Archive by Author

Republicans aren’t guaranteed to sweep the midterms, but if they do, here’s what to expect

“A week is a long time in politics,” former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once said. By that standard, four months is an eternity. Everything could change between now and Nov. 8. At least, Democrats better hope so. Because as things now stand, Democrats are likely to lose their slim majority in the House of Representatives. If that happens, President Biden’s agenda will be doomed.

One shock has already happened: the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case last month to overturnRoe v. Wade and thereby end the constitutionally protected status of abortion rights.      

You can’t take away a right that Americans have had for 50 years without expecting a political backlash. Like what’s happening now. “It’s up to every single one of us to go out day after day after day until November,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told protesters outside the Supreme Court.

What exactly can the voters do this November? They can elect more Democrats to the House and Senate, thereby making it more likely that Congress will give statutory protection to abortion rights. As long as the filibuster is in place, however, such a measure is likely to go nowhere in the Senate. The prospects for either party to gain a 60-vote (and thereby filibuster-proof) Senate majority seem remote. And Democrats may want the filibuster in place if they lose their single-vote majority in the Senate this year.

Donald Trump is eager to get press attention in order to defend himself from the damaging revelations coming out of the Jan. 6 committee hearings in Congress. Suppose Trump enters the 2024 presidential race before November. It would electrify the 2022 campaign, especially if the Justice Department initiates a criminal investigation of the former president. Democrats would have a powerful issue: “Look at what President Trump did to the Supreme Court. Imagine what he could do if he is re-elected with a Republican Congress!”

Some Democrats are supporting extremist Republicans in the GOP primaries — on the theory that they would be easy to defeat in November. Those Democrats are missing a crucial fact about political behavior. Democrats now control the White House and both houses of Congress. When voters vote for the opposition party, they are typically not making an ideological statement. They are voting for change.

If the demand for change becomes strong enough, many people will vote for the opposition party no matter who the candidate is. Once voters start saying “We can’t go on like this!” — inflation, gas prices, crime, immigration — even radical opposition candidates will look acceptable. Do Democrats really want to take that risk?

Suppose Republicans do enjoy a sweeping victory this year. Will it mean anything for the 2024 presidential race? Not necessarily. 

Ronald Reagan’s first midterm election in 1982 was a serious setback for the new president and his party. The country was in a deep recession (10.8 percent unemployment) following the hyperinflation of the Carter years. Reaganomics had never worked. Republicans ended up losing 26 House seats, one Senate seat and seven governors. Republicans were able to limit their losses by running on the theme, “Stay the course!” 

Voters knew what the course was. Reagan had set it out in his first budget message to Congress in February 1981: “This plan is aimed at reducing the growth in government spending and taxing [and] reforming and eliminating regulations which are unnecessary and unproductive.” At the same time, President Reagan promised to protect “the social safety net.” In fact, Reagan was the first president to use the term, “safety net.” 

Will President Biden be able to argue “Stay the course” in 2024? His “Build Back Better” program has never gotten through a nominally Democratic Congress.

By 1984, it was “Morning in America.” The economic recovery was underway, unemployment was falling and, most importantly, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6 to 4.3 percent. Reagan was re-elected with almost 60 percent of the popular vote.

President Bill Clinton’s first midterm in 1992 was a catastrophe for his party. It was the year of the “angry white male.” With a net loss of 54 seats, Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. And look at what happened two years later. In 1996, Clinton was easily re-elected over Republican Bob Dole.

Barack Obama faced a huge “tea party” uprising in his first midterm, in 2010. The backlash to Obamacare brought Republicans a phenomenal gain of 63 House seats — the largest midterm election shift since 1938. What did it mean two years later? Nothing. Obama was re-elected over Republican Mitt Romney with 51 percent of the popular vote — the first Democrat to carry a majority of the popular vote twice since FDR.

Here’s a prediction: If Republicans win the House this year, they will vote to impeach President Biden. For what? They’ll find something. But they won’t convict him because they won’t have anything close to the required two thirds majority in the Senate. The popular backlash to a spite-driven impeachment will deliver a second term for Biden in 2024.

Bill Schneider is an emeritus professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and author of “Standoff: How America Became Ungovernable” (Simon & Schuster).

Source: TEST FEED1

Jan. 6 panel to examine extremist groups, ties to Trump

The House committee investigating last year’s Capitol rampage will soon turn its gaze to the role played by far-right extremists, examining not only the influence of nationalist networks in carrying out the attack, but also what coordination, if any, the Trump White House had with those groups leading up to the violence. 

The panel’s investigators have already teased the potential connection between former President Trump and the ring-wing extremists who stormed into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, using last month’s public hearing with a former West Wing aide to suggest direct links between some of Trump’s closest allies and leaders of several prominent nationalist groups now accused of spearheading the attack. 

Heading into the next hearing on Tuesday, members of the panel are already promising to reveal previously undisclosed information they say will substantiate those ties.  

“We will be connecting the dots, as people know,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the select committee, told MSNBC on Thursday. “This wasn’t just an event that unfolded. It was planned. Who did the planning and who were they connected with? How did it unfold?”  

The cast of characters the committee has already implicated in the scheme to overturn the election results reads like a who’s who of Trump’s inner circle.  

It includes John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, two legal advisors to the former president who set up a “war room” at a Washington hotel on Jan. 5; Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, two allies in the “stop the steal” movement who were indicted for unrelated crimes, but pardoned by Trump; and Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff who was acting as a liaison between Trump and the other four men, according to Cassidy Hutchinson, a former senior Meadows aide who testified before the select committee on June 28.  

On the periphery were the extremist groups, including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, who gathered in Washington on Jan. 6 as part of Trump’s effort to overturn his election defeat.  

The lines between the two worlds form a complex matrix, and the committee has not yet demonstrated direct connections between the Trump confidantes and the extremist groups who were on the front lines of the violence at the Capitol.  

Yet Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional lawyer who sits on the select committee, has promised to dig into those associations when he leads the questioning, along with Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), at Tuesday’s hearing. And outside experts who monitor hate groups are eager to see what turns up.  

“If coordination did exist, what form did it take? Who were the conduits for information?” said Cassie Miller, senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups of all stripes around the country.  

“But we should also recognize that formal coordination wasn’t necessary for Trump to impact the actions of groups like the Proud Boys during the months leading up to the insurrection, or during the day itself,” Miller quickly added. “This is a group that has long wanted to act as the foot soldiers for Trumpism, and the Stop the Steal movement and insurrection gave them the opportunity to do so.” 

Some connections between Trump’s associates and the far-right groups had been established long before the select committee began a series of public hearings last month.  

Both Flynn and Stone, for instance, have long been known to use security details provided by far-right groups, including the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and 1st Amendment Praetorian, which had protected Flynn during an election protest in Washington in mid-December. Stone had rallied with Proud Boys leaders, including chairman Enrique Tarrio, at a similar protest the same month, and was reportedly protected by members of the Oath Keepers at the Capitol on Jan. 6.  

While neither Stone nor Flynn were a part of the Trump campaign or administration on Jan. 6, the investigation has turned up a direct link. 

On. Jan. 5, Hutchinson told investigators, Trump had asked Meadows to contact Stone and Flynn about their plans for the following day, when Congress would convene to certify Joe Biden’s election victory. She said she is “under the impression” that Meadows spoke with both men, but had no indication what was said.  

Meadows has declined to speak with the investigators, even under subpoena, leading the House to hold him in contempt of Congress.  

Hutchinson also testified about the West Wing’s interest in a meeting of Trump allies at the Willard Hotel, a posh locale near the White House, on the evening of Jan. 5. That gathering was attended by Eastman and Giuliani, among others, she said, and Meadows had sought to join them there. Hutchinson told Meadows it was a bad idea, she testified, and Meadows ultimately phoned into the meeting instead. 

Hutchinson suggested that Giuliani was also associating with the extremist groups.

“I recall hearing the word ‘Oath Keeper’ and hearing the word ‘Proud Boys’ closer to the planning of the Jan. 6 rally when Mr. Giuliani would be around,” Hutchinson said. 

Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the Trump campaign was courting militia groups since the very beginning, praising their attendance at rallies as they increasingly became part of the security at events.

Those call outs would only get more specific over time, including a message to the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” at a debate during the 2020 election cycle. 

“Trump knew that militia groups liked him, were highly supportive of him and were willing to protect him and were willing to offer themselves to protect him. He knew that he could mobilize those groups through tweets, and through call outs, like the ‘stand back and stand by,’ which the Proud Boys [documentarian] at the first hearing said tripled their membership,” Kleinfeld said.

Both Stone and Flynn spoke with the committee’s investigators only to plead the fifth numerous times. The committee has shown little of those filmed depositions beyond a clip of Flynn declining to answer whether he believes in the peaceful transfer of power.

Documentary footage reviewed by The Washington Post earlier this year shows a member of the Oath Keepers, later indicted for seditious conspiracy, in Stone’s suite at the Willard Hotel on the morning of Jan. 6. The video also showed Stone using an encrypted messaging app to talk with Tarrio and with Stewart Rhodes, the head of the Oath Keepers, later that month.

Both Tarrio and Rhodes have been indicted along with other members of their respective groups on charges of seditious conspiracy for their role in the Capitol attack. If convicted, they face up to 20 years in prison.

Kleinfeld said that even if there is no evidence of direct contact between Trump and the extremists, the former president’s success in mobilizing those groups was a major factor leading to the violence at the Capitol.

“It’s not that Trump was calling the Oath Keepers – although Roger Stone may have been,” she said. “It is that Trump or the Trump campaign was organizing this response so that it was ready and so that it could pressure Republicans who wouldn’t do his bidding and ultimately pressure actors who [were needed] to carry out one part or another of this plan.”

“As all the different dominoes kept falling and his plan wasn’t working,” she added, “this was the last-ditch effort for Jan. 6.”

Source: TEST FEED1

As the Cuban people reach their breaking point, what will Biden do?

Tomorrow marks the anniversary of the July 11 nationwide protests in Cuba. Since that historic day, authorities have cracked down on anyone expressing dissent with the government. Some 300 individuals have been sentenced to prison terms ranging in length from five to 30 years, and many others, including minors, are still awaiting trial. Their crime? Most have been jailed and convicted merely for expressing their opinion. 

The most recent July 11 related trial took place just days ago with two of Cuba’s most recognized dissidents – Maykel “Osorbo” Castillo and Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara – sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Both are Cuban artists and activists charged with “contempt,” “public disorder” and “desecrating national symbols.”

Castillo, who won two Latin Grammys for his song, “Patria y Vida,” will serve nine years behind bars. Alcantara, a founder of the San Isidro Movement and one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2021, will serve five years. According to Amnesty International’s Americas Director Erika Guevara-Rosas, “[these trials] are two emblematic examples of how [Cuban President] Miguel Diaz Canal’s government uses the judicial system to criminalize critical voices, including through charges of alleged crimes that are incompatible with international law.”

In addition, Cubans have become increasingly desperate to flee the island by any means. According to the Miami Herald, in the seven-month period between October 2021 and May 2022, 140,000 Cubans left the country either by sea or, increasingly, via third countries in Central America. This total drastically surpasses last year’s sum of 14,015, and even tops those who came because of the 1980 Mariel Boatlift that brought some 125,000 to South Florida shores.

The reasons for the spike in migration are not new and can ultimately be attributed to Cuba’s failed economic and political systems. Over the past several years, however, conditions on the island have worsened as a result of the pandemic, related contractions in Cuba’s travel sector, the recent shift to a single Cuban currency, the loss of Venezuelan subsidies and rising inflation. 

Together, these factors have led to more sustained food shortages and a greater frequency in electrical blackouts, prompting many to seek refuge elsewhere. With little doubt, the persistent denial of civil and political liberties, coupled with the fear of prosecution for those who participated in the 2021 protests, has added a new level of desperation. 

Another complicating factor fueling the migration spike has been the lifting of visa requirements for Cubans traveling to Nicaragua, which many now use as an initiation point to make their way to the U.S. border. 

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, a former Sandinista and guerilla leader, is a close ally of Cuba’s leadership. And while his government has said “the move was intended to promote commercial exchange, tourism, and humanitarian family relations,” there’s little doubt that it also provides two important benefits for the Cuban government. First, it allows for the exit of dissidents thereby releasing internal pressure on the government. Second, it potentially increases the inflow of dollars via remittances that are sent to Cuba from this exiled cohort, now living abroad and with greater access to dollars.

Together, these alarming trends point to deteriorating sociopolitical conditions in Cuba that deserve the attention and concern of the international community. Adding to the potential powder keg, Russia recently said it wouldn’t “rule out the possibility of it placing military hardware in Cuba or Venezuela.” 

With Russia now engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine, those statements are a not-so-subtle reminder that while Cuba may appear weak, its allies have power and posture on the international stage. As such, President Biden’s exclusion of Cuba from last month’s Summit of the Americas seems plenty justified. And a number of Cuban activists agree. 

With the November midterms now just four months away, the Biden administration has been wise to tread cautiously when it comes to U.S.-Cuba policy. In the immediate aftermath of the July 2021 protests, Biden condemned the repression and imposed a series of sanctions on Cuban officials and entities of the government, including the head of Cuba’s armed forces. 

More recently, however, the Biden administration has called for an end to flight restrictions, a reinstatement of the family reunification program and a lifting of the family remittance cap, all policies put in place by former President Trump. It will be interesting to watch whether these latest policy shifts, announced so close to the July 11 anniversary, will have any political effect come November.

While the world continues to be challenged on multiple fronts, the international community should remain vigilant as to happenings on the island. Cuba’s status as a failing state continues to reach new levels of political, economic, and social depravity for its citizens. And such conditions might create a desperate scenario for Cuba’s leadership, including further dependence and alignment with Russia, China, Iran and other American adversaries that could be threatening to the United States and its allies. 

Add to that, the recent and unexpected death of General Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Calleja – a member of Cuba’s Politburo and head of GAESA, a conglomerate of military-owned companies that manage Cuba’s economy – is bringing new instability to Cuba’s leadership circles. 

This July 11, President Biden should bring attention to these onerous realities. The brave activists still fighting for freedom in Cuba deserve it.

Cristina Lopez-Gottardi, PhD, is an assistant professor and research director for public and policy programs at the Miller Center at University of Virginia.

Source: TEST FEED1

Sununu says if he were in White House, he'd fire Yellen to help economy

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) on Sunday said he would fire Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to help the economy because she “completely misled America” and avoided informing Americans about inflation and the “bad news.”

Sununu told CNN’s “State of the Union” host Jake Tapper that he expected a recession to be coming. He said if he was in the White House, the first thing he would do would be fire Yellen for her initial downplaying last year of the economic factors that have led to some economists warning of a recession in the near future.

“I think she’s completely misled America, because she didn’t want to kind of own the bad news. But that’s part of public service. You got to own the good with the bad,” Sununu said. “You got to ease folks into it and present a glide path.”

Inflation reached a 40-year high in May. High gas prices especially are continuing to affect the everyday American consumer and are expected to be the main driver in the midterm elections this year.

Other factors complicating the economy are the stock market plunging into bear market territory and the federal reserve hiking interest rates in order to curb spending.

At the end of May, Yellen acknowledged she was “wrong” about the path of inflation in the U.S. economy, reflecting on comments she made last year in which she said inflation would be a “small risk.” The Biden administration had refused for months last year to acknowledge inflation having a staying power, instead marking it as “transient.”

Sununu on Sunday said the Biden administration has not helped the economy by initially avoiding or downplaying the topic of inflation. He also blamed Democrats for passing large spending packages during the pandemic, arguing the injection of trillions of dollars created much of the inflation Americans are now struggling with.

“You cannot add $5 trillion onto America’s balance sheet and just hope it goes away. The recession is coming,” the GOP governor told Tapper on CNN. “The price of a taco is getting unbearable for some folks, and it hits lower-and middle-income families very, very hard. And that’s just going to be the issue going forward.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Midterm hopes: GOP fingers crossed; Democrats have to work

With the Supreme Court’s abortion and gun decisions and mass shootings threatening to slow Republican’s midterm elections momentum, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are hoping for a left-wing overreaction and short memories.

They relish debates over increasing the size of the High Court or impeaching justices or demonstrations at justices’ homes. These are distractions from a focus on restoring abortion protections and preventing further right-wing intrusions into private lives on same sex marriage or the use of contraceptives, which the public strongly opposes.

The GOP certainly enjoys divisive Democratic criticism of President Biden for not doing more.

On guns, the Supreme Court’s ill-timed pro-gun decision — wedged between the massacre of young school children in Uvalde, Texas, and the slaughter of innocent citizens at Highland Park, Illinois’ Fourth of July parade — affords Democrats another opportunity.

These could be lifelines to energize low-propensity voters and to win a few converts in a heretofore hostile political environment. Of course, the central issues will be the economy, inflation and gas prices. But if handled well, abortion, guns and an unpopular Supreme Court could make a difference on the margins and affect a number of contests.

Democrats carping about Biden not doing more is counterproductive.

Policy-wise, Biden’s options are limited. He’s never going to be the inspirer-in-chief or able to effectively rally forces. These critics should write on the blackboard ten times: “Joe Biden is not FDR or JFK.”

If Democrats want to score points on the issues, it’ll take relentless ground games, not some cheerleader in Washington.

In most competitive races, the Supreme Court’s decision ending 49 years of protection for the right to an abortion and nixing a gun control law are wildly unpopular. If not distracted by extraneous issues like impeaching justices, House and Senate Democratic candidates can appeal to passive or swing voters by vowing to codify abortion rights, patterned after the Roe protections.

Conversely, they can warn that if Republicans win control of Congress, they will try to ban all abortions, as Mike Pence has advocated. There’s lot of radical right-wing chatter in the states, like Texas attorney general Ken Paxton talking about criminalizing abortion.

Justice Clarence Thomas handed another political gift to Democrats when, in the abortion decision, he called for revisiting other rights like same sex marriage and contraceptives.

This is not an idle threat.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh dismissed that possibility — but this is the same Kavanaugh who, in his confirmation, dismissed the prospect of overturning Roe, which he did last month. 

On guns, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) the architect of the modest measure that just passed, said this should only be a down payment. Senate Republicans will block any congressional action, but on the campaign trail, calling for universal background checks and banning assault weapons — at a minimum raising the age to buy one to 21 — will resonate with most voters. The Uvalde school slaughter of little kids and the Buffalo supermarket murders were committed by 18-year-olds with AR-15 assault rifles.

Republican leaders like McConnell are counting on a liberal overreach — like calling for gun confiscation — and especially fading memories. That has been the experience after most previous gun violence.

Tragically, however, there will other mass shootings between now and November.

Should candidates run against the Supreme Court? It’s not a novel idea: President Roosevelt did when he tried to pack a hostile court; he didn’t succeed, but the justices got the message. In 1968, Richard Nixon ran against the Warren Court as being too soft on crime.

This current court is more partisan and political.

In 1968, four of the nine Justices were Republican appointees. In the 1973 Roe abortion decision, five of the seven-person majority were named by a Republican president — and one of the dissenters was a Democrat.

This Republican court marches in lock step on abortion, guns, religion, and most anything political.

To have any chance of capitalizing on the opportunity, Democrats have to have curb the preaching and focus on proselytizing swing voters, particularly the 18- to 34-year-olds, who habitually turn out in low numbers in off-year elections. The stakes for them are huge.

Democrats also need to get out of Washington, New York and Cambridge and go to places like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, and Ohio. Start registering voters and proselytizing.

If successful, the Democrats can then bring up proposed changes in the Supreme Court.

If they fail, it’s going to get darker — a lot darker.

Al Hunt is the former executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for The Wall Street Journal. For almost a quarter century he wrote a column on politics for The Wall Street Journal, then The International New York Times and Bloomberg View. He hosts Politics War Room with James Carville. Follow him on Twitter @AlHuntDC.

Source: TEST FEED1

Harris says bringing home Brittney Griner, other detained Americans 'on our highest priority list'

Vice President Harris told CBS’s Robert Costa in an interview that the Biden administration is making it a priority to bring WNBA star Brittney Griner home from detention in Russia.

“[W]e take very seriously and we’ve been very clear, Brittany Griner, and there are sadly other Americans who are being unlawfully detained around the world, and it is on our highest priority list to bring those folks home,” she told Costa in an interview that aired on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

“I can’t talk to you about the details of what’s happening behind the scenes, but I can tell you that it is one of our highest priorities to bring these Americans home.”

When Costa asked how confident Harris was that Griner would come home soon, the vice president said: “[W]e’re gonna do everything we can to bring her home as soon as possible. That is for sure. That is for sure.”

The administration has faced criticism for what some saw as its minimal outreach to the families of Griner and Paul Whelan, another American who has been detained in Russia since 2018.

Griner, an Olympic gold medalist and a center for the WNBA’s Phoenix Mercury, has been detained in Russia since February. She potentially faces 10 years in prison if convicted of allegations of having cannabis oil in her luggage.

Biden and Harris on Wednesday spoke with Griner’s wife, Cherelle, after she told CBS in an interview the day prior that it was “very disheartening” not to have heard from Biden directly.

Last weekend, Brittney Griner wrote to Biden saying she was “terrified” she might remain in Russia forever.

Biden on Friday also placed a phone call to Whelan’s sister, Elizabeth, after sustaining criticism from her.

When asked on Sunday by Costa if a prisoner swap was on the table for Griner, Harris declined to say.

“We take [it] very seriously,” Harris said.

Source: TEST FEED1

SEC: Step up on climate change

It is no secret that time is running out to address climate change. The Earth is now warmer than any time since before the last ice age. Children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean and, by the end of this century, climate change could be the cause of 4.6 million excess deaths each year.

Despite this urgent challenge, last week the Supreme Court gutted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) capacity to mitigate climate change. Justice Elena Kagan said it bluntly, “Today the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power Congress gave it to respond to the ‘the most pressing challenge of our time.’” In a gridlocked Congress, there are not enough votes to enact meaningful legislation to address climate change, such as a carbon tax. And Biden’s climate plan to promote electric vehicles is being eviscerated by the Senate.

Rather than despair, it’s time to get “creative” on climate, says Gina McCarthy, President Biden’s national climate adviser and former EPA administrator during the Obama administration.

Here’s a creative — and underutilized — strategy. The federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can shift investment away from fossil fuels, while protecting investors and stockholders, by requiring publicly traded corporations to disclose their impact on (and vulnerability to) climate change.

In fact, a rule requiring such disclosures, SEC’s Regulation S-K, has been on the books since 2010. But the regulation is mostly ignored. According to CERES, a nonprofit that evaluates climate disclosures, “nearly half of the 600 largest U.S. companies … still do not provide decision-useful disclosures on climate-related risks. Those that do often provide disclosures that are merely boilerplate or too brief, and effectively meaningless.” Worse, the SEC has taken zero enforcement actions to comply with the 2010 regulation.

The result is that businesses shortchange investors and the public by “green washing” — providing glowing reports of their activities that are not supported by their business practices.  

Encouragingly, the SEC recently proposed a new, more expansive rule to require climate disclosures. But the proposed rule has extended compliance dates for the most basic information.  This means that — assuming the SEC decides to enforce the proposed rule — it would take effect in three years, at the earliest.

In other words, the SEC is acting too late to assist in the current Biden climate agenda. If the next president is hostile to climate action, or if future leadership of the SEC is unwilling to enforce climate-related regulations, the expanded rule will be a fruitless gesture.

That’s why the SEC must act now. It can start with enforcement of the rule already on the books. There is strong legal authority and an existing regulatory framework for this approach. Further, there is a private bar willing to file shareholder suits if inaccurate or misleading information is disclosed.

In addition, the SEC can move up its compliance schedule for its proposed regulation. This will not be an unfair surprise to corporations, as they have been on notice for at least 12 years since the 2010 regulation was issued. And there’s more the SEC can do, as outlined in a detailed action plan submitted to the SEC by the Environmental Protection Network.

Policymakers and the courts can argue over whether Congress or federal agencies should take the lead on climate action. But it’s hard to argue that investors should be kept in the dark on climate impacts. That’s why the SEC must step up, before it’s too late.

Dan Reich was an assistant regional counsel at EPA Region 9 in San Francisco for 27 years. He also served as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice before retiring in April 2017 with 33 years of federal service. He is a member of the Environmental Protection Network, an organization that includes former EPA career employees and political appointees working to preserve the nation’s bipartisan progress toward clean air, water and climate protection.

Source: TEST FEED1

Durbin says its 'not realistic' to consider impeaching Clarence Thomas

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Sunday said it would be “a mistake” to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has drawn national scorn for suggesting the court reconsider case precedents that affirmed the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, contraception and the right to privacy in the bedroom.

“I don’t think it’s realistic,” Durbin told “Fox News Sunday” anchor Mike Emanuel. “I think it’s a mistake as to whether he’s going to be impeached. It’s not realistic, but [Thomas] should show good judgement. If this court is going to be credible, it has to be as apolitical as possible.”

Thomas, who voted to overturn the 1973 precedent Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion last month, drew a firestorm of criticism earlier this year after it was revealed his wife, Ginni Thomas, was communicating with former President Trump’s team in support of overturning the 2020 election results.

In January, Thomas was the only dissenting justice when the court ruled that Trump could not block documents requested by the House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, rioting at the U.S. Capitol.

A petition to remove Thomas from the high court collected more than 1 million signatures last week. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has also led calls advocating for the impeachment of Thomas and other justices.

While Durbin on Sunday said he does not support impeaching Thomas, he does believe the justice should recuse himself from matters involving Jan. 6.

“There is in my mind a clear conflict of interest when it comes to Justice Thomas and issues related to the January 6th insurrection,” the Illinois senator said. “I would think that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any decisions that relate to the January 6th episode.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Kinzinger says Cipollone didn't contradict ‘what anybody said' in testimony

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a member of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, said on Sunday the panel plans to detail portions of former Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s recent eight-hour testimony in its upcoming hearings.

“At no point was there any contradiction of what anybody said, but the rest I’ll have to leave to the presentation for the committee,” Kinzinger told George Stephanopoulos, anchor of ABC’s “This Week.”

Cipollone testified before the committee behind closed doors on Friday after the panel subpoenaed him late last month. 

The subpoena came after explosive public testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as an aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

Hutchinson told the House committee that Cipollone warned her “we’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable” if Trump went to the Capitol on Jan. 6 and urged Meadows to take action on the day of the riot.

Other moments of Hutchinson’s testimony have come into question after Secret Service agents reportedly indicated they were prepared to refute her allegations that Trump lunged for the steering wheel of his Secret Service vehicle on Jan. 6 in attempts to go to the Capitol.

Kinzinger’s comments on Sunday were in line with multiple other members of the House panel, who said on other Sunday talk shows that Cipollone did not contradict other witnesses.

“We’re not going to bring somebody in and just sit around and ask them about what other people said, too,” Kinzinger said on ABC. “We’re getting their information, their front, their position.”

The committee has scheduled its next public hearing for Tuesday morning.

Meanwhile, Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes’s attorney said last week that he would be willing to testify again before the committee and waive his Fifth Amendment rights if it was live and in person. 

The leader of the far-right militia group, who is currently incarcerated, had testified before the committee’s investigators for more than six hours in February in private.

“Any one of these things we’ll take a look at as long as it’s under oath,” Kinzinger said on Sunday when asked about Rhodes’s conditions.

Source: TEST FEED1