ВИБОРЧА ГАЗЕТА

NY Seeks $370M in Penalties in Trump’s Civil Fraud Trial

NEW YORK — New York state lawyers increased their request for penalties to over $370 million Friday in Donald Trump’s civil business fraud trial. He retorted: “They should pay me.”

The exchange came as lawyers for both sides filed papers highlighting their takeaways from the trial in court filings ahead of closing arguments, set for next Thursday. Trump is expected to attend, though plans could change.

It will be the final chance for state and defense lawyers to make their cases. The civil lawsuit, which accuses the leading Republican presidential hopeful of deceiving banks and insurers by vastly inflating his net worth, is consequential for him even while he fights four criminal cases in various courts.

The New York civil case could end up barring him from doing business in the state where he built his real estate empire. On top of that, state Attorney General Letitia James is seeking the $370 million penalty, plus interest — up from a pretrial figure of $250 million, nudged to over $300 million during the proceedings.

The state says the new sum reflects windfalls from wrongdoing, chiefly $199 million in profits from property sales and $169 million in savings on interest rates, as calculated by an investment banking expert hired by James’ office.

Trump bristled at the proposed penalty in an all-caps post on his Truth Social platform, insisting anew that “there was no victim, no default, no damages.”

He complained that the attorney general was seeking $370 million and instead “should pay me,” asserting that businesses are fleeing New York.

According to the state Labor Department, the number of private sector jobs in New York increased 1% in the year that ended this past November, compared to 1.6% nationally.

James’ office argued in a filing Friday that Trump, his company and executives clearly intended to defraud people.

“The myriad deceptive schemes they employed to inflate asset values and conceal facts were so outrageous that they belie innocent explanation,” state lawyer Kevin Wallace wrote.

The state alleges Trump and his company ginned up exorbitant values for golf courses, hotels, and more, including Trump’s former home in his namesake tower in New York and his current home at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. The numbers were listed on personal financial statements that netted him attractive rates on loans and insurance, leaving him money to invest in other projects and even his 2016 presidential campaign, James’ office says.

The defendants, including Trump’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric, deny any wrongdoing. The former president has painted the case as a political maneuver by James, Judge Arthur Engoron and other Democrats, saying they’re abusing the legal system to try to cut off his chances of winning back the White House this year.

He asserts that his financial statements came in billions of dollars low, and that any overestimations — such as valuing his Trump Tower penthouse at nearly three times its actual size — were mere mistakes and made no difference in the overall picture of his fortune.

He also says the documents are essentially legally bulletproof because they said the numbers weren’t audited, among other caveats. Recipients understood them as simply starting points for their own analyses, the defense says.

None of Trump’s lenders testified that they wouldn’t have made the loans or would have charged more interest if his financial statements had shown different numbers, and 10-plus weeks of testimony produced “no factual evidence from any witness that the gains were ill-gotten,” attorneys Michael Madaio and Christopher Kise wrote in a filing Friday. Nor, they said, was there proof that insurers were ripped off.

Separately, defense lawyers argued that claims against Executive Vice Presidents Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. should be dismissed because they never had “anything more than a peripheral knowledge or involvement in the creation, preparation, or use of” their father’s financial statements.

The sons relied on the work of other Trump Organization executives and an outside accounting firm that prepared those documents, attorneys Clifford Robert and Michael Farina said, echoing the scions’ own testimony.

Their father also took the stand, disputing the allegations, decrying the case as political and criticizing the judge and the attorney general. James’ office argued in its filing Friday that Trump was “not a credible witness.”

“He was evasive, gave irrelevant speeches and was incapable of answering questions in a direct and credible manner,” Wallace wrote.

The verdict is up to the judge because James brought the case under a state law that doesn’t allow for a jury. Engoron has said he hopes to decide by the end of this month.

He will weigh claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. But he ruled before trial on the lawsuit’s top claim, finding that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud for years. With that ruling, the judge ordered that a receiver take control of some of the ex-president’s properties, but an appeals court has frozen that order for now.

During the trial, Engoron fined Trump a total of $15,000 after finding that he violated a gag order that barred all trial participants from commenting publicly on the judge’s staff. The order was imposed after Trump maligned the judge’s principal law clerk.

Trump’s lawyers are appealing the gag order.
…

Republican Party Consolidates Control of Deep South Statehouses

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA — The January 8 inauguration of Jeff Landry as Louisiana governor consolidates Republican Party control of statehouses in America’s Deep South and the region’s shift to more conservative governance.

Nearly 60% of Louisiana voters chose Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Republicans are ready for change at the statehouse in Baton Rouge.

As a candidate and as the state’s attorney general, Landry backed banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youths, expanding rights for gun owners and enacting a near-total abortion ban without exceptions for rape and incest.

“I’m tired of the government doing everything for everybody, because it makes people lazy,” said retired firefighter Robert Caretto. “I believe in peace through military strength, I believe we shouldn’t make decisions that hurt children with gender changes based on what a small percentage of gay or trans people want, and I believe in strict borders that protect Americans.

“I want to leave this country better for my grandkids, so I want a government that shares my values,” he told VOA. “I’m excited because I think this incoming Louisiana government is a step in the right direction.”

New Orleans event coordinator and Democratic voter Tana Velen sees the new governor as a step backward.

“I’m so worried, especially as a woman, about the direction we’re heading,” she told VOA. “I’m afraid women will lose their lives and their ability to have children because of these decisions being made by politicians instead of doctors, I’m afraid the trans community will no longer have access to gender-affirming care, and I’m afraid his policies will cause Louisiana’s public schools to fall even further behind the rest of the country.”

Outgoing Governor John Bel Edwards “governed for the last eight years as a conservative on most issues even though he was a Democrat,” said Barry Erwin, CEO of the public policy group Council for a Better Louisiana. “When it came to abortion, the right to bear arms and even most fiscal issues, he often sided with Republicans.”

With a legislative supermajority, Erwin said, Republican lawmakers “were able to get most of what they wanted anyway. What they couldn’t do, they’ll be able to do now with Landry as governor. But after they get a few of those higher profile things done in the first year or two, I don’t think things will feel too different.”

Shifting Louisiana follows a shifting South

Shifting from a Democratic governor to a Republican governor is part of a decadeslong trend in states across the Deep South. Dillard University professor of Urban Studies and Public Policy Robert Collins said it is partly because past political nuances in the region are gone.

“In America today, politics are more nationalized,” he told VOA. “Democrats are liberal, and Republicans are conservative. You basically either support Trump or you don’t. And everyone basically fits into one of those two categories.

“But from before the Civil War in the 1860s until after the civil rights battles of the 1960s, you had more factions. Rival Democrats could be liberal or conservative, and the GOP was split into liberal and conservative camps, as well.”

There were very few Republicans in the pre-Civil War South because the party’s policies were considered anti-slavery. The economies of southern states, including Louisiana, depended largely on slavery, so voters in the state — who were all white because slaves didn’t have the right to vote — were largely conservative Democrats.

That was mostly unchanged until the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which struck down the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War and finally made it possible for Black Americans at large to vote.

“You would have expected Black voters to align with the Republican Party because they were the party seen to abolish slavery during the Civil War,” Collins said, “but there was no Republican Party in the South in the 1960s. If you wanted your vote to count for something, you had to vote Democrat. So Black southerners became Democrats along with the pro-racism whites — white people were conservative Democrats while Black people were liberal.”

Republicans focused on white, southern Democrats, many of whom were fearful that Black voters were becoming too powerful and were disenchanted with their party for helping pass civil rights laws.

“Republican leaders like Barry Goldwater and future President Richard Nixon saw this disenchantment and offered the Republican Party as an alternative via what is called the ‘Southern Strategy,’” Collins said. “It took decades, but slowly, the conservative Democrats of southern states like Louisiana became Republicans.”

National politics take over

Since Edwards first took office as governor in 2016, Democrats’ share of seats in the Louisiana House of Representatives fell from 41 to 32 out of 105. And within the Republican Party, moderates are losing to more conservative challengers, pushing Louisiana governance further to the right. 

“The other states in the Deep South had already transitioned away from the nuance of local politics,” Collins said, “and with the election of Jeff Landry as governor, it seems Louisiana has finally fully transitioned to the duality of national politics, as well.”

“How do I feel about the direction of our state?” asked Larisa Diephuis, a New Orleans Democrat. “Well, we’re leaving.”
…

Biden to Sharpen Attack on Trump in Jan. 6 Anniversary Speech

…

Trump Appeals Ruling That Bars Him From Maine’s Ballot

…

California Expanding Health Care for Low-Income Immigrants in 2024

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — More than 700,000 immigrants living illegally in California will gain access to free health care starting Monday under one of the state’s most ambitious coverage expansions in a decade.

It’s an effort that will eventually cost the state about $3.1 billion per year and inches California closer to Democrats’ goal of providing universal health care to its roughly 39 million residents.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers agreed in 2022 to provide health care access to all low-income adults regardless of their immigration status through the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal.

California is the most populous state to guarantee such coverage, though Oregon began doing so in July.

Newsom called the expansion “a transformative step towards strengthening the health care system for all Californians” when he proposed the changes two years ago.

Newsom made the commitment when the state had the largest budget surplus in its history. But as the program kicks off next week, California faces a record $68 billion budget deficit, raising questions and concerns about the economic ramifications of the expansion.

“Regardless of what your position is on this, it doesn’t make sense for us to be adding to our deficit,” said Republican Sen. Roger Niello, the vice-chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.

Immigration and health care advocates, who spent more than a decade fighting for the changes, have said the expanded coverage will close a gap in health care access and save the state money in the long run. Those who live in the state illegally often delay or avoid care because they aren’t eligible for most coverage, making it more expensive to treat them when they end up in emergency rooms.

“It’s a win-win, because it allows us to provide comprehensive care and we believe this will help keep our communities healthier,” said Dr. Efrain Talamantes, chief operating officer at AltaMed in Los Angeles, the largest federally qualified health center in California.

The update will be California’s largest health care expansion since the 2014 implementation of former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which allowed states to include adults who fall below 138% of the federal poverty level in their Medicaid programs. California’s uninsured rate dropped from about 17% to 7%.

But a large chunk of the population was left out: adults living in the United States without legal permission. They are not eligible for most public benefit programs, even though many have jobs and pay taxes.

Some states have used their tax dollars to cover a portion of health care expenses for some low-income immigrants. California first extended health care benefits to low-income children without legal status in 2015 and later added the benefits for young adults and people over the age of 50.

Now the last remaining group, adults ages 26-49, will be eligible for the state’s Medicaid program.

The state doesn’t know exactly how many people will enroll through the expansion, but state officials said more than 700,000 people will gain full health coverage allowing them to access preventative care and other treatment. That’s larger than the entire Medicaid population of several states.

“We’ve had this asterisk based on immigration status,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group. “Just from the numbers point of view, this is a big deal.”

Republicans and other conservative groups worry the new expansion will further strain the overloaded health care system and blasted the cost of the expansion.

State officials estimated the expansion will cost $1.2 billion the first six months and $3.1 billion annually thereafter from the budget. Spending for the Medi-Cal program, which is now about $37 billion annually, is the second-largest expense in the California budget, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Earlier this month, the state Department of Finance sent a letter urging state agencies to cut costs in light of the deficit. It has not given specific directions about the Medicaid expansion, state officials told The Associated Press in December.

California’s expansion of Medicaid will face other challenges. The state is chugging through a review of Medicaid enrollees’ eligibility for the first time in more than three years that was prompted by the end of some federal pandemic policies. Many immigrants who had their coverage protected during the COVID-19 pandemic now find themselves ineligible because they no longer financially qualify.

John Baackes, CEO of L.A. Care Health Plan, the state’s largest Medi-Cal plan with nearly 2.6 million members, said roughly 20,000 members have lost their Medicaid coverage during the review process this past year and are looking to secure new insurance plans. His organization is juggling to help people navigate through both processes.

“People are being bombarded with information,” Baackes said. “I can’t imagine if somebody were having to maneuver through all this, why they wouldn’t be terribly confused.”

“The phones are ringing off the walls,” he said.

Fear and distrust are also barriers for the expansion, said Sarah Dar, policy director for the California Immigrant Policy Center. 

Many immigrants avoid accepting any public programs or benefits out of fear it will eventually prevent them from gaining legal status under the “public charge” rule. The federal law requires those seeking to become permanent residents or gain legal status to prove they will not be a burden to the U.S., or a “public charge.” The rule no longer considers Medicaid as a factor under President Joe Biden’s administration, but the fear remains, she said.

More resources and effort are required to reach this population “because of the history of just being completely excluded and not interfacing with the health care system or with government programs at all for so long,” Dar said. 

California has more work to do to see the state’s uninsured rate hit zero, known as “universal coverage,” Dar said.

For one thing, immigrants living in the U.S. without legal permission are still not eligible to purchase insurance from Covered California, the state-run exchange offering steep discounts for people who meet certain income requirements. A bill pending in the state Legislature, supported by the California Immigrant Policy Center, would change that.

“It’s going to be another really big undertaking,” Dar said. “And we know that revenues are down … but it’s our job to make the case that, in times of economic downturn and whatnot, these are the communities that need the support the most.”
…

Retirements Could Tip Control of US House Majority

WASHINGTON — A chaotic year for the House is coming to a close with more Democrats than Republicans deciding to leave the chamber, a disparity that could have major ramifications in next year’s elections.

About two dozen Democrats have indicated they won’t seek reelection, with half running for another elected office. Meanwhile, only 14 Republicans have said they are not seeking another term, with three seeking elected office elsewhere.

More retirements can be expected after the holidays, when lawmakers have had a chance to spend time with families and make decisions ahead of reelection deadlines. But so far, the numbers don’t indicate the dysfunction in the House is causing a mass exodus for either party.

“Members sort of knew that this is what the institution is currently like when they chose to run for office,” said Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a think tank that maintains a database of vital statistics on Congress, including retirements. “Some of them may well be feeling frustrated at this point in time, but anybody who has been elected to Congress in recent years, they’re not surprised at what they’re finding when they are getting to Washington.”

Republicans certainly had the most high-profile exits. Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., became only the third lawmaker to be expelled by colleagues since the Civil War. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was the first-ever speaker removed from that office by his colleagues. He opted to leave effective December 31 rather than serve among the rank-and-file.

But it’s the departure of a handful of Democrats in competitive districts that has Republicans thinking the overall retirement picture gives them an advantage in determining who will control the House after the 2024 elections.

Reps. Katie Porter of California, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia proved they could win toss-up congressional districts in good election cycles for Democrats and not-so-good cycles. They are all seeking higher office within their home states. Porter and Slotkin are running for the U.S. Senate. Spanberger is running for governor in 2025.

Democrats are also losing six-term Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan to retirement, leaving them with another competitive open seat to defend in a state that will be crucial in the presidential election. Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D-Va., is not seeking reelection due to health challenges in a district that leans Democratic but is more competitive than most.

On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans leaving office generally represent districts that Democrats have little chance of flipping. They’ll be replaced by Republicans, predicted Rep. Richard Hudson, the chairman of the House Republican campaign arm.

“Retirements are a huge problem for the Democrats. They’re not a problem for us,” Hudson said.

The exception is Santos, who represented a competitive New York district. Democrats hope former Rep. Tom Suozzi can win back the seat, which he gave up when he ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2022.

Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma said he found it “a bit of a surprise” that the number of Democrats leaving office exceeded the Republican exits given all that has transpired this year.

“Politically, I think we’re very well positioned for 2024,” Cole said. “I just think the margins are going to remain narrow no matter who wins. The number of competitive seats is so much lower than it was even a decade ago, the polarization is so much greater, that it’s hard to move big numbers. Whoever wins the presidency probably wins the House.”

Sometimes, legislators in the states tip the scales in determining the makeup of Congress. It’s one reason there are so few competitive races.

Three incumbent House Democrats from North Carolina have essentially been left with little opportunity to return after GOP lawmakers in the state drew new boundaries for their congressional districts. What were once competitive seats became near locks for whichever Republican emerges from the state’s primary elections.

Democratic Rep. Jeff Jackson decided to run for attorney general rather than attempt to run again for a Charlotte-area seat that he had just won in the 2022 midterms. Rep. Wiley Nickel, a fellow freshman who flipped a toss-up district in the last election, also announced he would not be running, and would focus instead on a potential U.S. Senate bid in 2026. And Rep. Kathy Manning said she won’t file for reelection under the current maps but would run if a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the new districts is successful.

Manning said the city of Greensboro in her district was split into three pieces and combined with rural counties. She won in 2022 by a margin of 9 percentage points, but she said the new district gives a 16-point advantage to a Republican candidate.

Democrats are hoping court-ordered redistricting in Alabama and Louisiana will favor their side and effectively make the redistricting battles a wash.

Ambition is also playing a role in the retirement trends. About half of the Democrats not seeking reelection to the House are seeking office elsewhere. That includes three members running for the seat once held by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who entered the Senate in 1992 and served more than three decades before her death in September. Slotkin is running for the seat Sen. Debbie Stabenow has held for more than two decades. Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota is running for president against fellow Democrat Joe Biden.

“If you are interested in a higher office, you’re going to be sensitive to when those things come up. They don’t always come up,” Reynolds said.

Still, a few lawmakers do attribute their leaving, at least in part, to the dysfunction they’ve witnessed in Congress.

Democratic Rep. Brian Higgins of New York doesn’t plan to wait for the election to get out. He’s retiring sometime in February.

“We’re spending more time doing less. And the American people aren’t served,” he said when announcing his retirement last month.

Republican Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., described a similar sense of frustration in his retirement announcement. He’s been critical of Republican leaders for “lying to America” that the 2020 election was stolen and downplaying the January 6 insurrection.

“Our nation is on a collision course with reality and a steadfast commitment to the truth,” Buck said. 
…

Maine Bars Trump From Ballot, Cites 14th Amendment

portland, maine — Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Trump remains eligible to continue his campaign.

The decision by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows follows a ruling earlier this month by the Colorado Supreme Court that booted Trump from the ballot there under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That decision has been stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether Trump is barred by the Civil War-era provision, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

The Trump campaign said it would appeal Bellows’ decision to Maine’s state courts, and Bellows suspended her ruling until that court system rules on the case. In the end, it is likely that the nation’s highest court will have the final say on whether Trump appears on the ballot in Maine and in other states.

Bellows found that Trump could no longer run for his prior job because his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol violated Section 3, which bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.” Bellows made the ruling after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenged Trump’s position on the ballot.

“I do not reach this conclusion lightly,” Bellows wrote in her 34-page decision. “I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”

The Trump campaign immediately slammed the ruling. “We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter,” campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.

Legal experts said that Thursday’s ruling demonstrates the need for the nation’s highest court, which has never ruled on Section 3, to clarify what states can do.

“It is clear that these decisions are going to keep popping up, and inconsistent decisions reached (like the many states keeping Trump on the ballot over challenges) until there is final and decisive guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, wrote in response to the Maine decision. “It seems a certainty that [the Supreme Court] will have to address the merits sooner or later.”

In her decision, Bellows acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court will probably have the final word but said it was important she did her official duty.

That won her praise from the former state lawmakers who filed one of the petitions forcing her to consider the case.

“Secretary Bellows showed great courage in her ruling, and we look forward to helping her defend her judicious and correct decision in court. No elected official is above the law or our constitution, and today’s ruling reaffirms this most important of American principles,” Republican Kimberly Rosen, independent Thomas Saviello and Democrat Ethan Strimling said in a statement.

But other Republicans in the state were outraged.

“This is a sham decision that mimics Third World dictatorships,” Maine’s House Republican leader, Billy Bob Faulkingham, said in a statement. “It will not stand legal scrutiny. People have a right to choose their leaders devoid of mindless decisions by partisan hacks.”

The Trump campaign on Tuesday requested that Bellows disqualify herself from the case because she’d previously tweeted that January 6 was an “insurrection” and bemoaned that Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate after the capitol attack. She refused to step aside.

The timing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is unclear, but both sides want it fast.

The petitioners in the Colorado case on Thursday urged the nation’s highest court to rule before March 5, known as Super Tuesday, when 16 states, including Colorado and Maine, are scheduled to vote in the Republican presidential nominating process.

The high court needs to formally accept the case first, but legal experts consider that a certainty. The Section 3 cases seem tailor-made for the Supreme Court, addressing an area of U.S. governance where there’s scant judicial guidance.

The clause was added in 1868 to keep defeated Confederates from returning to their former positions of power in local and federal government. It prohibits anyone who broke an oath to “support” the Constitution from holding office.  
…

White House Hopeful Haley Rebuked Over Civil War Comments

WASHINGTON — U.S. presidential candidate Nikki Haley faced a firestorm of criticism Thursday after failing to mention slavery as a cause of the American Civil War when asked what led to the conflict at a campaign event.

Less than three weeks before voting begins in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, it was the first major stumble for a candidate whose campaign has seen her propelled from an unlikely outsider to front-runner Donald Trump’s biggest threat.

The former U.N. ambassador told a town hall crowd Wednesday in Berlin, New Hampshire, that the cause of the bloody 1861-65 war was “basically how the government was going to run” and “freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.”

She added that “it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are.”

Apparently caught off guard, she turned the question back at the questioner, who responded that he was not the one running for president and that it was “astonishing” that slavery had not come up in her answer.

Scholars agree that slavery was the main driver of the Civil War, and Haley’s obfuscation prompted swift rebuttals.

“It was about slavery,” President Joe Biden said, responding on social media to video footage of the town hall.

Haley, 51, attempted to clear up her comments in a local radio interview Thursday in New Hampshire, affirming that “of course the Civil War was about slavery, that’s the easy part.”

She accused the town hall questioner — who refused to identify himself to reporters — of being a “Democratic plant” sent to damage her campaign and boost Trump, who is considered by many to be a weaker prospect against Biden in the general election.

Trump commands a lead of more than 20 points in polling for New Hampshire’s January 23 primary, but Haley has been gaining ground — overtaking Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as the former president’s biggest threat.

DeSantis spokesperson Andrew Romeo called Haley’s clarification “embarrassing.”

“If she can’t handle a question as basic as the cause of the Civil War, what does she think is going to happen to her in a general election. The Democrats would eat her lunch,” he posted on X, formerly Twitter.

The Florida governor, who is a distant second behind Trump in nationwide primary polling, has sparked controversy in his own state over the teaching of race, a delicate issue that divides Americans.

Trump himself has been berated on both sides of the political divide and accused of echoing Adolf Hitler for remarks about undocumented migrants “poisoning the blood” of the nation.

Haley, who has a history of stirring controversy on America’s Confederate past, raised eyebrows over her views on the Civil War during her successful run for South Carolina governor in 2010.

Characterizing the conflict as a fight between “tradition” and “change,” she told a private meeting of Confederate heritage groups there were “passions on different sides.”

She was praised in 2015 when she signed legislation removing the Confederate flag from the State House after a white supremacist killed nine people at a church in Charleston.

But she had vowed to leave the flag up during her election campaign, arguing that “every state has different conditions, and every state has certain things that they hold as part of their heritage.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison said her latest remarks were “not stunning” to any Black residents of South Carolina during her term in office.

“Some may have forgotten but I haven’t. Time to take off the rose-colored Nikki Haley glasses folks,” he said.
…

Colorado Republicans Appeal Trump Ballot Ban to US Supreme Court

DENVER — The Colorado Republican Party on Wednesday appealed that state’s supreme court decision that found former President Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency, the potential first step to a showdown at the nation’s highest court over the meaning of a 155-year-old constitutional provision that bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.”

The first impact of the appeal is to extend the stay of the 4-3 ruling from Colorado’s highest court, which put its decision on pause until January 4, the day before the state’s primary ballots are due at the printer, or until an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is finished. Trump himself has said he still plans to appeal the ruling to the nation’s highest court as well.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was added after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to government. It says that anyone who swore an oath to “support” the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it cannot hold government office.

The Colorado high court ruled that applies to Trump in the wake of his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, intended to stop the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. It was the first time in history that the provision was used to block a presidential contender’s campaign.

“The Colorado Supreme Court has removed the leading Republican candidate from the primary and general ballots, fundamentally changing the course of American democracy,” the party’s attorneys wrote. The filing was posted on the website of a group run by Jay Sekulow, a former attorney for Trump representing the Colorado Republican Party who announced he was filing the appeal Wednesday. Colorado Republican Party chairman Dave Williams also said the appeal was filed Wednesday.

The attorneys added: “Unless the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is overturned, any voter will have the power to sue to disqualify any political candidate, in Colorado or in any other jurisdiction that follows its lead. This will not only distort the 2024 presidential election but will also mire courts henceforth in political controversies over nebulous accusations of insurrection.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to take the case, either after the Colorado GOP’s appeal or Trump’s own appeal. If Trump ends up off the ballot in Colorado, it would have minimal effect on his campaign because he doesn’t need the state, which he lost by 13 percentage points in 2020, to win the Electoral College in the presidential election. But it could open the door to courts or election officials striking him from the ballot in other must-win states.

Sean Grimsley, an attorney for the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump in Colorado, said on a legal podcast last week that he hopes the nation’s highest court hurries once it accepts the case, as he expects it will. “We obviously are going to ask for an extremely accelerated timeline because of all the reasons I’ve stated, we have a primary coming up on Super Tuesday and we need to know the answer,” Grimsley said.

More than a dozen states, including Colorado, are scheduled to hold primaries March 5 — Super Tuesday.

To date, no other court has sided with those who have filed dozens of lawsuits to disqualify Trump under Section 3, nor has any election official been willing to remove him from the ballot unilaterally without a court order.

The Colorado case was considered the one with the greatest chance of success, however, because it was filed by a Washington, D.C.-based liberal group with ample legal resources. All seven of the Colorado high court justices were appointed by Democrats.

However, the unprecedented constitutional questions in the case haven’t split on neatly partisan lines. Several prominent conservative legal theorists are among the most vocal advocates of disqualifying Trump under Section 3. They argue the plain meaning of the constitutional language bars him from running again, just as clearly as if he didn’t meet the document’s minimum age of 35 for the presidency.

The half-dozen plaintiffs in the Colorado case are all Republican or unaffiliated voters.

Trump has been scathing about the cases, calling them “election interference.” He continued that Wednesday as he cheered a ruling earlier that day by the Michigan Supreme Court leaving him on the ballot, at least for the primary, in that state.

“The Colorado people have embarrassed our nation with what they did,” Trump said on Sean Hannity’s radio show.
…

Colorado’s Boebert Switches Congressional Districts

DENVER — Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert announced Wednesday she is switching congressional districts, avoiding a likely rematch against a Democrat who has far outraised her and following an embarrassing moment of groping and vaping that shook even loyal supporters.

In a Facebook video Wednesday evening, Boebert announced she would enter the crowded Republican primary in retiring Rep. Ken Buck’s seat in the eastern side of the state, leaving the more competitive 3rd District seat she barely won last year — and which she was in peril of losing next year as some in her party have soured on her controversial style.

Boebert implied in the video that her departure from the district would help Republicans retain the seat, saying, “I will not allow dark money that is directed at destroying me personally to steal this seat. It’s not fair to the 3rd District and the conservatives there who have fought so hard for our victories.”

“The Aspen donors, George Soros and Hollywood actors that are trying to buy this seat, well they can go pound sand,” she said.

Boebert called it “a fresh start,” acknowledging the rough year following a divorce with her husband and video of her misbehaving with a date at a performance of the musical Beetlejuice in Denver. The scandal in September rocked some of her faithful supporters, who saw it as a transgression of conservative, Christian values and for which Boebert apologized at events throughout her district.

She already faced a primary challenge in her district, as well as a general election face-off with Democrat Adam Frisch, a former Aspen city council member who came within a few hundred votes of beating her in 2022. A rematch was expected, with Frisch raising at least $7.7 million to Boebert’s $2.4 million.

Instead, if Boebert wins the primary to succeed Buck she will run in the state’s most conservative district, which former President Donald Trump won by about 20 percentage points in 2020, in contrast to his margin of about 8 percentage points in her district. While it’s not required that a representative live in the congressional district they represent, only the state the district is in, Boebert said she would be moving — a shift from Colorado’s western Rocky Mountain peaks and high desert mesas to its eastern expanse of prairie grass and ranching enclaves.

In 2022, Frisch’s campaign found support in the conservative district from unaffiliated voters and Republicans who’d defected over Boebert’s brash, Trumpian style. In this election, Frisch’s campaign had revived the slogan “stop the circus” and framed Frisch as the “pro-normal” alternative to Boebert’s more partisan politics.

In a statement after Boebert’s announcement, Frisch said he’s prepared for whoever will be the Republican candidate.

“From Day 1 of this race, I have been squarely focused on defending rural Colorado’s way of life, and offering common sense solutions to the problems facing the families of Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District.” he said. “My focus will remain the same.”

The Republican primary candidate who has raised the second most behind Boebert in the 3rd District, Jeff Hurd, is a more traditional Republican candidate. Hurd has already garnered support from prominent Republicans in the district, first reported by VailDaily.

Boebert rocked the political world by notching a surprise primary win against the incumbent Republican congressman in the 3rd District in 2020 when she ran a gun-themed restaurant in the town of Rifle, Colorado. She then tried to enter the U.S. Capitol carrying a pistol and began to feud with prominent liberal Democrats like Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
…

Biden Stumps on Economy, Abortion, Democracy – and on Not Being Trump

US President Joe Biden describes next year’s election as a battle for “the soul” of this nation. His campaign has centered on that – as well as on threats to democracy, abortion access, and his economic accomplishments. VOA White House correspondent Anita Powell looks at the issues — and the politics — that will dominate the coming election year.
…

Bipartisan Compromises to Reduce Gun Violence in US Still Elusive

As mass shootings continue to claim lives in the United States, the Biden administration has announced more support to help states reduce gun violence. But bipartisan compromise in Congress is still elusive. VOA’s Veronica Balderas Iglesias looks at the reasons behind the divide.
…

US State Legislatures Likely to Vote on Israel, Hamas Measures in 2024

…

Biden Signs $886 Billion US Defense Policy Bill Into Law

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday signed into law the U.S. defense policy bill that authorizes a record $886 billion in annual military spending and policies such as aid for Ukraine and push-back against China in the Indo-Pacific.

The National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, passed Congress last week. The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate approved the legislation with a strong bipartisan majority of 87-13 while the House of Representatives voted in favor 310-118.

The bill, one of the few major pieces of legislation Congress passes every year, governs everything from pay raises for service members and purchases of ships and aircraft to policies such as support for foreign partners such as Taiwan.

The act, nearly 3,100 pages long, called for a 5.2% pay raise for service members and increased the nation’s total national security budget by about 3% to $886 billion. It also lists certain Chinese battery companies that it says are ineligible for Defense Department procurement.

The fiscal 2024 NDAA also includes a four-month extension of a disputed domestic surveillance authority, giving lawmakers more time to either reform or keep the program, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

That provision faced objections in both the Senate and House, but not enough to derail the bill.

The bill extends one measure to help Ukraine, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, through the end of 2026, authorizing $300 million for the program in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and the next one.

However, that figure is small compared to the $61 billion that Biden had asked Congress to approve to help Kyiv combat a Russian invasion that began in February 2022. Republicans had refused to approve assistance for Ukraine without Democrats agreeing to a significant toughening of immigration law.
…

Giuliani Files for Bankruptcy After Losing $148 Million Defamation Case

NEW YORK — Rudy Giuliani has filed for bankruptcy, days after being ordered to pay $148 million in a defamation lawsuit brought by two former election workers in Georgia who said his targeting of them led to death threats that made them fear for their lives.

In his filing Thursday, the former New York City mayor listed nearly $153 million in existing or potential debts, including close to a million dollars in tax liabilities, money he owes his lawyers and many millions of dollars in potential legal judgments in lawsuits against him. He estimated his assets to be between $1 million and $10 million.

The biggest debt is the $148 million he was ordered to pay a week ago for making false statements about the election workers in Georgia stemming from the 2020 presidential contest.

Ted Goodman, a political adviser and spokesperson for Giuliani, a one-time Republican presidential candidate and high-ranking Justice Department official, said in a statement that the filing “should be a surprise to no one.”

“No person could have reasonably believed that Mayor Giuliani would be able to pay such a high punitive amount,” Goodman said. He said the bankruptcy filing would give Giuliani “the opportunity and time to pursue an appeal, while providing transparency for his finances under the supervision of the bankruptcy court, to ensure all creditors are treated equally and fairly throughout the process.”

But declaring bankruptcy likely will not erase the $148 million in damages a jury awarded to the former Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss. Bankruptcy law does not allow for the dissolution of debts that come from a “willful and malicious injury” inflicted on someone else.

Last week’s jury verdict was the latest and costliest sign of Giuliani’s mounting financial strain, exacerbated by investigations, lawsuits, fines, sanctions and damages related to his work helping then-President Donald Trump try to overturn the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

In September, Giuliani’s former lawyer Robert Costello sued him for about $1.4 million in unpaid legal bills, alleging that Giuliani breached his retainer agreement by failing to pay invoices in full and a timely fashion. Giuliani has asked a judge to dismiss the case, claiming he never received the invoices at issue. The case is pending.

Costello represented Giuliani from November 2019 to this past July in matters ranging from an investigation into his business dealings in Ukraine, which resulted in an FBI raid on his home and office in April 2021, to state and federal investigations of his work in the wake of Trump’s 2020 election loss.

In August, the IRS filed a $549,435 tax lien against Giuliani for the 2021 tax year.

Copies were filed in Palm Beach County, Florida, where he owns a condominium, and New York, under the name of his outside accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP. That’s the same firm that Trump used for years before it dropped him as a client amid questions about his financial statements.

Giuliani, still somewhat popular among conservatives in the city he once ran, hosts a daily radio show in his hometown on a station owned by a local Republican grocery store magnate. Giuliani also hosts a nightly streaming show watched by a few hundred people on social media, which he calls “America’s Mayor Live.”
…

Ukraine Aid Remains in Limbo as Congress Nears Recess

…

Jury Awards $148 Million to Election Workers Over Giuliani’s 2020 Vote Lies

WASHINGTON — A jury awarded $148 million in damages on Friday to two former Georgia election workers who sued Rudy Giuliani for defamation over lies he spread about them in 2020 that upended their lives with racist threats and harassment.

The damages verdict follows emotional testimony from Wandrea “Shaye” Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, who tearfully described becoming the target of a false conspiracy theory pushed by Giuliani and other Republicans as they tried to keep then-President Donald Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election.

There was an audible gasp in the courtroom when the jury foreperson read aloud the $75 million award in punitive damages for the women. Moss and Freeman were each awarded another roughly $36 million in other damages.

Giuliani didn’t appear to show any emotion as the verdict was read in Washington’s federal courthouse after about 10 hours of deliberations. Moss and Freeman hugged their attorneys after the jury left the courtroom and didn’t look at Giuliani as he left with his lawyer.

Giuliani had already been found liable in the case and previously conceded in court documents that he falsely accused the women of ballot fraud. Even so, the former New York City mayor continued to repeat his baseless allegations about the women in comments to reporters outside the Washington courthouse this week.

Giuliani’s lawyer acknowledged that his client was wrong but insisted that Giuliani was not fully responsible for the vitriol the women faced. The defense sought to largely pin the blame on a right-wing website that published the surveillance video of the two women counting ballots.

The judgment adds to growing financial and legal peril for Giuliani, who was among the loudest proponents of Trump’s false claims of election fraud that are now a key part of the criminal cases against the former president.

Giuliani had already been showing signs of financial strain as he defends himself against costly lawsuits and investigations stemming from his representation of Trump. His lawyer suggested that the defamation case could financially ruin the former mayor, saying, “It would be the end of Mr. Giuliani.”

Giuliani is still facing his biggest test yet: fighting criminal charges in the Georgia case accusing Trump and 18 others of working to subvert the results of the 2020 election, won by Democrat Joe Biden, in that state. Giuliani has pleaded not guilty and characterized the case as politically motivated.

Jurors in the defamation case heard recordings of Giuliani falsely accusing the election workers of sneaking in ballots in suitcases, counting ballots multiple times and tampering with voting machines. Trump also repeated the conspiracy theories through his social media accounts.

Lawyers for Moss and Freeman, who are Black, also played for jurors audio recordings of the graphic and racist threats the women received.

The women’s lawyers asked for at least $24 million for each woman in defamation damages alone. They also sought compensation for their emotional harm and punitive damages.

On the witness stand, Moss and Freeman described fearing for their lives as hateful messages poured in. Moss told jurors she tried to change her appearance, seldom leaves her home and suffers from panic attacks. Her mother described strangers banging on her door and recounted fleeing her home after people came with bullhorns and the FBI told her she wasn’t safe.

“It’s so scary, anytime I go somewhere, if I have to use my name,” Freeman said, gasping through her tears to get her words out. “I miss my old neighborhood because I was me, I could introduce myself. Now I don’t have a name, really.”

Defense attorney Joseph Sibley told jurors they should compensate the women for what they are owed, but he urged them to “remember this is a great man.”

An attorney for Moss and Freeman, in his closing argument, highlighted how Giuliani has not stopped repeating the false conspiracy theory asserting the workers interfered in the November 2020 presidential election. Attorney Michael Gottlieb played a video of Giuliani outside the courthouse on Monday, in which Giuliani falsely claimed the women were “engaged in changing votes.”

“Mr. Giuliani has shown over and over again he will not take our client’s names out of his mouth,” Gottlieb said. “Facts will not stop him. He says he isn’t sorry, and he’s telegraphing he will do this again. Believe him.”

The judge overseeing the election workers’ lawsuit had already ordered Giuliani and his business entities to pay tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees. In holding Giuliani liable, the judge ruled that the former mayor gave “only lip service” to complying with his legal obligations while trying to portray himself as the victim in the case.
…

Jurors Deciding Giuliani’s Penalty in Georgia Election Workers’ Case

WASHINGTON — Jurors began deliberating Thursday to decide how much Rudy Giuliani must pay two former Georgia election workers for spreading lies about them that led to a barrage of racist threats and upended their lives.

The jury left for the day without announcing a decision and were expected to resume deliberations at Washington’s federal courthouse Friday morning.

Wandrea “Shaye” Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, are seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages over Giuliani’s false claims accusing them of ballot fraud while the former New York City mayor was fighting to keep Republican Donald Trump in the White House after the November 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden.

The potential hefty damages come at the same time Giuliani is gearing up to defend himself against criminal charges stemming from his legal representation of Trump. Giuliani’s lawyer told jurors the damages the women are seeking “would be the end of Mr. Giuliani.”

In his closing argument, an attorney for Moss and Freeman highlighted how Giuliani has not stopped repeating the false conspiracy theory asserting the workers meddled in the 2020 presidential election. Attorney Michael Gottlieb played a video of Giuliani outside the courthouse earlier this week repeating the false claims about his clients. Giuliani had previously conceded in court documents that he made public comments falsely accusing the women of ballot fraud.

“Mr. Giuliani has shown over and over again he will not take our client’s names out of his mouth,” Gottlieb said. “Facts will not stop him. He says he isn’t sorry, and he’s telegraphing he will do this again. Believe him.”

Giuliani’s attorney acknowledged that his client was wrong but insisted that he was not fully responsible for the vitriol the women faced. He sought to largely pin the blame on a right-wing website that published the surveillance video of the women counting ballots.

Gottlieb described Freeman and Moss as “heroes,” adding that “after everything they went through, they stood up and said, ‘no more.'” He also read from a chapter in Giuliani’s book on leadership where the former mayor said his father told him never to be a bully. The lawyer said: “If only Mr. Giuliani had listened.”

“The lies in this case became a sustained, deliberate, viral campaign, the purpose of which was to overturn an election and have these statements rocket around the world millions and millions of times,” Gottlieb said.

The women’s lawyers are asking for at least $24 million for each woman in defamation damages alone. They’re also seeking compensation for their emotional harm and punitive damages. Gottlieb asked the jury to send a message to other powerful people with the amount they award.

“Facts matter. Truth is truth, and you will be held accountable,” he said.

Giuliani’s lawyer has said any award should be much less, describing the damages the women are seeking as the “civil equivalent of the death penalty.” Attorney Joseph Sibley told jurors they should compensate the women for what they are owed but urged them to “remember this is a great man.”

“I want you to send a message to America, we can come together in compassion and sympathy,” he said.

His lawyer has argued there is no evidence Giuliani himself encouraged the harassment. Sibley told jurors that right-wing website Gateway Pundit was “patient zero” in spreading the conspiracy theory about the women and said Giuliani was sued because he is “patient deep pockets.”

“Just because these things happened — and they did happen — doesn’t make my client responsible for them,” Sibley said.

Giuliani’s defense rested Thursday morning without calling a single witness after the former mayor reversed course and decided not to take the stand. Giuliani’s lawyer had told jurors in his opening statement that they would hear from his client but after his comments outside court, the judge barred him from claiming in testimony that his conspiracy theories were right.

Giuliani’s lawyer said his client was not testifying because Freeman and Moss had “been through enough.” His testimony also could have been used against him in the criminal case in Georgia.

On the witness stand, Moss and Freeman recounted receiving a torrent of hateful and threatening messages after they became the targets of the conspiracy theory pushed by Giuliani and other Trump allies. The women told jurors the lies made them fear for their lives and described how they remain scared to go out in public years later.

Despite already being held liable in the case, Giuliani repeated his false claims about the women earlier this week. On Monday, he told reporters outside the courthouse that everything he said about the women was “true,” again accusing them of “engaging in changing votes.”

The case is among mounting legal and financial woes for the man once celebrated as “America’s mayor” for his leadership after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Giuliani is among 19 people charged in Georgia in the case accusing Trump and his allies of working to subvert the state’s 2020 election results. Giuliani has pleaded not guilty and characterized the case as politically motivated.
…

Hunter Biden Defies Congressional Order to Testify About Business Affairs

…

House Set for Key Vote on Biden Impeachment Inquiry as Republicans Unite

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives is pushing toward a vote Wednesday to formally authorize the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden as Republicans rally behind the charged process despite lingering concerns among some in the party that the investigation has yet to produce evidence of misconduct by the president.

The vote comes as House Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team face growing pressure to show progress in what has become a nearly yearlong probe centered around the business dealings of Biden’s family members. While their investigation has raised ethical questions, no evidence has emerged that Biden acted corruptly or accepted bribes in his current role or previous office as vice president.

Ahead of the vote, Johnson called it “the next necessary step.” He acknowledged there are “a lot of people who are frustrated this hasn’t moved faster.”

But Johnson said on Fox News he believes the resolution will pass the House and “we’ll be in the best position to do our constitutional responsibility.”

By holding a vote on the floor, the speaker, who has been on the job less than two months, will be putting his conference on record in support of an impeachment process that can lead to the ultimate penalty for a president: punishment for what the Constitution describes as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which can lead to removal from office if convicted in a Senate trial.

A successful vote would also ensure that the impeachment investigation extends well into 2024 when Biden will be running for reelection and seems likely to be squaring off against former President Donald Trump — who was twice impeached during his time in the White House. Trump has pushed Republicans to move swiftly on impeaching Biden, part of his broader calls for vengeance and retribution against his political enemies.

In a recent statement, the White House called the whole process a “baseless fishing expedition” that Republicans are pushing ahead with “despite the fact that members of their own party have admitted there is no evidence to support impeaching President Biden.”

Some House Republicans, particularly those hailing from politically divided districts, have been hesitant to take any vote on Biden’s impeachment, fearing a significant political cost. But GOP leaders have made the case in recent weeks that the resolution is only a step in the process, not a decision to impeach Biden. That message seems to have won over skeptics.

“As we have said numerous times before, voting in favor of an impeachment inquiry does not equal impeachment,” Representative Tom Emmer, a member of the Republican leadership team, said at a news conference Tuesday.

Emmer said Republicans “will continue to follow the facts wherever they lead, and if they uncover evidence of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, then and only then will the next steps towards impeachment proceedings be considered.”

Most of the Republicans hesitant to back the impeachment push have also been swayed by leadership’s recent argument that authorizing the inquiry will give them better legal standing as the White House rebuffs their requests for information.

A letter last month from a top White House attorney to Republican committee leaders portrayed the GOP investigation as overzealous and illegitimate as the chamber had not yet authorized a formal impeachment inquiry by a vote of the full House. Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, also wrote that when Trump faced the prospect of impeachment by a Democratic-led House in 2019, Johnson had said at the time that any inquiry without a House vote would be a “sham.”

Representative Dusty Johnson, a Republican from South Dakota, said Monday that while there was no evidence to impeach the president, “that’s also not what the vote this week would be about.”

“We have had enough political impeachments in this country,” he said. “I don’t like the stonewalling the administration has done, but listen, if we don’t have the receipts, that should constrain what the House does long term.”

Representative Don Bacon, a Republican from Nebraska who has long been opposed to moving forward with impeachment, said that the White House questioning the legitimacy of the inquiry without a formal vote helped gain his support. “I can defend an inquiry right now,” he told reporters this week. “Let’s see what they find out.”

For the impeachment probe vote to succeed, nearly all House Republicans will have to vote in favor. It will amount to a major test of party unity, given its narrow 221-213 majority. House Democrats are unified in their opposition to the impeachment process, saying it is a farce used by the GOP to take attention away from Trump and his legal woes.

“You don’t initiate an impeachment process unless there’s real evidence of impeachable offenses,” said Representative Jerry Nadler, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee who oversaw the two impeachments into Trump. “There is none here. None.”

Democrats and the White House have also defended the president and his administration’s cooperation with the investigation thus far, saying it has already made a massive trove of documents available.

Congressional investigators have obtained nearly 40,000 pages of subpoenaed bank records, dozens of hours of testimony from key witnesses, including several high-ranking Justice Department officials currently tasked with investigating the president’s son, Hunter Biden.

While Republicans say their inquiry is ultimately focused on the president himself, they have taken particular interest in Hunter Biden and his overseas business dealings, which they accuse the president of personally benefiting from. Republicans have also focused a large part of their investigation into whistleblower allegations of interference in the long-running Justice Department investigation into the younger Biden’s taxes and his gun use.

Hunter Biden is currently facing criminal charges in two states from the special counsel investigation. He’s charged with firearm counts in Delaware, alleging he broke laws against drug users having guns in 2018, a period when he has acknowledged struggling with addiction. Special Counsel David Weiss filed additional charges last week, alleging he failed to pay about $1.4 million in taxes over a three-year period.

Democrats have conceded that while the president’s son is not perfect, he is a private citizen who is already being held accountable by the justice system.

“I mean, there’s a lot of evidence that Hunter Biden did a lot of improper things. He’s been indicted, he’ll stand trial,” Nadler said. “There’s no evidence whatsoever that the president did anything improper.”

Nonetheless, Republicans had subpoenaed Hunter Biden to appear for a private deposition Wednesday, the same day of the scheduled vote to authorize the inquiry. His attorney has offered for the president’s son to come and testify in a public setting, citing concerns about Republicans manipulating any private testimony.

But GOP lawmakers have warned that if Hunter Biden does not appear, they will move to hold him in contempt of Congress.
…

Democrat John Whitmire Elected Houston Mayor

Houston elected Democratic state Sen. John Whitmire as its next mayor on Saturday night, elevating a Texas lawmaker who has represented the city for 50 years by giving him a victory over U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in a runoff.

Whitmire, 74, who is one of Texas’ most powerful Democratic legislators, will now be at the helm of America’s fourth-largest city. His campaign focused on reducing crime, improving streets and bringing people together. He heavily outspent Jackson Lee, who was running to become Houston’s first Black female mayor.

The congresswoman’s campaign also had to deal with fallout from the release in October of an unverified audio recording that purported to capture her profanely berating staff.

Whitmire built an insurmountable lead among early voters, winning among those voters by 30 percentage points.

Whitmire and Jackson Lee had made it to Saturday’s runoff after emerging from a crowded field of nearly 20 candidates in the Nov. 7 general election.

Both candidates — two of Houston’s biggest political fixtures — touted their decades-long political experience as strong qualifications to lead a growing city facing challenges that include crime, crumbling infrastructure and potential budget shortfalls.

Whitmire started in the Texas Legislature in 1973, first as a state representative and the majority of his time as a state senator. Jackson Lee has represented Houston in Congress since 1995 and before that had served on Houston’s City Council.

Booming growth over the last decade has caused municipal headaches but has also turned the Houston area into an expanding stronghold for Texas Democrats. Although the mayoral race is nonpartisan, Whitmire and Jackson Lee are both Democrats.

Whitmire will be the oldest big city mayor in the U.S. He is set to lead a city which is becoming younger, with a median age of around 35 and with 25% of its population below 18, according to census figures.

The choice between Whitmire and Jackson Lee, who is 73, frustrated some Democratic voters, particularly younger ones, at a time when the party is searching for new political stars in Texas who might end 30 years of GOP dominance statewide.

The new mayor will have to deal with new laws from the GOP-led state government over control of local elections and the ability to impose local regulations.

Whitmire will replace Mayor Sylvester Turner, who has served eight years and can’t run again because of term limits.

Whitmire will also lead what is considered one of the country’s most diverse cities. Of the city’s 2.3 million residents, 45% are Latino, with 23% Black and 24% white. One in every four Houston residents was born outside the U.S.

Known as the energy capital of the world, Houston’s economy has long been tied mainly to the oil industry. But the city is working to become a leader in the transition to cleaner energy. Like other large U.S. cities, Houston is also dealing with a lack of affordable housing and concerns among residents over growing gaps between the rich and poor.
…

Candidates Make Their Case in Iowa After Combative Debate

U.S. presidential candidates are crossing paths again in Iowa just days after a fractious debate and with the leadoff Republican caucuses about a month away.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy are aiming to make their respective campaign cases Saturday — this time without the others interrupting — in northwest Iowa, a more rural, conservative corner of the state.

Each is getting time onstage at Dordt University in Sioux Center with U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra and his wife, Lynette, to discuss faith, family and politics. Hundreds of people, including many students at the small Christian college, filled the auditorium.

The three candidates made stops across Iowa on Friday as pressure mounts for an attention-grabbing performance in the January 15 contest that kicks off the GOP nominating calendar.

Former President Donald Trump, who was not at Saturday’s event, sits comfortably atop the field in polls of Republicans in Iowa and nationwide.

DeSantis, Haley and Ramaswamy last appeared together in Iowa before Thanksgiving, at the Family Leader’s roundtable discussion, which was an uncommonly friendly gathering.

They next look to take the stage at Drake University in Des Moines for a Republican debate five days before the caucuses.
…

Appeals Court Upholds, but Narrows Gag Order on Trump in Washington Case

A federal appeals court in Washington largely upheld a gag order on Donald Trump in his 2020 election interference case on Friday, but narrowed the restrictions on his speech to allow the former president to criticize the special counsel who brought the case.

The three-judge panel’s ruling modifies the gag order, permitting the Republican 2024 presidential front-runner to make disparaging comments about special counsel Jack Smith, but it reimposes limits on what he can say about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses in the case and about court staff and other lawyers.

The unanimous ruling is mostly a win for Smith’s team, with the judges agreeing with prosecutors that Trump’s often-incendiary comments about participants in the case can have a damaging practical impact and rejecting claims by defense attorneys that restrictions on the ex-president’s speech amount to an unconstitutional muzzling. It lays out fresh parameters about what Trump can and cannot say about the case as he both prepares for a March trial and campaigns to reclaim the White House.

“Mr. Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote for the court. She noted that many of the targets of Trump’s verbal jabs “have been subjected to a torrent of threats and intimidation from his supporters.”

The case accuses Trump of plotting with his Republican allies to subvert the will of voters in a desperate bid to stay in power in the run-up to the Capitol riot by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021. It is scheduled to go to trial in March in Washington’s federal court, just blocks away from the Capitol.

Friday’s opinion says that though Trump has a constitutional right to free speech and is a former president and current candidate, “he is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants.”

The appeals court also said that a comment on court staff, other lawyers or their family members was off-limits “to the extent it is made with either the intent to materially interfere with their work or the knowledge that such interference is highly likely to result.”

In a social media post responding to the ruling, Trump said his team would appeal, and he complained anew about restrictions on his speech.

“In other words, people can speak violently and viciously against me, or attack me in any form, but I am not allowed to respond, in kind,” he said. “What is becoming of our First Amendment, what is becoming of our Country?”

The special counsel has separately charged Trump in Florida with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House following his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. That case is set for trial next May, though the judge has signaled that the date might be postponed.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has claimed the cases against him are part of a politically motivated effort to keep him from returning to the White House.
…

Former US House Speaker McCarthy Announces Resignation

Two months after his historic ouster as leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Kevin McCarthy of California announced Wednesday that he will resign from his congressional seat by the end of the year.

His announcement capped a stunning end for the one-time deli owner from Bakersfield, who ascended through state and national politics to become second in line to the presidency before a contingent of hard-right conservatives engineered his removal in October.

McCarthy is the only House speaker in history to be voted out of the job.

“No matter the odds, or personal cost, we did the right thing,” McCarthy wrote in The Wall Street Journal, announcing his decision.

“It is in this spirit that I have decided to depart the House at the end of this year to serve America in new ways,” he wrote.

An announcement on McCarthy’s future had been expected, with the filing deadline to seek reelection only days away. But his decision ricocheted across Capitol Hill, where his departure will leave the already paper-thin House GOP majority even tighter, with just a few seats to spare.

It comes during a wave of retirements in the House, which has been riven by Republican infighting and the rare expulsion last week of indicted Republican Representative George Santos of New York, dashing hopes for major accomplishments and leaving the majority straining to conduct the basic business of governing.

McCarthy had brought the Republicans into the majority but found it was much more difficult to lead the GOP’s hard-edged factions.

His toppling from the chamber’s top post was fueled by grievances from his party’s hard-right flank, including over his decision to work with Democrats to keep the federal government open rather than risk a shutdown.

McCarthy, 58, arrived in the House in January 2007 after a stint in the California Assembly, where he served as minority leader. In Congress, he maneuvered through his party’s hierarchy — serving as majority whip and Republican leader along the way — before being elected speaker in January 2023.

The dayslong floor fight that preceded his elevation to the House’s top job foreshadowed a stormy tenure, at a time when former President Donald Trump remained the de facto leader of the party and deep divisions within the GOP raised serious questions about the party’s ability to govern.

It took a record 15 votes over four days for McCarthy to line up the support he needed to win the post he had long coveted, finally prevailing on a 216-212 vote with Democrats backing leader Hakeem Jeffries and six Republican holdouts voting present. Not since the Civil War era has a speaker’s vote dragged through so many rounds of counting.

McCarthy emerged from the fight weakened, especially considering Republicans held only a fragile margin in the chamber after a predicted “red wave” failed to materialize in the 2022 elections.

Once installed as speaker, his well-known savvy for fundraising and political glad-handing appeared ill-suited for corralling his party’s disputatious hard-right faction. And deals he cut to become speaker — including a rules change that allowed any single lawmaker to file a motion to remove him — left him vulnerable.

When he became speaker, “he faced new challenges that required a different skill set,” said Claremont McKenna College political scientist Jack Pitney, a one-time domestic policy analyst for House Republicans. “The deals he made to become speaker made it almost impossible for him to succeed as speaker.”

McCarthy, the son of a firefighter and a homemaker, has long depicted himself as an unflagging battler. He is fond of quoting his father, who told him, “It’s not how you start, it’s how you finish.”
…

Tuberville Ending Blockade of Most US Military Nominees

U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville announced on Tuesday that he’s ending his blockade of hundreds of military promotions, following heavy criticism from many of his colleagues in the Senate and clearing the way for hundreds to be approved.

Tuberville maintained that his blockade of military promotions was over a dispute about a Pentagon abortion policy. The Alabama Republican said Tuesday he’s “not going to hold the promotions of these people any longer.”

Almost 400 military nominations have been in limbo due to Tuberville’s blanket hold on confirmations and promotions for senior military officers. It’s a stance that has left key national security positions unfilled and military families with an uncertain path forward.

Tuberville said he was blocking the nominations in opposition to new Pentagon rules that allow reimbursement for travel when a service member must go out of state to get an abortion or other reproductive care. President Joe Biden’s administration instituted the new rules after the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion and some states have limited or banned the procedure.

Critics said that Tuberville’s ire was misplaced and that he was blocking the promotions of people who had nothing to do with the policy he opposed.

“Why are we punishing American heroes who have nothing to with the dispute?” said Senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican from Alaska. “Remember we are against the Biden abortion travel policy, but why are we punishing people who have nothing to do with the dispute and if they get confirmed can’t fix it? No one has had an answer for that question because there is no answer.”
…

Judge Rejects Trump’s Claim of Immunity from Criminal Charges

A U.S. judge on Friday said Donald Trump does not have immunity from criminal charges for actions he took as president, rejecting a bid by the Republican to toss out the case accusing him of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington found there was no legal basis for concluding that U.S. presidents cannot face criminal charges once they are no longer in office.

Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, can immediately appeal the ruling, which could delay the trial while an appeals court and potentially the Supreme Court weigh the issue. The trial is currently scheduled to begin in March.

Chutkan’s ruling brings Trump a step closer to facing a jury on charges that he plotted to interfere in the counting of votes and obstruct Congress’ certification of his election defeat to Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump has pleaded not guilty and accused prosecutors of attempting to damage his campaign. The case is one of four criminal prosecutions that Trump is facing as he seeks to retake the White House.

Trump has other pending legal motions to dismiss the case based on claims that it violates his free speech rights and is legally flawed.

Because Trump is the first current or former U.S. president to face criminal charges, Chutkan’s ruling is the first by a U.S. court affirming that presidents can be charged with crimes like any other citizen.

The U.S. Justice Department has long had an internal policy not to indict a sitting president, but prosecutors said no such restrictions exist once a president leaves the White House.

Trump’s lawyers made a sweeping claim that Trump is “absolutely immune” from charges arising from official actions he took as president, arguing that political opponents could use the threat of criminal prosecution to interfere with a president’s responsibilities.

His defense team argued that the immunity U.S. presidents enjoy from civil lawsuits should extend to criminal charges.

Prosecutors contended that Trump’s argument would essentially put the U.S. president above the law, violating foundational principles of the U.S. Constitution.
…