Kinzinger says GOP defense of Trump 'hypocrisy'

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on Sunday criticized the Republican party for backing former President Trump in the wake of the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property because he said he believes they are “defending a man who very clearly did not take the national security of the United States to heart.”

Kinzinger told NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd this was the same political base that pushed to imprison former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over her handling of emails as a secretary of state.

“The hypocrisy of folks in my party that spent years chanting, ‘Lock her up,’ about Hillary Clinton because of some deleted emails or – quote/unquote, ‘wiping a server’ — are now out there defending a man who very clearly did not take the national security of the United States to heart,” Kinzinger said.

The FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate earlier this month as part of an investigation into whether the former president violated the Espionage Act and statutes involving obstruction of justice.

Much of the GOP has rallied around Trump, with a select few calling to “defund the FBI.” One Trump supporter earlier this month threatened FBI agents in Ohio before he was shot and killed in a standoff with police.

Kinzinger, a member of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, told NBC that if he or other lawmakers took home classified documents and refused to give them up, they would be in “real trouble.”

“This is disgusting in my mind,” Kinzinger said, adding, “no president should act this way, obviously.”

The Illinois lawmaker noted that the National Archives first launched an inquiry into the missing documents in the spring of 2021 and were hampered by Trump’s efforts because he was either withholding information or stonewalling requests.

 “Mishandling classified information is one thing, particularly if it was unintentional. You know, if you accidentally did take something home, there may be consequences,” Kinzinger told Todd on NBC. “But I think you look at the intentionality of that. There is intentionality there. I mean, this thing is big.”

“When you look at some of the president’s biggest kind of cheerleaders, [Republican Reps.] Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan, have gone kind of silent,” he continued. “That tells you all you need to know.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Tim Ryan says he'll join Biden at upcoming Ohio stop

Democratic Ohio Senate nominee Tim Ryan said on Sunday that he plans to join President Biden at an upcoming event in the Buckeye State. 

“Yes, I will. This is a huge opportunity,” Ryan, who’s currently serving in the House of Representatives, told host Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“The CHIPS Act that we passed is all about reshoring high-end manufacturing jobs. Intel is going to invest, what they’re saying, up to $100 billion into Ohio to manufacture these chips…that we need for our cars and all the technology,” Ryan said, referring to legislation passed and signed into law in an effort to help restore high-end manufacturing jobs. 

“This is the biggest, most transformational economic development project in Ohio’s history,” he added. “I will be there.”

Biden plans to be in Ohio in September for the groundbreaking of Intel’s new $20 billion semiconductor facilities, the White House said last week.  

“The average wage there is going to be $135,000 a year. Those are the jobs we’re talking about,” Ryan told Bash on Sunday. “Those are the jobs with dignity. That’s what I’m fighting for.”

Ryan will face Republican Senate nominee J.D. Vance in November’s midterm election. 

An Emerson College poll published last week found that Vance, who is backed by former President Trump, leading Ryan by 3 points, with 45 percent of respondents supporting Vance and 42 percent backing Ryan. 

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP edge in race for House control slips: poll

Republicans’ advantage in the race for control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections is slightly shrinking, according to a new survey.

The CBS News poll released Sunday estimates that Republicans will win 226 House seats in November, which is down from 230 seats estimated last month.

Abortion rights, gas prices, former President Trump’s possible reelection bid and concerns about “extreme” candidates are among the issues hindering Republicans’ chances in the midterms, pollsters noted.

Abortion has become a leading election issue following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The new CBS News poll found that 65 percent of women surveyed are still expressing concerns that Republicans will prioritize abortion restrictions if they gain power.

Additionally, the survey found that likely voters said by more than a two to one margin that they would vote to support abortion rights rather than oppose them.

While just under 50 percent of all voters said their vote is not about Trump, voters are paying close attention to the search at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

The poll found that 85 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of independents said that they see the search as an “attempt to protect national security.” Eighty percent of Republicans, however, see it as a “political attack on Trump.”

And with 53 percent of registered voters saying that gas prices in their area have gone down, their views on President Biden’s handling of the economy have improved slightly. Biden’s job approval, which considers the economy, inflation and gas prices, rose to 45 percent, a 3 percentage point increase from July.

The poll of 2,126 registered voters, which was conducted between Aug. 24 and 26, has a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

Religious persecution is closer to home than most Americans realize

One with a fatwa on their back cannot live in peace, but can only rest in peace. This is the lesson to be drawn from the brutal attack on the internationally renowned writer Salman Rushdie.  

It was reported that the attacker was a lone wolf and not hired by any state.  

Nevertheless, was this an isolated incident? Not really. Salman Rushdie has been living with a sword over his head for over 33 years. His book “The Satanic Verses,” published in 1988 had made him a target. In 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of the Iranian regime issued a fatwa condemning Rushdie to death for alleged blasphemy.    

However, this is not exclusive to Iranian theocrats or even the wider Middle East. According to Pew Research, around 79 countries, 40 percent of all countries, have blasphemy laws. Countries such as Pakistan go to the extreme extent of slapping death sentences on those alleged to have blasphemed, such as in the case of Christian woman Asia Bibi. Initially, she found refuge in France and later permanent asylum in Canada.  

Most recently, Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Western India was brutally beheaded and the incident was broadcast live. The tailor had publicly voiced support for a leader in India who had made remarks about the Prophet Muhammad in response to comments about Hindu gods. This incident is similar to one in France where Samuel Paty, a high school teacher, was executed for allegedly commenting on the prophet. India and France do not have blasphemy or apostasy laws. Iran sends out agents or hires assassins to execute those who have allegedly blasphemed. However, nefarious elements like Rushdie’s lone wolf attacker also impose those laws and instill fear.    

There are also extremists closer to home. They may not be as violent as the Islamic theocrats mentioned, but it is certainly worth pondering how an America that has witnessed race-based slavery and racial violence has kept the lid on theocracy.  

That may not be for long.  

Historians often cite religious persecution in Europe as one of the major driving factors for Europeans to move across the Atlantic. Interestingly, the new denominations that came about on American soil continue to propagate even more hardline policies than the Christianity that exists today in Europe. This paradoxical state of affairs blurs the line between church and state by influencing and shaping several public policies, ranging from abortion rights to gay marriage. Commentators such as Sohrab Ahmari have been advocating for the U.S. to adopt a more traditionalist version of catholicism

While America is far from bringing in blasphemy and apostasy laws like the ones that exist in many (mostly Islamic) nations, it would not come as a surprise if conservative thought leaders and lawmakers within the Republican party propose such restrictions, not necessarily through legislation but through other means. The book bans in Florida and Texas are a case in point. For a group that rallies against the cancel culture of the left, conservatives have certainly pioneered “canceling” by banning novels, textbooks and other material that they deemed unsuitable.  

Moreover, this is part of a broader ecosystem that is in the works. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) comment, “I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists,” and  Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) saying she’s “tired” of the long-standing separation between church and state in the United States indicates that Christian nationalism has an interesting nexus with ethnonationalism.  

In 1990, Time magazine had a front cover warning of upcoming doom with the birth rates of whites going down and those of people of color on the rise. One point to note, Time was not a fringe outlet back then nor is it now. It is very much part of the establishment. Similarly, in 1975, former Lyndon B. Johnson speechwriter and demographer Ben Wattenberg sowed the seeds of this line of thinking with his book, “Birth Dearth.” Several writers since have used that as their ready reckoner to predict doom and gloom for Western civilization when they are actually using the “west” as a convenient euphemism to garner wider readership from another group that starts with the letter ‘w.’  

Since former president Donald Trump’s term in office, there have been several books on the decline of Western civilization and “Judeo-Christian values.” Douglas Murray’s “War on the West” and Jordon Peterson’s lectures, which are taken as sermons by his followers for the revival of Western civilization, are a noteworthy few.   

Given the worldwide rise in populism, it is not improbable that leaders and thought leaders seek to revive the infamous Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” hypothesis and align themselves with nations and states that share religious or cultural values. In this hyper-theocratic global environment, it will be atheists that could become stateless and without representation.  

While states such as France still hold onto their tradition of Laïcité and stand by their secular tradition, even if it comes at a steep price such as threats to freedom and life — the Charlie Hebdo attacks and Samuel Paty are exceptions to the norm. Especially under President Emmanuel Macron, it has welcomed victims of blasphemy laws with open arms to the Elysee Palace offering moral and at times temporary refuge. 

In a study conducted by sociologists at the University of Minnesota,  it was found that atheists were the most disliked people in America. This is not surprising. When filmmakers decided to make a movie about the notorious atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, they appropriately titled it “The Most Hated Woman in America.”  

As time goes on, America will become even more culturally and ethnically diverse. Will religious diversity be part of that mix? Will it be home to nonbelievers and secularists? Or would they have to be closeted for their own safety? It will all depend on the action or inaction of the secularists.

Akhil Ramesh is a fellow with the Pacific Forum. He has worked with governments, risk consulting firms and think tanks in the United States and India. Follow him on Twitter: Akhil_oldsoul.

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP governor says Biden 'owes an apology' to Republicans after 'semi-fascist' comment

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) on Sunday called for President Biden to issue an apology after the president compared the “Make American Great Again,” otherwise known as the MAGA-Trump wing of the Republican Party, to “semi-fascism” last week.

Sununu told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that the president’s comments were “horribly insulting.”

“The fact that the president would go out and just insult half of America [and] effectively call half of America semi-fascist,” Sununu said. “He’s trying to stir up controversy, he’s trying to stir up this anti-Republican sentiment right before the election — it’s horribly inappropriate.”

At a Democratic National Committee (DNC) fundraising event in Bethesda, Md., last week, Biden said the U.S. was seeing “either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy.”

“It’s not just [former President] Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the — I’m going to say something, it’s like semi-fascism,” the president said.

Biden has previously criticized the MAGA wing of the GOP, saying “this is not your father’s Republican party” and calling it a “different deal.”

Sununu conceded there are “elements of fascism and white supremacy” in the U.S., but explained it’s also not true that “all the Democrats are communists.”

“When we allow ourselves just to talk in these extremes, we polarize the country,” Sununu told CNN on Sunday, adding Biden on the campaign trail had “said he was going to bring everybody together.”

“And then to call half of America fascists?” the GOP governor asked. “He owes an apology. That’s not appropriate. That isn’t leadership.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Unsealed Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit reveals the government has no case against Trump

When two dozen or more FBI agents searched former President Donald Trump’s residence three weeks ago, most Americans initially were left wondering what in the world must Trump have done. After all, a prodigious FBI search logically indicates an equally prodigious violation of some federal statute; therefore, it must be really serious. One former Department of Justice (DOJ) official told Politico that the evidence sought “was likely so pulverizing in its force” that it would “eviscerate” the possibility of the optics for such an invasive law enforcement action not being good.

Well, it’s now pretty official: The optics aren’t good.

Everyone in America, from plumber to president, is constitutionally protected from a government search that lacks adequate cause.  

We now know why the DOJ wanted the affidavit — which is supposed to articulate the probable cause needed for a legitimate search — to be kept under seal. After the magistrate who authorized the search forced the DOJ to unseal a redacted version, two realities came into better focus.

First, the affidavit confirmed that the FBI’s investigation was triggered in January 2022 at the request of the National Archives which wanted certain documents, especially classified documents, that it considered to be presidential records to be turned over to it by Trump. Second, from what I have seen, I don’t believe the affidavit articulates how a federal law was or is being broken. For those who hold out hope that the affidavit’s redacted sections fill that gap, there is almost no chance that they do. (More on that below.) 

As to the first point, this matter is, as suspected, nothing more than a document dispute that was chugging along, appropriately, as a negotiation behind the scenes and apparently making some progress. I don’t see anything in the affidavit asserting a refusal by Trump to cooperate. 

Any clinging hope — in certain quarters — that the affidavit possessed “pulverizing” cause to believe Trump was engaged in a truly serious federal violation can — I think — be considered dashed. The pipe dream that Trump was engaged in espionage, actively providing secrets to an enemy I think is as fanciful as the Steele dossier’s Moscow hotel bed reverie. And, no, I don’t believe a smoking gun of espionage or something equally shocking will be in the redacted sections. If the FBI had that, it would have fronted that in the unredacted portions.  

As to the second and more important point, the affidavit’s probable cause statements focus on only half of what is needed to show a possible violation of the federal statutes that are cited in the warrant. The affidavit does a reasonable job of establishing cause to believe Trump possessed a range of classified materials — or at least once-classified materials — and that those materials were located in his residence.

But that’s not all that’s needed — in this case in particular. A criminal violation of those statutes only exists if it can be established that the person being investigated was not authorized to possess, store, transfer or copy those documents. This is an easy element to establish against anyone in America. Except one person.  

The unredacted parts of the affidavit make no attempt to articulate cause that Trump was not authorized to have these documents in his home. The reason why is that, as president, he had broad, legally intimidating authority, established by law and court determinations, to declassify any and all documents and to determine what is and is not a presidential record. Trump and his legal team have asserted that this authority was exercised while he was still president. Therefore, a violation of these fairly low-level and seldom-prosecuted document-oriented statutes cannot be proven.  

I don’t think there’s much chance that the affidavit’s redacted portions contain some novel legal theory undercutting this broad, well-established presidential authority. Affidavits for intrusive searches of a private home — the most extreme action the government can take against a resident of the United States, short of arrest — are not the place for advancing theories. Probable cause must be built on facts. 

The redacted sections are considerable. Redaction is supposed to be utilized only to protect sensitive methods and techniques — in other words, how the government came by its information that it doesn’t want to publicly divulge so it can keep using those tactics or protect providers of information. A good and prudent example would be the use of confidential human and/or technical sources. A bad example would be citing press reports, a la the Carter Page FISA affidavit.

The redacted portions therefore, normally, will simply cover how the FBI supported its assertions in the unredacted sections that Trump possessed classified materials in his residence — i.e., what confidential or sensitive sources were used to establish those facts. Don’t expect anything more. 

The situation does not look good for the government. The Ivy League-educated attorneys of the DOJ had to know this adventure had little chance of an eventual successful prosecution. The use, therefore, of a highly intrusive search of a home simply as a forcing function to retrieve documents for the National Archives — and then not follow through with actual charges — spikes the potential abuse needle dramatically and will not help quiet the growing suspicion that this was more of a political hit-job to take Trump off the chessboard than it was the pursuit of blind justice.  

I am often asked if the FBI had no choice but to pursue the National Archives request and open a case. Yes, it had a choice and, no, it didn’t have to open this investigation. The FBI declines to initiate cases involving more serious violations all the time.  

The platitudinous justification from Democrats is “No one is above the law” — but we know that’s not true. The last time the Democrats controlled the DOJ, Hillary Clinton was set high aloft and placed out of reach of “reasonable” prosecution by then-FBI director James Comey with the concurrence of the DOJ. Even Comey noted that she was clearly not authorized to possess highly classified documents on a private server.

Politicians on both the right and left say bombastic things that inflame passions and drive opposition attempts to eliminate competition. But involving our justice system in politically tainted efforts can never be tolerated.  No citizen of this land, no matter who they are, should be subjected to a law enforcement action where there is an absence of evidence that anything illegal occurred.

Kevin R. Brock is a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He independently consults with private companies and public-safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP governor on redacted Trump affidavit: ‘What’s the point?’

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) on Sunday said he is “disappointed” by the heavily redacted FBI affidavit that was used to justify a raid on former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, arguing that reviewing it was pointless because the document was “almost all redacted.”

Sununu told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that he had been “pretty excited to see what might be in this affidavit” until it was released.

“I think I speak for everyone when we’re all pretty disappointed to see it was almost all redacted,” the governor said. “I get you got to redact certain things here and there, but you had pages upon pages upon pages redacted, to the point where you say, well, what’s the point?”

The FBI searched Trump’s estate earlier this month in connection to an investigation into the former president potentially violating the Espionage Act by taking home classified documents.

The 28-page affidavit released Friday showed that the National Archives had picked up 15 boxes containing 184 classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, 25 of which were labeled top secret, before the search. Agents seized 11 different sets of classified documents during the search in early August.

Sununu on Sunday said the redacted affidavit is not enough to justify the steps the Department of Justice took, considering the unprecedented nature of the Mar-a-Lago search.

The GOP governor also said the Biden administration should employ a “strategy for unprecedented transparency.”

“You got to be able to show your cards when you’re taking actions like this,” he told CNN. “I’m not saying put all the documents on the Internet, but give us some sense of the subject matter. Give us some sense of the time. Give us some sense of what really drove us in there.”

Source: TEST FEED1

The surprising connection between military strategy and success of the Civil Rights movement

The civil rights campaigns of the 1950s and 60s changed America. It’s hard to think of the nonviolent movement and its leader, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., in military terms. Yet that’s exactly what Tom Ricks does in a very interesting book out this fall, “Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1968.”

“There is a direct relationship between wars and struggles for civil rights,” Ricks writes in an advance copy of the book I read. My skepticism vanished.

This is Ricks seventh non-fiction book on the military themes. He is an acclaimed historian, after a distinguished reporting career at the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. As the Journal’s Washington bureau chief, I assigned Ricks to cover the Pentagon.

For all the obvious differences, Ricks convincingly establishes real parallels between successful wars and the militantly non-violent civil rights movement: the importance of strong leadership; meticulous planning and realistic goals; recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both your own side and the enemy; learning from inevitable setbacks, and — above all — courage in the face of grave danger.

A good starting point is a million black veterans returning from World War II. Ricks relates the story of Charles Dryden, a black fighter pilot returning to train new pilots at Walterboro Army Airfield in rural South Carolina. The German POWs at the camp were allowed to eat in the white section of the cafeteria; Dryden wasn’t.

Leadership that inspires and is surrounded by talent is a sine qua non of military success — Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, Adm. Chester Nimitz, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. “Eisenhower tried to focus on the absolutely essential while delegating to others the merely important,” Ricks notes.

If King was the four-star general of the civil rights movement, he was surrounded by a lot of three-stars: John Lewis, Ralph Abernathy, Andrew Young, Diane Nash, Bob Moses, Fannie Lou Hamer, James Bevel, James Lawson, Fred Shuttlesworth and others.

We read or remember the demonstrations, the marches, the eloquent speeches, the courage under attack. That was all made possible by meticulous training and discipline. “Passion and enthusiasm were no substitute for sound strategic planning,” Andy Young noted.

One of the few women leaders in the movement was Diane Nash, who according to Ricks personified Clausewitz’s dictum that the most important task of a commander is to understand the nature of the war in which one is engaged. Last month Nash was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Biden.

John Lewis is remembered for the beatings he endured in leading the Selma marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. He also was a disciplined leader; witness the detailed specificity of his handbook of do’s and don’ts for young blacks sitting in at segregated Southern lunch counters.

Before the Freedom Summer hundreds, almost a thousand volunteers attended two-week training sessions in Oxford, Ohio; those not ready for the dangers of riding buses through Mississippi trying to register voters were weeded out. The Selma march was planned for months. The pictures and broadcasts of “Bloody Sunday” stirred the country and paved the way for congressional approval of the Voting Rights Act.

Logistics are a key to military success. Ask the Russians, with their 40 miles of backed-up, fuel-starved tanks and food-deprived troops North of Kyiv in their invasion of Ukraine, or think of Hitler’s ill-fated 1941 Russian invasion.

The logistical brilliance of the Civil Rights movement was on display in the 1963 March on Washington. It was opposed by some of the old-line Civil Rights leaders and the Kennedy administration, which feared chaos and violence. It was a remarkable success, highlighted by King’s “I have a Dream” speech, one of the most memorable of the 20th century.

That was possible because of the extraordinary assemblage of 2,000 buses, 21 trains and 10 aircraft bringing many of the 250,000 to Washington — and because of the orderly discipline and preparation on the mall. They all left without incident, and in a few hours the mall was cleared and clean.

King and the others made miscalculations, a failed campaign in Albany, Ga., and disastrous foray into Chicago. But they learned from these mistakes, always keeping their eyes on goal, the prize of equal rights. I hope our military leaders similarly learn from miscalculations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Having read Ricks, I couldn’t help thinking that contemporary military leaders, like Gen. James Mattis and Adm. James Stavridis, are more impressive than their Vietnam-era predecessors. But, perhaps unfairly, it’s hard to see a King or a Lewis or a Nash today.

Ricks, noting that Selma’s Bloody Sunday was about voting rights for Blacks, worries now that America is in a “downward spiral,” with efforts to roll back voting rights. Then, recalling those courageous and bold leaders of a couple generations ago, he hopes it can be done again.

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

Source: TEST FEED1

Tim Ryan says he prefers tax cuts over student loan debt forgiveness

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) on Sunday said he supports a broader package of debt relief and a tax cut “for all working people” over the student loan forgiveness plan announced by President Biden.

Ryan, who is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Ohio, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that a “targeted” measure helping only those with student loan debt “sends the wrong message” since a lot of Americans are struggling.

“There’s a lot of people out there making 30, 40 grand a year that didn’t go to college. And they need help as well, which is why I’ve been proposing a tax cut for working people that will affect everybody,” he said. “With the student loan piece [in my proposal], you could very easily allow them to negotiate renegotiate down the interest rates.”

Biden announced last week he would forgive up to $10,000 in student loan debt for those who make under $125,000 a year and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.

The move was hailed by most Democrats who have long pushed for the relief after the cost of college has soared.

Ryan on Sunday agreed the cost of college is “outrageous” but pointed out the Biden administration has no plan to tackle rising costs, meaning another generation would also struggle with student loan debt if nothing is done to fix the system.

“One of the stupidest things we’ve ever done in this country is tell everybody they have to go to college. I mean, that was a huge mistake,” Ryan told CNN. “And so here we are, and we’ve done nothing to control the cost of college, right? So we’re going to be in the same position here in five years.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Sanders predicts Democrats have 'reasonable chance' to retain Senate control

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Sunday that he believes the Democrats have a “reasonable chance” to retain control of the upper chamber in the midterm elections. 

During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” moderator George Stephanopoulos noted the legislative victories the Democrats have had over the summer, including the signing of the Inflation Reduction Act earlier this month. 

“I think there is a reasonable chance that Democrats will retain control over the Senate,” Sanders told Stephanopoulos.  

“I certainly hope we get more than 50 in the Senate that we got at least 52 so we can start going forward and protecting working people in a way we have not been able to do up to now,” he added.

Sanders said issues including abortion rights may drive voters to support Democrats in November. 

His comments come after the Supreme Court earlier this year struck down Roe v. Wade, which gave the constitutional right to abortion to women, leading the way for multiple GOP-led states to implement their own abortion bans and restrictions on the matter. 

“I think that the American people are saying, ‘Excuse me, in America in the year 2022 women will make that decision,’ ” Sanders told Stephanopoulos “And I think that decision is going to reverberate very poorly for Republicans who think that women do not have a right to control their own bodies.”

Vice President Harris has cast multiple tiebreaking votes in the Senate, which is now evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

Source: TEST FEED1