The US Senate is all set to vote on the sweeping $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill as Democrats try to get the legislation signed into law before federal unemployment benefits expire.

US Senate to vote on $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill

Forty-seven Hong Kong democrats and activists were charged on Sunday (February 28) with conspiracy to commit subversion, in the largest single crackdown on the democratic opposition under a China-imposed national security law.

Dozens of leading Hong Kong democrats charged with subversion in major national security crackdown

Will US President Joe Biden share the nuclear codes? Some Democrats want Biden to share authority for nuclear launches.

Will US President Joe Biden share the nuclear codes?

The US president of the United States has always had the sole authority to order nuclear warfare or respond in kind to an enemy attack. But lawmakers of President Joe Biden’s own party are now asking him to surrender that unilateral power.

The Democrats have sent Biden a letter according to which, “past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behaviour that causes other officials to express concerns about the president's judgment.”

The letter, signed by 31 Democratic lawmakers and led by Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Ted Lieu, both from California, calls for officials, such as the vice president and speaker of the House, to concur with a launch order before it can be issued.

The letter, which was sent to the White House on Monday, “proposes several alternatives to investing the president with the sole, unchecked and final authority to order the use of nuclear weapons,” Jeffrey Lewis, a professor and a director at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California, told VOA. “Any of the alternatives would be better than the current arrangement.”

Does former US president Donald Trump have a role to play in this?

Well, the letter to Biden from the Democratic lawmakers, including two members of the House Armed Services Committee, mentions Trump by name only in the footnotes, as well as referring to concerns about the mental stability of President Richard Nixon shortly before he resigned in August 1974.

Also, Trump, during a period of feuding with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, boasted that his nuclear button was “much bigger” and “more powerful” than the one possessed by Kim.

But apparently, there is no nuclear button.

The US president has a briefcase -- that's known as nuclear football. In theory, it never leaves the president's side.

The football has communication tools, and books with prepared war plans, and is expected to help the president make a quick decision.

The US president also has something called a biscuit. It's a card with certain codes.

The president is supposed to carry it all the times. When he wants to order a nuclear strike, he uses the codes to identify himself to the military.

Bill Clinton reportedly lost the codes while in office.

And we do not know if any US president has ever shared the codes.

But here's some trivia. When Trump refused to attend Biden's inauguration, the US was faced with an unprecedented nuclear challenge.

An outgoing president is supposed to discretely hand over the codes to his successor. But Trump left for Florida three hours before Biden's swearing in.

Since he was technically still the president, he took the nuclear football and the biscuit with him.

So for the first time, there was a second active football -- one that was handed over to Biden after his oath.

Biden, currently, still is the only person in the US with the command and control of America's nuclear arsenal.

In India, the launch codes of the nuclear weapons are with the prime minister. They are handed over to the new prime minister after his swearing in.

He is also given a presentation on the location of the nuclear warheads and their strength.

In the UK too, only the prime minister can order a nuclear strike.

In Russia, the power of ordering a nuclear strike lies with its president. It's the same with France.

Little or nothing is known about China though.

And also, North Korea... We assume the control is with Kim Jong-un.

The US president of the United States has always had the sole authority to order nuclear warfare or respond in kind to an enemy attack. But lawmakers of President Joe Biden’s own party are now asking him to surrender that unilateral power.

The US president of the United States has always had the sole authority to order nuclear warfare or respond in kind to an enemy attack. But lawmakers of President Joe Biden’s own party are now asking him to surrender that unilateral power. The Democrats have sent Biden a letter according to which, “past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behaviour that causes other officials to express concerns about the president's judgment.” The letter, signed by 31 Democratic lawmakers and led by Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Ted Lieu, both from California, calls for officials, such as the vice president and speaker of the House, to concur with a launch order before it can be issued. The letter, which was sent to the White House on Monday, “proposes several alternatives to investing the president with the sole, unchecked and final authority to order the use of nuclear weapons,” Jeffrey Lewis, a professor and a director at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California, told VOA. “Any of the alternatives would be better than the current arrangement.” Does former US president Donald Trump have a role to play in this? Well, the letter to Biden from the Democratic lawmakers, including two members of the House Armed Services Committee, mentions Trump by name only in the footnotes, as well as referring to concerns about the mental stability of President Richard Nixon shortly before he resigned in August 1974. Also, Trump, during a period of feuding with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, boasted that his nuclear button was “much bigger” and “more powerful” than the one possessed by Kim. But apparently, there is no nuclear button. The US president has a briefcase -- that's known as nuclear football. In theory, it never leaves the president's side. The football has communication tools, and books with prepared war plans, and is expected to help the president make a quick decision. The US president also has something called a biscuit. It's a card with certain codes. The president is supposed to carry it all the times. When he wants to order a nuclear strike, he uses the codes to identify himself to the military. Bill Clinton reportedly lost the codes while in office. And we do not know if any US president has ever shared the codes. But here's some trivia. When Trump refused to attend Biden's inauguration, the US was faced with an unprecedented nuclear challenge. An outgoing president is supposed to discretely hand over the codes to his successor. But Trump left for Florida three hours before Biden's swearing in. Since he was technically still the president, he took the nuclear football and the biscuit with him. So for the first time, there was a second active football -- one that was handed over to Biden after his oath. Biden, currently, still is the only person in the US with the command and control of America's nuclear arsenal. In India, the launch codes of the nuclear weapons are with the prime minister. They are handed over to the new prime minister after his swearing in. He is also given a presentation on the location of the nuclear warheads and their strength. In the UK too, only the prime minister can order a nuclear strike. In Russia, the power of ordering a nuclear strike lies with its president. It's the same with France. Little or nothing is known about China though. And also, North Korea... We assume the control is with Kim Jong-un.

Democrats want Biden to give up sole authority for nuclear launches

WASHINGTON — After meeting in the Oval Office earlier this month with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and his fellow senior House Democrats, Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina made a beeline to Harris’ office in the West Wing to privately raise a topic that did not come up during their group discussion: the Supreme Court.

Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American in Congress, wanted to offer Harris the name of a potential future justice, according to a Democrat briefed on their conversation. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs would fulfill Biden’s pledge to appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court — and, Clyburn noted, she also happened to hail from South Carolina, a state with political meaning for the president.

There may not be a vacancy on the high court at the moment, but Clyburn and other lawmakers are already maneuvering to champion candidates and a new approach for a nomination that might come as soon as this summer, when some Democrats hope Justice Stephen Breyer, who is 82, will retire. With Democrats holding the narrowest of Senate majorities, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death still painfully fresh in their minds, these party leaders want to shape Biden’s appointment, including moving the party away from the usual Ivy League résumés.

The early jockeying illustrates how eager Democratic officials are to leave their mark on Biden’s effort to elevate historically underrepresented contenders for a landmark Supreme Court nomination. But it also casts a spotlight on discomfiting issues of class and credentialism in the Democratic Party that have been just below the surface since the days of the Obama administration.

Some Democrats such as Clyburn, who have nervously watched Republicans try to repackage themselves as a working-class party, believe that Biden could send a message about his determination to keep Democrats true to their blue-collar roots by choosing a candidate like Childs, who attended public universities.

“One of the things we have to be very, very careful of as Democrats is being painted with that elitist brush,” said Clyburn, adding: “When people talk to diversity they are always looking at race and ethnicity — I look beyond that to diversity of experience.”

Rep. G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, like Clyburn a veteran member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made a similar point in an email to the White House counsel, Dana Remus, last month listing the caucus’s preferred criteria for federal court appointments. Near the top of the list, Butterfield said, was: “The judge should have a diversity of experience in multiple settings and in multiple areas including experiences outside of the law.”

Biden’s pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the court was an unusual kind of campaign promise: Clyburn nudged him to do it at a debate in Charleston before South Carolina’s pivotal primary last year. It was a vow that even some of the president’s aides resisted, worried that it might look like pandering.

Biden has said little in public since being elected about his preferences for the court, but as a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has something of a split personality when it comes to the politics of personnel. While happy to highlight his Scranton, Pennsylvania, roots, state school diploma and “Middle-Class Joe” moniker, he has long surrounded himself with aides and advisers who brandish the sort of pedigree he lacks.

And some White House officials are already bracing for what they believe will be unfair attacks from the right on whichever Black woman they pick, convinced that the eventual nominee must have an impeccable résumé.

“It’s going to have to be someone who has unquestioned credentials so it doesn’t look like it’s an unqualified person,” said one senior Biden official, who spoke about possible court nominees on condition of anonymity to share thinking from inside the West Wing.

Among the potential candidates being pitched for a Supreme Court seat, Childs has a background that differs from most recent nominees. Unlike eight of the nine current Supreme Court justices, Childs, 54, did not attend an Ivy League university. Her mother worked for Southern Bell in Columbia, South Carolina, and Childs won a scholarship to the University of South Florida. She later graduated from the University of South Carolina’s law school and became the first Black woman to make partner at one of the state’s major law firms.

In the fashion of an earlier generation of jurists, she rose in state politics before being appointed to the bench. Childs served as a top official at South Carolina’s labor department before being appointed to the state’s workers’ compensation board.

“She is the kind of person who has the sort of experiences that would make her a good addition to the Supreme Court,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn, whose coveted endorsement helped revive Biden’s listing campaign before the South Carolina primary last year, has been particularly active on her behalf as part of what his advisers say is his most significant request of the administration. The 80-year-old House whip has made the case for Childs with Harris; Remus; and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Judiciary Committee chair.

Bakari Sellers, a Democratic political commentator who is close to Harris, has also pitched members of the vice president’s inner circle on Childs, who was appointed to the federal bench by Obama in 2010.

“Not just for our party but for the judiciary it’s important to have somebody who has lived experiences,” Sellers said.

What’s prompting some of these officials to go public with a more aggressive form of advocacy are two developments.

First, they saw the makings of a shortlist in a Ruth Marcus column in The Washington Post earlier this month naming a pair of potential Breyer successors, who like Childs are young enough to serve on the court for a few decades. The two cited — U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of Washington, D.C., and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger — both have Ivy League law degrees and important connections. Jackson, 50, was a clerk for Breyer himself and Kruger, 44, served as Obama’s deputy solicitor general

There are a handful of other Black women in their 40s with elite credentials who have caught the eye of lawmakers, including some on the Judiciary Committee. There is Danielle Holley-Walker, dean of Howard University’s law school, and Leslie Abrams Gardner, a U.S. District Court judge in Georgia who is a younger sister of Stacey Abrams.

More significant is the matter of timing.

There are relatively few Black women on the federal appeals courts, where presidents often draw their nominees to the Supreme Court. Very soon, however, there will be another vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — which can be a springboard to the high court — when Judge Merrick B. Garland resigns to become attorney general. Childs may be better positioned to ascend to the Supreme Court if she were to serve on that appeals court, some of her admirers say.

“There is an immediate vacancy there so I would advocate for her consideration to the D.C. circuit,” Butterfield, himself a former state Supreme Court judge, said of Childs. “And when and if there’s a Supreme Court vacancy she ought to be considered for that, as well.”

Another possible contender seen for a court seat is Cheri Beasley, who lost reelection as chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court by 412 votes in November. She also went to a public university and climbed through the judiciary via service on lower state courts. Yet Beasley has told people that she is considering a bid for North Carolina’s open Senate seat next year, according to one Democrat who has spoken to her.

When a court vacancy does occur, several Democrats say, they are bracing for Obama-era tensions, which were papered over by former President Donald Trump, to emerge.

Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as a number of white Democrats, say they believe the party is too closely linked to elites, and that perception only hands political fodder to Republicans during campaign season.

“This isn’t being critical of the Harvards or the Yales, but I think there’s some great attorneys out there that are really, really smart that come from other places on this Earth,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, where Democrats lost all three marquee races last year. “And I think we ought to consider them.”

Vi Lyles, mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, said, “having the broadest perspective of what’s gone on in the country makes you a better decision-maker and leader.”

Even more delicate are lingering frustrations among Black leaders, many of whom went to state schools or historically Black institutions, about Obama’s arms-length treatment of the Congressional Black Caucus and his administration’s seeming preference for appointees with elite credentials.

“He was predisposed to Ivy League nominees, I think we can all agree on that,” said Butterfield.

Sellers was even blunter. “I love Barack Obama, but there was an Ivy League culture that emanated from the White House, and we got to move away from that,” he said.

The frustration with Obama culminated with his selection of Garland for the Supreme Court following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016. Some congressional Democrats believed the former president could have put pressure on Republicans, and energized Democrats, had he chosen a Black woman and were infuriated when he said he did not seek out “a Black lesbian from Skokie.”

What Clyburn will only say obliquely is that Biden does not just owe Black voters for his nomination, he’s indebted to African Americans who resurrected his candidacy in South Carolina and those across the South who all but cemented his nomination three days later as he swept the region on Super Tuesday.

Some African American Democrats believe that Black Americans will rally behind whichever Black woman Biden nominates and suspect Clyburn is looking for a rationale to elevate his home state and burnish his legacy.

Yet few politicians preach more than Biden about the importance of “dancing with the one that brung you,” as the president often puts it. And so far, Clyburn has been able to install two of his closest allies in the administration, with former Rep. Marcia Fudge being named housing secretary and Jaime Harrison tapped to lead the Democratic National Committee.

Asked if he could support Childs to the high court, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, a Republican and the first Southern Black senator elected since Reconstruction, said he was not ready to commit. But he praised her for having “a very good reputation” and said her appointment “would reflect the positive and powerful progress we’ve made in the great state of South Carolina.”

Scott was more direct, though, when asked if Biden owed it to South Carolina’s Black voters given the role they played in his path to the presidency.

“Jim Clyburn would say so,” he said with a smile.

WASHINGTON — After meeting in the Oval Office earlier this month with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and his fellow senior House Democrats, Rep.

WASHINGTON — After meeting in the Oval Office earlier this month with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and his fellow senior House Democrats, Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina made a beeline to Harris’ office in the West Wing to privately raise a topic that did not come up during their group discussion: the Supreme Court. Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American in Congress, wanted to offer Harris the name of a potential future justice, according to a Democrat briefed on their conversation. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs would fulfill Biden’s pledge to appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court — and, Clyburn noted, she also happened to hail from South Carolina, a state with political meaning for the president. There may not be a vacancy on the high court at the moment, but Clyburn and other lawmakers are already maneuvering to champion candidates and a new approach for a nomination that might come as soon as this summer, when some Democrats hope Justice Stephen Breyer, who is 82, will retire. With Democrats holding the narrowest of Senate majorities, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death still painfully fresh in their minds, these party leaders want to shape Biden’s appointment, including moving the party away from the usual Ivy League résumés. The early jockeying illustrates how eager Democratic officials are to leave their mark on Biden’s effort to elevate historically underrepresented contenders for a landmark Supreme Court nomination. But it also casts a spotlight on discomfiting issues of class and credentialism in the Democratic Party that have been just below the surface since the days of the Obama administration. Some Democrats such as Clyburn, who have nervously watched Republicans try to repackage themselves as a working-class party, believe that Biden could send a message about his determination to keep Democrats true to their blue-collar roots by choosing a candidate like Childs, who attended public universities. “One of the things we have to be very, very careful of as Democrats is being painted with that elitist brush,” said Clyburn, adding: “When people talk to diversity they are always looking at race and ethnicity — I look beyond that to diversity of experience.” Rep. G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, like Clyburn a veteran member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made a similar point in an email to the White House counsel, Dana Remus, last month listing the caucus’s preferred criteria for federal court appointments. Near the top of the list, Butterfield said, was: “The judge should have a diversity of experience in multiple settings and in multiple areas including experiences outside of the law.” Biden’s pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the court was an unusual kind of campaign promise: Clyburn nudged him to do it at a debate in Charleston before South Carolina’s pivotal primary last year. It was a vow that even some of the president’s aides resisted, worried that it might look like pandering. Biden has said little in public since being elected about his preferences for the court, but as a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has something of a split personality when it comes to the politics of personnel. While happy to highlight his Scranton, Pennsylvania, roots, state school diploma and “Middle-Class Joe” moniker, he has long surrounded himself with aides and advisers who brandish the sort of pedigree he lacks. And some White House officials are already bracing for what they believe will be unfair attacks from the right on whichever Black woman they pick, convinced that the eventual nominee must have an impeccable résumé. “It’s going to have to be someone who has unquestioned credentials so it doesn’t look like it’s an unqualified person,” said one senior Biden official, who spoke about possible court nominees on condition of anonymity to share thinking from inside the West Wing. Among the potential candidates being pitched for a Supreme Court seat, Childs has a background that differs from most recent nominees. Unlike eight of the nine current Supreme Court justices, Childs, 54, did not attend an Ivy League university. Her mother worked for Southern Bell in Columbia, South Carolina, and Childs won a scholarship to the University of South Florida. She later graduated from the University of South Carolina’s law school and became the first Black woman to make partner at one of the state’s major law firms. In the fashion of an earlier generation of jurists, she rose in state politics before being appointed to the bench. Childs served as a top official at South Carolina’s labor department before being appointed to the state’s workers’ compensation board. “She is the kind of person who has the sort of experiences that would make her a good addition to the Supreme Court,” Clyburn said. Clyburn, whose coveted endorsement helped revive Biden’s listing campaign before the South Carolina primary last year, has been particularly active on her behalf as part of what his advisers say is his most significant request of the administration. The 80-year-old House whip has made the case for Childs with Harris; Remus; and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Judiciary Committee chair. Bakari Sellers, a Democratic political commentator who is close to Harris, has also pitched members of the vice president’s inner circle on Childs, who was appointed to the federal bench by Obama in 2010. “Not just for our party but for the judiciary it’s important to have somebody who has lived experiences,” Sellers said. What’s prompting some of these officials to go public with a more aggressive form of advocacy are two developments. First, they saw the makings of a shortlist in a Ruth Marcus column in The Washington Post earlier this month naming a pair of potential Breyer successors, who like Childs are young enough to serve on the court for a few decades. The two cited — U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of Washington, D.C., and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger — both have Ivy League law degrees and important connections. Jackson, 50, was a clerk for Breyer himself and Kruger, 44, served as Obama’s deputy solicitor general There are a handful of other Black women in their 40s with elite credentials who have caught the eye of lawmakers, including some on the Judiciary Committee. There is Danielle Holley-Walker, dean of Howard University’s law school, and Leslie Abrams Gardner, a U.S. District Court judge in Georgia who is a younger sister of Stacey Abrams. More significant is the matter of timing. There are relatively few Black women on the federal appeals courts, where presidents often draw their nominees to the Supreme Court. Very soon, however, there will be another vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — which can be a springboard to the high court — when Judge Merrick B. Garland resigns to become attorney general. Childs may be better positioned to ascend to the Supreme Court if she were to serve on that appeals court, some of her admirers say. “There is an immediate vacancy there so I would advocate for her consideration to the D.C. circuit,” Butterfield, himself a former state Supreme Court judge, said of Childs. “And when and if there’s a Supreme Court vacancy she ought to be considered for that, as well.” Another possible contender seen for a court seat is Cheri Beasley, who lost reelection as chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court by 412 votes in November. She also went to a public university and climbed through the judiciary via service on lower state courts. Yet Beasley has told people that she is considering a bid for North Carolina’s open Senate seat next year, according to one Democrat who has spoken to her. When a court vacancy does occur, several Democrats say, they are bracing for Obama-era tensions, which were papered over by former President Donald Trump, to emerge. Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as a number of white Democrats, say they believe the party is too closely linked to elites, and that perception only hands political fodder to Republicans during campaign season. “This isn’t being critical of the Harvards or the Yales, but I think there’s some great attorneys out there that are really, really smart that come from other places on this Earth,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, where Democrats lost all three marquee races last year. “And I think we ought to consider them.” Vi Lyles, mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, said, “having the broadest perspective of what’s gone on in the country makes you a better decision-maker and leader.” Even more delicate are lingering frustrations among Black leaders, many of whom went to state schools or historically Black institutions, about Obama’s arms-length treatment of the Congressional Black Caucus and his administration’s seeming preference for appointees with elite credentials. “He was predisposed to Ivy League nominees, I think we can all agree on that,” said Butterfield. Sellers was even blunter. “I love Barack Obama, but there was an Ivy League culture that emanated from the White House, and we got to move away from that,” he said. The frustration with Obama culminated with his selection of Garland for the Supreme Court following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016. Some congressional Democrats believed the former president could have put pressure on Republicans, and energized Democrats, had he chosen a Black woman and were infuriated when he said he did not seek out “a Black lesbian from Skokie.” What Clyburn will only say obliquely is that Biden does not just owe Black voters for his nomination, he’s indebted to African Americans who resurrected his candidacy in South Carolina and those across the South who all but cemented his nomination three days later as he swept the region on Super Tuesday. Some African American Democrats believe that Black Americans will rally behind whichever Black woman Biden nominates and suspect Clyburn is looking for a rationale to elevate his home state and burnish his legacy. Yet few politicians preach more than Biden about the importance of “dancing with the one that brung you,” as the president often puts it. And so far, Clyburn has been able to install two of his closest allies in the administration, with former Rep. Marcia Fudge being named housing secretary and Jaime Harrison tapped to lead the Democratic National Committee. Asked if he could support Childs to the high court, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, a Republican and the first Southern Black senator elected since Reconstruction, said he was not ready to commit. But he praised her for having “a very good reputation” and said her appointment “would reflect the positive and powerful progress we’ve made in the great state of South Carolina.” Scott was more direct, though, when asked if Biden owed it to South Carolina’s Black voters given the role they played in his path to the presidency. “Jim Clyburn would say so,” he said with a smile.

How Democrats are already maneuvering to shape Biden’s first Supreme Court pick

Democrats introduced a bill based on the Biden administration’s immigration priorities that would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, officials will begin processing Central American asylum-seekers who were turned back and forced to remain in Mexico under a controversial Trump-era policy that has been revoked.

Biden administration’s immigration policy and recent attacks on the Asian-American communities

The family of a Republican congressman has&nbsp;accused him of joining the "devil's army" in the aftermath of him voting to impeach former United States President Donald Trump.

On Monday, the New York Times published a letter penned by Adam Kinzinger's relatives after he voted to accuse Trump of inciting the riot which shook the US Capitol on January 6.&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/republican-and-democrats-are-proposing-for-fresh-enquiry-in-case-of-donald-trump-363893/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and the Lord!" the handwritten letter claims "You go against your Christian principals and join the 'devil's army' (Democrats and the fake news media)", the letter went on to say.

Many supporters of Trump have expressed anger with fellow Republicans for attempting to break with him. In the letter, the family claimed to be ''embarrassed", while accusing Kinzinger of falling for the Democratic Party's "socialism ideas".

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/independent-911-style-commission-needed-to-investigate-trump-and-capitol-riots-pelosi-363900" hreflang="en">'Independent, 9/11-style commission' needed to investigate Trump and Capitol riots: Pelosi</a>

Kinzinger, in conversation with NYT said that the two-page letter was written by his cousin Karen Otto, and signed by 11 relatives.

"I wanted Adam to be shunned," Otto told NYT.

Kinzinger was among 10 Republicans who voted in the House of Representatives to impeach Trump. In the Senate, seven Republicans voted to impeach Trump. He is not the only Republican facing backlash for supporting Trump's impeachment. Many of those who voted against Trump are now facing backlash in their home constituencies.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/toings-froings-and-kerfuffle-uk-pm-boris-johnson-reacts-to-trumps-impeachment-trial-363685" hreflang="en">'Toings, froings and kerfuffle': UK PM Boris Johnson reacts to Trump's impeachment trial</a>

Former US President Donald Trump was acquitted by US Senate in the impeachment trial on February 14.&nbsp;

Majority of Senate republicans closed ranks to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial. During the five-day trial, Democratic Senators argued strongly in favour of impeaching Donald Trump who is the only US President to have been impeached twice.&nbsp;

(With inputs from AFP)

The family of a Republican congressman has accused him of joining the "devil's army" in the aftermath of him voting to impeach former United States President Donald Trump.

The family of a Republican congressman has accused him of joining the "devil's army" in the aftermath of him voting to impeach former United States President Donald Trump. On Monday, the New York Times published a letter penned by Adam Kinzinger's relatives after he voted to accuse Trump of inciting the riot which shook the US Capitol on January 6. "Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and the Lord!" the handwritten letter claims "You go against your Christian principals and join the 'devil's army' (Democrats and the fake news media)", the letter went on to say. Many supporters of Trump have expressed anger with fellow Republicans for attempting to break with him. In the letter, the family claimed to be ''embarrassed", while accusing Kinzinger of falling for the Democratic Party's "socialism ideas". Also read: 'Independent, 9/11-style commission' needed to investigate Trump and Capitol riots: Pelosi Kinzinger, in conversation with NYT said that the two-page letter was written by his cousin Karen Otto, and signed by 11 relatives. "I wanted Adam to be shunned," Otto told NYT. Kinzinger was among 10 Republicans who voted in the House of Representatives to impeach Trump. In the Senate, seven Republicans voted to impeach Trump. He is not the only Republican facing backlash for supporting Trump's impeachment. Many of those who voted against Trump are now facing backlash in their home constituencies. Also read: 'Toings, froings and kerfuffle': UK PM Boris Johnson reacts to Trump's impeachment trial Former US President Donald Trump was acquitted by US Senate in the impeachment trial on February 14. Majority of Senate republicans closed ranks to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial. During the five-day trial, Democratic Senators argued strongly in favour of impeaching Donald Trump who is the only US President to have been impeached twice. (With inputs from AFP)

Republican accused of joining 'devil's army' for voting to impeach Donald Trump

The announcement came after White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said at a news conference that Biden was “calling on Congress to draft the proposal.

Democrats in U.S. plan $50,000 of student loan cancellation

The Democrats and Republican Senate leaders have finally reached a power-sharing agreement, allowing the Democrats to take control of the committees.

Senate leaders agree to power-sharing deal with Democrats

Ten moderate Republican U.S. senators urged President Joe Biden on Sunday to significantly downsize his sweeping $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package to win bipartisan support as Democrats in Congress prepared to push ahead with his plan this week.

Republicans press Biden to downsize $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan

If President Joe Biden’s plan for COVID relief ever passes the Senate, it won’t be with the 10 Republican votes it needs to clear a filibuster.

“I’m going to suggest that we get together and talk about what we think would be a reasonable package, and one that could garner bipartisan support,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to reporters after a conference call with a bipartisan group of 16 senators led by her and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, another necessary vote, isn’t just skeptical of the cost, he’s skeptical that the country needs another relief bill so soon after the last one. “I think at this early stage, just having passed $900 billion in relief, we need to understand where is the money going,” Romney said in an interview with CNN on Sunday. “It is important we don’t borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese for things that may not be absolutely necessary.”

Without Republican support, Democrats have two options for passing Biden’s plan into law. They could use “reconciliation” — a limited-use parliamentary maneuver that lets any deficit-neutral budget-related bill pass with a simple majority — or they could end the legislative filibuster and rid themselves of the burden of a 60-vote threshold for action. Democrats could then pass the relief package and anything else they had the votes for.

The choice is simple. Change the rules and govern or leave them as is and struggle on the way to likely defeat in the next elections.

This isn’t the first Democratic majority to have to deal with this kind of problem. Sixty years ago this month, Sam Rayburn, the Democratic speaker of the house, faced a similar situation. The president-elect, John F. Kennedy, had promised to take America toward a “new frontier” of reform, including new civil rights legislation. But Howard Smith of Virginia, the 78-year-old Dixiecrat chairman of the House Rules Committee, was less than keen on making that journey.

The Rules Committee was where legislation went to live or die. It decided whether a bill moved to the floor for full consideration or if it was buried and forgotten. The 12-person committee was meant to act like a traffic cop, controlling the flow of legislation to the entire House. Under Smith, however, the committee used its broad powers to restrict the scope of activity altogether.

Smith’s main target was liberal legislation, which he blocked in partnership with William M. Colmer of Mississippi (the other Dixiecrat on the committee) as well as the four Republicans in the minority. What on paper was a committee controlled by eight Democrats was, in practice, a committee controlled by a bipartisan group of six conservatives, who only had to tie a vote to kill a bill.

For Rayburn, this was intolerable. He wanted Kennedy to succeed — or at least, to have a chance at success — and Smith’s control of the Rules Committee made that impossible. So Rayburn had to act. Liberal members had already conferred with him on how to break conservative control of the committee. He had three options. He could revive an old rule that would take all bills out of the committee after 21 days. He could purge Colmer and give his spot to a loyal soldier. Or, since committee size was set by majority vote of the House, he could move to make it bigger.

The first option would make the floor unmanageable. Rayburn still needed a traffic cop. And the second option would cause a schism as conservative Southern Democrats broke from the party to defend one of their own (and head off another civil rights bill — Rayburn had helped shepherd the Civil Rights acts of 1957 and 1960). He chose the third. The Rules Committee could be as small as five members or as large as 15. Smith could keep his coalition. With three additional members, two Democrats and one Republican, liberals and moderates would have an 8-7 majority. They could block legislation as needed, but they could also let Kennedy’s bills through.

Rayburn chose door number three, but not before acting as if he might go through door number two. After his meeting with House liberals, Rayburn’s office told The New York Times of a plan to purge Colmer from the Rules Committee. Rayburn tried to effect some compromise with Smith, but the Dixiecrat wouldn’t budge. At this point, Rayburn endorsed the plan to enlarge the committee. Smith could have stopped it there — the bill to add members had to go through him — but he allowed it through, on the assumption that Republicans and Dixiecrats would kill it on the floor.

On the last day of the month, Jan. 31, with Kennedy now in office, the House took a vote. According to the Times, it was a “tense debate that produced cheers and applause” as well as “derisive ‘ahs’ and laughter from members.” Smith and his Republican allies accused Rayburn of “packing” the Rules Committee and making it a “rubber stamp for whatever the new administration proposes.” Rayburn, for his part, urged members to adopt the resolution since “This House should be allowed on great measures to work its will,” even “if the Committee on Rules is so constituted as not to allow the House to pass on those things.”

When the votes were finally counted, Rayburn had won, 217-212, with most of the Southern delegation in opposition.

“This triumph did not mean complete success for the New Frontier,” historian James Smallwood wrote in a 1973 journal article on the Rules Committee fight, “it only meant that the entire House could consider its proposals and that the majority would rule.”

Here in the present, Senate Republicans aren’t the only ones pumping the breaks on the president’s agenda. On Monday, Manchin announced his total support for the Senate filibuster in an interview with Politico. “If I haven’t said it very plain, maybe Sen. McConnell hasn’t understood, I want to basically say it for you. That I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right? I will not vote” to change the filibuster.

Likewise, a spokesperson for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said that the senator is “against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about the filibuster.”

In 1961, the prospect of gridlock and the possibilities opened up by a new administration motivated a coalition of liberals and moderates to change the rules and clear a path that would, in just a few short years, allow Congress to pass some of the most important legislation in its history.

Today, liberals see the opportunity of the moment. But moderates don’t appear to be frustrated enough with gridlock and inaction to change the rules of the chamber. They seem to think they can negotiate Republicans out of their partisanship and win votes for policies — a $15 federal minimum wage, a new Voting Rights Act — that Republicans have already deemed unacceptable. And they seem to think that failure won’t matter, that Americans won’t notice how the Democratic Party campaigned on help and assistance but never delivered. Yes, without the filibuster to protect them, moderate members will have to take the occasional tough vote. But their constituents will probably care more about checks and vaccines than whether their senator voted with their more liberal colleagues.

At this point, American elections are almost completely nationalized. The broad, diverse coalition that is the Democratic Party will either rise or fall together. Even members with their own personal political appeal need the entire party to win if they are to wield any influence over government. If Manchin wants the government to spend $4 trillion on infrastructure, then he’ll need the Democratic Party to succeed in as many areas as it can.

The first step toward victory is a government that can act. So, sure, moderate Democrats can keep the filibuster if they want. But they should prepare for when the voting public decides it would rather have the party that promises nothing and does nothing than the one that promises quite a bit but won’t work to make any of it a reality.

If President Joe Biden’s plan for COVID relief ever passes the Senate, it won’t be with the 10 Republican votes it needs to clear a filibuster. “I’m going to suggest that we get together and talk about what we think would be a reasonable package, and one that could garner bipartisan support,” said Sen.

If President Joe Biden’s plan for COVID relief ever passes the Senate, it won’t be with the 10 Republican votes it needs to clear a filibuster. “I’m going to suggest that we get together and talk about what we think would be a reasonable package, and one that could garner bipartisan support,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to reporters after a conference call with a bipartisan group of 16 senators led by her and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, another necessary vote, isn’t just skeptical of the cost, he’s skeptical that the country needs another relief bill so soon after the last one. “I think at this early stage, just having passed $900 billion in relief, we need to understand where is the money going,” Romney said in an interview with CNN on Sunday. “It is important we don’t borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese for things that may not be absolutely necessary.” Without Republican support, Democrats have two options for passing Biden’s plan into law. They could use “reconciliation” — a limited-use parliamentary maneuver that lets any deficit-neutral budget-related bill pass with a simple majority — or they could end the legislative filibuster and rid themselves of the burden of a 60-vote threshold for action. Democrats could then pass the relief package and anything else they had the votes for. The choice is simple. Change the rules and govern or leave them as is and struggle on the way to likely defeat in the next elections. This isn’t the first Democratic majority to have to deal with this kind of problem. Sixty years ago this month, Sam Rayburn, the Democratic speaker of the house, faced a similar situation. The president-elect, John F. Kennedy, had promised to take America toward a “new frontier” of reform, including new civil rights legislation. But Howard Smith of Virginia, the 78-year-old Dixiecrat chairman of the House Rules Committee, was less than keen on making that journey. The Rules Committee was where legislation went to live or die. It decided whether a bill moved to the floor for full consideration or if it was buried and forgotten. The 12-person committee was meant to act like a traffic cop, controlling the flow of legislation to the entire House. Under Smith, however, the committee used its broad powers to restrict the scope of activity altogether. Smith’s main target was liberal legislation, which he blocked in partnership with William M. Colmer of Mississippi (the other Dixiecrat on the committee) as well as the four Republicans in the minority. What on paper was a committee controlled by eight Democrats was, in practice, a committee controlled by a bipartisan group of six conservatives, who only had to tie a vote to kill a bill. For Rayburn, this was intolerable. He wanted Kennedy to succeed — or at least, to have a chance at success — and Smith’s control of the Rules Committee made that impossible. So Rayburn had to act. Liberal members had already conferred with him on how to break conservative control of the committee. He had three options. He could revive an old rule that would take all bills out of the committee after 21 days. He could purge Colmer and give his spot to a loyal soldier. Or, since committee size was set by majority vote of the House, he could move to make it bigger. The first option would make the floor unmanageable. Rayburn still needed a traffic cop. And the second option would cause a schism as conservative Southern Democrats broke from the party to defend one of their own (and head off another civil rights bill — Rayburn had helped shepherd the Civil Rights acts of 1957 and 1960). He chose the third. The Rules Committee could be as small as five members or as large as 15. Smith could keep his coalition. With three additional members, two Democrats and one Republican, liberals and moderates would have an 8-7 majority. They could block legislation as needed, but they could also let Kennedy’s bills through. Rayburn chose door number three, but not before acting as if he might go through door number two. After his meeting with House liberals, Rayburn’s office told The New York Times of a plan to purge Colmer from the Rules Committee. Rayburn tried to effect some compromise with Smith, but the Dixiecrat wouldn’t budge. At this point, Rayburn endorsed the plan to enlarge the committee. Smith could have stopped it there — the bill to add members had to go through him — but he allowed it through, on the assumption that Republicans and Dixiecrats would kill it on the floor. On the last day of the month, Jan. 31, with Kennedy now in office, the House took a vote. According to the Times, it was a “tense debate that produced cheers and applause” as well as “derisive ‘ahs’ and laughter from members.” Smith and his Republican allies accused Rayburn of “packing” the Rules Committee and making it a “rubber stamp for whatever the new administration proposes.” Rayburn, for his part, urged members to adopt the resolution since “This House should be allowed on great measures to work its will,” even “if the Committee on Rules is so constituted as not to allow the House to pass on those things.” When the votes were finally counted, Rayburn had won, 217-212, with most of the Southern delegation in opposition. “This triumph did not mean complete success for the New Frontier,” historian James Smallwood wrote in a 1973 journal article on the Rules Committee fight, “it only meant that the entire House could consider its proposals and that the majority would rule.” Here in the present, Senate Republicans aren’t the only ones pumping the breaks on the president’s agenda. On Monday, Manchin announced his total support for the Senate filibuster in an interview with Politico. “If I haven’t said it very plain, maybe Sen. McConnell hasn’t understood, I want to basically say it for you. That I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right? I will not vote” to change the filibuster. Likewise, a spokesperson for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said that the senator is “against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about the filibuster.” In 1961, the prospect of gridlock and the possibilities opened up by a new administration motivated a coalition of liberals and moderates to change the rules and clear a path that would, in just a few short years, allow Congress to pass some of the most important legislation in its history. Today, liberals see the opportunity of the moment. But moderates don’t appear to be frustrated enough with gridlock and inaction to change the rules of the chamber. They seem to think they can negotiate Republicans out of their partisanship and win votes for policies — a $15 federal minimum wage, a new Voting Rights Act — that Republicans have already deemed unacceptable. And they seem to think that failure won’t matter, that Americans won’t notice how the Democratic Party campaigned on help and assistance but never delivered. Yes, without the filibuster to protect them, moderate members will have to take the occasional tough vote. But their constituents will probably care more about checks and vaccines than whether their senator voted with their more liberal colleagues. At this point, American elections are almost completely nationalized. The broad, diverse coalition that is the Democratic Party will either rise or fall together. Even members with their own personal political appeal need the entire party to win if they are to wield any influence over government. If Manchin wants the government to spend $4 trillion on infrastructure, then he’ll need the Democratic Party to succeed in as many areas as it can. The first step toward victory is a government that can act. So, sure, moderate Democrats can keep the filibuster if they want. But they should prepare for when the voting public decides it would rather have the party that promises nothing and does nothing than the one that promises quite a bit but won’t work to make any of it a reality.

Democrats should act like they won the election

United States' Ex-President Donald Trump is likely to be acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial as Democrats struggle to gain enough support from Republicans.

Democrats need 17 Republican votes to convict Donald Trump

Democrats and the US house representatives planned to start the impeachment proceedings of Wednesday unless outgoing President Donald Trump steps down or is removed.

Democrats plan to start impeachment procedure on Wednesday

US House of Representatives Democrats have planned a vote on Monday to urge Vice-President Mike Pence to take steps to remove President Donald Trump from office after his supporters stormed the Capitol a few days back, before attempting to impeach him again.

Five people died in the rampage through the seat of government by Trumps backers after a fiery speech denouncing the November 3 election results by the Republican president. Officials have hence opened at least 25 domestic terrorism investigations into Wednesdays assault on the US Capitol.

The plan, spelled out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a letter to members on Sunday evening, came as Washington struggles to decide what to do about Trump in the 10 days before Democratic President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in on January 20.

Trump, who has time and again and without evidence challenged the validity of Biden's election victory, praised and egged on supporters before they laid siege to the Capitol, where lawmakers were certifying the Electoral College vote for Biden.

Lawmakers were then forced to flee, as the building was mobbed by Trump supporters -- wearing hats with his slogan and waving flags with his name -- who overwhelmed the security forces.

The five dead included one Capitol Police officer beaten as he tried to ward off the crowds. Another police officer involved in the buildings defence died while off duty in the days following the attack.

In her letter, Pelosi said leaders of the Democratic-led House would attempt on Monday to pass a resolution calling on Pence to activate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution to declare Trump incapable of fulfilling the duties of his office.

"In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both," Pelosi said in the letter.

"As the days go by, the horror of the ongoing assault on our democracy perpetrated by this President is intensified and so is the immediate need for action," she wrote.

If Pence does not respond, Democrats would proceed with impeaching the president for a historic second time.

After the violence, which followed months of posts by Trump and his supporters attacking the US election process, Twitter permanently suspended Trump, who relied on it as one of his most direct ways to communicate with backers.

The White House said Trump planned to leave Washington to visit Texas on Tuesday.

Biden has said he will leave the impeachment question to Congress. He did say Congress must be able to hit the ground running once he takes office, when he will focus on the coronavirus pandemic and economic recovery.

(with inputs)

US House of Representatives Democrats have planned a vote on Monday to urge Vice-President Mike Pence to take steps to remove President Donald Trump from office after his supporters stormed the Capitol a few days back, before attempting to impeach him again.

US House of Representatives Democrats have planned a vote on Monday to urge Vice-President Mike Pence to take steps to remove President Donald Trump from office after his supporters stormed the Capitol a few days back, before attempting to impeach him again. Five people died in the rampage through the seat of government by Trumps backers after a fiery speech denouncing the November 3 election results by the Republican president. Officials have hence opened at least 25 domestic terrorism investigations into Wednesdays assault on the US Capitol. The plan, spelled out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a letter to members on Sunday evening, came as Washington struggles to decide what to do about Trump in the 10 days before Democratic President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in on January 20. Trump, who has time and again and without evidence challenged the validity of Biden's election victory, praised and egged on supporters before they laid siege to the Capitol, where lawmakers were certifying the Electoral College vote for Biden. Lawmakers were then forced to flee, as the building was mobbed by Trump supporters -- wearing hats with his slogan and waving flags with his name -- who overwhelmed the security forces. The five dead included one Capitol Police officer beaten as he tried to ward off the crowds. Another police officer involved in the buildings defence died while off duty in the days following the attack. In her letter, Pelosi said leaders of the Democratic-led House would attempt on Monday to pass a resolution calling on Pence to activate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution to declare Trump incapable of fulfilling the duties of his office. "In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both," Pelosi said in the letter. "As the days go by, the horror of the ongoing assault on our democracy perpetrated by this President is intensified and so is the immediate need for action," she wrote. If Pence does not respond, Democrats would proceed with impeaching the president for a historic second time. After the violence, which followed months of posts by Trump and his supporters attacking the US election process, Twitter permanently suspended Trump, who relied on it as one of his most direct ways to communicate with backers. The White House said Trump planned to leave Washington to visit Texas on Tuesday. Biden has said he will leave the impeachment question to Congress. He did say Congress must be able to hit the ground running once he takes office, when he will focus on the coronavirus pandemic and economic recovery. (with inputs)

US House Democrats plan vote on Monday for removing Trump over Capitol riots

House Democrats are prepared to impeach President Donald Trump if he doesn’t immediately resign, as the president came under increasing pressure from members of both parties for encouraging a mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol.

House Democrats readying for unprecedented second impeachment

US House of Representatives which is led by Democrats on Monday voted 275-134 to meet Donald Trump's demand for $2,000 coronavirus relief cheques. The measure will now be sent to the Republican-controlled Senate.&nbsp; 
 
Even though Democrats pushed forward to approve Republican stimulus payments, just earlier they vetoed a separate $740 billion defense policy bill. This marks the first veto of his policy if the Senate approves it later this week. 
&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-signs-covid-19-relief-and-spending-bill-352807/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Last week, Trump had threatened to block a pandemic aid stimulus package, while asking Congress to boost payments from $600 to $2,000 and to cut other spending.&nbsp;

As another government shutdown loomed, Trump backed down and signed the aid relief. 
 
In this rare agreement with Trump, Democrats approved the proposal in the House, hoping to bring larger relief cheques to Americans. Trump is leaving office in less than a month from now when President-elect Joe Biden will officially take over presidential duties.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-security-agencies-incurred-enormous-damage-during-trump-administration-biden-353040" hreflang="en">US security agencies incurred 'enormous damage' during Trump administration: Biden</a>

130 Republicans, two independents, and two Democrats opposed increasing the stimulus relief for people.

Even though Trump has signed the $2.3 trillion relief package into law on Sunday, he continued to demand $2,000 cheques. The $2.3 trillion fund includes $1.4 trillion for government agencies and $892 billion for coronavirus relief.

Republican lawmakers have said how a higher amount would add hundreds of billions to the relief bill, and as per the Joint Committee on Taxation, the increase would cost $464 billion.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/in-blow-to-trump-house-votes-to-override-veto-of-defense-bill-353039" hreflang="en">In blow to Trump, house votes to override veto of defense bill</a>

It is not clear how the measure to increase aid checks will fare in the Senate, where some Republican lawmakers have complained that the higher amount would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the latest relief bill.

On Tuesday, the Senate will convene to approve or reject the suggested increase in the stimulus. Donald Trump has continued to demand more money for Americans, attacking Democrats for approving the current bill.

US House of Representatives which is led by Democrats on Monday voted 275-134 to meet Donald Trump's demand for $2,000 coronavirus relief cheques. The measure will now be sent to the Republican-controlled Senate.

US House of Representatives which is led by Democrats on Monday voted 275-134 to meet Donald Trump's demand for $2,000 coronavirus relief cheques. The measure will now be sent to the Republican-controlled Senate. Even though Democrats pushed forward to approve Republican stimulus payments, just earlier they vetoed a separate $740 billion defense policy bill. This marks the first veto of his policy if the Senate approves it later this week. Last week, Trump had threatened to block a pandemic aid stimulus package, while asking Congress to boost payments from $600 to $2,000 and to cut other spending. As another government shutdown loomed, Trump backed down and signed the aid relief. In this rare agreement with Trump, Democrats approved the proposal in the House, hoping to bring larger relief cheques to Americans. Trump is leaving office in less than a month from now when President-elect Joe Biden will officially take over presidential duties. Also read: US security agencies incurred 'enormous damage' during Trump administration: Biden 130 Republicans, two independents, and two Democrats opposed increasing the stimulus relief for people. Even though Trump has signed the $2.3 trillion relief package into law on Sunday, he continued to demand $2,000 cheques. The $2.3 trillion fund includes $1.4 trillion for government agencies and $892 billion for coronavirus relief. Republican lawmakers have said how a higher amount would add hundreds of billions to the relief bill, and as per the Joint Committee on Taxation, the increase would cost $464 billion. Also read: In blow to Trump, house votes to override veto of defense bill It is not clear how the measure to increase aid checks will fare in the Senate, where some Republican lawmakers have complained that the higher amount would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the latest relief bill. On Tuesday, the Senate will convene to approve or reject the suggested increase in the stimulus. Donald Trump has continued to demand more money for Americans, attacking Democrats for approving the current bill.

In rare agreement with Trump, Democrat-led US House approves demand for increasing coronavirus relief amount

Two years ago, Democrats celebrated a sweep of seven Republican-held congressional seats in California as evidence of the party’s growing ability to compete in swing districts here and across the nation.

But this year, Republicans snatched back four of those seats even as Joe Biden swamped President Donald Trump in California. The losses stunned Democrats and contributed to the razor-thin margin the party will hold in the House of Representatives this January.

The turnaround is testimony to how competitive the seats are, particularly in Orange County, once a bastion of conservative Republicanism that has been moving steadily Democratic over the past 20 years.

But by any measure, the results were a setback for Democrats in this state and nationally, signaling the steep obstacles they will face in 2022 competing in the predominantly suburban swing districts that fueled their takeover of the House in 2018.

The Democrats’ losses came for a number of reasons, including forces particular to California and the complications of campaigning during a pandemic. But as much as anything, they reflected the potency of Republican attacks, some false or exaggerated, that Democrats were the party of socialism, defunding the police and abolishing private health insurance.

The attacks — led in no small part by Trump as a central part of his reelection strategy — came at a time when parts of California were swept by street protests against police abuses, some of which turned into glass-shattering bouts of looting and confrontations with law enforcement that were heavily covered on local television.

“Republicans hung around Democrats’ necks that we are all socialist or communist and we all wanted to defund the police,” said Harley Rouda, a Democrat from Orange County who was defeated by Michelle Steel, a Republican member of the Orange County board of supervisors. “In my opinion, we as a party did a less than adequate job in refuting that narrative. We won in 2018 and took the House back because of people like me — moderates — flipping radical Republican seats.”

Republicans said that attempts by Democrats to portray themselves as moderates were undercut by a shift of the party to the left and by the demonstrations.

“It was incredibly easy for us to draw contrasts,” said Jessica Millan Patterson, leader of the California Republican Party. She said the protests “were happening all over. It looked like a war zone.”

For all that, election outcomes are the result of many factors — and that was particularly the case in a campaign that played out against a deadly pandemic and with such a polarizing figure as Trump dominating the political debate.

Democrats said they were also hurt by a national policy, set by the party, to avoid door-to-door canvassing during the pandemic. Presumably, that will not be a factor in 2022.

“The No. 1 issue in our campaign is we didn’t canvass,” said Rep. T.J. Cox, a Democrat who represents the San Joaquin Valley and lost to David Valadao, the Republican he unseated in 2018. “We didn’t do the door-to-door.”

He said it was like playing for a football team that had been told “they can’t pass.”

Christy Smith, a Democrat from northern Los Angeles County who failed to win a district her party captured in 2018, said she had adhered to public health guidelines to her disadvantage. (The Democrat who won in 2018, Katie Hill, stepped down after being accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a staff member.)

“We couldn’t attend a forum or a town hall,” Smith said. “That’s my favorite way to campaign.”

California’s often lurching effort to combat COVID-19 was damaging in Republican-leaning districts where there has been public defiance of mask-wearing mandates and contempt for the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.

“Everyone is concerned about COVID,” said Sam Oh, a Republican consultant to two of the Republican winners, Young Kim and Steel. “But we are trying to find a path to give small-business owners a way to keep making a life. This is incredibly important, and Democrats are tone-deaf to this.”

And Republicans, analysts said, recruited strong candidates, which is always the most critical task in an election. They included Steel and Kim, who will be among the first Korean-American members of Congress, and Mike Garcia, a former military pilot who won a special election in May to replace Hill and then beat Smith in November.

Democrats set their targets on seven Republican-held seats in 2018 and won all of them, cutting the size of California’s Republican congressional delegation in half. That sweep suggested that Democrats were encroaching on once-Republican areas of the state, presenting a road map for how the party could compete in swing districts across the country.

But Republicans succeeded this time by playing on themes that have long been resonant among moderate voters, particularly in places like Orange County: high taxes, intrusive government and law and order. Democrats said the debates on the national stage hurt them, particularly among Latino and Asian-American voters.

“I think we undervalued the strength of the attack,” said Dan Sena, who was the first Hispanic executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The national socialism messaging, combined with the crime messaging, was a death by a thousand cuts in a place like California.”

Smith said she was frustrated in trying to campaign in an environment “where Republicans are so persistent in false narratives,” and that Democrats had failed to figure out how to address that.

“We never got our hands around it,” she said.

Republicans argued that the results here — and across the country — were powerful evidence that many voters were rejecting policies that Democrats on the left were advocating.

“Democrats said they were going to pick up 10 to 15 seats in the House,” said Torunn Sinclair, a press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Obviously they are missing something. It has to go back to these far-left policies that people just didn’t want. ‘Medicare for All,’ defunding the police.”

The margins of victory in California’s pivot districts were narrow for the Democratic winners in 2018 — and for the Republican winners in 2020.

“These districts — including mine — were very difficult to flip,” said Rep. Katie Porter, one of the Orange County Democrats who won in 2018 and was reelected in 2020. “These are Republican districts. They were always going to be very competitive races.”

Two years ago, Democrats celebrated a sweep of seven Republican-held congressional seats in California as evidence of the party’s growing ability to compete in swing districts here and across the nation.

Two years ago, Democrats celebrated a sweep of seven Republican-held congressional seats in California as evidence of the party’s growing ability to compete in swing districts here and across the nation. But this year, Republicans snatched back four of those seats even as Joe Biden swamped President Donald Trump in California. The losses stunned Democrats and contributed to the razor-thin margin the party will hold in the House of Representatives this January. The turnaround is testimony to how competitive the seats are, particularly in Orange County, once a bastion of conservative Republicanism that has been moving steadily Democratic over the past 20 years. But by any measure, the results were a setback for Democrats in this state and nationally, signaling the steep obstacles they will face in 2022 competing in the predominantly suburban swing districts that fueled their takeover of the House in 2018. The Democrats’ losses came for a number of reasons, including forces particular to California and the complications of campaigning during a pandemic. But as much as anything, they reflected the potency of Republican attacks, some false or exaggerated, that Democrats were the party of socialism, defunding the police and abolishing private health insurance. The attacks — led in no small part by Trump as a central part of his reelection strategy — came at a time when parts of California were swept by street protests against police abuses, some of which turned into glass-shattering bouts of looting and confrontations with law enforcement that were heavily covered on local television. “Republicans hung around Democrats’ necks that we are all socialist or communist and we all wanted to defund the police,” said Harley Rouda, a Democrat from Orange County who was defeated by Michelle Steel, a Republican member of the Orange County board of supervisors. “In my opinion, we as a party did a less than adequate job in refuting that narrative. We won in 2018 and took the House back because of people like me — moderates — flipping radical Republican seats.” Republicans said that attempts by Democrats to portray themselves as moderates were undercut by a shift of the party to the left and by the demonstrations. “It was incredibly easy for us to draw contrasts,” said Jessica Millan Patterson, leader of the California Republican Party. She said the protests “were happening all over. It looked like a war zone.” For all that, election outcomes are the result of many factors — and that was particularly the case in a campaign that played out against a deadly pandemic and with such a polarizing figure as Trump dominating the political debate. Democrats said they were also hurt by a national policy, set by the party, to avoid door-to-door canvassing during the pandemic. Presumably, that will not be a factor in 2022. “The No. 1 issue in our campaign is we didn’t canvass,” said Rep. T.J. Cox, a Democrat who represents the San Joaquin Valley and lost to David Valadao, the Republican he unseated in 2018. “We didn’t do the door-to-door.” He said it was like playing for a football team that had been told “they can’t pass.” Christy Smith, a Democrat from northern Los Angeles County who failed to win a district her party captured in 2018, said she had adhered to public health guidelines to her disadvantage. (The Democrat who won in 2018, Katie Hill, stepped down after being accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a staff member.) “We couldn’t attend a forum or a town hall,” Smith said. “That’s my favorite way to campaign.” California’s often lurching effort to combat COVID-19 was damaging in Republican-leaning districts where there has been public defiance of mask-wearing mandates and contempt for the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. “Everyone is concerned about COVID,” said Sam Oh, a Republican consultant to two of the Republican winners, Young Kim and Steel. “But we are trying to find a path to give small-business owners a way to keep making a life. This is incredibly important, and Democrats are tone-deaf to this.” And Republicans, analysts said, recruited strong candidates, which is always the most critical task in an election. They included Steel and Kim, who will be among the first Korean-American members of Congress, and Mike Garcia, a former military pilot who won a special election in May to replace Hill and then beat Smith in November. Democrats set their targets on seven Republican-held seats in 2018 and won all of them, cutting the size of California’s Republican congressional delegation in half. That sweep suggested that Democrats were encroaching on once-Republican areas of the state, presenting a road map for how the party could compete in swing districts across the country. But Republicans succeeded this time by playing on themes that have long been resonant among moderate voters, particularly in places like Orange County: high taxes, intrusive government and law and order. Democrats said the debates on the national stage hurt them, particularly among Latino and Asian-American voters. “I think we undervalued the strength of the attack,” said Dan Sena, who was the first Hispanic executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The national socialism messaging, combined with the crime messaging, was a death by a thousand cuts in a place like California.” Smith said she was frustrated in trying to campaign in an environment “where Republicans are so persistent in false narratives,” and that Democrats had failed to figure out how to address that. “We never got our hands around it,” she said. Republicans argued that the results here — and across the country — were powerful evidence that many voters were rejecting policies that Democrats on the left were advocating. “Democrats said they were going to pick up 10 to 15 seats in the House,” said Torunn Sinclair, a press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Obviously they are missing something. It has to go back to these far-left policies that people just didn’t want. ‘Medicare for All,’ defunding the police.” The margins of victory in California’s pivot districts were narrow for the Democratic winners in 2018 — and for the Republican winners in 2020. “These districts — including mine — were very difficult to flip,” said Rep. Katie Porter, one of the Orange County Democrats who won in 2018 and was reelected in 2020. “These are Republican districts. They were always going to be very competitive races.”

A stinging setback in California is a warning for Democrats in 2022

Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate have struck a late-night compromise to clear one of the final hurdles, a dispute over Federal Reserve pandemic lending authorities.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a vote on the $900 billion package is now expected on Sunday.

Congressional leaders plan to attach the coronavirus aid package, which includes $600 direct payments to individuals and a $300 per week unemployment compensation supplement, to a $1.4 trillion spending bill funding government programmes through September 2021. A 48-hour funding extension expires at midnight on Sunday (0500 GMT Monday), after which the government would shut down.

Republicans had said the programmes are an unnecessary government interference in private business that politicises the Fed. They accused Democrats of seeking to extend them into 2021 as a backdoor way to provide unchecked funds for state and local governments controlled by members of their party.

Democrats in turn accused the Republicans of trying to tie the Fed's hands in order to limit Democratic President-elect Joe Biden's options for boosting the flagging economy after he takes office on January 20.

The Senate had adjourned a rare Saturday session with a call from Republican leader Mitch McConnell to avoid last-minute disagreements that could delay new funding for Americans and small businesses.

In the 11 months since the first cases of the new coronavirus were documented in the United States, COVID-19 has killed 311,000 Americans, by far the most in the world.

(with inputs)

Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate have struck a late-night compromise to clear one of the final hurdles, a dispute over Federal Reserve pandemic lending authorities.

Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate have struck a late-night compromise to clear one of the final hurdles, a dispute over Federal Reserve pandemic lending authorities. According to the Wall Street Journal, a vote on the $900 billion package is now expected on Sunday. Congressional leaders plan to attach the coronavirus aid package, which includes $600 direct payments to individuals and a $300 per week unemployment compensation supplement, to a $1.4 trillion spending bill funding government programmes through September 2021. A 48-hour funding extension expires at midnight on Sunday (0500 GMT Monday), after which the government would shut down. Republicans had said the programmes are an unnecessary government interference in private business that politicises the Fed. They accused Democrats of seeking to extend them into 2021 as a backdoor way to provide unchecked funds for state and local governments controlled by members of their party. Democrats in turn accused the Republicans of trying to tie the Fed's hands in order to limit Democratic President-elect Joe Biden's options for boosting the flagging economy after he takes office on January 20. The Senate had adjourned a rare Saturday session with a call from Republican leader Mitch McConnell to avoid last-minute disagreements that could delay new funding for Americans and small businesses. In the 11 months since the first cases of the new coronavirus were documented in the United States, COVID-19 has killed 311,000 Americans, by far the most in the world. (with inputs)

US Congress to vote on virus stimulus deal after lawmakers reach agreement

The US Supreme Court denied a last-minute attempt by President Donald Trump’s allies to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania, a blow to the president’s continuing efforts to reverse his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Scotus denies Trump allies' attempt to overturn results

ATLANTA — Some of the biggest names in national politics jumped into the fiercely contested runoffs for two Georgia Senate seats Friday, even as a second recount showed that Joe Biden had maintained his lead in the state and Republicans braced for a visit by President Donald Trump, who has railed against his loss there with baseless claims of fraud.

With Trump set to campaign for the two Republican incumbents, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, on Saturday, Vice President Mike Pence and former President Barack Obama held dueling events to underscore the vital stakes in the special elections: If both Republicans are defeated, control of the Senate will shift to Democrats just as Biden moves into the Oval Office.

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-election-2020-georgia-finishes-recount-of-votes-confirms-biden-victory-344344/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Obama appeared virtually at a turn-out-the-vote event for Jon Ossoff, the Democrat facing Perdue, and the Rev. Raphael Warnock, Loeffler’s opponent, and spoke of his frustration in seeing his initiatives blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate when he was in office. “If the Senate is controlled by Republicans who are interested in obstruction and gridlock, rather than progress and helping people, they can block just about anything,” Obama said.

Pence — with Perdue and Loeffler by his side — received a COVID-19 briefing at the Atlanta headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and said later at a rally for the Republican candidates that “we’re going to save the Senate, and then we’re going to save America.”

A second recount of the presidential vote in Georgia has finished, according to the Secretary of State website, showing Biden ahead by about 12,000 votes with 100% of the counties reporting.

New campaign financial reports filed late Thursday showed a staggering influx of money into the state in the first days of runoffs that were expected to set spending records, with more than $300 million booked in television, radio and digital ads, according to data from AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm. Media buyers said the price of ads was soaring, especially for super PACs, to unseen heights.

The Senate races are playing out at a hyperpartisan moment in American politics that has led to a civil war among Georgia Republicans divided over whether to support Trump as he persists with false assertions that the election was stolen from him. In Georgia and elsewhere, the president’s lawyers remain engaged in a failing, last-minute effort to throw the election to Trump.

Even as he tweeted this week that he wanted “a big David and Kelly WIN,” Trump called Brian Kemp, the state’s Republican governor, “hapless” for failing to work to overturn the election results, while also criticizing Georgia’s top election official, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. His sustained assault on Georgia’s voting system prompted an extraordinary rebuke this week from another high-ranking elections official, who warned of violent threats against poll workers and publicly pleaded with the president to cool down his conspiratorial rhetoric.

On Friday, state Sen. Elena Parent, a Democrat on the judiciary subcommittee, which met Thursday, said that she had been the target of violent, anonymous threats that appeared on a public internet chat room.

The president’s appearance in Valdosta, near the Florida border, on Saturday evening comes after a concerted campaign by his advisers and Republican lawmakers to convince him that his presence is vital to increasing turnout among his supporters. Initially reluctant, the president agreed to hold the rally after being told that victories by the Republican Senate candidates would help prove his contention that his own win in Georgia was stolen from him, according to aides familiar with the conversations.

But some Republicans in Georgia and Washington are fearful that Trump will go off-script and potentially attack Kemp or Raffensperger. Party officials also worry that the president’s claims of fraud could backfire, undermining turnout by convincing Republican voters that the special elections are rigged against them anyway.

L. Lin Wood, a lawyer and Republican supporter of Trump, and Sidney Powell, a lawyer who has filed lawsuits on the president’s behalf, urged Georgians on Wednesday not to vote “unless your vote is secure.”

That same day, a number of prominent Georgia Republicans, including former Gov. Nathan Deal, signed an open letter in which they warned that “the debate surrounding the state’s electoral system has made some within our party consider whether voting in the coming runoff election matters.”

The leaders said that the party needed to focus on winning the two Senate seats or risk turning the Senate over to a Democratic Party that “wishes to fundamentally alter the fabric of our nation into something unrecognizable.”

Some senior Republicans in Washington are doing little to hide their concern about the damage that they believe Wood and Powell are inflicting.

“It’s encouraging the president is going down there to rally the troops, because I know there’s some inconsistent messages being sent to his base supporters,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas.

Chip Lake, a Georgia-based Republican strategist who most recently worked for Rep. Doug Collins — who unsuccessfully vied in November for Loeffler’s Senate seat — said Friday that Trump was facing “one of the biggest political speeches the president’s ever had to make, because the stakes are that high.”

“If we have any portion of our base that might decide to boycott this election for any reason whatsoever, then we might be handing over the Senate to Democratic control,” Lake said.

Although a hand-recount of the state’s 5 million votes reaffirmed that Biden had indeed won the Georgia election, Trump’s campaign demanded a second machine recount. Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta and is the state’s most populous, certified its results Friday. As of Friday evening, state election officials had not responded to queries about when they would officially announce the results of the recount or recertify Biden as the winner.

The urgency of the Senate races was reflected in the huge amounts of money pouring into the four campaigns in recent weeks: about $187 million just in online donations from Oct. 15 to Nov. 23, according to federal records from the donation-processing sites ActBlue and WinRed.

In that 40-day period, both Democratic challengers outraised their Republican opponents every day from online contributions and surpassed the previous Senate fundraising record for a full quarter. Warnock raised $63.3 million in online donations, and Ossoff raised $66.4 million.

In that time, the two Republicans raised $58.2 million.

But well-heeled Republicans have erased much of the Democrats’ financial advantage with giant donations to a super PAC that raised $70 million in less than three weeks from a who’s who of Republican megadonors, including Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone ($15 million) and Ken Griffin of Citadel ($12 million). Media mogul Rupert Murdoch gave $1 million, as did his son, Lachlan, the chief executive of the Fox Corp.

Loeffler, one of the wealthiest members of the Senate, put $23 million of her own money into her campaign to get to the runoff, and her husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, has donated an additional $10 million to a pro-Loeffler super PAC.

Big contributions from Democratic donors are lagging the Republicans. The leading Senate Democratic super PAC raised a little more than $10 million in the 20 days after the general election, records show. The biggest donation — $2.5 million — came from the organization that Stacey Abrams created, Fair Fight, after her narrow loss in 2018 for the governor’s race.

As Abrams’ star power has increased, Fair Fight itself has emerged as a major magnet for Democratic giving, pulling in nearly $35 million in 40 days that ended Nov. 23. Abrams, widely credited with leading the Democratic renaissance in Georgia, also appeared in the virtual rally Friday for the two Democratic candidates.

“We won this election decisively, and, despite the number of recounts, it keeps giving us the same answer: that Georgia Democrats showed up, that Georgians showed up and that we decided that we wanted to move this nation in the right direction,” Abrams said.

Ossoff voiced a major theme that both Democratic candidates were seeking to exploit: allegations that Loeffler and Perdue benefited from questionable stock trades as they learned about the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic. “We’re running against, like, the Bonnie and Clyde of political corruption in America, who represent politicians who put themselves over the people,” he said. Perdue and Loeffler have denied any inappropriate financial dealings.

On Friday, Pence rallied on behalf of Loeffler and Perdue in Savannah, where he warned that Democrats would advance a liberal, big-government agenda if they were allowed to seize control of the Senate.

“If you don’t vote, they win,” Pence told the small but enthusiastic crowd at the Savannah airport. “If you don’t vote, there could be nothing to stop Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi from cutting our military, raising taxes and passing the agenda of the radical left.”

Pence was joined at the airport by Perdue but not Loeffler, who returned to Atlanta after a young man on her campaign staff was killed Friday afternoon in a traffic accident.

Before the rally, Pence attended the CDC briefing with the Republican candidates, saying the nation is facing a “challenging time” but also “a season of hope,” with the likely approval of the first coronavirus vaccine coming as soon as next week.

ATLANTA — Some of the biggest names in national politics jumped into the fiercely contested runoffs for two Georgia Senate seats Friday, even as a second recount showed that Joe Biden had maintained his lead in the state and Republicans braced for a visit by President Donald Trump, who has railed against his loss there with baseless claims of fraud.

ATLANTA — Some of the biggest names in national politics jumped into the fiercely contested runoffs for two Georgia Senate seats Friday, even as a second recount showed that Joe Biden had maintained his lead in the state and Republicans braced for a visit by President Donald Trump, who has railed against his loss there with baseless claims of fraud. With Trump set to campaign for the two Republican incumbents, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, on Saturday, Vice President Mike Pence and former President Barack Obama held dueling events to underscore the vital stakes in the special elections: If both Republicans are defeated, control of the Senate will shift to Democrats just as Biden moves into the Oval Office. Watch | Obama appeared virtually at a turn-out-the-vote event for Jon Ossoff, the Democrat facing Perdue, and the Rev. Raphael Warnock, Loeffler’s opponent, and spoke of his frustration in seeing his initiatives blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate when he was in office. “If the Senate is controlled by Republicans who are interested in obstruction and gridlock, rather than progress and helping people, they can block just about anything,” Obama said. Pence — with Perdue and Loeffler by his side — received a COVID-19 briefing at the Atlanta headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and said later at a rally for the Republican candidates that “we’re going to save the Senate, and then we’re going to save America.” A second recount of the presidential vote in Georgia has finished, according to the Secretary of State website, showing Biden ahead by about 12,000 votes with 100% of the counties reporting. New campaign financial reports filed late Thursday showed a staggering influx of money into the state in the first days of runoffs that were expected to set spending records, with more than $300 million booked in television, radio and digital ads, according to data from AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm. Media buyers said the price of ads was soaring, especially for super PACs, to unseen heights. The Senate races are playing out at a hyperpartisan moment in American politics that has led to a civil war among Georgia Republicans divided over whether to support Trump as he persists with false assertions that the election was stolen from him. In Georgia and elsewhere, the president’s lawyers remain engaged in a failing, last-minute effort to throw the election to Trump. Even as he tweeted this week that he wanted “a big David and Kelly WIN,” Trump called Brian Kemp, the state’s Republican governor, “hapless” for failing to work to overturn the election results, while also criticizing Georgia’s top election official, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. His sustained assault on Georgia’s voting system prompted an extraordinary rebuke this week from another high-ranking elections official, who warned of violent threats against poll workers and publicly pleaded with the president to cool down his conspiratorial rhetoric. On Friday, state Sen. Elena Parent, a Democrat on the judiciary subcommittee, which met Thursday, said that she had been the target of violent, anonymous threats that appeared on a public internet chat room. The president’s appearance in Valdosta, near the Florida border, on Saturday evening comes after a concerted campaign by his advisers and Republican lawmakers to convince him that his presence is vital to increasing turnout among his supporters. Initially reluctant, the president agreed to hold the rally after being told that victories by the Republican Senate candidates would help prove his contention that his own win in Georgia was stolen from him, according to aides familiar with the conversations. But some Republicans in Georgia and Washington are fearful that Trump will go off-script and potentially attack Kemp or Raffensperger. Party officials also worry that the president’s claims of fraud could backfire, undermining turnout by convincing Republican voters that the special elections are rigged against them anyway. L. Lin Wood, a lawyer and Republican supporter of Trump, and Sidney Powell, a lawyer who has filed lawsuits on the president’s behalf, urged Georgians on Wednesday not to vote “unless your vote is secure.” That same day, a number of prominent Georgia Republicans, including former Gov. Nathan Deal, signed an open letter in which they warned that “the debate surrounding the state’s electoral system has made some within our party consider whether voting in the coming runoff election matters.” The leaders said that the party needed to focus on winning the two Senate seats or risk turning the Senate over to a Democratic Party that “wishes to fundamentally alter the fabric of our nation into something unrecognizable.” Some senior Republicans in Washington are doing little to hide their concern about the damage that they believe Wood and Powell are inflicting. “It’s encouraging the president is going down there to rally the troops, because I know there’s some inconsistent messages being sent to his base supporters,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. Chip Lake, a Georgia-based Republican strategist who most recently worked for Rep. Doug Collins — who unsuccessfully vied in November for Loeffler’s Senate seat — said Friday that Trump was facing “one of the biggest political speeches the president’s ever had to make, because the stakes are that high.” “If we have any portion of our base that might decide to boycott this election for any reason whatsoever, then we might be handing over the Senate to Democratic control,” Lake said. Although a hand-recount of the state’s 5 million votes reaffirmed that Biden had indeed won the Georgia election, Trump’s campaign demanded a second machine recount. Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta and is the state’s most populous, certified its results Friday. As of Friday evening, state election officials had not responded to queries about when they would officially announce the results of the recount or recertify Biden as the winner. The urgency of the Senate races was reflected in the huge amounts of money pouring into the four campaigns in recent weeks: about $187 million just in online donations from Oct. 15 to Nov. 23, according to federal records from the donation-processing sites ActBlue and WinRed. In that 40-day period, both Democratic challengers outraised their Republican opponents every day from online contributions and surpassed the previous Senate fundraising record for a full quarter. Warnock raised $63.3 million in online donations, and Ossoff raised $66.4 million. In that time, the two Republicans raised $58.2 million. But well-heeled Republicans have erased much of the Democrats’ financial advantage with giant donations to a super PAC that raised $70 million in less than three weeks from a who’s who of Republican megadonors, including Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone ($15 million) and Ken Griffin of Citadel ($12 million). Media mogul Rupert Murdoch gave $1 million, as did his son, Lachlan, the chief executive of the Fox Corp. Loeffler, one of the wealthiest members of the Senate, put $23 million of her own money into her campaign to get to the runoff, and her husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, has donated an additional $10 million to a pro-Loeffler super PAC. Big contributions from Democratic donors are lagging the Republicans. The leading Senate Democratic super PAC raised a little more than $10 million in the 20 days after the general election, records show. The biggest donation — $2.5 million — came from the organization that Stacey Abrams created, Fair Fight, after her narrow loss in 2018 for the governor’s race. As Abrams’ star power has increased, Fair Fight itself has emerged as a major magnet for Democratic giving, pulling in nearly $35 million in 40 days that ended Nov. 23. Abrams, widely credited with leading the Democratic renaissance in Georgia, also appeared in the virtual rally Friday for the two Democratic candidates. “We won this election decisively, and, despite the number of recounts, it keeps giving us the same answer: that Georgia Democrats showed up, that Georgians showed up and that we decided that we wanted to move this nation in the right direction,” Abrams said. Ossoff voiced a major theme that both Democratic candidates were seeking to exploit: allegations that Loeffler and Perdue benefited from questionable stock trades as they learned about the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic. “We’re running against, like, the Bonnie and Clyde of political corruption in America, who represent politicians who put themselves over the people,” he said. Perdue and Loeffler have denied any inappropriate financial dealings. On Friday, Pence rallied on behalf of Loeffler and Perdue in Savannah, where he warned that Democrats would advance a liberal, big-government agenda if they were allowed to seize control of the Senate. “If you don’t vote, they win,” Pence told the small but enthusiastic crowd at the Savannah airport. “If you don’t vote, there could be nothing to stop Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi from cutting our military, raising taxes and passing the agenda of the radical left.” Pence was joined at the airport by Perdue but not Loeffler, who returned to Atlanta after a young man on her campaign staff was killed Friday afternoon in a traffic accident. Before the rally, Pence attended the CDC briefing with the Republican candidates, saying the nation is facing a “challenging time” but also “a season of hope,” with the likely approval of the first coronavirus vaccine coming as soon as next week.

A gathering political storm hits Georgia, with Trump on the way

WASHINGTON — As soon as Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois learned officially Monday that there would be a Democratic opening at the top of the Judiciary Committee, he was on the phone to his colleagues trying to nail down their support for the position.

“Never take anything for granted,” Durbin said of his bid to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who stepped aside as the senior Democrat on the panel under intense pressure from progressive activists who deemed her insufficiently aggressive for the job. “I have been through these contests before.”

One fellow Democrat whom Durbin did not talk to was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who made clear by the next afternoon that he was also interested in the job. Some of the same progressive activists who pressed to shove Feinstein aside said they would be backing him.

The competition set up a rare internal power struggle that reflected broader disputes among Democrats over the direction and approach of their party in a new Congress. As they sort through the results of the election, which handed them control of the White House but left their hopes of taking the Senate hanging by a thread, some are pushing for a new, more combative style and generational change.

Depending on the results of two Senate runoffs in Georgia in January, whoever wins the battle for the post will be either the chairman of the panel or the senior Democrat, with a crucial role to play on a panel that Republicans have turned into a judicial confirmation assembly line.

Durbin is the next in line behind Feinstein on the committee, and Democrats generally adhere to seniority when awarding such posts. The tension in this case partly comes from the fact that Durbin is already the No. 2 leader and holds an important subcommittee chairmanship on the Appropriations panel, which controls federal spending. To some, he is trying to hoard power, potentially at the expense of his own effectiveness in either job.

“Ultimately, this is not going to come down to policy considerations,” said Brian Fallon, the executive director of the progressive advocacy group Demand Justice and a backer of Whitehouse. “It will be about whether the caucus thinks a leadership post and the top spot on a major committee are too much for one member to hold simultaneously.”

Durbin said it was common for Senate leaders to hold a top job on a committee, and his office noted that the whip, the second-ranking official, had routinely done so in the past. First elected to the Senate in 1996, Durbin, 76, who just won his fifth term, has never served as either the chairman or the senior minority member of a full committee. He said he saw this as his chance to influence the direction of a panel he has sat on for 22 years.

Members of both parties have viewed Durbin as an effective advocate for committee Democrats who have chafed at the way Republicans have jammed through nominees in recent years.

“Believe me, I wouldn’t take this on if I didn’t think I could do the job,” he said in an interview this week.

Supporters of Durbin, who has a decidedly liberal record of his own, noted his pursuit of progressive goals on a range of issues.

“Senator Durbin consistently has articulated progressive values at the heart of the Judiciary Committee’s ambit, ranging from checking corporate power through arbitration and bankruptcy reform to promoting fair elections to protecting whistleblowers and civil liberties,” said Daniel Schuman, the policy director at Demand Progress.

Under Republican control since 2015, the committee has been the focal point for that party’s drive to confirm more than 220 conservative federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices and 53 appeals court judges.

Against that backdrop, Whitehouse, 65, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has charted out how a network of advocacy groups has taken money from undisclosed donors to support the confirmation of conservative judges who are seen as potentially sympathetic to their interests.

During the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett in October, Whitehouse devoted his first round of questioning to laying out his case and telling her that she needed to understand the “forces outside of this room who are pulling strings and pushing sticks and causing the puppet theater to react.”

His push has brought him support from those on the left who believe Democrats have not been aggressive enough in challenging Republicans over the judiciary. But they also see Whitehouse, who was just elected to his third term, as someone who would bring a new perspective at the top of the committee.

“I think it needs a little bit of fresh air, new energy,” said Faiz Shakir, a former top Senate aide and progressive activist who served as the presidential campaign manager for Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Shakir said that his backing of Whitehouse was not a personal complaint against Durbin but that the Rhode Island Democrat had “earned credibility” with his work.

“Giving him the opportunity to lead a committee, I think, would be a good changing of the guard for Senate Democrats to present,” Shakir said.

Durbin credited Whitehouse with doing “excellent work” on exposing the spending behind judicial nominations.

“It’s an important issue, and I’m glad he is raising it,” said Durbin, who has been highly critical of the Republican handling of confirmations and said he would pursue a reset should Democrats win the majority.

“There clearly has to be a balancing of the courts,” he said. “Most Americans are not looking for all Democrats or all Republicans.”

Durbin said that he believed the committee had drifted from its former role as a Senate powerhouse and that he wanted to reinvigorate it. If given the leadership spot, he said, he would try to refocus the committee on voting rights, executive branch oversight, antitrust efforts and opposing liability immunity that Republicans are pursuing in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

Durbin also pointed to his ability to work with Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who will be either the top Republican or chairman of the panel, particularly on a criminal justice overhaul that became law in 2018. Durbin negotiated an agreement with Grassley on reducing sentences for nonviolent offenders despite the Iowan’s own reservations and pressure to drop the contentious provisions to advance the rest of the legislation.

“Very few people thought we could pass sentencing reform as part of First Step,” said Holly Harris, the president of Justice Action Network, a bipartisan criminal justice reform organization. She credited Durbin with keeping the sentencing aspects alive: “Because of him, criminal justice reform took a first step rather than a timid stumble.”

Internal leadership elections are notoriously difficult to handicap since lawmakers are reluctant to commit publicly to a decision that is made in secret. The election will take place in the coming weeks, before the convening of the new Congress early next year.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the party leader who has to navigate the divide in his caucus, is so far not saying anything about whether he has a preference.

But if there is one thing all Senate Democrats can agree on, it is that they would much prefer that either Durbin or Whitehouse chair the Judiciary Committee rather than serve as its senior Democrat, with the position dependent on the outcome in Georgia.

“We are all pitching in in every way imaginable to help the two candidates down there,” Durbin said. 
&nbsp;

WASHINGTON — As soon as Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois learned officially Monday that there would be a Democratic opening at the top of the Judiciary Committee, he was on the phone to his colleagues trying to nail down their support for the position.

WASHINGTON — As soon as Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois learned officially Monday that there would be a Democratic opening at the top of the Judiciary Committee, he was on the phone to his colleagues trying to nail down their support for the position. “Never take anything for granted,” Durbin said of his bid to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who stepped aside as the senior Democrat on the panel under intense pressure from progressive activists who deemed her insufficiently aggressive for the job. “I have been through these contests before.” One fellow Democrat whom Durbin did not talk to was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who made clear by the next afternoon that he was also interested in the job. Some of the same progressive activists who pressed to shove Feinstein aside said they would be backing him. The competition set up a rare internal power struggle that reflected broader disputes among Democrats over the direction and approach of their party in a new Congress. As they sort through the results of the election, which handed them control of the White House but left their hopes of taking the Senate hanging by a thread, some are pushing for a new, more combative style and generational change. Depending on the results of two Senate runoffs in Georgia in January, whoever wins the battle for the post will be either the chairman of the panel or the senior Democrat, with a crucial role to play on a panel that Republicans have turned into a judicial confirmation assembly line. Durbin is the next in line behind Feinstein on the committee, and Democrats generally adhere to seniority when awarding such posts. The tension in this case partly comes from the fact that Durbin is already the No. 2 leader and holds an important subcommittee chairmanship on the Appropriations panel, which controls federal spending. To some, he is trying to hoard power, potentially at the expense of his own effectiveness in either job. “Ultimately, this is not going to come down to policy considerations,” said Brian Fallon, the executive director of the progressive advocacy group Demand Justice and a backer of Whitehouse. “It will be about whether the caucus thinks a leadership post and the top spot on a major committee are too much for one member to hold simultaneously.” Durbin said it was common for Senate leaders to hold a top job on a committee, and his office noted that the whip, the second-ranking official, had routinely done so in the past. First elected to the Senate in 1996, Durbin, 76, who just won his fifth term, has never served as either the chairman or the senior minority member of a full committee. He said he saw this as his chance to influence the direction of a panel he has sat on for 22 years. Members of both parties have viewed Durbin as an effective advocate for committee Democrats who have chafed at the way Republicans have jammed through nominees in recent years. “Believe me, I wouldn’t take this on if I didn’t think I could do the job,” he said in an interview this week. Supporters of Durbin, who has a decidedly liberal record of his own, noted his pursuit of progressive goals on a range of issues. “Senator Durbin consistently has articulated progressive values at the heart of the Judiciary Committee’s ambit, ranging from checking corporate power through arbitration and bankruptcy reform to promoting fair elections to protecting whistleblowers and civil liberties,” said Daniel Schuman, the policy director at Demand Progress. Under Republican control since 2015, the committee has been the focal point for that party’s drive to confirm more than 220 conservative federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices and 53 appeals court judges. Against that backdrop, Whitehouse, 65, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has charted out how a network of advocacy groups has taken money from undisclosed donors to support the confirmation of conservative judges who are seen as potentially sympathetic to their interests. During the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett in October, Whitehouse devoted his first round of questioning to laying out his case and telling her that she needed to understand the “forces outside of this room who are pulling strings and pushing sticks and causing the puppet theater to react.” His push has brought him support from those on the left who believe Democrats have not been aggressive enough in challenging Republicans over the judiciary. But they also see Whitehouse, who was just elected to his third term, as someone who would bring a new perspective at the top of the committee. “I think it needs a little bit of fresh air, new energy,” said Faiz Shakir, a former top Senate aide and progressive activist who served as the presidential campaign manager for Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Shakir said that his backing of Whitehouse was not a personal complaint against Durbin but that the Rhode Island Democrat had “earned credibility” with his work. “Giving him the opportunity to lead a committee, I think, would be a good changing of the guard for Senate Democrats to present,” Shakir said. Durbin credited Whitehouse with doing “excellent work” on exposing the spending behind judicial nominations. “It’s an important issue, and I’m glad he is raising it,” said Durbin, who has been highly critical of the Republican handling of confirmations and said he would pursue a reset should Democrats win the majority. “There clearly has to be a balancing of the courts,” he said. “Most Americans are not looking for all Democrats or all Republicans.” Durbin said that he believed the committee had drifted from its former role as a Senate powerhouse and that he wanted to reinvigorate it. If given the leadership spot, he said, he would try to refocus the committee on voting rights, executive branch oversight, antitrust efforts and opposing liability immunity that Republicans are pursuing in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Durbin also pointed to his ability to work with Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who will be either the top Republican or chairman of the panel, particularly on a criminal justice overhaul that became law in 2018. Durbin negotiated an agreement with Grassley on reducing sentences for nonviolent offenders despite the Iowan’s own reservations and pressure to drop the contentious provisions to advance the rest of the legislation. “Very few people thought we could pass sentencing reform as part of First Step,” said Holly Harris, the president of Justice Action Network, a bipartisan criminal justice reform organization. She credited Durbin with keeping the sentencing aspects alive: “Because of him, criminal justice reform took a first step rather than a timid stumble.” Internal leadership elections are notoriously difficult to handicap since lawmakers are reluctant to commit publicly to a decision that is made in secret. The election will take place in the coming weeks, before the convening of the new Congress early next year. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the party leader who has to navigate the divide in his caucus, is so far not saying anything about whether he has a preference. But if there is one thing all Senate Democrats can agree on, it is that they would much prefer that either Durbin or Whitehouse chair the Judiciary Committee rather than serve as its senior Democrat, with the position dependent on the outcome in Georgia. “We are all pitching in in every way imaginable to help the two candidates down there,” Durbin said.

Senate democrats face power struggle for top judiciary job

Nancy Pelosi, the&nbsp;Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, declared that she will be re-running to lead as a speaker&nbsp; if the Democrats win majority of the chamber post the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/us-election">US election</a>.

Pelosi, during an interview with American channel CNN on Sunday, was asked if she is planning to run for another term as the US House speaker if her political party wins majority, she said. Yes, I am".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/covid-19-vaccine-will-not-be-available-before-2021-fauci-declares-week-before-us-election-337855">Also read|&nbsp;COVID-19 vaccine will not be available before 2021, Fauci declares week before US election</a>

She also stated that she will anyhow be hoping for an agreement after the November 03 elections, regardless of who takes over the White House. However, she also added that&nbsp;anted to see a deal for another round of federal financial aid amid the novel coronavirus pandemic as soon as possible.

During the interview, she also talked about the coronavirus relief plan. She said the latest proposal of the COVID-19 relief package is being reviewed by the Trump administration.

The proposal will be reviewed by the President's administration over the weekend, and Pelosi is hoping she will have a positive response from her opposition party by Monday.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-loss-joe-biden-breaks-television-spending-record-week-before-us-election-2020-337663">Also read|&nbsp;Trump's loss: Joe Biden breaks television spending record week before US Election 2020</a>

Pelosi has been an open critique of the current US President&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>.&nbsp;The President, too, has often resorted to name-calling and poking fun of the Speaker.

The two have recently been clashing about the proposed COVID-19 relief package, which&nbsp;Pelosi&nbsp;says is being delayed due to stubbornness from&nbsp;Trump's&nbsp;side. President, however, is blaming&nbsp;Pelosi&nbsp;for the day claiming she has been uncooperative.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, declared that she will be re-running to lead as a speaker if the Democrats win majority of the chamber post the US election.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, declared that she will be re-running to lead as a speaker if the Democrats win majority of the chamber post the US election. Pelosi, during an interview with American channel CNN on Sunday, was asked if she is planning to run for another term as the US House speaker if her political party wins majority, she said. Yes, I am". Also read| COVID-19 vaccine will not be available before 2021, Fauci declares week before US election She also stated that she will anyhow be hoping for an agreement after the November 03 elections, regardless of who takes over the White House. However, she also added that anted to see a deal for another round of federal financial aid amid the novel coronavirus pandemic as soon as possible. During the interview, she also talked about the coronavirus relief plan. She said the latest proposal of the COVID-19 relief package is being reviewed by the Trump administration. The proposal will be reviewed by the President's administration over the weekend, and Pelosi is hoping she will have a positive response from her opposition party by Monday. Also read| Trump's loss: Joe Biden breaks television spending record week before US Election 2020 Pelosi has been an open critique of the current US President Donald Trump. The President, too, has often resorted to name-calling and poking fun of the Speaker. The two have recently been clashing about the proposed COVID-19 relief package, which Pelosi says is being delayed due to stubbornness from Trump's side. President, however, is blaming Pelosi for the day claiming she has been uncooperative.

Nancy Pelosi to re-run for US House speaker if Democrats hold control post US election

The Democrats supporters found an IRONIC spot for the BIDEN-HARRIS campaign logo in Chicago. The United Steelworkers Union projected the bat light with gigantic Blue letters onto Donald Trump's properties. WION reports

'Biden-Harris' projected on Trump properties | U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct

Fourteen years after television political drama 'The West Wing' shut down its White House set, the show is back with its idealized version of a US president and a mission to get Americans to the polls on November 3 to choose a real one. 
 
Martin Sheen - who played the liberal-leaning US President Jed Bartlet on the show - reunites with fictional White House staffers portrayed by Bradley Whitford, Allison Janney, Rob Lowe, Dule Hill, Janel Maloney and Richard Schiff for a one-off special to promote voting. 
 
"A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Vote," to be broadcast on HBO Max on Thursday, is a staged theatrical performance of an episode from 2002, called "Hartsfield`s Landing," in which the cerebral Bartlet plays chess with his aides while awaiting the results of a state primary election and dealing with a brewing crisis over Taiwan. 
 
'West Wing' creator Aaron Sorkin said it was chosen "because the episode ended with a feeling that we wanted the audience to have. A feeling about voting." 
 
While Sorkin wrote no updates to the script, the likes of former President Bill Clinton, former first lady Michelle Obama and 'Hamilton' musical creator Lin-Manuel Miranda will appear during commercial breaks "giving information about voting, knocking down some untruths about voting, and doing it in their own style," Sorkin said. 
 
Sorkin said he was a firm believer in the influential power of movies and television in shaping ideas, but said "The West Wing" would be no different if he was writing it in today`s political environment.

"What the show was always about was a workplace drama set in a very interesting workplace," Sorkin said. 
 
"In our popular culture, our elected leaders are portrayed either as Machiavellian or as dolts. So I thought, what if there is a show where these people are every bit as confident and dedicated as doctors and nurses on a hospital show or the lawyers on a legal drama." 
 
'The West Wing' ended its seven-year run in 2006 after winning more than 20 Emmy Awards. The special was shot as a play in an empty theater in Los Angeles under coronavirus guidelines. 
 
'This Is Us' star Sterling K. Brown takes the role of chief of staff Leo McGarry following the death in 2005 of actor John Spencer. 
 
"It was moving to have everybody back together," said director Thomas Schlamme. "What was stunning to me was how quickly these actors slipped right back into their characters."

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Fourteen years after television political drama 'The West Wing' shut down its White House set, the show is back with its idealized version of a US president and a mission to get Americans to the polls on November 3 to choose a real one.

Fourteen years after television political drama 'The West Wing' shut down its White House set, the show is back with its idealized version of a US president and a mission to get Americans to the polls on November 3 to choose a real one. Martin Sheen - who played the liberal-leaning US President Jed Bartlet on the show - reunites with fictional White House staffers portrayed by Bradley Whitford, Allison Janney, Rob Lowe, Dule Hill, Janel Maloney and Richard Schiff for a one-off special to promote voting. "A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Vote," to be broadcast on HBO Max on Thursday, is a staged theatrical performance of an episode from 2002, called "Hartsfield`s Landing," in which the cerebral Bartlet plays chess with his aides while awaiting the results of a state primary election and dealing with a brewing crisis over Taiwan. 'West Wing' creator Aaron Sorkin said it was chosen "because the episode ended with a feeling that we wanted the audience to have. A feeling about voting." While Sorkin wrote no updates to the script, the likes of former President Bill Clinton, former first lady Michelle Obama and 'Hamilton' musical creator Lin-Manuel Miranda will appear during commercial breaks "giving information about voting, knocking down some untruths about voting, and doing it in their own style," Sorkin said. Sorkin said he was a firm believer in the influential power of movies and television in shaping ideas, but said "The West Wing" would be no different if he was writing it in today`s political environment. "What the show was always about was a workplace drama set in a very interesting workplace," Sorkin said. "In our popular culture, our elected leaders are portrayed either as Machiavellian or as dolts. So I thought, what if there is a show where these people are every bit as confident and dedicated as doctors and nurses on a hospital show or the lawyers on a legal drama." 'The West Wing' ended its seven-year run in 2006 after winning more than 20 Emmy Awards. The special was shot as a play in an empty theater in Los Angeles under coronavirus guidelines. 'This Is Us' star Sterling K. Brown takes the role of chief of staff Leo McGarry following the death in 2005 of actor John Spencer. "It was moving to have everybody back together," said director Thomas Schlamme. "What was stunning to me was how quickly these actors slipped right back into their characters."

TV's 'West Wing' swaps fictional politics for the real thing

Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris told Republicans it was "reckless" to hold Monday's Supreme Court confirmation hearing amid a pandemic, especially given the recent outbreak of Covid-19 affecting three US senators.

"This hearing has brought together more than 50 people to sit inside of a closed-door room for hours while our nation is facing a deadly airborne virus," Harris, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the hearing via videolink.

"The decision to hold this hearing now is reckless and places facility's workers, janitorial staff and congressional aides and Capitol Police at risk," the 55-year-old senator added.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee began its four-day confirmation hearing for Barrett, Democrats voiced their opposition even though they have little hope of derailing her nomination in the Republican-led Senate.

The Democratic senators also painted US President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee -- Amy Comey Barrett -- as a threat to the Obamacare healthcare law during a deadly pandemic and denounced the Republican drive to approve her before the November 3 US election.

Republican senators praised Barrett, an appellate court judge and a favorite of religious conservatives, as well qualified for a lifetime job on the high court and a worthy successor to the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Barrett, who had a bout with the coronavirus earlier in the year, removed her mask when she was sworn in to deliver her own opening statement.

"I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written," Barrett said, with her husband and six of her seven children sitting behind her as she read from prepared remarks that had been made public on Sunday.

Barrett's confirmation would give the court a 6-3 conservative majority that could roll back abortion rights, expand religious and gun rights, and uphold Republican-backed voting restrictions, among other issues.

But it was the fate of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement that has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage, that was the focus of the Democrats. Barrett has criticized a 2012 Supreme Court ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts that upheld Obamacare.

Harris, the running mate of Trump's Democratic election opponent Joe Biden, said the hearing should have been postponed because of COVID-19 worries and called the confirmation process so near an election rushed and illegitimate.

"I do believe this hearing is a clear attempt to jam through a Supreme Court nominee who will take away healthcare from millions of people during a deadly pandemic that has already killed more than 214,000 Americans," Harris said, speaking via a video link.

"A clear majority of Americans want whomever wins the election to fill this seat, and my Republican colleagues know that. Yet they are deliberately defying the will of the people in their attempt to roll back the rights and protections provided under the Affordable Care Act," Harris said.

Barrett could be confirmed in time to participate in a case to be argued on November 10 in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate Obamacare. Some legal experts doubt the justices, even with Barrett confirmed, would strike down Obamacare.

Barrett will face questioning from senators on Tuesday and Wednesday in a hearing that sets the stage for a full Senate vote by the end of October on confirming her. Republicans have a 53-47 majority so Barrett`s confirmation seems almost certain.

(with inputs)

Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris told Republicans it was "reckless" to hold Monday's Supreme Court confirmation hearing amid a pandemic, especially given the recent outbreak of Covid-19 affecting three US senators.

Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris told Republicans it was "reckless" to hold Monday's Supreme Court confirmation hearing amid a pandemic, especially given the recent outbreak of Covid-19 affecting three US senators. "This hearing has brought together more than 50 people to sit inside of a closed-door room for hours while our nation is facing a deadly airborne virus," Harris, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the hearing via videolink. "The decision to hold this hearing now is reckless and places facility's workers, janitorial staff and congressional aides and Capitol Police at risk," the 55-year-old senator added. As the Senate Judiciary Committee began its four-day confirmation hearing for Barrett, Democrats voiced their opposition even though they have little hope of derailing her nomination in the Republican-led Senate. The Democratic senators also painted US President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee -- Amy Comey Barrett -- as a threat to the Obamacare healthcare law during a deadly pandemic and denounced the Republican drive to approve her before the November 3 US election. Republican senators praised Barrett, an appellate court judge and a favorite of religious conservatives, as well qualified for a lifetime job on the high court and a worthy successor to the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett, who had a bout with the coronavirus earlier in the year, removed her mask when she was sworn in to deliver her own opening statement. "I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written," Barrett said, with her husband and six of her seven children sitting behind her as she read from prepared remarks that had been made public on Sunday. Barrett's confirmation would give the court a 6-3 conservative majority that could roll back abortion rights, expand religious and gun rights, and uphold Republican-backed voting restrictions, among other issues. But it was the fate of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement that has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage, that was the focus of the Democrats. Barrett has criticized a 2012 Supreme Court ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts that upheld Obamacare. Harris, the running mate of Trump's Democratic election opponent Joe Biden, said the hearing should have been postponed because of COVID-19 worries and called the confirmation process so near an election rushed and illegitimate. "I do believe this hearing is a clear attempt to jam through a Supreme Court nominee who will take away healthcare from millions of people during a deadly pandemic that has already killed more than 214,000 Americans," Harris said, speaking via a video link. "A clear majority of Americans want whomever wins the election to fill this seat, and my Republican colleagues know that. Yet they are deliberately defying the will of the people in their attempt to roll back the rights and protections provided under the Affordable Care Act," Harris said. Barrett could be confirmed in time to participate in a case to be argued on November 10 in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate Obamacare. Some legal experts doubt the justices, even with Barrett confirmed, would strike down Obamacare. Barrett will face questioning from senators on Tuesday and Wednesday in a hearing that sets the stage for a full Senate vote by the end of October on confirming her. Republicans have a 53-47 majority so Barrett`s confirmation seems almost certain. (with inputs)

Kamala Harris, Democrats slam Trump SC nominee, timing of confirmation hearing

A new $1.8 trillion economic stimulus proposal from the Trump administration drew criticism from congressional Democrats and Republicans on Saturday, diminishing hopes for a coronavirus relief deal before the Nov. 3 election.

In a weekly letter to Democratic colleagues, Pelosi said the Trump administration`s proposal lacked a "strategic plan to crush the virus" and gave President Donald Trump too much discretion to decide how funds were allocated.

"At this point, we still have disagreement on many priorities, and Democrats are awaiting language from the Administration on several provisions as the negotiations on the overall funding amount continue," Pelosi`s letter said.

On a conference call on Saturday morning with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, multiple Republican senators criticized the price tag of the Trump administration`s proposal, a source familiar with the matter said.

Mnuchin floated the $1.8 trillion proposal in a 30-minute Friday afternoon phone conversation with Pelosi, according to the White House.

The new White House package was higher than an earlier $1.6 trillion Mnuchin offer and closer to the $2.2 trillion the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed last week.

White House spokeswoman Alyssa Farah said the administration wanted to keep spending below $2 trillion but was eager to enact a fresh round of direct payments to individuals as well as aid for small businesses and airlines. 
Friday marked the third straight day of talks between Pelosi and Mnuchin.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in Congress, said on Friday he doubted lawmakers would pass a package before Nov. 3, although he has not directly participated in the talks.

"The proximity to the election and the differences of opinion over what is needed at this particular juncture are pretty vast," McConnell told a news conference.

There was no immediate comment on Saturday from the Treasury, White House, or McConnell`s office.

A new $1.8 trillion economic stimulus proposal from the Trump administration drew criticism from congressional Democrats and Republicans on Saturday, diminishing hopes for a coronavirus relief deal before the Nov.

A new $1.8 trillion economic stimulus proposal from the Trump administration drew criticism from congressional Democrats and Republicans on Saturday, diminishing hopes for a coronavirus relief deal before the Nov. 3 election. In a weekly letter to Democratic colleagues, Pelosi said the Trump administration`s proposal lacked a "strategic plan to crush the virus" and gave President Donald Trump too much discretion to decide how funds were allocated. "At this point, we still have disagreement on many priorities, and Democrats are awaiting language from the Administration on several provisions as the negotiations on the overall funding amount continue," Pelosi`s letter said. On a conference call on Saturday morning with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, multiple Republican senators criticized the price tag of the Trump administration`s proposal, a source familiar with the matter said. Mnuchin floated the $1.8 trillion proposal in a 30-minute Friday afternoon phone conversation with Pelosi, according to the White House. The new White House package was higher than an earlier $1.6 trillion Mnuchin offer and closer to the $2.2 trillion the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed last week. White House spokeswoman Alyssa Farah said the administration wanted to keep spending below $2 trillion but was eager to enact a fresh round of direct payments to individuals as well as aid for small businesses and airlines. Friday marked the third straight day of talks between Pelosi and Mnuchin. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in Congress, said on Friday he doubted lawmakers would pass a package before Nov. 3, although he has not directly participated in the talks. "The proximity to the election and the differences of opinion over what is needed at this particular juncture are pretty vast," McConnell told a news conference. There was no immediate comment on Saturday from the Treasury, White House, or McConnell`s office.

Trump's stimulus proposal draws opposition from congressional Democrats and Republicans

Microsoft has claimed that the same Russian military intelligence outfit that hacked the Democrats in 2016 has attempted similar intrusions into the computer systems of organizations involved in the 2020 elections. Most of the infiltration attempts by Russian, Chinese, and Iranian agents were halted by Microsoft security software.

Microsoft: Hackers again target US elections, Hacking bids from Russia, China, and Iran

US President Donald Trump has won an official nomination as the 2020 Republican presidential candidate on Monday, a symbolic moment to open the party’s convention and officially kick off the final stretch of his uphill climb for a second term.

Republican Party officially nominates Trump for President | US elections 2020

Republicans nominate Donald Trump for second term at Republican National Convention 2020

All eyes are on the upcoming Republican event where Donald Trump will be nominated as the presidential candidate.

Republican National Convention 2020 to kick-off in North Carolina

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.

The Republican National Convention 2020 to be mostly virtual affair

democrats

Democrats, News on Democrats, stories on Democrats, articles on Democrats, Democrats stories at Wion, Democrats news, Democrats latest news