Leaders of the Republican Party in US Congress on Tuesday continued withholding support to increasing US debt ceiling. The efforts to raise the debt ceiling have been initiated by the Democratic Party.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned that the government will run out of money next month unless lawmakers take action. Banking groups have urged Congress to act to prevent "irreparable harm" to US economy.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Democrats will have to resolve the issue on their own.

"The Democratic leaders have every tool and procedure they need to handle the debt limit on a partisan basis, just like they are choosing to handle everything else," McConnell said on the Senate floor.

Congress is currently considering a $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan that has the backing of Democrats and some Republicans.&nbsp;

Also on their agenda is a massive social spending plan costing $3.5 trillion over 10 years, which has only garnered the support of Democrats who plan to pay for it with tax increases on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

McConnell objects to what he called a "massive reckless tax and spending spree."&nbsp;

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy called for raising the debt ceiling in an interview with CNBC.&nbsp;

"I think it's scary for consumer confidence and for confidence in US businesses and potential credit ratings if we don't make sure that we raise that debt ceiling," Jassy said.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), American Bankers Association and other industry groups said in a letter to congressional leaders that defaulting "on our existing obligations would be irresponsible and do irreparable harm to the US economy and taxpayers."

Even "a short-term delay would cause serious harm at a time when our economy continues to recover from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic," the letter read.

USA's debt and deficit have increased during Covid-19 pandemic.

(With inputs from agencies)

Leaders of the Republican Party in US Congress on Tuesday continued withholding support to increasing US debt ceiling. The efforts to raise the debt ceiling have been initiated by the Democratic Party.

Leaders of the Republican Party in US Congress on Tuesday continued withholding support to increasing US debt ceiling. The efforts to raise the debt ceiling have been initiated by the Democratic Party. Last week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned that the government will run out of money next month unless lawmakers take action. Banking groups have urged Congress to act to prevent "irreparable harm" to US economy. Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Democrats will have to resolve the issue on their own. "The Democratic leaders have every tool and procedure they need to handle the debt limit on a partisan basis, just like they are choosing to handle everything else," McConnell said on the Senate floor. Congress is currently considering a $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan that has the backing of Democrats and some Republicans. Also on their agenda is a massive social spending plan costing $3.5 trillion over 10 years, which has only garnered the support of Democrats who plan to pay for it with tax increases on corporations and the wealthiest Americans. McConnell objects to what he called a "massive reckless tax and spending spree." Amazon CEO Andy Jassy called for raising the debt ceiling in an interview with CNBC. "I think it's scary for consumer confidence and for confidence in US businesses and potential credit ratings if we don't make sure that we raise that debt ceiling," Jassy said. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), American Bankers Association and other industry groups said in a letter to congressional leaders that defaulting "on our existing obligations would be irresponsible and do irreparable harm to the US economy and taxpayers." Even "a short-term delay would cause serious harm at a time when our economy continues to recover from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic," the letter read. USA's debt and deficit have increased during Covid-19 pandemic. (With inputs from agencies)

Republicans continue withholding support to US debt ceiling increase

In an unusual move by a committee chair in the president’s own party, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is refusing to schedule a hearing for President Joe Biden’s nominee to run U.S. Customs and Border Protection until the administration answers questions about the federal response to the unrest in Portland, Oregon, last summer.

Wyden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, notified the White House this week of his decision to delay a hearing for Chris Magnus, the police chief in Tucson, Arizona. Biden nominated Magnus in April to run the agency, which plays a central role in addressing the influx of migrants at the country’s southern border.

Wyden said that for months, he had been asking officials from the Justice and Homeland Security departments to answer specific questions about how the agencies, under former President Donald Trump, prepared for the extraordinary step of sending federal law enforcement officers into the streets of Portland and what happened on the ground, when protests there turned violent after George Floyd’s murder by a police officer in Minneapolis.

Standing up a military-type presence in the middle of downtown protests against police violence remains one of the most contentious decisions that Trump made during his time in office.

“Six months into the new administration, the Department of Homeland Security and Justice have failed to answer basic questions about how the Trump administration misused federal resources to stoke violence against peaceful protesters in my hometown,” Wyden said in a statement Wednesday.

Wyden is a liberal who holds one of the most powerful posts in the Senate. He was elected to the chamber in 1996 after serving in the House since 1981, where he represented a district that includes parts of Portland.

“While it is clear that Customs and Border Protection faces pressing issues,” he said in the statement, “as the senior senator from Oregon, I am unable to advance this nominee until DHS and DOJ gives Oregonians some straight answers about what it was up to in Portland last year, and who was responsible.”

The move by Wyden comes as the flow of migrants across the country’s southern border has surpassed the peak levels of recent years. The Border Patrol, which is part of Customs and Border Protection, caught migrants crossing into the country more than 178,000 times without documentation in June, the most apprehensions since April 2000.

The administration is planning for how it will lift a public health order put in place at the beginning of the pandemic, which it has used to turn back migrants at the border more than 1 million times. Lifting that order will further increase the number of people trying to get into the country, raising the sense of urgency to get a permanent leader in place at Customs and Border Protection.

“Given the continuing humanitarian crisis at the border, there is an urgent need for his leadership and expertise,” members of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, a group of local law enforcement officials that supports an immigration overhaul, wrote of Magnus in an open letter Wednesday.

A year ago, as the protests in Portland stretched on throughout the presidential campaign, Biden said Trump was using “egregious tactics” to address the unrest in Portland.

“Homeland Security agents — without a clearly defined mandate or authority — are ranging far from federal property, stripped of badges and insignia and identifying markings, to detain people,” Biden said in a statement at the time. “They are brutally attacking peaceful protesters, including a U.S. Navy veteran.”

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., has placed a hold on the nomination of Magnus and several other homeland security officials until, he said last week, “we can actually get the Biden administration to lay out what their policy is going to be and what they’re going to do to be able to actually enforce the law.”

That kind of move is typical of senators who are not in the president’s party, but interference from an ally of the president is not.

A spokesperson from the Department of Homeland Security said the agency responded to Wyden privately last week and “looks forward to working with him to resolve his concerns.”

Keith Chu, a spokesperson for Wyden, said the department had provided only “partial” answers to the senator’s questions. A Justice Department spokesperson said Wednesday that the agency was working with Wyden’s office on his requests.

According to a White House official, the administration is hopeful that the Senate will cooperate with plans to move forward with Magnus’ nomination.

Downtown Portland was shuttered for weeks last summer because of people protesting against police violence after a white Minneapolis police officer killed Floyd, an unarmed Black man, on May 25. While the shooting prompted protests around the country, demonstrations in downtown Portland outlasted those in most other cities.

Positioning himself as a law-and-order president, Trump described the city as lawless, filled with “anarchists” who “hate our country.” And he praised the actions of armed federal officers from multiple agencies who fired tear gas into crowds and pulled protesters into unmarked vans. Among the officers deployed to Portland were members of a special tactical team from Customs and Border Protection that is typically deployed for operations against drug smuggling.

Doing so only incensed the protesters, who had been raising concerns that fascism was on the rise in the United States.

“The uncoordinated deployment of poorly trained federal law enforcement in Oregon, and in other parts of the country, must never occur again,” Wyden wrote in a June 9 letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

An inspector general report released in April found that the Homeland Security Department had the authority to send federal officers to Portland but did not properly prepare them or coordinate with other agencies.

While the report addressed some of Wyden’s questions, he is seeking additional answers about who led the agents on the ground and whether they were identifiable, with badges and uniforms. He has also asked what guidance, if any, the officers were given about how to interact with protesters and members of the media. And he has asked for a list of equipment that federal officers used while deployed in Portland.

Wyden has also asked about the deployment of federal officers to Portland hours after Biden’s inauguration.

Mayorkas began a departmentwide review in March of the decisions that led to the agency’s involvement in the Portland protests. The review is seeking “to ensure that all DHS law enforcement personnel receive appropriate training and operate pursuant to policies in keeping with best practices and law,” said Marsha Espinosa, a department spokesperson. She said the agency “is committed to respecting the rights of all individuals who peacefully exercise their First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly.”

In May, Biden revoked a Trump-era executive order that had paved the way for federal law enforcement officers to descend on Portland with the stated goal of protecting federal buildings and property.

In an unusual move by a committee chair in the president’s own party, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is refusing to schedule a hearing for President Joe Biden’s nominee to run U.

In an unusual move by a committee chair in the president’s own party, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is refusing to schedule a hearing for President Joe Biden’s nominee to run U.S. Customs and Border Protection until the administration answers questions about the federal response to the unrest in Portland, Oregon, last summer. Wyden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, notified the White House this week of his decision to delay a hearing for Chris Magnus, the police chief in Tucson, Arizona. Biden nominated Magnus in April to run the agency, which plays a central role in addressing the influx of migrants at the country’s southern border. Wyden said that for months, he had been asking officials from the Justice and Homeland Security departments to answer specific questions about how the agencies, under former President Donald Trump, prepared for the extraordinary step of sending federal law enforcement officers into the streets of Portland and what happened on the ground, when protests there turned violent after George Floyd’s murder by a police officer in Minneapolis. Standing up a military-type presence in the middle of downtown protests against police violence remains one of the most contentious decisions that Trump made during his time in office. “Six months into the new administration, the Department of Homeland Security and Justice have failed to answer basic questions about how the Trump administration misused federal resources to stoke violence against peaceful protesters in my hometown,” Wyden said in a statement Wednesday. Wyden is a liberal who holds one of the most powerful posts in the Senate. He was elected to the chamber in 1996 after serving in the House since 1981, where he represented a district that includes parts of Portland. “While it is clear that Customs and Border Protection faces pressing issues,” he said in the statement, “as the senior senator from Oregon, I am unable to advance this nominee until DHS and DOJ gives Oregonians some straight answers about what it was up to in Portland last year, and who was responsible.” The move by Wyden comes as the flow of migrants across the country’s southern border has surpassed the peak levels of recent years. The Border Patrol, which is part of Customs and Border Protection, caught migrants crossing into the country more than 178,000 times without documentation in June, the most apprehensions since April 2000. The administration is planning for how it will lift a public health order put in place at the beginning of the pandemic, which it has used to turn back migrants at the border more than 1 million times. Lifting that order will further increase the number of people trying to get into the country, raising the sense of urgency to get a permanent leader in place at Customs and Border Protection. “Given the continuing humanitarian crisis at the border, there is an urgent need for his leadership and expertise,” members of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, a group of local law enforcement officials that supports an immigration overhaul, wrote of Magnus in an open letter Wednesday. A year ago, as the protests in Portland stretched on throughout the presidential campaign, Biden said Trump was using “egregious tactics” to address the unrest in Portland. “Homeland Security agents — without a clearly defined mandate or authority — are ranging far from federal property, stripped of badges and insignia and identifying markings, to detain people,” Biden said in a statement at the time. “They are brutally attacking peaceful protesters, including a U.S. Navy veteran.” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., has placed a hold on the nomination of Magnus and several other homeland security officials until, he said last week, “we can actually get the Biden administration to lay out what their policy is going to be and what they’re going to do to be able to actually enforce the law.” That kind of move is typical of senators who are not in the president’s party, but interference from an ally of the president is not. A spokesperson from the Department of Homeland Security said the agency responded to Wyden privately last week and “looks forward to working with him to resolve his concerns.” Keith Chu, a spokesperson for Wyden, said the department had provided only “partial” answers to the senator’s questions. A Justice Department spokesperson said Wednesday that the agency was working with Wyden’s office on his requests. According to a White House official, the administration is hopeful that the Senate will cooperate with plans to move forward with Magnus’ nomination. Downtown Portland was shuttered for weeks last summer because of people protesting against police violence after a white Minneapolis police officer killed Floyd, an unarmed Black man, on May 25. While the shooting prompted protests around the country, demonstrations in downtown Portland outlasted those in most other cities. Positioning himself as a law-and-order president, Trump described the city as lawless, filled with “anarchists” who “hate our country.” And he praised the actions of armed federal officers from multiple agencies who fired tear gas into crowds and pulled protesters into unmarked vans. Among the officers deployed to Portland were members of a special tactical team from Customs and Border Protection that is typically deployed for operations against drug smuggling. Doing so only incensed the protesters, who had been raising concerns that fascism was on the rise in the United States. “The uncoordinated deployment of poorly trained federal law enforcement in Oregon, and in other parts of the country, must never occur again,” Wyden wrote in a June 9 letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. An inspector general report released in April found that the Homeland Security Department had the authority to send federal officers to Portland but did not properly prepare them or coordinate with other agencies. While the report addressed some of Wyden’s questions, he is seeking additional answers about who led the agents on the ground and whether they were identifiable, with badges and uniforms. He has also asked what guidance, if any, the officers were given about how to interact with protesters and members of the media. And he has asked for a list of equipment that federal officers used while deployed in Portland. Wyden has also asked about the deployment of federal officers to Portland hours after Biden’s inauguration. Mayorkas began a departmentwide review in March of the decisions that led to the agency’s involvement in the Portland protests. The review is seeking “to ensure that all DHS law enforcement personnel receive appropriate training and operate pursuant to policies in keeping with best practices and law,” said Marsha Espinosa, a department spokesperson. She said the agency “is committed to respecting the rights of all individuals who peacefully exercise their First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly.” In May, Biden revoked a Trump-era executive order that had paved the way for federal law enforcement officers to descend on Portland with the stated goal of protecting federal buildings and property.

Democratic Senator is bottling up Biden’s border nominee

The White House and congressional Democrats are divided over a politically charged lawsuit that raises novel constitutional issues: the House’s long-running attempt to compel President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry.

When Democrats controlled only the House, it was simpler for their leaders to unite behind subpoenaing McGahn. But the officials who now run the executive branch, especially President Joe Biden’s White House lawyers, are hesitant about establishing a precedent that Republicans might someday use to force them to testify about their own internal matters.

A glimpse of the institutional disconnect became public late Wednesday, when the Justice Department — which under Trump had been representing McGahn in fighting the lawsuit — asked an appeals court to delay arguments in the case scheduled for Tuesday, citing the recent change in administrations.

“The new administration wishes to explore whether an accommodation might be available with respect to the committee’s request,” the filing said. “Discussions among the relevant parties have begun, and the new administration believes the parties would benefit from additional time to pursue these discussions.”

But Douglas N. Letter, a lawyer for House Democrats — and, effectively, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — opposed that motion, urging the full Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to press forward without delay.

“We appreciate the Biden administration’s efforts to settle this case, and we have actively participated in those efforts,” Letter wrote. “But we do not believe that postponing the argument will improve the prospect of a settlement or serve the interests of judicial efficiency or fairness to the parties.”

Late on Thursday, however, the appeals court granted the Justice Department’s request, moving back the scheduled day for arguments to April 27, and ordering the delivery of a “status report advising the court of the progress of the parties’ discussion” by March 25.

House Democrats were frustrated that the Trump administration’s uncompromising approach and litigation strategy succeeded in running out the clock, preventing any testimony by McGahn before the 2020 election. In his motion, Letter raised doubts that any compromise involving Trump would be possible, warning that delay could further thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight powers.

The case centers on McGahn’s role as an important witness in the report by special counsel Robert Mueller about efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation. After the Justice Department made most of the report public, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn to testify at an oversight hearing. When he refused to appear, on Trump’s instructions, the committee sued.

The Justice Department under Trump had argued that McGahn was “absolutely immune” from any compelled appearance before Congress to testify about his work duties. But in August, the full District of Columbia Circuit rejected that theory.

Justice Department lawyers under the Trump administration continued to fight the subpoena on other legal grounds, however, arguing that Congress had no “cause of action” that authorized it to sue the executive branch. (The executive branch has taken that position under administrations of both parties, and the Justice Department said it was “prepared to proceed” with the argument as scheduled if the court denied its request for a delay.)

The dispute is further complicated by the fact that there are so many participants — House Democrats, McGahn, the Biden administration and potentially Trump. The former president has not been a party to the lawsuit, but he might try to intervene and assert executive privilege — yet another issue that has not yet been adjudicated in the matter — if the executive branch under Biden drops out of the case.

Patrick F. Philbin, a former deputy White House counsel who is one of the people Trump designated to deal with residual issues related to presidential records, declined to comment.

William A. Burck, a lawyer for McGahn, has previously said that his client intended to defer to the president’s instructions, pending a final judicial order. A person familiar with the deliberations said Burck had not taken a position on what McGahn would do if Biden were to instruct him to talk to Congress, but Trump still told him not to.

Stuart F. Delery, a deputy White House counsel, said in an interview that the negotiations are still preliminary but that the Biden administration would like more time to try to resolve the dispute while preserving the “institutional interests connected to the presidency.”

There are few legal precedents. A rare and limited guidepost is a 1977 case, Nixon v. General Services Administration. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that Richard M. Nixon could assert executive privilege claims over official records from his White House even though he was no longer the president — but it also weighed that assertion against the contrary view of the sitting president at the time, Jimmy Carter.

That dispute, however, centered on control of Nixon-era White House documents, not a subpoena for a former lawyer’s testimony. Another question is how attorney-client privilege works for a former White House lawyer when the presidency changes hands — and what would happen if Trump were to file a bar ethics complaint going after McGahn’s law license if he cooperates with the House at Biden’s request but over Trump’s objections.

Many such questions have no definitive answers because until recently, it was exceedingly rare for such disputes to be fought without compromise, leading to judicial rulings. But the McGahn subpoena lawsuit is one of an unprecedented number of lawsuits pitting the two branches against each other in court that arose after Democrats took over the House following the 2018 midterm election and Trump vowed to stonewall “all” subpoenas.

The lawsuit over the McGahn subpoena echoes a similar dispute that President Barack Obama inherited when he took over from President George W. Bush in 2009. House Democrats investigating Bush’s firings of U.S. attorneys had issued a subpoena for testimony by Harriet Miers, Bush’s White House counsel at the time, leading to a lawsuit.

Explaining that Obama did not want to weaken the presidency as an institution, Obama’s then White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, worked out a compromise with a representative of Bush, Emmet Flood, and the Judiciary Committee under which Democrats were able to confidentially interview Miers about the topic, with limits.

The settlement mooted the case, so the District of Columbia Circuit never issued a binding ruling, leaving the legal question unresolved. The result left the White House with more wiggle room in future disputes — including letting the Trump White House raise anew the idea that McGahn was absolutely immune after the House subpoenaed him.

But there are some important differences between 2009 and 2021. Helping ease the way to cooperation, Bush — unlike Trump — had overseen a smooth transition to his successor, and Craig and Flood were former law partners on friendly terms. It is far from clear that Trump will be as open to the idea of compromising.

Letter invoked Trump’s history of stonewalling in warning that it made no sense to delay the full District of Columbia Circuit’s consideration of the case since settlements discussions could fail.

Such a delay “could prevent the committee from securing McGahn’s testimony for much of the 117th Congress, just as it was prevented from securing that testimony for almost the entire duration of the 116th Congress,” he wrote.

The White House and congressional Democrats are divided over a politically charged lawsuit that raises novel constitutional issues: the House’s long-running attempt to compel President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry.

The White House and congressional Democrats are divided over a politically charged lawsuit that raises novel constitutional issues: the House’s long-running attempt to compel President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry. When Democrats controlled only the House, it was simpler for their leaders to unite behind subpoenaing McGahn. But the officials who now run the executive branch, especially President Joe Biden’s White House lawyers, are hesitant about establishing a precedent that Republicans might someday use to force them to testify about their own internal matters. A glimpse of the institutional disconnect became public late Wednesday, when the Justice Department — which under Trump had been representing McGahn in fighting the lawsuit — asked an appeals court to delay arguments in the case scheduled for Tuesday, citing the recent change in administrations. “The new administration wishes to explore whether an accommodation might be available with respect to the committee’s request,” the filing said. “Discussions among the relevant parties have begun, and the new administration believes the parties would benefit from additional time to pursue these discussions.” But Douglas N. Letter, a lawyer for House Democrats — and, effectively, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — opposed that motion, urging the full Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to press forward without delay. “We appreciate the Biden administration’s efforts to settle this case, and we have actively participated in those efforts,” Letter wrote. “But we do not believe that postponing the argument will improve the prospect of a settlement or serve the interests of judicial efficiency or fairness to the parties.” Late on Thursday, however, the appeals court granted the Justice Department’s request, moving back the scheduled day for arguments to April 27, and ordering the delivery of a “status report advising the court of the progress of the parties’ discussion” by March 25. House Democrats were frustrated that the Trump administration’s uncompromising approach and litigation strategy succeeded in running out the clock, preventing any testimony by McGahn before the 2020 election. In his motion, Letter raised doubts that any compromise involving Trump would be possible, warning that delay could further thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight powers. The case centers on McGahn’s role as an important witness in the report by special counsel Robert Mueller about efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation. After the Justice Department made most of the report public, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn to testify at an oversight hearing. When he refused to appear, on Trump’s instructions, the committee sued. The Justice Department under Trump had argued that McGahn was “absolutely immune” from any compelled appearance before Congress to testify about his work duties. But in August, the full District of Columbia Circuit rejected that theory. Justice Department lawyers under the Trump administration continued to fight the subpoena on other legal grounds, however, arguing that Congress had no “cause of action” that authorized it to sue the executive branch. (The executive branch has taken that position under administrations of both parties, and the Justice Department said it was “prepared to proceed” with the argument as scheduled if the court denied its request for a delay.) The dispute is further complicated by the fact that there are so many participants — House Democrats, McGahn, the Biden administration and potentially Trump. The former president has not been a party to the lawsuit, but he might try to intervene and assert executive privilege — yet another issue that has not yet been adjudicated in the matter — if the executive branch under Biden drops out of the case. Patrick F. Philbin, a former deputy White House counsel who is one of the people Trump designated to deal with residual issues related to presidential records, declined to comment. William A. Burck, a lawyer for McGahn, has previously said that his client intended to defer to the president’s instructions, pending a final judicial order. A person familiar with the deliberations said Burck had not taken a position on what McGahn would do if Biden were to instruct him to talk to Congress, but Trump still told him not to. Stuart F. Delery, a deputy White House counsel, said in an interview that the negotiations are still preliminary but that the Biden administration would like more time to try to resolve the dispute while preserving the “institutional interests connected to the presidency.” There are few legal precedents. A rare and limited guidepost is a 1977 case, Nixon v. General Services Administration. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that Richard M. Nixon could assert executive privilege claims over official records from his White House even though he was no longer the president — but it also weighed that assertion against the contrary view of the sitting president at the time, Jimmy Carter. That dispute, however, centered on control of Nixon-era White House documents, not a subpoena for a former lawyer’s testimony. Another question is how attorney-client privilege works for a former White House lawyer when the presidency changes hands — and what would happen if Trump were to file a bar ethics complaint going after McGahn’s law license if he cooperates with the House at Biden’s request but over Trump’s objections. Many such questions have no definitive answers because until recently, it was exceedingly rare for such disputes to be fought without compromise, leading to judicial rulings. But the McGahn subpoena lawsuit is one of an unprecedented number of lawsuits pitting the two branches against each other in court that arose after Democrats took over the House following the 2018 midterm election and Trump vowed to stonewall “all” subpoenas. The lawsuit over the McGahn subpoena echoes a similar dispute that President Barack Obama inherited when he took over from President George W. Bush in 2009. House Democrats investigating Bush’s firings of U.S. attorneys had issued a subpoena for testimony by Harriet Miers, Bush’s White House counsel at the time, leading to a lawsuit. Explaining that Obama did not want to weaken the presidency as an institution, Obama’s then White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, worked out a compromise with a representative of Bush, Emmet Flood, and the Judiciary Committee under which Democrats were able to confidentially interview Miers about the topic, with limits. The settlement mooted the case, so the District of Columbia Circuit never issued a binding ruling, leaving the legal question unresolved. The result left the White House with more wiggle room in future disputes — including letting the Trump White House raise anew the idea that McGahn was absolutely immune after the House subpoenaed him. But there are some important differences between 2009 and 2021. Helping ease the way to cooperation, Bush — unlike Trump — had overseen a smooth transition to his successor, and Craig and Flood were former law partners on friendly terms. It is far from clear that Trump will be as open to the idea of compromising. Letter invoked Trump’s history of stonewalling in warning that it made no sense to delay the full District of Columbia Circuit’s consideration of the case since settlements discussions could fail. Such a delay “could prevent the committee from securing McGahn’s testimony for much of the 117th Congress, just as it was prevented from securing that testimony for almost the entire duration of the 116th Congress,” he wrote.

House Democrats and White House split over lawsuit for ex-Trump aide’s testimony

To Black Americans in the 1960s who were targeted and harassed by the police, 21-year-old Fred Hampton was an empowering figure.

To the FBI and its director, J. Edgar Hoover, Hampton, the chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party, was a radical threat.

Hampton was killed by Chicago police officers early on the morning of Dec. 4, 1969, during a raid on his West Side apartment, which was a block south of the Black Panther Party’s Chicago headquarters. The ambush, and the months of FBI surveillance of Hampton and the Panthers that preceded it, are dramatized in Shaka King’s film “Judas and the Black Messiah,” which began streaming Friday on HBO Max.

 
At the time of Hampton’s death, Chicago was the site of political protests and violent clashes with law enforcement. The infamous trial of the Chicago 7, a court battle that involved seven Vietnam War protesters charged with conspiring to incite riots during the 1968 Democratic National Convention (a saga chronicled in Aaron Sorkin’s recent film “The Trial of the Chicago 7”), had been underway for a little over two months.

King, who co-wrote the script with Will Berson, drew mostly from fact while taking viewers inside the Black Panther Party in the months leading up to Hampton’s death, though they took a few dramatic liberties. For instance, the film’s star, Daniel Kaluuya, is a decade older than the 21-year-old Hampton was when he was killed.

Here is a guide to the real-life people, groups and events that feature in “Judas and the Black Messiah.” Be warned, there are spoilers, if such a thing is possible when speaking of history.

Who were the Black Panthers?

The Black Panther Party was founded in 1966 in Oakland, California, by a pair of Black college students, Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton, to oppose police brutality and racism in local neighborhoods. The Panthers, who were known for their military-style black berets, leather jackets and raised-fist salute, believed in removing abusive officers from communities by any means necessary, including armed resistance.

The FBI viewed the Panthers as a radical group capable of galvanizing a militant Black nationalist movement. (Hoover, the bureau’s first director, called the Black Panther Party “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country”). But the Panthers also launched a number of social initiatives: Members ran medical clinics, provided free transportation to prisons for family members of inmates, and started a free breakfast program that fed thousands of schoolchildren.

Who was Fred Hampton?

The charismatic community organizer enjoyed a meteoric rise that took him from campaigning for an integrated community pool and recreational center in his hometown, Maywood, Illinois, to preaching to thousands as the chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party.

In 1969, a few months after helping to found the party’s Illinois chapter, the 20-year-old Hampton brokered an alliance he called the Rainbow Coalition, which united the Black Panthers, the Young Patriots (Southern white leftists) and the Young Lords (a Puerto Rican civil and human rights organization) in an effort to combat poverty and racism in their Chicago communities.

Hampton’s rapid ascent through the ranks of the Black Panther Party landed him in the cross hairs of a secret FBI counterintelligence program, known as Cointelpro, that Hoover formed to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize the activities of Black nationalist, hate-type organizations.” Targets included both the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Ku Klux Klan. Hoover declared in an internal memo that he sought to prevent the “rise of a ‘messiah’ who could unify and electrify the militant Black nationalist movement.”

Under Cointelpro, the FBI tried a number of tactics to sow discord within the Black Panther Party at the national and local levels, including sending bogus letters to two of its leaders, Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton, which claimed that each sought to depose the other. Authorities also arrested Hampton and several other Panthers in an effort to publicly discredit the group.

In the months before the raid on Hampton’s apartment, the Panthers and the police also faced off in two gunbattles: One in July 1969 at the party’s West Side headquarters in which five police officers and three Panthers were injured, and a South Side fight that November that left two officers and one Panther dead.

 
Who was William O’Neal?

At 17, O’Neal (Lakeith Stanfield in the movie) already had a criminal record when the FBI agent Roy Mitchell (Jesse Plemons) tracked him down after he stole a car in 1966. But O’Neal soon took on a new role: FBI informant. Given the choice between facing felony charges or agreeing to infiltrate the Panthers, he opted for the latter: as a security captain in the Illinois Black Panther Party, he infiltrated Hampton’s inner circle.

In 1969, O’Neal sketched a floor plan of Hampton’s West Side apartment, including where everyone slept, which the FBI then shared with the Chicago Police Department, the agency that conducted the fatal raid. But unlike the character in “Judas and the Black Messiah,” the real O’Neal did not see his actions as a betrayal of Hampton or the Panthers. “I had no allegiance to the Panthers,” he recalled in an interview for the PBS docuseries “Eyes on the Prize,” which chronicled the history of the civil rights movement in the United States.

What happened the morning Fred Hampton was killed?

Fourteen Chicago police officers showed up before dawn on Dec. 4, 1969, at Hampton’s apartment, acting on the orders of Edward V. Hanrahan, the Cook County state’s attorney. Over the course of about 10 minutes, more than 80 shots were fired. When the smoke cleared, Hampton, 21, and another party leader, Mark Clark, 22, were dead, and four other Panthers and two police officers were wounded.

At first, the police claimed they killed Hampton in self-defense after people in the apartment began firing shotguns at them as they tried to execute a search warrant for illegal weapons. But ballistics experts determined that only one of the bullets was probably discharged from a weapon belonging to an occupant of the apartment. A federal grand jury investigation also revealed that the “bullet holes” in the apartment’s front door, which officers had cited as evidence that the Panthers had shot at them, were in fact nail holes created by police.

Though the Chicago Police Department had led the raid, the grand jury concluded that it had been coordinated by the FBI as part of Hoover’s mission to cripple the Black Panther Party — and an FBI memo later revealed that the bureau had authorized a bonus payment to O’Neal.

The first federal grand jury declined to indict anyone involved in the raid, and though a subsequent grand jury indicted Hanrahan and the police officers who participated in the shootings, all the charges were dismissed. In 1982, without admitting any wrongdoing, the federal government, the city of Chicago and Cook County agreed to pay $1.85 million to the families of Hampton and Clark and to survivors of the raid.

Clarence M. Kelley, who succeeded Hoover as head of the FBI in 1973, issued a public apology three years later for the bureau’s abuse of power in the “twilight” of Hoover’s career. “Some of those activities were clearly wrong and quite indefensible,” Kelley said. “We most certainly must never allow them to be repeated.”

To Black Americans in the 1960s who were targeted and harassed by the police, 21-year-old Fred Hampton was an empowering figure. To the FBI and its director, J. Edgar Hoover, Hampton, the chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party, was a radical threat.

To Black Americans in the 1960s who were targeted and harassed by the police, 21-year-old Fred Hampton was an empowering figure. To the FBI and its director, J. Edgar Hoover, Hampton, the chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party, was a radical threat. Hampton was killed by Chicago police officers early on the morning of Dec. 4, 1969, during a raid on his West Side apartment, which was a block south of the Black Panther Party’s Chicago headquarters. The ambush, and the months of FBI surveillance of Hampton and the Panthers that preceded it, are dramatized in Shaka King’s film “Judas and the Black Messiah,” which began streaming Friday on HBO Max. At the time of Hampton’s death, Chicago was the site of political protests and violent clashes with law enforcement. The infamous trial of the Chicago 7, a court battle that involved seven Vietnam War protesters charged with conspiring to incite riots during the 1968 Democratic National Convention (a saga chronicled in Aaron Sorkin’s recent film “The Trial of the Chicago 7”), had been underway for a little over two months. King, who co-wrote the script with Will Berson, drew mostly from fact while taking viewers inside the Black Panther Party in the months leading up to Hampton’s death, though they took a few dramatic liberties. For instance, the film’s star, Daniel Kaluuya, is a decade older than the 21-year-old Hampton was when he was killed. Here is a guide to the real-life people, groups and events that feature in “Judas and the Black Messiah.” Be warned, there are spoilers, if such a thing is possible when speaking of history. Who were the Black Panthers? The Black Panther Party was founded in 1966 in Oakland, California, by a pair of Black college students, Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton, to oppose police brutality and racism in local neighborhoods. The Panthers, who were known for their military-style black berets, leather jackets and raised-fist salute, believed in removing abusive officers from communities by any means necessary, including armed resistance. The FBI viewed the Panthers as a radical group capable of galvanizing a militant Black nationalist movement. (Hoover, the bureau’s first director, called the Black Panther Party “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country”). But the Panthers also launched a number of social initiatives: Members ran medical clinics, provided free transportation to prisons for family members of inmates, and started a free breakfast program that fed thousands of schoolchildren. Who was Fred Hampton? The charismatic community organizer enjoyed a meteoric rise that took him from campaigning for an integrated community pool and recreational center in his hometown, Maywood, Illinois, to preaching to thousands as the chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party. In 1969, a few months after helping to found the party’s Illinois chapter, the 20-year-old Hampton brokered an alliance he called the Rainbow Coalition, which united the Black Panthers, the Young Patriots (Southern white leftists) and the Young Lords (a Puerto Rican civil and human rights organization) in an effort to combat poverty and racism in their Chicago communities. Hampton’s rapid ascent through the ranks of the Black Panther Party landed him in the cross hairs of a secret FBI counterintelligence program, known as Cointelpro, that Hoover formed to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize the activities of Black nationalist, hate-type organizations.” Targets included both the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Ku Klux Klan. Hoover declared in an internal memo that he sought to prevent the “rise of a ‘messiah’ who could unify and electrify the militant Black nationalist movement.” Under Cointelpro, the FBI tried a number of tactics to sow discord within the Black Panther Party at the national and local levels, including sending bogus letters to two of its leaders, Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton, which claimed that each sought to depose the other. Authorities also arrested Hampton and several other Panthers in an effort to publicly discredit the group. In the months before the raid on Hampton’s apartment, the Panthers and the police also faced off in two gunbattles: One in July 1969 at the party’s West Side headquarters in which five police officers and three Panthers were injured, and a South Side fight that November that left two officers and one Panther dead. Who was William O’Neal? At 17, O’Neal (Lakeith Stanfield in the movie) already had a criminal record when the FBI agent Roy Mitchell (Jesse Plemons) tracked him down after he stole a car in 1966. But O’Neal soon took on a new role: FBI informant. Given the choice between facing felony charges or agreeing to infiltrate the Panthers, he opted for the latter: as a security captain in the Illinois Black Panther Party, he infiltrated Hampton’s inner circle. In 1969, O’Neal sketched a floor plan of Hampton’s West Side apartment, including where everyone slept, which the FBI then shared with the Chicago Police Department, the agency that conducted the fatal raid. But unlike the character in “Judas and the Black Messiah,” the real O’Neal did not see his actions as a betrayal of Hampton or the Panthers. “I had no allegiance to the Panthers,” he recalled in an interview for the PBS docuseries “Eyes on the Prize,” which chronicled the history of the civil rights movement in the United States. What happened the morning Fred Hampton was killed? Fourteen Chicago police officers showed up before dawn on Dec. 4, 1969, at Hampton’s apartment, acting on the orders of Edward V. Hanrahan, the Cook County state’s attorney. Over the course of about 10 minutes, more than 80 shots were fired. When the smoke cleared, Hampton, 21, and another party leader, Mark Clark, 22, were dead, and four other Panthers and two police officers were wounded. At first, the police claimed they killed Hampton in self-defense after people in the apartment began firing shotguns at them as they tried to execute a search warrant for illegal weapons. But ballistics experts determined that only one of the bullets was probably discharged from a weapon belonging to an occupant of the apartment. A federal grand jury investigation also revealed that the “bullet holes” in the apartment’s front door, which officers had cited as evidence that the Panthers had shot at them, were in fact nail holes created by police. Though the Chicago Police Department had led the raid, the grand jury concluded that it had been coordinated by the FBI as part of Hoover’s mission to cripple the Black Panther Party — and an FBI memo later revealed that the bureau had authorized a bonus payment to O’Neal. The first federal grand jury declined to indict anyone involved in the raid, and though a subsequent grand jury indicted Hanrahan and the police officers who participated in the shootings, all the charges were dismissed. In 1982, without admitting any wrongdoing, the federal government, the city of Chicago and Cook County agreed to pay $1.85 million to the families of Hampton and Clark and to survivors of the raid. Clarence M. Kelley, who succeeded Hoover as head of the FBI in 1973, issued a public apology three years later for the bureau’s abuse of power in the “twilight” of Hoover’s career. “Some of those activities were clearly wrong and quite indefensible,” Kelley said. “We most certainly must never allow them to be repeated.”

'Judas and the Black Messiah': What to know about this much-talked about film

People protesting against US President Joe Biden's inauguration vandalised a Democratic Party office and other buildings in Oregon on Thursday. The vandalism and violence was seen in Seattle as well. Protesters dressed in black with their faces covered broke windows and a glass door of a Democratic Party of Oregon office in Portland. Video posted on social media showed that the protesters even spray-painted an anarchist symbol over Democratic Party sign.

"We don't want Biden. We want revenge for police murders, imperialist wars, and fascist massacres," read a banner they marched under.

Joe Biden was sworn in on Wednesday. In his inaugural speech, Biden urged unity and restoration.

Portland has been the scene of unrest for months, with civil rights, anarchist and anti-fascist protesters scuffling with police and occasionally with right-wing militias and Trump supporters.

The protests began in last summer after George Floyd's death, the Black man who died in Minneapolis in May after police pinned his neck to the ground for nearly nine minutes.

Eight people were arrested in Portland on suspicion of offences including rioting and reckless burning, while two people were arrested in Seattle, one for assault and another for property damage, police said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/a-visibly-relieved-china-warms-up-to-joe-biden-congratulates-him-358356">A visibly relieved China warms up to Joe Biden, congratulates him</a>

In their statement, the police said that about 150 protesters scuffled with police on bicycles before heading to Democratic Party office.

In Seattle, police said multiple sites had been vandalized and posted pictures of the damage, including what appeared to be of an Amazon Go store.

(With Reuters inputs)

People protesting against US President Joe Biden's inauguration vandalised a Democratic Party office and other buildings in Oregon on Thursday. The vandalism and violence was seen in Seattle as well.

People protesting against US President Joe Biden's inauguration vandalised a Democratic Party office and other buildings in Oregon on Thursday. The vandalism and violence was seen in Seattle as well. Protesters dressed in black with their faces covered broke windows and a glass door of a Democratic Party of Oregon office in Portland. Video posted on social media showed that the protesters even spray-painted an anarchist symbol over Democratic Party sign. "We don't want Biden. We want revenge for police murders, imperialist wars, and fascist massacres," read a banner they marched under. Joe Biden was sworn in on Wednesday. In his inaugural speech, Biden urged unity and restoration. Portland has been the scene of unrest for months, with civil rights, anarchist and anti-fascist protesters scuffling with police and occasionally with right-wing militias and Trump supporters. The protests began in last summer after George Floyd's death, the Black man who died in Minneapolis in May after police pinned his neck to the ground for nearly nine minutes. Eight people were arrested in Portland on suspicion of offences including rioting and reckless burning, while two people were arrested in Seattle, one for assault and another for property damage, police said. Also Read | A visibly relieved China warms up to Joe Biden, congratulates him In their statement, the police said that about 150 protesters scuffled with police on bicycles before heading to Democratic Party office. In Seattle, police said multiple sites had been vandalized and posted pictures of the damage, including what appeared to be of an Amazon Go store. (With Reuters inputs)

Portland: Protesters opposing Biden's inauguration vandalise Democratic Party office

Democrats on Wednesday completed a sweep of the two U.S. Senate seats up for grabs in runoff elections in the state of Georgia, giving the party control of the chamber and boosting the prospects for President-elect Joe Biden's ambitious legislative agenda.

Raphael Warnock, a Baptist preacher from Martin Luther King Jr.'s former church, beat Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler to become the first Black senator in the deep South state's history while Democrat Jon Ossoff, a documentary filmaker who at 33 would become the Senate's youngest member, beat Republican David Perdue.

The results would give Democrats narrow control of both chambers of Congress, making it easier to appoint liberal-leaning judges and advance legislative priorities from coronavirus relief to climate change when Biden takes office on Jan. 20.

"Georgia's voters delivered a resounding message yesterday: they want action on the crises we face and they want it right now," Biden said in a statement. He said he would work with both parties to confirm key administration officials quickly.

The Georgia result is a final repudiation of outgoing President Donald Trump, who stands to be the first U.S. president since 1932 to lose the White House and both chambers of Congress in a single term.

Trump held rallies for both Republican candidates, but overshadowed the campaign with false accusations that his own loss in the November presidential election in Georgia was tainted by fraud, repeatedly attacking Republican officials in the state. Hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Wednesday in an attempt to force Congress to undo Trump's election loss.

With 98% of the vote counted, Warnock led Loeffler by 1.5 percentage points and Ossoff led Perdue by 0.6 percentage points, according to Edison Research. Both are expected to win beyond the margin that would require a recount.

Winning both contests would hand Democrats narrow control of the Senate by creating a 50-50 split and giving Vice President-elect Kamala Harris the tie-breaking vote from Jan. 20. The party already has a thin majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans would retain control of the Senate if they held on to at least one of the Georgia seats.

The campaign's final days were overshadowed by Trump's attempts to pressure Republican Georgia officials to "find" enough votes to overturn Biden's win in the state, as well as his unfounded fraud accusations. He has yet to admit defeat.

"We will never give up, we will never concede," Trump told thousands of supporters at a rally.

'NOT A GREAT WAY TO TURN OUT YOUR VOTERS'

Some Republicans blamed Trump for the loss.

"It turns out that telling the voters that the election is rigged is not a great way to turn out your voters," Senator Mitt Romney, one of Trump's few Republican critics in Congress, told reporters.

The election signaled a shift in the politics of Georgia and the wider deep South. At least 4.5 million voters participated, smashing earlier turnout figures for runoff races. Democrats have worked hard to increase turnout among Black voters, their most reliable supporters in the region.

More than 129,000 voters in the runoffs did not vote in November, according to state data.

Most of them were Democrats, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican state election official, told a news conference: “While Republicans were busy attacking the governor and my boss, Democrats were knocking on doors and getting out the vote.”

In a video message, Warnock, whose Ebenezer Baptist Church is legendary in Georgia because of its role in the civil rights movement under King, recalled his humble upbringing as one of 12 children of a woman who worked in cotton fields.

"Because this is America, the 82-year-old hands that used to pick somebody else's cotton went to the polls and picked her youngest son to be a United States senator," he said.

Declaring victory, Ossoff said he looked forward "to serving you in the United States Senate with integrity, with humility, with honor".

Both Republican senators, following Trump's lead, vowed to fight on. "We will mobilize every available resource and exhaust every legal recourse to ensure all legally cast ballots are counted," Perdue said in a statement.

During the campaign, Republicans had painted Ossoff and Warnock as radicals who would pursue a hard-left agenda. That message failed to resonate with many white suburbanites who have increasingly abandoned the Republican party under Trump.

Trump pressed Vice President Mike Pence to throw out election results in states he narrowly lost when he presides over the counting of electoral votes to certify Biden's victory. Pence has no authority to do so. The joint session of Congress was disrupted by Trump supporters and it is unclear when it will be completed.

Some Republican lawmakers have said they will try to reject some state tallies, which could drag out the certification process but stands no chance of succeeding.

Democrats on Wednesday completed a sweep of the two U.S. Senate seats up for grabs in runoff elections in the state of Georgia, giving the party control of the chamber and boosting the prospects for President-elect Joe Biden's ambitious legislative agenda.

Democrats on Wednesday completed a sweep of the two U.S. Senate seats up for grabs in runoff elections in the state of Georgia, giving the party control of the chamber and boosting the prospects for President-elect Joe Biden's ambitious legislative agenda. Raphael Warnock, a Baptist preacher from Martin Luther King Jr.'s former church, beat Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler to become the first Black senator in the deep South state's history while Democrat Jon Ossoff, a documentary filmaker who at 33 would become the Senate's youngest member, beat Republican David Perdue. The results would give Democrats narrow control of both chambers of Congress, making it easier to appoint liberal-leaning judges and advance legislative priorities from coronavirus relief to climate change when Biden takes office on Jan. 20. "Georgia's voters delivered a resounding message yesterday: they want action on the crises we face and they want it right now," Biden said in a statement. He said he would work with both parties to confirm key administration officials quickly. The Georgia result is a final repudiation of outgoing President Donald Trump, who stands to be the first U.S. president since 1932 to lose the White House and both chambers of Congress in a single term. Trump held rallies for both Republican candidates, but overshadowed the campaign with false accusations that his own loss in the November presidential election in Georgia was tainted by fraud, repeatedly attacking Republican officials in the state. Hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Wednesday in an attempt to force Congress to undo Trump's election loss. With 98% of the vote counted, Warnock led Loeffler by 1.5 percentage points and Ossoff led Perdue by 0.6 percentage points, according to Edison Research. Both are expected to win beyond the margin that would require a recount. Winning both contests would hand Democrats narrow control of the Senate by creating a 50-50 split and giving Vice President-elect Kamala Harris the tie-breaking vote from Jan. 20. The party already has a thin majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans would retain control of the Senate if they held on to at least one of the Georgia seats. The campaign's final days were overshadowed by Trump's attempts to pressure Republican Georgia officials to "find" enough votes to overturn Biden's win in the state, as well as his unfounded fraud accusations. He has yet to admit defeat. "We will never give up, we will never concede," Trump told thousands of supporters at a rally. 'NOT A GREAT WAY TO TURN OUT YOUR VOTERS' Some Republicans blamed Trump for the loss. "It turns out that telling the voters that the election is rigged is not a great way to turn out your voters," Senator Mitt Romney, one of Trump's few Republican critics in Congress, told reporters. The election signaled a shift in the politics of Georgia and the wider deep South. At least 4.5 million voters participated, smashing earlier turnout figures for runoff races. Democrats have worked hard to increase turnout among Black voters, their most reliable supporters in the region. More than 129,000 voters in the runoffs did not vote in November, according to state data. Most of them were Democrats, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican state election official, told a news conference: “While Republicans were busy attacking the governor and my boss, Democrats were knocking on doors and getting out the vote.” In a video message, Warnock, whose Ebenezer Baptist Church is legendary in Georgia because of its role in the civil rights movement under King, recalled his humble upbringing as one of 12 children of a woman who worked in cotton fields. "Because this is America, the 82-year-old hands that used to pick somebody else's cotton went to the polls and picked her youngest son to be a United States senator," he said. Declaring victory, Ossoff said he looked forward "to serving you in the United States Senate with integrity, with humility, with honor". Both Republican senators, following Trump's lead, vowed to fight on. "We will mobilize every available resource and exhaust every legal recourse to ensure all legally cast ballots are counted," Perdue said in a statement. During the campaign, Republicans had painted Ossoff and Warnock as radicals who would pursue a hard-left agenda. That message failed to resonate with many white suburbanites who have increasingly abandoned the Republican party under Trump. Trump pressed Vice President Mike Pence to throw out election results in states he narrowly lost when he presides over the counting of electoral votes to certify Biden's victory. Pence has no authority to do so. The joint session of Congress was disrupted by Trump supporters and it is unclear when it will be completed. Some Republican lawmakers have said they will try to reject some state tallies, which could drag out the certification process but stands no chance of succeeding.

Democrats take control of US Senate as they win second race in Georgia

In United States, the top Democrats have accused the Republicans for 'poisoning' the democracy after refusing to accept the Joe Biden as the President-elect.

US: Democrats accuse Republicans for 'poisoning' democracy after refusing to accept Biden as President

Democrats were on track early Wednesday to maintain a firm grip on the House, but their path to seizing the Senate majority from Republicans was rapidly narrowing as the two parties continued to fight for control of the levers of power in Congress with the fate of the presidency still uncertain.

Partial results suggested that House Democrats were running strong in many of the competitive districts they swept up in 2018, but they were struggling to make further inroads into the Republican-leaning suburbs, where they had expected a surge powered by discontent with President Donald Trump.

Instead, as votes continued to be counted, Republicans were newly optimistic they could claw back seats, particularly in rural areas and traditionally conservative strongholds in places like Oklahoma City and Staten Island.

The Senate outcome rested on a handful of states where Democrats still hoped to topple incumbent Republicans, but their pickup opportunities were dwindling fast on an unusually large battleground that stretched from Maine to Alaska and could tilt with the presidential results.

At stake was the ability of the next president to fill his Cabinet, appoint judges and pursue his agenda, and the two parties had waged a pitched battle to the end, pummeling voters with advertising backed by record sums of money, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

Republicans scored crucial wins in Iowa, Alabama and Montana, and were running stronger than expected in North Carolina and Maine, where the results were still too close to call early Wednesday.

Democrats needed a net gain of three or four seats to take Senate control — depending on whether former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, won the presidency, which would allow his vice president, Kamala Harris, to cast tiebreaking votes.

They flipped seats in Colorado, where John Hickenlooper, the former Democratic governor, easily defeated Sen. Cory Gardner, and in Arizona, where Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, beat Sen. Martha McSally.

But Tommy Tuberville, the former Auburn football coach, easily won back deep-red Alabama from Sen. Doug Jones. In Iowa, the victory by Sen. Joni Ernst over Theresa Greenfield, a Democrat with roots in the state’s farming community, scuttled Democrats’ hopes for a key pickup. And in Montana, Sen. Steve Daines beat back a challenge from the state’s popular Democratic governor, Steve Bullock.

That left both sides closely watching Maine, North Carolina and Georgia, where partial returns showed exceedingly tight races between Republican incumbents and their Democratic challengers.

Earlier, Republicans had breathed a sigh of relief when Sen. John Cornyn was declared the winner in Texas, despite a record turnout, and again when Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump’s, won reelection in South Carolina after a tougher-than-expected race.

In Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Republican, secured a seventh term, although it was unclear whether he would remain majority leader.

“Tonight, Kentuckians said, ‘We’re not finished yet,’” McConnell told supporters in Louisville. “Kentucky wants more of the policies that built the best economy in our nation’s modern history — not socialism.”

At least one Senate race taking place in Georgia, an unexpectedly competitive battleground this year, was headed for a winner-takes-all January runoff that could decide the balance of the Senate only weeks before Inauguration Day if Tuesday’s contests did not. The state’s other race could also end up in a runoff, but it was too early to be certain.

In the fight for the House, Democrats began the night more clearly on the offensive, bolstered by a stunning fundraising advantage, Republican recruitment failures and Trump’s eroding support in America’s cities and suburbs.

Two years after gaining 41 seats to reclaim the majority, Democrats were trying to push into suburban districts that Republicans had not lost in decades around St. Louis, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Phoenix, Omaha and even once ruby-red parts of Texas.

But while strategists in both parties had said a second blue wave could wash out 10 to 20 Republicans, by Wednesday morning, returns indicated that no such sweep had materialized. A handful of Republican incumbents in newly competitive suburban districts held onto their seats, and some Democrats who had been confident of victories were vanquished, including first-term Rep. Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, who was defeated by Nancy Mace, the first woman to graduate from the Citadel, in his Charleston-based district.

At the same time, Democrats fell short of snatching victories in solidly red districts that the party had hoped to make competitive, and lost more ground in the increasingly conservative rural Midwest, with the defeat of Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who served three decades in Congress.

“We have held the House and now, when — after all the votes are counted, we’ll see how much better we will do than that,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday night. But she also tried to play down Democrats’ lackluster performance.

“It’s not just about the quantity,” she added. “It’s about the quality of leadership that they provide for our country.”

Republicans began the cycle hoping to grab onto Trump’s coattails and a booming economy to wrest back the 30 or so districts he won in 2016 that Democrats claimed two years later. But those hopes were dashed by the pandemic, which has left the economy in tatters and the nation counting more than 230,000 deaths to date.

Still, they found some unexpected bright spots Tuesday night. With Trump making significant inroads among Cuban Americans in Miami, Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a first-term Democrat, was edged out by Carlos Gimenez, the Miami mayor, and Rep. Donna Shalala lost to Maria Elvira Salazar, a former television anchor.

Republican veterans Ann Wagner of Missouri, Steve Chabot of Ohio and Rodney Davis of Illinois also held off stiff challenges, and Republicans were on track for better-than-expected result in a handful of Texas House races where Democrats had sought pickup opportunities.

The battle for the Senate was being waged on even friendlier turf for Republicans. Although they were defending 23 states, compared with just 12 for Democrats, almost all of them were places that Trump carried in 2016 — creating a real possibility that voters could render a split decision Tuesday, dividing power between the White House and Senate.

For the second election season in a row, Democrats ran with an almost singular focus on health care, blistering Republicans for their campaign to overturn the Affordable Care Act. The law, and its protections of preexisting conditions, took on further resonance in the face of a public health crisis unlike any the nation has seen in generations and the confirmation just a week before Election Day of a Supreme Court justice, Amy Coney Barrett, who Democrats argued would strike down the law.

In race after race, Republicans’ chances appeared to hinge on the unexpected strength of Trump, a polarizing leader who has enraptured their core supporters even as his inflammatory style and unorthodox policy positions have frustrated them and alienated crucial voting blocs. A few Republicans, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who was battling for political survival in the race of her career, were willing to wag their fingers at the president, but most knew they could not risk his ire, or the support of his loyal base, if they were to have any shot at reelection.

Worried about Trump’s chances, though, many Republicans closed their campaigns with warnings to voters of the risks posed by putting the White House and Congress under full Democratic control.

In North Carolina, Cal Cunningham, a telegenic Iraq War veteran who led for much of the year, was at grave risk of falling short in his effort to oust Republican Sen. Thom Tillis. Tillis had a lead of nearly 100,000 votes early Wednesday, but North Carolina accepts postmarked mail-in ballots until Nov. 12, making a final call premature.

The race in Maine has been just as steady, with the Democrat, Sara Gideon, the speaker of the state Legislature, threatening to unseat Collins, a four-term Republican and one of the last centrists left in her party. After easily winning reelection in 2014, Collins struggled to stay afloat as her race became a national referendum on the Republican Party, and she was battling to win a majority to avoid activating the state’s newly enacted ranked-choice voting system, which could badly hurt her chances.

“We’ve never given up because that is what we Mainers do — we work hard, we show up for work every day and we get the job done,” Collins told her supporters, addressing them in a snowy parking lot in Bangor. “I wish that I could thank each of you by name, that would take all night — on the other hand, we may be here all night.”

Democrats remained hopeful about two races in Georgia, where Jon Ossoff, a 33-year-old documentary filmmaker, had mounted a strong challenge to Sen. David Perdue, and the Rev. Raphael Warnock was challenging Sen. Kelly Loeffler in a special election to replace the retired Republican senator Johnny Isakson. With multiple Democratic and Republican candidates splitting the vote, Loeffler was headed to a runoff with Warnock, after Republican Rep. Doug Collins conceded. Ossoff and Perdue could end up in a runoff, too, but were both still jockeying to clear the 50% required under Georgia law to win outright.

McConnell, 78, handily beat back a challenge from Amy McGrath, a former fighter pilot. Democrats poured $100 million into the contest, but McGrath never commanded the kind of support in the solidly Republican state to make the incumbent nervous.

Both parties had other targets, but they were considered stretches. For Republicans, the best option was Michigan, where John James, a Black Iraq War veteran who ran for the Senate unsuccessfully in 2018, was trying to unseat Sen. Gary Peters. Democrats believed they had an outside shot of defeating Dan Sullivan in Alaska.

The outcome of the Senate contest promised to heavily shape the next two years in Washington. If Democrats were able to grab control of the House, Senate and White House at once for the first time since 2010, they could abolish the legislative filibuster — the last major vestige of minority rights in the Senate — and push through an ambitious slate of bills on voting rights, gun safety, policing and prescription drug prices. They would most likely reserve much of their political capital for expanding the Affordable Care Act and raising taxes on the wealthy to offset that and other new programs.

Nodding to the possibility of all-Democratic control, McConnell warned during his victory speech: “This is no time to declare war on our institutions because one side is angry that the framers made it hard to achieve radical change.”

But Democrats feared that even if Biden were to win, they could fall short in the Senate, saddling the incoming president with a Republican majority ready to oppose him on nearly every front, dashing liberal hopes and swiping his agenda off the table. Facing a Senate led by McConnell, Biden could even have an uphill battle winning its approval to fill his Cabinet, and he would certainly face opposition to liberal nominees to the federal courts.

Similarly, if Trump were reelected and Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, his second term could be a frustrating exercise in stalemate.

Democrats were on track early Wednesday to maintain a firm grip on the House, but their path to seizing the Senate majority from Republicans was rapidly narrowing as the two parties continued to fight for control of the levers of power in Congress with the fate of the presidency still uncertain.

Democrats were on track early Wednesday to maintain a firm grip on the House, but their path to seizing the Senate majority from Republicans was rapidly narrowing as the two parties continued to fight for control of the levers of power in Congress with the fate of the presidency still uncertain. Partial results suggested that House Democrats were running strong in many of the competitive districts they swept up in 2018, but they were struggling to make further inroads into the Republican-leaning suburbs, where they had expected a surge powered by discontent with President Donald Trump. Instead, as votes continued to be counted, Republicans were newly optimistic they could claw back seats, particularly in rural areas and traditionally conservative strongholds in places like Oklahoma City and Staten Island. The Senate outcome rested on a handful of states where Democrats still hoped to topple incumbent Republicans, but their pickup opportunities were dwindling fast on an unusually large battleground that stretched from Maine to Alaska and could tilt with the presidential results. At stake was the ability of the next president to fill his Cabinet, appoint judges and pursue his agenda, and the two parties had waged a pitched battle to the end, pummeling voters with advertising backed by record sums of money, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Republicans scored crucial wins in Iowa, Alabama and Montana, and were running stronger than expected in North Carolina and Maine, where the results were still too close to call early Wednesday. Democrats needed a net gain of three or four seats to take Senate control — depending on whether former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, won the presidency, which would allow his vice president, Kamala Harris, to cast tiebreaking votes. They flipped seats in Colorado, where John Hickenlooper, the former Democratic governor, easily defeated Sen. Cory Gardner, and in Arizona, where Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, beat Sen. Martha McSally. But Tommy Tuberville, the former Auburn football coach, easily won back deep-red Alabama from Sen. Doug Jones. In Iowa, the victory by Sen. Joni Ernst over Theresa Greenfield, a Democrat with roots in the state’s farming community, scuttled Democrats’ hopes for a key pickup. And in Montana, Sen. Steve Daines beat back a challenge from the state’s popular Democratic governor, Steve Bullock. That left both sides closely watching Maine, North Carolina and Georgia, where partial returns showed exceedingly tight races between Republican incumbents and their Democratic challengers. Earlier, Republicans had breathed a sigh of relief when Sen. John Cornyn was declared the winner in Texas, despite a record turnout, and again when Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump’s, won reelection in South Carolina after a tougher-than-expected race. In Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Republican, secured a seventh term, although it was unclear whether he would remain majority leader. “Tonight, Kentuckians said, ‘We’re not finished yet,’” McConnell told supporters in Louisville. “Kentucky wants more of the policies that built the best economy in our nation’s modern history — not socialism.” At least one Senate race taking place in Georgia, an unexpectedly competitive battleground this year, was headed for a winner-takes-all January runoff that could decide the balance of the Senate only weeks before Inauguration Day if Tuesday’s contests did not. The state’s other race could also end up in a runoff, but it was too early to be certain. In the fight for the House, Democrats began the night more clearly on the offensive, bolstered by a stunning fundraising advantage, Republican recruitment failures and Trump’s eroding support in America’s cities and suburbs. Two years after gaining 41 seats to reclaim the majority, Democrats were trying to push into suburban districts that Republicans had not lost in decades around St. Louis, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Phoenix, Omaha and even once ruby-red parts of Texas. But while strategists in both parties had said a second blue wave could wash out 10 to 20 Republicans, by Wednesday morning, returns indicated that no such sweep had materialized. A handful of Republican incumbents in newly competitive suburban districts held onto their seats, and some Democrats who had been confident of victories were vanquished, including first-term Rep. Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, who was defeated by Nancy Mace, the first woman to graduate from the Citadel, in his Charleston-based district. At the same time, Democrats fell short of snatching victories in solidly red districts that the party had hoped to make competitive, and lost more ground in the increasingly conservative rural Midwest, with the defeat of Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who served three decades in Congress. “We have held the House and now, when — after all the votes are counted, we’ll see how much better we will do than that,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday night. But she also tried to play down Democrats’ lackluster performance. “It’s not just about the quantity,” she added. “It’s about the quality of leadership that they provide for our country.” Republicans began the cycle hoping to grab onto Trump’s coattails and a booming economy to wrest back the 30 or so districts he won in 2016 that Democrats claimed two years later. But those hopes were dashed by the pandemic, which has left the economy in tatters and the nation counting more than 230,000 deaths to date. Still, they found some unexpected bright spots Tuesday night. With Trump making significant inroads among Cuban Americans in Miami, Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a first-term Democrat, was edged out by Carlos Gimenez, the Miami mayor, and Rep. Donna Shalala lost to Maria Elvira Salazar, a former television anchor. Republican veterans Ann Wagner of Missouri, Steve Chabot of Ohio and Rodney Davis of Illinois also held off stiff challenges, and Republicans were on track for better-than-expected result in a handful of Texas House races where Democrats had sought pickup opportunities. The battle for the Senate was being waged on even friendlier turf for Republicans. Although they were defending 23 states, compared with just 12 for Democrats, almost all of them were places that Trump carried in 2016 — creating a real possibility that voters could render a split decision Tuesday, dividing power between the White House and Senate. For the second election season in a row, Democrats ran with an almost singular focus on health care, blistering Republicans for their campaign to overturn the Affordable Care Act. The law, and its protections of preexisting conditions, took on further resonance in the face of a public health crisis unlike any the nation has seen in generations and the confirmation just a week before Election Day of a Supreme Court justice, Amy Coney Barrett, who Democrats argued would strike down the law. In race after race, Republicans’ chances appeared to hinge on the unexpected strength of Trump, a polarizing leader who has enraptured their core supporters even as his inflammatory style and unorthodox policy positions have frustrated them and alienated crucial voting blocs. A few Republicans, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who was battling for political survival in the race of her career, were willing to wag their fingers at the president, but most knew they could not risk his ire, or the support of his loyal base, if they were to have any shot at reelection. Worried about Trump’s chances, though, many Republicans closed their campaigns with warnings to voters of the risks posed by putting the White House and Congress under full Democratic control. In North Carolina, Cal Cunningham, a telegenic Iraq War veteran who led for much of the year, was at grave risk of falling short in his effort to oust Republican Sen. Thom Tillis. Tillis had a lead of nearly 100,000 votes early Wednesday, but North Carolina accepts postmarked mail-in ballots until Nov. 12, making a final call premature. The race in Maine has been just as steady, with the Democrat, Sara Gideon, the speaker of the state Legislature, threatening to unseat Collins, a four-term Republican and one of the last centrists left in her party. After easily winning reelection in 2014, Collins struggled to stay afloat as her race became a national referendum on the Republican Party, and she was battling to win a majority to avoid activating the state’s newly enacted ranked-choice voting system, which could badly hurt her chances. “We’ve never given up because that is what we Mainers do — we work hard, we show up for work every day and we get the job done,” Collins told her supporters, addressing them in a snowy parking lot in Bangor. “I wish that I could thank each of you by name, that would take all night — on the other hand, we may be here all night.” Democrats remained hopeful about two races in Georgia, where Jon Ossoff, a 33-year-old documentary filmmaker, had mounted a strong challenge to Sen. David Perdue, and the Rev. Raphael Warnock was challenging Sen. Kelly Loeffler in a special election to replace the retired Republican senator Johnny Isakson. With multiple Democratic and Republican candidates splitting the vote, Loeffler was headed to a runoff with Warnock, after Republican Rep. Doug Collins conceded. Ossoff and Perdue could end up in a runoff, too, but were both still jockeying to clear the 50% required under Georgia law to win outright. McConnell, 78, handily beat back a challenge from Amy McGrath, a former fighter pilot. Democrats poured $100 million into the contest, but McGrath never commanded the kind of support in the solidly Republican state to make the incumbent nervous. Both parties had other targets, but they were considered stretches. For Republicans, the best option was Michigan, where John James, a Black Iraq War veteran who ran for the Senate unsuccessfully in 2018, was trying to unseat Sen. Gary Peters. Democrats believed they had an outside shot of defeating Dan Sullivan in Alaska. The outcome of the Senate contest promised to heavily shape the next two years in Washington. If Democrats were able to grab control of the House, Senate and White House at once for the first time since 2010, they could abolish the legislative filibuster — the last major vestige of minority rights in the Senate — and push through an ambitious slate of bills on voting rights, gun safety, policing and prescription drug prices. They would most likely reserve much of their political capital for expanding the Affordable Care Act and raising taxes on the wealthy to offset that and other new programs. Nodding to the possibility of all-Democratic control, McConnell warned during his victory speech: “This is no time to declare war on our institutions because one side is angry that the framers made it hard to achieve radical change.” But Democrats feared that even if Biden were to win, they could fall short in the Senate, saddling the incoming president with a Republican majority ready to oppose him on nearly every front, dashing liberal hopes and swiping his agenda off the table. Facing a Senate led by McConnell, Biden could even have an uphill battle winning its approval to fill his Cabinet, and he would certainly face opposition to liberal nominees to the federal courts. Similarly, if Trump were reelected and Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, his second term could be a frustrating exercise in stalemate.

Democrats battle for Senate control as they maintain grip on House majority

Voters caught up in this state’s exceedingly close Senate race could be forgiven for believing Gov. Steve Bullock, the Democratic candidate, was sharing the ballot with Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader.

An incessant stream of Republican-funded advertisements depicts Bullock, a popular two-term governor, alongside Schumer and other leading Democrats such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sen. Steve Daines, the Republican incumbent battling for political survival in the conservative-leaning state, regularly tries to tie his opponent to the national party, asserting that Bullock is Schumer’s “lap dog.”

“Steve Bullock in the Senate puts Chuck Schumer in charge,” the latest ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee said. “Think about that.”

Bullock doesn’t think much about it.

“I say it is all B.S.,” he said in an interview as snow descended upon Montana and shut down campaign appearances already curtailed by the coronavirus, which has hung over the election season and was surging anew in the Mountain West. “Montanans see through some of the stuff where they are trying to turn me into something they don’t recognize.”

But while the governor resented the ad’s implication, in one respect it was absolutely true: If Bullock is elected to the Senate, Schumer will almost certainly be in charge as the majority leader.

Here in Montana and in crucial battleground states across the country, Republicans are playing defense in a struggle for control of the Senate. Dragged by President Donald Trump’s struggles even in conservative states and confronting a phalanx of Democratic opponents who have raked in extraordinary sums of cash to challenge them, Republicans privately acknowledge that their majority is hanging by a thread.

The Montana race, described by strategists for both parties as a coin flip, is one of a handful of contests that will determine control of the Senate and the ability of the next president to pursue his agenda, fill a cabinet and win the judicial confirmations suddenly at the forefront of the nation’s political dialogue. Democrats have other narrow paths to Senate power, but a Bullock victory would essentially assure it and signal Democratic gains elsewhere.

As the race entered its final days, Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, were being forced to shore up candidates in traditionally safe locations such as Alaska, Kansas and South Carolina. Democrats believe they are already on track to win Arizona and Colorado and are on the hunt for a half-dozen others starting with Iowa, Maine and North Carolina. Georgia is suddenly looming as a real opportunity for Democrats, with both of the state’s Republican senators at risk.

Democrats conceded they were likely to lose in Alabama, where Sen. Doug Jones is running for reelection after an upset victory in a special election in 2017, and are keeping a close watch on Michigan, where Sen. Gary Peters is facing John James, a Republican who was receiving a last-minute surge of outside money. But they were eyeing significant pickups elsewhere.

With Republicans holding the Senate majority by a margin of 53-47, a net gain of three seats would put Democrats in control should former Vice President Joe Biden win the presidency; four would be required if Trump is reelected.

Schumer called the battle for the Senate a “nail-biter,” but said the outlook for Democrats was far brighter than it was only a few months ago.

“If you would have told me in early January that we would have a good chance of winning the Senate, I would have said that is a real long shot,” he said in an interview. “Now we are in the ballpark because of the strategic decision to expand the seats that are in play.”

Republicans quietly agree that their prospects have dimmed considerably. One Senate Republican leader said privately that the party could end up with anywhere from 47 to 52 seats.

“It is a 50-50 proposition,” said McConnell, R-Ky., who appears to be safely headed toward reelection himself, about his chances for remaining majority leader. “We have a lot of exposure. It is a dogfight out there.”

Republicans are battling the brawl from a weakened position, given Trump’s woes and the record-crushing levels of money Democrats have raised for Senate races. Democratic challengers have flipped the usual formula on its head and outperformed Republican incumbents when it comes to contributions, providing ample resources for TV advertising even as the traditional campaign model has been upended by the pandemic.

Here in Montana, at least an estimated $120 million will be spent, while in Maine, more than $100 million is being poured into the showdown between Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican seeking a fifth term, and Sara Gideon, the Democratic speaker of the state House. The race in North Carolina, where Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican, is trying to hold on against Cal Cunningham, a Democrat, is set to be the most expensive Senate contest ever, with well over $200 million expended.

While Democratic candidates are still outspending Republicans in most of the marquee races during the final weeks, the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC affiliated with McConnell, has dumped more than $82 million into the effort since early October, helping close a money gap Republicans attribute to the success of online small-donor Democratic fundraising.

“We are being outspent dramatically, like so many other races around the country,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a three-term Texas Republican who finds himself in an unexpectedly tough match against M.J. Hegar, a Democrat and veteran. “We have been a little late to the dance and I think we are going to have to learn from the way Democrats raise money. It is no longer like going to a dinner and a cocktail party.”

The fact that Cornyn finds himself sweating is testament to how Democrats have opened multiple potential routes to a Senate majority while Republicans have failed to put their usual strongholds out of reach. Democrats have been unable to put away Collins, whom they saw as exceptionally vulnerable after her vote in 2018 to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. But Republicans now worry the voting system in Maine — in which voters’ second-choice candidate is counted if no candidate earns 50% — could cost her on Tuesday.

Democrats have focused relentlessly on health care in their campaigns, scorching Republicans for their yearslong drive to overturn the Affordable Care Act and its protections for preexisting conditions. The power of the message has been amplified by the pandemic and public anxiety about health costs. Republicans have pushed back with pledges to guarantee coverage but have not produced specifics on how they would do so.

The challenge for Democrats is that to win the Senate, they must prevail in states Trump carried in 2016 and is likely to carry again this year such as Iowa and Montana, though Biden victories in places like Arizona and North Carolina would make their task easier.

Voters caught up in this state’s exceedingly close Senate race could be forgiven for believing Gov. Steve Bullock, the Democratic candidate, was sharing the ballot with Sen.

Voters caught up in this state’s exceedingly close Senate race could be forgiven for believing Gov. Steve Bullock, the Democratic candidate, was sharing the ballot with Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader. An incessant stream of Republican-funded advertisements depicts Bullock, a popular two-term governor, alongside Schumer and other leading Democrats such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sen. Steve Daines, the Republican incumbent battling for political survival in the conservative-leaning state, regularly tries to tie his opponent to the national party, asserting that Bullock is Schumer’s “lap dog.” “Steve Bullock in the Senate puts Chuck Schumer in charge,” the latest ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee said. “Think about that.” Bullock doesn’t think much about it. “I say it is all B.S.,” he said in an interview as snow descended upon Montana and shut down campaign appearances already curtailed by the coronavirus, which has hung over the election season and was surging anew in the Mountain West. “Montanans see through some of the stuff where they are trying to turn me into something they don’t recognize.” But while the governor resented the ad’s implication, in one respect it was absolutely true: If Bullock is elected to the Senate, Schumer will almost certainly be in charge as the majority leader. Here in Montana and in crucial battleground states across the country, Republicans are playing defense in a struggle for control of the Senate. Dragged by President Donald Trump’s struggles even in conservative states and confronting a phalanx of Democratic opponents who have raked in extraordinary sums of cash to challenge them, Republicans privately acknowledge that their majority is hanging by a thread. The Montana race, described by strategists for both parties as a coin flip, is one of a handful of contests that will determine control of the Senate and the ability of the next president to pursue his agenda, fill a cabinet and win the judicial confirmations suddenly at the forefront of the nation’s political dialogue. Democrats have other narrow paths to Senate power, but a Bullock victory would essentially assure it and signal Democratic gains elsewhere. As the race entered its final days, Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, were being forced to shore up candidates in traditionally safe locations such as Alaska, Kansas and South Carolina. Democrats believe they are already on track to win Arizona and Colorado and are on the hunt for a half-dozen others starting with Iowa, Maine and North Carolina. Georgia is suddenly looming as a real opportunity for Democrats, with both of the state’s Republican senators at risk. Democrats conceded they were likely to lose in Alabama, where Sen. Doug Jones is running for reelection after an upset victory in a special election in 2017, and are keeping a close watch on Michigan, where Sen. Gary Peters is facing John James, a Republican who was receiving a last-minute surge of outside money. But they were eyeing significant pickups elsewhere. With Republicans holding the Senate majority by a margin of 53-47, a net gain of three seats would put Democrats in control should former Vice President Joe Biden win the presidency; four would be required if Trump is reelected. Schumer called the battle for the Senate a “nail-biter,” but said the outlook for Democrats was far brighter than it was only a few months ago. “If you would have told me in early January that we would have a good chance of winning the Senate, I would have said that is a real long shot,” he said in an interview. “Now we are in the ballpark because of the strategic decision to expand the seats that are in play.” Republicans quietly agree that their prospects have dimmed considerably. One Senate Republican leader said privately that the party could end up with anywhere from 47 to 52 seats. “It is a 50-50 proposition,” said McConnell, R-Ky., who appears to be safely headed toward reelection himself, about his chances for remaining majority leader. “We have a lot of exposure. It is a dogfight out there.” Republicans are battling the brawl from a weakened position, given Trump’s woes and the record-crushing levels of money Democrats have raised for Senate races. Democratic challengers have flipped the usual formula on its head and outperformed Republican incumbents when it comes to contributions, providing ample resources for TV advertising even as the traditional campaign model has been upended by the pandemic. Here in Montana, at least an estimated $120 million will be spent, while in Maine, more than $100 million is being poured into the showdown between Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican seeking a fifth term, and Sara Gideon, the Democratic speaker of the state House. The race in North Carolina, where Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican, is trying to hold on against Cal Cunningham, a Democrat, is set to be the most expensive Senate contest ever, with well over $200 million expended. While Democratic candidates are still outspending Republicans in most of the marquee races during the final weeks, the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC affiliated with McConnell, has dumped more than $82 million into the effort since early October, helping close a money gap Republicans attribute to the success of online small-donor Democratic fundraising. “We are being outspent dramatically, like so many other races around the country,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a three-term Texas Republican who finds himself in an unexpectedly tough match against M.J. Hegar, a Democrat and veteran. “We have been a little late to the dance and I think we are going to have to learn from the way Democrats raise money. It is no longer like going to a dinner and a cocktail party.” The fact that Cornyn finds himself sweating is testament to how Democrats have opened multiple potential routes to a Senate majority while Republicans have failed to put their usual strongholds out of reach. Democrats have been unable to put away Collins, whom they saw as exceptionally vulnerable after her vote in 2018 to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. But Republicans now worry the voting system in Maine — in which voters’ second-choice candidate is counted if no candidate earns 50% — could cost her on Tuesday. Democrats have focused relentlessly on health care in their campaigns, scorching Republicans for their yearslong drive to overturn the Affordable Care Act and its protections for preexisting conditions. The power of the message has been amplified by the pandemic and public anxiety about health costs. Republicans have pushed back with pledges to guarantee coverage but have not produced specifics on how they would do so. The challenge for Democrats is that to win the Senate, they must prevail in states Trump carried in 2016 and is likely to carry again this year such as Iowa and Montana, though Biden victories in places like Arizona and North Carolina would make their task easier.

Fueled by cash, health care and Trump’s woes, Democrats aim for Senate control

Democrats ground the Senate to a crawl Friday as debate began on confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, unleashing a barrage of dilatory tactics that briefly forced the chamber into an unusual closed session and prompted an acrid partisan brawl.

Lacking the votes to block Barrett’s installation, Democrats hoped to put an indelible stain on her confirmation and brand the process of replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an illegitimate power grab. Their efforts appeared to be squarely aimed at revving up the party’s base just 11 days before the election.

“The Republicans, as we all know, as the nation knows, are running the most partisan, most hypocritical, least legitimate process in the history of Supreme Court nominations,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “We are not going to have business as usual.”

After Schumer demanded, unusually, that all members be physically present in the chamber to conduct business, though, Republicans roundly rejected each move. In time, they succeeded in beginning formal debate on Barrett’s nomination and setting the Senate on course for a final confirmation vote Monday.

Most senators were expected to remain in Washington through the weekend to debate Barrett’s nomination, missing some of their last opportunities to campaign in favor of a push to install Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee by Election Day. Democrats promised more delay tactics but conceded they were powerless to actually block or delay the vote.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-trump-biden-press-on-in-the-final-leg-of-campaigning-337583">US Election 2020: Trump, Biden press on in the final leg of campaigning</a> 
 
“Might does not make right,” Schumer said again and again, referring to Republicans’ decision to backtrack on earlier promises not to confirm a new justice so close to the election.

Friday’s exchanges, heavy with references to three decades of escalating warfare over the courts, suggested an already polarized Senate was growing only more bitter as Republicans closed in on a singular achievement: a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court that could well outlast Trump’s presidency or their own Senate majority.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the majority leader, briefly tried to refocus attention on Barrett herself, an appeals court judge in Chicago who, at 48, could serve on the court for decades. Like Democrats, Republicans are counting on the confirmation of a young, conservative judge on the court to excite their base and close a dangerously wide polling gap.

“This outstanding nominee is exceptionally suited for this job — period,” McConnell said. “And I know we all know that.”

Later, after rehashing decades of tit-for-tat confirmation fights with Democrats, he added, “The good news is this: In about 72 hours, I anticipate, we will have a third new justice to the Supreme Court.”

But mostly, Barrett receded to the background as Democrats and Republicans traded complaints and defenses about the confirmation process itself. Democrats trained fury on Republicans for filling the seat at all so close to an election, especially after they refused to fill a similar vacancy in 2016 when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland eight months before the election. Then, Republicans insisted that voters should be allowed to have a say in filling the seat.

Democrats began making trouble as soon as the Senate gaveled into session just after noon. When McConnell tried to begin the day’s business, Schumer made an unusual demand: Democrats would insist that a quorum of senators be present to do so. Typically, both parties ignore that requirement, and only a few senators are present at any one time.

By the time the Senate wrapped up business three hours later, he had forced six roll call votes, including on whether to indefinitely delay consideration of the nomination, to send it back to the Judiciary Committee and to adjourn the Senate altogether until after the election. Most of the votes fell along party lines, but Democrats did pick up occasional support from Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both Republicans, who oppose filling the seat before Election Day.

The decision to go into closed session, though, was the most unusual. Not since 2010 has the Senate met in secret in that way. Cameras that broadcast proceedings in the chamber were shut off. Reporters and even most Senate staff were cleared from the chamber. Senators who remained were sworn to secrecy.

Schumer framed it as a last-ditch effort for senators to have a heart-to-heart discussion about the confirmation process and push off the vote before it was too late.

“The damage to Americans’ faith in these institutions could be lasting,” he said. “So before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.”

Republicans wanted no such discussion. They voted within a matter of minutes to reopen the proceedings and move ahead with considering Barrett.

“It’s just harassment,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “It’s not about substance.”

But it was left to McConnell, the architect of Republicans’ takeover of the federal courts, to offer a fuller response. Turning away from the cameras to speak directly to Republican members seated at their desks, he offered a selectively curated history of the devolving judicial nominations process in the Senate, reaching back to Democrats’ rejection of Robert Bork, a conservative nominee, in 1987.

McConnell argued that the decision to block Garland had been consistent with history and so was the decision to confirm Barrett because now, unlike then, the same party controls the White House and the Senate. Democrats view the Garland blockade as a serious escalation from which the chamber has not recovered.

“This is not spin. This is fact,” McConnell said. Referring to Democrats, he added, “Every new escalation, every new step, every new shattered precedent — every one of them was initiated over there. No exceptions.”

In a sign of how toxic the relationship between the two leaders had become four years after Schumer assumed his leadership post, McConnell suggested his counterpart was merely reaping what he had sown.

“I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he’s built,” McConnell said. “I hope he’s happy with where his ingenuity has gotten the Senate.”

Schumer was just as withering.

“We have just heard a tit-for-tat, convoluted version of history that the majority leader uses to justify steering the Senate toward one of the lowest moments in its history,” he said in reply. McConnell’s actions, he added, would “forever defile the Senate.”

Democrats ground the Senate to a crawl Friday as debate began on confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, unleashing a barrage of dilatory tactics that briefly forced the chamber into an unusual closed session and prompted an acrid partisan brawl.

Democrats ground the Senate to a crawl Friday as debate began on confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, unleashing a barrage of dilatory tactics that briefly forced the chamber into an unusual closed session and prompted an acrid partisan brawl. Lacking the votes to block Barrett’s installation, Democrats hoped to put an indelible stain on her confirmation and brand the process of replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an illegitimate power grab. Their efforts appeared to be squarely aimed at revving up the party’s base just 11 days before the election. “The Republicans, as we all know, as the nation knows, are running the most partisan, most hypocritical, least legitimate process in the history of Supreme Court nominations,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “We are not going to have business as usual.” After Schumer demanded, unusually, that all members be physically present in the chamber to conduct business, though, Republicans roundly rejected each move. In time, they succeeded in beginning formal debate on Barrett’s nomination and setting the Senate on course for a final confirmation vote Monday. Most senators were expected to remain in Washington through the weekend to debate Barrett’s nomination, missing some of their last opportunities to campaign in favor of a push to install Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee by Election Day. Democrats promised more delay tactics but conceded they were powerless to actually block or delay the vote. Also Read | US Election 2020: Trump, Biden press on in the final leg of campaigning “Might does not make right,” Schumer said again and again, referring to Republicans’ decision to backtrack on earlier promises not to confirm a new justice so close to the election. Friday’s exchanges, heavy with references to three decades of escalating warfare over the courts, suggested an already polarized Senate was growing only more bitter as Republicans closed in on a singular achievement: a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court that could well outlast Trump’s presidency or their own Senate majority. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the majority leader, briefly tried to refocus attention on Barrett herself, an appeals court judge in Chicago who, at 48, could serve on the court for decades. Like Democrats, Republicans are counting on the confirmation of a young, conservative judge on the court to excite their base and close a dangerously wide polling gap. “This outstanding nominee is exceptionally suited for this job — period,” McConnell said. “And I know we all know that.” Later, after rehashing decades of tit-for-tat confirmation fights with Democrats, he added, “The good news is this: In about 72 hours, I anticipate, we will have a third new justice to the Supreme Court.” But mostly, Barrett receded to the background as Democrats and Republicans traded complaints and defenses about the confirmation process itself. Democrats trained fury on Republicans for filling the seat at all so close to an election, especially after they refused to fill a similar vacancy in 2016 when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland eight months before the election. Then, Republicans insisted that voters should be allowed to have a say in filling the seat. Democrats began making trouble as soon as the Senate gaveled into session just after noon. When McConnell tried to begin the day’s business, Schumer made an unusual demand: Democrats would insist that a quorum of senators be present to do so. Typically, both parties ignore that requirement, and only a few senators are present at any one time. By the time the Senate wrapped up business three hours later, he had forced six roll call votes, including on whether to indefinitely delay consideration of the nomination, to send it back to the Judiciary Committee and to adjourn the Senate altogether until after the election. Most of the votes fell along party lines, but Democrats did pick up occasional support from Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both Republicans, who oppose filling the seat before Election Day. The decision to go into closed session, though, was the most unusual. Not since 2010 has the Senate met in secret in that way. Cameras that broadcast proceedings in the chamber were shut off. Reporters and even most Senate staff were cleared from the chamber. Senators who remained were sworn to secrecy. Schumer framed it as a last-ditch effort for senators to have a heart-to-heart discussion about the confirmation process and push off the vote before it was too late. “The damage to Americans’ faith in these institutions could be lasting,” he said. “So before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.” Republicans wanted no such discussion. They voted within a matter of minutes to reopen the proceedings and move ahead with considering Barrett. “It’s just harassment,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “It’s not about substance.” But it was left to McConnell, the architect of Republicans’ takeover of the federal courts, to offer a fuller response. Turning away from the cameras to speak directly to Republican members seated at their desks, he offered a selectively curated history of the devolving judicial nominations process in the Senate, reaching back to Democrats’ rejection of Robert Bork, a conservative nominee, in 1987. McConnell argued that the decision to block Garland had been consistent with history and so was the decision to confirm Barrett because now, unlike then, the same party controls the White House and the Senate. Democrats view the Garland blockade as a serious escalation from which the chamber has not recovered. “This is not spin. This is fact,” McConnell said. Referring to Democrats, he added, “Every new escalation, every new step, every new shattered precedent — every one of them was initiated over there. No exceptions.” In a sign of how toxic the relationship between the two leaders had become four years after Schumer assumed his leadership post, McConnell suggested his counterpart was merely reaping what he had sown. “I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he’s built,” McConnell said. “I hope he’s happy with where his ingenuity has gotten the Senate.” Schumer was just as withering. “We have just heard a tit-for-tat, convoluted version of history that the majority leader uses to justify steering the Senate toward one of the lowest moments in its history,” he said in reply. McConnell’s actions, he added, would “forever defile the Senate.”

Democrats try to shut down Senate, seeking to stain Barrett confirmation

We are just 46 days away from the voting day for US Presidential elections. There is a new controversy each day and both sides are making new promises to win public sentiments.

A promise is being made to deliver coronavirus vaccine as soon as possible. The vaccine has taken centre stage in the race to the White House.

However, Donald Trump and Joe Biden seem to have very little to offer. Trump has unveiled the largest, fastest and most advanced vaccine distribution plan in American History. Under this plan, Trump administration is promising to swiftly deliver the vaccine to all Americans free of cost. Trump is saying that the vaccine will be available in a matter of weeks.&nbsp;

"We're on track to deliver and distribute the vaccine in a very, very safe and effective manner. We think we can start sometime in October. So as soon as it is announced, we'll be able to start. That will be from mid-October on, may be a little bit later than that, but we'll be all set," said Trump

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-has-trump-found-a-coronavirus-vaccine-328257/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

However, just hours before Donald Trump unveiled this plan, Director of US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Redfield testified before a US Congress panel and said that a vaccine won't be available to American public before second and third quarter of 2021. &nbsp;

"I think there will be a vaccine that will initially be available sometime between November and December, but very limited supply and we'll have to be prioritized. If you're asking me when is it going to be generally available to the American public, so we can begin to take advantage of the vaccine to get back to our regular life? I think we're probably looking at third, late second quarter, third quarter 2021," he said.

But Trump said Redfield made a mistake when he said that

"No. I think he made a mistake when he said that. It's just incorrect information. And I called him and he didn't tell me that. And I think he got the message may be confused. Maybe it was stated incorrectly, said Trump.

There's no telling what is the real situation. But let's hope that vaccine Trump is promising to deliver next month is not that disinfectant which he once promoted as a remedy for the Wuhan virus.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden has had a lot of complaints against Donald Trump. He says he is fed up with the President's inaction.

Biden wants Trump to take responsibility and come up with a real plan to combat the virus.

"All the President had to offer last night, President Trump, was the same weak and feckless inaction, the same lies and empty promises that we've seen from the very beginning. He still won't accept any responsibility. He still won't offer a plan. And last night he repeated what he's said so many times before - that even if he continues to offer only failing indifference, someday the virus is going to go away by a miracle. Even if he does nothing, it's going to go away by a miracle. It won't go away by a miracle," he said.

Biden has a lot to say about Trump's failures. But just like Trump he has no solutions to offer.

Both Biden and Trump are trying to woo voters across communities. They're eyeing the Hispanic voters as well.

Earlier this week, Trump bragged about a non-existent award that he apparently received from Cuban-Americans 
&nbsp; 
Joe Biden tried courting Hispanic voters by talking about the 'divisive immigration policies' of Trump.

And he stated his address by playing Despacito, the hit Latino song from 2017.

US Elections can really be likened to a reality show. The President is refuting health experts in public, the opponent is dancing to Despacito. Truly there is no dearth of entertainment in the race to White House. 
&nbsp;

We are just 46 days away from the voting day for US Presidential elections. There is a new controversy each day and both sides are making new promises to win public sentiments.

We are just 46 days away from the voting day for US Presidential elections. There is a new controversy each day and both sides are making new promises to win public sentiments. A promise is being made to deliver coronavirus vaccine as soon as possible. The vaccine has taken centre stage in the race to the White House. However, Donald Trump and Joe Biden seem to have very little to offer. Trump has unveiled the largest, fastest and most advanced vaccine distribution plan in American History. Under this plan, Trump administration is promising to swiftly deliver the vaccine to all Americans free of cost. Trump is saying that the vaccine will be available in a matter of weeks. "We're on track to deliver and distribute the vaccine in a very, very safe and effective manner. We think we can start sometime in October. So as soon as it is announced, we'll be able to start. That will be from mid-October on, may be a little bit later than that, but we'll be all set," said Trump × However, just hours before Donald Trump unveiled this plan, Director of US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Redfield testified before a US Congress panel and said that a vaccine won't be available to American public before second and third quarter of 2021. "I think there will be a vaccine that will initially be available sometime between November and December, but very limited supply and we'll have to be prioritized. If you're asking me when is it going to be generally available to the American public, so we can begin to take advantage of the vaccine to get back to our regular life? I think we're probably looking at third, late second quarter, third quarter 2021," he said. But Trump said Redfield made a mistake when he said that "No. I think he made a mistake when he said that. It's just incorrect information. And I called him and he didn't tell me that. And I think he got the message may be confused. Maybe it was stated incorrectly, said Trump. There's no telling what is the real situation. But let's hope that vaccine Trump is promising to deliver next month is not that disinfectant which he once promoted as a remedy for the Wuhan virus. Meanwhile, Joe Biden has had a lot of complaints against Donald Trump. He says he is fed up with the President's inaction. Biden wants Trump to take responsibility and come up with a real plan to combat the virus. "All the President had to offer last night, President Trump, was the same weak and feckless inaction, the same lies and empty promises that we've seen from the very beginning. He still won't accept any responsibility. He still won't offer a plan. And last night he repeated what he's said so many times before - that even if he continues to offer only failing indifference, someday the virus is going to go away by a miracle. Even if he does nothing, it's going to go away by a miracle. It won't go away by a miracle," he said. Biden has a lot to say about Trump's failures. But just like Trump he has no solutions to offer. Both Biden and Trump are trying to woo voters across communities. They're eyeing the Hispanic voters as well. Earlier this week, Trump bragged about a non-existent award that he apparently received from Cuban-Americans Joe Biden tried courting Hispanic voters by talking about the 'divisive immigration policies' of Trump. And he stated his address by playing Despacito, the hit Latino song from 2017. US Elections can really be likened to a reality show. The President is refuting health experts in public, the opponent is dancing to Despacito. Truly there is no dearth of entertainment in the race to White House.

US election 2020: Trump contradicts health expert, Biden dances on Despacito

The Democrats are all set for upcoming US elections as their convention ended with fanfare and fireworks. The highlights of Day 4 was the acceptance speech given by now presidential nominee Joe Biden. Now all eyes are on the Republican event where Donald Trump will be nominated as the presidential candidate.

US Election 2020: Trump prepares to seize the national spotlight for R.N.C.

California Senator Kamala Harris on August 19 formally accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination for vice president. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/why-kamala-harris-unsettles-policymakers-in-new-delhi-320038">Also read: Why Kamala Harris unsettles policymakers in New Delhi</a> 
 
On August 12, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, 77, scripted history by selecting Harris, an Indian-American and an African-American, as his running mate in the presidential election on November 3. 
 
"Donald Trump's failure of leadership has cost lives and livelihoods," she said, according to excerpts of the speech released earlier. "We're at an inflection point." 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-indian-origin-us-senator-kamala-harris-is-making-history-319837">Also read: How Indian-origin US Senator Kamala Harris is making history</a>

Born to a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, California senator Harris, if elected, would be second in the line of succession after Biden.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-why-trump-and-biden-are-wooing-indian-americans-321781/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Harris was born on October 20 in 1964, at Oakland in California. Her mother Shyamala Gopalan migrated to the US from Tamil Nadu in India, while her father, Donald J Harris, moved to the US from Jamaica.

(With inputs from agencies)

California Senator Kamala Harris on August 19 formally accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination for vice president. Also read: Why Kamala Harris unsettles policymakers in New Delhi On August 12, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, 77, scripted history by selecting Harris, an Indian-American and an African-American, as his running mate in the presidential election on November 3.

California Senator Kamala Harris on August 19 formally accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination for vice president. Also read: Why Kamala Harris unsettles policymakers in New Delhi On August 12, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, 77, scripted history by selecting Harris, an Indian-American and an African-American, as his running mate in the presidential election on November 3. "Donald Trump's failure of leadership has cost lives and livelihoods," she said, according to excerpts of the speech released earlier. "We're at an inflection point." Also read: How Indian-origin US Senator Kamala Harris is making history Born to a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, California senator Harris, if elected, would be second in the line of succession after Biden. Harris was born on October 20 in 1964, at Oakland in California. Her mother Shyamala Gopalan migrated to the US from Tamil Nadu in India, while her father, Donald J Harris, moved to the US from Jamaica. (With inputs from agencies)

US elections 2020: Kamala Harris makes history, accepts vice-president nomination

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. Hillary said, "Joe and Kamala can win by 3 million votes and still lose, so we need numbers overwhelming so that Trump can't sneak or steal his way of victory."

Hillary Clinton at DNC 2020: "We need numbers overwhelming so that Trump can't steal victory"

As the US is now inching closer to its Presidential elections in November, the first-ever Digital National Convention of the Democratic party is currently underway in Milwaukee in Wisconsin.

DNC day 3: Spotlight on Kamala Harris, First virtual convention in US history

Former President Barack Obama in his speech at the Democratic National Convention 2020 pointed criticism of President Donald Trump. He argued that his successor has turned the presidency into “one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves.”

Barack Obama speech at DNC 2020: Trump hasn't grown into the job

California Senator Kamala Harris made history as the first black and South Asian woman to accept a spot on a major US party's presidential ticket. She paid tribute to her mother at DNC 2020.

Kamala Harris makes history at DNC 2020: Pays tribute to her mother

As the United States is now getting closer to its Presidential elections in November this year. The third day of the Democratic National Convention witnessed history as Kamala Harris became the first woman of color to become a Vice Presidential candidate.

DNC 2020 Day 3: Focus remains on women leaders

Bill Clinton, one of the four men still living who understands what it takes to be President, lambasted the current occupant of the White House in his convention speech on Tuesday, questioning Donald Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic and casting his White House as a chaotic “storm.”

2020 DNC: Joe Biden wins Presidential nomination | First virtual convention in U.S history

Democratic National Convention Day 2: Clinton questions Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic

The daughter of an Indian immigrant Kamala Harris has already created history. Kamala recently spoke about her childhood memories of her mother and her Indian roots. Watch report.

Kamala Harris's Indian roots: Immigrant's daughter to V.P candidate

The 2020 Democratic National Convention has begun from August 17–20, 2020 at the Wisconsin Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. At the convention, delegates of the United States Democratic Party will formally choose the party's nominees for president and vice president in the 2020 United States presidential election. It is largely a virtual convention due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and it is officially centered at the Wisconsin Center.

US Elections 2020: 2020 National Convention begins in Milwaukee

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who challenged Biden for the nomination from the progressive left, addressed the convention and made a pitch for Joe Biden.

2020 Democratic Convention underway in Milwaukee: Sanders makes pitch for Joe Biden

Democratic Party Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday admonished a Republican Congressman for allegedly hurling a sexist slur at her on the steps of US capitol.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hits back at Republican Ted Yoho's derogatory slur | World News

Indian-American lawyer Seema Nanda on Saturday announced her decision to step down as the CEO of the Democratic National Committee, the top administrative position in the main Opposition party, ahead of the presidential elections in November, reported news agency PTI.

Indian-American lawyer Seema Nanda on Saturday announced her decision to step down as the CEO of the Democratic National Committee, the top administrative position in the main Opposition party, ahead of the presidential elections in November, reported news agency PTI. Nanda, 48, became the first Indian-American to be appointed as the CEO of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in June, 2018. She did not give any reason for leaving the top position, the report added. The Washington Post reported that Nanda's sudden exit from the DNC was part of the effort of the former US Vice President Joe Biden who is the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. She would be replaced by Mary Beth Cahill, who had previously managed John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "After two years, I will be stepping down as CEO of the DNC. I couldn't be prouder of the infrastructure we have built, the primary process we have run, and the team we have built," Nanda announced in a tweet on Friday. "I look forward to continuing the fight for our democracy and to elect Democrats everywhere," she said. With the two key endorsements, decks are now clear for a direct contest between Biden and incumbent President Donald Trump, who is seeking re-election. Under US laws, an individual can serve a maximum of two four-year terms. (With inputs from PTI)

Indian-American Seema Nanda to step down as CEO of Democratic Party 

After all the rancour of the Democratic presidential race, front-runner Joe Biden has a chance in Sunday's debate to extend an olive branch to rival Bernie Sanders and his fervent liberal supporters in a bid for party unity before the general election fight.

Biden and Sanders will square off in what may be the final debate of the Democratic nominating contest. Biden leads Sanders in delegates after a string of primary victories, and next week's nominating contests could put the former vice president on a nearly unstoppable path to the nomination.

The centrist Biden may now be in a position to try to find common ground with Sanders, a democratic socialist, a move that could help mend the fissure in the party between moderates and progressives, Democratic Party veterans say.

“Sunday’s debate could be an important step to heal and strengthen the party," said Hari Sevugan, recently a top aide to former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. “A measured, respectful conversation could go a long way.”

The winner of the Democratic primary contest will face Republican President Donald Trump in the Nov. 3 election.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-senator-bernie-sanders-announces-2020-presidential-bid-198358">At 77, US Senator Bernie Sanders announces 2020 presidential bid</a>

Biden is not prone to conflict with fellow Democrats. The question remains whether the pugnacious Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, would follow suit or keep trying to draw a clear contrast between the two candidates.

Some Democrats say lingering tensions between Sanders and rival Hillary Clinton in 2016 played a role in her upset loss to Trump.

After being routed by Biden in Michigan and other primaries on Tuesday, Sanders seemed to signal he was less interested in attacking Biden personally and more intent on pushing him to address issues such as universal healthcare coverage, college affordability, climate change and poverty.

The coronavirus pandemic will likely add a level of solemnity to the debate, which may also minimize conflict between the two, strategists said. The debate was moved to Washington from Arizona and will have no live audience due to concerns about the outbreak.

For Biden, the challenge may be figuring out how to thread the needle of expressing support for Sanders' efforts without aligning himself with his policies.

Biden can say that "while they share the same goals, they differ on the prescription," Sevugan said.

'AN OPEN HAND'

Biden’s team is under pressure from allies of Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren, another former presidential candidate, to adopt policies popular with progressives such as a wealth tax, a stepped-up estate tax and an equal-pay plan, according to several strategists familiar with the conversations.

A wealth tax "one, is supported by both Senators Sanders and Warren and two, speaks to the fundamentals of who the Democratic Party should be making clear they fight for,” said a Democratic strategist who was close to Warren's campaign.

A similar dynamic played out between Sanders and Clinton in the 2016 primary, when Sanders said he would not drop out even after it became clear she would be the nominee.

The progressive wing of the party then successfully pushed for the addition of policies, including a $15-an-hour minimum wage, to the party’s convention platform. Sanders ultimately endorsed her.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-seizes-momentum-in-us-presidential-race-with-strong-super-tuesday-284205">Joe Biden seizes momentum in US presidential race with strong Super Tuesday</a>

Brian Fallon, Clinton's spokesman in 2016, said that while Sanders’ supporters were unlikely to be “fully transferrable” to Biden, Biden’s team must work to earn the support of as many as possible to avoid the narrow loss Clinton suffered.

“It begins with rhetorically stretching out an open hand,” Fallon said.

Biden has been resistant to Sanders’ Medicare for All plan, which would replace private health insurance, arguing it is too costly and that many Americans prefer to keep their current insurance.

Wendell Potter, a former healthcare executive who now works as an advocate for a government-run plan, said Biden must at least concede “the problems of our healthcare system are more severe than he’s acknowledging.”

Exit polls of Democratic voters from recent primaries showed strong support for Medicare for All.

Earlier this week, Biden praised the passion of Sanders and his supporters and promised to deliver a “bold, progressive vision to the American people.”

But his campaign has yet to indicate it would be inclined to embrace any of Sanders’ signature proposals. Biden's agenda in its current form would already make him the most progressive Democrat in history if elected, a campaign aide said.

Matt Bennett, a vice president for Third Way, a Democratic think tank that advocates for centrist policies, said Biden could not afford to break leftward after moderates in the party coalesced around him.

“The guy who comes in second doesn’t get concessions,” Bennett said. “The problem with Bernie is that his ideas are so huge, they are sinking his campaign. Biden can’t take those on.”

After all the rancour of the Democratic presidential race, front-runner Joe Biden has a chance in Sunday's debate to extend an olive branch to rival Bernie Sanders and his fervent liberal supporters in a bid for party unity before the general election fight.

After all the rancour of the Democratic presidential race, front-runner Joe Biden has a chance in Sunday's debate to extend an olive branch to rival Bernie Sanders and his fervent liberal supporters in a bid for party unity before the general election fight. Biden and Sanders will square off in what may be the final debate of the Democratic nominating contest. Biden leads Sanders in delegates after a string of primary victories, and next week's nominating contests could put the former vice president on a nearly unstoppable path to the nomination. The centrist Biden may now be in a position to try to find common ground with Sanders, a democratic socialist, a move that could help mend the fissure in the party between moderates and progressives, Democratic Party veterans say. “Sunday’s debate could be an important step to heal and strengthen the party," said Hari Sevugan, recently a top aide to former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. “A measured, respectful conversation could go a long way.” The winner of the Democratic primary contest will face Republican President Donald Trump in the Nov. 3 election. Also Read: At 77, US Senator Bernie Sanders announces 2020 presidential bid Biden is not prone to conflict with fellow Democrats. The question remains whether the pugnacious Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, would follow suit or keep trying to draw a clear contrast between the two candidates. Some Democrats say lingering tensions between Sanders and rival Hillary Clinton in 2016 played a role in her upset loss to Trump. After being routed by Biden in Michigan and other primaries on Tuesday, Sanders seemed to signal he was less interested in attacking Biden personally and more intent on pushing him to address issues such as universal healthcare coverage, college affordability, climate change and poverty. The coronavirus pandemic will likely add a level of solemnity to the debate, which may also minimize conflict between the two, strategists said. The debate was moved to Washington from Arizona and will have no live audience due to concerns about the outbreak. For Biden, the challenge may be figuring out how to thread the needle of expressing support for Sanders' efforts without aligning himself with his policies. Biden can say that "while they share the same goals, they differ on the prescription," Sevugan said. 'AN OPEN HAND' Biden’s team is under pressure from allies of Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren, another former presidential candidate, to adopt policies popular with progressives such as a wealth tax, a stepped-up estate tax and an equal-pay plan, according to several strategists familiar with the conversations. A wealth tax "one, is supported by both Senators Sanders and Warren and two, speaks to the fundamentals of who the Democratic Party should be making clear they fight for,” said a Democratic strategist who was close to Warren's campaign. A similar dynamic played out between Sanders and Clinton in the 2016 primary, when Sanders said he would not drop out even after it became clear she would be the nominee. The progressive wing of the party then successfully pushed for the addition of policies, including a $15-an-hour minimum wage, to the party’s convention platform. Sanders ultimately endorsed her. Also Read: Joe Biden seizes momentum in US presidential race with strong Super Tuesday Brian Fallon, Clinton's spokesman in 2016, said that while Sanders’ supporters were unlikely to be “fully transferrable” to Biden, Biden’s team must work to earn the support of as many as possible to avoid the narrow loss Clinton suffered. “It begins with rhetorically stretching out an open hand,” Fallon said. Biden has been resistant to Sanders’ Medicare for All plan, which would replace private health insurance, arguing it is too costly and that many Americans prefer to keep their current insurance. Wendell Potter, a former healthcare executive who now works as an advocate for a government-run plan, said Biden must at least concede “the problems of our healthcare system are more severe than he’s acknowledging.” Exit polls of Democratic voters from recent primaries showed strong support for Medicare for All. Earlier this week, Biden praised the passion of Sanders and his supporters and promised to deliver a “bold, progressive vision to the American people.” But his campaign has yet to indicate it would be inclined to embrace any of Sanders’ signature proposals. Biden's agenda in its current form would already make him the most progressive Democrat in history if elected, a campaign aide said. Matt Bennett, a vice president for Third Way, a Democratic think tank that advocates for centrist policies, said Biden could not afford to break leftward after moderates in the party coalesced around him. “The guy who comes in second doesn’t get concessions,” Bennett said. “The problem with Bernie is that his ideas are so huge, they are sinking his campaign. Biden can’t take those on.”

Debate offers Biden, Sanders a chance to bridge Democratic Party's divide

Italy's co-ruling Democratic Party (PD) leader Nicola Zingaretti said on Saturday that he had tested positive for Coronavirus, the first case of a senior Italian politician contracting the virus.

Nicola Zingaretti, Italian democratic party's leader, tests positive for Coronavirus

Longtime civil rights activist and House Representative from Georgia - John Lewis, 79, on Sunday said that he had been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

The member of the Democratic Party had led several sit-ins and 'bus-rides' in a bid to integrate the African-American community with the rest of American society in the 1960s and 1970s.

He also led several marches to demonstrate for equal voting rights for his community.

He has represented the 5th District of Georgia at the US House of Representatives since 1986 when he was first elected.

In 2011, Lewis was awarded the highest civilian award in the US - the Presidential medal of Freedom - by then-President Barrack Obama.&nbsp;

In the coming days, Lewis is expected to return to Washington for treatment.

Longtime civil rights activist and House Representative from Georgia - John Lewis, 79, on Sunday said that he had been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. The member of the Democratic Party had led several sit-ins and 'bus-rides' in a bid to integrate the African-American community with the rest of American society in the 1960s and 1970s.

Longtime civil rights activist and House Representative from Georgia - John Lewis, 79, on Sunday said that he had been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. The member of the Democratic Party had led several sit-ins and 'bus-rides' in a bid to integrate the African-American community with the rest of American society in the 1960s and 1970s. He also led several marches to demonstrate for equal voting rights for his community. He has represented the 5th District of Georgia at the US House of Representatives since 1986 when he was first elected. In 2011, Lewis was awarded the highest civilian award in the US - the Presidential medal of Freedom - by then-President Barrack Obama. In the coming days, Lewis is expected to return to Washington for treatment.

Civil rights activist John Lewis diagnosed with cancer

Donald Trump, the United States President&nbsp;on Wednesday dismissed the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-to-launch-trump-impeachment-inquiry-over-ukraine-controversy-251842">impeachment enquiry</a> against him as a "joke", while Democrats stood firm in accusing him&nbsp;of a "mafia-style shakedown" of his Ukrainian counterpart.

Trump denied claims that he abused his office by repeatedly urging President Volodymyr Zelensky to probe his rival Joe Biden - as confirmed in a call transcript released by the White House.

The next episode in the&nbsp;impeachment debacle&nbsp;is set for Thursday when Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph McGuire will testify at&nbsp;Capitol Hill.

"They are getting hit hard on this witch hunt because when they look at the information, it's a joke," said the President, at his first news conference since Democrats launched an official&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-begins-trump-impeachment-inquiry-over-call-to-ukraine-leader-251866">impeachment inquiry.</a>

"Impeachment for that? When you have a wonderful meeting or you have a wonderful phone conversation?", he asked.

Trump had earlier insisted that he exerted "no pressure" on Zelensky, who appeared side-by-side with the US leader at a long-planned meeting at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

As two competing narratives took hold, Republican Party's Senator Mitt Romney referred to the escalation as "deeply troubling."

Trump and his allies claimed that the July 25 call contained no evidence of a quid pro quo, pressuring Zelensky to probe the President's top Democratic rival for the White House.

"This is how a mafia boss talks," charged senior Democratic lawmaker Adam Schiff.&nbsp;

"'What have you done for us? We've done so much for you but there's not much reciprocity. I have a favour to ask you. And what is that favour? Of course, the favour is to investigate his political rival, to investigate the Bidens", he added.

The call summary -&nbsp;which is not a verbatim transcript -&nbsp;has Trump saying that the&nbsp;US Attorney General Bill Barr and the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani would be in touch about probing the Ukraine-related activities of Biden and his son.

In announcing the impeachment probe, House Speaker <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pelosi-wasting-her-time-on-manufactured-crisis-says-trump-on-impeachment-inquiry-over-ukraine-controversy-252066">Nancy Pelosi</a> said Trump's actions amounted to a betrayal of his oath of office and of national security.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo">Watch Video: Trump-Zelensky call row escalates</div>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/wion-usa-direct-trump-zelensky-call-row-escalates-252070/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

'A nothing call'

As Barack Obama's Vice President, Biden and other Western leaders pressured Ukraine to get rid of the country's top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was seen as not tough enough on corruption.

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great," Trump told Zelensky in the call.

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-steps-up-donald-trump-impeachment-probe-248698">prosecution</a> so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me", he added.&nbsp;

The transcript did not show Trump explicitly tying aid to Ukraine to Zelensky probing Biden, which has fed the calls to impeach him.

But the two did discuss a major aid package, which had been frozen by Trump at the time and was only released in recent weeks.

The memo also shows Trump asking Zelensky for a "favour" on an issue unconnected to Biden -&nbsp;just after noting that the US had been "very, very good to Ukraine."

Analysts noted that the transcript uses ellipses -&nbsp;denoting words or entire passages are missing - on three occasions, all when Trump is making requests of Zelensky.

Others pointed out that it was supposed to summarize a 30-minute call, yet the transcript runs to around just 12 minutes.

"There was no pressure whatsoever," Trump told reporters earlier Wednesday, saying Democrats had built up the exchange as the "call from hell" but that "it&nbsp;turned out to be a nothing call."

Zelensky insisted meanwhile that he had not been "pushed" by Trump during the controversial call.

'Very troubling'

Faced with the possibility of being impeached, Trump has pushed back hard - branding the probe the "single greatest witch hunt in American history... a disgraceful thing."&nbsp;

Pelosi had for months resisted pressure from the party rank-and-file for impeachment, preferring to focus on next year's election fight.

But on Tuesday, she relented, 11 days after news that an anonymous US intelligence official had filed a whistleblower complaint on Trump's alleged double-dealing with Ukraine.

Democrats made clear the White House's release of the call record would not satisfy their investigation into whether the US leader broke the law, and the complaint has now been reviewed by lawmakers.

Top Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer told reporters after reading the whistleblower complaint that "it's very troubling" -- an assessment echoed by Republican Senator Ben Sasse, who said that "there's obviously lots that is very troubling there."

Schumer later called in a statement for the contents of the complaint to be made public, saying: "The public has a right to read the whistleblower's complaint for themselves."

Donald Trump, the United States President on Wednesday dismissed the impeachment enquiry against him as a "joke", while Democrats stood firm in accusing him of a "mafia-style shakedown" of his Ukrainian counterpart.

Donald Trump, the United States President on Wednesday dismissed the impeachment enquiry against him as a "joke", while Democrats stood firm in accusing him of a "mafia-style shakedown" of his Ukrainian counterpart. Trump denied claims that he abused his office by repeatedly urging President Volodymyr Zelensky to probe his rival Joe Biden - as confirmed in a call transcript released by the White House. The next episode in the impeachment debacle is set for Thursday when Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph McGuire will testify at Capitol Hill. "They are getting hit hard on this witch hunt because when they look at the information, it's a joke," said the President, at his first news conference since Democrats launched an official impeachment inquiry. "Impeachment for that? When you have a wonderful meeting or you have a wonderful phone conversation?", he asked. Trump had earlier insisted that he exerted "no pressure" on Zelensky, who appeared side-by-side with the US leader at a long-planned meeting at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. As two competing narratives took hold, Republican Party's Senator Mitt Romney referred to the escalation as "deeply troubling." Trump and his allies claimed that the July 25 call contained no evidence of a quid pro quo, pressuring Zelensky to probe the President's top Democratic rival for the White House. "This is how a mafia boss talks," charged senior Democratic lawmaker Adam Schiff. "'What have you done for us? We've done so much for you but there's not much reciprocity. I have a favour to ask you. And what is that favour? Of course, the favour is to investigate his political rival, to investigate the Bidens", he added. The call summary - which is not a verbatim transcript - has Trump saying that the US Attorney General Bill Barr and the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani would be in touch about probing the Ukraine-related activities of Biden and his son. In announcing the impeachment probe, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump's actions amounted to a betrayal of his oath of office and of national security. Watch Video: Trump-Zelensky call row escalates 'A nothing call' As Barack Obama's Vice President, Biden and other Western leaders pressured Ukraine to get rid of the country's top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was seen as not tough enough on corruption. "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great," Trump told Zelensky in the call. "Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me", he added. The transcript did not show Trump explicitly tying aid to Ukraine to Zelensky probing Biden, which has fed the calls to impeach him. But the two did discuss a major aid package, which had been frozen by Trump at the time and was only released in recent weeks. The memo also shows Trump asking Zelensky for a "favour" on an issue unconnected to Biden - just after noting that the US had been "very, very good to Ukraine." Analysts noted that the transcript uses ellipses - denoting words or entire passages are missing - on three occasions, all when Trump is making requests of Zelensky. Others pointed out that it was supposed to summarize a 30-minute call, yet the transcript runs to around just 12 minutes. "There was no pressure whatsoever," Trump told reporters earlier Wednesday, saying Democrats had built up the exchange as the "call from hell" but that "it turned out to be a nothing call." Zelensky insisted meanwhile that he had not been "pushed" by Trump during the controversial call. 'Very troubling' Faced with the possibility of being impeached, Trump has pushed back hard - branding the probe the "single greatest witch hunt in American history... a disgraceful thing." Pelosi had for months resisted pressure from the party rank-and-file for impeachment, preferring to focus on next year's election fight. But on Tuesday, she relented, 11 days after news that an anonymous US intelligence official had filed a whistleblower complaint on Trump's alleged double-dealing with Ukraine. Democrats made clear the White House's release of the call record would not satisfy their investigation into whether the US leader broke the law, and the complaint has now been reviewed by lawmakers. Top Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer told reporters after reading the whistleblower complaint that "it's very troubling" -- an assessment echoed by Republican Senator Ben Sasse, who said that "there's obviously lots that is very troubling there." Schumer later called in a statement for the contents of the complaint to be made public, saying: "The public has a right to read the whistleblower's complaint for themselves."

Trump calls Democratic impeachment enquiry a 'joke'

Joe Walsh and Bill Weld, two of the three Republicans challenging President Donald Trump for their party's 2020 presidential nomination, are set to meet in a debate on Tuesday, hoping to bring attention to their long-shot candidacies.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-says-hassan-rouhani-meeting-not-scheduled-as-speculation-swirls-251612">Trump </a>will not take part in the event in New York hosted by the website Business Insider, nor will the third candidate seeking the Republican nomination, former South Carolina governor and congressman Mark Sanford.

The debate featuring Walsh, a radio talk-show host and former US congressman from Illinois, and Weld, a former Massachusetts governor, is not sanctioned by the Republican Party, which has thrown its full support behind Trump. Sanford cited a scheduling conflict for missing the event.

Walsh, Weld and Sanford, in a joint article published in the Washington Post this month, called Trump "a serial self-promoter" who is steering the party away from "personal responsibility, fiscal sanity, and rule of law."

Trump is expected to coast to victory in his quest for the Republican nomination before facing the Democratic Party's nominee in the November 2020 election. A Sept. 16-20 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 82 per cent of registered Republicans approved of Trump's job performance.

Walsh, Weld, and Sanford complained about being shut out of the nomination contest. Republican Party officials in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina already have said they would not host nominating contests in their states next year, cutting off any chance for the challengers to win delegates who will choose the Republican candidate at the party's convention.

"We're in the process of doing serious and lasting harm to the Republican Party brand," Sanford told Reuters on Friday. "We need to stand up and have a robust conversation about what it means to be Republicans."

Trump has dismissed his challengers as a "joke" and "laughingstock," calling them the "Three Stooges," a reference to a popular mid-20th-century comedy team that portrayed inept bunglers.

Asked to explain Trump's decision not to participate in the debate, Erin Perrine, a deputy communications director for the Trump campaign, said, "Pointless."

Walsh, 57, served in the House of Representatives for two years and then became a radio talk-show host. Weld, 74, touts a fiscally conservative record as well as his work on gay rights and environmental issues. He ran unsuccessfully for vice president in 2016 on the Libertarian Party's ticket

Joe Walsh and Bill Weld, two of the three Republicans challenging President Donald Trump for their party's 2020 presidential nomination, are set to meet in a debate on Tuesday, hoping to bring attention to their long-shot candidacies.

Joe Walsh and Bill Weld, two of the three Republicans challenging President Donald Trump for their party's 2020 presidential nomination, are set to meet in a debate on Tuesday, hoping to bring attention to their long-shot candidacies. Trump will not take part in the event in New York hosted by the website Business Insider, nor will the third candidate seeking the Republican nomination, former South Carolina governor and congressman Mark Sanford. The debate featuring Walsh, a radio talk-show host and former US congressman from Illinois, and Weld, a former Massachusetts governor, is not sanctioned by the Republican Party, which has thrown its full support behind Trump. Sanford cited a scheduling conflict for missing the event. Walsh, Weld and Sanford, in a joint article published in the Washington Post this month, called Trump "a serial self-promoter" who is steering the party away from "personal responsibility, fiscal sanity, and rule of law." Trump is expected to coast to victory in his quest for the Republican nomination before facing the Democratic Party's nominee in the November 2020 election. A Sept. 16-20 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 82 per cent of registered Republicans approved of Trump's job performance. Walsh, Weld, and Sanford complained about being shut out of the nomination contest. Republican Party officials in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina already have said they would not host nominating contests in their states next year, cutting off any chance for the challengers to win delegates who will choose the Republican candidate at the party's convention. "We're in the process of doing serious and lasting harm to the Republican Party brand," Sanford told Reuters on Friday. "We need to stand up and have a robust conversation about what it means to be Republicans." Trump has dismissed his challengers as a "joke" and "laughingstock," calling them the "Three Stooges," a reference to a popular mid-20th-century comedy team that portrayed inept bunglers. Asked to explain Trump's decision not to participate in the debate, Erin Perrine, a deputy communications director for the Trump campaign, said, "Pointless." Walsh, 57, served in the House of Representatives for two years and then became a radio talk-show host. Weld, 74, touts a fiscally conservative record as well as his work on gay rights and environmental issues. He ran unsuccessfully for vice president in 2016 on the Libertarian Party's ticket

Two of Trump's Republican challengers to debate without him

Italy's president asked Giuseppe Conte to head up a coalition of the 5-Star Movement and opposition Democratic Party (PD) on Thursday, a move could that could improve in Italy's fractious relations with the European Union.

Markets welcomed the quick end to a three-week political crisis triggered by League leader Matteo Salvini, who pulled his hard-right party out of its governing alliance with 5-Star after weeks of public bickering.

Salvini had wanted fresh polls to capitalise on his party's success in European elections but his plan backfired as 5-Star and the PD, lagging the League in opinion surveys, set aside their long-standing antipathy to form a government.

Italy's 10-year borrowing costs fell to an all-time low at auction on Thursday on the news as the prospect of a snap election retreated.

Conte, who told reporters he would present a cabinet list to the president in the coming days, said his priority was to draft a 2020 budget.

"We must immediately get to work and draw up a budget to avert the VAT hike, protects savers and offers solid prospects for economic growth and social development," he said.

VAT will rise from Jan. 1 unless the government can find 23 billion euros ($26 billion) elsewhere.

The creation of a new government is not yet a done deal, however, and the two parties still need to agree a shared policy platform and divide up cabinet posts.

In a further complication, 5-Star has promised to put the deal with the PD to an online vote of its members. Many 5-Star supporters oppose a pact with the centre-left and a 'yes' vote is not a certainty.

Market reaction

However, investors brushed off those concerns. Conte was seen as a voice of reason within the previous 5-Star/League coalition and investors are betting Italy will get a fiscally prudent government that will avoid confrontation with Europe.

According to the financial daily Il Sole 24 Ore, an early draft of the incoming coalition's policy platform would see it ask the EU for flexibility on the 2020 budget deficit to "reinforce social cohesion" in Italy.

The EU imposes budget rules on member states with the aim of ensuring financial stability in the bloc. It has had a testy relationship with Rome under the outgoing administration, with League leader Salvini blaming EU rules for impoverishing Italians.

Salvini had promised swingeing tax cuts for 2020 that economists warned could put unsustainable pressure on Italy's towering debt mountain.

Italy's battered blue-chip index was headed for its best weekly performance in six months news of Conte's reappointment and bond markets pushed Italy's 10-year borrowing costs to an all-time low.

"We think it will be less challenging to agree on an agenda between M5S (5-Star) and PD because the priorities both political forces have set out seem broadly consistent in many areas, ranging from fiscal policy to Italy's relationship with the EU to a focus on a green economy," UBS Wealth Management Italy's Matteo Ramenghi said.

German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said Conte's appointment was good news for Europe, adding: "I'm glad to see that the government crisis in Italy seems to have come to an end now and that a stable and new, progressive government can take the helm."

Conte, a quietly spoken academic with a penchant for smart suits, waistcoats and cufflinks, has enjoyed high poll ratings since he was plucked from relative obscurity 14 months ago to become premier. While he has no political affiliation he is considered close to 5-Star.

Italy's president asked Giuseppe Conte to head up a coalition of the 5-Star Movement and opposition Democratic Party (PD) on Thursday, a move could that could improve in Italy's fractious relations with the European Union.

Italy's president asked Giuseppe Conte to head up a coalition of the 5-Star Movement and opposition Democratic Party (PD) on Thursday, a move could that could improve in Italy's fractious relations with the European Union. Markets welcomed the quick end to a three-week political crisis triggered by League leader Matteo Salvini, who pulled his hard-right party out of its governing alliance with 5-Star after weeks of public bickering. Salvini had wanted fresh polls to capitalise on his party's success in European elections but his plan backfired as 5-Star and the PD, lagging the League in opinion surveys, set aside their long-standing antipathy to form a government. Italy's 10-year borrowing costs fell to an all-time low at auction on Thursday on the news as the prospect of a snap election retreated. Conte, who told reporters he would present a cabinet list to the president in the coming days, said his priority was to draft a 2020 budget. "We must immediately get to work and draw up a budget to avert the VAT hike, protects savers and offers solid prospects for economic growth and social development," he said. VAT will rise from Jan. 1 unless the government can find 23 billion euros ($26 billion) elsewhere. The creation of a new government is not yet a done deal, however, and the two parties still need to agree a shared policy platform and divide up cabinet posts. In a further complication, 5-Star has promised to put the deal with the PD to an online vote of its members. Many 5-Star supporters oppose a pact with the centre-left and a 'yes' vote is not a certainty. Market reaction However, investors brushed off those concerns. Conte was seen as a voice of reason within the previous 5-Star/League coalition and investors are betting Italy will get a fiscally prudent government that will avoid confrontation with Europe. According to the financial daily Il Sole 24 Ore, an early draft of the incoming coalition's policy platform would see it ask the EU for flexibility on the 2020 budget deficit to "reinforce social cohesion" in Italy. The EU imposes budget rules on member states with the aim of ensuring financial stability in the bloc. It has had a testy relationship with Rome under the outgoing administration, with League leader Salvini blaming EU rules for impoverishing Italians. Salvini had promised swingeing tax cuts for 2020 that economists warned could put unsustainable pressure on Italy's towering debt mountain. Italy's battered blue-chip index was headed for its best weekly performance in six months news of Conte's reappointment and bond markets pushed Italy's 10-year borrowing costs to an all-time low. "We think it will be less challenging to agree on an agenda between M5S (5-Star) and PD because the priorities both political forces have set out seem broadly consistent in many areas, ranging from fiscal policy to Italy's relationship with the EU to a focus on a green economy," UBS Wealth Management Italy's Matteo Ramenghi said. German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said Conte's appointment was good news for Europe, adding: "I'm glad to see that the government crisis in Italy seems to have come to an end now and that a stable and new, progressive government can take the helm." Conte, a quietly spoken academic with a penchant for smart suits, waistcoats and cufflinks, has enjoyed high poll ratings since he was plucked from relative obscurity 14 months ago to become premier. While he has no political affiliation he is considered close to 5-Star.

Italy's Giuseppe  Conte gets green light to form new government

democratic-party

Democratic Party, News on Democratic Party, stories on Democratic Party, articles on Democratic Party, Democratic Party stories at Wion, Democratic Party news, Democratic Party latest news