Mediaboss Marketing

Rep. Barry Loudermilk led a Capitol rioter on a tour of House offices the day before the January 6 attack.

Now, he could be next in line to lead the committee that oversees security at the Capitol.

The current most senior Republican, Rep. Rodney Davis, lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger on Tuesday.

Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, who led a January 6 rioter on a tour of the Capitol complex the day before the attack, could now be next in line to lead the committee that oversees Capitol security.

That's because Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, currently the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, lost his primary to fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller on Tuesday and Republicans are widely predicted to regain control of the House in 2023. Loudermilk is currently the second-highest ranking Republican on the panel. The committee has jurisdiction over both the Capitol Police and security on the House side of the Capitol complex.

Miller, who recently said that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was a "victory for white life" a remark her campaign later said was an unintended "mishap" had the backing of former President Donald Trump and criticized Davis for voting to establish a bipartisan January 6 commission.

Earlier this month, the January 6 committee released footage of Loudermilk leading a tour group through the House office buildings on January 5, 2021. The following day, at least one member of that tour group returned to the grounds of the Capitol, and could be heard yelling violent threats against Democratic lawmakers.

"When I get done with you, you're going to need a shine on top of that bald head," the rally attendee says in the video, referring to Pelosi.

It remains unclear whether the man entered the Capitol building itself. January 6 committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi also noted that the man and other tour attendees took photos of areas in the House office buildings that wouldn't normally be of interest to tourists, including stairwells and tunnels.

Story continues

Seeking to explain himself the day the footage was released, Loudermilk claimed that the man was simply photographing a golden eagle light fixture on the wall.

"Obviously, I do not support anything he said, but nobody in that group talked or spoke that way," said Loudermilk, referring to the man's violent threats against congressional Democrats.

But Loudermilk's story about the tours has changed a number of times as new information has emerged. He's continually pointed to a letter from Capitol Police to Rep. Davis stating that they didn't consider "any of the activities we observed as suspicious," though they noted that Loudermilk left the tour group unattended at one point.

Though Loudermilk is next in line in terms of seniority, his position atop the committee is not necessarily assured; ultimately, House Republican leadership is in charge of committee assignments for their members.

In a statement to Insider, Loudermilk said he would "have to give serious consideration" to chairing the committee if asked to do so by the next Speaker, but emphasized that his current focus is on "the important work the Republicans are doing on the Committee."

"Rodney Davis has done a tremendous job as the Ranking Republican on the Committee on House Administration. It has been an honor to work under his leadership, and we still have a lot of work to be done this year," said Loudermilk. "Who becomes the chairman of the committee for the 118th Congress will ultimately be the decision of the incoming Speaker."

In 2013, facing criticism for appointing only white men to lead major committees in the House, former Speaker John Boehner appointed then-Rep. Candice Miller to chair the committee, despite the fact that she had not previously served on it.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Read more:
The House Republican who led a rioter on a tour the day before the January 6 attack could lead the committee overseeing Capitol security - Yahoo News

WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a Republican-backed appeal that could give state legislatures far more power over federal elections by limiting the ability of state courts to review their actions, taking up a North Carolina case that could have broad implications for the 2024 elections and beyond.

The justices took up the appeal by Republican state lawmakers of a February decision by North Carolina's top court to throw out a map delineating the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts approved last year by the Republican-controlled state legislature.

The North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the boundaries for the districts were drawn by the legislature in a manner that boosted the electoral chances of Republicans at the expense of Democrats. It rejected Republican arguments seeking to shield legislature-drawn maps from legal attack in state courts.

Register

North Carolina House Speaker Timothy Moore, a Republican, hailed the high court's decision to hear the appeal.

"This case is not only critical to election integrity in North Carolina, but has implications for the security of elections nationwide," Moore said.

Voting rights advocates disagreed.

"In a radical power grab, self-serving politicians want to defy our state's highest court and impose illegal voting districts upon the people of North Carolina," said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause, a voting rights group that is among the plaintiffs challenging the legislature's map.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican request to put on hold the lower court rulings that adopted the court-drawn map, a decision seen as boosting Democratic hopes of retaining their slim House majority in the November midterm elections. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from that decision.

The Republican lawmakers said the state court impermissibly imposed its own policy determination for how much partisanship can go into crafting congressional lines. They acknowledged that the case would have an impact beyond redistricting, extending to "the whole waterfront of voting issues, from absentee voting deadlines to witness requirements, voter ID to curbside voting."

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case in its next term, which begins in October, with a decision due by June 2023. The ruling is not expected to come before this November's elections but could apply to 2024 elections including the presidential race.

Two groups of plaintiffs, including Democratic voters and an environmental group, sued after North Carolina's legislature passed its version of the congressional map last November. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated the North Carolina state constitution's provisions concerning free elections and freedom of assembly, among others.

The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the map on Feb. 4, concluding that the way the districts were crafted was intentionally biased against Democrats, diluting their "fundamental right to equal voting power."

A lower state court on Feb. 23 rejected a redrawn map submitted by the legislature and instead adopted a new map drawn by a bipartisan group of experts. According to some redistricting analysts, the new map includes seven Republican districts likely to be won by Republicans, six likely to be won by Democrats and one competitive seat.

The dispute is one of numerous legal battles in the United States over the composition of electoral districts, which are redrawn each decade to reflect population changes measured in a national census, last taken in 2020. In most states, such redistricting is done by the party in power, which can lead to map manipulation for partisan gain.

The Supreme Court in 2019 barred federal judges from curbing the practice, called partisan gerrymandering. Critics have said that such gerrymandering warps democracy.

The North Carolina Republicans' defense of the legislature's map relies on a contentious legal theory called the "independent state legislature doctrine" that is gaining traction in conservative legal circles and, if accepted, would vastly increase politicians' control over how elections are conducted.

Under that doctrine, the U.S. Constitution gives legislatures, not state courts or other entities, authority over election rules including the drawing of electoral districts.

The doctrine is based in part on language in the Constitution stating that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the Republican lawmakers decried the "state supreme court's usurpation of that authority."

The state's Department of Justice said in a legal filing that, contrary to the Republican lawmakers' assertions, North Carolina state law specifically authorizes state courts to review redistricting efforts.

Register

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Continued here:
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Republican bid to curb judicial oversight of elections - Reuters.com

Republican strategist and conservative commentator Alice Stewart joined Don Lemon Tonight Thursday, where she spoke about former President Trumps fundraising efforts since losing the 2020 election. Trump raised hundreds of millions of dollars falsely claiming that the election was stolen.

Money is being raised from people that dont have expendable incomes, or people on fixed incomes that are giving their hard-earned money to Donald Trump to help in this process. The problem is, its all based on lies, Stewart said. It is based on his ill-conceived notion that there was widespread election fraud, and he actually won the election. That is the travesty here, is that were still, a year and a half later, still litigating the 2020 election.

Money from those fundraising efforts is reportedly being used to pay legal fees for some witnesses testifying before the January 6 Committee, raising questions about witness tampering.

We do need to find out what happened and led up to January 6th. We need to hold people accountable to that, Stewart said. But the fact that good people with good intentions that are strong Republicans are still buying into this ill-conceived notion of widespread election fraud.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

ALICE STEWART: Money is being raised from people that don't have expendable incomes-- or people on fixed income-- that are giving their hard-earned money to Donald Trump to help in this process. The problem is it's all based on lies.

- On "Don Lemon Tonight" Thursday, conservative commentator and Republican strategist Alice Stewart spoke about former President Trump and his political organizations covering legal costs for the witnesses testifying before the January 6 committee. The money used is reportedly from funds the former President raised while pushing the false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen.

ALICE STEWART: It is based on his ill-conceived notion that there was widespread election fraud and he actually won the election. That is the travesty here, is that we're still-- a year and a half later, still litigating the 2020 election.

- Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson was originally represented by lawyers allegedly paid for with fundraising money before she got independent counsel and delivered a bombshell testimony to the January 6 committee earlier in the week.

ALICE STEWART: We do need to find out what happened [? and ?] led up to January 6. We need to hold people accountable to that. But the fact that good people, with good intentions, that are strong Republicans, are still buying into this ill-conceived notion of widespread election fraud.

Continue reading here:
Republican strategist claims Trump is raising money off 'people that don't have expendable incomes' - Yahoo News

Opinion: Pima County Democrats are spreading the word on social media about a 'F--- the 4th' event. Do they just want to turn off voters?

While the rest of the country prepares to celebrate the nations birthday with hot dogs, apple pie and fireworks, the Pima County Democratic Party on Friday promoteda novel Independence Day … um … celebration?

F--- the 4th.

Tell me, do you people have to work at turning off voters, or does it just come naturally?

Tucson Womens March the group organizing the event in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade is asking people to bring comfortable shoes, water, lawn chairs, posters and your anger.

And the Pima County Democrats spreadthe word on social media on Friday, saying F---the 4th. See you at Reid Park.

Sorry, thats a hard pass for me.

Icalled the Pima County Democratic Party to make sure this wasnt some sort of hoax.

Itisnt.

A half-hour later the party took down the six-hour-old tweet and the attached flyer, which features the Statue of Liberty and says, Lets Mourn With F--- The 4th.

Bonnie Heidler, chairwoman of the Pima County Democratic Party, said she supports the protestbutnot the name or the flyer advertising the event. The party's tweet, she said, was a mistake.

We support women being able to protest when they feel wronged, she told me. They (Tucson Womens March) picked that name. Wedid not.

The party also posted a statement on Twitter, saying the graphic was "in poor taste".

"Make no mistake, however. We support the event which will be on July 4 at 7 pm at Reid Park. The event was organized to help women in our community grieve for the loss of their bodily autonomy, which we consider an elemental right."

I can appreciate the fact that Democrats, independents and even a few Republicans are full-out furious about the demise of Roe v. Wade and the look of Arizonas new future, rooted in a law passed during horse-and-buggy days.

The girls and women of this state woke up this week to learnthat our bodies are not our own but instead under the care and control of state of Arizona. Even a rape victim will be forced to bear her attackers babies.

So, yeah, anger. I get it.

But I also know that Democrats are facing an uphill battle in this years elections. Everything from control of Congress to control of the state Capitol is up for grabs. Meanwhile, historical voting patterns, the price of gas and groceries, and Joe Bidens low approval ratings are not the Democrats friends.

Now comes F--- the 4th?

Sorry, thats just not a good look for a party thats trying to convince independents and even moderate Republicans to look their way in November.

Republicans, meanwhile, jumped on the thing, tsk tsking in delight at the Democrats show of disrespect.

There it is the modern Democrat Party in a single tweet, Karrin Taylor Robson, Republican candidate for governor, responded. Arizona patriots will gather w/ friends/family on Independence Day to celebrate our nations birth & honor those who sacrificed for our freedom. But these Democrats will be doing something very different. Shameful.

"Clearly the Pima dems dont care about our country or those who fought and died for our freedoms," tweeted Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott.

This from the party that gave us Lets Go Brandon T-shirts and flags and sued to end the wildly popular early voting program used by up to 90% of Arizona voters.

Republicans disrespect a president. Now the Democrats disrespect one of our nations most importantholidays.

Theres no high ground here.

Fortunately, there are some Democrats who havent lost their ever living minds.

Adrian Fontes, who is running for secretary of state, was stunned by his partys promotion of the F---the 4th event.

Absolutely NOT how this Democrat feels. What the hell are you thinking @PimaDems?!? How does this help us WIN? Standby for an official statement condemning this tweet. Take this trash down!

Why celebrate freedom, you might ask, when we just lost a bit of it?

Because were free to win it back.

Celebrate by using that freedom to hold a voter registration drive on Monday. Orgo door-to-door and make sure that votersknow how to get early ballots. Theyll start arriving in mail boxes next week.

Give them information on who is running and how to vote and where to vote.

You want to change America? Then do it the old-fashioned way. At the polls.

And let us have this one day a year whenall Americans should be able to come together and celebrate.

This, Democrats, was a Yankee Doodle Don't.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on Twitter at @LaurieRoberts.

Support local journalism: Subscribe to azcentral.com today.

Read the rest here:
Hey, Pima County Democrats, F-bombing the 4th of July will not win you any votes - The Arizona Republic

Obama and his party combated it not with a norm violation of their own such as a temporary (and legally dicey) recess appointment of a justice but with reasonableness. Surely appointing a modest and moderate justice like Merrick Garland would lead public pressure to force McConnell to relent or would push voters to punish Republicans for their transgression. Neither happened. And the seat was filled by a Republican.

This is a pattern weve seen repeated ever since. Republicans attempt some unprecedented and shocking move; horrified Democrats respond by trying to be the adults in the room; and then the Democrats go unrewarded for it.

To be sure, a country is probably better off with one responsible party than with zero. But in important ways, this kind of asymmetry can be dangerous, making the government less and less representative of its people.

Now, time for some game theory.

In the game known as the prisoners dilemma, two players are competing against each other, and each has just two options cooperate or defect. If they both cooperate, they both get a nice reward. However, if Player 1 defects while Player 2 cooperates, Player 1 gets an even bigger reward while Player 2 pays a penalty. (The reverse happens if Player 1 cooperates while Player 2 defects.) If both players defect, neither gets a reward nor pays a penalty. Thus, each player wants the other to cooperate, and both prefer jointly cooperating to both defecting. But since neither can trust the other to cooperate, the usual outcome is for both to defect, leading to no payoff for either player. (The ferryboat scene in The Dark Knight (2008) remains my favorite, if imperfect, example of the prisoners dilemma.)

Playing this game many times can lead the players to develop norms of trust. Neither is happy with the low payoff, so reaching some sort of agreement about cooperation can be beneficial to both.

This hasnt been the pattern in national politics. On a range of issues and tactics, Republicans have defected while Democrats have cooperated. This includes how the GOP secured multiple Supreme Court justices, Donald Trump giving White House jobs to his daughter and son-in-law, Trump profiting from the presidency while refusing to release his tax returns, the Republican National Committee declaring the Jan. 6th riots to be legitimate political discourse, and many, many more. (I am not including Trumps efforts to steal the 2020 election or his instigation of the Capitol riot since those were, appropriately, met with impeachment and investigations.)

Were seeing this dynamic again in the wake of the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. This ruling, while opposed by most Americans, was a longstanding goal of Republicans and particularly conservatives on the court. And Democratic leaders had, thanks to POLITICOs bombshell disclosure of the draft opinion, ample warning that it was coming. And in response, they have done virtually nothing.

As Jamelle Bouie notes, there are things the president or Congress can do to rein in an out-of-control Supreme Court. Lawmakers can impeach justices (perhaps the appointees that appear to have deceived senators or even lied under oath in their confirmation hearings). They can curtail the courts jurisdiction or constrain judicial review. They can add more justices. No, Democrats may not have the votes to do any of these things; such efforts would likely fall at least one or two votes short in the Senate amid opposition from people like Sen. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, though they may at least be open to discussion on some ideas. But its not clear that Democrats are even trying to broach the topic. Instead, they have read poems and sung patriotic tunes.

Even if Congress doesnt act, the Biden administration could push back on its own. One possible policy response would be to put abortion clinics on federal lands within states that have banned abortions; the administration has taken that off the table. Biden also could verbally attack the legitimacy of the court, as a previous Democratic president once did. He hasnt.

To be clear, most of these moves would be treated as significant norm violations in Washington. But thats the point. When a norm violation is met by another, that gives both parties an incentive to find a new equilibrium down the road, and suggests to the first violator that they may have gone too far. If the majoritys rulings to end the federal right to abortion and restrict the states ability to regulate guns were met with an attempt to add four justices to the court even if that attempt failed it would send a message that there is a price to be paid, and that a future Congress might finish the job.

A classic economics article by David Kreps et al. outlines a version of the prisoners dilemma that spans many iterations. In this game, it may make sense for one player to act irrationally in the short run, forgoing some payoffs, in order to give that player a reputation of unpredictability or craziness. This can improve that players negotiating position further down the road. It could make sense for Democrats to adopt a similar strategy, at least to the point that Republicans believe that Democrats are as willing to damage institutions as they are.

For now, though, the lack of any fulsome Democratic response simply sends the message that there will be no penalty for GOP transgressions. And the courts conservative majority is just getting started.

See the rest here:
Opinion | Why Are Democrats Letting Republicans Steamroll Them? - POLITICO