Tag Archives : Build House

The Hill's Morning Report — Garland to judge: Release Trump search warrant

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday said the government made the unusual decision to ask a court to unseal information about the government’s Monday search of former President Trump’s Florida residence because of intense public interest in the Justice Department’s reported seizure of sensitive materials Trump had removed from the White House. 

Overnight, Trump called for the “immediate” public release of the government’s warrant and receipt of materials taken after the FBI’s search of his home, both of which he and his lawyers possess.

“The department filed the motion to make public the warrant and [property] receipt in light of the former president’s public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances and the substantial public interest in this matter,” Garland said.

The attorney general, in a surprise appearance on Thursday at the Justice Department, said in prepared remarks that he personally approved the decision to seek a warrant and search Trump’s residence. 

Reacting to a political and news media firestorm stoked by Trump and his advocates this week and subsequent accusations that the administration is playing politics, Garland, a cautious former federal appeals court judge, forcefully defended the work and professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department employees.

“I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked. The men and women of the FBI and the Justice Department are patriotic, dedicated public servants,” the attorney general said. “Every day they protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism and other threats to their safety while safeguarding our civil rights. … I am honored to work alongside them. This is all I can say right now.”

Garland did not characterize or describe what his department sought from Trump or the “basis of the search,” which anonymous sources have said are presidential materials illegally withheld from the National Archives by Trump and his representatives, in defiance of negotiations and federal subpoenas. Before Monday’s, the drama to retrieve presidential records had included Trump’s initial return to the government of 15 boxes of White House materials.

Trump and his lawyers and advocates, who were the first to disclose the FBI search on Monday, argued again on Thursday that it was an unnecessary “raid,” while some Trump allies have suggested without evidence that the government might have “planted” documents to hurt the former president politically in advance of his anticipated 2024 presidential bid. 

In statements Thursday on his social media platform, Truth Social, the former president suggested that he and his lawyers had been prepared before Monday to cooperate with the Justice Department to surrender material “if we had it.” He asserted that the search was “out of nowhere and with no warning.” (In fact, a lawyer for Trump was present during the FBI search.)

The former president’s reaction to Garland’s public comments took aim at political detractors, arguing that the Justice Department falls in that category and executed a search warrant “drawn up by radical left Democrats and possible future political opponents, who have a strong and powerful vested interest in attacking me, much as they have done for the last 6 years. … This unprecedented political weaponization of law enforcement is inappropriate and highly unethical. … Release the documents now!” Trump wrote.

A judge had given Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department until 3 p.m. today to determine if Trump agrees to unseal the government’s search documents, which are the legal underpinnings of the government’s actions at Mar-a-Lago on Monday.

Between the spring and August, the department shifted from subpoena to court-ordered search warrant to locate classified presidential documents in part because a tipster reportedly told the government that Trump was not in full compliance and had withheld sensitive national security materials at Mar-a-Lago in possible violation of the law.

The New York Times reported that the Justice Department felt it had to act because the materials in Trump’s possession were related to national security, possibly “special access programs,” a designation typically reserved for extremely sensitive operations carried out by the United States abroad.

The Washington Post reported that classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among items FBI agents sought at Mar-a-Lago.

The New York Times: Trump as president was viewed by some intelligence officials as a security risk.

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who did not accompany Garland or add anything to public comments on Thursday, sent an internal message to FBI colleagues praising their work and professionalism and describing efforts to upgrade security, CNN’s Evan Pérez reported on-air. 

Related Articles

▪ Niall Stanage: Five key questions about the Mar-a-Lago search and its fallout.

▪ The New York Times: Read the Justice Department filing to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, seeking to unseal a warrant and an Aug. 8 redacted property receipt from the Mar-a-Lago search.  

▪ NewsNation: Authorities shot and killed an armed man who tried to breach the Cincinnati FBI office on Thursday, fled the scene and engaged in a lengthy standoff with police. Authorities are trying to sort out his motive.

▪ Politico: How the Trump FBI search puts swing-state Republicans in a bind.

▪ The Associated Press: Trump hired Atlanta criminal defense attorney Drew Findling to represent him in a Georgia probe of whether the former president illegally tried to interfere with the 2020 presidential election in the state.

LEADING THE DAY

➤  CONGRESS

For much of the past year-plus, drama has colored almost every part of the Democratic effort to pass a budget reconciliation package. That will not be the case today, as House Democrats of all stripes are set to vote for and pass the $740 billion proposal. 

The House will briefly interrupt its lengthy August recess today in order to pass the climate and tax proposal and hand yet another Biden a major win and attempt to buoy the Democratic chances of success in November.

As The Hill’s Mike Lillis notes, no Democratic defections are expected on the reconciliation bill — a remarkable turnaround after talks were mired with problems dating back to December when Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) put the Build Back Better agenda in a coma.

“This is a big deal, this is historic. And I’m anxious to get it to the floor, pass it, and get it to the president’s desk,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Rules Committee, told reporters on Wednesday. 

“People like me wanted a lot more, right? But the bottom line is you can only get done what’s possible within the reality you’re living,” he continued. “And in any other Congress, if we were to pass one of these things — one component of what is in this reconciliation bill — it would be huge.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday labeled the package “historic” and a “great bill.” Included in the bill are provisions aimed at lowering the price of prescription drugs, extending Affordable Care Act subsidies to keep premiums from increasing and increasing corporate tax rates. 

As the legislation’s name suggests, Democrats also hope the bill also has a positive impact on inflation. According to The Hill’s Rachel Frazin, the Inflation Reduction Act is expected to cut prices consumers pay for electricity, as the bill contains a mix of tax credits for renewable energy sources and incentives for household solutions that could save consumers about $200 per year, one model suggests. 

▪ The Associated Press: House Democrats set to overcome GOP for climate, health care win.

▪ Axios: Drug prices could give Democrats a midterms lifeline.

▪ NBC News: ​​Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) delivers a “gift to private equity” in Democrats’ big agenda bill.

▪ The Hill: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen tells IRS not to use new funding to increase middle-class audits. 

▪ Laura Kelly, The Hill: Lawmakers are heading to Ukraine with or without White House’s approval. 

In Indiana on Thursday, lawmakers mourned the death of Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) more than a week after she and two staff members were killed in a car accident in her home state. 

Walorski’s funeral took place at Granger Community Church in Indiana, where House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) all spoke. The House sergeant at arms coordinated a plane for members of Congress to fly to South Bend, Ind., for the funeral (The Hill). 

Zachery Potts, 27, and Emma Thomson, 28, were also killed in the Aug. 3 car crash.

IN FOCUS/SHARP TAKES

➤ POLITICS

The week’s Trump-laden news cycle is creating a messaging headache for the White House, as it wants to go above and beyond to ensure it does not look like it is attempting to influence the Justice Department’s investigation of the ex-president.

It was notable on Thursday that the White House declined to comment in response to Garland’s statement to the press, saying only that it became aware that he would speak at the podium via press reports and had no foreknowledge. Only days before, the White House said the same thing after the Mar-a-Lago search — that it first heard about it when it was reported in the media. 

According to The Hill’s Morgan Chalfant and Amie Parnes, Democrats believe that’s the right approach, even though it means GOP accusations and condemnations about the search will largely go unanswered by the White House. 

The decision also means Biden is expected to stay mum when it comes to openly criticizing his predecessor for the foreseeable future, even though a Biden-Trump rematch could be in the cards in 2024. Rather, the White House has other fish to fry in the form of legislative accomplishments, headlined by the reconciliation package that is set to hit the president’s desk for his signature in the coming days.

▪ Reuters: Flush with wins, finally COVID-19-free, Biden to hit the road ahead of U.S. midterms. 

▪ CNN: Biden to stay “laser focused” on legislative accomplishments amid Trump investigations. 

In New York, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) on Wednesday sued New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) alleging she improperly rejected his request for legal counsel in his sexual misconduct suit brought by a state trooper. 

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in the New York State Supreme Court, alleges that James’s denial of taxpayer funds to pay for the then-governor’s counsel was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to state law. New York law provides that the governor is entitled to defense in any civil action alleged while he was acting “within the scope of his public employment or duties.” Cuomo argues the suit is covered under the statute (The Hill).

▪ The Associated Press: Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. (D) plans “raw” remarks in return to campaign trail for Senate race. John Fetterman

▪ The Des Moines Register: Gov. Larry Hogan (R) visits the Iowa State Fair to discuss 2024 election.

📝 Introducing NotedDC, The Hill’s curated commentary on the beat of the Beltway. Click here to subscribe to our latest newsletter. 

OPINION

■ Merrick Garland is no cowboy, by Ruth Marcus, columnist, The Washington Post. https://wapo.st/3vU1PnW

■ How the CDC can build trust around monkeypox shots, by Lisa Jarvis, Bloomberg Opinion. https://bloom.bg/3SFjJ7T

WHERE AND WHEN

The House will meet at 9 a.m. and will vote on the Senate-passed Inflation Reduction Act.

The Senate convenes at 9 a.m. for a pro forma session during its summer recess, which ends Sept. 6.

The president and first lady Jill Biden are vacationing in South Carolina. Biden has no public events scheduled.

Vice President Harris is in Oakland, Calif., for separate events focused on a program in the city that supports students who aspire to higher education, and the administration’s policies supporting the commercial space sector. She will tour and speak at Chabot Space & Science Center. The vice president will travel in the afternoon to Los Angeles.

🖥  Hill.TV’s “Rising” program features news and interviews at http://thehill.com/hilltv, on YouTube and on Facebook at 10:30 a.m. ET. Also, check out the “Rising” podcast here.

ELSEWHERE  

➤ POLIO, PANDEMIC, HEALTH

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is fearful that a confirmed case of polio in Rockland County, N.Y., means there could be hundreds of cases because of a low rate of immunization in that area (60 percent vs. nearly 93 percent nationally). Polio’s spread is silent, and the disease is incurable but preventable with immunization. José Romero, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, warned that the identified case was the “tip of the iceberg” during an interview with CNN.

As anticipated, the CDC on Thursday officially relaxed the government’s COVID-19 guidance regardless of individuals’ vaccination status. It puts the onus on people to assess their own risk threshold, rather than businesses, governments or schools. The government indicated it will focus on protecting people most vulnerable to severe illness from the coronavirus (The Hill). 

The CEO of Bavarian Nordic, the company that makes the only FDA-approved monkeypox vaccine, told Biden administration health officials he is concerned about a new strategy to split doses and alter how the vaccine is injected. Paul Chaplin, the company’s CEO, said he has “some reservations” about the new approach for two reasons: the limited amount of safety data available, and that more individuals have experienced adverse reactions post-vaccination. “This may have a negative impact on vaccine uptake and coverage,” he wrote in a letter (The Hill).

Politico: Florida bans Medicaid from covering gender-affirming treatments.

Total U.S. coronavirus deaths reported as of this morning, according to Johns Hopkins University (trackers all vary slightly): 1,036,325. Current average U.S. COVID-19 daily deaths are 400, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

➤ CITY WATCH

Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine (D) announced Thursday his office won a $4 million judgment against Polymer80, a ghost gun maker and distributor. Racine’s office said a court ruled that the manufacturer violated the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, having sold and distributed illegal firearms in the District while making false claims about its products’ legality. The ruling requires the company to inform its dealers and distributors that its products cannot be sold in Washington (The Hill).

➤ SPORTS

The NBA on Thursday announced that it is retiring Bill Russell’s No. 6 league-wide. Any player who currently wears the number may continue to do so, but it will no longer be given out in the future. In a statement, NBA commissioner Adam Silver said that the Boston Celtics legend’s “unparalleled success on the court and pioneering civil rights activism deserve to be honored in a unique and historic way,” adding that the decision “ensures that Bill’s transcendent career will always be recognized.” Russell’s jersey retirement becomes only the third in American professional sports to be done so on a league-wide basis. Major League Baseball retired Jackie Robinson’s No. 42 in 1997, while the NHL retired Wayne Gretzky’s No. 99 in 2000 (ESPN). 

THE CLOSER

And finally … 👏👏👏 A hearty congrats to our Morning Report Quiz winners! It’s been 27 years since Jerry Garcia’s passing, so we were in search of smart guesses about the Grateful Dead. 

Here’s who came through the winner’s circle this week: Paul Harris, Pam Manges, Patrick Kavanagh, Amanda Fisher, Lou Tisler, Robert Bradley, Randall Patrick, André Leblanc, Ki Harvey, Steve James and “tmmetzler.”

They knew that the Grateful Dead, having toured for the better part of 30 years, played 2,314 shows throughout their prodigious live career.

Garcia’s ashes were spread in two spots: underneath the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and in the Ganges River in India.

The Grateful Dead’s 1971 live album, “Grateful Dead,” also known to fans as “Skull and Roses,” is the site of the first written history of the term “Dead Heads.”

Finally, the band went through six keyboardists (band members and touring members) between 1965 and Garcia’s death in 1995. 

Stay Engaged

We want to hear from you! Email: Alexis Simendinger and Al Weaver. Follow us on Twitter (@alweaver22 & @asimendinger) and suggest this newsletter to friends!

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden's new challenge is FBI's Trump search

The White House has a new messaging challenge on its hands: Donald Trump. 

President Biden, wary of appearing to influence the ongoing Justice Department investigation into the former president, doesn’t want to talk about the FBI search earlier this week at Mar-a-Lago.

Democrats say that’s the right approach, but it means Republicans hurling accusations and condemnations at the Justice Department and FBI will largely go unanswered by the White House. It also suggests that Biden is likely to shy away from openly criticizing his predecessor for the time being, despite most signs pointing to a Trump-Biden rematch in 2024.

Instead, White House officials are trying to focus on Biden’s accomplishments — which have grown substantially in recent weeks — but the frenzy surrounding the Trump probe threatens to drown out those efforts. 

“It’s a tricky spot to be in, for the White House,” one Democratic strategist said. “On the one hand, you really can’t be out in front of it. On the other hand, you don’t want the narrative to be locked in and that people assume there was some conspiracy here.” 

News of the FBI search on Trump’s property — the first targeting a former president in the nation’s history — sent shockwaves through Washington when Trump disclosed it in a statement on Monday. 

In the days since, Trump’s Republican allies have heaped criticism on Biden, the Justice Department, and the FBI, lobbing accusations about politicization and bias and vowing congressional investigations should they retake Congress after the November midterms.

The White House has largely ignored the developments, except to make clear that officials are keeping distance from the investigation by repeatedly deferring to the Justice Department. 

“The Department of Justice is going to conduct these investigations free of any political interference, free of the White House telling them what to do or orchestrating anything,” White House senior adviser Anita Dunn said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Thursday. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland addressed the search for the first time on Thursday, announcing that the Justice Department had asked a court to unseal the warrant authorizing the search of Trump’s Florida residence and to reveal what was collected — so long as Trump agrees to make that information public.

Biden, who is in South Carolina on a family vacation, has not yet publicly commented on the developments, and White House officials said he had no knowledge the search would take place. A White House official also said they had no knowledge Garland would make a surprise announcement Thursday ahead of time.

“They’re not saying anything now because, one, it wouldn’t be appropriate and, two, I don’t know there’s anything they could say,” said Steve Cash, a national security lawyer and former counsel for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Meanwhile, the White House is preparing to embark on a new push to promote Biden’s accomplishments, namely a signature piece of legislation to lower prescription drug costs and address climate change that is expected to pass the House on Friday. The passage of the legislation would be far and away the biggest news of the week — if not for the revelations about the Mar-a-Lago search.

“Taking a step back, the White House has had an incredible recent run,” said Jim Manley, a former aide to the late Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Unfortunately they’re running up against this other narrative and they can’t do much about it. Unlike the last administration, they’re not going to get involved in an ongoing investigation, and that’s the right call.” 

A senior White House official told reporters on Thursday that Biden hasn’t shied away from calling out “threats” posed by Trump and the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection but made clear the administration’s focus would be on highlighting policies that address Americans’ concerns about economic conditions and other everyday issues.

Biden has mostly avoided discussing Trump during his tenure and rarely refers to him by name. But that shifted somewhat in recent weeks, as Biden proactively jabbed Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 riot and appeared to relish the idea of a 2024 rematch with the former president as the House committee investigating the riot held a series of public hearings on the matter.

As with the specific revelations of the congressional probe into the Jan. 6 attack, Biden has taken pains to avoid discussing any Trump-related Justice Department investigations. 

Some say Biden shouldn’t shrink from the issue.

Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha, who served as a senior adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during his 2020 presidential campaign, said Biden should come at Trump strongly. 

“He should say the FBI is an independent organization and that’s what it should always be and nobody is above the law, including a former president of the United States,” Rocha said. 

Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, who served as an adviser to the Lincoln Project and supported Biden during the presidential race, said Biden is handling Trump as he should. 

“There’s nothing he can do now to put it in Trump’s face. It’s already there,” Del Percio said. “He’s not one who will start belittling someone for support. That’s what Donald Trump does.” 

“Let Donald Trump say, ‘it’s Biden. It’s Biden,’ she said. “The way stuff is going, he’s not going to know which fire to put out first.” 

But Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau acknowledged that Democrats might be losing the narrative to date. 

“From a communications war, are we losing the framing war on day three? Yes,” he said. “But ultimately I think the narrative will shift.”

Officials have signaled that any information about the Trump probe will come from the Justice Department, which normally does not comment publicly on ongoing investigations. 

Garland defended the Justice Department and FBI against “unfounded attacks” during a rare press conference Thursday, declaring that he would “not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.”

Manley credited Garland with holding the press conference, saying he “owned the investigation.”

“That’s the right way to go,” Manley said. “As someone who has maybe taken too pessimistic of a view of Democrats’ chances in recent months, it’s too bad the administration is enjoying all these successes when Trump is getting in more and more trouble but there’s nothing they can do about it. That’s politics.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Lawmakers are heading to Ukraine with or without White House’s approval

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa) didn’t give the Biden administration a chance to reject his request to travel to Ukraine when he visited Kyiv and Odesa in May.   

The former FBI agent, who helped stand up Ukraine’s National Anti Corruption Bureau in 2015, traveled with Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), relying on a network of personal contacts and the Ukrainian government to ensure his safety. 

“Me and Dan just decided to go, because we were told that [the trips] were not being approved,” Fitzpatrick told The Hill in an interview in his office in late July. “So that’s why we chose that course. Dan’s a Navy seal, I’m an FBI agent, so we can handle ourselves.” 

A member of the House committees on intelligence and foreign affairs, Fitzpatrick was intent on seeing for himself what impact U.S. assistance in the country was having following the passage of a $40 billion aid package earlier that month. 

“A lot of people wanted, and still want to, go to Ukraine, a lot,” Fitzpatrick said.   

Before he went, he said he’d already got the word his trip was unlikely to be approved for support from the Biden administration. But he wasn’t going to let that stop him.   

At least one Democrat and six Republican lawmakers, including Fitzpatrick, have traveled to Ukraine independently between April and July.   

The lawmakers have made the trips without bothering to get permission from the Biden administration, which has warned of security risks.  

The administration began withholding approval over fears that security provided by the U.S. military risked a direct confrontation with Russia if American service members were wounded or killed.  

Support for Ukraine remains strong among both parties in Congress, and many members of Congress want to visit the country.  

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who traveled independently to Kyiv in July, said approval for his trip was denied because the State Department didn’t feel that they had “the footprint on the ground to take care of us.” 

“We went through a system that other senators had used and I’m hoping the administration will start supporting these trips,” Graham told The Hill.  “It was a great trip. We were well taken care of, I would encourage members to go, they have a very good, reliable system.” 

Some trips have won approval.   

The administration sanctioned a trip late last month for a bipartisan group of House Armed Services Committee members.

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fl.), who traveled on the trip, said the chairman of the committee, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash), “had to really jump through some hoops to get that approval.”

And it earlier shepherded senior congressional leaders – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) – on visits to Kyiv. 

Lawmakers who have made such trips have kept the details to themselves.     

“The trip is a hard one, at least it was in the way we had to go, which was classified so I can’t talk about it,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who traveled with McConnell, told The Hill. “But suffice it to say, I wore the same clothes for three days – and no access to a shower for that long too – but that’s minor compared to the scheme of things, obviously.” 

Those who traveled independently to Ukraine were hesitant to speak about the exact route they took. Most are traveling to a border country, and then using a mix of cars and trains to get to Kyiv, sometimes for days, sometimes for a matter of hours. 

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), who traveled independently to Ukraine in June, said “there’s no substitute for being there, standing on the ground, looking at what’s going on.”   

Risch’s train heading into Kyiv was briefly delayed amid rocket fire, but he said the security risks were minimal and the trip reinforced his resolve for the U.S. to support Ukraine for the long-haul. 

“These people are angry, they’re hurt, when this is over it’s not going to be over,” he told The Hill. “This isn’t a situation when the hostilities end, there’s not going to be a reconciliation commission or something, it’s going to be generations, generations before there’s any reconciliation.”  

Lawmakers want to go to Ukraine for a variety of reasons.  

They want to see first-hand how Ukraine is using the aid that has been approved in a series of bills and executive actions.  

Some have used it as part of their oversight of the administration.   

Risch after his trip wrote a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken with House Foreign Affairs ranking Republican Michael McCaul (R-Texas) chastising the State Department for what they said was the agency choosing to “circumvent” legislative requirements to update Congress on U.S. assistance to Ukraine.     

The lawmakers called for the administration to beef up the presence of American personnel on the ground to better oversee the flow of funds and weapons. The U.S. embassy in Kyiv, one of the largest American missions in Europe, is said to be operating with a fraction of its staff since resuming operations in late May.    

Sometimes visits by lawmakers affect policy.   

Following a meeting with House Armed Services members, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appealed for U.S. military personnel to be deployed in Ukraine for oversight, the Washington Post reported last month, an idea supported by both Smith and Waltz.

“I asked President Zelensky, because I wanted to see his willingness to have us, really looking at their operational plans and, again, providing that kind of oversight, and he said, ‘I welcome the transparency. Absolutely.’ He said, ‘I’ve been asking for it.’ Those were his words,” Waltz said, but added he got the sense that the White House viewed such a move as “too escalatory to the Russians.”

Since the war started in late February, six Senate Republicans have traveled to Ukraine, as well as one Senate Democrat, 11 House Democrats and four House Republicans, according to a tally by The Hill.    

This includes Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), the first U.S. official or lawmaker to visit Ukraine after the atrocities in Bucha were uncovered in April. He also traveled independently.  

“I was asked by the Ukrainian leaders to come,” he told The Hill. “They wanted the world to know through the eyes of U.S. officials, in this case a U.S. senator, of the atrocities the Russians had committed.”  

Some lawmakers who have made the trip have used what they’ve learned to discuss with colleagues amid concerns about how support might change if the GOP takes back the House this fall.    

While Ukraine skeptics continue to be in the minority among the GOP caucus, supporters of robust assistance, like Crenshaw, are concerned about a growing battle between MAGA and Reagan Republicans over Russia’s invasion.  

Speaking to The Hill last month, Crenshaw accused the “populist-right” of seeking to “cherry-pick certain facts to degrade any kind of sympathy for Ukraine into increased sympathy for Russian interests.”    

The Hill spoke with one Ukrainian citizen who helped organize their trip, and the later trip by Graham, who traveled with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).    

The person asked to remain anonymous to protect their work, but called the lawmakers who visited “brave people” who were setting an important example of American leadership and solidarity with Ukraine.    

“It was [an] emotional experience,” the person said of shuttling the lawmakers between meetings with Zelensky in Kyiv and to the suburbs to speak with civilians who survived the Russian occupation. 

“When they hear the [air raid] sirens and see how the people stay…they understand it’s not just through the TV screen, but [a] real, real experience, this is a real horrible war,” the person said. 

“It’s a big problem if people forget about Ukraine, about this war, this is what [Russian President Valdimir] Putin wants,” the person said. “I’m also worried if the people of United States are just tired from the war and forget about it, this is important.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Astonished Democrats set to clear finish line with climate, tax, health care package

For more than a year, Democrats have wrestled with the massive climate, health and tax package at the center of their domestic agenda, triggering clashes between the various party factions and sparking doubts about President Biden’s capacity to unite his troops behind transformative legislation.

This week’s vote to get the enormous proposal over the finish line will feature no such drama. 

House Democrats of all stripes are lining up to approve the Senate’s $740 billion tax-and-spending package on Friday when the lower chamber returns briefly to Washington, sending the legislation to Biden’s desk and securing a huge win for the president and his party less than three months from the midterm elections.

It seems likely the bill could clear the House without a single Democratic defection, whether from the left or center of the party.

The universal accolades reflect, at least in part, the Democrats’ astonishment that they’re voting on any major part of Biden’s domestic agenda at all. 

Just a few weeks ago, the prospects of enacting a massive climate package this year appeared to be dead, buried under the opposition of centrist senators — most notably Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — wary of exacerbating inflation with new federal spending. 

The bill’s revival — a deal worked out privately between Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — has drastically expanded the Democrats’ legislative accomplishments under Biden, providing them a late political boost as they head into midterm elections that are expected to shift control of the House to the Republicans. 

“This is a big deal, this is historic. And I’m anxious to get it to the floor, pass it, and get it to the president’s desk,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Rules Committee, told reporters in the Capitol Wednesday night. 

“People like me wanted a lot more, right? But the bottom line is you can only get done what’s possible within the reality you’re living,” he continued. “And in any other Congress, if we were to pass one of these things — one component of what is in this reconciliation bill — it would be huge.”

The package features major changes across the spectrum of domestic policy, including efforts to slash drug costs for seniors; expand health care subsidies for the working classes; cut deficit spending via corporate tax hikes; and incentivize both businesses and individuals to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. All told, it represents the most comprehensive effort to combat climate change in the nation’s history. 

“It’s a great bill; it’s historic,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters this week in the Capitol. “I want more, of course — we always want more. But this is a great deal.”

Pelosi and her House Democrats had passed a much larger package late last year: a $2 trillion proposal that bolstered not only environmental and health care programs, but also a number of social benefit initiatives — things like child care subsidies, universal preschool and paid family leave — that were left out of the slimmer bill passed by the Senate on Sunday. 

The exclusions have prompted some grumbling from progressive lawmakers who’d fought for a more expansive package; but none of them appear ready to oppose the Senate bill to protest its size. 

Indeed, House liberals — including the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the members of the far-left “squad” — have been all praise, cheering on the legislation as it’s moved through the Senate to the House for Friday’s vote. 

“While we are heartbroken to see several essential pieces on the care economy, housing, and immigration left on the cutting room floor — as well as a successful Republican effort to remove insulin price caps for those with private insurance — we know that the Inflation Reduction Act takes real steps forward on key progressive priorities,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), head of the Progressive Caucus. 

Across the ideological divide, leaders of the Blue Dogs, a group of centrist budget hawks, are also hailing the package as transformative, touting its powers to reduce federal deficit spending on top of the domestic initiatives it promotes. 

“We remain laser-focused on solving our nation’s major economic, energy, and climate problems for future generations, and will move swiftly to send this bill to the President’s desk,” the Blue Dog co-chairs —  Reps. Tom O’Halleran (D-Ariz.), Ed Case (D-Hawaii), Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) — said in a statement.

With a razor-thin majority in the House, and every Republican expected to oppose the proposal, Democrats will need the support of almost every member of the caucus to get it to Biden’s desk. But if last year’s vote on the $2 trillion package is any preview, they have little reason to worry. 

That larger Build Back Better package had passed easily; only one Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden (Maine), had voted against it. And the smaller Senate bill is expected to sail through the House on Friday in similar fashion.

“If you can get Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer and Kyrsten Sinema all to vote for something, … I’ve gotta believe this is going to pass,” McGovern said. “I don’t know of any Democrats that are going to defect.” 

Golden’s office did not respond to a request for comment, but local media reports indicate he has praised at least parts of the Senate bill. 

For Pelosi, who has led House Democrats for almost two decades, the bill represents a huge legislative victory in a long career that’s been full of them. It also includes a number of provisions that she’d prioritized in her first stint as Speaker, more than a decade ago, but failed to enact. 

In 2009, for instance, House Democrats had passed a sweeping climate change bill only to see it go ignored by Democrats in the Senate. A separate proposal empowering Medicare to negotiate lower prescription prices for seniors also moved through the lower chamber during those years, but did not become law. 

“This is something we’ve been fighting for decades, and Big Pharma has had a grip on the Congress,” she said this week. 

Across the aisle, Republicans have decidedly different views of the enormous package, saying the soon-to-be-passed legislation will only damage a fragile economy already reeling from months of instability and rising consumer costs. GOP leaders are also focusing squarely on one provision of the package — new funds for the IRS to go after tax cheats — with warnings that it will empower the nation’s tax collectors to “harass” working class people.

“When you have more cops you have more arrests,” Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas), senior Republican on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said this week in an interview with Fox News. “You’re going to see a lot of that revenue to pay for this bill coming from those middle-class working families who can least afford the IRS targeting and harassing them.”

Democrats have dismissed the GOP criticisms, noting that the major provisions of the package all score high in public opinion polls. If the victory doesn’t change the broader outcome of the midterm elections, they say, it can do nothing but help them in individual races. 

“I wouldn’t want to go home and explain to my constituents why I voted against lowering their prescription drug costs. … Or go home and say I did nothing to combat the climate crisis; or I did nothing to pay down the debt,” McGovern said. 

“I mean, if that’s what they want, they can go ahead and do it.”

Mychael Schnell contributed. 

Source: TEST FEED1

How the Democrats’ inflation bill could cut consumer energy costs

The Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act is expected to cut prices that consumers pay for energy, according to recent modeling, though by how much remains less clear. 

The bill contains a mix of tax credits for renewable energy sources and incentives for household solutions, both of which could help bring down energy costs. 

But those benefits may not be evenly distributed, and factors like home ownership and the power landscape may determine who sees a benefit.

“Across most regions I believe that it’s very likely that this will result in certainly lower electricity prices across the board, and eventually, this should lower overall demand of natural gas which will lower the prices for those homes that still use natural gas for heating or cooking,” said Harrison Fell, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

After the Senate passed the bill along party lines, Democrats touted what they described as savings to “everyday energy costs,” while Republicans complained the bill would punish some energy producers.

The legislation — poised to pass the House on Friday — contains a slew of tax credits that incentivize companies to deploy more carbon-free electricity, including from solar, wind and nuclear facilities.

It also contains incentives aimed at promoting residential clean energy use, like rooftop solar. And it includes other incentives aimed at helping homeowners use less energy overall, like by installing efficient heat pumps — an alternative to air conditioners and furnaces. 

While many of these provisions have been widely touted for their climate benefits — and are expected to help the U.S. get closer to its climate targets — new modeling shows they also may help consumers save money. 

Resources for the Future projects that it will bring down average electricity costs by between $170 and $220 annually, from both their electric bills and the lower costs of goods and services.

This analysis only looked at the impacts of tax credits geared toward the commercial deployment of clean electricity. It found that over the next decade, the average household will see between $170 and $220 in savings, as the cost of electricity sold to consumers drops by between 5.2 and 6.7 percent. 

Kevin Rennert, director of Resources for the Future’s Federal Climate Policy Initiative, told The Hill that the model accounts for two competing factors, both new costs from building clean energy facilities and requirements in some markets to pass credits onto consumers to get its cost savings.  

A separate analysis from Rhodium Group found that the bill could save consumers an average of $16 to $125 per year on annual energy expenditures — also including the price of fueling their cars and using gas appliances — by the year 2030. 

“The savings ramp up over time as more households adopt electric vehicles, as they put in heat pumps so their electric bills go down,” said Ben King, an associate director with Rhodium Group’s energy and climate practice. 

He said that many of these savings are expected to come from consumers who adopt electric vehicles, but that people should also expect to see savings on their electric bills too. 

But just because costs come down for producing these types of energy doesn’t necessarily mean those benefits will be evenly distributed. 

Fell said that in places where one company controls both the production and distribution of power, consumers may not see cost savings — at least not right away. Since the legislation promotes the deployment of additional energy infrastructure, some of the initial costs of building that infrastructure may get placed on consumers, he said. 

But, he added that for most people, the savings are expected to outweigh the costs. “You’re really looking at a lot of low-cost generation coming online,” Fell said. 

Rennert added that in states with regulated power markets, consumers could expect to see more savings than in deregulated power markets because of requirements to pass savings onto consumers. 

“Some markets are regulated markets…and in those, effectively the value of tax credits that are picked up by an entity are required by regulators to flow through to consumers,” he said, adding that in other markets the benefit comes from “cheaper clean electricity changing what the wholesale price is.”

Christopher Knittel, a professor of applied economics at MIT, also raised concerns about the costs of new energy facilities falling on consumers.  But, he said, the bill is expected to be a net positive for their wallets because of other provisions like those that increase energy efficiency. 

However, some of the benefits of the other provisions may not be equally distributed among consumers, either, as not every consumer can install solar panels on their roof  — even with the government covering up to 30 percent of the cost — and not everyone can afford an electric vehicle, even if they get a tax credit. 

“It’s hard for subsidies to not be good for the average consumer,” Knittel said. 

“So the subsidies on the appliance side, the heat pump side, distributed renewable generation, is going to help the average consumer,” he said, “I still worry about more than just the average consumer, and that’s why we should pay particular attention to what it’s doing across the income distribution.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Kinzinger on fight with Trump: 'Yeah, he won. In the short term at least.’

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), one of two Republicans on the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, in a new interview with WGN-TV says he believes former President Trump has won their short-term battle over the soul of the GOP.  

Asked in the exclusive interview if the former president had won the “Trump vs. Kinzinger war,” the Illinois Republican suggested there was no reason to sugarcoat reality.  

“Yes, yeah, he won. In the short term at least,” Kinzinger, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, told WGN’s Ben Bradley. “There’s no use in pretending somehow I scored some major victory and saved the party.”  

Kinzinger will leave Congress at the end of the year after a round of redistricting made his reelection race more difficult.  

Most of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump are either retiring or lost primaries. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the other Republican on the Jan. 6 panel with Kinzinger, faces her primary on Tuesday.  

In the interview with WGN — which, like The Hill, is owned by Nexstar Media Group — Kinzinger said that he did not necessarily expect everyone to join him in opposing Trump but did not think he would have such few allies in his party.   

“Maybe there wasn’t going to be a tidal wave of people to come over, but I certainly didn’t think I’d be alone,” he said. “We talk about democracy – Republicans like to talk about the Constitution – and yet we’re openly violating it now.”  

Kinzinger voted for Trump in the past presidential election, saying that he is “the only person in America that didn’t vote for him in 2016 and did it ‘20.” He said voting for Trump was a “cowardice move” that he regrets.  

He said he paid a price for not voting for Trump in 2016, and people remembered that he did not vote for him at the events he attended. He said he decided to vote for Trump in 2020 because he knew Trump would lose Illinois, a solidly Democratic state, and Kinzinger could avoid the isolation he felt.  

But he said he would not do the same again if he could go back in time.  

Kinzinger also criticized Democrats for the steps some in the party have taken to undermine moderate Republicans who oppose Trump.  

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has spent millions of dollars on ads promoting Trump-backed candidates in swing districts as the primaries for the 2022 midterm elections proceed. The DCCC has hoped the Trump-backed candidates will be easier for Democratic nominees to defeat in November.  

Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), who also voted to impeach Trump, lost his primary for reelection earlier this month. Democrats ran ads supporting John Gibbs, his Trump-backed challenger.  

Similar situations have happened in states like Illinois with the governor’s race.  

“When they’re spending donor money to promote these candidates that don’t believe in democracy and then come and tell me ‘Where have all the good Republicans gone?’ that does get a little frustrating, I’ll tell you,” Kinzinger told Bradley. 

Kinzinger has served in the House since 2011. If people “wake up,” he told Bradley there may be an opportunity for him to “come back.”  

But he said no matter what, he wants his son to be proud of his last name when he reads about this time period.  

“I know at some point he’s going to be proud he’s a Kinzinger,” he said. “I have a lot of colleagues that can’t say the same and I wouldn’t want to be in their position.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Bowser renews request to Pentagon for National Guard support to help with migrants

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) renewed her request on Thursday for the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) to lend support to migrants arriving in the city, after the Pentagon denied the request last week.

“I have been honored to work with the men and women of the D.C. National Guard many times and today we renewed our request for their assistance,” Bowser announced over Twitter.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin turned down Bowser’s initial request last week after determining that “providing this support would negatively impact the readiness of the DCNG and have negative effects on the organization and members.”

Bowser’s request was prompted by buses of migrants arriving in D.C. from Texas and Arizona, a program begun by Republican Govs. Greg Abbott and Doug Ducey in protest of President Joe Biden’s border policies.

In the renewal, Bowser clarified that her previously “open-ended” request for assistance would begin August 22 and be reevaluated at the beginning of December.

The DCNG would work with the D.C. government “to help prevent a prolonged humanitarian crisis in our nation’s capital resulting from the daily arrival of migrants in need of assistance” by establishing and managing “respite sites.”

These sites provide migrants with support as they travel to a final destination, often outside of D.C.

The DCNG would assist with facility management, feeding, sanitation and ground support, according to Bowser’s letter.

Bowser added that she has requested support from the DCNG almost 50 times during her tenure as mayor, which began in 2015.

“Each time, these operational, apolitical requests have been granted. I have been honored to work with these men and women to keep our nation’s capital safe in times of great stress, and I take very seriously my responsibility to honor their service with legitimate, on-mission requests,” she wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

Johnson & Johnson to stop sale of talc-based baby powder in 2023

Pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson announced Thursday that it will stop selling talc-based baby powder in 2023.

The company said that the switch from talc-based to cornstarch-based baby powder is a “commercial decision” to sustain long-term business growth.

The move comes two years after Johnson & Johnson announced it would stop selling its talc-based baby powder products in the U.S. and Canada amid ongoing legal battles over whether the company’s baby powder and its talc ingredient led to people developing illnesses such as ovarian cancer and asbestos poisoning.

“We stand firmly behind the decades of independent scientific analysis by medical experts around the world that confirms talc-based JOHNSON’S® Baby Powder is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer,” wrote the company.

While the company has experienced wins in talc-related cases, other legal battles led one of its subsidiaries to file for bankruptcy last year in an attempt to deal with tens of thousands of lawsuits over the alleged link between the talc-based products and cancer.

“As part of a worldwide portfolio assessment, we have made the commercial decision to transition to an all cornstarch-based baby powder portfolio,” Johnson & Johnson wrote. “As a result of this transition, talc-based JOHNSON’S® Baby Powder will be discontinued globally in 2023.”

Johnson & Johnson said that the transition from talc-based to cornstarch-based baby powder will simplify the company’s product offerings, aid with sustainable innovations, meet the needs of consumers and coincide with “evolving global trends.”

“Cornstarch-based JOHNSON’S® Baby Powder is already sold in countries around the world,” the press release said.

“We remain fully committed to ensuring JOHNSON’S® products are loved by parents and families for years to come,” the company added.

Source: TEST FEED1

WaPo: FBI looked for documents related to nuclear weapons at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago

Records the FBI searched for at former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property included classified documents related to nuclear weapons, The Washington Post reported Thursday. 

Sources familiar with the investigation told the Post that those documents were among those the FBI sought on Monday, when the bureau executed a search warrant at Trump’s Palm Beach, Fla., residence.

The sources did not say if the nuclear weapons discussed in the documents belonged to the United States or if these documents were recovered. 

The FBI and a spokesperson for Trump did not immediately return requests from The Hill for comment. 

The Post’s reporting comes after the Justice Department (DOJ) filed a motion on Thursday to request that a Florida court unseal the search warrant executed by the FBI.

“The public’s clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred under these circumstances weighs heavily in favor of unsealing,” DOJ lawyers wrote in the court filing submitted Thursday afternoon.

Several media organizations filed a motion the same day to further request that all documents related to the search warrant be made public. 

The DOJ’s motion states that Trump’s attorneys received a list of the documents that the FBI recovered. However, they have not released them publicly.

Trump’s lawyer, Christina Bobb, said in media appearances this week that the search concerned potentially classified information kept at Mar-a-Lago.

The National Archives and Records Administration reportedly recovered 15 boxes of presidential records from Mar-a-Lago earlier this year, including some containing classified information.

Source: TEST FEED1

Media outlets file motion to unseal entirety of DOJ’s records to search Mar-a-Lago

A group of four major media companies filed a motion on Thursday to unseal all court documents related to the search warrant that the FBI executed at former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property on Monday. 

The Washington Post, CNN, NBC News and E.W. Scripps Company filed the motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida asking for documents pertaining to the search warrant including: the search warrants, the warrant application, “all probable cause affidavits filed in support of the search warrant” and any motion to seal the “warrant-related records”, among other things.

On Thursday, the Justice Department asked the district court to unseal a warrant authorizing the search warrant of Trump’s property in Palm Beach, Fla, that was executed on Monday.

In the court filing, the DOJ cited “the public’s clear and powerful interest” in understanding the search. U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland later stated that he personally approved the application and execution of the search warrant.

The media organizations argued that the public interest in having access to the records outweighs any interest in them remaining private. 

The motion states that the public has a “presumption of access” to search warrants and documents that support them based on the First Amendment to the Constitution and common law.

“As the Eleventh Circuit has recognized, ‘[t]he press has standing to intervene in actions
to which it is otherwise not a party in order to petition for access to court proceedings and
records,” the media organizations wrote.

“Both the First Amendment and the common law protect the media and the general
public’s right of access to judicial proceedings and records,” the continued.

They further cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Florida, stating that the public’s access to judicial proceedings is “crucial to our tradition and history” and “continued public confidence” in the justice system. 

The media organizations also argue that Trump’s sharp criticism of the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago further increases the public’s interest in the matter. He has previously categorized the search as a “witch hunt.”

Trump’s legal team was provided a copy of the list of documents that were seized from his residence, according to the DOJ’s filing. However, his team has not publicly released them. His lawyer Christina Bobb has said during media appearances this week that the search concerned potentially classified information.

The New York Times and the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch have also filed motions to unseal documents related to the search.

The media organizations in Thursday’s filing argue that “narrow” redactions in the documents would satisfy any law enforcement interest in not revealing all information.

They also requested a public hearing on the motion.

Source: TEST FEED1