Connect with us

Politics

Press Secretary Falsely Claims Trump Wasn’t Given an “Orderly Transition of Power”

Published

on

  • Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany falsely claimed that President Donald Trump was not given “an orderly transition of power” after he won the 2016 election. 
  • In reality, Hillary Clinton conceded defeat the day after the election, and President Obama Obama met with Trump to start work on the transition two days after. Trump himself even thanked Obama for making the transfer peaceful and smooth in his inauguration speech.
  • By contrast, Trump has launched an unprecedented effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. He’s directed key members of his administration to block the transition process and filed dozens of lawsuits aimed at overturning election results, despite the fact that a growing number of Republicans have encouraged him to start the transition process.

Kayleigh McEnany’s Claims About Trump Transition

Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany falsely claimed on Saturday that President Donald Trump was not given “an orderly transition of power.”

Her comments came during her first press briefing since the election was called for former Vice President Joe Biden, where she was asked about Trump’s refusal to concede and start the transition process.

“While, in 2016, President Trump became the duly elected President, many sought to undermine him, discredit him, delegitimize him, and deny his victory,” she continued. “There were no calls for unity; there were no calls for healing.”

“So while every legal vote is counted, let us not forget the inexcusable transition, or lack thereof, that President Trump had to endure in 2016 and four years into his presidency.”

McEnany’s claims are flatly wrong for a number of reasons. Trump’s opponent in the 2016 election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, conceded the morning of Nov. 9, the day after the election.

“Donald Trump is going to be our president,” Clinton said in her concession speech. “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”

Help From Obama

Later that same day, then-President Barack Obama also acknowledged Trump’s win and emphasized the importance of a smooth transition process. The day after that — less than 48 hours after the election had been called for Trump — the president-elect went to the White House to meet with Obama and start the transition process.

“As I said last night, my number one priority in the coming two months is to try to facilitate a transition that ensures our president-elect is successful,” Obama told reporters while sitting beside Trump.

“We want to make sure that they feel welcome as they prepare to make this transition, and most of all, I want to emphasize to you, Mr. President-elect, that we now are gunna wanna do everything we can to help you succeed,” he continued. “Because if we succeed, then the country succeeds.” 

In fact, Trump himself even thanked Obama for helping to ensure the peaceful transfer of power while speaking at his inauguration.

“Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition,” he said. “They have been magnificent. Thank you.” 

Notably, as the Associated Press pointed out, Trump’s transition was indeed chaotic, but that was almost entirely due to Trump’s own doing. While the Trump transition team did receive standard cooperation during the transfer, they largely ignored advice and offers of help from Obama staffers.

Beyond that, Trump also fired the head of his transition, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and scrapped months of transition planning he had prepared over a feud between Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Christie, who in his previous role as a U.S. Attorney had put Kushner’s father in jail for tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions.

Trump’s Tactics

McEnany’s blatantly false assertion appears to be an attempt to downplay and justify the unprecedented actions Trump has taken to block Biden from assuming the presidency during a pandemic, even as numerous experts warn that if the president does not start sharing COVID data with the president-elect and his transition team, cost countless lives could be lost.

In addition to Trump’s own refusal to concede, he has also directed those in his administration to play ball as well.

Most significantly, Emily Murphy, the head of the General Services Administration (GSA) — the agency tasked with handing hand transition resources off to Biden’s transition team — has refused to sign off on the process.

By contrast, the GSA under the Obama Administration gave Trump’s transition team the reins the day after the 2016 election. 

Trump and his allies have also filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to overrule the will of American voters in key swing states. According to reports, the campaign has now either lost or withdrawn over 30 of those suits.

As their legal strategy starts to fall apart, team Trump has taken a new direction: getting Republican-controlled legislatures in states that gave the popular vote to Biden to basically overrule the will of the people by choosing a pro-Trump slate of electors to send to the electoral college.

Usually, the party of whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a given state gets to designate electors who will go to the Electoral College in December to cast the state’s electoral votes for the chosen candidate. 

However, a state legislature could hypothetically claim that the results of the popular invalid and invoke their constitutional right to step in and choose a slate of electors they believe more accurately reflects the election results of their state.

Many believe that such a move would be illegal or at the very least incredibly undemocratic as it would amount to nothing more than a full-blown attempt to steal the election and defy the will of voters.

But Trump and his cronies have been pushing Republican legislators in states he lost narrowly to take this route. On Thursday, the president gathered state legislators from Michigan at the White House to pressure them to either send a slate of his electors to the Electoral College or not certify the election results at all.

The legislators appeared to deny that they would go against the will of their people because of baseless claims of fraud.

“We have not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan and, as legislative leaders, we will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan’s electors, just as we have said throughout this election,” they said in a statement. 

Republicans Urge Trump to Start Transition

While some of Trump’s allies have continued to support the president’s tactic and spread his baseless claims and conspiracy theories about election fraud, other top Republicans lawmakers have been encouraging Trump to start the transition process.

On Saturday a federal judge in Pennsylvania rejected yet another lawsuit brought by the Trump campaign, effectively ending the president’s only attempt to challenge statewide results. After that ruling, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) called on Trump to accept that he had lost and start the transition process. 

“With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania,” Toomey said in a statement, before going on to note that Trump’s loss in his follows “a series of procedural losses for President Trump’s campaign.”

On Sunday, Senators Kevin Cramer (R-Nd.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak.) also followed suit.

“President Trump has had the opportunity to litigate his claims, and the courts have thus far found them without merit,” Murkowski said. “A pressure campaign on state legislators to influence the electoral outcome is not only unprecedented but inconsistent with our democratic process. It is time to begin the full and formal transition process.”

Those remarks were also echoed by Christie, who, despite being removed from Trump’s 2016 transition team, has maintained a close relationship with the president and his staff. While speaking to ABC News Sunday, the former governor called the conduct of Trump’s legal team “a national embarrassment.”

“Listen, I have been a supporter of the President’s. I voted for him twice, but elections have consequences, and we cannot continue to act as if something happened here that didn’t happen,” he said. 

“If you are unwilling to come forward and present the evidence, it must mean the evidence doesn’t exist,” Christie continued. “The country is what has to matter the most. As much as I’m a strong Republican and I love my party, it’s the country that has to come first.” 

See what others are saying: (The Associated Press) (NPR) (The New York Times)

Politics

Republican Congressman Proposes Bill to Ban Anyone Under 16 From Social Media

Published

on

The proposal comes amid a growing push for social media companies to be stringently regulated for child and adolescent use.


The Social Media Child Protection Act

Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Ut.) introduced legislation Thursday that would ban all Americans under the age of 16 from accessing social media.

The proposal, dubbed the Social Media Child Protection Act, would require social media companies to verify users’ ages and give parents and states the ability to bring legal actions against those platforms if they fail, according to a press release.

The legislation would also mandate that social media platforms implement “reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from users and perspective users.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be given the authority to enforce these regulations and implement fines for violations.

Stewart has argued that the move is necessary to protect children from the negative mental health impacts of social media.

“There has never been a generation this depressed, anxious, and suicidal – it’s our responsibility to protect them from the root cause: social media,”  he said in a statement announcing the bill.

“We have countless protections for our children in the physical world – we require car seats and seat belts; we have fences around pools; we have a minimum drinking age of 21; and we have a minimum driving age of 16,” the Congressman continued. 

“The damage to Generation Z from social media is undeniable – so why are there no protections in the digital world?”

While Stewart’s arguments are nothing new in the ongoing battle around children and regulating social media, his legislation has been described as one of the most severe proposals on this front.

The plan would represent a huge shift in verification systems that critics have long said fall short. Many social media sites like TikTok and Twitter technically ban users under 13 from joining, but there is no formal verification process or mechanisms for enforcement. Companies often just ask users to provide their birthdays, so those under 13 could easily just lie.

Backlash and Support

Stewart — who spent the weeks before the rollout of his bill discussing the matter with the media — has already gotten pushback from many who say the idea is too extreme and a bad approach.

Carl Szabo, the vice president and general counsel of the social media trade group NetChoice, told The Washington Post that such a decision should be left to parents.

“Rather than doomsaying or trying to get between parents and their families, the government should provide tools and education on how best to use this new technology, not demonize it,” he said.

Others have also argued that the move could cut off access to powerful and positive online resources for kids.

“For many kids, especially LGBTQ young people who may have unsupportive parents or live in a conservative area, the internet and social media are a lifeline,” Evan Greer, the director of the advocacy group Fight for the Future, told The Post. “We need better solutions than just cutting kids off from online community and educational resources.”

Lawmakers have also echoed that point, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.), who represents Silicon Valley. However, there also seems to be support for this measure. At least one Democratic Congressmember has told reporters they are open to the idea, and Stewart says he thinks the proposal will have broad bipartisan backing.

“This is bipartisan… There’s Democratic leaders who are actually maneuvering to be the lead co-sponsor on this,”  he told KSL News Radio, adding that President Joe Biden recently wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that referenced similar ideas.

A Growing Movement

Stewart is just one among the growing number of lawmakers and federal officials who have voiced support for keeping kids and younger teens off social media altogether.

In an interview with CNN Sunday, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy expressed concern regarding  “the right age for a child to start using social media.”

“I worry that right now, if you look at the guidelines from the platforms, that age 13 is when kids are technically allowed to use social media,” he said. “But there are two concerns I have about that. One is: I, personally, based on the data I’ve seen, believe that 13 is too early.” 

Murthy went on to say that adolescents at that age are developing their identity and sense of self, arguing that social media can be a “skewed and often distorted environment,” adding that he is also worried about the fact that the rules around age are “inconsistently implemented.”

His comments gained widespread backing. At least one Senator posted a tweet agreeing, and an FTC Commissioner also shared the remarks on the platform. Stewart, for his part, explicitly cited Murthy’s remarks in the press release announcing his bill. 

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (KSL News Radio) (CNN)

Continue Reading

Politics

Feds Investigate Classified Files Found in Biden’s Former Office

Published

on

The documents reportedly include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom


What Was in the Files?

President Biden’s legal team discovered about 10 classified files in his former office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington D.C., the White House revealed Monday.

The Department of Justice has concluded an initial inquiry into the matter and will determine whether to open a criminal investigation.

According to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, they include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom.

A source also told CBS News the batch did not contain nuclear secrets and had been contained in a folder in a box with other unclassified papers.

The documents are reportedly from Biden’s time as vice president, but it remains unclear what level of classification they are and how they ended up in his office.

Biden kept an office in the. Penn Biden Center, a think tank about a mile from the White House, between 2017 and 2020, when he was elected president.

On Nov. 2, his lawyers claim, they discovered the documents as they were clearing out the space to vacate it.

They immediately notified the National Archives, which retrieved the files the next morning, according to the White House.

What Happens Next?

Attorney General Merrick Garland must decide whether to open a criminal investigation into Biden’s alleged mishandling of the documents. To that end, he appointed John Lausch Jr., the U.S. attorney in Chicago and a Trump appointee, to conduct an initial inquiry.

Garland reportedly picked him for the role despite him being in a different jurisdiction to avoid appearing partial.

Lausch has reportedly finished the initial part of his inquiry and provided a preliminary report to Garland.

If a criminal investigation is opened, Garland will likely appoint an independent special counsel to lead it.

The case mirrors a similar DoJ special counsel investigation into former President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified materials and obstruction of efforts to properly retrieve them.

On Nov. 18, Garland appointed Jack Smith to investigate over 300 classified documents found at Trump’s Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.

Trump resisted multiple National Archives requests for the documents for months leading up to the FBI’s raid on his property, then handed over 15 boxes of files only for even more to be found still at Mar-a-Lago.

“When is the FBI going to raid the many houses of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. “These documents were definitely not declassified.”

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the new chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters he will investigate the Biden files.

Republicans have been quick to pounce on the news and compare it to Trump’s classified files, but Democrats have pointed out differences in the small number of documents and Biden’s willingness to cooperate with the National Archives.

The White House has yet to explain why, if the files were first discovered six days before the midterm elections, the White House waited two months to reveal the news to the public.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (The New York Times) (BBC)

Continue Reading

Politics

Lawmakers Propose Bill to Protect Fertility Treatments Amid Post-Roe Threats

Published

on

The move comes as a number of states are considering anti-abortion bills that could threaten or ban fertility treatments by redefining embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for IVF.


The Right To Build Families Act of 2022

A group of Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill Thursday that would codify the right to use assisted reproductive technologies like in-vitro fertility (IVF) treatments into federal law.

The legislation, dubbed the Right To Build Families Act of 2022, was brought forward by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Il) and Patty Murray (D-Wa.) alongside Rep. Susan Wild (D- Pa.). The measure would bar any limits on seeking or receiving IVF treatments and prohibit regulations on a person’s ability to retain their “reproductive genetic materials.” 

The bill would also protect physicians who provide these reproductive services and allow the Justice Department to take civil action against any states that try to limit access to fertility treatments.

The lawmakers argue it is necessary to protect IVF because a number of states have been discussing and proposing legislation that could jeopardize or even ban access to the treatments in the wake of the Roe v. Wade reversal. 

“IVF advocates in this country today are publicly telling us, ‘We need this kind of legislation to be able to protect this,’” Murray told HuffPost. “And here we are after the Dobbs decision where states are enacting laws and we have [anti-abortion] advocates who are now starting to talk, especially behind closed doors, about stopping the right for women and men to have IVF procedures done.”

Fertility Treatments Under Treat

The state-level efforts in question are being proposed by Republican lawmakers who wish to further limit abortions by redefining when life begins. Some of the proposals would define embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for those that are created through IVF, where an egg is fertilized by a sperm outside the body and then implanted in a uterus.

For example, a bill has already been pre-filed in Virginia for the 2023 legislative session that explicitly says life begins at fertilization and does not have any specific language that exempts embryos made through IVF.

Experts say these kinds of laws are concerning for a number of reasons. In the IVF process, it is typical to fertilize multiple eggs, but some are discarded. If a person becomes pregnant and does not want to keep the rest of their eggs. It is also normal that not all fertilized eggs will be viable, so physicians will get rid of those.

Sometimes doctors will also implant multiple fertilized eggs to increase the likelihood of pregnancy, but that can result in multiple eggs being fertilized. In order to prevent having multiple babies at once and improve the chance of a healthy pregnancy, people can get a fetal reduction and lower the number of fetuses.

All of those actions could become illegal under proposals that do not provide exemptions. 

“In my case, I had five fertilized eggs, and we discarded three because they were not viable. That is now potentially manslaughter in some of these states,” said Duckworth, who had both of her daughters using IVF.

“I also have a fertilized egg that’s frozen. My husband and I haven’t decided what we will do with it, but the head of the Texas Right to Life organization that wrote the bounty law for Texas has come out and specifically said he’s going after IVF next, and he wants control of the embryos,” Duckworth added.

In a hearing after Roe was overturned, Murray also raised concerns about “whether parents and providers could be punished if an embryo doesn’t survive being thawed for implantation, or for disposing unused embryos.”

Experts have said that even if anti-abortion laws defining when life begins do provide exceptions, it would be contradictory and confusing, so providers would likely err on the side of caution and not provide services out of fear of prosecution.

“[Abortion bans] are forcing women to stay pregnant against their will and are, at the very same time, threatening Americans’ ability to build a family through services like IVF,” Murray said in a statement to Axios. “It’s hard to comprehend, and it’s just plain wrong.”

The federal legislation to combat these efforts faces an uphill battle. It is unlikely it will be passed in the last few days of lame duck session, and with control of Congress being handed to Republicans come January, movement in the lower chamber will be hard fought.

Duckworth, however, told Axios that she will keep introducing the legislation “until we can get it passed.” 

See what others are saying: (Axios) (HuffPost) (USA Today)

Continue Reading