Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Analysis | Hunter Biden gives House Republicans the rebuttal they didn’t want – The Washington Post

Hunter Bidens appearance in front of investigators and members of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees unfolded a bit like a Bruce Lee movie.

Republican legislators and interviewers challenging the presidents son on the House majoritys behalf would throw out an allegation, often one thats been worn smooth after tumbling around in the right-wing media universe for the past year or two. And Biden would invariably swat it away, stripping off the layers of innuendo that had been applied by Donald Trump and Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) or Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) or any of myriad Fox News commentators.

This included epic battles against well-known foes, like an exchange between Hunter Biden and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), or repeated, extended back-and-forth with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). But at no point was a question left unanswered including through an invocation of the Fifth Amendment or, to an objective observer, left answered with obvious incompletion.

The discussion was centered on the Republican effort in the ongoing impeachment inquiry to demonstrate that President Biden had benefited financially from Hunter Bidens business endeavors and, they hoped, that the elder Biden had used his position as vice president to that end. They were unsuccessful in making that case from the hearings first moments.

I did not involve my father in my business, Hunter Biden said in his opening comments, not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions, domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist, never. His position did not diverge from that at any point; instead, he frequently invoked this same claim over and over again as a means of cutting off one of the familiar lines of inquiry with which he was presented.

The effect, in reading a transcript of Wednesdays hours-long interaction, is of a man repeatedly trying to get his accusers to see a forest instead of a smattering of trees.

Hunter Bidens testimony centered heavily on two themes. First, the closeness of his family, having been drawn together by the tragic deaths of his mother and, later, his brother. This is why he always took his fathers calls, he said, and why he would always welcome his father to join him at dinners.

I can't count the number of times my dad stopped to have dinner with me and my family, he testified including at a cafe that was situated between the White House and the vice-presidential residence.

The other was that Joe Biden was a career politician.

My dad has been a United States Senator since I was 2 years old, Biden said at one point. My whole life has been this.

His point? That glad-handing strangers and dropping into events was part of his father's daily life and therefore his own.

At one point, a questioner pressed Biden to admit that there was a suspicious pattern in his father having met people with whom Hunter Biden or his partners ended up doing business. Biden rejected that framing.

The pattern I see is that you literally have no evidence whatsoever of any corruption on the part of my father, he said. And therefore what you're trying to do is you're trying to make every single thing in business that I was ever involved in somehow corrupt.

Gaetz, during his lengthy inquisition of Biden, attempted to portray several occasions in which Joe Biden called his son during a meeting or stopped by a dinner as implicating the president in his sons business. Hunter Biden turned the question around.

If my father was to sit down here today and he was to call me right now and I was in and I put him on the speakerphone, does that mean that he had a meeting with you, Mr. Gaetz? he asked.

Yeah, Gaetz replied.

Gaetz later tried to suggest that since Hunter Biden sometimes covered his fathers tab, that his and his fathers finances were pretty interwoven. (Will the record show that were all laughing? Biden attorney Abbe Lowell interjected.)

No, our finances arent interwoven, Hunter Biden said in response. What are interwoven is that were a family.

Over and over, interlocutors presented Hunter Biden with the sorts of suspicious-sounding tidbits that have been the crux of the Republican argument for months. And, over and over, he offered credible responses.

Biden was asked, for example, whether he was aware that money hed transferred to his uncle James Biden might have been reused by his uncle to repay a loan to his father.

This is the most ridiculous thing that I mean, so far, Biden replied. Are you saying to me, do I understand the fungibility of dollars? Do I understand that there is a I mean, what is it? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Its all based upon a fallacy?

He noted that the deal at issue was centered on building a liquefied natural gas terminal in Louisiana that, according to him, would have created 17,000 jobs.

Mentioning this had a different purpose: to bolster his credentials and, by extension, the validity of his having been hired to participate in these agreements in the first place. He fleshed out the specifics of several of them in a similar way, including offering details of his relationships with prospective partners, both close and contentious.

Id put my rsum up against any one of you, in terms of my responsibility, he challenged the lawmakers at one point.

Those deeply immersed in the lore of Joe Bidens putative corruption will find any number of the allegations dismissed in Hunter Bidens testimony, not that they will believe his (sworn) testimony if they were to read the transcript at all. They would also note two particular targets of Hunter Bidens ire: Donald Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner and Hunter Bidens former associate Tony Bobulinski.

Kushner served as a repeated point of comparison for Biden: Republicans were quizzing him on his father stopping by a dinner one evening when Kushner pulled in $2 billion after leaving the White House?

A legislator asked him whether he'd worked for foreign governments.

I never worked for a country, he replied. I am not Jared Kushner.

Bobulinski, whose testimony has been repeatedly cited by Republicans as their probe has progressed, was dismissed by Hunter Biden as only briefly involved in his endeavors and as having been bounced for being unreliable. Among the transgressions, he said, was that Bobulinski had hoped to gain leverage over the Biden family name, something that Hunter Biden found particularly offensive.

He had no faith in this person that I had just met, Tony Bobulinski, he said, who was presented to me as some Wall Street whiz kid that was going around, throwing around my name, and throwing around my family's name.

It's not their name to screw up, he added at one point. It's mine.

This relates to where Hunter Bidens testimony was the shakiest. He indicated that, thanks to those decades of being immersed in his fathers world, he was sensitive to keeping his father at arms length.

One thing that we that I was fully aware of my entire life, is that my dad was an official of the United States Government, he said, and there were very bright lines that I abided to and that I was very, very cognizant of. And made certain that I never engaged with my father in asking him to do anything on my behalf or on behalf of any client of mine.

That may be, but it has also been demonstrated that he at times specifically sought to invoke his father, including in a text message in which he falsely implied that his father was sitting beside him. (He said he was probably intoxicated when it was sent and that he was more embarrassed of this text message, if it actually did come from me, than any text message Ive ever sent.)

Toward the end of his deposition, Biden deflected one of Gaetzs questions about the specifics of his picking up a bill for his father by noting how deep his questioners were having to dive to find things that looked suspicious.

Its not incumbent upon me to point to you to something that doesnt exist, Biden said. Its incumbent upon you to create something, to come up with something based upon the voluminous evidence that youve collected, which shows no involvement.

The forest remains uninteresting to those trying to build a case for impeaching President Biden. In his testimony, Hunter Biden did an effective job of also explaining why the trees Republicans had focused on werent that important either.

Read more from the original source:
Analysis | Hunter Biden gives House Republicans the rebuttal they didn't want - The Washington Post

Reflecting Congressional divisions over U.S. involvement with Ukraine, Republicans are more reluctant than … – AP-NORC

February 29, 2024

Two years after Russias invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Congress is divided over continuing aid to help Ukraine in its war against Russia. The public is also split along party lines.

Overall, 4 in 10 adults think the U.S. government is spending too much on aid to Ukraine. Three in ten say they are spending too little and a third think the amount is about right. Roughly half of Republicans (55%) think the government is spending too much money on military aid to Ukraine whereas 44% of Democrats think the government is spending too little.

Support for sanctions on Russia has remained steady. Last November, 63% supported economic sanctions on Russia. Today, 63% support such sanctions. Democrats are more likely to support sanctions (74%) than Republicans (52%). Four in ten adults support accepting Ukrainian refugees into the United States. Democrats are also more likely to support accepting Ukrainian refugees (61%) than Republicans (27%).

Foreign policy on the Russia-Ukraine war has become a partisan dividing line. Most Democrats see it as a priority for the U.S. government to prevent Russia from gaining more territory in Ukraine and to help Ukraine regain territory that is currently occupied by Russia. Less than half of Republicans agree.

At the two-year anniversary of Russias invasion, the publics outlook on the outcomes of the war are pessimistic. Only 13% are extremely or very confident that Ukraine can win the war against Rusia. Another 36% are somewhat confident and 49% are not too or not at all confident.

While many agree with the foreign policy goals of the United States regarding the conflict, few, regardless of party identification, are extremely or very confident about any positive results. Twenty-two percent say the United States should take a more involved role in the war between Russia and Ukraine, while 36% say it should have a less active role, and 40% think the United States involvement is at about the right level.

About a third of adults (35%) are concerned that the war between Russia and Ukraine will lead to a bigger conflict in Europe. Forty percent are worried that the United States will be drawn into a war with Russia. Democrats and Republicans have similar concerns about the possibility of broader conflicts.

Sixty-one percent of adults think being part of NATO, the military alliance between the United States, Canada, and many European countries, is good for the United States. This is similar to the 65% who said the same in April 2022, shortly after the war began. Democrats are more likely to support NATO membership (78%) than Republicans (50%).

Fifty-six percent of adults would support deploying U.S. troops to defend a NATO ally if it was attacked by Russia, which falls under Article V in the NATO military alliance. Despite former President Trumps remarks last week that he would not defend a NATO ally if it failed to meet defense spending targets, about half of Republicans support sending troops to defend a NATO ally if attacked by Russia.

Seventy-nine percent of adults have an unfavorable opinion of Vladimir Putin, who received international criticism last week after the death of political opponent Alexei Navalny in an Arctic penal colony. Although few in either party are favorable, Republicans are more likely to have a favorable opinion (14%) than Democrats (3%).

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is viewed more positively 43% of adults have a favorable opinion, 22% unfavorable, and 35% dont know enough about him to say. These opinions are divided by partisanship. Sixty-two percent of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the Ukrainian leader compared with 32% of Republicans.

The nationwide poll was conducted February 22-26, 2024 using the AmeriSpeak Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones were conducted with 1,102 adults. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.1 percentage points.

Continued here:
Reflecting Congressional divisions over U.S. involvement with Ukraine, Republicans are more reluctant than ... - AP-NORC

2 Republicans vie to take on vulnerable Democrat in November – Spectrum News

In November there will be few close U.S. House races in North Carolina.

The only real swing district is the 1st Congressional District in eastern North Carolina, which is represented by freshman Rep. Don Davis.

On March 5 voters will choose the Republican nominee to run against him.

The newly drawndistrict is a rural area that includes the cities of Rocky Mount and Goldsboro.

The Republican primary features a political newcomer and an experienced candidate.

Sandy Smith, who describes herself as a business executive, was the Republican nominee in the district in 2020 and 2022. She lost to former Rep. G.K. Butterfield in 2020 and Davis in 2022.

In those runs, the district had more Democratic voters, but this year it has been redrawn by state Republican lawmakers and is closer to being a swing district.

Had we run under this map last cycle, I would have run,"Smith said. "It takes three cycles to build the name ID, build the trust and understand the district."

Shes running against Laurie Buckhout, a retired Army colonel who founded a consulting business.

As someone who's served the country, and as someone whos concerned about the future of the country, especially as a parent I realized it was time to stand up and do something, Buckhout said.

The candidates have similar stances on the issues.

Both name border security as their top priority but said they would not have voted for the recent bipartisan Senate deal, which they called misguided, to reduce illegal crossings.

Buckhout and Smith also said they want more accountability on Ukraine funding before supporting any additional aid.

They differ on the question of a federal abortion ban. While they both support North Carolinas current restrictions, Buckhout said federal limits should be discussed, while Smith doesnt support a ban.

In 2022, though, Smith told Spectrum News 1she would support a bill restricting abortion if it included exceptions.

Smith accuses Buckhout, whos from Virginia and moved to North Carolina permanently in 2021, according to her campaign, of not understanding the district.

I have not made my life fortune. in the military industrial complex. Ive been here in the trenches, in the district, with the folks. I know the folks, Smith said.

Buckout said her military experience is what sets her apart.

I have actually served our country... having seen the world, and lived all over the world, have a very intimate understanding I think of the preciousness of American freedom."

Smith attended the Jan. 6, 2021, rally in Washington, D.C., but said she left before rioters stormed the Capitol building. She is running on the debunked claim that voters elected Donald Trump in 2020.

Buckhouts campaign didnt respond when asked whether she agrees with Smith.

The victor of the March primary will have to win over independent and potentially more moderate Democrats in November.

We have seen what happens when the Republican Party nominates more moderate candidates. We lose in the general [election], people want a fighter, Smith said.

In terms of breaking with Republicans on any issues, I seek to impact the issues that are really impacting my constituents right now. Thats the economy. Thats the concern about the open border, Buckhout said.

Buckhout has the support of the Congressional Leadership Fund, which is a super PAC supported by House Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republican leaders in Washington.

While Trump has not endorsed anyone in the race, he did endorse Smith two years ago, but it was after the Republican primary.

Go here to read the rest:
2 Republicans vie to take on vulnerable Democrat in November - Spectrum News

Senate Republican Blocks Bill to Protect I.V.F. Treatment – The New York Times

A Republican senator on Wednesday blocked quick passage of a bill that would establish federal protections for in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments in the wake of a ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that frozen embryos should be considered children.

Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, Republican of Mississippi, objected to approval of the measure, which would establish a federal right protecting access to I.V.F. and fertility treatments, scuttling its chances for now.

Senator Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois, sought to pass the bill on Wednesday under a procedure that allows any one senator to object and stop it in its tracks, effectively daring Republicans to oppose it and highlighting divisions within the G.O.P. on how to handle the issue.

The bill before us today is a vast overreach that is full of poison pills that go way too far far beyond ensuring legal access to I.V.F., Ms. Hyde-Smith said on the Senate floor, adding that she supported access to I.V.F. but that this bill misses the mark.

The legislation states that people have a right to access assisted reproductive technology and that doctors have the right to provide it and insurers the right to cover it without fear of prosecution.

Democrats orchestrated the attempt to pass the bill as they sought to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans who have rushed to voice support for I.V.F. after the Alabama ruling, even though many of them have sponsored legislation that declares that life begins at the moment of fertilization. Such a bill could severely curtail or even outlaw aspects of the treatments.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Read more here:
Senate Republican Blocks Bill to Protect I.V.F. Treatment - The New York Times

The Idaho Republican Presidential Caucus is Saturday. Here’s what to know. Idaho Capital Sun – Idaho Capital Sun

Registered Idaho Republican voters will gather at caucus sites across the state Saturday to help pick the GOP nominee for president.

The presidential caucus is new this year because the Idaho Legislature seemingly unintentionally eliminated the presidential primary election last year and then did not restore it by passing a trailer bill or calling a special session.

That means elections will be different this year for Idahoans, who will vote in both a party presidential nominating caucus and a separate statewide party primary election.

Voters need to be present at their caucus site to participate; there is no option for absentee voting in the Republican Presidential Caucus.

The caucus is run entirely by the Republican Party from setting up the rules, to selecting the caucus sites, to verifying voter eligibility, to counting the ballots by hand and announcing results.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

Across the state, there are 210 local caucus sites, and voters must attend the local caucus site assigned to them based on their precinct. That local caucus site is probably going to be different than the local polling place Idaho voters are used to because the caucus is run by the party, not the state and county elections offices.

Primary election poll locations will differ in most cases from the caucus locations of both the Idaho GOP and Idaho Democrat presidential caucuses, Canyon County Clerk Rick Hogaboam said in a written statement Thursday. Dont assume that your normal poll location is the same location for the caucuses, nor assume that your caucus location will be the same poll location for the May 21 primary election.

Idaho Republican Party officials told the Idaho Capital Sun they mailed hundreds of thousands of postcards to registered Republicans earlier this month that identify each voters local caucus site.

If voters did not receive a postcard or lost theirs, they can follow a two-step process to find their caucus site.

In order to participate in Saturdays Republican Presidential Caucus, voters must have registered and affiliated with the Republican Party by the partys Dec. 31 deadline.

In order to prove their identity at the polls, voters will need to produce either an Idaho drivers license or state ID card, a U.S. passport or federal photo ID, a tribal ID card or a concealed weapons license.

Once voters enter their caucus site and register, they will be given a paper ballot and participate in one round of voting, Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon told the Sun in February.

There are six candidates on the ballot to choose from:

Although all of the candidates besides Trump and Haley have dropped out of the race, all six candidates still appear on the ballots in Idaho because they paid their $50,000 filing fee, Moon said.

Up for grabs are 32 delegates in Idaho, which candidates hope to win as they seek their partys nomination for president. If one candidate wins a simple majority of votes in the caucus, they will win all 32 delegates. If not, delegates will be split proportionally among all candidates who receive at least 15% of the vote.

News reporters and independent observers who are not registered Republican voters will not be allowed inside the caucus sites or Idaho GOP headquarters to observe the process or observe the vote, Moon said in February.

View post:
The Idaho Republican Presidential Caucus is Saturday. Here's what to know. Idaho Capital Sun - Idaho Capital Sun