Tag

Slider

Browsing

Rep. Bill Pascrell remains hospitalized but is no longer receiving breathing assistance, according to his office.

“Congressman Pascrell has been breathing on his own since last week and continues to improve every day,” Pascrell Chief of Staff Ben Rich said in a statement. “His doctors are very encouraged by his progress, have begun to discuss discharge plans, and continue to anticipate a full recovery.”

Background: The 87-year-old Democrat checked into St. Joseph’s University Medical Center in Paterson on July 14 with a fever. While Pascrell’s staff initially said he was in “good spirits” and had told staff he was “actively looking for a beer,” his condition took a turn last week. Rich in a statement Thursday said that while recovering from a respiratory infection, the congressmember suffered a “setback” and was given “breathing assistance.”

Pascrell is the oldest member of New Jersey’s congressional delegation and if reelected will become the oldest member of the House following the retirement of California Rep. Grace Napolitano. Pascrell was also hospitalized in 2020 for heart bypass surgery.

Pascrell in June easily defeated a primary challenge from Prospect Park Mayor Mohamed Khairullah based largely on disenchantment with his stance on Gaza. He faces Republican Billy Prempeh for a third time in November.

What’s next: Rich’s statement indicated that Pascrell has no plans to drop his reelection bid.

“The congressman is relieved that this illness only led to him missing a few voting days,” Rich said. “And after winning a decisive primary victory, Congressman Pascrell is excited to finish the job alongside Kamala Harris in November in defense of American democracy and New Jersey values.”

Pascrell’s illness comes three months after 10th District Rep. Donald Payne died of a heart attack following a lengthy hospitalization.

Senate Republicans are publicly sticking by JD Vance after his tough week, but they have some advice for their first-term colleague: Choose your words more carefully.

Democrats have excoriated Vance over his remarks in a 2021 interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The Ohio Republican said the Democratic Party was being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”

He specifically listed likely Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris as an example of a politician without children, as he tried to paint the party as anti-family.

“It was an inappropriate comment,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said of Vance’s remarks. Still, the senator insisted his colleague is a “very smart guy” and that “his intelligence and his wit probably just got the better of him.”

Other Republicans made clear they thought the comments were a mistake. Still, they’re brushing past it, publicly sticking with Donald Trump’s selected running mate despite behind-the-scenes doubts about Vance within the party. It’s a sign that Republicans are still closely aligned behind Trump and, at the very least, want to project unity as they grapple with the campaign pivot to Harris.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said it was “not a great choice of words” but that the campaign should stay on offense. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) warned that while Democrats likely won’t have new material to use to define Trump, but “JD, he’s new on the scene, you’ve got to be careful.” He added that while the current backlash wouldn’t “rule the day,” saying Vance was being taken too literally, it would be “painful” to get through in the short term.

“I think he just needs to be incredibly circumspect as to what he says, with the understanding that it will be filtered in the way most negative,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) echoed: “With increased scrutiny, people are going to ask about previous statements” but that “obviously, this is a huge distraction away from the problems Kamala Harris has.”

Other Republicans largely responded to questions about Vance’s comments with a collective shrug — arguing that the vice presidential pick is ultimately up to Trump and that there are no signs that the GOP nominee is prepared to walk back his choice. Vance himself has said that his comments are being taken out of context, and that he was trying to sarcastically make a larger point about Democratic policies.

“The president makes the nomination,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said. “I think there are always going to be people who are naysayers or people that are second guessing. That’s part of the process.” When he was pressed on what voting bloc Vance adds to the presidential ticket, he sidestepped, saying the former president wanted a “teammate.”

The widespread GOP defense of Vance is a flip from just a few months ago, when some senators openly questioned why Trump would pick the MAGA-favored Ohioan. Instead, they said Trump should pick someone who appealed more to the center.

Other vice presidential candidates like Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) best fit that order. Some suggested considering former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, who ran a long primary bid against the former president.

Those calls quieted as it became more obvious that Trump was favoring Vance. Now, GOP senators insist that Trump made the right choice.

“I think [Vance] appeals geographically and demographically to blocks of voters that obviously we want to have in our coalition,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.).

The Biden administration said Monday it has serious concerns with the Venezuelan election but stopped short of declaring the narrow victory of President Nicolas Maduro fraudulent or calling for additional sanctions against the South American country.

U.S. officials said they were awaiting more detailed results from Sunday’s voting in which unified opposition supporters turned out in large numbers and appeared to have won according to unofficial exit polls.

The statement of “serious concerns”— issued by Secretary of State Antony Blinken — was followed by National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson saying on X that the U.S. will wait until the government issues “full, detailed results for transparency” before saying whether the election was rigged or not.

Nine countries in the region including Argentina, Guatemala, Peru and Uruguay are calling for a complete recount of election results that the National Electoral Council, which is loyal to Maduro, says show the president narrowly defeating opposition candidate Edmundo González.

The reluctance to quickly join other countries in the region in condemning the election comes at a delicate moment, with the opposition insisting it mounted a successful challenge to a government that has turned increasingly authoritarian.

“The election only took place yesterday and several of the important international observation missions won’t even make their declarations and assessments until tomorrow,” a senior Biden administration official told reporters in a briefing. “You’re seeing a greater alignment between a number of key actors in the international community that is pushing the Venezuelan National Electoral Council towards greater transparency.”

Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, all important regional players with better relations with the Venezuelan government, also called for more information.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador told reporters in Mexico City on Monday that he’d hold off on recognizing Maduro as the winner until the National Electoral Council released final results “confirming the trend.”

Colombia’s foreign ministry also reiterated its desire to see complete election results. And Brazil’s foreign ministry called for an “impartial verification” of the vote count and “transparency.”

“The main reason we are cautious is that they have not made the results public, polling site by polling site. What the government has given so far is a single number, but they need to show how they arrived at that number: record by record,” said Celso Amorim, a foreign policy adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Brazil’s main election observer in the country, in comments to Brazilian outlet Globo.

Under Venezuela’s constitution, the National Electoral Council — which administers and oversees national elections — is required to release precinct by precinct results that can be verified and double-checked. While the Council has declared Maduro the winner, it has yet to publicly release those granular results.

Venezuela and its allies in the region have defended the sanctity of the vote and accused American and other foreign officials of “interfering” in the election. Venezuela’s attorney general opened an investigation Monday into opposition leader María Corina Machado on charges she “sabotaged” the elections.

In the past, the Biden administration has been quick to reject results from other questionable elections like Nicaragua’s 2021 election and Belarus’ February elections. But U.S. caution highlights Venezuela’s precarious conditions.

The disputed results could spark massive nationwide protests and intense government reprisals, which could further destabilize the country . Further chaos could also exacerbate migration pressures in the region. Nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled their country since 2014, many seeking asylum in the U.S. and settling in Texas and Florida.

The cautious response also could be an indication that the U.S. sees a possibility that Maduro could be forced to negotiate an exit and wants to avoid tainting that process by prematurely joining calls for a change in government.

On Capitol Hill, both Democrats and Republicans have voiced their solidarity with the Venezuelan people, but Republicans want the White House to do more. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas) called on the Biden administration to “stand against any and all efforts by the criminal Chavista regime to steal its way out of today’s clear election results” in a post on X.

Republican lawmakers that represent states and districts with large Venezuelan communities have criticized the administration’s pre-election strategy, which included offering Caracas sanctions relief in exchange for guarantees of a free and fair voting..

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee who represents Florida’s large Venezuelan community, wrote on X that “Biden & Harris broadly eased Trump sanctions on Maduro regime as part of a “deal” for elections in #Venezuela. Today was that election and it was a complete fraud.”

“Maduro has stolen another election from the Venezuelan people & the Biden-Harris admin helped him do it by fueling his power with sanctions relief & appeasement. Edmundo González won & he must be recognized as President-elect,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) in a post on X.

Isabella Ramírez contributed to this report. 

Speaker Mike Johnson and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries rolled out members of a bipartisan task force Monday to investigate the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump.

“We have the utmost confidence in this bipartisan group of steady, highly qualified, and capable Members of Congress to move quickly to find the facts, ensure accountability, and help make certain such failures never happen again,” Johnson and Jeffries said in a joint statement.

The task force will be led by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), who represents Butler, Pennsylvania, the site of the shooting at a campaign rally.

The rollout of the members comes after the House voted unanimously last week to form the task force, which will need to release its final report by mid-December. Johnson and Jeffries spent days talking behind the scenes as they tried to land on a bipartisan way forward for the group.

The formation of the task force is meant to wrangle the House’s various ongoing investigations into the assassination attempt, with the House Oversight, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees already standing up their own probes in the wake of the shooting.

The new group will have control and jurisdiction over any other House investigations. Beyond congressional investigations, the administration is conducting several probes, including through the FBI, an independent panel ordered by President Joe Biden and the Department of Homeland Security inspector general.

In addition to Kelly, the Republicans on the task force will be: Reps. Mark Green (Tenn.), David Joyce (Ohio), Laurel Lee (Fla.), Michael Waltz (Fla.), Clay Higgins (La.) and Pat Fallon (Texas).

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) will be the top Democrat on the task force. Democratic Reps. Lou Correa (Calif.), Madeleine Dean (Pa.), Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.), Glenn Ivey (Md.) and Jared Moskowitz (Fla.) will also be on the panel.

House Democrats’ largest super PAC is adding to its already massive fall ad campaign, including targeting three new Republican incumbents as it tries to capitalize on a surge of enthusiasm surrounding Vice President Kamala Harris’ rise.

House Majority PAC is adding $24 million to its initial $186 million in TV and digital reservations in April, according to plans shared first with POLITICO. Most of that new money will bolster the original buy.

But the group, which has close ties to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, has also identified three new offensive targets:

Iowa’s 1st District: HMP is reserving $350,000 worth of ads to boost Democrat Christina Bohannan in a southeast Iowa seat held by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. 

Wisconsin’s 1st District: The super PAC is booking $725,000 in Milwaukee, where former Democratic Rep. Peter Barca is challenging Rep. Bryan Steil.

Wisconsin’s 3rd District: The group is placing nearly $4 million across three markets in western Wisconsin, where Democrats hope to unseat GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden.

The decision to go after three additional Republicans is a sign of renewed Democratic confidence after a period of deep malaise.
Democrats need to flip only a handful of seats to retake the House, and they have been basking in a groundswell of optimism and grassroots fundraising after President Joe Biden’s decision to step aside. Democrats had for months feared that Biden would impede their ability to win control of Congress. And after Biden’s flailing debate performance they spent weeks panicking he would tank their chances entirely. Those concerns are now subsiding.

“Over the last several weeks, House Democrats have seen an unprecedented level of support with renewed excitement and momentum,” House Majority PAC President Mike Smith said in a statement. “Our additional reservations are not only expanding the battleground, but also doubling down on offense.”

In Minneapolis, the group is reserving $1.7 million to help Democratic Rep. Angie Craig, who was the first battleground Democrat to call for Biden to bow out of the race. That’s an earmarked donation from a group of donors who sought to reward her for doing so.

The rest of the reservations will re-up existing ones placed in the spring. That includes more than $3 million more in the Los Angeles media market, where Democrats are now dropping a whopping $22.4 million to target GOP-held seats; $6.3 million more in the Philadelphia area, where the party is protecting Rep. Susan Wild and targeting Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick; and $2.2 million more in Flint, Michigan, where Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee is retiring.

On offense, the additional money will up the pressure on Reps. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.), Jen Kiggans (R-Va.), David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) and John Duarte (R-Calif.).

And as HMP looks to defend vulnerable Democrats, the additional money will bolster Reps. Don Davis (D-N.C.), Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio), Yadira Caraveo (D-Colo.); Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio). Additional money is also helping Democrat Curtis Hertel Jr., who is running for an open seat in Michigan.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday he felt an obligation to hear Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speak to Congress last week — but not to shake the prime minister’s hand.

“I went to this speech because the relationship between Israel and America is ironclad and I wanted to show that,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, when asked why he did not shake Netanyahu’s hand in an interview with Robert Costa on CBS “Face the Nation.” “But at the same time, as everyone knows, I have serious disagreements with the way Benjamin Netanyahu has conducted these policies.”

Netanyahu’s address to Congress on Wednesday was warmly received by many of those in attendance, but was met with serious backlash — with dozens of Democrats not attending the speech due to issues with Netanyahu’s handling of the war in Gaza. And even among those that attended, some Democrats issued statements condemning Netanyahu’s remarks.

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who did not attend the address, called Netanyahu’s speech “by far the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honored with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States” in a post on X. When Schumer was asked about Pelosi’s words, and whether he regretted Netanyahu’s invitation to address Congress, Schumer said the Israel-U.S. relationship should not be dependent on any one leader.

“As I’ve said, I wanted to show our ironclad commitment to Israel that transcends any one prime minister or any one president,” Schumer said. “No matter how much you might disagree with that prime minister.”

Congressional Republicans are asking FBI Director Christopher Wray to “correct” his testimony that there was “some question” about whether Donald Trump’s ear was struck by a bullet or shrapnel.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Wray on Friday that accused him of “creating confusion” in a way that “further undercuts the agency’s credibility.” Wray had testified before a House panel Wednesday that it was unclear if Trump had been struck directly by a bullet or shrapnel, prompting Trump’s ire.

“I believe it is very important for you to correct your testimony before Congress on Wednesday when you indicated it is uncertain whether President Donald J. Trump was hit by a bullet, glass, or shrapnel. It is clear to everyone that President Trump survived an assassination attempt by millimeters, as the attempted assassin’s bullet ripped the upper part of his ear,” Graham wrote in the letter.

In the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Wray did not contest that the July 13 shooting was an assassination attempt, or that Trump was injured during it.

But in response to a question from Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) about how close a bullet came to killing Trump, Wray said that “my understanding is that either it or some shrapnel is what grazed his ear.” When Kiley followed up to ask if Wray agreed it came “very, very close,” Wray replied: “Yes.”

Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) also asked Wray if the FBI had accounted for where all the bullets fired by the shooter went.

“There’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear. … As I sit here right now, I don’t know whether that bullet, in addition to causing the grazing, could have also landed somewhere else. But I believe we’ve accounted for all the shots and cartridges,” Wray said in response.

The questions were a small piece of an hourslong hearing with Wray, where the FBI director revealed new details about the shooter, including that he used a drone near the rally site hours before Trump spoke, how he acquired the gun he used and that he Googled questions about the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy.

But Wray’s comments about potential shrapnel sparked ire among congressional Republicans and Trump himself.

“It was unfortunately a bullet that hit my ear, and hit it hard. There was no glass, there was no shrapnel. … No wonder the once storied FBI has lost confidence of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Thursday.

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), the former White House physician and staunch Trump supporter, also clapped back at Wray, writing in a Friday memo that “there is absolutely no evidence that it was anything other than a bullet.”

In a statement on Thursday, the FBI said it has “been consistent and clear that the shooting was an attempted assassination of former President Trump which resulted in his injury.”

“The FBI’s Shooting Reconstruction Team continues to examine evidence from the scene, including bullet fragments, and the investigation remains ongoing,” the bureau said.

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

Rep. Don Davis, a centrist Democrat who often breaks with his party, endorsed Kamala Harris’ presidential bid on Friday, one day after he joined five other Democrats in condemning her handling of the southern border.

“The stakes of this presidential election are incredibly high, with far-reaching implications,” he said in a statement, adding “at the same time, the administration and Congress must address the concerns of the southern border.”

Additionally, Davis (D-N.C.) took the extra step of endorsing a vice presidential pick for Harris: North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper.

He is a first-term lawmaker representing a competitive seat in northeast North Carolina.

Three years ago, Vice President Kamala Harris gave a pitch for the Biden administration’s Build Back Better agenda by highlighting ambitions to use federal dollars to make life easier for caregivers.

“For far too long, investments in care have dropped to the bottom of the priority list,” she said in a virtual town hall in October 2021. “It is time to make corporations pay their fair share and pass our agenda, because care cannot wait.”

As history would have it, those items did drop off the priority list and weren’t included in Democratic legislation that boosted clean energy and aimed to reduce prescription drug prices.

But with Harris’ late entry into the presidential race, that vision has been given a sudden bolt of electricity, and her 2021 pitch is a window into her potential economic agenda if she inherits the Oval Office.

“I think she will prioritize these issues in a more authentic and enthusiastic way than we’ve seen before,” said Vicki Shabo, a longtime care policy advocate at the left-leaning think tank New America.

This has the potential to set Harris apart from President Joe Biden in an important way. Biden focused his campaign efforts on convincing people that the economy is doing well, pointing to low unemployment and rising wages. But he spent little time at all talking about what else needs to be done over the next four years, even as he acknowledged that an affordability crisis is still weighing on people.

Notably, neither Biden nor Donald Trump ever answered a question about what they’d do to make child care more affordable in the disastrous debate that ultimately ended the latter’s presidential run.

That’s not to say the White House didn’t have plans of what they’d like to do — not just on care issues, but also in other areas like housing and universal pre-K. But very few voters were going to scroll through the president’s proposed budget to find it.

While the vice president hasn’t been a leading voice on economic issues, she’s consistently supported paid family and medical leave from her earliest days in the Senate.

She’s also advocated for more funding for child care facilities and been a vocal proponent of the administration’s push to enhance the child tax credit, after a pandemic-era expansion led to a dramatic reduction in child poverty. In her first appearances since her candidacy began on Sunday, she made reference to all of these policies, including in a pitch to teachers.

These are all parts of boosting what the Biden administration calls “the care economy,” which refers to the labor — often unpaid — done by people taking care of vulnerable populations like children or the elderly.

While any initiative faces long odds of clearing Congress — particularly while the politics of inflation puts greater pressure on elected officials to offset the cost of new spending with higher taxes on at least some portion of the electorate — it’s worth noting: Having someone in the White House with a penchant for these issues could shake up the politics and give them a fighting chance of being enacted.

There is a macroeconomic pitch to making child care more affordable. According to an annual survey conducted by the Federal Reserve, nearly 40 percent of unemployed mothers in their prime working years said child care responsibilities contributed to their decision to not have a paying job — reducing the available supply of workers.

But Harris doesn’t tend to speak in macro terms.

And beyond specific positions she’s taken, it feels hard to extrapolate what her views on any given issue will be, since she’s never really articulated an overarching policy vision.

Allies of Harris say her style isn’t revamping the entire system but rather looking for targeted solutions to problems that people — particularly disadvantaged people — face.

It’s a stark contrast with Trump, who had and still has much more enthusiasm about economic policy than any other 21st century president and talks regularly about policies like putting 10 percent tariffs on all imported goods or lowering the corporate tax rate further.

Harris tends to gravitate toward issues that are more granular; she’s been a vocal player in the Biden administration’s policies that are aimed at helping minority-owned businesses get access to capital or that would eliminate medical debt from people’s credit scores.

“One of the questions she always comes back to is ‘Do these policies give people more freedom, choices, and ultimately autonomy over their own lives?’” Rohini Kosoglu, who previously served as domestic policy adviser to the vice president and as chief of staff to Harris when she was in the Senate, told me. “She is fighting for Americans to be empowered.”

Whatever her precise platform, Democrats and allies are hoping she’ll make a renewed effort to sell a forward-looking agenda for the economy.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) agreed when I asked her about the Democrats’ economic messaging outside the House floor on Tuesday, ticking off three priorities immediately, which she called “the largest pain points”: health care, housing and child care.

“We really need to have a vision of the future,” she said. “And we need to talk about what we’re gonna do once the American people hand us the keys.”

Leaders on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee are making a sweeping request for records as part of the panel’s investigation into the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump.

Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — the committee chair and ranking member, respectively — and Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who lead a key subcommittee, sent letters on Thursday to the Secret Service, FBI, Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Beaver County District Attorney, Butler County District Attorney, Butler County Sheriff, Butler Township Police Department and Pennsylvania State Police.

The senators sent a lengthy list of requests to the Secret Service, which has been at the center of Congress’ questions about the shooting. That includes records or communications related to planning the security for the Trump rally, what resources the Secret Service dedicated to the rally and a timeline of officials’ actions in the lead up to and during that day. The senators also want information about any requests for additional protective sources for Trump since he left the White House in 2021.

From DHS and the FBI, the senators are asking for any intelligence related to the rally or broader threats against Trump, as well as the FBI’s assessment of security failures on July 13. They are asking state and local law enforcement agencies about their involvement at Trump’s Pennsylvania rally, any documents related to security planning and a timeline of their actions in the lead up to and during the shooting, among other requests.

The committee “has initiated a bipartisan investigation into how this attack was able to occur, what security, personnel, or other failures contributed to the attempt, and steps that must be taken to ensure any mistakes are avoided in the future,” the four senators wrote in the letters to the various agencies.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is one of several committees investigating the July 13 shooting. The panel is holding a joint hearing next week with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the assassination attempt.