Hostilities between the Republican far right and its typically muted center burst into the open Tuesday, highlighting deep divisions that could bedevil the party’s leaders if they capture a narrow majority in the House in 2022.

Initially prompted by the anti-Muslim comments of Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, the Republican-on-Republican war of words Tuesday was remarkably bitter and an indication of a brewing power struggle between an ascendant faction that styles itself after former President Donald Trump and a quieter one that is pushing back.

First, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called her freshman colleague Nancy Mace of South Carolina “trash” for condemning Boebert’s remarks in a television interview.

Mace then used a series of emojis — a bat, a pile of excrement and a crazy clown — to describe Greene, then kept up a steady stream of social media attacks, calling her a liar, a grifter and a nut.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, came to Mace’s defense, calling Greene “unserious circus barker McSpacelaser” — a reference to a social media post that she once circulated suggesting that wildfires in the West had been started by lasers owned by the Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family.

Kinzinger added that Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader and would-be speaker who has done nothing to discipline rank-and-file members of his conference for bigoted and violent statements, “continues his silent streak that would make a monk blush.”

Then Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, an ally of Greene’s, took to Twitter to amplify an attack by right-wing provocateur Jack Posobiec denouncing Mace as a “scam artist” for promoting coronavirus vaccinations on CNN.

The carnivallike behavior would amount to little more than a sideshow if it did not have real implications for midterm campaigns and, possibly, a fractured Republican majority in 2023. Party leaders again chose to remain mum as their backbenchers brawled, and Democrats took full advantage of the spectacle.

“The atmosphere is what it has been and what has been created by the Republican Party over the last 50 years, where they have continued to move down the path of divisiveness, of acrimony, of threats and accusations, which have demeaned the politics of America,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the majority leader, told reporters.

He again called on Republican leaders to discipline their members, referring to the episode that touched off the hostilities: public comments by Boebert in which she suggested that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., a Muslim who wears a hijab, could be a suicide bomber and called her a member of the “jihad squad.”

The House’s three Muslim lawmakers — Omar and Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and André Carson of Indiana, all Democrats — suggested that their party was looking at options to sanction Boebert.

“Muslims in this country are proud Americans, hardworking members of our community,” Carson said. “And we are not anyone’s scapegoat.”

These should be heady days for House Republicans. Off-year elections in November showed real disenchantment with Democratic control of the House, Senate and White House. Redistricting in Republican-controlled state legislatures has given the party a running start to win the four or five seats it needs to control the House, and polling suggests that a narrow plurality of Americans would rather have Republicans in control of Congress. Given the party’s structural advantages on redistricting, access to polls and enthusiasm, that suggests a much broader victory would be at hand if the voting were today.

Michael Steel, a former spokesperson for Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, a former Republican speaker, said the party’s leaders should be working behind the scenes to calm dissent and keep members focused on building a platform and an argument for control.

“The top priority right now should be for everyone in the canoe to have their rifles pointing outward, not at each other,” Steel said. “And the focus should be on addition, not subtraction. That means keeping all the frogs in the wheelbarrow, even if some of those frogs are pretty ugly.”

Instead, Republicans are stepping on their own message. On Tuesday, CNN unearthed another video of Boebert from September, when she said she turned to Omar and referred to the “jihad squad,” again insinuating that she could be a suicide bomber.

Omar has said that no such confrontation occurred. During a call initiated by Boebert Monday — ostensibly to offer contrition — the situation only devolved further, as Boebert refused to apologize and instead demanded that Omar publicly ask forgiveness for “anti-American” comments.

Democrats were not the only ones who condemned Boebert’s behavior. Mace, a highly regarded newcomer and the first woman to graduate from the Citadel military college, appeared on CNN to say, “I have time after time condemned my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for racist tropes and remarks that I find disgusting, and this is no different than any others.”

Greene, who like Boebert is a favorite of Trump’s, criticized Mace on social media and on Steve Bannon’s broadcast, “War Room,” and condemned Republican leaders.

“They’re always all over us whenever we say or do anything, but it’s the Nancy Maces that should be called out,” Greene told Bannon. She added that she, not Mace, represented the Republican base, a comment seconded by others on the far right, including Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona.

Rep. Peter Meijer, R-Mich., defended Mace.

“Nancy is a serious legislator who rolls up her sleeves and looks for solutions where they can be found, such as federal cannabis decriminalization, but also digs in and fights when progressives put politics above policy,” Meijer said. “I can’t think of a single credible thing those attacking her have even tried to accomplish.”

Republican leaders were left pointing fingers at their Democratic counterparts, who they said had also taken no action against members who had crossed lines, whether through anti-Israel comments or exhortations to protesters that they said encouraged violence.

Hoyer did say that McCarthy reached out to him to say Boebert wanted to apologize to Omar, an overture that Hoyer said would not end well. He was proved correct.

McCarthy finds himself in a delicate position. He does not know how large a majority his party might win in November, especially since much of the redistricting has focused on shoring up incumbent advantages than creating more competitive races. A sweeping Republican win would allow him to write off the votes of his party’s fringe.

But if Republicans claim a narrow majority, McCarthy would need virtually all of the conference’s votes to claim the speakership, a prize he has sought for nearly a decade. The far right brought down Boehner in 2015, and Republican divisions over the prospects of McCarthy’s speakership sunk his last run for the post weeks later.

A handful of members, including Greene, have been cool to the idea of granting him the gavel should his party claim the majority. 
&nbsp;

Hostilities between the Republican far right and its typically muted center burst into the open Tuesday, highlighting deep divisions that could bedevil the party’s leaders if they capture a narrow majority in the House in 2022.

Hostilities between the Republican far right and its typically muted center burst into the open Tuesday, highlighting deep divisions that could bedevil the party’s leaders if they capture a narrow majority in the House in 2022. Initially prompted by the anti-Muslim comments of Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, the Republican-on-Republican war of words Tuesday was remarkably bitter and an indication of a brewing power struggle between an ascendant faction that styles itself after former President Donald Trump and a quieter one that is pushing back. First, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called her freshman colleague Nancy Mace of South Carolina “trash” for condemning Boebert’s remarks in a television interview. Mace then used a series of emojis — a bat, a pile of excrement and a crazy clown — to describe Greene, then kept up a steady stream of social media attacks, calling her a liar, a grifter and a nut. Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, came to Mace’s defense, calling Greene “unserious circus barker McSpacelaser” — a reference to a social media post that she once circulated suggesting that wildfires in the West had been started by lasers owned by the Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family. Kinzinger added that Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader and would-be speaker who has done nothing to discipline rank-and-file members of his conference for bigoted and violent statements, “continues his silent streak that would make a monk blush.” Then Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, an ally of Greene’s, took to Twitter to amplify an attack by right-wing provocateur Jack Posobiec denouncing Mace as a “scam artist” for promoting coronavirus vaccinations on CNN. The carnivallike behavior would amount to little more than a sideshow if it did not have real implications for midterm campaigns and, possibly, a fractured Republican majority in 2023. Party leaders again chose to remain mum as their backbenchers brawled, and Democrats took full advantage of the spectacle. “The atmosphere is what it has been and what has been created by the Republican Party over the last 50 years, where they have continued to move down the path of divisiveness, of acrimony, of threats and accusations, which have demeaned the politics of America,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the majority leader, told reporters. He again called on Republican leaders to discipline their members, referring to the episode that touched off the hostilities: public comments by Boebert in which she suggested that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., a Muslim who wears a hijab, could be a suicide bomber and called her a member of the “jihad squad.” The House’s three Muslim lawmakers — Omar and Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and André Carson of Indiana, all Democrats — suggested that their party was looking at options to sanction Boebert. “Muslims in this country are proud Americans, hardworking members of our community,” Carson said. “And we are not anyone’s scapegoat.” These should be heady days for House Republicans. Off-year elections in November showed real disenchantment with Democratic control of the House, Senate and White House. Redistricting in Republican-controlled state legislatures has given the party a running start to win the four or five seats it needs to control the House, and polling suggests that a narrow plurality of Americans would rather have Republicans in control of Congress. Given the party’s structural advantages on redistricting, access to polls and enthusiasm, that suggests a much broader victory would be at hand if the voting were today. Michael Steel, a former spokesperson for Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, a former Republican speaker, said the party’s leaders should be working behind the scenes to calm dissent and keep members focused on building a platform and an argument for control. “The top priority right now should be for everyone in the canoe to have their rifles pointing outward, not at each other,” Steel said. “And the focus should be on addition, not subtraction. That means keeping all the frogs in the wheelbarrow, even if some of those frogs are pretty ugly.” Instead, Republicans are stepping on their own message. On Tuesday, CNN unearthed another video of Boebert from September, when she said she turned to Omar and referred to the “jihad squad,” again insinuating that she could be a suicide bomber. Omar has said that no such confrontation occurred. During a call initiated by Boebert Monday — ostensibly to offer contrition — the situation only devolved further, as Boebert refused to apologize and instead demanded that Omar publicly ask forgiveness for “anti-American” comments. Democrats were not the only ones who condemned Boebert’s behavior. Mace, a highly regarded newcomer and the first woman to graduate from the Citadel military college, appeared on CNN to say, “I have time after time condemned my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for racist tropes and remarks that I find disgusting, and this is no different than any others.” Greene, who like Boebert is a favorite of Trump’s, criticized Mace on social media and on Steve Bannon’s broadcast, “War Room,” and condemned Republican leaders. “They’re always all over us whenever we say or do anything, but it’s the Nancy Maces that should be called out,” Greene told Bannon. She added that she, not Mace, represented the Republican base, a comment seconded by others on the far right, including Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona. Rep. Peter Meijer, R-Mich., defended Mace. “Nancy is a serious legislator who rolls up her sleeves and looks for solutions where they can be found, such as federal cannabis decriminalization, but also digs in and fights when progressives put politics above policy,” Meijer said. “I can’t think of a single credible thing those attacking her have even tried to accomplish.” Republican leaders were left pointing fingers at their Democratic counterparts, who they said had also taken no action against members who had crossed lines, whether through anti-Israel comments or exhortations to protesters that they said encouraged violence. Hoyer did say that McCarthy reached out to him to say Boebert wanted to apologize to Omar, an overture that Hoyer said would not end well. He was proved correct. McCarthy finds himself in a delicate position. He does not know how large a majority his party might win in November, especially since much of the redistricting has focused on shoring up incumbent advantages than creating more competitive races. A sweeping Republican win would allow him to write off the votes of his party’s fringe. But if Republicans claim a narrow majority, McCarthy would need virtually all of the conference’s votes to claim the speakership, a prize he has sought for nearly a decade. The far right brought down Boehner in 2015, and Republican divisions over the prospects of McCarthy’s speakership sunk his last run for the post weeks later. A handful of members, including Greene, have been cool to the idea of granting him the gavel should his party claim the majority.

Republican recriminations point to a rocky path to a House majority

It includes a $4.1 billion tax break for people who buy electric bicycles, $2.5 billion for “tree equity,” another $2.5 billion to help “contingency fee” lawyers recoup their expenses and a long-sought tax break for producers of sound recordings.

The marquee programs within the Democrats’ social safety net and climate change bill — such as universal prekindergarten, child care subsidies and prescription drug price controls — have garnered most of the public attention. But when a nearly $2 trillion piece of legislation moves through Congress, it affords lawmakers ample opportunity to pursue any number of niche issues — and lobbyists and industries plenty of room to notch long-sought victories tucked deep inside thousands of pages of text.

That is the case with the Build Back Better Act, which could aid a wide array of special interests and Democratic allies that have waited years for such a moment.

“I welcome the attention. I don’t think these are fringe, niche issues,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who had no reservations about extolling one of his cherished provisions: the tax incentive to help consumers purchase electric bicycles, or e-bikes.

So far, President Joe Biden and leading Democrats have publicly championed the bill’s biggest-ticket and most ambitious items. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he expected a vote on the measure by Friday, although it could slip to Saturday.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, called it “the most important investment in our families, our people, since the New Deal.”

Republican opponents, too, have largely fixated on the broader issues: the role of government, the economic repercussions of tax increases and the potentially inflationary effect that more government spending could have.

That has left lawmakers that much freer to secure provisions that have largely avoided scrutiny. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., another proponent of electric bike subsidies, said the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee drafted its section of the bill, provision by provision, and no one objected to the e-bike measure, which would cover 30% of the cost, up to $900, to, as he put it, “put butts on bikes.”

“Once you get out there, once you start talking about benefits and once you talk to people who have tried e-bikes, they accept it and they want it,” he said. Getting the money into the bill “was easier than I expected,” he added.

Such pride of authorship appears to be widely shared. Many obscure provisions may emerge as subjects of ridicule, but Democrats are not shying away from their work. Every niche item has a constituency that regards it as central.

A Senate Republican memo, for instance, singled out the $50 million pilot program, tucked into a broader home health care section, to promote the use of doulas, professionals whose sole priority is to support and provide guidance to birthing mothers. Doulas — the word means “servant” in Greek — typically lack formal obstetric training and provide care such as massage and other touch therapy, rather than medical services. They are used by only a small percentage of pregnant women in the United States.

But some Democratic-led states have moved to broaden access to them, including New York, which began a pilot program to expand Medicaid coverage for doula services. The Democrats who secured the doula funding in the hulking social policy bill do not duck their responsibility for it. Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., co-chairwoman of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, said the doula provision is just one of several she helped secure.

Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., said Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of white women, arguing that the doula assistance is a necessity.

“Too many moms have died in the United States, and doulas have the cultural competency to support mothers before, during and after birth,” Kelly said. Doulas, she said, are “advocates for the birthing mom.”

Blumenauer was especially proud of a $1.9 billion provision, written to stave off the death of local news media, that would provide local newspapers and broadcasters a payroll tax credit worth 50% of wages up to $50,000 for the first year and 30% of wages in the second year for each employee. And it is not confined to tiny outlets; a “qualifying publication” must “serve a local community by providing local news,” but the credit is capped at 1,500 employees a quarter.

“The collapse of local journalism has had serious consequences for our ability to govern,” said Blumenauer, a senior member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, pointing to anti-Muslim and other offensive remarks made by a Republican truck driver who defeated New Jersey’s Senate president this month — but revealed by the news media only after his election.

“There was no opportunity for local media to provide even basic information about the candidates,” Blumenauer said. “The guy would never have been elected if he had gotten any scrutiny at all.”

Some of the measures tucked into the bill have languished for years. In 2007, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., drafted legislation that would allow lawyers who work on a contingency basis — they will be paid only if they win — to take a tax write-off of expenses from a case as they are incurred. Currently, such expenses can be claimed only once judgment on the case has been rendered.

Since the measure was written, Specter switched parties, was defeated and then died, but his work has found its moment. The change would generate considerable savings for trial lawyers — $2.5 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ nonpartisan referee on tax policy.

“Lawyers working on a contingency fee basis cannot deduct their expenses until the case resolves, which can be years after the expense is incurred,” said Carly Moore Sfregola, a spokeswoman for the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers’ lobby. “Contingency fee arrangements are the only way that regular people can afford to seek justice.”

And many of the measures have bipartisan origins. An effort to include independent music producers in an existing tax break for film, television and live theatrical productions found a champion in Tennessee’s conservative firebrand senator, Marsha Blackburn, at the behest of Nashville.

Rep. Linda T. Sánchez, D-Calif., initially drafted the Helping Independent Tracks Succeed, or HITS, Act at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, but she was able to bring along Blackburn; Rep. Ron Estes, R-Kan., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Now, with Sanchez’s help, the act and its tax deduction of up to $150,000 for the costs of producing sound recordings have found their way into the social policy bill, at a cost to the Treasury of $35 million over 10 years.

Blackburn has no intention of voting for the larger bill, but, she said, the act still “is my baby.” In a recent interview on the Fox Business Network, she condemned the legislation, saying, “You’ve got the socialist Democrats who are trying to push all of these socialist wish list items into this bill.”

Other provisions might suffer from their names more than their intentions. Tree planting is widely accepted as a way to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, and a provision in the climate change section of the bill to ensure that tree planting include poor neighborhoods might have escaped notice.

But because Democrats used the buzz phrase “tree equity” to describe it, Senate Republicans singled out the $2.5 billion provision in a memo as one of the questionable “earmarks for Democrat interests and allies,” along with environmental justice tax credits for universities and climate justice block grants.

Republicans have also denounced a $177 million tax credit to entice university donors to support infrastructure research, a provision that Blumenauer said should be extolled, not ridiculed.

“Large research institutions are awash in money,” he said. “For smaller colleges, we’re trying to give an opportunity to build their own programs on infrastructure and give more flexibility by encouraging private donations.”

So far, the highest-profile Republicans have kept their criticism at the loftiest level. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, took to the House floor to declare, “On the merits, this bill deserves to be defeated. Fundamentally, it’s anti-worker, anti-family, anti-jobs, anti-energy and anti-American.”

But as its more obscure provisions come to light, the line of attack may change.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, previewed that message before the House Rules Committee last week, when she denounced a bill that she said “gives kickbacks to your political allies and campaign donors, all while you print records amount of money that we don’t have to build more inflation.”

It includes a $4.1 billion tax break for people who buy electric bicycles, $2.5 billion for “tree equity,” another $2.5 billion to help “contingency fee” lawyers recoup their expenses and a long-sought tax break for producers of sound recordings.

It includes a $4.1 billion tax break for people who buy electric bicycles, $2.5 billion for “tree equity,” another $2.5 billion to help “contingency fee” lawyers recoup their expenses and a long-sought tax break for producers of sound recordings. The marquee programs within the Democrats’ social safety net and climate change bill — such as universal prekindergarten, child care subsidies and prescription drug price controls — have garnered most of the public attention. But when a nearly $2 trillion piece of legislation moves through Congress, it affords lawmakers ample opportunity to pursue any number of niche issues — and lobbyists and industries plenty of room to notch long-sought victories tucked deep inside thousands of pages of text. That is the case with the Build Back Better Act, which could aid a wide array of special interests and Democratic allies that have waited years for such a moment. “I welcome the attention. I don’t think these are fringe, niche issues,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who had no reservations about extolling one of his cherished provisions: the tax incentive to help consumers purchase electric bicycles, or e-bikes. So far, President Joe Biden and leading Democrats have publicly championed the bill’s biggest-ticket and most ambitious items. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he expected a vote on the measure by Friday, although it could slip to Saturday. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, called it “the most important investment in our families, our people, since the New Deal.” Republican opponents, too, have largely fixated on the broader issues: the role of government, the economic repercussions of tax increases and the potentially inflationary effect that more government spending could have. That has left lawmakers that much freer to secure provisions that have largely avoided scrutiny. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., another proponent of electric bike subsidies, said the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee drafted its section of the bill, provision by provision, and no one objected to the e-bike measure, which would cover 30% of the cost, up to $900, to, as he put it, “put butts on bikes.” “Once you get out there, once you start talking about benefits and once you talk to people who have tried e-bikes, they accept it and they want it,” he said. Getting the money into the bill “was easier than I expected,” he added. Such pride of authorship appears to be widely shared. Many obscure provisions may emerge as subjects of ridicule, but Democrats are not shying away from their work. Every niche item has a constituency that regards it as central. A Senate Republican memo, for instance, singled out the $50 million pilot program, tucked into a broader home health care section, to promote the use of doulas, professionals whose sole priority is to support and provide guidance to birthing mothers. Doulas — the word means “servant” in Greek — typically lack formal obstetric training and provide care such as massage and other touch therapy, rather than medical services. They are used by only a small percentage of pregnant women in the United States. But some Democratic-led states have moved to broaden access to them, including New York, which began a pilot program to expand Medicaid coverage for doula services. The Democrats who secured the doula funding in the hulking social policy bill do not duck their responsibility for it. Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., co-chairwoman of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, said the doula provision is just one of several she helped secure. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., said Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of white women, arguing that the doula assistance is a necessity. “Too many moms have died in the United States, and doulas have the cultural competency to support mothers before, during and after birth,” Kelly said. Doulas, she said, are “advocates for the birthing mom.” Blumenauer was especially proud of a $1.9 billion provision, written to stave off the death of local news media, that would provide local newspapers and broadcasters a payroll tax credit worth 50% of wages up to $50,000 for the first year and 30% of wages in the second year for each employee. And it is not confined to tiny outlets; a “qualifying publication” must “serve a local community by providing local news,” but the credit is capped at 1,500 employees a quarter. “The collapse of local journalism has had serious consequences for our ability to govern,” said Blumenauer, a senior member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, pointing to anti-Muslim and other offensive remarks made by a Republican truck driver who defeated New Jersey’s Senate president this month — but revealed by the news media only after his election. “There was no opportunity for local media to provide even basic information about the candidates,” Blumenauer said. “The guy would never have been elected if he had gotten any scrutiny at all.” Some of the measures tucked into the bill have languished for years. In 2007, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., drafted legislation that would allow lawyers who work on a contingency basis — they will be paid only if they win — to take a tax write-off of expenses from a case as they are incurred. Currently, such expenses can be claimed only once judgment on the case has been rendered. Since the measure was written, Specter switched parties, was defeated and then died, but his work has found its moment. The change would generate considerable savings for trial lawyers — $2.5 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ nonpartisan referee on tax policy. “Lawyers working on a contingency fee basis cannot deduct their expenses until the case resolves, which can be years after the expense is incurred,” said Carly Moore Sfregola, a spokeswoman for the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers’ lobby. “Contingency fee arrangements are the only way that regular people can afford to seek justice.” And many of the measures have bipartisan origins. An effort to include independent music producers in an existing tax break for film, television and live theatrical productions found a champion in Tennessee’s conservative firebrand senator, Marsha Blackburn, at the behest of Nashville. Rep. Linda T. Sánchez, D-Calif., initially drafted the Helping Independent Tracks Succeed, or HITS, Act at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, but she was able to bring along Blackburn; Rep. Ron Estes, R-Kan., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Now, with Sanchez’s help, the act and its tax deduction of up to $150,000 for the costs of producing sound recordings have found their way into the social policy bill, at a cost to the Treasury of $35 million over 10 years. Blackburn has no intention of voting for the larger bill, but, she said, the act still “is my baby.” In a recent interview on the Fox Business Network, she condemned the legislation, saying, “You’ve got the socialist Democrats who are trying to push all of these socialist wish list items into this bill.” Other provisions might suffer from their names more than their intentions. Tree planting is widely accepted as a way to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, and a provision in the climate change section of the bill to ensure that tree planting include poor neighborhoods might have escaped notice. But because Democrats used the buzz phrase “tree equity” to describe it, Senate Republicans singled out the $2.5 billion provision in a memo as one of the questionable “earmarks for Democrat interests and allies,” along with environmental justice tax credits for universities and climate justice block grants. Republicans have also denounced a $177 million tax credit to entice university donors to support infrastructure research, a provision that Blumenauer said should be extolled, not ridiculed. “Large research institutions are awash in money,” he said. “For smaller colleges, we’re trying to give an opportunity to build their own programs on infrastructure and give more flexibility by encouraging private donations.” So far, the highest-profile Republicans have kept their criticism at the loftiest level. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, took to the House floor to declare, “On the merits, this bill deserves to be defeated. Fundamentally, it’s anti-worker, anti-family, anti-jobs, anti-energy and anti-American.” But as its more obscure provisions come to light, the line of attack may change. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, previewed that message before the House Rules Committee last week, when she denounced a bill that she said “gives kickbacks to your political allies and campaign donors, all while you print records amount of money that we don’t have to build more inflation.”

From electric bikes to ‘tree equity,’ Biden's social policy bill funds niche items

At the White House, Biden called on lawmakers to pass the legislation.

“I’m asking every House member, member of the House of Representatives, to vote yes on both these bills right now,” the president said.

Spooked by Tuesday’s electoral drubbing, Democrats labored to overcome concerns among moderates about the cost and details of a rapidly evolving, $1.85 trillion social safety net and climate plan and push it through over unified Republican opposition. They also hoped to clear a Senate-passed $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill — the largest investment in the nation’s aging public works in a decade — for Biden’s signature.

Top Democratic officials said they were confident they could complete both measures by day’s end, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and her team continued to haggle with holdouts.

Several moderates were pushing for more information about the cost of the sprawling plan, including a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper responsible for calculating the fiscal impact of the 2,135-page legislation.

“I think everyone’s waiting for the CBO to do their job,” said Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, speaking to reporters Friday morning as he left Pelosi’s office, where White House officials were also meeting on next steps.

But Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said the cost estimate would not be ready by the end of the day, and a person familiar with the discussions said a score from the budget office was weeks away from completion.

“We’re working on it,” Hoyer said.

Pelosi spent much of the day Thursday buttonholing lawmakers on the House floor to try to corral support for the social policy bill, which includes monthly payments to families with children, universal prekindergarten, a four-week paid family and medical leave program, health care subsidies and a broad array of climate change initiatives. Biden and members of his Cabinet worked the phones to win over Democratic skeptics.

With Republicans united in opposition, Democrats could afford to lose as few as three votes from their side. As Democrats labored to unite their members behind the bill, Republicans sought to wreak procedural havoc on the House floor, forcing a vote to adjourn the chamber that leaders held open for hours to buy time for their negotiations.

While the Senate approved the $1 trillion infrastructure bill in August, the measure has stalled as progressives have repeatedly refused to supply their votes for it until there is agreement on the other bill.

But the election results from Tuesday confirmed the worst fears of Democrats — who are already worried about losing their slim majorities in the midterms next year — about what would happen if they failed to deliver for voters while controlling the White House and both houses of Congress.

“What I heard loud and clear — and I was walking around with candidates all weekend — was that people want us to act,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, where Republicans made surprising gains in races Tuesday. “They want us to get things done for them.”

At the White House, Biden called on lawmakers to pass the legislation. “I’m asking every House member, member of the House of Representatives, to vote yes on both these bills right now,” the president said.

At the White House, Biden called on lawmakers to pass the legislation. “I’m asking every House member, member of the House of Representatives, to vote yes on both these bills right now,” the president said. Spooked by Tuesday’s electoral drubbing, Democrats labored to overcome concerns among moderates about the cost and details of a rapidly evolving, $1.85 trillion social safety net and climate plan and push it through over unified Republican opposition. They also hoped to clear a Senate-passed $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill — the largest investment in the nation’s aging public works in a decade — for Biden’s signature. Top Democratic officials said they were confident they could complete both measures by day’s end, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and her team continued to haggle with holdouts. Several moderates were pushing for more information about the cost of the sprawling plan, including a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper responsible for calculating the fiscal impact of the 2,135-page legislation. “I think everyone’s waiting for the CBO to do their job,” said Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, speaking to reporters Friday morning as he left Pelosi’s office, where White House officials were also meeting on next steps. But Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said the cost estimate would not be ready by the end of the day, and a person familiar with the discussions said a score from the budget office was weeks away from completion. “We’re working on it,” Hoyer said. Pelosi spent much of the day Thursday buttonholing lawmakers on the House floor to try to corral support for the social policy bill, which includes monthly payments to families with children, universal prekindergarten, a four-week paid family and medical leave program, health care subsidies and a broad array of climate change initiatives. Biden and members of his Cabinet worked the phones to win over Democratic skeptics. With Republicans united in opposition, Democrats could afford to lose as few as three votes from their side. As Democrats labored to unite their members behind the bill, Republicans sought to wreak procedural havoc on the House floor, forcing a vote to adjourn the chamber that leaders held open for hours to buy time for their negotiations. While the Senate approved the $1 trillion infrastructure bill in August, the measure has stalled as progressives have repeatedly refused to supply their votes for it until there is agreement on the other bill. But the election results from Tuesday confirmed the worst fears of Democrats — who are already worried about losing their slim majorities in the midterms next year — about what would happen if they failed to deliver for voters while controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. “What I heard loud and clear — and I was walking around with candidates all weekend — was that people want us to act,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, where Republicans made surprising gains in races Tuesday. “They want us to get things done for them.”

House Democrats push toward votes on infrastructure and social spending

Republican Party's Glenn Youngkin won election to become next governor of Virginia staging an upset against the Democratic Party. The race for governor was&nbsp;being seen as an early verdict on US President Joe Biden's first year in presidency. The negative outcome for the Democrats is likely to compound their problems in the run-up to Congressional elections due next year

The race for governor was initially expected to be a comfortable Democratic win but instead became a toss-up in the closing days of the campaign.

A private equity multi-millionaire who has never run for office defeating a former popular Democratic governor will be seen as a disaster for Biden going into the all-important 2022 races that will determine who controls Congress.

"All right Virginia -- we won this thing! How much fun!" Youngkin, who poured at least $20 million of his own fortune into the race, told cheering fans after dancing onstage to Norman Greenbaum's 1969 hit "Spirit in the Sky."

Calling his victory a "defining moment," he told the crowd: "Together, we will change the trajectory of this commonwealth. And friends, we are going to start that transformation on day one."

The election, a neck-and-neck tussle for weeks, resonated nationwide as a proxy war between Biden and former president Donald Trump, who gave Youngkin his early backing.&nbsp;

Youngkin's campaign will now likely become a blueprint for Republicans across the country as they strategize on how to leverage Trump's base while avoiding becoming tainted by his toxic brand among moderates in the midterms.

(With inputs from agencies)

Republican Party's Glenn Youngkin won election to become next governor of Virginia staging an upset against the Democratic Party. The race for governor was being seen as an early verdict on US President Joe Biden's first year in presidency.

Republican Party's Glenn Youngkin won election to become next governor of Virginia staging an upset against the Democratic Party. The race for governor was being seen as an early verdict on US President Joe Biden's first year in presidency. The negative outcome for the Democrats is likely to compound their problems in the run-up to Congressional elections due next year The race for governor was initially expected to be a comfortable Democratic win but instead became a toss-up in the closing days of the campaign. A private equity multi-millionaire who has never run for office defeating a former popular Democratic governor will be seen as a disaster for Biden going into the all-important 2022 races that will determine who controls Congress. "All right Virginia -- we won this thing! How much fun!" Youngkin, who poured at least $20 million of his own fortune into the race, told cheering fans after dancing onstage to Norman Greenbaum's 1969 hit "Spirit in the Sky." Calling his victory a "defining moment," he told the crowd: "Together, we will change the trajectory of this commonwealth. And friends, we are going to start that transformation on day one." The election, a neck-and-neck tussle for weeks, resonated nationwide as a proxy war between Biden and former president Donald Trump, who gave Youngkin his early backing. Youngkin's campaign will now likely become a blueprint for Republicans across the country as they strategize on how to leverage Trump's base while avoiding becoming tainted by his toxic brand among moderates in the midterms. (With inputs from agencies)

Newcomer Republican Glenn Youngkin becomes Virginia governor, a blow to Biden's Democrats

Former President Donald Trump’s power to keep information from his White House secret became a central issue this week in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters, raising untested legal issues about executive privilege.

On Monday, Trump sued the chairman of the House’s Jan. 6 committee and the head of the National Archives, in an attempt to block Congress from accessing White House papers that could reveal his actions and communications leading up to and during the riot. The select committee voted Tuesday to recommend holding Steve Bannon, an outside adviser to Trump, in contempt for defying a subpoena.

Here is a breakdown of the issues.

What is executive privilege?

It is a power claimed by presidents under the Constitution to prevent the other two branches of government from gaining access to certain internal executive branch information, especially confidential communications involving the president or among his top aides.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/capitol-riot-us-committee-votes-to-hold-criminal-contempt-charge-against-trumps-ex-aide-steve-bannon-422167">US committee votes to hold criminal contempt charge against Steve Bannon</a>

While the Constitution does not mention this secrecy power, the Supreme Court has recognized it as implicit in the founding charter. The idea is that fear of future disclosure could impair presidents’ ability to perform their constitutional duties by chilling the candor of deliberations and the advice they receive.

A valid assertion of executive privilege can provide a lawful basis to defy a subpoena from Congress to provide documents or testimony.

Is Trump’s privilege claim valid?

We probably won’t know for a long time, if ever.

The constitutional line between a president’s secrecy powers and Congress’ investigative authority is hazy, with few Supreme Court guideposts. Historically, such disputes have usually been resolved through compromise, not judicial rulings.

But Trump has pursued a strategy of stonewalling and using the slow pace of litigation and appeals to run out the clock. If there is no Supreme Court ruling before the 2022 midterm and Republicans retake the House in that election, that new Republican majority would most likely drop any civil lawsuits before there is any definitive answer.

Even in that case, any criminal prosecutions brought by the Biden Justice Department would presumably continue. Separately, House Democrats have introduced legislation in response to the Trump presidency that would, among many other things, speed up lawsuits to enforce congressional subpoenas for executive branch information.

Is executive privilege an absolute power?

No. Even a legitimate claim of executive privilege may not always prevail in court if there are countervailing constitutional considerations.

For example, during the Watergate scandal in 1974, the Supreme Court upheld an order requiring President Richard Nixon to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations and rejected his claim to an “absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” In that case, the justices ruled, the judicial need for the tapes for use as evidence in a criminal trial outweighed Nixon’s general interest in confidentiality, especially since the matter did not involve military or diplomatic secrets.

May ex-presidents invoke executive privilege?

Yes, but courts may view their claims with less deference than those of current presidents.

In a 1977 case challenging a law related to the control of White House files from the then-former Nixon administration, the Supreme Court said Nixon could make a claim of executive privilege even though he was out of office.

“We reject the argument that only an incumbent president may assert such claims, and hold that appellant, as a former president, may also be heard to assert them,” the court wrote.

What if the current president disagrees?

Judges will take that disagreement into account in assessing the strength of the ex-president’s claim.

In the 1977 case challenging the law about control of Nixon-era White House files, the Supreme Court noted that his successors — Gerald Ford at an earlier stage in the case, and Jimmy Carter by the end — did not support his claim. And despite saying Nixon was permitted to assert executive privilege as an ex-president, the court ruled against him.

Still, the court also suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of some of his papers in the future. Nixon never sought to do so, however, and there has not been a Supreme Court case over access to specific information that involves an executive privilege disagreement between a current president and a predecessor.

Does Biden support Trump’s invocation of the privilege?

No. President Joe Biden has declined to assert executive privilege to protect his predecessor’s Jan. 6-related materials from disclosure, instead instructing the National Archives to provide them to Congress 30 days after notifying Trump, absent any court order to the contrary.

Biden determined that under the circumstances — the need for a “full accounting” of an “unprecedented effort to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power” to “ensure nothing similar ever happens again” — keeping such documents secret from Congress and the public was not in the public interest, his White House counsel, Dana Remus, also told the head of the National Archives in a letter this month.

“The constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself,” she wrote.

Is Steve Bannon covered by executive privilege?

This is unclear. If any contempt finding against Bannon evolves into legal action, it would raise the novel legal question of whether or how far a claim of executive privilege may extend to communications between a president and an informal adviser outside of the government.

While Trump told former aides that they should not cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee because the information the lawmakers want was privileged, Bannon had resigned, or was ousted, from his former White House position in August 2017. Since Bannon was not part of the executive branch at the time of the interactions with Trump that Congress wants information about, his case raises a twist for which there is scant definitive precedent.

What is contempt of Congress or court?

It is a sanction imposed on people who defy congressional subpoenas or court orders to provide documents or testimony, and it can lead to their imprisonment.

When Congress subpoenas witnesses, lawmakers can enforce those demands by holding recipients who balk in contempt. To do so, the investigating committee that issued the subpoena must first vote to recommend holding such people in contempt of Congress, and the full chamber then votes on whether to do so.

Congress could also file its own lawsuits against people who defy its subpoenas, asking judges to order them to comply with subpoenas. If the witnesses defy court orders, judges can hold them in contempt of court.

How can a person held in contempt be punished?

Being held in contempt of Congress does not by itself carry penalties beyond reputational harm, but Congress can then refer such findings to the Justice Department and ask for criminal contempt charges. If the executive branch agrees to pursue a case and prosecutors win a conviction, the act of defying a congressional subpoena is a misdemeanor crime, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a term of one to 12 months in jail.

(In theory, lawmakers could also direct the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest recalcitrant witnesses and detain them until the end of its session, but that “inherent contempt” authority is viewed as obsolete; the Capitol has no prison cell and lawmakers have not tried to use this power since 1935.)

And if Congress brings a lawsuit and persuades a judge to order a witness to obey its subpoena — and the witness fails to get that order overturned on appeal — a judicial holding of contempt of court could also lead to a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Can executive privilege protect someone from contempt?

Yes, it can relieve a recalcitrant witness of legal liability for declining to obey a subpoena.

If the courts were to uphold an assertion of executive privilege over the information Congress is seeking, that finding would negate the subpoena and any consequences for disobeying it. 
&nbsp;

Former President Donald Trump’s power to keep information from his White House secret became a central issue this week in the congressional investigation into the Jan.

Former President Donald Trump’s power to keep information from his White House secret became a central issue this week in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters, raising untested legal issues about executive privilege. On Monday, Trump sued the chairman of the House’s Jan. 6 committee and the head of the National Archives, in an attempt to block Congress from accessing White House papers that could reveal his actions and communications leading up to and during the riot. The select committee voted Tuesday to recommend holding Steve Bannon, an outside adviser to Trump, in contempt for defying a subpoena. Here is a breakdown of the issues. What is executive privilege? It is a power claimed by presidents under the Constitution to prevent the other two branches of government from gaining access to certain internal executive branch information, especially confidential communications involving the president or among his top aides. Also read | US committee votes to hold criminal contempt charge against Steve Bannon While the Constitution does not mention this secrecy power, the Supreme Court has recognized it as implicit in the founding charter. The idea is that fear of future disclosure could impair presidents’ ability to perform their constitutional duties by chilling the candor of deliberations and the advice they receive. A valid assertion of executive privilege can provide a lawful basis to defy a subpoena from Congress to provide documents or testimony. Is Trump’s privilege claim valid? We probably won’t know for a long time, if ever. The constitutional line between a president’s secrecy powers and Congress’ investigative authority is hazy, with few Supreme Court guideposts. Historically, such disputes have usually been resolved through compromise, not judicial rulings. But Trump has pursued a strategy of stonewalling and using the slow pace of litigation and appeals to run out the clock. If there is no Supreme Court ruling before the 2022 midterm and Republicans retake the House in that election, that new Republican majority would most likely drop any civil lawsuits before there is any definitive answer. Even in that case, any criminal prosecutions brought by the Biden Justice Department would presumably continue. Separately, House Democrats have introduced legislation in response to the Trump presidency that would, among many other things, speed up lawsuits to enforce congressional subpoenas for executive branch information. Is executive privilege an absolute power? No. Even a legitimate claim of executive privilege may not always prevail in court if there are countervailing constitutional considerations. For example, during the Watergate scandal in 1974, the Supreme Court upheld an order requiring President Richard Nixon to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations and rejected his claim to an “absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” In that case, the justices ruled, the judicial need for the tapes for use as evidence in a criminal trial outweighed Nixon’s general interest in confidentiality, especially since the matter did not involve military or diplomatic secrets. May ex-presidents invoke executive privilege? Yes, but courts may view their claims with less deference than those of current presidents. In a 1977 case challenging a law related to the control of White House files from the then-former Nixon administration, the Supreme Court said Nixon could make a claim of executive privilege even though he was out of office. “We reject the argument that only an incumbent president may assert such claims, and hold that appellant, as a former president, may also be heard to assert them,” the court wrote. What if the current president disagrees? Judges will take that disagreement into account in assessing the strength of the ex-president’s claim. In the 1977 case challenging the law about control of Nixon-era White House files, the Supreme Court noted that his successors — Gerald Ford at an earlier stage in the case, and Jimmy Carter by the end — did not support his claim. And despite saying Nixon was permitted to assert executive privilege as an ex-president, the court ruled against him. Still, the court also suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of some of his papers in the future. Nixon never sought to do so, however, and there has not been a Supreme Court case over access to specific information that involves an executive privilege disagreement between a current president and a predecessor. Does Biden support Trump’s invocation of the privilege? No. President Joe Biden has declined to assert executive privilege to protect his predecessor’s Jan. 6-related materials from disclosure, instead instructing the National Archives to provide them to Congress 30 days after notifying Trump, absent any court order to the contrary. Biden determined that under the circumstances — the need for a “full accounting” of an “unprecedented effort to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power” to “ensure nothing similar ever happens again” — keeping such documents secret from Congress and the public was not in the public interest, his White House counsel, Dana Remus, also told the head of the National Archives in a letter this month. “The constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself,” she wrote. Is Steve Bannon covered by executive privilege? This is unclear. If any contempt finding against Bannon evolves into legal action, it would raise the novel legal question of whether or how far a claim of executive privilege may extend to communications between a president and an informal adviser outside of the government. While Trump told former aides that they should not cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee because the information the lawmakers want was privileged, Bannon had resigned, or was ousted, from his former White House position in August 2017. Since Bannon was not part of the executive branch at the time of the interactions with Trump that Congress wants information about, his case raises a twist for which there is scant definitive precedent. What is contempt of Congress or court? It is a sanction imposed on people who defy congressional subpoenas or court orders to provide documents or testimony, and it can lead to their imprisonment. When Congress subpoenas witnesses, lawmakers can enforce those demands by holding recipients who balk in contempt. To do so, the investigating committee that issued the subpoena must first vote to recommend holding such people in contempt of Congress, and the full chamber then votes on whether to do so. Congress could also file its own lawsuits against people who defy its subpoenas, asking judges to order them to comply with subpoenas. If the witnesses defy court orders, judges can hold them in contempt of court. How can a person held in contempt be punished? Being held in contempt of Congress does not by itself carry penalties beyond reputational harm, but Congress can then refer such findings to the Justice Department and ask for criminal contempt charges. If the executive branch agrees to pursue a case and prosecutors win a conviction, the act of defying a congressional subpoena is a misdemeanor crime, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a term of one to 12 months in jail. (In theory, lawmakers could also direct the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest recalcitrant witnesses and detain them until the end of its session, but that “inherent contempt” authority is viewed as obsolete; the Capitol has no prison cell and lawmakers have not tried to use this power since 1935.) And if Congress brings a lawsuit and persuades a judge to order a witness to obey its subpoena — and the witness fails to get that order overturned on appeal — a judicial holding of contempt of court could also lead to a fine, imprisonment, or both. Can executive privilege protect someone from contempt? Yes, it can relieve a recalcitrant witness of legal liability for declining to obey a subpoena. If the courts were to uphold an assertion of executive privilege over the information Congress is seeking, that finding would negate the subpoena and any consequences for disobeying it.

Trump’s claim of executive privilege in the Jan. 6. inquiry, explained

Nearly 80 per cent of Republicans want former President Donald Trump to run in the US election 2024 as per a new poll.

The survey conducted by Quinnipiac University shows that Trump enjoys robust backing by the Republican Party or the GOP.

However, 94 per cent of Democrats believe running again in 2024 will be a waste of time for Trump. This opinion was also supported by 58 independents in the opinion poll.

Meanwhile, GOP Senator Bill Cassidy said in an interview that he will not vote for Trump if decides to run again in the next election.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2024-former-us-president-donald-trump-favourite-candidate-biden-lagging-behind-420648">Also read |&nbsp;US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind</a>

Earlier, a UK-based betting exchange company called Smarkets has predicted that Trump, for the first time, has edged ahead of his predecessor Joe Biden.

It had also been predicted that Trump has the highest chances of winning the 2024 election and returning to the White House.

Biden who is the second place with 19 per cent votes as per a poll conducted by the website, is followed by Vice-President Kamala Harris with 13 per cent votes.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hows-biden-doing-do-you-miss-me-yet-trump-pokes-fun-at-us-president-420630">Also read |&nbsp;'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President</a>

Poking fun at Biden, Trump's spokesperson, Liz Harrington had asked on Twitter, ''How’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?"&nbsp;

Trump has hinted at a possible presidential run in 2024, attacking Biden and repeating his fraudulent claims he won the 2020 election.

Trump's flirtation with another run could freeze the Republican field for 2024 as other potential candidates try to decide whether they will have to compete against him.

Meanwhile, a US congressional committee probing the deadly January 6 assault on the Capitol voted unanimously in favour of contempt-of-Congress charges against Steve Bannon, a longtime aide to Trump.

The seven Democratic and two Republican members of the House of Representatives Select Committee approved a report recommending the criminal charge by a unanimous 9-0 vote, calling it "shocking" that Bannon refused to comply with subpoenas seeking documents and testimony.

Nearly 80 per cent of Republicans want former President Donald Trump to run in the US election 2024 as per a new poll. The survey conducted by Quinnipiac University shows that Trump enjoys robust backing by the Republican Party or the GOP.

Nearly 80 per cent of Republicans want former President Donald Trump to run in the US election 2024 as per a new poll. The survey conducted by Quinnipiac University shows that Trump enjoys robust backing by the Republican Party or the GOP. However, 94 per cent of Democrats believe running again in 2024 will be a waste of time for Trump. This opinion was also supported by 58 independents in the opinion poll. Meanwhile, GOP Senator Bill Cassidy said in an interview that he will not vote for Trump if decides to run again in the next election. Also read | US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind Earlier, a UK-based betting exchange company called Smarkets has predicted that Trump, for the first time, has edged ahead of his predecessor Joe Biden. It had also been predicted that Trump has the highest chances of winning the 2024 election and returning to the White House. Biden who is the second place with 19 per cent votes as per a poll conducted by the website, is followed by Vice-President Kamala Harris with 13 per cent votes. Also read | 'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President Poking fun at Biden, Trump's spokesperson, Liz Harrington had asked on Twitter, ''How’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?" Trump has hinted at a possible presidential run in 2024, attacking Biden and repeating his fraudulent claims he won the 2020 election. Trump's flirtation with another run could freeze the Republican field for 2024 as other potential candidates try to decide whether they will have to compete against him. Meanwhile, a US congressional committee probing the deadly January 6 assault on the Capitol voted unanimously in favour of contempt-of-Congress charges against Steve Bannon, a longtime aide to Trump. The seven Democratic and two Republican members of the House of Representatives Select Committee approved a report recommending the criminal charge by a unanimous 9-0 vote, calling it "shocking" that Bannon refused to comply with subpoenas seeking documents and testimony.

US election 2024: Poll shows 80% Republicans want Donald Trump to run

US lawmakers on Thursday gave a go-ahead to USD 1 billion funding to resupply Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system. The funding was passed separately after provision for it was removed from another bill that addressed a possible government shutdown.

The funding was passed by House of Representatives by a comfortable 420-9

"Passage of this bill reflects the great unity in Congress... for Israel's security," Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats, said in a speech on the chamber floor.&nbsp;

"Assistance to Israel is vital, because Israel's security is an imperative for America's security."&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-huddles-with-democrats-as-divisions-threaten-his-agenda-415220">Biden huddles with Democrats as divisions threaten his agenda</a>

Iron Dome missile defense system has till now destroyed thousands of short-range rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza before they struck populated areas of Israel. The system was launched a decade ago and has been backed by the US.

Provision for fresh funding was initially removed from the legislation addressing government shutdown after section of Democratic Party lawmakers threatened to oppose the legislation unless Iron Dome funding was removed from the wording

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/harvard-poll-reveals-donald-trump-has-higher-positive-rating-than-biden-415194">Harvard poll reveals Donald Trump has higher positive rating than Biden</a>

This elicited disapproving remarks from several lawmakers from both parties.

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy termed it a Democratic capitulation to "the anti-Semitic influence of their radical members."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-crack-down-on-potent-class-of-greenhouse-gases-415169">US to crack down on potent class of greenhouse gases</a>

Dean Phillips, a Democratic congressman from Minnesota, tweeted he was "incredulous" that colleagues would object to defending "one of our most important allies and only Jewish nation in the world" from Hamas rockets.

Israel's Prime Minister Naftali Bennett thanked both parties for their commitment to the country's security and the American people for their "steadfast friendship."

(With inputs from agencies)

US lawmakers on Thursday gave a go-ahead to USD 1 billion funding to resupply Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system. The funding was passed separately after provision for it was removed from another bill that addressed a possible government shutdown.

US lawmakers on Thursday gave a go-ahead to USD 1 billion funding to resupply Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system. The funding was passed separately after provision for it was removed from another bill that addressed a possible government shutdown. The funding was passed by House of Representatives by a comfortable 420-9 "Passage of this bill reflects the great unity in Congress... for Israel's security," Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats, said in a speech on the chamber floor. "Assistance to Israel is vital, because Israel's security is an imperative for America's security." Also Read | Biden huddles with Democrats as divisions threaten his agenda Iron Dome missile defense system has till now destroyed thousands of short-range rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza before they struck populated areas of Israel. The system was launched a decade ago and has been backed by the US. Provision for fresh funding was initially removed from the legislation addressing government shutdown after section of Democratic Party lawmakers threatened to oppose the legislation unless Iron Dome funding was removed from the wording Also Read | Harvard poll reveals Donald Trump has higher positive rating than Biden This elicited disapproving remarks from several lawmakers from both parties. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy termed it a Democratic capitulation to "the anti-Semitic influence of their radical members." Also Read | US to crack down on potent class of greenhouse gases Dean Phillips, a Democratic congressman from Minnesota, tweeted he was "incredulous" that colleagues would object to defending "one of our most important allies and only Jewish nation in the world" from Hamas rockets. Israel's Prime Minister Naftali Bennett thanked both parties for their commitment to the country's security and the American people for their "steadfast friendship." (With inputs from agencies)

US House greenlights $1 billion for Israel's Iron Dome

A group of Republican Party lawmakers have introduced a bill in US Congress that aims to eliminate a programme that allows foreign students on F1 visa to stay in the US after completing their studies. The bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill seeks to amend Immigration and Nationality Act.

If the bill is passed, it will affect thousands of Indian students in the US.

Immigration and Nationality Act allows students on F1 visa to stay in the US and seek employment for a year.&nbsp;

The Republican lawmakers are alleging that the provisions of the program let American companies prefer foreign students as employees at low wages compared to American job seekers. About 80,000 Indian students are employed in the US under provisions of this act.

Republicans argue that students under this programme are exempt from payroll taxes. The lawmakers have expressed their opposition to the fact that this makes wages of the foreign workers 10-15 per cent lower making companies prefer them instead of local talent.

The bill has to pass in the House as well as Senate after which it will be sent to President Joe Biden for a go-ahead. However, this looks like a long path given that Democratic Party controls the House and the Senate.

A group of Republican Party lawmakers have introduced a bill in US Congress that aims to eliminate a programme that allows foreign students on F1 visa to stay in the US after completing their studies.

A group of Republican Party lawmakers have introduced a bill in US Congress that aims to eliminate a programme that allows foreign students on F1 visa to stay in the US after completing their studies. The bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill seeks to amend Immigration and Nationality Act. If the bill is passed, it will affect thousands of Indian students in the US. Immigration and Nationality Act allows students on F1 visa to stay in the US and seek employment for a year. The Republican lawmakers are alleging that the provisions of the program let American companies prefer foreign students as employees at low wages compared to American job seekers. About 80,000 Indian students are employed in the US under provisions of this act. Republicans argue that students under this programme are exempt from payroll taxes. The lawmakers have expressed their opposition to the fact that this makes wages of the foreign workers 10-15 per cent lower making companies prefer them instead of local talent. The bill has to pass in the House as well as Senate after which it will be sent to President Joe Biden for a go-ahead. However, this looks like a long path given that Democratic Party controls the House and the Senate.

US bill seeks to end extension of stay after study, Indian students may be affected

US President Joe&nbsp;Biden's push to get major economies to agree on a 15 per cent minimum tax rate for multinational corporations has hit turbulence after Ireland's finance minister expressed "significant reservations" about the plan.

The objection from Dublin's finance minister Paschal Donohoe on Tuesday carries weight because Ireland hosts an outsized number of technology and pharmaceutical firms that were attracted to the country for its lower tax rate.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-biden-vows-flexibility-in-landmark-2-trillion-infrastructure-bill-377181">US President Joe Biden vows flexibility in landmark $2 trillion infrastructure bill</a>

"We do have really significant reservations regarding a global minimum effective tax&nbsp;rate status at such a level that it means only certain countries, and certain size economies can benefit from that base -- we have a really significant concern about that," Donohoe told Sky News.

His objections come as finance ministers from the Group of Seven advanced nations&nbsp;are set to meet next week in London, where they could endorse the US proposal.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/its-crunch-time-and-bidens-climate-gambit-faces-steep-hurdles-386960">It’s crunch time, and Biden’s climate gambit faces steep hurdles</a>

Biden's administration last week called for an agreement on the unified tax rate of a minimum of 15 per cent rate in negotiations with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and G20.

The European Union's top economies France and Germany said they would support a tax at that level, and the IMF's leader on Tuesday also offered her endorsement.

A person close to the G7 talks told AFP they expect a political agreement next week, though two other people with knowledge of the matter said member states may opt for a less definitive measure.

Funding infrastructure

Finance chiefs have characterized a minimum tax as necessary to stem competition between countries over who can offer multinationals the lowest rate. They say that "race to the bottom" saps revenues that could go to other government priorities.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-biden-vows-flexibility-in-landmark-2-trillion-infrastructure-bill-377181">US President Joe Biden vows flexibility in landmark $2 trillion infrastructure bill</a>

For&nbsp;Biden, a global tax agreement also would help maintain US competitiveness, since he has proposed hiking domestic corporate taxes to pay for an infrastructure and jobs program with a price tag of around $2 trillion.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will represent the United States at next week's meeting, and her deputy, Wally Adeyemo, told Reuters on Monday that he expects to see "a lot of unified support" for the plan from the G7 nations.&nbsp;

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire last week called the 15 per cent proposal "a good compromise."&nbsp;

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said establishing a global minimum tax would be "a benefit," and something the Washington-based crisis lender has long supported.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/republicans-reject-biden-infrastructure-bill-despite-reduced-cost-386738">Republicans reject Biden infrastructure bill despite reduced cost</a>

"Why? Because when we have it, there is no race to the bottom and less tax avoidance," Georgieva said&nbsp;Tuesday during a conversation with The Washington Post.&nbsp;

That means "more money in the public purse to invest in education and healthcare, and infrastructure, digitalization -- all the good things we recognize we have to invest more into."

However, she acknowledged the challenge in finding "the sweet spot" for the global economy between those priorities and the best rate for national governments, given some countries have relied on low tax rates to compete for revenue.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-to-push-through-infrastructure-plan-even-without-republican-support-375366">Biden to push through infrastructure plan even without Republican support</a>

Ireland is among that group, and according to Sky News, Donohoe said it intends to hold its corporate tax rate at 12.5 per cent for a few more years.

Last month, Dublin's finance ministry released a projection saying it could lose two billion euros ($2.4 billion) each year in revenue starting in 2025 if a global minimum tax rate is enacted.

US President Joe Biden's push to get major economies to agree on a 15 per cent minimum tax rate for multinational corporations has hit turbulence after Ireland's finance minister expressed "significant reservations" about the plan.

US President Joe Biden's push to get major economies to agree on a 15 per cent minimum tax rate for multinational corporations has hit turbulence after Ireland's finance minister expressed "significant reservations" about the plan. The objection from Dublin's finance minister Paschal Donohoe on Tuesday carries weight because Ireland hosts an outsized number of technology and pharmaceutical firms that were attracted to the country for its lower tax rate. Also Read | US President Joe Biden vows flexibility in landmark $2 trillion infrastructure bill "We do have really significant reservations regarding a global minimum effective tax rate status at such a level that it means only certain countries, and certain size economies can benefit from that base -- we have a really significant concern about that," Donohoe told Sky News. His objections come as finance ministers from the Group of Seven advanced nations are set to meet next week in London, where they could endorse the US proposal. Also Read | It’s crunch time, and Biden’s climate gambit faces steep hurdles Biden's administration last week called for an agreement on the unified tax rate of a minimum of 15 per cent rate in negotiations with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and G20. The European Union's top economies France and Germany said they would support a tax at that level, and the IMF's leader on Tuesday also offered her endorsement. A person close to the G7 talks told AFP they expect a political agreement next week, though two other people with knowledge of the matter said member states may opt for a less definitive measure. Funding infrastructure Finance chiefs have characterized a minimum tax as necessary to stem competition between countries over who can offer multinationals the lowest rate. They say that "race to the bottom" saps revenues that could go to other government priorities. Also Read | US President Joe Biden vows flexibility in landmark $2 trillion infrastructure bill For Biden, a global tax agreement also would help maintain US competitiveness, since he has proposed hiking domestic corporate taxes to pay for an infrastructure and jobs program with a price tag of around $2 trillion. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will represent the United States at next week's meeting, and her deputy, Wally Adeyemo, told Reuters on Monday that he expects to see "a lot of unified support" for the plan from the G7 nations. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire last week called the 15 per cent proposal "a good compromise." IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said establishing a global minimum tax would be "a benefit," and something the Washington-based crisis lender has long supported. Also Read | Republicans reject Biden infrastructure bill despite reduced cost "Why? Because when we have it, there is no race to the bottom and less tax avoidance," Georgieva said Tuesday during a conversation with The Washington Post. That means "more money in the public purse to invest in education and healthcare, and infrastructure, digitalization -- all the good things we recognize we have to invest more into." However, she acknowledged the challenge in finding "the sweet spot" for the global economy between those priorities and the best rate for national governments, given some countries have relied on low tax rates to compete for revenue. Also Read | Biden to push through infrastructure plan even without Republican support Ireland is among that group, and according to Sky News, Donohoe said it intends to hold its corporate tax rate at 12.5 per cent for a few more years. Last month, Dublin's finance ministry released a projection saying it could lose two billion euros ($2.4 billion) each year in revenue starting in 2025 if a global minimum tax rate is enacted.

Biden's global tax proposal faces setback after Ireland objects

Republican lawmakers have rejected a new White House infrastructure proposal that lowers the overall price tag in a bid to gain the opposition party's support, potentially raising the likelihood President Joe&nbsp;Biden's Democrats pass the measure on their own.

The White House on Friday had proposed reducing the cost of the $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan to $1.7 trillion by having other bills cover some of the projects it would pay for and cutting out some spending altogether, but a key Republican lawmaker said she still wouldn't support it.

"There continue to be vast differences between the White House and Senate Republicans when it comes to the definition of infrastructure, the magnitude of proposed spending and how to pay for it," said a spokeswoman for Shelley Moore Capito, who is part of a group of Republican senators negotiating with the&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;administration over the proposal.

"Based on today's meeting, the groups seem further apart after two meetings with White House staff than they were after one meeting with President&nbsp;Biden. Senate Republicans will further review the details in today's counteroffer and continue to engage in conversations with the administration."

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-biden-vows-flexibility-in-landmark-2-trillion-infrastructure-bill-377181">US President Joe Biden vows flexibility in landmark $2 trillion infrastructure bill</a>

Biden&nbsp;had in March proposed the measure that would direct money towards fixing roads and bridges as well as expanding services like broadband internet and increasing climate change resiliency across the United States.

But with his Democratic Party controlling Congress by a small margin, he is under pressure to find Republican support for the bill, and on Friday Press Secretary Jen Psaki said he would cut its cost down by $500 billion "in the spirit of finding common ground."

"This proposal exhibits a willingness to come down in size, giving on some areas that are important to the president... while staying firm in areas that are most vital to rebuilding our infrastructure and industries of the future, making our country more competitive with China," she told reporters.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-to-push-through-infrastructure-plan-even-without-republican-support-375366">Biden to push through infrastructure plan even without Republican support</a>

he Republican rejection increases the chances that Democrats will attempt to pass the measure through a parliamentary procedure that could see it clear the Senate without opposition votes, which the party's leader in the chamber has hinted they could do.&nbsp;

There were also signs the party's progressive wing&nbsp;would not support a scaled-down bill.

"A smaller infrastructure package means fewer jobs, less justice, less climate action, and less investment in America's future," Democratic Senator Ed Markey tweeted after the White House detailed the proposal. "This is not the time for half-measures, half-spending or foot-dragging. Now is the time to go big, to go bold, and to go fast."

Paying for it

The infrastructure plan is among two major spending bills&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;is pushing, along with his $1.8 trillion American Families Plan aimed at expanding education and social protections.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-outlines-far-reaching-plan-to-reengineer-us-infrastructure-374638">Biden outlines far-reaching plan to reengineer US infrastructure</a>

After taking office in January,&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;won passage of a $1.9 trillion measure intended to help the world's largest economy recover from the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">COVID-19</a> downturn, a measure paid for by deficit spending.

The president is under pressure to find ways to offset the costs of the new spending plans.

He has proposed ending tax cuts and loopholes benefiting small businesses to pay for the American Families Plan, while hiking the corporate tax rate to pay for the infrastructure proposal.

In detailing the new counter proposal, Psaki said the White House rejected ideas from Republicans to increase gas taxes or impose user fees instead of raising taxes on corporations.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-to-pay-for-infrastructure-plan-with-15-years-of-corporate-taxes-374595">Biden to pay for infrastructure plan with 15 years of corporate taxes</a>

Biden&nbsp;"believes that the extraordinarily wealthy companies... many of whom have not paid taxes in recent years, can afford a modest increase to pay for middle class jobs," Psaki said.

However the overall price tag could be lowered by shifting money in the original plan intended to pay for research, supply chains, manufacturing and small businesses to other bills, while funds for roads and bridges, as well as broadband, would be slashed.

Spending on improved rail transportation would stay, "especially considering China's level of investment in such projects," Psaki said, while money for the removal of lead pipes and projects to bolster the country against climate change would also remain.

Republican lawmakers have rejected a new White House infrastructure proposal that lowers the overall price tag in a bid to gain the opposition party's support, potentially raising the likelihood President Joe Biden's Democrats pass the measure on their own.

Republican lawmakers have rejected a new White House infrastructure proposal that lowers the overall price tag in a bid to gain the opposition party's support, potentially raising the likelihood President Joe Biden's Democrats pass the measure on their own. The White House on Friday had proposed reducing the cost of the $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan to $1.7 trillion by having other bills cover some of the projects it would pay for and cutting out some spending altogether, but a key Republican lawmaker said she still wouldn't support it. "There continue to be vast differences between the White House and Senate Republicans when it comes to the definition of infrastructure, the magnitude of proposed spending and how to pay for it," said a spokeswoman for Shelley Moore Capito, who is part of a group of Republican senators negotiating with the Biden administration over the proposal. "Based on today's meeting, the groups seem further apart after two meetings with White House staff than they were after one meeting with President Biden. Senate Republicans will further review the details in today's counteroffer and continue to engage in conversations with the administration." Also Read | US President Joe Biden vows flexibility in landmark $2 trillion infrastructure bill Biden had in March proposed the measure that would direct money towards fixing roads and bridges as well as expanding services like broadband internet and increasing climate change resiliency across the United States. But with his Democratic Party controlling Congress by a small margin, he is under pressure to find Republican support for the bill, and on Friday Press Secretary Jen Psaki said he would cut its cost down by $500 billion "in the spirit of finding common ground." "This proposal exhibits a willingness to come down in size, giving on some areas that are important to the president... while staying firm in areas that are most vital to rebuilding our infrastructure and industries of the future, making our country more competitive with China," she told reporters. Also Read | Biden to push through infrastructure plan even without Republican support he Republican rejection increases the chances that Democrats will attempt to pass the measure through a parliamentary procedure that could see it clear the Senate without opposition votes, which the party's leader in the chamber has hinted they could do. There were also signs the party's progressive wing would not support a scaled-down bill. "A smaller infrastructure package means fewer jobs, less justice, less climate action, and less investment in America's future," Democratic Senator Ed Markey tweeted after the White House detailed the proposal. "This is not the time for half-measures, half-spending or foot-dragging. Now is the time to go big, to go bold, and to go fast." Paying for it The infrastructure plan is among two major spending bills Biden is pushing, along with his $1.8 trillion American Families Plan aimed at expanding education and social protections. Also Read | Biden outlines far-reaching plan to reengineer US infrastructure After taking office in January, Biden won passage of a $1.9 trillion measure intended to help the world's largest economy recover from the COVID-19 downturn, a measure paid for by deficit spending. The president is under pressure to find ways to offset the costs of the new spending plans. He has proposed ending tax cuts and loopholes benefiting small businesses to pay for the American Families Plan, while hiking the corporate tax rate to pay for the infrastructure proposal. In detailing the new counter proposal, Psaki said the White House rejected ideas from Republicans to increase gas taxes or impose user fees instead of raising taxes on corporations. Also Read | Biden to pay for infrastructure plan with 15 years of corporate taxes Biden "believes that the extraordinarily wealthy companies... many of whom have not paid taxes in recent years, can afford a modest increase to pay for middle class jobs," Psaki said. However the overall price tag could be lowered by shifting money in the original plan intended to pay for research, supply chains, manufacturing and small businesses to other bills, while funds for roads and bridges, as well as broadband, would be slashed. Spending on improved rail transportation would stay, "especially considering China's level of investment in such projects," Psaki said, while money for the removal of lead pipes and projects to bolster the country against climate change would also remain.

Republicans reject Biden infrastructure bill despite reduced cost

US Republicans on Friday elected congresswoman Elise Stefanik, an outspoken defender of Donald Trump, as their new House conference chair, as the party scrambles to unify amid an explosive debate about its direction.

Stefanik, a 36-year-old former moderate representing upstate New York, easily overcame a late entrant to the race and won strong support from the Republican conference in a closed-door vote of 134 to 46.

"My focus is on unity, because that's what the American people and that's what our voters deserve," she told reporters after vaulting into the number three House Republican position -- becoming the party's most powerful woman in Congress.

"We are going on offense and are going to win back the majority in 2022" in the House of Representatives, said Stefanik, the party's new top messenger.

The vote came two days after the conference ousted Liz Cheney, a conservative stalwart and daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney, from the post over her repeated criticism of Trump and her refusal to embrace his false claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election.

With Trump retaining enormous influence, Republicans have been desperate to tamp down swelling discord within party ranks over its future.&nbsp;

Conservatives aim to craft a coherent message heading into next year's midterm elections, but some Republicans fear that failing to reject Trump's rhetoric about voter fraud could hurt the party at the polls.

But Stefanik made clear that Trump and Trumpism will remain vital in the effort to turn back the "destructive, radical, far-left socialist agenda" of President Joe Biden and his Democrats.

Trump an 'important voice'

Trump "is a critical part of our Republican team," Stefanik said.

"I support president Trump, voters support president Trump," she added. "He is an important voice in our Republican Party and we look forward to working with him."

Trump, whose grip on the party has tightened with Stefanik's elevation, immediately congratulated her for the "overwhelming" win.

"The House GOP is united and the Make America Great Again movement is Strong!" the former president said. 
Stefanik's ascension to leadership was the singular bright spot for Republicans in an otherwise difficult week.

On Thursday after a meeting with Biden and top congressional Democrats at the White House, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy made the dubious assertion that "I don't think anybody is questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election."

One day earlier during a contentious House hearing, Republicans sought to downplay the seriousness of the deadly January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters, with congressman Andrew Clyde saying footage from the day of the insurrection appeared to show "a normal tourist visit" to the building.

And in a sign that tensions still haunt Congress six months after the election, Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has espoused wild conspiracy theories, aggressively confronted progressive Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, heightening concerns about security on Capitol Hill.

Ousted from leadership, Cheney has vowed to continue fighting for conservative principles and against a defeated leader who keeps spreading "the big lie" of voter fraud.

Stefanik is unapologetic in her defense of Trump and has promoted the ex-president's falsehoods about the 2020 election, but some Republicans have openly questioned her conservative credentials.&nbsp;

She voted against Trump's 2017 tax plan, dismissed his border wall as not "realistic" and worked hard to build a more diverse party and get more Republican women elected to Congress.

While the congressman who challenged Stefanik for the conference chair post, Texas Republican Chip Roy, received a 100 percent lifetime rating from the Club For Growth, the conservative group gave Stefanik a rating of just 35 percent.

Despite the pushback, Stefanik on Friday branded herself a "proud conservative Republican."

Asked whether there was a place in the party for vocal Trump critics like Cheney or congressman Adam Kinzinger -- both of whom voted to impeach Trump in January -- Stefanik sought to strike a unifying note.

"They are part of this Republican conference," she said, then added: "We are unified in working with president Trump."

US Republicans on Friday elected congresswoman Elise Stefanik, an outspoken defender of Donald Trump, as their new House conference chair, as the party scrambles to unify amid an explosive debate about its direction.

US Republicans on Friday elected congresswoman Elise Stefanik, an outspoken defender of Donald Trump, as their new House conference chair, as the party scrambles to unify amid an explosive debate about its direction. Stefanik, a 36-year-old former moderate representing upstate New York, easily overcame a late entrant to the race and won strong support from the Republican conference in a closed-door vote of 134 to 46. "My focus is on unity, because that's what the American people and that's what our voters deserve," she told reporters after vaulting into the number three House Republican position -- becoming the party's most powerful woman in Congress. "We are going on offense and are going to win back the majority in 2022" in the House of Representatives, said Stefanik, the party's new top messenger. The vote came two days after the conference ousted Liz Cheney, a conservative stalwart and daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney, from the post over her repeated criticism of Trump and her refusal to embrace his false claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election. With Trump retaining enormous influence, Republicans have been desperate to tamp down swelling discord within party ranks over its future. Conservatives aim to craft a coherent message heading into next year's midterm elections, but some Republicans fear that failing to reject Trump's rhetoric about voter fraud could hurt the party at the polls. But Stefanik made clear that Trump and Trumpism will remain vital in the effort to turn back the "destructive, radical, far-left socialist agenda" of President Joe Biden and his Democrats. Trump an 'important voice' Trump "is a critical part of our Republican team," Stefanik said. "I support president Trump, voters support president Trump," she added. "He is an important voice in our Republican Party and we look forward to working with him." Trump, whose grip on the party has tightened with Stefanik's elevation, immediately congratulated her for the "overwhelming" win. "The House GOP is united and the Make America Great Again movement is Strong!" the former president said. Stefanik's ascension to leadership was the singular bright spot for Republicans in an otherwise difficult week. On Thursday after a meeting with Biden and top congressional Democrats at the White House, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy made the dubious assertion that "I don't think anybody is questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election." One day earlier during a contentious House hearing, Republicans sought to downplay the seriousness of the deadly January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters, with congressman Andrew Clyde saying footage from the day of the insurrection appeared to show "a normal tourist visit" to the building. And in a sign that tensions still haunt Congress six months after the election, Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has espoused wild conspiracy theories, aggressively confronted progressive Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, heightening concerns about security on Capitol Hill. Ousted from leadership, Cheney has vowed to continue fighting for conservative principles and against a defeated leader who keeps spreading "the big lie" of voter fraud. Stefanik is unapologetic in her defense of Trump and has promoted the ex-president's falsehoods about the 2020 election, but some Republicans have openly questioned her conservative credentials. She voted against Trump's 2017 tax plan, dismissed his border wall as not "realistic" and worked hard to build a more diverse party and get more Republican women elected to Congress. While the congressman who challenged Stefanik for the conference chair post, Texas Republican Chip Roy, received a 100 percent lifetime rating from the Club For Growth, the conservative group gave Stefanik a rating of just 35 percent. Despite the pushback, Stefanik on Friday branded herself a "proud conservative Republican." Asked whether there was a place in the party for vocal Trump critics like Cheney or congressman Adam Kinzinger -- both of whom voted to impeach Trump in January -- Stefanik sought to strike a unifying note. "They are part of this Republican conference," she said, then added: "We are unified in working with president Trump."

Republicans elect pro-Trump Stefanik to House leadership

Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to expel leader Liz Cheney who had criticised Trump’s claims of a stolen election. Cheney had called out former President Trump for falsely claiming that the presidential was rigged and stolen through fraud.

"I will do everything I can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office," AFP quoted Cheney as saying after the vote.

She was at the helm of Republican leadership and is the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. In January, Cheney had voted to impeach Donald Trump for inciting the riots at US Capitol on January 6.

The Republican recently claimed that Trump’s claims of a stolen election were “poisoning our democratic system” and that anybody who supported such claims was “spreading THE BIG LIE”.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/trump-family-got-inappropriately-close-to-secret-service-agent-book-384427" hreflang="en">Trump family got 'inappropriately close' to Secret Service agent: Book</a>

"We must go forward based on truth. We cannot both embrace the big lie and embrace the Constitution," she told reporters on Wednesday

According to Republicans, her ousting is about maintaining the party unity. They also claim that Cheney's criticism of the party and the former president has bought the Republicans together after Trump's defeat in the November elections.

Cheney has referred to Trump's following within the party&nbsp;as&nbsp;"dangerous and anti-democratic cult of personality".

On Tuesday, Cheney remained defiant on the House floor, warning that the American democracy could unravel due to Trump's false claims of a rigged election, which could sow doubt in people's minds about the integrity of US election process.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/republicans-seek-to-oust-liz-cheney-from-key-role-in-house-as-ex-centrist-stefanik-rises-on-embrace-of-trump-384010" hreflang="en">Republicans seek to oust Liz Cheney from key role in House as ex-centrist Stefanik rises on embrace of Trump</a>

"Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar,"&nbsp;Cheney&nbsp;said on Tuesday.

Since then, Trump has responded to her claims. "Liz&nbsp;Cheney&nbsp;is a bitter, horrible human being."

He added: "She has no personality or anything good having to do with politics or our Country. She is a talking point for Democrats, whether that means the Border, the gas lines, inflation, or destroying our economy."

(With inputs from agencies)

Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to expel leader Liz Cheney who had criticised Trump’s claims of a stolen election. Cheney had called out former President Trump for falsely claiming that the presidential was rigged and stolen through fraud.

Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to expel leader Liz Cheney who had criticised Trump’s claims of a stolen election. Cheney had called out former President Trump for falsely claiming that the presidential was rigged and stolen through fraud. "I will do everything I can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office," AFP quoted Cheney as saying after the vote. She was at the helm of Republican leadership and is the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. In January, Cheney had voted to impeach Donald Trump for inciting the riots at US Capitol on January 6. The Republican recently claimed that Trump’s claims of a stolen election were “poisoning our democratic system” and that anybody who supported such claims was “spreading THE BIG LIE”. Also read: Trump family got 'inappropriately close' to Secret Service agent: Book "We must go forward based on truth. We cannot both embrace the big lie and embrace the Constitution," she told reporters on Wednesday According to Republicans, her ousting is about maintaining the party unity. They also claim that Cheney's criticism of the party and the former president has bought the Republicans together after Trump's defeat in the November elections. Cheney has referred to Trump's following within the party as "dangerous and anti-democratic cult of personality". On Tuesday, Cheney remained defiant on the House floor, warning that the American democracy could unravel due to Trump's false claims of a rigged election, which could sow doubt in people's minds about the integrity of US election process. Also read: Republicans seek to oust Liz Cheney from key role in House as ex-centrist Stefanik rises on embrace of Trump "Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar," Cheney said on Tuesday. Since then, Trump has responded to her claims. "Liz Cheney is a bitter, horrible human being." He added: "She has no personality or anything good having to do with politics or our Country. She is a talking point for Democrats, whether that means the Border, the gas lines, inflation, or destroying our economy." (With inputs from agencies)

Republicans oust Trump critic Liz Cheney from leadership role

Twenty-one Republican attorneys general pressed the Biden administration Tuesday to clarify a provision in the $1.9 trillion economic aid package that the president signed into law last week, warning that its restrictions on state efforts to cut taxes could be “the greatest attempted invasion of state sovereignty by Congress in the history of our Republic.”

The seven-page letter was signed by a host of Republican officials, including the attorneys general of Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Utah. They take issue with a restriction that lawmakers included in a $350 billion relief effort for state, local and tribal governments that prevents them from using the federal funds “to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue” as a result of tax cuts. These governments have suffered revenue hits and laid off more than 1 million public employees during the coronavirus pandemic.

The law requires repayment to the federal government of any money that violates those conditions.

In their letter, the Republican officials asked Janet Yellen, the Treasury secretary, to clarify how expansively her department would interpret that portion of the law. Does it simply prohibit states from using the federal dollars to offset new tax cuts, or instead prohibit them from cutting taxes for any reason, even if those cuts were in the works before the law passed? The officials said the broader restriction would be damaging and most likely unconstitutional.

“This language could be read to deny states the ability to cut taxes in any manner whatsoever — even if they would have provided such tax relief with or without the prospect of COVID-19 relief funds,” the attorneys general wrote. “Absent a more sensible interpretation from your department, this provision would amount to an unprecedented and unconstitutional intrusion on the separate sovereignty of the states through federal usurpation of essentially one half of the state’s fiscal ledgers” — their ability to collect revenues.

Oklahoma, for example, has already passed an income-tax cut through its House of Representatives, including an expansion of the state’s earned-income tax credit that is meant to help low-income workers, Mike Hunter, the state’s attorney general, said in a statement Tuesday. “But,” he warned, “the federal stimulus bill might prohibit Oklahoma from providing this economic relief without losing its share of federal funding.”

A White House spokesman declined on Tuesday evening to comment on the letter. A Treasury Department spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment.

Republican lawmakers in Washington and around the country previously raised concerns over the provision.

“We were planning on giving — reducing the sales tax on used cars, that is low-income and middle-income,” Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas said on the CBS program “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “And now we’re worried about whether that’s going to be prohibited under this bill. The language seems to indicate it is.”

Twenty-one Republican attorneys general pressed the Biden administration Tuesday to clarify a provision in the $1.9 trillion economic aid package that the president signed into law last week, warning that its restrictions on state efforts to cut taxes could be “the greatest attempted invasion of state sovereignty by Congress in the history of our Republic.

Twenty-one Republican attorneys general pressed the Biden administration Tuesday to clarify a provision in the $1.9 trillion economic aid package that the president signed into law last week, warning that its restrictions on state efforts to cut taxes could be “the greatest attempted invasion of state sovereignty by Congress in the history of our Republic.” The seven-page letter was signed by a host of Republican officials, including the attorneys general of Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Utah. They take issue with a restriction that lawmakers included in a $350 billion relief effort for state, local and tribal governments that prevents them from using the federal funds “to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue” as a result of tax cuts. These governments have suffered revenue hits and laid off more than 1 million public employees during the coronavirus pandemic. The law requires repayment to the federal government of any money that violates those conditions. In their letter, the Republican officials asked Janet Yellen, the Treasury secretary, to clarify how expansively her department would interpret that portion of the law. Does it simply prohibit states from using the federal dollars to offset new tax cuts, or instead prohibit them from cutting taxes for any reason, even if those cuts were in the works before the law passed? The officials said the broader restriction would be damaging and most likely unconstitutional. “This language could be read to deny states the ability to cut taxes in any manner whatsoever — even if they would have provided such tax relief with or without the prospect of COVID-19 relief funds,” the attorneys general wrote. “Absent a more sensible interpretation from your department, this provision would amount to an unprecedented and unconstitutional intrusion on the separate sovereignty of the states through federal usurpation of essentially one half of the state’s fiscal ledgers” — their ability to collect revenues. Oklahoma, for example, has already passed an income-tax cut through its House of Representatives, including an expansion of the state’s earned-income tax credit that is meant to help low-income workers, Mike Hunter, the state’s attorney general, said in a statement Tuesday. “But,” he warned, “the federal stimulus bill might prohibit Oklahoma from providing this economic relief without losing its share of federal funding.” A White House spokesman declined on Tuesday evening to comment on the letter. A Treasury Department spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment. Republican lawmakers in Washington and around the country previously raised concerns over the provision. “We were planning on giving — reducing the sales tax on used cars, that is low-income and middle-income,” Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas said on the CBS program “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “And now we’re worried about whether that’s going to be prohibited under this bill. The language seems to indicate it is.”

Republican attorneys general press Biden over restrictions on state aid in stimulus plan

The Republican Party intends to keep using former President Donald Trump`s name in fundraising pitches and other materials, a lawyer for the party said on Monday, despite a cease-and-desist letter from Trump last week. 
 
The letter sent by lawyers for Trump on Friday to the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Campaign and National Republican Senate Campaign had ramped up tension between the two camps as Trump seeks to preserve his political viability post-election. 
 
A Trump adviser said on Saturday that Trump was sensitive to the use of his name and likeness for branding purposes and was irked the three groups have supported Republican lawmakers who joined Democrats in voting to impeach him over the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. 
 
In a response letter, the Republican National Committee said that Trump "reaffirmed" to RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel over the weekend that he approves of the party`s current use of his name, wrote Justin Riemer, the RNC`s top lawyer.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/white-house-orders-review-of-campus-sexual-misconduct-rules-changed-by-trump-368924" hreflang="en">White House orders review of campus sexual misconduct rules changed by Trump&nbsp;</a> 
 
The party also argued it had "every right to refer to public figures as it engages in core, First Amendment-protected political speech." 
 
The letter indicated Trump would participate in the party`s donor retreat scheduled for next month in Palm Beach, Florida, which is home to Trump`s Mar-a-Lago resort. 
 
A representative for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter. 
 
But in a statement late on Monday, Trump declared: "No more money for RINOS," the acronym for the pejorative term "Republicans in Name Only."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/be-an-epic-trophy-wife-like-melania-trump-a-pastor-tells-women-368582" hreflang="en">Be an 'epic trophy wife like Melania Trump', a pastor tells women</a> 
 
"They do nothing but hurt the Republican Party and our great voting base — they will never lead us to Greatness," Trump said before urging supporters to donate to his own super PAC. 
 
In an effort separate from the Republican Party, Trump is using his Save America super PAC to raise money in part to help handpicked Republican candidates in the 2022 congressional elections. Some of them are expected to challenge Republican incumbents whom Trump considers disloyal. 
 
Still, Trump has committed to helping Republicans try to win back control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in the 2022 elections that will be an early referendum on the leadership of Democratic President Joe Biden.

The Republican Party intends to keep using former President Donald Trump`s name in fundraising pitches and other materials, a lawyer for the party said on Monday, despite a cease-and-desist letter from Trump last week.

The Republican Party intends to keep using former President Donald Trump`s name in fundraising pitches and other materials, a lawyer for the party said on Monday, despite a cease-and-desist letter from Trump last week. The letter sent by lawyers for Trump on Friday to the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Campaign and National Republican Senate Campaign had ramped up tension between the two camps as Trump seeks to preserve his political viability post-election. A Trump adviser said on Saturday that Trump was sensitive to the use of his name and likeness for branding purposes and was irked the three groups have supported Republican lawmakers who joined Democrats in voting to impeach him over the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. In a response letter, the Republican National Committee said that Trump "reaffirmed" to RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel over the weekend that he approves of the party`s current use of his name, wrote Justin Riemer, the RNC`s top lawyer. Also read: White House orders review of campus sexual misconduct rules changed by Trump The party also argued it had "every right to refer to public figures as it engages in core, First Amendment-protected political speech." The letter indicated Trump would participate in the party`s donor retreat scheduled for next month in Palm Beach, Florida, which is home to Trump`s Mar-a-Lago resort. A representative for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter. But in a statement late on Monday, Trump declared: "No more money for RINOS," the acronym for the pejorative term "Republicans in Name Only." Also read: Be an 'epic trophy wife like Melania Trump', a pastor tells women "They do nothing but hurt the Republican Party and our great voting base — they will never lead us to Greatness," Trump said before urging supporters to donate to his own super PAC. In an effort separate from the Republican Party, Trump is using his Save America super PAC to raise money in part to help handpicked Republican candidates in the 2022 congressional elections. Some of them are expected to challenge Republican incumbents whom Trump considers disloyal. Still, Trump has committed to helping Republicans try to win back control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in the 2022 elections that will be an early referendum on the leadership of Democratic President Joe Biden.

Republican Party says it will continue to use Trump's name in fundraising appeals

Donald Trump is no longer in office of the US President. He is even banned from popular social media platforms like Twitter. He is making a lot less buzz than before. But he still commands political clout within the Republican Party and his gold-coloured statue at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference is being talked about as a symbol of the same. US conservatives praised Donald Trump at the annual gathering on Friday (February 26)

Prominent congressional conservatives - including Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley and Representatives Steve Scalise and Matt Gaetz - were among the Trump loyalists speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida, which the former president will address on Sunday (February 28).

The gold-coloured statue of Donald Trump is dressed in a jacket, red tie and boxer shorts with Stars-and-Stripes. The statue was on display at the conference site.&nbsp;

Two participants wheeled the larger-than-life statue through the conference center lobby, according to a video on social media. It was initially unclear why the statue, showing a cartoonish version of Trump with an oversize head, was there.

The statue drew instant derision online, with commentators comparing it to the golden calf that enraged the prophet Moses in the Old Testament.

Later in the day, Tommy Zegan told Reuters he was the artist behind the statue and that he came up with the idea three years ago as a "more tasteful" antidote to some unflattering effigies of Trump at the time, such as the 'Baby Trump' balloons and the Trump 'golden toilet'.

Zegan said the statue contains several symbolic elements that convey the spirit of Trump: the suit is for Trump's status as a businessman, the red tie represents the Republican party, the sandals are because Zegan thinks this is the time for Trump to be vacationing "in the lap of luxury" and the magic wand?

"The magic wand basically represents what Obama had said. You know, 'how is he going to bring back all these jobs? What does he have, some sort of magic wand?' " Zegan told Reuters.

It is expected that Trump will talk at CPAC on Sunday. He will likely speak on future of Republican Party and lay out policy differences within a group riven by differences in the wake of his chaotic four years in office.

(With Reuters inputs)

Donald Trump is no longer in office of the US President. He is even banned from popular social media platforms like Twitter. He is making a lot less buzz than before.

Donald Trump is no longer in office of the US President. He is even banned from popular social media platforms like Twitter. He is making a lot less buzz than before. But he still commands political clout within the Republican Party and his gold-coloured statue at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference is being talked about as a symbol of the same. US conservatives praised Donald Trump at the annual gathering on Friday (February 26) Prominent congressional conservatives - including Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley and Representatives Steve Scalise and Matt Gaetz - were among the Trump loyalists speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida, which the former president will address on Sunday (February 28). The gold-coloured statue of Donald Trump is dressed in a jacket, red tie and boxer shorts with Stars-and-Stripes. The statue was on display at the conference site. Two participants wheeled the larger-than-life statue through the conference center lobby, according to a video on social media. It was initially unclear why the statue, showing a cartoonish version of Trump with an oversize head, was there. The statue drew instant derision online, with commentators comparing it to the golden calf that enraged the prophet Moses in the Old Testament. Later in the day, Tommy Zegan told Reuters he was the artist behind the statue and that he came up with the idea three years ago as a "more tasteful" antidote to some unflattering effigies of Trump at the time, such as the 'Baby Trump' balloons and the Trump 'golden toilet'. Zegan said the statue contains several symbolic elements that convey the spirit of Trump: the suit is for Trump's status as a businessman, the red tie represents the Republican party, the sandals are because Zegan thinks this is the time for Trump to be vacationing "in the lap of luxury" and the magic wand? "The magic wand basically represents what Obama had said. You know, 'how is he going to bring back all these jobs? What does he have, some sort of magic wand?' " Zegan told Reuters. It is expected that Trump will talk at CPAC on Sunday. He will likely speak on future of Republican Party and lay out policy differences within a group riven by differences in the wake of his chaotic four years in office. (With Reuters inputs)

Donald Trump's golden statue at CPAC reflects his hold on Republican Party

The former US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> is known to be a sore loser, and after a few Republicans voted against him in his recent impeachment trial, he has vowed revenge against them, in his own way.

Trump has lent his support to Max Miller, a 2020 deputy campaign manager and White House advisor, who is challenging Representative Anthony Gonzalez.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-to-announce-himself-presumptive-2024-nominee-for-president-soon-report-365586" hreflang="en">Trump to announce himself 'presumptive 2024 nominee' for President soon: Report</a>

"Max Miller is a wonderful person who did a great job at the White House and will be a fantastic congressman," the infamous former president said in a statement.

<img alt="Trump-Miller" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="d77b625d-33c4-455f-9ee5-d9992539c1f1" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Trump-Miller.jpg" />

"Current Rep. Anthony Gonzalez should not be representing the people of the 16th district because he does not represent their interest or their heart," he added.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-preferred-candidate-for-2024-presidential-election-poll-364177" hreflang="en">Donald Trump preferred candidate for 2024 presidential election: Poll</a>

Since Trump openly supported Miller, the Republican candidate has, excitedly, added "Endorsed by President Donald J. Trump" in his Twitter bio.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I am honored to be endorsed by President Donald J. Trump as I begin my campaign for Congress. 
 
I will never back down and will never betray my constituents. 
 
Join us. We will save America together. 
 
Read President Trump's statement below! 👇<a href="https://t.co/s4r2WEpv43">https://t.co/s4r2WEpv43</a> <a href="https://t.co/0va1b1XF3P">pic.twitter.com/0va1b1XF3P</a>
— Max Miller (@MaxLMiller) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaxLMiller/status/1365416076327190534?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 26, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Adding Trump's endorsement letter to his Twitter feed, he said, "I will never back down and will never betray my constituents."

The 32-year-old is the first to be endorsed by Trump since he was impeached, for the second time, and then acquitted a month later by the US Senate.

Since his acquittal, Trump has vowed to win back the House in 2022, by supporting his aides and Republicans.

The former US President Donald Trump is known to be a sore loser, and after a few Republicans voted against him in his recent impeachment trial, he has vowed revenge against them, in his own way.

The former US President Donald Trump is known to be a sore loser, and after a few Republicans voted against him in his recent impeachment trial, he has vowed revenge against them, in his own way. Trump has lent his support to Max Miller, a 2020 deputy campaign manager and White House advisor, who is challenging Representative Anthony Gonzalez. Also read| Trump to announce himself 'presumptive 2024 nominee' for President soon: Report "Max Miller is a wonderful person who did a great job at the White House and will be a fantastic congressman," the infamous former president said in a statement. "Current Rep. Anthony Gonzalez should not be representing the people of the 16th district because he does not represent their interest or their heart," he added. Also read| Donald Trump preferred candidate for 2024 presidential election: Poll Since Trump openly supported Miller, the Republican candidate has, excitedly, added "Endorsed by President Donald J. Trump" in his Twitter bio. I am honored to be endorsed by President Donald J. Trump as I begin my campaign for Congress. I will never back down and will never betray my constituents. Join us. We will save America together. Read President Trump's statement below! 👇https://t.co/s4r2WEpv43 pic.twitter.com/0va1b1XF3P — Max Miller (@MaxLMiller) February 26, 2021 × Adding Trump's endorsement letter to his Twitter feed, he said, "I will never back down and will never betray my constituents." The 32-year-old is the first to be endorsed by Trump since he was impeached, for the second time, and then acquitted a month later by the US Senate. Since his acquittal, Trump has vowed to win back the House in 2022, by supporting his aides and Republicans.

Trump endorses Max Miller to seek revenge against Republican who voted to impeach

While the former reality TV star <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> has faced immense criticism, several allegations and two impeachment trials, turns out he is still the number one choice for the US election 2024.

A recent poll conducted by Politico-Morning Consult revealed that Trump's popularity within the Republican Party has not decreased even after impeachment trials.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/unsmiling-political-hack-trump-lashes-out-at-mitch-mcconnell-after-impeachment-trial-364141">'Unsmiling political hack': Trump lashes out at Mitch McConnell</a>

As per the poll, which was released three days after Trump's acquittal in his second impeachment trial, 59 per cent of Republicans said they would happily support the former US President to play a prominent role in their Republican Party.

Further, 54 per cent of Republicans said they would like to support Trump in a hypothetical 2024 presidential primary election. This number is the same as the amount of Republicans who wanted to show support to the defeated leader back in November. However, the number had taken a dip after the Capitol riot that took place on January 06 and were organised by Trump's supporters.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/republican-accused-of-joining-devils-army-for-voting-to-impeach-donald-trump-364108" hreflang="en">Republican accused of joining 'devil's army' for voting to impeach Donald Trump</a>

Till now, Trump has not given a clear message about whether or not he would be returning for the presidential elections in 2024. However, it was being assumed that his chances of being the favoured candidate would have taken a dip within his party. This poll has shown otherwise.

Surprisingly, after Trump's acquittal, the number of people in the party who think he should play a major role in the Republican party has increased by 18 per cent.

It was also observed that before the trials, more Republicans thought that Trump was personally responsible for the Capitol riots.

Between January 06 and 07, 76 per cent of Republicans thought it was rioters fault and 41 per cent believed Trump was responsible too. However, between February 14 and 15, the figures changed and only 27 per cent of Republicans believed that Trump had a hand in the Capitol riots and 85 per cent of party members blamed the rioters.&nbsp;

While the former reality TV star Donald Trump has faced immense criticism, several allegations and two impeachment trials, turns out he is still the number one choice for the US election 2024.

While the former reality TV star Donald Trump has faced immense criticism, several allegations and two impeachment trials, turns out he is still the number one choice for the US election 2024. A recent poll conducted by Politico-Morning Consult revealed that Trump's popularity within the Republican Party has not decreased even after impeachment trials. Also read| 'Unsmiling political hack': Trump lashes out at Mitch McConnell As per the poll, which was released three days after Trump's acquittal in his second impeachment trial, 59 per cent of Republicans said they would happily support the former US President to play a prominent role in their Republican Party. Further, 54 per cent of Republicans said they would like to support Trump in a hypothetical 2024 presidential primary election. This number is the same as the amount of Republicans who wanted to show support to the defeated leader back in November. However, the number had taken a dip after the Capitol riot that took place on January 06 and were organised by Trump's supporters. Also read| Republican accused of joining 'devil's army' for voting to impeach Donald Trump Till now, Trump has not given a clear message about whether or not he would be returning for the presidential elections in 2024. However, it was being assumed that his chances of being the favoured candidate would have taken a dip within his party. This poll has shown otherwise. Surprisingly, after Trump's acquittal, the number of people in the party who think he should play a major role in the Republican party has increased by 18 per cent. It was also observed that before the trials, more Republicans thought that Trump was personally responsible for the Capitol riots. Between January 06 and 07, 76 per cent of Republicans thought it was rioters fault and 41 per cent believed Trump was responsible too. However, between February 14 and 15, the figures changed and only 27 per cent of Republicans believed that Trump had a hand in the Capitol riots and 85 per cent of party members blamed the rioters.

Donald Trump preferred candidate for 2024 presidential election: Poll

The US Senate acquitted Donald Trump on Saturday of the charge of inciting the January 6 assault on the US Capitol in an unprecedented second impeachment trial.

Trump's acquittal raises questions about what's next for the 74-year-old former president, the Republican Party and President Joe Biden.

Donald Trump

Although Trump's acquittal by the Senate was a near certainty, the verdict must have come as a relief to the former president.

In a statement, Trump denounced what he called a "witch hunt" and talked about the future.

"Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun," he said.&nbsp;

"We have so much work ahead of us, and soon we will emerge with a vision for a bright, radiant, and limitless American future."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-acquitted-by-us-senate-in-his-second-impeachment-trial-363474">Donald Trump acquitted by US Senate in his second impeachment trial&nbsp;</a>

Trump has flirted with the idea of running for the White House again in 2024 and a conviction would have likely barred him from holding federal office again.

Since leaving the White House on January 20, Trump has been holed up in his Mar-a-Lago resort, deprived of the Twitter account he used to communicate with his many millions of followers.

Capri Cafaro, executive in residence at American University in Washington and a former Democratic member of the Ohio state senate, said the acquittal could be a "rallying cry" for Trump and his backers.

But, Cafaro added, "the legacy of Donald Trump for many at this point may be the events of January 6, regardless of acquittal."

"There will be Americans who think that Donald Trump had some kind of role," she said, and that could carry over to the real estate tycoon's activities in the private sector.

"It's almost like he has no choice but to continue to try to be in politics," she said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-lawyers-deny-he-incited-capitol-mob-363466">Trump’s lawyers deny he incited Capitol mob</a>

Wendy Schiller, a professor of political science at Brown University, agreed that Trump's future may be limited.

"If a corporation were to offer him a speaking appearance, the social media backlash would be swift and severe, with possible boycotts of their products," Schiller said.

"Even holding conferences or events at Trump properties will be a problem for large publicly traded companies, or companies that provide a direct to consumer product," she said.

The Republican Party

The fact that the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted to acquit Trump is a clear signal that he retains a grip on the GOP, the Grand Old Party.

"The party is his," Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of his most fervent supporters, said last week. "It doesn't belong to anyone else."

But seven Republican senators voted to convict the former president and 10 Republican members of the House of Representatives voted last month to impeach him, including the party's third-ranking member, Liz Cheney, daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted for acquittal but said Trump was "practically and morally" responsible for the January 6 violence.

A number of Republicans have distanced themselves from the former president and are lining up to take their own shot at the White House in 2024.

Among them is former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who said Republicans were wrong for supporting Trump's campaign to reverse the election results, a course that led to the January 6 attack on Congress.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-has-survived-the-second-impeachment-trial-in-the-senate-363490/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

"He went down a path he shouldn't have, and we shouldn't have followed him," Haley said in an interview with Politico magazine.

Haley also dismissed speculation Trump will seek the presidency in 2024. "I don't think he can," she said. "He's fallen so far."

But the Republicans advocating a complete break with Trump are in the minority and most remain fearful of the power he holds over his base.

"GOP senators who vote to acquit may be protecting themselves against primary challenges from the more extreme wing of their party in 2022, or even 2024," Schiller said. "But they may simultaneously make themselves more vulnerable to defeat in the general election."

Cafaro said Republican lawmakers remaining faithful to Trump were making an "incredibly risky" gamble.

"They're making a decision based upon a snapshot in time that may not exist for them in two years," she said.

A group of anti-Trump former Republican officials has raised the idea of creating a center-right third party but it is unlikely to gain much traction.

Joe Biden

Trump's impeachment trial has been hanging over the start of Biden's presidency and the Democrats must be glad it took just five days.

The Senate will now be in a position to swiftly confirm Biden's cabinet appointees and work on his legislative agenda as the country struggles with the Covid-19 pandemic and severe economic woes.

"President Biden has done a very good job of separating himself from the impeachment trial proceedings and keep his messaging on the Covid-19 crisis and the accompanying economic crisis," Schiller said.

But Trump remains a force to be reckoned with.

"There's no saying that we're immune from more protests, demonstrations, activism from the far right," Cafaro said. "If and when that happens how Joe Biden deals with them will be something to watch."

The US Senate acquitted Donald Trump on Saturday of the charge of inciting the January 6 assault on the US Capitol in an unprecedented second impeachment trial. Trump's acquittal raises questions about what's next for the 74-year-old former president, the Republican Party and President Joe Biden.

The US Senate acquitted Donald Trump on Saturday of the charge of inciting the January 6 assault on the US Capitol in an unprecedented second impeachment trial. Trump's acquittal raises questions about what's next for the 74-year-old former president, the Republican Party and President Joe Biden. Donald Trump Although Trump's acquittal by the Senate was a near certainty, the verdict must have come as a relief to the former president. In a statement, Trump denounced what he called a "witch hunt" and talked about the future. "Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun," he said. "We have so much work ahead of us, and soon we will emerge with a vision for a bright, radiant, and limitless American future." Also Read | Donald Trump acquitted by US Senate in his second impeachment trial Trump has flirted with the idea of running for the White House again in 2024 and a conviction would have likely barred him from holding federal office again. Since leaving the White House on January 20, Trump has been holed up in his Mar-a-Lago resort, deprived of the Twitter account he used to communicate with his many millions of followers. Capri Cafaro, executive in residence at American University in Washington and a former Democratic member of the Ohio state senate, said the acquittal could be a "rallying cry" for Trump and his backers. But, Cafaro added, "the legacy of Donald Trump for many at this point may be the events of January 6, regardless of acquittal." "There will be Americans who think that Donald Trump had some kind of role," she said, and that could carry over to the real estate tycoon's activities in the private sector. "It's almost like he has no choice but to continue to try to be in politics," she said. Also Read | Trump’s lawyers deny he incited Capitol mob Wendy Schiller, a professor of political science at Brown University, agreed that Trump's future may be limited. "If a corporation were to offer him a speaking appearance, the social media backlash would be swift and severe, with possible boycotts of their products," Schiller said. "Even holding conferences or events at Trump properties will be a problem for large publicly traded companies, or companies that provide a direct to consumer product," she said. The Republican Party The fact that the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted to acquit Trump is a clear signal that he retains a grip on the GOP, the Grand Old Party. "The party is his," Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of his most fervent supporters, said last week. "It doesn't belong to anyone else." But seven Republican senators voted to convict the former president and 10 Republican members of the House of Representatives voted last month to impeach him, including the party's third-ranking member, Liz Cheney, daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney. Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted for acquittal but said Trump was "practically and morally" responsible for the January 6 violence. A number of Republicans have distanced themselves from the former president and are lining up to take their own shot at the White House in 2024. Among them is former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who said Republicans were wrong for supporting Trump's campaign to reverse the election results, a course that led to the January 6 attack on Congress. × "He went down a path he shouldn't have, and we shouldn't have followed him," Haley said in an interview with Politico magazine. Haley also dismissed speculation Trump will seek the presidency in 2024. "I don't think he can," she said. "He's fallen so far." But the Republicans advocating a complete break with Trump are in the minority and most remain fearful of the power he holds over his base. "GOP senators who vote to acquit may be protecting themselves against primary challenges from the more extreme wing of their party in 2022, or even 2024," Schiller said. "But they may simultaneously make themselves more vulnerable to defeat in the general election." Cafaro said Republican lawmakers remaining faithful to Trump were making an "incredibly risky" gamble. "They're making a decision based upon a snapshot in time that may not exist for them in two years," she said. A group of anti-Trump former Republican officials has raised the idea of creating a center-right third party but it is unlikely to gain much traction. Joe Biden Trump's impeachment trial has been hanging over the start of Biden's presidency and the Democrats must be glad it took just five days. The Senate will now be in a position to swiftly confirm Biden's cabinet appointees and work on his legislative agenda as the country struggles with the Covid-19 pandemic and severe economic woes. "President Biden has done a very good job of separating himself from the impeachment trial proceedings and keep his messaging on the Covid-19 crisis and the accompanying economic crisis," Schiller said. But Trump remains a force to be reckoned with. "There's no saying that we're immune from more protests, demonstrations, activism from the far right," Cafaro said. "If and when that happens how Joe Biden deals with them will be something to watch."

What's next for Trump, the Republican Party and Biden?

Ten Republican senators are set to meet with President Joe Biden on Monday to push a much smaller alternative to his $1.9 trillion stimulus bill to address the toll of the pandemic, including scaling back another round of direct payments from the government.

The coalition of mostly centrist Republican senators, led by Susan Collins of Maine, on Monday outlined their $618 billion plan, which they are billing as a way for Biden to pass a pandemic aid bill with bipartisan support and make good on his inauguration pledge to unite the country.

With 10 Republicans on board joining the Senate’s 50 Democrats, a bipartisan bill could overcome the chamber’s 60-vote filibuster rule. But Democrats have shown little enthusiasm for a measure that amounts to less than one third of what the president says is needed to confront the public health and economic crisis.

Still, after receiving a letter from the senators Sunday requesting a meeting, Biden called Collins and invited her and the other signers to the White House, where they are scheduled to meet Monday evening. He also spoke with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader.

The Republicans’ proposal is likely to be met with resistance from congressional Democrats, who are preparing this week to begin laying the groundwork for passing Biden’s plan through a process known as budget reconciliation, which would allow it to bypass a filibuster and pass solely with Democratic votes.

The Republican proposal would include $160 billion for vaccine distribution and development, coronavirus testing and the production of personal protective equipment; $20 billion toward helping schools reopen; more relief for small businesses; and additional aid to individuals.

The package would also extend enhanced unemployment benefits of $300 a week — currently slated to lapse in March — until June 30.

“We recognize your calls for unity and want to work in good faith with your administration to meet the health, economic and societal challenges of the COVID crisis,” wrote the Republican group, which includes Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mitt Romney of Utah.

The measure omits a federal minimum wage increase Biden included in his plan. It would also whittle down his proposal to send $1,400 checks to many Americans, and limit it to lower-income earners.

The proposal calls for checks of up to $1,000 for individuals making $50,000 a year or less and families with a combined income of up to $100,000, with individuals earning less than $40,000 — and families earning less than $80,000 — receiving the full amount. Previous rounds of direct payments were targeted to Americans earning less than $99,000 annually, with those earning less than $75,000 receiving the full amount.

“Let’s focus on those who are struggling,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a member of the group, said Sunday on the CNN program “State of the Union.”

Biden and Democrats have said they want to work with Republicans, but will press ahead without them if they cannot win agreement on a robust response.

“His first responsibility as president is to help take care of the families who need it,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said of Biden on Sunday, telling CNN that he should move ahead with his full plan if Republicans would not agree.

Congress approved more than $4 trillion through a series of bills last year to address the coronavirus crisis and its economic fallout. Most recently, in December, lawmakers passed a $900 billion stimulus plan that included $600 direct checks to many Americans.

That package sprang from a compromise forged by many of the same centrist Republicans who are to meet with Biden on Monday, who joined moderate Democrats to force their leaders to the negotiating table to find common ground.

Ten Republican senators are set to meet with President Joe Biden on Monday to push a much smaller alternative to his $1.9 trillion stimulus bill to address the toll of the pandemic, including scaling back another round of direct payments from the government.

Ten Republican senators are set to meet with President Joe Biden on Monday to push a much smaller alternative to his $1.9 trillion stimulus bill to address the toll of the pandemic, including scaling back another round of direct payments from the government. The coalition of mostly centrist Republican senators, led by Susan Collins of Maine, on Monday outlined their $618 billion plan, which they are billing as a way for Biden to pass a pandemic aid bill with bipartisan support and make good on his inauguration pledge to unite the country. With 10 Republicans on board joining the Senate’s 50 Democrats, a bipartisan bill could overcome the chamber’s 60-vote filibuster rule. But Democrats have shown little enthusiasm for a measure that amounts to less than one third of what the president says is needed to confront the public health and economic crisis. Still, after receiving a letter from the senators Sunday requesting a meeting, Biden called Collins and invited her and the other signers to the White House, where they are scheduled to meet Monday evening. He also spoke with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader. The Republicans’ proposal is likely to be met with resistance from congressional Democrats, who are preparing this week to begin laying the groundwork for passing Biden’s plan through a process known as budget reconciliation, which would allow it to bypass a filibuster and pass solely with Democratic votes. The Republican proposal would include $160 billion for vaccine distribution and development, coronavirus testing and the production of personal protective equipment; $20 billion toward helping schools reopen; more relief for small businesses; and additional aid to individuals. The package would also extend enhanced unemployment benefits of $300 a week — currently slated to lapse in March — until June 30. “We recognize your calls for unity and want to work in good faith with your administration to meet the health, economic and societal challenges of the COVID crisis,” wrote the Republican group, which includes Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mitt Romney of Utah. The measure omits a federal minimum wage increase Biden included in his plan. It would also whittle down his proposal to send $1,400 checks to many Americans, and limit it to lower-income earners. The proposal calls for checks of up to $1,000 for individuals making $50,000 a year or less and families with a combined income of up to $100,000, with individuals earning less than $40,000 — and families earning less than $80,000 — receiving the full amount. Previous rounds of direct payments were targeted to Americans earning less than $99,000 annually, with those earning less than $75,000 receiving the full amount. “Let’s focus on those who are struggling,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a member of the group, said Sunday on the CNN program “State of the Union.” Biden and Democrats have said they want to work with Republicans, but will press ahead without them if they cannot win agreement on a robust response. “His first responsibility as president is to help take care of the families who need it,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said of Biden on Sunday, telling CNN that he should move ahead with his full plan if Republicans would not agree. Congress approved more than $4 trillion through a series of bills last year to address the coronavirus crisis and its economic fallout. Most recently, in December, lawmakers passed a $900 billion stimulus plan that included $600 direct checks to many Americans. That package sprang from a compromise forged by many of the same centrist Republicans who are to meet with Biden on Monday, who joined moderate Democrats to force their leaders to the negotiating table to find common ground.

Centrist Republicans outline relief package before meeting Biden

Senate Republicans rallied Tuesday against trying former President Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” at the Capitol, with only five members of his party joining Democrats in a vote to go forward with his impeachment trial.

By a vote of 55-45, the Senate narrowly killed a Republican effort to dismiss the proceeding as unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office. But the numbers showed that loyal Republicans are again poised to spare him from conviction, this time despite his role in stirring up a mob that violently targeted lawmakers and the vice president Jan. 6 as Congress met to finalize the election.

“I think it’s pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted,” said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the five Republicans who voted to proceed to trial. “Just do the math.”

It would take two-thirds of senators — 67 votes — to attain a conviction, meaning 17 Republicans would have to cross party lines to side with Democrats in finding Trump guilty. If they did, an additional vote to disqualify him from ever holding office again would take a simple majority.

Aside from Collins, the only Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to reject the constitutional objection and proceed were Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania. All five had previously said they were open to hearing the House’s impeachment case, which was adopted in a bipartisan vote a week after the attack.

With the facts of the case still spilling forth and the meat of the trial delayed for two weeks, senators could change their views. Several Republicans who voted Tuesday to uphold the constitutional challenge, which would have effectively killed the trial, rushed afterward to clarify that they remained open-minded about the trial, which next convenes Feb. 9.

In the weeks since the attack, Trump has made no apology for his actions, including spreading falsehoods about election fraud and urging his supporters gathered outside the White House on Jan. 6 to march to the Capitol, confront members of Congress formalizing his election loss and “fight like hell.”

But most agreed that whatever window of possibility there had been for bipartisan condemnation of Trump by lawmakers who were evacuated from the Capitol amid the deadly assault was closing fast, as Republicans were reminded once again of Trump’s remarkable hold on their party and the risks of crossing him. The 10 House Republicans who broke with their party to support the impeachment charge are already facing an intense backlash, both at home and in Washington.

It appeared that Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, was among those making such a calculation. He had twice signaled in recent days — through advisers and then in a letter to colleagues — that he was open to convicting a former president he privately disdains, and he publicly asserted last week that Trump had “provoked” the mob.

But if McConnell was trying to soften the ground for a faction of Republicans to abandon Trump and jettison him from the party, it had become increasingly clear that no such coalition was emerging.

When his fellow Kentuckian Sen. Rand Paul lodged a constitutional objection to the proceeding minutes after the Senate convened as a court of impeachment, McConnell voted with the vast majority of his conference in favor of the challenge.

It seemed to be a recognition that Republicans were not so keen to move on from Trump, whether out of fear of his promises of retribution and his overwhelming popularity with the party’s core supporters, or out of a belief that the fight was simply not worth having.

Democrats feared something more conspiratorial, pointing out that it was McConnell who, as majority leader, refused Democrats’ entreaties to begin the impeachment trial two weeks ago, when Trump was still president. On Tuesday, the Republican leader turned around and sided with Paul’s argument that trying a former president was unconstitutional.

McConnell made no public comment about his views of the vote nor did he speak up on the matter during a private Republican luncheon beforehand, according to people familiar with the session.

The showdown caught many senators off guard on a day that they expected to be devoted largely to the carefully scripted ceremony and logistics of a trial.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Senate president pro tempore, was sworn in as the presiding officer and then asked all 100 senators to take an oath to administer “impartial justice” during the trial. Senators were warned by the sergeant-at-arms “on pain of imprisonment” to remain silent.

It was then that Paul, an outspoken defender of Trump, lodged his formal objection.

“Private citizens don’t get impeached," Paul had said a short time earlier, calling the trial "deranged" and vindictive. "Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, quickly moved to shut down the request.

“The theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis,” Schumer said. “It has been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum.”

The Senate has clearly taken that position in the past. In 1876, as the House was preparing to impeach him on corruption charges, William Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, hurried to the White House, where he tendered his resignation in tears just before Congress could act. The House proceeded anyway, and when the case arrived in the Senate, a majority of the body decided that it retained jurisdiction to hear it, notwithstanding Belknap’s departure from office.

Support for a constitutional argument against holding the trial had been growing in the Senate in recent days, particularly among Republicans who showed little interest in mounting any substantive defense of Trump’s conduct. But the overwhelming level of Republican support exceeded what almost anyone was expecting.

Paul declared victory, saying, “Forty-five votes means the impeachment trial is dead on arrival.”

Murkowski, who has praised the House’s move to impeach and called Trump’s actions “unlawful,” reluctantly agreed. She told reporters that she feared that it would be impossible for most of her Republican colleagues to truly consider supporting a conviction after they had put themselves on record arguing that the trial should not even take place.

“That’s why I thought it was a little unfortunate that we had this very spontaneous vote on an extraordinarily significant matter without the considered debate and analysis,” she said. “People had to make really quick decisions.”

But other Republicans said their votes to uphold Paul’s objection should not be read as opposition to hearing the case against Trump.

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio said that he voted with Paul because he wanted a “fulsome discussion” on the issue of constitutionality, not necessarily to kill the trial.

“I’ve not made my mind up,” he said. “I’m a juror.”

He and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the Republican whip, suggested McConnell might feel the same way.

“I don’t think it binds anybody once the trial starts,” Thune said.

Far from settled, the argument over constitutionality will reappear when the trial reconvenes in February, when senators may seek to use it as justification for voting to acquit. The House managers have already begun preparing a constitutional justification for proceeding, and Trump’s lawyers will be asked to argue the opposite as a key plank of their defense.

The debate arises from the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly discuss impeachments of former officials or instruct Congress how to handle a case like Trump’s, in which the president was impeached while still in office but was not put on trial until after his term expired.

Senate Republicans have embraced a legal theory that argues that the document’s silence means the Senate does not have authority to try former officials whatsoever, even if the first stage of the process, impeachment, took place before they left.

Just before the vote, McConnell had invited Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, to speak about the constitutional debate at the regularly scheduled Republican luncheon. Turley has taken a more nuanced position than some who argue trying a former official is strictly unconstitutional. He argues instead that it is “constitutionally unsound” to proceed and could set a dangerous precedent whereby a Congress of one party could go about charging and punishing the leaders of another at whim.

But other leading constitutional scholars say that view is backward, and a trial of a former official — particularly one who just left office — is entirely consistent with the framers’ intentions to hold public officials accountable. If it was not, they argue, officials could routinely commit high crimes and misdemeanors in their final weeks and months in office, confident they would avoid punishment.

“If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote,” a group of 150 prominent legal scholars, including a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, wrote last week. “The framers did not design the Constitution’s checks and balances to be so easily undermined. History supports a reading of the Constitution that allows Congress to impeach, try, convict and disqualify former officers.”

Senate Republicans rallied Tuesday against trying former President Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” at the Capitol, with only five members of his party joining Democrats in a vote to go forward with his impeachment trial.

Senate Republicans rallied Tuesday against trying former President Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” at the Capitol, with only five members of his party joining Democrats in a vote to go forward with his impeachment trial. By a vote of 55-45, the Senate narrowly killed a Republican effort to dismiss the proceeding as unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office. But the numbers showed that loyal Republicans are again poised to spare him from conviction, this time despite his role in stirring up a mob that violently targeted lawmakers and the vice president Jan. 6 as Congress met to finalize the election. “I think it’s pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted,” said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the five Republicans who voted to proceed to trial. “Just do the math.” It would take two-thirds of senators — 67 votes — to attain a conviction, meaning 17 Republicans would have to cross party lines to side with Democrats in finding Trump guilty. If they did, an additional vote to disqualify him from ever holding office again would take a simple majority. Aside from Collins, the only Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to reject the constitutional objection and proceed were Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania. All five had previously said they were open to hearing the House’s impeachment case, which was adopted in a bipartisan vote a week after the attack. With the facts of the case still spilling forth and the meat of the trial delayed for two weeks, senators could change their views. Several Republicans who voted Tuesday to uphold the constitutional challenge, which would have effectively killed the trial, rushed afterward to clarify that they remained open-minded about the trial, which next convenes Feb. 9. In the weeks since the attack, Trump has made no apology for his actions, including spreading falsehoods about election fraud and urging his supporters gathered outside the White House on Jan. 6 to march to the Capitol, confront members of Congress formalizing his election loss and “fight like hell.” But most agreed that whatever window of possibility there had been for bipartisan condemnation of Trump by lawmakers who were evacuated from the Capitol amid the deadly assault was closing fast, as Republicans were reminded once again of Trump’s remarkable hold on their party and the risks of crossing him. The 10 House Republicans who broke with their party to support the impeachment charge are already facing an intense backlash, both at home and in Washington. It appeared that Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, was among those making such a calculation. He had twice signaled in recent days — through advisers and then in a letter to colleagues — that he was open to convicting a former president he privately disdains, and he publicly asserted last week that Trump had “provoked” the mob. But if McConnell was trying to soften the ground for a faction of Republicans to abandon Trump and jettison him from the party, it had become increasingly clear that no such coalition was emerging. When his fellow Kentuckian Sen. Rand Paul lodged a constitutional objection to the proceeding minutes after the Senate convened as a court of impeachment, McConnell voted with the vast majority of his conference in favor of the challenge. It seemed to be a recognition that Republicans were not so keen to move on from Trump, whether out of fear of his promises of retribution and his overwhelming popularity with the party’s core supporters, or out of a belief that the fight was simply not worth having. Democrats feared something more conspiratorial, pointing out that it was McConnell who, as majority leader, refused Democrats’ entreaties to begin the impeachment trial two weeks ago, when Trump was still president. On Tuesday, the Republican leader turned around and sided with Paul’s argument that trying a former president was unconstitutional. McConnell made no public comment about his views of the vote nor did he speak up on the matter during a private Republican luncheon beforehand, according to people familiar with the session. The showdown caught many senators off guard on a day that they expected to be devoted largely to the carefully scripted ceremony and logistics of a trial. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Senate president pro tempore, was sworn in as the presiding officer and then asked all 100 senators to take an oath to administer “impartial justice” during the trial. Senators were warned by the sergeant-at-arms “on pain of imprisonment” to remain silent. It was then that Paul, an outspoken defender of Trump, lodged his formal objection. “Private citizens don’t get impeached," Paul had said a short time earlier, calling the trial "deranged" and vindictive. "Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office.” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, quickly moved to shut down the request. “The theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis,” Schumer said. “It has been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum.” The Senate has clearly taken that position in the past. In 1876, as the House was preparing to impeach him on corruption charges, William Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, hurried to the White House, where he tendered his resignation in tears just before Congress could act. The House proceeded anyway, and when the case arrived in the Senate, a majority of the body decided that it retained jurisdiction to hear it, notwithstanding Belknap’s departure from office. Support for a constitutional argument against holding the trial had been growing in the Senate in recent days, particularly among Republicans who showed little interest in mounting any substantive defense of Trump’s conduct. But the overwhelming level of Republican support exceeded what almost anyone was expecting. Paul declared victory, saying, “Forty-five votes means the impeachment trial is dead on arrival.” Murkowski, who has praised the House’s move to impeach and called Trump’s actions “unlawful,” reluctantly agreed. She told reporters that she feared that it would be impossible for most of her Republican colleagues to truly consider supporting a conviction after they had put themselves on record arguing that the trial should not even take place. “That’s why I thought it was a little unfortunate that we had this very spontaneous vote on an extraordinarily significant matter without the considered debate and analysis,” she said. “People had to make really quick decisions.” But other Republicans said their votes to uphold Paul’s objection should not be read as opposition to hearing the case against Trump. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio said that he voted with Paul because he wanted a “fulsome discussion” on the issue of constitutionality, not necessarily to kill the trial. “I’ve not made my mind up,” he said. “I’m a juror.” He and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the Republican whip, suggested McConnell might feel the same way. “I don’t think it binds anybody once the trial starts,” Thune said. Far from settled, the argument over constitutionality will reappear when the trial reconvenes in February, when senators may seek to use it as justification for voting to acquit. The House managers have already begun preparing a constitutional justification for proceeding, and Trump’s lawyers will be asked to argue the opposite as a key plank of their defense. The debate arises from the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly discuss impeachments of former officials or instruct Congress how to handle a case like Trump’s, in which the president was impeached while still in office but was not put on trial until after his term expired. Senate Republicans have embraced a legal theory that argues that the document’s silence means the Senate does not have authority to try former officials whatsoever, even if the first stage of the process, impeachment, took place before they left. Just before the vote, McConnell had invited Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, to speak about the constitutional debate at the regularly scheduled Republican luncheon. Turley has taken a more nuanced position than some who argue trying a former official is strictly unconstitutional. He argues instead that it is “constitutionally unsound” to proceed and could set a dangerous precedent whereby a Congress of one party could go about charging and punishing the leaders of another at whim. But other leading constitutional scholars say that view is backward, and a trial of a former official — particularly one who just left office — is entirely consistent with the framers’ intentions to hold public officials accountable. If it was not, they argue, officials could routinely commit high crimes and misdemeanors in their final weeks and months in office, confident they would avoid punishment. “If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote,” a group of 150 prominent legal scholars, including a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, wrote last week. “The framers did not design the Constitution’s checks and balances to be so easily undermined. History supports a reading of the Constitution that allows Congress to impeach, try, convict and disqualify former officers.”

Republicans rally against impeachment trial, signaling likely acquittal for Trump

US Democrats' efforts to convict Donald Trump at his impeachment trial suffered a fresh blow Tuesday when almost all Republican senators backed dismissing the case, underlining the former president's continuing hold over the party.

The motion failed after all 50 Democrats and only five Republicans in the Senate did not support the push to throw out the case before the trial has begun.

The result confirmed Democrats will struggle to persuade 17 Republican senators -- the number needed for the required two-thirds majority -- to vote to convict Trump.

Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky, raised a point of order to hold a vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial as Trump has left office.

Democrats then called for a vote to kill the point of order, winning 55-45.

Paul said afterwards "that 45 Senators agreed that this sham of a 'trial' is unconstitutional... This 'trial' is dead on arrival in the Senate."

Patrick Leahy, the 80-year-old senator presiding over the trial, was hospitalized after Tuesday's proceedings during which he sounded hoarse and unwell as lawmakers were sworn in as jurors.

"The Attending Physician recommended that he be taken to a local hospital for observation, where he is now, and where he is being evaluated," his spokesman said.

Leahy, who was elected in 1974, is presiding as he is the senior senator of the party with the majority in the Senate, currently the Democrats.

The House of Representatives on Monday presented a single article of impeachment to the upper chamber accusing Trump of inciting the storming of the Capitol earlier this month, setting in motion the first-ever impeachment trial of a former president.

The trial of Trump, who was impeached by the Democratic-majority House for an unprecedented second time, is to begin the week of February 8.

Trump -- winner of 74 million votes in his loss to Biden on November 3 and reportedly sitting on some $70 million in campaign funds -- wants Republican senators to consider their own futures before they dare cross him.

Trump's main way of applying pressure while out of office is to threaten disloyal legislators with support for their challengers in party primary votes ahead of the 2022 midterms.

Trump's endorsement on Monday of his former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her bid to become governor of Arkansas was the first flexing of political muscle.

US Democrats' efforts to convict Donald Trump at his impeachment trial suffered a fresh blow Tuesday when almost all Republican senators backed dismissing the case, underlining the former president's continuing hold over the party.

US Democrats' efforts to convict Donald Trump at his impeachment trial suffered a fresh blow Tuesday when almost all Republican senators backed dismissing the case, underlining the former president's continuing hold over the party. The motion failed after all 50 Democrats and only five Republicans in the Senate did not support the push to throw out the case before the trial has begun. The result confirmed Democrats will struggle to persuade 17 Republican senators -- the number needed for the required two-thirds majority -- to vote to convict Trump. Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky, raised a point of order to hold a vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial as Trump has left office. Democrats then called for a vote to kill the point of order, winning 55-45. Paul said afterwards "that 45 Senators agreed that this sham of a 'trial' is unconstitutional... This 'trial' is dead on arrival in the Senate." Patrick Leahy, the 80-year-old senator presiding over the trial, was hospitalized after Tuesday's proceedings during which he sounded hoarse and unwell as lawmakers were sworn in as jurors. "The Attending Physician recommended that he be taken to a local hospital for observation, where he is now, and where he is being evaluated," his spokesman said. Leahy, who was elected in 1974, is presiding as he is the senior senator of the party with the majority in the Senate, currently the Democrats. The House of Representatives on Monday presented a single article of impeachment to the upper chamber accusing Trump of inciting the storming of the Capitol earlier this month, setting in motion the first-ever impeachment trial of a former president. The trial of Trump, who was impeached by the Democratic-majority House for an unprecedented second time, is to begin the week of February 8. Trump -- winner of 74 million votes in his loss to Biden on November 3 and reportedly sitting on some $70 million in campaign funds -- wants Republican senators to consider their own futures before they dare cross him. Trump's main way of applying pressure while out of office is to threaten disloyal legislators with support for their challengers in party primary votes ahead of the 2022 midterms. Trump's endorsement on Monday of his former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her bid to become governor of Arkansas was the first flexing of political muscle.

Republican senators signal opposition to Donald Trump impeachment

Republicans indicated on Monday that they intended to put up a fight in the Senate trial of former US President Donald Trump after his impeachment. Senate Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected on Monday to send senators a single article of impeachment passed in House of Representatives. This will be the first-ever impeachment trial of a former president.

As both sides prepared for what is expected to be a relatively quick trial, senior Republicans pushed back with both political and constitutional arguments, raising doubts that Democrats, who control 50 seats in the 100-seat chamber, can secure the 17 Republican votes needed to convict.

"I think the trial is stupid. I think it's counterproductive. We already have a flaming fire in this country and it's like taking a bunch of gasoline and pouring it on top of the fire," Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told&nbsp; "Fox News Sunday."

He acknowledged that Trump -- who had urged thousands of his supporters to flock to Washington and protest the congressional certification of Biden's victory -- "bears some responsibility for what happened."

But to "stir it up again" would be bad for the country, said Rubio, a presidential candidate beaten by Trump in the 2016 primary.

Constitutional question

Other Republicans argued that the Senate has no authority to put a private citizen -- as Trump now is -- on trial.

Senator Mike Rounds told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a former president.&nbsp;

"There are other things we'd rather be working on," including confirming more of Biden's cabinet nominees, he said.

But Senator Mitt Romney, the Republicans' 2012 presidential candidate and a frequent Trump critic, told CNN that "the preponderance of legal opinion is that an impeachment trial after a president has left office is constitutional. I believe that's the case."

The Utah Republican -- the only member of his party to vote to convict Trump in his first impeachment trial -- hinted that he may be leaning the same way now.

He said he believed "that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense. If not, what is?"

Hands-off approach

Biden himself has publicly taken a hands-off approach, eager to put Trump in the rear-view mirror and seek quick progress on fighting the coronavirus pandemic and reviving a devastated economy.

Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said the president "believes that it's up to the Senate and Congress to determine how they will hold the former president accountable."

As Democrats worked to prepare the case against Trump, one of those who will present it in the Senate -- Representative Madeleine Dean -- said she hoped it would move quickly.

"I would expect it would go faster" than the 2020 impeachment trial, which lasted 21 days, she told CNN.

Dean said she was in the House chamber during the "terrifying moment" when the invading mob began pounding on its doors, chanting: "Hang Vice President Pence." 
She said Democrats would demand accountability for Trump's role.

"It is an extraordinarily heinous presidential crime," she said.

Republicans indicated on Monday that they intended to put up a fight in the Senate trial of former US President Donald Trump after his impeachment. Senate Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected on Monday to send senators a single article of impeachment passed in House of Representatives.

Republicans indicated on Monday that they intended to put up a fight in the Senate trial of former US President Donald Trump after his impeachment. Senate Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected on Monday to send senators a single article of impeachment passed in House of Representatives. This will be the first-ever impeachment trial of a former president. As both sides prepared for what is expected to be a relatively quick trial, senior Republicans pushed back with both political and constitutional arguments, raising doubts that Democrats, who control 50 seats in the 100-seat chamber, can secure the 17 Republican votes needed to convict. "I think the trial is stupid. I think it's counterproductive. We already have a flaming fire in this country and it's like taking a bunch of gasoline and pouring it on top of the fire," Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told "Fox News Sunday." He acknowledged that Trump -- who had urged thousands of his supporters to flock to Washington and protest the congressional certification of Biden's victory -- "bears some responsibility for what happened." But to "stir it up again" would be bad for the country, said Rubio, a presidential candidate beaten by Trump in the 2016 primary. Constitutional question Other Republicans argued that the Senate has no authority to put a private citizen -- as Trump now is -- on trial. Senator Mike Rounds told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a former president. "There are other things we'd rather be working on," including confirming more of Biden's cabinet nominees, he said. But Senator Mitt Romney, the Republicans' 2012 presidential candidate and a frequent Trump critic, told CNN that "the preponderance of legal opinion is that an impeachment trial after a president has left office is constitutional. I believe that's the case." The Utah Republican -- the only member of his party to vote to convict Trump in his first impeachment trial -- hinted that he may be leaning the same way now. He said he believed "that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense. If not, what is?" Hands-off approach Biden himself has publicly taken a hands-off approach, eager to put Trump in the rear-view mirror and seek quick progress on fighting the coronavirus pandemic and reviving a devastated economy. Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said the president "believes that it's up to the Senate and Congress to determine how they will hold the former president accountable." As Democrats worked to prepare the case against Trump, one of those who will present it in the Senate -- Representative Madeleine Dean -- said she hoped it would move quickly. "I would expect it would go faster" than the 2020 impeachment trial, which lasted 21 days, she told CNN. Dean said she was in the House chamber during the "terrifying moment" when the invading mob began pounding on its doors, chanting: "Hang Vice President Pence." She said Democrats would demand accountability for Trump's role. "It is an extraordinarily heinous presidential crime," she said.

Republicans to put up resistance to Trump Senate trial

Seventeen Republican Party members of US House of Representatives on Wednesday committed to work with US President-elect Joe Biden just before his swearing-in ceremony. Republican House Representative &nbsp;Beth Van Duyne representing Texas sent a letter to Joe Biden to this effect. The letter is jointly signed by 16 other Republican representatives. All of them said that they looked forward to working with Biden administration.

Some of the representatives who signed the letter include Madison Cawthorn, Barry Moore, Burgess Owens, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Peter Meijer, Ashley Hinson and Carlos A. Gimenez, reported CNN."We firmly believe that what unites us as Americans is far greater than anything that may ever divide us," they wrote.&nbsp;

"In that spirit, we hope that we can rise above the partisan fray to negotiate meaningful change for Americans across the nation and maintain the United States` standing as the best country in the world," read the letter."The constituencies we represent showcase the variety of thought across our great nation... Americans are tired of the partisan gridlock and simply want to see leaders from both sides of the aisle work on issues important to American families, workers, and businesses," CNN quoted the letter.

The letter is sure sign of growing support Biden is getting support across parties.

2020 US Presidential Election was a tumultuous one. Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump but Trump continued to level allegations of election fraud without presenting any evidence.

On Wednesday, Trump made his last speech as US President at Joint Air Force Base Andrews. In his speech, Trump made no concession but said that he wished "great luck and great success." to next administration. He did not take Biden's name.

Although sections of the Republican Party appeared to rally behind Trump and his claims of election fraud. But as Trump campaign suffered defeat after defeat in courts across US, including US Supreme Court, the support began to waver.

And with the attack on the Capitol Building on January 6, the domestic, as well as the global opinion, turned critical of Trump. In days leading up to the inauguration, influential Republicans like Mitch McConnel denounced Trump and unequivocally said that it was his incitement that led to Capitol Building attack.

Seventeen Republican Party members of US House of Representatives on Wednesday committed to work with US President-elect Joe Biden just before his swearing-in ceremony.

Seventeen Republican Party members of US House of Representatives on Wednesday committed to work with US President-elect Joe Biden just before his swearing-in ceremony. Republican House Representative Beth Van Duyne representing Texas sent a letter to Joe Biden to this effect. The letter is jointly signed by 16 other Republican representatives. All of them said that they looked forward to working with Biden administration. Some of the representatives who signed the letter include Madison Cawthorn, Barry Moore, Burgess Owens, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Peter Meijer, Ashley Hinson and Carlos A. Gimenez, reported CNN."We firmly believe that what unites us as Americans is far greater than anything that may ever divide us," they wrote. "In that spirit, we hope that we can rise above the partisan fray to negotiate meaningful change for Americans across the nation and maintain the United States` standing as the best country in the world," read the letter."The constituencies we represent showcase the variety of thought across our great nation... Americans are tired of the partisan gridlock and simply want to see leaders from both sides of the aisle work on issues important to American families, workers, and businesses," CNN quoted the letter. The letter is sure sign of growing support Biden is getting support across parties. 2020 US Presidential Election was a tumultuous one. Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump but Trump continued to level allegations of election fraud without presenting any evidence. On Wednesday, Trump made his last speech as US President at Joint Air Force Base Andrews. In his speech, Trump made no concession but said that he wished "great luck and great success." to next administration. He did not take Biden's name. Although sections of the Republican Party appeared to rally behind Trump and his claims of election fraud. But as Trump campaign suffered defeat after defeat in courts across US, including US Supreme Court, the support began to waver. And with the attack on the Capitol Building on January 6, the domestic, as well as the global opinion, turned critical of Trump. In days leading up to the inauguration, influential Republicans like Mitch McConnel denounced Trump and unequivocally said that it was his incitement that led to Capitol Building attack.

Seventeen Republican House representatives commit to work with Biden

Donald Trump impeachment: These 10 Republicans voted against US president

Democrats could also use an impeachment trial to push through a vote blocking Trump from running for office again.

WION Fineprint: Is the republican party ditching Trumpism?

Much has been made of the royal proportions of Josh O’Connor’s ears: Like those of Prince Charles, whom he plays in 'The Crown,' they stick out.

But ears do not a king-in-waiting make. Rather, the actor concluded, it’s his posture.

Mostly upright when he debuted in Season 3, playing Charles as a Cambridge student, O’Connor has since charted the prince’s emotional state through a progressively pronounced stoop, inching his neck forward as expectations from the House of Windsor gnawed at Charles’ contentment. By the time Mummy — Queen Elizabeth II, played by Olivia Colman — places the coronet upon her son’s head at his investiture as the Prince of Wales, you wonder if he has the strength to support it.

“It has to do with the more weight on his shoulders, the more it brings him down, the more his neck comes out,” O’Connor said. “By the end he’s pathetic, sort of like a crumpled man.”

It gets even worse in Season 4 of 'The Crown,' now on Netflix, which brings a less sympathetic Charles, surly and sniveling as he bridles at his marriage to the limelight-stealing Princess Diana (Emma Corrin) while not so secretly yearning for Camilla Parker Bowles (Emerald Fennell), the love that never quite got away. (And who will presumably marry Charles in some future season, as she did in real life in 2005.)

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-the-crown-season-4-review-show-delivers-its-best-as-diana-thatcher-take-away-the-queens-thunder-343648">'The Crown' season 4 review: Show delivers its best as Diana, Thatcher take away the Queen's thunder</a>

For O’Connor, 30, this season is the end of his run in a role he never really sought. A self-described liberal left-winger, the actor declined to read for Charles when he was initially asked.

“I thought, I can’t add anything to this,” he said in a video call from London. “I’m a republican. I’m not interested in the royal family.”

But he eventually acquiesced, and Peter Morgan, the show’s creator and writer, presented him with a scene. In it, Charles compares himself to a character in Saul Bellow’s “Dangling Man,” waiting to be drafted because going to war will give his life meaning.

“And then he says, ‘I’m essentially waiting for my mother to die in order for my life to take meaning,’” O’Connor said. “I read that line and I was like, ‘Well, that’s enough to get your teeth into.’”

The current season finds the prince increasingly exasperated with these circumstances, in terms of both the unhappy marriage that was thrust upon him and his continuing insignificance within the realm.

“We were telling a kind of unheard, voiceless Charles,” O’Connor said. “But that’s the beauty of it, that’s where he struggles: He doesn’t feel listened to.”

Charles isn’t imagining things. As his mother icily informs him in one gutting encounter, no one wants to hear his voice. &lt;em&gt;No one.&lt;/em&gt;

O’Connor and Colman had a running joke that all of their scenes together were variations on the same sad theme. “Charles comes in, says, ‘Mummy, I need to talk to you,’ and she says, ‘No,’ and then he leaves,” he explained. Over and over.

As the queen, Colman said, “my job was to be quite strong, but I found it quite hard not to give him a cuddle.” Method actors they were not. “The second they’d say cut, we’d go: ‘Should we have a cup of tea? There are biscuits on the craft table!’ We’d much rather have a giggle.”

“He’s one of the most beautiful actors to work opposite,” she added. “He’s out there with the greats, in my mind.”

O’Connor grew up happily as the middle of three brothers in Cheltenham, a spa town on the edge of the Cotswolds. He trained at the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, whose alums include two of his idols, Pete Postlethwaite and Daniel Day-Lewis.

“Maybe it was a match made in heaven, I don’t know,” he said. “But I did love it.”

Not long after graduation, small TV roles in “Peaky Blinders” and “Ripper Street” trickled in. Eventually he snagged a lead as the oldest son in “The Durrells in Corfu,” a period drama by ITV and Masterpiece, about a British family’s move to the titular Greek island in the 1930s.

But his real breakthrough came in Francis Lee’s 2017 feature debut, “God’s Own Country.” O’Connor is scarcely recognizable as Johnny Saxby, a gay, brooding binge drinker toiling on his family’s Yorkshire farm, whose calcified heart is pried open by a Romanian migrant worker.

Lee had invited O’Connor to audition based on a photograph. “I liked his ears a lot,” he said. But the tape O’Connor sent was worrisome.

“He delivered this incredibly brilliant portrayal of an emotionally repressed and difficult man, and I thought he must just be playing himself,” he said. “And that concerned me slightly.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/the-crown-season-6-heres-everything-to-know-about-the-final-season-343447">'The Crown' Season 6: Here's everything to know about the final season</a>

When the two finally met, Lee was shocked “because in walks this incredibly funny, upbeat, polite, middle-class boy, which was a million miles away from the character that he was going to play,” he said. “He’s one of those rare actors that is a real shape-shifter.”

“God’s Own Country” earned O’Connor a British Independent Film Award for best actor in 2017. Two years later, he won another for “Only You,” about a couple struggling with infertility.

O’Connor debuted in “The Crown” in late 2019. Morgan can’t recall having considered anyone else for this iteration of Charles — or noticing O’Connor’s ears, although he imagines he must have.

Rather, “I was drawn to his sensitivity and the fact that he was complex but likable, and I just felt instantly intrigued,” Morgan said. “And the minute he started doing some readings for us, it was a no-brainer. He was a list of one.”

O’Connor had watched “The Crown” in support of his good friend Vanessa Kirby, who played Princess Margaret in Seasons 1 and 2. “And then I became a loyal fan,” he said. While he has difficulty aligning his belief in a classless society with the royal family, he doesn’t think “The Crown” glamorizes them, despite its pageantry and splendor.

“What Peter does is he strips all that back,” he said. “It’s about humans who struggle and have very odd relationships with their parents and power and politics. That’s the juice.

“But I think you can have those beliefs and have great respect and affection and love even for these people. I think the queen is an extraordinary woman. Time after time, lots of men have failed, and this one woman in power has been consistent and remained dutiful and generally apolitical.

“In that sense, I have huge respect for her — and for Charles, to be honest. I mean, Charles is another level of someone who’s literally been waiting his entire life for this moment that still hasn’t come.”

Much has been made of the royal proportions of Josh O’Connor’s ears: Like those of Prince Charles, whom he plays in 'The Crown,' they stick out. But ears do not a king-in-waiting make.

Much has been made of the royal proportions of Josh O’Connor’s ears: Like those of Prince Charles, whom he plays in 'The Crown,' they stick out. But ears do not a king-in-waiting make. Rather, the actor concluded, it’s his posture. Mostly upright when he debuted in Season 3, playing Charles as a Cambridge student, O’Connor has since charted the prince’s emotional state through a progressively pronounced stoop, inching his neck forward as expectations from the House of Windsor gnawed at Charles’ contentment. By the time Mummy — Queen Elizabeth II, played by Olivia Colman — places the coronet upon her son’s head at his investiture as the Prince of Wales, you wonder if he has the strength to support it. “It has to do with the more weight on his shoulders, the more it brings him down, the more his neck comes out,” O’Connor said. “By the end he’s pathetic, sort of like a crumpled man.” It gets even worse in Season 4 of 'The Crown,' now on Netflix, which brings a less sympathetic Charles, surly and sniveling as he bridles at his marriage to the limelight-stealing Princess Diana (Emma Corrin) while not so secretly yearning for Camilla Parker Bowles (Emerald Fennell), the love that never quite got away. (And who will presumably marry Charles in some future season, as she did in real life in 2005.) 'The Crown' season 4 review: Show delivers its best as Diana, Thatcher take away the Queen's thunder For O’Connor, 30, this season is the end of his run in a role he never really sought. A self-described liberal left-winger, the actor declined to read for Charles when he was initially asked. “I thought, I can’t add anything to this,” he said in a video call from London. “I’m a republican. I’m not interested in the royal family.” But he eventually acquiesced, and Peter Morgan, the show’s creator and writer, presented him with a scene. In it, Charles compares himself to a character in Saul Bellow’s “Dangling Man,” waiting to be drafted because going to war will give his life meaning. “And then he says, ‘I’m essentially waiting for my mother to die in order for my life to take meaning,’” O’Connor said. “I read that line and I was like, ‘Well, that’s enough to get your teeth into.’” The current season finds the prince increasingly exasperated with these circumstances, in terms of both the unhappy marriage that was thrust upon him and his continuing insignificance within the realm. “We were telling a kind of unheard, voiceless Charles,” O’Connor said. “But that’s the beauty of it, that’s where he struggles: He doesn’t feel listened to.” Charles isn’t imagining things. As his mother icily informs him in one gutting encounter, no one wants to hear his voice. No one. O’Connor and Colman had a running joke that all of their scenes together were variations on the same sad theme. “Charles comes in, says, ‘Mummy, I need to talk to you,’ and she says, ‘No,’ and then he leaves,” he explained. Over and over. As the queen, Colman said, “my job was to be quite strong, but I found it quite hard not to give him a cuddle.” Method actors they were not. “The second they’d say cut, we’d go: ‘Should we have a cup of tea? There are biscuits on the craft table!’ We’d much rather have a giggle.” “He’s one of the most beautiful actors to work opposite,” she added. “He’s out there with the greats, in my mind.” O’Connor grew up happily as the middle of three brothers in Cheltenham, a spa town on the edge of the Cotswolds. He trained at the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, whose alums include two of his idols, Pete Postlethwaite and Daniel Day-Lewis. “Maybe it was a match made in heaven, I don’t know,” he said. “But I did love it.” Not long after graduation, small TV roles in “Peaky Blinders” and “Ripper Street” trickled in. Eventually he snagged a lead as the oldest son in “The Durrells in Corfu,” a period drama by ITV and Masterpiece, about a British family’s move to the titular Greek island in the 1930s. But his real breakthrough came in Francis Lee’s 2017 feature debut, “God’s Own Country.” O’Connor is scarcely recognizable as Johnny Saxby, a gay, brooding binge drinker toiling on his family’s Yorkshire farm, whose calcified heart is pried open by a Romanian migrant worker. Lee had invited O’Connor to audition based on a photograph. “I liked his ears a lot,” he said. But the tape O’Connor sent was worrisome. “He delivered this incredibly brilliant portrayal of an emotionally repressed and difficult man, and I thought he must just be playing himself,” he said. “And that concerned me slightly.” 'The Crown' Season 6: Here's everything to know about the final season When the two finally met, Lee was shocked “because in walks this incredibly funny, upbeat, polite, middle-class boy, which was a million miles away from the character that he was going to play,” he said. “He’s one of those rare actors that is a real shape-shifter.” “God’s Own Country” earned O’Connor a British Independent Film Award for best actor in 2017. Two years later, he won another for “Only You,” about a couple struggling with infertility. O’Connor debuted in “The Crown” in late 2019. Morgan can’t recall having considered anyone else for this iteration of Charles — or noticing O’Connor’s ears, although he imagines he must have. Rather, “I was drawn to his sensitivity and the fact that he was complex but likable, and I just felt instantly intrigued,” Morgan said. “And the minute he started doing some readings for us, it was a no-brainer. He was a list of one.” O’Connor had watched “The Crown” in support of his good friend Vanessa Kirby, who played Princess Margaret in Seasons 1 and 2. “And then I became a loyal fan,” he said. While he has difficulty aligning his belief in a classless society with the royal family, he doesn’t think “The Crown” glamorizes them, despite its pageantry and splendor. “What Peter does is he strips all that back,” he said. “It’s about humans who struggle and have very odd relationships with their parents and power and politics. That’s the juice. “But I think you can have those beliefs and have great respect and affection and love even for these people. I think the queen is an extraordinary woman. Time after time, lots of men have failed, and this one woman in power has been consistent and remained dutiful and generally apolitical. “In that sense, I have huge respect for her — and for Charles, to be honest. I mean, Charles is another level of someone who’s literally been waiting his entire life for this moment that still hasn’t come.”

Josh O’Connor didn’t care about 'The Crown' until he became a Prince

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

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

Was Ronald Reagan a kindhearted conservative who remade government and merits his standing as a beloved icon of the Republican Party? Or was he a glorified actor who won election with a coded racist appeal to white voters, setting the stage for the rise of President Donald Trump?

That debate has long absorbed Reagan historians and biographers, particularly these days as Reagan’s legacy seems ever more gauzy when held up against these past four years of the just-defeated president.

And it is now being tackled in “The Reagans,” a four-part documentary on Ronald and Nancy Reagan premiering Sunday on Showtime. It is the work of Matt Tyrnauer, a documentarian whose subjects have included Roy Cohn, fashion designer Valentino and Studio 54.

Tyrnauer grew up in Los Angeles when Reagan was governor of California. As a boy being driven to school by his father, he sat in traffic as the motorcade taking the newly elected president from his home in the Pacific Palisades to a postelection news conference in Century City sped down Sunset Boulevard.

From the second instalment of “The Reagans,” it is clear where Tyrnauer, who began his career as a junior aide in Democratic politics before moving into magazine writing and directing documentaries, comes down on Reagan’s place in the nation’s fraught history of race and politics. The episode opens with 40-year-old footage of Reagan in Mississippi, affirming his support for “states’ rights” at a county fair filled with white voters.

“The reason I wanted to make this was to show how Reagan in many ways paved the way for Trump — and the Republican Party that has now fallen into Trump’s hands,” he said in a video interview from his Beverly Hills home a week before the president’s defeat was called. “I really thought it was very important to show that the Republican Party, certainly after the 1950s and since the era of this country’s civil rights movement and reckoning, has been on the wrong side of history. And Reagan was right at the center of that.”

Over the course of nearly four hours, the documentary explores Reagan’s boyhood in Illinois and recounts his Hollywood years and the skills he learned as an actor — the bright smile, his affable if slightly inscrutable affect -&nbsp;that made him such a powerful candidate for president. Recalling Reagan’s first screen test, studio head Jack Warner said, in a 1960s interview clip included in the documentary, that the actor’s “personality projected off the screen and into the audience.”

The series offers a portrait of Nancy Reagan as a powerful and manipulative behind-the-scenes player who was essential to her husband’s success. It follows Ronald Reagan’s evolution from a liberal, the son of two Democrats and the former head of the Screen Actors Guild, to a staunch anti-communist conservative.

And it is striking, after this polarizing election and four years of the Trump presidency, to hear Reagan’s tough talk about law and order, to note his 1980 campaign slogan -&nbsp;“Make America Great Again” -&nbsp;and to watch the parallels between a movie star and a reality television star, both of whom knew how to command the attention of the American public and the media.

But more than anything, this documentary is animated by the notion of Reagan as an early practitioner of dog-whistle politics, a member of the generation of politicians who used coded appeals directed at an attuned audience of white voters.

“I believe in states’ rights,” he said in the summer of 1980 at the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, 7 miles from where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. It is a dramatic moment in which he seemingly affirms the power of Southern states to defy a federal government trying to end discrimination: The camera follows as he steps off his campaign plane to be greeted by a grinning Trent Lott, then a senator from Mississippi, and shadows his motorcade winding through crowds of white voters.

To be clear, the idea of Reagan as a politician who swam in the waters of American racism, preparing the way for a Trump presidency, is not a consensus position.

“To me, Reagan is the anti-Trump,” Lou Cannon, a former Washington Post reporter and Reagan biographer who appears in the documentary, said last week. “If you look at Reagan’s presidency, you did not see a career of racial incitement. It’s not a fair rap.

“Reagan is the antithesis of Trump in so many ways,” he added. “He was uniformly courteous and nice and decent to people. Trump, by the way he acts, has made us see that human decency in a political leader is important. Second, he was a compromiser. He always said that he was willing to take half a loaf. He got legislation through because of that.”

Historian Rick Perlstein cautioned against reading too much into the Mississippi speech, arguing that it oversimplified Reagan’s complicated relationship with race.

“Liberals, and I am a proud liberal, are always looking for smoking guns to prove that conservatives are racist,” Perlstein said an interview.

In his new book, “Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980,” Perlstein says the former president’s invocation of states’ rights was halfhearted, buried midway into his speech, and inserted at Lott’s suggestion. (And to what end? Reagan barely squeaked by Jimmy Carter in Mississippi.)

Tyrnauer is not a presence in any of his documentaries, and he is heard only twice in “The Reagans,” asking questions off camera. He builds his case with interviews — Ron Reagan Jr., surviving members of Reagan’s White House, journalists from the era and historians — along with contemporaneous news clips and rare archival film footage.

“What I look for is the obscure stuff, or the angles you never saw,” he said. The documentary opens with behind-the-scenes footage in which Reagan’s advertising team is filming the president speaking in the Oval Office for a 1984 campaign commercial. At the side of the shot, aides look at a stopwatch, impressed that this former actor clocked in for the 60-second advertisement at 57 seconds.

Tyrnauer tracked down a lost documentary about Nancy Reagan from when Reagan was governor, with intimate shots of the new governor and his family moving into their new home in Sacramento, and scenes of Nancy Reagan back in Los Angeles shopping for dog food at the Brentwood Country Mart (and admitting, with obvious chagrin, that she did not have money to pay for it).

Most of all, in making his case against the former president, Tyrnauer draws on footage of Reagan in his early days as a politician, as he likened streets in crime-stricken urban areas to “jungle paths” and talked about “welfare queens” in disparaging what he described as a liberal state.

“What was really astonishing to me was seeing how much film there was of Reagan in the act of dog whistling,” Tyrnauer said. “And some of his dog whistles at the time would be considered foghorns today.”

I met Tyrnauer while covering the 1988 presidential campaign; he was an assistant at the Boston headquarters of Michael Dukakis, the Democrat who would lose to George H.W. Bush. Tyrnauer left politics to become a writer at Vanity Fair before turning to directing documentaries. His first, "Valentino: The Last Emperor,” released in 2009, was based on a profile he wrote in Vanity Fair. His Cohn documentary, “Where’s My Roy Cohn?,” explored the relationship between Cohn and one of his most famous law clients, Donald Trump.

Needless to say, it’s an eclectic portfolio.

The Reagan documentary would have been challenging at any time — the Reagans are well-plowed ground. It may have been 32 years since the end of his presidency, but he is remembered by millions of Americans, defined for many of them by the upbeat advertisement that opened with the words “It’s morning again in America,” which helped lift him to a landslide reelection over Walter Mondale in 1984. Nancy Reagan was, apart from Hillary Clinton, arguably the most powerful and polarizing first lady of the past 75 years.

But this project was complicated by the onset of the pandemic. Tyrnauer and his staff were forced to work from their homes. Archives, and in particular the files and videos collected by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, abruptly shut down.

Interviews became far more complicated. Most of the subjects are, not surprisingly, older and thus wary of letting a film crew into their homes. Tyrnauer finished his interview with Lesley Stahl, the Reagan White House reporter for CBS, a week before she was hospitalized with COVID-19. Tyrnauer, changing gears, conducted half of the project’s 30 interviews by video from his home, sending in local film crews.

Many top figures in Reagan’s world sat down for interviews, including James Baker III, Reagan’s chief of staff; George Shultz, secretary of state; and Colin Powell, national security adviser. The Reagans’ son, Ron, is a prominent voice throughout the series, chatty and candid. But their daughter, Patti Davis, is notably absent. (Tyrnauer said she was working on another project.)

Stahl, in her interview, describes the allure this first family had over the media as she recalls the first time he stepped into the White House briefing room to talk to the press.

“We all kind of melted,” she says. “We were puddles on the floor.”

Most jarring, for anyone looking for parallels between the Trump and Reagan years, is the appearance by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The coronavirus crisis is not his first experience with either a pandemic or a president who failed to deal with one: Reagan largely ignored the deadly AIDS epidemic during its early years, and the documentary presents this as one of his most consequential failures as president.

“I was very frustrated with seeing an emerging catastrophe, and he wanted nothing to do with it,” Fauci says.

As a rule, Americans’ views of presidents soften with time — Trump may prove to be the exception — and that certainly happened with Reagan. But this documentary invites a reappraisal. It is a harsh portrait of Reagan as a politician and as a president, and it seems likely to reignite old arguments. Tyrnauer argues that Reagan has been protected by historians, Republicans and journalists because of his political success and likability.

“You can listen to podcast after podcast today of respectable historians talking about all of the dog-whistle sins of the past,” Tyrnauer said. “George Wallace comes up, and Richard Nixon comes up with the Southern strategy. And Willie Horton comes up and George H.W. Bush comes up. Reagan is shockingly absent from all those narratives and discussions.

“He was an extraordinarily intuitive politician and ultimately among the most successful of his generation,” Tyrnauer said. “But how is he not held accountable?”

Was Ronald Reagan a kindhearted conservative who remade government and merits his standing as a beloved icon of the Republican Party? Or was he a glorified actor who won election with a coded racist appeal to white voters, setting the stage for the rise of President Donald Trump?

Was Ronald Reagan a kindhearted conservative who remade government and merits his standing as a beloved icon of the Republican Party? Or was he a glorified actor who won election with a coded racist appeal to white voters, setting the stage for the rise of President Donald Trump? That debate has long absorbed Reagan historians and biographers, particularly these days as Reagan’s legacy seems ever more gauzy when held up against these past four years of the just-defeated president. And it is now being tackled in “The Reagans,” a four-part documentary on Ronald and Nancy Reagan premiering Sunday on Showtime. It is the work of Matt Tyrnauer, a documentarian whose subjects have included Roy Cohn, fashion designer Valentino and Studio 54. Tyrnauer grew up in Los Angeles when Reagan was governor of California. As a boy being driven to school by his father, he sat in traffic as the motorcade taking the newly elected president from his home in the Pacific Palisades to a postelection news conference in Century City sped down Sunset Boulevard. From the second instalment of “The Reagans,” it is clear where Tyrnauer, who began his career as a junior aide in Democratic politics before moving into magazine writing and directing documentaries, comes down on Reagan’s place in the nation’s fraught history of race and politics. The episode opens with 40-year-old footage of Reagan in Mississippi, affirming his support for “states’ rights” at a county fair filled with white voters. “The reason I wanted to make this was to show how Reagan in many ways paved the way for Trump — and the Republican Party that has now fallen into Trump’s hands,” he said in a video interview from his Beverly Hills home a week before the president’s defeat was called. “I really thought it was very important to show that the Republican Party, certainly after the 1950s and since the era of this country’s civil rights movement and reckoning, has been on the wrong side of history. And Reagan was right at the center of that.” Over the course of nearly four hours, the documentary explores Reagan’s boyhood in Illinois and recounts his Hollywood years and the skills he learned as an actor — the bright smile, his affable if slightly inscrutable affect - that made him such a powerful candidate for president. Recalling Reagan’s first screen test, studio head Jack Warner said, in a 1960s interview clip included in the documentary, that the actor’s “personality projected off the screen and into the audience.” The series offers a portrait of Nancy Reagan as a powerful and manipulative behind-the-scenes player who was essential to her husband’s success. It follows Ronald Reagan’s evolution from a liberal, the son of two Democrats and the former head of the Screen Actors Guild, to a staunch anti-communist conservative. And it is striking, after this polarizing election and four years of the Trump presidency, to hear Reagan’s tough talk about law and order, to note his 1980 campaign slogan - “Make America Great Again” - and to watch the parallels between a movie star and a reality television star, both of whom knew how to command the attention of the American public and the media. But more than anything, this documentary is animated by the notion of Reagan as an early practitioner of dog-whistle politics, a member of the generation of politicians who used coded appeals directed at an attuned audience of white voters. “I believe in states’ rights,” he said in the summer of 1980 at the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, 7 miles from where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. It is a dramatic moment in which he seemingly affirms the power of Southern states to defy a federal government trying to end discrimination: The camera follows as he steps off his campaign plane to be greeted by a grinning Trent Lott, then a senator from Mississippi, and shadows his motorcade winding through crowds of white voters. To be clear, the idea of Reagan as a politician who swam in the waters of American racism, preparing the way for a Trump presidency, is not a consensus position. “To me, Reagan is the anti-Trump,” Lou Cannon, a former Washington Post reporter and Reagan biographer who appears in the documentary, said last week. “If you look at Reagan’s presidency, you did not see a career of racial incitement. It’s not a fair rap. “Reagan is the antithesis of Trump in so many ways,” he added. “He was uniformly courteous and nice and decent to people. Trump, by the way he acts, has made us see that human decency in a political leader is important. Second, he was a compromiser. He always said that he was willing to take half a loaf. He got legislation through because of that.” Historian Rick Perlstein cautioned against reading too much into the Mississippi speech, arguing that it oversimplified Reagan’s complicated relationship with race. “Liberals, and I am a proud liberal, are always looking for smoking guns to prove that conservatives are racist,” Perlstein said an interview. In his new book, “Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980,” Perlstein says the former president’s invocation of states’ rights was halfhearted, buried midway into his speech, and inserted at Lott’s suggestion. (And to what end? Reagan barely squeaked by Jimmy Carter in Mississippi.) Tyrnauer is not a presence in any of his documentaries, and he is heard only twice in “The Reagans,” asking questions off camera. He builds his case with interviews — Ron Reagan Jr., surviving members of Reagan’s White House, journalists from the era and historians — along with contemporaneous news clips and rare archival film footage. “What I look for is the obscure stuff, or the angles you never saw,” he said. The documentary opens with behind-the-scenes footage in which Reagan’s advertising team is filming the president speaking in the Oval Office for a 1984 campaign commercial. At the side of the shot, aides look at a stopwatch, impressed that this former actor clocked in for the 60-second advertisement at 57 seconds. Tyrnauer tracked down a lost documentary about Nancy Reagan from when Reagan was governor, with intimate shots of the new governor and his family moving into their new home in Sacramento, and scenes of Nancy Reagan back in Los Angeles shopping for dog food at the Brentwood Country Mart (and admitting, with obvious chagrin, that she did not have money to pay for it). Most of all, in making his case against the former president, Tyrnauer draws on footage of Reagan in his early days as a politician, as he likened streets in crime-stricken urban areas to “jungle paths” and talked about “welfare queens” in disparaging what he described as a liberal state. “What was really astonishing to me was seeing how much film there was of Reagan in the act of dog whistling,” Tyrnauer said. “And some of his dog whistles at the time would be considered foghorns today.” I met Tyrnauer while covering the 1988 presidential campaign; he was an assistant at the Boston headquarters of Michael Dukakis, the Democrat who would lose to George H.W. Bush. Tyrnauer left politics to become a writer at Vanity Fair before turning to directing documentaries. His first, "Valentino: The Last Emperor,” released in 2009, was based on a profile he wrote in Vanity Fair. His Cohn documentary, “Where’s My Roy Cohn?,” explored the relationship between Cohn and one of his most famous law clients, Donald Trump. Needless to say, it’s an eclectic portfolio. The Reagan documentary would have been challenging at any time — the Reagans are well-plowed ground. It may have been 32 years since the end of his presidency, but he is remembered by millions of Americans, defined for many of them by the upbeat advertisement that opened with the words “It’s morning again in America,” which helped lift him to a landslide reelection over Walter Mondale in 1984. Nancy Reagan was, apart from Hillary Clinton, arguably the most powerful and polarizing first lady of the past 75 years. But this project was complicated by the onset of the pandemic. Tyrnauer and his staff were forced to work from their homes. Archives, and in particular the files and videos collected by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, abruptly shut down. Interviews became far more complicated. Most of the subjects are, not surprisingly, older and thus wary of letting a film crew into their homes. Tyrnauer finished his interview with Lesley Stahl, the Reagan White House reporter for CBS, a week before she was hospitalized with COVID-19. Tyrnauer, changing gears, conducted half of the project’s 30 interviews by video from his home, sending in local film crews. Many top figures in Reagan’s world sat down for interviews, including James Baker III, Reagan’s chief of staff; George Shultz, secretary of state; and Colin Powell, national security adviser. The Reagans’ son, Ron, is a prominent voice throughout the series, chatty and candid. But their daughter, Patti Davis, is notably absent. (Tyrnauer said she was working on another project.) Stahl, in her interview, describes the allure this first family had over the media as she recalls the first time he stepped into the White House briefing room to talk to the press. “We all kind of melted,” she says. “We were puddles on the floor.” Most jarring, for anyone looking for parallels between the Trump and Reagan years, is the appearance by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The coronavirus crisis is not his first experience with either a pandemic or a president who failed to deal with one: Reagan largely ignored the deadly AIDS epidemic during its early years, and the documentary presents this as one of his most consequential failures as president. “I was very frustrated with seeing an emerging catastrophe, and he wanted nothing to do with it,” Fauci says. As a rule, Americans’ views of presidents soften with time — Trump may prove to be the exception — and that certainly happened with Reagan. But this documentary invites a reappraisal. It is a harsh portrait of Reagan as a politician and as a president, and it seems likely to reignite old arguments. Tyrnauer argues that Reagan has been protected by historians, Republicans and journalists because of his political success and likability. “You can listen to podcast after podcast today of respectable historians talking about all of the dog-whistle sins of the past,” Tyrnauer said. “George Wallace comes up, and Richard Nixon comes up with the Southern strategy. And Willie Horton comes up and George H.W. Bush comes up. Reagan is shockingly absent from all those narratives and discussions. “He was an extraordinarily intuitive politician and ultimately among the most successful of his generation,” Tyrnauer said. “But how is he not held accountable?”

Was Reagan a precursor to Trump? A new documentary says yes

Republicans, buoyed by an unexpectedly strong performance by President Donald Trump in key battlegrounds, grew increasingly confident Wednesday that they could maintain narrow control of the Senate and make a considerable dent in the size of the Democrats’ House majority.

Their chances in the Senate were vastly improved by the come-from-behind victory of Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a New England centrist largely written off as a loss before Election Day. Collins’ resounding performance in a state also carried by former Vice President Joe Biden defied national trends and she avoided a protracted fight involving the state’s ranked-choice voting system by clearing a 50% threshold of support.

Democrats, who had entered the night bullish about their chances, had flipped just two seats, in Colorado and Arizona. And with the loss of Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., they were still two or three seats short of the gains they would need to take control of the chamber.

Their hopes increasingly rested on Georgia, where at least one race was headed for a January runoff with a Democrat as frontrunner. Votes in the state’s other contest were still being counted, but Democrats were hopeful that Sen. David Perdue, a Republican, would have to contend with a runoff as well.

If they prove successful, it would provide Democrats with a shot at fighting Republicans to a draw for control of the Senate in a bloody and expensive rematch just two weeks before Inauguration Day. Two Democratic victories there would split the Senate, 50-50, and if Biden prevailed, his vice president, Kamala Harris, could cast tie-breaking votes to give Democrats de facto control.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/australian-bookies-shell-out-23-milion-early-on-joe-biden-win-over-donald-trump-340810">Australian bookies shell out $23 milion early on Joe Biden win over Donald Trump</a> 
 
Republicans had scored crucial Senate victories in Iowa, Montana, South Carolina and Texas, where Democratic challengers fell well short of expectations despite spending record-breaking sums. They likewise believed they were strongly positioned to hold on in North Carolina as well, where Sen. Thom Tillis was considered one of the party’s most endangered senators this year, although the race was still too close to call with mail-in ballots streaming in.

“If my math is correct, if we win in North Carolina and Maine, I am still the offensive coordinator,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters Wednesday, referring to his position as majority leader.

The fight carried heavy consequences for whoever wins the White House, given that the Senate holds sway over judicial nominations and the legislative agenda, with the power to advance or frustrate a president’s plans. Even as they continued to game out possibilities, Democrats emerged Wednesday decidedly downcast.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-election-2020-joe-biden-needs-six-electoral-votes-to-win-340882/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

“I was hoping we would sweep to victory with a number of Senate wins,” John Hickenlooper, Colorado’s former Democratic governor who defeated Sen. Cory Gardner, said on MSNBC. “You know we were cautiously optimistic, but it’s not the level of excitement I was hoping to wake up to.”

In the House, Democrats were on track to secure the 218 seats needed to maintain the majority they established in 2018. But their predictions of a second consecutive wave powered by antipathy for Trump had been dashed by Wednesday morning. Instead, Democrats had lost a handful of historically more conservative rural and suburban seats in Oklahoma, South Carolina, New Mexico and Florida and were praying that a late deluge of mail-in votes would minimize further loses in places they once thought safe.

Republicans’ run of victories also promised to replenish somewhat the number of women in their conference, which was decimated in Democrats’ 2018 sweep.

“I’ve heard for months from the pollsters and the media about how Republicans were going to lose more seats and cling to shrinking coalitions,” Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, said at an upbeat news briefing in Washington promoting the new women in his conference. “We expanded this party that reflects America and looks like America.”

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/us-presidential-elections-what-matters-for-india-340748">US Presidential elections: What matters for India?</a>

The accumulating results suggested that McCarthy could wield considerably more leverage in the House next term, particularly if Republicans hold the Senate. He quickly announced a run for minority leader and was expected to consolidate support. A smaller Democratic majority thinned of some moderates could also empower the party’s progressive wing to exercise more force.

In a letter to Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded it had been “a challenging election” but tried to put a positive spin on a clearly disappointing outcome. She predicted victory for Biden and said House Democrats were positioned to work with him “to deliver” health care changes, anti-corruption legislation and “green infrastructure” — although a Republican-controlled Senate would have very little interest in making that possible.

Privately, House Democrats who survived were licking their wounds and contemplating whether leadership changes needed to be made at the party’s campaign committee. The losses stung.

In South Carolina, first-term Rep. Joe Cunningham, a Democrat, was defeated by Nancy Mace, the first woman to graduate from the Citadel, in his Charleston-based district. With Trump making significant inroads among Cuban Americans in Miami, two other Democratic freshmen were ousted by Republicans: Reps. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell lost to Mayor Carlos Gimenez of Miami, and Rep. Donna Shalala was defeated by Maria Elvira Salazar, a former television anchor.

In the increasingly conservative rural Midwest, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the Democrat who oversees the Agriculture Committee and has served in the House for three decades, was also toppled.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/the-hail-mary-keep-counting-us-presidential-election-340871">The Hail-Mary Keep-Counting US Presidential Election</a>

The battle for the Senate was being waged on even friendlier turf for Republicans. Although they were defending 23 states, compared with just 12 for Democrats, almost all of them were places that Trump carried in 2016.

Democrats still managed to win in Colorado, a rare liberal-leaning state occupied by a Republican, and Arizona, where Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, beat Sen. Martha McSally, handing her a second Senate defeat in two years. They also narrowly hung on in Michigan, where Sen. Gary Peters beat John James, a Black Iraq war veteran and a Republican.

But Tommy Tuberville, the former Auburn football coach, easily won back deeply conservative Alabama from Sen. Doug Jones. In Iowa, Sen. Joni Ernst’s win over Theresa Greenfield, a Democrat with roots in the state’s farming community, scuttled Democrats’ hopes for a key pickup. And in Montana, Steve Daines beat back a challenge from the state’s popular Democratic governor, Steve Bullock.

In North Carolina, Sen. Thom Tillis, had opened a lead of nearly 100,000 votes early Wednesday against Cal Cunningham, a Democrat and Iraq War veteran who had led in polls for much of the year. But the state accepts mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day until Nov. 12, making a final call premature.

Among all the victories for Senate Republicans, Collins’ stood out as the most remarkable. Facing an onslaught of liberal outrage over her 2018 vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court amid accusations of sexual assault, she trailed the Democrat, Sara Gideon, the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, in the race’s closing weeks.

In the end, she proved she was one of the only senators in the country still able to significantly outrun the top of the ticket, winning her fifth term even as Trump lost badly in Maine to Biden.

Still, already eying a 2022 Senate election on more difficult turf for Republicans, McConnell suggested there were reasons for the party to worry as well.

Speaking to reporters after his own commanding victory in Kentucky, he said Republicans had pressing work to do to win back the support of women and college-educated voters, as well as to bolster their fundraising apparatus, which has trailed Democrats’ juggernaut, ActBlue.

“I am disturbed by the loss of support in the suburbs nationwide,” McConnell said.

Democrats still remained hopeful about the races in Georgia. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat, was headed for a January runoff against Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the appointed Republican, in a special election to replace Sen. Johnny Isakson, who retired in late 2019, citing health problems. Jon Ossoff, a 33-year-old documentary filmmaker, was in a tight race to unseat Perdue, which could also end up in a runoff if neither cleared the 50% threshold required under Georgia law to win outright.

Democrats had one other outstanding target, Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, but it was considered a stretch.

Republicans, buoyed by an unexpectedly strong performance by President Donald Trump in key battlegrounds, grew increasingly confident Wednesday that they could maintain narrow control of the Senate and make a considerable dent in the size of the Democrats’ House majority.

Republicans, buoyed by an unexpectedly strong performance by President Donald Trump in key battlegrounds, grew increasingly confident Wednesday that they could maintain narrow control of the Senate and make a considerable dent in the size of the Democrats’ House majority. Their chances in the Senate were vastly improved by the come-from-behind victory of Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a New England centrist largely written off as a loss before Election Day. Collins’ resounding performance in a state also carried by former Vice President Joe Biden defied national trends and she avoided a protracted fight involving the state’s ranked-choice voting system by clearing a 50% threshold of support. Democrats, who had entered the night bullish about their chances, had flipped just two seats, in Colorado and Arizona. And with the loss of Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., they were still two or three seats short of the gains they would need to take control of the chamber. Their hopes increasingly rested on Georgia, where at least one race was headed for a January runoff with a Democrat as frontrunner. Votes in the state’s other contest were still being counted, but Democrats were hopeful that Sen. David Perdue, a Republican, would have to contend with a runoff as well. If they prove successful, it would provide Democrats with a shot at fighting Republicans to a draw for control of the Senate in a bloody and expensive rematch just two weeks before Inauguration Day. Two Democratic victories there would split the Senate, 50-50, and if Biden prevailed, his vice president, Kamala Harris, could cast tie-breaking votes to give Democrats de facto control. Also Read | Australian bookies shell out $23 milion early on Joe Biden win over Donald Trump Republicans had scored crucial Senate victories in Iowa, Montana, South Carolina and Texas, where Democratic challengers fell well short of expectations despite spending record-breaking sums. They likewise believed they were strongly positioned to hold on in North Carolina as well, where Sen. Thom Tillis was considered one of the party’s most endangered senators this year, although the race was still too close to call with mail-in ballots streaming in. “If my math is correct, if we win in North Carolina and Maine, I am still the offensive coordinator,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters Wednesday, referring to his position as majority leader. The fight carried heavy consequences for whoever wins the White House, given that the Senate holds sway over judicial nominations and the legislative agenda, with the power to advance or frustrate a president’s plans. Even as they continued to game out possibilities, Democrats emerged Wednesday decidedly downcast. × “I was hoping we would sweep to victory with a number of Senate wins,” John Hickenlooper, Colorado’s former Democratic governor who defeated Sen. Cory Gardner, said on MSNBC. “You know we were cautiously optimistic, but it’s not the level of excitement I was hoping to wake up to.” In the House, Democrats were on track to secure the 218 seats needed to maintain the majority they established in 2018. But their predictions of a second consecutive wave powered by antipathy for Trump had been dashed by Wednesday morning. Instead, Democrats had lost a handful of historically more conservative rural and suburban seats in Oklahoma, South Carolina, New Mexico and Florida and were praying that a late deluge of mail-in votes would minimize further loses in places they once thought safe. Republicans’ run of victories also promised to replenish somewhat the number of women in their conference, which was decimated in Democrats’ 2018 sweep. “I’ve heard for months from the pollsters and the media about how Republicans were going to lose more seats and cling to shrinking coalitions,” Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, said at an upbeat news briefing in Washington promoting the new women in his conference. “We expanded this party that reflects America and looks like America.” Also Read | US Presidential elections: What matters for India? The accumulating results suggested that McCarthy could wield considerably more leverage in the House next term, particularly if Republicans hold the Senate. He quickly announced a run for minority leader and was expected to consolidate support. A smaller Democratic majority thinned of some moderates could also empower the party’s progressive wing to exercise more force. In a letter to Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded it had been “a challenging election” but tried to put a positive spin on a clearly disappointing outcome. She predicted victory for Biden and said House Democrats were positioned to work with him “to deliver” health care changes, anti-corruption legislation and “green infrastructure” — although a Republican-controlled Senate would have very little interest in making that possible. Privately, House Democrats who survived were licking their wounds and contemplating whether leadership changes needed to be made at the party’s campaign committee. The losses stung. In South Carolina, first-term Rep. Joe Cunningham, a Democrat, was defeated by Nancy Mace, the first woman to graduate from the Citadel, in his Charleston-based district. With Trump making significant inroads among Cuban Americans in Miami, two other Democratic freshmen were ousted by Republicans: Reps. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell lost to Mayor Carlos Gimenez of Miami, and Rep. Donna Shalala was defeated by Maria Elvira Salazar, a former television anchor. In the increasingly conservative rural Midwest, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the Democrat who oversees the Agriculture Committee and has served in the House for three decades, was also toppled. Also Read | The Hail-Mary Keep-Counting US Presidential Election The battle for the Senate was being waged on even friendlier turf for Republicans. Although they were defending 23 states, compared with just 12 for Democrats, almost all of them were places that Trump carried in 2016. Democrats still managed to win in Colorado, a rare liberal-leaning state occupied by a Republican, and Arizona, where Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, beat Sen. Martha McSally, handing her a second Senate defeat in two years. They also narrowly hung on in Michigan, where Sen. Gary Peters beat John James, a Black Iraq war veteran and a Republican. But Tommy Tuberville, the former Auburn football coach, easily won back deeply conservative Alabama from Sen. Doug Jones. In Iowa, Sen. Joni Ernst’s win over Theresa Greenfield, a Democrat with roots in the state’s farming community, scuttled Democrats’ hopes for a key pickup. And in Montana, Steve Daines beat back a challenge from the state’s popular Democratic governor, Steve Bullock. In North Carolina, Sen. Thom Tillis, had opened a lead of nearly 100,000 votes early Wednesday against Cal Cunningham, a Democrat and Iraq War veteran who had led in polls for much of the year. But the state accepts mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day until Nov. 12, making a final call premature. Among all the victories for Senate Republicans, Collins’ stood out as the most remarkable. Facing an onslaught of liberal outrage over her 2018 vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court amid accusations of sexual assault, she trailed the Democrat, Sara Gideon, the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, in the race’s closing weeks. In the end, she proved she was one of the only senators in the country still able to significantly outrun the top of the ticket, winning her fifth term even as Trump lost badly in Maine to Biden. Still, already eying a 2022 Senate election on more difficult turf for Republicans, McConnell suggested there were reasons for the party to worry as well. Speaking to reporters after his own commanding victory in Kentucky, he said Republicans had pressing work to do to win back the support of women and college-educated voters, as well as to bolster their fundraising apparatus, which has trailed Democrats’ juggernaut, ActBlue. “I am disturbed by the loss of support in the suburbs nationwide,” McConnell said. Democrats still remained hopeful about the races in Georgia. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat, was headed for a January runoff against Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the appointed Republican, in a special election to replace Sen. Johnny Isakson, who retired in late 2019, citing health problems. Jon Ossoff, a 33-year-old documentary filmmaker, was in a tight race to unseat Perdue, which could also end up in a runoff if neither cleared the 50% threshold required under Georgia law to win outright. Democrats had one other outstanding target, Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, but it was considered a stretch.

Republicans tighten hold on Senate, but control could be decided in runoffs

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

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

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

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

US election 2020: Key moments of Donald Trump's presidential tenure

republican-party

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