ВИБОРЧА ГАЗЕТА

Ouster of State Lawmakers Draws Nation’s Eyes to Tennessee 

In an episode that fuses simmering conflicts in the United States over race, gun control, and the country’s deep political divide, Republican legislators in Tennessee have come under widespread criticism following a vote Thursday to expel two Democratic members from the state’s House of Representatives.

The expulsion votes came just days after the two lawmakers, Representatives Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, interrupted a House session to demand that lawmakers implement stronger gun control laws. Jones and Pearson are both Black men.

A motion to expel Representative Gloria Johnson, who participated in the protest with Jones and Pearson, failed by one vote. Johnson is white.

The eyes of the nation are especially focused on Tennessee’s Legislature because of the House Republicans’ exercise of raw political power in ousting Jones and Pearson, the race of the expelled lawmakers, and, the topic of their protest — gun control.

Intense emotions

The expulsion vote took place amid already intense emotions in Nashville, Tennessee’s state capital. On March 27, a person armed with several semi-automatic weapons stormed The Covenant School, a small private Christian elementary school a little more than 5 miles from the Capitol building. The shooter killed three 9-year-old children and three adults before being shot to death by police.

Officials said the killer at Covenant had legally purchased the weapons used in the attack.

The killings prompted a flood of calls for tighter restrictions on firearms ownership. However, in largely rural and gun-friendly Tennessee, where the state government is dominated by Republicans, gun-control legislation is not likely to pass.

After the shooting, Republicans in the Legislature and Tennessee Governor Bill Lee focused instead on laws that would “harden” schools against attacks like the one at Covenant by, for example, mandating that doors be locked and requiring security measures at points of entry.

Competing narratives

On March 30, thousands of people converged on the Tennessee Capitol, where the Legislature was meeting, to demand action on gun control in response to the Covenant shootings. Many protesters entered an open gallery area above the House floor and began chanting.

With the House in session, Jones, Pearson and Johnson moved to the front of the chamber and joined the protesters. Using a megaphone, they at times led the crowd in chants.

Afterward, House Speaker Cameron Sexton compared the lawmakers’ actions to the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of supporters of former President Donald Trump. He also accused them of taking attention away from those killed at the Covenant School.

“What they did was try to hold up the people’s business on the House floor instead of doing it the way that they should have done it, which they have the means to do,” Sexton said. “They actually thought that they would be arrested, and so they decided that them being a victim was more important than focusing on the six victims from Monday. And that’s appalling.”

On Thursday, Sexton called votes on three separate bills to expel Jones, Pearson, and Johnson.

In remarks to the House as it debated the expulsion vote, Jones called the process “a farce of democracy.”

“What is happening here today is a situation in which the jury has already publicly announced the verdict,” he said. “What we see today is just a spectacle. What we see today is a lynch mob assembled to not lynch me, but our democratic process.”

Suggestion of racism

The votes fell largely along party lines. Republicans hold a supermajority in the 99-seat Tennessee House, and in the case of Jones and Pearson, were able to secure 72 and 69 votes in favor, respectively, clearing the requirement for a two-thirds majority for expulsion.

Only 65 lawmakers voted in favor of expelling Johnson, one shy of the necessary 66.

The fact that two Black men were expelled while a white woman was allowed to retain her seat sparked charges that the expulsions were racially motivated, including from Johnson herself.

Immediately after the votes, when asked why she thought lawmakers expelled her colleagues but not her, Johnson told a reporter, “It might have to do with the color of our skin.”

Such expulsions have been rare in the Tennessee House. It happened once in 2016, when a member was under investigation for serial sexual harassment, and once in 1980, when a member was found to have solicited a bribe. Beyond that, the most recent expulsions occurred in 1866, the year after the end of the Civil War.

Experts surprised

Experts told VOA that they were surprised by the severity of the penalty levied on Jones and Pearson.

“There are certainly lesser sanctions, which legislators use to penalize members who behave inappropriately either in decorum or in ethical [matters],” said Bruce Oppenheimer, professor emeritus in political science at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

“The simplest one is a reprimand, which is saying, ‘You did wrong. You shouldn’t do that again,’” said Oppenheimer. “Stronger would be a censure, where you would have to stand and be admonished on the floor of the chamber by the presiding officer. … But it’s very rare for somebody to be expelled.”

Disproportionate penalty

Ken Paulson, the director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, told VOA that while it is not unusual for a governmental body to have rules to punish members when they deviate from its internal regulations, the penalty in Jones’ and Pearson’s case appeared excessive.

“The penalty is so disproportionate to the alleged crime that it really raises questions about motivation,” Paulson said.

He said that he did not expect the Tennessee expulsions to lead to other legislators in other states suddenly losing their seats. However, he said, it does send a worrying message.

“It does raise the question, ‘How low does the bar go?’” he said. “If a legislator does anything that involves action — not just speech — with which a state legislature is uncomfortable, what keeps them from removing those voices from the legislature? The real concern is that it gives some other supermajority legislatures ideas on how to deal with the other side.”

Practical effect limited

The practical effect of the expulsion may be limited by Tennessee laws that allow local governments to appoint individuals to vacant seats in the Legislature.

Officials in Nashville, which Jones represented before his expulsion, and in Memphis, where Pearson was elected, have signaled that they plan to simply appoint both men to their former positions, returning them to the Legislature.

Both would then be free to run in a special election, which the law requires be held to fill the empty seats.

“It’s likely that each of these people will be reelected,” Oppenheimer said.
…

Trump Is Indicted — Now What?

The Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of Donald Trump on 34 felony charges and the prospect of more charges to come have injected more uncertainty into the November 2024 race for the White House.

Trump, who has declared himself a candidate for next year’s Republican presidential nomination, was formally charged this week with falsifying New York business records to conceal his role in paying hush money to an adult film actress before the 2016 election. He is also facing potential charges in at least three other cases.

Never before in American history have criminal charges been brought against a former president, much less one who is attempting another run. According to the most recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, even with the indictment Trump is leading the Republican primary field.

Should Trump become the nominee, he will likely face President Joe Biden. Biden won over Trump in 2020.

In the short term, Trump may be benefiting from the controversy. One of the first polls done after the indictment showed Trump surging to his largest-ever lead over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, 57% to 31% among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. As recently as February, DeSantis was narrowly ahead of Trump by 45% to 41%.

Trump is also leveraging his grievance over the case to rake in funds, $12 million in just one week since the indictment’s announcement, according to his campaign.

Watch related video by Mike O’Sullivan:

However, pollsters say the indictment is unlikely to sway the crucial independent voters that Trump will need in the general election.

“All the polling basically shows [is] a very divided America. You have one America that is very much in favor of the indictment, believes that Trump has been lawless, has not followed the rules,” said Clifford Young, president for U.S. public affairs at Ipsos. “On the flip side, there’s another America, red America, Republican America, that thinks it’s completely, utterly, politically motivated.”

Impact on Republican primary

Since the indictment, Trump has widened his lead over other Republican contenders. According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 48% of self-described Republicans said they wanted Trump to be their party’s presidential nominee, up from 44% in a March 14-20 poll.

DeSantis, Trump’s closest rival, was backed by 19%, down from 30% last month. Other likely rivals, including former Vice President Mike Pence and Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina and former ambassador to the United Nations, polled in the single digits.

Aside from former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, those eyeing the Republican nomination have been rushing to defend Trump from the indictment.

“They can’t be critical of the former president because they clearly want his supporters to go with them in the event that Donald Trump can’t or will not run,” political consultant Julie Roginsky told VOA.

Roginsky noted the risk for Republican challengers who voice support while silently hoping Trump will bow out.

“Then essentially they’re anointing him as the next nominee, if they don’t all get together and try to take him down based on these issues,” she said.

Should Trump become bogged down by more legal woes, including those related to allegations of trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat in the state of Georgia, and mishandling classified documents at his Florida home after leaving office, more Republican candidates would likely run, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

But if he survives them, his opponents will push for a smaller field, Sabato told VOA. “It’s the only way you could stop him, if you consolidate support behind one or two candidates.”

Trump vs. Biden

If Trump becomes the Republican nominee, that’s good news for Biden’s reelection prospects because it would galvanize the Democratic base and most independent voters, Sabato said.

“He’s going to generate those votes because they can’t stand the alternative.”

Even if he is not the nominee, Trump’s influence over the Republican base will force other potential nominees to embrace him, possibly making it easier for Biden to beat him or her, Sabato added.

Trump could also split the Republican vote by refusing to support the nominee. In a February radio interview, Trump said that if he were not the party’s pick, his support “would have to depend on who the nominee was.”

Biden has not officially announced that he is running for reelection and will likely do so at a time when he does not have to share the political spotlight with Trump, whom he beat in 2020.

“It’s not like anybody’s gearing up, anybody of consequence is gearing up to run against him. So, he can take his time and doesn’t have to start incurring any expenses of an official campaign at the moment,” Roginsky said.

What if Trump wins?

Trump can be found guilty and still win the election, in which case the country would have a convicted felon as its commander in chief.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that precludes someone who has been convicted of a crime from being elected president,” said Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University.

There are only three constitutional requirements for the presidency: he or she must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural-born citizen and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.

Experts say if convicted on the New York charges, Trump is unlikely to spend any time behind bars as judges rarely sentence first-time offenders to jail for falsifying business records.

However, other criminal investigations, including the one on his role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election result, may lead to more serious charges and potential imprisonment.

That would be a “truly unprecedented situation,” Pierce told VOA.

“I don’t know how one could be effective as president of the United States while being in a jail cell,” he said. “But there is nothing in the Constitution that would keep somebody from being president of the United States and being incarcerated at the same time.”

But a conviction could bar Trump from voting for himself. Florida, where he is registered to vote, is one of 11 states with the most restrictive laws regarding voting while incarcerated.
…

DeSantis Clarifies Position on Ukraine War, Calls Putin ‘War Criminal’

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis this week called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” and condemned his invasion of Ukraine, a week after coming under criticism for remarks that seemed to advocate a reduction in U.S. support for Ukrainian forces.

DeSantis, widely expected to announce his candidacy for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination later this year, had previously described the war in Ukraine as a “territorial dispute” that did not represent a “vital national interest” of the United States.

The remarks earned him immediate condemnation from many, including multiple long-serving Republicans in Congress, even though support for continued U.S. aid to Ukraine is waning among a significant portion of the Republican electorate.

Claims he was mischaracterized

In an interview with British journalist Piers Morgan scheduled to stream Thursday evening on Fox Nation, DeSantis said his comments — particularly those that seemed to dismiss the war as a territorial dispute — were “mischaracterized.”

Morgan, who previewed the interview in a New York Post column on Wednesday, quoted the Florida governor’s explanation for his comment at length.

“When I asked him specifically if he regretted using the phrase ‘territorial dispute,’ DeSantis replied, ‘Well, I think it’s been mischaracterized. Obviously, Russia invaded [last year] — that was wrong. They invaded Crimea and took that in 2014 — that was wrong.

“ ‘What I’m referring to is where the fighting is going on now, which is that eastern border region Donbas, and then Crimea, and you have a situation where Russia has had that. I don’t think legitimately, but they had. There’s a lot of ethnic Russians there.’”

According to Morgan, DeSantis went on to say why he thinks Russia is not the threat that the Biden administration has portrayed: “I think the larger point is, OK, Russia is not showing the ability to take over Ukraine, to topple the government or certainly to threaten NATO. That’s a good thing.”

The Biden administration has characterized support for Ukraine as forestalling deeper U.S. involvement in a broader conflict.

DeSantis told Morgan he sees it differently: “I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] — that’s nonsense.”

‘A gas station’ with nuclear weapons

Also in the interview, DeSantis ridiculed Russia’s high dependence on fossil fuel exports and said the country does not have the capacity to act on Putin’s seeming plan to reconstitute the former Soviet Union’s sphere of influence.

“I think he’s got grand ambitions,” DeSantis said of Putin. “I think he’s hostile to the United States, but I think the thing that we’ve seen is he doesn’t have the conventional capability to realize his ambitions. And so, he’s basically a gas station with a bunch of nuclear weapons, and one of the things we could be doing better is utilizing our own energy resources in the U.S.”

DeSantis’ comments were reminiscent of those of the late John McCain, who was a Republican senator and presidential candidate. Famously hawkish on Russia, he once derided the nation as “a gas station masquerading as a country.”

Zelenskyy responds

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an interview with the editors of The Atlantic magazine, replied to DeSantis last week with an argument that America’s investment in his country’s defense is preventing a broader conflict that could pull in the U.S. and its NATO allies.

“If we will not have enough weapons, that means we will be weak. If we will be weak, they will occupy us,” Zelenskyy said. “If they occupy us, they will be on the borders of Moldova and they will occupy Moldova. When they have occupied Moldova, they will [travel through] Belarus and they will occupy Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

“That’s three Baltic countries which are members of NATO,” he added. “They will occupy them. Of course [the Balts] are brave people, and they will fight. But they are small. And they don’t have nuclear weapons. So they will be attacked by Russians because that is the policy of Russia, to take back all the countries which have been previously part of the Soviet Union.”

Zelenskyy’s assertions aside, many foreign policy experts are dubious about the likelihood of Russia choosing to invade any countries that are under the protection of NATO’s mutual defense agreement.

Difficult politics

DeSantis’ move to clarify his position on Ukraine highlights a difficulty that any Republican presidential candidate is likely to face on the issue because of a deepening divide within the party.

For Republicans, said William A. Galston, a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program, “finding a tenable path on Ukraine is very difficult, because the party is divided between a traditionalist wing and a populist wing on this issue.”

“The traditionalist view is that the United States, for reasons having to do with both its interests and values, is required to stand up to aggression, such as what Russia has unleashed on Ukraine, and to support indirectly, and in some cases directly, the military effort to oppose it,” Galston told VOA.

“The populist wing of the party is taking the position that this fight is none of our business, and more generally, that the interests of the United States are best served by staying out of foreign entanglements, particularly military entanglements, to the greatest extent possible,” he said.

At the moment, the divide is most visible when comparing the positions of the party’s two leading presidential candidates with those of its foreign policy veterans in Congress.

Both former President Donald Trump and DeSantis have expressed doubts about whether it is in U.S. interests to continue supporting Ukraine. In a recent Monmouth University poll, the two men received 80% of support — 44% for Trump and 36% for DeSantis — when prospective GOP voters were asked whom they support for the party’s presidential nomination.

In Congress, though, prominent Republican voices have offered unwavering support for Ukraine.

“I think the majority opinion among Senate Republicans is that the United States has a vital national security interest there in stopping Russian aggression,” John Thune, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, told reporters last week.
…

House Republicans Demand Documents About US Exit From Afghanistan

Republican House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul is demanding that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken provide documents on the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. McCaul said the ‘catastrophic’ exit from Afghanistan emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. Cindy Saine reports.
…