|
|
|
|
|
It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.
TRUMP FOUND LIABLE
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews
Correspondent
A jury of nine New Yorkers has found that former President Donald Trump is liable for sexually abusing and defaming author E. Jean Carroll in an attack in the 1990s. The jury said there was not enough evidence to show, however, that he was liable for rape.
Some immediate context:
- Historical. As you may guess, this is an unprecedented finding for a former president of the United States. NPR produced this story looking at the few legal issues other ex-presidents have faced, but none include charges of personally attacking another person.
- Financial. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages total.
- Political and societal. Trump’s campaign quickly sent me a statement, echoing his claims that he is the victim of a political attack. From that statement: “The Democratic Party’s never-ending witch-hunt of President Trump hit a new low today. In jurisdictions wholly controlled by the Democratic Party our nation’s justice system is now compromised by extremist left-wing politics. We have allowed false and totally made-up claims from troubled individuals to interfere with our elections, doing great damage.”
Trump’s campaign said it will appeal the civil trial verdict.
Reminder: This is the first decision in what may be a series of court cases for the former president. Other cases could produce criminal charges. It is obvious, but expect all of this to be both personally and politically front of mind for both the former president and his opponents.
THE GOOD AND BAD NEWS ABOUT THE DEBT CEILING STANDOFF
|
|
|
|
Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images
|
|
|
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews
Correspondent
Let’s start with the bad news first: We are uncomfortably close to a volatile, never-before breach in the United States debt ceiling.
Additional bad news: The date of that breach is now forecast to come sooner rather than later because revenues have slowed down.
OK, and worse: Despite these things, lawmakers currently are digging in, more likely to deepen their standoff than resolve it.
But there is some good news. And it is not just that we have each other. (Though we do.) There are faint outlines forming of possible off-ramps and emergency backup plans.
Let’s explain all of that more.
Timing
- A key date: June 8. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics told a Senate committee last week that he believes June 8 is the most likely hard date by which the debt ceiling must be increased or the U.S. will run out of money to pay its bills. Though he added it could fall sometime from early June to August.
- A similar time frame. The Bipartisan Policy Center released an updated analysis Tuesday, projecting that the “X-date” — when the U.S. could default — could be early June to August.
- And this echoes Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s conclusions released last week, which pointed to early June, and as early as June 1, with the caveat the actual date could be weeks later than that.
Why the large window? Because what happens this month matters — aka whether the U.S. government brings in solid or anemic levels of tax dollars. So far, the trend has not been good. Revenues have slowed.
Why? In part, Mother Nature. The IRS has given most of California and some of Alabama and Georgia until Oct. 16 to file and pay taxes following natural disasters there.
The standoff deepens
In the meantime, speaking with sources on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, each side is convinced the other is making a nonsensical, politically questionable move that will force them to back down. Translation: Each side is feeling more confident about their decision to not budge an inch.
The divide is stark and significant in a few areas:
- What do they want right now? President Joe Biden and Democrats say they will only accept a “clean” debt ceiling bill. Nothing attached. House Republicans say they will only raise the debt ceiling if it comes with significant cuts and budget changes.
- What do they want in the future? Again, a stark contrast. Biden’s latest plan would cut deficits by raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting subsidies to fossil fuel interests, pharmaceutical companies and others. The bill passed by House Republicans would reduce deficits by sharply cutting spending, including a 13 percent average slice for most federal agencies and a slash to Biden’s student loan relief plan.
- What is the issue? This is a core divide. Biden and Democrats say the main issue here is avoiding default and financial crisis now. But Republicans say the issue is a coming tidal wave of future debt and financial crises for future generations.
- How unified are they? Right now, both sides have general unity among their members in Congress. That is adding to the standoff and lack of immediate pressure on either party to budge. One slight exception is Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has been critical of Biden’s no-negotiation approach. That said, he has not opposed the president’s main goal: a “clean” debt ceiling bill.
|
|
|
|
The NewsHour’s Nicole Ellis will discuss what's next in the debt ceiling standoff with White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López at 10 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, May 10. Watch the live conversation in the player above.
|
|
|
Potential good news: backup plans
Even as the two parties seem to cement their positions, there is some hope for possible off-ramps.
Talking with sources at the Capitol, here are some growing considerations along with the obstacles to them.
- A short-term deal. Speaking with rank-and-file senators and House members, the idea of a short-term deal is rising. That could be 30 days — as debt-crusader Sen. Rick Scott of Florida agreed to last week — or a few months. There is recognition that there is not enough time for a significant budget deal between now and the beginning of June, when the U.S. could crash into the debt ceiling.
- The problem with a short-term deal. Today, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy separately rejected the idea of a short-term deal from reporters.
- A discharge petition. This is one to watch. House members may force a vote on any bill using a process called “discharge.” It requires a signed petition with at least 218 members. Sources confirm to us that House Democrats have prepared a possible vehicle for such a bill, hoping that it can get at least the five Republicans they need to join them for 218 votes.
- The problem with the discharge petition. Discharge petitions must follow a specific process that eats up 14 to 16 days of legislative time. Given the current House calendar, that could take them into June.
|
|
More on politics from our coverage:
- Watch: The Biden administration is set to expire Title 42, a pandemic-era border policy that allowed officials to turn away millions of migrants over the last three years, on May 11.
- One Big Question: What is Title 42, and what does it mean for immigration at the southern border? NPR’s Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report discuss how the White House is preparing for this major shift in U.S. immigration policy.
- A Closer Look: An epidemiologist on what to know about the COVID pandemic as public health emergencies end.
- Perspectives: The Washington Post spent months looking at the rise of the AR-15 in America. These rifles have been involved in 10 of the nation’s 17 deadliest mass shootings.
|
|
|
|
JUSTICE THOMAS AND FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
|
|
|
|
Watch the segment in the player above.
|
|
By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage
Senior Editor, Digital
Ian Couzens, @Iancouzenz
Associate Producer, Politics
In the past month, multiple reports about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relationship with wealthy Republican donor friends have raised questions about what justices are required to disclose.
The cries for the high court to be bound by a stronger code of ethics, led by Democratic lawmakers, has crescendoed with each new revelation of undisclosed gifts or dealings. The Supreme Court does not have a formal code of ethics, as the executive and legislative branches do.
As of Tuesday, we have learned about four ways GOP megadonor Harlan Crow and conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo financially supported Thomas and his family, including:
- Lavish trips. For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted trips on Crow’s private jet and yacht. (ProPublica, April 6.)
- A real estate deal. In 2014, Crow purchased three properties in Savannah, Georgia, from Thomas and his relatives: two vacant lots and Thomas’ mother’s house. (ProPublica, April 13.)
- Tuition payments. Crow footed the bill for two years of private school tuition for Thomas’ great-nephew. Thomas and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, have raised the child since he was 6 years old. (ProPublica, May 4.)
- Payments to Ginni Thomas. Leo instructed GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to arrange payments to Thomas’ wife in 2011 and 2012 for consulting work, and sought to keep her name off the billing paperwork. (The Washington Post, May 4.)
None of these transactions appeared on financial disclosures.
The Los Angeles Times reported back in 2004 about Thomas accepting gifts and private plane trips from Crow. After that report, it seems the justice continued to accept gifts and stopped disclosing them.
After ProPublica’s first report, Thomas defended the undisclosed luxury trips in a short statement. Neither he nor Crow have disputed the facts of the reporting. Thomas said he was following the guidance given to him throughout his tenure, which was that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable,” Thomas said in the statement. “I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.”
The justice has largely kept mum since that initial statement.
Crow has responded a number of times during this series of developments, saying the arrangements were nothing more than hospitality offered to “very dear friends.”
- The initial response. After the first ProPublica report, Crow has said that he and his wife “have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue.”
- Defending the tuition payments, Crow’s office said it was “disappointing that those with partisan political interests” would turn something like helping a young person with tuition “into something nefarious or political.”
- An extended statement. Mark Paoletta, Justice Thomas’s friend and a former official for the Trump administration, posted a lengthy defense of the tuition payments, calling ProPublica’s story “another attempt to manufacture a scandal about Justice Thomas.”
What is Congress doing about this?
The justices are subject to some federal laws that cover disclosure, some of which were recently tightened. But without official ethical standards for the Supreme Court, justices are largely left to govern themselves on this issue. This is why judicial reform advocates have long pushed Congress to pass or mandate an ethics code for the high court. (Although there are questions on how to enforce such a code.)
The Senate, controlled by Democrats, held a hearing on this topic last week.
As is expected for a split Congress, the responses to the ongoing revelations about Thomas’ lack of disclosures were divided by party. Democrats underscored the need for an ethics code, while Republicans defended Thomas and characterized concerns from across the aisle as a partisan attack on Thomas and the conservative-majority court.
Chief Justice John Roberts declined the Senate Judiciary Committee’s invitation to testify at the hearing. Roberts’ statement to lawmakers did not indicate whether the court will adopt an ethics code — something they’re able to do themselves — or at least consider changes to how they address financial disclosures. In fact, all nine justices haven’t said much on the matter publicly.
The hearing did, however, feature several experts who favored strengthening ethical standards for the court. |
|
|
|
Watch the clip in the player above.
|
|
The experts said Congress had the power under the U.S. Constitution to enact a law that set forth an ethics code that applied to the Supreme Court, and suggested how an internal body would help gather facts and provide ethics advice.
“The only way that any current ethics rules or future ethics rules will work is if there is a way to enforce these rules and a way for the Supreme Court justices to understand how they apply,” said Kedric Payne, senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center.
Why this matters
Emma Brown, who was part of the Post investigative team that reported the latest revelations, told the NewsHour that we’re in a moment of great scrutiny of the court and around potential conflicts of interest.
It’s worth noting that public trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low.
“If people don’t have confidence that the justices are acting on the basis of law, rather than under some other influence, then the court can’t function,” she said. “Our nation sort of depends on people trusting the court in order for a republic to function in the way it's supposed to.”
#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Cybele Mayes-Osterman, @CybeleMO
Associate Editorial Producer
President Joe Biden convened a meeting Tuesday with congressional leaders to discuss the looming debt crisis. Fiscal stakes run high as the Treasury Department has warned the government could default on its debt as early as June 1 if a deal is not reached.
The meeting comes amid an impasse between the White House and Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
While tense debt standoffs are not without precedent on the Hill, some have taken place in more relaxed settings. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush convened congressional leaders at Andrews Air Force Base to hash out a budget plan that would cut the deficit by roughly $513 billion in five years. The attendees, Democrats and Republicans, stayed in a pair of identical bungalows and lugged bags full of outdoor gear along with them.
Our question: At this gathering, then-Republican Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole brought a gift offering for Bush. What was that gift?
Send your answers to [email protected] or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.
Last week, we asked: Which member of Congress holds the record for longest consecutive service?
The answer: Rep. John Dingell. The Democrat, who died in 2019, represented Michigan's 12th district for 59 years in the U.S. House. Those decades of consecutive service means Dingell is considered to be the longest-serving member of Congress in American history.
Congratulations to our winners: Barry Weinstein and Darci Jayne!
Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
