Former U.S. Capitol Police officers Michael Fanone and Harry Dunn, who were overwhelmed by the mob at the Capitol on Jan. 6, are interviewed during former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan Criminal Court on May 28, 2024 in New York City. Closing arguments were under way. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — Closing arguments in the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president concluded Tuesday, leaving the jury to now decide if Donald Trump is guilty of faking reimbursement to his personal lawyer for hush money paid to a porn star just before the 2016 presidential election.

Just outside the Lower Manhattan courthouse during summations, the campaign to reelect President Joe Biden  held a press conference featuring actor Robert DeNiro and two former U.S. Capitol Police officers who were overwhelmed by the angry mob of Trump supporters who stormed the building on Jan. 6, 2021.

DeNiro bickered with a heckler and the Trump campaign then followed with its own press conference.

The trial’s final day of arguments wrapped up after nearly eight hours of closing arguments, during which the defense portrayed Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen as the “M.V.P. of liars” and Trump as a victim of extortion and too busy a leader in 2017 to understand the payments to Cohen.

Meanwhile, the prosecution walked jurors through excruciating details of events and witness testimony to show that Trump’s objective, along with those in his orbit, was to “hoodwink the American voter” leading up to the 2016 election, according to reporters at the courthouse.

New York does not allow recording in the courtroom but provides public transcripts of the proceedings. States Newsroom covered the trial in person on May 20.

Trump, the presumed 2024 Republican presidential nominee, is charged with 34 felonies, one for each of the 11 invoices, 11 checks, and 12 ledger entries that New York state prosecutors allege were cooked-up as routine “legal expenses,” hiding what were really reimbursements to Cohen for paying off adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Daniels, also an adult film director, testified in early May to a 2006 sexual encounter at a Lake Tahoe golf tournament with Trump, which he maintains never happened.

Cohen, the prosecution’s key witness, later told the jurors that he wired Daniels $130,000 to secure her signature on a nondisclosure agreement in late October 2016, and that Trump was aware.

Cohen’s payment swiftly followed the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Trump was recorded telling a TV host that his fame allows him to grab women by the genitals.

The revelation spun Trump’s campaign into a frenzy over possibly losing women voters, additional witnesses testified.

Further, Cohen testified that Trump was present during conversations to hatch a plan with the Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to repay Cohen under the guise of “legal expenses.” Cohen would eventually receive a grossed-up sum of $420,000 to account for a bonus and taxes.

The hush money trial, which began in mid-April, is likely the only one to occur prior to the November election. Three other criminal cases against the former president, two federal and one in Georgia, remain stalled.

Throughout the six-week trial, jurors heard from nearly two dozen witnesses called by the prosecution to establish Trump’s history of working to suppress negative stories.

David Pecker, former National Enquirer publisher, testified to coordinating with Trump and Cohen earlier in 2016 to pay off former Playboy model Karen McDougal and bury her story of an alleged affair with Trump.

In his closing statements, Trump attorney Todd Blanche addressed the jury for nearly three hours, arguing that Trump made no such effort to influence the 2016 election by “unlawful means.”

Blanche told the jurors to put the idea of a conspiracy aside, emphasizing that the existence of a nondisclosure agreement is “not a crime.” Working with editors to buy sources’ silence and bury stories was routine, Blanche said.

“Every campaign in this country is a conspiracy,” he told the jurors, according to reporters at the courthouse.

While no hard contract existed between Trump and Cohen at the time, Blanche argued that the two had entered into an “oral” retainer agreement, and that Cohen was lying about how much work he was actually doing for Trump.

By the time Trump reached the Oval Office and personally signed nine of the 11 checks for Cohen, the then-president was too busy “running the country” to realize what he was signing, Blanche said.

As for the classification of the payments on the ledger, Blanche argued that the Trump Organization’s software featured limited dropdown menu categories, and that “legal expenses” was one of the options.

Blanche’s closing statements were largely dominated by his effort to persuade jurors that Cohen’s testimony could not be trusted.

“There is no way that you can find that President Trump knew about this payment at the time it was made without believing the words of Michael Cohen — period,” Blanche told the jurors, according to reporters in the courtroom.

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 for lying to Congress.

Using another sports metaphor, Blanche told jurors that Cohen is the “G.L.O.A.T.”

“He’s literally the greatest liar of all time,” Blanche said.

He closed by urging the jurors to not send Trump “to prison” based on Cohen’s testimony.

Justice Juan Merchan admonished Blanche for mentioning prison, pointing out that a guilty verdict does not necessarily mean prison time. Merchan told the jurors to disregard that “improper” comment, according to reporters at the courthouse.

‘The only one who’s paid the price’

For just under five hours, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass led jurors through his closing argument, clocking the longest day of the trial.

Steinglass started off by telling them the prosecution only needs to prove the following: There were false business records used as part of the conspiracy and that Trump knew about them.

Steinglass reviewed earlier evidence presented to the jury — phone records, handwritten notes, recorded phone conversations and checks bearing Trump’s own signature. He also recalled the damning testimony of several Trump allies, including Pecker, the publisher.

“The conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election — you don’t need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit,” Steinglass said, according to reporters at the courthouse.

Steinglass leaned into Cohen’s seedy past, including his lying to Congress and his jail time for campaign finance violations related to hush money payments to women who alleged extramarital affairs with Trump.

These actions, he said, were taken on Trump’s behalf to defend and shield him; the irony, Steinglass said, is now they are being used against Cohen, again, to protect Trump.

Cohen transformed from a loyal Trump ally into a bitter foe who has published books titled “Disloyal” and “Revenge,” and produces a podcast called “Mea Culpa” on which he regularly lambastes Trump.

Cohen is “understandably angry that to date, he’s the only one who’s paid the price for his role in this conspiracy,” Blanche told the jurors, according to reporters, who noted Trump was shaking his head.

Steinglass attempted to humanize Cohen for the jurors, telling them one can “hardly blame” the former fixer — who now has a criminal record and no law license — for selling merchandise including t-shirts depicting Trump in an orange prison jumpsuit.

Steinglass also refuted the defense’s argument that Trump’s actions ahead of the 2016 were routine, describing the National Enquirer as “a covert arm” of the Trump campaign and “the very antithesis of a normal legitimate press function.”

“Everything Mr. Trump and his cohorts did in this case was cloaked in lies,” Steinglass said nearing the end of his closing statement. “The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead to the man who benefited the most, Donald Trump.”

On the sidewalk just outside the New York County Supreme Court, the Biden campaign deployed DeNiro, the voice of the latest campaign ad, and former U.S. Capitol Police officers Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone. The officers are campaigning for Biden in battleground states, the campaign said in a press release.

The campaign’s Michael Tyler, communications director, introduced the trio and said they were not in Manhattan because of the trial proceedings, but rather because that’s where the media is concentrated.

Loud protesters, whom DeNiro called “crazy,” competed with the speakers.

“Donald Trump has created this,” DeNiro said, pointing to the demonstrators. “He wants to sow total chaos, which he’s succeeding in some areas … I love this city, and I don’t want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy, not only this city, but the country, and eventually he could destroy the world.”

“These guys are the true heroes,” De Niro said, pointing to Dunn and Fanone behind him. “They stood and put their lives on the line for these low lives, for Trump.”

A protester then interrupted DeNiro to call the officers “traitors.”

“I don’t even know how to deal with you, my friend,” DeNiro snapped back during the livestreamed event.

Both Dunn and Fanone testified two years ago before lawmakers investigating the violent mob that overran the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as Congress gathered for a joint session to certify Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory. Trump still falsely claims he won the election.

Trump’s campaign immediately followed with its own press conference.

Jason Miller, senior adviser to Trump, held up Tuesday’s copy of the New York Post bearing the headline “Nothing to Bragg About,” a play on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s name.

“Everybody knows this case is complete garbage,” Miller said. “President Trump did nothing wrong. This is all politics.”

On Trump’s social media platform Truth Social, the former president posted “BORING!” in all capital letters during a break in the Steinglass summation.

Late Monday, Trump posted in all caps a complaint about the order in which closing arguments would occur — a routine, well-established series of remarks in trials.

“WHY IS THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT ALLOWED TO MAKE THE FINAL ARGUMENT IN THE CASE AGAINST ME? WHY CAN’T THE DEFENSE GO LAST? BIG ADVANTAGE, VERY UNFAIR. WITCH HUNT!” he wrote.

The post The jury now will decide Trump’s fate in hush money trial, after lengthy closing arguments appeared first on Nevada Current.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, flanked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, left, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, speaks during a news conference to support a border security bill on Wednesday, May 22, 2024. The bill failed on a procedural vote Thursday. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate failed Thursday to advance a border security bill as both parties seek to hone their messages on immigration policy in the runup to November’s elections.

The Senate bill failed to advance on a 43-50 procedural vote. The chamber already rejected the measure as part of a broader foreign aid package earlier this year. The bill, negotiated with the White House and a bipartisan trio of senators in the hopes of winning broad appeal, would have overhauled immigration law for the first time in more than 30 years.

Two of the border deal’s chief Senate negotiators, Oklahoma Republican James Lankford and Arizona independent Kyrsten Sinema, voted against advancing the measure Thursday, protesting what they said was an unserious process focused on political optics. The bill’s third major sponsor, Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy, voted in favor.

The procedural vote to advance to debate on the bill came as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer aimed to contrast Democrats’ approach to immigration policy with Republicans’ ahead of the November elections. The issue continues to rise as a top concern for voters and remains a core campaign theme for the GOP and its presumptive presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Both chambers are readying other votes seemingly aimed at highlighting election themes.

The Democratic-led Senate is teeing up votes as early as next month on access to contraceptives, and protections for in vitro fertilization, or IVF, as Democrats have continued to campaign on the issue of reproductive rights.

The Republican-controlled House is moving forward with immigration related legislation, such as barring noncitizens from voting in federal elections, something that is rare and already illegal, as the GOP continues to highlight its disagreements with the White House over immigration policy.

Shortly after the Senate vote, President Joe Biden in a statement said Senate Republicans “put partisan politics ahead of our country’s national security.”

“Congressional Republicans do not care about securing the border or fixing America’s broken immigration system,” he said. “If they did, they would have voted for the toughest border enforcement in history.”

Losing support

The border security bill, S.4361, received fewer votes Thursday as a standalone bill than it had as part of the larger foreign aid package in February, when it failed on a 49-50 procedural vote. Sixty votes are needed to advance bills in the Senate.

The bill did not get all Democrats on board, which Schumer acknowledged earlier this week was a possibility.

“We do not expect every Democrat or every Republican to come out in favor of this bill,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “The only way to pass this bill – or any border bill – is with broad bipartisan support.”

But the bill failed to attract that broad support, losing backing even from Democrats who’d voted for the foreign aid package.

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker said in a Wednesday statement that while he voted for the larger package in early February – mostly because it included critical aid to Ukraine – he would not do so this time around because the bill was too restrictive.

“I will not vote for the bill coming to the Senate floor this week because it includes several provisions that will violate Americans’ shared values,” Booker said. “The proposed bill would exclude people fleeing violence and persecution from seeking asylum and instead doubles down on failed anti-immigrant policies that encourage irregular immigration.”

‘Another cynical, political game’

Democratic senators who voted against moving the bill forward included Alex Padilla and Laphonza Butler of California, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Booker. Independents Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sinema also voted against.

Sinema said she voted against advancing her own bill because she felt Democrats were using her bill to “point the finger back at the other party.”

“Yet another cynical, political game,” she said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the only Republican to vote to advance the bill after Lankford voted against the bill he helped write.

Lankford said Thursday’s vote was “a prop.”

“Everyone sees this for what it is,” he said. “It is not an actual effort to make law, it is an effort to do political messaging.”

Padilla, who voted against the larger package, said on the Senate floor Thursday that he was disappointed Democrats were voting on the bill again because it did not address the root causes of migration or create lawful pathways to citizenship for children brought into the U.S. without authorization known as Dreamers, farmworkers, and noncitizens who have been in the country for decades.

He urged other Democrats to vote no.

“The proposal before us was initially supposed to be a concession, a ransom to be paid to Republicans to pass urgent and critical aid to Ukraine,” Padilla said. “What’s this concession for now? It’s hard to swallow.”

Senate Republicans accused Democrats of bringing the bill as a political stunt.

“One thing the American people don’t have to wonder about is why Washington Democrats are suddenly champing at the bit to convince their constituents that they care about border security,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said on the Senate floor Thursday. “(Americans) know the solution is not cynical Senate theater.”

Biden called McConnell and House Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday night to ask them to vote for the bill, but both Republican leaders rejected that appeal.

First vote

Lankford, Sinema and Murphy introduced the bill earlier this year, optimistic that months of bipartisan negotiations could lead to the first immigration policy overhaul in decades.

But Trump opposed the measure, and after those senators released the legislative text, House Republicans said they would fall in line with the former president. Senate Republicans then walked away from the deal they had said would be needed in order for passage of a supplemental foreign aid package to Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific region.

The sweeping border security bill would have raised the bar for migrants claiming asylum, clarified the White House’s parole authority, ended the practice of allowing migrants to live in U.S. communities as they await their asylum hearings, and given Biden the executive authority to close the southern border when asylum claims reached high levels, among other things. 

Dueling messages

The day leading up to Thursday’s vote, Senate Democrats and Republicans held dueling press conferences on the bill.

Democrats, including Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, argued that the bill negotiated earlier in the year would address the fentanyl crisis by providing new scanning technology at ports of entry and increasing staffing for custom agents.

Stabenow said she’s tired of Senate Republicans saying that “‘somebody should do something about the border,’” and that Thursday’s vote would give them an opportunity to address the southern border.

She was joined by Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, who talked about how many people in their states had died from fentanyl overdoses.

Republicans in their press conference argued that Democrats were holding a second vote to protect vulnerable incumbents in competitive races in Montana, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

“It is an election-year political stunt designed to give our Democratic colleagues the appearance of doing something about this problem without doing anything,” Tennessee GOP Sen. Marsha Blackburn said Wednesday.

She was joined by Republican Sens. Roger Marshall of Kansas, Rick Scott of Florida, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, John Coryn of Texas, J.D. Vance of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

House opposition

Even if the border security bill passed the Senate, it would have no chance in the House, where Johnson has vowed it will be dead on arrival.

The Louisiana Republican in a Wednesday press conference called the measure a messaging bill and said Schumer was “trying to give his vulnerable members cover.”

And not all House Democrats were on board with the bill negotiated out of the Senate.

The chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state and the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Nanette Barragán of California, slammed Senate Democrats for putting forth the legislation and urged them to abandon the effort.

“We are disappointed that the Senate will once again vote on an already-failed border bill in a move that only splits the Democratic Caucus over extreme and unworkable enforcement-only policies,” they wrote in a statement.

“This framework, which was constructed under Republican hostage-taking, does nothing to address the longstanding updates needed to modernize our outdated immigration system, create more legal pathways, and recognize the enormous contributions of immigrants to communities and our economy.”

Latino Democrats also voiced opposition to the bill when it was first released because it contained many hard-line policies that were reminiscent of the Trump administration.

The post Bipartisan border bill loses support, fails procedural vote in U.S. Senate appeared first on Nevada Current.

“Congress has been complicit and made itself a feckless branch of the federal government by granting the president so many emergency powers and refusing to regularly vote on termination of national emergencies as required by current law,” said Republican Sen. Rand Paul.

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — Senators from both political parties at a Wednesday hearing appeared to be on the same page about limiting presidential emergency powers, striking a bipartisan agreement that Congress should take steps this year to rework a decades-old law.

The National Emergencies Act, approved during the 94th Congress, provides the president with powers they wouldn’t otherwise have and was intended to give lawmakers oversight of those emergencies.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, said there are “common sense reforms that would strengthen Congress’ role in exercising oversight of these emergency powers.”

Peters said he looks forward to collaborating with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, ranking member on the committee, as the panel works “diligently to make that happen in the coming months.”

“Reforming the National Emergencies Act is not about thwarting the policy goals of either party,” Peters said. “It’s about strengthening our democracy and ensuring Congress maintains the responsibility to oversee executive power.”

‘Dangerous imbalance’

Paul said the current structure of the 1976 law, which was affected by a Supreme Court ruling in the 1980s, creates a “dangerous imbalance of constitutional separations of powers.”

“Congress has been complicit and made itself a feckless branch of the federal government by granting the president so many emergency powers and refusing to regularly vote on termination of national emergencies as required by current law,” he said.

Paul said he hoped the hearing marked the beginning “of a serious and sustained effort to restore the Constitution, reclaim the authority of Congress and protect the liberties of the people by paring back the vast emergency powers delegated to the president.”

Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, testified there are 43 emergency declarations under the National Emergencies Act in place today, out of 79 total declarations.

That is especially concerning, Goitein said, because “an emergency declaration unlocks powers contained in more than 130 statutory provisions, and some of these carry enormous potential for abuse.”

One emergency power allows the president to take over or shut down wire or radio services, a process last used during World War II when that applied to telephones and telegrams that weren’t in many American homes, she said.

“Today, it could arguably be used to exert control over U.S.-based internet traffic,” Goitein said. “Other laws allow the president to freeze Americans’ assets without any judicial process, to control domestic transportation and even to suspend the prohibition on government testing of chemical and biological agents on unwitting human subjects.”

It would be “irresponsible” of Congress to continue hoping for “presidential self-restraint” to ensure that an executive doesn’t take their emergency powers too far, she testified.

Trump border wall emergency 

Former President Donald Trump, Goitein said, “opened the door to abusing statutory emergency powers when he declared a national emergency to secure funding for the border wall after Congress had refused to provide that funding.”

“President (Joe) Biden nudged the door open a little bit more when he relied on emergency powers to forgive student loan debt,” she added. “Again, after Congress had considered legislation to forgive debt and had not passed that legislation.”

There are several proposals that would require Congress to approve a president’s emergency declaration within 30 days, otherwise it would terminate. And even if a president received congressional approval, they would have to go back to lawmakers a year later to renew the emergency, Goitein said.

Gene Healy, senior vice president for policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, testified that it is “remarkable that we haven’t seen far greater abuses” of presidential emergency powers under the National Emergencies Act.

Congress should “reset” how emergency powers work by “sunsetting presidential emergency declarations after a matter of weeks and requiring actual authorization from Congress to extend them further,” Healy testified.

Lawmakers should review what emergency powers were granted to presidents under the nearly 50-year-old law and take away any that wouldn’t be necessary during a true emergency or that “are especially susceptible to abuse,” he said.

Satya Thallam, senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation and a former senior staff member for the panel, said “the sweet spot for any reform is one that is on its face policy neutral and designed to service only the interests of Congress’ lawmaking role vis-à-vis the president, rather than any particular political agenda.”

The Foundation for American Innovation writes on its website that it was established in 2014 in Silicon Valley as Lincoln Labs. Its mission “is to develop technology, talent, and ideas that support a better, freer, and more abundant future.”

Disruption of peaceful transfer of power

In response to a question from Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff about how a president could disrupt a peaceful transition of power, Goitein reluctantly testified that she was concerned about the Insurrection Act, which exists outside of the National Emergencies Act.

“The Insurrection Act is a law that allows the president to deploy federal military troops to quell civil unrest or to execute the law in crisis,” she said. “It gives the president extremely broad and judicially unreviewable discretion to deploy troops in ways that could certainly be abused.”

Healy said it would be “prudent” for Congress to “tighten up” the authorities that a president holds under the Insurrection Act.

Paul said he was fully supportive of re-working the Insurrection Act to avoid potential abuses by presidents.

“The Insurrection Act is a thousand times more potent and has the potential for turning the place into, you know, military rule overnight,” Paul said, adding that he’s introduced a bill that would bar presidents from sending the military anywhere without the explicit approval of Congress.

“Our soldiers are great, but they’re not trained to obey the Fourth Amendment, our police are. And even that’s imperfect,” Paul said. “But our police know about the Fourth Amendment. They know they have to get warrants. Armies don’t get warrants.”

Paul said any changes to the Insurrection Act must be “more strict” than changes to the National Emergencies Act, “because you’re talking about putting troops in our cities.”

Paul also said the committee should look closely at the emergency power that could allow a president to essentially turn off the internet during a national emergency, referring to that as the internet kill switch.

“You could become dictator in a day, in a moment, in one executive order,” Paul said.

The post Wide scope of presidential emergency powers could be reined in by Congress this year appeared first on Nevada Current.

The PACT Act added 23 illnesses to the list of toxic-exposure-related ailments presumed to be connected to military service. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden is set to announce in New Hampshire on Tuesday that 1 million claims have been granted for benefits under the toxic exposure law that Congress approved less than two years ago, following the military’s use of open air burn pits in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The law, approved with broad bipartisan support following years of advocacy by veterans, their families and service organizations, has also led to more than 145,000 people enrolling in health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough told reporters on a call ahead of the announcement that the law has made “tangible, life-changing differences for” veterans and their survivors.

“That has meant more than $5.7 billion in earned benefits for veterans as well as access to no-cost VA health care across all 50 states and the territories,” McDonough said.

White House Domestic Policy Advisor Neera Tanden said during the call that the law, known as the PACT Act, “represents the most significant expansion of benefits and services for toxic-exposed veterans, including veterans exposed to burn pits and certain veterans exposed to radiation and Agent Orange.”

“This is truly personal for the president given his experiences as a military parent,” Tanden said. Biden’s son, Beau, died at 46 years old in 2015 from brain cancer.

The approval rate for benefits under the PACT Act is about 75%, according to a senior administration official.

Biden is set to make the announcement during a trip to Merrimack, New Hampshire.

Congress struggled for years before reaching a compromise on when and how to provide health care and benefits for veterans exposed to open air burn pits during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hazardous chemicals, medical waste, batteries and other toxic substances were disposed of in those burn pits, typically located on military bases. Service members had no choice but to live and work alongside the smoke, often breathing it in.

The law added 23 illnesses to the list of conditions that the VA presumes are connected to military service, eliminating the arduous and complicated process that many veterans had to undergo to try to get health care and benefits for those diagnoses.

Before the bill became law, veterans often had to prove to the VA that their illnesses were connected to their military service if they wanted to receive benefits or health care for those illnesses.

The U.S. Senate voted 84-14 in June 2022 to send the legislation to the House, where it was delayed for weeks over a dispute about incentivizing health care providers to move to rural or very rural areas.

The bill passed the House following a 342-88 vote in July, after that section was removed from the package. Senators voted 86-11 in August to send the bill to Biden’s desk.

The president signed the bill during a ceremony on Aug. 10.

“When they came home, many of the fittest and best warriors that we sent to war were not the same,” Biden said during the event. “Headaches, numbness, dizziness, cancer. My son Beau was one of them.”

The VA has an interactive dashboard that provides veterans with information about how to apply for health care and benefits under the PACT Act as well as how many claims have been submitted. The VA has a calendar of in-person events that can be found here. Veterans or their family members can also call the VA at 800-698-2411 to inquire about PACT Act benefits.

The post Biden to announce 1 million claims granted for VA benefits under toxic exposure law appeared first on Nevada Current.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, conducted an analysis of election conduct from 2003 to 2023 and found 29 instances of noncitizens voting nationwide over that 20 year period. (Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — Republicans on the U.S. House Administration Committee argued at a Thursday hearing that there is a need for legislative action to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections — even though voting by noncitizens in federal elections is extremely rare and already illegal.

“American elections are for American citizens and we intend to keep it that way,” the chair of the committee, Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, said in his opening remarks.

House Democrats said Republicans were laying the groundwork to instill mistrust in voting ahead of the November elections, drawing parallels to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol when then-President Donald Trump encouraged supporters to block certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

“MAGA extremists are laying the groundwork to overturn the 2024 presidential election,” the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, said in his opening remarks, using an acronym that is shorthand for Trump supporters.

Noncitizens are barred from voting in federal elections but they can vote in local elections if a local law is passed allowing them to do so. Certain municipalities in California, Maryland and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia, allow noncitizens to participate in local elections.

As the November elections approach, Republicans have taken aim at noncitizen voting, and have made immigration policy a campaign issue. Trump, who is the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, has also made the issue a central campaign theme.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana helped unveil legislation last week to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections, something that is already illegal.

Steil said that municipalities allowing noncitizens to vote “reduces confidence in our elections.” He specifically called out Washington, D.C., for allowing noncitizens to partake in its elections.

“Washington, D.C., is setting a new standard that could soon be applied across the country,” Steil said.

“This causes a host of problems for a state to maintain (a) clean voter registration list,” Steil argued.

Researchers and studies have often disproved that noncitizens cast ballots in federal elections. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, conducted an analysis of election conduct from 2003 to 2023 and found 29 instances of noncitizens voting.

Republicans on the committee advocated for the election-related bill, H.R. 8281, that Johnson promoted on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. The bill, sponsored by Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy, would require states to verify proof of citizenship to prevent noncitizens from voting in federal elections, which is already a felony.

Oklahoma GOP Rep. Stephanie Bice argued that jurisdictions that allow noncitizens to vote should have a separate voter roll. She asked one of the witnesses, Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, if there should be a federal law to require states to separate voter rolls. Von Spakovsky agreed with the idea.

Bice said that the biggest issue she has with localities allowing noncitizens to vote is that “the voter rolls are not being cleaned up.”

The Roy bill would require states to remove voters from rolls who do not prove their citizenship.

Georgia GOP Rep. Barry Loudermilk argued that Americans care about elections. When noncitizens are allowed to vote, “we undermine and undercut the value of each and every vote,” he said.

Washington state Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer said that bill would impact eligible voters, including members of the 12 tribes in his district. He said when tribal members vote, they use tribal enrollment cards, which “don’t necessarily contain information about citizenship.”

Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell of Alabama said the legislation would also make it harder for eligible voters — especially voters of color — to cast their ballots. She asked the witness tapped by Democrats, Michael Waldman, the president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, about Republican claims of “widespread voter fraud” when it comes to noncitizens voting.

“Overwhelmingly, our (election) system is secure,” Waldman said.

Waldman said that it’s “an urban myth,” that there is a high number of noncitizens voting in federal elections and warned that “this year, the big lie is being pre-deployed.”

He said that those who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential elections are now more organized and trying to “set the stage for challenging the legitimacy of elections.”

He added the rhetoric about many noncitizens voting was also used in 2020 by Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, who lost his D.C. and New York law license over false claims that there were tens of thousands of noncitizens in Arizona who voted in the presidential election.

“Lies, I should note, that were repeated by President Trump on the Ellipse as he sent the crowd up to the Capitol,” Waldman said. “This was not the central argument then, but it is now.”

The post U.S. House panel debates voting by noncitizens, which is already illegal appeared first on Nevada Current.

Missouri Republican U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, May 15, 2024. Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall stands at the left and Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson is on the right. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected efforts to roll back guidance from the Treasury Department regarding how state and local governments can spend funding approved by Congress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 46-49 vote on the Congressional Review Act resolution ended an attempt by several GOP senators to block the Biden administration from changing the definition of “obligation” as it relates to State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds and the timeline for spending some of that money.

Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt said during floor debate that the Treasury Department’s change in guidance, which was released in November, was trying to “pull a fast one” on Congress.

“Treasury’s attempted sleight of hand to keep the COVID spending spigot on is an insult to Congress and those who believe in our Constitution, as well as a complete misuse of taxpayer dollars,” Schmitt said.

The fund for state and local governments, Schmitt said, was intended to assist with “revenue shortfalls tied to the COVID-19 pandemic” and the law clearly stated that “all costs incurred with money from this fund must be incurred by Dec. 31, 2024.”

The interim final rule that the Treasury Department released around Thanksgiving extended that deadline by two years for “administrative and legal costs, such as compliance costs and internal control requirements,” he said.

“This rule ensures that funding does not go to bridges or broadband, but to bureaucrats,” Schmitt said.

Projects affected in multiple states

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden spoke against the CRA resolution during floor debate, saying it could have impacted 17 projects in Georgia, 160 in Michigan, 342 in Ohio, 50 in Arizona, 404 in Montana and 73 in West Virginia.

“Nationwide there could be thousands of projects closed. Tens or even hundreds of jobs lost,” Wyden said. “This one is one of the most unusual votes that I’ve seen recently, a true head scratcher.”

Wyden said he didn’t “see a good reason for the United States Senate to backtrack on solid, bipartisan progress and have this chamber act in a way that leaves more of our nation’s infrastructure in a state of disrepair.”

Schmitt said during a press conference before the vote that the claim the CRA resolution would have impacted projects already underway was a lie.

“Essentially the obligations that are committed before the end of 2024, according to existing law, will be honored,” Schmitt said. “What this says is that you can’t extend that out into ‘25 and ‘26. That was never the congressional intent here.”

Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, also speaking at the GOP press conference, said the CRA resolution would claw back about $13 billion and went as far as calling it “illegal spending.”

“The clock is going to run out, but Joe Biden is trying to circumvent the law once again,” Marshall said, adding that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and spending from those laws needs to wind down.

Counties, cities opposed

Schmitt introduced the two-page CRA resolution in February along with Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Braun of Indiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Marshall and Rick Scott of Florida.

The National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities and the Government Finance Officers Association urged lawmakers to vote against the CRA in a written statement released Wednesday before the vote.

“The $350 billion SLFRF provided $65.1 billion to every city and county in America, and since 2021, localities have used these crucial resources to meet the unique needs of residents and support long-term economic prosperity,” the statement read.

The three organizations wrote that the Treasury Department’s interim final rule “recognized the importance of flexibility in facilitating the effective rollout of recovery funds, including our ability to use funds for certain personnel costs and to re-obligate funds where necessary.”

The White House released a Statement of Administration Policy on Wednesday, saying that President Joe Biden would veto the CRA had it reached his desk.

The CRA resolution, it said, “could result in projects being canceled midstream, reduced project management and oversight, and higher costs as state and local governments are forced to contract out programs.”

“Nearly all SLFRF funds have been committed to projects, including infrastructure and disaster relief projects made eligible by bipartisan legislation,” the SAP read. “S.J. Res. 57 would create unnecessary uncertainty for recipients that are executing on projects, jeopardize important work underway, and inappropriately constrain Treasury’s ability to address ongoing implementation issues.”

The post U.S. Senate GOP tries to block states from spending some of their COVID relief cash appeared first on Nevada Current.

Donald Trump, then president, answers a question as Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, listens during the second and final presidential debate at Belmont University on Oct. 22, 2020 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Photo by Morry Gash-Pool/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — CNN announced on Wednesday morning that it will host a debate between President Joe Biden and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump at the network’s Atlanta studios on June 27.

CNN said there would be no audience present for the debate and moderators will be announced later.

A second debate will be hosted by ABC News on Sept. 10 in which both candidates have agreed to partake, according to ABC News. 

Biden earlier Wednesday had called for two debates to be held before early voting for the November election begins — and Trump responded that he would do it.

On X, formerly Twitter, Biden wrote that he had accepted an invitation from CNN for a debate on June 27.

“Over to you, Donald,” Biden wrote. “As you said: anywhere, any time, any place.”

Trump has also accepted to participate in the June debate, according to CNN.

Biden started Wednesday’s exchanges over debates when he wrote to the Commission on Presidential Debates saying he would not agree to a three-debate schedule laid out earlier by the nonpartisan organization, which has been organizing presidential debates since the 1980s. The first would have been Sept. 16.

“President Joe Biden believes the interests of the American people are best served by presidential debates that offer timely and relevant information to help inform voters before they make their choices — and that allow a head-to-head comparison of the two candidates with a chance of winning the election,” Jen O’Malley Dillon, the chair for the Biden campaign, wrote in a letter to the commission.

Trump then accepted Biden’s proposed debates, one in June and another in September, on his social media site, Truth Social. “I am Ready and Willing to Debate Crooked Joe at the two proposed times in June and September,” Trump wrote.

“Crooked Joe Biden is the WORST debater I have ever faced – He can’t put two sentences together!,” he also wrote.

Trump added that he wants to debate with Biden on immigration policy, electric vehicles, inflation, taxes and foreign policy. He also called for more than two debates.

In a response to the Biden campaign, the Trump campaign is also proposing additional debates in June, July, August and September.

“Additional dates will allow voters to have maximum exposure to the records and future visions of each candidate,” the Trump campaign wrote.

Breaking with precedent

By notifying the Commission on Presidential Debates that the president would not partake in its debates, the Biden campaign broke precedent and instead said that news organizations should host the debates.

The Biden campaign proposed that the hosting broadcast news organizations be any that held a Republican primary debate in 2016 that Trump participated in and any news organization that hosted a Democratic primary debate in which Biden participated in 2020.

That is so that “neither campaign can assert that the sponsoring organization is obviously unacceptable,” according to the letter.

The campaign proposed that the first debate be held in late June, “after Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial is likely to be over and after President Biden returns from meeting with world leaders at the G7 Summit.”

The second debate should be at the start of early September, the campaign argued, so that it is “early enough to influence early voting, but not so late as to require the candidates to leave the campaign trail in the critical late September and October period.”

The Biden campaign is also proposing that a vice presidential debate be held in late July, after the GOP nominee and running mate are selected at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

One unknown is whether an independent candidate such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might also qualify for debates.

CNN said in a press release that to qualify for participation in its debate, ”a candidate’s name must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency prior to the eligibility deadline; agree to accept the rules and format of the debate; and receive at least 15% in four separate national polls of registered or likely voters that meet CNN’s standards for reporting.”

The statement added that acceptable polls will include those sponsored by: CNN, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, Marquette University Law School, Monmouth University, NBC News, the New York Times/Siena College, NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College, Quinnipiac University, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.

“The polling window to determine eligibility for the debate opened March 13, 2024, and closes seven days before the date of the debate,” the statement said.

The post CNN sets first Biden-Trump presidential debate for June 27 in Atlanta appeared first on Nevada Current.

Nevada Rep. Susie Lee and Sen. Jacky Rosen, both Democrats, are listed in the analysis from the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University which ranks members of Congress on bipartisanship. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — Two Nevadans, both Democrats, were among the most bipartisan members of Congress last year, according to a newly released analysis.

Jacky Rosen ranked as the 6th most bipartisan senator, and Susie Lee ranked as the 7th most bipartisan member of the House, according to rankings compiled by the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. Both are are running for reelection in what are expected to be close races.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick were the most bipartisan members of Congress last year.

“I’m proud to be recognized as one of the top 10 most bipartisan senators for the third year in a row for my work with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to help lower costs, support our state’s economy, and protect our national security,” said Rosen in a statement.

“I’ll always put our state first, above politics and party loyalty, to see that Nevadans get ahead,” added Rosen, who has run campaign ads this year touting her willingness to vote with Republicans.

“Hardworking families in southern Nevada care less about political parties and more about common sense solutions,” Lee said in a statement.“I’m proud to have been named Nevada’s most bipartisan Member of Congress and one of the top ten most bipartisan lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives. I will continue working with my Republican colleagues to help Nevada’s families, small businesses, seniors, and veterans.”

Nevada’s other senator, Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto was ranked the 34th most bipartisan of the 100 senators. Among the other three members of Nevada’s House delegation, Democrat Dina Titus ranked 94th, Republican Mark Amodei ranked 147th, and Democrat Steven Horsford ranked 368th.

The least bipartisan House lawmaker was Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, while Alabama’s Katie Britt, a Republican freshman, placed last among senators.

The latest ranking of the most bipartisan lawmakers comes amid one of the least productive Congresses in the nation’s history and just months before nearly all House lawmakers and about one-third of the Senate face voters at the polls in November.

Maria Cancian, dean of the McCourt School of Public Policy, wrote in a statement announcing the new rankings that “while there is much room for improvement, I am encouraged to see some progress on cross-party collaboration.”

“In these deeply divided times, and with an increasing amount of misleading information online, we need tools like the Bipartisan Index more than ever — an evidence-based and nonpartisan approach for measuring how well policymakers work across the aisle to get things done,” Cancian wrote.

Lugar Center Policy Director Dan Diller wrote that it was “especially disheartening that all eight new Senators who took office in January 2023 ranked in the bottom 30 percent of Senate scores.”

“Bipartisan cooperation on legislation in 2023 was deficient by historical standards, though there were some marginal improvements in scores from the previous Congress,” Diller wrote.

The website with the rankings states that the “Bipartisan Index is intended to fill a hole in the information available to the public about the performance of Members of Congress.”

The Lugar Center, founded by the late U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, “is a platform for informed debate and analysis of global issues, including nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, global food security, foreign assistance effectiveness and global development, energy security, and enhancing bipartisan governance,” according to its website.

The rankings take into consideration “the frequency with which a member of Congress sponsors bills that are co-sponsored by at least one member of the opposing party” and “the frequency with which a member co-sponsors bills introduced by members of the opposite Party.”

Hugh Jackson contributed to this report.

The post Rosen, Lee make list of most bipartisan members of Congress appeared first on Nevada Current.

A sales representative shows prospective customers a BYD Dolphin electric car at a BYD dealership on April 05, 2024 in Berlin, Germany. BYD, which stands for Build Your Dreams, is a Chinese manufacturer that went from making solar panels to electric cars. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is doubling and in some cases tripling tariffs on Chinese-made products, like steel and electric vehicles, in a move aimed at easing economic pain in battleground states, though senior administration officials say it isn’t political.

National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard told reporters on a call Monday ahead of the announcement that the steep increase to several tariffs would help address the Chinese government “flooding global markets with exports that are underpriced due to unfair practices.”

“We know China’s unfair practices have harmed communities in Michigan and Pennsylvania and around the country that are now having the opportunity to come back due to President Biden’s investment agenda,” Brainard said, mentioning two crucial swing states ahead of November’s election.

President Joe Biden’s decision to increase several tariffs, Brainard said, ensures “that American businesses and workers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in industries that are vital to our future, such as clean energy and semiconductors.”

Here are the tariffs that will increase and when the White House will implement those changes:

• Steel and aluminum will move from a 7.5% tariff to a 25% tariff this year.
• Semiconductor tariffs will rise from 25% to 50% before 2025.
• Electric vehicle tariffs will increase from 25% to 100% this year.
• Batteries: The tariff on lithium-ion EV batteries and battery parts will rise from 7.5% to 25% in 2024. The tariff on lithium-ion non-EV batteries will rise to the same level in 2026.
• Solar cells will rise from a 25% tariff to a 50% tariff this year.
• Ship-to-shore cranes will get a 25% tariff this year. They currently aren’t subject to tariffs.
• Medical products: Tariffs on personal protective equipment, including face masks, will increase this year and tariffs on rubber medical and surgical gloves will go up in 2026. Both will be set at 25%. Tariffs on syringes and needles will go from not having a tariff to 50% in 2024.

Senators appealed for tariff increases

A group of seven Democratic U.S. senators wrote to Biden earlier this month, urging him and United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai to “maintain or increase the tariffs to address China’s continued actions to cheat and undermine our national security.”

Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Bob Casey and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York all signed on to the letter.

The senators wrote that tariffs “are an important tool to level the playing field and combat anti-competitive practices from non-market economies and trade cheats, and they must remain in place.”

“China has continued to cheat, circumvent, and manipulate to artificially strengthen its economy and harm the United States,” the senators wrote. “Across sectors like steel, solar products, and electric vehicles, China employs tactics to distort markets and create artificially low prices by illegally subsidizing its industries and producing to overcapacity.”

Tariffs on electric vehicles

A senior administration official, speaking with reporters on background Monday to discuss details of the changes, said the higher tariffs on electric vehicles are necessary to avoid China having an unfair share of the global market.

“If we have a level playing field, we and other countries will have the chance to compete and that’s the kind of dynamic that we think will produce resilient supply chains and clean technology and give us our best chance of meeting our climate goals,” the senior administration official said.

A second senior administration official declined to “speculate” about whether China would set retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, saying that officials from that country are likely to speak publicly in the coming days.

A third senior administration official on the call said the decision to raise certain tariffs and the timing of the announcement “has nothing to do with politics.”

That official also said there are differences between the production of electric and gas-powered vehicles in China, which is why the Biden administration is raising tariffs on one, but not the other.

“We’ve been thoroughly studying and assessing how the Chinese have been investing in their electric vehicle domestic industry and the range of unfair best practices that are giving them a significant unfair pricing competitive advantage,” the third official said. “So I think that’s the reason why we’re moving towards a significant step up in the tariff rate for electric vehicles.”

The post Tariffs to be sharply hiked by Biden administration on Chinese-made products appeared first on Nevada Current.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas participates in a fireside chat with Mike L. Sena during the National Fusion Center Association 11th Annual Training Event on March 28, 2024, at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. (DHS photo by Tia Dufour)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration announced Thursday it’s proposing changes to the asylum system that would allow immigration officials to reject asylum seekers who have a criminal record that poses a threat to national security or public safety and quickly remove them.

Those changes will occur during the initial screening stages, a senior U.S. Department of Homeland Security official said on background during a call with reporters.

The proposed rule would allow asylum officers to issue a denial within days if there is evidence that a migrant is ineligible to claim asylum due to ties to terrorism, a threat to national security or a criminal background.

“This really only applies to individuals who have a serious criminal history or who are linked to terrorist activity and that is inherently a small fraction of the individuals that we encounter or interview on a given day,” the senior DHS official said. “We don’t think that the rule will apply to large numbers of people but it will apply to the people that we are most concerned about.”

Currently, when a migrant claims asylum, they undergo a “credible fear” screening even if they have criminal charges levied against them, and depending on the severity of the charges, they can continue to seek asylum or be disqualified.

“The proposed rule we have published today is yet another step in our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of the American public by more quickly identifying and removing those individuals who present a security risk and have no legal basis to remain here,” DHS Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement.

DHS is also issuing revised guidance to asylum officers to consider whether an asylum seeker can relocate to another part of their country where they fear persecution, known as internal relocation. This was implemented under the Trump administration by Ken Cuccinelli and the Biden administration rolled that policy back.

The new guidance “will ensure early identification and removal of individuals who would ultimately be found ineligible for protection because of their ability to remain safe by relocating elsewhere in the country from which they fled,” according to a DHS press release.

The Biden administration is dealing with the largest number of migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border in 20 years, and has faced continued intense criticism about its immigration policies from Republicans and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Congressional Republicans have passed legislation to reinstate hard-line Trump-era immigration policies, walked back a bipartisan border security deal and recently impeached Mayorkas.

The public comment period on the notice for the proposed rule will be from May 13 to June 12. The senior DHS official said the agency anticipates the proposed rule to be finalized this year and quickly implemented.

The post Asylum seekers with criminal records would be more quickly removed under Biden proposal appeared first on Nevada Current.