- On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo broke long-standing precedent by issuing his support for a presidential candidate during President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign at the Republican National Convention
- Even before his speech, a House committee announced it was launching an investigation over concerns Pompeo violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits executive branch employees from political activities while on-duty.
- The White House has argued that Pompeo was off duty and not on government grounds when he gave the speech, though Pompeo may have still violated his own State Department guidance.
- Tuesday night’s RNC events also included another possible Hatch Act violation, according to critics. This occurred when Trump hosted a naturalization ceremony for five immigrants, with federal employees also in attendance.
House Committee Probe
Night two of the Republican National Convention featured major controversial moments that critics and legal experts say could have violated federal law.
The most notable was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s decision to speak at the RNC while on a diplomatic trip in Jerusalem. In fact, the move is now the subject of a House committee investigation.
That probe, launched by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is investigating whether or not Pompeo violated the Hatch Act by appearing at the RNC. According to the Office of the Special Counsel, which promotes compliance with the law, it limits “certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs.”
Specifically to this situation, the law bars executive branch employees from using their positions to influence a presidential election. While those employees can still participate in political activities, the Hatch Act prevents them from doing so while in government buildings or while wearing an official uniform or insignia.
“It is highly unusual, and likely unprecedented, for a sitting Secretary of State to speak at a partisan convention for either of the political parties,” Representative Joaquin Castro said in a letter Stephen Biegun, deputy secretary of state. “It appears that it may also be illegal.”
Castro continued by asking Beigun to provide a host of details about Pompeo’s current trip to Jerusalem, including:
- Any potential involvement in the speech by State Department employees and their responsibilities.
- Information about whether or not the State Department will be paying for all of the travel costs of this trip or if part of it will be reimbursed by the RNC or the Trump campaign.
- The date the State Department was first made aware of Pompeo’s decision to make this address from Jerusalem while on a trip abroad.
Despite the House inquiry, the State Department has argued that Pompeo didn’t use his official title and only spoke on a “personal capacity,” A spokesperson with the department also said Pompeo didn’t use any departmental resources or staff to deliver his speech.
“The State Department will not bear any costs in conjunction with this appearance,” the spokesperson added.
Reportedly, lawyers for Pompeo, the State Department, the RNC, and the White House all reviewed Pompeo’s speech to ensure that it would not violate the Hatch Act.
In his letter, Castro addresses the State Department’s explanation, saying Pompeo “has not made any of this supposed legal analysis public. Instead, the legal analysis that has come to light shows precisely the opposite.”
Other critics have also cited departmental guidance approved by Pompeo himself last month, which states that “the Department’s longstanding policy is that U.S. citizen employees and family members may not engage in partisan political activity while posted or on [temporary duty travel] abroad, even on personal time.”
Therefore, it is also possible that Pompeo broke his own guidance by giving his address; however, that would not constitute a violation of federal law, unlike the Hatch Act.
Pompeo Praises Trump’s Foreign Policy
When it came time for Pompeo’s pre-recorded speech to finally air, he praised many of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions; however, Pompeo was careful to never actually reference his position as Secretary of State.
“He’s pulled back the curtain on the predatory aggression of the Chinese Communist Party,” said. “The president has held China accountable for covering up the China virus and allowing it to spread death and economic destruction in America and around the world, and he will not rest until justice is done.”
Like Trump’s repeated use of the phrase, Pompeo’s explicit choice to use the “China virus” has been condemned by many as racist. While China has been accused by U.S. intelligence of covering up COVID-19 cases, as of Wednesday, John Hopkins University reported just under 90,000 cases in the country of over 1.4 billion. By comparison, the U.S. has nearly 5.78 million cases but only has a population of 328 million.
Additionally, as The New York Times points out, “Trump has taken no specific action to punish China for its virus response.”
Continuing to praise Trump for his response to China, Pompeo toured Trump’s trade war with China, saying that China “punched a hole in our economy” and that “jobs are coming back home.”
Pompeo then shifted gears to Trump’s historic talks with North Korea and later, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, where he said that NATO is stronger today because of Trump.
Over the past four years, Trump has repeatedly bashed NATO and mischaracterized its funding. Many western officials reportedly worry about its future.
In his address, Pompeo also praised the Trump administration for the killing of top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in January. That move was highly controversial in nature, and some claimed that it violated international law because the U.S. justification was not strong enough. Others criticized it for sharply escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
“The president exited the US from the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran and squeezed the ayatollah, Hezbollah, and Hamas,” Pompeo said, praising other controversial Trump decisions. “The president, too, moved the US embassy to this very city of God, Jerusalem, the rightful capital of the Jewish homeland.”
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal wasn’t popular at all with US allies. In fact, it was even opposed by his advisers.
Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem broke decades of U.S. policy and came at a tumultuous time for Israel.
Trump Naturalization Ceremony
Tuesday night also featured a pre-recorded naturalization ceremony hosted by Trump. In that ceremony, acting Homeland Security secretary Chad Wolf administers the Oath of Allegiance to five immigrants..
Notably, because this event was recorded in the White House, critics argued that Wolf was violating the Hatch Act.
In addition to Wolf, two uniformed Marines took part in the ceremony, which could also be at odds with the Hatch Act, according to a long-standing policy from the Department of Defense. The basis of that would likely depend on whether those Marines knew the ceremony was being recorded for the RNC.
According to an anonymous White House official who spoke with The Washington Post, the ceremony was part of the president’s official schedule that was publicized on a public website
“The campaign decided to use the publicly available content for campaign purposes,” that official told The Post. “There was no violation of law.”
But as The Post reported, the White House press corps was never informed about the ceremony and that ceremony was not listed on the president’s public schedule.
The Trump administration has a history of violating the Hatch Act. In 2018, six White House staffers were found to have violated the act, but no official punishments were even enforced. They were simply sent warnings.
In 2019, the Office of the Special Counsel recommended that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway be removed from her position for multiple violations of the Hatch Act.
See what others are saying: (Axios) (Politico) (Business Insider)
Republicans Say They Will Block Bill To Avert Government Shutdown and Debt Default
Democrats argue the bill is necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe.
Democrats Introduce Legislation
Democrats in the House and Senate unveiled sweeping legislation Monday that aimed to keep the government funded through early December, lift the federal debt limit, and provide around $35 billion for Afghan refugees and natural disaster recovery.
The bill is needed to avoid a government shutdown when funding expires next week. It is also necessary to prevent the Treasury Department from reaching the limit of its borrowing authority, which would trigger the U.S. to default on its debt for the first time ever.
For weeks, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has urged Congress to raise the federal debt limit, also known as the debt ceiling, warning that the department will soon exhaust all of its measures to keep the federal government within its legal borrowing limit.
If the U.S. were to default, it would be unable to pay its debts, sending massive shockwaves through the financial system.
Democrats have painted the bill as crucial to avert an economic doomsday that would massively undermine recovery.
They argue that the combination of a government shutdown and a debt default would destabilize global markets and leave millions of Americans without essential aid.
Republicans Vow to Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling
Despite the considerable threats, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly said Republicans will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, arguing that Democrats should do it without their help because they are pushing trillions of dollars in new spending priorities.
Democrats have slammed the Republican leader’s stance as hypocritical. They point out that while it is true they are proposing new spending, it has not been approved yet, and the debt that currently risks default has been incurred by both parties.
Democrats also noted that trillions of dollars were added to the federal debt under former President Donald Trump, which is more than what has been added by President Joe Biden. As a result, Republicans raised the debt ceiling three times during the Trump administration with the support of Democrats.
McConnell, however, remains unlikely to budge. On Monday, White House officials said McConnell has not outlined any requests or areas of negotiation in exchange for support of the legislation.
While the bill is expected to pass the House, it appears all but doomed in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to break the filibuster.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Politico)
California Gov. Gavin Newsom Survives Recall
Experts say the outcome should act as a warning for Republicans who tie themselves to former President Donald Trump and attempt to undermine election results by promoting false voter fraud claims.
Recall Effort Fails
After seven months and an estimated $276 million in taxpayer money, the Republican-led effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) failed Tuesday.
Just under 70% of the votes have been reported as of Wednesday morning, showing that “no” on the recall received 63.9% of the vote. That’s nearly twice as many votes as “yes,” which had 36.1%.
According to The Washington Post, even if the margin narrows as more votes are counted, this still marks one of the biggest rejections of any recall effort in America over the last century.
Analysts say the historic rebuke was driven by high Democratic turnout and broader fears over resurging COVID cases.
While the Delta variant continues to push new infections to record highs in many parts of the country with lax mask rules and low vaccination rates, California, once a global epicenter of the pandemic, now has one of the highest vaccination rates and lowest new caseloads in the nation.
Newsom has continually tried to convince voters that those figures are the results of his vaccine and masking policies, which have been some of the most aggressive in the U.S.
Given that polls showed the pandemic was the top concern for California voters, it is clear that the majority favored his policies over those of his competitors. Larry Elder, the Republican talk radio host of led the field of 46 challengers, ran on a platform of getting rid of essentially all COVID restrictions.
In his victory speech Tuesday night, Newsom painted the recall’s failure not only as a win for Democratic coronavirus policies but also for Democracy at large.
“We said yes to science. We said yes to vaccines. We said yes to ending this pandemic,” he said. “We said yes to people’s right to vote without fear of fake fraud or voter suppression.”
“I think about just in the last few days and the former president put out saying this election was rigged,” he continued. “Democracy is not a football. You don’t throw it around. That’s more like a, I don’t know, antique vase. You can drop it and smashing a million different pieces. And that’s what we’re capable of doing if we don’t stand up to meet the moment and push back.”
“I said this many, many times on the campaign trail, we may have defeated Trump, but Trump-ism is not dead in this country. The Big Lie, January 6th insurrection, all the voting suppression efforts that are happening all across this country.”
A Warning for Republicans
Newsom’s remarks took aim at the efforts by Elder and other Republicans — including former President Donald Trump — who over the last week have claimed falsely and without evidence that voter fraud helped secured the governor’s win before Election Day even took place.
While it is currently unknown whether that narrative may have prompted more Republican voters to stay home, Newsom’s effort to cast Edler as a Trump-like candidate and the recall as an undemocratic, Republican power grab appears to have been effective.
Now, political strategists say that the outcome of the recall should serve as a warning that Republicans who pin themselves to Trump and his Big Lie playbook may be hurt more in certain states.
“The recall does offer at least one lesson to Democrats in Washington ahead of next year’s midterm elections: The party’s pre-existing blue- and purple-state strategy of portraying Republicans as Trump-loving extremists can still prove effective with the former president out of office,” The New York Times explained.
Even outside of a strongly blue state like California, analysts say this strategy will also be effective with similar candidates in battleground states like Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, which will be essential to deciding control of the Senate.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (NPR)
Justice Department Sues Texas Over Abortion Ban
The department claims the Texas law violates past Supreme Court precedents on abortion and infringes on Constitutional protections.
Biden Administration Takes Aim at Texas Law
The Department of Justice sued Texas on Thursday in an attempt to block the state’s newly enacted law that effectively prohibits all abortions by banning the procedure after six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant.
The abortion law, which is the most restrictive in the country and does not provide exceptions for rape or incest, allows private citizens to take legal action against anyone who helps a person terminate their pregnancy after six weeks.
In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argued that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it violates past Supreme Court precedents through a technical loophole.
While numerous other states have passed similar laws banning abortion after about six weeks, federal judges have struck down those measures on the grounds that they are inconsistent with Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that states cannot prevent someone from seeking an abortion before a fetus can viably live outside the womb, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.
The Texas law, however, skirts the high court decisions by deputizing citizens to enforce the law rather than state government officials, taking the state out of the equation entirely and protecting it from legal responsibility.
Individuals who do so do not have to prove any personal injury or connection to those they take legal action against, which can range from abortion providers to rideshare drivers who take someone to a clinic.
If their lawsuit is successful, the citizen is entitled to a $10,000 award.
DOJ Lawsuit Targets Constitutionality
During a press conference detailing the DOJ lawsuit, Attorney General Merrick Garland referred to the enforcement mechanism as “an unprecedented” effort with the “obvious and expressly acknowledged intention” to prevent Texans from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.
“This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans — whatever their politics or party — should fear,” Garland said, adding that the provision of the law allowing civilians “to serve as bounty hunters” may become “a model for action in other areas, by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents.”
The Justice Department argued that the Texas policy violates equal protection guarantees under the 14th Amendment as well as the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the Constitution and federal law generally take precedence over state law.
The lawsuit also claimed that the law interferes with the constitutional obligation of federal employees to provide access to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest, to people who are under the care of federal agencies or contractors such as those in prisons.
Both Sides See Path to Supreme Court
While proponents of abortion rights applauded the Justice Department’s legal challenge, officials in Texas defended the law and accused the Biden administration of filing the lawsuit for political reasons.
“President Biden and his administration are more interested in changing the national narrative from their disastrous Afghanistan evacuation and reckless open border policies instead of protecting the innocent unborn,” a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), said in a statement.
“We are confident that the courts will uphold and protect that right to life.”
The DOJ’s suit will now be decided by a federal judge for the Western District of Texas, based in Austin.
Depending on how that court rules, either opponents or supporters of the abortion ban are expected to appeal the case, sending it to the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal and likely ultimately placing the matter before the Supreme Court again in a matter of months.
The Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect by declining to approve an emergency petition to block the measure last week, but it did not rule on the constitutionality of the policy.
As a result, the Justice Department’s legal challenge could force the high court to hear another facet of the law that it has not yet considered if it decides to see the case.