Tag Archives : Build House

States regulating ballot drop boxes should check the science first

Voters cast a record number of absentee ballots in the 2020 general election in the United States. The numbers continue a demonstrated shift away from traditional voting methods over the last few decades. 

In response, many jurisdictions added ballot drop boxes at which voters could submit their ballots for the 2020 general election. And they worked. After the election, research indicated that 78 percent of election clerks supported making drop boxes permanent. 

Despite all this, ballot drop boxes have become controversial and states like Florida, Wisconsin and Iowa have moved to reduce their use. We need to step back from our assumptions and let science inform our decisions about how to use them to their best effect.

Both election officials and voters like drop boxes. Drop boxes have been shown to reduce the burden of voting and increase turnout in historically disenfranchised areas. Surveys suggest that the ability to use a drop box increases the confidence voters have that their vote will be counted and increases the voters’ trust in the voting process. Ballots submitted to a drop box are only handled and processed by election staff, which some voters view as more secure than submitting ballots via the U.S. Postal Service. Drop boxes are also built to be more secure than USPS mailboxes. What’s more, election staff can review ballots for errors more quickly and allow more voters to resubmit when needed, because ballots from drop boxes can be returned more quickly than non-drop box ballots.

Many states are considering laws regarding the use of drop boxes, including Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently ruled they were “illegal under Wisconsin statutes,” but indicated that new legislation could open the door for future use.

Before states pass new laws, they need to start an in-depth discussion about the benefits and costs associated with ballot drop boxes. So far, most discussions have focused on whether drop boxes are associated with significant security risks and fraud. However, recent research suggests that security incidents related to drop boxes are relatively unlikely to occur. Also, a wealth of research suggests that drop boxes can increase voter participation, especially during non-presidential elections and for minority populations — which suggests that they can be powerful tools to ensure that voting systems are equitable. The potential benefits and costs associated with drop boxes deserve a thorough discussion.

Science can help. I, along with a colleague, created a mathematical model of the drop box voting infrastructure within a voting system as well as voter interaction with those drop boxes. We were able to pinpoint the number of drop boxes that should be added to a voting infrastructure and where to locate drop boxes to best meet election goals.

Adding drop boxes comes with upfront and operational costs, which can admittedly challenge budget-constrained municipal offices. A single, secure ballot drop box with security cameras can cost up to $10,000. There are also operational costs. During every election period, a bipartisan team must collect ballots daily, which can exhaust valuable poll worker resources if a large number of drop boxes are in use. Our model selects the most cost-effective locations by considering both fixed and operational costs.

In terms of benefits, drop boxes can make voting substantially more convenient, which can drive higher levels of turnout if drop box locations are carefully selected. Flexibility in drop box locations is key to achieving their benefits. Drop boxes located at places other than county offices and polling locations are more convenient and equitable for voters, and these benefits can be achieved at no additional cost. In more densely populated areas, multiple, strategically located drop boxes are more advantageous than a single drop box at a municipal office such as a county commissioner’s office.

Our research suggests that policymakers should avoid simple “one-size-fits-all” policies for drop boxes. Unfortunately, several states have adopted such legislation. For example, Iowa limits the number of drop boxes to a single drop box that must be located at the county commissioner’s office and Florida limits drop box availability to the county’s early voting hours of operation. Such legislation comes at a cost to taxpayers without offering voters full convenience.

Drop boxes have a place in our elections. Our states are weighing legislation that will define how and when drop boxes can be used. With research backed by proven scientific methods, legislators can truly make informed decisions about drop boxes and our voting systems.

Laura A. Albert, Ph.D., is a professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Adam Schmidt, a Ph.D. student in Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, contributed to this piece. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Two Americans dead in Donbas region of Ukraine

Two Americans have died in eastern Ukraine, according to the State Department.

In a statement obtained by The Hill, the department said Saturday that the two died in the Donbas region of the country, where Russian forces have redoubled their efforts intensifying their attacks in an attempt to take land.

“We are in touch with the families and providing all possible consular assistance,” the State Department said in an email to The Hill. “Out of respect to the families during this difficult time, we have nothing further,” the department concluded.

The news comes as Russia continues its ongoing war in Ukraine.

Ukrainian forces have felt the effect of Russia’s onslaught, recording as many as 200 causalities per day. Russian forces have also killed numerous civilians in recent attacks.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky threw down the gauntlet for the international community to help his country bring an end to the conflict by December, with the goal to stanch the bloodshed.

The White House on Friday rolled out $270 million in security assistance for the country. The package includes four more High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and hundreds of tactical drones.

The news from the State Department comes on the same day news broke that the Russians launched a missile attack on the Black Sea port of Odessa less than 24 hours after Russia and Ukraine came to an agreement to reinstate the export of tons of grain to the global market.

Multiple Americans have now died in Ukraine during the conflict, which has lasted for five months.

Video journalist Brent Renaud was killed in a war zone in March while his companion came away with severe injuries.

A second American man, Jimmy Hill, was shot down by Russian military snipers while in a bread line trying to provide for his ailing wife, according to his sister.

One man, a former Marine, was fighting in Ukraine in April when he was killed by Russian forces.

“He wanted to go over because he believed in what Ukraine was fighting for, and he wanted to be a part of it, to contain it there so it didn’t come here, and that maybe our American soldiers wouldn’t have to be involved in it,” his mother said.

A second man from New York, died while fighting last month in Dorozhniank.

Source: TEST FEED1

NY Post editorial board: ‘Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country’s chief executive again’

The New York Post’s editorial board said in an editorial published on Friday that former President Trump has proven himself “unworthy” to serve as the country’s president again based on his hours-long refusal to attempt to quell the mob of rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The editorial is a stepped-up criticism of Trump from a piece the board published last month, which said “it’s time for Republicans to move on” from the former president. The board endorsed Trump for president in 2020. 

The editorial from Friday said that the debate over whether Trump’s speech at the Ellipse before the insurrection incited the mob is “somewhat of a red herring” from what it said was a more noteworthy point, that Trump “didn’t lift a finger” to stop the violent riot for three hours and seven minutes. 

“It’s up to the Justice Department to decide if this is a crime. But as a matter of principle, as a matter of character, Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country’s chief executive again,” the board said. 

The piece followed the latest public hearing from the House select committee investigating the insurrection. At its hearing on Thursday, the committee outlined how Trump did not take action to disperse rioters for hours as the attack unfolded despite some of his top advisers pressuring him to do so. 

“His only focus was to find any means — damn the consequences — to block the peaceful transfer of power,” the editorial states. “There is no other explanation, just as there is no defense, for his refusal to stop the violence.” 

The committee also noted that Trump was aware of the violence as he slammed then-Vice President Mike Pence for not rejecting the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

Sarah Matthews, who served as White House deputy press secretary under Trump and resigned hours after the attack, testified that Trump’s tweet saying Pence did not have the “courage” to reject the results gave a “green light” to the rioters. 

The Post’s editorial states that Trump thought the violence would make Pence fold or delay the counting of the votes and he “further fanned the flames” with his tweet. 

“And he was the only person who could stop what was happening,” it states. “He was the only one the crowd was listening to. It was incitement by silence.” 

The Post’s editorial from last month pointed to other possible 2024 Republican presidential candidates including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 

Trump has been hinting at another run for president for months and told New York Magazine earlier this month that he has already decided whether he will run again. He said the question is when he will announce his decision.

Source: TEST FEED1

Bipartisan House delegation meets with Zelensky in Kyiv

A bipartisan House delegation met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine’s capital Kyiv on Saturday as the country’s war with Russia approaches the five month mark.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said in a statement along with the four other members of the delegation that they saw firsthand during their visit how Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war has failed to achieve its goals. The other members of the delegation are Reps. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.). 

Facing stiff Ukrainian resistance to its invasion, Russia failed to take control of Kyiv in the early weeks of the conflict and has lost roughly 15,000 soldiers in nearly 5 months of fighting, the director of the CIA estimated this week. Moscow has also drawn condemnation from international bodies and leaders around the world over its actions in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Finland and Sweden have moved to join NATO in response to the war, with the military alliance officially inviting both countries to join late last month.

“Putin’s aggression has brought Ukraine and the other democracies of Europe closer together, not driven them apart,” the lawmakers said. “His contempt for the rules-based international order has resulted in devastating isolation for the Russian economy and renewed purpose for the NATO alliance.” 

The delegation members said the war has “violently disrupted” the lives of Ukrainian civilians and that they saw evidence of Russian atrocities in Irpin and Bucha, two cities in the province surrounding Kyiv. 

Throughout the war, Russia has been accused of committing war crimes as soldiers have been documented targeting civilians and civilian buildings, kidnapping Ukrainians and raping women. Ukraine has pushed to hold Russia accountable for its actions in the war in the International Court of Justice for violating international law. 

“Four months since Vladimir Putin’s unlawful further invasion began, President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine continue to inspire the world with their courageous fight for their freedom, sovereignty, and democracy,” the delegation said. 

The lawmakers said they will continue to seek ways to help Zelensky and the Ukrainian people as effectively as they can as they “continue their brave stand.”

Zelensky said in a Telegram message about the meeting that he is grateful for the $270 million security assistance package that President Biden announced for Ukraine on Friday. 

The package includes four additional High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and hundreds of tactical drones. About a third of the funding will go toward contracting up to 580 Phoenix Ghost unmanned aerial systems. 

Zelensky said Ukrainian forces especially need the HIMARS, shells and unmanned aerial vehicles. 

“We appreciate the help of the United States in defending our territory, our land and the Ukrainian people,” he said. 

The Ukrainian president’s office said in a statement that Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is leading the delegation. 

The office said that Zelensky briefed the members of the delegation on the missile strikes that Russia launched against Ukraine in the past day, specifically targeting the port of Odessa. The city announced that four missiles were launched toward the port, but two were shot down before impact. 

Zelensky noted that this happened just one day after Russia and Ukraine agreed to allow Ukraine to export grain internationally through its ports to address global food shortages. 

“This proves only one thing: no matter what Russia says and promises, it will find ways not to implement it,” he said. “Geopolitically, with weapons, bloodily or not, but it has several vectors, as it always acts.” 

Zelensky also told the delegation about the planned reconstruction of Ukraine after the war ends, according to the statement. He said the first step is implementing the Fast Recovery Plan, which would focus on quickly restoring destroyed residential, educational and medical infrastructure. 

“We appeal to our partners, in particular the United States, with a proposal to take an active part in the implementation of this ambitious but extremely important project,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Learn from past pandemic mistakes and authorize second boosters for all

The U.S. is experiencing a surge in COVID-19 cases, driven by the highly transmissible BA.4 and BA.5 variants. We need to use all the tools available to protect ourselves from severe disease and death and to protect our health care systems from becoming overwhelmed as hospitalizations increase. That’s why I am calling for the Biden administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to authorize and recommend second boosters for all Americans. A fourth dose of the mRNA vaccines is one tool that can be deployed swiftly to save lives and hospital beds.         

Reports from early July state that several top officials, such as Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, support this initiative, citing that immunity from booster shots received in 2021 is waning. Yet critics say there is not enough data to support the decision, and by recommending second boosters now, the CDC may weaken its argument for reformulated booster shots in the fall.     

Unfortunately, this narrative reminds me of the bungled messaging on masks. In March 2020, the CDC unequivocally advised the public not to wear masks, fearing that many would hoard them, resulting in a shortage of masks for health care workers. When it became impossible to ignore the role of asymptomatic transmission, the CDC changed its guidance, but the damage was done, trust was lost and confusion was wrought in the earliest days of the pandemic.                     

The same mistakes were made again in May 2021 when the CDC prematurely announced a sweeping relaxation of face mask guidelines for those who were fully vaccinated to encourage uptake of the vaccine, leaving many vulnerable to the delta surge. We then witnessed the same scenario with a delayed booster rollout and omicron in December 2021.    

Rather than trying to predict how the public will react to public health recommendations, we must give them equitable access to the tools to protect themselves and their communities. This is how we rebuild trust in public health recommendations after several years of confusion, in which public health agencies often gave conflicting recommendations. Empower the public with facts about the benefits of second boosters and let them make the decision for themselves.                                  

An ongoing randomized clinical trial in the United Kingdom found that the fourth dose of the mRNA vaccines can both boost cellular and antibody-mediated immunity as effectively as the third dose. Recent data from the CDC suggest that the risks of dying from COVID is reduced 29-fold for those over 50 years old who have had two booster shots.         

The difficult reality of life with COVID-19 means we are forced to make a myriad of risk assessments each day, especially as protective measures and mandates are rolled back around the globe. Fortunately, the calculus involved in getting a second booster is simple. With new data about the risk of death, blood clots and other negative health outcomes doubling with COVID-19 reinfection and the disabling symptoms associated with long COVID, we must take every opportunity to protect ourselves.

Dr. William Haseltine is the author of “A Family Guide to Long Covid” and several other books on COVID-19. He is president of the think tank ACCESS Health International and a former professor at Harvard Medical School and School of Public Health.

Source: TEST FEED1

Climate change: The global Jenga game

It has been 34 years, an entire generation, since the U.S. government’s top climate scientist warned Congress the planet was warming with potentially dire consequences. “It is already happening now,” Dr. James Hansen testified in 1988. “It is time to stop waffling.” Scientists have struggled ever since to communicate this to the public and government officials.

Scientists and their translators have explained the pollution from burning fossil fuels is collecting above the Earth, where it acts like the glass in a greenhouse and holds the sun’s heat close to the planet’s surface — the “greenhouse effect.” Or they have described the gases as an invisible blanket covering the Earth and getting thicker with every ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) civilization emits.

But before metaphors and analogies can explain climate change, audiences must be open to hearing about it. Unfortunately, the message is not good news. Many people with the power to do something about global warming have not listened because it’s easier to deny a harsh reality than it is to fix it.

Those of us who try to break through the communications barrier about climate change get fixated on that crisis and fail to point out an even harsher reality: Climate change is only one manifestation of adverse human impacts on nature. What’s really at risk is the biosphere — the atmosphere, the hydrosphere (oceans), and the lithosphere (the Earth’s solid surface). These are where all life on the planet exists, working together like the organs in our bodies.

The best metaphor for this is the popular game Jenga. Players build a tower out of blocks, then take turns removing them one at a time. The loser is the person who removes the block that topples the tower.

With industrialization and population growth, civilization has been pulling blocks out of the Jenga tower for centuries, including many vital to the structure’s integrity. The disturbing reality that many people don’t want to accept, or even hear about, is that the hospitable Earth we have known for the last 10,000 to 12,000 years is on the verge of collapse.

Some years ago, the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University convened 28 renowned scientists to identify the planet’s “safe operating spaces” and the boundaries humankind can’t cross without creating large-scale, abrupt, irreversible changes in the biosphere. The team came up with nine critical spaces. Only one is climate change. Others include ocean acidification, ozone depletion, land-use changes and freshwater losses.

Geologists believe the human impact on the biosphere is so extensive that it has created a new era in the planet’s 4.5-billion-year history. They have proposed calling it the Anthropocene, a term signifying that humankind is now the most influential and destructive force on Earth. The evidence, which ranges from plastic pollution to the fallout of nuclear weapons testing, reads like an indictment of modern civilization because that’s what it is. Humanity is on trial, with little time left to fix things before the verdict is in and the planet imposes its most severe penalty.

We must answer some questions if we are generous enough to care about the future. What happens if we remove the biodiversity block, the freshwater block or the block representing fertile soils? What if we remove the blocks representing the Earth’s carbon and water cycles or the oceans’ chemistry? For that matter, how many blocks do we dare add to the tower’s top to represent the human population’s growth?

If the U.S. Congress, other world leaders and the general population had heeded Hansen’s warning about climate change 34 years ago, we could have made the necessary corrections with much less expense and disruption. Instead, the use of fossil fuels over the last three decades has made the blanket thicker, while urbanization, agriculture, deforestation and pollution have moved us closer to the planet’s boundaries.

The Jenga tower is teetering while we blithely remove its blocks. Its loss of stability is too gradual to shock us awake. But all life will suffer when it collapses. Here the Jenga analogy falls apart because, unlike the game, we will not be able to rebuild the structure and start over.

This is not a message that political leaders, policymakers or friends and neighbors want to hear. It’s the ultimate inconvenient truth. And yet, pulling civilization back from collapse would be the present generation’s most precious gift to our progeny, the biosphere and the incredibly beautiful web of life.

William S. Becker is a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional director who administered energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies programs, and he also served as special assistant to the department’s assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Becker is also executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, a nonpartisan initiative founded in 2007 that works with national thought leaders to develop recommendations for the White House as well as House and Senate committees on climate and energy policies. The project is not affiliated with the White House.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden likely contracted BA.5, symptoms improving, doctor says

President Biden’s COVID-19 symptoms are still improving but he now has a sore throat and body aches, his physician Kevin O’Connor said in a memorandum released by the White House on Saturday.  

O’Connor also reported that Biden likely contracted the BA.5 variant, which makes up the majority of COVID-19 cases in the United States.  

“His symptoms continue to improve,” O’Connor wrote. “His primary symptoms, though less troublesome, now include sore throat, rhinorrhea, loose cough and body aches. His voice remains deep. His pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate and temperature remain entirely normal. His oxygen saturation continues to be excellent on room air. His lungs remain clear.” 

The term “rhinorrhea” is used to refer to a runny nose. Biden had previously reported mild symptoms of a runny nose, cough and fatigue, according to updates from the White House.  

Biden, who is vaccinated against COVID-19, is experiencing “no shortness of breath at all,” O’Connor stressed on Saturday.  

O’Connor’s update came two days after the president tested positive for the virus. He said that Biden will continue to take the antiviral Paxlovid, which he said the president is tolerating “well.”  

The physician said that Biden would continue to drink water, take Tylenol, and use an inhaler two to three times a day in order to treat his symptoms in addition to taking Paxlovid, which is used in COVID-19 patients to prevent serious illness.  

O’Connor said the determination that Biden likely contracted the BA.5 variant would not impact his treatment plan.  

Biden, who is 79 years old, is at higher risk of severe illness because of his age, but health experts say that he’s unlikely to fall seriously ill because he is up-to-date on his vaccinations and receiving Paxlovid.  

The president has no public events on his schedule on Saturday. He attended meetings virtually on Friday, as the White House stressed that he continues to carry out the presidential duties despite his illness.  

The White House has posted photos of Biden in isolation making calls and signing legislation. Biden made his first public appearance since his diagnosis on Friday as he phoned in virtually to a meeting with his economic team about falling gas prices.  

Asked by the press how he was feeling, Biden offered a thumbs-up.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha fielded questions about Biden’s condition on Thursday and Friday but there is no briefing scheduled over the weekend. 

Source: TEST FEED1

When did $90 billion become nothing to Trump, DeSantis, Haley and the GOP?

Have you heard of the Biden administration’s plan to give $90 billion to bail out union pensions?  No? Most people haven’t. While it might be normal for the union-supporting Democratic Party and most of the mainstream media to sweep such a boondoggle under the carpet for political expediency, one would think that the GOP— and most especially its potential presidential candidates — would be screaming bloody murder. But they aren’t.

The bailout is buried within the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act. Now, the song and dance the administration is performing to justify this is that these union pension plans were adversely hurt by the pandemic. Except, if anyone cares to do a little research, they’ll find that these pension plans were in deep trouble long before the virus reared its ugly head upon our shores.

As Howard Adler and Alex Pollock write in the Wall Street Journal: “The American taxpayer will bear the cost of union plans that were insolvent long before the pandemic. The bailout all but guarantees future insolvency or another bailout and constitutes a massive giveaway to labor unions.”

Just how insolvent were these plans before the pandemic? The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation estimated that in 2018, these multi-employer union pension plans were insolvent to the tune of $757 billion. It’s a number that some experts believe to be vastly underestimated.

As the Heritage Foundation reported: “The fact that private union pensions have been allowed to promise $757 billion more in benefits than they set aside to pay is reckless and should be illegal. Millions of people worked decades for what they thought would be a secure pension but was instead a bill of goods that only propped up unions’ power.”

And yet, because few conservative voices have condemned this giveaway, President Biden was in Cleveland two weeks ago literally bragging about using $90 billion from American taxpayers to bail out these self-destructive union pensions.

Such transparent political boasting from the president begs two questions. The first: Since when did $90 billion of taxpayer money become so insignificant that we don’t notice its spending?  And second: Why aren’t any of the potential Republican presidential candidates for 2024, such as Donald Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, loudly protesting such a giveaway?

Maybe they, like most politicians and members of the media, need to have $90 billion put in more relevant terms they can better understand. That amount of taxpayer money is more than the yearly revenue of 190 countries.

Maybe Trump, DeSantis, Haley and any other politician or member of the media worried about flushing the yearly revenue of 190 nations into the politicized D.C. swamp might want to consult with Derek Kreifels, the CEO of the State Financial Officers Foundation. In a recent interview with Fox Business, Kreifels said, “The White House is going to allow the same pension fund managers — who have been historically awful at their jobs — the ability to make riskier investments with not only hard-working Americans pensions, but also the nearly $100 billion worth of taxpayer dollars delivered to unions under the guise of COVID relief. In truth, this is a disaster of the Biden administration’s own making, putting millions of Americans’ retirements at risk with terrible economic policies that are reverberating throughout every facet of our lives — from the gas pumps to the grocery stores.”

Maybe focusing on this giveaway will next cause them to speak out about the unfunded state public employee pension liabilities, which are projected to increase to at least $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2022. Again, to break it down, that is over one thousand billion dollars in unfunded liabilities for gold-plated pensions, benefiting a small — but often political — percentage of the American workforce. 

It’s a monetary burden that is crippling the finances of states and cities while negatively impacting their most at-risk citizens. But hey, as long as these giveaways might secure some votes for the Democrats in the next election, what’s the problem?

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

Source: TEST FEED1

Same-sex marriage debate poses problems for Republicans

A proposal to protect same-sex marriages through federal law is turning into a political liability for Senate Republicans who would rather talk about inflation and gas prices than a hot-button social issue that could provoke a backlash from their party’s base.  

Making matters worse for Senate Republicans, a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognize same-sex marriages passed the House with 47 GOP votes, giving it strong bipartisan momentum.  

It’s a tough vote for many Senate Republicans because while a recent Gallup poll shows broad public support for recognizing same-sex marriage, there’s strong support among social conservatives for defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  

If the issue comes to the Senate floor, Senate Republicans will have to decide whether to risk alienating moderate voters or picking a fight with their own base.  

Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), the Senate’s most vulnerable Republican incumbent, announced Thursday that he would vote for the House-passed bill. 

Johnson accused Democrats of playing politics but told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “should it come before the Senate, I see no reason to oppose it.”  

Johnson faces a tough race in a state that President Biden narrowly won the 2020 election.  

His home-state colleague, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), is also the lead sponsor of the Senate bill to protect same-sex marriage.  

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Gary Peters (Wis.) predicted that Republicans would pay a political price in the midterms if they block legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriages.  

“Clearly a large majority of Americans believe this is where we should be,” he said, warning that if Republicans derail the Respect for Marriage Act, it “adds to the narrative” that they are allied with the conservative Supreme Court.  

“We’ve got Republicans that are taking reproductive freedom rights from women, they’re taking rights away from other individuals, and so that’s not going to bode well come election time,” he said, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, which struck down abortion rights.  

Peters said fear and anger over losing abortion and other rights will motivate young voters in November.  

“When they see Republicans taking rights away, when you think about marriage rights for people, it’s a huge issue for young people,” he said. “They believe it’s a fundamental human right that should be protected.”  

Gallup’s annual values and beliefs poll, conducted in May, showed that 71 percent of Americans say they support legal same-sex marriage.  

Other potential “yes” votes in the Senate GOP caucus are avoiding the issue.  

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) vented his frustration over the issue Thursday when asked whether he would consider voting for the House bill, which would also offer federal protection to interracial marriage.  

“Isn’t it amazing how they totally tossed that out there to distract you guys? You’re not talking about inflation, the crime, the border or the chips [bill,]” Cassidy said, accusing Democrats of trying to shift attention away from the economy and other issues.  

“It is such a ploy to distract the press from the issues before us. I refuse to answer the question,” he said.  

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another potential Republican “yes” vote said Thursday she still hasn’t reached a decision.  

“I’ve thought about it but I haven’t made any decision,” she said.  

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Mitt Romney (Utah), Mike Rounds (S.D.) and Todd Young (Ind.), are viewed as potential GOP supporters of the bill and won’t yet say how they will vote.  

Johnson’s statement that he will vote for the bill, however, puts pressure on his GOP colleagues to do the same. He is one of the most conservative and pro-Trump members of the Senate GOP conference.  

Romney is under pressure to vote for the legislation after all four Republican members of Utah’s House delegation — Reps. Blake Moore, Chris Stewart, John Curtis and Burgess Owens — voted yes on Tuesday.

Romney, however, told The Hill: “I’ll make my own decision.”  

Vin Weber, a Republican strategist, said Senate Republicans are lagging national sentiment on same-sex marriage and predicted there won’t be serious repercussions if they vote to protect it. 

“It is a less difficult issue than they think it is but I understand it’s a difficult issue because there’s a portion of the Republican base that is strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. In my view, same-sex marriage is an accepted part of American life and it’s not going to be changed,” he said.  

“But there are people who remain opposed mainly out of religious conviction and they have voices in the Republican Party,” he added. “My own feeling is that Republicans are over-responding to that voice.” 

Weber said public views of gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage have “transformed radically” across the nation since Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.  

That bill defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law after the Senate and House passed it with overwhelming majorities.  

Weber noted that Barack Obama did not support same-sex marriage when elected in 2008 and only announced his support in 2012. 

“The country has changed on it and unlike abortion there’s no ongoing political movement at the grassroots in opposition to same-sex marriage as there was for 50 years in opposition to abortion-on-demand,” he said.”   

Polls show support for same-sex marriage among Republicans is significantly lower than among Democrats and independents.  

Gallup’s poll showed only 40 percent of weekly churchgoers support legal recognition of same-sex marriage while 58 percent oppose the idea.  

And people who attend church on a regular basis are more likely to vote for Republicans, according to the Pew Research Center.  

Republican strategists as recently as 2004 saw opposition to same-sex marriage as a winning political issue.  

GOP strategists say that ballot initiatives in 11 states codifying marriage as the union of a man and woman helped drive Republican turnout in the 2004 election.  

One such state constitutional amendment may have made the difference in Ohio, which President George W. Bush carried by a slim margin over Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).  

“Those were wildly popular and some credited them with helping George W. Bush get re-elected. It was something that was very popular at the time,” said Brian Darling, a GOP strategist and former Senate aide.

Darling said Gallup’s poll showing broad national support for same-sex marriage may not capture how strongly many Republican voters feel about same-sex marriage.   

“I think most Republicans are looking behind the poll numbers and thinking that it’s not as popular as the polls indicate,” he said.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Is the clock finally running out on Hunter Biden?

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin once said the key element of his life was “timing … I have been blessed to have been in the right place at the right time.” It is the same defining element of Hunter Biden’s life: No matter what crime or corruption is alleged, he has escaped responsibility, often by pure political serendipity.

Now, according to various media outlets, time may be running out for Hunter, with a federal investigation entering a “critical stage” — yet timing still could be on Hunter’s side.

Hunter has always had impeccable timing and, like Blanche DuBois, “always depended on the kindness of strangers.” He went to law school after his father became a powerful U.S. senator with a long line of influence-seekers eager to help him and his family. After graduating, Hunter was given a high-paying job with MBNA, the bank holding company, which supported key credit card legislation being pushed by his father in the Senate. 

Later, Hunter was given a ridiculous appointment to the board of Amtrak and became its vice chair, despite an utter lack of credentials. His father, however, was a critical advocate for Amtrak in the Senate.

When his father became vice president, Hunter and an uncle allegedly cashed in on a long line of foreign entities seeking influence with his father. Millions of dollars were given to Hunter even though, as he has acknowledged, he was a crack addict and alcoholic at the time — “[d]rinking a quart of vodka a day by yourself in a room [which] is absolutely, completely debilitating” and “smoking crack around the clock.”

When Hunter’s debaucheries and dealings became public knowledge, thanks to a laptop he abandoned at a repair shop, the timing again was right for him. It happened just before the 2020 presidential election, and the media imposed a virtual blackout on coverage; 51 intelligence experts wrote a letter dismissing the laptop as likely “Russian disinformation.” U.S. Attorney David Weiss, probing Hunter’s dealings under an appointment by then-Attorney General William Barr, suspended his grand jury investigation for months to avoid accusations of influencing the election.

Now the grand jury’s expiration last month has forced a new timeline in the Hunter saga. The grand jury reportedly looked at a variety of possible criminal charges stemming from Hunter’s reported influence-peddling with dubious foreign figures from China, Russia, Ukraine and other countries.

While it is unclear if there were any indictments, some crimes seem undeniable on the basis of known evidence. For example, Biden seems clearly to have lied on the federal form to acquire a gun by denying his drug use; he also appears to have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And there are obvious tax charges that could be brought, even though he paid outstanding taxes after the investigation began.

However, some of the most serious allegations of corruption concern alleged influence-peddling and acquiring millions from foreign figures. Not only were there reportedly more than 150 suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed, but those millions seemed to evaporate. His dealings reportedly involve an array of powerful figures, including his father, his uncle and the children of other well-known families.

Yet it is again a matter of “timing” and familiar concerns of “Election Year Sensitivities.” 

A long-standing Justice Department policy instructs prosecutors to exercise caution in “the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election.” Accordingly, some observers have objected that prosecutor Weiss should not issue an indictment against Hunter before the midterm elections, since that could hurt Democratic candidates. That could explain the failure to release any indictments after the disbanding of the grand jury.

But the use of this policy to seal or delay any indictments could raise equal concerns over the politicalization of prosecution.

The protected period under Justice’s policy has been stated variously as 60 or 90 days. This grand jury’s term expired outside of either period. Moreover, the policy does not bar filings during that period; it bars prosecutors from using “the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” It is the grand jury’s expiration, not any nefarious purpose, that is driving this schedule.

The most obvious problem with this argument is that neither President Biden nor his son are on any ballot in November. The policy is not supposed to be a political variation of the parlor game “Six Degrees of Separation From Kevin Bacon.” An indictment in Delaware would be three degrees from any Democratic candidate: (1) Hunter is the son of Joe Biden, (2) Joe Biden is president and a Democrat, and (3) there are candidates running as Democrats.

To use such a strained connection can itself be a political act. If the Justice Department can withhold prosecutions with even tangential political elements, it can shield political allies from having to address criminal allegations before the voters.

Of course, if there are sealed indictments, any delay would not stop an eventual prosecution. However, that timing still could benefit Hunter. He did not have to face a special counsel, who ordinarily would prepare a comprehensive report. There has long been an overwhelming basis for the appointment of a special counsel in this case, given direct references to President Biden as a prospective beneficiary of Hunter’s deals. By leaving this case with a U.S. Attorney, such a report is unlikely, and only limited information would be disclosed with any indictment. 

More importantly, if an indictment is confined to narrow charges, not a broader conspiracy, Hunter could plead guilty to secure a more favorable sentence and avoid both a trial and the release of additional information. A plea could offer practical protection from future congressional hearings, too: It would close the case before Republicans could regain control of one or both houses of Congress, and the Justice Department could decline to bring further charges. Indeed, the expiration of the grand jury without a public indictment fueled concerns that the Biden Justice Department might cut a generous plea deal with the president’s son.

Conversely, if the U.S. Attorney were to present evidence to a new grand jury, it could take months and extend beyond the midterm elections. That would present a considerably higher risk for the Biden administration and for Hunter himself, because Weiss might put that additional time to good use. 

Weiss does not appear to have called critical witnesses related to any alleged influence-peddling, including President Biden. Presidents can be called before grand juries or deposed by investigators in other cases; President Clinton, for example, famously was compelled to testify in a legal case during his term. If Weiss is going to investigate deals that discuss money going to “the big guy,” as Hunter allegedly referred to his father, then it would seem obvious that that would be the one guy who should be on any witness list.

It is unclear what, if anything, Weiss has uncovered about the Bidens — but, perhaps for the first time, time will tell.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Source: TEST FEED1