Tag

Slider

Browsing

A top pro-Israel group is escalating its campaign against Rep. Jamaal Bowman, airing new ads that all but accuse the New York progressive of being antisemitic.

It’s the most pointed attack yet by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Bowman’s record on Israel, and it’s delivered by the son of the famed Holocaust survivor and human rights activist Elie Wiesel.

“My father taught me that antisemitism begins with lies and conspiracy theories, and it ends with violence that consumes any society that tolerates it,” Elisha Wiesel says in a 30-second online ad. “Will you make your voice heard? Will you confront Jamaal Bowman’s lies and conspiracy theories, or will you sit by silently?”

The ad — and a longer, 60-second version — are run by AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project. Asked whether the group was accusing Bowman of being antisemitic, UDP spokesperson Patrick Dorton didn’t address the accusation directly but slammed Bowman’s “atrocious” record on Israel and said “we are going to keep shining a spotlight on Bowman’s anti-Israel record for every single Democratic voter in the district.”

Both versions of the ad tick through parts of Bowman’s legislative record, including his vote against a resolution standing with Israel and condemning the Hamas attack. The 60-second version of the ad also features Wiesel asking, “Who are the antisemites engaged in falsely accusing Israel of genocide? Who stands up to oppose them? And who stands by silently? We know where Jamaal Bowman stands.”

Dorton did not say whether the ad would air on broadcast or cable television to reach more voters, but it could be easily adapted to do so. AIPAC has already poured more than $8 million into TV ads to oust Bowman, according to ad-tracking firm AdImpact.

Bowman is one of the most vulnerable progressive incumbents this cycle, facing a tough primary challenge at the end of June from Westchester County Executive George Latimer. Bowman has been an outspoken critic of the Israeli government amid the Israel-Hamas war.

Bowman’s campaign declined to comment directly and referred to a statement from Sophie Ellman-Golan, the communications director at Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, praising Bowman as a “leader for decades in fighting antisemitism and all forms of hate, as a principal and in Congress. Democratic voters won’t let these ugly smear attacks from Republican-funded AIPAC divide us.”

AIPAC has often avoided talking about Israel directly in its efforts this cycle, preferring instead to emphasize whatever issues it sees as most effective in boosting pro-Israel candidates or blocking their opponents. But the conflict in Gaza has been a major flashpoint in Bowman’s race for New York’s 16th District. Latimer had entered the race in part because of Bowman’s criticism of Israel, and Bowman had courted personal controversy that could leave him vulnerable, too.

In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack, AIPAC’s super PAC had targeted progressive members of Congress with digital ads criticizing them for refusing to “stand with Israel” by not voting to condemn Hamas. And last week, it ran one knocking Bowman for previously calling reports of sexual assaults committed by the Oct. 7 attackers in Israel “propaganda” — a stance he’s since walked back. It had also aired TV ads recently boosting Latimer as an alternative to Bowman who would work more closely with President Joe Biden.

AIPAC has vowed to support challengers to several prominent progressive lawmakers who have been strident critics of Israel, like Bowman and progressive Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), though the group hasn’t mentioned Israel in most of its ads against congressional candidates. It spent more than $4 million in a primary in a deep-blue seat in Maryland boosting Democratic state Sen. Sarah Elfreth over other candidates in a largely positive campaign, for example.

Sen. Joe Manchin is registering as an independent, according to a person familiar with the matter — a move that is sure to stoke speculation he could run for Senate or governor without a party affiliation this fall.
A longtime Democrat, Manchin’s decision comes ahead of a deadline for filing as an independent in West Virginia. He’ll have several more weeks to decide whether to run for his Senate seat or mount a bid for his old job as governor.

The move is no guarantee he will run for either office, however.

Manchin previously announced he would not run for reelection, a move that essentially ceded his seat to Republicans. But Democrats have held out hope he’d make a last-minute decision to run as an independent, and Friday’s move is sure to increase pressure on him to do so. Gov. Jim Justice, a Manchin rival, won the GOP primary and is heavily favored in November.

State Republicans are divided after a fierce primary in the governor’s race, which Attorney General Patrick Morrisey won. Manchin defeated Morrisey in the 2018 Senate race. Manchin is friends with the Democratic nominee Steve Williams, but he would likely be a more viable general election candidate.

Manchin will be the fourth independent in the Democratic Caucus and has long flirted with leaving a party he thinks is far too liberal. In recent interviews, he’s said his biggest fear is a future Senate that weakens the filibuster, a move he opposed last Congress.

West Virginia is one of the most conservative states in the nation, so either bid would be challenging for Manchin. But running as an independent would be easier than running as a Democrat in the deep-red state. And Manchin is a talented retail politician who has won both offices in the past.

Manchin likes to stay in the mix both nationally and regionally and may ultimately decide against running for anything. He turned down an independent presidential bid, for example, after considering one for months.

Speaker Mike Johnson said the Supreme Court should “step in” in the aftermath of guilty verdicts for former President Donald Trump on dozens of felony counts in New York.

“I do believe the Supreme Court should step in,” Johnson said on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” on Friday. “I think they’ll set this straight but it’s going to take a while.”

Johnson added of the Supreme Court justices: “I know many of them personally, I think they’re deeply concerned about” faith in the U.S. justice system.

Trump must first be sentenced and then is expected to appeal his New York conviction, a process that could take months or even years to wind its way through the court system.

The comments come amid a swirl of ethics controversies for the high court, most recently due to flags displayed at properties of Justice Samuel Alito associated with the movement among some Trump supporters to overthrow Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.

Alito has faced pressure to recuse himself from cases involving Jan. 6 and Trump due to the flag episodes, though he’s declined to do so. Justice Clarence Thomas has faced similar calls over the involvement of his wife, Ginni, in the events leading up to Jan. 6.

Congressional Republicans wasted no time in blasting former President Donald Trump’s Thursday conviction on 34 felony counts in New York, projecting confidence that the verdict would further motivate the GOP base ahead of November’s election.

GOP lawmakers blasted the trial as a thinly veiled effort to meddle in Trump’s bid to return to the White House, predicting that he would prevail on appeal — and against President Joe Biden later this fall. Underscoring the clear link between their fury over the verdict and their Election Day hopes, some Republicans — like House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) — immediately posted a Trump fundraising link alongside their statements of support.

“Today is a shameful day in American history. Democrats cheered as they convicted the leader of the opposing party on ridiculous charges, predicated on the testimony of a disbarred, convicted felon,” Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement. “This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one.”

House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) fired off his statement blasting the court’s decision even as the guilty verdicts were still being read.

“The verdict is a travesty of justice,” said Jordan, a staunch Trump ally. “The Manhattan kangaroo court shows what happens when our justice system is weaponized by partisan prosecutors in front of a biased judge with an unfair process, designed to keep President Trump off the campaign trail and avoid bringing attention to President Biden’s failing radical policies.”

Another staunch Trump ally, top Senate Judiciary Committee Republican Lindsey Graham (S.C.), said in a statement that “I expect this case to be reversed on appeal” and added a forecast that Democrats would pay a price for a trial that Trump supporters see as designed to hurt him.

“This verdict says more about the system than the allegations,” Graham added. “It will be seen as politically motivated and unfair, and it will backfire tremendously on the political left.”

Spokespeople for the Senate’s two leaders, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has had a rocky relationship with Trump, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the verdict.

Trump had been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records as part of a scheme to bury politically damaging stories during the 2016 presidential campaign. Prosecutors alleged the records had been falsified as part of a scheme in connection with a payoff to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who alleged a sexual encounter with Trump.

Even for Republicans in battleground races this fall, the verdict revealed one clear political path forward: standing with Trump. Vulnerable GOP lawmakers have evinced no qualms about portraying the trial as a witch hunt before the verdict was issued.

“This verdict is a sham and the American people know it,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), chair of the Senate Republican campaign arm, said in a statement. “This verdict should be overturned on appeal in order for justice to be served.”

Meanwhile, Hill Democrats cheered the verdict on Thursday after having largely kept the proceedings at a distance while they played out. Their political calculus is more complicated, even as many of them lauded the outcome — focused on a broader campaign-trail message that a second Trump administration would mark the return of a chaotic leader given to trafficking in falsehoods and seeking revenge on his political foes.

“Today’s conviction on all 34 counts proves what we have known to be true all along—Donald Trump is unfit to serve in any elected office, let alone President of the United States. I was proud to lead both impeachments of Donald Trump, and now, I couldn’t be more proud to be a New Yorker now that Manhattan has led the way in convicting him as a felon,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

A familiar refrain from Democrats who weighed in Thursday: The case demonstrated a core U.S. legal principle that no one is above the law.

“Despite his efforts to distract, delay, and deny – justice arrived for Donald Trump all the same,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a key figure in Trump’s impeachment battles and Democratic nominee for Senate in California. “And the rule of law prevailed.”

Rank-and-file Republicans, including potential vice presidential picks like Sen. J.D. Vance (Ohio) and Byron Donalds (Fla.), made the trek up to New York to support Trump over the course of the weekslong trial. They were joined by other congressional lawmakers, including Johnson.

“Ultimately, I have faith that the 2024 election will be decided by the American people, not corrupt judges and prosecutors,” Vance said after the verdict.

GOP lawmakers have repeatedly attacked the case, and presiding Judge Juan Merchan, in personal terms as Trump contended with a gag order that barred him from attacking witnesses, prosecutors, jurors and court staff throughout the case.

Ally Mutnick, Katherine Tully-McManus, Jordain Carney and Daniella Diaz contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has declined a meeting request from two senior Senate Democrats amid a swirl of ethics questions surrounding the conduct of Justice Samuel Alito and, predating that flap, Justice Clarence Thomas.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Roberts said such a meeting would be “inadvisable” given the proposed format: “a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court.”

“I must respectfully decline your request for a meeting,” Roberts wrote.

Democrats have pressured Roberts to intervene in the controversies engulfing the nation’s highest court, but the chief justice’s letter amounts to a formal stiff-arm of their push for him to answer questions about the episodes. Alito has faced scrutiny over reporting in The New York Times that two of his properties displayed flags with links to those flown by protestors during the Jan. 6 Capitol attack by supporters of President Donald Trump.

A defiant Alito rebuffed Democratic demands on Wednesday that he recuse himself from pending cases involving the Capitol riot and former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity, in light of the display of the flags. Instead, he blamed his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, for the flags.

“My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not,” he wrote to Congress, denying that he or his wife knew of the ties between the gestures and groups who aimed to overthrow President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.

Durbin and Whitehouse’s meeting request, in that context, came as a sort of middle ground after the chair said he had no plans to call Alito or Roberts to testify before the committee, despite the wishes of other Democratic senators.

Prior to the latest Alito flap, the Judiciary Committee spent months battling with Thomas over significant lapses in his financial and gift disclosures and his ties to billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow. Thomas and Roberts held firm then in rejecting meetings and invitations to testify before the Judiciary panel.

Late last year, under pressure from Congress, the Supreme Court adopted a formal ethics code for the first time in its history — but without independent enforcement mechanisms that critics, including congressional Democrats, had pushed for.

Josh Gerstein contributed.

Sen. Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, is pushing an aggressive plan to build up the Pentagon budget, a blueprint he says is the “generational investment” needed to keep pace with worldwide threats.

As part of the sprawling plan unveiled Wednesday, the Mississippi Republican is proposing a $55 billion increase in defense spending above what President Joe Biden has requested, an amount that blows past caps on the Pentagon budget set last year under a bipartisan debt deal. Wicker aims to grow U.S. defense spending to a 5 percent share of GDP.

Wicker argues that world events, namely increasing cooperation between China and Russia, justify more money to make more missiles and air defenses, accelerate shipbuilding to grow the Navy fleet, and expand the Air Force’s aircraft inventory.

“We do not need to spend this much indefinitely — but we do need a short-term generational investment to help us prevent another world war,” Wicker argued in a New York Times op-ed outlining his plan.

“Regaining American strength will be expensive. But fighting a war — and worse, losing one — is far more costly,” he wrote. “We need to begin a national conversation today on how we achieve a peaceful, prosperous and American-led 21st century. The first step is a generational investment in the U.S. military.”

Wicker is expected to offer some form of his proposal as an amendment to the panel’s annual defense policy bill next month.

Uphill fight: The plan faces long odds. Some defense hawks are already backing the idea of exceeding budget caps, and it could pose a dilemma for some vulnerable Democrats. But any plans to bust the caps will have to navigate Democrats’ demands that any increase get a non-defense match.

The increase also busts spending caps in the debt deal. House Republicans stuck to an $895 billion defense limit in their version of the National Defense Authorization Act.

NDAA nexus: The proposal is emerging two weeks before Senate Armed Services kicks off closed-door debate on its version of the NDAA. Wicker has said he plans to propose a significant increase to the bill’s topline during the committee deliberations.

Shipbuilding: Wicker, whose state is home to Ingalls Shipbuilding’s production of amphibious warships and destroyers for the Navy, is also pressing to pour more money into shipyards to quickly build toward a 355-plus ship fleet.

His framework urged the Navy to lock in a multi-year deal to purchase several amphibious ships. And it recommends creating a large-scale industrial base program for warships. The plan also proposes boosting submarine shipyards to build three attack subs per year. And it calls for speeding up purchases of unmanned surface and undersea vessels.

Missiles: Wicker’s plan would also eliminate purchases of munitions that are below maximum manufacturing rates unless those programs are above total requirements levels. It also recommends alternative production lines to increase munition inventories in the short term.

Indo-Pacific: The proposal includes a fund to modernize Indo-Pacific Command’s command-and-control and make it easier to work with allies and partners. It also recommends “surging support for Taiwan and the Philippines — and accelerating their military modernization and buying then asymmetrical weapons.

It would also push for new nuclear-sharing agreements in the Indo-Pacific and bring U.S. tactical nuclear weapons back to the Korean Peninsula.

Aircraft: Wicker raises alarms about the Air Force inventory of aircraft, recommending buying at least 340 more planes over five years and blocking the service’s plan to scrap F-22 and F-15E fighters.

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday against two attempts to use the federal courts to force Congress to comply with access requests for records about official activities.

In a pair of unanimous opinions, the same three-judge D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel turned down journalist Jason Leopold’s effort to make public more than 100 Capitol Police directives in effect at the time of the Jan. 6, 2021 riot, in addition to rejecting climate change skeptic Robert Schilling’s bid to force the House to reveal details of a committee’s alleged reliance on outside advocates during an investigation into the fossil fuel industry.

However, Judge Michelle Childs said in the Schilling ruling that outside parties might still be able to use the courts to obtain some congressional records more closely focused on official acts taken by committees or the full House.

Childs, an appointee of President Joe Biden, was joined in the rulings by Judges Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins, both appointees of President Barack Obama.

While the appeals judges rejected Schilling’s claim outright, the ruling on Leopold’s case left the door open to him making a new bid for the Capitol riot-related records he sought.

Schilling’s lawyer, Matthew Hardin, noted the judges rejected the House’s argument that the Constitution’s speech or debate immunity entirely precluded this kind of lawsuit.

“This is very good news for advocates of transparency. The panel reaffirmed that the Common Law Right of Access applies to all three branches of government, and not merely to the executive branch,” Hardin told POLITICO.

“Mr. Schilling takes heart in knowing that records reflecting the ‘official decision’ of Congress — including its official decision to accept private staff, say, for purposes of targeting opponents of a particular agenda — appear to be subject to the Common Law Right of Access,” Hardin wrote.

Leopold worked for BuzzFeed News at the time he brought his suit in 2021 and now works for Bloomberg.

“The decision resolves several key legal issues in Mr. Leopold’s favor and provides him with an opportunity to refile. Mr. Leopold is reviewing his options, including whether to refile,” Leopold’s lawyer Jeffrey Light said via email.

A spokesperson for Speaker Mike Johnson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the rulings.

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday against two attempts to use the federal courts to force Congress to comply with access requests for records about official activities.

In a pair of unanimous opinions, the same three-judge D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel turned down journalist Jason Leopold’s effort to make public more than 100 Capitol Police directives in effect at the time of the Jan. 6, 2021 riot, in addition to rejecting climate change skeptic Robert Schilling’s bid to force the House to reveal details of a committee’s alleged reliance on outside advocates during an investigation into the fossil fuel industry.

However, Judge Michelle Childs said in the Schilling ruling that outside parties might still be able to use the courts to obtain some congressional records more closely focused on official acts taken by committees or the full House.

Childs, an appointee of President Joe Biden, was joined in the rulings by Judges Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins, both appointees of President Barack Obama.

While the appeals judges rejected Schilling’s claim outright, the ruling on Leopold’s case left the door open to him making a new bid for the Capitol riot-related records he sought.

Schilling’s lawyer, Matthew Hardin, noted the judges rejected the House’s argument that the Constitution’s speech or debate immunity entirely precluded this kind of lawsuit.

“This is very good news for advocates of transparency. The panel reaffirmed that the Common Law Right of Access applies to all three branches of government, and not merely to the executive branch,” Hardin told POLITICO.

“Mr. Schilling takes heart in knowing that records reflecting the ‘official decision’ of Congress — including its official decision to accept private staff, say, for purposes of targeting opponents of a particular agenda — appear to be subject to the Common Law Right of Access,” Hardin wrote.

Leopold worked for BuzzFeed News at the time he brought his suit in 2021 and now works for Bloomberg.

“The decision resolves several key legal issues in Mr. Leopold’s favor and provides him with an opportunity to refile. Mr. Leopold is reviewing his options, including whether to refile,” Leopold’s lawyer Jeffrey Light said via email.

A spokesperson for Speaker Mike Johnson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the rulings.

Pro-Israel groups are going all-out in a bid to dethrone a member of the House’s liberal Squad, Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), ahead of her Aug. 6 primary battle.

Data tracked by AdImpact show approximately $320,000 in ad reservations for cable, radio, satellite and other formats from the United Democracy Project — the independent expenditure arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — through next week.

Bush, who won her seat by defeating a long-time incumbent, has been heavily critical of the Israel government’s handling of the war in Gaza and demanded an immediate cease-fire of hostilities. She’s also faced legal scrutiny of her campaign spending on her security (though she denies any wrongdoing).

Bush, who first assumed office in Missouri’s most Democratic seat in 2021, faces St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell in what’s expected to be a competitive primary.

“UDP, AIPAC, and their extensive network of far-right billionaires, anti-abortion extremists, and GOP megadonors have been promising to spend millions in their effort to defeat me ever since they first bribed my opponent to enter this race,” Bush said in a statement.

“Unfortunately for them, organized people beats organized money, and our community is ready to show that St. Louis is not for sale.”

Former President Donald Trump officially endorsed Rep. Bob Good’s primary challenger Tuesday morning, a huge potential liability for the chair of the House Freedom Caucus.

In a social media post, Trump called Good “BAD FOR VIRGINIA AND BAD FOR THE USA.” It’s not a shocking development — Good has now endorsed Trump for president, but only after he initially backed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, prompting ire from Trump loyalists. Trump called Good’s endorsement “too late” in the Tuesday post.

Meanwhile, Good’s GOP opponent, Virginia state senator John McGuire, has closely aligned himself with Trump. The former president touted him as “strong on crime, will protect our great Military/Vets, and will always defend our under siege Second Amendment” in Tuesday’s post.

Early voting is already underway in the heated primary, which is on June 18. The Virginia district is solidly Republican, so the GOP winner is expected to easily win the congressional seat.

And it’s not just Trump who has come out against Good. Some of the conservative’s own House GOP colleagues have backed McGuire, with a half dozen attending a recent fundraiser. And allies of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who Good voted to boot last fall, have also been working to boost McGuire.

Sen. Chris Murphy and Rep. Tony Gonzales both said Sunday the current drop in migrants at the Southern border is probably not permanent — and urged congressional action to be taken on the border.

The Democratic senator from Connecticut and the Republican House member who represents a border district of Texas both acknowledged a recent decrease in migrants but said legislation is needed to make that permanent during interviews with Margaret Brennan on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Migrant crossings are down 54 percent from record-high levels, according to CBS.

“I don’t know that it’s permanent. And so I think we have to just recognize that without updating the laws of this country, without surging more resources to the border, we can’t count on the numbers staying as low as they are today,” Murphy said. “And remember, today you have about 3,000 people crossing at the border on a daily basis. That’s still a high number compared to what we saw 10 years ago.”

Gonzales, who faces a primary runoff this Tuesday against a far-right challenger, said he doesn’t believe the drop has to do with anything President Joe Biden has done: “This is just Mexico carrying Biden a couple rounds. If Joe Biden wants to secure this thing long term, I think he needs to stop looking at the Senate for a solution and look to the House.”

The two both pointed to the Mexican government as part of the drop: Gonzales noted the June 2 Mexican elections, while Murphy pointed to smart diplomacy between the U.S. and Mexican governments.

“I think the only thing that will bring order to the southwest border is bipartisan legislation. We have a bipartisan border bill if Republicans decided to support it it would pass and we could get it to the president’s desk,” Murphy said. “It’s up to Donald Trump and the Republicans if they want to solve the problem or keep the border a mess because it helps them politically in this upcoming election.”

Murphy was the lead Democrat on a Senate bipartisan border deal that was tanked after Trump urged Republicans to vote against the legislation. Gonzales, who supports the House-led H.R.2 bill, also urged the president to work with the Republican-led House on border legislation, not just the Democratic-led Senate.

“The president has not had any real conversations with anyone in the House. The Senate, yes, they’ve sat down and had these conversations,” Gonzales said. “But in the House, they’ve given no oxygen to it. This is a different Congress than in years past. The House is where I believe you start.”