Left and right are joining forces to ban lawmakers from trading stockNew Foto - Left and right are joining forces to ban lawmakers from trading stock

WASHINGTON (AP) — An unusual alliance emerged in theHouseon Wednesday as lawmakers who agree on little else rallied support for a bill that would prohibit members of Congress and their families from owning and trading individual stocks. The group included darlings of the far right, the left, moderates and many in between. They gathered to promote a ban that polls well with voters and appears to be finding new momentum after stalling out in previous sessions of Congress. "It's not every day you see this cast of characters up here," saidRep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican who represents a perennial swing district in Pennsylvania. "You're all smirking out there. That's a good thing. It speaks to the power of this cause." Congress has discussed proposals for years to keep lawmakers from engaging in trading individual stocks, nodding to the idea that there's a potential conflict of interest when they are often privy to information and decisions that can dramatically move markets. A Senate committee has approved legislation fromGOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missourithat would also extend the prohibition on stock trading to future presidents and vice presidents — while notably exempting Republican PresidentDonald Trump. The House bill unveiled this week is limited to Congress, but the sponsors said they were open to extending it to the executive branch if enough support emerged. Under current law, federal lawmakers are required to disclose their stock sales and purchases. The bill requiring disclosure, The Stock Act, was signed into law in 2012. At the time, lawmakers and government watchdogs predicted that public disclosure would shame lawmakers out of actively buying and selling stock. That hasn't happened. The sponsors said they merged their own, individual bills on banning stocks and came together with a single bipartisan effort. Rep.Chip Royof Texas, the bill's lead sponsor, said the group had been meeting for the last several months, and some sponsors had actually been working on this for years. About a dozen lawmakers from both parties joined Roy onstage. It was an unusually festive moment as the partisan lines in Congress have rarely been sharper. "I don't agree with some of these people on anything," said Rep.Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican often aligned with the the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus. Progressive Rep.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., followed Burchett to the podium and fist-bumped him when doing so. She said she felt like the coalition showed how Congress should actually work. "It feels foreign and it feels alien and it's like, what's going on here?" she said. While the legislation would not allow lawmakers to own individual stocks and bonds, they would be allowed to own diversified mutual funds and ETFs and certain commodities. Lawmakers who currently own individual stocks and bonds would have 180 days to divest. New members would have 90 days to divest upon taking office. The mood was celebratory at Wednesday's unveiling, but even if the bill were to pass the House, it would face a more difficult climb in the Senate. At least 60 votes would be needed to advance the legislation in that chamber and some senators have expressed concerns about the concept. Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., acknowledged that members opposed to banning stocks are "persistent." "Those of us who support banning stock trading in Congress are very vocal in our position, but that doesn't mean that there aren't opponents," Magaziner said. Some members expressed urgency in moving the bill through the House. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., said they have "asked nicely for leadership to put this on the floor" and set a deadline for the end of the month before she would seek to force a vote. A version of the trading ban that advanced out of one Senate panel was described by Republican Sen.Ron Johnsonof Wisconsin as "legislative demagoguery." "We do have insider trading laws. We have financial disclosure. Trust me, we have financial disclosure," Johnson said. "So I don't see the necessity of this."

Left and right are joining forces to ban lawmakers from trading stock

Left and right are joining forces to ban lawmakers from trading stock WASHINGTON (AP) — An unusual alliance emerged in theHouseon Wednesday ...
Trump plans to ask Supreme Court to toss E. Jean Carroll's $5 million abuse and defamation verdictNew Foto - Trump plans to ask Supreme Court to toss E. Jean Carroll's $5 million abuse and defamation verdict

NEW YORK (AP) — PresidentDonald Trumpwill soon ask the Supreme Court to throw out a jury's finding in a civil lawsuit that hesexually abused writer E. Jean Carrollat a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, his lawyers said in a recent court filing. Trump's lawyerspreviewed the moveas they asked the high court to extend its deadline for challenging the $5 million verdict from Sept. 10 to Nov. 11. The president "intends to seek review" of "significant issues" arising from the trial and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' subsequent decisions upholding the verdict, his lawyers said. Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said Wednesday: "We do not believe thatDonald Trumpwill be able to present any legal issues in the Carroll cases that merit review by the United States Supreme Court." Carroll testified at a 2023 trial that Trump turned a friendly encounter in spring 1996 into a violent attack in the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury retailer across the street from Trump Tower. The jury also found Trump liable for defaming Carroll when he made comments in October 2022 denying her allegation. A three-judge appellate panel upheld the verdict last December, rejecting Trump's claims that trial Judge Lewis A. Kaplan's decisions spoiled the trial, including by allowing two other Trump sexual abuse accusers to testify. The women said Trump committed similar acts against them in the 1970s and in 2005. Trump denied all three women's allegations. In June, 2nd Circuit judges denied Trump's petition for the full appellate court totake up the case. That left Trump with two options: accept the result and allow Carroll to collect the judgment, which he'd previously paid into escrow, or fight on in Supreme Court, whose conservative majority — including three of his own appointees — could be more open to considering his challenge. Trump skipped the 2023 trial but testified briefly at a follow-up defamation trial last year that ended with a jury ordering him to pay Carroll an additional $83.3 million. The second trial resulted from comments then-President Trump made in 2019 after Carroll first made the accusations publicly in a memoir. Judge Kaplan presided over both trials and instructed the second jury to accept the first jury's finding that Trump had sexually abused Carroll. Judge Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, are not related. In their deadline-related filing, Trump's lawyers said Kaplan compounded his "significant errors" at first trial by "improperly preventing" Trump from contesting the first jury's finding that he had sexually abused Carroll, leading to an "unjust judgment of $83.3 million." The 2nd Circuit heard arguments in June in Trump's appeal of that verdict but has not ruled. Trump has had recent success fending off costly civil judgments. Last month, a New York appeals court threw out Trump's staggering penalty in astate civil fraud lawsuit. The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.

Trump plans to ask Supreme Court to toss E. Jean Carroll’s $5 million abuse and defamation verdict

Trump plans to ask Supreme Court to toss E. Jean Carroll's $5 million abuse and defamation verdict NEW YORK (AP) — PresidentDonald Trump...
Johnson faces escalating pressure as House GOP prepares for Epstein voteNew Foto - Johnson faces escalating pressure as House GOP prepares for Epstein vote

On his first full day back in Washington, House Speaker Mike Johnson sat for hours in a closed-door interview with six women who say they were abused by the late Jeffrey Epstein. Johnson's presence in the room on the first day of a frenetically busy September on Capitol Hill underscores how significant the issue of Epstein's past crimes has become within the GOP. The next day, Johnson and his House GOP took a symbolic step on the floor to voice support for their own committee's investigation into Epstein's crimes. But he and the GOP conference have, so far, been opposed to a far more significant measure to force President Donald Trump's administration to release more records related to the case. Trump's own team has phoned Republicans urging them not to support that measure. And Johnson — like his members — is under intense pressure to meet the base's demands for transparency without going against the wishes of the president, whose inner circle has attempted to quiet this summer's political firestorm over Epstein. "The fact that Mike Johnson sat there for two and a half hours — we're serious about this," House Oversight Chairman James Comer told reporters after leaving the meeting Tuesday. "We're going to do everything we can to make this right." Johnson himself told reporters the testimonials he heard were "heartbreaking and infuriating" and said "there were tears in the room. There was outrage." Five weeks ago, Johnson and his leadership team had hoped that sending lawmakers home early to their districts for their August recess would diffuse tension around the issue. But the return of Congress to Washington showed that the pressure on GOP leaders has only continued to build, with Johnson maintaining the full House does not need to pass a measure demanding the administration release all Epstein-related files as a handful of his own GOP colleagues have sought. That pressure on Republicans dramatically increased on Wednesday, when Rep. Thomas Massie and his Democratic counterpart in the effort, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, held a high-profile press conference in which nearly a dozen Epstein's abuse survivors spoke about their experiences, some for the first time publicly. Massie and Khanna are leading a push to force the full House to vote on a resolution that would require Trump's Justice Department to turn over all documents related to Epstein or his crimes. Under their maneuver, known as a discharge petition, Massie would need five more Republicans to join him to force the bill to the floor since every Democrat is expected to sign on. So far, three other Republicans have signed on: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Lauren Boebert of Colorado. Other Republicans who havesupported the underlying bill— including Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Eli Crane of Arizona and Tim Burchett of Tennessee — were either noncommittal or suggested they would not support the discharge petition when asked by CNN this week. Johnson on Wednesday dismissed it as a "poorly written" petition that does not do enough to protect victims and said he supports the House Oversight Committee's investigation into the government's mishandling of the Epstein case. "The Oversight Committee is gathering more documents than are even anticipated in the discharge petition," Johnson said, pointing to the "treasure trove of documents" currently held by the Epstein estate that would not be included in the discharge petition. The House Oversight Committee has been leading an investigation into Epstein after some Republicans joined with Democrats to compel a subpoena to the Justice Department for records. The panel on Tuesday night released more than 33,000 pages related to the case – all of the subpoenaed documents the panel had obtained earlier this summer. But the public release of information has not stopped the push for more transparency that has ratcheted up the pressure on Johnson. Massie and Democrats said nearly all of those documents had already beenmade publicas part of various court cases and that it did not alter their push for their own Epstein measure. As part of its investigation, the Oversight Committee hosted a meeting on Tuesday with several survivors who are planning to speak at Wednesday's press conference. In that closed-door meeting, several of them shared chilling stories of abuse. Mace, one of the lawmakers in the roomwho has spoken out about being raped age 16, left the meeting in tears. Inside the room, one survivor said the women had been told by Epstein that they were disposable and threatened against coming forward, according to a person in the room who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private meeting. The women were told if they went to police that Epstein had powerful friends, that person said. If the bipartisan Epstein resolution does pass the House, its fate is unclear in the Senate. But it would be an extraordinary move by a GOP-controlled Congress to take against a president of its own party. To prevent such an escalation, Johnson and the White House are attempting to sell their GOP members on an alternative path. They have backed a non-binding resolution that encourages the Oversight Committee's investigation, which the House formally adopted on Wednesday. And Johnson stressed the importance of the work of that panel, in part by sitting in on one of the sessions himself. "I sat by him in our meeting and listened to his compassion for these survivors. I listened to his questions," Greene said of Johnson as she left the meeting. "I've listened to some of his plans that he has going forward. I do think he's doing a great job there." Even so, Greene is one of the three Republicans so far willing to buck her leadership on the discharge petition. She said it was nothing against Johnson personally, but that she decided: "I just think we need to do everything we can to bring it out." Inside the House GOP conference, some Republicans are privately dreading weeks of questions about the Epstein matter and would rather move onto issues like appropriations, tariffs or Russian sanctions, according to multiple lawmakers and senior aides. But many of those GOP lawmakers also realize that there is a small but vocal faction of their party that is deeply invested in getting more answers on Epstein and that they can't be seen as dropping the issue. Democrats, meanwhile, are accusing Johnson of attempting to stonewall further investigations in Congress. Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico told reporters after the meeting that Johnson was advocating that the investigation should remain within the Oversight panel — rather than expanding the probe to include more committees. "In the room with six victims of sexual violence by Jeffrey Epstein, it was suggested by Democrats that this be investigated using the full force of every committee here in Congress. And the speaker ended by saying he didn't think that was necessary. He'd like to just keep it in the Oversight Committee," Stansbury said. "That is where the speaker actually chose to end this conversation." This story has been updated with additional developments. CNN's Alison Main, Ellis Kim, Veronica Stracqualursi and Aileen Graef contributed to this report. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

Johnson faces escalating pressure as House GOP prepares for Epstein vote

Johnson faces escalating pressure as House GOP prepares for Epstein vote On his first full day back in Washington, House Speaker Mike Johnso...
Ex-staffer sues California Assembly speaker, alleging retaliation for reporting briberyNew Foto - Ex-staffer sues California Assembly speaker, alleging retaliation for reporting bribery

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A former press secretary for California's Assembly speaker sued one of the state's most prominent politicians, accusing him of firing her in retaliation for reporting alleged bribery and other misconduct. In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, former staffer Cynthia Moreno said she submitted a complaint to the Legislature earlier this year, accusingAssembly Speaker Robert Rivas— as well as his brother Rick Rivas — of bribery and other ethical violations. Moreno filed another report last year to accuse a former staffer of sexual harassment, according to the lawsuit filed in the Superior Court for Sacramento County. She alleges she was retaliated against by being denied a pay raise, falsely accused of misconduct and then fired last month. "Speaker Rivas retaliated against Ms. Moreno for reporting illegal, unethical, and harassing conduct," the lawsuit says. "Speaker Rivas did not simply terminate Ms. Moreno's employment, but used the power of his office to retaliate against her publicly." Moreno is seeking a public apology, back pay and benefits, and to be rehired in the Assembly. Rick Rivas, a political strategist, did not respond to a phone call and text message seeking comment. Robert Rivas and the Assembly denied wrongdoing. Elizabeth Ashford, Rivas' campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the speaker had "no role" in Moreno's employment. Moreno's lawsuit is "an attempt by a former employee to force a payout," Ashford said. "The vast conspiracy theories included in this filing are absolutely false," she said. "We will fight these false and defamatory claims aggressively, and we are confident they will be seen for what they are: absolutely meritless." The suit contends Moreno was stripped of job responsibilities after reporting sexual harassment allegations last year that were substantiated by the Workplace Conduct Unit, which reviewsmisconduct complaintsagainst lawmakers and staff. The former staffer said Moreno's allegations were not substantiated. The Assembly Rules Committee notified the press last month that Moreno was terminated after the unit substantiated allegations that she "repeatedly made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature" to various staffers. The committee did not disclose details of the allegations against her. She was fired because of the allegations, "her lack of candor during the investigation" and "the high-visibility" of her position, the committee wrote in a partially redacted letter. Lia Lopez, the rules committee's chief administrative officer, called Moreno's complaint "a total fabrication." "I am confident that Ms. Moreno's claims regarding 'unethical or illegal practices' by Speaker Rivas or his brother and complaints about current Assembly employees will be disproven in a court of law," she said in a statement. The Workplace Conduct Unit independently investigated allegations of Moreno's inappropriate conduct, Lopez said. She said Rivas recused himself from the investigation or any decisions on the case.

Ex-staffer sues California Assembly speaker, alleging retaliation for reporting bribery

Ex-staffer sues California Assembly speaker, alleging retaliation for reporting bribery SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A former press secretary f...
President Trump says he may send National Guard to New Orleans next instead of ChicagoNew Foto - President Trump says he may send National Guard to New Orleans next instead of Chicago

WASHINGTON –President Donald Trumpsuggested he may send National Guard troops next to New Orleans ‒ not Chicago, as he has repeatedly threatened ‒ as he looks to expand his crime crackdown to states where federal intervention is welcome. One day after he declared,"We're going in" about plans for Chicago,Trump on Sept. 3 said his administration still hadn't decided whether it would deploy troops to the nation's third-largest city. Trump instead pointed to New Orleans, a city in a Republican-led state, in contrast to Democratic-led Illinois. "We're making a determination now," Trump said in the Oval Office to reporters. "Do we go to Chicago or do we go to a place like New Orleans, where we have a great governor, Jeff Landry, who wants us to straighten out a very nice section of this country that's become quite, you know, quite tough, quite bad?" "So, we're going to be going to maybe Louisiana," Trump added. More:Trump says federal troops are headed to Chicago. 'We're going in.' Trump emphasized that he wants Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker to request help from the Trump administration to combat Chicago's crime. "We could straighten out Chicago. All they have to do is ask us," Trump said. Pritzker, however, has resisted Trump's threats to send the National Guard to Chicago, accusing the president ofnot being serious about fighting crime but rather "testing his power." "I want to go into Chicago, and I have this incompetent governor who doesn't want us," Trump said. Trump is more thanthree weeks into his crime crackdown in Washington, DC, which has involved deploying more than 2,200 National Guard troops to patrol the streets. But unlike other American cities, DC's status as a federal enclave gives Trump special authority to deploy National Guard troops to the nation's capital, in contrast to governors traditionally overseeing mobilizations in their states. More:'None of this is about fighting crime': Illinois responds to Trump's troop plans Trump signed an executive order on Aug. 11directing Defense SecretaryPete Hegsethto "coordinate with state governors" to determine whether National Guard troops are needed in their communities. While both Chicago and New Orleans have Democratic mayors ‒ Brandon Johnson and LaToya Cantrell, respectively ‒ Louisiana presents an opportunity for cooperation with the state's governor, Republican Jeff Landry, while Chicago does not. "We will take President@realDonaldTrump's help from New Orleans to Shreveport!"Landry said in a poston X shortly after Trump's remarks. Both Chicago and New Orleans have well-documented struggles with crime. New Orleans has the third-highest homicide rate in 2025, while Chicago ranks 10th, according to a listcompiled from the nonprofit Freedom for All Americansbased on local data. DC ranks 19th on the same list. Trump has also discussed targeting Baltimore, Los Angeles, Oakland, California and New York City in future crackdowns. Yet the president, in his Sept. 3 remarks, signaled he may not deploy the National Guard to these cities unless he is asked. "The politicians are not in tune with the people. The people in Chicago, the people in Baltimore, the people in all the places we talk about, they want to see us there," Trump said, but added, "I think we are pretty much waiting until we are asked." His comments marked a shift in rhetoric from one day earlier, on Sept. 2, when Trump claimed that he planned to send troops into Chicago whether or not they asked for help. "If the governor of Illinois would call me up, I would love to do it," Trump said 24 hours earlier. "Now, we're going to do it anyway. We have the right to do it because I have an obligation to protect this country." More:Judge blocks Trump deployment of National Guard in California A federal judge in Californiaruled on Sept. 2 that Trump's deploymentof National Guard troops this year in Los Angeles in response to protests was illegal because it violated a federal law prohibiting the use of the military to enforce domestic laws. However, the narrow ruling does not require Trump to withdraw the remaining 300 National Guard troops from Los Angeles, nor does it apply to other states. Memphis, St. Louis, Kansas City and Cleveland are other cities that ‒ like New Orleans ‒ rank among the top 10 in homicide rates and are in states with Republican governors. Trump, however, has not cited them as potential targets. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican ally of Trump, told reporters last week he hadn'tplanned to ask for federal troops for Memphis. "We have no plans to put the National Guard there now," Lee said. Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Trump says he may send National Guard to New Orleans over Chicago

President Trump says he may send National Guard to New Orleans next instead of Chicago

President Trump says he may send National Guard to New Orleans next instead of Chicago WASHINGTON –President Donald Trumpsuggested he may se...

 

VS POLITICS © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com