Saturday, January 18, 2025
■ The Week in Review
"Too much of the coverage has simply ignored the climate crisis altogether, an inexcusable failure when the scientific link between such megafires and a hotter, dryer planet is unequivocal," wrote the founders of Covering Climate Now.
By Eloise Goldsmith • Jan 16, 2025
Covering the who, what, when, where, and why is journalism 101. So why are too few media outlets explaining the role that the climate crisis plays in the "why" behind the fires ravaging the Los Angeles region?
That's the central question posed in an opinion piece published in The Guardian and elsewhere on Thursday authored by Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope, the founders of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of over 500 news outlets aimed at improving climate coverage, of which Common Dreams is a part.
Hertsgaard and Pope wrote that "too much of the coverage has simply ignored the climate crisis altogether, an inexcusable failure when the scientific link between such megafires and a hotter, dryer planet is unequivocal."
They added: "Too many stories have framed the fires as a political spat between U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and California elected officials instead of a horrifying preview of what lies ahead if humans don't rapidly phase out fossil fuels. Too often, bad-faith disinformation has been repeated instead of debunked."
Misinformation, in many instances stemming from right-leaning sources, have proliferated since the blazes broke out last week. Trump in a social media post appeared to point the finger at California's statewide water management plans for fire hydrants running dry as firefighters fought the blazes last week. Southern California does have plenty water stored, but the city's infrastructure was not designed to respond to a fire as the large as the ones that broke out, experts told PBS. Another user on the platform X falsely claimed that California turned away fire trucks from Oregon because of their emission levels, according to KQED.
Hertsgaard and Pope also called for outlets to name names. "Rarely have stories named the ultimate authors of this disaster: ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other fossil fuel companies that have made gargantuan amounts of money even as they knowingly lied about their products dangerously overheating the planet," they wrote.
While the fires are still burning, researchers are already drawing the links between climate change and the blazes. In a thread on Bluesky, the climate scientist Daniel Swain explained the concept of climate "hydroclimate whiplash"—which southern California experienced in 2024—and how this can create ideal conditions for fires to spread.
The authors of the opinion piece noted that there have been bright spots when it comes to covering the fires with an eye toward the climate emergency and debunking false and misleading claims about the fires. The duo highlight a Time story that is titled "The LA fires show the reality of living in a world with 1.5C of warming" and a column written by the Los Angeles Times' Sammy Roth, which began: "Los Angeles is burning. Fossil fuel companies laid the kindling."
Hertsgaard and Pope wrote, "When a house is on fire, by all means let journalism show us the flames."
"But tell us why the house is burning, too," they added.
UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL'S GENOCIDE IS A LOSER!
"Israel is a liability," said one Palestinian-American rights advocate.
By Julia Conley • Jan 15, 2025
As a cease-fire and hostage release deal was reportedly reached between Hamas and Israel on Wednesday, new polling made it clearer than ever that Vice President Kamala Harris' refusal to break with the Biden administration's position on Israel's relentless assault on Gaza had an impact on her support from voters, and contributed to millions of potential Democratic voters deciding to stay home on Election Day.
A YouGov poll backed by the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project and released on Wednesday showed that among the 19 million people who voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 but did not vote in 2024, nearly a third named Israel's U.S.-backed war on Gaza as a top reason for staying home.
"The top reason those non-voters cited, above the economy at 24% and immigration at 11%, was Gaza: a full 29% cited the ongoing onslaught as the top reason they didn't cast a vote in 2024," wrote Ryan Grim at Drop Site News, the first outlet to report the news.
In states that swung from Biden in 2020 to President-elect Donald Trump in 2024, 20% of non-voters said Gaza was the reason they didn't cast a ballot in November.
After replacing Biden as the nominee in July, Harris faced pressure—as the president had—to take decisive action to end U.S. support for Israel's assault on Gaza, which has now killed more than 46,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been civilian men, women, and children.
Advocates called on Harris to support an arms embargo on Israel—one that would have placed the U.S. in compliance with its own laws, such as Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act, which bar the government from providing military aid to any country that is blocking U.S. humanitarian aid.
The U.S. has made more than 100 military transfers to Israel since it began bombarding Gaza in October 2023 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack. Israel's near-total blockade on humanitarian aid has left parts of the enclave facing famine, according to the World Food Program and international experts.
"We want to support you, Vice President Harris, and our voters need to see you turn a new page on Gaza policy that includes embracing an arms embargo to save lives," one leader of the Uncommitted National Movement told Harris at an event in August. At the same event, the vice president accused protesters who chanted, "We won't vote for genocide!" of wanting "Donald Trump to win."
At Drop Site News, Grim wrote that Harris later emphasized, "I am not Joe Biden" and insisted that her presidency "not be a continuation of Joe Biden's presidency" because of her "life experiences, [her] professional experiences, and fresh and new ideas"—but she continued to back the White House's position on the bombardment of Gaza.
"Of course, diverging from Biden on Gaza risked losing voters who supported his policy," wrote Grim. "But a close look at the survey suggests that risk was low compared to the potential reward."
YouGov asked voters who turned out for Harris and had also backed Biden in 2020 whether a shift away from the White House policy on Israel and Gaza would have made them more or less likely to vote for Harris.
"By a 35 to 5 margin, they said doing so would have made them more enthusiastic to vote for her, with the remainder saying it would have made no difference," reported Grim.
Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian-American who co-founded the International Solidarity Movement, said the "damning new poll" shows that "Israel is a liability."
Grim noted some caveats, pointing out that "even if October 7 and the resulting genocide had never happened, it's fair to assume some number of those non-voters still would not have voted, and would have cited a different top reason for not voting."
"Still, even the most biased poll can only manufacture so much of a response," wrote Grim. "Even if the true numbers aren't as stark as this survey found, it points in a clear direction: Biden's ruthless support for Israel's genocide, and the refusal of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris to break with him, hurt her among voters who stayed home."
The IMEU Policy Project called on the Democratic Party to "come to terms with the real reasons it lost the presidency in November, including because after over a year of unprecedented protests and calls for Biden to stop sending weapons to Israel, party leadership failed to listen to its own voters."
"As the Democratic Party looks for its future leaders in 2028 and beyond," said the organization, "they need to understand that voters they lost in 2024 overwhelmingly say they would prefer to support officials who have opposed sending more weapons to Israel."
A new report identifies what a DOGE "based on evidence, not ideology, would include—from slashing drug prices to ending privatized Medicare to reducing the wasteful Pentagon budget."
By Jessica Corbett • Jan 15, 2025
While the U.S. Senate on Wednesday held confirmation hearings for several of President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees, the watchdog Public Citizen sounded the alarm about a new commission and its billionaire leaders, who don't require congressional oversight but could significantly impact federal agencies, regulations, and spending.
Despite being called the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE is not a government department. It is a presidential advisory commission that Trump announced after his November win. He has asked billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead it.
Public Citizen co-presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman on Monday wrote to Trump's transition team, asking to join DOGE. While their group has concerns about the commission's "structure and mission," including potential conflicts of interest regarding Musk and Ramaswamy's financials, the watchdog leaders made the case that they could serve "as voices for the interests of consumers and the public who are the beneficiaries of federal regulatory and spending programs."
"There is nothing 'efficient' about hitting a pre-determined target for spending cuts, least of all one that is infeasible."
The pair highlighted that their appointment "would be an important step towards compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act," and outlined some ideas they have "to slash drug prices, end privatized Medicare, reduce the wasteful Pentagon budget."
Weissman expanded on the group's recommendations in a Wednesday report titled DOGE Delusions: A Real-World Plan to Reject Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Misguided Agenda, Crack Down on Corporate Handouts, Tax the Rich, and Invest for the Future.
"Every sign from DOGE suggests that it aims to use 'efficiency' as a cover to shrink government, benefit corporations by cutting regulations, and advance a predetermined ideological agenda," Weissman said in a Wednesday statement. "This report identifies what an efficiency agenda based on evidence, not ideology, would include—from slashing drug prices to ending privatized Medicare to reducing the wasteful Pentagon budget."
The report's introduction notes that Trump and Musk's suggestions that DOGE would cut $2 trillion in yearly spending, even though "many commentators have pointed out the effective impossibility of cutting $2 trillion annually from the federal budget, given that all federal discretionary spending—including the Pentagon budget and veterans' benefits—totals less than $2 trillion."
Musk even admitted last week that $2 trillion is unlikely, after which experts said his lower target of $1 trillion is still "too large."
"Few would argue with the purported goal of 'government efficiency,' but there is nothing 'efficient' about hitting a pre-determined target for spending cuts, least of all one that is infeasible," Weissman wrote. "Nor is there anything 'efficient' about ideologically driven notions of shrinking government or corporate profit-driven plans to roll back regulatory protections."
"Additionally, 'efficiency' is not a primary value," he continued. "Whatever the government does, it should strive to do efficiently (mindful of other considerations), but the real question is what the government should be doing in the first place."
The 35-page report features sections on ending Big Pharma's price gouging, shutting down privatized Medicare, cutting Pentagon waste and curbing contractor greed, taxing the rich and corporations, taxing high earners and the wealthy, eliminating oil and gas subsidies, regulating efficiency, the costs of not regulating, investing in the care economy, and investing to avert a climate catastrophe.
Many of the proposals overtly conflict with the priorities of the incoming Trump administration and the new Republican-controlled Congress, which are expected to swiftly and aggressively pursue tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, expansion of Medicare Advantage, and the Big Oil-backed president-elect's campaign pledge to "drill, baby, drill" for climate-heating fossil fuels.
The GOP has promoted additional fossil fuel extraction despite the costly and devastating impacts of the climate emergency, as seen with 27 U.S. disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion in 2024—the hottest year on record—and in Los Angeles, California, which is currently enduring what could be "the costliest wildfire disaster in American history."
The Public Citizen report points out that the monetary costs of climate inaction "will severely reduce the size of the global economy. Depending on how quickly we move and how severe we let climate chaos become, the insurance giant Swiss Re suggests the annual dollar costs could be 11% to 14% of total global economic output by 2050—amounting to around $23 trillion annually—and around 7% of North American economic output. These costs will compound and grow even worse over time."
The watchdog estimates that one of its related proposals—ending handouts to fossil fuel companies—would save about $20 billion annually. Ending privatized Medicare would save $100 billion each year, and modest cuts to the Pentagon budget would save $100 billion yearly. More serious defense cuts could save $200 billion, the same figure for measures to reduce prescription drug prices. The biggest savings from the group's recommendations would come from fair tax reforms, at $500 billion annually.
"If DOGE is interested in saving taxpayers and consumers money and making sound investments that will generate a positive return to the government and society," the report concludes, "there is a clear set of evidence-based measures for it to pursue."
"The record-shattering abuses of the 2025 Trump-Vance Presidential Inaugural Committee, Inc. should signal the immediate need for legislation to prevent this influence peddling," said one ethics expert.
By Jake Johnson • Jan 15, 2025
With Inauguration Day less than a week away, a watchdog group on Tuesday published research shining light on the unprecedented level of financial support President-elect Donald Trump's inaugural fund has received from corporations and executives seeking to court favor with the incoming administration.
The new research from Public Citizen includes a tracker that lists known corporate donations or pledged contributions to Trump's inaugural committee, which is tax-exempt and not subject to contribution limits.
Amazon, Apple, Chevron, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Google, Meta, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, the pharmaceutical lobby, Pfizer, Microsoft, and Coinbase are among those that have pumped money into Trump's inaugural fund, which has raked in a record-shattering $150 million since Election Day—and could bring in over $200 million by January 20.
"These million-dollar donors come from a small class of very wealthy industries in Big Tech, cryptocurrency, government contractors, and others with lucrative contracts or business pending before the federal government," Public Citizen found. "Some of the biggest donors had long been critics of Trump, especially following the January 6 Insurrection by Trump supporters, and who are now fearful of retributions by a vengeful president."
Some of the companies that have donated to the inaugural fund are also facing federal investigations, amplifying suspicions that the contributions were made with the goal of receiving favorable treatment from the next administration.
"The record-breaking cesspool of special interest financing for the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee raises serious concerns about the ability of corporations and wealthy special interests to purchase influence over public policy or lucrative government contracts," Craig Holman, a government ethics expert at Public Citizen, said in a statement Tuesday."The record-shattering abuses of the 2025 Trump-Vance Presidential Inaugural Committee, Inc. should signal the immediate need for legislation to prevent this influence peddling."
"The possibility for corruption exists any time an officeholder accepts large donations from those who have business pending before the official."
Trump's inaugural fund has easily surpassed the then-record-setting $107 million he raised for his inauguration in 2017, The New York Timesreported earlier this month. On Monday, the Timesreported that "Harold G. Hamm, the billionaire oil and gas executive who helped bankroll Donald J. Trump's campaign and stands to profit from his energy policies, is hosting an exclusive fossil fuel industry celebration on Inauguration Day."
"Among the invited guests to Mr. Hamm's celebration is Doug Burgum, Mr. Trump's pick to run the Interior Department," according to the newspaper.
The president-elect has openly boasted that prominent figures in corporate America—from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—have lined up to show support for his second administration, which is set to be packed with billionaires and others with close business ties. Trump is reportedly keeping close track of major companies that have yet to donate to his inaugural fund.
Public Citizen noted Tuesday that "while the self-serving motivations of inaugural donors has a long and troubling precedent, the scope of donations and, in many cases, the fear of retribution driving the donations to the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee represents a worrying shift."
"Buying access to the president and the president's inner circle is the name of the game," the group says in its new research brief. "For corporations and wealthy special interests attempting to influence public policy or secure lucrative government contracts, writing big checks to Trump's inaugural committee—or any presidential inaugural committee—provides a bonanza of access to leading government officials and influence over public policy. This is a level of influence peddling only available to those who can afford to pay the price and is denied to those who are not wealthy."
To "ensure that undue influence-peddling through Inaugural donations is mitigated," Public Citizen called on lawmakers to pass legislation banning corporate and lobbyist donations to inaugural funds, implementing contribution limits, and strengthening disclosure requirements, among other reforms.
"The possibility for corruption exists any time an officeholder accepts large donations from those who have business pending before the official," Public Citizen said. "Congress should end the double standard for presidential inauguration fundraising. The celebration of an election victory should be viewed as part and parcel of the process of selecting our president."
Pharmacy benefit managers "are raking in billions in excess revenue—$7.3 billion over just five years—while squeezing independent pharmacies and leaving patients and health plan sponsors with skyrocketing costs."
By Brett Wilkins • Jan 14, 2025
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday published the second part of its investigation into how prescription drug middlemen are marking up the prices of specialty generic drugs dispensed at their affiliated pharmacies by hundreds—and in some cases, thousands—of percent, underscoring what advocates say is the need for urgent action by policymakers.
The FTC's second interim staff report on consolidated pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) found that the three largest of these middlemen—CVS Health's Caremark Rx, Cigna Group's Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx—"marked up two specialty generic cancer drugs by thousands of percent and then paid their affiliated pharmacies hundreds of millions of dollars of dispensing revenue in excess of estimated acquisition costs for each drug annually."
"Of the specialty generic drugs analyzed in this report and dispensed by the 'Big Three' PBMs' affiliated pharmacies for commercial health plan members between 2020 and 2022, 63% were reimbursed at rates marked up by more than 100% over their estimated acquisition cost... while 22% were marked up by more than 1,000%," the report states.
"For the pulmonary hypertension drug tadalafil (generic Adcirca), for example, pharmacies purchased the drug at an average of $27 in 2022, yet the Big Three PBMs marked up the drug by $2,079 and paid their affiliated pharmacies $2,106, on average, for a 30-day supply of the medication on commercial claims," the publication notes. That's a staggering average markup of 7,736%.
"The FTC's second interim report lays bare the blatant profiteering by PBM giants."
"Such significant markups allowed the Big Three PBMs and their affiliated specialty pharmacies to generate more than $7.3 billion in revenue from dispensing drugs in excess of the drugs' estimated acquisition costs from 2017-22," the FTC said. "The Big Three PBMs netted such significant revenues all while patient, employer, and other healthcare plan sponsor payments for drugs steadily increased annually."
The new analysis follows a July 2024 report that revealed Big Three PBM-affiliated pharmacies received 68% of the dispensing revenue generated by specialty drugs in 2023, a 14% increase from 2016.
"The FTC staff's second interim report finds that the three major pharmacy benefit managers hiked costs for a wide range of lifesaving drugs, including medications to treat heart disease and cancer," FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement Tuesday. "The FTC should keep using its tools to investigate practices that may inflate drug costs, squeeze independent pharmacies, and deprive Americans of affordable, accessible healthcare—and should act swiftly to stop any illegal conduct."
Khan's time as chair is limited. Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration is next week and he has named Andrew Ferguson as the next FTC chair. As Ferguson is already on the commission, his elevation to chair won't require Senate confirmation.
Greg Lopes, spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a PBM lobby group, said Tuesday that "it's clear this report again fails to consider the entirety of the prescription drug supply chain and makes sweeping assertions about the role of PBMs disconnected from a full appreciation of their critical cost-saving role for employers, unions, taxpayers, and patients."
Last September, the FTC sued the Big Three and their affiliated group purchasing organizations for allegedly "engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin drugs, impaired patients' access to lower list price products, and shifted the cost of high insulin list prices to vulnerable patients."
FTC Office of Policy Planning Director Hannah Garden-Monheit said Tuesday that the problem of PBM price inflation "is growing at an alarming rate, which means there is an urgent need for policymakers to address it."
To that end, U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, a bill backed by the AARP aimed at increasing transparency and "holding PBMs accountable for deceptive and unfair practices that drive up prescription drug costs and force independent pharmacies out of business."
"This report is a call to action for policymakers to dismantle these exploitative schemes."
Responding to the FTC report, Emma Freer, senior policy analyst for healthcare at the American Economic Liberties Project—a corporate accountability and antitrust advocacy group—said in a statement Tuesday that "the FTC's second interim report lays bare the blatant profiteering by PBM giants, which are marking up lifesaving drugs like cancer, HIV, and multiple sclerosis treatments by thousands of percent and forcing patients to pay the price."
"By steering prescriptions for the most expensive specialty generic drugs to their own pharmacies, PBMs are raking in billions in excess revenue—$7.3 billion over just five years—while squeezing independent pharmacies and leaving patients and health plan sponsors with skyrocketing costs," Freer added. "This report is a call to action for policymakers to dismantle these exploitative schemes, outlaw the rebate system driving up prices, and restore fairness and affordability to the U.S. healthcare system."
"No amount of silly rebranding will hide the fact that Trump is planning a multitrillion-dollar tax hike on American families and small businesses to pay for another round of tax handouts to the rich," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
By Jake Johnson • Jan 14, 2025
The top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump's proposed creation of an "External Revenue Service" to collect tariff proceeds can't conceal his plans for a massive tax giveaway to the wealthy and large corporations.
"No amount of silly rebranding will hide the fact that Trump is planning a multitrillion-dollar tax hike on American families and small businesses to pay for another round of tax handouts to the rich," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a brief statement after Trump announced his proposal in a social media post.
The president-elect wrote that on the first day of his new term, he intends to create "the EXTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to collect our Tariffs, Duties, and all Revenue that come from Foreign sources."
"We will begin charging those that make money off of us with Trade, and they will start paying, FINALLY, their fair share," Trump added. "January 20, 2025, will be the birth date of the External Revenue Service."
Only Congress can establish new executive branch agencies, so it's unclear how Trump's proposed External Revenue Service would be established. Currently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection collects tariff revenue.
Outside advisers to Trump anonymously told The Washington Post that the president-elect's plan "could involve renaming an existing office within the Treasury Department."
Trump and Republican lawmakers have pointed to tariff revenue—along with deep cuts to Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and other key programs—as a potential way to help offset the huge projected cost of their proposed extension of the 2017 tax cuts, parts of which are set to expire at the end of the year.
But the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) noted in an analysis conducted shortly before the November election that the sweeping tariffs Trump has floated "would largely be passed onto consumers as increased prices." Those price increases "would more than offset" Trump's proposed tax cuts "for all income groups outside the richest 5%."
"If these proposals were in effect in 2026, the richest 1% would receive an average tax cut of about $36,300 and the next richest 4% would receive an average tax cut of about $7,200," ITEP found. "All other groups would see a tax increase, with the hike on the middle 20% at about $1,500 and the increase on the lowest-income 20% of Americans at about $800."
Trump's call for the creation of an "External Revenue Service" comes days after CNN reported that the president-elect is "considering declaring a national economic emergency to provide legal justification for a large swath of universal tariffs on allies and adversaries."
"The declaration would allow Trump to construct a new tariff program by using the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, known as 'IEEPA,' which unilaterally authorizes a president to manage imports during a national emergency," the outlet continued, citing unnamed sources. "Trump, one of the sources noted, has a fondness for the law, since it grants wide-ranging jurisdiction over how tariffs are implemented without strict requirements to prove the tariffs are needed on national security grounds."
The emergency declaration could come as soon as Inauguration Day, according to Axios.
"But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial," the report states.
By Jake Johnson • Jan 14, 2025
The special counsel who investigated and charged Donald Trump over his attempts to subvert the 2020 election said in a final report released by the U.S. Justice Department early Tuesday that the former president would have been convicted for "a series of criminal efforts to retain power" had he not won another White House term in November.
"But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial," wrote Jack Smith, who resigned from the Justice Department late last week ahead of Inauguration Day.
Smith pointed to the Justice Department's view that "the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president," a position he said is "categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind."
The report, which Trump's legal team sought to bury, is the first of two volumes that Smith's team produced following the completion of its investigations into the former president's unlawful election interference and hoarding of classified documents. Smith dropped the two cases shortly after Trump's victory in the 2024 election.
According to the Justice Department, Smith has urged that the volume on the classified documents probe not be released to the public while the case against Trump's former co-defendants is still pending.
"Trump worked with other people to achieve a common plan: to overturn the election results and perpetuate himself in office."
In the newly released report, Smith detailed how Trump and his allies tried to "induce state officials to ignore true vote counts," manufactured "fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost," directed "an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election," and leveraged "rioters' violence to further delay it."
"In service of these efforts, Mr. Trump worked with other people to achieve a common plan: to overturn the election results and perpetuate himself in office," the report added.
Trump responded furiously to the report's release, ranting on social media that "Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another 'Report' based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were."
In his introduction to the report, Smith rejected as "laughable" Trump's claim that the investigations were politically motivated or influenced in any way by the Biden administration.
"While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters," Smith wrote. "The facts, as we uncovered them in our investigation and as set forth in my report, matter. Experienced prosecutors know that you cannot control outcomes, you can only do your job the right way for the right reasons. I conclude our work confident that we have done so, and that we have met fully our obligations to the department and to our country."
"It's outrageous that Trump and House Republicans are threatening to withhold recovery aid if their conditions aren't met," said a leader in the Working Families Party.
By Eloise Goldsmith • Jan 13, 2025
The deputy national director of the Working Families Party had sharp words for a group of House Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump, who, according to Politico reporting published Monday, discussed tying fire relief for California to the politically charged issue of increasing the debt ceiling.
The reporting comes as California continues to battle fires in the Los Angeles area that have consumed tens of thousands of acres and left over 20 people dead. The scale of the destruction could make them, collectively, the costliest wildfire disaster in U.S. history, a climate scientist told the Los Angeles Times last week.
"The Palisades wildfires have destroyed homes, schools, and businesses and left thousands of families without a roof over their heads. It's outrageous that Trump and House Republicans are threatening to withhold recovery aid if their conditions aren't met," said Working Families Party deputy national director Joe Dinkin in a statement Monday.
"Every Republican should be on the record denouncing this abominable plan," he added.
Per Politico, nearly two dozen House Republicans attended a dinner at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club over the weekend where the option was discussed.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Fla.), who was not a part of the conversation but did later confirm the conversation, must deal with the looming debt cliff, which is set to be reached sometime in mid-January, and he faces obstacles within his own party. In December, fractures appeared in the GOP when fiscal hawks refused to back legislation that Trump supported that would have raised the debt limit.
Johnson has also said he would try to lift the debt limit by including it in a reconciliation bill full of President-elect Donald Trump's legislative priorities, though this could run afoul with those same fiscal hawks. Some House Republicans reportedly brought up the pitfalls of this option during discussions at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.
Of the potential move to link fire relief to the debt ceiling, Politico reported: "The Sunday night discussions prove Republicans are desperately looking for a plan before the nation is due to exhaust its borrowing authority—though Democrats and some Republicans are sure to balk at the prospect of linking disaster relief dollars to a politically charged exercise like extending the debt limit."
Congress recently passed a spending bill that included funding for natural disaster relief, but scope of the destruction in California has some officials wondering if more may be needed, Politico reports.
"Defeating the MAGA movement does not require clever theories, it requires the hard work of opposition on behalf of the millions who will suffer at the hands of Trump's corporate Cabinet."
By Julia Conley • Jan 13, 2025
"It won't be any consolation to struggling Americans that their hardship allows some rich buddy of Donald Trump's to buy a bigger yacht," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
By Jake Johnson • Jan 13, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.