Connect with us

Politics

Georgia Runoff Candidates Paint Each Other as Out of Touch With Voters, Refuse To Answer Questions About SCOTUS and Election Results

Published

on

  • Candidates for two special elections in the Georgia Senate runoffs participated in separate televised debates on Sunday, though incumbent David Perdue (R) refused to attend his debate against challenger Jon Ossoff (D).
  • In the other debate, Senator Kelly Loeffler (R) and Democratic Reverend Raphael Warnock (D) attempted to cast each other as radical and out of touch with Georgian voters.
  • Notably, Loeffler refused multiple times to answer a question about whether or not she believed the election was rigged, a claim President Donald Trump has repeatedly made despite his arguments consistently being struck down in court.
  • Likewise, Warnock did not answer questions regarding how much he believes a second coronavirus stimulus package should total or if Democrats should add additional justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, should they win the Senate. 

Ossoff Debates Alone

One candidate debated alone onstage Sunday in a precursor to a special Senate election that will ultimately decide which political party controls the chamber for the next two years. Meanwhile, in another debate connected to that same election, two other Senate candidates tried to paint each other as radical and out of touch with voters.

The lone candidate onstage was Democrat Jon Ossoff, who is challenging incumbent Republican Senator David Perdue in Georgia. During that debate, Ossoff called Perdue a “coward” because last month, Perdue announced that he would not appear at Sunday’s debate. 

“My message for the people of our state, at this moment of crisis, is your senator feels entitled to your vote,” Ossoff said. “Your senator is refusing to answer questions and debate his opponent because he believes he shouldn’t have to.”

While Perdue’s staff has said he wants to focus on meeting with voters instead debating Ossoff, not showing up also means that Perdue wasn’t challenged on a number of topics — including the pandemic, his refusal to admit that President Donald Trump lost the Presidential Election, and a scandal involving accusations of insider trading.

Loeffler Won’t Say if Election Was Rigged

In the other debate, both candidates — Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler and Democratic Reverend Raphael Warnock — appeared. Notably, they are campaigning for Georgia’s other Senate seat.

Easily one of the biggest takeaways from the night came with the first question when moderator Greg Bluestein asked Loeffler to explicitly state whether or not she believes, like President Donald Trump, that the 2202 Election was rigged. Additionally, Bluestein asked if she supports Trump’s demand that Governor Brian Kemp (R) call a special election to overturn Joe Biden’s win in the state.

Notably, that win was democratically decided by the people of Georgia. It’s also a win that has already been confirmed twice and is in the process of being confirmed again, per a recount request from the Trump campaign. 

For the past month, the Trump campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits in multiple states alleging voter fraud. Despite this, those claims have been overwhelmingly dismissed by judges — even ones appointed by Trump himself — as baseless.

Instead of denying the claim that the election was rigged, when asked, Loeffler dodged the question.

“Look, it’s vitally important that Georgians trust our election process, and the president has every right to every legal recourse and that’s what’s taking place,” she said. “But I’ve called for investigations and now, there’s 250 investigations open here in Georgia.” 

“Senator, do you believe the election was rigged?” Bluestein followed up.

“It’s very clear that there were issues in this election,” Loeffler responded. “There are 250 investigations open, including an investigation into one of my opponent’s organizations for voter fraud. And we have to make sure that Georgians trust this process because of what’s at stake in this election. The promise that Chuck Schumer made was to fundamentally change America and I’m making sure that we don’t go down the road of socialism.”

Loeffler then went on to dodge the question three more times over the course of the debate. 

Last week, Attorney General Bill Barr, who had previously supported Trump’s calls for an investigation into voter fraud, told the Associated Press that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. 

On Sunday, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) said that while 250 investigations are underway in the state, his office has found no evidence of “systemic fraud” that could change the election results. In fact, Raffensperger has repeatedly denied such claims while also saying that, as a conservative Republican, he had wanted Trump to win. 

On Saturday, at a rally in Georgia, Trump continued to spurt baseless fraud claims and call on Kemp to overturn the results; however, on Sunday, Kemp affirmed that he would not call a special session and that Georgia’s election results will stand.

While it’s very striking that Loeffler won’t outright admit Trump’s loss, it’s not exactly shocking. Much of the Republican base is also the super-charged Trump base. Even ardent supporters of the president like Barr have faced criticism from conservative media, which blasted him as part of the “deep state” after he contradicted the president. 

Thus, how many votes could Loeffler have compromised had she said the opposite of Trump? How many votes from moderate Republicans would she have compromised if she openly went along with Trump?

Warnock Won’t Answer Questions on Stimulus Cost or SCOTUS

Among other unanswered questions, after moderators asked Warnock how much money Congress should siphon into a second stimulus package, Warnock refused to give a specific number. Instead, he answered more generally, stressing the need for that package to support small businesses, essential workers, and infrastructure and green energy. 

“Can you give me a number?” moderator Russ Spencer followed up. 

“Look, I think that we should at least make sure that whatever we do, workers are at the center of that relief,” Warnock said.

Bluestein later asked Warnock if he supports calls to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. That idea has been pushed by some Democrats following Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation by Senate Republicans on Oct. 26 — a week before the 2020 Elections. In 2016, Senate Republicans argued against starting the confirmation process for Obama-appointed judge Merrick Garland because it was an election year.

“As I move all across the state, Greg, people aren’t asking me about the courts and whether we should expand the courts,” Warnock said. “I know that’s an interesting question for people inside the beltway to discuss, they’re wondering when in the world are they going to get some COVID-19 relief?” 

“But it will impact people on the ground, so I am wondering if you can answer the question, do you support expanding the Supreme Court?” Bluestein pressed.

“I’m really not focused on it,” Warnock said before shifting the subject back to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Other Key Highlights

Among other key highlights, both Loeffler and Warnock said they would take a coronavirus vaccine supported by health experts. Both also said they’ll encourage others to also take that vaccine.

The concern that a large number of Americans might be hesitant to take the vaccine has been around since the beginning of the pandemic, and it’s persisted, in part, because vaccine development has been so rapid. At the moment, top vaccine candidates, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, appear to be safe; however, the FDA has not yet confirmed them for emergency-use.

Despite answering similarly to this one question, much of the debate was Loeffler and Warnock trying to paint the other as out of touch voters.

Several times throughout the night, Loeffler called Warnock a socialist and referred to him as a “radical liberal,” but Warnock affirmed that he believes in“our free enterprise system,” meaning capitalism.

Loeffler accused Warnock of wanting to defund the police, which Warnock denied.

“I don’t think we should defund the police but we certainly do need criminal justice reform,” he said.

“We need to make sure that we have an independent review process when civilians die at the hands of police. We need to make sure that police officers and departments that have a pattern of misconduct are held accountable. We can do that and celebrate police at the same time.” 

Warnock attacked Loeffler’s record by repeatedly accusing her of using a private coronavirus briefing in January to engage in insider trading in the stock market. While that investigation has been the subject of high-level scrutiny, a Senate Ethics Committee investigation found no evidence that she had violated rules. 

Like Loeffler, Warnock also trying to paint Loeffler as radical, saying she “welcomed the support of a QAnon conspiracy theorist,” that being Representative-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (R).

Last month, Loeffler denied attachment to the conspiracy theory, saying, “Look, I don’t know anything about QAnon.”

Voting Deadline 

The elections for both of these seats are going to take place on Jan. 5. Monday is the last day to register to vote both online and through mail. 

There is no Election Day registration in Georgia. 

From there, early voting will begin next Monday. It will continue until Jan. 1. That is the same day as the deadline to request an absentee ballot. That ballot must also be received, by mail or in person, no later than Jan. 5 at 7 p.m.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (CBS News) (The Hill)

Politics

House Panel Approves Commission To Study Reparations

Published

on

  • In a 25 to 17 vote along party lines, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation Wednesday that would establish a commission to study slavery reparations for Black Americans.
  • Republicans objected to the plan, arguing that it will cost too much money and that it is unfair to make all American taxpayers responsible for the consequences of slavery.
  • Democrats pushed back, claiming the modern oppression of Black people still holds roots in slavery, and noting that the bill just creates a commission to study reparations, not implement them.
  • While the proposal faces steep odds in the Senate, Wednesday’s historic vote will move the measure to the House floor for a full vote for the first time since it was introduced over three decades ago. 

Reparation Commission Achieves First Approval

The House Judiciary Committee voted for the first time on Wednesday to advance a bill that will create a commission to consider paying slavery reparations for Black Americans.

The legislation was first proposed over 30 years ago, and if signed into law, it would create a 13-member commission that would study the effects of slavery and racial discrimination in the U.S. and then give Congress a recommendation for “appropriate remedies” to best compensate Black Americans.

The measure passed the committee 25 to 17 along party lines, as expected, with objections from Republicans, who claimed reparations will cost too much and that they are unfair to Americans who have no history of enslavers in their families.

Democrats pushed back against those assertions, arguing that the federal government does have enough money to take some kind of action. They also noted that the commission will not actually implement any reparations, but rather just look into the options and then make a non-binding recommendation.

There are a lot of different ideas for what reparations could look like. While some support direct cash payments of various sizes, others have argued there are different proposals that might be more realistic to put into law, like no-interest loans for Black homeowners or free college tuition.

“I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, do not cancel us tonight. Do not ignore the pain, the history and the reasonableness of this commission,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx.), the lead sponsor of the bill, said Wednesday.

Others also condemned the argument that some Americans, particularly those whose ancestors did not directly benefit from owning slaves, should not bear responsibility. They said that this line of thinking ignores both generational wealth, which vastly benefits white Americans over all others, as well as how Black Americans are hurt by modern-day discrimination and oppression that has roots in slavery.

“Slavery was indeed ended 150 years ago but racism never took a day off and is alive and well in America,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said in committee Wednesday. 

“You can ask the family members of Daunte Wright, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery or George Floyd. Black folks in this country cannot keep living and dying like this. But we’ll be forced to do so if White folks in America continue to refuse to look back at history.”

Uphill Battle

While many have described the legislation as a flexible first step, any further congressional action will almost certainly be an uphill battle. The committee vote is just the very first step: the proposal still has to go to a vote by the full House, where it is unclear if it will even garner enough support among the House Democrats’ slim majority. 

If it were to pass the lower chamber, the bill faces almost insurmountable odds in the 50-50 split Senate, where ten Republicans would have to join all Democrats to break the legislative filibuster.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has said that he will start considering when to schedule the vote, though it is unlikely to be considered soon. Hoyer also urged President Joe Biden to use his executive power to create the commission if the legislation fails.

The White House has said that Biden supports the commission, but administration officials have not confirmed whether he would act unilaterally on the subject.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (USA Today) (Vox)

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden To Pull All U.S. Troops From Afghanistan by Sept. 11

Published

on

  • President Biden declared Wednesday that he will pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by Sept. 11, which also marks the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
  • The Afghanistan war is the longest war the U.S. has ever been in. It has resulted in the deaths of 2,400 American troops, injured and killed almost 100,000 civilians, and cost about $2 trillion.
  • Some praised the decision as a key step to address seemingly endless wars and promote diplomacy.
  • Many experts and defense officials, however, have warned the withdrawal could undermine American goals in the region and embolden the Taliban, which is currently the strongest it has been since the U.S. invasion removed the group from power in 2001.

Biden Announces Troop Removal Amid Growing Violence

President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that he will withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks that drew the U.S. into its longest war in history.

“We went to Afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. That cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021,” Biden said in an afternoon speech. “It’s time to end America’s longest war. It’s time for America’s troops to come home.’’

The decision comes as Biden nears the May 1 deadline set under a February 2020 peace deal by the administration of former President Donald Trump to bring the troops home from the war, which has killed nearly 2,400 troops, injured and killed nearly 100,000 civilians, and cost about $2 trillion.

Biden had previously said that it would be hard to meet the date after taking office, but even with the extended timeline, many experts and defense officials have warned against the move.

The U.S. first entered the war to oust the Taliban government, which was harboring al-Qaeda militants involved in planning the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban was removed within months, but the group still had support in parts of the country and steadily regained territory and strength.

Now, almost two decades later, the group is the strongest it has been since the 2001 invasion, and according to reports, controls or has influence over half the country. The situation has also escalated in the months after Trump, during his last week in office, reduced the official number of troops in Afghanistan to 2,500, which is the lowest level since 2001.

As the U.S. has scaled down its operations, the Taliban has taken control of major highways and tried to cut off cities and towns in surges that have exhausted Afghan security forces. Violence has also ramped up in recent months.

According to a U.N. report released Wednesday, nearly 1,800 civilians were killed or wounded in the first three months of the year, a nearly 30% increase from the same period last year.

Notably, U.S. intelligence agencies have said that they do not believe Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations present an immediate threat to strike the U.S. from Afghanistan, an assessment that reportedly played a big role in Biden’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces.

However, many experts are more concerned about how the move will impact Afghanistan and its citizens. 

Concerns Over Withdrawal

The Pentagon has warned against removing American troops from the region until Afghan security forces can effectively fight back against the Taliban.

As a result, critics of the plan have argued that withdrawal will leave the forces  — which have limited capacities and until now have been funded and trained by the U.S. — entirely in the dust

Beyond that, many also worry that the move could undermine the entire goal of the 2001 invasion by empowering al-Qaeda operates that remains in the country and who could become emboldened once the U.S. troops left.

Some experts and Afghan politicians have said that withdrawing from the country without a solid peace deal in place could end in concentrating more power in the hands of the Taliban. After a long delay following the U.S. agreement in February of last year, peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban finally started up in September.

But those talks have since stalled, partly due to Biden’s win and the anticipation of a possible change in policy under the new administration.

While other countries have recently made moves to restart the talks, and there are a number of possible options on the table, nothing is set in stone. American commanders, who have long said a peace deal with the Taliban is the best security measure for the U.S., have argued that the U.S. will need to use the promise of withdrawing their forces as a condition for a good deal.

Now, the U.S. has taken a major bargaining chip off the table, causing concerns that if a deal is struck, the already weakened Afghan government will make key concessions to the Taliban. Many Afghan citizens who oppose the Taliban worry that if the group secures a role in a power-sharing agreement, it could eventually take over the government and re-impose the harsh rule it imposed before the U.S. removed it in 2001. The leadership was particularly tough on women, who were largely barred from public life.

Politicians Respond

Biden’s decision has sparked a divided front from both political parities, though Republicans have largely remained united against the move.

“It is insane to withdraw at this time given the conditions that exist on the ground in Afghanistan,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday. “A full withdrawal from Afghanistan is dumber than dirt and devilishly dangerous. President Biden will have, in essence, canceled an insurance policy against another 9/11.”

Many Democrats, however, have argued that U.S. presence in the region is not helping the U.S. achieve its foreign policy goals, and that if withdrawal is based on conditional approaches, the troops will never be able to leave. 

Others have also applauded the plan as a careful solution and will still emphasize diplomatic efforts in the region while simultaneously removing the U.S. from a highly unpopular and expensive war.

“The President doesn’t want endless wars. I don’t want endless wars. And neither do the American people. ” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday. “It’s refreshing to have a thought-out plan with a set timetable instead of the President waking up one morning getting out of bed, saying what just pops into his head and then having the generals having walked it back.”

In a series of tweets Wednesday, Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, said had spoken to Biden, and emphasized that the two nations would continue to work together.

“’Afghanistan’s proud security and defense forces are fully capable of defending its people and country, which they have been doing all along,” he wrote.

The Taliban, for its part, has focused more on the fact that the initial timeline had been delayed.

“We are not agreeing with delay after May 1,” a spokesperson said on television Tuesday. “Any delay after May 1 is not acceptable for us.”

It is currently unclear how that stance might affect the situation, especially when it comes to peace deal negotiations.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (TIME)

Continue Reading

Politics

Matt Gaetz Reportedly Venmo’d Accused Sex Trafficker, Who Then Sent Money To Teen

Published

on

  • A report published by The Daily Beast Thursday alleges that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) sent $900 through Venmo to accused sex trafficker Joel Greenberg, who then used the funds to pay three young women, including one teenager.
  • Gaetz is currently under federal investigation as part of a broader inquiry into Greenberg, a former politician who has been charged with 33 counts, including sex trafficking an underage girl.
  • Investigators are reportedly looking into the involvement of politicians with women who were recruited online for sex and paid in cash, as well as whether Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old girl and violated sex trafficking laws by paying for her to travel with him.
  • Greenberg’s lawyer did not comment on the new allegations but said Thursday his client would soon enter a plea deal and implied that Greenberg would testify as a witness against Gaetz. Meanwhile, Gaetz has accused The Daily Beast of spreading “rumors, gossip and self-serving misstatements.”

Gaetz’s Alleged Venmo Payments 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) allegedly sent money via Venmo to accused sex trafficker Joel Greenberg, who then used the money to pay three young women, including at least one teenage girl, according to a new report from The Daily Beast.

Greenberg, a former local Flordia politician and an associate of Gaetz, was indicted last summer on 33 counts, including sex trafficking a 17-year-old girl. He initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, but his lawyers said in court Thursday that he would plead guilty as part of a plea deal.

Legal experts say the move almost certainly indicates that Greenberg plans to cooperate as a witness against Gaetz, who is currently under investigation by the Justice Department as part of a broader probe into Greenberg.

According to The New York Times, among other things, the DOJ inquiry is looking into their involvement with multiple women who were recruited online for sex and paid cash, as well as whether Gaetz had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paid for her to travel with him in violation of sex trafficking laws.

Investigators reportedly believe that Greenberg met the women through a website for people willing to go on dates in exchange for gifts and money, and then arranged for them to meet with himself and associates including Gaetz, The Times reported.

The new report from The Daily Beast, published Thursday, appears to support this narrative. According to the outlet, which viewed the transactions before they were made private this week, Gaetz sent Greenberg two late-night Venmo payments totaling $900 in May 2018. 

In the text field of the first payment, Gaetz wrote “Test.” In the second, he asked Greenberg to “hit up” a teenager who he allegedly referred to by her nickname. The Daily Beast did not publish the name of the girl “because the teenager had only turned 18 less than six months before.”

The next morning, Greenberg transferred a total of $900 to three different young women using the same app.

One of the transfers was titled “Tuition,” and the other two were both listed as “School.” The Daily Beast also said it was able to obtain “partial records” of Greenbergs Venmo, which is not publicly available.

Those records, the outlet reported, show that the two men are connected through Venmo to at least one other woman who Greenberg paid with a government-funded credit card, and at least two other women who received payments from Greenberg.

Ongoing Investigation

Gaetz, for his part, has not directly addressed the latest allegations. A representative from the Logan Circle Group, an outside PR firm, provided The Daily Beast with a statement from the congressman.

“The rumors, gossip and self-serving misstatements of others will be addressed in due course by my legal team,” the statement said, with the firm also informing the outlet that their lawyers would be “closely monitoring your coverage.”

Greenberg’s defense attorney, Fritz Scheller, also declined requests to comment, but during a press conference Thursday, he implied that the plea deal his client is expected to accept spelled trouble for Gaetz.

“I’m sure Matt Gaetz is not feeling very comfortable today,” Scheller said.

The Daily Beast story also comes amid reports that that the FBI has widened its probe of Gaetz. According to The Times, sources familiar with the inquiry have said investigators are also looking into a trip he took to the Bahamas with other Florida Republicans and several women.

Sources said the trip took place shortly after Gaetz was elected to Congress in 2016, and that the FBI has already questioned witnesses about whether the women had sex with the men in exchange for money and free travel.

It is illegal to trade sex for something of value if prosecutors can provide the exchange involved force, fraud, or coercion.

The Times also reported that investigators are now additionally looking into Gaetz’s alleged involvement in discussions to run a third-party candidate in a State Senate race to make it easier for an associate of his who was running for the seat to win.

The act of recruiting so-called “ghost candidates” who run for office purely to divert votes from one candidate is not usually illegal. However, paying a ghost candidate is normally considered a violation of campaign finance laws.

See what others are saying: (The Daily Beast) (The New York Times) (The Hill)

Continue Reading