The News Caravan

Tag: GOP

  • GOP, Manchin look to nullify ‘woke’ Biden rule

    GOP, Manchin look to nullify ‘woke’ Biden rule

    [ad_1]

    20230216 senate 2 francis 3

    Biden has threatened to veto the rollback, but the move is still providing fodder for GOP lawmakers who are making anti-woke criticism of socially minded big business a centerpiece of their political messaging.

    Rep. Andy Barr, the Kentucky Republican who sponsored the resolution, said on “Fox and Friends” Tuesday that the votes will put members of Congress on the record regarding “whether they are going to put their constituents’ retirement security first or their own progressive political agenda.”

    “Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, we think most Americans don’t want politics to be a factor in allocating their capital and determining whether or not they’re going to have a secure retirement,” he said.

    The votes this week are the latest milestone in the GOP’s populist turn when it comes to corporate America. Rather than defending the rights of asset managers to offer investment products as they choose, Republicans at the state and federal levels are using tools of government to beat up on Wall Street for its embrace of decision-making tied to environmental and social goals. It has forced major corporations to play defense in Washington and state capitals across the country, scrambling the traditionally friendly dynamic between big business and the Republican party.

    The Labor Department rule Republicans are targeting this week was an attempt by the Biden administration late last year to clarify that retirement plan managers can consider environmental, social and governance factors when selecting investments. The rule was intended to reverse Trump-era policy that tried to discourage ESG investments.

    While the rule doesn’t require that climate and social issues factor into retirement planning, Republican critics argue that it opens the door to the politicization of investing at the expense of returns. It’s a critique that’s become widely embraced by GOP politicians and conservative groups. Former Vice President Mike Pence’s Advancing American Freedom is among the organizations backing this week’s rollback attempt.

    “The Department of Labor’s new rule would allow woke asset managers to use the nearly $11.7 trillion in assets from the retirement accounts of over 150 million Americans to fund the Left’s political agenda,” Heritage Action Executive Director Jessica Anderson said in a statement.

    The Biden administration and most Democrats in Congress are fighting back. The giant labor organization AFL-CIO is among the dozens of outside groups lobbying Congress to vote against the Republican resolution, arguing that incorporating ESG factors in investments “helps protect the hard-earned retirement savings of working people.”

    The White House said in a statement Monday that reverting to more restrictive, Trump-era policy would “unnecessarily limit the options available to retirement plan participants and investors.”

    Despite the opposition, the GOP effort has started to attract support and consideration from Democrats up for reelection in 2024 in conservative-leaning states. It means that Republicans may only need one more Democrat in addition to Manchin to pass the proposal in the Senate. The Congressional Review Act, the law that allows lawmakers to nullify executive branch actions, offers a fast-track process that requires only a simple majority vote to undo recently released regulations like the DOL rule.

    Senate Democrats hold a one-seat majority, but Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is out for treatment for clinical depression. Republicans still likely need one more Democrat to support the measure beyond Manchin because of the absence of Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), according to Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), who is sponsoring the rollback.

    Manchin was an early co-sponsor of the Senate GOP’s resolution, and he blasted the Biden administration as “irresponsible” for issuing the rule.

    Tester, who is likely facing one of the toughest 2024 reelection campaigns among Senate Democrats, said in an interview Tuesday that “I’ve got my leanings” but that he was still reviewing the policy and wasn’t ready to share his position.

    “My challenge is this: Why’d the administration put it out?” Tester said. “It seems to me if I’m an investor of money, I’m not gonna put money in things that aren’t good investments. And then I’ve got to figure out if any of it’s mandatory.”

    [ad_2]
    #GOP #Manchin #nullify #woke #Biden #rule
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • House GOP moving to let Jan. 6 defendants access Capitol security footage

    House GOP moving to let Jan. 6 defendants access Capitol security footage

    [ad_1]

    Loudermilk will be leading the effort given his senior Administration panel post, according to a senior Republican congressional aide who addressed the evolving decision on condition of anonymity. The GOP aide added that the new House majority is working on a system that eventually will allow members of the media and the public to access some Jan. 6 records as well.

    The footage access plan, described by three people familiar with the discussions, follows McCarthy’s move to grant exclusive access to the 41,000 hours of internal Capitol film from the day of the riot to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. McCarthy and his allies are also making clear that there will be limits on the extent of material permitted to leave the tightly controlled confines of the Capitol, where Carlson’s team has been reviewing the footage for days.

    “What gets released is obviously going to be scrutinized to make sure you’re not exposing any sensitive information that hasn’t already been exposed,” said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.).

    McCarthy told reporters Tuesday that he ultimately envisions releasing nearly all of the Jan. 6 surveillance footage publicly, with exceptions for sensitive security information.

    “I think putting it out all to the American public, you can see the truth, see exactly what transpired that day and everybody can have the exact same” access, McCarthy said. “My intention is to release it to everyone.”

    McCarthy dismissed questions about his decision to share the footage with Carlson, who has downplayed the Jan. 6 attack, describing it as a typical media exclusive. He noted that he did not consult with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell about his decision.

    Similar measures would be taken with any footage opened up to Jan. 6 defendants and their lawyers, two of the people familiar said, though details of those steps remain unclear for now. Among the big logistical questions Republicans are still discussing: whether any footage they open up to defendants can be used in court proceedings, which would effectively make it public.

    McCarthy’s decision to let Carlson view the footage from the violent riot by former President Donald Trump’s supporters has already been raised in two ongoing Jan. 6 criminal cases. In one instance, a lawyer for one of the Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy has asked prosecutors to determine whether they will access and share the footage; then on Tuesday morning, Joseph McBride, an attorney for Jan. 6 defendant Ryan Nichols, claimed he had already been given permission to review the footage.

    It’s unclear if the Justice Department has requested similar access. A DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The footage release marks the latest twist in McCarthy’s complicated history with Jan. 6. He led more than 130 House Republicans in objecting to the 2020 election results, even after rioters tore through the Capitol, then condemned the riot in the immediate aftermath and said Trump bore responsibility for it.

    Colleagues said McCarthy pleaded with Trump amid the chaos to call off his supporters as they ransacked the building and pummeled police. But after meeting with Trump weeks after the siege, McCarthy strongly opposed Democratic efforts to investigate the breach, particularly after then Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked two of his members from serving on the panel. He ended up spurning a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee.

    Though many House Republicans have indicated they hope to move on from regularly discussing the attack, McCarthy’s decision to allow access to the footage — following pressure from a faction of conservative detractors who worked initially to deny him the speakership — has forced Jan. 6 back onto the agenda.

    Speaking to his conference for the first time since permitting Carlson to review the copious amounts of internal Capitol security footage, McCarthy sought to quell any internal concerns among members, according to three House Republicans in the room who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    During Tuesday’s closed-door conference meeting, McCarthy pointed to footage that Democrats played during select committee hearings last year which showed various locations during the assault, according to one of those Republicans — and described the criticism he’s received for granting Carlson access as “hypocrisy.”

    Scalise also argued during a press conference Tuesday morning that the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee had already released similar types of information, as had former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s daughter in a documentary film.

    People familiar with the Jan. 6 select committee investigation have emphasized that the footage the panel aired followed intensive negotiations with the Capitol Police, which often pushed back to restrict the length of clips or number of angles the committee could show. Some footage aired by the panel had also been previously made public in ongoing criminal cases stemming from the riot.

    It’s unclear what similar steps McCarthy is taking, and as a result his access for Carlson has sparked staunch pushback from Democrats, who say any wide release of unvetted footage could jeopardize Capitol security. The Capitol Police have warned repeatedly in court that any widespread access to security footage could provide a roadmap for potential perpetrators of any future assault on the Capitol.

    But dozens of hours of security footage have also been publicly released in the hundreds of criminal cases that have been brought forward since Jan. 6.

    Loudermilk is intimately familiar with the Jan. 6 select committee’s handling of security footage. The panel released film of a group of tourists he led through Capitol office buildings on Jan. 5, 2021 — one of whom approached the Capitol grounds the following day while recording menacing statements about Democratic leaders.

    Some Republicans across the ideological spectrum praised McCarthy for his move to release the footage.

    “Best if all Americans have access,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who hails from a competitive battleground district. “I don’t hear much about this at home.”

    Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the pro-Trump House Freedom Caucus, praised McCarthy for the move and shrugged off those voicing security concerns: “This place is so convoluted. That’s why they don’t have a map on it … I just got lost trying to get to the tunnel.”

    The Jan. 6 footage decision is getting a lot of attention during what Republicans say is an otherwise calm week — so far. In Tuesday morning’s conference meeting, Republicans discussed upcoming bills they will vote on this week, while Scalise also previewed plans for elements of their upcoming agenda, such as a parents’ bill of rights and an energy package set to hit the floor the spring, according to two GOP sources.



    [ad_2]
    #House #GOP #moving #Jan #defendants #access #Capitol #security #footage
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • House GOP quickly sinks intel community’s hope for easy surveillance green light

    House GOP quickly sinks intel community’s hope for easy surveillance green light

    [ad_1]

    To add to the political headache, the Justice Department will need to win over a Republican House, where many of the lawmakers with oversight of the program are the very same who are leading a sweeping investigation into alleged political motivations within the DOJ and the FBI. The party’s relationship with the law enforcement apparatus soured sharply during former President Donald Trump’s tenure, amid GOP accusations that the Feds improperly targeted Trump and his allies.

    A group of House Republicans are already discussing letting the surveillance authority sunset entirely, according to a GOP aide. And in a significant red flag for supporters of the currently written program, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, one of the four congressional panels that will lead the Section 702 discussions — said he won’t support extending the program without changes.

    In fact, he isn’t convinced yet that it needs to be continued at all.

    “We’re working on the kind of reforms we think need to happen, but frankly I think you should have to go get a warrant,” Jordan said in a brief interview.

    The Ohio Republican didn’t support reauthorizing the program in January 2018, so his skepticism is hardly surprising. But his influence has grown significantly since then: He is now wielding a gavel and has transitioned from leadership foe to ally. And his panel is now stacked with several members who not only oppose the specific surveillance authority set to sunset this year, but also have concerns about the broader Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    Those calls are being fueled, in part, by a recently declassified report on the use of Section 702 between December 2019 and May 2020. In a sign of the odd political bedfellows who are likely to push reforms, conservative Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), both members of Jordan’s panel, vented publicly over a detail tucked into a footnote of the report: An FBI intelligence analyst queried surveillance databases using only the name of a U.S. House member.

    The administration is aware that they are facing a heavy lift and aren’t ruling out changes to the program. Officials have stressed in interviews and in the Tuesday letter to congressional leadership that it is open to potential improvements.

    And they’re taking initial steps to try to quell a fight on the front end. Biden administration officials’ opening pitch is coming much earlier than it did in past years — they estimated they waited until September to begin discussions last time — and they’ve dropped their pitch for a permanent extension, which lawmakers balked at in 2018. They’re also offering to give lawmakers classified briefings to make their case for reauthorization.

    But the Biden Administration is drawing a red line on an overhaul that would change the essential function of the authority. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and Attorney General Merrick Garland, in a letter to congressional leadership, wrote that they needed to “fully preserve its efficacy.”

    In a second prong of the administration’s opening salvo, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen made his pitch for continuing the program during a Brookings Institution event on Tuesday using stark terms.

    “What keeps me up at night is thinking about what will happen if we fail to renew Section 702 of FISA,” he said.

    And Biden administration officials are preemptively pushing back on likely proposals from privacy advocates who want to change the program. One area that is already coming under early reform chatter is so-called “backdoor” searches, when government agencies sift through already acquired data for information that was “incidentally” collected on Americans. A senior administration official argued that banning or trying to restrict searches involving U.S. persons “would either ban or restrict the government from accessing in a timely way potentially critical information.”

    The administration does have its congressional allies, particularly among Senate leadership and members of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as the Intelligence panel’s bipartisan leaders, all voted to reauthorize the program in 2018. Of the 65 lawmakers who previously voted to reauthorize 702, roughly 20 have left the Senate — meaning supporters will need to pick up new allies.

    And in a nod to the difficult debate ahead, Reps. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Chris Stewart (R-Utah) have been quietly working on the reauthorization effort since last year. The three Republicans, each on their chamber’s Intelligence Committee, want to reauthorize the program, though they are expected to pair that with broader FISA reforms — including in how judges are assigned to surveillance applications.

    Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), who chairs the House Intelligence Committee and who tapped the trio to take the lead, echoed their general direction, saying FISA is a “critical tool in our national security arsenal” and that he supports extending it but “with reforms that will protect American’s civil liberties.”

    But privacy advocates believe they are at a point of maximum leverage. Unlike in 2020 when a congressional stalemate — and mixed signals between then-President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr — led to three unrelated surveillance powers lapsing, critics of Section 702 believe the administration views the program as so critical that they will agree to sweeping changes that might have once been off the table.

    The administration is urging lawmakers to stay narrowly focused on Section 702, but officials admit that’s unlikely. That’s in part because of a high-profile series of reports from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz that found “widespread” non-compliance by the department when it came to a key step in FBI procedure that was designed as a guardrail for ensuring accuracy in surveillance applications.

    We are “aware that there are those who want to talk about reforms or changes,” said a senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “And in the months to come, of course, we anticipate hearing what it is that others who want to have those conversations have in mind.”

    John Sakellariadis and Alexander Ward contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #House #GOP #quickly #sinks #intel #communitys #hope #easy #surveillance #green #light
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Meet the ‘tough as nails’ Texan trying to keep the GOP in line on spending

    Meet the ‘tough as nails’ Texan trying to keep the GOP in line on spending

    [ad_1]

    In short, the 80-year-old former mayor has almost no room for error. And this time, she’ll have to support any tough spending compromises her committee tries to reach from the majority. Four women lead Congress’ appropriations panels from both parties for the first time in history, but it’s Granger with the biggest challenge ahead. She says she’s ready.

    “I was a school teacher, taught for nine years — high school — then I had my first child, and two years later I had twins,” Granger said in an interview. “And so if I can get through that, believe me, I can get through writing this bill.”

    The promises Kevin McCarthy made last month to finally lock in the speakership will make Granger’s job much harder. House conservatives demanded standalone floor votes on each of the 12 spending bills, a feat the chamber hasn’t accomplished since summer 2009. Additionally, the Californian granted their calls for unlimited amendments — which will make it even more difficult to rally enough support to pass the full dozen.

    The GOP’s internal hostility over earmarks and demands to cut spending will add to Granger’s burden, as the debt limit raises the stakes in the debate to fund the government before a shutdown strikes in September.

    “The lift could get a little heavy,” said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), an appropriator who split with the panel’s top Republican in supporting the government funding package last December. But he added that Granger is “very strong, in the sense that she’s not going to be rolled by anybody. And that’s an important quality to have.”

    Granger won’t have the luxury of largely sitting out spending talks this year, as she did in 2022, and will have to work with Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), her opposing-party counterparts atop the appropriations panels.

    DeLauro called Granger a “trailblazer” who made history even before becoming the first Republican woman to chair Congress’ spending committee. The Texas Republican was the first woman elected mayor of Fort Worth, in 1991, and then the first woman to chair the elite defense spending subpanel on Appropriations.

    Over the course of her long career, Granger once aligned with her Democratic counterparts on some social issues, supporting abortion access and Roe v. Wade until reversing her stance in 2020. She has sometimes declined to take a stance on hot-button topics, such as treatment of LGBTQ troops.

    Learning where Granger draws her personal lines will be key to striking a broader funding agreement later this year, Murray said.

    “I think all of us have a big challenge ahead of us this year, but I think the four women at the top of this committee have a commitment to themselves and to each other to do our best to get it done,” the Senate Appropriations chair said in an interview.

    Democrats learned more than a decade ago how exhausting it can be to allow the amendment free-for-all that House Republicans are embracing this year for each of their 12 funding bills.

    “It is mayhem,” Granger acknowledged, recalling what she observed in 2009 as Democrats gave up on the laborious process, halting floor action mid-debate and forcing through stricter amendment constraints well after midnight.

    She said she plans to minimize similar pandemonium by communicating early with members “on both sides of the aisle” to win buy-in for her bills well before they hit the floor.

    Indeed, Granger is clear about her plans to try to win Democratic votes where she can — hardly a given, since she voted against major spending bills when they ruled the chamber — and she’ll have some help in that department with the return of earmarks, albeit with new constraints.

    But the often-derided practice of directly aiming federal dollars toward home-state projects could rouse the ire of the House’s rebellious fiscal conservatives as Republican leaders work to fund the government this year. About a quarter of the chamber’s GOP lawmakers voted in December to pass on earmarking.

    That’s not to mention the long line of Republicans demanding spending cuts as a condition for voting to raise the debt ceiling. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and others are calling for overall funding levels to essentially fall back two years, reverting to the totals Congress passed for the fiscal year that began in the fall of 2021.

    Any proposal to reduce military funding in that process is a non-starter for Granger. “I don’t support cutting defense,” she said. “That’s the one that I’m really, really hard-core on.”

    And while she doesn’t project a hard-core image, Granger is “tough as nails,” as former Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) described his successor atop Appropriations in an interview.

    “She has a deep respect for the history of the committee,” said Frelinghuysen, who chaired the panel until 2018. “But she’ll do her best to protect Republican interests and the new majority’s priorities.”

    Her ability to balance institutional awareness with intra-party self-protection came into full view when she beat three challengers for the Appropriations chairmanship five years ago. When the committee’s GOP top spot opened up, Granger’s seniority didn’t guarantee her the post. She ultimately won after a dramatic, monthslong drive to court a select group of her peers.

    As is typical of those leadership races, she benefited from a quiet campaign to leverage influence within the caucus. And McCarthy, himself trying to ascend the leadership ladder at the time, was seen as a key ally of Granger’s.

    Looking back, she recalls staying out of the closed-door drama. “I literally just kept my head down and kept doing our work,” she said. “I wasn’t going to spend my time trying to convince people to elect me to that position.”

    But she had boosters who wouldn’t leave her race to fate.

    Texas Republicans, the largest GOP delegation in the House, talked privately back in 2018 about a strategy for locking in McCarthy’s support despite the Californian’s close friendship with then-Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), one of Granger’s opponents in the committee race. Their proposed offer to McCarthy: back Granger, and every Republican lawmaker from the Lone Star State would support your leadership ambitions.

    “There’s no doubt that, when Texas is united, our state has enormous influence here on Capitol Hill. And Kay’s chairmanship is an important part of that,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

    Whether that Texas alliance with McCarthy was secured is a closely held secret. (And it technically unraveled after the 2018 election of Roy, an initial McCarthy skeptic from Texas who later came around.) All Granger acknowledged is that her race to lead the party on Appropriations helped build “relationships that are going to be extremely important as we write” government spending bills.

    [ad_2]
    #Meet #tough #nails #Texan #GOP #line #spending
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • GOP primary candidates must agree to loyalty pledge in order to debate, RNC chair says

    GOP primary candidates must agree to loyalty pledge in order to debate, RNC chair says

    [ad_1]

    election 2024 rnc chair 51505

    Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel speaks at the committee’s winter meeting in Dana Point, Calif., Friday, Jan. 27, 2023. | Jae C. Hong/AP Photo

    Any candidate who wants to take part in the GOP’s first primary debate in Milwaukee later this year will have to sign a pledge promising to support whoever wins the nomination, Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel said Sunday.

    “We’re saying you’re not going to get on the debate stage unless you make this pledge,” McDaniel said during an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.” McDaniel, who recently won her fourth term as RNC chair after a contentious battle against Harmeet Dhillon, said that Republican voters are tired of “infighting” within the party, and “want to see us come together.”

    So far, three prominent candidates have entered the GOP presidential primary — former President Donald Trump, former Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley and conservative entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. More are expected to join the race, potentially including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

    [ad_2]
    #GOP #primary #candidates #agree #loyalty #pledge #order #debate #RNC #chair
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • The GOP field descends on Iowa, readying to eat some humble pie

    The GOP field descends on Iowa, readying to eat some humble pie

    [ad_1]

    Over the course of three days in Iowa this week, the political pitfalls and opportunities of the state already became apparent. Any candidate for office can be rewarded for the right amount of gladhanding and pork eating and farm marveling. And those with an eye on the presidency in 2024 gave it their shot. But the voters In Iowa are picky too. They don’t hide it.

    “We like to be courted,” said Patti Parlee of Urbandale, who was at the Polk County Republican dinner on Wednesday to hear Scott speak.

    Just a few weeks into the 2024 GOP primary, that courtship has begun. Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley held packed town halls in Iowa on Monday and Tuesday, while former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Vice President Mike Pence have made their own stops in the state. Biotech entrepreneur turned anti-woke activist Vivek Ramaswamy has come as well, bringing autographed copies of his book, “Woke Inc.,” to offer the first 100 people who showed up Thursday at Machine Shed, a popular restaurant for Republican gatherings in Polk and Dallas counties.

    The nature of the campaign and the caucus makes it impossible for candidates to hide their personalities or evade scrutiny. The results are an even playing field.

    “Even though Trump is probably the favorite, I wouldn’t say it’s in the bag,” said Steve Scheffler, Iowa’s Republican National Committeeman. “If Iowans feel like they’re taken for granted, it doesn’t sit too well.”

    After announcing her presidential candidacy just over a week ago, Haley drew capacity crowds and tangible enthusiasm. At an event space inside Legacy Manufacturing in Marion, Elton John’s “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart” blared from the speakers as Wendy Hartman stood outside the room, peering in through the doorway. There was a standing crowd in the back.

    “I’ve not ever been to a political event before,” said Hartman, a conservative from Cedar Rapids.

    Hartman was among a series of Iowa Republican voters interviewed this week who said they’re inclined to support Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — should he get into the race — are cautious about former President Donald Trump, and open to hearing from the rest of the field. Backing Haley, to Hartman, was a distinct possibility: the type of candidate who could bridge the good of Trumpism without the drama, all while reinstalling traditional Republican politics.

    At her stop that night, Haley tried to sell voters on her experience as executive of a state, a member of Trump’s Cabinet standing up to world leaders and a mother crusading against children learning about sex and gender in schools. But she also got a whiff of the indignities that female candidates often encounter when seeking higher office.

    During the question and answer portion of Haley’s town hall, one man suggested that she choose South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem as her running mate.

    “Because …” Roger Dvorak, 80, started to explain.

    “She’s hot!” another man in the audience called out. The audience erupted in laughter.

    “Nikki, you’re not too bad yourself,” Dvorak continued.

    Haley gave an uncomfortable laugh before saying the exchange was “digressing quickly.” In an interview afterward, Dvorak acknowledged the remark was inappropriate. If not Noem, he added, Haley should run with former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

    Iowa political veterans say that the state’s extremely up-close style of politicking serves a purpose, chauvinistic episodes and all.

    Still, there is fear that Iowa this cycle may not play its traditional role. With the exception of Trump, who last week announced top staff hires in Iowa, none of the candidates or prospective candidates appear to have yet established any robust campaign operations in the state. Democrats have left Iowa behind in the party’s nominating process, voting to move South Carolina first on the calendar. And even Republicans in the state are worried about what the change could mean for them.

    Gloria Mazza, chair of the Polk County Republican Party, corrected an audience member at the Lincoln Dinner who shouted out that the Iowa Democrats are “losers!” for no longer having the No. 1 spot.

    “No, not losers,” Mazza said sternly, suggesting the GOP faithful urge their Democratic friends to lobby state Democratic officials to do something to fight back. “They want it as much as we do.”

    But as top GOP stars like Trump and DeSantis have so far avoided Iowa, others in the prospective and declared field are trying to make an early mark on the Hawkeye State.

    Kelly Koch, chair of the Dallas County Republican Party, said she continues to field calls from high-profile Republicans wanting to visit the county, one of Iowa’s fastest growing. Last week Kari Lake, who lost her November race for Arizona governor, held an event with the Dallas County GOP. On Monday, the local party hosted Haley and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds in a packed showroom at Royal Flooring in Urbandale.

    Scott, too, seems likely to be a fixture here as he adjusts to the politics of the state and his place within it. Making his way to the West Des Moines Marriott on Wednesday evening for the Lincoln Dinner, the senator got a call from his longtime friend and fellow South Carolinian Trey Gowdy, reminding him of the surrealness of it all.

    “When you were at Stall High School about to flunk out,” the former congressman said, “could you imagine taking a trip to Iowa, to talk about restoring faith in the nation?”

    [ad_2]
    #GOP #field #descends #Iowa #readying #eat #humble #pie
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • House GOP presses agencies on small business rules

    House GOP presses agencies on small business rules

    [ad_1]

    230223 roger williams ap

    House Small Business Republicans, led by Chair Roger Williams of Texas, sent letters to 25 agencies Wednesday. | Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/AP Photo

    House GOP lawmakers are launching a sweeping oversight effort aimed at ferreting out how agencies across the federal government weigh the potential impact on small businesses when crafting regulations.

    House Small Business Republicans, led by Chair Roger Williams of Texas, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Rep. Beth Van Duyne of Texas, sent letters to 25 agencies Wednesday about their compliance with laws that require them to analyze the effects of new rules on small employers and to produce compliance guides for those firms. The committee’s push is designed to shield small businesses from burdensome regulation.

    The targets include the EPA, the DOL, the IRS and the CFPB. In the letters, committee Republicans cite examples where they said agency regulatory work has fallen short when it comes to small business impact.

    [ad_2]
    #House #GOP #presses #agencies #small #business #rules
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • 2 former House GOP candidates alerted to improper requests for Air Force records

    2 former House GOP candidates alerted to improper requests for Air Force records

    [ad_1]

    Peters and Dellicker are the fourth and fifth known recipients of Air Force letters regarding the records releases, which have sparked an investigation by House Republicans. They are joining Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) and Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) in seeking an additional investigation of any illegal activity that may have occurred surrounding the requests for their military records, a push first reported by POLITICO on Tuesday.

    Specifically, the affected Republicans want to know what role, if any, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and their Democratic challengers played in receiving and using information that the Air Force improperly disclosed.

    “Look, you sanction a hitman to kill somebody, you’re guilty of a crime. You sanction somebody to steal, you’re guilty of a crime,” Peters said in a phone interview on Wednesday. “And the DCCC needs to be [held to account], and I fully intend on making sure they are.”

    The House Democratic campaign arm did not return a request for comment on whether it received and used materials provided by Due Diligence Group during the 2022 midterms. According to Federal Election Commission records, the DCCC paid Due Diligence just over $110,000 between January 2021 and December 2022.

    The Air Force has identified 11 people in total as affected by the “unauthorized release of military duty information.” That number includes Bacon, Nunn, Peters, Dellicker and former House GOP candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green of Indiana.

    Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek said the military branch launched an internal audit after POLITICO reported on Green’s records in October. Green has confirmed that her records were released to Due Diligence.

    POLITICO was told by the person who gave it Green’s military records that they were obtained through a public records request. POLITICO reviewed the request for the records made by a third party, which sought a “publicly releasable/redacted copy of OMPF [Official Military Personnel File] per Freedom of Information Act statutes.” The requester identified the purpose of the request as relating to “benefits,” “employment” and “other.”

    POLITICO also reviewed the letter sent in response to the requester. A military employee responded with a password-protected version of the file with limited redactions. After publication, the Air Force said it erred in releasing the records and launched an investigation.

    Air Force letters sent to Bacon, Peters and Dellicker this month state that Payton was already in possession of their Social Security numbers when he sought their records. The letters further state that the released records included the Republicans’ personal information without their authorization, which is “protected under the Privacy Act of 1974.”

    In the case of Peters, the Air Force letter informed him that a specific form from his record known as DD Form 214 was released in February 2022 and that roughly three weeks later, his military personnel records were released to Payton. Dellicker’s letter notified him that his DD form 214 was released to Payton in February 2022.

    Bacon said in an interview that Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has referred the results of its internal review to the Justice Department, which declined to comment on whether an investigation is underway.

    “This social engineering trick that [Payton] pulled was made more credible because according to the Air Force, he already had my Social Security number. Now, the Air Force still isn’t supposed to release this information without my signature,” Dellicker said in an interview.

    The unauthorized release of Dellicker’s Air Force records was first reported by LehighValleyNews.com.

    Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, has said that “virtually all” of the 11 unapproved releases were made to the same third party “who represented himself as a background investigator seeking service records for employment purposes.”

    It is unclear if Green’s records were released to Payton or another individual employed by Due Diligence, whose website states that it uses “public records research to provide our clients with the knowledge and insights needed to drive strategic decision making.” It is also unclear how many of the 11 improper disclosure requests that the Air Force identified were initiated by Payton.

    Due Diligence did not respond to requests for comment. Payton, whom POLITICO attempted to reach at an email address connected to the firm, did not respond to a request for comment.

    House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers and Oversight Committee Chair James Comer asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in their letter last week for the full list of people affected by improper records disclosures.

    The House GOP duo also sought details on any actions — “administrative or punitive” — taken against those involved in the unauthorized release, and whether any criminal referrals have taken place regarding the matter.

    [ad_2]
    #House #GOP #candidates #alerted #improper #requests #Air #Force #records
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • GOP lawmakers seek investigation of ‘unauthorized’ disclosure of their Air Force records

    GOP lawmakers seek investigation of ‘unauthorized’ disclosure of their Air Force records

    [ad_1]

    The DOJ declined to comment. Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek said “virtually all” of the 11 unapproved releases were made to the same third party “who represented himself as a background investigator seeking service records for employment purposes.”

    The revelation follows the uproar over the disclosure of Indiana House GOP candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green’s military records after POLITICO reported on them in October. And it promises to intensify Republicans’ already keen interest in investigating whether other sitting members of Congress were affected — as well as the role that a Democratic-linked research firm played in the episode.

    The Air Force launched its audit after the disclosure of Green’s records, according to Stefanek.

    The Feb. 7 letter Bacon received from the Air Force names Abraham Payton of the research firm Due Diligence LLC as the person who “inappropriately requested copies of your military personnel records for the stated purpose of employment and benefits,” adding that Payton was already in possession of Bacon’s Social Security number. Payton is a former research director for the Democratic political group American Bridge.

    Both Bacon and Nunn are calling for an investigation into whether political opposition research turned into illegal activity.

    “I understand the evidence has been turned over to the Department of Justice and I expect those who break the law to be prosecuted,” Bacon said in a statement to POLITICO. “This was more than just ‘dirty tricks’ by Democrat operatives, but likely violations of the law.”

    Nunn also suggested that the disclosure of his records amounted to criminal activity.

    “The recent targeting of Members of Congress’s personnel military records [and] the breach of sensitive data … taken by political hacks isn’t only a violation of public trust — it’s criminal,” he said in a statement.

    How it began

    Bacon said the Air Force began looking into the matter in response to what happened to Green, who lost a battleground-district race in November to Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.).

    The Air Force publicly acknowledged the unauthorized release of Green’s records to “a third party,” though it did not specify whether that person was the same individual who provided them to POLITICO during the campaign.

    POLITICO was told by the person who gave it Green’s military records that they were obtained through a public records request. POLITICO reviewed the request for the records made by a third party, which sought a “publicly releasable/redacted copy of OMPF [Official Military Personnel File] per Freedom of Information Act statutes.” The requester identified the purpose of the request as relating to “benefits,” “employment” and “other.”

    POLITICO also reviewed the letter sent in response to the requester. A military employee responded with a password-protected version of the file with limited redactions. After publication, the Air Force said it erred in releasing the records and launched an investigation.

    Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, said in an October statement that a “preliminary” inquiry found Green’s “service record was released to a third party by a junior individual who didn’t follow proper procedures and obtain required consent.”

    After POLITICO’s initial reporting on Green’s Air Force records, Green responded that the material was “illegally” obtained. Her records referenced a sexual assault she experienced during her time in service.

    Green blamed Mrvan and his allies for the release. Mrvan’s campaign has denied any involvement, and a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told Fox News at the time that “we would never use anyone’s experience with sexual assault against them.”

    Green spokesperson Kevin Hansberger said in a statement last week that the release of her “and other Republicans’ personal records is reprehensible and illegal.”

    “There must be full transparency of the investigation and its findings. Those responsible for these illegal acts should face criminal charges and be held accountable for their actions,” Hansberger added.

    Hansberger reiterated Green’s previous argument that political opponents were behind the release of her records, saying that the incident shows that Democrats “will go to any lengths necessary, even breaking the law, to protect their interests.”

    DCCC did not return a request for comment on whether it received and used materials provided by Due Diligence Group during the 2022 midterms. According to Federal Election Commission records, the House Democratic campaign arm paid Due Diligence just over $110,000 between January 2021 and December 2022.

    Due Diligence’s website states that it uses “public records research to provide our clients with the knowledge and insights needed to drive strategic decision making.”

    It’s unclear whether Payton and Due Diligence were the only third-party entities that sought the service records.

    Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, said in a response to written questions: “Virtually all unauthorized disclosures were in response to a third party who represented himself as a background investigator seeking service records for employment purposes through a process commonly used by other federal agencies to conduct employee background checks.”

    Due Diligence did not respond to requests for comment. Payton, whom POLITICO attempted to reach at an email address connected to Due Diligence, did not respond to a request for comment.

    Tracking the extent of the releases

    The Republican chairs of the House Oversight and Armed Services Committees publicly revealed last week that the Air Force had improperly released the records of 11 people to “a private research firm which allegedly misrepresented itself in order to obtain access.” That GOP letter also identified Due Diligence as the firm that obtained Green’s records.

    Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in their letter last week for the full list of people affected by improper records disclosures.

    The House GOP duo also sought details on any actions — “administrative or punitive” — taken against those involved in the unauthorized release, and whether any criminal referrals have taken place regarding the matter.

    “This news comes on the heels of a prior admission by the Air Force to having inappropriately released the [military personnel files] of former Republican Congressional candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green to the very same research firm, Due Diligence Group,” Rogers and Comer wrote. “That disclosure served to revictimize a servicemember by releasing details about her sexual assault.”

    The House GOP committee chairs mentioned only Due Diligence in their letter, not Payton. Additionally, Nunn provided no further information regarding the notification he received of the unauthorized release.

    Rogers and Comer asked the Pentagon chief to provide further information by Feb. 27, arguing that “it is essential that the men and women of the Armed Forces trust their leadership’s ability to protect private personnel data from improper disclosure.”

    POLITICO contacted more than a dozen House Republican lawmakers and 2022 candidates who served in the Air Force to ask whether the military has notified them of an authorized disclosure similar to those experienced by Green, Bacon and Nunn. None replied in the affirmative.

    The releases of records occurred between October 2021 and October 2022, according to Air Force spokesperson Stefanek.

    “Department of the Air Force employees did not follow proper procedures requiring the member’s authorizing signature consenting to the release of information. There was no evidence of political motivation or malicious intent on the part of any employee,” Stefanek wrote.

    She added that the “Air Force takes full responsibility for releasing the personally identifiable information of these individuals. Records-release procedures have been improved by elevating the approval level for release of information to third parties and conducting intensified retraining for personnel who handle record requests.”

    The letter Bacon received from the Air Force’s Texas-based personnel center states that its investigation revealed “no criminal action or malicious intent” on the part of the military employee who released his information.

    Bacon, however, is pushing for more information on whether the DCCC or the Democratic-linked House Majority super PAC played any role in the military’s releases of the information.

    House Majority PAC said it had no relationship with Due Diligence during the 2022 campaign cycle and did not use the firm’s work in any activity on the Green-Mrvan race.

    [ad_2]
    #GOP #lawmakers #seek #investigation #unauthorized #disclosure #Air #Force #records
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Midterm losers threaten to crowd GOP primaries

    Midterm losers threaten to crowd GOP primaries

    [ad_1]

    The crop of failed candidates mulling comebacks is causing headaches for party operatives who are desperate to address one of the big problems that plagued them last fall.

    “We want to see candidates win primary elections and general elections,” said NRSC Chair Steve Daines (R-Mont.), when asked about the committee’s position.

    The divide between House and Senate Republicans over how to handle future primaries highlights how intractable the problem of blocking extreme candidates is for Republicans. The complicated reality is that intervening in primaries can appear heavy-handed and even provide ammo for candidates looking to rail against the D.C. establishment. But the alternative is watching as unpalatable nominees threaten the party’s general election odds — at a moment when thin margins in both the House and Senate mean the majorities could hinge on any seat.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell openly lamented that “candidate quality” cost the GOP last year. In the House, the practice of meddling in primaries has become so fraught that it was wielded by the right against Kevin McCarthy in his bid for speaker last month. It’s not clear a policy change — even one that might net a few more battleground seats — would be worth the trouble it would cause inside the GOP conference.

    “It creates a lot of ill will,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a former chair of the House campaign arm. He added: “If you shoot at somebody, you better get them.”

    Regardless of what the party’s campaign committees do, super PACs can and will play in primaries. But if Republicans in either chamber hoped to skate past their midterm pitfalls by enlisting a fresh slate of candidates, it won’t be that easy.

    Masters, a venture capitalist who appeared to waffle on his position on abortion rights, lost to Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) by nearly 5 points. But, since then, he’s begun discussions with consultants about running for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s (I-Ariz.) seat, according to two sources familiar with his planning. Kari Lake, the TV news anchor who came up short in her bid for Arizona’s governorship, also met with NRSC officials about a run for that Senate seat.

    In Michigan, Tudor Dixon hasn’t ruled out a run for an open Senate seat there after falling to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer by a double-digit margin. Failed Pennsylvania gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano, meanwhile, raised eyebrows when he retweeted a poll showing a hypothetical matchup with Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa), though it’s not clear how serious he is.

    And those are just the ones party operatives know about. More could emerge.

    “You can’t stop people who want to run, it’s a free country,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former chair of the Senate GOP campaign arm. “Part of it is recruiting good candidates, too, and not just leaving yourself with the luck of the draw.”

    It’s not just the 2022 candidates looking to run it back. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is weighing a rematch against Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) may mount another bid against Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), after both Republicans lost in 2018.

    “Patrick, we get along fine, I try to get along with all my opponents,” Manchin said. “If I run, I’ll win.”

    Tester merely said: “I think that whoever is my opponent will be the person that Mitch McConnell chooses.”

    Not all losers are equal. Some Republicans who lost primaries last year but are weighing new campaigns are the very candidates party officials would prefer to see in a general election. And in other cases, like with the NRSC’s endorsement of Rep. Jim Banks’ (R-Ind.) for Senate after former Gov. Mitch Daniels bowed out, the party’s committees are not waiting to dive into primaries.

    Indiana is not likely to host a competitive general election race. But the lightning consolidation, spurred by Daines’ NRSC, marked a stark contrast from the committee’s midterm position. Under then-Chair Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the NRSC did not endorse or wade into any open primary contests.

    “I believe we ought to let the voters do it,” Scott said in a brief interview. “But you know, that’s the nice thing about the job. Everybody gets to try what they believe works.”

    Others also expressed reservations. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said he has “mixed feelings” about the NRSC taking on a more active role in primaries.

    “The quality of candidates matters a great deal, and we should be interested in it as a conference and as a party,” Cramer said. He noted, however, that the decision should be made locally “by the people who are qualified to vote in that particular election.”

    Getting involved in primaries doesn’t often mean a party committee is dumping millions on TV ads to sway voters. Party officials can work behind the scenes to dissuade certain candidates, while boosting and directing resources to others.

    “Since the new management has come in at the senatorial committee, there’s been a realistic appraisal of where and how Republicans came up short in 2022,” said Steven Law, president of the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC tied to McConnell.

    “The previous regime had an explicit view that all candidates were good and they ought not to be playing favorites at all,” Law added, saying that the most successful approach is often for Republicans to be “highly selective” about when to engage.

    In the House, lofty predictions of a sweeping GOP win crumbled on election night. Instead, McCarthy struggled to cobble together enough votes from his narrow majority to assume the speakership.

    Again, party strategists blamed the candidates. There was Majewski, who lost a GOP-leaning Ohio district after misrepresenting his military service. Kent, a far-right Trump enthusiast with ties to white nationalists, lost a Washington State district that was in GOP hands for years. In North Carolina, Bo Hines, a 27-year-old former college football player who moved to a swing seat where he had few ties, also lost to a Democrat.

    Privately, party leaders estimate poor quality candidates cost them roughly a half-dozen seats in the House, a huge margin given the current four-seat majority in the House.

    “We need to have an eye on, ‘How do you win the general?’ And we’ve got to be careful,” said moderate Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), noting that his party needs a “counter” for when House Democrats meddle in GOP primaries.

    He expressed skepticism about the NRCC’s policy on primary intervention: “To fight with one arm behind your back is not smart,” Bacon said of staying out of the process of picking nominees.

    But House Republicans are not planning to aggressively pick primary winners.

    “The NRCC has historically not endorsed in open Republican primaries and that will not change for the upcoming cycle,” said Jack Pandol, a spokesperson for the committee.

    Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the new NRCC chair, is inheriting many of the problem candidates from last cycle.

    Kent has already launched another run while Hines filed paperwork to do the same. Majewski wrote in a Facebook post that he’s heard from “hundreds of voters encouraging” him to run and that he will make a decision soon.

    Outside groups working to protect the House majority are likely to be active in primaries, including the Congressional Leadership Fund, a well-funded super PAC aligned with McCarthy.

    “In battleground districts, primaries are all about electability,” said Dan Conston, the group’s president. “Swing voters have proven they are incredibly discerning, and candidate quality can make or break us.”

    Ideological divisions within the House GOP conference make diving into primaries to pick winners a political minefield. In the protracted speaker’s race, the anti-tax Club for Growth agreed to endorse McCarthy’s bid for the gavel — if CLF vowed to refrain from playing in primaries in open, safe Republican seats (something it did only rarely).

    The definition of what constitutes a safe seat was left open-ended.

    David McIntosh, the Club’s president, told reporters he believed that a seat with a partisan voter index of R+6 or R+7 would be “pretty safe,” but he said the two groups would keep in contact.

    “The good thing coming out of that is we’ve got a channel of communication. We’ve got a general agreement,” McIntosh said. If differences of opinion arise, “I’m pretty confident we’ll work it out.”

    [ad_2]
    #Midterm #losers #threaten #crowd #GOP #primaries
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )