Mediaboss Marketing

Follow live updates on the House committee hearing on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

WASHINGTON The four hearings held in the past few weeks by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, with their clear, uninterrupted narratives about President Donald J. Trumps effort to undercut the peaceful transfer of power, have left some pro-Trump Republicans wringing their hands with regret about a decision made nearly a year ago.

Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, chose last summer to withdraw all of his nominees to the committee amid a dispute with Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her rejection of his first two choices a turning point that left the nine-member investigative committee without a single ally of Mr. Trump.

Mostly in private, Republicans loyal to Mr. Trump have complained for months that they have no insight into the inner workings of the committee as it has issued dozens of subpoenas and conducted interviews behind closed doors with hundreds of witnesses.

But the public display this month of what the panel has learned including damning evidence against Mr. Trump and his allies left some Republicans wishing more vocally that Mr. Trump had strong defenders on the panel to try to counter the evidence its investigators dig up.

Would it have made for a totally different debate? Absolutely, said Representative Brian Mast, Republican of Florida. I would have defended the hell out of him.

Among those second-guessing Mr. McCarthys choice has been Mr. Trump.

Unfortunately, a bad decision was made, Mr. Trump told the conservative radio host Wayne Allyn Root this week. He added: It was a bad decision not to have representation on that committee. That was a very, very foolish decision.

The committee employed more than a dozen former federal prosecutors to investigate the actions of Mr. Trump and his allies in the buildup to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

With former television producers on staff, the committee has built a narrative told in chapters about the former presidents attempts to cling to power.

As it has done so, the committee has not had to contend with speechifying from the dais about Mr. Trumps conservative policy achievements. There has been no cross-examination of the panels witnesses. No derailing of the hearings with criticism of President Biden. No steering the investigation away from the former president. Ultimately, there has been no defense of Mr. Trump at all.

The committee presented considerable evidence this month of Mr. Trumps role, laying out how the former president pressured Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to unilaterally overturn his election defeat even after he was told it was illegal.

On Tuesday, the panel directly tied Mr. Trump to a scheme to put forward fake slates of pro-Trump electors and presented fresh details of how the former president sought to bully, cajole and bluff his way into invalidating his 2020 defeat in states around the country.

The committee has also used prominent Republicans as witnesses to make its case, leaving Mr. Trumps allies with an impossible task: How are they to defend him even from the outside when the evidence against him comes from Republican lawyers, a widely respected conservative judge, his campaign advisers and even his own daughter?

The effectiveness of the hearings in putting Mr. Trump at the heart of the effort to overturn the election results has drawn the attention of, among others, Mr. Trump. He has made plain this week that he wants more Republicans defending him, and is displeased as the hearings play out on national television without pro-Trump voices.

The only Republicans on the committee are two who have lined up squarely against Mr. Trump: Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. They were appointed by Ms. Pelosi, not Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. McCarthy figured in July that it was better politically to bash the committee from the sidelines rather than appoint members of his party acceptable to Ms. Pelosi. He has said he had to take a stand after she rejected two of his top picks for the panel: Representatives Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio.

Ms. Pelosi said she could not allow the pair to take part, based on their actions around the riot and comments they had made undercutting the investigation. (Mr. Jordan has subsequently been issued a subpoena by the committee because of his close dealings with Mr. Trump.) The speakers decision led directly to Mr. McCarthys announcement that Republicans would boycott the panel.

When Pelosi wrongfully didnt allow them, we shouldve picked other people, Mr. Trump said in an interview with Punchbowl News. We have a lot of good people in the Republican Party.

Mr. Trump has grumbled openly about the makeup of the panel, according to a person familiar with his remarks. Some members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus have also privately complained about the lack of pro-Trump Republicans on the panel, the person said.

Those close to Mr. McCarthy argue that the Democrats who control the committee would most likely not have allowed his nominees much power or influence over the panels work.

The hearings will pick up again on Thursday with a session devoted to Mr. Trumps effort to install a loyalist at the top of the Justice Department to carry out his demands for more investigations into baseless claims of election fraud.

The panel is planning at least two more hearings for July, according to its chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi. Those hearings are expected to detail how a mob of violent extremists attacked the Capitol and how Mr. Trump did nothing to call off the violence for more than three hours.

Asked on Tuesday about the former presidents comments about the Jan. 6 committee, Mr. McCarthy instead talked about inflation and gas prices.

They focused on an issue the public is not focused on, he said of the committee. Mr. McCarthy added that he spoke with Mr. Trump this week.

One of the Republicans whose nomination Mr. McCarthy withdrew from the committee, Representative Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, was a defense lawyer before being elected to Congress.

Ms. Pelosi had approved of Mr. Armstrong serving on the panel, along with Representative Rodney Davis of Illinois and Representative Troy Nehls of Texas.

Mr. Armstrong said he had watched the hearings as the committee laid out evidence in a choreographed, well-scripted way.

Had he been allowed to serve on the committee, he would have tried to steer the investigation and its questions at public hearings into security failures at the Capitol, he said, echoing a line of criticism that many Republicans have tried to direct at Ms. Pelosi.

It would be a lot less scripted. Wed ask questions, Mr. Armstrong said. There are real questions to be answered. My heart goes out to the law enforcement officials. They needed more people down there.

Still, he said, he stands by the decision made by Mr. McCarthy, who is considered the leading candidate to become speaker if Republicans win control of the House in the midterm elections in November.

I was in the room when we made that decision, and I still think it was the right decision, he said, arguing that House Republicans had to take a stand after Ms. Pelosi removed Mr. Jordan and Mr. Banks. I think it was the only option.

Mr. Trumps comments have sparked much discussion among House Republicans over whether it was the right decision.

Everybodys got a different opinion on that, said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. Personally, I think the leader made the right call. The minute the speaker decides who the Republican members are, it turned against the legitimacy of it.

Representative Daniel Crenshaw, Republican of Texas, said he would have preferred to see an exchange of opposing views on the panel. Let the public see how that debate goes, he said. That would have been better, of course.

But Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican who voted to impeach Mr. Trump for inciting the attack on the Capitol and is retiring from Congress, said he saw nothing but hypocrisy and foolishness in Mr. Trumps complaints. He noted that Mr. Trump made the strategic error of opposing a bipartisan commission, with no current lawmakers involved, to investigate the attack on the Capitol.

That commission would have had to finish its work last year. Instead, Mr. Trumps miscalculation led to the creation of the House Jan. 6 committee, which is continuing to investigate him, Mr. Upton said.

Trump opposed the bipartisan commission, Mr. Upton said. Once again, hes rewriting history.

Stephanie Lai contributed reporting.

Originally posted here:
Why Some Republicans Are Second-Guessing Boycotting the Jan. 6 Panel - The New York Times

The flurry of pardon requests followed what the select committee showed was weeks of efforts by Trumps top congressional Republican defenders to spread misinformation about the results of the 2020 election. Those GOP lawmakers also helped apply pressure on the Justice Department to legitimize those false fraud claims. None of the lawmakers ever received pardons.

At an earlier hearing, the Jan. 6 panel showed an email from attorney John Eastman, one of the key architects of Trumps bid to stay in power, asking to be placed on Trumps pardon list. He, too, never received a pardon.

Later Thursday, several of the House Republicans vigorously denied asking for pardons for themselves. Gohmert said in a statement he asked for pardons for other people unrelated to Jan. 6. Perry issued his own statement reiterating his denial that he asked for a pardon: I stand by my statement that I never sought a Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress.

Biggs wrote on Twitter the allegations were false. Jordan said he never requested a pardon but declined to say whether he ever asked for a status update.

Other Republicans criticized the committee but didnt directly deny the allegations. Greene, in a tweet, accused the committee of relying on hearsay, saying Hutchinson testified she heard about a pardon request, though she refused repeated questions from reporters on whether she ever asked for one.

Gaetz, in a tweet, simply criticized the select panel; he ignored questions late Thursday about the evidence he asked for a pardon.

Brooks, on other hand, said in a statement that the email request says it all, citing concerns that Democrats would prosecute or jail Republicans for their objections to certifying the electoral votes.

The Alabama Republican told reporters that Trump asked him to put his pardon request in writing so it can be evaluated following a post-Jan. 6 conversation and that after he sent his email, the president thought it would be best just to let it play out. I agreed with him.

The testimony about pardons also highlighted the absence of deposition evidence from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone whom the panels vice chair, Liz Cheney, has urged to testify in recent days and his deputy Patrick Philbin. Both have met informally with the committee but not figured much into the public hearings. Some testimony Thursday suggested that Philbin was on the receiving end of pardon requests.

As the select panel prepares to add new evidence to hearings next month, Chair Bennie Thompson told reporters the committee could back up its allegations about the GOP pardon bids: We can prove what we showed today.

Its fifth public hearing underscored the lengths Trump and his allies went to enlist DOJ in his effort to seize a second term after losing the election. Trumps top officials at the time acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, his deputy Richard Donoghue and former Office of Legal Counsel Chief Steven Engel described a series of increasingly desperate meetings to fend off Trumps effort to deploy DOJ in service of his effort, and an intense, ultimately successful effort to prevent him from installing a more compliant official atop the department.

He pressured the justice Department to act as an arm of his reelection campaign, Thompson said.

The panel also highlighted Trumps own direct pressure on DOJ, which escalated in the days after former Attorney General William Barr announced his resignation in mid-December 2020.

... Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the [Republican] Congressmen, Donoghue recalled Trump saying during a Dec. 27, 2020, meeting.

The hearing highlighted how Trumps West Wing became a haven for conspiracy theories about election fraud that he then tasked DOJ and other cabinet agencies to investigate. When the theories were debunked, Trump would fall back on new ones, often plucked from far-flung corners of the internet and laundered through pro-Trump channels until they reached the Oval Office.

You guys may not be following the internet the way I do, Trump told the officials, according to Thursdays testimony.

Donoghue described one such theory that Italian satellites had switched votes from Trump to Joe Biden as pure insanity. But the select committee also showed that Trumps newly appointed acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller called officials in Italy to inquire about the bizarre theory.

Much of the hearing emphasized how Trumps allies in Congress helped ratchet up pressure on DOJ even as the Department systematically debunked Donald Trumps election fraud claims.

The select panel showed Thursday that Perry who now chairs the House Freedom Caucus helped link Trump with Jeffrey Clark, a little-known DOJ environmental official whom Trump hoped would amplify his debunked claims of voter fraud. Perry brought Clark to the White House on Dec. 22, 2020, according to visitor logs released by the Capitol riot committee.

Trump would go as far as offering Clark the Justice Departments top job, only to back down as Rosen, Donoghue and Engel as well as Cipollone warned of a mass exodus within DOJ. Engels warning to Trump that a Clark-run DOJ would be a graveyard apparently affected Trump, the witnesses said, and he backed off the plan.

Donoghue emphasized that Trump made clear he wasnt interested in the merit of any election fraud allegations only in DOJs willingness to endorse them, then leave the rest to him and his allies. As part of that plot, Trump had pressed his DOJ leaders to issue a letter describing concerns about election irregularities in multiple states.

Clark was prepared to issue that letter, urging states to convene their legislatures and consider whether to appoint new presidential electors who would favor Trump. Clark, asked about these matters by the select committee during a deposition earlier this year, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against potential self-incrimination and claimed executive privilege.

FBI officials raided Clarks home Wednesday, a sign some select committee members saw as part of a rapidly escalating criminal inquiry against Trumps efforts to overturn the election.

In court filings connected to its investigation, the committee revealed text messages between Perry and then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in which Perry urged Meadows to elevate Clark at DOJ as quickly as possible. The two also discussed a potential deputy for Clark. The select committee has also obtained testimony that Meadows burned some papers in his office after meeting with Perry during those crucial post-election weeks.

Rosen and Donoghue also described their experiences on Jan. 6, noting that they were on the phone constantly with congressional leaders, cabinet officials, then-Vice President Mike Pence and senior White House aides. But they noted that they never heard from Trump amid the chaos.

Betsy Woodruff Swan and Anthony Adragna contributed to this report.

Read more from the original source:
Multiple House Republicans on defensive over Jan. 6 panel testimony that they sought post-riot pardons - POLITICO

On Saturday, thousands of Texas Republicans approved a new platform at the 2022 party convention in Houston, and it immediately caused a furor. In addition to a number of controversial policy planks, it also called on the state legislature to authorize a referendum on secession from the United States. Here's everything you need to know about the document and what it means:

There are 275 planks in the platform that delegates voted on over the weekend, but suffice to say it is a remarkably radical document. It advocates for protecting life from "fertilization to natural death," defines homosexuality as "an abnormal lifestyle," marriage as only between "one biological man and one biological woman," and supports eliminating sex education from schools altogether. Texas Republicans are also now on record as supporting the prosecution of teachers at any grade level who discuss sexual orientation, and banning gender affirmation surgery for anyone under 21. It also endorses a complete prohibition on abortion and supports returning prayer and the Ten Commandments to public schools and buildings. It describes any and all restrictions on gun ownership, particularly those being discussed in Congress, as "a violation of the Second Amendment and of our God-given rights."

On the political side, it calls for abolishing the direct election of U.S. Senators, nullifying Supreme Court decisions, ending birthright citizenship, repealing the Voting Rights Act, and holding an Article V convention to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. It further argues for eliminating the direct election of all statewide officials in Texas, doing so instead with a state version of the Electoral College. The document endorses former President Trump's baseless 2020 election conspiracy by referring to "acting President Biden" and claiming that he was "not legitimately elected." Will Weissert of The Associated Press said that with the platform, the Texas Republican Party "has broken new ground in its push to the far right."Conservative media outlets like Fox News, National Review, and American Greatness, on the other hand, gave the platform scant coverage.

But perhaps its most attention-grabbing line called for the state legislature to authorize a secession referendum. Early in the document, Texas Republicans called for the legislature to pass a law affirming the state's right to secede from the United States. Then in the 224th plank, it asks for a referendum in the 2023 election "to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation." The plank predictably ignited a firestorm, with many on the left half-jokingly hoping that Republicans go through with it. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank endorsed the idea and recommended a "severance package that includes Oklahoma." Others, however, were quick to point out that Texas cannot legally secede from the United States. Are they right?

Daniel Miller, author of TEXIT: How and Why Texas Will Leave the Union, argues that "there is not a single clause in the Constitution of the United States that forbids Texas, or any State, for that matter, from leaving the Union." Indeed, there is little dispute that the U.S. Constitution neither endorses nor explicitly prohibits the secession of states from the union. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, the issue was considered settled. In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the Supreme Court eliminated all ambiguity, writing that "the union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."

However, the Supreme Court commands no army. If Texas were to vote to secede next year, it would be up to the U.S. government to choose to intervene, or not. And in a sense, it might actually be advantageous for the Biden administration to let Texas walk away without a fight. After all, without the state's Electoral Votes (now up to 40 after the post-census reapportionment), neither George W. Bush nor Donald Trump would ever have become president. The state currently provides a 12-seat edge to Republicans in the struggle to control the House.

The centrality of Texas to the GOP's national political fortunes, therefore, is what makes its secession so deeply implausible. There is no world in which Republican leaders outside of Texas would support its unilateral secession especially Trump, whose bid to reclaim the presidency in 2024 would be dead in the water without the Lone Star State. And if Republicans take one or both chambers of Congress in November's midterm elections, it would likely suck most of the air out of the Texas GOP's inchoate secession plans, just as the 2018 midterms put an end to loose talk of "Calexit" on the West Coast.

A 2021 poll found substantial support for a hypothetical division of the United States into four countries, with 66 percent of Republicans in the South favoring the plan. A July 2021 survey from the University of Virginia found that 52 percent of Trump voters and 41 percent of Biden voters favored a division of the country into red and blue polities. But secessionist movements have a fairly dim track record of winning binding referenda, especially in wealthy democratic countries where it is hard to make the case that anyone is being particularly oppressed. The emotional satisfaction of imagining a velvet divorce ultimately runs headlong into the logistical, financial, and political nightmares that separation would really entail. And regional secession votes that don't have permission from the central government to take place might "succeed" but not change the territorial status quo.

Ultimately, the Texas Republican Party platform is just that an expression of ideals that aren't binding on anyone, including the state legislature. If its plans are to become reality, it is up to elected Republicans in the state to pursue them, defend them, and put them into practice.

Continue reading here:
Did Texas Republicans endorse secession at their party convention? - The Week

In late 2020, Donald Trump instructed a top Justice Department official to Just say [the election] was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.

Trump gave this command on Dec. 27, 2020nearly eight weeks after Election Day and almost two weeks after the Electoral College met and confirmed Joe Bidens victoryto then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who revealed it in testimony before the House January 6th Committee yesterday. The revelation, confirmed in Donoghues contemporaneous notes, shows just how serious the former president was about overturning the election.

With that simple order, Trumps plot becomes clear. He wanted Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to lie about the election, creating a pretense that Republican members of Congress could use to reject Electoral College votes for Biden.

And for two reasons, we now know that Trumps plan carried criminal liability:

(1) The only man at the Department of Justice willing to carry out Trumps schemesformer Trump environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clarkhad his home searched on Wednesday by the feds. Law enforcement wont confirm the reason for the raid, but it is almost certainly connected to his efforts to alter the election results.

(2) The Jan. 6th Committee revealed yesterday that Republican members of Congress secretly sought pardons from Trump for their actions to help him overturn the election. As committee member Adam Kinzinger pointed out, The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think youve committed a crime.

Lets discuss each of these in turn.

Trumps disregard for the law was blatant. White House lawyers and Justice Department officials repeatedly warned him and his allies that they were pursuing illegal, unconstitutional measures.

The work of fending off Trumps outrageous demands must have been exhausting. The three former DOJ officials who testified yesterday explained how they pushed back when Trump wanted them to launch sham investigations, file a meritless lawsuit at the Supreme Court, seize voting machines, and create an unnecessary special counsel investigation. (Disgraced lawyer Sidney Powell says Trump asked her to lead that investigation.) But no matter how many times DOJ officials told Trump no, he kept looking for yes men.

Former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr got so fed up with Trumps election lies that, in an act of defiance, he told a reporter on December 1, 2020 that to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election. That same dayas Barr described in his memoir and told the committeehe told Trump in private that his claims of election fraud were bullshit and idiotic. Barr quietly resigned in mid-December without explaining to the public what he had told Trump in private about his election lies.

Trump, upset that Barrs replacement refused to indulge him, sought out Jeffrey Clark. Clark was willing to do what Barr and others would not.

The committee yesterday showed evidence that Clark secretly met with Trump, breaking DOJ protocol, and drafted a letter for the DOJ to issue to lawmakers in key swing states with Republican-controlled legislatures. The letter falsely claimed the DOJ had identified significant concerns about the election and laid out a path for states to transmit to Congress alternate slates of electors, thus converting states that Biden had won into wins for Trump. Clark presented it to his superiors at DOJ and said that if they didnt sign it, he would accept an offer from Trump to become attorney general, thereby getting the power to issue the letter himself.

Thankfully, top officials at the Department of Justice, such as Donoghue, pulled rank and threatened to resign en masse if Trump installed Clark as attorney general. Donoghue told Trump that Clark would be left leading a graveyard at DOJ. Why? Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann described his opposition in colorful terms directly to Clark:

Trump ultimately backed downbut only after Donoghue made the case that Clark was too incompetent to execute Trumps wishes. In other words, Trump was not persuaded that the illegality of his wishes mattered. He was just led to doubt that Clark could get the job done.

More details relating to Clark may yet emerge in the days ahead, especially after he was hauled out of his house in his pajamas this week so that federal investigators could search his house.

At least a handful of Republican members of Congress knew Trumps wishes carried legal risk as well.

In the last half hour of its hearing yesterday, the Jan. 6th Committee revealed the names of six members of Congress who sought or expressed interest in presidential pardons for their participation in various plots to overturn the election. They were: Scott Perry, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, Andy Biggs, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Mo Brooks.

At least those are the six pardon-seekers the committee knows of, based on interviews with former Trump administration officials.

Mo Brooks actually went further, recommending a few days after Jan. 6th that Trump grant all purpose pardons to all 147 congressional Republicans who objected to certifying Joe Bidens election on January 6 and for the 126 Republicans who signed an amicus brief supporting the Texas lawsuit that sought to cancel votes, outright, in the swing states Trump lost. Brooks cast this as a defensive move against an unfair future prosecution he feared from the Democrats.

While Brookss plea for a mass pardon is paranoidmembers of Congress are largely protected by the Constitutions Speech and Debate Clauseit does indicate that Trumps closest allies in Congress are worried about their criminal culpability connected to Jan. 6th.

Corrections (24 June 2022, 9:30 a.m. EDT): As originally published, this article stated that Jeffrey Clark was arrested this week in connection with the raid on his house; he was not. The article also erroneously labeled him an EPA lawyerbut while his legal focus was indeed on environmental law, it was at the DOJ, not the EPA.

The rest is here:
The Republicans Who Wanted Pardons for Their Trump Coup Actions - The Bulwark

Welcome to The Heart of the Primaries, Republican Edition

June 23, 2022

In this issue: This weeks marquee primary results and responses to Eric Greitens new ad

Here are recent results from marquee elections weve been following.

Alabama U.S. Senate primary runoff: Katie Britt defeated Mo Brooks 63% to 37% on Tuesday. The pair advanced from a field of six candidates in the May 24 primary. Incumbent Richard Shelby (R), first elected in 1986, did not run for re-election. This is a solidly Republican seat.

Alabamas 5th District primary runoff: Dale Strong defeated Casey Wardynski 63% to 37% on Tuesday. Mo Brooks has represented this district for more than a decade. Strong has served on the Madison County Commission since 2012.

Alaskas special U.S. House primary: Sarah Palin (R), Nick Begich III (R), Al Gross (I), and Mary Peltola (D) were the top four finishers in Alaskas special U.S. House primarythe first top-four congressional primary in U.S. history.

Gross withdrew on Monday. The Division of Elections said Tuesday that fifth-place finisher Tara Sweeney (R) would not advance to the Aug. 16 special general election because Gross withdrew fewer than 64 days before the general. Lawsuits are possible. The final ballot count was Tuesday, and the Division plans to certify results Saturday.

Forty-eight candidates ran in the special primary. Unofficial results from the final ballot count for the top five candidates are below.

Virginias 7th District: Yesli Vega defeated five other candidates, receiving 29% of the vote on Tuesday. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D) is running in the redrawn 7th District. Vega serves on the Prince William County Board of Supervisors and had endorsements from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), whom Spanberger defeated in the old 7th District in 2018. Three independent forecasters rate the general election as Toss-up, Lean Democratic, or Tilt Democratic.

Weve been tracking former President Donald Trumps endorsements in primaries. After Tuesdays elections, Trumps endorsement record is 123-10 (92%). Two endorseesVernon Jones and Jake Evanslost U.S. House primary runoffs in Georgia on Tuesday.

The figures below were current as of Wednesday morning. Click here for more information on defeated incumbents.

At least four state legislatorsall Republicanslost in primary runoffs on June 21. Including those results, 111 state legislative incumbents have lost in primaries this year. This number will likely increase: 37 primaries featuring incumbents remain uncalled.

Across the 21 states that have held state legislative primaries so far this year, 5.4% of incumbents running for re-election have lost, continuing an elevated rate of incumbent primary defeats compared to recent election cycles.

Of the 21 states that have held primaries so far, five had Democratic trifectas, 13 had Republican trifectas, and three had divided governments, with Democrats controlling the governorship and Republicans controlling both legislative chambers. Across these 21 states, there are 2,650 seats up for election, 43% of the nationwide total.

Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Eric Greitens released a campaign ad Monday in which he carries a gun and tells viewers to get a RINO hunting permit. Greitens primary opponents and the state Fraternal Order of Police criticized the ad.

Greitens identifies himself in the ad as a Navy SEAL and says, Today, were going RINO hunting. Greitens and a group of armed men in military gear then break into a house and throw a flash grenade inside. Greitens says, Join the MAGA crew, get a RINO hunting permit. Theres no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesnt expire until we save our country.

Facebook removed the video from its platform for violating its policies prohibiting violence and incitement. Twitter added a warning to the video, saying, This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about abusive behavior. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the publics interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.

Other Senate GOP primary candidates in Missouri criticized the video.

U.S. Rep. Billy Long said the video was distasteful, adding, [Missouri Attorney General Eric] Schmitt nor [U.S. Rep Vicky] Hartzler can beat him, but he may be able to beat himself. The way to beat RINOs like Schmitt and Hartzler is at the ballot box.

State Sen. Dave Schatz tweeted, Completely irresponsible. Thats why Im running. Its time to restore sanity and reject this nonsense. Missouri deserves better.

Hartzler said, Eric Greitens is an abuser, a blackmailer, and less than ten years ago a Democrat. To be clear: The only RINO featured in Eric Greitens web video is himself.

Greitens was governor of Missouri from 2017 to 2018, when he resigned following allegations of sexual misconduct and misuse of campaign information. This year, Greitens ex-wife alleged that he abused her and one of their children. Greitens denied the allegations.

The Missouri Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) said, The creation and release of this video again demonstrates that Mr. Greitens does not possess the sound judgement necessary to represent the people of Missouri in the United States Senate. The Missouri FOP has endorsed Schmitt in the primary.

Greitens said, We just wanted to demonstrate with a sense of humor and with a sense of fun that we are going to take on RINOS. Greitens said it was entertaining to watch the faux outrage of all of the liberals and RINO snowflakes around the country and around the state.

Twenty-one candidates are running in the Senate GOP primary on Aug. 2. In an Emerson College poll from early June, Greitens received 26% support, followed by Schmitt with 20%, Hartzler with 16%, and Long with 8%. Twenty-seven percent were undecided. The margin of error was +/- 3 percentage points.

Incumbent Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is not running for re-election.

As we wrote last week, Michigan gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley was arrested on June 9 on misdemeanor charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach. A poll the Detroit Free Press commissioned from June 10-13 showed 45% undecided, Kelley with 17%, Garrett Soldano with 13%, Kevin Rinke with 12%, and two others with 5% or less. The margin of error was +/- 4.9 percentage points.

A Target Insyght and Michigan Information and Research Service poll from late May showed 49% undecided. Kelley had 19%, Rinke 15%, Tudor Dixon 9%, and Soldano 6%. The margin of error was +/- 5 percentage points.

The primary is on Aug. 2.

Indiana Republican Party delegates nominated Diego Morales for secretary of state during the partys state convention on June 18. Morales will run against Destiny Wells (D) and Jeff Maurer (L) in the general election. Four candidates competed for the nomination: Morales, incumbent Holli Sullivan, Paul Hager, and David Shelton.

In Indiana, political parties nominate candidates for lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, and attorney general at state party conventions.

Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) appointed Sullivan in 2021. The Indianapolis Stars Kaitlin Lange wrote that with some frustration within the Republican party over Holcombs handling of the pandemic and other policy choices, [Sullivans] ties to the establishment hurt her campaign more than they helped as she faced three other candidates. [Morales] primarily garnered the support of the more conservative faction of the party, capitalizing on discontent with Holcomb and those associated with him.

According to the Associated Press Tom Davies, Morales said the 2020 presidential election was a scam. Brian Howey of Howey Politics Indiana wrote, [Morales] campaign says that he was misquoted His campaign texted this statement from Morales: I proudly voted for Trump twice, but Joe Biden was elected president in 2020 and legitimately occupies that office today. There were a number of irregularities in that election, including the secretary of state in Pennsylvania changing election rules only 30 days before election day. Those kinds of actions are unacceptable.'

According to Davies, Morales wants to shorten the early voting period, require proof of U.S. citizenship from newly registering voters, and create an election task force.

Colorado and Oklahoma hold primaries on June 28. Weve crunched some numbers to see how competitive the primaries will be compared to recent election cycles.

Colorado

Oklahoma

Notes on how these figures were calculated:

More here:
Heart of the Primaries 2022, Republicans-Issue 28 Ballotpedia News - Ballotpedia News