Politics

By Richard Cowan and Katanga Johnson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Congressional investigators into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol expect this week to draw connections between militant groups that took part and government officials, possibly including then-President Donald Trump, a member of the committee conducting the investigation said on Sunday.

“We are going to be connecting the dots during these hearings between these groups and those who were trying in government circles to overturn the election,” Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Asked if Trump was aware members of these groups attended a rally he led outside the White House when he urged them to march on the Capitol, Lofgren said: “You have to reach your own conclusions but based on the events leading up to the day, I think that would be a logical conclusion.”

Trump, a Republican, has falsely claimed Democrat Joe Biden defeated him in the 2020 presidential election through massive fraud – assertions rejected in U.S. courts, by Trump’s own Justice Department and even Republican-led audits.

After Trump spoke outside the White House on Jan. 6, his supporters marched to the Capitol in a failed bid to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s victory in a session where then-Vice President Mike Pence was presiding.

Two groups, the self-described Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, will be under the spotlight in the two hearings this week, expected on Tuesday and Thursday.

NBC News reported that Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers, would testify on Tuesday. A committee spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Federal prosecutors have alleged that Jeremy Brown, a member of the Oath Keepers, brought explosives to the Washington area on Jan. 6. Brown, in a statement, called the charges a “disgusting lie.”

During a September 2020 debate between Trump and Biden before the November election, Trump was asked whether he would condemn white supremacist and militia groups for violent activities during his presidency.

Trump responded, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.” He added, “Somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left. … this is a left-wing problem.”

On Friday, former White House counsel Pat Cipollone testified to committee investigators behind closed doors.

Videotaped excerpts of that testimony will be presented at Tuesday’s hearing, said Lofgren, who is one of nine members on a bipartisan House of Representatives Select Committee that began its current series of public hearings last month.

“He was able to provide information on basically all of the critical issues we are looking at, including the president’s what-I-would-call dereliction of duty on the day of Jan. 6,” Lofgren said.

The committee has yet to say whether this Thursday’s hearing, expected in evening prime time when U.S. television audiences are at their peak, will be the final one before a panel report is issued, possibly in September.

Representative Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republicans on the panel, is expected to lead witness questioning that night, along with Democratic Representative Elaine Luria.

“We’re going to really focus on what was the president doing from in essence the moment the insurrection started until he finally, hours later, put out a tweet that said, ‘We shouldn’t do anything like this,’” Kinzinger told ABC’s “This Week.”

He added, “Keep in mind in the middle of that was the tweet that said in essence this is what happens when you steal an election; that Vice President Pence deserved this.”

In earlier committee testimony, witnesses said Trump signaled support for rioters calling for Pence to be hanged.

Lofgren also said the committee had received a letter from Trump adviser Steve Bannon saying he would be willing to testify. Bannon was charged last year with two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a committee subpoena.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Katanga Johnson; Additional reporting by Tyler Clifford and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Mary Milliken, Howard Goller and Edwina Gibbs)

source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump’s former close adviser Steve Bannon has told the congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that he is ready to testify, a change of heart days before he is due to be tried for contempt of Congress.

In a letter to the committee seen by Reuters, Bannon’s lawyer Robert Costello, wrote to say the former president would waive the claim of executive privilege which Bannon had cited in refusing to appear before the committee.

Bannon, a prominent figure in right-wing media circles who served as Trump’s chief strategist in 2017, is scheduled to go on trial July 18 on two criminal contempt charges for refusing to testify or provide documents.

The letter from the lawyer said Bannon preferred to testify publicly, but Representative Zoe Lofgren, a committee Democrat, told CNN that ordinarily the committee takes a deposition behind closed doors.

“This goes on for hour after hour after hour. We want to get all our questions answered. And you can’t do that in a live format,” Lofgren said. “There are many questions that we have for him.”

Throughout the House of Representatives committee hearings, videotaped snippets of closed-door testimony by witnesses under oath have been shown to the public.

Trump has been chafing that none of his supporters have testified in his defense at the committee hearings which, separate from the trial, are focused on the attack by Trump supporters seeking to stop the certification in Congress of Trump’s defeat by Joe Biden in the November 2020 election.

In a letter from Trump to Bannon seen by Reuters, Trump said he was waiving executive privilege because he “watched how unfairly you and others have been treated.”

The House panel is due to hold public hearings on Tuesday and Thursday this week.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Howard Goller)

source

(Refiling to fix 2nd paragraph date to read July 18, not Jan. 18)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump’s former close adviser Steve Bannon has agreed to testify to the U.S. congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to media reports on Sunday, amid questions over the terms of his appearance.

His change of heart was reported by CNN, the New York Times and Washington Post ahead of a July 18 trial for Bannon on two charges of criminal contempt of Congress for previously refusing to testify or provide documents.

They said Bannon’s lawyer, Robert Costello, wrote to the House of Representatives committee to say Trump, the former president, would waive the claim of executive privilege which Bannon had cited in refusing to testify.

Trump has been chafing that none of his supporters have testified in his defense at the committee hearings which, separate from the trial, are focused on the attack by Trump supporters seeking to stop the certification in Congress of Trump’s defeat by Joe Biden in the November 2020 election.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, a committee Democrat, told CNN the panel received a letter around midnight on Saturday and “I expect that we will be hearing from him.”

It was unclear whether Bannon would agree to the committee’s practice of privately interviewing witnesses before possible public testimony. The media reports said Costello’s letter to the committee said Bannon wanted to testify at a public hearing.

“Ordinarily, we do depositions,” Lofgren told CNN. “This goes on for hour after hour after hour. We want to get all our questions answered. And you can’t do that in a live format.”

Lofgren added, “There are many questions that we have for him.”

Throughout the select committee’s hearings, videotaped snippets of closed-door testimony by witnesses under oath have been shown to the public.

The House panel said it had no comment on the possibility of Bannon testifying, and Costello did not immediately respond to queries from Reuters. The committee is due to hold public hearings on Tuesday and Thursday this week.

Bannon, a prominent figure in right-wing media circles, was an architect of Trump’s 2016 presidential victory and served as White House chief strategist in 2017.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Howard Goller)

source

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Eric Greitens resigned as Missouri governor amid criminal charges and legislative investigations, is accused by his ex-wife of abuse and bullying and has run a widely condemned ad suggesting he was hunting members of his own party with a gun. And the Republican is still a leading contender for election to the U.S. Senate.

In the final weeks before the Aug. 2 primary, Greitens remains well positioned to clinch the nomination for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Roy Blunt, who is not seeking a third term. If anything, the onslaught of criticism has made Greitens even more popular among his followers. They say they either do not believe the allegations against him or care more about his overarching message opposing the “radical left” and embracing former President Donald Trump.

“Every politician gets slammed for something or other,” Michael Moynihan, 74, said at a recent Greitens campaign appearance in the eastern Missouri town of Elsberry. “If you’re into politics, buddy, believe me, they’re going to come after you.”

Ron Lowrey, 71, a retired oil and gas geologist from St. Charles, likes Greitens’ resilience.

“He’s a fighter and he’s pushed through that, and that impresses me a lot,” Lowrey said.

The contest is emerging as the latest test of the GOP’s apparent willingness to embrace deeply flawed candidates who, before the Trump era, may have struggled to win their party’s nomination. Some in the GOP, particularly those close to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, are watching the dynamics closely, fearful that a Greitens victory could jeopardize the party’s ability to regain a Senate majority.

A new candidate is banking on the belief that Republicans want an alternative. Lifelong Republican John F. Wood, 52, a former U.S. attorney in Kansas City and most recently a top investigator for the U.S. House committee investigating the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, announced his independent candidacy late last month. A super political action committee led by former Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., is pledging to spend $20 million to support him.

“I’m in this race to win it no matter who the Republican nominee is,” Wood said in a phone interview. “But I think it’ll be Eric Greitens, and Eric Greitens is a big part of the reason I decided to get into the race.”

Danforth’s PAC, Missouri Stands United, is spending $3 million on TV, radio, digital and direct mail ads through July as Wood gathers signatures to get a spot on the ballot and said it will spend up to $20 million through November.

“We are too divided, and politicians are making it so,” Danforth says in one TV spot. “They are intentionally dividing us. They’re appealing to the very worst in us. To our anger. They’re trying to push us into enemy camps. But we’re not enemies. We’re all one people. We’re Americans.”

Danforth takes responsibility for some of that division. He was an early supporter of Missouri Republican Josh Hawley, who was elected to the Senate in 2018. But after Hawley’s Electoral College challenge to Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory, and after the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Danforth called supporting Hawley “the worst decision I’ve ever made in my life.”

Wood also alluded to the riot in his criticism of Greitens’ latest ad, a 38-second spot showing Greitens brandishing a shotgun and declaring he’s hunting RINOs — Republicans in Name Only. Though Greitens said the spot was meant to be humorous, Facebook removed it. Twitter said it violated its rules about abusive behavior but left up the post because it was in the “public’s interest” for the tweet to be viewable. The company’s move prevented the post from being shared any further.

“If Jan. 6 taught us anything, it’s that words can inspire action,” Wood said. “I think there’s a risk that Eric Greitens’ words and conduct could inspire somebody to act in a violent way, and that’s just wrong.”

Greitens, 48, is a former Navy SEAL officer and Rhodes scholar who was just a year into his first term as governor when in January 2018 he confirmed a TV report about an extramarital affair in 2015 with his St. Louis hairdresser.

The sex scandal turned into a criminal matter when the St. Louis prosecutor charged Greitens with felony invasion of privacy, accusing him of taking a nude photo of the woman and threatening to use it as blackmail if she spoke of their relationship.

Weeks later, a second charge accused Greitens of illegally using a donor list from a charity he founded to raise money for his campaign. An impeachment investigation began in the Missouri House.

The invasion of privacy charge was dropped in May 2018 amid concerns that the chief investigator and St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner mishandled the investigation. Earlier this year, investigator William Tisaby pleaded guilty to misdemeanor evidence tampering. Gardner is awaiting punishment from the Missouri Supreme Court, but is not expected to lose her law license. Greitens points to both in saying he was the victim of a political hit.

A special prosecutor examined the invasion of privacy case in June 2018 and said she believed the woman, but declined to file new charges. A House investigation was still ongoing when Greitens resigned in June 2018. The campaign finance-related charge was dropped when he stepped down.

Blunt’s announcement in March 2021 that he would not seek reelection set the stage for a potentially stunning political comeback for Greitens. His main opponents are Attorney General Eric Schmitt and U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler.

Greitens has faced a series of scandals during this race.

In March, Sheena Greitens filed an affidavit in a child custody case accusing her ex-husband of abusing her and their two sons. She cited one instance where Eric Greitens cuffed their then 3-year-old son across the face and yanked him by the hair. In another, he allegedly pushed her to the ground.

Greitens denied the allegations and accused Sheena Greitens of colluding with Republican stalwarts such as McConnell to sabotage his campaign. Sheena Greitens said she worked with no one.

If Greitens’ campaign is worried about Wood’s candidacy, its leaders are not letting on.

“We encourage anyone who wants to get in the race to do so, especially any prosecutors from the sham January 6th Committee,” Greitens’ campaign manager, Dylan Johnson, said in a text. “Missouri is Trump Red and only an America First candidate like Governor Greitens will be the next U.S. Senator.”

Trump has yet to endorse in the race, but recently ruled out the potential of backing Hartzler.

Trump, of course, has survived questions about his own past, winning election in 2016 just weeks after a 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape emerged of him bragging about grabbing women by the genitals. He carried Missouri by 19 percentage points in 2016 and by 15 percentage points in 2020.

Nonmajor party candidates do not have a history of success in Missouri, which concerns Joshua Dull, 22, a real estate consultant who serves on the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee. Dull supports Schmitt and said he was “disgusted” by Greitens’ RINO-hunting ad — but he will vote for Greitens if he wins the nomination.

“Independent candidates are great in theory, but in high-stakes elections like this one they can just create that party division that leads to Republican defeat,” Dull said.

source

WASHINGTON (AP) — It would have been something never quite before seen in America — a defeated president, Donald Trump, standing at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, with a mob of supporters, some armed, contesting the election outcome.

Trump intended to go there that day. His allies had been planning for the moment, envisioning the president delivering a speech outside the building or even entering the House chamber amid objections to Congress certifying the 2020 election results for Democrat Joe Biden.

“He’s going to look powerful,” mused Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani to a young White House aide four days earlier.

But White House lawyers thought it was a “terrible” idea. Counsel Pat Cipollone warned that Trump could be charged with “every crime imaginable” if he joined mob on Capitol Hill trying to interfere with the certification.

In the end, Trump never made it to the Capitol on Jan. 6. His security refused to take him as rioters, some with weapons, laid siege to the building.

Furious, and stuck at the White House, Trump watched the insurrection on television.

The Jan. 6 hearings are providing dramatic new insight about Trump’s intentions as he told loyalists he would join them on a march down Pennsylvania Avenue to “fight like hell” for his presidency. This account is drawn largely from the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. Her recollections from her close proximity to the president and his inner circle suggest Trump’s demands were not the brash desires of an impulsive commander in chief but part of his last-ditch plan for stopping Biden’s victory.

Trump and his allies quickly disputed Hutchinson’s account, and the former president conducted his own interview days later disparaging her with derisive commentary and nicknames.

This coming week, the committee is set to focus on Trump’s own actions and those of the extremist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys in allegedly leading the Capitol attack.

A look at what’s known about Trump’s plans to join the mob on Jan. 6:

___

JAN. 2

It was a Saturday night. Giuliani had been meeting at the White House with Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and others.

The White House and Meadows had placed some 18 calls that day to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, before Trump finally got the elections official on the phone.

Trump had been disputing the election results in Georgia, which he narrowly lost. He was demanding that Raffensperger “find 11,780 votes,” exactly enough to tip the balance from Biden’s victory. The engineer-turned-civil servant declined.

As Giuliani left the White House that night, he walked out with Meadows’ young aide, Hutchinson, a senior adviser.

“Cass, are you excited for the 6th?” Giuliani asked, as Hutchinson recalled in testimony before the Jan. 6 committee. “It’s going to be a great day.”

Hutchinson had heard discussions about Jan. 6 and the rally being planned outside the White House as Congress was set to certify the election results. She also had heard, when Giuliani was around, mentions of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, two extremist groups.

She looked at Giuliani and asked him to explain.

“We’re going to the Capitol,” Giuliani told her. “It’s going to be great. The president’s going to be there. He’s going to look powerful.”

___

JAN. 3

On Sunday, Cipollone privately raised concerns to Hutchinson about the president’s planned trip to the Capitol.

Cipollone told her there were “serious legal concerns” if Trump went ahead as Congress was certifying the election. He urged her to relay the concerns to her boss, Meadows.

“We need to make sure that this doesn’t happen,” Cipollone said, according to Hutchinson’s testimony. “This would be a legally a terrible idea for us. We’re — we have serious legal concerns if we go up to the Capitol that day.”

That Sunday was a busy day at the White House.

The leaders of Trump’s Justice Department were threatening to resign if the president replaced the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, with a lower-ranked civil division head, Jeffrey Clark, to pursue the electoral challenge.

And that same day, the U.S. Capitol Police issued a special event assessment, noting that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington on Jan. 6.

The police assessment indicated that “unlike previous post-election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter-protesters… but rather Congress itself is the target on the 6th.”

___

JAN. 5

On Tuesday, the eve of Jan. 6, according to Hutchinson, Trump asked Meadows to be in touch with two of the president’s associates — Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.

Stone attended rallies for Trump in Washington and was photographed with multiple members of the Oath Keepers who were allegedly serving as his security detail, according to the committee. Both Stone and Flynn invoked their Fifth Amendment rights rather than testify before the committee.

The big “Stop the Steal” rally was planned for the morning of Jan. 6 near the White House. Meadows spoke with both Stone and Flynn that evening, Hutchinson said. Stone has disputed her account.

Meadows also sought to join Giuliani and others who had set up a “war room” at the Willard Hotel close to the White House, she testified.

“I had made it clear to Mr. Meadows that I didn’t believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the Willard Hotel that night,” she said.

___

JAN. 6: THE RALLY

The morning of the rally on Wednesday, Jan. 6, Cipollone pleaded once again with Hutchinson to ensure Trump did not head to the Capitol.

“Please,” he said, “make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy,” she recalled. “We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.”

Hutchinson’s desk at the White House was just down the hall from the Oval Office, which was in one corner, and her boss Meadows’ office in the other. But that day she was with the president backstage as he surveyed the crowd of supporters outside the White House.

Trump was furious.

The crowd was not as full as Trump wanted it. Supporters lingered outside the security screening, unwilling to have their weapons confiscated by the Secret Service to join the main rally area.

Trump ordered his security to get rid of the metal detectors, known as magnetometers, insisting the armed supporters were no threat to him.

The police radios crackled with information; a man in the trees with a rifle or another with a handgun at his waist; three men with an AR-15 walking at 14th Street and Independence Avenue.

Trump has disputed Hutchinson’s account. “I didn’t want guns,” he said in an interview with Newsmax that aired two days after the hearing.

But Hutchinson had recounted to the committee what she heard.

“They’re not here to hurt me,” Trump told his staff, Hutchinson recalled. “Let them in. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol after the rally’s over. …. Take the effing mags away. Then they can march to the Capitol.”

___

JAN. 6: THE SPEECH

The president took the stage at the “Stop the Steal” rally complaining about the election outcome and the need to stop Biden from becoming president.

“We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you,” Trump said to the thousand of supporters at the grassy Ellipse.

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol,” Trump said. “You’ll never take back our country with weakness; you have to show strength.”

Many people had already started peeling off toward the Capitol, and Trump encouraged the crowd to go.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” he said. “Let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

A White House security log, revealed by the Jan. 6 committee, shows the scramble that was underway for Trump to go to the Capitol as well.

“MilAide has confirmed that he wants to walk,” said one entry on the National Security Council chat.

“They are begging him to reconsider,” reads another.

The next entry was a discussion of the “current route” for Trump’s motorcade to take 15th Street, to F Street, to 6th Street, to Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol.

“So this is happening,” reads another entry.

Hutchinson was still in the tent behind the rally stage when she got a phone call from House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of California.

McCarthy sounded rushed, frustrated and angry, she said. “You told me this whole week you aren’t coming up here. Why would you lie to me?” he asked Hutchinson, a former House aide.

“I’m not lying. I wasn’t lying to you, sir,” she replied. And McCarthy said, “Well, he just said it on stage, Cassidy. Figure it out. Don’t come up here.”

The mob was breaking past the security fencing around the Capitol.

“Capitol Police are reporting multiple breaches,” the security log reads. “Capitol is now calling for all available to respond.”

—-

JAN. 6: BEHIND THE WHEEL

Trump climbed into the presidential SUV determined to be taken to the Capitol, Hutchinson recalled.

The Secret Service now disputes her account, as does Trump. But Hutchinson testified under oath that she was told later by Anthony Ornato, the deputy chief of staff for White House operations, that Trump was irate.

“The president said something to the effect of, ‘I’m the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now,’” she recalled.

When the driver, Bobby Engel, responded, “Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing” Trump grabbed at the steering wheel, and lunged at the driver’s “clavicles,” she said.

Trump never made it to the Capitol. His motorcade headed back to the White House.

In the Newsmax interview, Trump dismissed the idea that he tried to “commandeer” the car to go to the Capitol as “totally false.” He marveled at the “incredible size” of the crowd — one of the biggest, he said, he has ever attracted. But he did not dispute wanting to go to the Capitol that day.

“I wanted to go so badly,” he said during an April interview with the Washington Post.

At the hearing, the security log made clear just how close Trump came to creating that unseen image — a defeated president standing with the mob as an armed insurrection was laying siege to the Capitol.

“Looks like he is coming home for now,” the security log stated.

source

NEW YORK (AP) — As Donald Trump considers another White House run, polls show he’s the most popular figure in the Republican Party. But it wasn’t always that way.

Competing at one point against a dozen rivals for the presidential nomination in 2016, Trump won only about one-third of the vote in key early states. He even lost in Iowa, which kicks off the nomination process.

But he prevailed because those in the party who opposed his brand of divisive politics were never able to coalesce around a single rival. That same dynamic could repeat itself as Trump mulls a new bid for the presidency as soon as this summer.

With a growing list of candidates gearing up to run, even a Trump diminished by two impeachments and mounting legal vulnerabilities could hold a commanding position in a fractured, multi-candidate primary.

“I fear it could end up the same way as 2016, which basically was everyone thought everyone else should get out,” said Republican strategist Mike DuHaime, who advised former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s campaign that year. “I think every major candidate realized that he or she would have a better shot against Trump one-on-one. But of course each person thought he or she should be the one to get that shot and nobody got out of the way. … And then it was too late.”

The anxiety is mounting as a growing list of potential rivals take increasingly brazen steps, delivering high-profile speeches, running ads, courting donors and making repeat visits to early voting states.

That group now includes upward of a dozen could-be-candidates, including Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence; his former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo; and Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Rick Scott of Florida and Tim Scott of South Carolina. All could run on the former president’s policies.

In the anti-Trump lane, politicians such as Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan are raising their profiles.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is increasingly seen as Trump’s heir apparent, even by Trump’s most loyal supporters, and viewed by Trump allies as his most formidable potential challenger.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and others have said they will not challenge Trump if he does go forward. But others, including Christie, seem to be gunning for the fight, even if they seem to be long shots.

“I’m definitely giving it serious thought. I’m not gonna make any decision probably until the end of the year,” Christie said in a recent interview. He has urged the party to move on from Trump and his ongoing obsession with the 2020 election.

“For me, it’s about the party needing to go in in a new direction from a personality perspective, and to continue to have someone who can bring strong leadership, tough leadership, that the country needs, but doesn’t have all of the other drama that goes along with it,” he said. “I’m hearing the same things from donors that I’m hearing from voters — that they’re very concerned that we can’t put ourselves in a position to have 2024 be about anything but the good of the country.”

Pompeo, who has had a busy travel schedule and plans to return to Iowa this summer, said in a recent interview that he has been spending time reading and listening to President Ronald Reagan’s speeches as he prepares for a possible run.

“We’re getting ready to stay in the fight,” he said last month as he courted evangelical Christians at a gathering in Nashville, Tennessee.

He said he and his wife would sit down after the November elections and “think our way through it, pray our way through it, and decide where’s best to serve. It could be presenting ourselves for elected office again. We may choose a different path. But we’re not gonna walk away from these things that I’ve been working on for 30 years now. They matter too much.”

Pompeo sketched out a possible approach in much the same mold as Trump.

“He was a disruptor that was most necessary in 2016, there’s no doubt about that,” Pompeo said. And now the task is to take those set of understandings, those set of principles, and defend them and build upon them. And it’s gonna take a lot of work to do that, leaders of real fortitude and character to do that.”

Such open talk comes as Trump faces a cascade of escalating legal troubles.

The congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection has revealed increasingly damaging information about Trump’s final weeks in office. The Department of Justice has its own investigation. In Georgia, the prosecutor investigating Trump’s potentially illegal meddling in the state’s 2020 election has stepped up her inquiry by subpoenaing members of Trump’s inner circle. In New York, Trump, his namesake son and his daughter Ivanka have agreed to answer questions under oath beginning next week in the state attorney general’s civil investigation into his business practices.

Mick Mulvaney, a former South Carolina congressman who served as Trump’s acting White House chief of staff, said the moves suggested potential candidates “might see an opening where none existed two months ago.”

“Trump fatigue might be a real thing,” he said, with voters asking themselves whether, if they vote for another candidate, they “can get the same policies without all the baggage.”

At the same time, Trump has seen some of his endorsed primary candidates falter. Those who have won, including Senate hopefuls JD Vance in Ohio and Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, have done so with about 30% of the vote, meaning that two-thirds of party voters went against Trump’s picks.

“I don’t think anybody underestimates Trump. There’s a reason he’s the most sought-after endorsement in every single Republican primary,” said GOP strategist Alex Conant. “That said, I think there’s a recognition that a lot of Republican voters are looking to the future and ready for what’s next.”

To what extent remains an open question. During a trip to Iowa this week, Cotton declined to weigh in on Trump’s standing. But the senator said he hoped to be “an effective national leader, not only for my party but for the American people in my role in the Senate and any other future role I might serve.”

Still, Cotton argued, candidates should embrace Trump’s legacy.

“I know that Donald Trump is very popular among our voters who appreciate the successes he delivered for four years in a very hostile environment. They don’t want Republicans who are running against that legacy, because they view that legacy as a great success,” he said Thursday in Cambridge, Iowa.

Trump continues to move forward with his own events.

On Friday night, he campaigned in Las Vegas alongside Adam Laxalt, his pick for Nevada Senate. And on Saturday night, he planned a rally in Anchorage, Alaska, to campaign with Kelly Tshibaka, whom he has endorsed in her race against Sen. Lisa Murkowski, and others, including former Gov. Sarah Palin, now running for Congress.

Conant said it made sense for candidates to continue testing the waters for now.

“A lot of potential candidates are realizing that 2024 may be their last best chance, regardless of what Trump does,” he said. “There’s a very vulnerable Democrat in the White House, Republicans seem likely to win, and if it’s not Trump, they’re basically sidelined for the next 10 years.”

Still, Conant, who served as communications director to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential bid, noted the similarities.

“It looks like it’s increasingly clear there’s going to be a lot of people running for president. And while I think there’s an appetite for something different, the alternative to Trump needs to coalesce around one candidate,” he said. “That never happened in 2016. And it might not happen in 2024.”

__

Associated Press writers Thomas Beaumont in Des Moines, Iowa, and Steve Peoples contributed to this report.

source

By David Lawder and Andrea Shalal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Joe Biden said on Friday that he has not yet made a decision on whether to cut some U.S. tariffs on imports from China, saying his administration was reviewing them “one at a time.”

Biden had been due to discuss the tariffs with his advisers on Friday, but it was unclear when he would make a decision on whether to remove some of them to try to fight inflation, people familiar with the deliberations said.

“I haven’t made that decision,” Biden told reporters when asked about his plans for the tariffs after signing an executive order to protect access to abortions. “We’re going through them one at a time,” he said of the tariffs.

Biden has been struggling in recent weeks to balance competing desires to use every lever possible to ease inflation and to maintain pressure on China to try to win concessions on Beijing’s state-driven economic policies.

The discussions surround the “Section 301” tariffs imposed in 2018 and 2019 by then-President Donald Trump on thousands of products valued at $370 billion at the time over China’s alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property.

Some in the administration, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, have argued that many of these duties are “non-strategic” and raise costs for American consumers and businesses. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai has said the tariffs are “a significant piece of leverage” in the U.S.-China trade relationship.

Other sources close to the process have said that Biden is taking his time to work through the complex web of options and consequences, which include removing a substantial amount of tariffs goods, and cutting them from a more limited list of Chinese-made consumer products.

The White House also is considering an expanded process for approving product-specific exclusions from the tariffs and whether to pair any action with a new Section 301 investigation into China’s state subsidies and plans to dominate high-technology industries, the sources have said.

The White House had no immediate comment on the tariff discussions.

More than 400 requests from industry and labor groups https://www.usw.org/news/media-center/articles/2022/june/22-06-06-LAC-mbrs-comments-on-301-Tariff-Extension.pdf have requested that the U.S. Trade Representative’s office keep the China tariffs in place, indicating that Biden could face some backlash if he chooses a substantial tariff reduction.

(Reporting by David Lawder; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

source

By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Joe Biden said the Supreme Court decision overturning the right to an abortion was an exercise in “raw political power” and signed an executive order on Friday to ease access to services to terminate pregnancies.

Biden, a Democrat, has been under pressure from his own party to take action after the landmark decision last month to overturn Roe v Wade, which upended roughly 50 years of protections for women’s reproductive rights.

The order directs the government’s health department to expand access to “medication abortion” – pills prescribed to end pregnancies – and ensure women have access to emergency medical care, family planning services and contraception. It also mentions protecting doctors, women who travel for abortions and mobile abortion clinics at state borders.

But it offered few specifics and promises to have limited impact in practice, since U.S. states can make laws restricting abortion and access to medication.

“What we’re witnessing wasn’t a constitutional judgment, it was an exercise in raw political power,” Biden told reporters at the White House. “We cannot allow an out of control Supreme Court, working in conjunction with extremist elements of the Republican party, to take away freedoms and our personal autonomy.”

The White House is not publicly entertaining the idea of reforming the court itself or expanding the nine-member panel.

Instead, Biden laid out how abortion rights could be codified into law by voters if they elected “two additional pro-choice senators, and a pro-choice House” and urged women to turn out in record numbers to vote. He said he would veto any law passed by Republicans to ban abortion rights nationwide.

Jen Klein, director of the president’s Gender Policy Council at the White House, did not name any specifics when asked what the order would change for women.

“You can’t solve by executive action what the Supreme Court has done,” she said.

‘FIRST STEPS’

Still, progressive lawmakers and abortion rights groups welcomed the directive. Senator Elizabeth Warren called it “important first steps,” and asked the administration to explore every available option to protect abortion rights.

The issue may help drive Democrats to the polls in the November midterm elections, when Republicans have a chance of taking control of Congress.

Protecting abortion rights is a top issue for women Democrats, Reuters polling shows, and more than 70% of Americans think the issue should be left to a woman and her doctor.

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said “Democrats are out of touch with the American people” after Biden’s remarks.

In June, Biden proposed that U.S. senators remove a legislative roadblock by temporarily lifting the Senate “filibuster” to restore abortion rights, but the suggestion was shot down by aides to key Democratic senators.

Earlier in June, sources told Reuters the White House was unlikely to take the bold steps on abortion access that Democratic lawmakers have called for, such as court reform or offering reproductive services on federal lands.

The Supreme Court’s ruling restored states’ ability to ban abortion. As a result, women with unwanted pregnancies face the choice of traveling to another state where the procedure remains legal and available, buying abortion pills online, or having a potentially dangerous illegal abortion.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Edwina Gibbs, Heather Timmons and Deepa Babington)

source

WASHINGTON (AP) — Concerns about inflation and personal finances have surged while COVID has evaporated as a top issue for Americans, a new poll shows, marking an upheaval in priorities just months before critical midterm elections.

Forty percent of U.S. adults specifically name inflation in an open-ended question as one of up to five priorities for the government to work on in the next year, according to a June poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That’s a sharp rise from 14% in December and less than 1% the year prior. Seventy-seven percent mention the economy in any way, up from 68% in December.

Now, too, Americans increasingly call their personal finances a major issue: 44% mention it, up from 24% in December and 12% the year before. That includes more mentioning gas or energy prices (33% now vs. 10% in December) and food costs (9% vs. less than 1%).

Those shifts may be advantageous to Republicans as they campaign to win control of Congress in this year’s midterms; the economy has increasingly been a sore subject for President Joe Biden. Still, the economy isn’t the only issue getting more attention this year. Many also prioritize other issues that are core to Biden and Democrats’ agenda, including abortion, women’s rights and gun policy, which could help Democrats as they try to pad — or at least protect — their razor-thin majority.

In a troubling sign for both parties, the poll finds many Americans say they think neither side of the aisle is better at focusing on the issues important to them or getting things done.

Sara Rodriguez said she’s concerned about the impact of rising prices of goods, gas and oil on her household’s finances, especially because her income isn’t keeping up.

“We’ve had a savings built up and we’re noticing that it’s definitely going down fast because we don’t make enough money to cover how much the cost of everything has risen,” the 43-year-old quality control coordinator in Bristol, Connecticut, said.

Rodriguez and her husband and son have had to get to their workplaces and run errands using one car over the last couple of months because of her husband’s broken-down truck.

“We just haven’t had the money to get it back on the road,” she said.

The rise in concerns about the economy is paired with a steep decline in the percentage naming COVID-19 as a top issue, even as new variants continue to emerge: Now just 4% mention it, down from 37% in December 2021 and 53% in December 2020.

Republicans remain more likely than Democrats to mention the economy and inflation or personal finances and gas prices as top issues, but the sharp changes since December are bipartisan.

Daniel Collier, a 39-year-old construction worker in Waynesville, Missouri, thinks lowering gas prices should be a priority.

“It’s hurt me financially,” he said. “I worry about being able to pay the rent, pay utilities.”

He blames Biden for inflation and “poor” economic conditions, saying he thinks the president is “incompetent.”

The poll shows 69% of Americans disapprove of how Biden is handling the economy, including 93% of Republicans and 43% of Democrats. In May, facing an inflation rate at a 40-year high, most Americans said in an AP-NORC poll that they worried about the impact of higher than usual prices on their finances.

For 22-year-old Jakyra Green, rising prices have been prohibitive.

“It’s become very hard to even pay for anything, like rent, gas, and none of our wages are going up,” the college student in Goshen, Indiana, said. “I just spend less or try to not go out the house anymore.”

But Green identified other issues that concern her more. Abortion has long been on her mind as a priority, and it “feels real now” that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. She also identified racism in the U.S. as an important problem.

Mentions of abortion or women’s rights increased sharply to 22% from just 8% in December following the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Roe v. Wade. The poll shows 12% of U.S. adults mention racial issues, similar to December 2021, but a notable decline from 2020, when 24% called out racism as a chief priority.

“I have these two compounding identities being Black and a woman,” Green said, adding that it’s very concerning that Black women experience higher maternal mortality rates than white women. “It’s just so overwhelming right now in America.”

Mentions of gun issues also ticked up to 30% from 24% in December 2021 — both significantly higher compared with 5% in December 2020. The December 2021 poll was conducted just after a deadly shooting at a Michigan high school, which likely explains the sharp increase from 2020.

Charles Hagemeyer sees “so many different issues” facing the country. The economy affects him the most personally, but he called out the mass shooting in Highland Park on July 4 as evidence of a guns problem in the U.S. The poll was conducted before that attack, but after tragedies in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas.

“Gun violence is another big issue that’s on my mind constantly,” the 68-year-old Jacksonville, Florida, resident said. “You’re afraid to go out anymore.”

Hagemeyer thinks the country is past the point where gun control legislation could even be effective; still, he doesn’t see lawmakers coming together to solve any problem. Both sides have an “us versus them” mentality, he said.

The poll shows a majority of Americans — 57% — don’t think one party is better than the other at getting things done. Thirty-seven percent don’t think either is better at focusing on their priorities; the remainder split about evenly between the two parties. Politics is mentioned in some way as a top problem facing the country by 29% of Americans.

“It just doesn’t seem like anybody in government wants to work with each other and try to solve some of the issues that the American people face,” Hagemeyer said.

___

The poll of 1,053 adults was conducted June 23-27 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

source

NEW YORK (AP) — Hours after a gunman killed seven people at a July 4th parade in suburban Chicago, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker tapped into the frustration of many fellow Democrats at the seeming inability of the U.S. to curb gun violence.

“If you’re angry today, I’m here to tell you: Be angry. I’m furious,” Pritzker said.

But at the White House, President Joe Biden was more focused on reassurance than anger.

“I know it can be exhausting and unsettling,” he said, adding that “we’re going to get through all of this.”

In a summer marked by anger among Democrats over a string of mass shootings and the Supreme Court’s decision to strip women of the constitutional right to an abortion, several governors, including Pritzker, are emerging as the party’s leading voices of outrage. Their willingness to speak — and act — in aggressive terms stands in contrast to Biden, who is coming under growing criticism from some Democrats for lacking a sufficiently robust response to what some in his party see as existential threats.

Some Democrats warn that the lack of a strong response will be a problem if the party hopes to turn out enough voters to maintain their narrow grip on Congress in the fall midterm elections.

“The people that you’re telling to vote aren’t going to listen until we prove that we are handling this moment with urgency,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said in an interview, referring to the party generally. “We have a lot of tools at our disposal, I think we have a lot of assets at our disposal, and we have to use them.”

In this moment, governors may have tools that are more conducive to swift action than the president. Well positioned heading into the fall campaign and presiding over statehouses where Democrats are in control, Pritzker and Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York and Gavin Newsom of California have wide latitude.

In New York, for instance, Hochul was undeterred by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a state law and allowed most people to carry a handgun for personal protection. She called a special session last week in which lawmakers passed new measures limiting where those licensed to have guns can carry them and toughening rules for obtaining the permits. The regulations include a novel requirement to screen applicants’ social media accounts for threats.

“They may think they can change our lives with the stroke of a pen, but we have pens too,” Hochul said defiantly of the Supreme Court’s gun ruling.

In Illinois, Pritzker has said he would convene a special legislative session in coming weeks, with support of Democratic legislative leaders, to “more firmly protect” abortion rights and address some of the challenges the state faces as one of the few places in the Midwest where abortion remains legal.

Abortion rights will be on the California ballot in November, after legislators with Newsom’s blessing agreed last month to place a proposal before voters that would guarantee a right to an abortion in the state constitution. The constitutional amendment is certain to drive turnout on both sides of the debate.

Newsom has been especially vocal in rallying against the repeal of abortion rights even before the Supreme Court ruled. When a draft Supreme Court opinion surfaced in May suggesting the conservative majority was poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, he delivered a withering critique of the national party, suggesting it was suffering from collective lethargy.

“Where is the Democratic Party?” he asked at the time, without naming anyone specifically but appearing to exclude Biden from criticism. “Why aren’t we standing up more firmly? More resolutely? Why aren’t we calling this out?”

With just a tenuous grip on Congress, however, Biden can’t move legislation quickly. And even criticizing Republicans could be politically dangerous if he needs their support on key votes.

“Forcefully calling out the other side isn’t a luxury he has if he wants to get anything done the rest of the year on anything,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “If you’re Gavin Newsom, whose votes are you going to lose in the state senate or California assembly?”

The White House insists Biden isn’t backing away from a fight. In a passionate prime-time speech last month, he lamented that gun violence had turned schools, supermarkets and other everyday places into “killing fields” and asked, “How much more carnage are we willing to accept?”

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, Biden called the decision the “realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error.” He’s expected to deliver remarks on Friday about “protecting access to reproductive health care services,” according to the White House.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday that “you will hear more from him” on issues including abortion as she underscored the administration’s central message that winning the midterms is the best path forward.

“The president has been very clear that he’s going to do everything he can, that he has the legal authority to do, from here in the executive side,” she said. “But we believe and he believes that the way that Roe goes into law or gets codified is if Congress acts. … And so we have to continue to use our political capital, if you will, to fight as hard as we can. And to make sure we do the work that we need to have pro-choice congressional members.”

Under increasing pressure, Biden will take executive action Friday to protect access to abortion, three people familiar with the situation said. They spoke anonymously to discuss his plans before they were announced.

Still, Biden is turning to governors. He convened a virtual roundtable last Friday with Pritzker, Hochul and seven other Democratic governors to discuss what steps were being taken in their states to protect abortion rights.

Biden reiterated that his administration will protect the rights of women to travel to other states for abortion services and ensure that abortion medication is available as widely as possible. But he acknowledged he didn’t have votes in the U.S. Senate for more sweeping actions and laid out the stakes for November’s elections and the need to increase Democrats’ majorities.

“In the meantime, I want to hear what the governors are doing,” he said.

With their reelections essentially secure, the aggressive action from some of the governors is sparking speculation about potential future presidential campaigns.

Pritzker, a billionaire businessman seeking his second term, raised chatter about a possible presidential bid when he spoke last month at the state Democratic party convention in New Hampshire, one of the early presidential nominating states. He has said he is focused on his job as governor and his reelection bid.

Newsom drew even more attention by running a television ad on Independence Day in Florida that was critical of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a potential 2024 presidential candidate. In the ad, which features images of DeSantis and former President Donald Trump, Newsom warns viewers that “freedom is under attack in your state.”

“I urge all of you living in Florida to join the fight. Or join us in California, where we still believe in freedom — freedom of speech, freedom to choose, freedom from hate and the freedom to love,” Newsom said.

___

Associated Press writers Sara Burnett in Chicago and Michael R. Blood in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

source