Categories Uncategorized

Why a DC crime bill is creating big problems for Democrats

Senate Republicans are trying to put the squeeze on Democrats ahead of an expected vote on legislation next week that would undo parts of a District of Columbia crime bill.

The bill would eliminate most mandatory sentences, lower penalties for a number of violent offenses, including carjackings and robberies, and expand the requirement for jury trials in most misdemeanor cases.

The legislation was unanimously approved by the D.C. City Council, which then overrode a veto by Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in an overwhelming 12-1 vote.

The GOP House passed a resolution of disapproval that would block the implementation of the law. It’s that resolution the Senate is expected to vote on next week — and it is likely to pass despite the Democratic Senate majority and the party’s usual support for D.C. home rule.

The reasons are a mix of the political and circumstantial.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is expected to miss the vote as he gets treatment for clinical depression, which narrows the Democratic majority to 50-49.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) says he’ll vote for the bill, saying the legislation doesn’t make sense to him.

Other Senate Democrats, particularly those like Manchin who face difficult reelection races in red or purplish states in 2024, may vote with him. In the House, 31 Democrats joined Republicans in backing the resolution of disapproval.

If it passes, President Biden will face a somewhat difficult decision. While it is expected that he will veto the resolution of disapproval and argue it is a serious infringement on D.C. home rule — the idea that the District of Columbia has authority in D.C. and should be able to govern itself — the veto will undoubtedly be used by the GOP in campaign ads and arguments for the rest of the cycle.

And the danger of being a Democrat seen as soft on crime was reinforced Tuesday when Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot failed to advance from her own primary amid public anger over the issue.  

Senate Democrats by and large have declined to jump on board to overturn the D.C. bill given their longstanding support for the District’s self-governance, but Republicans are signaling confidence. They appear to think more Democrats in the Senate than Manchin will be with them on a vote next week.

“Why the D.C. City Council against the wishes of the mayor in the same party would be downgrading certain offenses — it just defies common sense,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told The Hill. “I think it will be difficult for anybody [to vote against the resolution] and I think it will be difficult for the president to veto it.” 

It’s no huge surprise that Manchin, who told The New York Times that slashing mandatory minimum sentences makes no sense to him, would vote with the GOP on the issue. His state voted overwhelmingly for former President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Other Democrats to watch include Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Jon Tester (Mont.), who told reporters in recent days that they are undecided. Both face reelection in 2024 in states won by Trump in 2020.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), who usually votes with Democrats, is also seen as a gettable vote. A Sinema spokesperson told The Hill that she “does not preview votes.”

Republicans point to Lightfoot, the latest Democratic office holder to run into problems over her handling of crime, to argue it will be political trouble for those who effectively vote to back the D.C. City Council.

Paul Vallas, the leading vote-getter on Tuesday in the Chicago vote, ran on a tough-on-crime message, and took nearly twice as many votes as Lightfoot. 

“I think that the mayor of Chicago is probably a case in point,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

The lowering of penalties and other changes has created a tough fence to straddle for Democrats as they overwhelmingly support statehood for the District.

Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat, told The Hill that while his conference backs Home Rule powers, members are looking at the bill “very closely” because “we also want this to be a safe city.” 

The crime issue has touched a nerve in the District over non-stop reports of carjackings and robberies across the city.

Homicides are up 30 percent this year from the same point last year. According to the Metropolitan Police Department’s reporting, the District has seen 94 carjackings this year alone, with only 16 of those cases being closed and nine arrests having been made. Seventy-eight percent of those incidents have involved juveniles. 

“Everyone’s going to have to make up their own mind on this and I respect that,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who noted that he does not support the crime bill on its own. “Regardless of where you stand on the underlying issue as to what the D.C. government did, the United States Senate should not be substituting its judgment for the elected representatives for the people of the District of Columbia, especially since almost every Senate Democrat supports D.C. statehood.” 

While Bowser opposed the council’s measure and in early February called for it to consider changes to the minimization of penalties and issues surrounding jury trials, she has urged members of Congress to butt out of city-related issues.

The White House has yet to issue a direct veto threat against the resolution, though it has said that it opposes overruling the newly-passed criminal code. 

“Congress should respect the District of Columbia’s autonomy to govern its own local affairs,” the White House said in January, adding that it still supports D.C. statehood.

Durbin added that he has “no idea” if he expects Biden to issue a formal veto threat. 

The District was handed home rule powers in 1973, and Congress has not overturned any city-wide enacted bill in more than three decades. Nevertheless, Republicans believe that the vote could put the president in a bind, especially as the crime situation worsens in the city. 

“I think it’ll be a difficult vote for anybody who believes in law and order to not be able to impact our capital city that has a higher rising crime rate,” Capito said.

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP senators grill Garland on border security, weaponization of law enforcement 

Senior Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday about the nation’s fentanyl crisis, the flow of drugs and migrants over the U.S.-Mexico border and the Justice Department’s stance on mandatory minimum sentences.

The moments of drama came during the panel’s first oversight hearing of the Justice Department in the 118th Congress. 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) challenged Garland over a Justice Department memo recommending that prosecutors not seek mandatory minimum sentences in some drug cases.  

Cornyn pointed out that drug-related deaths in the United States have become so frequent that the daily death toll is equivalent to a passenger jet crashing and killing everyone on board every day.  

“I have been just astonished at the lack of sense of urgency to deal with this issue,” he said, blaming the flow of drugs across the border on the Biden administration’s law enforcement and asylum policies.  

He then zeroed in on a Garland memo that argued the proliferation of mandatory-minimum sentencing guidelines had caused too many disproportionately severe sentences. 

Garland responded that “it’s a question of the resources,” adding “we don’t have money, we don’t have enough jails, we don’t have enough judges.” 

That answer didn’t sit well with Cornyn, who replied sternly: “You’ve arrogated to yourself the decision to make policy.”

“You’re telling prosecutors don’t charge those if they involve a mandatory-minimum sentence,” he said. 

When Garland countered that his memo didn’t apply in violent crime or drug trafficking, Cornyn accused him of “cherry-picking which cases you will charge with a mandatory-minimum sentence.” 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) demanded the nation’s top law enforcement officer explain the discrepancy between the number of prosecutions of counselors and activists who oppose abortion rights and those who support those rights. 

The hearing grew heated when Cruz accused the Justice Department of showing little urgency in protecting Supreme Court justices from protesters after a decision last summer overturning Roe v. Wade. The Texas senator repeatedly interrupted Garland until Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) stepped in to enforce the limit on Cruz’s time. 

“You spent 20 years as a judge and you’re perfectly content with justices being afraid for their children’s lives, and you did nothing to prosecute it,” Cruz said.

The exchange was one of the few times Garland raised his voice during the hearing, with the attorney general noting the Dobbs decision prompted the first time in history that U.S. Marshals were asked to provide 24/7 security at the homes of Supreme Court justices. It was up to agents themselves, however, whether to arrest anyone who approached justices’ homes.

“Senator, you asked me whether I sat on my hands and [it was] quite the opposite, I sent 70 United States Marshals to defend [their homes],” Garland said before being cut off by Cruz.

“The marshals on scene – they do make the decision over whether to make an arrest,” he said.  

The fallout of the Dobbs decision, including responses to protestors, was a running theme throughout the hearing, with multiple lawmakers accusing the department of anti-Catholic bias following the leak of an FBI memo detailing growing overlap between white nationalist groups and “Radical-Traditionalist Catholics” which it identifies as a small minority within the church.

Garland condemned the memo, telling Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) that “I saw the document you have, it’s appalling, it’s appalling. I am in complete agreement with you. I understand the FBI has withdrawn it and is now looking into how this ever could have happened.”

Hawley also pushed Garland on issues related to abortion, asking, without evidence, “how many informants do you have in Catholic churches across America?” 

“I don’t believe we have any informants aimed at Catholic churches. We have rules against investigations based on first amendment activity and Catholic churches are obviously first amendment activity,” Garland said.   

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) quizzed Garland about the murder rates in the home countries of migrants seeking asylum and expressed surprise the attorney general didn’t have those stats at his fingertips. 

He then pointed out that murder rates are higher in major U.S. cities. 

“Should American citizens in places like New Orleans and Baltimore and St. Louis begin to seek asylum in countries like Honduras and Guatemala under your asylum principles?” Cotton asked. 

Garland replied that his department’s asylum policies are guided by threats faced by individuals in countries where the local governments are unwilling or unable to protect them, not just on murder rates. 

Cotton also hit Garland over the selective pursuit of mandatory-minimum sentences by federal prosecutors. 

“You said to Sen. Conryn this is about allocating resources,” he said incredulously. “What resources are you talking about?”

Cotton pointed out the number of federal inmates has dropped from 219,000 to 158,000 over the past ten years and demanded: “Do you need more prisons?”

Garland said many senators have complained that jails are overcrowded and that has made it difficult to protect guards and prisoners from violence.  

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the ranking member of the Judiciary panel, pressed Garland on designating Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations.

Garland said he had no objection but cautioned that such a decision is up to the State Department and he would defer to its authority. 

The attorney general said the Mexican government is “helping us” in trying to interdict fentanyl shipments but conceded “they could do much more.” 

Asked whether U.S. drug policies are working, Garland acknowledged “they are not stopping fentanyl from killing Americans” but emphasized “we are putting all the resources that Congress provides to us into” fighting drug smuggling. 

Source: TEST FEED1

US intelligence: No evidence foreign adversaries behind 'Havana Syndrome'

The U.S. intelligence community has determined it was unlikely that a foreign adversary is responsible for a series of anomalous health incidents (AHI) plaguing intelligence and diplomatic staffers across the globe.

A review conducted by intelligence agencies for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and released Wednesday probed a series of health incidents initially dubbed “Havana Syndrome” after government employees first reported experiencing mysterious neurological ailments there in 2016.

But the review attributed those conditions to other factors and noted that intelligence agencies — with varying degrees of confidence — deemed it was unlikely that a U.S. adversary had such capabilities.

“Available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of U.S. adversaries in causing the reported incidents,” the report states. 

“There is no credible evidence that a foreign adversary has a weapon or device that is causing AHIs.”

The review was conducted by several intelligence agencies that reached similar conclusions with varying degrees of confidence.

It’s a complex challenge for the intelligence community and their champions in Congress, many of whom have lobbied for long-term care for those who suspect they were the victims of possible attacks.

In the years since the first reports, more than 1,000 government employees have stepped forward with complaints of symptoms ranging from vertigo, insomnia, nausea and intense headaches.

An initial study of those who made complaints suggested that they could be the result of a “directed energy” weapon or microwaves.

Wednesday’s report questioned the result of a preliminary health study from the National Institutes of Health noting that it did not find consistent symptoms and instead posited that the range of ailments could be due to “preexisting conditions, conventional illness, and environmental factors.”

The report stated that early theories about the illnesses “were not borne out by subsequent medical and technical analysis.”

“This shift is notable because the initial medical opinions formed a central part of the IC hypothesis that U.S. personnel had sustained injuries that were unlikely to be explained by natural or environmental factors,” it reads. 

But other elements of the intelligence community sought to defend those experiencing symptoms.

“I want to be absolutely clear: These findings do not call into question the experiences and real health issues that US Government personnel and their family members — including CIA’s own officers — have reported while serving our country. As I have said before, as director, I have no more profound obligation than to take care of our people,” CIA chief Williams Burns said in a statement.

Still, he backed his agency’s contribution to the findings. 

“We applied the agency’s very best operational, analytic, and technical tradecraft to what is one of the largest and most intensive investigations in the Agency’s history. I and my leadership team stand firmly behind the work conducted and the findings,” he said.

A bipartisan statement from both leaders on the House Intelligence Committee likewise stressed that the intelligence community cannot change its practice for responding to those who report symptoms.

“First, there can be no backsliding in the care and support we provide to our workforce. Congress enacted the HAVANA Act to expand benefits for those who have experienced AHIs, and we are closely monitoring that process to ensure it proceeds in accordance with the intent of the law,” Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) and ranking member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) said in a joint statement.

“Second, there should be no change to processes established within the IC, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and elsewhere in the federal government to intake AHI reports, conduct the appropriate follow-on investigations, and direct individuals to care and support. Those who have come forward — as they were asked to do — should be treated with respect and they should be heard,” they added.

—Updated at 3:15 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump 'successfully chilled' FBI from being willing to investigate anything related to him: Peter Strzok

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok on Wednesday said former President Trump and others “successfully chilled the FBI’s willingness to investigate anything” Trump-related, complicating later inquiries into the former president’s classified document handling. 

Strzok took to Twitter to comment on new reporting from the Washington Post that FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors squabbled over how aggressively to criminally investigate Trump’s handling of classified documents, including whether to conduct a surprise search of his Florida residence. 

“Trump, [Attorney General William] Barr, [special counsel John] Durham, and others successfully chilled the FBI’s willingness to investigate anything related to Trump. The FBI handled Trump with unprecedented kid gloves, afraid to follow the facts for fear of political blowback, delaying the investigation for months,” Strzok argued.

The FBI executed a search warrant of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and recovered more than a hundred classified materials this summer, but the Post article suggests some agents wanted to cut off the criminal investigation into Trump’s document handling beforehand, after Trump’s team had said they turned over all the materials.

“How’d that work out? Oh, right, Trump still had 100+ docs,” Strzok said. 

Strzok highlighted a section of the article that contends the FBI agents were cautious in their treatment of the Trump case because of “damaging” mistakes in prior probes of Hillary Clinton.

“Really? Name one. I’ll wait,” Strzok said. 

The former FBI agent said the Washington Post article “points to a damning fear in the FBI stemming from political fear, not from fact.”

Strzok was fired from the FBI amid an investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia, after text messages were uncovered between him and former FBI attorney Lisa Page, discussing Trump critically during the 2016 election. Strzok sued over his termination, arguing it was politically motivated, and a judge ruled last week that the former president and former FBI Director Christopher Wray can be deposed in his case. 

Strzok in his Wednesday Twitter thread knocked the suggestion that some FBI agents were “simply afraid” that investigating Trump could harm their careers.  

“You know what would go a long way to erasing that fear?  Leadership that protected agents from political blowback, allowing them to do their job,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Twitter suspends Mike Lee’s personal account

Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-Utah) personal Twitter account was suspended on Wednesday.

Users were unable to see Tweets from his @BasedMikeLee account, with his feed only reading “Account suspended,” and that “Twitter suspends accounts that violate Twitter rules.”

After leaving a Senate GOP lunch, Lee told The Hill that he wasn’t sure why the account got suspended.

“Yeah, I just noticed that,” he said. “No idea why. I checked my email and I checked my direct mentioning function on the Twitter app and I haven’t received anything. Weird.”

Lee later Tweeted from his official account that, “My personal Twitter account – @BasedMikeLee – has been suspended. Twitter did not alert me ahead of time, nor have they yet offered an explanation for the suspension. My team and I are seeking answers.”

Reporters noted that Lee on Wednesday morning tweeted at Japanese Prime Minister calling for the return of imprisoned Navy Lt. Ridge Alkonis, who is serving prison time for his role in a deadly car crash.

“I didn’t say anything that’s worthy of suspension, so I don’t know,” Lee added about the tweet in question.

The Hill reached out to Twitter for comment.

Twitter last month briefly suspended the account of Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) after Daines’s account displayed an image of him and his wife hunting as the profile picture. The suspension prompted an outcry from Republicans and the account was reinstated later the same day.

On Wednesday, Daines Tweeted, “Here we go again…@Twitter, why is my colleague @BasedMikeLee locked out of his account? #FreeLee“

Source: TEST FEED1

Republicans vow to block Biden FAA pick as Democrats double down

Senate Democrats on Wednesday rallied behind President Biden’s long-delayed pick to lead the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) while Republicans vowed to block the nomination. 

The Senate Commerce Committee has slow-walked the nomination of Phil Washington, the CEO of Denver International Airport, amid questions about his aviation experience and an ongoing corruption investigation related to his tenure as head of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority. 

Biden nominated Washington to lead the FAA more than seven months ago.

The FAA has been without a Senate-confirmed administrator for nearly a year amid numerous challenges, most recently struggling with near collisions and a high-profile system meltdown.

At a Commerce hearing on Wednesday, Washington told senators he would aim to swiftly address pressing issues such as a flurry of drones entering the airspace and staffing shortages at the FAA. 

“However, to accomplish all these things, we need permanent leadership at the top of the FAA to address the challenges that we have seen in the last several years,” Washington said.

Republicans aim to block nomination

Republicans on Wednesday criticized Washington’s aviation experience, arguing that his 20-month stint as an airport executive doesn’t qualify him to lead the FAA. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the committee’s ranking member, said that Republicans might be able to block Washington’s nomination.

While the nomination would normally require a simple majority vote in the Senate, where Democrats have a slim majority, Cruz said that Washington’s military status necessitates a congressional waiver that would need the support of 60 senators and the GOP-controlled House.

Washington is a retired 24-year Army veteran, and federal law says the FAA administrator must be a civilian. Previous FAA nominees have had to secure a waiver or give up their retired military status, which comes with government benefits. 

“On five occasions Congress has passed legislative waivers … We would do the same for Mr. Washington if his record merited it, if he had experience in aviation safety. But it doesn’t,” Cruz said. “And if Senate Democrats force this nomination through without a waiver, a legal cloud will hang over every single FAA action.”

Republicans made their case by quizzing Washington about specific aircraft safety functions and noting that he was unable to answer most of them. 

“The FAA can’t afford to be led by someone who needs on the job training,” Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) said. “And for that reason, I’m going to be opposing your nomination.”

Republicans also pointed to a criminal investigation into allegations of favoritism in no-bid contracts Washington handed out as head of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority. They noted that Washington was named in a federal lawsuit this month filed by a former Denver International Airport employee who alleged discriminatory and retaliatory practices at the airport. 

“I think it’s fair to say that you would already be confirmed if there had not been serious, bipartisan questions about your qualifications and fitness for office,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told Washington, adding that he was surprised Biden renominated Washington.

Democrats rally behind Washington

Democrats on Wednesday largely voiced support for Washington, arguing that the FAA needs a Senate-confirmed administrator as soon as possible and celebrating his job leading the world’s third-busiest airport.

They noted that several FAA nominees who didn’t have an aviation background but were confirmed with bipartisan support, including former FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. They argued that it’s a good thing Washington isn’t an airline veteran. 

“He’s not an airline industry insider using his role as a position for the industry to police itself,” Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said. “The challenges facing the FAA are those of managing a large, complex bureaucracy badly in need of modernization, and certainly in that respect he’s no novice.” 

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), chairwoman of the Senate Commerce Committee, argued that the FAA and the aviation industry got “too cozy” in recent years. 

Democrats cited the agency’s certification of the Boeing 737 MAX, which would later suffer technical issues that led to two disastrous crashes, killing nearly 350 passengers.

FAA faces series of hurdles

In January, the FAA suffered an outage to its pilot alert system, forcing the agency to ground all U.S. flights for the first time in two decades, prompting congressional investigations. The agency said that it needs to modernize its aging systems, but acknowledged the overhaul will take years. 

The FAA is investigating a near collision on Monday between a private charter jet and a JetBlue airplane at a Boston airport. That comes after a near miss at an Austin airport earlier this month and another close call at a New York City airport in January. 

Airlines struggled with delays and cancellations during some of last year’s busiest travel days last year and blamed summer disruptions on a shortage of air traffic control staff.

Southwest Airlines suffered perhaps the biggest meltdown in aviation history over the Christmas holidays, canceling nearly 17,000 flights after its own systems went haywire.  

Meanwhile, the agency needs to adapt to an influx of drones and other aerial vehicles entering the airspace.

Billy Nolen, the FAA’s associate administrator for aviation safety, has been leading the agency since April 2022, when Trump-appointed FAA administrator Steve Dickson stepped down. That leaves the agency without a permanent head as lawmakers work on FAA reauthorization legislation this year.

Source: TEST FEED1

Christie: Trump grand jury foreperson 'did a lot of damage' to case

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said on Wednesday that the foreperson of the Georgia special grand jury investigating former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 election results “did a lot of damage” with her recent comments to the media.

“I think she did a lot of damage to the case,” Christie said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, but added that “she didn’t violate the law.”

“She’s under, as you know, no legal obligation not to talk. But we, when I was U.S. attorney [for New Jersey], we used to tell every grand juror, you know, ‘You put in all this work to help us conduct this investigation, please don’t talk about it publicly until we take some action, because you put us at risk,'” he continued.

Emily Kohrs, the forewoman of the Fulton County grand jury, discussed the group’s final report with several media outlets last week, suggesting that its anticipated charging recommendations would not come as a surprise.

But unlike a standard grand jury, the special grand jury in Georgia cannot issue an indictment, only recommendations. If Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis wants to pursue an indictment, she will have to bring the case before a standard grand jury.

“I will tell you that if the judge releases the recommendations, it is not going to be some giant plot twist,” Kohrs said. “You probably have a fair idea of what may be on there. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately.”

Christie said on Wednesday that Kohrs’s comments “create a real challenge” for prosecutors if they decide to bring charges against Trump or his allies. 

“They’ll grab everything that’s a weakness and attach it to the lack of credibility of the grand jury itself, even though all of the other people of the grand jury may be incredibly serious folks who have not spoken publicly,” he said.

“I guarantee you they’ll subpoena [Kohrs] and put her on the stand,” Christie added. “And whatever her foibles are in addition to what we’ve already seen, they’ll be on full display in a courtroom.”

Trump’s lawyers already appear to be taking such an approach. Drew Findling and Jennifer Little, two of the former president’s defense attorneys, called the special grand jury “clown-like” in an interview with The Atlanta-Journal Constitution last week.

“This type of carnival, clown-like atmosphere that was portrayed over the course of the last 36 hours takes away from the complete sanctity and the integrity and, for that matter, the reliability,” Findling said.

Source: TEST FEED1

House Republicans advance TikTok ban along party lines

House Republicans advanced a bill Wednesday that would give President Biden the ability to ban TikTok after a contentious Tuesday meeting, where Democrats slammed the GOP over accusations of trying to rush through text that opponents said is flawed. 

The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 24-16 in a party-line vote Wednesday morning to advance Committee Chair Michael McCaul’s (R-Texas) Deterring America’s Technology Adversaries Act (DATA Act).

The bill now heads to the House floor, where it will need a majority of the chamber’s support to make it to the Senate.

The proposal was quietly introduced late last week and added to the schedule for a debate during Tuesday’s meeting. The vote was ultimately pushed to Tuesday morning.

Democrats highlighted that the committee did not hold hearings on the bill ahead of Tuesday’s committee vote. 

“We should not be making judgements based upon fear, based upon speculation. Especially when we have a process in place with the [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] to determine what the facts are,” ranking member Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said, referring to the CFIUS review Biden ordered of TikTok in June 2021. 

“This is far too serious for us to make a decision by fear and to be wrong,” he added.

Democrats accuse GOP of rushing TikTok ban proposal

Meeks said he “forcefully and unequivocally” opposed the legislation, which he said would damage allegiances across the globe, destroy jobs in the U.S. and “undercut core American values of free speech and free enterprise.”

The DATA Act would amend an existing exemption under something called the Berman Amendments, which limit the president from regulating informational materials to promote the exchange of ideas across nations, so that it does not apply to “sensitive personal data.”

The change would allow the president to potentially ban software applications, such as TikTok, which is owned by Chinese-based ByteDance. 

McCaul called TikTok a “modern day Trojan Horse” for the Chinese Communist Party to “surveil and exploit” American’s personal data. He said his bill would give the administration power to sanction TikTok and other applications that “threaten” U.S. national security. 

TikTok has pushed back against allegations that it poses a national security threat.

“A U.S. ban on TikTok is a ban on the export of American culture and values to the billion-plus people who use our service worldwide. We’re disappointed to see this rushed piece of legislation move forward, despite its considerable negative impact on the free speech rights of millions of Americans who use and love TikTok,” said TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter in a Wednesday statement.

Critics say bill could ‘decimate’ U.S. companies, impact free speech

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said what is “most disappointing” about Tuesday’s markup is there is “broad universal support” to do what the bill aims to do, but that the bill presented to the committee for a vote is “not well written” and lacks definitions on key portions of the text. 

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said the “hastily drafted” bill could “decimate” U.S. companies and has concerning implications for Americans’ right to freedom of expression. 

“To me this bill is clear evidence of an attempt to use the hot button issue to jump into the spotlight with no regard for the actual policy impacts,” she said. 

McCaul and Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) pushed back on Democrats’ accusations that the bill was rushed or that the committee should delay action. 

McCaul said his office was in conversations with the monitor “for a month” about the language of the bill. The committee chair said “we can’t wait until CFIUS reaches an agreement.” 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also urged Congress not to pass the proposal, arguing it would violate the First Amendment rights of the millions of Americans who use the app to “communicate and express themselves daily.”

Growing anti-TikTok pressure builds

The debate over McCaul’s proposal is the latest sign of the mounting anti-TikTok sentiment in Congress. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a separate proposal to ban TikTok in the U.S. earlier this year. 

A push to ban TiKTok on government devices successfully made its way into a government spending bill last year, and was signed into law by Biden. Proposals to ban TikTok nationwide, though, face a tougher battle. 

Even Democrats who voted against McCaul’s proposal on Tuesday expressed interest in pursuing some form of action, but in a way that addresses concerns they said are raised about how the bill impacts freedom of speech. 

In the Senate, Democrats have also expressed support for adding limitations on how TikTok operates, but have stopped short of backing an outright ban. 

For example, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo) has asked the executive officers of Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their app stores.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) is planning to introduce a proposal that would establish a comprehensive and risk-based process to review foreign-owned technology services.

Source: TEST FEED1

Bill Maher: 'I am afraid of Trump on a very personal level'

Bill Maher says he’s scared of former President Trump “on a very personal level” and “what he would do” to the comedian if he were to win the 2024 White House race.

“I am afraid of Trump on a very personal level because I don’t think he likes me. I understand why,” the HBO “Real Time” host told Jake Tapper on Tuesday as part of a CNN prime-time special. “And I don’t know what he would do in a second term.”

The comic and liberal commentator said after Trump won the 2016 presidential election, “I was afraid for my own wellbeing. I thought I could wind up in Guantánamo Bay. I think I still could.”

“He’s obsessed sometimes. I don’t know. He went on a tear for about eight months when he was president. Every time he’d have a rally, I have a list three pages long of the things he’s called me,” he said of the 45^th president.

Maher, 67, has been a frequent critic of Trump, referring to the ex-real estate developer and 2024 Republican presidential candidate as “everything wrong with a human being stuffed into one man.”

Trump has slammed Maher as a “radical left maniac.”

Earlier this month, Trump attacked CNN for adding Maher’s “Overtime” post-show segment to its Friday night programming. The cable network, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, “wants to give wacky liddle’ Bill Maher a shot at bringing them back to just normal ‘bad’ when Bill Maher suffers from the same affliction as CNN — BAD RATINGS!”

“I mean, he is obviously someone who does not know any boundaries, and, you know, you have to worry when you see what other authoritarian rulers do in other countries to people,” Maher told Tapper of Trump.

“I’m not thinking he’s going to become [Russian President Vladimir Putin] and start pushing people out windows,” Maher said, “but I’m not going to live on the 30th floor anywhere either.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Schumer, Jeffries ask Murdoch to stop Fox hosts lying about 2020 election 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have sent a letter to Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch asking him to stop Fox News personalities from “spreading false election narratives,” warning they could lead to “further acts of political violence.”  

The Democratic leaders focus on Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who has received exclusive access from Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to review security footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. 

“We demand that you direct Tucker Carlson and other hosts on your network to stop spreading false election narratives and admit on the air that they were wrong to engage in such negligent behavior,” Schumer and Jeffries wrote.  

The Democratic leaders point to Murdoch’s deposition testimony in which he acknowledged several network hosts “endorsed” false narratives about the 2020 election being stolen and that he and other Fox executives didn’t stop them.  

“Though you have acknowledged your regret in allowing this grave propaganda to take place, your network hosts continue to promote, spew, and perpetuate election conspiracy theories to this day,” they wrote.  

They noted that that Murdoch at one point characterized former President Trump’s claims that the election was stolen as “really crazy stuff” but has allowed Fox News hosts to continue “to peddle election denialism to the American people.” 

“This sets a dangerous precedent that ignores basic journalistic fact-checking principles and public accountability,” they wrote.  

The letter is also addressed to Fox executive chairman and CEO Lachlan Murdoch, Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott, and Fox News Media President Jay Wallace.  

Fox News hosts including Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham privately expressed strong skepticism about Trump’s stolen election claims and even mocked Trump advisers who circulated outlandish theories, according to texts and testimony that have become public through a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox.   

Murdoch admitted in his deposition that he would have “liked us to be stronger in denouncing” the stolen election claims and that he “could have” stopped them from being repeated on air “but I didn’t.”  

Schumer and Jeffries raised concern about what they called the “alarming” decision to grant Carlson exclusive access to security footage from the Jan. 6 despite Carlson implying in a documentary series that the mob breach of the Capitol was false-flag operation intended to discredit Trump supporters.  

“We demand that you direct Tucker Carlson and other hosts on your network to stop spreading false election narratives and admit on the air that they were wrong to engage in such negligent behavior,” they wrote.  

They argued that spreading “false propaganda” could embolden future attacks against lawmakers and public officials and “broadly weakens faith in our democracy.”  

“Fox News executives and all other hosts on your network have a clear choice. You can continue a pattern of lying to your viewers and risking democracy or move beyond this damaging chapter in your company’s history by siding with the truth and reporting the facts,” they wrote.  

Source: TEST FEED1