ВИБОРЧА ГАЗЕТА

Court Rejects Trump’s Efforts to Keep Records from January 6 Panel

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday against an effort by former President Donald Trump to shield documents from the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. 

In a 68-page ruling, the three-judge panel tossed aside Trump’s various arguments for blocking, through executive privilege, records that the committee regards as vital to its investigation into the run-up to the deadly riot aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

Judge Patricia Millett, writing for the court, said Congress had “uniquely vital interests” in studying the events of January 6 and said President Joe Biden had made a “carefully reasoned” determination that the documents were in the public interest and that executive privilege should therefore not be invoked. Trump also failed to show any harm that would occur from the release of the sought-after records, Millett wrote. 

“On the record before us, former President Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Biden’s judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents,” the opinion states.

It adds, “Both Branches agree that there is a unique legislative need for these documents and that they are directly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry into an attack on the Legislative Branch and its constitutional role in the peaceful transfer of power.”

The appeals court ruled that the injunction that has prevented the National Archives from turning over the documents will expire in two weeks, or when the Supreme Court rules on an expected appeal from Trump, whichever is later. Lawyers for Trump can also ask the entire appeals court to review the case. 

“The privilege being asserted is not a personal privilege belonging to former President Trump; he stewards it for the benefit of the Republic,” the court wrote. “The interests the privilege protects are those of the Presidency itself, not former President Trump individually. And the President has determined that immediate disclosure will promote, not injure, the national interest, and that delay here is itself injurious.” 

The court also praised Biden’s “calibrated judgement” in working with Congress and the Archives to weigh privilege concerns, saying it “bears no resemblance to the ‘broad and limitless waiver’ of executive privilege former President Trump decries.” 

Biden had the committee defer its requests for some of the early documents that might have posed privilege claims, and officials expect more documents in subsequent tranches will be subject to the same outcome. 

The House committee and Trump representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday. 

White House spokesman Mike Gwin said in response to Tuesday’s ruling, “As President Biden determined, the constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself.” 

Trump sued the House January 6 committee and the National Archives to stop the White House from allowing the release of documents related to the insurrection. Biden had waived Trump’s executive privilege claims as the current officeholder. 

At issue, the court said, is not that Trump “has no say in the matter” but his failure to show that withholding the documents should supersede Biden’s “considered and weighty judgment” that Congress is entitled to them. 

The National Archives has said that the records Trump wants to block include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts, handwritten notes “concerning the events of January 6” from the files of former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and “a draft Executive Order on the topic of election integrity.” 
…

New York City Lawmakers Pass Bill Giving Noncitizens Right to Vote

Noncitizens in New York City would gain the right to vote in municipal elections under a measure approved Thursday by the City Council that would give access to the ballot box to 800,000 green card holders and so-called Dreamers.

Only a potential veto from Mayor Bill de Blasio stood in the way of the measure becoming law, but the Democrat has said he would not veto it. It’s unclear whether the bill would face legal challenges.

The council’s vote was a historic moment for an effort that had long languished.

Council member Francisco Moya, whose family hails from Ecuador, choked up as he spoke in support of the bill.

“This is for my beautiful mother who will be able to vote for her son,” said Moya, while joining the session by video with his immigrant mother at his side.

More than a dozen communities across the United States already allow noncitizens to cast ballots in local elections, including 11 towns in Maryland and two in Vermont. But New York City is the largest place by far to give voting rights to noncitizens.

Noncitizens still wouldn’t be able to vote for president or members of Congress in federal races, or in the state elections that pick the governor, judges and legislators.

The city’s move could enflame the national debate over voting rights, particularly among some who wrongly assert that rampant fraud by noncitizens has taken place in federal elections.

Last year, Alabama, Colorado and Florida adopted rules that would preempt any attempts to pass laws like the one in New York City. Arizona and North Dakota already had prohibitions on the books.

“The bill we’re doing today will have national repercussions,” said the council’s majority leader, Laurie Cumbo, a Democrat who opposed the bill. She expressed concern that the measure could diminish the influence of African American voters.

Legally documented, voting-age noncitizens comprise nearly one in nine of the city’s 7 million voting-age inhabitants. The measure would allow noncitizens who have been lawful permanent residents of the city for at least 30 days, as well as those authorized to work in the U.S., including so-called Dreamers, to help select the city’s mayor, city council members, borough presidents, comptroller and public advocate.

“It is no secret; we are making history today. Fifty years down the line when our children look back at this moment, they will see a diverse coalition of advocates who came together to write a new chapter in New York City’s history by giving immigrant New Yorkers the power of the ballot,” council member Ydanis Rodriguez, a main sponsor of the bill, said in a statement after Thursday’s vote.

The law would direct the Board of Elections to draw up an implementation plan by July, including voter registration rules and provisions that would create separate ballots for municipal races to prevent noncitizens from casting ballots in federal and state contests. Noncitizens wouldn’t be allowed to vote until elections in 2023.

Even if de Blasio were to decide to veto the bill, there was enough support to override it. The measure will become law by default if the mayor decides not to act on it. The incoming mayor, Eric Adams, has said he supports the bill.

Council member Joseph Borelli, the Republican leader, said a legal challenge is likely. Opponents say the council lacks the authority on its own to grant voting rights to noncitizens and should have first sought action by state lawmakers. 
…

Deal to Avert US Default, Raise Debt Limit Advances in Senate

The U.S. Senate took a step toward raising the federal government’s $28.9 trillion debt limit on Thursday when it voted to limit debate on the first of two necessary measures, as the Treasury Department urged action by next week. 

Fourteen Republican senators joined the Senate’s 48 Democrats and two independents in voting to advance the first of two bills needed to increase the Treasury Department’s borrowing authority under a deal crafted by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. 

The Senate voted 64-36 to clear the way for passage of the bill setting up the fast-track procedure. 

The chamber could vote on the bill itself, which sets the fast-track rules to raise the debt limit, as early as Friday. If that bill passes, both chambers of Congress would need to vote next week on a second bill actually raising the debt limit. 

President Joe Biden is expected to sign both bills into law once they pass. 

The House of Representatives on Tuesday approved this first bill to sidestep the Senate’s “filibuster ” rule and ultimately raise federal borrowing authority by a simple majority vote. 

“I’m optimistic that after today’s vote we will be on a glide-path to avoid a catastrophic default,” Schumer said in a speech to the Senate. 

The Schumer-McConnell deal on the debt ceiling is contained in legislation that would avoid funding cuts for Medicare, the government health insurance program for the elderly, which has wide bipartisan support. 

The deal comes just two months after Congress agreed on a short-term lift to the debt ceiling, to avert an unprecedented default by the federal government on its obligations, which would have catastrophic implications for the world economy. 

Republicans have been trying to withhold their votes for more borrowing authority, contending the increase would smooth the way for passage of President Joe Biden’s $1.75 trillion “Build Back Better” domestic investment bill, which they oppose. 

Democrats note that the legislation is needed to finance debt largely incurred during Donald Trump’s administration, when Republicans willingly jacked up Washington’s credit card bill by about $7.85 trillion, partly through sweeping tax cuts and spending to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. 

But most Senate Republicans, looking to score political points by blaming Democrats for spending, opposed the deal. Republicans contend that “irresponsible,” “socialist” spending pushed by Biden is fueling the need for the debt limit increase. 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has urged Congress to act by Dec. 15, and the Bipartisan Policy Center think thank warned last week that the government could risk default by late this month if Congress does not act. 

Democrats noted that they had voted in the past to authorize debt ceiling hikes to cover Republican measures, such as the Trump tax cuts. 

The draft bill still must plug in a dollar amount for the new statutory debt limit, which likely is being calibrated to give the government enough borrowing authority to extend beyond next November’s congressional elections. 

“Every single Senate Democrat will have to put their name to the gigantic dollar amount of debt they’re prepared to pile on the American people,” McConnell said in a speech on Wednesday.
…

NY Attorney General Letitia James Ends Run for Governor

New York Attorney General Letitia James suspended her campaign for governor on Thursday, saying she will run for reelection to her current position to “finish the job” amid numerous ongoing investigations.

James, a Democrat, had announced in late October that she was running for governor, two months after a sexual harassment investigation she oversaw led former Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. She had been expected to be a strong challenger against Gov. Kathy Hochul for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in an increasingly crowded field.

“I have come to the conclusion that I must continue my work as attorney general,” James, a Democrat, said in a statement. “There are a number of important investigations and cases that are underway, and I intend to finish the job. I am running for re-election to complete the work New Yorkers elected me to do.”

James, 62, is the first woman elected as New York’s attorney general and the first Black person to serve in the role.

James ended her campaign for governor the same day it was reported that she was seeking to have former President Donald Trump sit for a deposition in an ongoing civil probe into his business practices. A familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly and did so under the condition of anonymity told The Associated Press that James’ office requested the Trump provide testimony Jan. 7.

James’ office would not comment on the Trump matter but it has spent more than two years looking at whether the Trump Organization misled banks or tax officials about the value of assets.

Earlier on Thursday, James’ office canceled a planned event on Long Island.

Since she became attorney general in 2019, James’ office filed dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration over federal policies on immigration, the environment and other matters. James also filed a lawsuit accusing National Rifle Association leaders of financial mismanagement — seeking to shut down the gun-rights organization — and has secured hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements from companies involved in the opioid industry.

James’ decision to run for governor so soon after overseeing the investigation that led to Cuomo’s exit reinforced feelings among his allies that the probe was politically motivated — an assertion James has dismissed.

As governor, Cuomo endorsed James for attorney general and headlined a fundraiser for her in 2018 as she ran in a four-way Democratic primary to replace Eric Schneiderman, who abruptly resigned amid allegations that he abused women.

Both the governor’s office and the attorney general’s office are on the ballot in 2022.
…

Biden Takes Infrastructure Tour to Missouri as White House Retools Message

U.S. President Joe Biden visited a bus depot Wednesday to spotlight the $1 trillion infrastructure bill’s investments in public transit as the administration sought to boost the popularity of his agenda with a new communication strategy.

Biden toured the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, which will be among the beneficiaries of the spending bill’s $89 billion for public transit over five years, including $5.6 billion to buy low- and no-emission transit vehicles like electric buses.

“It’s gonna be infrastructure decade, now man. No more talking. Action,” Biden said. Kansas City, which has two electric buses, hopes to build a fully electric fleet.

The Kansas City trip came as the White House launched a website, Build.gov, to describe the infrastructure law and ask supporters to upload videos explaining how the law impacts their lives.

The White House also unveiled a new branding phrase, “Building a Better America,” to promote it. The White House is testing whether investment in infrastructure can boost Biden’s sagging poll ratings.

The administration wants Americans to know about the president’s efforts “to make their lives easier, to deliver for them,” spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Biden has faced challenges in all directions. Biden told the crowd he ran for president in part to unite the country, but that is “turning out to be one of the most difficult things.”

Biden’s legislative efforts have been stymied by Republican opposition along with infighting between the progressive and moderate wings of his own party.

Despite a bipartisan win in Congress on infrastructure, Biden’s opinion poll numbers have sunk as Americans fret about the COVID-19 pandemic and inflation.

The White House wants to highlight Biden’s accomplishments ahead of midterm elections next year, when Democrats are seeking to fend off Republican efforts to win control of Congress.

The White House is also looking to win passage for the second part of Biden’s economic agenda, an even larger spending package.

The Democrat-led House has passed the $1.9 trillion package, which includes funding for universal pre-kindergarten, child care, health care insurance subsidies and climate-change initiatives. But the legislation’s path in the Senate, where Democrats have the smallest of margins, remains uncertain and revisions are expected.

“We’re going to help rebuild the economy, but this time from the bottom and the middle out. This bill is a blue-collar blueprint for working Americans,” Biden said. 
…

US Senate Rejects Biden’s Vaccine Mandate for Businesses

The Senate narrowly approved a resolution Wednesday to nullify the Biden administration’s requirement that businesses with 100 or more workers have their employees be vaccinated against the coronavirus or submit to weekly testing.

The vote was 52-48. The measure now goes to the Democratic-led House, which is unlikely to take up the measure, which means the mandate would stand, though courts have put it on hold for now. Still, the vote gave senators a chance to voice opposition to a policy that they say has sparked fears back home from businesses and from unvaccinated constituents who worry about losing their jobs should the rule go into effect.

“Every so often Washington, D.C., does something that lights up the phone lines. This is one of these moments,” said Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican. At home, he said, “this issue is what I hear about. This issue is a top-of-mind issue.”

Lawmakers can invalidate certain federal agency regulations if a joint resolution is approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, or if Congress overrides a presidential veto. That’s unlikely to happen in this case.

Under the rule, private-sector companies with 100 or more workers must require their employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested for the virus weekly and wear masks on the job. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said it would work with companies on compliance but would fine them up to more than $13,000 for each violation, though implementation and enforcement is suspended as the litigation unfolds.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Americans who have refused to get vaccinated are the biggest impediment to ending the pandemic. He implied that some of the resistance to mandated vaccines is based on politics.

Schumer said social media has played a role in spreading falsehoods about the vaccine, and “so has the far right.” He urged senators to vote against the resolution, sponsored by Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind.

Republicans said they are supportive of the vaccine, but that the mandate amounts to government overreach.

“His mandates are under fire in the courts. Main Street job creators are complaining against it, and tonight, the U.S. Senate must send a clear message: back off this bad idea,” Braun said.

In the end, two Democratic lawmakers voted with 50 Republicans to void the mandate, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana. Manchin had said in a tweet that he does not support any federal vaccine mandate for private businesses. Tester’s office said his opposition is based on conversations with Montana businesses who “expressed deep concerns about the negative effect on their bottom lines and our state’s economy during this fragile recovery period.”

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., sided with the Biden administration, noting that the pandemic is still raging and that deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated.

“How on earth does it make sense right now to undercut one of the strongest tools that we have to get people vaccinated and stop this virus?” Murray said. “In what world is that a good idea?” 
…

California Plans to Be Abortion Sanctuary if Roe Overturned 

With more than two dozen states poised to ban abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court gives them the OK next year, California clinics and their allies in the state legislature on Wednesday revealed a plan to make the state a safe place for those seeking reproductive care, including possibly paying for travel, lodging and procedures for people from other states. 

The California Future of Abortion Council, made up of more than 40 abortion providers and advocacy groups, released a list of 45 recommendations for the state to consider if the high court overturns Roe v. Wade, the 48-year-old decision that forbids states from outlawing abortion. 

The recommendations are not just a liberal fantasy. Some of the state’s most important policymakers helped write them, including Toni Atkins, the San Diego Democrat who leads the state Senate and attended multiple meetings.

Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom started the group himself. In an interview last week with The Associated Press he said some of the report’s details would be included in his budget proposal in January. 

“We’ll be a sanctuary,” Newsom said, adding he’s aware patients will likely travel to California from other states to seek abortions. “We are looking at ways to support that inevitability and looking at ways to expand our protections.” 

California already pays for abortions for many low-income residents through the state’s Medicaid program. And California is one of six states that require private insurance companies to cover abortions, although many patients still end up paying deductibles and co-payments. 

Enough money

But money won’t be a problem for state-funded abortion services for patients from other states. California’s coffers have soared throughout the pandemic, fueling a record budget surplus this year. Next year, the state’s independent Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts California will have a surplus of about $31 billion. 

California’s affiliates of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, got a preview of how people might seek abortions outside their home states this year when a Texas law that outlawed abortion after six weeks of pregnancy was allowed to take effect. California clinics reported a slight increase in patients from Texas.

Now, California abortion providers are asking California to make it easier for those people to get to the state.

The report recommends funding — including public spending — to support patients seeking abortion for travel expenses such as gas, lodging, transportation and child care. It asks lawmakers to reimburse abortion providers for services to those who can’t afford to pay — including those who travel to California from other states whose income is low enough that they would qualify for state-funded abortions under Medicaid if they lived there.

It’s unclear how many people would come to California for abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned. California does not collect or report abortion statistics. The Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, said 132,680 abortions were performed in California in 2017, or about 15% of all abortions nationally. That number includes people from out of state as well as teenagers, who are not required to have their parents’ permission for an abortion in California. 

Planned Parenthood, which accounts for about half of California’s abortion clinics, said it served 7,000 people from other states last year. 

A huge influx of people from other states “will definitely destabilize the abortion provider network,” said Fabiola Carrion, interim director for reproductive and sexual health at the national Health Law Program. She said out-of-state abortions would also likely be later-term procedures, which are more complicated and expensive.

More workers

The report asks lawmakers to help clinics increase their workforce to prepare for more patients by giving scholarships to medical students who pledge to offer abortion services in rural areas, help them pay off their student loans and assist with their monthly liability insurance premiums.

“We’re looking at how to build capacity and build workforce,” said Jodi Hicks, CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. “It will take a partnership and investment with the state.” 

Abortion opponents in California, meanwhile, are also preparing for a potential surge of patients from other states seeking the procedure — only they hope to persuade them not to do it. 

Jonathan Keller, president and CEO of the California Family Council, said California has about 160 pregnancy resource centers whose aim is to persuade women not to get abortions. He said about half of those centers are medical clinics, while the rest are faith-based counseling centers. 

Many of the centers are located near abortion clinics in an attempt to entice people to seek their counseling before opting to end pregnancies. Keller said many are already planning on increasing their staffing if California gets more patients. 

“Even if we are not facing any immediate legislative opportunities or legislative victories, it’s a reminder that the work of changing hearts and minds and also providing real support and resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies — that work will always continue,” Keller said.

He added: “In many ways, that work is going to be even more important, both in light of [the] Supreme Court’s decision and in light of whatever Sacramento decides they are going to do in response.” 
…

January 6 Panel to Move Forward With Contempt Against Meadows

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection has “no choice” but to move forward with contempt charges against former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows now that he is no longer complying with a subpoena, the panel’s chairman said Wednesday.

In a letter to Meadows’ attorney, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said that Meadows has already provided documents to the committee, including personal emails and texts about former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Yet Meadows did not show up Wednesday for a scheduled deposition after his lawyer, George Terwilliger, told the panel that he was ending his cooperation.

Thompson noted in the letter that Meadows has also published a book, released this week, that discusses the Jan. 6 attack.

“That he would sell his telling of the facts of that day while denying a congressional committee the opportunity to ask him about the attack on our Capitol marks an historic and aggressive defiance of Congress,” Thompson said in a letter to Terwilliger.

The House has already voted to hold longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon in contempt after he defied a subpoena, and the Justice Department indicted Bannon on two counts.

The documents that Meadows has already provided to the panel, Thompson wrote, include communications from around the time of the presidential election and before the insurrection and involve White House efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory. One email outlines what Thompson characterized as a “direct and collateral attack” that would have involved appointing an alternate slate of electors.

According to the letter, Meadows provided the committee in November with personal emails and backed up data from his personal cellphone, including text messages. Those thousands of documents included an email dated Nov. 7 — the day Biden was declared the winner — that Thompson described as “discussing the appointment of alternate slates of electors as part of a ‘direct and collateral attack’ after the election.” He did not say who sent the email or give further details.

The documents also included an email regarding a 38-page PowerPoint briefing titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 JAN,” Thompson wrote, that was intended to be shared on Capitol Hill. Thompson did not give any other details about the email but said it was dated Jan. 5, the day before hundreds of Trump’s supporters violently breached the Capitol and interrupted the certification of Biden’s victory.

A separate Nov. 6 text exchange between Meadows and an unidentified member of Congress, Thompson wrote, was “apparently about appointing alternate electors in certain states as part of a plan that the member acknowledged would be ‘highly controversial,’ and to which Mr. Meadows apparently said, ‘I love it.'”

Also included in the documents, according to Thompson: A Jan. 5 email about having the National Guard on standby the next day, an “early 2021 text message exchange” between Meadows and an organizer of the rally held the morning of Jan. 6, when Trump told his supporters to “fight like hell,” and “text messages about the need for the former president to issue a public statement that could have stopped the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.”

Terwilliger did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Meadows’ decision to stop complying with the committee came after he had initially agreed to the deposition and after Terwilliger said the committee was open to allowing him to decline some questions based on the executive privilege claims that Trump has made in an ongoing court case.

Terwilliger wrote the committee this week, however, that a deposition had become “untenable” because the Jan. 6 panel “has no intention of respecting boundaries” around questions that Trump claims are off-limits. Terwilliger also said he learned over the weekend that the committee had issued a subpoena to a third-party communications provider that he said would include “intensely personal” information about Meadows.

“As a result of careful and deliberate consideration of these factors, we now must decline the opportunity to appear voluntarily for a deposition,” Terwilliger wrote in the letter.

In his response, Thompson confirmed the subpoenas to a third party but said they should not affect Meadows’ testimony.
…