Tag

Slider

Browsing

Rep. Matt Gaetz claimed Monday the House Ethics Committee has opened “new” investigations into him, which he called “frivolous.”

Earlier this year, the Ethics panel subpoenaed the Justice Department for information tied to an existing investigation into the Florida Republican by the committee. That probe began in 2021 and was examining allegations including sexual misconduct and illicit drug use.

Gaetz has maintained his innocence through multiple ethics inquiries and alleges the panel is using investigations against him as retribution for spearheading the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy last fall.

“This is Soviet,” Gaetz posted on social media Monday.

The Justice Department closed its long-running sex trafficking investigation into Gaetz and declined to charge him back in early 2023. Gaetz was admonished in 2020 for a threatening 2019 tweet directed at Michael Cohen, then-President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, but the situation “did not violate witness tampering and obstruction of Congress laws,” according to the panel’s report at the time.

The Ethics Committee, which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Gaetz’s disclosure.

Speaker Mike Johnson’s meeting with former President Donald Trump on Monday ended with a thumbs up and a photo op — the latest sign of bonhomie between the party’s top leaders.

“Our Party is united, and working together, I am confident we will send President Trump back to the White House, win back the Senate, and grow our House Republican majority!” Johnson wrote on social media.

Johnson and his party’s House campaign chief, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate to discuss the party’s election strategy.

Trump has already played kingmaker in many GOP contests this year. But this sit-down — the speaker’s second meeting with the president in a week — shows party leaders are working toward further collaboration as November approaches.

Just last week, Trump told a crowd of House Republicans he would devote his own time to keeping their majority in November. While Republicans are optimistic about flipping the Senate and hopeful about winning the White House, the battle for the House is expected to be a tough climb. Trump, though, vowed to do 100 virtual town halls with GOP members ahead of the election.

House Democrats, meanwhile, mocked the Republican leaders’ Florida visit, with their campaign arm accusing Johnson and Hudson of attending to “bend their knee” to Trump.

“Vulnerable House Republicans are so obsessed with their wannabe dictator that they are going to Mar-a-Lago to get tips from him on how to remind voters that they’re to blame for ripping away reproductive freedom and overturning nearly 50 years of fundamental rights under Roe. Voters will remember come November,” DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said in a statement.

Senate Democrats intend to seek unanimous consent for legislation banning bump stocks — which allow semi-automatic rifles to be fired like fully automatic machine guns — following last week’s Supreme Court decision to overturn a ban on them.

“Republicans were supportive of banning bump stocks when the Trump Administration took this step, so they should support it” on Tuesday, said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) has led the charge against bump stocks, which were used in the nation’s deadliest mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017 that killed 60.

In a 6-3 decision last week split along ideological lines, the court said the definition federal regulators sought to adopt went beyond the words Congress wrote into law nearly nine decades ago.

The FBI has abruptly canceled two large Hill briefings on encryption slated for this week, offering no explanation to the staffers invited, according to emails reviewed by POLITICO.

Last week, the FBI invited congressional staff to two virtual briefings on “warrant-proof encryption,” slated for June 18 and June 20. Briefers would have discussed how encryption created challenges for the FBI’s work investigating “violent crimes against children and transnational organized crime,” according to the invitation.

The briefings were the second in a series for all Hill staff on FBI “priority topics,” according to a copy of the invitation POLITICO reviewed. The first briefing in the series, held last month, focused on fentanyl.

The FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs offered no details as it announced that the encryption event was indefinitely delayed.

“Regrettably, due to circumstances outside of the FBI’s control, the briefings on the FBI’s Efforts on Warrant-Proof Encryption which were originally scheduled for June 18th and June 20th, have been unexpectedly postponed,” the email reads, adding that the bureau plans to reschedule the event.

“The FBI sees tremendous value in informing Congress on various issues and especially recognizes the importance of this particular topic,” the email continued, “so we deeply apologize for any inconvenience to those who were planning to participate.”

One Republican Hill staffer, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity, said the most likely explanation for the postponement is political pressure, given that the issue is “politically awkward” for President Joe Biden’s administration.

“Of course they canceled the briefing,” the aide said. “The last thing this administration wants is people talking about these issues in a heated election season that could revolve around exactly these issues.”

The topic of encryption is politically contentious, particularly among progressives. For years, the FBI has warned that enhanced privacy protections implemented by prominent messaging and social media platforms, like Signal, are blinding them to communications from terrorists, criminal organizations and child sex traffickers.

While the bureau has long urged tech companies to build so-called back doors so they can lawfully access encrypted communications if they get a search warrant, those calls have heated up in recent years amid the explosion in online child sexual abuse material.

But tech companies, security researchers and privacy advocates have resisted, arguing that there is no way to do so without introducing new vulnerabilities that can be exploited by state hackers or cybercriminals. They also counter that the rise of commercial data brokers and other connected devices that hoover up personal data — from cars to smart cameras — mean law enforcement agencies have more access to personal data than ever before.

A host of tech companies — Apple, most prominently — provide encrypted communication platforms.

An FBI spokesperson referred POLITICO to DOJ for comment. DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Most Republicans would be racing to include an endorsement from former President Donald Trump in their latest TV ad.

Not Larry Hogan.

Just days after being endorsed by the former president, the Maryland Senate hopeful released a new spot Monday that doesn’t name Trump at all but instead stresses his independence from the GOP. He invokes his father, Larry Hogan Sr., the first GOP congressmember on the Judiciary Committee to call for President Richard Nixon’s impeachment, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who bucked his party to save Obamacare.

“As President Kennedy said, ‘Sometimes party loyalty demands too much,’” Hogan says directly to the camera at the close of the ad.

It’s an implicit rebuke of the former president as Hogan seeks to burnish his bipartisan appeal in the deep-blue state of Maryland. And it comes in the wake of Trump endorsing Hogan, somewhat scrambling Hogan’s attempt to distance himself from his party’s leader.

“I’d like to see him win. I think he has a good chance to win, Trump told Fox News’ Aishah Hasnie during a visit to Capitol Hill. “I know other people made some strong statements, but I can just say from my standpoint, I’m about the party, and I’m about the country.”

The former Maryland governor did not seek the endorsement or know about it in advance, according to a person familiar with the campaign. And the campaign’s response to the endorsement didn’t embrace or even acknowledge it — instead saying in a statement: “Governor Hogan has been clear he is not supporting Donald Trump just as he didn’t in 2016 and 2020.”

Hogan has one of the toughest challenges of the cycle, winning a federal office as a Republican in such a blue state. He’s widely popular in Maryland and seen as essentially the only Republican who could potentially flip the Senate seat, and national Republicans are supportive of his effort to win the state without embracing Trump.

But Hogan’s campaign has found itself repeatedly thrust into Trump’s orbit in recent weeks, underscoring the difficult line he must walk. First a top Trump adviser posted on the social media platform X that Hogan “ended” his campaign because he urged Americans to respect the verdict in Trump’s criminal trial. Then Lara Trump, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, suggested the national party would not back Hogan’s campaign, drawing outrage from GOP senators.

Hogan has been racing to the center in his battle against Democrat Angela Alsobrooks for retiring Sen. Ben Cardin’s open seat. Hogan came out in support of codifying abortion protections in Roe v. Wade in the days after winning the GOP nomination and said he would not back Trump for president. Democrats have attempted to nationalize the race, making clear that Hogan would caucus with Republicans in the Senate no matter how independent he claims to be.

Hogan’s campaign has watched the Trump-focused headlines about the former governor from afar. His team has not heard directly from Trump’s campaign or the RNC, according to the person familiar with campaign communications.

A member of the House Freedom Caucus is taking an unprecedented step to endorse the primary challenger fighting to unseat the ultra conservative group’s chair.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) is endorsing John McGuire, a state senator who is in a highly watched race against Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), McGuire’s campaign first shared with POLITICO.

“I love this country with a soldier’s passion. I’ve served in Congress since 2016, and we need reinforcements to help Make America Great Again. I’m happy to join President Trump by supporting and endorsing John McGuire for Congress,” Davidson said in a statement, describing McGuire as conservative, effective and someone who will drain the swamp.

He added: “I look forward to serving with him in the 119th Congress to support President Trump and the America First agenda. Drain the swamp!”

Davidson’s decision is sure to send shock waves across the House GOP. But even more, his decision to back McGuire will be seen as a grand betrayal by the right-wing group that is meticulous about appearing united publicly, even amid internal divisions.

When asked this week if it would be embarrassing for the Freedom Caucus if Good lost his race, Davidson told POLITICO: “I’m sure he would be embarrassed that he lost.”

The race for Virginia’s 5th Congressional District has attracted national attention, with former President Donald Trump backing McGuire over Good — who had initially endorsed Gov. Ron DeSantis before switching to Trump when the Florida governor dropped out of the presidential primary contest. But that wasn’t enough for Trump, who has attacked Good as being bad for Virginia and a backstabber.

Good, meanwhile, argues that his critics have lied to the ex-president about his record and turned Trump against him.

As GOP colleagues within Good’s own party have stacked up against him, including some he personally tried to unseat, the Virginia rabble-rouser has heavily leaned on members of the Freedom Caucus to show their support in his race.

On Friday, three Freedom Caucus members — Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas), Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) — joined Good for a campaign event in Louisa County, Virginia, where almost all touted their membership in the group.

“My question to members of the Republican Congress who aren’t in the Freedom Caucus is why?” Roy said to the crowd.

There were signs Davidson didn’t agree with Good’s leadership as the Freedom Caucus board voted to name Good as their next chair last December.

During that time, Davidson sent a letter to the group’s board informing them he intended to step down from his spot on the leadership team as he also announced his opposition to Good’s campaign for the top spot.

“I ask that we consider how to best increase our influence while preserving our power to move policy in the right direction. I strongly feel that Bob Good as Chairman will impair that objective,” Davidson wrote in the letter.

While Good was among one of the eight members who voted to remove former Speaker Kevin McCarthy from the gavel, Davidson was one of the members who spoke in favor of McCarthy during his January speakership fight.

And when it comes to Trump, allies of Good also argue there have been times in the past when Trump has attacked the Freedom Caucus over policy disagreement, but that Trump has come to see the group’s members as his biggest defenders. Still, Trump has never been so personal as to actively campaign against one of its members — let alone its leader.

Trump is slated to participate in a tele-town hall for McGuire on Monday night, POLITICO first reported.

NEW ROCHELLE, New York — The New York Democrat running to unseat Rep. Jamaal Bowman has an unusual double advantage against the incumbent: local political clout and the backing of a national pro-Israel group.

And it’s Westchester County Executive George Latimer’s ties at home — even more so than his position on the war in Gaza — that could deny the Squad member a third term.

Latimer has picked up endorsements from fellow local leaders week after week — including the mayor and three City Council members in Yonkers, where Bowman lives. And while just 10 percent of Bowman’s campaign contributions come from his neighbors, more than half of Latimer’s donations come from within the district.

Latimer may not have any national name recognition compared to Bowman — who has built his reputation in Congress as a left-wing agitator for sweeping change nationwide — but he enjoys a different kind of celebrity. He’s the Cher of Westchester County, known as just “George” to many in the suburban enclave north of New York City thanks to his 35 years in state and local government.

Latimer’s additional edge over Bowman comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, that’s flooded the airwaves with more than $12 million in ads attacking the far-left firebrand for being out of step with mainstream Democrats. Bowman has tried to counter the hits by saying that AIPAC gets contributions from Republican megadonors.

The bitter Democratic primary between Bowman and Latimer — one of the country’s most competitive this cycle — will test the influence of a movement politician pushing ultra-progressive national policies against a longtime local leader leveraging both his AIPAC support and his considerable community connections.

“You should know every one of the mayors, you should know what the five most important issues are in these communities,” Latimer said at a recent campaign event. “You ought to know that because you represent the people of your district, not the people who are part of a nationwide network that you communicate with on Twitter.”

He drew chuckles when he took the microphone from his campaign field director to finish her task of ticking off the names of elected officials in attendance.

Latimer’s lengthy list of district-based endorsements includes dozens of mayors, council members and trustees and 11 Democratic committees. Bowman has few comparable nods, though he just released a mass letter of local support dominated by district leaders.

“Representative Bowman is a principled, independent voice in Congress, not a ‘go along to get along’ politician,” they wrote.

Bowman is a Squad member advocating for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and other sweeping proposals to boost the working class. His reelection bid is endorsed by other big-name progressives from Sen. Bernie Sanders to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Those aligned with Latimer see him as a voice of reason ready to wrestle back a district from what they say is an extremist focused on his national profile. Bowman’s allies champion him as a voice for the vulnerable that they say special interests and their pro-Israel candidate want to silence.

Bowman said in an interview with POLITICO that he’s been campaigning for the support of his district’s everyday residents — not its politicians. The district encompasses not only tonier towns like Rye and Scarsdale but also more diverse and working-class areas like Yonkers and the Wakefield section of the Bronx.

“There’s a huge disconnect between the Democratic establishment and the people in the district, huge disconnect,” the House member said. “And we govern with the people and from the people; that’s how it always is.”

Latimer has criticized Bowman for relying on out-of-district donations, saying recently that his rival’s “constituency is Dearborn, Michigan.” Bowman called the reference to the Arab-majority city an “Islamophobic dogwhistle” from Latimer.

Bowman countered that a majority of his fundraising is small-dollar donations, and he charged that Latimer’s bevy of local endorsements are the product of cronyism and that his in-district donations are support from wealthier constituents glad for tax cuts.

Bowman’s campaign stops are usually in low- or moderate-income corners of his majority-minority district. There, many residents say it’s a good thing he’s not like other politicians.

Recently, Angela Davis-Farrish of the New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority stood alongside Bowman as he introduced legislation to cap rent for families receiving federal rental assistance.

“For anybody who’s going to be listening to this, make sure that when you’re in your circles, that you advocate for people that are less fortunate than you are,” she said, thanking Bowman.

A day earlier, in another corner of New Rochelle, Latimer gathered around 100 supporters to door-knock as part of his campaign’s Jewish day of action.

“After Oct. 7, we need this as a community, we need to make this statement,” said state Assemblymember Amy Paulin, a Democrat who traveled with Latimer to Israel in December. “We have to defeat Jamaal Bowman. He hasn’t been here, he hasn’t shown up and his rhetoric is despicable.”

Latimer has argued that he is not the moderate, establishment politician he is made out to be, pointing to a progressive record.

“I’m at a grassroots-level connection with people. I go to events where I meet people who live in Westchester, people in the Bronx. And that is where I get the core sustenance,” the challenger said in an interview with POLITICO. “And the kicker is: The perception at the national level is that somehow the grassroots are with him.”

Bowman and his allies, including the New York Working Families Party, have attacked Latimer as beholden to the pro-Israel lobby, noting that he has not condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has. They’ve also repeatedly accused him and AIPAC of racism.

Latimer has responded that no one — whether it’s AIPAC or labor unions — owns him and noted that AIPAC also supports non-white Democrats including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. (Jeffries and House Democratic leaders have endorsed Bowman.)

AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann told POLITICO, “Our only criterion for supporting or opposing candidates is their position on the U.S.-Israel relationship. In fact, we support nearly half of the Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus and Progressive Caucus.”

With early voting underway ahead of the June 25 primary, the candidates’ contrasting styles have come into sharper focus.

Bowman is bigger picture, hyper-fixated on crises gripping lower-income Americans.

“We want forward progress. We want affordable housing. We want affordable childcare, affordable utilities. That’s what we are,” he told POLITICO.

Latimer, meanwhile, is wonky, often getting into the nitty gritty, such as when he delved into the topic of sewer reconstruction at a Tarryton event.

“Is it sexy enough to put in your national news stories? Probably not,” he acknowledged. “But that’s the substance of government.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s joint address is nearly six weeks away, but a broad array of congressional Democrats are already signaling they have no intentions of showing up for the speech.

What they haven’t quite agreed on is what, if anything, they will be doing instead.

An incipient effort to organize a semi-official alternative to Netanyahu’s visit has been slow in coming together, lawmakers said, in the latest sign of the continued divide with the Democratic Party on how to handle the politics surrounding Israel’s war with Hamas.

“Those of us that don’t want to be a prop for Benjamin Netanyahu have consensus — we agree that this is political, it’s inappropriate, and we want this war to end and we’re not sure that Netanyahu does,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who’s skipping the speech. “Beyond that you start to get into some disagreements. So the counterprogramming gets into some of those fault lines.”

Meetings but no plan: Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the former Democratic whip, told our friends at the Playbook Deep Dive podcast that he’s planning to skip the July 24 address and that he was having discussions this week about some potential “alternative meetings.”

“This guy’s getting away with some horrible stuff … and it doesn’t make sense to me” to attend, said Clyburn, who also skipped Netanyahu’s 2015 joint address. “There may be other folks who may want to have some alternative meetings on this. Irrespective of that, if I’m the only one, I won’t be attending.”

Prominent progressives said there’s not yet consensus on what those alternatives might be.

“We’re still figuring out our approach to it,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.) in a brief interview. “I’m certainly going to be part of the contingent of members that will either be boycotting or responding in some way. I think that, frankly, his presence and his potential address in Congress at this time is one of the darkest days that I’ve seen here.”

Added Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), “I’m not solid on what I’m going to do. … I just don’t want to see him here. So, like, I haven’t even moved past that.”

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), another progressive planning to skip, said not to read too much into the lack of planning: “Things around here usually get planned a little bit closer to the actual date.”

Big names aren’t sure: Boycotts of a controversial joint address are nothing new, with some progressives opting out of speeches by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Israeli President Isaac Herzog last year (not to mention the scores of Dems who passed on attending Netanyahu’s 2015 speech). What would be more novel is organizing an event or series of events specifically designed to draw attention away from the main attraction in the House chamber.

While those discussions continue, some prominent Democrats yet aren’t saying whether they plan to go. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told us this week that he hasn’t made up his mind yet on whether he will attend. Asked what factors he’s considering, Durbin replied, “The totality of circumstances.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was also noncommittal Thursday on whether she’d attend. She quipped in response, “Do you think he’ll be the prime minister? We’ll see.”

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) will skip, per their spokespeople, joining Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has loudly denounced the visit. Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), also critical of Netanyahu’s approach to the Gaza war, are still making up their minds, aides said.

There appears to be no formal encouragement for members to attend from the two top Democratic leaders, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who signed the letter inviting Netanyahu to speak.

Said Jeffries Friday, “As is the case with respect to any joint address to Congress, every individual member will make a decision as to whether they will participate or not participate.”

Rep. Garret Graves said Friday he will not run for reelection — ending months of questions about his political future after redistricting scrambled Louisiana’s congressional map.

Graves (R-La.), in a statement, said that “it is clear that running for Congress this year does not make sense.”

The decision comes as Graves, a close ally of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, was staring down two difficult choices: He could either have run in his radically redrawn district, which now favors President Joe Biden by 20 points, or run against one of his fellow incumbent House Republicans in a state whose delegation is stacked with members of leadership.

“It is evident that a run in any temporary district will cause actual permanent damage to Louisiana’s great representation in Congress. Campaigning in any of these districts now is not fair to any of the Louisianians who will inevitably be tossed into yet another district next year,” he added.

The most likely intraparty challenge Republicans feared was a run against Rep. Julia Letlow (R-La.), even though the two have a close working relationship.

In May, the Supreme Court put the effort to redraw Louisiana’s congressional districts for a second time since the last election on ice, clearing the way for a map that includes two majority-Black districts.

Congressional Republicans, including fellow Louisianan Speaker Mike Johnson, had nudged him against challenging a fellow Republican and instead urged him to run for the Sixth District, even though its new makeup would give him an uphill battle. Graves had indicated he intended to run for Congress again but wasn’t sure in which district.

“I have encouraged Garret to think hard about running in that newly drawn district. … I think Garret could win it, and I’m really hopeful he’ll run in that district,” Johnson said in a recent Louisiana radio interview.

The Justice Department won’t prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland after House Republicans held him in contempt for refusing to hand over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur.

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte wrote in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday that the department determined that Garland’s responses to the two subpoenas seeking the audio “did not constitute a crime.”

“Accordingly the Department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General,” he added in the letter.

The DOJ’s decision is a predictable response to the fight between the administration and GOP investigators, who subpoenaed the audio as part of a sweeping impeachment inquiry into Biden.

Garland was widely not expected to face charges, particularly after Biden asserted executive privilege over the audio. The Justice Department, which did hand over the transcript, also argued releasing the audio would negatively impact cooperation in future investigations.

Spokespeople for Johnson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The House voted 216-207 on Wednesday to hold Garland in contempt with only one Republican — Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) — voting against it.

But House Republicans have hinted they will sue for the audio, meaning the fight could be temporarily paused rather than actually over. The Justice Department is already in the middle of court fights with outside conservative groups and media organizations who are seeking the audio.

The Justice Department, in its letter, noted that it had a “longstanding position” to “not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide subpoenaed information” that fell under an assertion of executive privilege. Among the examples Uriarte pointed to was the DOJ’s refusal to prosecute then-Attorney General Bill Barr or then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross after the House held them in contempt.

But Republicans argued that when the Justice Department handed over the transcript, they also waived executive privilege over the audio — something the DOJ has contested. Republicans have folded Hur’s investigation into Biden’s mishandling of classified documents into their own sweeping impeachment inquiry, which has largely focused on the business deals of Biden’s family members.

Republicans have focused, in particular, on Hur’s assertion that Biden would be viewed by a jury in a trial as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”