Category: News

Jittery Democrats worried about Biden debt ceiling concessions

Posted on (Updated by Aris Folley

Liberals are growing increasingly jittery about what concessions President Biden may make in debt ceiling negotiations with Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

While the party has been largely unified behind the White House’s strategy in the talks, more Democrats are voicing worries about what could be on the chopping block in order to keep the nation from defaulting on its debt. 

“I'm concerned because the president has, every now and then, moved to the right, if you will, to acquiesce to a so-called independent voter, and the American people want us to be bold and to stand firm,” Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Tuesday. “And to make sure we're following through on our promises.”

His comments add to a growing chorus of Democrats who are showing uneasiness in recent days about where the bipartisan talks over the nation’s borrowing limit could be headed.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.)

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) leaves the House Chamber on Thursday, April 20, 2023 following the last votes of the week. (Greg Nash)

Biden spooked many in his base over the weekend when he appeared to open the door to stricter work requirements for certain federal assistance programs.

Pressed by reporters on whether he was open to the idea as part of bipartisan debt limit discussions, Biden acknowledged voting for “tougher aid programs that’s in the law now,” but said “for Medicaid, it's a different story.”

“And so I’m waiting to hear what their exact proposal is,” Biden added. 

The White House spent Monday seemingly trying to walk back the remarks. But his comments have left some Democrats worried about where GOP-backed proposals to beef up work requirements for other programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the food stamps program, fit in ongoing negotiations. 

McCarthy on Tuesday said including work requirements in the debt ceiling bill was a "red line" for him, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called including them a "non-starter."

“I'm deeply concerned about it and we're just going to have to see. Hopefully, they're not going to get to that point,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said of the talks when asked by reporters about whether changes to work requirements were a nonstarter.

“I remain very concerned about anything that hurts people that get a small amount of food assistance,” Stabenow, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, also said.

And Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) in a statement Tuesday echoed the concern.

“No one I’ve ever met wants to stay on SNAP for life. They need it to make ends meet. I sure didn’t come to Washington to take vital assistance away from working people at the same time big bank CEOs nearly crash the economy and get to jet off to Hawaii scot-free. I cannot in good conscience support a debt ceiling proposal that pushes people into poverty,” he said.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) arrives to the Capitol for a series of votes on Tuesday, May 2, 2023. (Annabelle Gordon)

Asked Tuesday about the criticism that Biden may be giving away too many concessions, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said negotiations have been “as we see it, very productive.”

“This is a president who has been around the block a few times. He knows how to make deals. He knows how this works. And there’s no one more experienced in knowing how to get this done,” she added.

For months, the White House refused to negotiate over raising the debt ceiling. And Democrats showed a united front behind the president in rejecting calls by House Republicans to come to the bargaining table.

But as Congress stares down a potentially chaotic two-week stretch until June 1 — the earliest the Treasury Department warns the country risks a federal default — both sides are feeling the pressure to quickly strike a deal. 

More coverage of the debt ceiling from The Hill:

Democrats have panned a Republican bill passed by the House last month that would raise the debt ceiling — but not without a host of partisan spending cuts, ranging from measures to roll back parts of Biden’s signature economic bill that passed last year, changes to work requirements and putting a stop to the administration’s popular student loan decisions.

However, since talks began between the White House and House GOP leadership last week, there has been more chatter on Capitol Hill around more areas of potential compromise outlined in the House Republican bill, including proposals aimed at limiting government funding hashed out by lawmakers as part of the annual appropriations process over the next decade.

The House-passed bill would cap discretionary funding at fiscal 2022 levels, limiting annual spending growth at one percent annually — a proposal that has drawn swift opposition from top Democrats who say the measure could mean steep cuts for domestic programs.

Yet, in recent days, reports have surfaced that negotiators are considering a two-year deal that would involve proposals aimed at limiting spending while also raising the debt limit – which could be a tough lift in the divided Congress.  

While Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) signaled openness to The Hill last week to yanking back already approved coronavirus funding that Republicans say is not yet obligated, the key moderate voiced caution about potential caps. 

“I mean, there are some I think there's some low hanging fruit that we can look at,” said Cuellar, a member of the House Appropriations Committee. “But start going into budget caps or all that, as an appropriator, I’m going to look at that very, carefully.”

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) is seen during the first day of the 118th session of Congress on Tuesday, January 3, 2023. (Greg Nash)

After his meeting with Biden on Tuesday, McCarthy signaled both sides had a ways to go in talks before striking a deal, telling reporters: “If this was where we were in February, I’d be very optimistic.”

“So, the structure of how we negotiate has improved. So it now gives you a better opportunity, even though we only have a few days to get it done,” McCarthy said. 

But the stakes are high as more experts warn of the potentially catastrophic consequences a default could hold for the economy.

Secretary Janet Yellen said in a speech on Tuesday that Americans are already seeing the “impacts of brinksmanship,” noting the changes seen in the bonds market in recent weeks.

“Investors have become more reluctant to hold government debt that matures in early June,” Yellen said at Independent Community Bankers of America 2023 Capital Summit. “And the impasse has already increased the debt burden to American taxpayers – as the leaders of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee said last week.”

But there are worries among Democrats that extend beyond the threat of a default.

“Republicans want to cut across the board programs for children, the elderly … the sick, the poor. Unacceptable. Period,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told reporters. 

He also punted a question about his trust in the White House’s strategy amid talks, instead saying they'll "find out more" after Tuesday's meeting. 

Feinstein: ‘I haven’t been gone. I’ve been working’

Posted on (Updated by Al Weaver

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), 89, told reporters Tuesday that she hadn't been away from Washington while recovering from an illness for more than two months, despite her being hospitalized and not being at the Capitol during that time.

“No, I haven’t been gone,” Feinstein said when a reporter asked her about the well-wishes her Senate colleagues have given her since she returned to the Capitol last week. “You should — I haven’t been gone. I’ve been working.”

The Los Angeles Times and Slate both reported on the exchange, in which Feinstein said that she is “feeling fine” after her lengthy bout with shingles.

When a reporter asked if she was referring to working from home, Feinstein reiterated that she's been in Washington. 

“No, I’ve been here. I’ve been voting,” Feinstein said. “Please. You either know or don’t know.”

A Feinstein spokesperson declined to immediately comment on the reports.

Feinstein was hospitalized and stayed away from the Capitol for weeks because of complications from shingles.

Her absence led four House Democrats, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), to call for her resignation as Democrats struggled to move judicial nominations through the Senate. Critics have argued she can no longer serve America’s most populous state effectively, given her health.

Feinstein and her office have pushed back at some suggestions, and the pressure to resign has not come from Democratic colleagues in the Senate, key allies in the House, the White House or California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

The exchange with the reporters, however, is likely to raise more scrutiny about Feinstein’s acuity — and her ability to effectively serve her state.

Feinstein has been told by doctors to maintain a lighter workload since she returned to the Capitol last week for the first time since February. 

The longtime California Democrat, a political legend in the state, announced earlier this year she would not seek another term in the Senate.

Feinstein helped Senate Democrats last week advance three judicial nominees that had been unable to move toward full Senate confirmation votes in her absence. She also took part in some Senate floor votes Wednesday and Thursday. 

Durham’s FBI-Trump report fuels House GOP ‘weaponization’ attacks

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

House Republicans say the long-awaited report from special counsel John Durham bolsters their arguments that federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been “weaponized” against political enemies — a theme that has been a major defining belief of their new majority. 

“The long-awaited Durham Report confirmed what the American people already know; that individuals at the highest levels of government attempted to overthrow democracy when they illegally weaponized the federal government against Donald J. Trump,” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said in a statement.

The report found that federal authorities did not have sufficient information to open their “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Durham did not recommend any charges to the FBI in his report but said that the agency was “seriously deficient” in how it handled some aspects of the investigation, including relying on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence.” 

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) quoted from the report in a press conference Tuesday, raising alarm about its assertion that “the FBI failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law” and that it identified an FBI agent who knowingly made misrepresentations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

“Where’s the accountability for this? Who’s going to be held accountable? These are the questions we’re going to continue to ask,” Scalise said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) invited Durham to speak to his panel’s select subcommittee on government weaponization — created at the request of the right flank ahead of the tumultuous election of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — at the end of the month.

Many House GOP members, including those serving on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, said that they had not yet read the more than 300-page report released Monday, when many were focused on the debt ceiling negotiations.

Yet several Republicans said that the report essentially confirmed their own biases.

“We all already believed or knew what was in there,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). “It's like, ‘Yeah, see? We told you so.’”

McCarthy told The Hill that Republicans already knew about the things that were “so appalling.”

“They took the entire country through this, impeachment, everything else, when we knew the FBI never should have done this from the very beginning,” McCarthy said.

Democrats, for their part, criticized the report for not offering enough new information.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that the report amounted to “a political rehashing of what the Justice Department Inspector General already made public in 2019.” 

“Mr. Durham has, one last time, over promised and under delivered,” Nadler said before referencing special counsel Robert Mueller, who released a report in 2019 on his investigation of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.

“Nothing in this report changes the outcome of the Mueller investigation, which resulted in multiple convictions, found more than one hundred contacts between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian government, and substantial reason to believe that Donald Trump had committed obstruction of justice,” Nadler said.

The report from Durham is likely to affect how House Republicans legislate, and may also play a role in the GOP presidential primary.

“The report confirms that FBI personnel repeatedly disregarded critical protections established to protect the American people from unlawful surveillance,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. “Such actions should never have occurred, and it is essential that Congress codifies clear guardrails that prevent future FBI abuses and restores the public’s trust in our law enforcement institutions.”

The FBI is getting ahead of calls for change, releasing a five-page letter responding to Durham that details recent reforms.

“The conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time,” the FBI said in a statement. “Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented. This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect.”

One area likely to be affected by the politics of the Durham report is Congress’s reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows for warrantless surveillance of foreigners outside the United States, even as they communicate with U.S. citizens within the U.S. — thus allowing intelligence agencies to pick up citizen communications without a warrant.

“I can assure you, 702 — that is not going to get rubber-stamped,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the House Judiciary Committee. “We’ve got to have a serious reboot or elimination of what we're seeing through FISA 702.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, also said that the Durham report will probably affect FISA reauthorization.

In a Twitter thread, Crenshaw said there “must be consequences” based on the findings of the report.

“This report demonstrates how unelected, subversive actors within the highest levels of our government sought to destroy a duly-elected president they hated. They weaponized a lie – knowing the media would breathlessly regurgitate that lie – in order to take Donald Trump out of the White House,” Crenshaw said.

Marjorie Taylor Greene moves to impeach FBI director, US attorney for DC

Posted on (Updated by Jared Gans

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said on Tuesday that she will move to introduce articles of impeachment against FBI Director Christopher Wray and Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Greene alleged in a release that Wray has turned the FBI into President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland's "personal police force." She said the FBI has "intimidated, harassed, and entrapped" U.S. citizens who have been "deemed enemies of the Biden regime."

She cited several examples of FBI actions in the past few years during Wray's tenure that she believes demonstrates overreach and improper conduct by the agency.

Greene referenced the plot that multiple men had in 2020 to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), pointing to the couple who were acquitted after defense attorneys argued that the FBI entrapped them and convinced them to engage in the conspiracy.

Multiple other men, including the suspected ringleaders of the plot, were found guilty for their actions.

Greene also noted the search that the FBI conducted on former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property for classified and sensitive documents that were taken there. She argued that Trump did not break any laws with his actions, but Biden did not have any authority to possess the documents that were found in multiple locations, including his personal home.

"It is unacceptable for the Director of the FBI or any civil officer to exercise his power in a way that targets one political class while doing favors for the other," Greene said.

Her articles of impeachment accuse Wray of refusing to ensure that the laws Congress passes, and the president signs, are "faithfully executed" and has failed to uphold his oath.

During a hearing of the House Oversight Committee on crime in Washington, D.C., earlier on Tuesday, Greene said Graves had chosen not to prosecute 67 percent of people arrested by D.C. police officers but continues to pursue cases and sentences against Jan. 6 defendants. She said the decision to not prosecute the former is “absolutely criminal.” 

“The time for weaponizing the Department of Justice needs to come to an end. And because you refuse to prosecute real criminals that are violating all the crimes here in Washington, D.C., and you want to talk about D.C. residents — they are victims of your abuse of power,” she said. “And because of that, I am introducing articles of impeachment on you, Mr. Graves.” 

Graves has defended his office’s conduct, telling The Washington Post that he is prosecuting most violent felonies. He said less serious cases were not being pursued for various reasons, including body-camera footage from officers subjecting arrests to additional scrutiny. 

Greene mentioned an example of Matthew Perna, a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 and died by suicide last year while awaiting sentencing. Perna entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 and stayed inside for about 20 minutes, during which he took video of the crowd there. 

Perna’s family said he died from a “broken heart” and partially blamed the government prosecution for leading to his death. 

Greene said Perna “peacefully” entered the Capitol, did not assault anyone or damage any property and cooperated with the FBI. She said Graves issued a request to delay Perna’s sentencing to allow more time to request a longer sentence for him, despite him not hurting anyone. 

“And this is what you’ve done repeatedly, over and over, for those who pled or were convicted on Jan. 6,” she said. 

Greene has pushed back on the treatment of Jan. 6 defendants in the past two years. She has on multiple occasions called for the release of all security footage taken during the attack and alleged that the defendants awaiting trial were being “mistreated” following a March visit to the D.C. jail where they were being held.

Graves has overseen the prosecution of many of the defendants facing charges over their conduct during the riot.

Greene last summer filed articles of impeachment against Garland over the FBI's search of former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property for classified and sensitive documents.

-- Updated 5:49 p.m.

House GOP Whip Emmer calls for Mayorkas impeachment

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) called for the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, becoming the highest-ranking GOP leader to do so.

“This, to me, is the greatest malfeasance, and malfeasance is — it’s not a failure to act — it’s an intentional failure to act. Mayorkas should be impeached,” Emmer told Breitbart News in an interview on Friday. “I think we should be talking seriously about that regardless of what this feckless Senate might want to do.”

He is not the only GOP leader escalating their rhetoric against Mayorkas. In an interview with The Hill last week, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) stopped short of calling for impeachment, but he signaled that Republicans are preparing to take action against Mayorkas.

“You're seeing a lot of a lot of questions being raised about the competence of Secretary Mayorkas and there's been legislation filed and that's going through the committee process right now,” Scalise said. “The committee has also been doing work on looking into holding Secretary Mayorkas accountable, and that process is going to play out — and it's far from over.”

In a statement responding to Emmer’s support for impeachment, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson called on Congress to pass immigration reform legislation.

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people,” the DHS statement said. “The Department will continue to enforce our laws and secure our border, protect the nation from terrorism, improve our cybersecurity, all while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system. Instead of pointing fingers and pursuing a baseless impeachment, Congress should work with the Department and pass legislation to fix our broken immigration system, which has not been updated in over 40 years.”

Emmer’s call to impeach Mayorkas comes just after House Republicans passed a border crackdown bill, and as Title 42, the pandemic-era policy that allowed for the rapid expulsion of migrants, expired.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has repeatedly said House Republicans will not impeach Biden administration officials for political purposes and will first conduct an investigation.

Multiple committees have been investigating Mayorkas’s management of the U.S.-Mexico border since the GOP took control of the House. 

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who would oversee impeachment proceedings, has repeatedly said the U.S. does not have “operational control” of the U.S.-Mexico border — referring to a legal argument that would likely form the basis of a House GOP impeachment push. Jordan has asserted that is intentional on the part of Mayorkas, also playing into a case for impeachment.

“I know that we’re going to have members — much like other constitutional disagreements we’ve had, there’s probably going to be a member who says … who’s a stickler about high crimes and misdemeanors,” Emmer told Breitbart News. “I believe if you look at the actual law and the precedent that’s been set — and forget about the phony impeachment stuff that the Democrats have been doing for political stunts — this one’s a real, real issue. You can see the pictures live every day. You have an administration and an idiot that’s in charge of the border.”

Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Pat Fallon (R-Texas) have filed impeachment articles against Mayorkas, and 57 other House Republicans have cosponsored one of both of those resolutions.

Updated at 3:08 p.m.

Mayorkas on GOP impeachment efforts: ‘I am focused on the work in front of us’ 

Posted on (Updated by Administration News | The Hill

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas during an interview on Sunday waved off concerns about a potential impeachment, emphasizing that he is "focused on the work in front of us."

"I am focused on the work in front of us meeting the challenge, not only with respect to the southern border, but meeting the challenge of ... the cyber threat from cyber criminals and adverse foreign nations states," Mayorkas told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

"I am focused on the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events," he added. "I am focused on the adverse actions of the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Iran, Russia. I am focused on the work of the Department of Homeland Security. I will continue to focus on that work throughout my tenure."

Mayorkas is facing numerous calls for his impeachment by House Republicans over his handling of the U.S. border. The House Homeland Security Committee grilled Mayorkas last month, focusing on a 2006 law that requires a standard of perfection at the border.

Title 42 - a pandemic era policy that allowed for the rapid expulsion of asylum-seekers - expired last week, prompting concerns that a surge of migrants would result at the border. Instead, Mayorkas said on Sunday that authorities seen a 50 percent drop in encounters at the border in the days since the rule expired.

Clarence Thomas’s problems multiply at Supreme Court

Posted on (Updated by Al Weaver

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is facing a fresh round of scrutiny after the third blockbuster report in less than a month links him financially to GOP megadonor Harlan Crow.

ProPublica reported Thursday that Crow, a Dallas-based real estate developer, paid thousands of dollars in tuition to a private boarding school for Thomas’s great-nephew, whom Thomas has said he raised “as a son.”

Federal ethics laws require the justices to report gifts given to a “dependent child,” but that term is defined to only include the justices’ children or stepchildren. Thomas’s allies have insisted the payment doesn’t violate the disclosure law since it was for Thomas’s sister’s grandson.

But the revelation has only added to the increasing pressure from Democrats for the justices to adopt a binding code of ethics.

“Today’s report continues a steady stream of revelations calling Justices’ ethics standards and practices into question. I hope that the Chief Justice understands that something must be done—the reputation and credibility of the Court is at stake,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a statement.

When asked during a SiriusXM interview about impeaching Thomas, however, Durbin said “no.” He noted that only one justice, Samuel Chase, had been impeached previously, and Chase was acquitted in the Senate in 1805.

“I don't think an impeachment is in the works, particularly with the House in a political situation that it’s in today,” Durbin said on “The Briefing with Steve Scully.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a Judiciary Committee member, argued the matter should be referred to the Department of Justice.

“There’s a potential criminal violation in the misreporting or failure to report certain benefits, gifts and financial transactions. There’s just a drip, drip, drip of additional information that is gravely undermining the Court, but also creating the need for a full factual investigation,” Blumenthal said.

“If [the Justice Department] fails to do so, Congress definitely has a role,” he added.

Thomas did not return a request for comment through a court spokesperson.

Later on Thursday, The Washington Post reported that Leonard Leo, a conservative judicial activist who played a key role in the Supreme Court’s rightward shift, directed tens of thousands of dollars be paid to Thomas’s wife, Ginni, roughly a decade ago.

Leo requested that she not be named in the paperwork, according to the Post. Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist herself, has long insisted that she doesn't talk about the court’s business with her husband.

Judiciary Committee Democrats have been hamstrung on taking action regarding the court, including on a potential subpoena for Chief Justice John Roberts. He declined an invitation from Durbin to appear at a Tuesday hearing on Supreme Court ethics, noting that it is “exceedingly rare” for a chief justice to give testimony. 

That could change if Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has been absent for months due to shingles, returns and once again gives Democrats an 11-10 majority on the panel — though even then subpoenaing the chief justice of the Supreme Court would be an extraordinary step.

Thursday’s ProPublica report was the latest financial transaction involving Thomas and Crow to come to light. The investigative outlet last month reported Thomas had accepted luxury trips from Crow, including flying on his private jet, without disclosing the travels. 

ProPublica also reported Crow had purchased real estate from Thomas’s mother that Thomas had an interest in.

“The definition of insanity is seeing the same Supreme Court justice violate ethics rules over and over again and expecting him to actually hold himself accountable,” Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of Take Back the Court Action Fund, said in a statement. “How many more examples of Thomas flouting disclosure rules do our elected leaders need to see before they intervene? Thomas needs to answer for his misconduct. It’s time to subpoena him.”

Republicans, on the other hand, indicated little willingness to wade into the waters related to the justice who has served on the court for 32 years. They say this is an issue for the Supreme Court to deal with and not something that requires congressional oversight. Interfering, they argue, would go against the separation of powers.

“The Supreme Court … writes its own rules and if there is any policing of those rules to be done, I think it ought to be done by them,” Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, told reporters. “I assume the members of the Court, who I have a high level of confidence in, will make the right decisions for the justices on the Court and for the people who work at the Supreme Court in the same way as we make the rules for all members of Congress.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who recently indicated that he was dismayed by reports of the ethical issues for Thomas, said the Court needs to make ethics changes.

“These revelations with regards to a number of justices, both those appointed by Republicans and by Democrats, suggest that the Court itself needs to evaluate what their disclosure rules are and ethics rules are and methods for enforcing those,” Romney said. “I presume that the chief justice will undertake that.”

Republicans have further portrayed the Thomas scrutiny as a double standard, taking aim at the ethics of the high court’s liberal justices.

They note that liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted an award in 2010 from the Woman's National Democratic Club. 

They have also pointed to liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor not recusing herself when the court considered taking up two cases involving book publisher Penguin Random House, despite disclosing payments from the conglomerate for her books. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who also received payments from the publisher for his book, similarly did not recuse.

The Memo: Texas killing sparks outrage from Biden’s border critics

Posted on (Updated by Niall Stanage

A horrific mass killing in Texas has opened new sores in the national debate over illegal immigration and crime.

Five people, including a young boy whose age has been reported as 8 or 9, were killed Friday in Cleveland, Texas. The shooting in the small community about 45 miles north of Houston happened after neighbors reportedly told a man to stop shooting in his yard and he became enraged. 

The alleged shooter has been named as Francisco Oropeza, 38. As of Monday afternoon, law enforcement agencies have been unable to apprehend Oropeza, despite a massive manhunt.

The case has taken on political power for reasons beyond the gruesome nature of the killing.

Oropeza is a Mexican national who appears to have been in the United States illegally. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have confirmed that he was deported on at least four previous occasions stretching back more than a decade.

His previous deportations, those officials said, took place in March 2009, September 2009, January 2012 and July 2016.

That record, and the terrible crime of which he stands accused, has outraged those who want a stricter border policy.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents rank-and-file Border Patrol agents, noted that seeking to illegally reenter the United States having previously been deported is a felony.

“Had we prosecuted him for that felony, he would not have been able to kill” his alleged victims, Judd said.

Judd also made a wider point about border policy under President Biden.

“When you hear people like [Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas say the border is not open, you have to look at this particular case … If somebody was able to reenter this country five different times despite being deported, that clearly shows the border is, in fact, open.”

Liberal advocates hit back, arguing that, historically, immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native-born Americans — and that attempts to draw a cause-and-effect line between immigration policy and the latest killing are raw demagoguery.

It’s a point that finds support from some independent observers.

Rhetoric linking illegal immigration and violent crime “has been used for a long time,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

“None of the social science data confirms that is true and it quite often shows the opposite — that neighborhoods with a lot of immigration are safer,” said Zelizer. “But politically it has been very powerful. It creates the idea of an enemy coming from outside who is now inside.”

The political battle is only growing more intense.

“This illegal alien brutally murdered 5 individuals in an ‘execution-style’ shooting,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) tweeted Monday. “He was previously deported and has been arrested numerous times. Why was he in our country roaming around freely?”

Biggs called for the impeachment of Mayorkas.

Kari Lake, the defeated GOP candidate in last November’s Arizona gubernatorial election, tweeted, “How do we continue to let these criminals into the country?”

At Monday’s media briefing, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre characterized the events in Cleveland as “yet another shocking, horrific act of gun violence.” 

Jean-Pierre noted that while President Biden was “praying” for those affected, “the president believes prayers alone are not enough.” 

The press secretary noted Biden’s desire for Congress to pass stricter gun-control legislation — a long-held wish that has almost no chance of being fulfilled anytime soon.

Continuing the political back-and-forth, the Republican National Committee tweeted within minutes of Jean-Pierre’s opening remarks that she did “not mention” that Oropeza is “an illegal immigrant who has been deported FIVE TIMES.”

The atrocity in Texas arises at an especially febrile time when it comes to debates about the border.

Encounters between unauthorized migrants and Customs and Border Protection agents at the southwestern border hit their highest figure ever recorded last December, at more than 252,000. 

The figure declined significantly in January and February, to fewer than 160,000 in each month. But in March, the most recent month for which data is available, those encounters rose again, to almost 192,000.

It is widely expected that those numbers will surge once Title 42 ends in less than two weeks. That Trump-era policy, continued under Biden, was used to quickly expel migrants and is expected to end on May 11.

Immigration has long been one of Biden’s weakest political issues and Republicans are sure to want to press their advantage on the topic as the presidential campaign heats up. 

In a Reuters/Ipsos poll in mid-April, just 27 percent of Americans approved of Biden’s handling of immigration — tying for the lowest approval number in any of the 11 issues tested in that survey.

Advocates of a stricter immigration policy see the shooting in Texas as evidence of how badly the current policy is falling.

“It’s just another example of what happens when we fail to enforse our laws, when you fail to enforce the border,” said Ira Mehlman, the media director of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors a stricter immigration system. “Virtually nobody is deported anymore.”

But Mehlman distanced himself from a controversial statement from the office of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, which referred to the victims of the Cleveland shooting as “five illegal immigrants.”

“It doesn’t matter what the immigration states of the victims is,” Mehlman said. “Nobody should be killed for asking a guy to stop shooting in his backyard.”

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Markey calls for Clarence Thomas to resign: ‘reputation is unsalvageable’

Posted on (Updated by Julia Mueller

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Monday called for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign amid controversy over the justice’s financial disclosures and ethical concerns about the nation’s highest court.

“I will say what needs to be said: Clarence Thomas should resign from the Supreme Court of the United States. His reputation is unsalvageable,” Markey said at an event to advocate for Supreme Court reforms.

“It is evident that he cannot judge right from wrong. So why should he be judging the country's most important cases, on its highest court?” the senator added.

Recent reporting from ProPublica found that Texas billionaire Harlan Crow paid for Thomas to take part in luxury vacations over two decades without the justice reporting them. Thomas said later that he was “advised” he did not need to disclose the trips. 

Another ProPublica report found that Thomas also didn’t disclose a 2014 real estate deal he’d made with the same Republican megadonor. 

Markey joins Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and a handful of House lawmakers, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), in calling for Thomas to leave the court after the reports sparked renewed debate over ethics standards for the justices.

“Justice Thomas should resign - to uphold the Court and American justice. The unavoidable, sickening appearance of impropriety stains trust & credibility in our whole judiciary,” Blumenthal said earlier this month.

Ocasio-Cortez said “this degree of corruption is shocking — almost cartoonish” and called for Thomas to be impeached.

Markey on Monday gathered with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and others to kick off "the Just Majority bus tour" and push for expanding the court and shoring up ethics standards.

In addition to criticisms about Thomas's ties to Crow, who Markey called "a rich right-wing bad actor pushing a far-right agenda," the senator also criticized Thomas for not recusing himself "on cases about efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, in spite of the fact that his wife was implicated in them."

"We have to ensure that the mockery which Justice Clarence Thomas is actually committing is corrected because it is a violation of public trust," Markey said, adding, "Clarence Thomas is serving on the high court with the highest level of corruption."

GOP senators warn Trump’s legal problems a ‘bad look’ for the party in 2024 

Posted on (Updated by Alexander Bolton

Republican senators are warning that criminal charges hanging over former President Trump will give the GOP a bad look if he is the party’s eventual nominee, especially in a year when Republicans are eager for a chance to retake the Senate.  

While GOP senators have accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) of waging a politically motivated prosecution of Trump, they acknowledge it nevertheless will hurt their chances in the 2024 election if charges are still hanging over Trump next summer and fall.  

Trump’s next in-person court appearance is scheduled for December, which means legal proceedings could stretch well into 2024. He also could face additional charges from the Department of Justice and the Fulton County, Ga., district attorney.  

“I think it’s a problem for a party to be considered legitimate by people who care about America to have someone who’s been indicted, who’s had to plead the Fifth multiple times, who’s been surrounded by individuals who’ve gone to jail, one after the other, or been convicted of felonies,” to be its nominee for president, said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who was the GOP’s nominee for president in 2012.  

But Romney doesn’t think any of that will stop Trump from winning next year’s presidential primary.  

“I don’t think that has any particular impact on the primary process or the likelihood that Donald Trump will be our nominee,” he said. “I don’t think the primary voters look at electability; I think they look for the person they think will pursue what they believe in.”  

Last year, criminal cases in Manhattan took an average of more than 900 days to proceed from indictment to a trial verdict, according to data reported by Reuters.  

Unless Trump can persuade a judge to dismiss Bragg’s case, he likely will remain under indictment and have a legal cloud over his head during next year’s election. 

He also faces a possible indictment from Justice Department special prosecutor Jack Smith — who is investigating Trump’s role in the lead-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as his possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago — and from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D), who is investigating allegations that Trump interfered in Georgia’s 2020 election.  

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) suggested Trump’s growing legal problems could take a toll on his viability as a candidate.  

“Some of these things will drag out for some period of time, so I’m guessing a lot of it will be unresolved” by next year’s presidential election, he said.  

“But I don’t think it’s going to deter him from running,” he added. “It’s probably not going to deter people from endorsing him.” 

So far, nine Senate Republicans have endorsed Trump — Sens. Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), J.D. Vance (Ohio), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.), Markwayne Mullin (Okla.), Ted Budd (N.C.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Bill Hagerty (Tenn.).  

Asked about Trump’s support from fellow Republican senators despite his legal baggage, Thune said Trump “will probably be a force in the nominating process so members, I think, are probably looking at their states, their constituencies and the politics around the former president and what makes the best sense for them.”  

Thune said many Republicans view Bragg’s prosecution as “very politically motivated,” but he warned “all this stuff,” referring to the legal battles, will likely have “a cumulative effect to it.”  

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to the Senate GOP leadership, told The Hill it “would be better” not to have a nominee for president who is under indictment.  

He was spotted stopping by a get-to-know-you event for Trump’s possible rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), in Washington on Tuesday. 

Cornyn said he “went by to pay my respects, shake his hand and wish him well” but doesn’t plan to make any endorsement ahead of next year’s primary. Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) also attended the event. 

Many Senate Republicans think Trump’s repeated yet unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 election was stolen, which candidates he endorsed in the 2022 midterm election embraced, hurt their chances of winning back the Senate majority.  

And they fear Trump’s ongoing legal dramas could hurt their chances in 2024, as well.  

“I think there are several individuals who are looking at running for the presidency that could do a good job of uniting our country. I would prefer to look at one of those individuals — I’m looking forward to having one of those other individuals be successful in obtaining the presidency,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said of the Republican candidates who will challenge Trump in the primary.  

Asked about what it would mean for the party to have its nominee for president under indictment, Rounds said, “I can’t think of anything positive about having that occur.”  

One Republican senator who requested anonymity to comment on what Trump’s legal problems mean for Republican candidates in 2024 said if the Republican candidate for president is under indictment, it’s a problem in the general election. 

“It’s a bad look,” the lawmaker added.  

“An indictment means something; conviction means a lot more. That’s a finding of fact that the law was violated. Someone has been charged; they’re presumed to be innocent, but from a political point of view, you never want your candidates under a cloud of criminal prosecution,” the source said.  

Yet Trump maintains a big lead in the polls over DeSantis and other potential rivals among Republicans nationwide. 

A Wall Street Journal poll of 600 likely primary voters conducted from April 11 to April 17 found Trump well ahead of the field with 48 percent support compared to DeSantis, who had 24 percent support, in a hypothetical matchup. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley came in a distant third with 5 percent support.  

A Wall Street Journal survey conducted in December showed DeSantis beating Trump 52 percent to 38 percent.  

Trump leads DeSantis by an average of more than 30 percentage points in polls conducted since the end of March.  

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who voted to convict Trump on the impeachment charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, wonders what Trump’s commanding lead in the polls says about the direction of the party and country more broadly. 

“How can this be? What country are we in?” she asked with a laugh.  

“Is it a bad look for the country to have an individual that is viewed not only as a viable candidate but the frontrunner who’s under indictment?” she asked. “I don’t know. I stopped trying to figure out Donald Trump a long time ago.”