Category: News

Many Senate Republicans aren’t protecting Trump after Jan. 6 panel’s nod to criminal charges

Posted on (Updated by Alexander Bolton

Senate Republicans are stepping out of the way of the House Jan. 6 committee’s recommendation that the Justice Department prosecute former President Trump for crimes related to the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

GOP senators, especially those allied with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), say the Jan. 6 committee interviewed “credible” witnesses and added to the historical record in a substantial way, even though they have qualms about how Democrats have tried to use the panel’s findings to score political points.  

Now they say it’s up to Attorney General Merrick Garland or Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith to investigate or indict Trump, but they’re not waving federal prosecutors off from prosecuting the former president.  

“The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day,” McConnell said in a statement, pointing the finger squarely at Trump in response to the House Jan. 6 committee referring four criminal charges against Trump to the Justice Department.  

It was McConnell’s strongest statement blaming Trump for inciting a crowd to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, since he denounced him on the Senate floor in February of that year.  

“The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” he said in February 2021 after voting on technical grounds to acquit Trump during his second impeachment trial.  

Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said, “It’s up to Justice now.”  

Asked if he thought the committee had conducted a credible investigation of Trump, Thune replied, “They interviewed some credible witnesses.” 

Thune said the makeup of the panel was partisan because it comprised seven Democrats and only two anti-Trump Republicans, but he acknowledged, “They did interview a lot of folks that had a lot of knowledge of what happened and they were people who I think were very credible.”

Retiring Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, said the Jan. 6 committee’s final report, which will be made public Wednesday, is “important.” 

“I think the referrals are not as important as the report. The report’s important, even though it came out of a partisan process,” he said. 

“But the testimony is the testimony, and they were able to get the testimony from most of the people they wanted — not everybody but most — and I think most of the significant figures. That is the historical record,” Portman explained. “That’s very important.”  

The Jan. 6 panel on Monday made four criminal referrals alleging Trump incited insurrection, obstructed an official proceeding of Congress, conspired to defraud the United States and conspired to make a false statement.  

The referrals don’t require the Department of Justice to bring criminal charges against the former president, but they put more pressure on federal prosecutors to act.  

The panel also recommended the House Ethics Committee investigate House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and several allies — Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) — and what they did in the lead-up to and on the day of the attack on the Capitol.  

House Republicans are expected to dismantle the Jan. 6 panel after they take control of the chamber in January.  

Trump shrugged off the criminal referrals in a statement posted to Truth Social, his social media platform.  

“These folks don’t get it that when they come after me, people who love freedom rally around me. It strengthens me. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger,” he posted.  

Former President Trump speaks at an event

Trump has announced a new bid for the White House, but it’s been clear for weeks amid a series of controversies surrounding Trump and a disappointing midterm election outcome for the GOP that a number of Republican senators would rather move on from the former president.

Only one Republican senator, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), has publicly endorsed Trump’s 2024 presidential bid.  

Others have raised concerns about Trump’s viability in the 2024 general election or blamed him for derailing their chances of winning key Senate races in Pennsylvania and Georgia this year.  

Republican senators speaking to the media on Monday did not entirely embrace the Jan. 6 panel, by any means, but most did not embrace Trump.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), another member of the Senate Republican leadership team, said she thought the Jan. 6 committee's investigation “was a political process” and that she had “never seen” Congress recommend the Justice Department prosecute someone before.  

But she added that Trump “bears some responsibility” for the attack on the U.S. Capitol.  

“I don’t see that this changes anything. Let’s get the Electoral Count Act passed. That will clear up some of the ambiguity that came about that day,” she said, referring to legislation the Senate will take up this week to clarify that the vice president has a solely ministerial role when Congress convenes in joint session to certify the results of a presidential election.  

The bill is intended to eliminate the possibility that a future president tries to get the vice president to throw out slates of electors when presiding over a joint session of Congress, as Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to do on Jan. 6.   

McConnell, Thune, Portman and Capito all voted to acquit Trump after his second impeachment trial when he was charged with inciting insurrection. 

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Many Senate Republicans, however, voted that way on technical grounds because Trump at the time of the trial was no longer in office.  

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted to convict Trump in both of his impeachment trials, said, “There’s no question that President Trump deserves culpability for inciting the riot on Jan. 6 and for failure to act to protect the vice president and the Capitol of the United States.”

“Whether there are criminal charges associated with that would have to be determined by experienced prosecutors, and that’s what the Justice Department will determine,” he said.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who also voted to impeach Trump, said he would leave it up to federal prosecutors to decide what to do. 

“I am not a lawyer and certainly not a prosecutor,” he said, adding he wasn’t surprised about the recommendation to prosecute.

“I don’t know the legal basis of it, but you know what I think of what the president did that day,” he said.  

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, said she was not surprised by the criminal referral by the House committee.  

“Obviously they spent considerable time and [went into] great detail over many months they have investigated this,” she said. “It’s really up to [the Department of Justice] where they go next.” 

“I think it’s going to be important for us to read this report that will be coming out Wednesday,” she said.  

Asked about McConnell’s statement that the entire nation knows Trump is responsible for the Jan. 6 attack, Murkowski replied, “I agree. I voted to impeach him.”   

McConnell on Jan. 6 criminal referral of Trump: ‘Entire nation knows who is responsible for that day’

Posted on (Updated by Alexander Bolton

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday issued a terse response to the House Jan. 6 select committee’s decision to refer criminal charges against former President Trump to the Justice Department.  

“The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day. Beyond that, I don’t have any immediate observations,” McConnell said in a statement reacting to the House panel voting to refer four criminal charges against Trump to prosecutors in connection to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

The committee, made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans, recommended the Justice Department investigate Trump for inciting insurrection, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiring to make a false statement.  

The panel also recommended a formal ethics investigation of the role that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and several allies — Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) — played on Jan. 6 and in the days before.

McConnell's statement responding to the action on the other side of the Capitol was bolder than those from some members of his leadership team.

Retiring Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Roy Blunt (Mo.) said he “had no idea” of the details of the referral.  

Incoming Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said, “I never heard of Congress instructing [the Justice Department] in that way."

She said the committee’s work was “obviously politicized.”  

McConnell denounced Trump on the Senate floor in February 2021 after the former president was acquitted on the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection.  

“There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” McConnell said, after voting to acquit the president on the technical grounds that he no longer held the office.  

Since then, McConnell has regularly declined to comment when asked what responsibility Trump bore for spreading the unsubstantiated belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.  

Jan. 6 committee launches ethics complaint against McCarthy, other GOP lawmakers

Posted on (Updated by Mike Lillis

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol escalated its clash with Republican lawmakers on Monday, recommending a formal ethics inquiry into House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and other top allies of former President Trump for their refusal to cooperate with the probe.

The recommendations to the House Ethics Committee mark a milder step than the criminal referrals to the Justice Department that the select committee made Monday against Trump and several members of the former president’s inner circle for their role in the Capitol riot. 

But as a political matter, the ethics complaints will shine a bright light on the actions of McCarthy and three other prominent House Republicans — Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio), Scott Perry (Pa.) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.) — in the lead-up to and the aftermath of the attack. Those actions ranged from attending Jan. 6 planning meetings with Trump at the White House, as Jordan had done, to having conversations with the then-president in the midst of the riot, as McCarthy had done. 

The committee had initially requested that those four lawmakers, among others, appear voluntarily before the panel. When the Republicans refused, the panel issued subpoenas for their testimony in May, almost a year into the sweeping investigation into Trump’s efforts to remain in power after his 2020 defeat. 

None of them complied with the inquest, arguing the select committee was, from the start, a political witch hunt orchestrated by Trump’s adversaries — most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — to damage Trump’s chances of winning another term in the White House. Heightening those accusations, Trump last month announced his entrance into the 2024 presidential race.

During Monday’s gathering on Capitol Hill, the last in a long series of public forums to air its findings, the select committee argued that ignoring congressional subpoenas — even for sitting lawmakers — sets a dangerous precedent that will hobble Congress’s powers to function effectively as an oversight body.

It’s unclear if the Ethics panel will launch an investigation based on the select committee’s new recommendations. Unlike most other standing committees, membership on the Ethics panel is evenly divided between the parties. And the committee strives — at least rhetorically — to avoid the divisive partisan politicking that practically defines some of the other panels. 

Yet with just weeks left in the 117th Congress, there’s a small and closing window for the committee to launch any new probes while Democrats are still in the House majority. And it’s unlikely that a GOP-led Ethics panel would take the remarkable step of investigating the role of sitting Republicans in an event as polarizing as the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. 

Indeed, in a sign of how partisan Jan. 6 has become, McCarthy — who is vying to become Speaker next year and has outsize influence over committee chair spots — is vowing to investigate the Jan. 6 investigation as a first order of business in the new Congress.  

Heading into Monday’s forum, panel members seemed resigned to the idea that they had little recourse against McCarthy and the other Republicans who refused to cooperate in the short window before the panel sunsets.

"We don't have a lot of time right now," Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), one of the two Republicans on the select committee, told reporters last week. "That's the reality of where we're at."

By their own telling, each of the Republicans has information pertaining to the Jan. 6 attack that is relevant to the investigation. 

McCarthy had called Trump from the Capitol amid the attack, urging the president to call off his supporters, and he later went to the House floor to say Trump bore responsibility for the rampage. But despite initially supporting an outside investigation into the riot, McCarthy reversed course after Trump opposed the idea. 

Jordan, another close Trump ally, was among the most vocal proponents of Congress’s effort to overturn Trump’s defeat in certain closely contested states. He’d attended a meeting at the White House in late December of 2020, just weeks before Jan. 6, to help plan the Republicans’ strategy for blocking Congress’s vote to formalize President Biden’s victory. And he was on a conference call on Jan. 2, 2021, for the same purpose. Jordan also spoke with Trump more than once on Jan. 6. 

Russell Dye a spokesperson for Jordan dismissed the referral as “just another partisan and political stunt made by a Select Committee that knowingly altered evidence, blocked minority representation on a Committee for the first time in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives, and failed to respond to Mr. Jordan’s numerous letters and concerns surrounding the politicization and legitimacy of the Committee’s work.”

Perry, who rose in prominence as a staunch Trump defender during the former president’s first impeachment, has caught the attention of Jan. 6 investigators for his role in pushing Trump to install Jeffrey Clark as head of the Justice Department after the election. Clark was sympathetic to Trump’s “Stop the Steal” campaign, and Republicans saw him as an ally in the effort to use the Justice Department to keep Trump in office. 

Biggs, a former head of the far-right Freedom Caucus, had been a part of a campaign led by Arizona state lawmakers to seat a slate of alternative electors who would side with Trump despite his loss in the Grand Canyon State.  

A fifth GOP lawmaker, Rep. Mo Brooks (Ala.), had also been a target of investigators for his coordination with the Trump White House leading up to Jan. 6 as well as his combative speech on the Ellipse that morning, when Brooks, clad in body armor, urged the crowd to “start taking down names and kicking ass.” 

Brooks, who lost a bid for Alabama Senate this year, is not returning to Capitol Hill next year, and the Jan. 6 committee did not include him on its list of ethics referrals.

Updated at 3:24 p.m.

Five things to know ahead of the Jan. 6 committee’s crucial week

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is heading into a crucial week as it prepares to hold its final presentation, release a highly anticipated report outlining findings from the panel’s year-plus probe and vote on criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.

The votes on criminal referrals are expected during Monday’s business meeting, marking a significant step for the panel, which has said one of its goals is to prevent what happened on Jan. 6 from happening again.

The week’s closely watched events are the culmination of the committee’s sprawling investigation, which began months after last year’s deadly riot and has consisted of almost a dozen hearings, testimony from more than 1,000 witnesses and millions of documents.

Here are five things to look for as the committee kicks off a pivotal week:

Committee to vote on referrals Monday

Sunrise at the U.S. Capitol, Monday, Dec. 19, 2022, as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol prepares to hold its final meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington.

The committee will vote on criminal referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) during its final business meeting on Monday.

Multiple outlets reported on Friday that the committee will vote on urging the DOJ to pursue at least three charges against former President Trump, including obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, insurrection and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

The referrals will be closely watched inside and outside Washington, but they are also largely symbolic. The DOJ is not obligated to consider recommendations from congressional committees and is in the midst of conducting its own investigation into Jan. 6.

Criminal referrals likely won’t be the only ones the panel considers. 

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the committee, previously said the panel was considering “five or six categories” for referrals. The committee has highlighted behavior that would be under the purview of the Justice Department, House Ethics Committee and professional organizations, such as bar associations.

“We’re focused on key players and we’re focused on key players where there is sufficient evidence or abundant evidence that they committed crimes, and we’re focused on crimes that go right to the heart of the Constitutional order such that the Congress can’t remain silent,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the committee, told reporters last week.

Raskin suggested earlier this month that the five Republican lawmakers who ignored subpoenas from the committee — House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Reps. Scott Perry (Pa.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Mo Brooks (Ala.) — could be referred to the Ethics Committee.

On Sunday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, told CNN's "State of the Union" that the committee has considered censure and ethics referrals.

Asked last week if he or any of his GOP colleagues are concerned about being referred for criminal contempt for ignoring subpoenas, McCarthy told reporters “no, not at all, we did nothing wrong.” 

The committee could also be mulling referrals to bar associations as a rebuke to the lawyers who assisted Trump in his quest to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Panel to release full report on Wednesday

Representatives sit on the dais as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol holds a hearing at the Capitol in Washington, July 12, 2022.

The committee is set to release its report, which will be comprised of eight chapters outlining the findings of the panel’s months-long investigation, on Wednesday.

Those chapters, according to Politico, will closely correspond with the evidence presented at its nine public hearings this year. The committee will also provide an executive summary.

After Monday's business meeting, the panel is expected to release certain materials, including an executive summary of the report, details on referrals, and additional information about witnesses who have appeared before the committee, according to a select committee aide.

But on Wednesday, the public will get access to the full report, including “attachments and some other things,” according to Thompson. The public may have to wait longer, however, to sift through transcripts of witness interviews.

Committee to release legislative recommendations

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) speaks during a House Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday, October 13, 2022 to focus on former President Trump’s efforts to remain in power following his 2020 election defeat.

Monday’s business meeting will also feature some legislative recommendations, Thompson told reporters, which are core part of the Jan. 6 committee’s purpose.

“A lot of our work is also focused on recommendations, legislatively what needs to be done to prevent coups, insurrections, political violence and electoral sabotage in the future,” Raskin, who is a constitutional law expert, said in the Capitol last week.

“And in some sense that’s the heart of it because we think there is a clear, continuing, present danger to democracy today,” he added.

The House has already passed one legislative proposal crafted by members of the committee — the Presidential Election Reform Act, which clarifies the vice president’s role in certifying elections and significantly increases the number of lawmakers needed to object to the certification of a state’s electors.

But Raskin told reporters that the measure was “a very minimal first step.”

In September, he laid out a laundry list of areas the committee wanted to address following its investigation.

“We want to strengthen and fortify the electoral system and the right to vote. We want to do what we can to secure the situation of election workers and keep them safe from violence. We want to solidify the states in their determination that private armed militias not operate in the name of the state. You know, we don’t have any kind of federal law or policy about private armed militias,” the Maryland Democrat said.

It remains to be seen what the scope of the final recommendations will be. And they will be released just as Republicans take control of the House, leaving no time for the Democratic majority to pursue legislation.

Asked last week if there is any regret that the recommendations are coming at such a late stage, Raskin told reporters “I hope that they will have an impact on the thinking of Congress going forward.”

DOJ will finally get committee’s report Wednesday

The Department of Justice logo is seen at their headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, August 5, 2021 prior to a press conference regarding a civil rights matter.

The DOJ has spent months requesting evidence from the panel as it conducts its own investigation and on Wednesday it will finally get its hands on the committee’s final report.

Attorney General Merrick Garland had said the department would like to view the transcripts and other materials “so that we can use it in the ordinary course of our investigations.”

In June, the DOJ wrote in a court filing that the committee’s refusal to share information was making its work more difficult.

“The Select Committee’s failure to grant the Department access to these transcripts complicates the Department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” a letter in the filing read.

“Accordingly, we renew our request that the Select Committee provide us with copies of the transcripts of all the interviews it has conducted to date,” it added.

But Thompson told reporters last month that the DOJ would have to wait until the final report was published to view evidence the committee collected throughout its year-and-a-half investigation. 

The DOJ will finally get its wish on Wednesday, when the committee’s report is made available to the public — including those who work in the agency.

Cheney, Kinzinger to have final moments in the spotlight

Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)

Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) are seen during a House Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday, July 21, 2022 to focus on former President Trump’s actions during the insurrection.

Monday’s business meeting will also mark a swan song of sorts for Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), who are departing Congress at the end of this month after breaking from the Republican Party and denouncing Trump.

Cheney, one of two Republicans serving on the panel, is leaving the House after losing reelection over the summer, in part because of her participation on the Jan. 6 committee.

She has emerged as an outspoken critic of Trump, using her prominent position as vice chair of the committee to lay out the case that the former president was responsible for what happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

It is a main reason why she lost reelection last year to Wyoming lawyer Harriet Hageman, who Trump handpicked to challenge Cheney after she voted for his impeachment and joined the Jan. 6 committee.

Kinzinger has also become a top GOP critic of Trump, though he opted out of running for reelection this year.

Despite their departures, the GOP duo has continued in their crusades against Trump, criticizing him for recent comments he made regarding the Constitution and for dining with noted white supremacist Nick Fuentes.

But Monday’s meeting will likely be the last time they can make the case against Trump with the audience and platform that come with being a member of Congress.

House Democrats introduce legislation to bar Trump from office under 14th Amendment

Posted on (Updated by Jared Gans

A group of 40 House Democrats, led by Rep. David Cicilline (R.I.), introduced legislation on Thursday to bar former President Trump from holding future federal office under the 14th Amendment.

Section 3 of the amendment states that no one who previously took an oath to support the Constitution and engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” shall "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."

Cicilline said in a release announcing the legislation that Trump “very clearly” engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, with the intention of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

“You don’t get to lead a government you tried to destroy,” he said. 

The release states that the bill includes testimony and evidence demonstrating how Trump engaged in the insurrection. 

The bill also specifically describes how Trump helped encourage the violence on Jan. 6, tried to intimidate state and federal officials when they did not support his false claims of the election being stolen and refused to denounce the mob that stormed the Capitol for hours during the riot. 

“The 14th Amendment makes clear that based on his past behavior, Donald Trump is disqualified from ever holding federal office again and, under Section 5, Congress has the power to pass legislation to implement this prohibition,” Cicilline said. 

Cicilline, who served as an impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment, sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues last month to solicit co-sponsors for a bill to bar Trump from office. 

Trump was impeached on a charge of “incitement of insurrection” in the aftermath of Jan. 6, but he was acquitted by the Senate. This was the second time Trump was impeached, with the first coming in December 2019. 

Last month, Trump became the first major candidate to announce a run for the presidency in 2024. 

The 14th Amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War, when ex-Confederates and seceded states rejoined the Union.

Seven scenarios for McCarthy’s Speakership vote — ranked least to most likely

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

All eyes are on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as he negotiates a fragile path to the Speakership next year in the face of opposition from a handful of conservatives within his own conference.

The Republicans flipped control of the House in last month’s midterms, but their razor-thin majority has empowered the far-right firebrands who are vowing to block McCarthy’s Speakership bid — and are resisting all entreaties to alter course for the sake of party unity.

The entrenched opposition has raised the specter that McCarthy simply won’t have the support he needs to win the gavel when the House gathers on Jan. 3 to choose the next Speaker.

And it’s sparked a number of predictions — some of them more far-fetched than others — about how the day might evolve and who might emerge as the next Speaker if McCarthy falls short.

Here are seven scenarios being floated heading into the vote, ranked from least to most likely:

A Democrat squeaks in 

It’s theoretically possible that discord within the GOP could lead to a Democratic Speaker.

Such a result is very, very unlikely because Republicans will have the majority in the vote and do not want this to happen.

But it is possible — if chaos on the floor prompted frustrated GOP moderates to back a centrist Democrat — that a member of the minority could be elected Speaker.

In fact, it’s one of the warnings that McCarthy and his allies have sounded in recent weeks as they seek to break the logjam of opposition and win him the gavel. 

“If we don’t do this right, the Democrats can take the majority. If we play games on the floor, the Democrats can end up picking who the Speaker is,” McCarthy said in a November Newsmax interview after he won the House GOP nomination for Speaker 188 to 31 over Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.).

The warning, however, is more threat than prospect, as Republicans would never back a Democrat for Speaker after four years in the minority wilderness under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). And even McCarthy has seemed to acknowledge that implausibility, by shifting his argument elsewhere in the weeks since.  

House elects a Speaker who is not a member of Congress

House rules do not technically require that the Speaker is a sitting, elected member of House — though every Speaker in U.S. history has been. That leaves open the possibility of members looking for a McCarthy alternative elsewhere.

When conservative House Republicans aimed to mount a challenge to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in 2014, they tried to recruit Ben Carson, who later went on to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a Pelosi detractor, made a habit of voting for former Secretary of State Colin Powell. 

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a supporter of McCarthy, told The Hill last week that there is no other member of the House Republican Conference who can get the support needed to be Speaker. And Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a liberal who’s been open to supporting a moderate “unity” candidate as a last resort, has said it does “not necessarily” have to be a sitting member. 

A moderate Republican wins with backing of some Republicans and Democrats

That is a top worry of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has emerged as one of the most vocal supporters of McCarthy for Speaker.

Greene, who got a seat at the table from McCarthy rather than being made an outcast in the GOP conference, has repeatedly warned that moderate Republicans could flip to work with Democrats and support someone who is not as conservative as McCarthy — and less accommodating.

But Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who has said he’s talked to Democratic members about the possibility of backing an alternative candidate, has said he will only consider such a drastic measure if McCarthy drops out of the race for Speaker after repeated failed votes.

Still, at least one Democrat, Khanna, has expressed openness to backing a Republican Speaker candidate who will take certain measures to open up the House process to give Democrats more power in the minority, like equal subpoena power on committees. It is unlikely that Republicans would agree to such a concession.

Other lawmakers are skeptical of the chances for a bipartisan consensus candidate, saying it would be political suicide, particularly for Republicans.

“Let’s just say 20 of them joined with us to nominate somebody like Don Bacon, or bring Fred Upton back, or whatever,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). “Those 20 will be not quite as bad as if they voted for [former President Trump’s] impeachment, but moving in that direction. I just think that they’ll get beat to death." 

McCarthy drops out of Speakership race to make way for consensus pick

Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise

The first time McCarthy sought the Speaker’s gavel was in 2015, to replace the retiring Boehner. That effort ended before the process ever reached the floor.

Faced with conservative opposition, McCarthy stunned Washington by dropping out of the race at the last moment, leaving Republicans scrambling for a viable candidate, who ultimately emerged in the form of Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.). 

The difference this year is that there is no obvious figure who can easily win the support of both far-right conservatives who want to alter fundamentally how the House functions and the moderates ready to get on with the process of governing. 

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), McCarthy’s top deputy, has been floated as a possible alternative.

But there’s no indication the conservatives would support anyone who didn’t accept the same demands they’re making of McCarthy, including a controversial rule change making it easier to oust a sitting Speaker — a change that would empower the right wing even further.

While Biggs continues his protest challenge to McCarthy, he has teased that there are other Republicans who have privately expressed interest in being an alternative if it becomes clear McCarthy cannot win the gavel.

But Biggs and his allies won’t name names, fearing doing so would put a target on their back.

House agrees to make McCarthy Speaker with a plurality of votes

If the House Speakership election drags on for multiple votes with McCarthy in the lead but not securing enough votes for a majority, the House could agree to adopt a resolution to declare that a Speaker can be elected by a plurality rather than by a majority.

That would require cooperation from Democrats, and it is not clear whether they would support such a resolution.

But there is precedent for the House agreeing to elect a Speaker by plurality, as it has happened twice before in House history.

The first time was in 1849, after the House had been in session for 19 days and held 59 ballots for Speaker. It happened again in 1856, when the House had taken 129 Speaker votes without any candidate winning a majority.

With so much uncertainty, some lawmakers are already bracing for a long day on Jan. 3. 

“I’m obviously observing it from the other side, but all the intel I get from my Republican friends is that: expect it to go late,” said Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). “And I plan to wear my comfortable suit.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.), a top “Never Kevin” Republican, floated that the Speaker election could take months — rivaling the longest-ever Speaker election in 1855, which took two months and 133 ballots.

“We may see the cherry blossoms before we have a Speaker,” Gaetz said, referring to the blooms that emerge in March or April in Washington, D.C. 

McCarthy elected Speaker because of Democratic absences

A Speaker is elected by a majority of all of those present and voting, meaning that McCarthy does not necessarily need 218 votes to win the Speakership. If some members are absent or vote “present,” it lowers the threshold from 218.

Pelosi won the Speakership in 2021 with 216 votes due to vacancies and absences. And Boehner also won the Speakership with just 216 votes in 2015, when 25 members did not vote. Many Democrats were attending a funeral for the late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (D) that day.

If the Speakership election drags on and Democrats tire of the repeated ballots, it is possible that Democratic members miss subsequent votes, which could lower the majority threshold just enough for McCarthy to squeak out a victory. 

Illness, weather or other unforeseen circumstances could also affect member attendance on Jan. 3. And because Republicans are planning to eliminate the proxy voting installed by Democrats during the pandemic, lawmakers would not have the option of voting remotely for Speaker. 

In the closely divided House, with 222 Republicans to 212 Democrats and one vacancy, McCarthy needs 218 votes if every member votes for a Speaker candidate. 

McCarthy wins an outright majority of votes

Kevin McCarthy

Many Republicans supportive of McCarthy are optimistic that he will ultimately win a majority of votes without having to worry about Democrats.

These lawmakers see the opposition from hard-line GOP members as little more than political posturing as they aim for concessions on rules changes and tactics. 

Some members think that McCarthy may even be able to strike a deal with his detractors and win on the first ballot. Others think that once the McCarthy detractors make their point with at least one failed ballot, they might switch votes to allow him the gavel.

Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah) compared McCarthy’s situation to that of Pelosi after the 2018 election, when she started off with enough opponents to deny her the Speakership but made enough agreements to earn majority support from Democrats.

“It is not any different. Like, they have a month the jockey and people vote against Pelosi, and ultimately they all get to the point they need to get to. I'm confident we'll do the same,” Moore said. “If I'm blindsided and we're doing 700 rounds and we're here till July, you can come back to me and say, ‘You were wrong.’”

McCarthy said on Fox News on Wednesday that he will have the votes to become Speaker either on Jan. 3 or before then.

“It could be somebody else, but whoever the somebody else is, everyone has a similar problem [with conservatives],” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). “Which makes me believe that ultimately he’ll probably pull it together.”

Key party committee recommends Raskin to be top Democrat on Oversight panel

Posted on (Updated by Mike Lillis

A key Democratic committee voted Wednesday to recommend Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) be the top Democrat on the powerful House Oversight and Reform Committee in the next Congress, lending a boost to the six-year veteran heading into a deciding vote of the full caucus next week. 

Raskin, a high-profile member of the House Jan. 6 select committee, is squaring off against two other members of the Oversight and Reform Committee — Reps. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) — to become the panel’s ranking member in the 118th Congress. 

The committee's current chair, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), lost her primary contest this cycle to Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) — a race prompted by New York’s chaotic redistricting process earlier in the year.

Wednesday’s vote to recommend Raskin was conducted behind closed doors in the Capitol by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, an influential panel that helps to guide the party’s committee assignments. 

Lynch, a 22-year veteran, and Connolly, in his 14th year, are more senior to Raskin both within the Congress and on the Oversight and Reform Committee. But Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, has quickly built a national profile in his short time on Capitol Hill, leading the House’s second impeachment of former President Trump after last year’s attack on the U.S. Capitol and playing a high-profile role as a member of the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 rampage. 

The Steering panel’s recommendation is not the final word. The full House Democratic Caucus will vote next week to choose between the three candidates. But the Steering panel is essentially hand-picked by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), the New York Democrat who will replace Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the top of the party next year. And the panel’s counsel holds outsized sway in the process of choosing committee heads to work with party leaders. 

The Oversight panel, with subpoena powers and a broad mandate to probe federal affairs, is among the most sought after panels in Congress. And with Republicans set to take control of the House next year, the position of ranking member will assume even greater importance, acting as a line of defense for President Biden against the majority Republicans, likely led by Rep. James Comer (Ky.), who are vowing aggressive investigations into the administration. 

Comer is already forecasting his top priorities, which include investigations into the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the origins of the coronavirus and the international business dealings of Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

McConnell steps up attacks on a weakened Trump

Posted on (Updated by Alexander Bolton

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is stepping up his attacks on former President Trump as Trump’s support dips.

The Senate GOP leader on Tuesday blamed Trump for the “candidate quality” problem that hampered the party’s bid to recapture the Senate in 2022, marking the third time in three weeks that McConnell has directly criticized the former president after repeatedly avoiding engaging with him over the past two years. 

The stronger pushback comes as polls show Trump’s support is slipping among Republican voters, a trend that has accelerated since Trump-aligned candidates lost important races across the country in the midterm elections. 

A USA Today-Suffolk University poll published Tuesday showed that 61 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters want someone else to be the party’s nominee for president in 2024. 

The poll also showed Republican voters prefer Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) over Trump as a potential presidential candidate by a margin of 56 percent to 33 percent. 

With Trump “leaking oil,” in the words of one GOP senator, McConnell isn’t wasting any time in striking back against someone who has repeatedly called for his ouster as Senate Republican leader. 

McConnell told reporters Tuesday that Trump was a big reason why Senate GOP leaders were not able to steer Senate nominations to stronger candidates in key battleground states such as Arizona, Georgia and New Hampshire. 

He had hinted at a press conference a week after Election Day that he thought Trump was a drag on Republican efforts to win back the Senate, but he made his criticism more explicit after Republicans lost another key race, last week’s Senate runoff in Georgia. 

“We ended up having a candidate quality [issue],” he told reporters Tuesday. “Look at Arizona, look at New Hampshire and the challenging situation in Georgia as well.” 

U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks was one of the candidates McConnell actively worked to get out of office while Trump pushed for his reelection.

McConnell said his affiliated super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, intervened in the Republican Senate primaries in Alabama and Missouri by investing money to defeat Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) and former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens.

But he argued that Trump’s influence with primary voters made it very difficult to weed out weak candidates who had Trump’s support or embraced his false claims of a stolen 2020 election. 

“Our ability to control the primary outcome was quite limited in ’22 because the support of the former president proved to be very decisive in these primaries. So my view was do the best you can with the cards you’re dealt. Hopefully in the next cycle we’ll have quality candidates everywhere and a better outcome,” he said. 

McConnell also took shots at Trump the previous two weeks when he criticized Trump’s call to terminate parts of the Constitution to allow himself to return to the White House and condemned Trump’s dinner at Mar-a-Lago with an outspoken white supremacist and antisemite. 

The leader’s stiffening rhetoric against the former president reflects the growing consensus within the Senate GOP conference that Trump would not match up well against President Biden or another Democrat in the 2024 general election and, if nominated for the White House, could drag down candidates in Senate races as well. 

So far, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) is the only Republican senator to have publicly endorsed Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy, which Trump launched with a rally at Mar-a-Lago on Nov. 15. 

Numerous Republicans went after Trump after he had dinner with Ye and Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist. Trump said he had no clue who Fuentes was after the dinner was revealed to the public.

McConnell questioned Trump’s ability to win the presidency after he had dinner with Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West, who has lost business partnerships after making a string of antisemitic comments, and Nick Fuentes, a prominent white supremacist and antisemite. 

“There is no room in the Republican Party for antisemitism or white supremacy, and anyone meeting with people advocating that point of view, in my judgment, [is] highly unlikely to ever be elected president of the United States,” he told reporters after Thanksgiving. 

The following week, McConnell observed that Trump or anyone else would have a hard time getting sworn into office if he refused to uphold the Constitution, a pointed reference to Trump’s call for a “termination” of “all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” after new details emerged of content moderation at Twitter during the 2020 presidential election. 

At the same time, Trump’s legal problems are mounting, and GOP lawmakers think there’s a good chance that special counsel Jack Smith will move forward with one or multiple indictments against him. 

The Justice Department asked a federal judge to hold Trump in contempt of court for failing to comply with a subpoena to turn over classified documents he took from the White House. 

Trump’s family business, the Trump Organization, was convicted last week on 17 criminal counts related to what prosecutors said was a 15-year tax fraud scheme. 

McConnell’s stiffer stance against Trump also came after the former president encouraged National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Rick Scott (R-Fla.) to challenge the senior Kentucky lawmaker for Senate GOP leader. 

Trump predicted Scott would “have a lot of support” if he challenged his leader, but McConnell defeated him easily in a 37-10 vote. 

McConnell and Trump haven’t spoken since Dec. 15, 2020, after McConnell recognized Biden as the winner of the presidential election. 

Their relationship really soured after McConnell excoriated Trump on the Senate floor for instigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, even though McConnell voted to acquit the president of the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection. 

But after that scathing floor speech, McConnell kept largely quiet about Trump’s behavior and controversial comments throughout 2021 and 2022, when Trump repeatedly rehashed his false claims that the presidential election was stolen through widespread fraud. 

The family of the late Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who died in the line of duty defending lawmakers on Jan. 6, refused to shake McConnell’s hand — and that of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) — at a Congressional Gold Medal ceremony last week because they felt GOP leaders didn’t do enough to call out Trump. 

Jan. 6 committee’s referrals may ‘stiffen the spine’ of prosecutors

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Plans from the House Jan. 6 committee to imminently release its list of criminal referrals is raising questions over how far the panel will go in implicating former President Trump and his allies in a plot that culminated in last year's deadly attack on the Capitol.

Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters Tuesday that the committee had come to a “general agreement” to send criminal referrals to the Justice Department.

It’s a move that would allow the panel to put a finer point on its more than yearlong investigation, naming names and detailing specific statutes that were violated in an effort they have repeatedly said was a lawless campaign to block the peaceful transfer of power.

And while it would still be up to the Justice Department to act on the recommendations, it could put pressure on a department that, at least publicly, has trailed the committee in its own review of the Capitol riot.

“They stiffen the spine of state and federal prosecutors by encouraging them to act,” Norm Eisen, counsel for Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment, said of the referrals on a call with reporters.

Legal experts have for some time argued there are a number of statutes that could be used for a possible Trump prosecution, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. 

But a remaining question with respect to the committee is just how broad they will go in outlining possible illegal behavior among allies.

“This is what we're discussing as we go into the last days of our work on this important investigation,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the committee’s members, said in a Wednesday morning interview on NPR.

“And that is, what would the impact of our referrals be if we make referrals, against whom and for what offenses?”

Justice Department subpoenas

The Justice Department previewed the span of its investigation in a November request made public this week, sending subpoenas to local officials in three states — Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin — asking for any communications with just under 20 Trump campaign officials and associates.

That group includes a wide array of lawyers working in different capacities on behalf of the campaign, like Rudy Giuliani as well as John Eastman, who crafted memos encouraging former Vice President Mike Pence to buck his ceremonial duty to certify the election results. All were involved in efforts in seven key states where Trump lost to President Biden igniting a push by the campaign to send false slates of electors from each.

Others listed on the subpoena include campaign manager Bill Stepien, whose testimony critical of Trump’s efforts was shared by the panel, and Bernard Kerik, an aide to Giuliani in investigating the debunked claims of fraud being pushed by Trump.

How far could referrals go?

But a referral from the committee could cast a wider net, particularly in regard to those within government who assisted with Trump’s efforts. That includes then-chief of staff Mark Meadows as well as Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump weighed installing as attorney general to force an investigation into his baseless claims of election fraud.

Some members of the committee have suggested the referrals could go beyond Trump alone.

“We're all very mindful of who is responsible. We have laid out in our hearings the role that the former president played in Jan. 6, and in supporting and pointing to the U.S. Capitol and telling his supporters to come out here. … That's not lost on any of us,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, said in an interview with CNN.

But getting it right, Aguilar went on to say, means “telling the truth and make sure that within the time that we have that we ask every available question and that we aren't shy about making suggestions and recommendations, both to protect the United States Capitol as well as to hold people accountable.”

There are a bounty of statutes Justice Department lawyers could use to charge those involved in the plot to remain in power.

A federal judge in California has already determined that Trump, in coordination with Eastman, likely committed conspiracy to defraud the U.S. as well as another crime, obstruction of an official proceeding, triggered by the use of violence. 

The ruling from Judge David Carter came in a civil case in which Eastman challenged his obligation to turn documents over to the committee.

Beyond federal crimes, the Trump effort could violate various state statutes — a dynamic already seen in Georgia as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) conducts her own investigation into a push there to “find” additional votes for Trump and challenge the election results with faulty claims of fraud.

Prosecuting Jan. 6 cases

But top of mind for prosecutors will be whether they can successfully win a guilty verdict in incredibly high-profile cases, a feat that could be more challenging for certain statutes that require demonstrating intent.

The Justice Department also has a mixed track record when it comes to taking the committee’s suggestions.

The panel, and later the full House, voted to censure four individuals subpoenaed by the committee who they say failed to comply with their subpoenas.

The Justice Department brought cases against two of the figures — onetime White House strategist Stephen Bannon and Trump adviser Peter Navarro. But it declined to do so in the case of Meadows — who did provide some requested documents sought by the committee — or Dan Scavino, Trump’s communications guru.

DOJ may want more than referrals

The decision on referrals comes after the panel formed a subcommittee of its four lawyers to evaluate the decision and make specific recommendations.

Eisen said while any referrals would likely include legal analysis and statute-by-statute recommendations, the Justice Department may be more eager to get other intel from the committee.

“The roadmap, the evidence — that's the most critical part. If I'm a prosecutor, I would much rather have the evidence than the legal analysis and conclusion that you should charge,” he said.

The committee has thus far resisted calls from the Justice Department to share its work, even after the panel agreed to share some 20 transcripts with investigators. Thompson said they were never turned over as the committee “just made a decision not to,” advising that the agency would get the final report along with the public.

Schiff said that was a detail weighing on the committee.

“How much should we detail the evidence, knowing that the Justice Department has sources of evidence that we don't, that it was able to enforce certain subpoenas and compel testimony that we have not been able to?” he said. 

“So in some ways, I think the information we provide will exceed that of the department. In other areas, they have more evidence than we do.”

Pragmatic ‘Main Street’ House GOP caucus urges colleagues to support McCarthy for Speaker

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

Members of the Main Street Caucus, a group of House Republicans in favor of pragmatic governance, are urging colleagues to support House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for Speaker as he faces opposition from a handful of hard-line conservatives that threatens to keep him from securing the gavel.

“The Main Street Caucus stands unified in support of Kevin McCarthy for Speaker. We firmly urge all our colleagues in the People’s House to join us so that we can immediately begin delivering the common-sense, impactful, and conservative agenda Americans expect and deserve,” members of the caucus wrote in a Wednesday letter to colleagues, first shared with The Hill. 

“A Speaker McCarthy, working closely with the Main Street Caucus and backed by the Republican Conference, presents the most direct path to the House finally answering America’s call for kitchen-table results,” the letter continued. “We are confident the gavel will only elevate his ability to effectively champion and communicate our Members’ policies and priorities. With the solid leadership team our Conference has already nominated, we will advance initiatives by finding common ground rooted in our principles – not by simply compromising beliefs.”

A total of 38 GOP House members signed the letter, led by Main Street Caucus Co-Chairs Don Bacon (Neb.), Mike Bost (Ill.) and Pete Stauber (Minn.).

It marks the second significant letter from a caucus within the House Republican Conference encouraging colleagues to support McCarthy as he works to secure enough support to win the Speakership. Last week, members of the more moderate Republican Governance Group, formerly known as the Tuesday Group, urged House Republicans to “put posturing aside” and support McCarthy for Speaker.

McCarthy was nominated to be Speaker by the House GOP conference last month, but must win a majority of all those voting on Jan. 3 in order to take the gavel. Because Republicans will have a slim majority of 222 to 212 Democrats and one vacancy, just a handful of GOP opponents could keep him from securing a majority.

Five conservative House Republicans with a reputation for embracing confrontational tactics have explicitly said or strongly indicated they will not support McCarthy on Jan. 3: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.) and Bob Good (Va.). Several others have declined to say whether they will vote for McCarthy. 

Criticisms from opponents include charges that McCarthy is resistant to rules changes that would empower individual members and that he is unwilling to fully promise impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, though McCarthy has called on Mayorkas to resign or face a potential impeachment inquiry.

The Main Street letter blamed Democratic control of Congress for “a striking decline” in constituents’ quality of life.

“Now, our constituents demand viable solutions focused on lowering costs across the board, maximizing economic growth and opportunity, fiscal responsibility, safety at home and abroad, more efficient government, and freedom. This upcoming speakership election is our opportunity to gather together and light the right path for America,” the letter said.