House GOP passes its debt bill, upping pressure on Biden

House Republicans passed their sweeping debt-limit and spending-cuts plan after a tumultuous 24 hours. Now, they have to see if it will bring President Joe Biden to the negotiating table.

The vote followed a frantic day of eleventh-hour wrangling as Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his allies sought to lock down potential defectors ranging from conservatives to Midwesterners.

In the end, only four Republicans voted against the legislation — though the victory is merely symbolic given the bill’s DOA status in the Senate.

And it was a hard-fought victory, at that. The conference had been in talks over the bill for months, yet McCarthy was still negotiating with on-the-fence members shortly before the vote. Still, GOP lawmakers cheered the bill’s passage, hoping it will give them some leverage to force leading Democrats to back down from assertions they would not negotiate at all over the debt limit.

“I think everybody is focused on solving this problem and finally getting the president … to come to the table,” said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), adding that Republicans want to give McCarthy the “opportunity to go and negotiate with the president.”

Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Tim Burchett (Tenn.) and Matt Gaetz (Fla.) were the Republicans who opposed the bill, along with all Democrats.

It's still far from clear that the House GOP plan will change the calculus either at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue or across the Capitol with Senate Democrats. Both have stressed for months, along with their less influential House colleagues, that they want a “clean” debt ceiling increase, with no spending cuts attached.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer lambasted McCarthy ahead of the vote on Wednesday, accusing him of having “capitulated to the hard right once again" as he worked to lock down the votes to pass the debt plan.

“It’s a bill that might as well be called the Default On America Act. Because that’s exactly what it is — DOA, dead on arrival,” Schumer said.

The House Republican bill combines across-the-board spending cuts with other conservative proposals, including stricter rules for social safety net programs and energy production incentives. But after vowing for days that they wouldn’t open the bill for negotiations, worried it would create a tidal wave of demands, Republican leadership cut a middle-of-the-night deal to try to win over two critical holdout groups: Midwesterners and conservatives.

For Midwestern members, GOP leadership agreed to kill changes to incentives structures for renewable diesel, second generation biofuel, carbon dioxide sequestration and biodiesel. For conservatives, they beefed up the work requirements and sped up the implementation timeline. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who flipped to backing the bill on Wednesday, also said McCarthy committed to working on balancing the budget in a conversation with her.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry (R-Pa.) acknowledged that his conservative members weren’t sold on all the bill's provisions but argued that passing the proposal was crucial to keeping Republicans at the table.

“It is not perfect. It’s a step in the right direction. We’ve got to be in the arena and stay on offense,” Perry said.

The next phase won’t get any easier for Republicans, though, who barely scraped by this time on a 217-215 vote. McCarthy eventually needs to cut a deal with Biden and Senate Democrats that somehow would also win over both the centrist and conservative factions of his conference.

”It’s gonna have to be a conservative package if it’s going to win the support of the Republican conference, but I don’t think it serves anyone’s interest by talking about red lines right now,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), the chair of the business-oriented Main Street Caucus.

Driving the debt-limit talks is still relatively new for House Republicans, who largely left it up to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to negotiate agreements on the debt ceiling during the first two years of the Biden administration. Those deals sparked fierce pushback not only from House Republicans but also Senate conservatives.

And Republican senators are warning they aren’t preparing to step into the breach again, at least not yet. Plus, it’s far from clear that a Senate GOP negotiated deal would even find favor in the more raucous House GOP conference.

The House bill “forces the administration to come to the table,” Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said Wednesday. “The pressure really ought to be on the White House.”

Sarah Ferris and Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/T9VRtgZ
via IFTTT

Read More

Ex-Harvard prof sentenced, fined for lying about China ties

BOSTON — A former Harvard University professor convicted of lying to federal investigators about his ties to a Chinese-run science recruitment program and failing to pay taxes on payments from a Chinese university was sentenced Wednesday to supervised release and ordered to pay more than $83,000 in restitution and fines.

Charles Lieber, 64, was sentenced by Judge Rya Zobel in U.S. District Court in Boston to time served — the two days he spent in jail after his arrest — two years of supervised release — the first six months in home confinement — a $50,000 fine and $33,600 in restitution to the IRS, which has already been paid.

Lieber, the former chair of Harvard’s department of chemistry and chemical biology, was convicted in December 2021 of filing false tax returns, making false statements and failing to file reports for a foreign bank account in China.

“We are grateful for the court’s ruling,” said Lieber’s attorney, Marc Mukasey. “We think it was the appropriate decision so that Charlie can keep up his fight against his severe health issues.”

Prosecutors had recommended three months in prison, a year of probation, a $150,000 fine and restitution to the IRS of $33,600.

Prosecutors said Lieber knowingly lied to Harvard and government agencies about his involvement in China’s Thousand Talents Plan, a program designed to recruit people with knowledge of foreign technology and intellectual property to China, to enhance his career — including the pursuit of a Nobel Prize — and benefit financially.

Lieber denied his involvement during questioning from U.S. authorities, including the National Institutes of Health, which had provided him with millions of dollars in research funding, prosecutors said.

Lieber also concealed his income from the Chinese program on his U.S. tax returns, including $50,000 a month from the Wuhan University of Technology, some of which was paid to him in $100 bills in brown paper packaging, according to prosecutors.

In exchange, they say, Lieber agreed to publish articles, organize international conferences and apply for patents on behalf of the Chinese university.

Lieber’s case was one of the most notable to come out of the U.S. Department of Justice’s China Initiative, started during the Trump administration in 2018 to curb economic espionage from China.

But in February 2022 under the current administration, a decision was made to revamp the program and impose a higher bar for prosecutions after a review based on complaints that it compromised the nation’s competitiveness in research and technology and disproportionally targeted researchers of Asian descent.

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen said at the time the department will still “be relentless in defending our country from China,” but would not use the China Initiative label, in part out of recognition of threats from other nations including Russia, Iran and North Korea.

The federal government ended up dismissing multiple cases against researchers or had them thrown out by judges.

Mukasey asked that his client, who retired after his conviction and has a form of incurable blood cancer along with a “destroyed immune system,” be spared prison time because of the dangers of getting sick behind bars, the extraordinary research he as done and the positive effect he has had on countless lives.

“In prison he will be a sitting duck for disease, and will not get the daily medical care that he needs,” he said.

Mukasey read from some of the more than 100 letters of support submitted to the court by Lieber’s family, friends, colleagues, and former students he has mentored. More than two dozen of his supporters crowded the courtroom, some of whom flew in from as far away as California to attend the hearing.

Anqi Zhang, one of Lieber’s former doctoral students who is now doing post-doctoral work in chemical engineering at Stanford University, thinks her mentor’s motives have been misrepresented by the government.

“He’s the best scientist and the best mentor in the world,” she said. “He’s a pure scientist, he worked very hard, and was focused completely on the science.”

Lieber, in a statement read to the court, accepted responsibility and said the last three years of his life have been “horrific.”

“I would like to express my sincere apologies and remorse for my actions,” he said.

Mukasey also stressed that Lieber was never charged with espionage-related offenses; was never accused of misusing grant money; there was no theft or trade of trade secrets or intellectual property; and he did not disclose any proprietary research to the Chinese government or university.

But prosecutor Jason Casey said in court that Lieber “was someone willing to lie and deceive to protect what mattered to him most — and that was his career.” His behavior was not an aberration, but occurred over a period of several years.

As a person of “extraordinary intellect and extraordinary education,” he had the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his actions, Casey said.

Casey said a three-month period of prison time was appropriate despite Lieber’s health issues because he is in remission and can get proper treatment in a federal prison.

Mukasey called the government’s contentions “callous, misleading, naive and dangerous to (Lieber’s) health” and said his client has been punished enough because of his damaged reputation.

“Please don’t put him in prison where he can’t control his health,” Mukasey told the judge.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/iwXfmVU
via IFTTT

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/EzMVtDG
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden pushes back on concerns about age and low approval amid 2024 reelection bid: ‘I feel good’

President Joe Biden on Wednesday brushed off concerns about his age and sagging approval rating, saying voters will have to judge “whether or not I have it” in his first public comments addressing his 2024 reelection bid.

Speaking at a Rose Garden press conference with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, Biden was asked to respond to Americans who believe he shouldn’t run again. The president was measured in his response, noting that he may not be the only candidate to take on his predecessor, Donald Trump, but that he knows the “danger he presents to our democracy.”

Biden, who would be 86 at the end of a second term, said he “can’t even say that number” referring to his age. He said it “doesn’t even register” with him.

But voters will be the ultimate decider about whether he’s too old for office, he added. His answer marks his first public comments on the 2024 race after Tuesday’s launch — and his first addressing the obstacles hovering over his reelection bid.

“I respect them taking a hard look at it. I’ve taken a hard look at it as well — I took a hard look at it before I decided to run,” Biden said. “I feel good. And I feel excited about the prospects, and I think we’re on the verge of really turning the corner in a way we haven’t in a long time.”

Biden also said he has seen the poll numbers and is in a similar position to past presidents running for reelection.

“What I keep hearing about is that I’m between 42 and 46 percent favorable rating. But everybody running for reelection in this time has been in the same position. There’s nothing new about that. You’re making it sound like Biden’s really underwater,” he said.

The president then touted specific legislative accomplishments and economic growth.

“And the reason I’m running again is there’s a job to finish.”

Of the three presidents who failed to win a second term in recent decades, two had approval ratings roughly equal to Biden’s. But former Presidents Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan also hovered around Biden’s numbers, and both were reelected.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/w0J1Hr3
via IFTTT

Read More

Equal Rights Amendment will be 'heavy lift' for Dems, GOP senator says

"It only takes 41 to block [the measure]," Thune said. "I think it will be a heavy lift [for Democrats]."

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/bI92dkn
via IFTTT

Read More

Trial begins in civil lawsuit accusing Trump of rape

The civil lawsuit from a woman who says Donald Trump raped her decades ago centers on a “brief, brutal attack,” a lawyer for the woman, E. Jean Carroll, told the jury as the trial kicked off in Manhattan federal court Tuesday.

Carroll, a magazine columnist, is suing Trump for allegedly attacking her in a dressing room of luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman in the 1990s and sexually assaulting her — a claim Trump denies, saying the incident “never happened.” She also is suing him for defamation for publicly calling her allegations a “hoax.” She is seeking unspecified money damages.

Describing how Carroll and Trump bantered playfully before he allegedly assaulted her in the dressing room, Carroll’s lawyer, Shawn Crowley, told the 9-person jury, “the moment they went inside, everything changed. Suddenly, nothing was funny.”

“Trump was almost twice her size,” Crowley said to the jury. “He held down her arm, pulled down her tights and then he sexually assaulted her.”

Trump, who isn’t required to appear at the proceedings, didn’t attend the first day of the trial. His lawyer, Joe Tacopina, sought to portray Carroll’s claim as a “sick story” while also trying to reassure jurors that they could side with his client even if they dislike him.

“You can hate Donald Trump. It’s OK,” Tacopina told jurors. “But there’s a time and a secret place for that. It’s called a ballot box. Not here, in a court of law.”

“While no one is above the law, no one is also beneath the law,” he continued. “Politicians don’t make this country great, jurors do.”

Carroll, Tacopina argued, was motivated by money and by politics. He questioned her claim that no shoppers or employees were around to witness the incident in the department store, and he emphasized that she couldn’t recall certain details, most notably the precise timing of the alleged attack.

“You learned that E. Jean Carroll can’t tell you the date. She can't tell you the month. She can’t tell you the season. She can’t even tell you the year,” he said.

“Evidence will tell you that E. Jean Carroll can’t do any of those things because the story isn’t true.”

To combat some of those arguments, Crowley emphasized two main points in her opening statements: that Carroll’s account is corroborated by two friends she told contemporaneously and by former Bergdorf Goodman employees who can testify to physical attributes of the store at that time, and that Trump’s alleged assault of Carroll is part of a pattern. More than two dozen women have accused him of sexual misconduct.

Two other women who have accused Trump of sexual assault, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stynoff, are set to testify, and Carroll’s attorneys have received permission from the judge to use the “Access Hollywood” tape — in which Trump boasts on a hot mic that “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” adding, “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything” — as evidence at trial.

Trump’s lawyer, Tacopina, dismissed the significance of the tape, calling it a “lewd conversation from 20 years ago.” The tape was recorded in 2005 and became public in 2016.

“It’s foolish, but it’s locker room talk,” he said. “It’s not an admission.”

Crowley also seized on a statement Trump made in disputing Carroll’s claims that Carroll is “not my type!”

First, Crowley told the jury, “we all know what that means: He was saying she was too ugly to assault.”

Later in her remarks, she also argued that his comment was not only offensive but also a lie. Describing a portion of his videotaped deposition that Carroll’s lawyers intend to show the jury, Crowley showed jurors a black and white photograph of Trump with Carroll.

“When Trump was shown this photograph at his deposition late last year, he looked at it, he pointed to it, unprompted, and he said, ‘It’s Marla! Yeah, it’s Marla, my wife,’” Crowley said, raising her voice.

“He mistook her for Marla Maples, his second wife, a former model, who he admitted was exactly his type.”

The trial is expected to last between one and two weeks, and testimony is set to begin Wednesday. While Trump isn’t expected to attend the trial in coming days, the judge nevertheless offered an instruction that appeared aimed at the absent defendant.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who in court filings took issue with Trump’s recent comments urging his supporters to protest criminal charges against him, advised the lawyers to warn their clients against making remarks that “inspire violence.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/MYOpg7e
via IFTTT

Read More

Roberts declines to appear at Senate's Supreme Court ethics hearing

Chief Justice John Roberts has declined an invitation to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss ethics reform on the high court after a report revealed Justice Clarence Thomas' close friendship with a GOP megadonor.

"I extended an invitation to the Chief Justice, or his designate, in an attempt to include the Court in this discussion. But make no mistake: Supreme Court ethics reform must happen, whether the Court participates in the process or not," Judiciary panel chief Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a statement Tuesday.

After a Pro Publica report revealed Thomas accepted lavish gifts and travel for the last two decades from Harlan Crow, a Texas real estate billionaire, Durbin invited Roberts to appear before the committee on May 2, saying his testimony on ethics issues would help provide transparency.

But a Durbin spokesperson told POLITICO Tuesday that Roberts declined to appear for the hearing. Durbin has previously said he plans for the hearing to proceed even if Roberts declined to appear.

“I am surprised that the Chief Justice’s recounting of existing legal standards of ethics suggests current law is adequate and ignores the obvious. The actions of one Justice, including trips on yachts and private jets, were not reported to the public. That same Justice failed to disclose the sale of properties he partly owned to a party with interests before the Supreme Court," Durbin said in the statement.

He added: “It is time for Congress to accept its responsibility to establish an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, the only agency of our government without it.”

In a letter to Durbin explaining his reasons for declining, Roberts wrote that a chief justice's testimony before Congress "is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence."

Durbin, who is also the majority whip, has previously suggested the committee cannot subpoena Roberts because of the absence of Sen. Dianne Feinstein , a longtime Judiciary Committee member who has been away from the Senate for months while being treated for shingles.

The ProPublica report detailed two decades of Thomas' relationship with Crow, which included trips on Crow's private jet and yacht, as well as visits to Crow's lavish properties.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/6h9qa2H
via IFTTT

Read More