Tag Archives: Graham

Graham asks Supreme Court to block his testimony in Georgia 2020 election probe

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) asked the Supreme Court on Friday to block his required appearance before a Georgia grand jury investigating possible attempts by President Donald Trump and his allies to disrupt the state’s 2020 presidential election.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Thursday turned down Graham’s attempt to block a subpoena from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D), in which the lawmaker claimed a sitting senator is shielded from testifying in such investigations.

A district court judge had said Graham must appear, but narrowed the range of questions that prosecutors can ask.

Without a stay of the lower courts’ rulings, Graham’s lawyer, Donald F. McGahn, told the Supreme Court, “Sen. Graham will suffer the precise injury he is appealing to prevent: being questioned in state court about his legislative activity and official acts.”

McGahn, a former counsel to Trump, asked Justice Clarence Thomas, the justice designated to hear emergency requests from the 11th Circuit, for at least a temporary stay. He said Graham could be required to testify “in less than a month.”

Thomas could act on the request on his own or refer the matter to the entire court.

Mar-a-Lago classified papers had sensitive secrets about Iran, China

The Atlanta grand jury investigating alleged 2020 presidential election interference has already heard testimony from several Trump lawyers, including Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Boris Epshteyn. Willis also wants to question former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Graham would be asked to testify about calls he made to Georgia election officials soon after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. Prosecutors say Graham has “unique knowledge” about the Trump campaign and the “multistate, coordinated efforts to influence the results” of the election in Georgia and elsewhere.

But Graham has said his actions were legitimate legislative activity protected by the Constitution’s “speech or debate clause.” The senator’s lawyers have said that they have been informed that Graham is a witness — and not a target — of the investigation.

Last month, a district court judge said prosecutors could not question Graham about portions of the calls that were legislative fact-finding. But the judge said Willis’s team could explore coordination with the Trump campaign in its post-election efforts in Georgia, public statements regarding the 2020 election and any efforts to “cajole” or “exhort” Georgia election officials.

The status of key investigations involving Donald Trump

In its order Thursday, the 11th Circuit panel agreed with the lower court judge that those actions “could not qualify as legislative activities under any understanding of Supreme Court precedent.” Two of the three judges on the panel were nominated by Trump.

Graham may still assert his rights, the court noted, if there is a dispute about certain questions.

McGahn said the case should not proceed without the Supreme Court weighing in. “The district court’s refusal to quash or at least stay this impermissible questioning—and the Eleventh Circuit’s cursory acquiescence, while misquoting the ‘Speech or Debate Clause,’ failing to invoke or apply the standard for a stay, and without so much as mentioning sovereign immunity—cries out for review,” he wrote.

McGahn said the district attorney can continue the investigation without Graham by questioning “other witnesses who are not immunized by the United States Constitution.”

Read original article here

Appeals court: Graham must testify in Georgia election probe

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify before a special grand jury investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia, a federal appeals court said Thursday.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paves the way for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to bring Graham in for questioning. She wants to ask the South Carolina Republican about phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the weeks after the election.

Raffensperger said Graham asked whether he had the power to reject certain absentee ballots, something Raffensperger took as a suggestion to toss out legally cast votes. Graham has dismissed that interpretation as “ridiculous.”

Graham could appeal the ruling to the full appellate court. An attorney for Graham deferred comment Thursday to a spokesperson for the senator’s office, which did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Graham had challenged his subpoena, saying his position as a U.S. senator protected him from having to testify in the state investigation. He has also denied wrongdoing. In a six-page order, the judges wrote that Graham “has failed to demonstrate that this approach will violate his rights under the Speech and Debate Clause.”

Willis opened the investigation early last year, shortly after a recording of a January 2021 phone call between Trump and Raffensperger was made public. In that call, Trump suggested Raffensperger could “find” the votes needed to overturn his narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Willis requested a special grand jury, saying the panel’s subpoena power would allow the questioning of people who otherwise wouldn’t cooperate with the investigation. She has since filed several rounds of paperwork with the court seeking to compel the testimony of close Trump advisers and associates.

Some of those associates include former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who has testified before the special grand jury, according to a person familiar with Cipollone’s testimony who spoke to The Associated Press on Thursday on condition of anonymity to discuss a private appearance. Cipollone’s appearance was first reported by CNN.

Cipollone vigorously resisted efforts to undo the election and has said he did not believe there was sufficient fraud to have affected the outcome of the race won by Biden.

Graham was in the first group of people close to Trump whose testimony Willis sought to compel in a batch of petitions filed with the court in early July. He challenged his subpoena in federal court, but U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May refused to toss out his subpoena. Graham then appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Graham’s lawyers argued that the U.S. Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which protects members of Congress from having to answer questions about legislative activity, shields him from having to testify. He contends that the call he made to Raffensperger fare was protected because he was asking questions to inform his decisions on voting to certify the 2020 election and future legislation.

Lawyers on Willis’ team argued that comments Graham made in news interviews at the time, as well as statements by Raffensperger, show that the senator was motivated by politics rather than by legislative factfinding.

They also argued that the scope of the special grand jury’s investigation includes a variety of other topics that have nothing to do with the Raffensperger call. They also want to ask Graham about his briefings by the Trump campaign, including whether he was briefed on the Trump-Raffensperger call, and whether he communicated or coordinated with Trump and his campaign about efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia and elsewhere.

Graham’s lawyers also argued that the principle of “sovereign immunity” protects a U.S. senator from being summoned by a state prosecutor.

Even if the speech or debate clause or sovereign immunity didn’t apply, Graham’s lawyers argued, his status as a “high-ranking official” protects him from having to testify. That’s because Willis has failed to show that his testimony is essential and that the information he would provide cannot be obtained from someone else, they argued.

In their ruling Thursday, the appellate judges ruled that Willis “can ask about non-investigatory conduct that falls within the subpoena’s scope” but “may not ask about any investigatory conduct,” noting that Graham could note any issues over specific areas at the time of his questioning.

Others have already made their appearances before the special grand jury. Former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who’s been told he could face criminal charges in the probe, testified in August. Attorneys John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro have also appeared before the panel.

Paperwork has been filed seeking testimony from others, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

___

Meg Kinnard can be reached at http://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP

___

Associated Press writers Kate Brumback in Atlanta and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.



Read original article here

New Resident Evil 4 Remake Trailer Shows Updated Ashley Graham, Ada Wong, and Other Familiar Faces

A brand-new Resident Evil 4 Remake trailer was revealed during today’s Resident Evil Showcase, showing Ashley Graham and Adam Wong, as well as providing a further glimpse of the gameplay on PS4, PS5, Xbox Series X|S, and PC.

While the trailer doesn’t directly spoil Resident Evil 4’s reveal, it strongly hints at many of the mysteries behind the Los Plagas and the plight of the villagers in Spain. The trailer also features updated versions of Ramon Salazar, a familiar villain from the original Resident Evil 4, as well as Ashley Graham.

Resident Evil 4 Remake – Story Trailer Gallery

Ashley Graham, as you may recall, is the president’s daughter in the original telling of the story. She’s obviously older in this version, with a more modern hairstyle. On the villain side, Salazar appears less like the comic villain than he did in the original, though he does retain his 18th-century European styling. You can see all of these characters and more in the slideshow above.

In addition to the trailer, Capcom provided a deeper look into their remake of Resident Evil 4 as a whole. They include the return of the classic merchant, as well as confirmation that the remake will once again feature the Tetris-like inventory system of the original.

First announced over the summer, Resident Evil 4 seeks to update the original survival horror classic for a new generation. It faces a tall order as the original game is one of the most beloved entries in the Resident Evil 4 canon.

Resident Evil 4 Remake is due out March 24, 2023.

Kat Bailey is a Senior News Editor at IGN as well as co-host of Nintendo Voice Chat. Have a tip? Send her a DM at @the_katbot.

Read original article here

Trump ally Lindsey Graham told ex-cop Capitol rioters should be shot in head | Books

Republican senator and Trump ally Lindsey Graham told a police officer badly beaten during the Capitol attack that law enforcement should have shot rioting Trump supporters in the head, according to a new book.

“You guys should have shot them all in the head,” the now ex-cop, Michael Fanone, says the South Carolina Republican told him at a meeting in May 2021, four months after the deadly attack on Congress.

“We gave you guys guns, and you should have used them. I don’t understand why that didn’t happen.”

On January 6, Fanone was a Metropolitan police officer who came to the aid of Capitol police as Trump supporters attacked. He was severely beaten, suffering a heart attack and a traumatic brain injury.

He has since resigned from the police, testified to the House January 6 committee and become a CNN analyst. His book, Hold the Line, will be published next week.

Politico reported the remarks Fanone says were made by Graham. The site also said Fanone secretly recorded other prominent Republicans, among them Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader and possibly the next speaker, who has also stayed close to Trump.

Politico said Fanone told McCarthy efforts to minimize the Capitol insurrection were “not just shocking but disgraceful”. McCarthy reportedly offered no response.

Last week, Rolling Stone published an extraordinarily frank interview in which Fanone, a self-described lifelong Republican, called McCarthy a “fucking weasel bitch”. McCarthy did not comment.

According to Politico, Fanone told Graham he “appreciated the enthusiasm” the senator showed for shooting rioters “but noted the officers had rules governing the use of deadly force”.

Fanone says the meeting with Graham was also attended by Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who has also testified in Congress, and Gladys Sicknick and Sandra Garza, the mother and partner of Brian Sicknick, an officer who died after the riot.

Fanone says Graham snapped at Gladys Sicknick, telling the bereaved mother he would “end the meeting right now” if she said more negative things about Trump.

Nine deaths, including officer suicides, have been linked to the Capitol attack. The riot erupted after Trump told supporters to “fight like hell” to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden, which he maintains without evidence was the result of electoral fraud. Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, urged Trump’s supporters to stage “trial by combat”.

Testimony to the House January 6 committee has shown Trump knew elements of the crowd were armed but told them to march on the Capitol and tried to go with them.

Representatives for Graham did not comment to Politico. The senator was previously reported to have advocated the use of force against Capitol rioters on the day itself.

That same day, Graham seemed to abandon his closeness to Trump. In a Senate speech hours after the Capitol was cleared, he said: “Count me out.” Days later, he said he had “never been so humiliated and embarrassed for the country”.

But like most Republicans, McCarthy literally so, Graham returned to Trump’s side. Like all but seven Republican senators, Graham voted to acquit in Trump’s second impeachment trial, for inciting the Capitol attack.

He recently predicted “riots in the streets” if Trump is indicted for retaining classified documents after leaving the White House.

In their recent book, The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021, Peter Baker of the New York Times and Susan Glasser of the New Yorker quote Graham as calling Trump “a lying motherfucker” … but “a lot of fun to hang out with”.

Read original article here

Chelsea outclass Milan in Champions League to ignite Graham Potter era | Champions League

Chelsea’s Champions League campaign has its ignition point and so does the managerial tenure of Graham Potter. It feels strange to think that this was only his third match in charge of the club following his appointment on 8 September, the first having been the 1-1 draw here against Red Bull Salzburg.

That had been a strange jumble of emotions in the wake of the loss at Dinamo Zagreb and Thomas Tuchel’s sacking. But with Chelsea desperately needing a victory in the competition everything came together, the blue shirts pouring forward from all angles; Milan chased out of west London, fortunate to escape a serious beating.

It was still chastening. There is a particular kind of event glamour when it comes to Milan – the cool shirts; the sight of Paolo Maldini, the technical director, strolling the touchline before kick-off. Clarence Seedorf, the former Milan midfielder, was here as a media pundit – alongside the Chelsea icon, Gianfranco Zola, in front of the press box.

But apart from the electricity generated whenever Rafael Leão got the ball and started to run, Milan offered nothing and it was certainly jarring to see the champions of Italy defend so generously. The die was cast when Wesley Fofana opening the scoring midway through the first half following a poorly defended corner and, thereafter, Chelsea threatened to run riot.

Potter has had to feel his way into the role on the training ground and he could delight at how his players mapped the moves from Cobham on to the big stage. Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang added the second and it was a night when pretty much everybody impressed. Thiago Silva was pitch perfect in defence while Mateo Kovacic and Ruben Loftus-Cheek ran the midfield. But, as so often, it was Reece James who was the dominant figure.

The right wing-back drove the team, a menace to Milan with his surges and deliveries. It was his cross that teed up Aubameyang and it was fitting that he set the seal on one of the best Chelsea victories for some time with the third goal, slammed high inside the near post after a Raheem Sterling pass. It was James who the TV cameras followed at full-time, him that the home crowd saluted in song.

Wesley Fofana goes down with the injury that would force his first-half substitution. Photograph: Tom Jenkins/The Guardian

Chelsea had flickered at the outset against a Milan defence that missed the No 1 goalkeeper, Mike Maignan, and three of the regular back four – Davide Calabria, Simon Kjær and Theo Hernández.

Mason Mount extended Ciprian Tatarusanu but it was after a flurry of set pieces midway through the first half that Chelsea took control – four of them to be precise, each bringing a free header and worry lines for Stefano Pioli, the Milan manager. How was this happening?

From the fourth, a Ben Chilwell corner, Silva – as he had done twice previously – unloaded his header, which was pushed out by Tatarusanu and from there, it was a scramble. Aubameyang put himself about, so did Loftus-Cheek and, when the ball broke, it did so kindly for Fofana, who rolled it home.

Chelsea were well balanced in Potter’s 3-4-2-1 system; Sterling and Mount finding spaces as the No 10s, James and Chilwell offering width and thrust. They might have been out of sight by the interval.

Mount saw a shot blocked after James had combined with Sterling to pull back, and Mount also had the ball in the net after a nice finish but had strayed offside. Sterling, too, went close on a quick break.

Milan’s threat came exclusively through Leão, their fast rising star – an uncommon blend of explosiveness and strength. His first involvement had been to blast away from a clutch of blue shirts and he made it clear that he intended to do it again and again. Chelsea needed Silva to stretch into an excellent slide challenge on him in the 19th minute after Fofana had been caught on the ball.

What a run it was that Leão produced in first-half stoppage time, taking him past four Chelsea players, the alarm bells ringing loudly. Charles De Ketelaere prodded goalwards and, when Kepa Arrizabalaga – who kept his place ahead of the fit again Édouard Mendy – patted the ball out, Rade Krunic had to score. From point-blank range, his shot went high. It was a huge let-off for Chelsea.

There was needle, some bad challenges, with those from Krunic and Fodé Ballo-Touré in the first half fully meriting their yellow cards. But there did not appear to have been much in the tussle between Fofana and Leão that saw the former forced off on 38 minutes. The frustration for the goalscorer was intense.

Chelsea deserved a second goal to allow themselves to breathe more easily and it came on 56 minutes when James crossed and Aubameyang gave Fikayo Tomori the slip all too easily. Tomori was left to perform a despairing lunge; it was a horror moment for the Chelsea youth product. That was that in terms of the result. But after Sterling had volleyed high, James brought the flourish.

Read original article here

Graham says he’s ‘confident’ Americans would support national abortion ban

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday expressed confidence that the public would support his 15-week federal abortion ban proposal but acknowledged it does not have the votes to pass the Senate.

“I’m pro-life, even in an election year,” Graham told “Fox News Sunday” anchor Shannon Bream.

“I am confident the American people would accept a national ban on abortion at 15 weeks,” Graham said. “And to those who suggest that being pro-life is losing politics, I reject that.”

The South Carolina Republican on Tuesday introduced a bill that would prohibit abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy nationwide, carving out exceptions for rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger.

The move has attracted criticism from some in his own party, who expressed a desire to leave abortion legislation to states after the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in June. 

Bream asked Graham about comments he made two days after the decision, in which the South Carolina Republican said that Americans should “let every state do it the way they would like” on abortion restrictions.

“Here’s what Dobbs says: elected officials can make the decision, state or federal. I’m not inconsistent,” Graham said when Bream pressed him on his June comments.

Graham called the suggestion he has flipped his position “ridiculous,” noting he has introduced a 20-week abortion ban multiple times in the Senate and other related bills. But he acknowledged that “we will not pass them all” when it comes to abortion bills.

“I will not sit on the sidelines and watch this nation become China when it comes to aborting babies up to the moment of birth,” he said. “I reject that. I will continue to introduce legislation at the national level setting a minimum standard at 15 weeks.”

Despite general agreement among Republican lawmakers on tightening abortion restrictions at the state level, Graham’s proposal has been met with some GOP opposition.

The bill’s introduction comes less than two months before the midterm elections, and Republicans are hoping to flip control of Congress.

Democrats, meanwhile, are hoping the abortion ruling can energize liberal voters in races this fall to maintain their razor-thin majorities. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnnell (R-Ky.) told reporters last week that his caucus is not eager to debate the legislation.

“I think most of the members of my conference prefer that this be dealt with at the state level,” McConnell said.

Asked if Graham’s bill is sanctioned by the leadership, Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) similarly said “no.”

Read original article here

Republicans in muddle on abortion as ban proposed by Graham exposes rifts

In a memo to GOP campaigns released this week, the Republican National Committee laid out what it called a winning message on abortion: Press Democrats on where they stand on the procedure later in pregnancy, seek “common ground” on exceptions to bans and keep the focus on crime and the economy.

Then, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) introduced legislation to ban abortions nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy — overshadowing new inflation numbers and undermining what many GOP strategists see as their best message for the fall: “Leave it to the states.”

“It’s an absolute disaster,” GOP strategist John Thomas said, as Republican Senate nominees already targeted for their comments on abortion were asked to weigh in. “Oy vey,” he said when informed that Blake Masters in battleground Arizona had just expressed his support.

The same day Graham unveiled his plan, the GOP-controlled West Virginia legislature passed a stricter measure to prohibit nearly all abortions. And former vice president Mike Pence said in an interview with Real Clear Politics that pushing for a national abortion ban and individual state restrictions “is profoundly more important than any short-term politics.”

Since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June, Republicans have been scrambling for more favorable political terrain on abortion, as polling and election results suggest the issue is disproportionately energizing voters to cast ballots for Democrats. But as the GOP seeks an effective counterargument to Democratic attacks on scores of candidates who want to restrict abortion, it is sending an increasingly muddled message to voters eight weeks before the midterms.

Some candidates are downplaying or backing off past support for strict bans, while others push the debate over federal restrictions that many want to avoid.

Democrats are pouncing on those mixed signals to hammer the simpler message they’ve promoted for months, warning that Republicans want to continue to erode access to abortion even after the high court took away a constitutional right to the procedure.

Democratic pollster Molly Murphy said Graham’s 15-week bill, released Tuesday, has only reinforced the argument that Republicans will try to enact significant new restrictions if they gain control of Congress. “I feel like I’ve had a roller coaster of a day between, ‘What kind of three-dimensional chess are they playing?’ to kind of settling into, ‘They’re not,’ ” said Murphy, who is working on the Arizona Senate race.

Asked whether they would back Graham’s legislation, most GOP nominees in the closest Senate races gave ambiguous answers or did not respond. And even as Masters said he would “of course” support Graham’s bill, his campaign spokesman retweeted a message that appeared to channel some GOP groans over Graham’s announcement: “Why why why why why.”

The aide, Zach Henry, removed the retweet Tuesday night and said he was not speaking on behalf of Masters.

More than half of registered voters oppose a 15-week ban on abortion with exceptions for the health of the mother, a Wall Street Journal poll found last month.

While Masters has drawn particular attention for shifting positions — specifying only after his primary win that a nationwide abortion ban should target third-trimester and “partial-birth” abortions — other GOP candidates have also backtracked or downplayed their views.

In Minnesota, GOP gubernatorial nominee Scott Jensen — who once said he “would try to ban abortion” as governor — recently released an ad that began, “In Minnesota, [abortion] is a protected constitutional right, and no governor can change that. And I’m not running to do that.” In Michigan, Republican gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon has been explicitly appealing to voters who might balk at her vocal support for an abortion ban throughout pregnancy with exceptions only for the life of the mother.

“And just like that you can vote for Gretchen Whitmer’s abortion agenda & still vote against her,” Dixon tweeted last week, referring to her Democratic opponent, after Michigan’s highest court cleared the way for a November ballot measure asking whether the state constitution should guarantee abortion access.

Thomas, the GOP strategist, said he thinks candidates in tight races are smart to attempt a “pivot” on abortion. It’s not a winning issue for Republicans, he argued, “but the goal there is to assuage voters with concerns … so the candidate can get back to debating on the issues of higher priority.”

But “will voters buy it?” Thomas said of candidates’ shifts. “Hard to say.”

Further complicating Republicans’ pitch: Some GOP officials are pushing bans at the state level that are far stricter than Graham’s proposal. Republicans have sought to shift the focus to Democrats’ positions, noting that the United States is one of fewer than a dozen countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. But even some antiabortion advocates say the other side has more energy as the end of Roe triggers dramatic new restrictions on abortion in swing states.

Chuck Coughlin, a GOP strategist in Arizona, called a 15-week ban a “pragmatic” stance — especially in comparison to the far more stringent law working through the courts in his state. One of Masters’s former rivals in the primary, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, has been arguing for enforcement of that ban, which dates to the 1800s and prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother.

Democrats said they see a persuasive case against Republicans, even with attempts to rally the party behind less restrictive bans, such as Graham’s proposal, which would allow the vast majority of abortions to continue but marks a sharp departure from the roughly 24-week standard under Roe.

“Republicans’ national abortion ban will be on the ballot, in every Senate race,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement. Vulnerable Democrats in states where abortion remains legal — who have argued for months their opponents could help pass national restrictions — immediately highlighted Graham’s proposal.

In Nevada, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D) claimed again that her opponent, former state attorney general Adam Laxalt, would back a federal abortion ban; Laxalt denied this in an op-ed last month, but his campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Graham’s legislation. In New Hampshire, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D) said “Republicans are moving forward” on “a bill banning abortion — no matter where you live.”

Yet abortion restrictions are unlikely to pass in the Senate, even if the GOP retakes control of the chamber this November — a political reality several senators nodded to on Tuesday. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he wouldn’t eliminate the filibuster to pass abortion legislation, which means any such bill would require 60 votes in the chamber to overcome a procedural hurdle. At the White House, President Biden is sure to veto any such measure even if it made it to his desk.

On Tuesday, McConnell declined to commit to bringing Graham’s bill to the floor, while Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), his top deputy, said he’d “like to see the federal government get out of the abortion business.”

“I think every Republican senator running this year in these contested races has an answer as to how they feel about the issue,” McConnell said. “And it may be different in different states, so I leave it up to our candidates who are quite capable of handling this issue to determine for them what their response is.”

Asked whether the GOP needs to be more united on abortion, Graham said candidates should follow what they are “personally” comfortable with.

Some Republicans said they saw no problem with disparate positions on abortion — as long as the GOP could steer the conversation back toward inflation and other issues on which they have a more unified pitch.

Republican strategist Doug Heye, a former communications director for the RNC, said that “in theory, you always want” a cohesive party message. But “Republicans nearly got [former president Donald] Trump reelected without even having the party platform,” he added.

Leading antiabortion groups have been pushing to restrict the procedure at the federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Late last month, Students for Life Action sent a letter to every House and Senate Republican, arguing the federal government should enact nationwide limits.

“We can’t delegate ending the injustice of abortion to states alone. All of us at every level of society, and especially legislators, need to reverse almost 50 years of public policy that allowed the life-ending harms of abortion to continue with taxpayer support,” Kristan Hawkins, the group’s president, wrote.

Opponents of federal restrictions also made their case Tuesday on Capitol Hill. Ashbey Beasley was there to meet with Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) to discuss an assault weapon ban after she and her son survived the Highland Park, Ill., shooting on July 4 — but she took a quick detour after seeing that Graham was having a news conference to introduce his new legislation.

After the event finished, she stood up to recount discovering her son had a fetal abnormality her son at 16 weeks. After undergoing multiple in utero surgeries, she said, she and her husband decided to deliver the baby to live out of the womb until he died eight days later. But she argued other women should have abortion as an option.

“What do you say to a woman like me?” she asked.



Read original article here

Graham to introduce bill that would restrict abortions nationwide

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday will make public his plans to introduce a bill in the Senate that would ban abortions nationwide, one that is expected to restrict the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy, according to several antiabortion advocates with knowledge of internal discussions.

Graham will be joined at a noon news conference Tuesday by Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, along with other antiabortion leaders. Representatives for Graham and the Susan B. Anthony group did not immediately respond to questions Tuesday morning.

The name of his bill — which includes the nonmedical phrase “late-term abortions” — drew sharp criticism from abortion rights activists. Used almost exclusively by antiabortion activists, the phrase is generally understood to refer to abortions between or after 21 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.

“15 weeks is not ‘late term,’ particularly given the significant challenges to access around the country,” Christina Reynolds, vice president of communications at Emily’s List, wrote in a tweet.

While most people undergo abortions earlier in pregnancy, 15-week and 20-week abortion bans disproportionately affect patients with fetal anomalies, which are often detected at a 20-week anatomy scan, along with those who take longer to realize they are pregnant. These kinds of bans will also affect more people in a post-Roe America as abortion clinics struggle to accommodate a swell of patients from states where abortion is now banned.

Democrats swiftly responded to reports of Graham’s efforts with anger, and vowed that the measure would go nowhere.

“I will block any efforts in the Senate to advance a nationwide abortion ban — full stop,” tweeted Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), who is locked in a tough reelection bid. “We don’t need any more male politicians telling women what we can and can’t do with our own bodies.”

“I will never understand the Republican obsession with what goes on in your bedroom or your doctor’s office, but I do know it belongs nowhere near government. Your right to privacy is fundamental,” Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) tweeted.

The timing of Graham’s announcement is curious, two months after most Republicans justified the Supreme Court’s June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade by arguing that abortion rights should be left to states to decide. It will also come two months before the midterm elections, after abortion has already shown to be a galvanizing issue for some Democratic voters. While Republicans generally have praised the ruling overturning Roe, many have preferred not to focus on the issue ahead of the midterms.

Last month, Kansas voters soundly rejected a referendum that would have allowed state lawmakers to regulate abortion, the first time state voters decided on such an amendment since Roe was overturned. Last week, South Carolina Republicans fell short in their bid for a near-total abortion ban in the state. Planned Parenthood announced last month that it plans to spend a record $50 million in an effort to elect abortion rights supporters across the country this November, banking on the belief that abortion will help turn out Democratic voters.

Moreover, several red states already have stricter bans in place. “Trigger laws” restricting or banning abortion went into effect immediately after Roe was overturned in at least eight states, and several others are in various stages of legal limbo. Last month, Indiana passed a near-total abortion ban, the first to do so after Roe was struck down.

Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, many Republican lawmakers and advocates had been pushing for a strict nationwide “heartbeat” ban on abortions, which would have outlawed the procedure after cardiac activity is detected, at around six weeks of pregnancy. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) had been planning behind-the-scenes to introduce the legislation.

But months after the landmark abortion ruling, those plans have quietly fizzled. While that bill has been drafted, there is no timeline for Ernst or any other senator to introduce it, according to several antiabortion advocates close to the situation.

Instead, some leading antiabortion advocates are hoping that Republicans will rally around a 15-week ban, long denounced by many in the antiabortion movement because it would allow the vast majority of abortions to continue.

Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said she expects that Graham’s bill will be “universally accepted,” offering a path forward that a variety of Republican senators can support.

“I think the place to begin is where Graham is beginning,” said Dannenfelser in an interview before Graham’s bill was released. “Graham is the momentum and it will increase when he introduces [his bill].”

Some Republicans are not so sure. Since the Supreme Court decision, many have said publicly that they think abortion should be left to the states.

Even before an antiabortion amendment was resoundingly defeated in his home state, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) told The Washington Post that he doubted that there was a future for any kind of national abortion ban.

“I just don’t see the momentum at the federal level,” Marshall said in a July 25 interview. “I think the legislative priority should be at the states.”

Republicans have been forced to reckon with a growing trove of data suggesting that abortion could be a decisive issue in the midterms, motivating Democratic and independent voters far more than was widely expected. Candidates who support abortion rights have overperformed in recent special elections, while key battleground states have seen a spike in Democratic and independent women registering to vote.

Some Republicans have grown increasingly hesitant to discuss the subject of a national abortion ban on the campaign trail. In Arizona, Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters removed any mention of his support for a “federal personhood law” from his website, legislation that probably would have banned abortion nationwide after conception. Masters’s website now says he would support a ban on abortions in the third trimester, at around 27 weeks of pregnancy, a far more popular position.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America applauded the change in a news release, saying that Masters “rightfully centered his position on what is achievable at the federal level.”

Abortion rights groups have seized on the looming threat of a national abortion ban, hoping to mobilize voters around the issue all over the country, including those in states where abortion rights are protected.

“For anyone who is in a state where abortion is not yet restricted or banned, we especially want to tell those voters, ‘This is everybody’s issue. It could come to your state too if they’re voting against efforts to protect abortion,’ ” said Jacqueline Ayers, senior vice president at Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

In both the House and Senate, Republicans are debating other types of abortion legislation that might be easier to pass than a national ban.

Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-Minn.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, said in an interview that members have been discussing first-of-its-kind legislation that would give federal funding to crisis pregnancy centers, antiabortion organizations that try to dissuade women from having abortions and sometimes offer diapers and other aid to new moms.

Rachel Roubein and Marianna Sotomayor contributed to this report.



Read original article here

Lindsey Graham warns of ‘riots in the streets’ if Trump is prosecuted

Comment

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham said Sunday that there would be “riots in the street” if former president Donald Trump is prosecuted for taking classified government documents to his private Mar-a-Lago residence after leaving the White House.

Graham (R-S.C.) twice made a “riots in the street” remark during an appearance on Fox News’s “Sunday Night in America” as he launched into a broader commentary against what he perceived to be a two-tiered justice system tilted against the former president.

“There is a double standard when it comes to Trump,” Graham said, contrasting the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago to the agency’s probe of his political rivals, including Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, and President Biden’s son Hunter. (Hunter Biden is under investigation for tax liabilities, though Graham and other Republicans regularly say the FBI should probe his overseas business dealings.)

Post Politics Now: Judge’s openness to special master for Mar-a-Lago documents raises new questions in criminal probe

“And I’ll say this: If there is a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information after the Clinton debacle … there will be riots in the street,” Graham said.

Graham’s comments drew rebukes from critics who called Graham’s remarks “irresponsible” and “shameful.”

In response to a question from The Washington Post, Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop described the senator’s comments as “predicting/forecasting what he thinks will happen.”

Takeaways from the redacted affidavit used for the Mar-a-Lago search

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank, chastised Graham for his remarks on Twitter.

“[Graham’s] prediction that violence may follow any prosecution of the former Potus may not qualify legally as incitement but it is irresponsible all the same as it will be seen by some as a call for violence,” he wrote. “Public officials are obligated to call for the rule of law.”

Others viewed the senator’s words as more threat than prognostication. Former congressman Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), a tea party adherent turned frequent Trump critic, called Graham “shameful” and a “coward,” writing on Twitter that “threats of violence should NEVER stop the pursuit of justice. NEVER.”

Trumpworld walks a line between predicting violence and threatening it

Trump, meanwhile, gave a tacit endorsement of Graham’s message, posting the Fox News interview without comment to his Truth Social platform late Sunday.

Threats against the FBI have surged since agents searched Trump’s safe at his South Florida resort Aug. 8. The search led agents to recover a trove of documents, many of which had “among the most sensitive secrets we hold,” people involved in the search told The Post.

The warrant authorizing the search of former president Donald Trump’s home said agents were seeking documents possessed in violation of the Espionage Act. (Video: Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)

The FBI probe is the latest legal pressure on Trump, who now faces growing scrutiny as the criminal probe intensifies. The investigation is looking into whether he or his former aides took classified government documents and improperly stored or never returned them. Trump’s lawyer has argued that the former president cooperated with federal authorities and that many of the documents were covered by executive privilege.

In response, Republicans have accused the agency, without evidence, of carrying out a political vendetta against Trump at Biden’s behest.

What could the Mar-a-Lago search mean for Trump legally?

Larry Cosme, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, told The Post this month that online messages have advocated the killing of FBI agents, and that overheated rhetoric from conservatives has warned that federal officials are “coming for you.”

Days after the document search at Mar-a-Lago, Navy veteran Ricky Shiffer was shot and killed after a police chase and standoff in Ohio, where he had tried to breach an FBI field office. Authorities investigating the case are trying to determine Shiffer’s motive; his name was used on several social media platforms, including Truth Social, that urged a “call to arms” after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago.



Read original article here

Senator Graham wins temporary reprieve from testifying in Trump Georgia probe

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) – An appeals court put on hold U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham’s scheduled testimony for Tuesday before a grand jury in Georgia probing efforts by Donald Trump to overturn the former president’s 2020 election defeat, with the case returning to a lower court for another look.

A federal judge on Monday had rejected Graham’s challenge to the subpoena to testify before the grand jury. Graham, a Republican, had argued his position as a U.S. senator provided him immunity from having to appear before the investigative panel. read more

Sunday’s order by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes as a temporary reprieve for Graham who otherwise would have had to testify on Tuesday.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Testimony from Graham, a close ally of Trump, could shed further light on the coordinated effort by Trump’s team to reverse the 2020 results.

The appeals court gave Graham a new chance to challenge the subpoena based on protections for lawmakers under the U.S. Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause. That provision can protect lawmakers from being compelled to discuss legislative activity.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asks questions to Attorney General Merrick Garland (not pictured) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, at the Capitol in Washington, DC, U.S., April 26, 2022. Greg Nash/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

“The district court shall expedite the parties’ briefing in a manner that it deems appropriate,” Sunday’s order said.

The grand jury wants to question Graham about at least two phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his staff in the weeks following the November 2020 presidential election, in which Graham explored the possibility of re-examining absentee ballots, according to prosecutors.

The Georgia probe is one among several legal troubles faced by the former president, whose Florida home was searched by federal agents this month and whose role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol is being investigated separately by a congressional panel.

Trump has falsely claimed that rampant voter fraud caused his loss in Georgia, a battleground state where President Joe Biden’s victory helped propel him to the White House.

The special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, is undertaking a criminal investigation into alleged wrongdoing. Trump was recorded in a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call pressuring a top state official to “find” enough votes to overturn his loss to Biden in the state. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The grand jury had also subpoenaed members of Trump’s former legal team. Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s onetime personal lawyer, testified before the special grand jury in Atlanta on Wednesday. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Mike Scarcella, Mary Milliken and Lisa Shumaker

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site