Member of ‘Tennessee Three’ set to challenge Marsha Blackburn for her Senate seat

A member of the so-called “Tennessee Three,” the state lawmakers who were rebuked for protesting gun violence in their Capitol, is preparing an uphill run against Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

State Rep. Gloria Johnson is eyeing a mid-August launch for a Senate campaign, according to two people familiar with her plans who were not authorized to confirm them. Johnson has already spoken with officials from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion rights group, and has begun to assemble a campaign team.

Johnson, 61, and her colleagues, state Reps. Justin Pearson and Justin Jones, caught national attention when they staged a demonstration advocating for stricter gun control laws after three students and three employees were killed during a Nashville elementary school shooting earlier this year. Pearson and Jones, who are Black, were booted from the Statehouse but quickly reinstated by their respective local councils. Johnson, who is white, escaped expulsion by one vote.

The incident earned them national notoriety, speaking invitations and a trip to the White House.

In a brief interview, Johnson said that she was considering a run and that she would probably make a final decision this summer.

“I’m taking a serious look at the race and having conversations with folks that are hungry for better leadership in Washington,” she said. “Honestly, Tennesseans deserve someone who will stand up to corrupt special interests, fight for lower costs so that every family can build a good life and that's not Marsha Blackburn.”

Johnson won’t have the primary field to herself. Marquita Bradshaw, an environmental activist and her party’s 2020 Senate nominee, has filed to run again. Three years ago, she bested James Mackler, the candidate preferred by national Democrats, and then lost to incumbent Bill Hagerty by 27 points.

Tennessee remains a deep red state that former President Donald Trump won twice by at least two dozen points. Democrats are a superminority in both chambers of the legislature and now control only one of the state’s nine congressional districts. Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to carry the state in a presidential contest.

Blackburn easily beat back a 2018 challenge from Phil Bredesen, the state’s last Democratic governor, though the race drew national attention and was seen, at the time, as a possible Democratic pickup.

A statewide run by Johnson is likely to be a longshot campaign aimed at building up the state’s Democratic Party and engaging new voters.

A longtime teacher, Johnson is expected to mount a different kind of campaign than Bredesen, a milquetoast moderate who, despite being a popular two-term governor years prior, struggled to invigorate the base and ran on his centrist record. He lost to Blackburn by 11 points. In an interview, Johnson said that her campaign would differ from Bredesen’s and that she hoped “to inspire and motivate voters”.

Johnson will likely run heavily on ending gun violence, increasing access to health care and protecting democracy. The statehouse protest seems likely to play a prominent role in her campaign.

“There's a movement afoot in Tennessee, it's very clear,” Johnson said. “There has been a change in thinking.”

Johnson, who represents the Knoxville area, will likely tap into a national liberal donor base that eagerly followed her protests earlier this spring. But Blackburn is a solid fundraiser and has banked $5.6 million for her reelection campaign as of the end of June. She is a staunch supporter of Trump and endorsed his third bid for president.

“Marquita Bradshaw and Gloria Johnson are liberal Democrats who are out of step with the people of Tennessee and are aligned with Joe Biden's failed policies that are making their lives tougher every single day,” said Abigail Sigler, Blackburn campaign spokesperson.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/FSVQti5
via IFTTT

Read More

House GOP committee chairs launch probe into Ford-China battery deal

Two House GOP committee chairs are launching a probe into Ford Motor Company's agreement with a Chinese battery company — prompting renewed scrutiny into U.S. corporate links to China amid a boom in domestic clean energy manufacturing.

Ford announced an agreement with Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited, or CATL, in February for its new $3.5 billion battery plant in Michigan. Under the structure of the agreement, Ford said it would manufacture the battery cells using knowledge and services provided by CATL.

But in a new letter Friday to Ford CEO Jim Farley, Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Jason Smith (R-Mo.), the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, questioned the licensing agreement, CATL’s alleged ties to forced labor and whether the jobs created under the deal will flow to China.

The continued focus on the battery agreement echoes broader bipartisan concerns on Capitol Hill about China’s influence on domestic supply chains as the U.S. transitions away from fossil fuels toward green technologies that China has long dominated.

"Ford has argued that the deal will create thousands of American jobs, further Ford’s 'commitments to sustainability and human rights,' and lead to American battery technology advancements. But newly discovered information raises serious questions about each claim," the pair wrote.

The letter alleges the new information suggests a “significant portion” of the U.S. jobs created under the agreement will be given to citizens of China, that CATL took steps to maintain effective control while appearing to divest its ownership stake in companies based in the Xinjiang region allegedly tied to forced labor practices and concerning the structure of the deal itself.

"Rather than developing American technology, we are concerned that the deal could simply facilitate the partial onshoring of [People’s Republic of China]-controlled battery technology, raw materials, and employees while collecting tax credits and flowing funds back to CATL through the licensing agreement," they wrote.

In the letter, the two chairs also request documents and communications, including a copy of the licensing agreement between Ford and CATL and any related documents, as well as communications between Ford and the Biden administration on the licensing agreement and any "achievable tax credits."

The Treasury Department has released initial guidance on the new electric vehicle tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act, but questions loom on which companies' vehicles could be barred from receiving the consumer credit because of their connections to China.

A spokesperson for Ford said in an emailed response that the company had received the letter, is reviewing it and "look[s] forward to responding."

The company reiterated it will "own and run" the new battery plant in Michigan, instead of building a battery plant elsewhere or exclusively importing batteries from China. It touted the 2,500 new U.S. jobs that will help strengthen domestic manufacturing and supply chains, as well as reduce carbon emissions.

Gallagher and Smith's letter said they'd "learned that several hundred" of the 2,500 jobs created under the deal will be given to CATL employees from China, who will be in charge of setting up and maintaining the equipment and that the licensing agreement will maintain Chinese employees at the plant until about 2038.

But Ford disputed that claim on Friday, saying it will have "a select number" of CATL technical experts on site and "these workers will not be counted among the 2,500 new jobs created by this project."

The GOP chairs are far from the first lawmakers to question the Ford agreement.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also blasted the deal in a February letter and introduced a related bill to block tax credits from applying to a corporation that relies on technology via a licensing agreement with a foreign entity of concern, like a state-backed Chinese company.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — who helped author the vehicle sourcing requirements of the IRA — has also questioned the agreement.

The Biden administration has pushed to build out domestic manufacturing for clean energy technologies, but it has acknowledged that the transition will include participation by Chinese companies.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/rN6d72H
via IFTTT

Read More

Witness before Jack Smith’s grand jury faced questions implicating ‘executive privilege,’ attorney says

An attorney representing figures associated with special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations of Donald Trump revealed Thursday that he had a client before the Washington, D.C.-based grand jury who was being asked questions that implicate “executive privilege.”

Stanley Woodward, who represents Trump’s codefendant Walt Nauta in Smith’s documents case as well as a constellation of Trump associates connected to both the documents matter and his bid to subvert the 2020 election, was compelled to reveal those details by a federal judge in another Jan. 6-related case.

U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden was visibly frustrated that Woodward appeared 25 minutes late to a hearing related to two defendants in the Capitol riot prosecution. Woodward initially asked if he could privately huddle with the judge about the reason for his delay, citing grand jury secrecy rules, but McFadden quickly indicated he wanted Woodward to explain the delay in open court.

It’s unclear which of Woodward’s clients is appearing before the grand jury, though several reports have indicated that William Russell, a former Trump White House aide and a Woodward client, was expected to appear Thursday.

The fact that the questioning ranged into areas potentially related to executive privilege — a legal protection for presidential deliberations and advice — could be another signal that Smith’s prosecutors are pressing for information about Trump’s conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election and the lead-up to the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump disclosed on his social media platform this week that Smith’s prosecutors sent a so-called target letter indicating that Trump is likely to be indicted soon in the Jan. 6 investigation.

Woodward told McFadden, a Trump appointee, that he had been assured by prosecutors that he would be released from his client’s grand jury appearance in time for the 2 p.m. hearing in McFadden’s courtroom, which is located in the same federal courthouse where the grand jury meets. But instead, the defense attorney said, prosecutors began grilling his client on matters that “potentially involve executive privilege.” So Woodward said he felt obligated to remain just outside the grand jury room until the questioning had ended.

McFadden, for his part, said he fully accepted Woodward’s explanation and criticized the Justice Department, which he said had also assured him the grand jury matters would not interfere with the hearing, at which McFadden delivered a lengthy and complex verdict in a bench trial for two Jan. 6 defendants, Freddie Klein and Steven Cappuccio.

“Talking about obstructions of an official proceeding,” McFadden said, a biting reference to the charge that prosecutors have leveled against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants and may be eyeing for Trump himself. “The government has not acted as I required.”

A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment on the episode.

The conflagration didn’t end with McFadden’s comments. After he began reading his lengthy verdict, he sent a U.S. marshal to summon Smith’s prosecutors to his courtroom.

Minutes later, Thomas Windom — a prosecutor on Smith’s Jan. 6 prosecution team — appeared, flanked by three other unidentified officials. They filed into the front row of McFadden’s courtroom while he continued to read the verdict.

Still mid-verdict, McFadden called Windom and Woodward up to the bench, along with the lead prosecutor in the Klein-Cappuccio case, Ashley Akers. He spoke with them under seal for about six minutes — a husher obscuring the conversation from the packed courtroom — before excusing Windom, who returned with a colleague to the grand jury room.

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/R4ZjfWl
via IFTTT

Read More

Specter of Trump looms — silently — at Aspen forum

ASPEN, Colo. — The Aspen Security Forum is a place for elites to discuss U.S.-China competition, Russia’s war on Ukraine and the perils posed by technology. The only topic apparently off limits to high-flyers here? The possible return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office.

U.S. and foreign leaders, in power and out, get tongue-tied the moment reporters ask about the former president. Some switch to other topics. Others flat-out refuse to openly grapple with what the Republican frontrunner’s return could mean for the serious subjects discussed here in the Rockies.

Asked if he was worried that Trump would withdraw the U.S. from NATO, U.K. Foreign Secretary James Cleverly replied: “That’s one of those wonderful, wonderful questions that invites me to say something that gives you a good splash. Just letting you know: I’m not going to do that.”

Others more directly sidestepped la question Trump.

“I haven’t even begun to think about 2024,” declared Stephen Biegun, a deputy secretary of State during the first Trump administration.

“I don’t do politics,” said Stephen Hadley, a former national security adviser to then-President George W. Bush.

“Ha! Thank you. I have enough problems at home,” said former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, walking away from a POLITICO reporter.

Many of the people in Aspen say they’re not here to engage in partisanship but rather to seek solutions to problems that require buy-in from both U.S. political parties and global allies. And few of the discussions on stage referenced Trump, and when they did, it was usually in the context of his last administration’s policies. (Cleverly, when asked on stage, said the U.K. government would work with whoever wins in 2024.)

But many of the issues being discussed, such as fighting climate change or protecting democracy, would likely go on the backburner in a new Trump era. He and his team are expected to make the centralization of power in the presidency a priority. That includes cutting out many career government officials who could help devise solutions to the challenges facing the world.

And in private, conversations about Trump are happening, given that this is the last Aspen Security Forum before the 2024 presidential campaign hits high gear. The first Republican presidential debate is next month.

Some people expressed trepidation about a Trump return precisely because they worry the former president will upend strategies and policies around the challenges being discussed openly at the conference.

“Chaos is a very difficult way to govern,” said a former White House official who served under Trump. Like several others, the person was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue that also could affect their career prospects.

One common concern people raised privately is what a Trump return would mean for Ukraine.

The former president has well-known sympathies toward Russian strongman Vladimir Putin; his first impeachment resulted from his effort to halt military aid to Ukraine. There’s fear that Trump will simply stop U.S. military and economic help keeping the Ukrainians afloat as they fight the Kremlin.

One former Capitol Hill staffer said some Aspen attendees were already quietly making predictions about who would wind up in Trump’s Cabinet.

Some potential candidates, the ex-staffer predicted, would never obtain Senate confirmation and would likely take top roles on an acting basis.

Some of the people interviewed declined to say if they were Republicans or Democrats, but they expressed an appreciation for the sense of normalcy and predictability President Joe Biden has brought to the office after four years of constant tumult.

The Aspen Security Forum is not exactly a MAGA stronghold. Not a single Republican presidential candidate attended this year. The closest is slated to be Mike Pompeo, Trump’s former secretary of State and CIA director, who was unfailingly loyal to him during his time in office.

But Pompeo has quietly criticized Trump on certain issues in recent years, and Pompeo’s decision not to run in 2024 suggested his ties to the deep-red GOP base weren’t strong enough to win it over.

Given Trump’s refusal to accept that he lost the 2020 race to Biden, many who were gathered worry Trump’s brand of bedlam could return well before the first vote is cast.

Chris Krebs, whom Trump fired from his cybersecurity role for declaring the 2020 election was secure, warned that the former president’s domestic acolytes might be a threat to the 2024 race.

Those with technical know-how could try to hack precincts or other voting infrastructure to sow doubts about the results, Krebs said. That’s on top of foreign actors from China and Russia who may try to attack the election.

Asked if that made Trump a national security threat to the election, Krebs said: “There’s a hierarchy of threats. He’s certainly in that hierarchy.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/oC8jLhS
via IFTTT

Read More

Intelligence nominee warns generative AI poses threat to 2024 elections

Generative artificial intelligence technologies will likely pose a major threat in next year’s U.S. presidential election, Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh, Joe Biden’s pick to lead the NSA and Cyber Command, warned Thursday.

Big picture: Haugh's remarks come as lawmakers in the House and Senate scramble to come up with ways to regulate and monitor the use of new AI technologies, amid heightened fears after hackers including from Russia have attempted to interfere in the last few U.S. elections.

“As we look at this election cycle, the area we do have to consider that will be slightly different is the role of generative AI as part of this, and so our concern is foreign use attempting to be a part of our electoral process,” Haugh, who currently serves as deputy commander of U.S. Cyber Command, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee during his nomination hearing.

Past efforts: Both Cyber Command and the NSA have played key roles in monitoring for and disrupting threats to U.S. elections in recent years. This includes Cyber Command reportedly carrying out an operation on the day of the 2018 U.S. midterm elections to block internet access for the key Russian troll farm involved in spreading disinformation about the vote. Russian hackers were also linked to efforts in 2016 to target voting infrastructure and spread disinformation designed to sway the outcome of the presidential election.

The advent of AI technologies, such as the surging use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, poses new challenges. Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the main agency that protects U.S. election infrastructure, warned in a speech in May that AI poses “epoch-defining” risks, including increasing disinformation online.

AI in the spotlight: The confirmation hearing Thursday was heavy on AI-related questions from senators on both sides of the aisle eager to tackle the problem. When asked about his concerns with adversarial nations using AI, Haugh pointed to China and how its use of AI to monitor and surveil its citizens could be a worrying portend of trends worldwide.

“It’s an area from a threat perspective we should continue to inform and understand what that means to any nation they would be considering partnering with, and the implications of that technology on that society,” Haugh said of Chinese developments.

Haugh also noted that the Department of Defense is working on an “AI roadmap” to help define how to use AI technologies, something critical as China plows ahead with its efforts.

“The other area that I think the nation expects from us is to understand how our adversaries use this technology, and be able to inform what that looks like in terms of threat both to our national security and to our industry,” Haugh said.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/PhD7LHe
via IFTTT

Read More

'It makes them all look silly': Dems prepare to scorch RFK Jr. testimony

House Republicans are openly goading their Democratic colleagues by handing a megaphone to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Democrats are determined to make sure it backfires.

GOP leaders invited Kennedy to testify at a Thursday hearing on alleged social media censorship, sticking by the plan even after the long-shot presidential contender’s recent false claims that the coronavirus pandemic was designed to spare Jews and Chinese people.

The move essentially gave Democrats two choices.

They could either ignore what they see as a blatant attempt to embarrass Biden by elevating an opponent or they could embrace a chance to directly rebut the unfounded claims Kennedy has spread, particularly on vaccines. They’re going with the latter and, in the process, taking Republicans to task for elevating him.

“He is spouting baseless, unfactual, unscientific conspiracy theories,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). “You shine a white-hot spotlight on someone like that and expose the Republicans for their hypocrisy.”

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) put it more simply, calling Kennedy's appearance another example of Republicans having “crackpots for witnesses.”

The strategy will force Democrats to go head-to-head with a member of one of their most famous dynasties amid broader jitters about a third-party spoiler in the presidential race. But they’re hoping to turn Republicans' attempted trolling to their advantage, driving home one of their core arguments against the House GOP’s investigative onslaught this year: that it’s a politically motivated sideshow for the Republican base, not the policymaking swing voters crave.

“It makes them all look silly. … His own family has said: ‘We don’t support any of that.’ So you’re going to put a discredited witness at the table that is going to embarrass himself, embarrass the family and embarrass [Republicans]. That is your witness?” Connolly asked.

In addition to Kennedy — who has billed himself as the “prime witness” — Republicans have also called in an editor from the ultra-right publication Breitbart and D. John Sauer, the special assistant attorney general from the Louisiana Department of Justice.

A Democratic committee aide described calling Kennedy Jr. as the “ultimate troll job” but added that the party’s bigger point will be highlighting that “there are real problems and real issues in this country, and this isn’t one of them.” Democrats have invited Maya Wiley, the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, as their witness.

"This hearing is about Big Government's censorship of Americans and nothing else," said a GOP spokesperson for the Judiciary Committee.

Kennedy's presidential campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

As odious as they find Kennedy's rhetoric, top Democrats aren’t ready to let him speak unchecked on Thursday. Totally ignoring him was never on the table — they'd seen first firsthand how declining to participate in the Jan. 6 select committee had disadvantaged Republicans.

“I don’t want to leave the hearing room for the Republicans to have a free-for-all without being checked on inaccuracies and spreading more hate,” said Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary subcommittee that investigates GOP claims of bias within the federal government.

Not all Democratic members of the panel wanted to spend energy rebutting Kennedy during the hearing. Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) said experts had already “refuted all of his crazy theories.”

“They're just digging themselves into a hole, deeper and deeper,” she said of the panel’s Republicans.

Republicans raced to distance themselves from Kennedy’s comments over the weekend. Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Monday that he disagreed with “everything” Kennedy said, though GOP leader added that he did not believe Kennedy should be disinvited from the hearing. Multiple Republicans have defended moving forward with his testimony, arguing that Democrats had injected 2024 into the conversation by trying to “censor” Kennedy.

Kennedy had been suspended from Meta-owned Instagram after posting vaccine misinformation — a fact he's poised to testify on at the hearing, though his account was restored after he kicked off his presidential bid.

Biden allies have "been trying to censor their Democratic opponent” since the start of the administration, Jordan said, referring to criticism that Kennedy's invitation amounted to stepping into the 2024 Democratic primary. Jordan also defended his witness track record, saying that he’s “invited more Democrats than probably Democrats have.”

Democrats aren't concerned that Kennedy poses a real threat to Biden's nomination. Their real worry is the effect that minor candidates — or even a dark horse third-party candidate — could have on the general election, possibly cannibalizing Biden's votes in favor of the Republican nominee.

“If you said you're running for president, in the Democratic primary against Joe Biden, what is your motive? Why are you doing this?” said Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), a close Biden confidant. “Just because somebody calls themselves a Democrat doesn’t mean they are a Democrat.”

As the veteran South Carolina Democrat saw it, “there's nobody in his or her right mind who believes that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is going to be President of the United States of America or is going to be a representative of the Democratic Party.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/HhGlv7d
via IFTTT

Read More

Florida and DeSantis blasted over voter eligibility in new federal lawsuit

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The group that pushed to restore voting rights for most convicted felons in Florida is suing Gov. Ron DeSantis and local elections officials, contending that the Republican governor and his allies have put in place a byzantine and at times intimidating scheme designed to block people from voting.

Florida Rights Restoration Coalition — along with four Florida residents who had been previously convicted of felonies — filed a federal lawsuit in Miami that asserts the current process surrounding voter eligibility in the nation’s third most populous state is unconstitutional and violates federal voting laws.

“Florida’s failure to accept responsibility in determining voter eligibility hurts every Florida citizen,” said Desmond Meade, the executive director of the coalition, in a statement. “This is not a Black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian, or multi-racial issue or a Republican or Democrat issue; this is an everybody issue. If Floridians cannot rely on the state to determine voter eligibility, then who can we rely on?”

Carey Dunne, who works for the Free and Fair Litigation Group, one of the firms representing the coalition, said, “ever since the people of Florida passed a constitutional amendment to grant people with felony convictions a new right to vote, the governor and the state have done everything in their power to prevent those 1.4 million new voters from actually voting.”

The governor’s office and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the legal challenge, which also includes all the state's county court clerks as defendants.

The legal challenge represents yet another round of litigation over voting rights and election laws in what used to be one of the prime battleground states — but which went solidly red during the midterm elections.

Defendants in the lawsuit say they are unsure about their eligibility and were afraid to vote in the 2022 elections after DeSantis created a new election crimes office that wound up arresting people who had voted in 2020. Those arrested were considered ineligible to vote because of their previous offenses, but several of the defendants said they were confused because they had received voter identification cards after they registered.

“Through this campaign, the defendants have created a climate of intimidation even among people who believe in good faith that they are eligible to vote: a fear that they may be criminally prosecuted if their belief turns out to be wrong,” the lawsuit states. “This effort, coupled with the earlier-created roadblocks to registration, has turned the simple act of voting into a complicated and risky venture in the eyes of those who were re-enfranchised by Amendment 4, as well as others who have been affected by the defendants’ conduct.”

The rights restoration coalition led the push to end Florida’s lifetime ban on convicted felons voting. Voters in 2018 overwhelming approved Amendment 4, a measure that restored voting rights to most felons except those convicted of murder or sex offenses.

The Republican-led Florida Legislature, however, passed a law in 2019 that said voters remained ineligible if they had owed outstanding fines and fees that were placed on them due to their felony convictions. This law was challenged and a lower court judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. A federal appeals court ruled in a 6-4 decision that the state was within its rights to put in the requirement.

But the lawsuit contends it is nearly impossible for convicted felons to find out how much they owe and within which jurisdiction they owe payments.

The lawsuit notes that Alabama has a centralized database that allows convicted felons to check their status and that applicants are told within 44 days if they are eligible — and explains the reasons behind any denial.

Those who have sued the governor want a federal judge to order the creation of a “reliable” statewide database that will allow individuals to determine if they owe any fees and fines.

The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to declare that the implementation of Amendment 4 violates federal law and requests that the court takes steps within 60 days of an order that include the database as well as the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee compliance.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/5b47nFB
via IFTTT

Read More