Nazis block commission...

Senate Republicans block January 6 commission

By Ryan Nobles, Ted Barrett, Manu Raju and Alex Rogers

A crucial Senate vote on a bill to create an independent inquiry to investigate the deadly January 6 Capitol Hill riot failed Friday, falling short of the 10 Republican votes needed to advance and illustrating GOP efforts to move on from the insurrection that left five people dead and injured 140 police officers.

The vote was 54 to 35, showing the bill had a bipartisan majority of support with six Republicans voting with Democrats. However, the bill needed 60 votes to advance. The six GOP senators who backed the bill were: Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Ben Sasse of Nebraska. Nine Republican senators and two Democrats didn't vote.

The Republican opposition highlights the hold former President Donald Trump still has on most of his party, and underscores the deep partisan divide surrounding the fallout of the attack on the US Capitol, a point Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made following the vote.

The New York Democrat said the Republican minority "just mounted a partisan filibuster against an independent commission to report on January 6."

"This vote has made it official: Donald Trump's 'Big Lie' has now fully enveloped the Republican Party," Schumer added.

The tally of Republican supporters was one fewer than the seven GOP senators who voted to convict Trump at his second impeachment trial earlier this year. Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania did not vote. Burr had said ahead of Friday that he opposed the bill. Portman did not vote to convict Trump in February.

The key vote had been expected as early as Thursday, but due to the order of Senate procedure that vote had to wait until the previous legislation was cleared. Republican senators have delayed overnight passage of a massive bill designed to increase American competitiveness with China, and that means the key procedural vote on a bill to create the January 6 commission has to wait. That impasse was solved Friday morning when senators agreed to bring the vote back up after a one-week recess for the Memorial Day holiday.

Bill's supporters sought to pressure GOP

Supporters of the January 6 commission -- including the mother of a Capitol Police officer who died the day after the riot -- pleaded with GOP senators throughout the week in order to convince at least 10 Republicans to back the plan.

Murkowski, took aim at her GOP colleagues Thursday night for moving to block the measure -- and was critical of the rationale by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that such a commission could prove politically problematic for the GOP ahead of the 2022 midterms.

"To be making a decision for the short-term political gain at the expense of understanding and acknowledging what was in front of us, on January 6, I think we need to look at that critically," Murkowski said. "Is that really what this is about is everything is just one election cycle after another? Or are we going to acknowledge that as a country that is based on these principles of democracy that we hold so dear?"

The mother of fallen US Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick met with more than a dozen Republican senators -- including Murkowski -- urging them to vote to establish the commission. But even after those meetings, which two sources familiar said were cordial, most of the senators told her they wouldn't be changing their minds.

Most GOP senators made it clear to Gladys Sicknick, her son's girlfriend Sandra Garza, Capitol Hill Police Officer Harry Dunn and DC Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone that they don't want a commission to investigate what happened that day.

Sicknick told reporters that she had hoped her meetings would sway Republicans. "Usually I'm staying in the background, and I just couldn't stay quiet anymore," she told reporters Thursday.

The meetings highlighted the emotional toll that the riot has taken on the Capitol Hill community. The meetings, according to a source familiar with them, were "very hard" for Sicknick, who -- along with Garza -- wore a necklace with some of her son's ashes in them.

In another reminder of the riot hanging over Washington: Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, who became a national hero for his actions defending the Senate during the siege of the Capitol -- was seen guarding the Senate on Thursday evening as part of his assignment protecting lawmakers when the chamber is in session.

What's in the bill?

The commission would have attempted to find bipartisan consensus. According to the bill, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate evenly split the selection of its 10 members. A subpoena can only be issued to compel witness testimony if it has the support of the majority of members, or if the commission's chairperson, chosen by Democrats, and the vice-chairperson, chosen by Republicans, come to an agreement.

The commission would have been also required to submit to the President and Congress a final report by the end of 2021 and dissolve 60 days thereafter -- about nine months before the 2022 elections.

The House passed the bill 252-175 last week, with 35 Republicans joining Democrats.

Senate in overnight over separate bill

At least eight Republicans requested time to speak on the floor overnight -- for up to an hour each — to voice their objections to the legislative package aimed at China, known as "the US Innovation and Competition Act," and those GOP senators slammed what they said is a rushed process to make last-minute changes they have yet to review.

Three senators spoke late Thursday night and early Friday morning -- Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Kennedy of Louisiana, and Rick Scott of Florida -- before the Senate adjourned, meaning there are at least five senators who will likely speak when the Senate resumes.

According to Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, who is the GOP Whip, Republicans would likely use five to six hours of their allotted time to speak on the floor. That could be followed by additional debate as well as a series of procedural votes ahead of final passage of the legislative package, pushing the vote on the 1/6 commission farther into the day Friday or possibly to the weekend. This could change or move more quickly if senators give back their allotted time or forgo some of the steps they have been asked to take, which could speed up or slow down the process depending on what they decide to do.

The bill aimed at China and US competitive would invest over $200 billion in American technology, science and research and had broad bipartisan support. Its struggles to advance highlight the difficulty Democrats will have to advance any legislation through the narrowly divided Senate, as several major issues are in negotiations among lawmakers.

Truly insane...

This is how dangerous right-wing media *actually* is

Analysis by Chris Cillizza

One of the many noxious developments of Donald Trump's presidency was the rise of several cable TV outlets that aimed to out-Fox Fox News. 

As in, Fox News wasn't Trump-y enough, so more pro-Trump alternatives were required, with Newsmax and OAN emerging as the preferred options.

Trump, in his final year or so, would regularly call out Fox News for its lack of total fealty to him -- and urge his supporters to go somewhere (like OAN and Newsmax) where they could get nothing but good news on him and his presidency. 

It worked -- for Trump. But a new PRRI national poll shows how corrosive the creation of a media subservient to Trump (and the various conspiracy theories that have grown up around him/he has helped stoke) is for the body politic.

Among those respondents who say they most trust far-right news organizations:

* Four in 10 (40%) agree with the statement that "the government, media, and financial worlds in the US are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex trafficking operation." 

* Almost half (48%) believe that "there is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders."

* More than 4 in 10 say they agree that "because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country."

All three of those statements are beliefs held by the QAnon conspiracy movement, which has been completely and thoroughly debunked any number of times.

Worth noting: QAnon has as its central tenet that Trump was installed as president by the military and would eventually arrest major Democratic figures for sex crimes. Trump isn't president anymore. And those arrests, um, didn't happen.

Now compare the numbers on those same questions among people who say they trust Fox News most. Less than 1 in 5 (18%) say the government and media are "controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles." One in 3 say a "storm" is coming to sweep out elites. One in 4 (27%) say violence may be necessary to save the country.

Still not great! But slightly less terrifying than the numbers among those who trust OAN and Newsmax most. (Overall, 15% of people believe the Satan-worshipping thing, 20% believe a storm is coming and 15% think violence may be necessary to save the country.)

The Point: The rise of far-right channels like OAN and Newsmax has led to a massive amount of disinformation flowing through American democracy.  While espousing this garbage is a business model for these channels, it has massive impacts on Americans -- many of whom are living in a conspiracy theory that they have been tricked into thinking is the real world.

Crazy and Dangerous...

Matt Gaetz Tells Supporters They Have an “Obligation” to Use Second Amendment

The latest stop on the “America First” tour, co-headlined by Marjorie Taylor Greene, also saw him calling for an “armed rebellion.”

INAE OH

The walls appear to be increasingly closing in on Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican reportedly under investigation for possibly having sex with a minor, with two key witnesses—his former confidante Joel Greenberg who last week pleaded guilty to sex trafficking a minor and ex-girlfriend—now said to be cooperating with the feds. But while most would keep a low profile under such a legally dangerous scenario, Gaetz, a professional troll and perhaps the Trumpiest member of Congress, continues to run in the opposite direction of reason.

During a stop on his “America First” tour with Marjorie Taylor Greene Thursday, Gaetz told a crowd of supporters that he believes Americans have “an obligation to use” the Second Amendment, particularly in the fight against so-called “cancel culture” in Silicon Valley.

“The internet’s hall monitors out in Silicon Valley, they think they can suppress us, discourage us,” Gaetz told attendees at a rally in Dalton, Georgia. “Well, you know what? Silicon Valley can’t cancel this movement, or this rally, or this congressman. We have the Second Amendment in this country and I think we have an obligation to use it.” He went on to suggest that the Second Amendment intended for people to have the ability to form an “armed rebellion against the government” when necessary. 

As Gaetz railed against cancel culture, a Democratic candidate for Congress tweeted that he had been kicked out of the event after being deemed a “threat.”

Gaetz’s inflammatory remarks on gun rights and armed rebellion come nearly five months after the January 6 Capitol insurrection, as well as current Republican efforts, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to squash bipartisan hopes for a commission into the deadly riot. Combine that with the steady embrace of Trump’s lies about the election, and you’ve got a pretty good snapshot of where the party is at these days.

As for Gaetz, his latest outburst should gel well with his apparent ambitions to run for president in 2024, should his idol decline.

May Stir More Attacks

The “Steady Drumbeat” of Trump’s Big Lie May Stir More Attacks, a Federal Judge Says

But GOP senators aim to stop a bipartisan investigation of January 6.

MARK FOLLMAN

National Guard troops recently departed from protecting the US Capitol, but the broader danger from right-wing extremists is far from gone. As the FBI continues its sprawling investigation into the January 6 assault on Congress by Trump supporters, evidence continues to cast light on suspects who appeared intent on violently attacking the former president’s avowed political enemies. Now, a federal judge has joined a growing list of prominent figures warning that the security threat remains serious, as Trump and numerous Republicans continue to promote the insurrection’s animating lie that the 2020 election was “stolen.”

In a partially redacted opinion unsealed on Wednesday, US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson declined pretrial release from jail for Cleveland Meredith Jr., who is charged with making death threats against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and traveling to the nation’s capital on Jan. 6 unlawfully armed. Jackson wrote that the risk that Meredith might try to harm public officials or others was too substantial for him to be freed from custody, and attributed that danger in part to the continuation of Trump’s Big Lie: “The steady drumbeat that inspired defendant to take up arms has not faded away; six months later, the canard that the election was stolen is being repeated daily on major news outlets and from the corridors of power in state and federal government, not to mention in the near-daily fulminations of the former President.”

The alleged evidence against Meredith gathered by the FBI included text messages he sent to friends the day after the Capitol siege, in which he talked of killing the House Speaker: “I’m gonna run that CUNT Pelosi over while she chews on her gums,” and, “Thinking about heading over to Pelosi CUNT’s speech and putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV.”  In another message, he expressed a willingness to die fighting: “I ain’t goin to jail, the morgue maybe, not jail.”

Meredith’s defense attorney argued that his client’s “allegedly threatening communications were not meant to be taken seriously,” citing another message in which he wrote, “LOL. I’m just having fun.”

Jackson was having none of it. “The problem with this argument, of course, is that defendant’s statements were not the least bit funny,” she wrote. “No one was laughing out loud then or now.” Jackson’s concern wasn’t just a matter of Meredith’s vicious language; she reiterated how he had driven from Colorado to Washington with a trailer full of weapons. His arsenal, according to prosecutors, included a Glock 19 pistol, a Tavor X95 assault rifle with a telescopic sight, and more than 2,500 rounds of ammunition, including 320 armor-piercing rounds and multiple high-capacity magazines.

Jackson’s opinion comes as Republican leaders in the Senate reject a bipartisan commission to investigate one of the worst attacks on Congress in the nation’s history, including its causes. But even as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his colleagues seek to block further scrutiny of the disaster—perhaps fearing what more that might reveal about their complicity—a bipartisan group of veteran national security experts previously concluded that Trump is the de facto leader of a domestic terrorism movement. As I first reported last December, the former president used a method known as stochastic terrorism to incite violence and try to cling to power, according to former top Homeland Security officials and other experts. One former senior national security official in the George W. Bush administration described Trump as “an arsonist of radicalization.” 

In April, a bipartisan group of 140 former senior national security, military, and elected officials called on Congress to create the 1/6 commission, expressing in a letter “great urgency in light of what we collectively see as an exigent and growing threat. The events of January 6th exposed severe vulnerabilities in the nation’s preparedness for preventing and responding to domestic terrorist attacks.”

In notably stark terms, a federal judge involved in handling the aftermath has now also highlighted the ongoing danger.

Spiral...

 This image shows the spiral galaxy NGC 5037, in the constellation of Virgo. First documented by William Herschel in 1785, the galaxy lies about 150 million light-years away from Earth. Despite this distance, we can see the delicate structures of gas and dust within the galaxy in extraordinary detail. This detail is possible using Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3), whose combined exposures created this image. 

WFC3 is a very versatile camera, as it can collect ultraviolet, visible, and infrared light, thereby providing a wealth of information about the objects it observes. WFC3 was installed on Hubble by astronauts in 2009, during Servicing Mission 4 (SM4). SM4 was Hubble’s final Space Shuttle servicing mission, expected to prolong Hubble’s life for at least another five years. Twelve years later, both Hubble and WFC3 remain very active and scientifically productive.

In-Flight Anomaly

Surviving an In-Flight Anomaly: What Happened on Ingenuity’s Sixth Flight

Written by Håvard Grip

On the 91st Martian day, or sol, of NASA’s Mars 2020 Perseverance rover mission, the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter performed its sixth flight. The flight was designed to expand the flight envelope and demonstrate aerial-imaging capabilities by taking stereo images of a region of interest to the west. Ingenuity was commanded to climb to an altitude of 33 feet (10 meters) before translating 492 feet (150 meters) to the southwest at a ground speed of 9 mph (4 meters per second). At that point, it was to translate 49 feet (15 meters) to the south while taking images toward the west, then fly another 164 feet (50 meters) northeast and land.

Telemetry from Flight Six shows that the first 150-meter leg of the flight went off without a hitch. But toward the end of that leg, something happened: Ingenuity began adjusting its velocity and tilting back and forth in an oscillating pattern. This behavior persisted throughout the rest of the flight. Prior to landing safely, onboard sensors indicated the rotorcraft encountered roll and pitch excursions of more than 20 degrees, large control inputs, and spikes in power consumption.

How Ingenuity estimates motion

While airborne, Ingenuity keeps track of its motion using an onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU). The IMU measures Ingenuity’s accelerations and rotational rates. By integrating this information over time, it is possible to estimate the helicopter’s position, velocity, and attitude (where it is, how fast it is moving, and how it is oriented in space). The onboard control system reacts to the estimated motions by adjusting control inputs rapidly (at a rate of 500 times per second).

If the navigation system relied on the IMU alone, it would not be very accurate in the long run: Errors would quickly accumulate, and the helicopter would eventually lose its way. To maintain better accuracy over time, the IMU-based estimates are nominally corrected on a regular basis, and this is where Ingenuity’s navigation camera comes in. For the majority of time airborne, the downward-looking navcams takes 30 pictures a second of the Martian surface and immediately feeds them into the helicopter’s navigation system.  Each time an image arrives, the navigation system’s algorithm performs a series of actions: First, it examines the timestamp that it receives together with the image in order to determine when the image was taken. Then, the algorithm makes a prediction about what the camera should have been seeing at that particular point in time, in terms of surface features that it can recognize from previous images taken moments before (typically due to color variations and protuberances like rocks and sand ripples). Finally, the algorithm looks at where those features actually appear in the image. The navigation algorithm uses the difference between the predicted and actual locations of these features to correct its estimates of position, velocity, and attitude.

Approximately 54 seconds into the flight, a glitch occurred in the pipeline of images being delivered by the navigation camera. This glitch caused a single image to be lost, but more importantly, it resulted in all later navigation images being delivered with inaccurate timestamps. From this point on, each time the navigation algorithm performed a correction based on a navigation image, it was operating on the basis of incorrect information about when the image was taken. The resulting inconsistencies significantly degraded the information used to fly the helicopter, leading to estimates being constantly “corrected” to account for phantom errors. Large oscillations ensued.

Surviving the anomaly

Despite encountering this anomaly, Ingenuity was able to maintain flight and land safely on the surface within approximately 16 feet (5 meters) of the intended landing location. One reason it was able to do so is the considerable effort that has gone into ensuring that the helicopter’s flight control system has ample “stability margin”: We designed Ingenuity to tolerate significant errors without becoming unstable, including errors in timing. This built-in margin was not fully needed in Ingenuity’s previous flights, because the vehicle’s behavior was in-family with our expectations, but this margin came to the rescue in Flight Six.

Another design decision also played a role in helping Ingenuity land safely. As I’ve written about before, we stop using navigation camera images during the final phase of the descent to landing to ensure smooth and continuous estimates of the helicopter motion during this critical phase. That design decision also paid off during Flight Six: Ingenuity ignored the camera images in the final moments of flight, stopped oscillating, leveled its attitude, and touched down at the speed as designed.

Looking at the bigger picture, Flight Six ended with Ingenuity safely on the ground because a number of subsystems – the rotor system, the actuators, and the power system – responded to increased demands to keep the helicopter flying. In a very real sense, Ingenuity muscled through the situation, and while the flight uncovered a timing vulnerability that will now have to be addressed, it also confirmed the robustness of the system in multiple ways.

While we did not intentionally plan such a stressful flight, NASA now has flight data probing the outer reaches of the helicopter’s performance envelope. That data will be carefully analyzed in the time ahead, expanding our reservoir of knowledge about flying helicopters on Mars.

Not Funny

 

Promoting recovery plan they voted against

Biden mocks Republicans for promoting recovery plan they voted against

The president flew to Cleveland to try to sell his $4 trillion in new spending plans to the country.

By ANITA KUMAR

President Joe Biden continues to negotiate with Republicans on his big-ticket spending plans. But on Thursday, when he left Washington, he mocked them for voting against the coronavirus recovery package and then turning around and promoting the bill.

“If you’re going to try to take credit for what you’ve done, don’t get in the way of what we still need to do,” he said during a visit to Northeast Ohio, holding up a list for 13 Republicans. “Not a single one of them voted for the rescue plan.“

Biden specifically said he wouldn’t reveal which Republicans he was referring to, but then showed a paper with the names visible.

”I’m not going to embarrass any one of them, but I have here a list of how back in their districts they're bragging about the Rescue Plan. ... I mean, some people have no shame. But I'm happy they know that it benefited their constituents,” he said to laughter.

In a speech at Cuyahoga Community College, Biden said his trillions of dollars in proposals are already igniting economic recovery and creating millions of jobs following the coronavirus pandemic.

Biden and his aides say they believe that gaining the support of the majority of Americans — as well as Republican governors, mayors and local officials across the country — could help them secure the backing of congressional Republicans or even give Democrats momentum to push through the plans on a party-line vote.

“We’ve turned the tide on a once-in-a-century pandemic. Now we’re faced with a question. What kind of economy are we going to build for tomorrow? What are we going to do?” Biden said. “I believe this is our moment to rebuild an economy from the bottom up and the middle out. Not a trickle-down economy.”

Back in Washington, Senate Republicans sent Biden their latest proposal on Thursday, but the $928 billion infrastructure plan is still hundreds of billions less than the White House’s last offer of $1.7 trillion.

Biden told reporters that he spoke briefly on Thursday to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who is leading the infrastructure negotiations, and planned to meet again with Republicans next week.

“I told her we have to finish this really soon,” he said. “We’re going to have to close this down.”

Biden has been pushing Republicans to support a combined $4 trillion in spending for weeks, but he is prepared to back a congressional maneuver that would allow Senate Democrats to pass legislation without GOP support.

The president feels emboldened by Americans’ support for his proposals, including the popularity of the American Rescue Plan, saying his plans are already helping the U.S. come back from the pandemic-induced economic downturn. He is touting the 1.5 million new jobs and a drop in unemployment claims of more than a third, the lowest since the pandemic started.

“Covid cases are down. Covid deaths are down,” he said. “Unemployment filings are down. Hunger is down. Vaccinations are up. Jobs are up. Growth is up. People getting health coverage is up. Small-business confidence is up. Put it simply, America is coming back.”

Before the president left for Ohio, the White House released a new memo from senior adviser Mike Donilon with the subject line “The American People Stand Behind President Biden’s Middle Class Economic Vision.”

“As we turn the page on this dark chapter in America’s history, we stand at an inflection point about what kind of economy — and country — we want for ourselves and for future generations,” Donilon wrote. “The American people understand that the economy we had before the pandemic left far too many people behind, and that more and more families were finding that their grip on a middle class life — and the security it affords — was precarious. They know we can’t afford to simply turn the clock back to where we were.”

The White House touts 500,000 new jobs created each month on average, new unemployment claims dropping by nearly half and record-setting growth.

Before his speech, Biden visited the college’s tech center, where he learned about student certification programs and examined a robotic arm. Several dozen students, some masked, gathered to hear his speech. A large sign was erected on one side of the room saying “Blue Collar Blueprint for America.”

“We must be No. 1 in the world to lead the world in the 21st century,” Biden said. “It’s a simple proposition and the starting gun has already gone off.”

Republicans have been resistant to the size and scope of Biden’s pair of spending proposals: the American Jobs Plan, a sweeping $2.3 trillion package designed to fix the nation’s crumbling roads and bridges, create jobs, and tackle climate change; and the American Families Plan, a $1.8 trillion plan to fund Democratic priorities, including billions of dollars on child care, prekindergarten, paid family leave and tuition-free community college.

The White House on Friday reduced the size of its jobs plan to $1.7 trillion, largely by shifting spending elsewhere, but Republicans balked at the counteroffer. They reduced the amount to $928 billion on Thursday, up from their initial proposal of a $568 billion plan.

In Northeast Ohio, infrastructure funds would be spent to expand broadband access and replace lead pipes for cleaner drinking water, the White House says.

Many Republicans have already expressed opposition to the ways Biden wants to raise money, including taxes on corporate and wealthy Americans. Conservative groups have launched a campaign criticizing his proposal to hire nearly 87,000 new IRS workers over the next decade to collect money from tax cheats. Meanwhile, Democrats are resistant to tapping leftover Covid relief money, which the White House maintains isn’t sufficient to cover the plan, anyway.

“We had no problem passing a $2 trillion tax plan that went to the top 1 percent that wasn’t paid for at all,” Biden said. “But every time I talk about tax cuts for working-class people, it’s, ‘Oh, my God, what are we going to do?’ Well, we’re going to take back some of that 1 percent money.”

Some Democrats are pushing him to proceed with what they can pass without Republican support, but Biden aides and allies have signaled they are willing to negotiate a few weeks past his self-imposed deadline of Memorial Day. To pass the bills, all Democratic senators must support it. But some moderate Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, want to keep negotiating.

Biden had planned a campaign rally at Cuyahoga Community College in March 2020 but it was scrapped because of the pandemic. He recalled the day.

“Life in America had changed. A long dark year was about to descend on us,” he said on Thursday. “Fourteen months later, we finally made it to campus. After a year of darkness, we’re finally coming to light.”

It is his second visit to Cleveland since being sworn in.

The League of Conservation Voters launched a $40,000 ad campaign around Cleveland timed to Biden’s visit, to push for a package focused on climate and clean energy.

“President Biden’s American Jobs Plan will bolster our economy, protect our environment and fight for climate justice — all while supporting healthier and more resilient communities,” said Heather Taylor-Miesle, president of the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund.

Iowa Senate run

Abby Finkenauer moves toward Iowa Senate run

The one-term congresswoman, who lost last November, is mulling a campaign for the seat held by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley.

By ALLY MUTNICK and JAMES ARKIN

Former Rep. Abby Finkenauer is readying a run for GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Senate seat, according to two sources familiar with her plans.

The one-term Democratic congresswoman, who lost her northeast Iowa seat to now-Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson last November, has started the process of assembling a potential campaign team.

Grassley, 87, has said he will deliberate until the fall and then decide if he’ll seek reelection. It will be difficult for Democrats to compete against Grassley if he decides to run for an eighth term, but an open seat would be more appealing if he ultimately retires.

Iowa was one of the most expensive Senate races in the country last year, but GOP Sen. Joni Ernst ultimately defeated Democrat Theresa Greenfield by nearly 7 points, and then-President Donald Trump won the state by a similar margin.

Five Republican incumbents have already announced their retirements this year, creating competitive and complicated primaries for the party, which is seeking to flip control of the 50-50 chamber. Republicans make no secret of their hope that Grassley runs again so they can avoid the loss of another incumbent.

Finkenauer, a former state representative, won her seat in 2018, ousting then-GOP Rep. Rod Blum in an anti-Trump fueled wave. She was beat two years later by Hinson, also a former state representative and TV anchor — part of a string of disappointing losses for House Democrats who predicted they would gain seats that year.

Democrats went from holding three of Iowa’s four seats after 2018 to just one. Trump carried Finkenauer’s old seat twice, but it will be redrawn ahead of the decennial redistricting.

In a sign that she hasn’t moved on from politics, Finkenauer, 32, has remained active on Twitter in recent months. She recently took aim at Grassley, slamming him for withholding support for the Jan. 6 commission legislation that passed the House.

“Seeing @ChuckGrassley take marching orders like this is just sad & disappointingly unsurprising,” she wrote in a tweet. “So much gaslighting and so little regard for truth and doing the right thing.”

Since leaving office, she’s joined the leadership council of the Next 50, a group that works to elect millennial and Gen Z Democratic candidates.

Several other Democrats are either running or contemplating bids for the seat. Dave Muhlbauer, a farmer, launched his bid earlier this week and has begun campaigning for the race. Mike Franken, a retired Navy admiral who lost a 2020 Senate primary, has also been contemplating another run.

State Auditor Rob Sand said Wednesday he was thinking about running for governor but had ruled out a run for Senate, according to the Carroll Times.

Racketeering charge

Manhattan DA could pursue racketeering charge in Trump Org probe, experts say

Lawyers suggest that District Attorney Cy Vance might use New York’s “little RICO” statute to prosecute enterprise corruption.

By JOSH GERSTEIN and BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN

Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance could be considering a criminal charge that former President Donald Trump’s business empire was a corrupt enterprise under a New York law resembling the federal racketeering statute known as RICO, former prosecutors and defense attorneys said.

New York’s enterprise corruption statute — which carries the potential for severe penalties — can be applied to money-making businesses alleged to have repeatedly engaged in criminal activity as a way to boost their bottom line.

“I’m sure they’re thinking about that,” veteran Manhattan defense attorney Robert Anello said. “No self-respecting state white-collar prosecutor would forgo considering the enterprise corruption charge.”

The state law — sometimes called “little RICO” — can be invoked with proof of as few as three crimes involving a business or other enterprise and can carry a prison term of up to 25 years, along with a mandatory minimum of one to three years.

“It’s a very serious crime,” said Michael Shapiro, a defense attorney who used to prosecute corruption cases in New York. “Certainly, there are plenty of things an organization or business could do to run afoul of enterprise corruption, if they’re all done with the purpose of enhancing the revenue of the enterprise illegally. … It’s an umbrella everything else fits under.”

Despite a series of court battles over access to Trump’s tax returns and Trump Organization records, no charges have been filed against the Trump Organization, Donald Trump or current Trump Organization officials. A spokesperson for Vance’s office declined to comment on whether prosecutors are mulling charges under the enterprise corruption law.

Attorneys for the Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment, but Trump himself has denounced Vance’s ongoing probe as a politically inspired witch hunt.

“This is purely political, and an affront to the almost 75 million voters who supported me in the Presidential Election, and it’s being driven by highly partisan Democrat prosecutors,” Trump said in a statement Tuesday, following reports that Vance impaneled a special grand jury to hear testimony about potential crimes involving the Trump organizations.

“New York City and State are suffering the highest crime rates in their history, and instead of going after murderers, drug dealers, human traffickers, and others, they come after Donald Trump,” the former president added.

Vance’s team has reportedly examined a wide range of Trump and Trump Organization activities, including whether Trump aides knowingly submitted inflated real estate valuations to lenders and insurance companies while understating values for tax purposes, as The New York Times has detailed.

Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made similar claims during House testimony in 2019 and has been cooperating with Vance’s office after serving time in federal prison on several charges.

Prosecutors are reportedly eyeing several properties in their probe of potential financial wrongdoing, including Trump’s Seven Springs Estate in Westchester County, as CNBC has reported. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who recently agreed to coordinate her efforts with Vance’s, has also been examining valuations of Trump Tower in Chicago and Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles, according to a court filing last year.

The district attorney’s office has also examined financial payments made during the 2016 campaign to two women in bids to keep stories about alleged sexual encounters with Trump from going public. Lawyers said alternative explanations given for the payments could violate New York laws against making false entries in business records.

Not all lawyers are convinced that trying to paint Trump’s entire business empire as a criminal enterprise, or bringing an umbrella charge that would seem to assert that, is a good idea.

“Can you imagine a defense attorney standing up and saying: ‘Are you saying the whole Donald Trump enterprise is a criminal organization?’” asked Jeremy Saland, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office who is now in private practice.

Saland said prosecutors would probably be better off simply attempting to file specific charges on things like tax or business fraud, rather than trying to broaden the case.

“Why overcharge and complicate something that could be fairly simple?” he said. “Why muddy up the water? Why give a defense attorney something that could confuse a jury and be able to crow that they beat a charge in a motion to dismiss?”

Saland also noted that the penalties for crimes like high-value tax frauds are similar to enterprise corruption.

One challenge for prosecutors could be the time limits in the New York state racketeering law. The government would have to prove two of any crimes charged occurred in the previous five years. That means any alleged crimes that took place during the height of the Trump campaign in 2016 could lose their ability to trigger the “little RICO” law in the coming months.

However, if prosecutors can meet those timing requirements, invoking New York’s racketeering law might allow them to buttress their case with evidence of older episodes of wrongdoing or episodes they can’t charge individually, lawyers said.

New York’s enterprise corruption law — part of the Organized Crime Control Act — was passed in 1986 and modeled on the better-known federal statute dating to 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The measures were originally billed as means of cracking down on the mafia, drug gangs and businesses fronting for organized crime, but over time courts ruled that the broad statutes were not limited to such uses and could be used against such things as anti-abortion protesters who threatened violence or blockaded clinics.

The laws “all were designed for organized crime, but the courts have held by the terms of those statutes they have broad applicability,” Anello said.

Former prosecutors and defense attorneys described Vance’s move to use a special grand jury, first reported by the Washington Post Tuesday, as a logical one.

“The impaneling of one of these grand juries nearly always means that the DA has at least tentatively decided to present at least some charges to the grand jury for its consideration of an indictment or indictments. Typically, the exact contours of what those charges are, against whom, and what they will look like is not decided until much later in the long-term grand jury’s life,” emailed Daniel Alonso, who served as chief assistant district attorney under Vance.

Alonso said one focus of the probe seems to be Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, whose personal income tax returns have reportedly come under scrutiny. The New York Times has reported that Manhattan’s district attorney appears to be seeking Weisselberg’s cooperation with the probe. “Beyond that, we’ll have to wait and see,” said Alonso, now with law firm Buckley LLP.

Other lawyers said if Vance seeks charges, the grand jury is virtually certain to go along.

“I was a special prosecutor. I presented lots of cases to lots of special grand juries,” Shapiro said. “The prosecutors work together with the grand jury, day to day. … The natural thing that happens is everyone gets the idea we’re all on the same team. Ultimately, the grand jury will do what the prosecutors asks them to do. … If at the end of a number of months, this grand jury is asked to bring charges against Trump and others, they’ll do it — 999 times out of 1,000 they do it.”

Regardless of what charges prosecutors are weighing, their move to use a special grand jury means the probe is plowing ahead.

“While it does not mean that charges are certain, it is a necessary step toward indictment,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney. “We have known for a while that the DA had obtained Trump’s tax returns after a lengthy battle. It appears that those documents contained sufficient evidence of potential criminal activity to take this next step.”

New York state law requires grand juries hear firsthand any testimony cited in an indictment. While FBI agents can simply paraphrase witness testimony to grand juries for federal cases, the New York rule requires greater evidentiary heft.

“New York grand juries differ from federal grand juries in that hearsay is not permitted,” McQuade noted. “That means that prosecutors must present first-hand witnesses, which may explain why the grand jury will sit for three days a week for six months.”

And in this case — as in many cases involving complex financial fraud — witness testimony could be pivotal, according to Kan Nawaday, a partner at Venable and former federal prosecutor.

“I doubt that there’s going to be a smoking gun document,” he said. “I think any investigation would have to rely on witness testimony, which is — it’s been reported — why everyone believes that the ultimate target of the investigation is likely Allen Weisselberg or other executives in the Trump Organization who knew day-to-day details of how they conducted their business.”

If prosecutors pursuing the Trump Organization go down the “little RICO” road, it would not be the first time a Trump business has faced legal claims that its practices amounted to racketeering. As Trump won the presidency in 2016, he was battling a civil class-action lawsuit claiming that the activities of his Trump University real-estate program ran afoul of federal RICO.

Trump’s lawyers vehemently rejected the assertion, arguing that the plaintiffs were trying to turn “garden-variety” fraud claims into a federal racketeering case. Trump’s team also pointed to a court ruling calling RICO “the litigation equivalent of a thermonuclear device.”

However, a federal judge ruled that the suit could proceed to trial. After Trump won the 2016 election, he settled that case and related Trump University suits for $25 million, while still denying wrongdoing.

Shitty GOP infrastructure counteroffer....

Senate Democrats pile on GOP infrastructure counteroffer

“It’s just not particularly genuine,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown. “They refuse to go big. Their leader has said they want Biden to fail."

By MARIANNE LEVINE

Senate Democrats panned the Republicans’ latest counteroffer on infrastructure Thursday, signaling a bipartisan agreement remains far out of reach.

The Democratic opposition rises in response to Republicans' new $928 billion infrastructure proposal Thursday morning. But there's a wide gulf between the GOP and the White House on top lines, with Republicans proposing $257 billion in new spending and the White House's last proffered number at $1.7 trillion.

“It’s just not particularly genuine,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “They refuse to go big. Their leader has said they want Biden to fail. So we’ve seen these kinds of negotiations: slow walk, try to make it look like they’re reasonable. They haven’t been yet.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told reporters on a call with Invest in America Action that “no meaningful climate action means no deal with the Democrats." Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), on the same call, accused Republicans of “walking off the playing field.”

The new GOP proposal, which was detailed in a memo sent to the White House, allocates $506 billion for roads and bridges, $98 billion for public transit systems, $46 billion for passenger and freight trail, $21 billion for safety, $22 billion for ports and waterways, $56 billion for airports, among other features.

While the counteroffer will likely prolong discussions with the White House, the Biden administration and Senate Republicans still face serious roadblocks, including the total cost, the definition of infrastructure, and how to pay for it.

“We believe this counteroffer delivers on what President Biden told us in the Oval office that day and that is to try to reach somewhere near $1 trillion over an eight year period that would include our baseline spending,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), the top GOP negotiator. “We have achieved that goal with this counteroffer.”

Biden told reporters on his way to Ohio that he had spoken to Capito but not yet had a chance to look at the full GOP counteroffer, adding that he hoped to meet again with Republican negotiators next week.

The White House "will work actively with members of the House and Senate next week, so that there is a clear direction on how to advance much-needed jobs legislation" when the Senate returns from its Memorial Day break, press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday.

But progressive Democrats are losing patience. Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), said the "proposal goes nowhere near far enough." Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) described the proposal as "a miniscule move in the direction of the president." And Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) argued it was “still too little.”

“I fully understand the president’s instinctive desire for a bipartisan solution and that would be the best of all worlds but it takes two to tango,” Blumenthal said. “And so far they really refuse to come to the dance floor.”

Some moderate Democrats, however, remain encouraged that Republicans are still at the table. And Republicans argue that the offer with the White House isn’t as far apart as Democrats are suggesting when it comes to the definition of physical infrastructure.

“I think the gaps are much less,” Capito said. “The important thing here is that the president’s desire and our desire to do something together that's traditionally been handled by the Congress and the White House for years together.”

How to pay for the bill remains a substantial obstacle to getting a bipartisan agreement. Psaki said that Republicans had “substantially increased the funding level” and noted the group had “several constructive additions,” but reiterated concerns Thursday that "how to pay for the plan remains unclear."

The White House has suggested paying for the package by increasing the corporate tax rate, a non-starter for the GOP. Republicans have instead suggested user fees and using unused money allocated for coronavirus relief, arguing that there is a precedent for doing so. Democrats have rejected those suggestions.

"There's a lot of Covid-specific money," said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). "Better to use that money for something that we all want to do than have it sit around there for somebody else's pet project at some time in the future."

But Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) called using unspent covid money "insulting" given that Republicans "refuse to consider even a single point of increase on the corporate tax rate."

Manhattan DA could pursue racketeering charge in Trump Org probe, experts say

The new GOP counteroffer comes after White House officials presented Senate Republicans with a new proposal last week. But Republicans said after the virtual meeting that both sides were only getting further apart. Privately, members of both parties are anticipating that Democrats will end up using the so-called reconciliation process that would allow them to pass the package along party lines.

In the GOP memo to the White House, the Republican senators said their proposal met the parameters Biden laid out in a recent Oval Office meeting with him and warned that “proceeding with reconciliation would undermine the good work we have done, and can continue to do, in a bipartisan manner."

Senate Democrats say the clock is ticking and are becoming more vocal in their push to go it alone. Sanders said Thursday that Democrats" should prepare to move to reconciliation when the Senate returns from the Memorial Day Recess.

"I have supported the White House's open approach, inviting the Republicans to come along," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). "But the time is very near that the Democrats need to just move forward."

Block Jan. 6 commission

Senate GOP moderates fume as McConnell prepares to block Jan. 6 commission

“Is that really what this is about, that everything is just one election cycle after another?" lamented Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

By BURGESS EVERETT

During Thursday's Senate Republican lunch, Sen. Susan Collins made one last plea to her colleagues to advance a proposed independent commission to probe the Capitol riot, with changes she fought for. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke right after her.

And the GOP leader is set to win the day, much to the consternation of a handful of his members who fear the party is making a mistake in voting down the House-passed commission bill sometime Friday. After an increasingly hard public and private push from McConnell, Senate Republicans are ready to make the independent investigation into the Capitol attack their first filibuster of the Biden administration.

Collins kept trying to whip up 10 votes to break a filibuster on Thursday and said in an interview that she wouldn’t “give up." But McConnell didn’t let her go un-rebutted at the conference's closed-door meeting, and Collins was resigned to the short-term failure of her efforts at compromise.

“It would be so much better if we had an independent outside commission," the Maine Republican said.

Conservative objections to moving forward on an unrelated competitiveness bill pushed the Jan. 6 bill into Friday. The vote on the commission will take place after the Senate completes its work on that bill.

Collins has a familiar ally in speaking out against the minority leader's push. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) argued Thursday night that her party should look “critically” at the decision to block the commission bill, warning against “making a decision for the short-term political gain at the expense of understanding and acknowledging what was in front of us on Jan. 6.”

She acknowledged that an outside inquiry into the pro-Trump attack on Congress could be a painful — and political — exercise, but still a worthwhile one.

“I don’t want to know. But I need to know. And I think it’s important for the country that there be an independent evaluation,” Murkowski said. “Is that really what this is about, that everything is just one election cycle after another?"

Several undecided Republicans came down against advancing the commission ahead of the vote, despite Collins' work for changes to strengthen the proposed commission's bipartisan staffing and trim its timetable. The growing tide against the House bill, which passed with 35 Republican votes, came as McConnell dismissed the commission idea on Thursday.

“I do not believe the additional extraneous commission that Democratic leaders want would uncover crucial new facts or promote healing. Frankly I do not believe it is even designed to do that,” he said on Thursday morning.

McConnell has argued that advancing the commission is unlikely to reveal things not already dug up by existing probes, including those by lawmakers themselves. And he’s also argued internally to his conference that a lengthy commission wouldn't be good politics heading into the midterms, contending it could uncover damaging revelations related to former President Donald Trump that would hurt Republicans.

The GOP leader turned up his effort to stop the commission eight days ago, after saying his party was undecided on the House bill. By Thursday, Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota said in an interview that his party is not willing to provide the 10 votes needed to start debate on the bill: “The House-passed version won’t have 10,” Thune said.

The expected GOP blockade will cloud the atmosphere in Washington. Republicans have not blocked any of Democrats' bills on the Senate floor so far this year, until the commission vote.

Democrats say they have made major concessions to the GOP on the structure of the commission, with their party's House leaders even blessing Collins’ changes. The resulting frustration is palpable, among even the most amiable Democrats.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said he believes there will be a future Jan. 6-style attack on the Capitol and “the outcome is going to be far worse.”

“We’ve got to get to the bottom of this shit,” Tester said. “Jesus. It’s a nonpartisan investigation of what happened. And if it’s because they’re afraid of Trump then they need to get out of office. It’s bullshit. You make tough decisions in this office or you shouldn’t be here.”

McConnell seemed to lock up the 41 votes against that he needed despite a last-minute pro-commission lobbying push by the mother and girlfriend of fallen Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died after responding to the siege. Collins and Murkowski were among the Republicans they met.

Murkowski recalled meeting with the women close to Sicknick after they spoke with a senator who opposed the commission; she told them she was “heartsick that you feel that you need to come and advocate to members of Congress.”

Sens. Jerry Moran of Kansas and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia both said they will not support the commission.

“We have other committees looking at this. We’ll get our answers,” Capito said.

Even Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who voted to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection, was unsure where he would come down. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, who also backed convicting Trump, has argued inside the GOP conference against the commission and said that, even with an expiration date of Dec. 31, it would drag into the midterms.

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who has considered supporting Collins’ changes, said he wanted a commission to have the “legitimacy and the trust of the American people by being fair. If it’s not fair. It’s not going to be effective.”

He declined to say how he would vote. The Senate is currently considering a China competitiveness bill but is expected to vote on the commission before going on Memorial Day recess.

Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, who supports the House-passed commission bill, said his colleagues were entitled to their opinions. “I have a different point of view than some of my colleagues, but we're entitled to do that and I'm not frustrated by it,” he said.

Once the commission is blocked, several congressional committees will still be looking at the matter. But Collins said the thinks there will still be a new panel in Congress.

And that entity won't be as credible to her as the one her party chose to reject.

“The most likely outcome, sadly, is probably the Democratic leaders will appoint a select committee. We’ll have a partisan investigation. It won’t have credibility with people like me, but the press will cover it because that’s what’s going on,” Collins said.

Social media bill

Tech groups sue DeSantis over social media bill

By MATT DIXON 

Two technology groups on Thursday filed a lawsuit in Tallahassee federal court challenging a controversial bill that Gov. Ron DeSantis said is aimed at cracking down on social media censorship — but opponents argue is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

Details: NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association filed suit against Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and several other state officials over the anti-Big Tech bill, which DeSantis signed into law on Monday. It was among the most contentious measures of the recently-concluded legislative session.

“Americans everywhere should oppose Florida’s attempt to run roughshod over the First Amendment rights of private online businesses,” said Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice. “By weakening the First Amendment rights of some, Florida weakens the First Amendment rights of all.”

The bill requires social media companies to post concrete criteria they use to deplatform users, and allows the Florida Elections Commission to fine social media companies up to $250,000 for banning political candidates, among other things.

DeSantis prioritized the bill, lamenting what he saw as social media companies like Twitter and Facebook targeted conservatives such as former President Donald Trump, who was removed from several social media platforms. Democrats fought the measure, which they argued was not only unconstitutional but driven by tech companies deplatforming Trump.

“The Act is a frontal assault on the First Amendment and an extraordinary intervention by government in the free marketplace of ideas that would be unthinkable for traditional media, book sellers, lending libraries or newsstands,” the lawsuit states.

The response: It was widely anticipated, including by DeSantis, that the new law would be challenged in court. In an interview with Spectator, DeSantis predicted the bill would “absolutely be challenged.”

“Constitutional protections are not a one-way street,” said DeSantis’ press secretary Christina Pushaw on Thursday. “On the contrary, there is a delicate balance in ensuring that citizens and businesses alike are protected against government overreach, but also, that all consumers are protected against abusive, discriminatory, and/or deceptive business practices.”

Canada-U.S. border

Trudeau's own MPs demand plan for Canada-U.S. border

House finance chair blames border challenges on bubble mentality.

By ANDY BLATCHFORD

American lawmakers have so far spearheaded the push to get Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to ease pandemic restrictions at the Canada-U.S. border.

But as more Canadians are vaccinated the pressure is now coming from within Trudeau’s own Liberal caucus.

Longtime Liberal MP Wayne Easter, who chairs the House of Commons finance committee, told POLITICO on Thursday that the Trudeau government must lay out a border reopening plan — and soon.

“As you get into July 1, Canada Day, and July 4, Independence Day, then those target dates are real pressure points for wanting to be normalized,” Easter, who co-chairs the Canada–U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group, said in an interview. “The heat’s on, and I think we absolutely must have a plan.”

The frontier: Canada-U.S. land crossings have been shuttered to nonessential travel since March 2020. The neighbors agreed last week to keep the restrictions in place through June 21.

But as vaccination numbers rise, June 22 could be a different story.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) told POLITICO this week that U.S. authorities are poised to begin lifting restrictions at both American frontiers in June. “All indications are they'll open up next month,” said Cuellar, whose district is adjacent to the Mexican border. “We're almost there. But I don't know if they'll do it all at once or take a phased approach.”

The plan: Easter said Canada is approaching the border with more caution. Asked whether Canada could start opening things on June 22, he said it will depend on the evolution of the pandemic and vaccinations on both sides.

By June 22, however, Easter said it will be crucial to provide the public with timelines and benchmarks.

"You need to lay out the plan regardless of that uncertainty. People need to know where they’re going. They need to be given that hope,” Easter said. “It’s absolutely essential at that point that the plan is completely laid out.”

Canada, for example, has caught up to the U.S. on administering first doses of the vaccines, but trails when it comes to the percentage of people who have had both jabs. As of Thursday, more than 53 percent of Canada’s population had received at least one dose, while just 5 percent were fully vaccinated.

Seeing beyond the Ottawa bubble: The lack of a plan, Easter argues, is partially due to lawmakers’ shift to virtual gatherings during the pandemic. Caucus meetings by Zoom just haven’t been the same, he added.

“You can’t rub shoulders ... and say to somebody, ‘Look, this is the issue and let’s get on it together today and put the pressure on,’” said Easter, who adds many Americans own properties in his Prince Edward Island constituency and often spend up to five months there every year.

“You have, to a certain extent, the Ottawa bubble mentality and that can be part of the problem. Same as the Washington, D.C., mentality — it’s two different worlds. I say both [are] a bubble in which reality or common sense doesn’t exist.”

Easter also said he believes Canada has yet to unveil a plan because of the “flux and uncertainty” of the pandemic. The province of Manitoba has been struggling with a surge of Covid-19 cases. Much larger provinces, like Ontario, are still under stay-at-home restrictions.

Cross-border discussions: Last week, Easter co-chaired a meeting of the Canada–U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group that focused on a number of issues, including the safe reopening of the border. The U.S. participants included Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

He said the Americans in the meeting wanted to apply more pressure on the U.S. and Canadian governments to begin removing border restrictions.

“They’re putting the heat on their administration and also trying to put some heat on ours as well,” he said, adding he thinks it’s resonating with Trudeau’s ministers. “I talk to cabinet ministers in various caucus meetings. The discussion is ongoing, it isn’t a moot point. There [are] discussions among cabinet circles on how do we do this. That’s a good sign.”

The American pressure has raised the prospect the U.S. could start to reopen the border before Canada.

A senior Canadian government insider recently said official-level discussions on the border are underway and no decisions were expected in the short term. The insider also said the rules may loosen as the summer progresses.

Trudeau has suggested that at least 75 percent of Canada’s population needs to get their first shots and 20 percent will need their second doses before the country will start loosening public health restrictions. He has not provided detailed guidelines for the border.

The prime minister is still facing domestic pressure. For example, provincial leaders like Ontario Premier Doug Ford have urged him to keep border measures in place.

The political squeeze: The restrictions have affected businesses, tourism and family reunification on both sides of the border. But so far most of the public pressure has come from the U.S.

Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), co-chair of the Northern Border Caucus, has been among the most vocal lawmakers pushing President Joe Biden and Trudeau. He wants border measures lifted for those who have been fully vaccinated.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer used a statement to directly urge Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to coordinate with his Canadian counterparts as soon as possible.

Easter said the political squeeze from the U.S. has been stronger in large part because in Canada public health officials and the media have contributed to a greater “fear factor” around the pandemic.

“We’ve done a pretty good job of creating fear on the Canadian side,” he said, noting he understands the goal was to get people to stay home. “If you were ever to watch [the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] for a 16-hour period, you’d be depressed.”

Evacuate thousands...

Pentagon examining how to evacuate thousands who worked for US from Afghanistan

By Barbara Starr and Kylie Atwood

The Pentagon is in the early stages of planning for the potential evacuation of thousands of Afghan nationals whose work for the US could make them Taliban targets when the American military withdraws from the country, according to four administration officials.

The officials emphasized that a formal request to develop a contingency plan has not been made by the White House but there is significant pressure on the administration from Capitol Hill and outside groups to safely remove the Afghans before US troops leave.

President Joe Biden's April announcement that the US would withdraw troops by September 11 has created uncertainty for thousands of Afghans who risked their lives to help the US military working as translators and in other roles since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan in 2001.

Officials have privately said the troop withdrawal could be completed in July which increases the sense of urgency. There has also been an uptake in Taliban violence against Afghan security forces and civilians in recent weeks and Afghans who are waiting for visas to come to the US have been killed by the Taliban.

In one recent instance, the Taliban cracked the skull of an Afghan national with an AK-47, kept him captive and told him that they planned to kill him because he had worked for the Americans, he told CNN. The man was able to escape only because the Afghan national army raided the place where he was being held.

An evacuation is just one option being examined and the administration is also looking at speeding up the issuing of visas. The State Department has said that about 18,000 people who have applied for special immigrant visas to the US are still awaiting approval.

But there are concerns that it will not be possible to process all of them before the troops have left. Granting the visas is an arduous and lengthy process; in recent years the processing for each approved applicant has taken more than 500 days, according to State Department data reviewed by CNN in April.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, confirmed CNN's reporting on Wednesday, telling reporters traveling with him that "there are plans being developed very, very rapidly" to evacuate Afghans whose worked for the US that could make them Taliban targets, according to Defense One, which, was traveling with Milley.

"We recognize that a very important task is to ensure that we remain faithful to them, and that we do what's necessary to ensure their protection, and if necessary, get them out of the country, if that's what they want to do," Milley said.

'We could certainly do it'

Last month Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, said that the Pentagon could assist in getting Afghans out of harm's way if they were directed to do.

"The special immigrant visa program is probably the best route to make that happen. And it's really a better question for the Department of State than me. I would just tell you that from a Central Command perspective and the perspective of the US military, if directed to do something like that, we could certainly do it," Mckenzie said at a Pentagon briefing.

The officials with knowledge of the initial planning process said US Central command which oversees operations in Afghanistan and commanders in the country needed to start planning now to be ready when a decision is made by the Biden administration. They stress that an evacuation would be a highly complex operation and they'd hope to carry it out gradually. They need to work out how many people would need to be transported, how many aircraft would be needed and whether the Afghans would be taken to an interim location outside the US while their visa applications are reviewed. Covid-19 considerations are also a complicating factor, according to the officials.

One official noted that many would need to be transported from different locations across the country to be flown out. As US troops continue to withdraw that process will become increasingly complicated and it is a major priority to keep Kabul's international civilian airport and other major airfields free of Taliban control.

When asked about a potential evacuation, a State Department spokesperson said the department is "focused on ensuring that the system functions quickly but is also consistent with US security and other application requirements." The spokesperson added that the US is processing SIVs in Kabul "efficiently" and noted that applicants can also pursue the processing in neighboring countries.

The Secretary of Defense is "actively participating in what is an interagency discussion" about how to "best address" the issue, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said during a press briefing on Wednesday.

"The secretary shares concerns about so many Afghans who have helped us over the last two decades, he knows many of them himself, so he's certainly vested in making sure we do right by them," Kirby said.

Kirby did not have specific "planning options" to discuss, but said, "certainly to the degree that DoD can be helpful, we will."

Political pressure

There is significant bipartisan political pressure for the US to secure the safety of the Afghans who have assisted American troops.

"We cannot allow Afghanistan to be another Saigon," Rep. Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during a hearing on Afghanistan last week. "This isn't just about the people waiting for these visas in Afghanistan. If our allies and partners don't trust us to keep our word or think they will be abandoned, it could cause irreparable damage to our national security."

McCaul -- along with his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Gregory Meeks -- wrote a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken that urged the State Department to expedite visas for some 3,000 Afghans whose applications remain pending.

"We must do our part to aid those Afghans who have aided us. There are already troubling examples of Taliban plan to target those who have helped the United States. We must ensure that we have the capacity to bring them to safety," said Sen. Jack Reed, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Outside groups and individuals have met the Biden administration and urged them to put more resources towards visa processing and then put together a backup plan for a possible airlift, according to sources familiar with the discussions. But the groups have not received any updates in recent weeks on the status of the administration's efforts regarding a possible evacuation.

Recently the State Department has increased consular staffing at the embassy in Kabul in an effort to process more applications. State Department Spokesman Ned Price said the administration will "continue to look for ways to speed up this process."

The Pentagon is aware that time is of the essence.

"We have a moral obligation to help those that have helped us over the past 20 years of our presence and work in Afghanistan. We are working very closely with our State Department interagency colleagues to look at programs like the Special Immigrant Visa program," David Helvey, the acting assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific affairs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week.

Helvey noted that administration wants to work with Congress to increase the number of visas available and use other mechanisms to bring Afghans who may not qualify for the special immigrant visa program to safety. The Pentagon is also working with the State Department to provide data to help identify Afghans who worked for the US.

Should quickly do......

What the House should quickly do if the January 6 commission fails in the Senate

Opinion by Ken Ballen

With Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announcing his opposition to the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, prospects for Senate passage of the recent House bill creating such a commission appear slim.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should follow through on her willingness to create a select committee in the House to conduct a full and professional investigation of the January 6 insurrection instead. And she should do so quickly.

The model for this panel should be the select committee that investigated the Iran-Contra affair.

In January 1987, the House decided to launch an investigation into the most significant presidential scandal since Watergate. Given the magnitude of the investigation and the importance of bringing it to a quick conclusion, the House select committee was given legal powers beyond the usual norms of congressional oversight.

The chair of the select committee had full authority to issue subpoenas, compelling the production of documents and witnesses with the force of law. The committee also took the unusual step of conducting some 250 depositions -- sworn testimony under oath -- by its staff attorneys. Since the staff was comprised largely of former prosecutors, the witness testimony was analogous to a grand jury inquiry.

During the course of depositions, some witnesses asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The committee, therefore, had the power to seek compulsion of testimony over Fifth Amendment objections by obtaining a court order immunizing a witness against the use of compelled testimony.

Only after having completed its investigative phase did the select committee hold 40 days of public hearings, with 29 witnesses testifying over the course of three months.

I served on the committee as counsel from its inception to its close. Our chair was Congressman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, who insisted on the highest standards, and specifically that counsel conduct full and professional questioning of all witnesses before members of Congress had more limited turns. If the House decides to create a select committee to investigate the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol, it should follow his precedent.

Chairman Hamilton also worked diligently to cooperate with the minority Republicans on the select committee, but given the intractable Republican opposition now, Speaker Pelosi should endeavor to only accept the appointment of Republican members, such as Rep. Liz Cheney, committed to a professional investigation.

Republican Sen. Howard Baker, who later served as Ronald Reagan's chief of staff, posed the famous question that animated the Watergate hearings in the Senate: "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Chairman Hamilton told me that we could not perform our duty to the country unless we answered the same question in our investigation of the Iran-Contra scandal.

When it comes to the January 6 insurrection, this Congress must have the same courage and fidelity to the Constitution to ask, what did then-President Donald Trump know and when did he know it?

It took three hours and 19 minutes between the time Capitol Police requested military assistance and the time when the military was finally ordered to respond, according to the testimony of DC National Guard Commanding Maj. Gen. William Walker.

Did former President Trump have any responsibility for the delay? Did he have any advance knowledge of the insurrectionists' plans? Was there any coordination with the rioters beyond the President's public words?

When faced with possible collusion by President Trump, now is not the time for business as usual on Capitol Hill.

A select House committee needs to conduct a thorough and proactive investigation adopting the model of the Iran-Contra select committee. Appoint a staff of experienced former federal prosecutors. Subpoena and depose witnesses under legal compulsion and under oath before even beginning public hearings. Immunize witnesses where necessary but freely and widely.

A well-documented and substantive record of professional fact-finding will help counter any claims of partisanship.

Traditional norms of oversight alone are not enough. Our democracy literally hangs in the balance.

Let's see what happens....

Paul Ryan to enter GOP's civil war by criticizing Trump's hold on party

By Daniella Diaz

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan is set to criticize former President Donald Trump and his hold on the Republican Party during a speech Thursday night, according to excerpts obtained by CNN.

Ryan, a critic of the former President in the past, is expected to say at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, that Republicans must move away from the "populist appeal of one personality" because "then we're not going anywhere."

"Once again, we conservatives find ourselves at a crossroads. And here's one reality we have to face: If the conservative cause depends on the populist appeal of one personality, or on second-rate imitations, then we're not going anywhere. Voters looking for Republican leaders want to see independence and mettle," Ryan is expected to say.

Punchbowl News was first to report the excerpts.

Although Ryan doesn't mention Trump by name in his criticism, the expected remarks by the Republican Party's 2012 vice presidential nominee will add him to a growing list of establishment Republicans who are publicly objecting to Trump's grip on the party. Like-minded Republicans, including Ryan's predecessor, John Boehner, have lamented the current direction of the party, which has actively rebuked and ostracized members who have taken on Trump and his brand of populist and nativist politics.

The excerpts indicate that Ryan plans to outline a path forward for the Republican Party in the Biden era. According to the excerpts, the only time Ryan will reference Trump by name is to praise him for how, at the start of 2020, the US "saw such incredibly powerful and inclusive economic growth," though he suggests more credit is due to Reagan-inspired policy rather than Trumpism.

"It was the populism of President Trump in action, tethered to conservative principles," he is expected to say.

In his speech, he also plans to warn his fellow conservatives at being drawn into cultural battles with Democrats.

"As the left gets more 'woke,' the rest of America is getting weary. It's exhausting. And we conservatives have to be careful not to get caught up in every little cultural battle," he will say. "Sometimes these skirmishes are just creations of outrage peddlers, detached from reality and not worth anybody's time. They draw attention away from the far more important case we must make to the American people."

Ryan will also criticize President Joe Biden, claiming he is "pursuing an agenda more leftist than any president in my lifetime."

"In 2020, the country wanted a nice guy who would move to the center and depolarize our politics. Instead, we got a nice guy pursuing an agenda more leftist than any president in my lifetime. These policies might have the full approval of his progressive supporters, but they break faith with the middle-of-the-road folks who made the difference for him on Election Day," he is expected to say.

Ryan, who decided to retire from Congress in 2018, has kept a relatively low profile since leaving Capitol Hill. He was seen as a rising star in the Republican Party before facing a high level of scrutiny from Democrats and Republicans alike over his relationship with Trump, with whom he occasionally clashed.

The Reagan Presidential Library is also expected to host former Vice President Mike Pence and former secretary of state Mike Pompeo this summer.

Rise and repeat, rinse and repeat.

“Rinse and Repeat”: Gavin Newsom Laments America’s Mass Shooting Epidemic

ABIGAIL WEINBERG

In a press conference responding to the shooting deaths of eight people in a San Jose rail yard this afternoon, California Gov. Gavin Newsom expressed his weariness at the frequency of mass shootings, asking, “What the hell is going on in the United States of America?”

“There’s a numbness I imagine some of us are feeling about this, because there’s a sameness to this,” he said. “It just feels like this happens over and over and over again. Rise and repeat, rinse and repeat.”

President Biden has ordered the flag to be lowered to half staff for the fifth time since he took office. “There are at least eight families who will never be whole again,” Biden wrote in a statement. “There are children, parents, and spouses who are waiting to hear whether someone they love is ever going to come home. There are union brothers and sisters—good, honest, hardworking people—who are mourning their own.”

The San Jose gunman killed eight people before turning the gun on himself. He set his own house on fire before beginning shooting at a Valley Transportation Authority union meeting, authorities said. They believe there are still explosive devices inside the VTA building.

“What the hell is wrong with us?” Newsom asked, “And when are we going to come to grips with this? When are we going to put down our arms, literally and figuratively?”

Another another another scandal... Even after they left... Corruption...

Emails Tie Top Trump Exec Allen Weisselberg to Yet Another Trump Financial Scandal

These records show he was involved with the Trump inauguration committee now under investigation for major grifting.

DAVID CORN

Allen Weisselberg is in the hot seat—and that’s bad news for Donald Trump and his family. Assorted news reports have identified Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, as a key figure in the criminal and civil investigations of the Trump business being conducted by the New York attorney general and the Manhattan district attorney, who recently empaneled a grand jury to review evidence against the Trump company, its executives, and possibly Trump. Moreover, the New York Times recently reported that Weisselberg himself is being criminally investigated for possible tax fraud, raising the prospect that investigators are looking to flip the longtime Trump executive into a cooperating witness. Now there’s more trouble for Weisselberg and Trump World. Previously unreported emails attached to a little-noticed court document filed earlier this month show that Weisselberg is tied to another Trump financial scandal: the Trump inauguration case, which is currently being investigated by the attorney general of Washington, DC. 

In 2020,  Karl Racine, the AG in the nation’s capital, filed a lawsuit  against Trump’s inauguration committee and the Trump Organization, asserting that the inauguration committee, a nonprofit corporation, misused charitable funds to enrich the Trump family. The complaint, as the attorney general put it in a statement, accuses the Presidential Inauguration Committee (known as the PIC) of coordinating “with the Trump family to grossly overpay for event space in the Trump International Hotel.” The lawsuit notes that the PIC struck a contract with the Trump Hotel for $1.03 million, an amount that was allegedly far above the hotel’s own pricing guidelines. (At the time, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a top producer for the PIC, raised concerns with the president-elect, Ivanka Trump, and others about the prices the Trump Hotel was charging the inauguration committee for events to be held there. But according to Racine, the PIC still paid the Trump Hotel inflated fees.)

Racine also alleges that the PIC improperly used nonprofit funds to host a private party at the Trump Hotel for the Trump family that cost several hundred thousand dollars. The attorney general has essentially maintained that the Trump crew and its company exploited the 2017 presidential inauguration to engage in significant grifting. and he is looking to recoup the money the PIC paid to the Trump Hotel so these funds can be directed to real charitable purposes. (Federal prosecutors have also examined the committee’s financing. It is not clear if their inquiry has concluded.)

In April 2017—three months after Trump’s inauguration—the PIC was trying to sort out its financial reports, and though the Trump Organization was not officially involved in its operation except as a payment recipient, Weisselberg was brought into the effort.

This happened on April 19, the day after the PIC filed its financial report with the Federal Election Commission and revealed that it had raised $107 million. This was a whopping figure, twice what Barack Obama had collected for his first inauguration. And the money had poured into the PIC from numerous wealthy and corporate donors who had kicked in seven-figure contributions, spurring concerns about influence-peddling. Additionally, the FEC report did not state how this flood of money had been spent. (The PIC was not required to list its expenditures.) As the Associated Press the next day noted, “That leaves a bit of a mystery: What the $107 million was spent for and how much was left over—the excess, if any, to go to charity. It also raises a new round of questions about the influence of money in politics, this time for a president who promised to ‘drain the swamp’ of Washington.”

A legal filing submitted by Racine in mid-May in his case against the Trump Organization and the PIC included emails that show how the PIC reached out to Weisselberg on the afternoon of April 19, as news reports about the PIC’s finances were exploding.

Rick Gates, who was the PIC’s deputy chair (and who later pleaded guilty to charges stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation), emailed Douglas Ammerman, the committee’s treasurer, “I would like to introduce you to Allen Weisselberg who is with the Trump Organization and was an enormous help to us on the campaign. Please reach out to Allen and walk him through the auditing process for the PIC and the activities that were conducted through the project.” Weisselberg and Tom Barrack, the billionaire investor and Trump pal who chaired the inauguration committee, were cc’d on the email.

In this email, Gates did not explain why Weisselberg, a senior official at an organization that had received a large amount of money from the committee, was being called on to oversee the PIC’s own internal audit. 

Half an hour later, in the same email chain. Weisselberg wrote Ammerman, “If you would be so kind as to send me the latest report reflecting all revenue broken down by its sources as well as a detailed disbursement schedule by vendor it would be greatly appreciated. Once I review these reports I will get back to you with additional questions or requests.” Barrack and Gates also received this email. On the bottom of the print-out of these emails in the legal filing was a handwritten note: “Spoke to Rick Gates today about the inauguration accounting.” The person who wrote this note is not identified on the document.

Two weeks later, Weisselberg exchanged several emails with Heather Martin, the committee’s budget director, and he requested assorted financial information. In one of these emails, he asked why there was a $1.6 million difference between the committee’s revenues and donations. 

During depositions taken in Racine’s lawsuits, the attorney general’s lawyers repeatedly questioned witnesses about Weisselberg’s role in reviewing the PIC’s finances. The responses were curious. Ivanka Trump was questioned about Weisselberg’s emails with Martin: “Do you have any idea why the Trump Organization would be asking for revenue data from the PIC?” She replied, “I do not.” Donald Trump Jr. was asked a similar question: “Do you have any idea why Mr. Weisselberg would have been requesting to review PIC finances?’ Trump’s eldest son said, “I don’t.” (Trump Jr., a top executive at the Trump Organization, made several statements in his deposition that were apparently false or contradicted by the testimony of others.)

When Barrack was asked about Weisselberg, he acted as if he barely knew him. “Can you refresh my memory?” he said. Barrack then noted that Weisselberg had no formal position within the inauguration committee. One of Racine’s attorneys queried Barrack, “Do you recall whether the PIC was providing him financial reports or financial statements relating to the PIC?” Barack answered, “I have no idea.”

Yet during his deposition in the Racine case, Gates had a much different story to tell about Weisselberg and Barrack. Asked why Weisselberg and Ammerman in April 2017 had emailed about the PIC’s budget, Gates said, “Mr. Barrack wanted Mr. Ammerman to send him the….overall list of revenue raised or revenue—donations raised and the expenditures against those donations.” Gates called this “a proactive effort” initiated by Barrack. “There was at this point in time a number of attacks on the inaugural committee based on the amount [of money] it had both raised [and spent].”

A lawyer in the attorney general’s office asked Gates “What was Mr. Weisselberg’s role in connection to responding to those attacks?” Gates replied that Weisselberg was “great” with numbers and that “Mr. Barrack had known him, you know, for years.” The attorney followed up: “Was Mr. Weisselberg’s donating his services to the PIC?” Gates said, “I do not know.” But Gates added that he had spoken with Barack about Weisselberg’s review of the financial information and that Barrack indicated that “he wanted to be proactive and send this to Mr. Weisselberg. And so he had asked Doug Ammerman to prepare both the money raised and the expenditures against that and to send it directly.” Gates also said that he recalled phoning Weisselberg to let him know that Barrack would be forwarding him the information. 

There is a sharp contradiction between Barrack’s account and Gates’ recollection regarding Weisselberg’s involvement in reviewing the PIC’s finances—an arrangement that now seems particularly unorthodox, given that the Trump Organization and the PIC have been accused of violating tax rules and bilking American taxpayers. 

In March, Racine requested an extension of discovery in his case against the Trump Organization and the PIC to conduct additional depositions, including an examination of Weisselberg. 

Mother Jones emailed Weisselberg a long list of questions regarding his involvement in reviewing the PIC’s finances. Who asked him to examine these numbers? Did he ever discuss the PIC’s finances with Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, or Barrack? Did he approve of the financial information the PIC eventually released publicly? Was he aware that the Trump Hotel seemingly overcharged the PIC? Weisselberg’s lawyer, Mary Mulligan, replied tersely: “No comment.”

Mother Jones also sent a list of questions to Barrack and his attorneys related to his deposition in the inauguration case and asked him to explain the discrepancy between his testimony and Gates’ deposition. Barrack and his lawyers did not reply. 

“The Trump Organization is the parent company that controls the operations and finances of the Trump Hotel, so why would Allen Weisselberg, its CFO, be asked to participate in the audit pertaining to the finances of the PIC?” asks Winston Wolkoff, who is now a lead cooperating witness in Racine’s lawsuit and a prominent critic of Trump corruption. “That is especially true when those finances involve the questionable payments to the Trump Hotel that I questioned at the time. This seems highly unusual, and it’s a matter that the various investigators should be seriously examining.”