Tag Archives : Build House

Democrats’ drug-pricing plan warrants disinformation flag for seniors

Senate Democrats are moving forward with a falsely advertised drug pricing plan. Liberals, and even maverick Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), claim their newest plan will help lower drug costs for seniors and even drive down inflation. As always, however, the fine print says something else. In fact, the scheme would be a disaster for the development of life-extending, life-improving medicines and medical devices. 

Start with the money. The details show their proposal is more about raiding Medicare than it is about lowering their prescription drug costs. There is a $300 billion cut to the Medicare program, much of which would be immediately spent to extend expiring COVID-era emergency ObamaCare subsidies that went to higher-income earners.  

That might be helpful to insurance companies seeking to sell more ObamaCare policies to a bigger, newly eligible customer base, but it certainly does not help lower seniors’ drug costs. 

As for the supposed lower drug costs they claim seniors will benefit from, most of those would not materialize for at least three to five years — providing no immediate relief — until the drug pricing provisions have time to take effect. Even beyond this irresponsible “spend now, save later” approach, seniors could find themselves subject to new access restrictions to certain medicines. 

And here’s the kicker: According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and studies from the University of Chicago, patients and families will see fewer new cutting-edge treatments come about as private sector research and development investments dry up.

It’s also important to look at how Democrats are attempting to define “savings.” First, they would fully eliminate a significant Medicare reform that was approved by the Trump administration but has been purposely delayed by President Biden. Centered on negotiated rebates secured — and often kept — by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the so-called rebate rule would have required big discounts on drugs to go directly to seniors enrolled in Medicare almost immediately. 

Furthermore, these discounts would have been applied directly at the point of sale (i.e., local pharmacies, etc.) when individual seniors paid for their prescription medications. However, no new government programs or corporate middlemen would have been needed, so liberal Democrats naturally opposed it. Instead, Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) want a government-run program that identifies or “negotiates” potential savings so that they, not seniors, can collect the discounts and decide how to spend the money. That should not be a comforting prospect for seniors. 

Next, Democrats have marketed their plan as a simple process by which the federal government will use its power to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. In reality, it is a price-control scheme no matter how it is advertised and will have the same devastating impacts price controls always do: diminished supply of the products in question. Worst, the creation of vital new drugs and treatments would whither. It typically costs $3 billion dollars and 15 years or so of development time to bring a drug to market.

In the Democrats’ plan, government bureaucrats would set a price and tell drug developers to take it or leave it. If they don’t accept Medicare’s offer, they could be subject to as much as a 95 percent excise tax on total sales of a particular medication. That is not negotiation. That is not a counter negotiating tactic, as Democrats suggest. That’s basic economics. 

Because of our free market system, the United States is by far the world’s leading developer of new drugs. Pharmaceutical companies have the opportunity to make a return on investments from their discoveries. Without such a system, we would be without a host of the recent breakthrough discoveries for chronic and rare diseases brought forth over the past decade, including our ability to develop vaccines for COVID-19 in record time. 

American patients have better access to beneficial drug treatments as a result of our pharmaceutical policies, particularly cutting-edge therapies for cancer and other life-threatening diseases. For example, cancer patients in the U.S. are able to access 96 percent of all cancer medications, while Canadian patients have access to less than 60 percent of them. In many European and other developed nations, breakthrough drugs for cystic fibrosis and other debilitating diseases available for U.S. patients are not made available at all because governments refuse to pay for them.

Although new drugs often can be expensive, due to costly and lengthy development processes, competition in the U.S. continues to drive increased availability of generics, which collectively save patients over $330 billion per year. In fact, about 90 percent of all U.S. prescriptions are for generics, more than in other countries, and they are cheaper here than overseas, about 16 percent less on average. And even more savings on generics are coming about due to innovative enterprises such as Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drug Company that cut out the corporate middlemen to lower prices for generics well below what insurers charge. 

The Democrats’ price-setting plan is just as bad now as it was when it was part of President Biden’s failed spending plan and Nancy Pelosi’s failed price control plan before that. It is more a means to raise revenue for liberal politicians than it is an effective way to lower drug costs for seniors. It’s both dishonest in how it is being presented and harmful to the long-term health of Medicare. Liberals in Congress are making a risky bet by siphoning off and spending seniors’ Medicare money first in the unrealistic hope of extorting some savings later. A wise move for vulnerable Democrats would be to fold. 

Steve Forbes is chairman and editor -in-chief of Forbes Media. Follow him on Twitter @SteveForbesCEO.

Source: TEST FEED1

Renewables welcome '11th hour reprieve' from Manchin

The renewable energy sector is feeling a rare jolt of optimism over the announcement of a Senate deal on a Democrats-only reconciliation bill, weeks after hope seemed lost.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) had dealt renewables a one-two punch after first saying in December that he would not support President Biden’s Build Back Better package and then announcing months later that he would not back the climate provisions in a reconciliation package, which could clear the 50-50 Senate without any cross-aisle support.

On Wednesday night, however, Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) unveiled an agreement that would provide billions for the sector. 

Their deal includes a $7,500 tax credit for new clean vehicles and a $4,000 tax credit for used ones. It also features tax credits aimed at solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing and $40 billion to incentivize state utilities to transition to renewable energy sources.

In previous negotiations, the electric vehicle provisions were one of Manchin’s major sticking points, with the West Virginia Democrat specifically objecting to a credit for vehicles produced by union labor. That provision does not appear in the agreement released Wednesday. 

Should the measure become law, American Council on Renewable Energy CEO Greg Wetstone predicted a “tremendous increase in investment with the benefit of the policy certainty that this bill brings.” 

“I think Congress has stepped to the climate challenge in a way we have not seen before, and this bill is going to put us in the game,” Wetstone said. “It’s not a given that we can meet our ambitious targets, but we’re going to be in the ballpark.” 

The Biden administration has laid out a target of reducing U.S. emissions by half by 2030. The package unveiled Wednesday would cut emissions by 40 percent in that time frame, according to Manchin, the same goal as the initial Build Back Better package. 

Heather Zichal, CEO of American Clean Power, called the bill “an 11^th hour reprieve for climate action and clean energy jobs, and America’s biggest legislative moment for climate and energy policy.” 

“Congress now is inches away from passing a $369.75 billion investment in energy security and climate change programs over the next ten years — the biggest climate and clean energy investment in American history,” Zichal said in a statement. “Passing this bill sends a message to the world that America is leading on climate, and sends a message at home that we will create more great jobs for Americans in this industry.”

The solar power and storage industries say they are “incredibly optimistic” about the newly announced deal.

“We think it provides a pretty clear roadmap for the manufacturing sector, which is a critical part of our of our progress and we think that the environmental justice and prevailing wage and apprenticeship pieces will ensure that the future that we’re investing in will be available to everyone,” said Solar Industries Energy Association president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper. 

And Ben Prochazka, executive director at the Electrification Coalition, said the group sees the package as both welcome news and hastening the inevitable. 

“Transportation electrification ultimately is the future of transportation. And it’s really just a question of, when, not if,” Prochazka told The Hill. The Manchin-Schumer agreement, meanwhile, “creates a lot more certainty and a lot more opportunity for the US to maintain its leadership in the automotive sector, as we transition” to electric transportation, he said.  

The renewable industry has made no secret of the instability created by Congress’s unreliable climate action. In February, The Washington Post reported numerous investors were holding off on billions in planned projects due to the lack of clarity around whether the government would create corresponding tax incentives. 

Manchin’s announcement comes at a pivotal moment: Should Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress in November, the door will almost certainly slam on major climate legislation for the foreseeable future. But industry figures said the new bargain would inject the market with a level of stability that allows it to continue to grow during a potential period of divided government. 

Even if gridlock worsens, “I think we’re going to see not just the movement toward our climate targets, but also important economic growth in red states and blue that [is] going to be helpful in building awareness of the role that clean energy can play in driving economic growth and creating jobs,” Wetstone said.  

“Obviously, we’re in an intensely partisan time, but if you can step back and look at to solar policy in general and storage policy in general, and Republican support for it,” Hopper said. “And so I think that will not erode.” 
Though Republicans are unlikely to support a more robust climate agenda in general, Hopper said the results from the package will likely speak for themselves when it comes to new jobs and investment, including in red districts. 

Prochazka said that parts of the package will continue to pay dividends even if Republicans take back power, such as the removal of the cap on tax credits for plug-in electric vehicles.

“On a per manufacturer basis, we [would] no longer have that limitation, and that’s really important in the marketplace,” he said.  

“At the end of the day, I think that there’s a lot of places that, assuming this passes, this will really chart a course for the future that creates a lot more certainty for transportation electrification,” he added. 

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: No, really — What if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez runs for president?

As President Biden’s approval ratings sink and polls show many Democratic voters would prefer a different nominee in 2024, some activists are beginning to entertain long-shot options.

When it comes to unlikely-but-not-impossible scenarios, one is far more intriguing than any other: a presidential bid by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

An Ocasio-Cortez campaign would electrify her fans and detractors alike. 

Right now, the Beltway consensus is that it’s out of the question. 

But is it?

Ocasio-Cortez has conspicuously declined to commit to endorsing Biden for a second term. In a CNN interview last month, she told Dana Bash, “We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.”

The New York congresswoman, who shot to fame in 2018 when she defeated then-Rep. Joe Crowley in a Democratic primary, is already a fundraising juggernaut. She could easily raise the funds to run a competitive campaign. She also has an enormous social media following — more than 13 million followers on Twitter alone.

Pollsters have begun testing her name among other far more seasoned figures and, while the levels of support are modest for now, she is plainly in the mix.

An Echelon Insights poll this month, asking Democratic-leaning voters who they would support if Biden eschewed a second term, put her in sixth place — but in a tightly bunched group of candidates, only two percentage points behind third-placed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Vice President Harris and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg led that poll.

Earlier this week, a University of New Hampshire poll asked Democratic voters in the Granite State who would be their first choice as a 2024 presidential nominee, including Biden as an option. 

The headlines went to Buttigieg, who edged out Biden by a single point at the top of the poll. But Ocasio-Cortez was again competitive with contenders who are taken far more seriously. She trailed Harris by only a single percentage point.

The Washington Post this month ranked her 10th, including Biden, in a list of the most likely Democratic nominees in 2024.

Even if an AOC bid seems in the realm of fantasy to D.C.’s consultant class, it’s a fantasy that plenty of progressive voters would like to see come true.

“We’re just tired of the inequality. Candidates constantly say, ‘we’ll bring wages up’ or ‘we’ll tax the rich,’. But never do,” one such supporter, Joseph Cox of Tampa, told this column. 

Cox supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during his 2016 and 2020 bids and said he was still open to a third candidacy from the senator. But, absent a Sanders candidacy, the 39-year-old Cox is on board with an Ocasio-Cortez bid.

Two other factors suggest an Ocasio-Cortez campaign shouldn’t be written off out of hand.

First: Yes, she is old enough to run. The minimum age to be president is 35. Ocasio-Cortez will celebrate her 35th birthday roughly three weeks before Election Day 2024.

The second is that she has long leveled a broad critique of the Democratic Party leadership in Washington — in summary, that it is too cozy with rich, powerful interests and not responsive enough to the needs of its own voters.

“Some may want to go after the messenger, but we simply cannot make promises, hector people to vote, and then refuse to use our full power when they do,” she tweeted on June 26, soon after the Supreme Court had struck down Roe v. Wade.

What better way to force a reset of her party, and of politics generally, than running for the highest office — especially if Biden voluntarily relinquishes it?

To be sure, there are plenty of arguments to be made against Ocasio-Cortez in 2024.

For a start, if Biden seeks a second term, a divisive primary could be disastrous.

Even if he does not, the congresswoman faces real challenges, including her youth and her apparent unpopularity with big swaths of the electorate.

When an Economist/YouGov poll tested her favorability ratings in early May, they found her popular with young voters but very unpopular among independent voters — never mind Republicans. 

Just 23 percent of independents viewed her favorably against 54 percent who held an unfavorable opinion.

Even among left-wing strategists broadly supportive of her goals, there is deep skepticism about a White House bid.

Progressive strategist Jonathan Tasini said he is a “huge fan” of Ocasio-Cortez and noted that he contributed to her very first campaign, against Crowley.

“I think — someday — she could be president,” he said. “But right now I don’t see the progressive moment having enough heft to get her across the line.”

Tasini argued that AOC could become “a leader of the progressive movement by not running for president” but instead lending her support to left-wing candidates in local and state-level elections.

“Then, we can celebrate not five wins — which is what we usually do — but 100. She is so young she could look at 2028 or 2032 [for a presidential campaign] and she’d have a whole cadre of progressive people,” he added.

Others within the party have a more direct objection. 

The stakes of American politics right now are just too high, they say, to take a huge gamble on a 30-something democratic socialist, however charismatic she may be.

“We really don’t have the luxury of playing these ideological games,” Democratic strategist Tré Easton told this column. 

Easton said he expected Biden to be the nominee in 2024. Even if he was not, Easton added, “given my own ideological predilections, I would love a more liberal person to be the Democratic Party’s nominee. But it’s vital to nominate someone who can put the kind of coalition together to defeat” the Republican nominee.

There is one other huge question. Does Ocasio-Cortez even want to run?

She did not challenge Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in his primary this year, even though there had been some speculation that she might. 

New York’s other Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand is up for reelection in 2024. That could be a more inviting race for Ocasio-Cortez than a White House run.

It’s clear the chances of Ocasio-Cortez mounting a 2024 presidential bid are far less than 50-50. But they’re not zero either.

And if American politics has delivered any lessons in recent years, one is clear: Don’t rule anything out.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden turns up the insults on Donald Trump

President Biden has been proactively getting in Donald Trump’s face in recent days.  

Biden has been taunting his predecessor with slights, calling him “the defeated former president of the United States.”  

He’s called him out by name, dubbing him a liar and saying he lacks courage.  

Biden has even ripped Trump’s patriotism and loyalty to the country, pointing to his actions on Jan. 6, 2021: “You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-cop. You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-democracy. You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-American,” Biden said in a virtual address Monday to the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives conference.  

A day later, Biden took to Twitter, in a rare move, to rip Trump again: “Call me old fashioned, but I don’t think inciting a mob that attacks a police officer is ‘respect for the law.”  

Earlier this month, Biden said while he couldn’t offer a prediction on if Trump would be the Republican nominee in 2024, he said he “would not be disappointed” if he were to face off with Trump again in 2024.  

After ending his COVID-19 isolation, Biden appeared to take another shot at Trump, noting the former president, who got COVID before vaccines were available, had to be “helicoptered” to Walter Reed hospital.  

The Trump insults are becoming more common, and they are no accident.  

With the midterm elections inching closer, Biden is expected to play up the contrast between Democrats and Republicans and at times would be expected to use Trump as his foil.  

The January 6th committee hearing have offered Biden the perfect backdrop for the rash of new attacks, providing evidence of Trump’s alleged involvement in the insurrection on the Capitol and his willingness to overturn the 2020 presidential election.  

And it coincides with the hopes of Democratic campaigns that voters will come out and vote against the GOP because of Trump. 

“Why not compare and contrast the person who truly is the face of the Republican Party?” said Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau. “Donald Trump is the face of the opposition and it’s smart to remind Americans who he is.” 

Such strategies have not been entirely effective for Democrats. Just last year, Republican Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governor’s race as Democrats sought to tie him to Trump.  

But it’s still a solid strategy, say Democrats, given dealmaking with Republicans is largely over.  

“He’s gotten everything he can for now from Senate Republicans and Trump is making noise about announcing soon, so it’s the perfect time to drop the gloves and get back up in their faces,” Democratic strategist Eddie Vale said. “And then it’s also perfectly timed up on top of that with the January 6th hearing putting the spotlight on Trump’s insurrection to draw the direct contact between his danger and demagoguery and Biden’s growing-rapidly-by-the-day achievements.”  

Though Biden received unwelcome news on Thursday in the form of a Commerce Department report showing the economy shrunk in the second quarter, it hasn’t been a bad week for the president.  

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) struck a deal with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on what would be the most massive climate change bill in congressional history. If it passes, it would be a significant win at a time when Biden needed one.  

Separately, Congress approved a bill to help U.S. production of semiconductors, and Biden is hoping the Senate may still pass a bill codifying same-sex marriage.  

Biden’s national polling average has lingered around 38 percent, and surveys show most Democrats don’t want Biden to seek reelection in 2024.  

Trump, who could launch a new presidential bid any day, has often lobbed attacks on Biden. He has criticized the president on everything from his mental acuity to his handling of economy.  

Biden, in contrast, has avoided Trump insults for much of his presidency, not wanting to give attention to his predecessor.  

Insults, when they came, were done mostly through veiled asides.  

“Finally, infrastructure week,” Biden quipped in November, referring to an ongoing joke during the Trump administration about the inability to move legislation through at that time.  

But in recent days, it has been Biden punching first. 

“He needs to drop the tough guy act,” Fox News Host Jesse Watters said Wednesday on the network’s show ‘The Five.’  

Biden has positioned himself as the best person who can defeat Trump in 2024, a comment he’s made both publicly and privately to aides and allies.  

“He truly believes he’s the only one who can win,” one ally said. “And I believe he’s 100 percent correct.”  

The ally acknowledged that one of Biden’s weaknesses against someone like Trump is the notion that he lacks the stamina to take on the former president or other Republicans including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.  

Democrats also want to elect someone they see as a fighter who isn’t afraid to rip the nominee to shreds. “So to have Biden out there taking on Trump without being lured into the fight is a good thing,” the ally said. “Why shouldn’t he be the one to throw the first punches? Why wait for the bully?”  

At the same time, Democrats say Trump’s grip around the base isn’t what it used to be.  

“The Republican Party remains Trump’s party but it’s bad for their brand among swing voters and in general elections,” said Ben LaBolt, the Democratic strategist who served as a spokesman to former President Barack Obama. “There’s only one candidate that proved themselves able to take on Donald Trump and win the last election — Joe Biden — and a tete-a-tete between the two of them continues to elevate Biden and the Democratic Party.”  

Source: TEST FEED1

Zeldin attack sparks debate on cash bail

The debate around cash bail reform is drawing renewed focus following the initial quick release of the man who accosted Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) at a recent campaign event.

Zeldin’s accused attacker, 43-year-old David Jakubonis, was at first held for only six hours before being released on his own recognizance — a standard practice in New York, which adop­ted a law ending cash bail for most misde­mean­ors and nonvi­ol­ent felon­ies in 2019. 

Jakubonis, an Army veteran, was later arrested on a federal assault charge and faces up to 10 years in prison.

Nonetheless, the incident has reignited the debate over cash bail amid growing concerns over a spike in crime across the country. In addition to New York, states including Illinois, New Jersey and California have eliminated their cash bail systems, something critics argue is dangerous.

Zeldin in a statement to The Hill called New York’s cashless bail law “insane” and its “pro-criminal” justice system “broken.”

“The state must start prioritizing the safety of law-abiding New Yorkers over criminals,” Zeldin added. “Cashless bail must be repealed and judges should have more discretion to set cash bail on far more offenses.”

Bail serves as a sort of bargaining chip by courts: when a person is charged with a crime, they pay the court to ensure their appearance at trial. When the person appears for their trial, the court returns the money, whether they’re found guilty or innocent. 

If the person doesn’t show up, the court keeps the money. 

But with $10,000 as the average bail for a felony, advocates for cash bail reform argue it perpetuates systemic injustices, including the over-incarceration of Black and Brown Americans and those living in poverty. 

When a person is unable to make bail, they’re required to stay in detention — sometimes for months as they await trial.

“If a judge needs to be concerned about a person returning to court, there are other options that should be available to a judge,” said Jeremy Cherson, senior policy adviser for The Bail Project. “Financial conditions like cash bail should be the option of last resort and, if they’re used, they should be used in accordance with a person’s ability to pay.”

Other options instead of bail could include stay-away orders or curfews through community-based supervised release programs, Cherson said.

“We tend to think in a very punitive way, like drug testing or a ban on alcohol or something like that,” said Cherson. “But that really fundamentally misunderstands the public health problem, the individual problems that people deal with. The truth is, we just haven’t invested at an appropriate level to give people the treatment that they need in their community.”

If judges have concerns over defendants returning to court, he added, then there should be a due process hearing where evidence is presented and the defendants have legal counsel — something that doesn’t currently exist in bail hearings.

But advocates for cash bail say it’s an important tool at courts’ disposal for public safety. 

After the New York legislature passed the state’s bail reform in 2019, The New York Times reported that opponents, including police chiefs and county district attorneys, said the law allowed for the quick release of defendants on charges like stalking, assault, burglary, arson and robbery.

But in March, the Brennan Center released a report showing there has been no link between bail reform and an increase in crime. 

Still, voters have expressed concerns that bail reform is behind the spiking crime rate. 

A March 2022 Siena College poll found 56 percent of voters in New York thought bail reform has been bad for the state, and 64 percent said it was the reason behind the increase in crime.

Despite this, 56 percent said they were concerned that giving judges more discretion, like Zeldin proposed, would result in poor people and people of color being unfairly incarcerated.

After Zeldin’s attack, Republicans called for a complete repeal of New York’s bail reform, and Zeldin himself proposed having certain defendants required to stay detained.

“There must be real changes to ‘cashless bail’ laws and we must support law enforcement to keep neighbors safe and hold those who endanger the public accountable for their actions,” said Nassau County Republican executive Bruce Blakeman on Twitter.

In a statement, New York State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt (R) said “the political ruling class in Albany dismisses the cries of victims and refuses to act” when legislators called for a special session to consider bail reform. 

The statement added that Senate Republicans “stand ready” to repeal bail reform in order to restore public safety. 

But it’s not just Republicans who have expressed concerns over bail reform. 

New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat and former police officer, has been outspoken against the state’s system since he took office in January. 

This week, Adams joined the call on legislators for a special session to strengthen the state’s bail laws for repeat offenders.

With the debate around bail reform back at the forefront of politics, Cherson admitted he’s concerned states like New York could see a reversal on the policy. 

But he remains adamant that “public safety is not dependent on bail reform or issues of bail.”

“Public safety depends on the availability of community services, in the ways in which we police and the ways in which we deal with or consider the use of jails in our communities,” Cherson said. “If we’re not going to invest in social services the ways that we need to, that’s going to set up the conditions that Congressman Zeldin is concerned about. We’re talking about substance use problems. We’re talking about mental health issues, we’re talking about houselessness. Those things need to be addressed.”

Source: TEST FEED1

House GOP brushes off DOJ probe of Trump

House Republicans are casting aside the possibility that the Department of Justice could indict former President Trump for his conduct on Jan. 6, painting the DOJ as a political body.

“There’s nothing here to charge them with and they know it,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said when asked if he was concerned about Trump being criminally charged.

“The one thing we know about the DOJ is how political they’ve become and they got to stop being political,” McCarthy said.

House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) echoed McCarthy’s dismissal of the agency probing the former commander-in-chief.

“We’ve seen a politicized DOJ and Biden administration. Take the Colbert-sent reporters, with the U.S. Attorney and DOJ did not want to prosecute them,” said Stefanik, referencing the U.S. Attorney’s Office declining to prosecute “Late Show with Stephen Colbert” employees who were arrested in the Capitol complex for unlawful entry.

The Washington Post first reported on Tuesday that the DOJ’s criminal investigation has recently taken a targeted interest in Trump’s actions related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Sources familiar with the matter told the outlet that prosecutors have asked witnesses about conversations with Trump, his lawyers and others in his orbit who were proponents of the fake elector schemes.

Lawyers working on the investigation have reportedly secured phone records from former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and questioned two of Pence’s former top aides, Marc Short and Greg Jacob. Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who delivered explosive testimony before the Jan. 6 Select Committee, is also said to be cooperating with the DOJ’s probe.

Public attention on the possibility of a Trump indictment has increased in light of the House Jan. 6 select committee holding a series of public hearings, culminating in a presentation placing blame on Trump for spreading false election fraud claims, encouraging protesters to show up on Jan. 6 and not acting quickly to dissuade rioters and break up the mob at the Capitol.

GOP leadership boycotted the committee after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vetoed two of McCarthy’s picks for the panel, and it has subpoenaed five House Republicans including McCarthy. That tension with the committee appears to have made Republicans more skeptical about any Department of Justice probes on the same topic.

“I’ve made plenty of statements regarding the January 6 so-called committee. I think this is a political operation. And this is just the next step in the political operation,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who was also issued a committee subpoena, said about the Department of Justice reportedly probing Trump.

“I think that what the committee has done, in my opinion, essentially creating a pseudo grand jury on national TV, has been atrocious. I think that there needs to be a serious look at what passing of information occurred between this committee and the Department of Justice,” said Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.). 

Donalds added that he thought any criminal indictment based on what he saw in the committee was a “stretch beyond stretching.” 

“It’s clear at this point that the DOJ has been so highly politicized, that this is an example of their lack of focus on criminal justice, keeping Americans safe and secure – and their political vendetta against the former president, which is shameful,” said Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), who was one of McCarthy’s original picks to sit on the Jan. 6 committee. “We have a moral duty when we get the majority back to investigate the DOJ.”

As the year creeps into the fall and inches closer to the midterm elections, all eyes are fixated on Attorney General Merrick Garland, with many speculating if he will indict the former president for his actions related to Jan. 6.

Garland on Tuesday told NBC News “we intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for the events surrounding Jan. 6, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable.”

“That’s what we do. We don’t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that,” he added when asked about the likely seismic implications of charging an ex-president with a crime.

The attorney general called the Jan. 6 probe “the most wide-ranging investigation” in the DOJ’s history.

The Jan. 6 select committee could also make criminal referrals to the DOJ regarding Trump’s role in the Capitol riot.

In an interview earlier this month, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the panel, told ABC’s “This Week” that “there could be more than one criminal referral.”

She noted, however, that “The Justice Department doesn’t have to wait for the committee to make a criminal referral.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Republicans victorious at Nationals Park for second straight year

In what they hope to be preview of the November midterms, Republicans shut out Democrats 10-0 in the annual Congressional Baseball Game at Nationals Park Thursday, led by the efforts of pitcher Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.).

The game brought lawmakers together in a show of bipartisanship to support local charities, with this year’s event securing a record high number of ticket sales and donations, raising more than $1.7 million for organizations like The Washington Literary Center and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington.   

Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff marked the game’s commencement, yelling “play ball” before Roberto Clemente Jr., former professional baseball player and son of MLB Hall of Famer Roberto Clemente, threw the first pitch. The game started with Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) on the pitcher’s mound and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), first up at bat to an eruption of cheers. 

Scalise was shot and injured at a Republican practice leading up to the 2017 Congressional Baseball Game. The Louisiana lawmaker has continued to participate in the game since his recovery. 

As the lawmakers played it out on the field, the political activism of Washington found its way to the front steps of the ballpark.

The Capitol Police heightened security at Nationals Park as climate activists threatened to “shut it down” if lawmakers did not make tangible steps toward passing climate change legislation. At least three individuals were arrested for unlawful entry after blocking one of the park entrances. 

Despite activists’ threats to stop the event even after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) reached a deal to combat climate change on Wednesday, the game continued until a fourth inning rain delay with the Republicans leading 4-0. The crowd erupted into cheers when lawmakers returned to the field thirty minutes later. 

Rep. August Pfluger (R-Tex.) replaced Steube on the mound after he threw five shutout innings. Pfluger struck out two, including Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), and helped the GOP out of a jam when the bases were loaded in the bottom of the sixth inning.

Ossoff took the mound in the seventh inning but allowed 5 runs, ballooning the Republican lead to the final score of 10-0.

Pfluger took the GOP the rest of the way, closing the game in the seventh inning and securing his party the win for the second year in a row, marking only their third win since 2009.

Source: TEST FEED1

Alito pokes fun at foreign leaders’ criticism of decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito poked fun at the criticism that multiple foreign leaders gave of the court’s June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

Alito spoke at the Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Summit in Rome last week, pointing to a “narrowing” of religious speech in the judicial decisions of other countries. He said he was originally not planning to reference specific examples as he was preparing his remarks, but he considered changing his mind given foreign leaders’ comments on the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which struck down the federal right to abortion. 

“I’ve had a few second thoughts over the last few weeks since I had the honor this term of writing I think the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law,” Alito said. 

He said one leader who commented was British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he “paid the price,” jokingly referring to Johnson’s decision to step down as prime minister once a successor is chosen. 

Johnson said after the decision that he recognized the decision is not in the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction, but he called it a “backward step” for the United States. 

Alito noted criticism from French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau but said he was particularly “wounded” when the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, seemed to compare the decision with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine during a speech to the United Nations. 

Harry gave a speech last month in which he mentioned a “global assault on democracy and freedom,” to which he said the war in Ukraine and “the rolling back of constitutional rights” in the United States contributed. 

Alito said he would not discuss specific cases from other countries, but more than “positive law” is needed to win the battle to protect religious freedom in an “increasingly secular society.” 

He said the challenge is to convince those who do not identify with any religion or view religion as negative that religious freedom is worth protecting.

Source: TEST FEED1

Secret Service head delays retirement amid probe into erased texts

U.S. Secret Service Director James Murray will delay his retirement as the agency faces an investigation into text messages sent the day before and of the Capitol insurrection that were deleted. 

Murray, who was set to retire at the end of the month after leading the agency since 2019 and take a job in the private sector, said in a message to the Secret Service that he decided to “briefly” delay his retirement to help facilitate a smooth transition to the agency’s next director. 

He said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and the White House have agreed to him staying on for a little longer. 

“As I have communicated to you recently, this is a unique and challenging time for our agency,” Murray said in the message. “Now, as always, our prime priorities are the success of our mission; the welfare of our people; and our collective and individual responsibility to serve our country and fellow citizens in a manner that is always Worthy of Trust and Confidence.” 

The Secret Service has faced scrutiny in the past couple weeks after the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) informed members of Congress that the agency deleted texts from Jan. 5 and 6, 2021, as part of a “device-replacement program.” 

DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari said in the letter earlier this month that the Secret Service erased the messages after the inspector general’s office had requested electronic communications from the agency as part of its investigation into the insurrection. 

Lawmakers asked Cuffari to step aside from his investigation into the erased messages Tuesday, arguing that he failed to “notify Congress of crucial information.” 

The Secret Service has denied “maliciously” deleting the messages and that the agency has been cooperating with the DHS inspector general’s investigation. 

Murray said in his message that he feels strongly about using the time to ensure the Secret Service’s continued cooperation, responsiveness and full support in congressional and other inquiries. 

He said the selection process to choose the next director is active and ongoing.

Source: TEST FEED1

Fetterman leads Oz by 11 points in Pennsylvania Senate race: poll

Democratic candidate John Fetterman is leading Republican Mehmet Oz in the Pennsylvania Senate race by 11 points, according to a new Fox News poll.

The poll, released Thursday, found that Fetterman is backed by 47 percent of registered Pennsylvania voters surveyed, while Oz has notably lower support at 36 percent of voters.

Independent Everett Stern has the support of 3 percent of voters polled while the remaining 13 percent of respondents said they are undecided or will vote for someone else.

Oz is also has fewer enthusiastic supporters than Fetterman, 68 percent of whose supporters said they back him enthusiastically compared with 35 percent of Oz backers.

More of Oz’s supporters said that they have reservations toward him, at 45 percent, than did Fetterman’s supporters, with 18 percent saying the same.

Additionally, fewer Republicans are loyal to Oz, at 73 percent, than Democrats are loyal to Fetterman, at 89 percent, and fewer Republicans view Oz favorably, at 67 percent, than Democrats view Fetterman favorably, at 88 percent.

Over half of voters surveyed said they are worried that Oz, who lived in New Jersey for years, is not familiar enough with the state of Pennsylvania to be an effective senator, with 22 percent of Republicans saying they are concerned he’s not up to the job.

Pennsylvania voted in favor of President Biden in 2020, when he beat former President Trump in the state by less than two percentage points.

In the previous election, Trump beat 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania by less than one percentage point.

The Fox News poll was conducted from July 22 to 26 and surveyed 908 registered Pennsylvania voters. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1