A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



April 27, 2023

Stupider in person.......

Disney has a ‘strong case’ against DeSantis over his ‘retaliatory campaign,’ First Amendment experts say

Analysis by Oliver Darcy

Disney just cast Ron DeSantis as the villain in a story of good versus evil.

After more than a year-long battle with the bombastic Florida governor, the entertainment behemoth filed a blistering lawsuit in federal court, not mincing words as it alleged that it had been the victim of a “targeted campaign of government retaliation” for having the gall to speak out against the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

“Disney regrets that it has come to this,” the company said in its lawsuit, arguing that it found itself in the “regrettable position” because it “expressed a viewpoint the governor and his allies did not like.” Disney added, “In America, the government cannot punish you for speaking your mind.”

The lawsuit, the culmination of ever-growing hostilities between the Magic Kingdom and Sunshine State, was filed moments after a DeSantis-appointed board moved to recover power it had lost over Disney’s special taxing district. Earlier this year, Disney quietly outmaneuvered the board and struck a decades-long deal to ensure it retained authority over the land around its sprawling Orlando-area theme parks.

DeSantis responded to the lawsuit by issuing a statement through his communications director, Taryn Fenske. “We are unaware of any legal right that a company has to operate its own government or maintain special privileges not held by other businesses in the state,” Fenske said. “This lawsuit is yet another unfortunate example of their hope to undermine the will of the Florida voters and operate outside the bounds of the law.”

Speaking at a press conference in Jerusalem Thursday, DeSantis blasted Disney, saying the company did not “want to pay the same taxes as everybody else.”

“I don’t think the suit has merit. I think it’s political,” DeSantis said, adding that Floridians understood that Disney’s tax status was an issue in last November’s elections. “And not only did they re-elect me, but we did better in that area of the state than any Republican has done in quite some time.”

Regardless of what the DeSantis team is saying, legal experts CNN spoke to on Wednesday signaled that Disney is on firm footing.

“It’s a serious First Amendment case,” Floyd Abrams, the renowned First Amendment attorney of Pentagon Papers fame, told CNN. Abrams said he expected the case to survive a motion to dismiss by Florida.

Ted Boutrous, the First Amendment attorney, agreed, saying that Disney had put together “a powerful complaint.” Boutrous said that Disney’s “First Amendment arguments are extremely strong.”

“DeSantis has admitted — indeed bragged about — retaliating against Disney to punish it for its speech on an issue of public concern and importance,” Boutrous added. “That is a classic First Amendment violation.”

Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law at Harvard Law School, noted to me that the “retaliatory campaign” was “not subtle.” Tushnet said Disney “has a strong case, both under the First Amendment and potentially for violation of its property rights that the state is trying to destroy.”

The irony in all of this, as pointed out by RonNell Andersen Jones, the Lee E. Teitelbaum Chair and Professor of Law at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law, is that corporations enjoy expanded speech rights because of conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

“This lawsuit flips the political script and gives us a corporate free-speech suit that doesn’t fit the pattern of advancing that conservative agenda,” Jones said.

While DeSantis faces an uphill legal battle, the anti-Disney narrative has played well in the right-wing media universe, where facts take a back seat to hyperbole. In this alternative ecosystem, Disney has been portrayed for months as a “woke” organization seeking to “groom” children with what they characterize as a radical LGBTQ agenda.

Yes, really. The family-friendly, fun-for-everyone, intentionally inoffensive brand has been demonized by politicians like DeSantis and others who have played to the Fox News cameras to raise their own profiles. The truth is that characterizing Disney as a creepy company that aims to morally bankrupt kids has become a mainstream position in GOP media circles.

DeSantis knows this — which is why he was happy to pick this battle with the company. But now that he will be forced to defend it in court, where the laws of reality apply, the war of his own choosing could very well cost him.

AI-Generated - A Warning About the Future.....

The GOP’s AI-Generated Biden Attack Ad Really Is a Warning About the Future

JAMES WEST

Today President Biden announced his reelection bid. In response, the GOP announced its further descent into the uncanny valley, with a big assist from artificial intelligence.

Presumably designed as a rebuke of Biden’s own relatively somber campaign video, the Republican offering—titled “Beat Biden”—foretells the dystopian future heralded by the incumbent’s imagined second win. It’s an all-but-unlivable hellscape of war, financial ruin, and crime. And it’s all, according to the YouTube description, rendered by artificial intelligence tools. Axios reports that “this is the first time the RNC has produced a video that is 100% AI, according to a spokesperson.”

The video itself offers a clarification baked into a watermark in the top left corner: “Built entirely with AI imagery.”

So not 100 percent. There’s music, bits of voice-over, and a ton of post-production effects (jitters and other “camera” movements, vignetting, animation, color-grading, sound effects, light flares, and more) happening in this video. But nonetheless, the production does appear to rely only on startlingly good AI imagery—replacing what would normally be general stock “b-roll,” the footage typically licensed from vast libraries to fill videos (and ads, and even works of our own MoJo journalism). One such AI image generator, Midjourney, rolled out its new model (version 5) in March, and it is capable of producing astonishingly realistic images, with a few stubborn “tells”: Despite some serious improvements, human hands are still a bit weird; extra limbs appear where they shouldn’t; and most prominently, words are rendered unreadable gobbledegook. You’ll recall the rash of stories about the fake Trump arrest photographs.

The producers behind the GOP video have done a good job concealing the AI-ness of the images, by digitally degrading the pictures to make them look more like video. When Taipei is bombed 10 seconds in, lens effects have been added to make it look like the image has been ripped from a witness’ social media account. But mysteriously, the city’s famous Taipei 101 tower sticks up at a dangerously titled angle compared to the rest of the skyline. Is it meant to be an impossibly wide-angle lens? Unclear.

At 15 seconds, the AI imagines people presumably queuing to get their money out of a collapsed regional bank. Their faces are strange and potato-y. They are all white and old. The day appears to be both unusually sunny and very cold: They are bundled up, but there are simply too many people wearing sunglasses. My colleague reminds me that if you live in Denver, this is a common phenomenon. But look closer: The yellow cordon appears to pass straight through a woman’s purse.

At 24 seconds, another classic AI tell: The words on the shop signs don’t make any sense.

I know I was meant to be scared when I saw the tattooed, smoking “criminal” at 26 seconds—but AI imagines this sinewing young man as very handsome and cool, despite his “MS 13” forehead ink. In my experience playing with Midjourney, this is also a common feature. It defaults to beauty norms when creating human faces.

Finally, what’s meant to be the clinching image of a distressed Biden behind the Resolute Desk contains a humorous flaw: He’s not actually leaning on the desk. Biden’s elbow is finding support, somehow, mid-air. Yet another sign of his future presidential failings?

I will let others muse at length about the corroding impact of AI on elections and democracy at large. But let this summary act as a simple guide for the coming deluge. Study the images more closely: The magic tricks of video editing will obscure the most commonplace AI signatures, at least for now. And videos won’t always come with watermarks declaring themselves as robot-generated.

As for the actual content of the ad, well, Republicans have never needed generative AI to help crank out human-crafted MS-13 ads, dripping in racism

Liability

Judge Threatens Trump With Legal “Liability” Over New Attacks on E. Jean Carroll

The former president railed against his accuser on Truth Social Wednesday morning.

RUSS CHOMA

The judge hearing the civil sexual assault lawsuit against Donald Trump warned his attorneys on Wednesday that their client needs to stop posting on social media about the case. The admonition—which seemed to carry a veiled threat that Trump could face a contempt of court ruling or other legal consequences if he’s not more careful with his public statements—came after the former president used his Truth Social platform to slam accuser E. Jean Carroll and her attorney.

Carroll is suing Trump in New York federal court for battery and defamation. She alleges that Trump sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in 1996. She says that after she told her story in a recent book, Trump defamed her by calling her a liar and saying she was “not my type.”

Early Wednesday morning, Trump published two posts about the case. In the first, he mocked Carroll, calling her “Ms. Bergdorf Goodman,” and complained that her legal team was paid for by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, a prominent liberal political donor. That detail was revealed last week in pre-trial hearings, but Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Hoffman’s involvement shouldn’t be mentioned in front of the jury. Trump also referred to the fact that Carroll says she saved the dress that she wore the day she was assaulted and hasn’t washed it. Her legal team has said that the dress has been analyzed for DNA and that the DNA of a man was found on the sleeve. Trump initially refused to give a DNA sample in the case, and Kaplan ultimately barred mention of DNA in the case. But Trump’s Truth Social post this morning seemed to demand that the DNA issue be included.

“She said there was a dress, using the ol’ Monica Lewinsky ‘stuff’, then she didn’t want to produce it. The dress should be allowed to be part of the case. This is a fraudulent & false story–Witch Hunt!” Trump wrote. 

In court, Trump’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, struggled to explain to an irate Kaplan what Trump was talking about, since Tacopina himself had argued for DNA to be excluded. Kaplan also said it appeared that Trump was trying to influence the jury.

“Your client is basically endeavoring to speak to his public, but more troublesome, to the jury in this case,” Kaplan said.

Tacopina said he would try to talk to Trump about restraining himself in future posts, but he made no promises.

“I will address them with my client, to the degree I have an ability to,” Tacopina said, sounding much meeker than his scathing opening statements on Tuesday, in which he aggressively attacked Carroll’s story. 

“I hope you’re more successful, because we’re getting into an area where your client might be tampering with a potential new source of liability,” Kaplan said. “And, I think you know what I mean.”

The issue was dropped at that point, and—following a witness who described the layout of the Bergdorf Goodman store in 1996—Carroll herself took the stand to deliver emotional testimony describing the alleged assault. Her testimony continues this afternoon. 

Access to abortion should be easier

More adults think access to abortion should be easier, Pew report finds

The number has grown most significantly in states that implemented bans or new restrictions on abortion after the Dobbs decision last year.

By KELLY GARRITY

The number of adults living in states where abortion is banned or restricted who believe that access to abortion should be easier has grown since 2019, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.

In states that implemented bans on nearly all abortions after the Dobbs decision last year, 43 percent of adults said they believe it should be easier to get an abortion where they live, compared to 31 percent in 2019. In states that have seen new restrictions, either implemented or tied up in legal disputes, 38 percent believe access should be easier, up from 27 percent in 2019. The numbers are also up in states without any new abortion restrictions, now at 27 percent compared to 24 percent in 2019.

The report, released Wednesday, included data from 5,079 respondents with a margin of error of +/- 1.7 percentage points. The survey was conducted between March 27 and April 2.

Overall support for abortion is also up since 1995, according to the report, but most of that change comes from an increase in support from Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

The percentage of adults who believe it would be somewhat easy or very easy to get an abortion where they live is down to 54 percent, from 65 percent in 2019. In 1995, 63 percent of Democrats and those leaning Democratic said abortion should be legal in all or most cases; in 2023, that number was up to 84 percent. Republican support for abortion saw a much smaller increase in support, up to 40 percent in 2023 from 39 percent in 1995.

Abortion access has become a defining issue in elections across the country, spreading into local races like the one for a Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin. As support for abortion access increases, lawmakers — particularly Republicans — have become more divided over how to handle the issue.

Pushing more fossil fuels

GOP’s climate counter punch: pushing more fossil fuels

The GOP believes its energy plan is a winner on the campaign trail. Most people don’t know about it.

By ZACK COLMAN and JOSH SIEGEL

Republicans are confident they’ve found an issue that can help them unseat President Joe Biden and expand their control of the Hill: fossil fuels.

The GOP’s House campaign arm is planning a 2024 push that showcases the economic priorities embodied in the sprawling energy bill the chamber passed in March. Republicans have also wrapped that bill, which they gave the primo designation H.R. 1, into the legislation they approved Wednesday laying out their demands in the national debt standoff.

The energy bill, which would promote speedier approvals of oil, gas and coal developments — as well as clean energy — is Republicans’ counter to the massive climate law that Biden signed last year.

But so far, the voters they’re hoping to attract don’t seem to care.

The party’s early messaging promoting the bill amplifies attacks that fell flat for Republicans in the 2022 midterms. And new polling shared with POLITICO shows that the GOP’s legislative achievements aren’t energizing voters in some key states on the 2024 map, threatening their ambitions once again to win the Senate and White House.

Most Republicans and independents — 59 and 66 percent, respectively — in Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia had heard nothing or little about efforts to speed up federal permitting of energy infrastructure projects, a centerpiece of Republicans’ agenda, according to a Public Opinion Strategies survey of 1,200 registered voters.

Building America’s Future, a lobbying effort that supports the permitting changes, paid for the polling. The group is backed by GOP operatives with ties to former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Republicans, however, have faith in the message, even as they acknowledge the difficulty in translating energy permitting into campaign trail slogans.

“It’s resonating,” Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah) said of the Republican energy agenda. “You can’t take a subject as complex as energy and try to message every little nuance.”

The GOP is using increasingly aggressive tactics to back up its bet that Americans will back its message. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tied the fate of a debt limit increase to H.R. 1, raising the stakes of negotiations that Biden administration officials warn could lead to economic catastrophe.

Democrats, however, were skeptical that the GOP plan would succeed.

“I don’t think Republicans are going to get very far on this,” said Rep. Ro Khanna. “People want a government that works, they want to build things. That’s way down in the weeds.”

The House energy bill, which the lower chamber passed last month with near-unanimous Republican support and votes from four Democrats, aims to expand oil and gas drilling and exports, ease the environmental permitting review process, and repeal many of the $369 billion of climate and clean energy incentives enacted in Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act.

Targeting those IRA measures could present risks to the GOP, however: Companies have announced at least $243 billion in investments in battery plants, electric vehicles factories and other green energy projects since Biden signed the law in August. And the vast majority of those projects are set to be built in red districts, according to analyses by POLITICO and Climate Power, an environmental organization paid media operation.

But when pollsters frame the GOP’s energy and permitting proposals as efforts to fight inflation, the ideas fared much better with voters, the survey showed. Seventy-one percent were more likely — including 38 percent who were “much more likely” — to back permitting changes when told they would lower grocery, gasoline and power bills.

That gives Republicans hope that their broader strategy might gain traction.

“It’s impossible to make permitting a relevant issue unless you’re focused on how does it impact American families directly,” said Ron Bonjean, a GOP strategist and co-founder and partner of bipartisan public affairs and communications firm ROKK Solutions. “This is not just placing a gambling bet on whether energy prices will be higher or lower at the time of the election … This is showing a solution.”

It’s not hard to see why Republicans would want to focus on energy. The party’s unity on the issue stands in contrast to other flashpoints like abortion, where Republicans have struggled to align on navigating a debate that has energized Democratic voters. And while inflation has moderated in the past few months, it remains a top worry for voters.

“Would you rather pay more at the pump or less at the pump? Would you rather have a lower utility bill or a higher utility bill? Would you rather pay more for heating oil or less for heating oil?” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said of Republicans’ credo. “I don’t know how to wordsmith that, but it’s something along those lines.”

The National Republican Congressional Committee plans to use Democrats’ votes against H.R. 1 as a primary line of attack in frontline House districts where voters might lean more moderately and be open to Republicans’ focus on inflation.

On April 17, the NRCC sent out a memo hitting Democratic Reps. Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Mary Peltola of Alaska and Yadira Caraveo of Colorado for voting against the bill, calling their opposition “likely the beginning of the end of their reelection campaign” given the size of their states’ oil and gas industries.

The NRCC slammed 12 House Democrats when the bill passed in March, saying they “chose the extreme left” in opposing the legislation while citing how much energy and gas costs had risen under Biden.

Outside groups aligned with Republicans are pouring money into efforts to turn energy policy into a national campaign liability for Democrats. American Action Network, a 501(c)(4) group that is allowed to promote issues without disclosing donors, ran advertisements in Democratic swing districts urging them to vote for H.R. 1. Two such Democrats — Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp PĂ©rez of Washington and Jared Golden of Maine — backed the bill.

Republicans believe their energy message answers voters’ kitchen table concerns and will appeal to the independents and moderates they will need to win the White House and Senate. Relaxing permitting rules will help both clean energy and fossil fuels, they contend, and they say their legislation will ease pressure on global oil and gas markets while thwarting rivals like China and Russia.

“Whether it wins elections or not, this is something that we truly need to focus on for our constituencies,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said.

Still, even though the House passed the H.R. 1, dubbed the Lower Energy Costs Act, Republicans are a long way from enacting the measures, which need to pass in the Democratically controlled Senate.

And a focus on energy prices didn’t fare well in the 2022 midterm elections, even in a year when gasoline prices hit all-time highs and home heating costs surged. Those early year price spikes had moderated by the time voters went to the polls, and are even lower now.

That pullback in prices may have helped turn the anticipated red wave at the ballot box into a red ripple, giving the Republicans a thin majority in the House and keeping the Senate in Democrats’ hands.

Ernst defended the focus on energy prices last year, and blamed the poor Republican election result instead on weak candidates, many of whom embraced former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims about the 2020 election.

Democrats maintain that Republicans are presenting a feeble and incoherent agenda, not least because GOP lawmakers have championed various portions of their package. Some have touted the permitting aspect, which they note would help speed development of all types of energy sources — both fossil fuel projects as well as the clean energy projects that Democrats prefer.

Others, such as House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, have focused on their bill’s goal to spur more oil and gas production — enabling Democrats to make the case that the GOP plan benefits a fossil fuel industry that overwhelmingly donates to Republican candidates.

“That bill is fundamentally a message bill they are trying to use to set up this fake argument that the reason energy prices are going up is because of something that we’ve done,” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said in an interview. She added, “In fact, the reason energy prices have gone up is because the big oil companies don’t want to invest like they used to want to invest because they know the tide has turned when it comes to investors.”

Republicans contend the wide array of policy issues in the 207-page bill benefits their members, allowing them to tailor its message to their own districts.

“You can argue, ‘Y’all need to be more concise.’ But because energy is so pervasive, it does affect inflation — this helps those families who’ve been pushed into poverty,” Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) said.

“It does affect grocery prices,” he said. “This does create better job opportunities in the United States. This does resist China and helps to put us in a stronger position. So it does solve a lot of different things.”

And if gasoline prices shoot up again, that could make voters more receptive to Republicans’ call to increase oil and gas production. An April Gallup survey showed a 14-percentage-point jump since 2018 in the number of Americans who believe that national policies should encourage more oil and gas drilling. Thirty-five percent supported that position this time.

Even that, though, doesn’t represent a clear win for Republicans: A majority of Americans — 59 percent — still believe national policies should place a priority on alternative energy instead of oil and gas, according to the Gallup poll.

That included 62 percent of independents, the type of voters Republicans want to pull to win the White House and pivotal congressional races. And fewer Americans said they see the energy situation as “very serious” than one year ago — 44 percent then versus 34 percent now.

Debt plan?

How McCarthy mollified the right on his debt plan — for now

Conservative strategizing about the House GOP’s bill began soon after the speakership battle, at Sen. Rick Scott’s dining room table.

By SARAH FERRIS, OLIVIA BEAVERS and BURGESS EVERETT

Soon after House conservatives extracted enough concessions from Kevin McCarthy to let him claim the speakership, they began plotting their next move: Pushing him as far right as they possibly could on the debt ceiling.

It started in late January, when a group of House and Senate conservatives gathered around Sen. Rick Scott’s dining room table to try to solve a seemingly impossible problem. Given McCarthy’s slim majority — and the reality that many on his right flank had never voted to lift the debt ceiling — could conservatives write a bill that would unite the party and give it at least a bit of leverage in talks with the White House?

The answer came Wednesday afternoon, when McCarthy muscled through his debt plan in the House’s most consequential vote since he won the speakership on Jan. 7. It was a huge relief for a speaker who faces the constant risk of a conservative rebellion — but the GOP elation over passage of a bill that will never become law also marked one more example of the party’s right flank shaping its congressional strategy at nearly every turn.

“The expectation was, moderates in the House have got to, at some point in time, come the way of really where I think Republicans are nationally: more conservative. Stop the spending spree,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who attended the weekly House-Senate dinner meetings at the spacious Capitol Hill townhouse of his Florida Republican colleague.

Though McCarthy and his leadership were able to satisfy their conservative wing, it came with big sacrifices that nearly blew up their plans along the way. And it’s unclear that the fractious House GOP conference can maintain even that level of unity through the next stage of the fight — dealmaking with Democrats.

Still, conservatives are rejoicing. Another dinner is scheduled for Wednesday night after passage. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), an attendee of the weekly Scott dinners who’s long pushed his party to take a hard line in debt negotiations, said conservatives’ early maneuvering helped strengthen their hand in the House GOP talks.

“You can’t do this if you just stick to a position and say, ‘My way or the highway.’ You’ve got to go convince people. We put forward proposals that, I think, convinced people that this is the right approach,” Roy said, stressing that the group was working “in concert” with the rest of the GOP conference.

Roy later helped draft the House GOP’s debt bill, a grab bag of conservative policy dreams, as part of intra-conference meetings that McCarthy’s team dubbed the “five families” meetings. That reference to “The Godfather” mafiosos aptly captures the mutual mistrust that sometimes lingers among his members.

Yet those early weeks of maneuvering by the congressional right paid off, as outlined in interviews with more than a dozen House members, senators and aides. By the time McCarthy released his plan, many of his typically resistant conservatives were on board with a leadership spending plan that largely reflected their goals: stricter work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps, Covid aid clawbacks and across-the-board spending cuts to discretionary spending.

The Freedom Caucus stalwarts who attended the Scott-hosted meetings — Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Matt Rosendale of Montana, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Roy — also coordinated their work with Johnson and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), all fiscal hardliners in the upper chamber. House conservatives then made their pitch to GOP leaders, who gave them unusual face time and sway over the crafting of the debt bill.

“It largely fits what we thought was necessary to save the country in December, what we thought the speaker fight should be about,” said Russ Vought, a Trump adminisration budget official who worked closely on budget plans with the Freedom Caucus.

Hours before the final tweaks to the plan early Wednesday morning, many Freedom Caucus members were voicing support for it at their weekly dinner meeting on Tuesday night. The exception was Biggs, who got worked up over the bill during that dinner, according to a Republican familiar with the discussions. He took to TV and likened its effect on the debt to driving off a cliff, only at a lower speed than Democrats’ plan. Biggs voted no.

The meetings and the list

McCarthy’s team relied on aggressive outreach to steer the massive debt bill past its narrow margin of House control. Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) and his deputy, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.), held dozens of private meetings and dinners over months that every member of the conference was invited to — including the Freedom Caucus. Leaders spent months compiling a list of every member’s debt demands, and potential objections, in order to find a middle ground.

Last month, Emmer shared his tally with aides to from McCarthy and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). Over the coming days, it would become a full framework; on the final day of March, Emmer was walking alongside McCarthy on their way back from a press conference on the GOP energy bill when the Minnesotan handed over his final product.

“‘I think this is going to get you your 218,’” Emmer recalled telling McCarthy. “He looked at me and said, ‘go with it.’”

After party leaders unveiled their debt framework last week, McCarthy invited a group of Freedom Caucus members to air their complaints in his office — and not just the members who were privately threatening to take down the bill. Those who attended later gave the speaker high marks: It was more engagement than conservatives were used to seeing.

Perry, the House Freedom Caucus chair who also attended the Scott meetings, recalled McCarthy’s message as: “‘Look, we’re not where we need to be. We’re not where we want to be. And we got to get there.’” According to one attendee, Perry said during the meetings that it would be easier to whip up support for the bill if he were not a public yes — even though he supported it at the time.

Even Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla), long one of McCarthy’s biggest antagonists, said he felt leadership was listening. “The leadership just picked up the House Freedom Caucus plan and helped us convert it into the legislative text,” he said. (Gaetz later voted no.) The plan quickly picked up support from swing district first-term members to veteran appropriators to fiscal hawks.

“We thought we were golden,” said one senior Republican involved in the deliberations. “We were in a good spot.”

...Then more demands

That goodwill didn’t last, however. Ultimately, a smaller group of Freedom Caucus members added one more demand to the pile — axing major provisions of Democrats’ marquee bill as part of the Republican plan. It was no simple tweak, as McCarthy and his team repeatedly explained to those disgruntled conservatives.

Making that change, as leadership predicted, sparked a new fight within the conference as Midwestern Republicans argued that expanding the repeal of last year’s Democratic bill would shortchange their home states’ thriving ethanol industry and have little chance of actually becoming law.

After two days of insisting he wouldn’t bend, McCarthy ultimately relented to the eight Midwesterners. GOP leaders made a key change to satisfy the entire Iowa delegation, as well as members from states like Minnesota and Missouri. Some Republicans questioned why one of their own leaders, the Minnesotan Emmer, allowed the language to be added in the first place.

“If I weren’t the whip, I would have been the loudest voice of the bunch,” Emmer said in a Wednesday interview, praising the change and noted he’d been unaware of the problem that existed in the bill: “I didn’t realize this until they told me yesterday, that they had incorrectly included pre-existing law.”

GOP leaders couldn’t stop the kowtowing there, as more rogue conservatives made their own threats. McCarthy was ultimately forced to throw another bone to the right, accelerating the bill’s cuts to federal food stamps and other benefits.

‘No changes’

Party leaders also fielded requests for a huge array of demands for floor votes on bills and holding specific hearings that had nothing to do with debt. McCarthy promised Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) that she could take the lead on a balanced budget amendment bill with his support — not to mention offering to give her a floor vote on bills related to women’s access to reproductive health and child care services, as well as an active shooter alert bill.

McCarthy met with Mace on Wednesday as she remained opposed, one of a half-dozen meetings the speaker held with his members this week in a mad dash to passage. Rosendale and Scott authored a joint op-ed on Wednesday backing the bill — a sign that even the staunchest conservatives were now on board.

“I’ve never voted for a debt ceiling increase,” Scott said. “To do one, we’ve got to get some structural change.”

The horse-trading over the GOP’s initial debt plan may be nothing compared to what comes next. Sometime before mid-June, Republicans will need to pass a debt plan that can actually become law with the backing of a Democratic Senate and White House.

Already, some Freedom Caucus members are urging McCarthy not to budge.

Speaking to reporters after addressing his colleagues at a private Wednesday meeting, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) warned McCarthy not to “come back when they call 911 at the last hour, which any negotiator will do — run it out and say the sky is falling.”

“No changes to the bill,” Norman later recalled telling the speaker. If the debt crisis becomes an economic disaster, he added, Democrats should “be responsible.”

Battle just to learn what his case is about.

Jailed Putin foe Navalny says he’s facing additional charges in Russia

Alexei Navalny had to battle just to learn what his case is about.

By GREGORY SVIRNOVSKIY

Alexei Navalny, President Vladimir Putin’s best-known critic in Russia, told a Moscow courtroom Wednesday that he is facing extremism charges that could keep him in prison for 30 years, according to the Associated Press.

In the hearing, he fought for time to review the charges he is facing.

“It is a cynical insult, in this process investigators are trying to make it so that I can’t even see the materials of my case,” Navalny said in remarks tweeted out by his team’s Twitter account and translated from Russian. “Now, they’re probably slightly ashamed that they will discuss an obvious thing. There are 195 volumes in my case and they are not giving me the chance to study it.”

It signifies the continuation of a trend that has seen critics of Putin and his regime subject to ever harsher prison sentences amid the escalation of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Navalny is serving an 11 ½ year prison term. In February 2021, he was sentenced to two years and eight months for violating the terms of probation from an earlier sentence. An additional nine years were tacked on in March 2022 for what critics say are trumped up charges of fraud and contempt of court. He’s long been a thorn in the side of Putin and the Russian ruling elite.

He ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Moscow in 2013 and president of Russia in 2017, the latter campaign ended when the country’s Central Election Commission barred him from challenging Putin due to a fraud conviction he called politically motivated. And his 2021 film, “Putin’s Palace,” released with Navalny already behind bars, garnered 93 million views within a week of its arrival on YouTube.

As Putin has continued Russia’s war in Ukraine, Navalny and allies that have spoken out against it have run afoul of new laws criminalizing dissent. Fellow activist Vladimir Kara-Murza was earlier this month sentenced to 25 years in a “strict regime” penal colony for a cocktail of charges including “discrediting the armed forces” and treason. It is likely the longest sentence doled out by Russian authorities for political activities since the collapse of the Soviet Union, according to Leon Aron in POLITICO.

Fellow opposition leader Ilya Yashin was handed an 8 ½ year prison term in December 2022 for posts he made denouncing the treatment of Ukrainians by Russian troops in May. Also on Wednesday, a court in Yekaterinburg convened a trial of the city’s former Mayor, Yevgeny Roizman, who faces charges for critiquing the country’s invasion.

Navalny has languished in Russian prisons since shortly after he returned to the country from Germany in January 2021 after recovering from an assassination attempt he attributed to the Putin regime. His daughter, Daria, told CNN that authorities are now depriving him of food.

And he faces an additional trial on terrorism charges in connection with an April bombing in St. Petersburg that killed pro-war blogger Vladlen Tatarsky, according to the Associated Press. Navalny was behind bars at the time of the attack.

“For this criminal case, the military court will try me separately,” Navalny said in remarks reposted on his own Twitter account and translated from Russian.

1.1% rate in Q1

US economy grew at weak 1.1% rate in Q1 in sign of slowdown

The slowdown reflects the impact of the Fed’s aggressive drive to tame inflation.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

The U.S. economy slowed sharply from January through March, decelerating to just a 1.1% annual pace as higher interest rates hammered the housing market and businesses reduced inventories.

Thursday’s estimate from the Commerce Department showed that the nation’s gross domestic product — the broadest gauge of economic output — weakened after growing 3.2% from July through September and 2.6% from October through November.

The slowdown reflects the impact of the Federal Reserve’s aggressive drive to tame inflation, with nine interest rate hikes over the past year. The surge in borrowing costs is expected to send the economy into a recession sometime this year. Though inflation has steadily eased from the four-decade high it reached last year, it remains far above the Fed’s 2% target.

The housing market, which is especially vulnerable to higher loan rates, has been battered. Consumer spending, which fuels roughly 70% of the entire economy, has softened. And many banks have tightened their lending standards since the failure last month of two major U.S. banks, making it even harder to borrow to buy a house or a car or to expand a business.

Many economists say the cumulative impact of the Fed’s rate hikes has yet to be fully felt. Yet the central bank’s policymakers are aiming for a so-called soft landing: Cooling growth enough to curb inflation yet not so much as to send the world’s largest economy tumbling into a recession.

There is widespread skepticism that the Fed will succeed. An economic model used by the Conference Board, a business research group, puts the probability of a U.S. recession over the next year at 99%.

The Conference Board’s recession-probability gauge had hung around zero from September 2020, as the economy rebounded explosively from the COVID-19 recession, until March 2022, when the Fed started raising rates to fight inflation.

Consumers, whose spending accounts for roughly 70% of U.S. economic output, seem to be starting to feel the chill. Retail sales had enjoyed a strong start in January, aided by warmer-than-expected weather and bigger Social Security checks. But in February and again in March, retail sales tumbled.

The worst fears of a 2008-style financial crisis have eased over the past month. But lingering credit cutbacks, which were mentioned in the Fed’s survey this month of regional economies, is likely to hobble growth.

Political risks are growing, too. Congressional Republicans are threatening to let the federal government default on its debts, by refusing to raise the statutory limit on what it can borrow, if Democrats and President Joe Biden fail to agree to spending restrictions and cuts. A first-ever default on the federal debt would shatter the market for U.S. Treasurys — the world’s biggest — and possibly cause a global financial crisis.

The global backdrop is also looking bleaker. The International Monetary Fund this month downgraded its forecast for worldwide economic growth, citing rising interest rates around the world, financial uncertainty and chronic inflation. American exporters could suffer as a consequence.

Still, the U.S. economy has surprised before. Recession fears rose early last year after GDP had shrunk for two straight quarters. But the economy roared back in the second half of 2022, powered by surprisingly sturdy consumer spending.

A strong job market has given Americans the confidence and financial wherewithal to keep shopping: 2021 and 2022 were the two best years for job creation on record. And hiring has remained strong so far this year, though it has decelerated from January to February and then to March.

The jobs report for April, which the government will issue on May 5, is expected to show that employers added a decent but still-lower total of 185,000 jobs this month, according to a survey of forecasters by FactSet.

Can't block Pence testimony

Appeals court denies Trump bid to block Pence testimony to Jan. 6 grand jury

The former president was seeking an emergency order.

By KYLE CHENEY

A federal appeals court has rejected former President Donald Trump’s emergency bid to block his former vice president, Mike Pence, from testifying.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order late Wednesday denying the former president’s last-ditch effort to prevent or limit Pence’s testimony. Though the order remains sealed to protect grand jury secrecy, POLITICO had previously confirmed Trump’s effort, which followed a district court judge’s order that required Pence to testify.

Aides to the former vice president did not comment on the decision but had previously indicated Pence would follow the orders of the court. It’s unclear if Trump — who did not immediately respond to a request for comment — intends to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or the full bench of the D.C. Circuit.

The ruling is a victory for Jack Smith, the special counsel probing Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. Smith subpoenaed Pence in February, prompting separate challenges by both Trump and Pence.

While Trump argued that Pence’s testimony should be barred or limited by executive privilege, Pence took a different tack. He contended that his role presiding over Congress on Jan. 6, 2021 — fulfilling his constitutional role as president of the Senate — entitled him to immunity under the so-called “speech or debate” clause, which protects Congress from Executive Branch intrusion.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg rejected Trump’s argument but agreed with Pence that the congressional immunity applied on certain topics — a historic decision that for the first time found vice presidents enjoy a form of privilege.

Although Boasberg’s ruling was narrower than Pence’s attorney, Emmet Flood, had argued for, Pence opted not to appeal the decision.

Trump earlier this month sought an emergency order from the court of appeals blocking Boasberg’s ruling. But Wednesday’s order — a unanimous ruling by Judges Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins and Gregory Katsas — rejected that effort. Millett and Wilkins are Obama appointees, while Katsas is a Trump appointee.

It’s unclear when Pence will appear before the grand jury, but Trump’s previous emergency appeals — which have nearly all failed when it comes to similar sealed orders — have occurred just days before witnesses were scheduled to appear.

April 26, 2023

Nullify agreement

Disney sues DeSantis and oversight board after vote to nullify agreement with special taxing district

By Eric Bradner and Steve Contorno

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts on Wednesday sued Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his hand-picked oversight board, accusing the Republican 2024 presidential prospect of weaponizing his political power to punish the company for exercising its free speech rights.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court minutes after the board appointed by DeSantis to oversee Disney’s special taxing district sought to claw back its power from the entertainment giant, voting to invalidate an agreement struck between Disney and the previous board in February, just before that board’s dissolution.

“What they created is an absolute legal mess, OK? It will not work,” said Martin Garcia, chairman of the DeSantis-picked Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board of supervisors.

Wednesday’s moves are the latest escalation in the fight between DeSantis and Disney as DeSantis moves toward a 2024 presidential bid.

Disney responded by suing DeSantis, the board and Florida Department of Economic Opportunity acting secretary Meredith Ivey, seeking to block the board’s moves.D

The lawsuit characterizes Wednesday’s vote as the “latest strike” in “a targeted campaign of government retaliation – orchestrated at every step by Governor DeSantis as punishment for Disney’s protected speech.”

It says DeSantis’ retaliation “now threatens Disney’s business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights.”

“Disney finds itself in this regrettable position because it expressed a viewpoint the Governor and his allies did not like. Disney wishes that things could have been resolved a different way,” the lawsuit says. “But Disney also knows that it is fortunate to have the resources to take a stand against the State’s retaliation – a stand smaller businesses and individuals might not be able to take when the State comes after them for expressing their own views. In America, the government cannot punish you for speaking your mind.”

The board’s move Wednesday was expected, and board members in previous meetings had previewed its argument over why it saw the agreement as invalid. In March, the board hired a team of law firms to represent the district in “potential legal challenges” with Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, signaling that DeSantis’ appointees anticipated the fight was headed to the court room.

Disney CEO Bob Iger hinted at the entertainment giant’s case against the state when he told shareholders earlier this month that “the company has a right to freedom of speech just like individuals do.”

“The governor got very angry about the position that Disney took, and it seems like he’s decided to retaliate against us. … in effect, to seek to punish a company for its exercise of a constitutional right,” Iger said. “And that just seems really wrong to me – against any company or individual, but particularly against a company that means so much to the state that you live in.”

The fight now shifts to the courts, where Disney, in its 77-page lawsuit, is seeking an injunction that would block the board from exercising the power DeSantis and the Republican-led legislature sought to hand it.

“We are unaware of any legal right that a company has to operate its own government or maintain special privileges not held by other businesses in the state,” DeSantis communications director Taryn Fenske said. “This lawsuit is yet another unfortunate example of their hope to undermine the will of the Florida voters and operate outside the bounds of the law.”

The yearlong fight has strained what had long been a cozy relationship between Florida’s government and the state’s best-known employer and attraction of tourist dollars. DeSantis earlier this month suggested the state could build a prison or competing theme park on what had for decades been Disney-controlled property.

The Florida governor’s battle with Disney has become a flashpoint in the early stages of the 2024 Republican presidential primary. Former President Donald Trump and a slew of other candidates and potential rivals, including former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, have lambasted DeSantis for his actions, characterizing them as anti-business.

After a hearing in which several business owners, including those who run restaurants and bars at Disney World locations, urged the board to work with Disney, Garcia said the board would seek to raise taxes to pay for its legal fees in evaluating and combatting what he called “eleventh hour agreements.”

“Because that’s going to cost us money, we’re going to have to raise taxes to pay for that,” Garcia said.

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board of supervisors – the board named by DeSantis and packed with his allies earlier this year – took over the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the special taxing district that for half a century gave Disney control over the land around its Central Florida theme parks.

But before the DeSantis-selected board was in place, Disney in February reached an agreement with the outgoing board that seemed to render the body powerless to control the entertainment giant. The DeSantis administration was unaware of the agreement for a month and vowed retribution after it became public.

The agreements Disney signed with the previous board ensured the company’s development rights throughout the district for the next 30 years and in some cases prevented the board from taking significant action without first getting approval from the company. One provision restricted the new board from using any of Disney’s “fanciful characters” until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England.”

Its development agreement was approved over the course of two public meetings held two weeks apart earlier this year, both noticed in the local Orlando newspaper and attended by about a dozen residents and members of the media. No one from the governor’s office was present at either meeting, according to the meeting minutes.

In Wednesday’s meeting, the board’s special general counsel, Daniel Langley, walked through its legal argument for nullifying the deal between Disney and the previous board.

He said the board had not provided the required public notice of its meetings, and said the agreement was not properly approved by two municipalities within the district, the cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista.

He also argued that previous amendments to Disney’s long-term comprehensive plan were not properly vetted and approved by those two municipalities.

“The bottom line is that a development agreement has to be approved by the governing body of a jurisdiction, and that didn’t happen from the cities that have jurisdiction,” Langley said.

Former Florida Supreme Court justice Alan Lawson, an attorney hired by the district, said that “the old board attempted to act without legal authority to act.”

“This is essentially about what it means to live and work in a country governed by the rule of law. Everyone must play by the same rules,” he said. “Disney was openly and legally granted unique and special privilege – that privilege of running its own government for a time. That era has ended.”

The end of a decades-old agreement

The state legislature created the Reedy Creek Improvement District in 1967 and effectively gave Disney the power to control municipal services like power, water, roads and fire protection around its Central Florida theme parks that didn’t exist before Walt Disney and his builders arrived. But the special district also freed Disney from bureaucratic red tape and made it cheaper to borrow to finance infrastructure projects around its theme parks, among other significant advantages.

That special arrangement, though criticized at times, was largely protected by state politicians as both Disney and Florida benefited from the tourism boom.

The unlikely fracturing of Florida’s relationship with its most iconic business started during the contentious debate last year over state legislation to restrict certain classroom instruction on sexuality and gender identity. Disney’s then-CEO, Bob Chapek, facing pressure from his employees, reluctantly objected to the bill, leading DeSantis to criticize the company. When DeSantis signed the legislation into law, Disney announced it would push for its repeal. DeSantis then targeted Disney’s special governing powers.

For DeSantis, who has built a political brand by going toe-to-toe with businesses he identifies as “woke,” the latest twist threatens to undermine a central pillar of his story as he lays the groundwork for a likely presidential campaign. An entire chapter of his new autobiography is devoted to Disney, and the saga is well-featured in the stump speech he has delivered around the country in recent weeks.

Strengthening ethical guidelines... To late......

Senators to introduce bill aimed at strengthening ethical guidelines in the Supreme Court

By Lauren Fox and Shawna Mizelle

A bipartisan pair of senators will introduce legislation on Wednesday that aims to implement new ethics standards on the Supreme Court, though it would still grant the high court extensive power to police itself.

The “Supreme Court Code of Conduct Act,” to be introduced by Independent Maine Sen. Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats, and Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, would require the nation’s highest court to enact its own code of conduct within a year of the bill passing.

Under the legislation, the court would have the power to “initiate investigations as needed to determine if any Supreme Court justices or staff may have engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that violates other federal laws or codes of conduct.”

The legislation would also require the court to lay out the rules on its website, name an official to handle complaints about violations of those rules (which could come from anyone including the public), and then require that official to publish an annual report chronicling actions taken in response to any of those complaints.

It is unclear if the legislation will garner bipartisan support, as Republicans have generally not expressed the same level of concern as Democrats in regard to ethics regulation at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in recent months has been under pressure to adopt a formal code of ethics, similar to one that applies to lower-court federal judges and provides enforcement mechanisms for policing conflicts involving transactions or business relationships with lawyers or others who come before the court.

Public trust in the court has tumbled down in recent years, according to Gallup, and recent reports of potential business relationships involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have intensified calls for greater ethical oversight.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, recently asked Chief Justice John Roberts to testify at an upcoming hearing on Supreme Court ethics, a request that Roberts declined on Tuesday, instead releasing a new statement signed by all nine justices that is meant to provide “clarity” to the public about the high court’s ethics practices.

The newly drafted statement by the court notes that the justices “today reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and practices to which they subscribe in carrying out their responsibilities as Members of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Without addressing Durbin’s specific concerns over ethics, Roberts simply attached a “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices,” to which he said, “All of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe.”

Social media comments

Judge in E. Jean Carroll trial warns Trump about social media comments

By Lauren del Valle

The judge overseeing a civil battery and defamation trial for columnist E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump warned the former president’s counsel on Wednesday about comments their client made on social media about the case.

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, outside the presence of the jury, flagged to federal District Judge Lewis Kaplan a post Trump made on his social media site Truth Social earlier Wednesday about the lawsuit. The post called the suit a scam and mentioned DNA on Carroll’s dress that she alleges she was wearing at the time Trump allegedly forcibly raped and groped her in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump has denied the allegations.

Judge Kaplan warned Trump’s attorney Joe Tacopina that the statement and any further statements about the case could open Trump up to “a new source of potential liability.” Tacopina said he would ask his client to refrain from any further comments about the case.

The judge had previously asked the lawyers to tell clients and witnesses to refrain from making statements that are likely to incite violence or civil unrest, and to refrain from making comments that could have the potential to jeopardize the safety of individuals or the rule of law.

Carroll is suing Trump for battery and defamation, alleging that he raped her at Bergdorf Goodman in the spring of 1996 and then defamed her years later when she went public with the allegations.

Push work requirements for millions

Republicans use debt ceiling bill to push work requirements for millions receiving Medicaid and food stamps

By Tami Luhby

House Republicans are using the debt ceiling standoff to advocate for one of their longstanding goals – requiring more low-income Americans to work in order to receive government benefits, particularly food stamps and Medicaid.

They see work requirements as a twofer, allowing them to reduce government spending, while bolstering the nation’s labor force at a time when many businesses are still struggling to staff up.

Still, the controversial policy, included in House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s package to increase the debt ceiling, is causing some consternation within the Republican conference, with hardliners wanting to include even stricter requirements and with moderate members in swing districts concerned they could face blow back over the issue.

If the House passes the legislation this week, as McCarthy hopes, it is certain not to advance since the White House and Senate Democrats fiercely oppose work requirements, along with other components of the bill. But it serves as a starting point for negotiations with the Biden administration over addressing the debt ceiling.

House GOP lawmakers, including some who grew up in families who depended on public assistance, argue that work requirements can lift people out of poverty and end their reliance on the government.

Critics, however, see the mandates as an attempt to shrink vital safety net programs without regard for the millions of people who could be left struggling to put food on the table and address their health care needs.

What’s in the plan

Under the package, childless, able-bodied adults ages 18 to 55 could get food stamps for only three months out of every three years unless they are employed at least 20 hours a week or meet other criteria. Currently, that mandate applies to those ages 18 to 49, though it has been suspended during the Covid-19 public health emergency, which expires next month.

Estimates on how many people this would affect vary. In an analysis released Monday, the Congressional Budget Office said that 275,000 folks, on average, would lose benefits each month because they fail to meet the requirement and are not otherwise exempt. Another 19,000 people would receive small benefits because of the new income they earn.

Others project a potentially larger impact. The provision would put about 900,000 folks between the ages of 50 and 55 at risk of losing their food assistance unless they work sufficient hours and record that employment with their state agencies, receive an exemption or live in an area where the mandate is waived, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The debt ceiling package does not go as far as some Republicans would like. South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson floated a bill earlier this year that would mandate recipients up to age 65 and those with children age 7 and older to work. That legislation would have put at risk the food stamp benefits of more than 10 million people, including millions of children, the center found.

The debt ceiling package would also require certain adult Medicaid recipients to work, perform community service or participate in an employment program for at least 80 hours a month or earn a certain minimum monthly income. It would apply to those ages 19 to 55, but not those who are pregnant, parents of dependent children, physically or mentally unfit for employment or enrolled in education or in substance abuse programs, among others.

This largely targets low-income adults who qualify under Medicaid expansion, an Affordable Care Act provision.

Medicaid has never had a work requirement, but the Trump administration granted waivers to several states to impose such a mandate on certain enrollees. Litigation stopped or chilled states’ implementation of the effort, and the Biden administration subsequently withdrew the permissions – though a federal district court judge allowed the initiative to proceed in Georgia.

The provision would result in about 1.5 million adults, on average, losing federal funding for their Medicaid coverage, according to the CBO. But states would pick up the full tab for about 900,000 of them, leaving around 600,000 uninsured.

Plus, the debt ceiling bill would make changes to the work requirement provisions of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which was created out of the 1996 welfare reform package.

Fierce debate

The provision’s inclusion in the debt ceiling bill has reignited the debate over whether work requirements actually help improve the lives of low-income Americans.

Advocates, who see public assistance as a way to support work, and opponents, who consider it a disincentive, each point to data that support their views.

“Incentives matter. And the incentives today are out of whack,” McCarthy said in a speech last week at the New York Stock Exchange. “It’s time to get Americans back to work.”

Assistance programs are supposed to be temporary, he continued, arguing that the GOP plan will not hurt the nation’s social safety net for those who need it during hard periods in their lives.

There are almost 10 million open jobs across the US, and wages for many entry-level jobs have risen in recent years, said Tarren Bragdon, CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative think tank that advocates for work requirements. So this is a good time to implement work requirements. And when the economy sours, states can request waivers to temporarily suspend the mandates.

“Work requirements provide the deadline and incentives that we all need,” Bragdon said. “The alternative is that people are trapped in poverty for the long term.”

He pointed to Florida, which in 2016 restored the work requirement for certain adults in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, as food stamps are formally known. Enrollment among this population dropped 94% two years later. While the foundation’s analysis of state data shows that residents took jobs in more than 1,000 industries, it does not say what share of terminated enrollees found work nor how long it took them to land jobs.

There are differing figures on how many food stamp participants are employed, depending on the data source and time period examined.

Some 75% of childless, non-elderly, non-disabled adults who received food stamps did not work, according to a foundation analysis of US Department of Agriculture data from prior to the pandemic.

But looking longer term, about the same percentage of adults subject to the time limit worked in the year before or after the month they received food stamps, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Most folks were likely to participate in the program during periods of joblessness.

Multiple studies have found that food stamps’ existing work requirement does not help recipients land employment or increase their earnings, said Ed Bolen, the center’s director of SNAP state strategies.

“We know in SNAP that it cuts people off and doesn’t get people jobs,” he said.

The CBO analysis found that expanding food stamps’ work requirement may prompt some recipients to work a little more, but that it would have little impact on average income because the loss in benefits would be equal to or exceed the additional earnings.

As for working-age Medicaid beneficiaries without disabilities, about 61% were working in 2021, according to KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation. But many hold low-wage jobs so they still qualify for the program in the states that have expanded Medicaid, where the income limit is just over $20,100 a year for an individual and $34,300 for a family of three.

A brief experience with Medicaid work requirements during the Trump administration showed that the mandate did not result in employment gains for recipients. Only Arkansas had the provision in effect long enough for residents to be affected before it was stopped by the courts.

During those seven months, more than 18,000 low-income Arkansans lost coverage – or nearly a quarter of those subject to the mandate. Some of those who were dropped were working but were unaware of the requirement or were not able to report their hours to the state agency.

The House GOP package would jeopardize the health coverage of about 21 million people, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Though the vast majority of working-age Medicaid recipients work or qualify for an exemption, many could get dropped because of new reporting and administrative requirements.

Instituting a work requirement would result in a “very small increase” in employment, but it would also raise recipients’ medical expenses, according to CBO. However, it would reduce federal outlays on the safety net program by $135 billion over 10 years.

“These requirements are essentially a cut to Medicaid spending,” said Laura Harker, senior policy analyst on the center’s health team.

Wants to Destroy

Eric Adams Wants to Destroy the Only Thing Holding My Weekends Together

Public libraries are critical to the lives of young children—and the parents desperate for resources in a society sorely lacking them.

INAE OH

Reams upon reams have been written on the enormous value of the public library, the rare public institution beloved across all demographics, from toddlers to retirees, from the working class to the well-heeled. But in the face of Eric Adams’ proposed cuts of more than $33 million in the next two years, a budget that could close weekend library service throughout New York City while boosting the coffers of the New York Police Department, I can’t help but panic for one specific group: young parents desperate for free, accessible community resources in a country sorely lacking them. 

My silent screaming, the latest in regard to Adams’ disastrous policy proposals, is rooted in the personal. As a relatively new mother, I can almost smell the very specific anxiety that creeps in around 9 a.m. on a Saturday, already three hours into keeping a child fed, entertained, and alive, over how else to run the clock until bedtime arrives. Playgrounds are weather dependent and therefore unreliable. So too, are other families with young children, who like mine, are relentless virus magnets upending work schedules, vacations, any semblance of a plan. You could shell out $20 and drive to the nearest playspace. But if you don’t book in advance, the popular one near us frequently sells out. And not everyone can afford that price of entry, especially if you have multiple kids. Staying put at home seems like a good bet until it most certainly reveals itself to be the exact opposite: The seams are fraying. You and the child must escape. 

What other physical space offers a designated safe spot for children, a judgment-free zone for exhausted parents in search of similar refuge, where wall-to-wall carpeting feels like instant relief? Name another place where communities genuinely gather and come away feeling life-affirmed and believing in our systems, even if momentarily. A place where you’re reacquainted with the same stories you adored as a kid, that helped your own parents survive similar days. Library hours are set, and therefore reliable unlike nearly everything else in modern parenting. It promotes quiet but not to the point of scolding. Perhaps most importantly for parents, you don’t need to sign up in advance or require an invitation. You can simply go to your local library. It is, by virtue, vibrant. 

For kids, it’s likely one of the very first encounters with a public good, where glimpses of boundless knowledge and possibility are first witnessed. For young parents, the public library is a new gift every Saturday. Like you’ve struck gold when all you actually did was pay your taxes. The public library is a treasure that stands in radical opposition to a society that has privatized and monetized nearly every inch of childcare. What Adams seeks to cut, one of the few dependable resources that keep countless families afloat, should offend us all deeply. 

I don't care, just happy!

Why Was Tucker Carlson Fired?

A running list of reports, including a key emerging theme, from Carlson’s shocking dismissal.

INAE OH

How to explain Tucker Carlson’s abrupt dismissal from Fox News? 

Before yesterday, much seemed secure. The star host, night after night, unleashed a politics of racism and conspiracy theories, pocketing Rupert Murdoch the kind of ratings that inoculated Carlson from consistent calls to fire him. Then, Monday morning, a terse statement officially announced the exit—but didn’t offer any explanations. In fact, it seemed to quietly hint at a sharp tension. 

Unlike the other guy who got fired Monday morning and screenshotted a chaotic purple statement, Carlson hasn’t yet publicly commented on the news. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, Carlson only learned he was getting canned ten minutes before the rest of the world found out. Meanwhile, the ousted Fox host has lawyered up. (He reportedly retained Bryan Freedman, the powerhouse attorney rich people seem to call when they’re in crisis).

There’s been a flood of insider reports attempting to answer a simple question: Why was Tucker Carlson fired? Here’s what we know so far.

Former Fox News Producer Alleges Sexism and Testimony Coercion

Carlson’s ignominious exit comes roughly one month after a former Fox News producer, Abby Grossberg, filed two lawsuits accusing the organization of coercing her into giving misleading testimony in the now-settled Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit. (There are even tapes!) Grossberg has also alleged a workplace rampant with sexism. One example, cited in her lawsuit, claims the office was decorated with photos of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wearing a revealing swimsuit. Grossberg alleges Fox News employees regularly disparaged women with vulgar insults, including calling host Maria Bartiromo a “crazy bitch,” and mocked Jewish employees with antisemitic remarks. Seems pretty bad—and wholly believable.

Of course, those allegations echo previous reports alleging Carlson’s frequent use of the word “cunt,” as well as well-documented cases that revealed a workplace absolutely teeming with sexism. Notable cases have involved the former head of Fox News Roger Ailes and erstwhile star host Bill O’Reilly; both men, after years of Murdoch’s protection, were eventually pushed out. 

A Potential Sale

In something of a bonus episode to this week’s Succession episode, Carlson has reportedly told people he believes he was booted because the Murdoch children are planning to eventually sell Fox News. According to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman, Carlson, who had been under the impression that his contract was getting renewed, was blindsided when told that he was getting fired and that he no longer had access to his corporate email account.

Where do we rank this guess? It’s tough to see how a rumored sale, which has long loomed over the Murdoch empire, played into the decision. After all, the 92-year-old Murdoch isn’t dead quite yet. Plenty of higher-ups likely still saw Carlson as a lucrative asset and therefore potentially helpful to any sale. It’s also worth remembering that this particular guess reportedly came from Carlson himself that blaming the kids is an easy way to avoid self-scrutiny.

Bad-Mouthing Execs

WSJ reports that Fox News’ top brass was not pleased with Carlson privately insulting them after the 2020 election. Those messages, revealed as a result of the Dominion lawsuit, included Carlson lashing out at execs, whom he called “incompetent liberals” while he blamed them for Fox News’ tanking credibility. These insults feel a tad too small to have played a significant part in the decision to fire Carlson. But I guess they couldn’t have been nice to read either. Remember: Always talk shit on Signal.

Murdoch Is Leaning Into Chaos

As speculated in Monday’s newsletter, Murdoch may simply be embracing the chaos of old age. The man is 92, apparently still searching for someone to spoon-feed him after divorcing Jerry Hall, and probably isn’t inclined to spend more money on people who keep amplifying costly, highly damaging conspiracy theories that almost forced him on the witness stand.

Now, does that point to a larger transformation? A new man who feels bad for all the hateful discord his news outlets have sown? The workplaces rife with sexism and hostility he led? Of course not. After all, the next guy will surely be worse. And if it fits the larger Murdoch playbook, he’ll be just as sexist as the rest of them.

Carlson 2024

Some say Carlson may be mulling a run for president in 2024. Considering he privately admitted to hating Donald Trump “passionately,” a challenge for the GOP nomination could theoretically be possible. Then again, the New York Times reports the two men are on “friendlier terms” these days.

Sneered and mocked his accuser.

E. Jean Carroll’s Lawyers Promise to Show Trump’s Pattern of Abuse

On the first day of the trial, Trump’s lawyers sneered and mocked his accuser.

RUSS CHOMA

A civil lawsuit accusing former president Donald Trump of sexually assaulting and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll opened in New York City on Tuesday with attorneys for both sides signaling they’re prepared for a brutal fight.

Carroll’s attorneys told jurors they would have witnesses—Carroll herself and two other women with similar stories—testify in graphic detail about how Trump forcefully assaulted them, following a playbook he laid out in the infamous Access Hollywood tape, in which he bragged he liked to “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” But Trump’s attorneys laid the groundwork for a scathing attack of Carroll, mocking her story and sneering at details, saying she had made up the encounter with Trump because she wanted to be a celebrity.

The trial, which is in federal district court in Manhattan and is expected to last through until next week, is focused on an alleged incident in the mid-1990s. Carroll, who was then a prominent New York City advice columnist and television personality, says she ran into Trump at luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman and agreed to help him shop for a gift for a woman. Carroll, who first wrote of her account of the incident in a 2019 memoir, says that after playful banter, she and Trump ended up in a dressing room in the lingerie section, where he attacked her, slammed her against the wall, forcibly kissed her, grabbed her vagina, and then forced her to have sex. When Carroll went public with the story, he called her a liar, claiming he had never met her and that she was “not my type.” Carroll says that his statements defamed her—she is seeking damages for the assault and the defamation. 

Though Carroll is the plaintiff in the case, Shawn Crowley, one of her attorneys, promised the jury would also hear from Jessica Leeds, who says that in 1979 Trump kissed her against her will on an airplane, and Natasha Stoynoff, a People magazine reporter who said Trump pinned her against a wall and forcibly kissed her as well. Their testimony, said Crowley, would show how Trump pursues women. 

“This is not a ‘he said/she said’ case,” Crowley told jurors. “You will hear from two other women who will testify that Donald Trump assaulted them in very much the same way he assaulted Ms. Carroll.”

“Because that is his M.O.,” she added after a pause.

Crowley said jurors would also hear the recording of Trump talking on a hot mic to Access Hollywood host Billy Bush about how he approaches women—grabbing them, kissing them, and grabbing their vaginas, without asking. “Three women, one pattern,” Crowley said. “Pounce, kiss, grab, grope, don’t wait. When you’re a star you can do anything you want. And when they speak up about what happened, attack, humiliate them, call them liars.”

In his opening statement, Joe Tacopina, Trump’s attorney, started by making it clear he knew how disliked his client is. “It’s okay to feel however you feel—you can hate Donald Trump,” Tacopina said. “But there’s a time and a secret place to do that. It’s called a ballot box.”

Tacopina leaned heavily on creating “a regular guy from New York” persona, mocking the way Bergdorf Goodman calls it’s high-end customers “clients” and regularly complaining about politicians. Mostly, though, Tacopina spent his time at the lectern mocking Carroll’s story. In a thick Brooklyn accent, Tacopina spoke casually, sounding more like a sports-radio caller, sneering and laughing at the idea Carroll was telling the truth. Tacopina repeatedly returned to the fact that Carroll says she doesn’t remember the exact date of the alleged assault, except that she believed it was a Thursday in 1995 or 1996 and in the early evening.

“You’ll learn that E. Jean Carroll can’t tell you the date—it’s a pretty important event in someone’s life, and she can’t remember the date!” Tacopina told jurors.

Tacopina also mocked the fact that Carroll never reported the alleged assault to the police. “No one has ever called the police, including E. Jean Carroll, because that would be a real investigation!” Tacopina said. 

Crowley said Carroll will testify that she told two friends about the assault immediately, and one advised her to go to the police and the other warned her not to, because Trump was dangerous.

“She worried Donald Trump would ruin her life and her career if she spoke up,” Crowley said. “She was filled with fear and shame. She kept silent for decades.”

As for a photo that Crowley showed jurors picturing Trump meeting Carroll at an event several years before the alleged assault—which directly contradicts Trump claim he had never met Carroll—Tacopina was again dismissive. “Nah, they didn’t meet at an event,” he scoffed. “That photo was a brief moment in a line at a big event…Of course he doesn’t remember meeting her. Maybe she remembers meeting him!”

Outside of the jurors’ presence, the lawyers for both sides sparred over how the trial will play out, including whether or not Trump will appear. Last week, the judge in the case ruled that he did not have to appear, but when asked if Trump was coming, Tacopina was vague, drawing a rebuke from the judge who told him he needed to know so that court security could prepare. Crowley said she planned to show jurors a tape of Trump testifying under oath for a deposition last fall, including a notable moment when Trump looked at the photo of himself meeting Carroll and misidentified her as his second wife Marla Maples.

Long Con

Tucker Carlson’s Long Con

Was his long, strange trip a put-up job?

DAVID CORN

Tucker Carlson wasn’t always Tucker Carlson. Or maybe he was.

When I met the recently defenestrated Fox host in the late 1990s, he was stylizing himself as a facts-driven reporter who happened to work for the conservative Weekly Standard. His schtick was that he was a journalist, not an ideologue. Sure, he had right-of-center opinions, but he wanted to be known as a get-out-the-truth digger who reported on politics with panache and gonzo-ish attitude. He wore a bow tie. His most well-known article at that time was a 1999 profile of then-Gov. George W. Bush (R-Texas) for Tina Brown’s short-lived Talk magazine. It depicted Bush dropping multiple F-bombs and showed him mocking a plea for clemency from a murderer who while imprisoned had converted to Christianity and become a cause celebre for evangelicals. She was executed on Bush’s watch. (In those days, such profanity and disrespect were considered unbecoming for a presidential candidate, and this article prompted questions about Bush’s suitability for the White House—now a quaint notion.)

Carlson prided himself on a strategic use of nastiness in his journalism but insisted he was not a partisan hack in the tank for Republicans and right-wingers. He even feared being tagged a “wing-nut.” In an interview with Howard Kurtz, then the media reporter for the Washington Post, Carlson explained his creed, “You try not to distort the truth because someone you’re profiling you think is on the right side of abortion or trade or any other issue. That would be dishonest.” Bill Kristol, the founding editor of the Weekly Standard, praised his young star: “Some Republicans and conservatives think he’s a fellow conservative and he’ll give them a break. Tucker, to his credit, reports it like it is.” (Yes, Kristol, now a dedicated Never Trumper and foe of GOP authoritarianism, helped give us Carlson, as well as Sarah Palin.)

It all worked. Carlson was hailed by the punditry and rewarded with a gig on CNN. Eventually, he became a host of Crossfire, the network’s much-watched debate show. I occasionally filled in for the from-the-left cohost, Bill Press, and jousted on air with Carlson. While always a conservative, he was more ideologically independent than Pat Buchanan, another Crossfire host I once in a while battled with. Carlson was less interested than Buchanan in toeing the party line, and more focused on showing off his own smarts. His aim seemed to be boosting his image as an iconoclast, not leading the conservative movement. He went on to gigs at MSNBC and PBS.

Two decades later, I wonder if it was all a farce. Was Carlson playing a role that he believed would be warmly received by the Washington media establishment? After all, someone had to be the conservative journalist who conventional outlets and the DC establishment embraced? He came across as believing his own story. But what better way to sell it?

When I ask people who worked with and knew Carlson well what happened to him, mostly I get shrugs and puzzled looks. How did this fellow who professed to be an honest broker of truth become a racist demagogue and promoter of far-right disinformation and dangerous conspiracy theories? As evidence in the Dominion lawsuit revealed, there is no longer any question that Carlson sold his integrity. On air, he was a champion of Donald Trump and provided a platform for Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election. Off air, he told his colleagues that Trump was a liar and that he despised Trump. No media figure as prominent (and as well-paid) as Carlson has been shown to be such a cowardly hypocrite. From crusading journalist to con man—that’s quite the trip.

Carlsonologists might have different theories to explain his descent. But one clear turning point came in 2010 when he and Neil Patel (a former aide to Dick Cheney) created the Daily Caller website, which was funded by a prominent conservative and GOP funder named Foster Friess. Echoing his earlier self-description, Carlson insisted that the Daily Caller would not be an ideological endeavor and that it would concentrate on “breaking stories of importance.” But that was not what happened.

The Daily Caller was launched as the Tea Party—a movement of racist grievance, tribalism, and conspiracy theory—was gaining control of the GOP and the conservative world, and the site embodied the spirit of that spreading right-wing extremism. Though the Daily Caller occasionally published investigative articles that could easily have appeared elsewhere, it mostly became a conservative outlet that blasted liberal targets, often wielding conjecture and poorly sourced information. It ran false articles about climate change. It aired misleadingly edited hidden-camera videos filmed by right-wing activist James O’Keefe. One of its editors published racist and antisemitic articles under a pseudonym in white supremacist publications. Several prominent scoops it touted turned out to be wrong or overblown. Its White House correspondent shouted at President Barack Obama, “Why’d you favor foreigners over Americans?” The site ran sensationalized articles about supposed Bill and Hillary Clinton scandals that were debunked. It published what it described as a nude selfie of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (It wasn’t.) The Daily Caller was what Carlson had claimed it wouldn’t be: a key participant in the alt-right echo chamber of reality distortion.

Columnist Mickey Kaus quit the Daily Caller after Carlson spiked a piece Kaus had written criticizing Fox’s coverage of immigration policy. (A great irony: Kaus was slamming Fox for not being tough enough on immigration and amnesty.) At the time, Carlson was a Fox contributor. Kaus revealed that Carlson had told him, “’We can’t trash Fox on the site. I work there.'” Soon after, Carlson began hosting his primetime weekday show on Rupert Murdoch’s network. So much for Carlson the great seeker of journalistic truth. He had become the type of media whore he had once deplored. (His 2003 book had been titled Politicians, Partisans & Parasites.)

The Daily Caller was a dependable media ally of Trump, pushing stories that boosted assorted Trump narratives and that assailed his critics. It was fully in sync with Carlson’s demagogic rhetoric on Fox. In June 2020, Carlson sold his stake in the Daily Caller. As Fox’s top loudmouth, he continued on his toxic course of amplifying noxious lies that encouraged right-wing authoritarianism and boosted Trump’s and the GOP’s war on democracy. In the run-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and afterward, he also functioned, wittingly or not, as a key ally of Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin’s disinformation campaign designed to weaken American support for Ukraine. (Remember this scoop I had—a Kremlin memo instructing Russian media to feature clips of Carlson?)

Back to the question at hand: What happened to Carlson? Perhaps nothing. Maybe from the start he was nothing but an opportunistic guy on the make. A Sammy Glick of the right. As a young reporter, he seized the opportunity to brand himself as a conservative journalist different from other right-wing scribes in the combative Age of Clinton. Years later, as that glow wore off (and his television career started slipping), he reinvented himself as an angry populist cheerleader of the Trumpish right. That’s where the audience and the big bucks were—and the influence. It’s possible that along the way he even convinced himself of some of what he was saying. But the likely explanation is that truth never mattered: It was all about status and money.

As I write, we don’t yet know all the details of what led Fox to toss cash-cow Carlson to the curb. But one thing is certain: It wasn’t for his perversion and poisoning of the national political discourse. That was his raison d’etre at Fox.  He was no truth-teller. He was a pro-MAGA, for-mega-profit propagandist. Carlson’s personal journey is a tale of the Trump era. Like the GOP, he was already on the path to right-wing demagoguery before Trump oozed down that escalator. As those dark political winds grew stronger, he eagerly raised the sails and exploited the Trumpfication of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. But by ending up a Fox cast-off whose phoniness has been thoroughly exposed, Carlson has finally provided something of a public service. He has both emblemized and revealed the fundamental truth of the network: We distort, and we divide. No journalist could have done that better.

Sign of changed times

Sinn FĂ©in to attend King Charles’ coronation in sign of changed times

Michelle O’Neill, deputy leader of the Irish republican party, says she’ll go to the ceremony to show she respects British side of her Northern Ireland community.

BY SHAWN POGATCHNIK

The Irish republicans of Sinn FĂ©in — who once supported Irish Republican Army attacks on British royals — announced Wednesday they will send senior representatives to the coronation of King Charles III in a sign of radically changed times.

Michelle O’Neill, the party’s deputy leader and first minister-designate for the mothballed Northern Ireland government, said she would represent Sinn FĂ©in at the May 6 ceremony at Westminster Abbey.

O’Neill, who wants the Democratic Unionists to end their year-long boycott of power-sharing and permit her to take the helm of government in Belfast for the first time, said she was making the commitment as a way to demonstrate her respect for unionists and their British identity.

“I am committed to being a first minister for all, representing the whole community, and advancing peace and reconciliation through respectful and mature engagement,” O’Neill said in a statement.

Sinn FĂ©in has traveled a long way from the days when the outlawed IRA was bombing and shooting in hopes of making Northern Ireland an ungovernable corner of the United Kingdom. These days it’s the Democratic Unionists making it ungovernable and Sinn FĂ©in — 26 years removed from a lasting IRA cease-fire and now the top vote-getter in Northern Ireland — positioning itself as the responsible party of government.

Joining O’Neill at Westminster Abbey will be Alex Maskey, the Sinn FĂ©in speaker of the shuttered Northern Ireland Assembly in Belfast.

Maskey continues to hold that caretaker position only because the Democratic Unionists have blocked the formation of a new government following the assembly elections in May 2022. Sinn FĂ©in is entitled to the top post of first minister for the first time because it overtook the DUP in that election to become the largest party, with 27 seats in the 90-member assembly compared to the DUP’s 25.

Power-sharing is a central goal of the Good Friday Agreement, the U.S.-brokered peace deal struck in 1998. But it has fallen apart over the past year as the DUP protests against the erection of a so-called Irish Sea border as part of Northern Ireland’s special post-Brexit trading rules agreed between the U.K. and EU in 2019 and refined in February in a compromise agreement called the Windsor Framework.

Sinn FĂ©in’s latest diplomatic move is not surprising given the pattern of its steps over the past quarter-century to normalize relations with Britain, particularly the monarchy. It coincides with the party’s launch this week of its campaign to overtake the DUP, too, in Northern Ireland’s local councils in a May 18 election.

The party was widely criticized for boycotting Queen Elizabeth II’s landmark 2011 visit to the Republic of Ireland but fixed that the following year when Martin McGuinness — a former IRA commander who became Sinn FĂ©in’s deputy first minister in the Northern Ireland government alongside a DUP first minister — shook hands with the queen at Stormont, the government center overlooking Belfast.

The IRA repeatedly plotted to attack members of the royal family, most notoriously when it blew up a yacht carrying Lord Louis Mountbatten in 1979, killing the World War II hero and three others aboard, including two children. Mountbatten was Elizabeth’s second cousin and close to Charles.

But Charles already has demonstrated cordial relations with Sinn FĂ©in during his regular visits to both parts of Ireland, including a particularly friendly exchange with O’Neill last year at Hillsborough Castle following his mother’s death, when the new king noted — right in front of DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson — how Sinn FĂ©in was now the biggest party thanks to its “skill and ingenuity.”

The Rubicon yet to be crossed: taking seats in Westminster. Sinn FĂ©in currently holds seven of Northern Ireland’s 18 seats in the House of Commons but has refused to take the oath of office — which requires expressing loyalty to the king — and maintains a policy of abstention.

It used to boycott electoral politics in both parts of Ireland, too, but started competing in the 1980s and over the past decade has rapidly grown to become the main opposition party in the Republic of Ireland.