- A bombshell report from The Atlantic claims that President Donald Trump has made numerous derogatory remarks about U.S. veterans and military service members, including calling soldiers who died in the World War I battle at Belleau Wood “suckers” for getting killed.
- The report also claimed that he called the late senator John McCain a “loser” after his death. He also allegedly said that he did not want wounded veterans to participate in a 2018 military parade because “nobody wants to see that.”
- The report caught a lot of attention and resulted in many, including Trump’s Democratic opponent Joe Biden, condemning the president for these remarks.
- However, Trump claims the report is a lie. He tweeted that while he was “never a big fan of John McCain,” he never called him a loser. “I never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES,” the president added.
Trump Denies Report From The Atlantic
President Donald Trump denied allegations laid out in a Thursday report from The Atlantic which claimed he made insulting comments about veterans and members of the U.S. military.
The report alleges that Trump, among many other things, called servicemen who died in the World War I battle at Belleau Wood “suckers” for getting killed. In 2018 he was set to visit the cemetery in France where they were buried but canceled the trip. At the time, Trump cited that travel to the area was made impossible by rainy weather conditions. However, The Atlantic claims that the president did not go because he was concerned the rain would ruin his hair.
“Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers,” the magazine claims he asked about the excursion. Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote the piece, says he learned about these remarks from four anonymous sources with firsthand knowledge of these discussions.
The report also claimed that he called the late senator John McCain a “loser” after he died.
Trump and McCain were known to have publicly sparred with each other before. McCain was a prisoner of war for five years and many have praised him as a war hero. During Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, however, he said he likes “people who weren’t captured” when referring to McCain.
On Thursday evening, Trump took to Twitter to deny the accusations in the article. In a Twitter thread, he said he was “never a big fan of John McCain” but “never called John a loser.”
“[I] swear on whatever, or whoever, I was asked to swear on, that I never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES,” he added. “This is more made up Fake News given by disgusting & jealous failures in a disgraceful attempt to influence the 2020 Election!”
He also spoke to reporters late on Thursday and claimed that no one has done what he has for the military in terms of budgets and pay raises. He also insisted that the Secret Service told him he could not go to the cemetery in France because of the weather.
“To think that I would make statements negative to our military and our fallen heroes, when nobody’s done what I’ve done,” Trump said.
“It is a disgraceful situation by a magazine that’s a terrible magazine. I don’t read it,” he added.
The president continued his attacks against the report Friday morning by saying The Atlantic only published it to gain relevance because it was dying.
What Did the Report Say?
The Atlantic’s bombshell report paints the president as a man incapable of seeing why people, specifically military members, would make a sacrifice and put their life on the line for nothing in return. The piece goes so far as to claim he does not understand why anyone would do anything that gives them no monetary gain.
Trump himself received a medical deferment from the draft during the Vietnam War for alleged bone spurs. Accounts from Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, as well as from the daughters of the doctor who allegedly gave him this diagnosis, have since claimed that Trump did not have bone spurs and lied to get out of the war. White House officials have dismissed these claims.
The Atlantic told the story of one visit Trump made to Arlington National Cemetery with John Kelly, who was the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time. Kelly’s son Robert, who died in Afghanistan in 2010, is buried there. During the visit Trump allegedly asked Kelly, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”
“He can’t fathom the idea of doing something for someone other than himself,” one of Kelly’s friends, a retired four-star general, told The Atlantic. “He just thinks that anyone who does anything when there’s no direct personal gain to be had is a sucker. There’s no money in serving the nation.”
The report also claims that Trump made several other derogatory remarks about military members, including calling former President George H.W. Bush a “loser” because he was shot down by the Japanese while serving as a navy pilot in World War II. When planning a military parade in 2018, he allegedly asked that wounded veterans not participate because “nobody wants to see that.”
Corroborations From Other Reports
While both Trump and the White House have denied this repellant portrait, other stories seemed to support the idea that Trump does not think well of members of the U.S. military. The Associated Press said a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer confirmed some of the remarks reported in The Atlantic to them, including those about the 2018 trip to the cemetery.
A former senior administration official who spoke to The Washington Post also claimed Trump called soldiers missing in action “losers.” He allegedly asked why the U.S. spends so much time looking for them because they deserved what they got for performing poorly. The Post also claimed that Trump called those who served in Vietnam “losers” because they were unable to get out of it.
Michael Cohen also tweeted that The Atlantic’s piece was “accurate.” He again maintained that there are no medical records related to Trump’s bone spurs.
The Atlantic’s article elicited numerous reactions after catching the nation’s attention. His Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, shared a video compilation of Trump’s derogatory remarks.
“Mr. President, if you don’t respect our troops, you can’t lead them,” Biden wrote.
“This is shocking, even for Trump,” Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote. “The men and women who lost their lives defending our country are patriots.”
Former CIA Director John O. Brennan called Trump’s attitude towards service members repugnant and asked for the president to be voted out of office.
His comments also received backlash from veterans, service members, and their families. Jordan Canedy, a 14-year-old Gold Star son condemned these remarks in an interview with MSNBC.
“He should be appreciative and not criticizing them,” he said. “He doesn’t know what it’s like to go to war.”
Army veteran David Weissman, who used to be an ardent supporter of Trump, started a social media campaign against the president over these remarks. He encouraged veterans to make pictures of themselves in the military their profile photos so they could show Trump how many people he offended.
In Trump’s camp though, many defended the president, insisting that The Atlantic’s report was false. Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said Trump treats military members with admiration and respect.
“The anonymous allegations contained in the Atlantic story are offensive, false, and utterly devoid of merit,” he said.
See what others are saying: (The Atlantic) (NPR) (Al Jazeera)
Jan. 6 Committee Prepares Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon for Ignoring Subpoena
The move comes after former President Trump told several of his previous aides not to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the insurrection.
Bannon Refuses to Comply With Subpoena
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection announced Thursday that it is seeking to hold former White House advisor Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena.
The decision marks a significant escalation in the panel’s efforts to force officials under former President Donald Trump’s administration to comply with its probe amid Trump’s growing efforts to obstruct the inquiry.
In recent weeks, the former president has launched a number of attempts to block the panel from getting key documents, testimonies, and other evidence requested by the committee that he claims are protected by executive privilege.
Notably, some of those assertions have been shut down. On Friday, President Joe Biden rejected Trump’s effort to withhold documents relating to the insurrection.
Still, Trump has also directed former officials in his administration not to comply with subpoenas or cooperate with the committee.
That demand came after the panel issued subpoenas ordering depositions from Bannon and three other former officials: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel.
After Trump issued his demand, Bannon’s lawyer announced that he would not obey the subpoena until the panel reached an agreement with Trump or a court ruled on the executive privilege matter.
Many legal experts have questioned whether Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, can claim executive privilege for something that happened when he was not working for the executive.
Panel Intensifies Compliance Efforts
The Thursday decision from the committee is significant because it will likely set up a legal battle and test how much authority the committee can and will exercise in requiring compliance.
It also sets an important precedent for those who have been subpoenaed. While Bannon is the first former official to openly defy the committee, there have been reports that others plan to do the same.
The panel previously said Patel and Meadows were “engaging” with investigators, but on Thursday, several outlets reported that the two — who were supposed to appear before the body on Thursday and Friday respectively — are now expected to be given an extension or continuance.
Sources told reporters that Scavino, who was also asked to testify Friday, has had his deposition postponed because service of his subpoena was delayed.
As far as what happens next for Bannon, the committee will vote to adopt the contempt report next week. Once that is complete, the matter will go before the House for a full vote.
Assuming the Democratic-held House approves the contempt charge, it will then get referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the matter before a grand jury.
See what others are saying: (CNN) (The Washington Post) (Bloomberg)
Senate Votes To Extend Debt Ceiling Until December
The move adds another deadline to Dec. 3, which is also when the federal government is set to shut down unless Congress approves new spending.
Debt Ceiling Raised Temporarily
The Senate voted on Thursday to extend the debt ceiling until December, temporarily averting a fiscal catastrophe.
The move, which followed weeks of stalemate due to Republican objections, came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) partially backed down from his blockade and offered a short-term proposal.
After much whipping of votes, 11 Republicans joined Democrats to break the legislative filibuster and move to final approval of the measure. The bill ultimately passed in a vote of 50-48 without any Republican support.
The legislation will now head to the House, where Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said members would be called back from their current recess for a vote on Tuesday.
The White House said President Joe Biden would sign the measure, but urged Congress to pass a longer extension.
“We cannot allow partisan politics to hold our economy hostage, and we can’t allow the routine process of paying our bills to turn into a confidence-shaking political showdown every two years or every two months,’’ White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement.
Under the current bill, the nation’s borrowing limit will be increased by $480 billion, which the Treasury Department said will cover federal borrowing until around Dec. 3.
The agency had previously warned that it would run out of money by Oct. 18 if Congress failed to act. Such a move would have a chilling impact on the economy, forcing the U.S. to default on its debts and potentially plunging the country into a recession.
Major Hurdles Remain
While the legislation extending the ceiling will certainly offer temporary relief, it sets up another perilous deadline for the first Friday in December, when government funding is also set to expire if Congress does not approve another spending bill.
Regardless of the new deadline, many of the same hurdles lawmakers faced the first time around remain.
Democrats are still struggling to hammer out the final details of Biden’s $3.5 trillion spending agenda, which Republicans have strongly opposed.
Notably, Democratic leaders previously said they could pass the bill through budget reconciliation, which would allow them to approve the measure with 50 votes and no Republican support.
Such a move would require all 50 Senators, but intraparty disputes remain over objections brought by Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.), who have been stalling the process for months.
Although disagreements over reconciliation are ongoing among Democrats, McConnell has insisted the party use the obscure procedural process to raise the debt limit. Democrats, however, have balked at the idea, arguing that tying the debt ceiling to reconciliation would set a dangerous precedent.
Despite Republican efforts to connect the limit to Biden’s economic agenda, raising the ceiling is not the same as adopting new spending. Rather, the limit is increased to pay off spending that has already been authorized by previous sessions of Congress and past administrations.
In fact, much of the current debt stems from policies passed by Republicans during the Trump administration, including the 2017 tax overhaul.
As a result, while Democrats have signaled they may make concessions to Manchin and Sinema, they strongly believe that Republicans must join them to increase the debt ceiling to fund projects their party supported.
It is currently unclear when or how the ongoing stalemate will be resolved, or how either party will overcome their fervent objections.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)
California Makes Universal Voting by Mail Permanent
California is now the eighth state to make universal mail-in ballots permanent after it temporarily adopted the policy for elections held amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
CA Approves Universal Voting by Mail
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill Monday requiring every registered voter in the state to be mailed a ballot at least 29 days before an election, whether they request it or not.
Assembly Bill 37 makes permanent a practice that was temporarily adopted for elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law, which officially takes effect in January, also extends the time mail ballots have to arrive at elections offices from three days to seven days after an election. Voters can still choose to cast their vote in person if they prefer.
Supporters of the policy have cheered the move, arguing that proactively sending ballots to registered voters increases turnout.
“Data shows that sending everyone a ballot in the mail provides voters access. And when voters get ballots in the mail, they vote,” the bill’s author, Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto), said during a Senate committee hearing in July.
Meanwhile opponents — mostly Republicans — have long cast doubts about the safety of mail-in voting, despite a lack of evidence to support their claims that it leads to widespread voter fraud. That strategy, however, has also faced notable pushback from some that a lot of Republicans who say it can actually hurt GOP turnout.
Others May Follow
The new legislation probably isn’t too surprising for California, where over 50% of votes cast in general elections have been through mail ballots since 2012, according to The Sacramento Bee. Now, many believe California will be followed by similar legislation from Democrats across the country as more Republican leaders move forward with elections bills that significantly limit voting access.
Newsome signed 10 other measures Monday changing election and campaign procedures, including a bill that would require anyone advocating for or against a candidate to stand farther away from a polling place. Another bill increases penalties for candidates who use campaign funds for personal expenses while a third measure increases reporting requirements for limited liability corporations that engage in campaign activity.
“As states across our country continue to enact undemocratic voter suppression laws, California is increasing voter access, expanding voting options and bolstering elections integrity and transparency,” Newsom said in a statement.
“Last year we took unprecedented steps to ensure all voters had the opportunity to cast a ballot during the pandemic and today we are making those measures permanent after record-breaking participation in the 2020 presidential election.”
The news regarding California came just in time for National Voter Registration day today, giving Americans another reminder to make sure they’re registered in their states. For more information on how to register, visit Vote.gov or any of the other resources linked below.