Archive for the ‘Republican’ Category

What are Gov. Youngkin’s chances of winning the Republican … – Cardinal News

Keep up with our political coverage by signing up forour free daily email newsletterand our new weekly political newsletter, West of the Capital.

Its time for us to revisit the Glenn Youngkin-for-president chatter.

Since the last time I looked at this, several noteworthy things have happened.

a. Hes appeared on a CNN town hall, with mixed reviews.

b. Hes met with major donors, most recently in Dallas.

c. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has raised his own national profile, not always in useful ways. (Calling Russias invasion of Ukraine a territorial dispute may please the growing isolationist camp with the Republican Party but was quickly denounced by what remains of those who consider Ronald Reagan their ideological guidepost.)

d. Former Ambassador Nikki Haley has formally announced her candidacy and others have moved closer to doing so.

e. And, oh yes, the presumed frontrunner former President Donald Trump has said hell be indicted (although his prediction of a Tuesday indictment didnt come to pass and neither did a Wednesday one).

So where do things with Youngkin stand now? There are two basic questions: Will Youngkin run? And does he stand a chance? I have zero insight into the former but I will attempt to analyze the latter. To do this, we must think like Republicans (this will be easier for some of you than others).

By multiple measures, enthusiasm for Trump seems lower than it was but remains significant enough that he consistently leads polling for the Republican nomination. There are those who believe that an indictment will actually help him. Ill confess I find this a mystery. Of the possible cases against Trump, this one is said to be legally the weakest. Those who make that argument (and some of them have been Democrats) point out that in 2011 former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards was indicted on six felony charges for allegedly using campaign funds to cover up an affair. Edwards was found not guilty on one charge; the jury deadlocked on the others and the case was never brought back. Politically, though, Edwards was finished. Democrats now never mention his name; he is considered a great embarrassment to the party.

Why is the Republican reaction to Trump possibly getting indicted on what may be essentially the same charges so different? I dont recall Democrats lamenting that the case against Edwards was politically motivated; they considered him a slimeball and wanted nothing to do with him. I would not have predicted that Republicans, the party of family values, would be the party more forgiving of a candidate allegedly having an affair (and with a porn star!). In any case, Trump seems to remain popular with a significant portion of Republicans and an indictment, if it comes, may not change that. Politically, it seems clear: Trump will not fall of his own accord. He will only be brought down if Republicans dramatically change their minds and that may not happen until other Republicans try to take him down. Youngkin will not be that candidate; that is not his nature. He recently told columnist George Will: Ive made it through two years without calling anyone a name. Youngkin would surely be happier if someone else did that dirty work. Given his almost nonexistent standing in the polls, Youngkins best chance would be if both Trump and other, better-known candidates self-destructed and the party went searching for alternatives. That scenario, though, requires someone to go after Trump. Who will that be?

Trump does best when he doesnt have to win a majority of the vote, only a plurality. He never won a majority of the popular vote in either of his presidential campaigns. More importantly, he didnt start winning a majority of the vote in the 2016 Republican primaries until after the contest was nearly done and all but a few candidates had dropped out. Remember, he initially lost the Iowa caucuses, where he took just 24.3%, the second-lowest share for any Republican second-place candidate ever in the Iowa caucuses. In New Hampshire, he won with just 35.2% of the vote, the second-lowest percentage ever for a winner on the Republican side of the New Hampshire presidential primary.In South Carolina, he won with just 32.5% of the vote, the lowest percentage ever for any winning candidate on either side in the states presidential primary. Nevertheless, those primaries were considered decisive because Trump did win but he won only because the vote was so split among other candidates. If Republicans want to defeat Trump, they need to unite around a single candidate but thats not happening for the same reason it didnt happen in 2016. Everyone thinks they should be the one.

Heres where the scenario for Youngkin becomes more complicated. Its easy to see Trump winning the nomination: Hes the frontrunner. Its easy to see DeSantis winning the nomination: Hes the next-strongest. Its also easy to see one of the other well-known candidates catching fire and finding a path to the nomination Haley, for instance, or former Vice President Mike Pence. Id rank the likelihood of those scenarios in that order: Trump first, DeSantis second, another well-known candidate third. Its not impossible for someone else to ride a groundswell of support to the top, but a lot harder to imagine. It would involve an intensive campaign, and Republicans becoming dissatisfied with both Trump and DeSantis and the other second-tier candidates. Thats possible, of course lots of things are possible but historically improbable. A win in either Iowa or New Hampshire is not predictive; weve seen Iowa losers (such as Trump in 2016) go on to win the nomination. Weve seen candidates who didnt win either one go on to win the nomination (Joe Biden in 2020). However, not since Jimmy Carter in 1976 have we seen someone win the nomination who wasnt part of the national conversation as a serious contender well before the first votes were cast. Even Trump was a frontrunner in the polls by the late summer of 2015. If Youngkin runs, hell be attempting something that hasnt been done for a long time.

The election calendar works against any Virginia governor who wants to seek the presidency: As soon as the governor is sworn in, he or she would have to start running. You can argue that Youngkin already is, but what hes really done so far is flirt with the notion, and try to raise his national profile. An actual campaign would require a lot more time commitment. Lets set aside the question of how forgiving Virginians might or might not be about that. Heres the real catch: We have General Assembly elections this November, and all 140 seats are up for grabs. The balance of power in both chambers is on the line. Virginia Republicans need Youngkin here at home; he is reasonably popular and is arguably their best asset in these elections. He wont be, though, if hes in Montgomery County, Iowa, and not Montgomery County, Virginia. Youngkin also needs these Virginia elections to go well. If Democrats win both chambers, thats hardly an endorsement of his leadership. On the other hand, if Republicans can hold the House and win back the Senate, then Youngkin has a potentially powerful talking point nationally: Look how I flipped Virginia. The question is: By November 2023, would that be too late? Is it possible for him to hold back and not launch a campaign until after the legislative elections? Hed have just under three months before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 5, 2024. The great philosopher Jerry Reed said it best in his classic treatise East Bound and Down: Weve got a long way to go, and a short time to get there.

Biden is not particularly popular but hes also a good example of the principle of two campers being chased by a bear. The one camper doesnt need to be faster than the bear, just faster than the other camper. Biden doesnt need to be popular, he just needs to be seen as a safer choice than the Republican nominee. Weve reelected unpopular presidents before. Thats why some Democrats are hoping Trump is the Republican nominee again; they think hell be easier to beat in 2024 than he was in 2020, and he got beaten then.

My sense is that voters are hungry for generational change, and yet another campaign between Biden and Trump doesnt satisfy that desire. A different and younger Republican nominee might. DeSantis may have the same appeal to some that Trump does, just without Trumps liabilities. But he may also have many of the same disadvantages. He seems to be an angry man. Maybe thats what some Republicans want, but is that really what Americans overall want? More to the point, is it what swing voters want? Columnist Will pondered that question when he wrote favorably of Youngkin and unfavorably of DeSantis: One can consider DeSantiss dislikes admirable but still wonder: Do most Republicans, does the nation, want another president defined by truculence? American politics, indeed American life, has become unhealthily president-centric. It would become even more so with a president who, having campaigned as a brawler, could claim a mandate for incessant interventions in cultural disputes best conducted below the presidency. Political parties, though, often nominate candidates who arent in their best interest.

This ventures away from fact-based opinion into purely speculative opinion but my sense is that people are weary of politics. Thats one of the reasons some voted for Biden over Trump; they wanted a president they didnt have to think about every day. If some now regret that choice, its because of Bidens policies, not his absence of insults on Twitter. Id be willing to gamble that a younger, more optimistic Republican nominee, especially one fresh to the national scene, would be the partys strongest choice. Youngkin would sure fit that bill. So, too, would some others such as Haley and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott. If we were still in the era of the proverbial smoke-filled room, I could see one of those three getting named the party nominee. Thats not how nominations are decided these days, though.

Ultimately, my analysis hasnt changed since I first looked at this last summer: The odds remain against Youngkin. But if he wants to run, hell be following the lead foot of that great philosopher Reed: We gonna do what they say cant be done.

Read more:
What are Gov. Youngkin's chances of winning the Republican ... - Cardinal News

Expert: Protasiewicz targeting Republican voters with attacks on … – WKOW

Conservative Supreme Court candidate Daniel Kelly consulted the Republican Party of Wisconsin in 2020, including during the time when the party was developing plans to create a fake slate of electors after the 2020 presidential election.

MADISON (WKOW) -- In late 2020, Daniel Kelly was working as an attorney, and one of his clients was the Republican Party of Wisconsin (RPW). In November 2020, Joe Biden won the popular vote in Wisconsin. One month later, RPW Chair Andrew Hitt and other Republicans gathered at the state capitol to form a fake slate of electors for President Donald Trump.

The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection subpoenaed Hitt, and he provided testimony in February 2022.

Hitt told the committee he called Kelly to talk about the fake elector plan.

"We talked for about a half-hour kind of thinking through, thinking through the issues and if, what questions, you know, what other questions do I need to ask and think through," Hitt said.

Kelly has acknowledged that work and defended the interaction during an appearance on WISN's UPFRONT on Sunday.

"Frankly, I was not versed in this area of the law," he said. "It is, the testimony shows I was not in the loop. So, it was just that one conversation, just a general conversation about the subject, and that was it."

However, Kelly's opponent, Janet Protasiewicz, has pushed the issue.

In a debate Tuesday, she called Kelly "a true threat to our democracy."

Howard Schweber, a political science professor at UW-Madison, said he believes Protasiewicz is hoping that message resonates with a specific type of voter.

He said the election is very polarized, so voters who support Protasiewicz likely won't be swayed by the attack.

"Where it does potentially have some traction is among Republican and conservative voters in Wisconsin," he said.

Schweber said, for some of them, the January 6 insurrection and election denialism were a breaking point.

"It's plausible that some number, potentially a significant number, of voters who would have otherwise voted for [Kelly] might change their mind on the grounds that 'well, I'm a conservative, you know, I'm maybe even a Trump supporter, but I don't go as far as this,'" he said.

Schweber said both candidates have run almost entirely negative campaigns, limiting the voters who they reach.

"I think both candidates have decided to abandon any attempt to persuade undecided voters and focus entirely on motivating their base and depressing the other side's base," he said.

Protasiewicz has focused heavily on Kelly's ties to the fake electoral slate. Kelly has focused on Protasiewicz's judicial record and said she is soft on crime.

However, Schweber said the efficacy of those attacks will depend on which narrative voters believe.

"I expect the next two weeks to be just a massive amplification of those messages," he said.

Continued here:
Expert: Protasiewicz targeting Republican voters with attacks on ... - WKOW

Republican convention takes place in Milaca | Free … – ECM Publishers

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read more:
Republican convention takes place in Milaca | Free ... - ECM Publishers

Republican lawmakers divided on scope of government – Wyoming Tribune

The Wyoming Legislature adjourned the 2023 general session on March 3, but its last orders of business werent put to rest until Friday, when Gov. Mark Gordon let several bills become law without his signature. That included a near-complete ban on abortion, which divided anti-abortion lawmakers over its constitutional implications. Gordon expressed similar concerns in a letter to the secretary of state explaining his decision.

I understand the Legislatures effort to improve Wyomings pro-life legal framework However, I am nonetheless concerned that, in practice, this bill would instead complicate and delay the resolution of these central and foundational constitutional questions, Gordon wrote.

The governors comments reflected a debate that simmered among lawmakers for much of the session: How best to reconcile the fundamental conservative principles of local control and constitutional adherence with a Christian nationalist agenda?

The embrace of limited government and deference to the Constitution are not new to the statehouse, where the GOP recently strengthened its longstanding supermajority. The discussion of those values and the degree to which they should dictate legislative action, however, has shifted with the growth of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus and its inclusion of an out-of-state political movement. As a result, the 2023 legislative session saw once inviolable ideals hotly debated on the House and Senate floors by competing camps of self-avowed conservatives.

Im just trying to figure out, in my mind, when we stopped believing in local control as a core principle of this body and of the majority party, Rep. Jared Olsen, R-Cheyenne, told lawmakers.

Representatives were debating House Bill 95, Working animal protection act, which would have barred municipalities from enacting any bans or restrictions on using a working animal in certain settings, such as fairs and rodeos. Debate on the bill was mostly divided by a recurring split the Freedom Caucus and its freshman allies versus the rest of the body.

Bill sponsor Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, R-Cody, said the legislation was a way for Wyoming to get ahead of the animal rights activists shed seen passing out flyers in downtown Cody urging residents not to support the local rodeo. The legislation mirrored bills states such as Arkansas and Oklahoma passed in 2021 with support of national anti-animal-rights groups The Cavalry Group and Protect the Harvest.

If animal rights activists target Cheyenne Frontier Days, Rep. Ben Hornok, R-Cheyenne, said, the city may choose to shut down its $40 million cash cow known as the Daddy of em All. Other Laramie County lawmakers were skeptical of that risk and worried about the underlying philosophy of the bill.

If we stand firm with the principle that we dont like the federal government telling our state what to do, then it should follow very logically that we dont want the state to tell our local communities what to do, Olsen said. But the concept of local control sometimes seems like a cop out, Rep. Tamara Trujillo, R-Cheyenne, said. Sometimes it just makes sense to handle it from the top.

Rodriguez-Williams also shot back. Local government is merely political subdivisions of this state, she said.

Ultimately, the bill failed to pass the House and died. But the local-control debate lingered, attracting out-of-state attention in the process.

In late February, nearing a critical bill deadline, the Freedom Caucus criticized Speaker of the House Albert Sommers, R-Pinedale, for holding back certain bills, a maneuver granted to the leadership position by the rules adopted earlier in the session.

Per those rules, Rep. Jeanette Ward, R-Casper, attempted to override the speaker, but failed to get the requisite two-thirds vote. Ward had called for the vote in an attempt to advance Senate File 117, Parental rights in education, which would have banned instruction on gender and sexual orientation from some classrooms.

About a week after Wards motion failed, national voices joined the conversation. Andrew Roth, president of the State Freedom Caucus Network, called Sommers out on Twitter for stalling three bills. Roths Washington, D.C.-based organization officially partnered with Wyomings Freedom Caucus just ahead of the session.

This is in the most Republican state in America, Roth tweeted. Shortly after, U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., chimed in on the social media platform. This is about protecting our children. In Congress, Im fighting for these very issues. I hope the Wyoming Legislature will do the same, she said.

Later, Roth tweeted that his organization had sent text messages to Republicans in Sommers district, listing the speakers phone number and urging voters to call him. When you call yourself a Republican, but act like a liberal, you gotta pay the liberal tax, Roth wrote.

The online campaign was enough to get the attention of Fox News, but failed to influence Sommers. Im not gonna let anybody intimidate me, Sommers told reporters on the last day of the session. Following the national commotion, Sommers penned an op-ed, wherein he explained his decision to hold back legislation.

Bills that are unconstitutional, not well vetted, poorly written, duplicate bills or debates, and bills that negate local control, restrict the rights of people or risk costly litigation financed by the people of Wyoming should not become law, Sommers wrote. When it came to SF 117, local control was a specific problem.

Ive always fought against taking authority away from local school boards, town councils and county commissions, Sommers said. He also expressed concern that the bill violated the single-subject rule of the Wyoming Constitution, which requires most bills to contain not more than one subject.

Earlier in the session, adherence to the Wyoming Constitution nearly halted a sweeping abortion bill.

Ive heard the word unconstitutional thrown around so frequently this session, it baffles me, Rodriguez-Williams told a legislative committee. Honestly, I think it is being thrown around to fearmonger. And the people of Wyoming are tired of being fearmongered.

The House Judiciary Committee was debating House Bill 152, Life is a Human Right Act, a near-total abortion ban. The committee voted 5-4 to send the bill to the floor, but the vote was not totally split between anti-abortion lawmakers and those who would prefer to keep the procedure legal. Instead, Reps. Barry Crago, R-Buffalo, and Ember Oakley, R-Riverton who both work as attorneys and voted in favor of Wyomings 2022 trigger bill opposed it due to concerns over its legality.

Its difficult for me to get up and argue against a pro-life bill; its not easy, Crago said on the House floor. But Im doing it because I truly believe that going down this road is going to be detrimental to our cause of pro-life legislation.

One constitutional concern was whether the bills language stepped on the judiciarys toes by interpreting the state constitution. Oakley called the language a middle finger to that other branch of government.

As we all know, its the judiciary that interprets the law, Oakley said. Its like the civics that we all learned when we were kids. I mean, the basics of our government are, of course, that the Legislature makes the law, executive enforces and the judiciary interprets, Oakley said. Ultimately, Crago and Oakley voted for the bill on third reading.

A lawsuit filed in the Ninth District Court on Friday claims that the Legislature overstepped in passing HB 152 by violating the Wyoming Constitution. A Teton County judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the new law on Wednesday.

In his closing remarks to the House on the last day of session, Gordon thanked lawmakers for keeping in mind how important it is that we have Wyoming solutions for Wyoming problems.

It echoed a metric Sommers said he often relies on to assess legislation. Does it solve a Wyoming problem with a Wyoming solution? he wrote in an op-ed.

That framework, however, was opposed by Freedom Caucus members, including Rodriguez-Williams, who recently penned an op-ed calling it the go-to method for killing bills and became a facade to hide behind, conveniently concealing from Wyoming voters a true debate on the issues at hand.

The Management Council will meet today to decide what topics and solutions lawmakers will tackle in the interim, restarting the process anew.

Originally posted here:
Republican lawmakers divided on scope of government - Wyoming Tribune

Republicans accused by New York DA of meddling in Trump hush-money case – The Guardian US

Donald Trump

Alvin Bragg writes to committee chairs seeking his testimony saying there is no legitimate basis for congressional inquiry

The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, on Thursday accused Republicans in the US Congress of interfering in his investigation of Donald Trump over a hush money payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels.

A letter from House Republicans demanding testimony and documents related to the investigation only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested and his lawyers repeatedly urged you to intervene, Bragg wrote in a letter of his own.

Such circumstances, he said, did not represent a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry.

Bragg published his letter as it became clear another day would pass without an indictment of the former US president for offences related to the $130,000 payment made in 2016 and potentially including falsification of business records, tax fraud and/or campaign finance violations.

The grand jury considering the case is not due to meet again until Monday.

Last weekend, amid reports an indictment was imminent, Trump said he expected to be arrested on Tuesday.

That day came and went without an arrest but aides to the former president have told outlets, including the Guardian, that Trump wants to be seen in handcuffs and has even mused on how being shot while being arraigned might help him return to the White House.

Trump is under extensive legal jeopardy as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

An indictment is also thought likely in Georgia, over Trumps election subversion efforts there. Trump also faces federal investigations of his election subversion and his retention of classified records, a New York civil suit over his business practices and a defamation suit arising from an allegation of rape by the writer E Jean Carroll.

Trump denies all wrongdoing and claims to be the victim of political witch-hunts mounted by Black prosecutors he says are racist.

Bragg is the first Black Manhattan DA and only the fourth man to fill the post on a permanent basis since the second world war.

The payment to Stormy Daniels was made by Trumps then lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, and discovered in 2018. Cohen went to jail, in part over the payment, and turned on his former boss. But Braggs investigation of what members of his own team came to call a zombie case has never run smoothly.

Republicans in Congress have accused Bragg of acting politically while neglecting crime in his city. They have also repeatedly called him Soros-backed, a reference to donations by the progressive financier George Soros, a target for antisemitic invective on the US right.

In the Daniels case, the Republicans made their demands to Bragg on Monday.

Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics tsar now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, called the Republican letter a transparent effort to interfere with the investigation of Trump in New York, with no legitimate congressional purpose and contrary to law.

On Thursday, Bragg addressed his reply to Jim Jordan, the chair of the House judiciary committee; Bryan Steil, chair of the administration committee; and James Comer, chair of the oversight committee.

The Republican congressmen, he said, had attempted an an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution.

Claiming quintessential police powers belonging to the state of New York, Bragg accused the Republican congressmen of tread[ing] into territory very clearly reserved for the states.

He also said the Republican request would interfere with law enforcement efforts requiring confidentiality.

Nonetheless, Bragg requested a meeting with committee staffers, to understand what information the DAs office can provide that relates to a legitimate legislative interest and can be shared.

He also said he would submit a letter describing [the] use of federal funds.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Visit link:
Republicans accused by New York DA of meddling in Trump hush-money case - The Guardian US