Archive by Author

Cheney 'absolutely confident' in Cassidy Hutchinson credibility

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said in her first interview since Cassidy Hutchinson’s appearance before the House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol that she is “absolutely confident” in the credibility of the former White House aide.

Cheney, a member of the panel, made the comment after ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl noted that former President Trump and several GOP officials have publicly questioned Hutchinson’s credibility. 

“As you know, there’s an active campaign underway to destroy her credibility. Do you have any doubt at all in anything that she said to you?” Karl asked Cheney in a portion of the interview, which is set to air Sunday on “This Week.”

“I am absolutely confident in her credibility. I’m confident in her testimony,” Cheney replied. “I think that what Cassidy Hutchinson did was an unbelievable example of bravery and of courage and patriotism in the face of real pressure,” 

Cheney also told Karl that the Jan. 6 committee is confident that Hutchinson “testified honestly, and in her credibility.”

“Her credibility is there for the world to judge,” Cheney said in the interview. 

“She’s an incredibly brave young woman,” Cheney added. “The committee is not going to stand by and watch her character be assassinated by anonymous sources and by men who are claiming executive privilege.”

After Hutchinson’s testimony on Tuesday, Trump responded through his Truth Social platform, saying he has no memory of working with the former top aide to his White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, adding that she was “bad news” and a “leaker.” 

Hutchinson’s attorneys, Jody Hunt and William Jordan, said on Wednesday that their client stands by every word she said at the congressional hearing, where she recalled discussions with and interactions between White House officials on Jan. 6. 

“Ms. Hutchinson stands by all of the testimony she provided yesterday, under oath, to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capitol,” the attorneys said in a statement. 

Source: TEST FEED1

The compromise that could hold Trump accountable and save the republic

During the House Jan. 6 committee hearing on June 21, I had a teenage flashback to the 1973 Senate Watergate hearings after hearing the word “cancer” used in a political context. Nearly five decades later, it is likely that millions of Americans have had similar flashbacks since that word was seared into our Watergate memories and is now equated to actions related to Jan. 6, 2021. And for that, we can thank committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Referencing former President Trump in his opening statement, Schiff said, “The president’s lie was and is a dangerous cancer on the body politic.”

For maximum historical impact, Schiff channeled the bombshell revelation by then-President Nixon’s former White House counsel John Dean during his testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee hearing on June 25, 1973. After being granted immunity, Dean recounted what he told Nixon in March 1973: “I began by telling the President that there was a cancer growing on the Presidency, and if the cancer was not removed, the President himself would be killed by it.”

Forty-nine years later, could there be instructions for moving our nation beyond Trump by connecting Schiff’s “cancer on the body politic” with Dean’s “cancer growing on the presidency”? Yes, but first, some background.

While coming of age during the Watergate scandal, I believed that whatever crimes Nixon or his staff had committed, truth would prevail, perpetrators would be punished, our democracy would stay strong and our nation would move ahead.  

The “cancer growing on the presidency” stemmed from wide-ranging attempts to cover up a bungled burglary inside the Watergate building headquarters of the Democratic National Committee on June 17, 1972. The men arrested were connected to Nixon’s Committee to Re-elect the President, aptly called CREEP.

Over two years, the cover-up metastasized, later revealing how Nixon illegally mobilized the FBI, CIA and IRS as political weapons against his enemies. Ultimately, on Aug. 8, 1974, Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment, conviction and removal from office for obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress.

Remember the Watergate outcome: 69 of Nixon’s henchmen were indicted, with 48 sent to jail, including the White House chief of staff and the attorney general; John Dean received just four months. Then, national outrage erupted when President Ford pardoned Nixon on Sept. 8, 1974. But years later, the pardon was characterized as a positive move for the nation.

Currently, Schiff’s description of Trump as unleashing a “cancer on the body politic” – the totality of all Americans – appears more egregious than any of Nixon’s crimes. If Trump’s actions go unpunished, they institutionally threaten our democracy, security and electoral system. Speaking for the Jan. 6 Committee, Schiff said, “If you can convince Americans that they cannot trust their own elections, that any time they lose it is somehow illegitimate, then what is left but violence to determine who should govern.” 

The mounting evidence of witnesses’ explosive testimony, including Cassidy Hutchinson’s (who appears to be the new John Dean), was summarized last week by Schiff: “President Trump and his campaign were directly involved in advancing and coordinating the plot to replace legitimate Biden electors with fake electors not chosen by the voters.” 

All that culminated in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, preceded by Trump continually pressuring Vice President Pence to commit an illegal act to keep himself in power. Trump’s actions stained the hallmark of American democracy – a smooth transition of power – dutifully followed by every president until the 45th attempted to subvert this revered constitutional order.

So what are the Watergate-learned instructions for moving our nation forward?

Attorney General Merrick Garland must fearlessly prosecute Trump and the Trump aides and elected members of Congress who assisted him in trying to undermine our democracy.

But every step Garland takes or chooses not to take is fraught with harrowing political risks that could alter the course of American history. If Garland’s Department of Justice decides to indict former President Trump, his ensuing trial could, and likely will, shred the cloth of a nation with split seams. Violent outbreaks could erupt, possibly fueled by Trump encouraging millions of his armed supporters to stand up.

Moreover, don’t put it past Trump to take preemptive measures shortly before or during prosecution by announcing that he is running for president in 2024 — making Garland’s actions appear more politically daunting.

Yet Garland not prosecuting Trump would be equally horrific. Our justice system must not fear punishing a former president who violently tried to cling to power and might have succeeded if not for well-positioned heroes at every level of government who stood up to Trump and bravely said “no.”

What follows is a multi-part compromise based partly on Watergate:

First, Garland must prosecute and potentially convict all of the Trump underlings who assisted his illegal efforts, including members of Congress who asked for pardons.

Second, Trump must be indicted for crimes against the United States (or whatever is the appropriate legal language). At the same time, the Justice Department should make a concerted effort to educate the public about the overwhelming evidence for his conviction.

Third, before Trump heads to trial, Garland should offer him a compromise that avoids trial but precludes Trump from running for or holding public office. The compromise would include Trump making a live public statement apologizing to the American people for perpetuating lies about his election victory, the attempted overthrow and all the events related to Jan. 6, 2021.

Indicting Trump but avoiding a Trump trial is in our nation’s best interests. Nonetheless, the former president must be held accountable so America can move ahead and secure the integrity of future presidential elections.

“We need to get back to the solemn business of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States and the United States of America,” said retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig during his recent Jan. 6 committee testimony.

If not, our nation can expect chaos no matter which party wins in 2024.

Through the filter of history, Watergate is often associated with Nixon infamously saying, “I am not a crook.” And someday, Trump might one-up Nixon with this potential one-line zinger: “I did not stage a coup.”

Myra Adams writes about politics and religion for numerous publications. She is a RealClearPolitics contributor and served on the creative team of two GOP presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Follow her on Twitter @MyraKAdams.

Source: TEST FEED1

Liz Cheney: Trump ‘a domestic threat that we have never faced before’

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said late Wednesday that former President Trump poses a “domestic threat” that the nation has “never faced before.”

“At this moment, we are confronting a domestic threat that we have never faced before. And that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our Constitutional Republic,” Cheney said during an address at the Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute.

“And he is aided by Republican leaders and elected officials who have made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man.” 

Cheney said that some in the GOP are “embracing” Trump and “enabling his lies.”

“Many others are urging that we not confront Donald Trump, that we look away. And that is certainly the easier path,” she added.

“One need only look at the threats that are facing the witnesses who’ve come before the January 6th Committee to understand the nature and the magnitude of that threat.”

Cheney, one of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol, is one of two GOP members of the House select committee that is investigating the rioting. 

The panel earlier this week heard from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified about conversations between and interactions among White House officials on Jan. 6.

“Her superiors, men many years older, a number of them are hiding behind executive privilege, anonymity and intimidation,” Cheney said during her speech in California, referring to Hutchinson. “But her bravery and her patriotism yesterday were awesome to behold”

Cheney concluded in her remarks by saying no one can ignore the threat that Trump poses, adding “we stand at the edge of an abyss and we must pull back.” 

“As the full picture is coming into view with the January 6 committee, it has become clear that the efforts Donald Trump oversaw and engaged in were even more chilling and threatening than we could have imagined,” Cheney said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: Biden delivers remarks at end of NATO summit in Madrid

President Biden on Thursday will deliver remarks on the final day of the NATO summit from Madrid.

The event is scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. EST.

Watch live in the video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

Make no mistake, this is the ‘McConnell Court’

The Supreme Court’s just completed 2021 term marked a distinct turn toward the constitutional right and vision of the Federalist Society. There is no turning back, at least not in the near term. This is one of the youngest courts in over 100 years; its major constitutional decisions are likely to endure for a decade or more.

This is largely attributable to three most recent appointees: Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. In tandem with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court has a stable five-person majority — six when Chief Justice John Roberts joins them — steering it on politically salient issues of constitutional law. Many will attribute this result to President Trump, but that would be wrong. This isn’t “Donald Trump’s Court”; it is a court largely made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). And, for better or worse, it has brought the jurisprudential style of nearly 70 years to a hard stop.

The Dobbs v. Jackson decision reversing the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey abortion cases is a part of McConnell’s legacy, but it is far from its entirety. Since the presidency of Richard Nixon, Republicans have sought to shift the court away from its liberal jurisprudence. This is not so much about “judicial activism” — using judicial power to strike down legislation or reverse established precedents — as it is about shifting from liberal activism to conservative activism.

For example, a few days before reversing the Roe/Casey abortion right, the court struck down, by 6-3 votes, a New York State law requiring a permit to open carry firearms. And significantly, on Monday it lowered the “wall of separation between church and state” by formally overruling Lemon v. Kurtzman — a leading 1971 precedent — and protecting high school football coach Joseph Kennedy’s post-game prayer. The lowering of this “wall” was foreshadowed a week earlier when the court overturned a Maine law that prohibited expenditure of governmental funds to religious schools.

The leaked first draft of the Dobbs majority opinion and that case’s final disposition is part of the story of this term. It also highlights another element of this term’s story: the declining influence of the court’s chief justice. 

Although Roberts signed on to the New York gun case, the religion clause cases, and most of this term’s other ideologically charged 6-3 decisions, he is no longer the court’s fulcrum in highly contentious cases. There are five justices solidly on his jurisprudential right. No doubt they like having his vote, but they don’t need it. Where Roberts’s preferred approach to constitutional decision-making is slow and incremental, that of Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett is not. They appear to have little compunction against overturning precedents or distinguishing them into oblivion. Where prior courts took slow steps away from precedents they thought in error, this court seems much less inclined to do so. Thomas and Alito long have signaled that they were ready for hard and fast turns. Now they have the votes.

The decisions that define this term advance outcomes long desired by the Republican Party. The three Trump appointees have made the difference, cementing the ideological and jurisprudential shift that this term signifies. This was all made possible, however, by McConnell. He oversaw the Republican response to the contentious confirmation battle over Kavanaugh to successfully fill Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat on the bench. But even more impactful was McConnell’s role in the other two Trump nominations. After Justice Antonin Scalia’s death while Barack Obama was president, McConnell engineered the procedural delay in the Senate that culminated in Gorsuch’s successful confirmation early in Trump’s presidency. Upon the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he orchestrated the confirmation rush that enabled Barrett to take her oath of office on Oct. 26, 2020, nine days before President Biden’s election.

Had Attorney General Merrick Garland replaced Scalia and, say, incoming Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson replaced Ginsburg, we would be looking at a much different court. The decisions of this past term more than likely would have been vastly different. But the jurisprudential landscape of the Supreme Court has been reshaped and — with cases raising issues of voting rights, affirmative action and other hot-button political issues on the horizon — the constitutional terrain is likely to see more resculpting. 

The Federalist Society helped to author this constitutional redesign. The justices on the court will be the landscapers. But this reworking of the constitutional grounds is happening only because of McConnell’s political sagacity.

This no longer may be the “Roberts Court,” but it undoubtedly is the “McConnell Court.” That is the deeper story of this term.

Joseph F. Kobylka is an Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at SMU Dallas. A constitutional law expert, he teaches and writes about the Supreme Court.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five takeaways from the finalized House maps

The House battleground for 2022 is now finalized. 

All 50 states have enacted new political lines by which the fight for control of the House will be waged. New Hampshire became the last state to fully adopt new maps. And while legal challenges to other states’ maps are still playing out, they’re not going to change anything before the November elections.

Here are five takeaways from the latest redistricting cycle:

Democrats made some gains

Republicans may have gone into the redistricting cycle with a bigger say over the map-drawing process. But Democrats were actually the ones who increased their share of districts that lean in their direction. 

Under the new maps, there are 187 districts that lean Democratic – an increase of six over the old congressional lines. Republicans, meanwhile, ended the redistricting cycle with the same number of GOP-leaning districts that they started with.

The change for Democrats is largely due to aggressive map-drawing efforts in blue states like Illinois and Oregon. 

At the same time, a three-judge panel in North Carolina threw out a map passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature that it believed overly advantaged the GOP and replaced it with its own map that carved out one more Democratic-leaning seat.

Of course, legal challenges could change things up eventually. But the Democratic redistricting gains are set to stand for this year’s midterm elections. 

But Republicans still came out on top

While Democrats increased their share of favorable districts, Republicans are still poised to gain more ground overall.

That’s thanks in part to courts tossing out Democratic gerrymanders in blue states like New York and Maryland. The ruling in New York was a particularly tough one for Democrats, who saw their initial congressional map as a buffer against aggressive Republican gerrymanders elsewhere.

Republicans also pressed their advantage in states like Florida, where legislators approved a map pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis that created four more Republican leaning seats and cut away the number of competitive districts.

The ultimate outcome is that Republicans are now set to net three or four seats under the new lines. Given that the GOP needs to pick up just five seats this year to recapture control of the House, the party’s redistricting gains are likely to put them most of the way there.

The battlefield is shrinking

If there’s a central theme of the most recent redistricting cycle, it’s that House races are becoming less and less competitive. 

That’s not necessarily a new phenomenon. The number of so-called swing districts has trended downward for decades. In 1992, for instance, roughly 100 or so members of Congress were elected from these battleground districts. In 2022, that number looks to be somewhere around 40. 

The shrinking battlefield is largely the result of growing partisanship. Republicans, who control redistricting in more states than Democrats, drew new lines to protect their current holdings, while Democrats did the same in blue states. 

According to the data website FiveThirtyEight, there are now six fewer competitive House seats in this year’s midterm elections than there were the last time around. 

The result: candidates from both parties are more likely to find themselves running in more partisan – and, consequently, more favorable – districts. In effect, that increases the political payoff of running more partisan campaigns and disincentivizes bipartisanship and compromise in Washington. 

Minority representation took a hit

Emboldened by the most conservative Supreme Court in decades, Republicans used the redistricting cycle to challenge key tenets of the Voting Rights Act and its provision that every racial group must be given an equal chance to elect a candidate of their choice.

Consequently, the redistricting process largely failed to increase representation for people of color, despite the fact that those voters account for a growing share of the country’s population. 

In Florida, state lawmakers approved a congressional map that critics say dilutes the power of Black residents by effectively gutting the North Florida district held by Rep. Al Lawson (D-Fla.) and redrawing it into a solid Republican seat. 

Similar battles have played out in other states. In February, the Supreme Court halted a lower court’s decision to toss out Alabama’s new congressional map that it argued violated the VRA. The Supreme Court’s decision reinstated a Republican-drawn map that kept the number of majority-Black districts at one instead of two. 

And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court made a similar move with regard to Louisiana’s congressional map, putting a hold on a lower court’s order for the state to create a second majority-Black district. 

The map is still likely to change, but not before the midterms

With the Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate the GOP-drawn congressional lines in Louisiana, the maps in place today are the ones that the 2022 midterm elections will be conducted under.

But there are still some potential changes in the pipeline that could affect the country’s political lines for years to come. 

In one instance, the Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear an argument from North Carolina Republicans that the state’s Supreme Court did not have the authority to toss out the map approved by the GOP-controlled legislature, because drawing new political lines is a legislative responsibility and not a judicial one.

There are other pending cases, as well, including one before a mid-level appeals court in Florida. And in Ohio, the new political maps are also likely to be redrawn in the coming years.

All that’s to say, the maps that will determine the composition of Congress this year won’t be in place for the next decade. But for now, the midterm battlefield is set.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump’s electoral scheme allies caught in DOJ crosshairs

The same-day searches of lawyers John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark indicate the Justice Department (DOJ) is scrutinizing former President Trump’s closest allies in his 2020 election schemes. 

The two men were key figures in Trump’s efforts to unwind the election: Eastman was a Trump campaign attorney who drafted memos suggesting Vice President Mike Pence had the legal authority to buck his ceremonial duties to certify the election results, while Trump was prepared to install Clark, a DOJ lawyer, to forward investigations into his baseless claims of election fraud.

The FBI on June 22 went to Clark’s home in a “pre-dawn raid,” one of his associates said last week, while a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C. confirmed that there was law enforcement activity in the area of the former DOJ official’s suburban Virginia home that same day. 

Just hours later, FBI agents executed another search warrant on Eastman in New Mexico. 

“The actions by the FBI in conjunction with the Inspector General and Department of Justice are seemingly very significant for a broader criminal investigation that might very well directly implicate President Trump,” said Ryan Goodman, co-director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law, told The Hill. 

Court filings submitted by Eastman in an attempt to have his phone returned to him show that the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) sought the warrant. 

The inspector general’s office announced on Jan. 25, 2021 that it was launching an investigation into “whether any former or current DOJ official engaged in an improper attempt to have DOJ seek to alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election.” 

Little has emerged about the investigation since it was announced just two days after The New York Times first reported Trump’s plan to install Eastman as head of the DOJ.

“The investigation will encompass all relevant allegations that may arise that are within the scope of the OIG’s jurisdiction,” OIG said in a press release at the time. 

Clark, a longtime environmental lawyer, was prepared to send a letter to officials in Georgia and other key states asking them to hold off on certifying their election results so DOJ could investigate alleged voter fraud.

But the involvement of other aspects of the Justice Department indicate there could be a criminal component to the searches that go beyond reviewing Clark’s conduct as a DOJ employee.  

“It sounds as though the nucleus for this investigation is in part the Inspector General reviewing the conduct of Jeffrey Clark as a former Justice Department official and then it broadens out to others whose information might be relevant,” Goodman said. 

“But it’s very difficult to see how this investigation can steer clear of implicating Donald Trump if indeed they find that Jeffrey Clark himself engaged in crimes to try and overturn the election. The problem for the president is that he worked hand and glove with Clark as far as we know from all of the evidence.”  

The involvement of the DOJ’s watchdog, which typically operates independently of the rest of the department, adds a new wrinkle to what’s known about federal prosecutors’ Jan. 6 investigation. 

Michael Bromwich, who served as the Justice Department’s inspector general during the Clinton administration and as a prosecutor for the independent counsel that investigated the Iran-Contra scandal, says the developments indicate that the OIG is collaborating with the federal prosecutors conducting the broader Jan. 6 investigation.  

“They don’t do that without working with, partnering with, federal prosecution offices,” Bromwich said. “My guess is that these investigations have merged or are merging.” 

“I’m sure in this case, there has been close coordination and frequent communication between the prosecutors, the FBI and the OIG,” he added. 

Glenn Fine, who led DOJ OIG from 2000 to 2011, also noted that the office would typically pursue a subpoena, not a warrant, if conducting a purely administrative investigation rather than a criminal one. 

“It seems like they are working with the FBI. It sounds like this is either a coordinated or joint investigation and they’re typically led by a prosecutor or U.S. attorney, and so I would believe the OIG and FBI and the prosecutors are working either in coordinated fashion or joint fashion,” said Fine, who is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. 

“Typically if it’s an administrative matter you’d issue a subpoena rather than a search warrant so that does indicate at least they are looking at some criminal aspect of it – but it’s just an indication.” 

It’s unclear what prompted federal law enforcement to conduct the two searches. 

But according to a copy of the search warrant that Eastman filed in court this week, a federal magistrate judge authorized the seizure of his phone on June 17, the day after a select committee hearing revealed Eastman had asked Trump for a pardon in the final days of the administration. 

Bromwich said he believes the search warrant may have been prompted by the select committee’s public allegations. 

“It’s likely that the timing of the search was related to the select committee’s hearing,” he said. “The investigators may have thought the public airing of the allegations might increase the likelihood that he would be inclined to destroy evidence.” 

Eastman has asked a federal judge to order his phone be returned to him, challenging the search warrant and arguing the OIG has no authority to investigate him since he is not a current or former DOJ employee.  

But both Fine and Bromwich said the office has broad authority to conduct criminal investigations, including the ability to obtain the records of those who are not employed by the Justice Department.  

“They also have the authority to seize evidence as it relates to an attorney at the Department of Justice’s conduct. So while Eastman was not an attorney at the Department of Justice, if he has information related to an open matter that OIG has, they have the authority to seize that evidence,” Fine said. 

In a June 23 hearing, the select committee said it had obtained evidence linking Eastman and Clark through an attorney named Kenneth Klukowski, who worked at the DOJ for about a month at the end of the Trump administration.  

Klukowski was detailed to serve on Clark’s staff and helped him prepare a draft letter to Georgia officials that would have effectively thrown the department’s full force into investigating Trump’s allegations of elections fraud. 

Klukowski, now in private practice, issued a statement this week denying that he was a go-between for Clark and Eastman. 

“That accusation is false both in its broad outlines and its details,” he said. 

But the OIG’s seizure of Eastman’s phone suggests the department has established a reason to believe the lawyer at least possesses information regarding the internal DOJ scheme aimed at overturning the 2020 election. 

That again could lead back to Trump.  

Top Trump DOJ officials have testified that Clark told them he repeatedly met with the president, violating Justice Department policy about maintaining separation between the White House and the department. 

Call logs obtained by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol also found the two spoke repeatedly.  

“The two are so directly involved to the point that I do not know how the Justice Department would indict Clark on the basis of the evidence we have without one way or another defining President Trump as a co-conspirator. It’s very hard to accomplish that – if they indicted based on the evidence that we have,” Goodman said, noting there would be other exonerating evidence on Trump’s part that has not been presented. 

“But that seems like a stretch given that we have so much information. We have so much testimony. We have so many documents.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Enter Hillary Clinton? Trump, Roe prompt muted talk of White House run

Hillary Clinton is having her biggest I-told-you-so moment to date. 

The overturning of Roe v. Wade by a Supreme Court that includes three judges nominated by Donald Trump, along with devastating Tuesday testimony to the Jan. 6 panel about the former president’s temper tantrums as a mob attacked the Capitol, have Clinton and his allies seeing new vindication in her 2016 warnings about the mistake of electing Trump.

It’s made some wonder if a third bid for the White House for is possible. 

“This moment couldn’t be better for her,” said one former aide. “Everything she warned us about has happened, just as she said.”

One longtime adviser to Clinton said it’s in the realm of possibility if Biden chooses not to run. 

“I do not think she would challenge President Biden if he were to continue on the path of seeking reelection,” the longtime adviser said. “If he chose not to run, I imagine attention would focus on a number of potential candidates including Vice President [Kamala] Harris, of course but also Secretary Clinton, among others.

“I do think recent events have caused people to reflect anew on what happened in 2016, as to its impact on 2024, that’s harder to say,” the adviser said. 

The talk has been picked up in the media, partly because President Biden’s poll numbers are underwater and some Democrats have said he shouldn’t run for a second term due to his age.

Some Democrats have also acknowledged having a weak bench for the 2024 race. If Biden chooses not to run, some Democrats say they have their doubts about the viability of Harris against a candidate like Trump or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.  

Enter the discussion of Clinton. Again.

“The whispers of 2024 have started,” CNN’s Chris Cillizza wrote earlier this week, citing a John Ellis, a conservative writer, who made the case that Clinton’s moment is now.

Earlier this week, a report in the New York Times indicated that few of Biden’s advisers “think she will mount a challenge against him” if he chooses to run again in 2024. 

In recent interviews, Clinton has poured cold water on the question of another run. 

Asked in a Financial Times interview earlier this month if she plans to run again, Clinton replied, “No, out of the question.” 

“First of all, I expect Biden to run,” Clinton continued. “He certainly intends to run. It would be very disruptive to challenge that.”

During a CBS This Morning interview earlier this week, Clinton also batted down the prospects.

“You know, I can’t imagine it,” she said. “I really can’t.”

“That’s not a ‘no,’” the show’s host Gayle King replied.

“What I can imagine is staying as active and outspoken as I can because I think our country is really on the precipice,” Clinton answered, skipping over King’s aside. 

The former secretary of State issued stark warnings on Trump during the 2016 race. She warned that Trump “pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade” even as some Democrats accused her of using scare tactics to shore up votes. 

In an interview with Charlie Rose that year, she said her rival had “laid out the most dangerous, reckless approach to being president,” something she and her campaign aides reiterated throughout much of the general election campaign.  

“All the evidence was there,” said Democratic strategist Karen Finney, who served as a senior aide on Clinton’s last presidential campaign and doesn’t think another run is in the cards. “In 2016, we certainly tried to make the case for a vision and about the way forward that was about respecting differences and protecting our rights.” 

While Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes, she lost the electoral college to Trump after losing key states including Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin. With that in mind, as Democrats mourn the loss of the landmark case Roe v. Wade, there are some in the party who think a third Clinton run would be a mistake. She lost to Trump before, goes the reasoning.

“The reason we’re here in the first place is because Hillary Clinton lost to Trump,” said one Democratic strategist. “We blew it. Why would we do that again? It’s shooting ourselves in the foot.”

Years later, Clinton loyalists remain a tight unit. Earlier this month, several dozens of her former campaign aides gathered at a bar in Northern Virginia to celebrate the anniversary of the day Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination in 2016. The former nominee appeared by video to address her former aides, according to one attendee. 

There was no discussion at the get-together about a possible run, with many aides saying another presidential bid will likely never happen. 

Still, “we all are having that ‘I told you so’ moment,” the former aide said pointing to the news cycles of the last week. “She was the best candidate then and she would still be the best candidate now. 

“I firmly believe she would have made the best president,” the former aide added. “I still think she’d make a great president.” 

Source: TEST FEED1