Category: News

Mayorkas: ‘The number of people that are arriving at our border is at an extraordinary height’

Posted on (Updated by Julia Shapero

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a new interview that the number of people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border has reached an “extraordinary height.”

“The number of people that are arriving at our border is at an extraordinary height. There is no question about that,” Mayorkas told Sharyn Alfonsi in a forthcoming episode of “60 Minutes."

“But that is not unique to the southern border of the United States,” he continued. “There is tremendous amount of movement throughout the hemisphere, and in fact throughout the world.”

Mayorkas has faced intense criticism from Republican lawmakers over his handling of the southern border, with some calling for his impeachment.

“I think that we face a very serious challenge in certain parts of the border,” the Homeland Security secretary acknowledged in the "60 Minutes" interview.

However, he declined to call the situation a crisis, as many GOP lawmakers have described it.

“I have tremendous faith in the people of the Department of Homeland Security, and a crisis speaks to me of a withdrawal from our mission,” Mayorkas said. “And we are only putting more force and more energy into it.”

Encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border increased substantially under President Biden, with Customs and Border Patrol reporting nearly 2.4 million encounters from October 2021 through September 2022.

However, the Biden administration's new asylum policies aimed at discouraging Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan migrants from traveling through Mexico seem to have eased the influx slightly. Between December and January, encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border dropped by nearly 100,000.

Democrats hail, Republicans blast Trump indictment

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

The indictment of former President Trump by a Manhattan grand jury rocked Capitol Hill on Thursday, with Democrats hailing the decision and Republicans blasting what they described as a political witch hunt.

“The indictment of a former president is unprecedented. But so too is the unlawful conduct in which Trump has been engaged,” tweeted Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who served as lead impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment trial. “A nation of laws must hold the rich and powerful accountable, even when they hold high office. Especially when they do. To do otherwise is not democracy.”

Some Democrats, including House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), expressed their excitement on Twitter.

“SO Trump finally got indicted! I predicted he would and I predicted that Stormy Daniels would get him! Sometimes justice works!” Waters said.

Others stressed letting the legal process play out and that "no one is above the law."

"There should be no outside political influence, intimidation or interference in the case,” Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "I encourage both Mr. Trump’s critics and supporters to let the process proceed peacefully and according to the law.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tweeted that “No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence. Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.”

“We must allow the judicial process to continue unimpeded and free from any form of political interference or intimidation," said Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.).

Republicans, meanwhile, jumped to criticize Bragg, with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) pledging to “hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account” for “this injustice.”

“Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election,” McCarthy tweeted. “As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee and an ally of Trump, summed up the Republican reaction in a one-word tweet: “Outrageous.” And Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) — the chair of the Senate GOP campaign arm — called the indictment “a political prosecution.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chair of the Senate GOP Conference, called the indictment a “politically-motivated prosecution by a far-left activist.”

“If it was anyone other than President Trump, a case like this would never be brought. Instead of ordering political hit jobs, New York prosecutors should focus on getting violent criminals off the streets,” Barrasso said in a statement.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) similarly called the indictment a “sham” and accused Democrats of “weaponizing government to attack their political opponents.” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), chair of the House Republican Conference and the only member of House GOP leadership to endorse Trump, called the move “unprecedented election interference” and “a dark day for America,” adding that it would fuel support for Trump in 2024.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) took a more aggressive approach, seeking revenge.

“Our side chants ‘lock her up’ and their side is going to get a mug shot based on a witch hunt. It’s time to change that. Gloves are off,” Greene tweeted.

The Manhattan grand jury voted on Thursday to indict Trump on criminal charges stemming from his role in organizing a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, a source familiar with the proceedings confirmed to The Hill. The specific charges, however, remain unknown.

The indictment marks the culmination of a winding investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), and the end of a days-long waiting game that began when Trump publicly predicted he would be indicted in the case last week.

A trio of House Republican committee chairs sent a letter to Bragg last week — after Trump’s social media announcement — demanding that he sit for a transcribed interview about his investigation. The lawmakers also asked that Bragg provide documents and communications regarding the probe.

Jordan — who also chairs the Judiciary’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government — expanded the congressional investigation into Bragg days later, requesting testimony from two prosecutors who resigned from the Manhattan case because of disagreements with Bragg.

"It's Trump derangement," Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said leaving his Capitol Hill office Thursday evening. "It's an illness of hatred that just — it shouldn't be in American politics. I don't feel that way toward anybody."

Wilson said House Republicans will move "immediately" to uncover the details of Bragg's probe, and he has confidence that GOP investigators — notably Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), chairman of the Administration Committee who signed the letter to Bragg last week — will demonstrate that Bragg's prosecution has been politically motivated from the start.

"We're going to find out, from the inside, as to their correspondence and communications," he said.

Democrats, meanwhile,

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), who served as an impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment, said Thursday was “a somber day for our nation.”

“Former President Trump’s indictment reminds us that no one is above the law and that we are all afforded due process and equal protection under the law,” he added on Twitter.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) tweeted that the New York indictment “is only the beginning of being held accountable for his crimes.”

“Trump attempted to illegally overturn election results in Georgia and worked to incite the insurrection at the Capitol, both in an effort to overthrow our government to advance his fascist cause,” Bowman said, calling for Trump to be banned from running for public office again.

Trump is also the subject of investigations by the Fulton County, Georgia district attorney’s office — which is looking into his efforts to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election — and the Justice Department, which is probing the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and the mishandling of classified documents.

Attorney General Merrick Garland in November appointed a social counsel to oversee the Justice Department investigations related to Trump.

At least one lawmaker took a softer approach to the news that Trump had been indicted on Thursday, noting that the Manhattan grand jury has not formally announced its decision to charge Trump in the matter.

“Just a reminder that there is no rule that you have to express your opinion before reading the indictment,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on Twitter.

Mike Lillis and Al Weaver contributed. Updated at 8:20 p.m.

Do you feel better off than four years ago? Dems think so, GOP disagrees

Posted on (Updated by Jordain Carney

Republicans say they have a good argument to make when it comes to this classic election question: Are you better off than you were four years ago? 

Inflation is high, crime is up, stocks are flat or falling and immigration is out of control, GOP operatives say. 

But Democrats — and even some Republicans — argue emphatically that Americans in 2024 will feel they are much better off than they were four years ago, when the country was suffering through the pandemic in the final year of Donald Trump’s presidency.

They say many Americans will remember the Trump presidency as among the darkest times in U.S. history and point out his four years in office included two impeachments — the second over a riot at the Capitol.

“Good luck with that argument,” said Democratic strategist Christy Setzer. “Personally, I'd think voters remember the Trump years as a time of constant anxiety, chaos and cruelty — hence voting him out.”

To be sure, the are you better off argument has some pluses for the GOP. But it may also be a double-edged sword, inviting call-backs to Trump even as he is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination next year.  

“It's an invitation to run with Trump, whether or not he’s on the ticket,” said Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, who opposes the former president. 

“It’s not a winning strategy for the Republican Party,” Del Percio added. “It’s looking backwards.”

Biden’s poll numbers have been underwater for months and a Gallup poll out this week showed that voters disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs, energy policy and the environment. When it comes to the key issue of the economy, only 32 percent of those surveyed approve of Biden’s performance.

A Real Clear Politics average of national polls this week showed just 28 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction. 

Republicans see Biden’s weaknesses as an opportunity to draw a contrast. They say they have a good argument to make that the country was on more solid footing before Biden took office.

“In just over two years, Biden has tanked the economy, opened up our borders, embarrassed America on the world stage, worsened a supply chain crisis, and stoked the coals of division in our country,” said Republican National Committee spokesperson Emma Vaughn. “Americans are less safe, and their paychecks are worth less as a result of Biden’s reckless policies.

“Come 2024 voters will send him packing home to Delaware for good,” she said. 

Even Republicans who are desperate to see Biden lose next year are hesitant to talk about the Trump era and urged party operatives not to make the comparison. 

“I don’t think people really want to go back to the Trump years because they were so tumultuous,” said Republican strategist John Feehery.

He and other Republicans say there is a case to be made in pointing to Biden’s flaws — from inflation to the border — as a way to make the case that the country needs to move in a different direction. 

“He’s out of touch, barely cognizant and that’s why his poll numbers are so low,” Feehery said. “Not only is he from the past but his ideas are from the past. They need to make that connection to his view of the world.” 

One Republican strategist said the comparison between Biden and Trump is a good one to make “because at the end of the day, the biggest issue will be the rising cost of groceries and the inability to pay soaring bills.” 

“Even if things seemed not so great under Trump with all his shenanigans and bullshit, this election is going to be about the economy, period,” the strategist said. 

GOP candidates are taking issue with some of Trump’s positions.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to announce a bid for the presidency in the coming months, has sought to undermine Trump’s handling of COVID-19 and lockdowns during 2020. 

“You take a crisis situation like Covid, the good thing about it is that when you’re an elected executive, you have to make all kinds of decisions, you’ve got to steer that ship,” DeSantis said in January. “And the good thing is that people are able to render a judgment on that: whether they re-elect you or not.” 

But Democrats say they will win any argument that compares Biden’s tenure to Trump’s. Biden, they say, helped bring the nation back from a deadly pandemic and an economy that was quickly tanking as a result. 

They also tout the record job growth under Biden and highlight his legislative wins.

“If Republicans overall election strategy is to compare the Trump presidency to Biden, then who am I to stop them from handing Democrats the White House for another four years?” said Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau.

Congress ponders TikTok ban after CEO’s grilling

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Discussions of a potential ban on TikTok in the United States are expected to heat up this week after the CEO of the social media app was grilled by House members during a blockbuster hearing last week.

Congressional leaders from both chambers and parties have backed bills that could lead to the Chinese-owned app being banned, while Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has explicitly said he would support a national ban on TikTok.

“The House will be moving forward with legislation to protect Americans from the technological tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party,” McCarthy said in a tweet on Sunday.

What that legislation will look like remains unclear, but will likely be a topic of conversation among lawmakers this week.

Also this week, House and Senate committees are slated to hold hearings on recent bank failures, after Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were seized by regulators earlier this month. The collapses spooked markets and raised concerns about future bank runs.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold an oversight hearing this week featuring testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — his first appearance before the 118th Congress. A number of GOP House members have expressed a desire to impeach Mayorkas.

Additionally, former interim Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is set to testify at a Senate hearing on the company’s alleged union busting.

On the legislative front, the House is slated to take up a major energy package — given the esteemed H.R. 1 nomenclature — and the Senate is expected to hold a final vote on legislation to repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

TikTok in the crosshairs

Fallout from last week’s heated TikTok hearing will likely continue to reverberate on Capitol Hill this week, as lawmakers look toward legislation targeting the app, which is used by some 150 million Americans.

McCarthy on Sunday said the House would move ahead with legislation pertaining to TikTok, writing on Twitter “It's very concerning that the CEO of TikTok can't be honest and admit what we already know to be true—China has access to TikTok user data.”

McCarthy told reporters last week that he supported Congress moving to ban the app, but said he wanted to "make sure we get it right."

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday, during which lawmakers from both sides of the aisle expressed concerns about national security threats, data privacy, the spread of misinformation and safety for minors.

TikTok is owned by Chinese-based company ByteDance, a fact that has fueled the worries over data privacy and national security. However, TikTok’s chief operating officer blasted the hearing, saying it "felt rooted in xenophobia.”

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), the top Democrat on the House select committee on competition with China, told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that the hearing “created more concerns” regarding the popular social media app.

A number of TikTok-related bills have been introduced this Congress, including one bipartisan measure that would give the federal government the ability to ban the app. The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act (RESTRICT Act) would direct the Commerce Department to review and mitigate risks posed by technology that has ties to foreign adversaries, including China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Senate Republican Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced the bill, which currently has nearly two dozen bipartisan co-sponsors. The White House endorsed the measure earlier this month, and Warner on Sunday said the bill has received “strong interest from the House.”

“I think they wanted to get through their hearing. And, clearly, while I appreciated Mr. Chew's testimony, he just couldn't answer the basic question,” Warner told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told the CBS show “we'd love to see that passed by the Congress, so that the president can have additional tools and authorities,” referring to the RESTRICT Act.

Separately, House Republicans earlier this month advanced a separate measure — titled the Deterring America’s Technology Adversaries Act (DATA Act) — which would allow the president to possibly ban software applications, including TikTok.

It specifically calls for amending an existing exemption under the Berman Amendments — which restrict the president from regulating informational materials to encourage the exchange of ideas across country — so it does not pertain to “sensitive personal data.”

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the sponsor of the bill, told “Fox News Sunday” this weekend “I think Congress is going to move forward on this.”

“One thing you saw from the hearings in a bipartisan way that both sides of the aisle were standing together saying this is a threat to our children and we need to stop it,” he added.

Hearings on Silicon Valley Bank collapse

Senate and House panels are set to hold hearings this week on this month’s collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, marking the first congressional events looking into the failures.

On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Recent Bank Failures and the Federal Regulatory Response.” Those slated to testify are Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg, Federal Reserve System Board of Governors Vice Chairman of Supervision Michael Barr, and Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Nellie Liang.

On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee is slated to hold a hearing titled “The Federal Regulators' Response to Recent Bank Failures,” featuring the same trio of witnesses.

Federal regulators took over Silicon Valley Bank on March 10 after a significant run on the bank amid liquidity issues. Two days later, state regulators seized Signature Bank in New York.

The collapse of the two banks sparked a blame game on Capitol Hill. Democrats generally cited a 2018 deregulation bill that former President Trump signed into law, despite the fact that 49 Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with Democrats voted for the measure. Some Republicans, on the other hand, blamed the collapse on Silicon Valley Bank pursuing “woke" strategies, while others have pointed to inflation and raised questions about regulators.

The failures have also prompted discussion about what action Congress can take in response to the collapses.

“The House Financial Services Committee is committed to getting to the bottom of the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) and Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) wrote in a statement.

“This hearing will allow us to begin to understand why and how these banks failed,” the pair continued. “We will conduct this hearing without fear or favor to get the answers the American people deserve.”

Mayorkas to testify before Senate panel

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is heading to Capitol Hill this week for his first hearing before the 118th Congress. The DHS secretary is slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday at 10 a.m. for an oversight hearing.

The hearing comes as Republican lawmakers, particularly those in the House, have harshly criticized Mayorkas, arguing that he has not made enough of an effort to secure the southern border and decrease the influx of migrants into the U.S.

In February, a coalition of House Republicans introduced a second impeachment article against Mayorkas. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the sponsor, accused him of being the “chief architect of the migration and drug invasion at our southern border,” and said the increase in migration was a “willful and intentional” violation of the secretary’s oath of office.

House Republicans, however, have been split on how to move ahead on Mayorkas.

Former Starbucks CEO Schultz to testify

Former Starbucks interim CEO Howard Schultz is scheduled to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee this week on the coffee chain’s treatment of union organizing efforts.

The hearing, titled “No Company Is Above the Law: The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks,” is scheduled to begin on Wednesday at 10 a.m.

Schultz’s testimony comes after weeks of back-and-forth between the executive and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has accused the company of not bargaining in good faith after a number of employees working at shops across the country have unionized.

More than 350 of the company’s stores have voted to unionize since the first one, in Buffalo, N.Y., voted to do so in December 2021. Starbucks has tried to crack down on the unionizing efforts by utilizing methods that, according to the National Labor Relations Board, are unlawful.

Sanders announced earlier this month that the Senate panel would vote on issuing Schultz a subpoena. But before the vote, Schultz agreed to testify. Last week, Schultz — who was set to step down in the beginning of next month — announced that he was stepping down immediately, two weeks earlier than planned.

“I look forward to hearing from Mr. Schultz as to when he intends to end his illegal anti-union activities and begin signing fair first contracts with the unions," Sanders wrote in a statement last week.

House to take up energy package; Senate expected to hold final vote on AUMF

The House this week is scheduled to consider a major energy package, titled the Lower Energy Costs Act. The legislation received the title of H.R. 1, signaling that it is a top priority for the House Republican conference.

The package aims to, broadly speaking, accelerate the approval process for energy projects. It also includes provisions that zero in on bolstering mining and domestic production of oil and gas.

The office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said the measure “reduces expenses across the board for American families by unleashing American energy and restoring our energy independence” in a floor lookout released Sunday night.

In the upper chamber, senators this week are expected to hold a final vote on a bill to repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the Invasion of Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War AUMF. The Senate advanced the legislation in a 68-27 vote earlier this month.

A cloture vote is scheduled for Monday evening, and then the chamber could vote on a number of amendments. Final passage could come on Tuesday or Wednesday, sending the measure to the House.

McCarthy signaled support for the legislation last week, telling reporters during the House GOP retreat in Orlando “I’m into it.”

“I don’t have a problem repealing that,” he added.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will work from home this week after announcing this weekend that he completed impatient therapy following a fall that left him with a concussion.

Senate, House committee hearings

A number of Senate and House committees are scheduled to hold hearings this week on various topics, including the situation at the southern border and the 2022 midterm elections.

  • House Oversight and Accountability’s Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services: “FDA Oversight Part I: The Infant Formula Shortage”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witness: Frank Yiannas, Former deputy commissioner of food policy and response at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • House Oversight and Accountability’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic: “The Consequences of School Closures: Intended and Unintended”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: David Zwei, author and investigative journalist at The Atlantic, New York Magazine, The Free Press; Tracy Beth Høeg, physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist, epidemiologist, private practice physician; Virginia Gentles, director of the Education Freedom Center at the Independent Women’s Forum
  • House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability: “Biden’s Growing Border Crisis: Death, Drugs, and Disorder on the Northern Border”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses
      • Panel I: Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), Pete Stauber (R-Minn.)
      • Panel II: Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council; Robert Quinn, commissioner of New Hampshire’s Department of Safety; Laura Dawson, executive director of the Future Borders Coalition; Andrew R. Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy and the Center for Immigration Studies
  • House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials: “Government Response to East Palestine: Ensuring Safety and Transparency for the Community”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: Debra Shore, regional administrator for Region Five at the Environmental Protection Agency; Anne Vogel, director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Wesley J. Vins, health commissioner of the Columbiana County (Ohio) General Health District
  • House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs: “Examining Progressivism’s Impact on an All-Volunteer Military”
    • When: Tuesday at 2 p.m.
    • Witnesses: Jeremy Hunt, media fellow at the Hudson Institute; Brent Sadler, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense; Meaghan Mobbs, senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum
  • House Committee on Oversight and Accountability: “Overdue Oversight of the Capital City: Part I”
    • When: Wednesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson; D.C. Councilmember Charles Allen; D.C. Chief Financial Officer Glen Lee; D.C. Police Union Chairman Greggory Pemberton
  • House Foreign Affairs Committee: “Oversight, Transparency, and Accountability of Ukraine Assistance”
    • When: Wednesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: Diana R. Shaw, deputy inspector general performing the duties of the Inspector General at the State Department; Nicole L. Angarella, acting deputy inspector general, performing the duties of the Inspector General at the U.S. Agency for International Development; Robert P. Storch, inspector general at the Defense Department
  • Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government: Examine the Missouri v. Biden case
    • When: Thursday at 9 a.m.
    • Witnesses: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.); Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry; D. John Sauer, special assistant attorney general at the Louisiana Department of Justice

Squeezed by investigations, Trump escalates violent rhetoric

Posted on (Updated by Mike Lillis

Under increasing pressure from state and federal investigators, former President Trump escalated his violent rhetoric this week, heightening tensions as prosecutors weigh whether to bring criminal charges and sparking sharp criticism from Democrats, who are warning of another Jan. 6.

In several social media posts over the past two days, Trump appeared to threaten Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) with a baseball bat and warned any indictments brought against him may lead to "potential death & destruction" around the country.

The messages were remarkably direct, even for a figure with a long history of promoting violence, and they've led to new warnings from Trump's critics that the former president is aggravating partisan hostilities and inflaming national unrest. 

"It's dangerous, and it's obviously a sign that the pressure of the moment is getting to him," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who headed the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. 

"I'm hopeful that they won't take him literally,” Thompson added, referring to Trump’s supporters. “You know, a lot of these people who came to Washington on Jan. 6 came at his invitation, and over time, he weaponized them to attacking the Capitol. And this is that same kind of weaponization — taken to another level."

The concerns arrive just before Trump is scheduled to stage his first 2024 campaign rally on Saturday in Waco, Texas, exactly 30 years after a deadly standoff between federal law enforcement and the Branch Davidians, an apocalyptic cult led by David Koresh, took place just outside the city. The siege ended with a massive fire that engulfed the sect’s compound, left scores of adherents dead and has since become a rallying cry of those who view the government as an abusive force treading on individual liberties. 

Some lawmakers see a connection between Trump’s increasingly violent rhetoric and his choice of Waco to kick-start his campaign. 

"That comment, and being [at] the site of fanatic activity long ago in Texas, is really a dangerous combination,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) said Friday in the Capitol. “We saw the harm that it can cause right here in this building. And as usual, it's only about Donald Trump; it's not about the safety and security of families in Texas and around the country.”

On Friday, Trump allies also sought to draw attention to the plight of those arrested and charged for violent assaults on Jan. 6, visiting them in a local D.C. jail and claiming their constitutional rights are being violated.

Trump is facing a series of criminal investigations into his conduct, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the discovery of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, his resort-residence in South Florida. 

But the Manhattan case is the longest-running, based on a hush money payment to an adult film actress just before the 2016 election, and Bragg has given recent signals that an indictment against Trump might be imminent. 

Trump has acknowledged that he reimbursed Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer, for the $130,000 Cohen initially paid to Stormy Daniels in return for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier — an affair Trump denies. But his defense team has said the payment was made to preserve his marriage, not for purposes related to his political campaign. 

Turning to social media late Thursday, Trump escalated already heated attacks toward Bragg, in one case sharing a pair of side-by-side photos: one of the prosecutor, the other with the former president holding a baseball bat. 

Hours later — just after 1 a.m. on Friday — Trump posted another message to his Truth Social account, warning of a violent backlash if Bragg brings charges. 

“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?” Trump wrote.

“Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely [sic] hates the USA!”

The message drew immediate denunciations from Trump’s critics, most of them Democrats, who voiced concerns that it would serve as a call to violence for some members of Trump’s conservative base, thousands of whom had stormed the Capitol two years ago at his behest. 

“Trump has succeeded in turning Lincoln’s GOP into a messianic and dangerous cult of personality,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who led Trump’s second impeachment after the Jan. 6 attack. “[He] knows how to activate the most violent and unstable elements of his following. And this kind of rhetoric, this serves as incitement to the most rabid and unhinged parts of his base.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Friday Trump’s “rhetoric is reckless, reprehensible and irresponsible.”

“It’s dangerous, and if he keeps it up, he’s going to get someone killed,” Jeffries said.

Other Trump critics have gone a step further, suggesting that his comments may have, themselves, violated the law. 

“Threatening a prosecutor is a crime in NY. In fact MULTIPLE crimes,” Norm Eisen, counsel for Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment and an author on both, wrote on Twitter.

Eisen pointed to several statutes in particular, including harassment, menacing and stalking. 

“And that’s just for starters,” he said.  

Across the aisle, Republicans were much less willing to take on the former president, who leads the nascent GOP field vying for the White House in 2024. 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) deflected questions about Trump’s “death and destruction” remarks, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a close Trump ally, told an NBC reporter that he couldn’t read the comments without his glasses. 

Some others took steps to condemn any talk of violence, though without criticizing Trump directly.

“I don't condone political violence,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). “I haven't seen those statements,” he continued, “but in general, I've been very outspoken because it relates just to political violence in general.”

Rebecca Beitsch and Mychael Schnell contributed.

Democrats race to Bragg’s defense: Congress ‘should stay the hell out of it’

Posted on (Updated by Mike Lillis

House Democrats are racing to the defense of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) amid his criminal probe of former President Trump, saying the Republicans seeking to halt Bragg’s hush money investigation are encroaching on matters of independent law enforcement and should simply butt out.

“Let's wait to see if there are going to be charges. Let's see what the charges are. Let's see what the evidence is,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “And we should let law enforcement do their jobs without political interference."

Trump stirred a hornet’s nest over the weekend when he predicted he would be indicted this week for his role in a 2016 payment to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The prediction proved false — the grand jury in the case is expected to meet again next week — but the very idea drew howls from Trump’s GOP allies on Capitol Hill, where the chairmen of three powerful House committees demanded that Bragg testify before Congress.

“Your actions will erode confidence in the evenhanded application of justice and unalterably interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election,” Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.) and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) wrote to Bragg on Monday. Jordan chairs the Judiciary Committee; Comer leads the Oversight panel, and Steil heads the Administration Committee.

Bragg responded to the Republicans on Thursday, writing that Trump had created a “false expectation” in predicting his arrest this week. He declined the GOP entreaties to provide information, and Democrats are backing him, accusing Republicans of strong-arming judiciary officials and defending Trump over the rule of law.

"I was astonished, actually, when I saw the letter from the three committee chairs to Mr. Bragg, essentially calling on him to violate grand jury secrecy laws in New York, which of course is a felony,” Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters on Thursday. “He rightly declined to do that.” 

Yet Republicans are not the only figures criticizing Bragg this week. Some liberals are voicing concerns that the Manhattan district attorney is moving too quickly in the hush money case, fearing his indictment might arrive before federal and state prosecutors investigating several other episodes — including Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election — bring potentially more serious charges. 

Those liberal voices say an early indictment in Manhattan could benefit Trump politically, by rallying support from Republican voters who might be shifting away from the former president, but remain sympathetic to his warnings of a national "deep state" conspiracy targeting conservatives by all levels of government. They’re suggesting Bragg should back off to let the other investigations proceed first. 

“A charge like this — a porn star payoff seven years ago, somehow tied to the election but not really — it doesn’t seem like the right way to go,” Van Jones, a liberal commentator for CNN, said this week. “History is not going to judge Donald Trump based on Stormy Daniels. They’re going to judge him based on the election, going to judge him based on the coup attempt.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill have other ideas, however, and many wasted no time blasting the calls for Bragg to delay. 

"I always scratch my head when I hear that — as if we have the ability to politically choreograph the sequencing of criminal justice. I mean, give me a break,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said. 

“The process and the law should just play out, and we should stay the hell out of it.” 

A vast majority of Democrats appear to agree. While many acknowledged there might be a political advantage if the Justice Department brought the first charges surrounding the Jan. 6 attack — or Georgia prosecutors were the first to indict Trump for interfering in the 2020 election — they emphasized that those are independent investigations being conducted by separate agencies, and any coordination between them would taint all of the probes.  

“From a political standpoint, it may have an impact on how this is all interpreted and received, and how certain people are able to spin it,” Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) said, referring to the possibility that Bragg may be the first prosecutor to bring charges. “But the central question is the independence of these prosecutors, and their ability to do their jobs. And they have to do their jobs regardless of the political fallout." 

Bragg’s office has sent recent signals that it may soon indict Trump in the scandal that involved Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, paying Daniels $130,000 in return for her silence surrounding an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier. Trump, who denies the affair, later reimbursed Cohen, who was subsequently convicted of a series of felonies, spent time in prison, and is now the central witness against his former boss. 

But it’s still unknown whether or when the grand jury will see fit to indict Trump, what the charges would be or how challenging the path is to a potential conviction.

Legal observers suggest an indictment of Trump would likely focus on charges of falsifying business records, a misdemeanor. Pursuit of a felony would require showing the falsification was connected to another crime, but those options all carry their own pitfalls. 

As the debate has evolved, some powerful Democrats — including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led Trump’s first impeachment — have accused the Justice Department of moving too slowly in its investigations. But others said the sheer scope of the Jan. 6 probe is enough to justify the marathon process.

“The good news is the Department of Justice doesn't care about my perception of their pace,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said, pointing to the independence of the agency.

“When you are conducting an investigation that involves the former president of the United States you want to be sure that you have crossed every T and dotted every I. I think it does feel like it's been a long time, but obviously, they're gonna do what is necessary to fully investigate,” he said.

The hush money case also had a head start compared to the other probes, with the conduct first coming to light in 2018 and under investigation by the Manhattan district attorney's office since May of 2021. Some Democrats said it’s been all but inevitable that the Stormy Daniels scandal would yield the first charges. 

"It's almost predictable that the tawdry and the slimy would get him first. And I hate to say it that way, but that's what I think of him,” Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) told The Hill.

“In many ways, you'd like to see some of the graver violations of law — that I think he's violated — those come first,” he added. “But it's Donald Trump. Of course the circus comes first.”

Mychael Schnell contributed.

Schiff criticizes lagging Justice probe of Trump

Posted on (Updated by Lauren Sforza

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) criticized the Justice Department Thursday for not moving quick enough into its investigation of former President Trump regarding his attempts at overturning the the results of the 2020 election.

"I do share the concern that the Justice Department should have moved on this case — if they are going to move on it — a long time ago," he told CNN's Kaitlan Collins on "CNN This Morning."

"The Justice Department has moved very slowly," he added.

Collins asked the California Democrat whether he shared the same concerns as others who have said the New York grand jury investigation of Trump's involvement in a hush money payment "does not have the same merits" as other cases Trump is facing.

Schiff, who led Trump's first impeachment trials, said that while the Justice Department moved quickly when it came to investigating the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the department is at least a year away from investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the election.

"And for that reason, you have other prosecutions now that are going forward first, but I certainly think that the Justice Department should have pursued this with far more urgency," he said.

Schiff said that the investigation into Trump keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida is being met with urgency, but he reiterated that the "most serious" charges around Trump's involvement in Jan. 6 should have been probed by the Justice Department "a long time ago."

Trump is facing a slew of investigations since leaving office. The Manhattan grand jury could possibly indict Trump in the coming days regarding his alleged involvement in a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair.

Trump is also being investigated by the Justice Department after officials found a plethora of classified documents at his private residence in Mar-a-Lago.

Schiff criticizes lagging Justice probe of Trump

Posted on (Updated by Lauren Sforza

CORRECTION: Schiff offered the remarks Wednesday on "CNN Primetime." A previous version of this story included incorrect information.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) criticized the Justice Department Wednesday for not moving quick enough into its investigation of former President Trump regarding his attempts at overturning the results of the 2020 election.

"I do share the concern that the Justice Department should have moved on this case — if they are going to move on it — a long time ago," he told CNN's Kaitlan Collins on "CNN Primetime."

"The Justice Department has moved very slowly," he added.

Collins asked the California Democrat whether he shared the same concerns as others who have said the New York grand jury investigation of Trump's involvement in a hush money payment "does not have the same merits" as other cases Trump is facing.

Schiff, who led Trump's first impeachment trials, said that while the Justice Department moved quickly when it came to investigating the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the department is at least a year away from investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the election.

"And for that reason, you have other prosecutions now that are going forward first, but I certainly think that the Justice Department should have pursued this with far more urgency," he said.

Schiff said that the investigation into Trump keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida is being met with urgency, but he reiterated that the "most serious" charges around Trump's involvement in Jan. 6 should have been probed by the Justice Department "a long time ago."

Trump is facing a slew of investigations since leaving office. The Manhattan grand jury could possibly indict Trump in the coming days regarding his alleged involvement in a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair.

Trump is also being investigated by the Justice Department after officials found a plethora of classified documents at his private residence in Mar-a-Lago.

Biden’s strategy on Trump indictment? Get out of the way 

Posted on (Updated by Jordain Carney

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.  

House Republicans seek testimony from Manhattan DA on Trump hush money probe

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

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.”

Updated at 1:08 p.m.