The News Caravan

Tag: GOP

  • GOP dances around Trump’s indictment

    GOP dances around Trump’s indictment

    [ad_1]

    senate security threats 10572

    Turner, the House Intelligence chair, also gently broke from Trump’s assertions that Russia will eventually take all of Ukraine: “It’s certainly not inevitable … there’s a number of people I think that should just stop the speculation.” He did not call Trump out by name, though. He also lamented that “it’s one thing when you have a cancel culture, it’s another one when you have a cancel criminal justice system.”

    The coming indictment marks only the beginning of what will be a huge debate within the GOP on whether Trump should be nominated for a third consecutive presidential election. He’s facing other legal woes beyond the hush money case, and each controversy stands to test his support among elected Republicans desperate to retake the White House. At the moment, many conservatives are not officially supporting his bid.

    And now nearly eight years since Trump entered the political ring, it remains truer than ever that many Republicans loathe discussing Trump’s endless penchant for controversy. Even Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who took a massive political risk in voting to convict Trump in his impeachment trial in 2021, is uninterested in rehashing his opinion on Trump.

    As Trump will likely face charges over his handling of hush money payments to an adult film star, Cassidy repeated the same phrase as Manchin nearly word-for-word: “No one should be above the law, but no one should be a target of the law.”

    “The particular problem is that it’s going to lead to all kinds of political theater, theater that is going to distract from the issues,” Cassidy said on “Fox News Sunday.” After raising fears that Social Security benefits will be cut without action, he lamented of both President Joe Biden and Trump: “Neither of the two leading candidates will take the issue on. That’s frustrating.”

    Trumpian conservatives don’t generally flock to TV news networks each weekend, and often take their pugnacious defensive style to right-leaning networks. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that some Republicans would consider retribution through the spending process over what he sees as the targeting of Trump by the federal government.

    “We control the power of the purse, and we’re going to look at the appropriations process and limit funds going to some of these agencies, particularly the ones engaged in the most egregious behavior,” Jordan said. He called the Bragg case “ridiculous.”

    That some of the most animated support of Trump on Sunday came from his own defense team highlights the fractional support the president still has in both chambers of Congress. And even his lawyers couldn’t fully defend Trump, who has attacked New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan as someone who “hates me.”

    Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina said on CNN that while Trump certainly had a right to take issue with any aspect of the case, he personally has “no issue with this judge whatsoever.”

    If there was a memorable moment over the weekend within the GOP, it may be former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s announcement of a 2024 president campaign. He immediately called on Trump to drop out of the race amid the indictment, a call even Trump’s latest campaign rival admitted would be summarily ignored.

    “The office is more important than any individual person. For the sake of the office of the presidency, I do think that is too much of a side show,” Hutchinson said on ABC’s “This Week.” He added: “At the same time, we know he’s not” going to drop out.

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has flirted with another presidential bid, questioned on ABC whether Trump’s prosecution is “really about increasing the public safety of the people of Manhattan” but also said an indictment can’t be good news for Trump: “All this bravado from the Trump camp is baloney.”

    The comment illustrated Republicans’ quandary: Criticizing Trump too directly over the matter could lose conservative support, even if on its face an indictment clearly hurts the former president’s general election prospects.

    Marc Short, a former chief of staff for former Vice President Mike Pence, did not take Hutchinson’s tack either and said on Fox “it’s right for Republicans to denounce” the indictment.

    So even as they very much don’t defend Trump on the particulars of the case over a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign, some Republicans are doing their best to channel their inner Manchin — with a twist.

    “People need to ask themselves a fundamental question. If this were anyone but Trump, would this DA even take up this case?” asked Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) on CNN’s “State of the Union. He added that former presidents “should definitely not be immune from criminal charges. It’s just that this one is as weak as it can get.”

    [ad_2]
    #GOP #dances #Trumps #indictment
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • ‘Unlawful political interference’: Bragg defends Trump indictment against GOP attacks

    ‘Unlawful political interference’: Bragg defends Trump indictment against GOP attacks

    [ad_1]

    The letter was sent a day after Bragg’s office acknowledged that they had issued the first-ever indictment of a former president. Officials have also indicated they are working with Trump’s lawyers to negotiate his surrender. Though the timing of both his surrender and arraignment hasn’t been finalized, they are tentatively planned for Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    It’s uncharted territory for the legal system, the government and the country, which has never seen the indictment and prosecution of a former president. Though the precise evidence against Trump remains unknown, the case appears centered on hush money payments to a porn actress, Stormy Daniels, in 2016 to silence her allegations of a sexual relationship during Trump’s first presidential bid.

    The indictment, which remains under seal, prompted a torrent of attacks from Trump’s allies, many of whom denounced it as a political witch hunt. While Trump himself has called for protests in the streets — and on Friday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) echoed that call — most House Republicans have instead vowed to train a microscope on the Democratic district attorney, requesting information and documents about the probe.

    Bragg’s office used the letter to the lawmakers, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, to respond to those allegations of political bias.

    “Like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court and avail himself of all processes and protections that New York State’s robust criminal procedure affords. What neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings in New York State,” the letter reads.

    State judge Juan Merchan is expected to preside over the arraignment and may ultimately be called upon to preside over the criminal proceedings, according to a person familiar with the process.

    Bragg’s office also used the letter to plead with Capitol Hill Republicans to encourage calm, accusing them of engaging in “unlawful political interference” in the same breath.

    “We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference,” Dubeck wrote in the letter to Judiciary, Oversight and Administration Chairs Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.) and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.).

    “As Committee Chairmen, you could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury,” she continued. “Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the Office’s investigation, conducted via an independent grand jury of average citizens serving New York State, is politically motivated.”

    Trump dialed up his rhetoric Friday, taking aim this time at Merchan, the judge he anticipates would be presiding over his case.

    “The Judge ‘assigned’ to my Witch Hunt Case … HATES ME,” Trump posted on social media, complaining about Merchan’s handling of the separate proceedings brought by the district attorney’s office against the Trump Organization, which Trump said Merchan treated “viciously.”

    Bragg’s office suggested that the House GOP inquiries appeared to be functioning more as interference for Trump than as legitimate congressional oversight, a concern Dubeck said was “heightened” by some of the committee members’ own statements about their goals.

    She cited Greene’s statement that “Republicans in Congress MUST subpoena these communists and END this!” as well as Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) call to scrutinize lawmakers who are “being silent on what is currently happening to Trump.”

    From a legal standpoint, individual lawmakers’ comments and motives aren’t typically given weight when a congressional committee takes actions. Trump routinely pointed to the comments of individual committee members’ plans to make use of his tax returns in his failed efforts to block Congress’ effort to obtain them.

    Greene called for Trump supporters to gather Tuesday in New York, indicating she would be there herself. “We MUST protest the unconstitutional WITCH HUNT!” she tweeted. Her tweet was a departure from her reaction a day after Trump first suggested that he could be arrested, when she told reporters on the sidelines of the House GOP retreat that she would not be going to New York.

    As of Friday, though, there were no indications of significant street protests or organized activities centered on the courthouse. Bragg arrived at around 7:30 a.m., amid signs of significantly heightened security, with little other movement aside from a large media presence.

    In her letter, Dubeck also provided some details about the federal funding Bragg’s office has used in connection with Trump-related matters — money that House Republicans have suggested could now be under threat because of the indictment. Additionally, House Republicans received a second document on Friday detailing federal grant money the office has obtained.

    None of that federal grant funding, she noted, has been used in the current investigation. She said the office has spent approximately $5,000 of federal funds — funds that the district attorney’s office helped recover during forfeiture actions — on expenses related to the investigation of Trump or the Trump organization.

    “These expenses were incurred between October 2019 and August 2021,” Dubeck noted, adding that most were used to support Bragg’s predecessor’s successful defense of its probe of the Trump organization before the Supreme Court.

    A spokesperson for Jordan didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter from Bragg’s office. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y) said at an event on Friday that Republicans should “cease their intervention in an ongoing prosecution in a local prosecutor’s office.”

    But House Republicans have already started laying some groundwork for a potential subpoena of the Manhattan district attorney, a move they haven’t publicly ruled out. They also appeared to make the case in their second letter to Bragg that they believe a subpoena would survive a legal challenge.

    Comer, who noted that he hasn’t spoken with Trump recently, called the indictment a “political stunt” but said he needed more information before Republicans decided where to go next.

    “I think before the next step we’ll have to see what, in fact, these charges were and then go from there,” Comer said in an interview on Friday.

    Dubeck, in her letter, urged them to reach a “negotiated resolution … before taking the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of serving a subpoena on a district attorney for information related to an ongoing state criminal prosecution.”

    Wesley Parnell contributed to this story.



    [ad_2]
    #Unlawful #political #interference #Bragg #defends #Trump #indictment #GOP #attacks
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • A popular phrase coined by a judge in 1985 led to the appearance of ham sandwiches on the Hill on Friday, another show of support for Donald Trump by a GOP lawmaker.

    A popular phrase coined by a judge in 1985 led to the appearance of ham sandwiches on the Hill on Friday, another show of support for Donald Trump by a GOP lawmaker.

    [ad_1]

    gettyimages 1404279270 1
    Barry Moore offered ham and cheese sandwiches from his office in Longworth.

    [ad_2]
    #popular #phrase #coined #judge #led #appearance #ham #sandwiches #Hill #Friday #show #support #Donald #Trump #GOP #lawmaker
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Senators voted down two more GOP amendments — on Ukraine and Afghanistan — as they prepare to wrap debate on repealing the 1991 and 2022 Iraq AUMFs. 

    Senators voted down two more GOP amendments — on Ukraine and Afghanistan — as they prepare to wrap debate on repealing the 1991 and 2022 Iraq AUMFs. 

    [ad_1]

    senate budget 08817
    Opponents of both measures said the bill was not the proper place for the ideas.

    [ad_2]
    #Senators #voted #GOP #amendments #Ukraine #Afghanistan #prepare #wrap #debate #repealing #Iraq #AUMFs
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race could be the beginning of the end for GOP dominance

    Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race could be the beginning of the end for GOP dominance

    [ad_1]

    “Wisconsinites are very familiar with hearing ‘this is the most important election of our lifetime,’” said Sarah Godlewski, a Democrat who was recently appointed to be the Wisconsin secretary of state after running for the Senate last year. But, she emphasized, this race is actually incredibly “consequential” for the longer-term political control of the state.

    A liberal takeover of the supreme court could even be a factor in the race for control of the U.S. House in 2024.

    A win by Democrat-backed Janet Protasiewicz — which could shift control of the court from a one-seat advantage for conservatives to a 4-3 liberal majority — could have a domino effect in the state. She is facing former state Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly, the conservative candidate backed by the state GOP in the technically non-partisan race.

    Most immediately, the court will likely decide the fate of abortion rights in Wisconsin; that and crime have been the focus of much of the debate surrounding the race. But there’s another hugely consequential matter the court could take up: a challenge to the state’s congressional district and legislative lines. And an adverse ruling for Republicans would pose a direct threat to the delegation’s GOP-heavy makeup.

    Currently, Republicans have a near-ironclad hold on the state legislature, a fact that has hamstrung Democratic Gov. Tony Evers throughout his two terms. The GOP is a few seats shy of a supermajority in the state Assembly, and a special election for a red-leaning state Senate seat on Tuesday will determine if the GOP hits the two-thirds mark in the state Senate again.

    The state’s congressional delegation, meanwhile, is 6-2 Republican — four safe Republican seats, two deep blue Democratic districts and a pair of red-leaning but potentially competitive districts that the GOP carried in the midterms.

    But that GOP dominance is built upon conservative-friendly state and congressional district maps — lines that Democrats are itching to challenge in court.

    Wisconsin’s congressional and legislative lines went through lengthy court fights following the 2020 census, after the GOP-controlled legislature and Evers could not reach an agreement on the maps. After a series of rulings from both the state and U.S. Supreme Courts, the state landed on its current legislative and congressional lines.

    The U.S. House map ultimately selected by the state Supreme Court was one proposed by Evers — but it was still one that heavily favored Republicans because the court previously ruled the maps must be based on the last decade’s lines.

    A win for Protasiewicz could reopen those decisions. Broadly, operatives on both sides believe a redrawn map could endanger the seats of Reps. Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden, the two Republicans who represent the red-leaning seats. And the district of Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) could be redrawn to become more competitive.

    More than $37 million has already been spent on the race as of late last week, according to WisPolitics.com — easily the record for spending on a state Supreme Court race anywhere in the country. But even with the stakes riding on the election, those involved say the contest is still running into the same attention gap that off-year elections face.

    “For people that aren’t paying attention, it seems hard to believe that there’s a spring election that has cataclysmic importance,” said Ben Wikler, the chair of the state Democratic Party. “And breaking through that natural skepticism to convey that fact is maybe the central challenge in this organizing push.”

    Operatives on both sides believe the race between the two candidates is close, though there have been no nonpartisan public polls.

    In the only debate between Protasiewicz and Kelly that took place last week, Protasiewicz criticized the maps, saying they were unfair. “I don’t think anybody thinks those maps are fair. Anybody,” she said during the debate. “The question is am I able to fairly make a decision on a case. Of course I would.”

    Some Republicans have attacked these comments, saying she is projecting how she would rule in cases. “I think that it really goes beyond the partisan makeup of the legislature or what the congressional delegation is going to be,” state Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, a Republican, said in an interview. “It really goes to ‘are we going to start to allow Supreme Court justices to just make unilateral decisions?’”

    But even setting aside the outcome of Tuesday’s election, there is significant uncertainty over what role the Wisconsin Supreme Court will play in redistricting in the future. There is a case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court that risks cutting state supreme courts out of that role in most federal election questions.

    Perhaps even more consequential than any would-be redistricting case is the potential for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rule on the outcome of a future election — including the 2024 presidential race. In the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, the state Supreme Court tossed then-President Donald Trump’s challenge to the outcome in the state. At the time, Justice Brian Hagedorn — a conservative who still serves on the court and has been a swing vote in other big cases — joined the liberal minority on the case.

    The most glaring near-term issue the court will grapple with, however, is abortion rights. The state currently has an 1840s law on the books banning abortion in almost all circumstances. A challenge to that law is expected to eventually land in front of the state Supreme Court, but abortion providers in the state have, in the interim, stopped performing the procedure.

    Earlier this month, Republican Assembly leaders put forward a proposal to allow for the procedure in cases of rape or incest up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, along with clarifying a “health of the mother” exception. But Republican Senate leaders promised to not take it up, and Evers said he would veto it. Soon after, the governor introduced his own proposal to repeal the 1849 law, but it will not pass the legislature.

    Protasiewicz and her allies are hoping the issue will propel her to victory, as it did for many Democrats last fall who outperformed expectations in the midterms. But the race has attracted significant attention from both pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion groups, who say their supporters have been fired up by the contest.

    Gracie Skogman, the legislative and PAC director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said there has been an “unprecedented” response from anti-abortion advocates. “I have been truly shocked to see the amount of people who are willing to be involved in this election. That was very unexpected for us,” she added.

    [ad_2]
    #Wisconsins #Supreme #Court #race #beginning #GOP #dominance
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • ‘It’s a powerful effect’: Austin fires back at GOP senator’s blockade of military promotions

    ‘It’s a powerful effect’: Austin fires back at GOP senator’s blockade of military promotions

    [ad_1]

    us russia ukraine war 33376

    “There are a number of things happening globally that indicate that we could be in a contest on any one given day,” Austin said. “Not approving the recommendations for promotions actually creates a ripple effect through the force that makes us far less ready than we need to be.”

    “The effects are cumulative and it will affect families. It will affect kids going to schools because they won’t be able to change their duty station,” he added. “It’s a powerful effect and will impact on our readiness.”

    On the other side is Tuberville, a member of the Armed Services Committee, who is following through on a threat to object to quick confirmations of Pentagon civilian nominees and senior military officer promotions after Austin rolled out policies that cover expenses and permit leave for troops who have to travel to obtain abortions.

    President Joe Biden’s civilian nominees have been mired in Senate gridlock for much of his term. But senior military promotions typically cruise to Senate approval with little opposition, with the chamber sometimes approving hundreds of moves at once.

    The volume of senior military promotions makes it harder for Senate Democrats to get around Tuberville’s objections than it is for civilian nominees. And Tuberville has indicated he won’t stop his obstruction of nominees unless the abortion policy is reversed or suspended.

    Tuberville and Austin spoke last week, but the Alabama Republican hasn’t budged. Tuberville’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who teed up the question at Tuesday’s hearing, agreed with Austin. He warned of senior military positions that would come open in the coming months, including the next Joint Chiefs chair.

    “As I look forward, I have never in my almost three decades here seen so many key military positions coming up for replacement,” Reed said.

    “If we cannot resolve the situation, we will be, in many respects, leaderless at a time of great conflict,” the chair warned. “So, I would hope we would expedite and move quickly on this front.”

    A Defense Department official said the Pentagon projects that, between now and the end of the year, 650 general and flag officers will require Senate confirmation. Eighty of those are three and four-star generals or admirals, the official noted.

    A plethora of senior military leaders are set to retire in the coming months, including top officers in the Marine Corps, Navy and Army. Multiple combatant commanders, including the heads of U.S. Northern Command, Space Command and Cyber Command, are also set to rotate out of their posts.

    Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley, who testified alongside Austin, is also set to retire in the fall when his four-year term as the military’s top officer expires.

    Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has noted that the list includes officers tapped to command naval forces in the Pacific and Middle East, as well as a military representative to the NATO Military Committee.

    In a speech Monday criticizing Tuberville, Schumer said the impasse risks “permanently politicizing the confirmation of military personnel.”

    “If every single one of us objected to the promotion of military personnel whenever we feel passionately or strongly about an issue, our military would simply grind to a halt,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

    Paul McLeary and Lara Seligman contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #powerful #effect #Austin #fires #GOP #senators #blockade #military #promotions
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • From drag shows to pronouns: Florida GOP takes aim at LGBTQ issues

    From drag shows to pronouns: Florida GOP takes aim at LGBTQ issues

    [ad_1]

    “It is maddening and it is sad to see the continuous attack of people who are quote unquote, other,” state Rep. Michell Raynor-Goolsby, a Democrat from St. Petersburg and the state’s first Black female queer legislator, said in an interview. “And that is what we’re seeing in this legislature, in this body, through the different types of legislation that is passed by the majority.”

    Florida’s Legislature is known for fulfilling DeSantis’ big priorities, such as approving last year’s redistricting maps that gave the GOP a 20-8 congressional seat advantage over Democrats. But legislators are now in overdrive ahead of DeSantis’ expected 2024 presidential announcement — just four weeks into the 60-day annual session, lawmakers already sent a handful of bills to the governor. And the culture war focused bills on gender identity and sexual identity will give DeSantis a list of legislative victories he can use while campaigning for the conservative base.

    A spokesperson said the DeSantis administration doesn’t typically comment on pending legislation, but in general stated that the governor “is a staunch defender of a parent’s right to be informed about and involved in their child’s education; believes that sexually explicit content is not appropriate to display to children; and believes that children should not be encouraged to physically or chemically alter their bodies for life.”

    Republican lawmakers in the supermajority claim their intent is to protect kids and improve education, not discriminate. Members of LGBTQ community, however, contend they’re being slighted and disenfranchised by the legislation that GOP lawmakers are rapidly advancing in the Capitol.

    GOP Florida House Speaker Paul Renner said that lawmakers are legislating issues that children should not have to face in the first place.

    “We need to stop all of this stuff, whether it’s these crazy books that are on library shelves, and just focus on reading, math and core knowledge to succeed in life,” Renner said in an interview. “That is a bipartisan issue — something we all agree with.”

    Gender identity and sexual orientation

    One of the bills lawmakers are considering would expand Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, labeled by critics as “Don’t Say Gay.” This proposal is set to broaden the state’s prohibition on teaching about sexual identity and gender orientation to pre-k through eighth grade. It also targets how school staff and students can use pronouns on K-12 campuses, stipulating that it would be “false to ascribe” someone with a pronoun that “does not correspond to such person’s sex.”

    Florida’s Department of Education is also looking to broaden “Don’t Say Gay” to 12th grade, a proposal that doesn’t need legislative approval and has drawn objections from Democrats and LGBTQ advocates.

    Opponents of the legislation, such as advocacy groups Equality Florida and PRISM, claim it is effectively expanding the “censorship and attacks” on LGBTQ families in the state from last year’s law. They point to “sweeping censorship” that followed in 2022, like schools asking teachers to hide pictures of same-sex spouses from their desks.

    “You have the choice to uplift students, to let them feel seen or heard, to learn about the reality of our world, or … to erase 25 percent of students in schools today from their classrooms,” Maxx Fenning, a University of Florida student and president of PRISM, and LGBTQ advocacy group, recently told lawmakers.

    Republican legislators, however, argue that the intent of the parental rights law has been misinterpreted. Instead, they blame local school districts for “abusing” last year’s legislation that was meant to regulate classroom instruction by misinterpreting and politicizing the issue.

    “What many school districts have done with that bill is terrible,” state GOP Rep. Randy Fine said during a bill hearing Thursday. “Because they have acted in bad faith to take a bill that they knew did not do those things. And, in order to try to score political points, they have actually done what they say they’re trying to stop to hurt people.”

    Florida conservatives also are criticizing advocacy groups, claiming they are helping “blow out of proportion” the effects of the legislation by also politicizing the issue. As a result, Republican lawmakers claim naysayers are only hearing one side of the debate, maintaining that the proposal “doesn’t do anything to hurt children, but to protect children.”

    “Opponents of this bill, especially the media, they want you to believe a manufactured narrative, one that they created, one that contradicts the substance and the purpose of this good bill,” said state Rep. Adam Anderson (R-Palm Harbor), a cosponsor of the House’s parental rights expansion.

    But many Democrats disagree and see it as an attempt by DeSantis to excite the conservative base and, ultimately, win the GOP 2024 presidential nomination.

    “The governor will be filing for president soon,” Florida House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell told reporters Monday. “Our suspicion is that he wants to get as many of his priorities out of the way so that they will already be passed, and perhaps he can even sign them into law before he makes his announcement.”

    Drag shows

    Republican lawmakers are also pushing legislation that will ban children from attending drag shows with “lewd” performances, an effort that comes after DeSantis called for tighter regulations and said such events “sexualize” kids.

    In February, the DeSantis administration filed a complaint against the Orlando Philharmonic Plaza Foundation for hosting “A Drag Queen Christmas,” a performance advertised for all ages that the state alleged was explicit and inappropriate for children. But the Miami Herald found that undercover state agents attending the event reported that they saw nothing indecent at the show.

    Democrats contend the legislation aims to scare drag performers and the LGBTQ community while performers testified that the bill was an all-out attack on the drag community.

    Renner said the efforts by Republicans on gender dysphoria and drag shows were in response to what he claimed are adults pushing their lifestyles on children.

    “I think the point of our members, and our side of the aisle, is let kids be kids,” Renner said. “There’s a time for them to make decisions about sexual issues, and they will do so and we will support whatever their decision is when they become adults.”

    During a Friday House committee meeting, Fine, the sponsor of the drag show bill, said he would fight for drag performers even if he isn’t interested in watching them. “I don’t want to go, but I will fight like hell to make sure you can do it,” Fine said. “But leave the children out of it.”

    In fighting against bills advancing through the Legislature, Democrats say that conservatives are slighting the LGBTQ community in an attempt to increase the rights for parents. Policies like restricting the use of pronouns are ostracizing students, making them feel like refugees in their own country, said state Rep. Marie Woodson (D-Hollywood).

    “I’m from Haiti, I know what it feels like,” Woodson said. “I know how it feels to be disrespected, I know how it feels not be acknowledged, I know how it feels to … feel different than anybody else. And this is how those kids are feeling, they cannot be themselves. Who am I to judge them?”

    [ad_2]
    #drag #shows #pronouns #Florida #GOP #takes #aim #LGBTQ #issues
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Christie sees a lane in the GOP primary: Trump destroyer

    Christie sees a lane in the GOP primary: Trump destroyer

    [ad_1]

    election 2024 republicans 82593

    Christie’s former supporters in New Hampshire hope it’ll be him.

    “We definitely need somebody strong and optimistic,” said Hillary Seeger, a conservative activist who backed Christie’s 2016 presidential bid. “We need to have somebody that can win the primary and the general election.”

    Christie reunited a group of his New Hampshire backers on Monday night, when he returned to the state for a town hall at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics — a prerequisite for any presidential hopeful — followed by a private dinner with close friends, former supporters and some donors.

    Christie was cagey about whether he is actually running for president again. But if he is — he’s said a decision could come in 45 to 60 days — he spelled out a clear lane for himself as Trump’s critic in chief.

    Christie doesn’t see one in what is shaping up to be the 2024 Republican field.

    “They’re going to wriggle right up next to him and say ‘I’m almost like him, but I’m not quite as bad,’” Christie said of his would-be rivals. “Let me tell you something, everybody. That’s going to lose as certain as he lost in ‘20, as we lost the House in ‘18, as we lost the Senate in ‘21, as we underperformed in ‘22.”

    Christie later told reporters that “no one has to wonder” whether he’s got the chutzpah to take on Trump.

    But just as Christie puffed up his own abilities, one audience member at Saint Anselm College openly questioned his credentials in that arena. Christie had plenty of opportunities to take down Trump in 2016, before he dropped out after a dismal sixth-place finish in New Hampshire’s primary, so why didn’t he do it then?

    Christie chalked his performance in that primary up to “strategic error” — one that he doesn’t plan on making again.

    “Trump said a few weeks ago: I am your retribution. Guess what everybody? No thanks,” Christie said. “The only person he cares about is him. And if we haven’t learned that since Election Day 2020 until today, we’re not paying attention.”

    Christie also took direct shots at former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — hitting the former for not doing more to stand up to Trump and the latter over his mangled forays into foreign policy.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not a “territorial dispute,” as DeSantis said in now-walked-back remarks, but an act of “authoritarian aggression,” Christie said. And the U.S. doesn’t have to worry about being dragged into a “proxy war” with China over Ukraine — as DeSantis suggested — because “we’re in one.”

    But even as he jabbed his would-be rivals, Christie also spoke repeatedly of injecting optimism and civility back into politics that these days is defined by “anger and retribution.”

    And his old supporters who gathered in Manchester on Monday consider that to be a selling point for potential presidential candidates like Christie and New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, another moderate-leaning Republican considering a run.

    “You have Trump, and you have the alternative to Trump,” former New Hampshire GOP Chair Wayne MacDonald, who chaired Christie’s 2016 campaign in New Hampshire. “Once you start comparing his record in New Jersey with DeSantis’ record in Florida, you’re going to see a much more viable and effective leader than Governor DeSantis is. And I think that’s going to enable him to emerge as the alternative to President Trump.”

    [ad_2]
    #Christie #sees #lane #GOP #primary #Trump #destroyer
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Manhattan DA, House GOP chairs ramp up battle over Trump investigation

    Manhattan DA, House GOP chairs ramp up battle over Trump investigation

    [ad_1]

    da bragg 25606

    Jordan, Comer and Steil, in their Saturday letter, set a new deadline of March 31 for a swath of documents they are requesting regarding Bragg’s office, including any related to potential federal funding of or involvement in his work. They also doubled down on their request for Bragg to provide testimony behind closed doors.

    Those requests are currently voluntary since Republicans haven’t issued a subpoena for either the documents or an interview with Bragg. The GOP chairs haven’t ruled out trying to compel him and, in their letter, they appear to briefly argue that a subpoena would meet the bar for having legal legs.

    “Your reply letter did not dispute the central allegations at issue—that you, under political pressure from left-wing activists and former prosecutors in your office, are reportedly planning to use an alleged federal campaign finance violation … [to] indict for the first time in history a former President of the United States,” Jordan, Comer and Steil wrote in their letter.

    Bragg is reportedly preparing for the possibility that the former president will be indicted on charges related to alleged hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Bragg, in his statement on Saturday night, hit back at the accusation of playing politics, saying that his office evaluates “cases in our jurisdiction based on the facts, the law and the evidence.”

    “This unprecedented inquiry by federal elected officials into an ongoing matter serves only to hinder, disrupt and undermine the legitimate work of our dedicated prosecutors. As always, we will continue to follow the facts and be guided by the rule of law in everything we do,” Bragg added.

    Bragg’s office didn’t immediately respond to questions about if they would be sending a separate, formal response to House Republicans responding to their latest letter.

    The investigation by House Republicans is raising questions about the scope of Congress’ jurisdiction over state and local criminal matters. Leslie Dubeck, Bragg’s general counsel, wrote in a letter to House Republicans earlier this week that Bragg’s office would submit a letter describing its use of federal funds, while emphasizing that questions about the office’s use of federal funds does not justify a congressional attempt to unearth nonpublic information about the ongoing probe.

    The GOP lawmakers, in their letter, argued that they weren’t overstepping jurisdictional boundaries because they could use Bragg’s testimony and the documents to pass potential legislation. The letter provides new details on what House Republicans could pursue in response to the investigation into Trump, including legislation to “insulate current and former presidents from such improper state and local prosecutions,” reforms to special counsel authorities, changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act and to how Congress dishes out public safety funds.

    “We believe that we now must consider whether Congress should take legislative action to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials, and if so, how those protections should be structured,” the GOP chairs added.

    [ad_2]
    #Manhattan #House #GOP #chairs #ramp #battle #Trump #investigation
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • How Pro Wrestling Explains Today’s GOP

    How Pro Wrestling Explains Today’s GOP

    [ad_1]

    ringmaster illo2

    Kruse: Former Trump campaign adviser Sam Nunberg told you there are only two people in the whole world whose calls Trump would take alone — Mark Burnett and Vince McMahon. And you say McMahon is likely the closest thing to a friend that Donald Trump has. Beyond the reality that Trump is a preternaturally lonely man, why do you say that?

    Riesman: I talked to a lot of Republican operatives. Trump and Vince are extremely close. I think he likes to talk to Vince. I think Vince and he understand each other. I think he greatly admires and looks up to Vince. And that you can just find from his tweets — that’s something that’s very much on the record — it is a consistent picture of, you know, this is a great man, Trump referring to Vince, this is somebody who has a good philosophy, this is somebody who knows how to thrill an audience. And for better or worse, we’re shaped by our role models.

    Kruse: For our readers who certainly know politics but might not know pro wrestling, what is kayfabe, rhymes with hey, babe, and what is neokayfabe? And what specifically is neokayfabe in the context of politics today?

    Riesman: Kayfabe is this old multipurpose term that emerges from traveling circuses, which is where wrestling emerges from. It is all centered around the big lie of wrestling, of pro wrestling, theatrical wrestling, for the first century of its existence. And that big lie was that what you see in the ring is what you get — that it’s real, that this is a legitimate sporting competition. Everybody had to be in character. You really had to commit to it anytime you were out in public. What happens in the mid- to late ’80s is Vince takes power at his father’s company, buys it from his father, and he starts making this product that is a lot more outlandishly ridiculous in some ways than any wrestling that had come before — stuff that was just so obviously entertainment and not a sport that he started calling his product sports entertainment.

    And kayfabe is basically over at that point, and wrestling sort of flounders for a number of years. It’s very difficult for the promoters in that period to get people interested because old kayfabe is gone. The suspension of disbelief isn’t there anymore. So what ends up happening, and it’s not just Vince that does it, but it’s Vince who really codifies it, is you get this phenomenon that I, perhaps vainly, have named neokayfabe. You are operating not with the assumption that what you’re seeing is real; in fact, you are operating with the very firm belief that what you were seeing is fake. But in that fakeness, a promoter or a wrestler will toss in little bits of seemingly behind-the-scenes truth, what appears to be behind-the-scenes truth, in the context of this wider lie. And that I think should hopefully sound familiar to all of us who pay attention to politics these days.

    Think about Trump. He would say stuff you’re not supposed to say, and that was what everyone who loved him said about him. I mean, Frank Rich wrote a story for the magazine that I was working at about how Trump was saving our democracy — this was in 2015 — saying that he was saying what other people weren’t willing to say about how stupid this system was and maybe that would wake people up. Well, I don’t know that it woke people up to make them change the world for the better, but it certainly grabbed their attention. And that’s all that matters. That’s all that matters now. Can you grab people’s attention? And Vince figured out a while ago that a great way to grab people’s attention is just have people say the unsayable and do the unthinkable and toss out things that are true. I think the parallel is kind of obvious, and I hope that this is a moment where we can sort of wake up to the fact that the strategy of just fact-checking the other side doesn’t work. Because that’s not what fascism believes. It doesn’t believe in consistency. It doesn’t believe in all the truth or all the lie. It believes in total chaos. And that’s what we have under neokayfabe.

    Kruse: The well-meaning fact checkers did not imbibe the lessons of professional wrestling in the ’80s and ’90s.

    Riesman: They didn’t.

    Kruse: You make the point in a number of places and in a number of ways that this is not just a Trump thing. That it is the generations of the children of the ’80s and ’90s. And that it is a both-sides-of-the-aisle phenomenon.

    Riesman: Wrestling was a widespread phenomenon for millennials when we were in our impressionable teen years. I do think you have an easier time translating the ideology of neokayfabe into politics if you’re operating within a party that is really resolutely anti-truth — the Republicans now. That said, I do think the phenomenon of neokayfabe, such as it is, has infected both parties. The parties aren’t the same. I would never say that. I’m saying both parties have interests and have advantages when it comes to saying one thing, meaning another and then saying yet a third thing and meaning a fourth thing. These layers of confusion are advantageous for politicians.

    Kruse: And one of the more interesting arguments in this book is the idea that the generation that grew up with wrestling is now running stuff or about to run stuff and that matters a lot. How are Republicans and Democrats both doing politics differently now because they watched Hulk Hogan in the ’80s and ’90s?

    Riesman: We learned that the most important thing is entertaining people — basically the most important thing is pushing people’s buttons. And also learning that you can be a heel and be successful — you can be somebody who is hated and you can profit off that hatred.

    Kruse: Attention above all else, button-pushing over policy-making …

    Riesman: And success in being hated. That’s such a key part of the Trump phenomenon. People think that by hating him and tweeting about how bad he is they’re somehow stabbing against him. But that’s the same way that people thought they were making a point of taking down Vince McMahon by buying T-shirts that say “Stone Cold” because “Stone Cold” Steve Austin was Vince’s rival in a storyline. But Vince McMahon owns it. He makes all the money off the T-shirt. That’s what happens with Trump. And not just Trump. George Santos. Any number of politicians. It’s how you succeed now.

    Kruse: It pays to be the heel just as much or maybe even more than it pays to be “the face.”

    Riesman: Oh, I would say much more. Being the face doesn’t pay because you’re always going to have another side that reflexively hates you. You’re not going to win over the other side. Whereas if you’re a heel, you have one side loving you, and the other side you’re profiting off their hatred. It’s the only way to actually make it now.

    [ad_2]
    #Pro #Wrestling #Explains #Todays #GOP
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )