Categories Uncategorized

Ocasio-Cortez mocks Fox News contributor's $28 Taco Bell lunch

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday evening mocked a Fox News contributor after he said high inflation made his lunch at Taco Bell total $28.

“You want to know how bad inflation is?” said Scott Martin, who is also the chief investment officer at Kingsview Partners.

“Yesterday, yes, I had a nice lunch at Taco Bell,” Martin continued during the appearance on Fox Business’s “Cavuto: Coast to Coast.” “It cost me about $28 at Taco Bell for lunch. People need to pay for those things and they do that by getting jobs and getting in the economy and getting active and getting involved.”

Ocasio-Cortez responded to the clip after it went viral on Twitter.

“If someone is talking politics and eating $28 of Taco Bell in one sitting, then my immediate follow up question is what their thoughts are on Biden’s executive order on cannabis rescheduling,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.

Neil Cavuto, the show’s host, also appeared to mock Martin’s claimed feat of spending $28 at the fast-food chain.

“Wait a minute, you spent $28 at Taco Bell for just yourself?” Cavuto asked.

“For lunch, yeah. It’s true,” Martin responded.

The Hill has reached out to Martin for comment.

The appearance came one day before the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest consumer price index, which found that prices rose faster than expected in September.

The consumer price index rose 0.4 percent in September and 8.2 percent over the past year, surpassing economists’ expectations of a 0.3 percent monthly gain and an 8.1 percent annual gain.

The measure is the latest sign of persistently strong inflation that hit a roughly 40-year high earlier this year. 

It is also likely to put pressure on the Federal Reserve to keep raising interest rates to cool off demand, furthering worries that such a move could tip the economy into a recession.

Source: TEST FEED1

Saudi Arabia dismisses US criticism of oil production cut

Saudi Arabia has dismissed criticism from the U.S. about the kingdom’s decision with OPEC+ to cut oil production.

In a statement on Thursday attributed to the Saudi foreign ministry, an official said the decision to cut oil production was solely based on “economic considerations” and that all members of the OPEC+ coalition unanimously agreed to the decision.

The statement said U.S. criticism of the decision was “politically motivated.” 

The OPEC+ announcement earlier this month that it will cut oil production by 2 million barrels per day has led to fury among Democratic lawmakers.

Democrats and some Republicans argue the move will raise gas prices in the U.S. while offering a cushion to Russia, another major oil producer, as it fights a war in Ukraine.

The White House has signaled it will reexamine the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia given the decision.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby on Thursday pushed back on the Saudi foreign ministry statement, saying it “can try to spin or deflect, but the facts are simple.” He said that other OPEC+ nations have communicated to the U.S. privately that they disagree with the Saudi decision “but felt coerced to support” it.

“In recent weeks, the Saudis conveyed to us – privately and publicly – their intention to reduce oil production, which they knew would increase Russian revenues and blunt the effectiveness of sanctions.  That is the wrong direction,” Kirby said in a statement on Thursday. “We presented Saudi Arabia with analysis to show that there was no market basis to cut production targets, and that they could easily wait for the next OPEC meeting to see how things developed.”

The U.S. had sought to keep Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC+ nations from cutting production at a time of high inflation, and the decision was seen by many as Saudi Arabia siding with Moscow over the Biden administration.

Democrats in Congress were particularly angry given Saudi Arabia’s human rights record and the murder of Washington Post opinion journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. The killing has been widely blamed on the top leadership of Saudi Arabia.

The production cut came months after President Biden made his controversial visit to Saudi Arabia in an effort to appeal to the kingdom to increase oil production. 

“The Kingdom affirms that the outcomes of the OPEC+ meetings are adopted through consensus among member states, and that they are not based on the unilateral decision by a single country,” the foreign ministry official said in a statement. “These outcomes are based purely on economic considerations that take into account maintaining balance of supply and demand in the oil markets, as well as aim to limit volatility that does not serve the interests of consumers and producers, as has been always the case within OPEC+.”

The ministry official also denied accusations the kingdom’s decision to cut oil production was an effort to support Russia, adding that the Saudi government strives to preserve healthy relationships with each country while rejecting “any dictates, actions, or efforts to distort its noble objectives to protect the global economy from oil market volatility.”

“The Kingdom affirms that it view its relationship with the United States of America as a strategic one that serves the common interests of both countries. The Kingdom also stresses the importance of building on the solid pillars upon which the Saudi-US relationship had stood over the past eight decades,” the ministry said. 

“These pillars include mutual respect, enhancing common interests, actively contributing to preserve regional and international peace and security, countering terrorism and extremism, and achieving prosperity for the peoples of the region.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would suspend all U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia for one year in response to the OPEC+ decision to cut oil production.

Alex Gangitano contributed. Updated at 11:07 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Social Security Administration announces 8.7 percent COLA hike, largest in 40 years

Social Security beneficiaries can expect to see an 8.7 percent increase in their monthly checks beginning in 2023. 

The figure is the highest cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) issued by the Social Security Administration in 40 years. 

The boost will help recipients, many of whom are retirees, meet higher costs on goods and services driven by rising inflation. 

Each year, COLAs are automatically applied based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

The COLA is equal to the percent increase the Senior Citizens League, a bipartisan advocacy group, estimated in September. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Between 2010 and 2020, average annual COLAs increased by just 1.7 percent, while COLAs have only risen above 8.7 percent three times — between 1979 and 1981 at 9.9 percent, 14.3 percent and 11.2 percent, respectively. 

In 1980, inflation was above 14 percent yet declined to 3.5 percent in the latter half of the decade; the COLA followed suit, declining to 5.4 percent in 1990.  

The adjustments are intended to improve buying power of the nearly 70 million Americans who receive Social Security benefits. 

For the average retiree, monthly benefits come out to around $1,656, and the 8.7 percent increase means these beneficiaries may see $144 extra cash in each payment, beginning in 2023. 

“Social Security is the largest source of retirement income for most Americans and provides nearly all income for one in four seniors,” AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins said in a statement.

“The guaranteed benefits provided by Social Security, including the annual COLA, are more crucial than ever as high inflation remains a problem for older Americans.”

Data from July show more than half of older women living alone are poor according to federal poverty standards or don’t have enough money to afford essential expenses. That total is lower for men, at 45 percent. 

A large proportion of retirees’ Social Security incomes goes towards housing, food, and health care costs, but for seniors also on Medicare, additional financial relief for the latter expense will come in the form of lower Part B premiums in 2023. 

Part B premiums are automatically deducted from Social Security checks. The low uptake of the expensive, controversial Alzheimer’s drug aduhelm will result in a larger financial cushion for dual Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries next year.

However, the extra cash in hand could push some seniors over income thresholds, meaning they could be taxed on their Social Security benefits. 

Single filers who have a combined income equal to or below $25,000 pay no taxes on their benefits. For joint filers, the threshold is $32,000.  

The majority of Social Security is funded through Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes and a looming recession resulting in high unemployment rates could threaten COLAs down the line. Following the 2008 recession, no COLAs were paid in 2010 and 2011. 

–Updated at 8:58 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Hill's Morning Report — Trump will be front and center at today's Jan. 6 hearing

Former President Trump was repeatedly alerted to mounting violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol and did not seek to end it, according to findings to be televised this afternoon by the House select committee investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Secret Service records show the former president was made aware of the escalation at the Capitol and continued to stoke the conflict, sources told The Washington Post. 

The committee is expected to share new video footage and emails that appear to corroborate some of the most startling accounts of that day. The evidence will tie Trump directly to efforts to overturn election results, including the violence that took place at the Capitol as the official Electoral College tally was underway among lawmakers and Vice President Pence, according to committee members.

“This is not ancient history we’re talking about. This is a continuing threat,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told CNN. “I think the single most urgent question is … what is the continuing clear and present danger we face now from the forces that Donald Trump unleashed?”

The panel at 1 p.m. will delve into Trump’s state of mind on Jan. 6 as members tie up loose ends before the panel’s dissolution at the end of the year, The Hill’s Rebecca Beitsch and Mike Lillis report. Over the course of 16 months, House investigators presented damning evidence that revealed the extent to which the former president and his inner circle sought to keep him in office despite his election defeat.

But the panel now faces the daunting task of turning the reams of evidence — gleaned from tens of thousands of documents and more than 1,000 witness interviews — into a concise closing argument that Trump and his supporters pose an ongoing threat to democracy.

“We discovered through our work through this summer what the president’s intentions were, what he knew, what he did, what others did,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the committee, told CNN on Tuesday.

The committee must also decide whether to make criminal referrals to the Justice Department based on its findings. The department is conducting its own investigation into the events surrounding Jan. 6.

Information about how to watch the hearing live at 1 p.m. can be found HERE.

Today’s hearing marks a return to the stage for Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who will attend her first hearing as a lame-duck lawmaker, writes The Hill’s Mychael Schnell. Cheney this summer overwhelmingly lost her primary to a Trump-backed challenger.

Cheney frequently criticized Trump and knocked her Republican colleagues for standing beside him after the Capitol riot. But today’s hearing marks the first time the committee will present that argument after one of their own lost an election to a candidate who was supported by Trump and his allies and believes the 2020 election was tainted by fraud.

Related Articles

▪ The Hill: Five things to watch during today’s Jan. 6 hearing.

▪ The Washington Post: Violent threats against Jan. 6 witnesses spread on fringe sites.

▪ CNN: The Secret Service recently provided Jan. 6 committee additional 1.5 million communications.

▪ Yahoo News: The number of Republicans who believe Trump’s “big lie” has fallen since the Jan. 6 hearings.

LEADING THE DAY 

➤ POLITICS

President Biden on Wednesday began a swing out West, joining Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D), a candidate for reelection, for a designation on a brisk sunny day in the Centennial State of the first national monument of Biden’s presidency (The Denver Post and The Colorado Sun).

With a nod to veterans and history, Biden established Camp Hale, a former high-altitude World War II training camp near Leadville, Colo., as 53,804 acres of mountainous beauty now under monument protection.

Biden will be in Los Angeles today, raising money for House candidates, and in Orange County, Calif., on Friday to tout Democrats’ legislative achievements since his inauguration. Later Friday and on Saturday, he’ll be in Portland, Ore., to try to boost the fortunes of Democratic candidates, including gubernatorial candidate Tina Kotek (Willamette Week and Politico Playbook).

Senate candidates in two states are scheduled to debate today. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R) and challenger Mandela Barnes (D) will spar for a second time this evening in Madison. Competing for Vermont’s Senate seat are Rep. Peter Welch (D) and Republican Gerald Malloy, a retired U.S. Army major and businessman, during a noon debate hosted by Vermont PBS.

Friday’s high-profile Senate debate is scheduled in Georgia between Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) and Republican challenger and political newcomer Herschel Walker. Here’s how to watch the 7 p.m. event in Savannah on Friday, hosted by Nexstar, parent company of The Hill. 

▪ The Hill: Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) has made comments about race and crime that reverberate loudly on the campaign trail.  

▪ The Hill: NBC interview draws new scrutiny over the health of Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman (D).

▪ The Hill: Five female progressive rising stars to watch in 2024. 

▪ The Washington Post: A Mar-a-Lago witness told the FBI that Trump ordered boxes of documents moved to his residence after receiving a government subpoena.

Follow the money. A federal watchdog is investigating whether Florida improperly tapped coronavirus response funds to fly migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., part of a widening federal inquiry into states that put federal pandemic dollars toward controversial immigration crackdowns. The inspector general for the Treasury Department confirmed its new interest in a letter sent last week to Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and other members of Congress who had expressed concern that the spending approved by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) “violates federal law.” The governor has said he has tapped $12 million in state funds to transport immigrants and asylum seekers arriving in Texas to Democratic-governed cities and states (The Washington Post).

IN FOCUS/SHARP TAKES

➤ COURTS

A federal judge denied Trump’s motion to pause proceedings in a defamation suit against him, ordering him to sit for a deposition next week in the case of a woman who accused him of rape. 

In her lawsuit, E. Jean Carroll accused the former president of raping her at a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. Trump, in response, accused Carroll of lying and made remarks criticizing her appearance (The Hill).

Infowars founder Alex Jones must pay nearly $1 billion in damages to eight families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting, a judge ruled Wednesday. An FBI agent also is to receive damages. Jones had for years falsely claimed the massacre of 20 children and six adults was a hoax (The New York Times).

Jones, who was found guilty of defamation, cheered the judge’s ruling on his program, calling the $965 million decision “a joke” and suggesting his intention to appeal. Jones was found liable for violating Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act by using lies about the shooting to sell products on Infowars. There is no cap on punitive damages under that law. Jones lost a previous defamation lawsuit brought by Sandy Hook parents and faces another such trial.

“They want to scare everybody away from freedom, and scare us away from questioning Uvalde [Texas] and what really happened there, or Parkland [Florida] or any other event. And guess what? We’re not scared, and we’re not going away, and we’re not going to stop,” he said on “The Alex Jones Show.”

The New York Times: “We told the truth”: Sandy Hook families win $1 billion from Alex Jones.

➤ CONGRESS

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) met Wednesday in New York City with Mayor Eric Adams (D), who is struggling with an influx of migrants transported to the city by Republican governors in Texas, Arizona and Florida. Pelosi told reporters that Biden and Congress must do more to secure U.S. borders while acknowledging the absence of bipartisan consensus to address the problems in the House and Senate. 

“What we must do in our country is to have comprehensive immigration reform. We all know that we must secure our border, that’s our responsibility as a country,” Pelosi said while visiting a senior center in Queens (New York Post). 

“It’s a new phenomenon,” she said of the migration surge and the recent transport by bus and chartered planes of asylum seekers to blue states and cities beyond the border. “The answer to almost every problem is to have comprehensive immigration reform. We can’t get that under the present set of circumstances. Short of that though, we’ll have to address the issue,” she added. 

Pelosi, during a pre-recorded interview airing this morning with SiriusXM host Zerlina Maxwell, said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas “should be recusing himself from every decision that relates to Jan. 6th” because of the involvement of his wife, Ginni Thomas, in seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Ginni Thomas voluntarily testified to the House Jan. 6 panel and told investigators she did not talk to her husband about her election activities, which included texts and communications with top White House officials. Pelosi commended the committee for investigating Ginni Thomas’s role and potential conflicts affecting the high court.

“People say, ‘oh, well, it’s up to the justice,’” Pelosi continued. “Well, it’s up to him and he should have better judgment as a justice of the Supreme Court.”   

🌀 Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who opposed what he calls “pork” in previous disaster assistance requests (i.e. Hurricane Sandy) and is in a tough race for reelection, wants $33 billion in federal emergency supplemental disaster funding for his state because of the impact of Hurricane Ian. “Given the scale and scope of the disaster, by some measures the fifth strongest hurricane to ever hit the United States, the federal government has an important role to play in facilitating Florida’s recovery. I plan to make sure our state receives the emergency relief it needs to fully rebuild,” he said (The Washington Post).

OPINION

■ The powerful legacy of the Jan. 6 committee, by Walter Shapiro, columnist, Roll Call. https://bit.ly/3g3FQFU 

■ Scandal in L.A. and questions in Florida sit at the nexus of race and power, by Philip Bump, national columnist, The Washington Post. https://wapo.st/3VkhO9Y

WHERE AND WHEN

The House meets at 11:30 a.m. on Friday for a pro forma session. Members are scheduled to return to the Capitol on Nov. 14. The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack holds a 1 p.m. public hearing. ​​

The Senate convenes Friday at 11:30 a.m. for a pro forma session. Senators make their way back to Washington on Nov. 14.  

The president is in Los Angeles where he will speak about public transit at 11:15 a.m. PDT and then headline a political event for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at 7:45 p.m. local time. Pelosi will join Biden in Brentwood, where DCCC tickets range from $5,000 per person up to $50,000 per couple (Deadline).

Vice President Harris will deliver remarks at 11:20 a.m. during a White House event about U.S. infrastructure. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets at 9:30 a.m. with Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard in Washington. The secretary delivers opening remarks during the U.S.-Mexico High-Level Security Dialogue at 10:30 a.m. at the department. Blinken, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas at noon host a U.S.-Mexico High-Level Security Dialogue working lunch, followed by a press conference at 1:30 p.m. that also includes Mexican Security Secretary Rosa Rodriguez. The secretary at 6:15 p.m. will speak at a signing ceremony for a new memorandum of understanding with the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will join a 7:30 a.m. breakfast hosted by Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman among G20 finance ministers gathered in Washington, then join a meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors. Yellen will meet at 2:30 p.m. with European Commission Executive Vice-President and Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis and European Commissioner for Economy Paolo Gentiloni at the International Monetary Fund. She will participate in an early warning exercise carried out by an IMF committee at 4:30 p.m.

Economic indicators: The Bureau of Labor Statistics at 8:30 a.m. will report the consumer price index for September. The data is expected to show little improvement in the year’s sky-high inflation exceeding 8 percent (MarketWatch). The Labor Department at 8:30 a.m. will report filings for unemployment benefits in the week ending Oct. 8. The Social Security Administration will announce a hefty cost-of-living increase for 2023 to be applied to benefits received by tens of millions of Americans (The New York Times).

First lady Jill Biden flies to Georgia this evening to visit service members and military families at U.S. Army Fort Benning and the Maneuver Center of Excellence in Fort Benning. She will join military families for dinner and deliver remarks at the National Infantry Museum at 6:45 p.m.

🎂 Second gentleman Doug Emhoff celebrates his 59th birthday!

ELSEWHERE

➤ INTERNATIONAL 

The United States and allies are pushing to get Ukraine additional air defenses to use against Russian attacks as fast as possible, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in Brussels on Wednesday while emphasizing U.S. long-term commitments to Ukraine (The Washington Post).

Yahoo News/AP: U.S. weapons systems Ukraine will or won’t get.

Russia’s missile bombardments of civilians and nonmilitary targets throughout Ukraine since the weekend’s truck-bomb damage to an important Russian bridge compelled NATO defense ministers to search for new ideas in the face of emerging risks to Ukraine and the region resulting from Russia’s war.

“Allies have provided air defense, but we need even more. We need different types of air defense, short-range, long-range air defense systems to take (out) ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, different systems for different tasks,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said.

Officials from 50 nations meeting want to discuss how to press regional defense industries in order to replenish weapon stocks donated to Kyiv’s forces since February (Defense One).

▪ Reuters: Russian missiles target more than 40 Ukrainian cities, towns.

▪ The Hill: Rising nuclear fears spur debate over red lines in the Ukraine war.

French President Emmanuel Macron was among world leaders who committed to deliver radar and air defense systems to Ukraine in coming weeks (Reuters).

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Europe is to blame for its energy crisis because of policies that he asserts starved the industry of investment as European Union states struggle to agree on a proposed price cap on Russian natural gas to offset the impact on consumers (Reuters).

▪ The New York Times: The U.S. considers easing oil sanctions on Venezuela as a way to try to stem the tide of migration fleeing an unstable government.

▪ The Hill: The Department of Homeland Security expands a Trump-era policy to Venezuelans while opening a new pathway to the United States.

▪ Bloomberg News: The Biden administration is considering a total ban on Russian aluminum.

▪ The New York Times: Biden’s new national security strategy document focuses on China, Russia and U.S. democracy.

➤ PANDEMIC & HEALTH 

The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday approved bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccines doses for children ages 5 to 11. The agency granted emergency approval of Moderna’s booster for children as young as 6 and approval of Pfizer’s version for children as young as 5 (The Hill).

“Since children have gone back to school in person and people are resuming pre-pandemic behaviors and activities, there is the potential for increased risk of exposure to the virus that causes COVID-19,” said Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Vaccination remains the most effective measure to prevent the severe consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death.”

Information about COVID-19 vaccine and booster availability can be found HERE.

Europe is entering a new wave of COVID-19, according to a joint Wednesday statement from the World Health Organization and the European Center for Disease Control. Weekly reported cases on the continent started to rise in September, WHO data shows. The new wave of infection is concerning to experts, but not entirely surprising, as COVID-19 moves into an endemic seasonal pattern with spikes in the winter (NBC’s Today.com).

▪ The Atlantic: Medium COVID-19 could be the most dangerous COVID-19.

▪ The Washington Post: Large study provides powerful evidence of long COVID-19’s lasting impact.

Total U.S. coronavirus deaths reported as of this morning, according to Johns Hopkins University (trackers all vary slightly): 1,064,058. Current average U.S. COVID-19 daily deaths are 338, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

THE CLOSER

Take Our Morning Report Quiz

And finally … It’s Thursday, which means it’s time for this week’s Morning Report Quiz! Inspired by the upcoming midterm elections, we’re eager for some smart guesses about October surprises in history.

Email your responses to asimendinger@thehill.com and/or kkarisch@thehill.com, and please add “Quiz” to subject lines. Winners who submit correct answers will enjoy some richly deserved newsletter fame on Friday.

​​In the final days of the 2000 presidential election, what news report drawn from the past about candidate George W. Bush forced him to do damage control?

1. A 1976 arrest for DUI

2. Former voter registration as a Democrat

3. Alleged tax evasion scheme

4. Experience as a Yale University cheerleader

Former Republican President William Howard Taft’s doomed 1912 reelection campaign faced which blow a week before Election Day?

1. The president’s chief of staff was found guilty of tax fraud

2. Former President Theodore Roosevelt, running on the Bull Moose ticket, was endorsed by the Republican Party

3. Vice President James Sherman died 

4. Taft missed the final week of campaign events because he was sick

With seven weeks left in the 2012 campaign, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was recorded belittling _____ while speaking to a donor audience?

1. Democrats

2. “47 percent” of voters he said would back President Obama 

3. Consultants at Bain & Company

4. “Wishy washy” undecided voters

In the final weeks of the 1968 presidential race, Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon sought to influence U.S. policy by  _____?  

1. Promoting a sweeping plan for infrastructure funding

2. Secretly sabotaging President Lyndon Johnson’s plans to stage Vietnam peace talks

3. Supporting anti-Vietnam War protests

4. Promoting single-payer health insurance

Stay Engaged

We want to hear from you! Email: Alexis Simendinger and Kristina Karisch. Follow us on Twitter (@asimendinger and @kristinakarisch) and suggest this newsletter to friends!

Rising nuclear fears spur debate over red lines in Ukraine war 

Mounting fears that Russian President Vladimir Putin could resort to a nuclear weapon to stem his losses in Ukraine have prompted debate about what are the real “red lines” for Moscow and Washington.  

Putin has made only general threats to use nukes if Russia is attacked, though it’s unclear what that means given Moscow’s expanding claims of Ukrainian territory.  

The United States, in response, has pledged “catastrophic consequences” if Putin goes nuclear, but President Biden in an interview Wednesday declined to offer any details about a U.S. response.  

Several U.S. officials and experts offered support for the strategic ambiguity behind Biden’s comments.  

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Biden should be clear that if Putin takes the nuclear route, the U.S. “will not feel constrained to basically provide direct support to the Ukrainians to be able to ultimately win this war and defeat Putin.” 

He also said that Biden’s dire if unspecific warnings speak loudly.  

“The president is talking about Armageddon, he’s talking about catastrophic consequences. I cannot imagine that if Putin uses a nuclear weapon that that doesn’t take the nuclear genie out of the bottle,” he told The Hill.  

Several security analysts who spoke to The Hill on Wednesday said being ambiguous gives the Pentagon and White House necessary flexibility.  

“What you don’t want to do is to say very specifically ‘if A then B,’ because then what you do is you allow Putin to kind of have that calculation,” said Steven Horrell, a former U.S. naval intelligence officer now with the Center for European Policy Analysis. 

He said the administration’s current stance of being clear there will be consequences but not relaying specifics will “hopefully deter that action — a tactical nuclear [weapon] or other in Ukraine,” but doesn’t pin the U.S. to any ultimatums.  

U.S. presidents have learned painful lessons in the past from drawing too bright of red lines.  

“Red lines is, I think, a very scary word in Washington, particularly following President Obama and the red lines supposedly drawn in Syria, and a lot of politicians and also leaders will shy away from that,” said Monica Montgomery, a policy analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.  

Obama delivered a speech in 2012 promising to intervene in the Syrian civil war if Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces used chemical weapons, but then didn’t follow through when those weapons were deployed a year later, which critics said emboldened Assad in crushing his opponents.  

Montgomery said red lines can also be read as permitting other brutal actions.  

“I think Putin’s already extremely aware of the risks that nuclear use would bring NATO into the theater,” she said, adding it was still wise to leave room to maneuver, as some theoretical uses of nuclear weapons may not justify such a drastic response.  

Drawing red lines runs the risk of escalation by locking both sides into a dangerous tit-for-tat, argued Mathieu Droin, a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

“If at some point the U.S. finds itself in a position where it has to respond, clearly that’s a trigger for escalation,” he said.  

However, Droin said there is value in discrete discussions with Russia about the “limits and the risks” of its activities in Ukraine to “manage the risk of escalation.” 

Moscow has repeatedly suggested red lines during the war, warning against long-range U.S. missiles near Russia’s border, saying that an attack on Crimea would elicit a “Judgment Day” response and most recently suggesting that attacks on newly annexed territories of Ukraine will not be tolerated.  

So far, increased Western support for Kyiv and continued Ukrainian gains in annexed territories have not spurred an extraordinary response from Russia.  

Jeremy Shapiro, director of research at the European Council on Foreign Relations, warned against underestimating the Kremlin’s nuclear threats in an article for War on the Rocks this week — especially if Russia’s losses continue and Putin becomes convinced the future of his rule is at risk.  

“Experts on the Russian military have long suspected that Russian nuclear signaling is an elaborate bluff meant to instill fear and caution in a weak-willed Western enemy,” he wrote. “But events in Ukraine and the possibility of a catastrophic military loss may have changed that calculation. Nobody really knows. It is likely that the Russians don’t know either.” 

Chris Miller, a Russia expert at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, argued that Putin has not communicated “clear” and “credible” red lines, which he said is a good sign in terms of Moscow’s readiness to use a nuclear weapon.    

“It’s dangerous to draw a line if you’re Putin, because if a line gets crossed you have to act or you lose your credibility,” he said.  

The West has largely avoided steps that could lead to direct confrontation, with the U.S. refusing calls to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and NATO only now considering air defense systems that Kyiv has long been calling for.  

In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Tuesday, Biden would only say that red lines have been discussed within the administration and gamed out by the Pentagon.  

“There’s been discussions of that, but I’m not going to get into that. It would be irresponsible of me to talk about what we would or wouldn’t do,” he said.  

Biden added that he believed Putin was a rational actor who had “totally miscalculated” when he invaded Ukraine. 

Other officials have not been so vague on what a potential response from the West would be. 

A ​senior NATO official on Wednesday said any Russian use of nuclear weapons would “almost certainly be drawing a physical response from many allies, and potentially from NATO itself,” according to a press officer, as reported by CNN. 

That echoed a prediction from former CIA Director and retired Gen. David Petraeus, who said the U.S. would respond to a Russian nuclear attack by leading a NATO effort “that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.” 

Ahead of any major military move by Russia or the West, the U.S. and its allies are currently focused on outfitting Ukraine with systems to bolster its air defenses. 

Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Wednesday said the West needs to give Kyiv such systems in order for the embattled nation to help defend its airspace against attacks from Russian forces. 

“What needs to be done here by all the various countries that were at the conference today is chip in and help them rebuild and sustain an integrated air and missile defense system,” Milley told reporters following a Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in Brussels. 

He added that different systems owned by several countries, including Germany and Israel, should be provided to Ukraine and used in combination to protect its skies.   

“I think it’s actions that count a hell of a lot more than words at this point,” Panetta, the former Defense secretary, said. “And I think if the United States and our NATO allies continue to provide support to the Ukrainians and provide the more advanced weapons — particularly air defense weapons that Ukraine needs — that says a lot right there.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

After defeat at Trump's hands, Cheney returns to Jan. 6 dais to make case against him

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) will return to the center of the Jan. 6 stage on Thursday when she sits at the dais for her first select committee hearing since losing her reelection bid to a Trump-backed candidate this summer.

Cheney has used her perch as vice chair of the panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol to lay out the case that former President Trump was at the center of a conspiracy to keep himself in power and was ultimately responsible for what happened that day.

But Thursday’s hearing, which is scheduled for 1 p.m., marks the first time the committee will assert that argument since one of its own, Cheney, was defeated by Trump, his allies and the movement that believes the 2020 presidential election was tainted by fraud.

Cheney, a three-term congresswoman who hails from a Republican political dynasty, lost her primary by more than 30 points in August to Wyoming attorney Harriet Hageman, a Cheney ally turned adversary who has called the 2020 presidential election “rigged” and “a travesty.”

Despite running for reelection in a ruby-red state that Trump handily won in 2016 and 2020, Cheney largely staked her campaign on the idea that claims of fraud in the 2020 election are a threat to democracy and that the lead advocate of the conspiracy theory — the former president — is a threat to the nation.

In her closing campaign ad, Cheney called the election fraud movement “a cancer that threatens our great republic” and labeled it “poisonous lies.”

Undeterred by defeat, Cheney will continue her campaign against Trump on Thursday. But this time around it has a personal tone to it — she is taking on the movement that changed the trajectory of her political career and put an expiration date on her tenure in Congress.

Cheney’s primary loss marked the culmination of her year-plus crusade against Trump, which began when she came out against his claims of election fraud and voted for impeachment following the Capitol riot and reached a boiling point after she joined the select committee investigating the rampage.

GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) also voted for impeachment and sits on the committee, but he opted not to run for reelection, leaving Cheney as the sole Republican investigating Jan. 6 and simultaneously trying to court Republican voters.

Throughout that period, the Wyoming Republican has directed pointed criticism at the former president and their party, vowing to do “whatever it takes” to keep Trump out of office and accusing GOP leaders of being “willing hostages” to him.

Now, with her reelection bid in the rearview mirror, Cheney is sharpening her criticism and taking it to a whole new level — on the other side of the aisle.

In recent weeks, the Wyoming conservative has lent herself to Democrats, offering to campaign and even vote for left-leaning candidates running against election-denying Republicans.

Take, for example, Kari Lake, a Republican running for governor in Arizona, and Mark Finchem, the GOP nominee for secretary of state, both of whom have pushed Trump’s false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

“For almost 40 years now I’ve been voting Republican. I don’t know that I have ever voted for a Democrat. But if I lived in Arizona now I absolutely would … for governor and for secretary of state,” Cheney said during a McCain Institute event at Arizona State University last week.

“We cannot be in a position where we elect people who will not fundamentally uphold the sanctity of elections, and I think that’s got to be, you know, more important than anything else,” she added.

One week before, Cheney told a crowd at the Texas Tribune Festival that she is “going to do everything” she can “to make sure that Kari Lake is not elected,” which includes campaigning for Democrats, if necessary.

Thursday’s Jan. 6 hearing will give Cheney perhaps her last, best platform to present this perspective to the American people and potentially her final chance to speak to a large, widespread audience through the bully pulpit that comes as a sitting lawmaker.

Cheney’s loss, and her reemergence on the Jan. 6 stage, also marks a new phase in an evolution of sorts for the congresswoman and scion of former Vice President Dick Cheney, a figure highly regarded in conservative circles.

When she first came out against Trump, Cheney — at the time the No. 3 Republican in the House — likely did so with the thought that she, the child of a revered conservative icon, could stave off some Trump-aligned elements of the GOP, salvage what was left of the establishment foundation and bring the party back to the one her father helped lead.

But her name, conservative bona fides and support from the “old guard” of the Republican Party were not enough to slow down or stop the momentum of the Trump wing of the party, which grew in popularity and influence throughout the 45th president’s tenure in Washington.

That became clear in August, when Trump and his allies led Hagemen to victory.

Cheney now appears to be grappling with where she belongs in the fractured political landscape.

“I’m going to make sure Donald Trump, I’m going to do everything I can to make sure he’s not the nominee. And if he is the nominee, I won’t be a Republican,” Cheney said at the Texas Tribune Festival when asked about her party affiliation in the next election.

While Cheney’s days as a congresswoman are numbered, she has vowed to continue her campaign against Trump and his election fraud claims.

“To accept, honorably, the outcome of elections. And tonight, Harriet Hageman has received the most votes in this primary. She won. I called her to concede the race. This primary election is over. But now the real work begins,” Cheney said the night of her race.

“So, I ask you tonight to join me. As we leave here, let us resolve that we will stand together — Republicans, Democrats and independents — against those who would destroy our republic,” she later added.

It is unclear what form that newfound campaign will take.

The morning after she lost, Cheney in an interview said she is “thinking about” a White House bid. Her spokesperson also said she is planning to launch an organization “to educate the American people about the ongoing threat to our Republic, and to mobilize a unified effort to oppose any Donald Trump campaign for president.”

Her comments and post-election moves are fueling talk of a potential independent bid for the White House in 2024.

According to a poll from The Economist and YouGov, Cheney’s favorability rating among Democrats far outpaces her approval among Republicans. Sixty-four percent of Democrats said they had a favorable opinion of Cheney, compared to just 15 percent of Republicans.

Asked during an event at Syracuse University this month if it is “painful” to have liberal Democrats in her corner as a lifelong Republican, Cheney responded, “I’m not choosy these days,” letting out a laugh.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five things to watch for at Thursday’s Jan. 6 hearing 

The House panel investigating last year’s attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold its ninth hearing Thursday, the latest in a series of open forums aimed to demonstrate that former President Trump sought to remain in power illicitly following his 2020 election defeat. 

In a break from the past, this week’s hearing is not expected to present any live witnesses. Instead, it will feature fresh evidence and testimony the committee has received in the long gap since its last public meeting, including new records from the Secret Service revealing that Trump was warned of the potential for violence at the Capitol before it erupted.  

Here are five things to watch as the hearing unfolds.  

What did Trump know — and when? 

Trump has decried the Jan. 6 committee on multiple occasions, calling the investigation against him a “witch hunt.”

Through the course of the long investigation, Trump has repeatedly claimed he was unaware of the extent of the violence unfolding at the Capitol until hours after it had begun, when he finally released a video from the White House asking the rioters to go home. 

That argument has been disputed by numerous members of his administration, who told investigators that Trump was watching the rampage unfold on television and refused to intervene. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former West Wing aide, had testified previously that Trump knew some of his supporters were armed on Jan. 6, but he urged them to march on the Capitol anyway.  

The committee will attempt to build on that narrative on Thursday, when it says it will delve into Trump’s thinking on Jan. 6.  

As part of that effort, the committee is expected to air new records from the Secret Service revealing that Trump was aware of the heightened potential for violence but continued to rile his supporters with false claims of a “stolen” election.  

The Secret Service, which had had a front-row seat to both the then-president’s actions and the general security threat that day, has been a crucial part of the investigation. But the agency was embroiled in controversy after revelations that many of the text messages sent between front-line agents in the days surrounding Jan. 6 had been deleted.  

Since the last hearing, the Secret Service has provided the committee with a massive trove of documents related to the attack — records that are expected to be featured on Thursday. 

“We’ve had a huge amount of documents from the Secret Service that we’re going through,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the committee, told CNN on Friday. “And we’ve found some new things that we’ll be able to present.” 

A question of momentum 

The panel is running out of time to make its case as midterm elections loom.

Thursday’s forum marks the first time the nine-member Jan. 6 committee will air its findings in public since July — a nearly three-month pause that’s raised questions about whether it has lost momentum.  

Since Congress left Washington for the long August recess, the public’s attention has shifted to a number of other issues, raising pressure on the panel to pick up the narrative thread it left behind in July.  

Before the hiatus, investigators had laid out a case that Trump had been told by top officials in his own administration that the election was fairly lost, but had ignored their counsel to amplify false claims of rampant fraud while encouraging thousands of his supporters to march on the Capitol. He then sat silently for hours while a violent mob tried to block Congress from formalizing Joe Biden’s victory. 

Lofgren is promising that the panel on Thursday will deliver the goods.  

“We hope that this will … help fill in some of the gaps for the public,” she said. 

The closing argument challenge 

Over the course of the investigation, Cheney has said evidence has shown Trump is at fault for the Capitol riot.

Much of the challenge facing the committee relates to the sheer volume of information it has collected over the course of its marathon probe.  

Since its inception 16 months ago, the panel has received millions of documents and heard testimony from more than 1,000 witnesses, creating enormous hurdles as investigators race to crunch the massive trove of data and condense it into an accessible narrative. 

The task has been complicated by the fact that the committee has continued to receive new information even as it’s trying to wind down the investigation and produce a final report.  

Just last month, investigators secured the long-sought testimony of Virginia Thomas, a conservative “Stop the Steal” activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. More recently, the Secret Service showered the panel with more than a million new records — a document dump far beyond what the committee had requested.  

Lofgren said that a task of that magnitude won’t be completed until the final report emerges, likely in December.  

“I think all the loose ends will finally be tied up in the report,” she said.  

Can the committee close the gaps? 

Hutchinson’s testimony was a bombshell against Trump over the summer, with Trump rigorously denying the allegations she lobbed at him.

The hearing serves as an opportunity to further explore threads teased this summer, including explosive allegations relayed by Hutchinson, the former White House aide. 

Hutchinson’s account — that Trump lunged at his security detail after being told he could not join his supporters at the Capitol — was recounted to her in the presence of Trump’s lead security officer that day. 

The two men involved in the story — Tony Ornato, a former Secret Service agent who took an unprecedented civilian role in the White House, and Bobby Engel — have denied the account through anonymous sources but failed to deliver promised testimony to rebut her.  

Since Hutchinson’s testimony, the Secret Service under a subpoena sent the panel more than a million electronic communications.  

The hearing also gives the panel a chance to go deeper on a July hearing that was designed to explore the role extremist groups played in the attack. 

Many suspected the hearing would be an opportunity for the panel to reveal any damning evidence tying Trump to the extremist groups that stormed the Capitol. But the July hearing left that unexplored, instead using much of its time to review clips of a newly scored interview with former White House counsel Pat Cipollone. 

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who walked through the evidence in that hearing, has said he is hopeful Thursday will address what he called loose ends. 

“Different members have been focused on different loose ends that might need to be wrapped up and out. So, again, speaking just for myself, I would hope that the hearing would allow us to make some overall synthetic judgments about what took place and why and the culpability of different key actors,” Raskin told reporters in September. 

The committee will turn to its report 

The committee has limited time to complete its report as it must be done before the midterm elections.

The committee hasn’t confirmed whether Thursday’s hearing will be its last, but its deadline to complete its work is not a moving target — the panel must issue its final report before it sunsets at the end of the current Congress. 

The dwindling time frame creates a daunting task for the panel not only to lay out its recommendations for legislative remedies that could prevent a future insurrection, but also to push for their passage. 

So far, two of the panel’s members have introduced a bill to reform the Electoral College Act. The bill, already passed by the House, affirms that the vice president’s role in certifying the election results is purely ministerial and ups the number of lawmakers required to object to a state’s results, among other changes. The Senate has passed a separate bill, meaning the differences would need ironing out if the reforms are to become law.  

But there are numerous other areas the panel could explore, including changes to the criminal code, perhaps increasing some penalties, or changes to the 25th Amendment, which allows Cabinet members to remove a president.  

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has said the panel will not be formally introducing legislation and will only produce recommendations. 

But many Democrats have said they must forge ahead and try to pass Jan. 6-related legislation this year, particularly since House Republicans, who are expected to take control of the House next year, have defended Trump by downplaying the Capitol attack. 

“We have two months. What? Is there anything more important than making sure we defend our democracy?” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.). “We have no option, in my view, other than to act swiftly as soon as those recommendations are reported. We have to get this done before we adjourn.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Five female progressive rising stars to watch in 2024

There are plenty of progressive female rising stars who could fill an open primary if President Biden decides not to run for the White House in 2024 — or in future campaign cycles. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is one of the most well-known and beloved figures on the left, and many Democrats would like to see her take another shot at the nomination, arguing she has the name recognition, policy chops and political firepower to do it. 

But there are also relative newcomers waiting in the wings who, if they ran, could offer voters a gender, generational and ideological change.

“I would love to see a progressive woman win our party’s nomination, and beyond Elizabeth Warren, whom I proudly supported in 2020, I think there are several progressive women who could build a winning coalition,” said Charlotte Clymer, a writer and Democratic strategist who said she would back Biden if he runs for a second term.

“If, for some reason, he is no longer seeking reelection, I offer a word of caution to prospective male candidates,” she added. “Do not underestimate the general desire among women (and many men) in our party to see a progressive woman lead our nation.”  

Here are five female progressives to watch for 2024: 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) listens during a House Financial Services Committee oversight hearing of the largest U.S. banks on Wednesday, September 21, 2022. (Greg Nash)

Ocasio-Cortez does not need help getting her name out there. She’s so recognizable that she’s known simply as “AOC,” and Democrats in both wings of the party give her credit for her brand-building acumen and power to draw fans in.  

“One of the things AOC has tapped into is she has that ‘it’ factor,” said McKenzie Wilson, communications director for Data for Progress, a progressive consultancy and polling firm. “Whether or not you like her or hate her, she captivates eyeballs.” 

That established star power makes exploring a presidential bid much easier. Where other progressives would have to spend months introducing themselves to voters, doing media tours and raising money, the New York congresswoman already has a built-in network that could help her rise quickly and keep a campaign going for a while.  

“Some people are basically saying that Ocasio’s the heir apparent,” said a source who has talked with the congresswoman in the past about exploring a bid. But for now, “she doesn’t” want to take that path, the source stressed. 

Ocasio-Cortez, 33, waded into several primaries this cycle for candidates who ultimately weren’t successful, including Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner against Biden-backed Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) and Jessica Cisneros, who challenged Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), the most conservative Democrat serving in the House.

But her presence as a potential primary candidate herself, rather than as an endorser, would likely have a bigger imprint on the nature of the election, Democrats say. 

“I think she could make one pretty damn interesting,” the source acknowledged about an open race. 

Stacey Abrams 

Stacey Abrams’ political prospects will largely hinge on the outcome of the Georgia gubernatorial race between she and incumbent candidate Gov. Brian Kemp (R). (Getty)

Democrats are wondering aloud what the predominant political narrative will be around Abrams, 48, after November.  

If she wins a tough rematch to be Georgia’s next governor against Republican incumbent Brian Kemp, she is expected to jump to many Democrats’ shortlists for viable candidates. 

Abrams already caught Biden’s attention during his vice presidential search, and her signature issue of voting rights could become a powerful rallying cry at a time when Democrats accuse Republicans of engaging in efforts to curb access to the ballot box.

Democrats, including some top fixtures in Biden’s inner circle, widely regard her as competent, well liked and in touch with many of the progressive issues voters care about. That ranges from things like climate change and affordable housing to expanding Medicaid and investing in rural parts of the country that have largely fallen to Republicans.  

If she doesn’t win, however, her immediate political future is less certain. Polls show her several points behind Kemp, with Democrats deploying resources to help make sure voters come out for her on Election Day.

“If you are a Democratic candidate and you lose your race, there’s kind of nowhere for you to go,” Wilson said. “Republicans are more willing to have candidates run for higher office that don’t check all their boxes. Democrats want to fall in love, and we nominate super qualified people.”  

But being “super qualified” often doesn’t guarantee victory, she added. 

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) 

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) is seen during a House Financial Services Committee hearing to discuss the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress on Thursday, June 23, 2022. (Greg Nash)

Pressley broke with other “squad” members when she endorsed Warren over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, staying true to the Massachusetts delegation’s biggest liberal who many in the party celebrate.

After defeating former Rep. Michael Capuano in the 7th Congressional District’s Democratic primary in 2018, Pressley has become a local sensation in her own right. 

She got the attention of voters who saw her advocacy on gender and racial justice issues and, most recently, on student debt relief as much needed priorities in Congress, especially at a time of less racial, generational and ideological diversity in the House. 

That support has continued to grow to a wider electorate and an elevated presence in the chamber. In 2020, Pressley, who is now 48, ran for reelection without a primary opponent, solidifying her standing among constituents in the solidly blue district.

Like other newer representatives, she’s not a broadly known entity. But she has taken steps to raise her public stature, including stumping for Warren and speaking publicly about her experience recovering from sexual assault, moves that could help her galvanize support among women and other key constituencies. 

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) 

Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., speaks to the crowd during the second March for Our Lives rally in support of gun control on Saturday, June 11, 2022, in Washington. (Associated Press)

Progressives who know Bush really like her. They like that she doesn’t back away from tough rhetoric like “defund the police” when the party’s political winds currently favor a tougher-on-crime stance. 

And they like that her words are followed by actions: She recently voted against a package of bills on policing before it ultimately passed in the House. 

Many liberal Democrats also love that she regularly embraces policy fights that push the Biden administration farther than officials often want to go. 

“Cori Bush is fantastic,” said Cenk Uygur, host of the left-wing show The Young Turks. “Biden needs to be challenged from the left.”

Demographically, Bush ticks a lot of the boxes the progressive wing is looking for in their next presidential candidate: She’s young (46), Midwestern, a Black woman and, perhaps most notably, is familiar with the country’s working class in a way that puts her in touch with many Americans. 

But the very things progressives love about her could also alienate the broader electorate, including moderate Democrats who view her as too controversial for a general election audience. She’s also much less known than other members of the squad, including Ocasio-Cortez, making a possible 2024 bid more of an uphill battle.   

Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) 

Rep. Katie Porter (D-Ca.), who shares many policy positions with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma.), does not have the same national profile as the senator at this point but is making moves to get her there. (Greg Nash)

California is at the center of national attention as its Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, continues to crusade against his GOP counterparts across the country and as the Los Angeles mayoral election faces an onslaught of criticism for racist comments made by City Council members that were caught on tape.   

Far away from the scandal and suspense is Porter, a progressive representative from Orange County and arguably Warren’s closest ally in Congress.

A former student of the Massachusetts senator’s at Harvard Law School, both Warren and Porter share similar anti-corruption and monopoly positions, particularly regarding the tech industry. While Porter doesn’t yet have the same interest level as Warren, she’s making moves that could help her down the line if she wants to build out a national profile. 

One of those steps is putting her message on paper. Her upcoming memoir, titled “I Swear: Politics Is Messier Than My Minivan,” is set to come out well ahead of the next presidential cycle. The book chronicles her unlikely ascent to the House and journey through a tough Republican climate in a right-wing part of California.

“Never having run for office before, Katie Porter charted a new path in 2018 when she was elected to Congress as a Democrat in historically conservative Orange County, California,” the publisher’s note reads. “Underestimated as a single mom and chided for her progressive values, Katie defied expectations.”

Both Porter and Bush have forthcoming books detailing their personal experiences. 

“Reps. AOC, Pressley, Porter, and Bush all have what it takes,” said Clymer, the Democratic strategist. “They have heart and know the needs of the most vulnerable communities in our country.”

Source: TEST FEED1

NBC interview draws new scrutiny over Fetterman's health

A recent NBC News interview is raising fresh questions about Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman’s health as the campaign enters its final stretch amid his recovery from a stroke.  

In the interview, which aired on Tuesday, Fetterman discussed the effects of the stroke he suffered in May on his auditory processing. The interview showed Fetterman using closed captioning to help him understand dialogue, answering questions orally after reading them on a computer screen.  

The segment, which highlighted some of the apparent difficulty Fetterman has in articulating himself, came as the Democratic candidate prepares to take on Republican rival Mehmet Oz in a debate later this month.  

“It highlights why unfortunately there are legitimate questions about whether or not he’ll be up to the job,” said veteran Republican strategist Doug Heye.   

It was common knowledge that since his stroke Fetterman had been using closed captioning when talking with reporters. But the NBC interview on Tuesday provided viewers an up-close look at the process. It also showed him struggling at times to formulate the correct word in his answers.  

Sparking further questions were comments made by the NBC reporter who conducted the sit-down, Dasha Burns, who said that while making “small talk” with Fetterman before the interview without captioning it wasn’t clear he was understanding their conversation. She noted Wednesday on NBC’s “Today” that stroke experts say this does not mean Fetterman has cognitive impairment.   

“Doesn’t mean his memory or his cognitive condition is impaired and he didn’t fully recover from this,” Burns said. “And once the closed captioning was on, he was able to fully understand my questions throughout that 25-minute interview, which we will publish later today.”  

Still, her remarks sparked a flurry of responses online, with Republicans seizing on the interview as allies rushed to defend the Democratic Senate candidate.   

“I’ve frequently campaigned with @JohnFetterman and had no problem making ‘small talk,’” tweeted Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). “After a historic primary win, he’s connecting with PA voters because he understands their challenges and is ready to fight for them in Washington. He’s going to be a great senator.”  

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), on the other hand, took aim at Fetterman Wednesday.   

“As a U.S. Senator, daily conversations with a variety of people are a standard, and closed captioning won’t always be involved,” said Lizzie Litzow, an NRSC spokesperson. “How can Pennsylvanians expect Fetterman to represent them to the fullest if he can’t even get through a short amount of ‘small talk’?”  

Meanwhile, the Oz campaign suggested that Fetterman was not being transparent enough about the seriousness of his health.   

“John Fetterman has failed to be honest about two things: his support for releasing convicted murderers back on the streets and his health,” Oz’s communications director, Brittany Yanick, told The Hill in a statement. “The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial Board called on both candidates to release their medical records weeks ago and The Washington Post Editorial Board called out Fetterman for his lack of transparency. Pennsylvanians deserve to know the truth before they cast a vote on November 8th and John Fetterman needs to be honest with voters. Pennsylvanians deserve answers.”   

But Democrats have been quick to label the interview as a show of transparency and honesty.   

“The word that keeps coming into my head is honest,” said T.J. Rooney, the former chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, said in an interview. “The forthcoming nature of how he conducted himself is kind of true to who he’s been.”   

One national Democratic operative said Fetterman “has probably had the most public stroke recovery process in a while.”   

“I think voters are pretty sympathetic and understand it,” the operative said.   

Fetterman himself has repeatedly said the stroke will not impact his ability to serve. In the aftermath of the interview, he addressed some of the public reactions on Twitter.    

“Recovering from a stroke in public isn’t easy,” Fetterman tweeted. “But in January, I’m going to be much better — and Dr. Oz will still be a fraud.”   

In perhaps a sign of the degree to which the controversial interview fired up his supporters, the Fetterman campaign announced Wednesday night that it had raised over $1 million since Tuesday.

And Fetterman is continuing to do public appearances. On Wednesday, he took part in a livestreamed interview with Penn Live’s editorial board. His campaign also announced that he will take part in a rally in Johnstown, Pa., on Friday and in Delaware County, Pa., on Saturday.   

Fetterman’s situation is also not entirely unique. There are multiple examples of stroke survivors who have served in the Senate, including current Sens. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), as well as former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.).   

But some note that those individuals were already sitting senators when they suffered their strokes.   

“They were in those roles,” Heye said. “Fetterman is starting from this place, and that’s fundamentally different.”   

Underpinning the debate over Fetterman’s health is the fact that recent polls have shown the race between him and Oz tightening. Over the summer, multiple polls — including one from Fox News — showed the Democrat with a double-digit lead. But the margins have narrowed considerably over the past couple months, as Fetterman has stepped up his public appearances and Oz has sought to pressure him over his health.  

An Emerson College Polling-The Hill survey taken last month showed Fetterman leading Oz by only 2 points.  The RealClearPolitics polling average has Fetterman leading Oz by just 3.7 points.   

The debate, which is slated to be held on Oct. 25 in Harrisburg and will include closed captioning for Fetterman, stands to be a test for the two candidates for completely different reasons.   

“I think we overrate Senate debates. The Beasley-Budd debate was not going to set anything on fire,” Heye said, referring to last week’s North Carolina Senate debate. “But this one potentially is for all the marbles.”   

For Fetterman, the debate will show how he handles a high-pressure crossfire situation.   

“If Fetterman has a moment where he’s not coming up with words, that will have more impact on voters than [any] juvenile press release,” Heye said.   

But Oz, who has a background in medicine, will also have a fine line to walk. His campaign has faced criticism in the past for appearing to mock Fetterman’s health.   

“It’s also a challenge for Oz,” said Keith Naughton, a GOP strategist. “How does Oz handle it without looking like he’s picking on somebody? Oz has to resist the urge to engage in trolling and just sort of behavior that people would think was out of bounds.”   

And given how close the race is, it could impact the final days of the campaign.

“This one will be watched in a very different way than we’ve seen before and with bigger numbers than we’ve seen before,” Naughton continued. “This will be watched nationally.”   

Source: TEST FEED1

Tuberville’s comments on race, crime reverberate loudly on campaign trail

Democrats are ripping the GOP for staying quiet over Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s (R-Ala.) declaration at a campaign rally that Democrats are pro-crime because they favor reparations and think criminals are “owed that.”  

Tuberville’s words at a Nevada campaign rally featuring former President Trump have put race at center stage in the final weeks of the campaign, leaving Democrats arguing the GOP’s crime narrative carries nasty racial overtones.   

The NAACP and other civil rights groups condemned Tuberville’s line as “flat out racist,” but it got a big cheer at the Nevada rally and Republican lawmakers aren’t condemning it, as the sentiment is not unpopular among some GOP base voters.   

Democrats say Tuberville’s comments reflect the GOP psychology behind efforts to push the issue of crime into the spotlight of Senate races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada and North Carolina.   

“Using dog whistles is just not a way to present an argument to the American public without some serious consequences down the road,” warned Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), who said he was disappointed that fellow Republicans didn’t condemn Tuberville’s comments.   

“I would certainly hope and pray, if people on our side start using racially hostile language or disparage a whole section of America, that I would say something publicly about how wrong it was,” he said.   

Cleaver, who is Black, noted that President Biden and other Democrats swiftly condemned the disparaging racist remarks that three Los Angeles city council members made in a leaked recording.   

The White House is also pointing out the deafening silence among Republicans on the subject of Tuberville and other racism-driven attacks made on the campaign trail.   

“Here’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans: When a Democrat says something racist or antisemitic … we hold Democrats accountable,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. “When a MAGA Republican says something racist and or antisemitic, they are embraced by cheering crowds and become celebrated and sought after.”   

Democratic strategists say Tuberville articulated the racially charged subtext of Republican attacks on the issue of crime.   

Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist, said language like what Tuberville leveled in his Saturday attack “is becoming more of a mainstay in Republican and MAGA talking points.”   

She said that several recent polls show that Black voters feel racism is increasing, a possible reflection of hardening political rhetoric on topics like “wokeness.”   

Finney said the way Republicans “hammer” on urban crime “would make you believe that Black and Brown families don’t worry about crime.”  

“These are racist dog whistles that are front and center in the talking points that we’re seeing from MAGA Republicans across the country not being challenged by Republican leadership who recognize they can’t afford to anger those in their base who may agree,” she added. “They believe this is an effective message.”  

Some Democrats and political experts say attack ads depicting Democrats as soft on crime are designed to scare white suburban voters and sow division along racial lines, which they argue was what Tuberville intended when he declared that Democrats “want to take over what you got” and “want reparations because they think that people that do the crime are owed that.”  

Nevada Senate Republican candidate Adam Laxalt has hit Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) for being soft on crime and attended the weekend rally but didn’t comment on Tuberville’s statement. The Laxalt campaign did not respond to a request for comment.   

Brandon Scholz, a Wisconsin-based Republican strategist, rejected the charge that Republicans are sounding racist dog whistles by hitting Democrats for being weak on crime.   

“It’s not new, it’s been out there since campaigns were putting out crime-related ads weeks ago, months ago,” he said of the criticism of GOP tactics. “It’s the kind of response you could expect to hear from campaigns that are the targets of those ads.” 

But he stressed that the GOP ads are based on facts and public statements. 

“If it’s based on something somebody has said, that’s a fact. You can’t get away from that,” he said. “In Wisconsin, at least the ads that I’ve seen, appear to be based on votes, bills’ introduction, statements, positions.”  

“It’s all fair game,” he added.  

Scholz said he didn’t see Tuberville’s comments and argued that Wisconsin voters aren’t paying much attention to what an Alabama senator is saying at a campaign rally in another state.  

Critics, however, say Tuberville’s attack went well beyond stating the facts. 

NAACP President Derrick Johnson described the rhetoric as “very dangerous messaging” in an interview on Wednesday, arguing the comments played into racist stereotypes “that could cause harm against African Americans.”  

“Tuberville knows very well that African Americans are no more prone to crime than Republicans, as they have demonstrated in this current atmosphere,” he told The Hill.  

Desmond Jagmohan, who teaches political science at the University of California, Berkeley, also argued Tuberville’s comments were an attempt to “frame African Americans as a criminal element,” while appealing to racial fears among his base.  

“He’s also pointing out to redistributive politics as itself a form of crime, basically, stealing from whites and giving to African Americans, and that’s a kind of enduring racist trope,” Jagmohan argued.  

The remarks, Jagmohan and others say, are just the latest example of Republicans racializing their crime messaging in the current campaign season.  

Republicans have pummeled two Democrats, Wisconsin Senate candidate Mandela Barnes and Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman, especially hard on crime.   

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is hitting Barnes, who is Black, as “a dangerous Democrat” for supporting the end of cash bail and linking his policy views to the Waukesha Christmas parade attack, where a man released from jail on bail killed six people with his sports utility vehicle.  

In Pennsylvania, Republican candidate Mehmet Oz has criticized Fetterman for employing two brothers on his campaign, Dennis and Lee Horton, who were convicted of second-degree murder and later granted clemency.   

Another ad paid for by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and approved by Oz slams Fetterman for expressing support for releasing more people from prison and eliminating life sentences for murderers.   

These advertisements conjure images of the infamous “Willie Horton” ad ran to help support former President George H.W. Bush’s campaign bid in 1988. The ad sought to take aim at Democrat Michael Dukakis’s record on crime as governor of Massachusetts by focusing on Horton, a Black man convicted of murder, who committed crimes while out of prison on furlough.   

“They want to divert attention from Roe as much as possible for suburban women in particular,” said Ray Zaccaro, a Democratic strategist, making reference to how the Supreme Court decision striking down Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion rights case, has pushed many women voters away from the GOP.  

“The idea of the threat of Black men toward White women is something that’s been used in racially charged campaigns since Reconstruction,” he said.  

Chris Hartline, a spokesman for the Senate Republican campaign arm, said the attacks on Barnes and Fetterman are fair because of their statements on the record.  

“We’re using their own words. If Mandela Barnes and John Fetterman don’t like it, they should go back in time and not embrace stupid ideas that voters are rejecting,” he said.  

A recent advertisement released by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) has been raising eyebrows this month for its racial undertones.   

In the ad, Kennedy addresses violent crime he says is “surging” in Louisiana, while railing against so-called “woke leaders” that “blame the police.” The video features a montage of pictures depicting protesters with signs with phrases like “Black Lives Matter” and “defund the police,” as well as videos of people in hoodies and ski masks holding guns.  

“I voted against the early release of violent criminals, and I opposed defunding the police because I know the difference between criminals and their innocent victims,” Kennedy says at the end of the video. “Look, if you hate cops just because they’re cops, the next time you’re in trouble, call a crackhead.”  

The video instantly went viral earlier this month and drew criticism from experts and advocates who have blasted it as racist and say it perpetuates harmful stereotypes about addiction.  

“You can have a debate about crime and it not necessarily be racial,” Andra Gillespie, an associate political science professor at Emory University, said on Wednesday. “But when you end with ‘call a crackhead,’ that’s when I think we have to think about what our cultural image of a crackhead is.”  

In another ad that has gotten attention, Barnes could be seen discussing reallocation of police funds in a faded clip next to the words “defund the police” spray-painted on a wall. The shot then pans to another wall decorated with street art and homicide statistics for Milwaukee.  

The video, paid for by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, ends right after panning back to Barnes’s photo, before the narrator reads against ominous music in the backdrop: “Mandela Barnes, a dangerous Democrat.”   

National Urban League President Marc Morial accused the ads of equating “Black people with crime.”  

“This is nothing new,” he told The Hill on Wednesday. “This is the same type of thing that led to the overreaction during the war on drugs and mass incarceration, which has damaged the Black community so severely.”  

“I think it shocks people, because people thought it ended … But what we see is people are taking an old suit out of the closet, taking it to the dry cleaners and putting it on,” he added.  

Source: TEST FEED1