Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday night refused to engage in a discussion about the potential looming indictment against former President Donald Trump in New York City.
The Democrat, who stepped down from House leadership this year, was asked during a Wall Street Journal speaking event about whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump, involving alleged hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels, was the "right vehicle for challenging" him – or whether it will boost his chances of winning the 2024 Republican nomination.
"I think that’s a matter for the courts," Pelosi answered. "The grand jury will vote and decide on the basis of evidence they have, as to whether there should be any follow-up to that information."
"It’s not for any of us to say whether he should be indicted or not, it’s the basis of the law, and the facts, and that’s up to the court. So that’s all I’ll say about him," she said.
Pelosi ended the answer with a jab at Trump, her former political nemesis that she refused to name: "I don’t like talking about him."
That response was relatively reserved for the lawmaker who spearheaded two different impeachment inquiries into the former GOP commander in chief when she was House speaker.
Trump had said on his Truth Social app last week that he expected to be indicted in Bragg’s probe on Tuesday. No indictment was announced, but reports suggest a decision on possible charges could come as early as Wednesday afternoon. Fox News Digital reported on Monday that he had not yet been informed of a coming indictment at the time.
Pelosi is not the only Trump critic who’s been reserved in their responses to the explosive rumors.
Two GOP senators who have been known to break from Trump on multiple occasions hesitated to weigh in on the matter when asked by Fox News Digital on Monday evening.
"I’m really not going to comment on this until we know what happens," said Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital when asked if an indictment should disqualify Trump from seeking the nomination, "That’ll be up to the people that vote in each state because that’s where it’ll be determined, but for right now, there has been no indictment at this stage of the game."
If former President Trump is indicted this week, the White House is expected to employ a simple strategy: Get out of the way.
As a Trump indictment over the alleged Stormy Daniels hush-money scheme looms from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the White House has publicly been mum.
Privately, aides and allies said that was an intentional strategy to let the news speak for itself while pointing to the importance of accountability and rule of law.
“The White House doesn’t have to do much here,” said one Biden ally who is close to the president’s team. “They need to acknowledge that it’s a serious legal matter and then leave it up to the courts.”
Allies to President Biden say they are aware that Trump’s team will inevitably turn the indictment into a political issue, suggesting that Bragg, a Democrat with connections to the president, is conducting another "witch hunt.”
Indeed, Trump and his supporters have already been doing so, and their effort went into hyperdrive on Saturday when the former president claimed to his followers on Truth Social that he expected to be arrested on Tuesday.
On Sunday, Trump took to the social media platform again and accused Biden of having “stuffed” the district attorney’s office that is probing the case with officials from Department of Justice.
“Biden wants to pretend he has nothing to do with the Manhattan D.A.’s Assault on Democracy when, in fact, he has ‘stuffed’ the D.A.’s Office with Department of Injustice people, including one top DOJ operative from D.C,” Trump wrote on the site without mentioning to whom he was referring.
He also took aim at Bragg, who he said is “taking his orders from D.C.”
Democrats say Biden should not feel compelled to “get in the mud,” as one major Democratic donor put it.
The president can create a contrast with Trump by keeping his head down as the news around the indictment ensues.
“It’s the right thing to do, the opposite of what Trump would have done, and presents the split screen of Trump’s crimes with Biden delivering for the American people,” said Democratic strategist Josh Schwerin. “There is nothing Trump wants more than to have more reason to falsely claim that his legal troubles are a political attack rather than the rule of law.”
At the White House briefing on Monday, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre refrained from speaking about Trump’s case, citing “an ongoing investigation.
“We do not comment on any ongoing investigations from here,” Jean-Pierre said. “We’ve been very consistent on that.”
Ultimately, Democrats and Biden’s team hope the get-out-of-way strategy will accomplish another goal: It will divide Republicans ahead of a pivotal GOP primary race, in which Trump faces competition from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to run for the White House, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who is already in the race.
Former Vice President Mike Pence and others are also expected to join the GOP primary.
“Republicans are going to be split — some will defend Trump, others will seek his base without embracing him,” said Basil Smikle, the former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party who serves as the director of the Public Policy Program at Hunter College. “Both present a good foil for Democrats and Biden.”
So far, Republicans have walked a fine line on the possible impeachment.
On Monday, DeSantis held a press conference where he attacked Bragg, calling him a “Soros-funded prosecutor” while accusing him of “weaponizing” the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
But at the same time, the governor, who did not mention Trump by name, slapped the former president when he said he doesn’t “know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair.”
“I can’t speak to that,” DeSantis added pointedly.
Democrats expect that tone to continue from the Florida governor — and other Republican rivals — as the presidential race heats up.
In that scenario, they say, Biden comes out on top.
“It makes the GOP nomination battle more contentious, which is good for Biden,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon.
In addition, Bannon argued Trump’s potential indictment and trial could galvanize Republicans behind Trump, “who is a lesser threat to Biden than a candidate like DeSantis.”
While allies expect Biden to largely take a do-nothing approach on the potential indictment, allies cautioned that the strategy could change if protests turn violent, as they did during the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
“They’re not going to talk about it unless they have to talk about it,” the ally said.
California Democratic Rep. Juan Vargas said he "may vote to impeach" President Biden's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas if Republicans bring articles of impeachment against him.
Vargas, who made the comments during a news conference on Friday, said his reasoning differs from Republican lawmakers and lies in the construction of two 30-foot border walls.
"Secretary Mayorkas might come up for an impeachment vote because of what the Republicans have heard," Vargas said. "I may vote for it; I may vote to impeach him, but not over those other issues - over this issue."
Vargas' problem stems from President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas not stepping in to halt border wall construction at Friendship Park, which is located at the San Diego and Tijuana border, Fox 5 reported.
DHS began prepping for possible impeachment proceedings in late January by entering into a potential $1.5 million contract with the New York-based Debevoise & Plimpton law firm, which will disburse cash based on their work. Government records show that the award runs until early January 2025 and could reach up to $3 million, Fox News Digital reported.
David O'Neil, a Debevoise & Plimpton partner, will lead Mayorkas' defense team if needed, Law.com reported. O'Neil is no stranger to impeachment efforts as he aided House Democrats in their impeachment efforts against former President Trump. Employees at the firm also give overwhelmingly to Democratic causes, including Biden's past candidacy.
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are now probing the contract. Kentucky Republican Rep. James Comer, who heads up the Oversight Committee, began seeking information from Mayorkas late last month.
In a letter to Mayorkas, Comer said the contract is a no-bid, sole-source agreement, meaning it was awarded directly rather than through a competitive bidding process. Such an award is allowed only due to an "unusual or compelling urgency."
"DHS justified its decision not to use fair and open competition in procuring legal services by citing 'unusual and compelling urgency,'" Comer wrote to Mayorkas. "We are concerned the alleged "unusual and compelling urgency" justification is to avoid congressional scrutiny and oversight."
Republicans, including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, have raised the possibility of impeaching Mayorkas over his handling of the ongoing crisis at the southern border. Multiple members have also introduced articles of impeachment against him.
"The Biden Administration's self-inflicted border crisis has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and the American people are demanding accountability," Comer previously told Fox News Digital regarding the contract.
"Not only have the Biden Administration's policies exacerbated the border crisis, but it also appears the Administration is exploiting the situation to reward its political allies and cover up Secretary Mayorkas' disastrous decisions," Comer said.
FIRST ON FOX: Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are quizzing DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on remarks that they say misrepresents DHS data on the number of migrants who have passed "credible fear" screenings in the United States.
Chairman James Comer and Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., have written to DHS querying Mayorkas about remarks he made in an interview with CNN, in which he asserted an orderliness to the massive migration across the southern border seen under the Biden administration.
"The vast majority of those individuals have not sought to evade law enforcement, but have actually surrendered themselves to law enforcement and made a claim for relief under our laws," he said. "And so they make their claims, and the initial threshold for those claims under the law is lower than the ultimate asylum standard."
However, the lawmakers cite data from DHS that shows only a fraction of migrants is given a credible fear screening -- in which they would claim to have a fear of persecution or torture if returned to their home country.
"According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, more than 140,000 of the 172,116 Title 8 apprehensions made by U.S. Border Patrol agents in December 2022 resulted in an individual’s release into the country," the lawmakers write. "Yet according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), only 5,001 aliens were referred to that component for credible fear screenings that month. The numbers for other months similarly represent only a fraction of total releases."
They say that due to conflicting data, it is "impossible to know the extent of DHS’ catch and release policies."
They also claim that the statements "misrepresent DHS’s own data and perpetuates an incorrect narrative about how the Administration processes illegal border crossers for release into the United States."
"But it is clear, that instead of referring illegal aliens to USCIS for a credible fear screening, your policy in most circumstances is to simply release illegal aliens into the country," they say.
Migrants encountered at the border who have not been returned under the Title 42 public health order -- which is due to end in May -- will typically be processed and provisionally released as they continue with their immigration removal proceedings. Migrants will typically be given a Notice to Appear at an immigration court or be paroled into the U.S. while enrolled in Alternatives to Detention and told to check in at an ICE office.
The lawmakers are seeking documents and communications related to the number of illegal migrants encountered at the border and processed into the U.S. in various manners, as well as the number referred to a credible fear screening.
A spokesperson for DHS told Fox News that it responds to congressional correspondence directly via official channels "and the Department will continue to respond appropriately to Congressional oversight."
The inquiry comes as Republicans have been scrutinizing the administration’s handling of the ongoing border crisis, with some Republicans having floated a possible impeachment of Mayorkas.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is pushing forward with a rule that would automatically make migrants ineligible for asylum if they had crossed into the U.S. illegally and failed to claim asylum at a country through which they crossed.
The administration’s policies were dealt a blow earlier this month when a federal judge in Florida struck down the Biden administration’s use of parole to mass release migrants into the U.S. interior, finding the practice unlawful and accusing the administration of turning the border into a "meaningless line in the sand."
A trio of Republican House chairmen are demanding testimony from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) ahead of his potential prosecution of former President Trump in connection with hush money payments made ahead of the 2016 election.
The letter to Bragg comes after Trump claimed over the weekend that he could be arrested as soon as Tuesday and asked his supporters to prepare to protest on his behalf.
It also comes before Bragg has officially made any decision on charging Trump with a crime, and raised concerns among Democrats who said the GOP was inappropriately interfering with the investigation.
The GOP lawmakers cited Trump’s announced bid for office in 2024 in asking for documents and communication about the probe. They said Bragg should sit for an interview “as soon as possible.”
“Your actions will erode confidence in the evenhanded application of justice and unalterably interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote in the letter, which was also signed by Chairmen James Comer (R-Ky.) and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), who lead the Oversight and Administration committees.
“In light of the serious consequences of your actions, we expect that you will testify about what plainly appears to be a politically motivated prosecutorial decision,” Jordan continued.
Bragg’s office did not immediately respond to request for comment.
The move alarmed Democrats even before the letter was officially sent.
“Defending Trump is not a legitimate legislative purpose for Congress to investigate a state district attorney,” Rep. Daniel Goldman (N.Y.), who before joining Congress worked as a counsel to Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment, wrote on Twitter.
“Congress has no jurisdiction to investigate the Manhattan DA, which receives no federal funding nor has any other federal nexus,” Goldman added.
The letter follows the House GOP's recent creation of a subcommittee on the “weaponization” of the government. That panel has the power to oversee “ongoing criminal investigations.”
“Using a congressional committee to bully a state DA sounds like...the weaponization of the federal government,” House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) wrote on Twitter.
The letter says Bragg’s probe “requires congressional scrutiny about how public safety funds appropriated by Congress are implemented by local law-enforcement agencies.”
Bragg’s investigation is focused on Trump’s role in directing a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who was prepared to go public with a story she had a sexual relationship with Trump, an affair he denies.
Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen arranged the payment, was reimbursed by Trump for the work as legal expenses and failed to disclose it in campaign finance records. He ultimately pleaded guilty and served jail time for his involvement in arranging the payments, something he said he did at the direction of Trump.
The letter runs through what the lawmakers see as a host of issues with a potential case, including the credibility of Cohen.
Bragg reignited the investigation into the matter, which was previously pursued by his predecessor Cyrus Vance, who explored the payment as part of a broader probe before ultimately suspending the probe over concerns with the strength of the case. Bragg has taken up a more narrow focus.
Still, the authors seized on that point, calling it a “zombie” case. They also questioned whether any charges would fit within the statute of limitations, which for New York felonies runs five years. That timeline can be extended, however, when a defendant has consistently lived out of state.
“The inference from the totality of these facts is that your impending indictment is motivated by political calculations,” the lawmakers wrote.
“The facts of this matter have not changed since 2018 and no new witnesses have emerged.”
After a rocky start to their new majority, House Republicans have gotten in a groove, notching wins that squeeze Democrats and President Biden. But as they approach 100 days in power, with debt ceiling negotiations and major legislation on the horizon, the challenge will be to keep the conference in harmony.
The drawn-out election of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in January had observers wondering whether the caucus could get agreement on major issues with a five-seat majority. Pushback from moderates led to a scramble to get enough votes to remove Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from the House Foreign Affairs Committee and forced a delay on a border and immigration bill that had been expected to have an early floor vote.
In the last several weeks, though, the House GOP notched some victories in sending legislation to Biden and dividing Democrats.
Biden reversed his position to back a disapproval of D.C. crime legislation — blindsiding House Democrats. The president is also expected to issue his first veto over a House GOP-led measure to nullify a federal rule over considering environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards in investments.
In committee probes, House Oversight Committee Republicans received long-sought access to the Treasury Department suspicious activity reports concerning businesses connected to Biden’s family members. And Border Patrol chief Raúl Ortiz said at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing that the U.S. does not have “operational control” of the southern border, breaking with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and boosting House GOP arguments that could build a foundation for impeachment of the secretary.
“We've had some big wins,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). “And it's all rooted in fighting for the families who are struggling and following through on our promises. We ran on a very specific agenda. We talked about addressing inflation and lowering energy costs and confronting crime in communities, and securing the border, and having a parent's Bill of Rights.”
“Our conference is very unified right now,” Scalise added.
Speaker race connected caucus
Members say that as messy as the Speaker race was at the time, it helped to build relationships across factions of the conference.
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), a McCarthy ally who was deeply involved in negotiations during that saga, told The Hill that he did not know hardline Freedom Caucus member Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) very well beforehand. But now, he has a “tremendous amount of respect” for him.
“It was a healthy exercise of talking to each other and getting to know each other and build more trust,” Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said of the Speaker election. “The trust we built there is going to continue to pay dividends for us this year.”
Still, high-profile controversies have overshadowed some of the House GOP’s successes.
McCarthy gave Fox News host Tucker Carlson access to Capitol security footage from Jan. 6, 2021, and Carlson’s use of it to portray the riot as “mostly peaceful chaos” sparked bipartisan outrage. The Speaker has declined to support removing Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from office over his admitted lies and questions about his finances until investigations into him are complete, breaking with a number of Santos’s House GOP colleagues in New York.
And major legislative issues coming up could test the House GOP’s harmony.
“We've got some really, really challenging things ahead, whether it's [the Federal Aviation Administration funding] bill, the farm bill, FISA authorization – we obviously have the budget and debt ceiling things that are on the horizon,” Graves said. “But I'm confident that we've got a good foundation and we can continue working through these issues with some of these members.”
Budget, debt limit loom large
House Republicans gathered Sunday to start strategizing about what comes next at their annual issues conference in Orlando, Fla., which runs through Tuesday.
One of the top items is certain to be debt limit negotiations. Biden has called on the House GOP to release their budget before engaging in negotiations, but McCarthy has said the White House’s delay in releasing a budgetcreated a domino effect.
The House Freedom Caucus, though, recently released a blueprint for budget cuts as a condition for considering a vote to raise the debt ceiling. While it is likelier to be more aggressive than the House GOP Budget Committee’s eventual plan, the hardline group indicated it is open to negotiation
“One of the big keys is to have that open channel of communication and have all voices heard and for that to be sincere, not just window dressing, but for it to be real,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus. “I know I don't always get my way, but I gotta have a say. And I think if everybody feels like they're given a fair shake, and you know, this is the best thing that we can get under the circumstances, that goes a long way to bringing people on board.”
Those open channels of communication – which include regular meetings with McCarthy and the heads of the caucuses – marks a change from previous GOP Speakers, Perry said.
Energy bill brings a test
Later this month, Republicans will bring a vote on their first major legislative package that McCarthy designated as H.R. 1: The Lower Energy Costs Act, a sweeping bill led by Scalise aimed at boosting energy production and streamlining the permitting process.
Republicans see boosting energy production as widely popular in the GOP, and one that touches on a number of other priorities. Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said it will be “dead on arrival” in the Senate, but could mark a starting point in negotiations on potential permitting reform.
“Energy has been at the heart of a lot of the conversations families have been having about the high cost of everything, from inflation to things at the grocery store,” Scalise said.
But even though the issue is popular, the package will test party unity, with members saying there is still work to be done to usher it across the finish line in a slim majority.
“As with most big bills, you're threading a needle. You've got issues all over the place on the right on the left, that you've got to deal with,” Graves said. “So there are still ongoing conversations with a number of folks, making sure that we're striking that right balance.”
The House is losing its top antitrust reform champion later this year when Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) resigns.
The congressman announced last month that he will retire from Congress in June to take a role as president and CEO of the Rhode Island Foundation, a community foundation and largest funder of nonprofit organizations in the state, ending his seven-term run in the House.
By reaching across the aisle, Cicilline led the House Judiciary Committee, as chair of the antitrust subcommittee, in advancing a series of bipartisan proposals to revamp antitrust laws in a way that targeted the nation’s largest tech companies.
Cicilline and his coalition of antitrust reform supporters said the rules on the books fail to address the modern day industry giants, namely Meta, Amazon, Google and Apple.
The proposals sought to address concerns critics said the tech platforms raised, such as boosting their own products and services over rival offerings, and to redefine what firms qualify as dominant companies based on market cap and user base numbers.
But his efforts were often met with opposition.
The companies have pushed back strongly on that assertion, with tech groups arguing that the proposals would force them to unwind services and features users enjoyed.
Cicilline and the bills' supporters said the bills would not have the effect, but failed to pass any of them. Despite the rare bipartisan support, most of the proposals failed to make it to President Biden’s desk in the last Congress.
Lobbying during a House transition
The combination of hefty lobbying from tech giants and a flip in House control to GOP leaders means the antitrust proposals are seemingly at a standstill.
While a handful of congressional Republicans support taking antitrust action against Big Tech companies, GOP lawmakers as whole have focused their tech agenda on content moderation and censorship.
In an interview with The Hill, Cicilline said he is still hopeful there is still a path forward for the agenda he laid the groundwork for in the House.
“There's still really strong bipartisan support for that whole package. We had the votes in the last Congress. My sense is we have the votes in this Congress, too. I think what will make it a little more challenging for the next couple of years is the Republican House leadership's opposition to these bills,” Cicilline told The Hill.
In another blow to the antitrust reform push, House GOP leaders replaced Cicilline’s Republican counterpart in the fight, Rep. Ken Buck (Colo.), in the top spot on the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.
When they took control this year, Republicans placed Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a staunch libertarian, as subcommittee chair in yet another sign that they won’t take up the bills.
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) gives remarks during an enrollment ceremony for The Respect for Marriage Act at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, December 8, 2022.
How Cicilline joined the antitrust fight
Cicilline was hesitant at first to take the reins as ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee in 2017. Rich Luchette, a longtime former senior adviser to Cicilline, said he even advised his boss against doing so.
“I was thinking to myself, 'He's in leadership, he's gonna have his hands full with that, he should pick one lane. And what is antitrust anyways?' ” he said, referring to lawmaker's role as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.
“Fortunately, he did not listen to me,” Luchette added.
For Cicilline, his reluctance was rooted in the fact that he had little experience with antitrust law. But upon advice from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, he took the post.
“He said, ‘Sometimes you should take a new assignment just because you're going to stretch your mind and learn something new,'" Cicilline said.
"And it turned out to be very good advice, because shortly after taking this role, the big Cambridge Analytica breach was revealed, and a lot of information about what was happening online and the focus really became the role of these technology platforms in not only our economy, but in our democracy,” he continued.
While Democrats were still in the minority, Cicilline started by learning more about the issues.
His tutorial on the issues turned into launching the investigation that led to the blockbuster 450-page reporton digital marketplace competition — a process that included grilling the CEOs of the nation’s largest companies at committee hearing.
“The more I've learned about it over these years, the more urgent I believe action is. The more damaging, I think, allowing these technology companies that have monopoly power to continue to operate unchecked from any regulation and continue to grow their power and their market share is,” Cicilline said.
How Cicilline built an antitrust reform coalition
Although House GOP leaders aren’t showing interest in bringing the bills forward again, the Judiciary Committee’s markup in June 2021 brought together unlikely allies in the House.
The proposals advanced out of the committee with support — and opposition — from both sides of the aisle, placing lawmakers like Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on the same side promoting the bills and Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) together on the opposing side.
Buck said that bipartisan nature was a key part of how he led the push.
“I think that we need more of David Cicillines in Congress — people who have strong feelings about their issues, but who are also willing to work across the aisle,” Buck told The Hill.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) addresses reporters following the weekly policy luncheon on Tuesday, January 24, 2023.
Buck was a leading Republican voice advocating for the antitrust reform bills. Along with him, Democrats found unlikely allies in Gaetz and Rep. Lance Gooden (Texas) among the handful of Republicans supportive of the effort.
In the Senate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and other supporters found a GOP ally in Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
Luchette said that bipartisan work was a cornerstone of how Cicilline approached his work in the House.
“I could go on probably for hours telling you about the times that I worked for him and saw him working with people who are seen as right-wing ideologues, people who are on Fox News all the time, people who give no quarter to the Democratic Party, and he would work effectively with them on issues,” Luchette said.
“At the end of the day, that's the way the system should work. It's not supposed to work with people just going to their corners and holding the line. You're supposed to be able to find common grounds and to the extent that they were able to do that, I think that was in large part because of the energy and effort that he poured into it,” Luchette added.
The bills were the result of a 16-month investigation into market dominance in the digital sector, which ultimately led to a series of bipartisan proposals aimed at reforming antitrust laws to tackle concerns critics say are posed by Amazon, Meta, Google and Apple.
Pushback to proposals was immediate and substantial
Because tech giants have denied using anticompetitive practices, the companies and the industry groups that back them pushed back strongly on the proposals, shoveling millions into lobbying and expensive opposition ad campaigns.
Much of that opposition was largely from groups like Chamber of Progress, NetChoice, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represent companies including Amazon, Google, Meta and Apple.
CCIA’s “Don’t Break What Works” campaign launched a series of ads targeting the proposals and arguing they would force companies to unwind services users enjoy or make companies charge users for previously free features.
California Democrats, especially those who represent tech-heavy Bay Area districts, also pushed back on the proposals, arguing that they didn’t address the problems identified by the House investigation into digital marketplace competition in an effective way to serve the public.
Republicans fought hard against more antitrust regulation
Critical House Republicans, like Jordan, opposed the plans on the basis that the bills would give the Biden administration “more money.”
To get Buck on board, Cicilline held a field hearing on competition issues in Buck’s home state of Colorado in 2020.
The hearing featured executives from Tile, Sonos, Basecamp and the Boulder-based company PopSockets that testified over how tech giants were impacting their companies.
“I wanted to demonstrate to him, even though he was the ranking member, that I respected his role in this work, and I also wanted him to hear from Colorado business folks about the impact of these platforms, on their businesses, business people, and, we just developed a very strong working relationship,” Cicilline said.
Buck said after the hearing he became more interested and involved, and was able to develop a “trusting relationship” with Cicilline.
“Which during this time frame is difficult. Obviously, David and I disagreed about the impeachment votes, and we disagreed about a lot of other very contentious issues,” Buck said.
Cicilline served as an impeachment manager for former President Trump’s second impeachment. Buck voted along with the majority of his party against both impeachments of Trump.
“But when it came to this, we both found common ground. And he was great if I went to my Republican colleagues and discussed a bill and they said, ‘Well, you know, you got to change this and one, two, and three,’ " he said.
"I would go to David and get those things changed and I would go back and get Republican support. So it really was a process where he was willing to compromise a great deal to get the Republican support that we needed to get the bills passed in the House,” Buck said.
Cicilline said both lawmakers understood that the tech companies were trying to “desperately make this a partisan issue” and pit the two against each other.
“And we resisted that at every turn despite their best efforts,” Cicilline said.
Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) is seen following the sixth ballot for Speaker on the second day of the 118th session of Congress on Wednesday, January 4, 2023.
What supporters accomplished — and hope to do next
Two of the more high profile proposals, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act, didn’t get floor votes in the House or Senate and failed to be added to end of the year omnibus bills despite a push from the bill’s sponsors and outside supporters.
The first bill aimed to limit dominant platforms from creating preferences for their own products and services on their platforms.
The second aimed to add regulations for dominant app stores. In the Senate, versions of the bills also advanced out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support.
Lawmakers did, however, successfully get a package of less controversial antitrust reform measures, also part of the proposals spawned from the House investigation, passed.
The package aimed to boost federal and state antitrust enforcers’ power to give them a better shot at taking on powerful tech firms.
“I think for sure when the Democrats take the House back, this will remain a priority and I expect these laws will also make it to the president’s desk,” Cicilline said, of the other antitrust proposals.
Can Cicilline's legacy evolve into policy?
Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House before the 2022 election, but the proposals failed to get floor votes in either chamber.
“It can often take multiple terms of Congress to build sufficient support to pass legislation. So we look forward to continuing to monitor in the Congress and hope to see concrete changes that come about to check Big Tech’s power,” said Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, a nonprofit that supports antitrust and corporate accountability legislation.
As Cicilline steps down, it is not clear who will take the reins from him when he leaves.
He said Democrats who were sponsors of the proposals that came forward, like Jayapal, Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and current House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) are the “likely champions” of the antitrust push in the next Congress.
Harper said the Rhode Island Democrats’ legacy is going to include “educating a generation of Congressional leaders to both understand the dangers of Big Tech and importantly the antitrust tools that Congress has to do something about it.”
“We really see Congressman Cicilline as a once-in-a-generation leader on antitrust, and in many ways the person Congress was waiting for to move this issue forward,” she said.
As Congress grapples with threats from new emerging technologies, such as the rapid rise of ChatGPT and the wave of rival generative AI products, Cicilline said it is “absolutely essential” that Congress “remain and get current on this technology.”
“I think one of the things that was a tremendous advantage at the big companies was that Congress, sort of let them do what they want to set back and allowed them to continue to grow and be free from any government oversight or regulation,” he said.
“I hope that was a lesson and that everyone will recognize that those around to make the jurisdiction need to really stay current with these developments, so that we won't be a decade behind the decision that needs to be enacted,” he added.
A House Democrat said he might vote in favor of impeaching Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas over the construction of two 30-foot walls at the border with Mexico.
Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) said at a press conference on Friday that he might vote for an impeachment resolution if Republicans bring one up against Mayorkas, though for different reasoning than his GOP colleagues.
While Republicans have slammed Mayorkas and the Biden administration for high numbers of undocumented immigrants coming into the country, Vargas said he might vote to impeach Mayorkas over the issue of the border walls being built at Friendship Park in San Diego.
The park is located on a cliff over the Pacific Ocean between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, according to Border Report, an outlet owned by Nexstar Media Group that focuses on coverage of the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Hill is also owned by Nexstar.
Vargas said he wants Mayorkas and President Biden to halt the construction of the walls at Friendship Park, which Border Report reported has served as a meeting place for families to gather with a wall between them.
“He told us that he would help us, and he hasn’t done it,” Vargas said, referring to Mayorkas. “He betrayed us.”
The outlet reported that U.S. Border Patrol officials have said the existing barriers are decaying and have become a danger to the public, migrants and agents in the area. They have said the barriers need to be replaced with the new walls.
But Vargas, who represents the area in the House, and other local leaders have expressed concerns that the walls will end public access to the area. Vargas said Mayorkas promised him that the construction would be stopped.
The construction started a few weeks ago and is expected to be completed in six months, the outlet reported.
The Department of Homeland Security hired an outside law firm last month to help Mayorkas respond to a potential Republican-led impeachment inquiry. Mayorkas has vowed that he would not be pushed out of his position by his opponents.
Republicans in the House have been somewhat divided about the path forward on Mayorkas, however, as some wanted to impeach Mayorkas immediately upon the GOP taking control of the House, while others wanted to take time to build a case against him.
Two articles of impeachment have been introduced in the House against Mayorkas.
Vargas is the first Democrat to publicly say they are open to considering an impeachment vote against Mayorkas.
Twitter CEO Elon Musk on Saturday predicted that former President Donald Trump will be re-elected in a "landslide" if he is indicted — or possibly arrested and potentially "handcuffed" — next week.
"If this happens, Trump will be re-elected in a landslide victory," Musk tweeted.
Musk was reacting to a Fox News segment which detailed how the Manhattan District Attorney's office has asked for a meeting with law enforcement ahead of a possible Trump indictment of next week.
According to a court source, the meeting was requested Thursday and hasn't been set. The meeting is to "discuss logistics for some time next week, which would mean that they are anticipating an indictment next week," the source familiar with the planning said. Secret Service is expected to take the lead on what they will allow and won’t allow — for instance, the decision of whether to handcuff Trump.
The potential indictment stems from the lengthy investigation surrounding Trump's alleged payment of "hush money" to actress Stormy Daniels. Toward the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen sent $130,000 to Daniels to prevent her from disclosing a 2006 affair with Trump. Trump reimbursed Cohen through installments. The office, led by DA Alvin Bragg, has been investigating the hush money scandal — which took place in 2016 — for the past five years.
On Saturday morning, Trump posted about the possible indictment on Truth Social, indicating that he will be "ARRESTED ON TUESDAY."
"NOW ILLEGAL LEAKS FROM A CORRUPT & HIGHLY POLITICAL MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE, WHICH HAS ALLOWED NEW RECORDS TO BE SET IN VIOLENT CRIME & WHOSE LEADER IS FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS, INDICATE THAT, WITH NO CRIME BEING ABLE TO BE PROVEN, & BASED ON AN OLD & FULLY DEBUNKED (BY NUMEROUS OTHER PROSECUTORS!) FAIRYTALE, THE FAR & AWAY LEADING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE & FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILL BE ARRESTED ON TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK. PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!," Trump wrote.
Reached for comment Friday, the Manhattan District Attorney's office would neither "confirm or comment" on the impending indictment.
The potential for an indictment re-sparked conversation online about how it could affect Trump’s 2024 White House bid, and renewed claims from Trump allies that the probe was politically motivated.
"It’s ALL FOR POLITICS! This is what they do in communists countries to destroy their political opponents! Republicans in Congress MUST subpoena these communists and END this!" Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., tweeted.
"If they handcuff Trump, he is your next president," he said.
Others weren’t so sure. Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent noted that there had been similar predictions of scandals boosting Trump that had failed to pan out.
"Yet again we're told holding Trump accountable for corruption/crimes will lead to GOP victories. But this hasn't happened. People said impeachment would cause backlash, but he lost reelex," he said. "People said 1/6 committee would cause backlash, but Rs dramatically underperformed in 2022."
Fox News' Chris Pandolo, Marta Dhanis, Adam Sabes, and Brandon Gillespie contributed to this report.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office has asked for a meeting with law enforcement ahead of a possible indictment of former President Donald Trump next week, according to a court source.
According to the source, the meeting was requested Thursday and hasn't been set. The meeting is to "discuss logistics for some time next week, which would mean that they are anticipating an indictment next week," the source familiar with the planning said.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung reacted to the news by ripping district attorney Alvin Bragg in a statement to Fox News Digital, calling his investigation a "witch hunt" and accusing him of being in the pocket of President Biden and "radical Democrats."
"President Donald J. Trump is completely innocent, he did nothing wrong, and even the biggest, most Radical Left Democrats are making that clear," Cheung said. "From Russia, Russia, Russia, to the Mueller Hoax, to Impeachment Hoaxes 1 and 2, and even the Unlawful Mar-a-Lago Raid, Democrats have investigated and attacked President Trump since before he was elected – and they’ve failed every time."
"Now Democrats are at it again, pushing the 'Nuclear Button' and attacking a President because of a disgraced extortionist," he said. "This is happening because President Trump is leading in the polls by a large margin against both Democrats and Republicans, and there’s never been anything so blatant in American political history."
"Everyone knows it’s a sham. In fact, the Department of Justice stocked the DA’s office with top people from DC to help ‘Get Trump’ at a local level. Americans will not tolerate Radical Left Democrats turning our justice system into an injustice system to influence a presidential election, which is all they want to do. Our Country is not going to let this happen. This will backfire massively for the Democrat Party, and end in disgrace for our Nation," he added.
The potential indictment stems from the yearslong investigation surrounding Trump's alleged hush money scandal involving porn star Stormy Daniels. Towards the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen sent $130,000 to Daniels to prevent her from disclosing her 2006 affair with Trump. Trump reimbursed Cohen through installments.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office declined to "confirm or comment," when contacted by Fox News.
