larger degree of reported human trafficking inflows.” Furthermore, studies have found that legalized prostitution does not lead to better protections, and often leads to worse protections for victims of human trafficking.

These quantitative studies are complemented by countless interviews with survivors and former victims — the natural endpoint is a life characterized by disease, drug addiction and forced sexual activity. Indeed, in 2020 between 100,000 and 300,000 victims of human trafficking were identified in the U.S. alone, and these figures do not include unreported cases of people whose whereabouts are unknown or who are prevented from speaking out.

Others, even if not physically trafficked, are emotionally coerced by their captors because of their lack of economic independence and bargaining power. The National Human Trafficking Hotline notes that unstable housing and mental health are among the top risk factors for human trafficking.

The reality is that everyone has hopes, dreams and aspirations — virtually no one voluntarily chooses a life-long career in prostitution. They are either physically trafficked or told that it’s their only option.

In addition to misunderstanding the root cause of prostitution, SB 357 will further marginalize and deepen the already dreadful situation that victims are in. Research by the Department of State has pointed out that prostitution creates a safe haven for criminals. What’s worse, SB 357 eliminates the legal authority that police officers have to investigate instances of sexual coercion and human trafficking. Such capabilities to investigate a potential crime on the street are important for not only immediate interventions but also broader deterrence. In fact, SB 357 creates liability with the threat of lawsuit for any police officer who stops to investigate a potential crime.

And human traffickers and pimps know it. Human traffickers are not just standing idly; they are looking for new ways to manipulate laws and processes to further exploit their victims. Now, they will take advantage of the additional room they have to operate on the streets and mask their illicit activities under the guise that their prostitutes are on the streets by their own volition.

Finally, SB 357 normalizes sex work as a viable career by pretending that everyone in it is there by their own choosing and that there is no need – or even demand – for a police presence on the streets. Many survivors will readily share that feelings of shame and guilt stopped them from crying out for help, and that it was not until a friend, neighbor, family member or law enforcement personnel intervened that they were rescued.

These stories from survivors are also consistent with empirical research that finds a strong link between prostitution and a wide array of extremely dangerous mental and physical health outcomes, relative to their counterparts.

Proponents of SB 357 are celebrating the bill’s provision for survivors to clean or “vacate” previous or pending charges for loitering for the purpose of prostitution (penal code 653.22). But the irony is that AB 262 was signed into law last year and allowed all survivors to vacate not only 653.22 but all trafficking related charges. SB 357’s vacatur language did nothing for survivors. Instead, it extended the ability to vacate loitering for the purpose of prostitution charges to buyers and exploiters — the very people who are perpetuating dehumanization and trafficking. 

The rationale behind SB 357 is based on lofty virtue signaling and utopian hypothesizing, not logic or even economics. Rather than making the streets safer as advocates hope, the legislation will further entrench the discrimination and racism that is embedded in the flagrant violations of dignity and life by human trafficking. California is already facing some of the highest crime rates and a net outflow of people because of its misguided policies. Now one more such policy has been added to the list.

Christos A. Makridis is an economist, entrepreneur and professor. He holds doctorates in economics and engineering from Stanford University. Vanessa Russell is the founding executive director of Love Never Fails (loveneverfailsus.com), a national anti-trafficking organization and professor of computer science and cybersecurity and a co-founder of Pathways To Safety (pathwaytosafety.org), a viable plan to for survivor exit services.

Source: TEST FEED1

Electronic voting means more attacks on worker privacy

In yet another installment of the quixotic crusade against the secret ballot in union organizing elections, congressional Democrats have inserted language to the House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. They are seeking to give the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at least $1 million to create a system and procedures for electronic voting in union elections.

A new report from the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace raises concerns about the push toward electronic voting in union elections. The coalition says it “is the latest attempt in a two decade long effort … to force workers to cast their vote for or against union representation in front of union organizers and coworkers that support the union.”

The report warns, “This online voting would not only deprive workers of privacy and invite bullying, harassment and coercion, but it would also substantially increase the risk of fraud and cyber-attacks in representation elections.”

For years, one of the top wish list items for union organizers has been to eliminate the secret ballot and replace it through a process called card check. The coalition calls the push for electronic voting “card check on a mobile device.”

During a card check campaign, if unions can collect signatures from a majority of employees, they can try to have the employer recognize them and start bargaining. But an employer is free to request that the NLRB conduct a secret-ballot election.

Most employers do request an election because cards are notoriously unreliable, as shown by studies, congressional testimony, and even admissions from union organizers. Too often, workers are deceived or intimidated into signing cards. At other times, workers who don’t want a union will sign a card just to get the organizer to go away.

The NLRB has failed to protect employees who have been threatened during a card-check campaign. In one case, the NLRB held that because an employee soliciting signatures was not working directly for a union it was all right that the “card solicitor allegedly stated that the employee had better sign a card because if she did not, the union would come and get her children and it would also slash her car tires.”

At a congressional committee hearing, a former organizer testified that his union wanted him to tell hesitant migrant workers they would be reported to immigration authorities if they did not sign an authorization card.

Threats of intimidation aside, electronic voting is vulnerable to hacking.

Before Washington, D.C., implemented an electronic voting system in 2010, it invited hackers to find vulnerabilities in the system. A student did, causing it to play “Hail to the Victors,” his university fight song. The D.C. Board of Elections did not use the system in the general election that year, as it had hoped.

In their report, “The Ballot is Busted Before the Blockchain,” MIT experts found several concerns with a mobile phone app aimed primarily at “overseas military and other absentee voters” for “federal, state and municipal elections in West Virginia, Denver, Oregon and Utah.”

The experts concluded, “It remains unclear if any electronic-only mobile or internet voting system can practically overcome the stringent security requirements on election systems. Indeed, this work adds to the litany of serious flaws discovered in electronic-only approaches.”

Finally, consider the National Mediation Board, which conducts union elections for railroad and airline workers. Because of the dispersed nature of railroad and airline workers, the NMB allows for remote voting in elections that otherwise resemble NLRB elections.

The NMB’s attempt at electronic voting has been stalled since 2021 because the federal contractor could not meet federal cybersecurity retirements. The agency received no other bids to build the system, and it is conducting mail-in voting, while trying to build an electronic voting system in house.

Electronic voting has the potential to do more harm than good, from enabling intimidation to exposing confidential information to hackers. Worse yet, it is another example of an effort to trample on worker freedom and privacy, all to make union organizing easier.

F. Vincent Vernuccio is president of the Institute for the American Worker and a senior labor policy adviser for Workers for Opportunity. Follow him on Twitter @vinnievernuccio.

Source: TEST FEED1

RNC panel selects Milwaukee as finalist to host 2024 Republican National Convention

A panel for the Republican National Committee (RNC) voted on Friday to select Milwaukee, Wisc., to host the 2024 Republican National Convention, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. 

The full committee must vote to choose the city as the host at its summer meeting in Chicago during the first week in August. The committee could still choose the other finalist, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Today, the Site Selection Committee voted to recommend Milwaukee to host the 2024 Republican National Convention and it is a testament to the forthright and professional behavior embraced by Milwaukee’s city leaders throughout the process,” RNC Senior Adviser Richard Walters told the Journal Sentinel. 

A source familiar with the process said Milwaukee’s leadership and business community have put the good of the city before politics and welcomed the RNC “since day one.” 

Nashville’s bid to host the RNC in 2024 became uncertain after a city councilman withdrew a resolution last week that would have outlined the details of hosting the convention, the Nashville Post reported.

Multiple council members said they would not support the bid after the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

The RNC is expected to make a final decision on the dates of its convention by the end of this year, according to the Journal Sentinel. 

If Milwaukee is confirmed as the host city, it would be the first to host back-to-back national conventions since New York City hosted the Democratic National Convention in 1976 and 1980. Democrats held their convention in Milwaukee in 2020 in addition to virtual sites throughout the country. 

Wisconsin has been a key swing state in recent presidential elections and was crucial to President Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. Republicans will likely attempt to flip the state red, as it did for former President Trump in 2016.

Source: TEST FEED1

US dollar’s power is a boon to Americans traveling abroad

The surging value of the U.S. dollar in recent weeks is a boon to the American traveler, who will get more bang for their buck overseas despite surging inflation at home.  

But a strong American currency could limit international visitors to the U.S., where tourism firms are still licking their wounds from the height of the pandemic.  

The dollar recently hit parity with the euro for the first time in two decades, making trips to Europe 10 to 15 percent less expensive for Americans than at the same time last year.  

The dollar is also soaring in destinations like Thailand, India and South Korea — countries with ample tourism interest from Americans and relatively weaker economic growth than the U.S. 

“With the rising cost of travel, the strong U.S. dollar is a net positive amidst all the disruption in the industry,” said Erika Richter, vice president of communications at the American Society of Travel Advisors.

Richter noted that Americans are spending 11 percent more on travel compared to 2019. 

The idea of a strong dollar might seem like a farce to Americans after annual inflation hit 9.1 percent in June and the price of gas and food rose far faster. But the dollar has still become more valuable abroad even as it yields less in goods and services at home. 

Demand for the U.S. dollar in other countries has skyrocketed amid concerns about a global recession caused by high inflation, the war in Ukraine and lingering COVID-19 supply shocks.  

While the U.S. is not immune from those threats, the economy has held up far stronger than other nations, making its currency more valuable abroad. The dollar is also used as the world’s reserve currency, meaning foreign individuals and companies will often boost their holdings and conduct transactions in dollars to protect themselves from financial shocks. 

The strength of the U.S. economy has allowed the Federal Reserve to boost interest rates at a much faster pace. That makes the U.S. dollar more expensive to acquire — and more valuable in other countries. 

“A stronger dollar benefits American households directly if they want to travel to Europe, as the relative cost of everything is cheaper. It also makes imports cheaper for American households and businesses,” explained Angel Talavera, head of European economics at Oxford Economics. 

Half of American travelers say high prices kept them from traveling in June, up 8 percentage points from the previous month, according to a recent survey from Destination Analysts. 

But favorable exchange rates blunt the impact of inflation, which has risen at similar rates to the U.S. in Europe. Expedia data found that searches for summer trips to popular European destinations such as Paris, Frankfurt, Brussels, Amsterdam and Dublin rose by double digits last week. Copenhagen, Athens and Madrid saw similar increases in lodging interest, according to Hotels.com. 

“The U.S. has never really developed its tourism infrastructure the way Europe has, so a lot of our inventory sold out months ago,” said Leslie Overton, an advisor at travel firm Fora. “While I’m not saying either is cheap, Europe might be considered more competitive than some of the higher end product here in the U.S. right now.” 

One dollar buys roughly 15 percent more than it did one year ago in the 19 European countries that use the euro. The dollar is trading at its highest ever level against India’s rupee and Thailand’s baht. The Mexican peso and Canadian dollar have remained mostly flat.  

But currency fluctuations won’t help much with soaring airfares. While domestic airfare is 13 percent higher than pre-pandemic levels, international flights are 22 percent pricier, according to data from travel firm Hopper. 

Those traveling to parts of Europe face a heightened risk of delays or cancellations.  

London’s Heathrow Airport on Wednesday asked airlines to stop selling summer tickets after staffing shortages forced the airport to delay roughly half of its flights this month. The Netherlands’ largest airport is similarly making large cuts to its flight schedules, driving up prices.  

Conversely, the strength of the dollar will make trips to the U.S. far more expensive for many international travelers, potentially weakening the U.S. tourism industry as it aims to claw back some of the millions of jobs lost during the pandemic.  

A stronger U.S. dollar also boosts pressure on global economies to raise their own interest rates to keep up, a force that raises the risk of a severe global recession that could bounce back to the U.S. in dangerous ways. 

The U.S. welcomed 22.1 million inbound travelers in 2021 — down 79 percent from 2019 — amid COVID-19 travel restrictions that lasted throughout most of the year, according to the International Trade Administration. The agency found that the lack of tourism in the U.S. in the first year of the pandemic accounted for 56 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product decline. 

Tourism has rebounded, with overseas arrivals to the U.S. surpassing 2 million in April, four times the same month in 2021. The bulk of the increase has stemmed from an influx of European tourists, who make up nearly half of foreign visitors this year, according to federal data.  

Tourists from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and India — some of the nation’s top sources of international tourists — will be paying more in the U.S. than they did one year ago. 

“While the elimination of the pre-departure testing requirement will have some positive impact on inbound travel, we do not expect the international inbound travel sector to fully recover until 2025,” said Tori Emerson Barnes, executive vice president of public affairs and policy at the U.S. Travel Association. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump questions linger as DOJ expands Jan. 6 probe

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing pressure as the House Jan. 6 select committee’s presentation of damning evidence involving the Trump White House has raised questions about whether federal prosecutors have kept pace with the lawmakers’ inquiry and how long the former president can escape being directly investigated.

Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters this week the panel was nearing an agreement to share some of its work on Trump’s “alternate elector” scheme that would send faulty certificates to Washington in an attempt to reverse President Biden’s victory in key states.

The move generated a more positive tone from members of the committee who have often been critical of the speed of DOJ’s investigation.

“Well, I think they’re looking at more than that. And I think over time, you will see a little broader view on the investigation,” Thompson said Thursday.

Thompson said he was speaking from “personal knowledge” but declined to elaborate.

The Justice Department has reportedly been caught off guard by some of the select committee’s revelations. 

According to a New York Times story this week, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s stunning testimony last month included some assertions that were new to federal prosecutors, prompting DOJ leadership to more directly discuss Trump’s role, including in the presence of Attorney General Merrick Garland.

“It seems clear that DOJ is behind the committee investigatively, which is hard to comprehend and unforgivable from DOJ’s perspective,” Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, told The Hill.

“Federal prosecutors have every investigative advantage over Congress. Federal prosecutors have far more personnel than Congress has. They have much more powerful subpoenas than Congress has, they have the ability to conduct search warrants, to do wiretaps, they have the ability to use the threat of prison time to flip cooperators. Congress has none of that and yet Congress appears to be way out ahead of DOJ.”

And many observers say they remain concerned the Justice Department seems to be dancing around directly investigating Trump.

Ryan Goodman, co-director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law, pointed to the recent search warrant executed on Jeffrey Clark, an assistant attorney general with a specialty in environmental law that Trump mulled installing as head of DOJ in order to push a department investigation into election fraud.

“How can you criminally investigate Jeff Clark, and the alternate slate of electors and avoid where it lands, where it ends up, which is with Donald Trump. But by that time, if they haven’t really opened up an investigation on him as the target, we’re now already 18 months following these events. It’s really a dereliction of their responsibilities to do a fulsome and rigorous investigation. That’s my major concern,” Goodman said.

Indications that the DOJ may be lagging behind the select committee have prompted some high-profile criticism.

Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who worked on Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, published an opinion piece in The Times last week criticizing the department’s approach to the investigation, arguing that prosecutors should not have been taken by surprise by a congressional inquiry’s findings.

“That is not a sign of a robust investigation into the facts,” Weissmann wrote. “The department has more tools than Congress does to learn the truth. It could have interviewed Ms. Hutchinson long ago, as well as many others whose evidence is relevant — indeed, Ms. Hutchinson alone provided investigators numerous leads to pursue.” 

The select committee has provided a growing number of revelations about Trump’s efforts to undermine the election and his conduct before and during the Jan. 6 attack. That evidence has also raised new questions for investigators, including about the level of coordination — if any — between Trump and right-wing groups that descended on D.C. for the Electoral College certification.

Legal experts say those fresh lines of inquiry should now be a top priority for law enforcement’s own investigation, as federal prosecutors are best equipped to fill in the gaps of what Congress has uncovered.

Goodman said that could include a conversation with Dan Scavino, Trump’s social media guru, who the committee said aided his alleged outreach to extremists. And Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, close Trump associates who used members of extremist groups as their personal security, are also ripe for investigation.

“There are obvious loose ends from the committee’s work, that the Department of Justice would have a much easier time investigating with all of the tools at their disposal,” Goodman said.

While he said there’s debate over whether there is enough evidence to charge Trump, few are questioning whether there is sufficient fodder to look at the former president.

“That’s what I think is very concerning. Given that many, many former federal prosecutors and lawyers are debating the question of whether or not there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in these conspiracies — it’s not really a debate about whether or not there should be an investigation to find out if the evidence is sufficient,” Goodman said. 

“That to me is why it’s so concerning if the Justice Department has tied itself in knots, especially because I do think investigation is going to lead towards Trump.”

Honig, the former federal prosecutor, said there are signs the DOJ has turned its attention toward Trump and his top allies after months of what he believes was a myopic focus on Jan. 6 rioters, but the select committee’s hearings should add new urgency for prosecutors to make up lost ground.

“I think the committee has provided all sorts of evidentiary leads that DOJ must follow up on and I think that’s why we’re seeing DOJ sort of renew its requests for information,” Honig said. “And I think they’ve given DOJ a roadmap of sorts.”

“I’m not saying DOJ needs to do exactly what the committee has done, but how do you watch some of these witnesses testify or look at some of these texts that the committee has and not follow up if you’re the DOJ?”

Other Jan. 6 committee members this week echoed Thompson’s more positive tone. 

“DOJ obviously is very notoriously private as they should be. But I think it’s obvious there’s some activity going on now. Which to me is a good thing,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said Thursday.

But Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) noted that a federal judge in California concluded in a civil case as far back as March that Trump likely committed crimes — something that he said should have grabbed DOJ’s attention. 

“I’m still concerned. There certainly seems to be more activity at the Justice Department, which I think was positive. But I do continue to have concerns that based on what is already public, as the judge in California found, I believe there’s enough credible evidence to look at the former president’s conduct, and I still don’t see signs of that happening at the department,” Schiff said.

“There’s sufficient evidence because of the multiple lines of effort to overturn the election that he was involved in.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Five times Joe Manchin has bucked the Democrats

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate — and perhaps the most controversial, at least with the rest of his party.

On one hand, Manchin’s willingness to buck his party’s orthodoxies has enabled his political survival. He won reelection to a second full Senate term in 2018, just two years after President Trump carried his state by more than 40 points.

But Manchin’s actions have left many in his party incandescent about his willingness to derail their agenda. To his internal critics, he has single-handedly ruined their best chance in years to enact sweeping change.

“Manchin is not particularly concerned about President Biden succeeding. He’s not particularly concerned about the needs of working people,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told SiriusXM’s “Dean Obeidallah Show” on Friday.  

Manchin is powerful in part because of circumstance — in a 50-50 Senate, his party can pass almost nothing without him.

Here are five of the most dramatic instances of Manchin bucking the party line.

July 2022 — Capsizes the push for action on climate change

Manchin detonated many months of negotiations around climate change on Thursday. 

By his own account, he told Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that it would not be “prudent” to move ahead. 

Earlier in the week, Manchin had begun to distance himself from the negotiations, arguing that the imperative to lower gas prices weighed against any move to curb fossil fuel production.

Manchin then nudged the door ajar on Friday by telling a West Virginia radio station that he might be able to look again at the proposals when the next inflation numbers come out next month.

But even if other Democrats took him at his word on that — and they are in no mood to do so — they would have an extremely narrow window to pass legislation. For complicated procedural reasons, such legislation would likely have to pass by September 30.

Manchin’s refusal to back any climate proposal could doom action for years to come, given the strong likelihood of Republicans flipping the House in November.

Sens. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) independently used the same term to describe Manchin’s stance this week: “Infuriating.”

October 2018 — Votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

The 2018 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh were tumultuous even by the standards of the Trump era.

Kavanaugh, a staunch conservative nominated to replace a more centrist figure, Justice Anthony Kennedy, faced sexual assault allegations dating back four decades from Christine Blasey Ford.

Liberal women, in particular, rallied to Ford’s side, demanding Kavanaugh not be confirmed. Kavanaugh responded with tangible fury.

At the time, Republicans held a 51-49 majority in the Senate, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) would ultimately refuse to back Kavanaugh. That left Manchin and moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) as the crucial votes.

Within a few hours, both backed Trump’s pick. Manchin was the only Democrat to do so. 

The West Virginia senator said in a statement he had “reservations” about confirming Kavanaugh, given Ford’s allegations and “the temperament [Kavanaugh] displayed in the hearing.” 

But he ultimately concluded that the judge would “rule in a manner consistent with our Constitution.”

The vote came roughly one month before Manchin faced reelection.

Last month, after the Supreme Court struck down the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision, Manchin said he was “alarmed” by the actions of Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch, the other Trump nominee for whom he voted.

The justices, Manchin said, had testified under oath that they considered Roe “settled legal precedent” only to choose “to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans.”

December 2021 — Sinks President Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ legislation

Manchin’s single most dramatic intervention may have been his announcement that he would sink President Biden’s keystone legislation, the “Build Back Better” bill.

The fact that he chose to announce his opposition on Fox News drove liberal Democrats to even more intense outrage.

“I’ve tried everything humanly possible. I can’t get there,” Manchin told “Fox News Sunday” on Dec. 19, 2021.

Manchin then released a statement reiterating his opposition to the legislation, which would have extended an expanded child tax credit, helped with childcare costs, taxed high earners more and taken significant action on climate change, among other things.

His move was especially galling for Democrats who had spent months trying to shepherd a package through Congress. The process often lapsed into intra-party fighting that slowed momentum to a crawl and sapped Biden’s political capital.

Defenders of Manchin point out that he had never said he was on board with the kind of huge plan Democratic leadership floated at the outset — a proposal that in one iteration totaled $3.5 trillion. 

But progressives, always suspicious of Manchin, believed he led them and the president down the garden path. In the eyes of the left, Manchin never really had any intention of backing a broad social spending bill, no matter how many concessions he was offered. The value of the package had been pared back to $1.75 trillion by the time he scuttled the talks.

Even the White House was furious. After Manchin announced his opposition, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki accused him of “a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position.”

June 2021: Ruins potential party unity on ‘For the People’ voting reform legislation

Voting reform was one of the major goals of Democrats when they won back the White House — and control of the Senate — in the 2020 election.

Many in the party see American democracy as being in existential danger. Schumer declared the protection of voting rights, and of elections themselves, to be a “top priority.”

The answer the party proposed was the “For the People” bill. 

This would have mandated two weeks of early voting in federal elections, made voter registration automatic rather than voluntary, restored voting rights to felons who had served their time and allowed for same-day registration.

The legislation never had a clear path through the Senate, requiring 60 votes to pass in the absence of filibuster reform. But Manchin denied Democrats even the claim that they were unified behind the proposal.

In an op-ed for his home state Charleston Gazette-Mail, Manchin complained that arguments over the right to vote had become “overtly politicized” — and defended Republicans from criticism sent their way by members of his own party. 

“This more than 800-page bill has garnered zero Republican support. Why? Are the very Republican senators who voted to impeach Trump because of actions that led to an attack on our democracy unwilling to support actions to strengthen our democracy?,” he wrote.

In the same op-ed, Manchin reiterated his opposition to filibuster reform, driving the final nail in the coffin of the “For the People” proposal.

Manchin returned three months later to help push a more modest measure, the Freedom to Vote Act, which he argued stood a better chance of winning GOP support.

It failed to do so, running aground soon afterward.

2013 – present: Thwarts filibuster reform

Democrats often become enraged with Manchin because they believe he acts in bad faith. 

The skeptics contend he evinces an interest in reaching deals that he has no sincere intention of striking, before walking away in a blaze of publicity.

To be fair to the West Virginia senator, liberals also chafe at a position that he has held with consistency: opposition to filibuster reform.

In one of many statements outlining his position, Manchin’s office detailed his steady stance dating back to 2013, when he opposed such reform while Democrats held the Senate majority.

Progressives argue that the filibuster is anti-democratic by its nature; and that the case for carving out exceptions should carry the day as the nation grapples with grave issues ranging from a rising tide of authoritarianism to the rescinding of the constitutional right to abortion.

Manchin’s answer has always been, “No.”

And, in a 50-50 Senate, that’s the ballgame.

Source: TEST FEED1

Jan. 6 committee subpoenas Secret Service after reports of erased messages

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection issued a subpoena to the U.S. Secret Service on Friday following reports that agency deleted texts messages dated back to Jan. 5 and 6, 2021.

Committee Chairman Benny Thompson (D-Miss.) said in a release that the committee is seeking the relevant text messages and any “after action” reports that were issued in any divisions of the Secret Service relating to the Jan. 6 insurrection. 

Thompson sent a letter to Secret Service Director James Murray informing him of the subpoena. 

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari told the House and Senate Homeland Security committees in a letter that texts from Jan. 5 and 6, 2021, were erased as part of a “device-replacement program.” 

“The USSS erased those text messages after OIG requested records of electronic communications from the USSS, as part of our evaluation of events at the Capitol on January 6,” Cuffari said.

According to his letter, DHS claimed that the Office of the Inspector General could not provide records directly to Cuffari until they were reviewed by lawyers.

A Secret Service spokesman said in a statement after the texts’ deletion was revealed that the messages related to the investigation into Jan. 6 were not affected by the reset.

He said the agency had been cooperating with the inspector general’s investigation and rejected the “insinuation that the Secret Service maliciously deleted text messages following a request.” 

The Secret Service did not immediately return a request for comment from The Hill on the subpoena. 

The Secret Service has garnered nationwide attention in recent weeks after bombshell testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to ex-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Hutchinson testified that she heard an account of former President Trump attempting to lunge at a Secret Service agent and grab at the steering wheel of a presidential vehicle after he was told that he could not go to the Capitol during the riot. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden nixes plan to nominate anti-abortion attorney for federal judge: reports

President Biden is dropping his plans to nominate a conservative Kentucky attorney as a federal judge in the state following opposition from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), according to The New York Times and USA Today.

The White House said the Biden administration learned that Paul will not return a “blue slip” on Chad Meredith, so Biden will not nominate him, according to USA Today.

The senators from the state of a federal judge nominee traditionally provide a blue slip to declare their support for their nomination going forward. 

The administration faced controversy after it was revealed that Biden planned to nominate Meredith, a former Kentucky solicitor general who has fought to limit abortion access in the state, in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. 

Biden had allegedly made a deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to nominate Meredith in exchange for McConnell not holding up other Biden nominees to federal judgeships. 

The White House and Paul’s office did not immediately return requests from The Hill for comment. 

McConnell told The New York Times in an interview that the White House intended to nominate Meredith until Paul objected. McConnell denied that a deal was in place for him to do anything in return for Meredith’s nomination.

Instead, he said that Biden’s consideration of Meredith represented cooperation on judges that was once routine but had petered out in recent years.

Two progressive organizations launched ad campaigns on Tuesday to urge Biden to abandon any alleged deal he may have made with McConnell on nominating Meredith. 

Biden reportedly notified Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) of his intent to nominate Meredith on June 23, one day before the court overturned Roe v. Wade. Meredith was never formally nominated or announced as a nominee.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump campaign operative Roman delivered false elector lists to Capitol Hill on Jan. 6: report

A former Trump campaign operative delivered lists of false electors on Jan. 6, 2021, to Capitol Hill in an effort to get them to former Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the Senate that day, two people familiar with the matter told Politico.

The sources told Politico Friday that Mike Roman, who served as Trump’s director of Election Day operations in 2020, delivered fake election certificates to Rep. Mike Kelly’s (R-Pa.) chief of staff at the time.

The two people told Politico that the chief of staff deputized a colleague to share copies of the lists around the Capitol after receiving them from Roman. 

Roman did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Politico, and did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

The House select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection previously revealed text messages that show Sean Riley, an aide to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), reached out to a Pence aide to arrange a handoff of fake election certificates for Michigan and Wisconsin. 

Johnson told reporters after the committee revealed his aide’s involvement that he was “basically unaware” of the communication and that his office received the slate of electors from Kelly’s office.

He said his chief of staff did the “right thing” by contacting the vice president’s office about the list and that Pence’s team declined the electors.

“My chief of staff contacted the vice president’s staff and said, ‘Do you want this?’ They said ‘no’ and we didn’t deliver it, and that’s the end of story,” Johnson said at the time.

Kelly has denied involvement in the effort. He and Johnson did not immediately return requests for comment from The Hill. 

A spokesperson for Johnson told Politico that Kelly’s office has changed its story from denying his involvement entirely to not denying that his then-chief of staff was involved. 

Politico reported on Thursday that Kelly’s office conducted an internal investigation, determining his then-chief of staff was involved but emphasizing that Kelly was not aware of his top aide’s actions. 

Kelly’s current chief of staff, Tim Butler, told Politico in an interview that the former chief of staff received the information, and another staff member physically walked it over. Butler said neither of them still work for Kelly’s office. 

Before the certification of the 2020 election, Trump privately pressed Pence to overturn the results, according to testimony laid out by the House select committee.

Source: TEST FEED1