CNBC
"Jobless claims jump to 286,000, the highest level since October"
Jeff Cox @JEFF.COX.7528 @JEFFCOXCNBCCOM
PUBLISHED THU, JAN 20 2022
KEY POINTS
* Initial jobless claims totaled 286,000 for the week ended Jan. 15, well above the 225,000 estimate.
* Continuing claims also rose, jumping to 1.64 million.
* The Philadelphia Fed manufacturing index was higher than expected, though the future prices paid index, an inflation gauge, hit its highest level since August 1988.
Jobless claims took an unexpected turn higher last week in a potential sign that the wintertime omicron surge was hitting the employment picture.
Initial filings for the week ended Jan. 15 totaled 286,000, well above the Dow Jones estimate of 225,000 and a substantial gain from the previous week’s 231,000.
The total was the highest since the week of Oct. 16, 2021, and marks a reversal after claims just a few weeks ago hit their lowest level in more than 50 years.
“Omicron has put a wrench in where we stand on the labor market front, but with hiring challenges, employers are likely trying to hold onto their workforce,” said Mike Loewengart, managing director of investment strategy at E-Trade.
“So this could be a short-term surge in jobless claims.”
Continuing claims, which run a week behind the headline data, also shot up, rising 84,000 to 1.64 million.
One bright spot in the data showed that the four-week moving average for continuing claims, which irons out weekly volatility, declined by 55,250 to 1.664 million, the lowest since the week ended April 27, 2019.
California showed a sharp 6,075 jump in claims, while New York reported a slide of 14,011, according to unadjusted data.
Total recipients of all unemployment compensation programs rose by 180,114 to 2.13 million, according to data through Jan. 1.
Jobless claims are seen as a leading real-time gauge of the employment picture, which has brightened in some respects but is still beset by multiple trouble spots.
The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.9% after a record year of nonfarm payrolls growth.
Still, the total employment level remains 2.9 million below where it was in February 2020, just before the pandemic declaration.
Labor force participation remains well below pre-pandemic levels, with the current 61.9% rate 1.5 percentage points below the pre-Covid level.
The labor force has contracted by nearly 2.3 million during the period.
A separate economic report Thursday morning showed that manufacturing activity expanded faster than expected in the Philadelphia area.
The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s outlook survey registered a reading of 23.2, a measure of the percentage point difference between companies reporting expansion versus contraction.
The estimate had been for 18.5.
Just 16% of the companies surveyed said they expect decreases in activity, with gains coming in new orders and future shipments.
The future employment index stumbled 19 points to 38.4, but that still reflects expectations of employment growth.
Inflation, however, remains an issue.
The future prices paid index surged 23 points to 76.4, its highest level since August 1988.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/20/jobless ... tober.html
AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
REUTERS
"Biden approval rating drops to 43%, lowest of his presidency"
By Jason Lange
January 20, 2022
WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden's public approval rating fell to the lowest level of his presidency this week as Americans appeared exhausted by the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic toll, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.
The national poll, conducted Jan. 19-20, found that 43% of U.S. adults approved of Biden's performance in office, while 52% disapproved and the rest were not sure.
The prior week's poll had put Biden at a 45% approval rating and 50% disapproval.
After holding above 50% in his first months in office, Biden's popularity began dropping in mid-August as COVID-19 deaths surged across the country and the U.S.-backed Afghan government collapsed.
The ongoing slump in Biden's popularity is ringing alarm bells in his party, with Democrats worried dissatisfaction could cost them their congressional majorities in Nov. 8 elections.
If Republicans take control of either the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate, Biden's legislative agenda could be doomed.
In a rare news conference on Wednesday, Biden acknowledged Americans' frustration at the close of his first year in office.
But he vowed to make progress fighting considerable challenges from the pandemic and inflation, which hit a near 40-year high in December as the health crisis snarled global supply chains.
The weekly poll showed the top issues concerning Americans were the economy and public health.
At the same point in Donald Trump's presidency, about 37% of Americans approved of his performance in office, while 59% disapproved.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English throughout the United States.
The latest poll gathered responses from a total of 1,004 adults, including 453 Democrats and 365 Republicans.
It has a credibility interval - a measure of precision - of 4 percentage points.
Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden- ... 022-01-20/
"Biden approval rating drops to 43%, lowest of his presidency"
By Jason Lange
January 20, 2022
WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden's public approval rating fell to the lowest level of his presidency this week as Americans appeared exhausted by the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic toll, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.
The national poll, conducted Jan. 19-20, found that 43% of U.S. adults approved of Biden's performance in office, while 52% disapproved and the rest were not sure.
The prior week's poll had put Biden at a 45% approval rating and 50% disapproval.
After holding above 50% in his first months in office, Biden's popularity began dropping in mid-August as COVID-19 deaths surged across the country and the U.S.-backed Afghan government collapsed.
The ongoing slump in Biden's popularity is ringing alarm bells in his party, with Democrats worried dissatisfaction could cost them their congressional majorities in Nov. 8 elections.
If Republicans take control of either the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate, Biden's legislative agenda could be doomed.
In a rare news conference on Wednesday, Biden acknowledged Americans' frustration at the close of his first year in office.
But he vowed to make progress fighting considerable challenges from the pandemic and inflation, which hit a near 40-year high in December as the health crisis snarled global supply chains.
The weekly poll showed the top issues concerning Americans were the economy and public health.
At the same point in Donald Trump's presidency, about 37% of Americans approved of his performance in office, while 59% disapproved.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English throughout the United States.
The latest poll gathered responses from a total of 1,004 adults, including 453 Democrats and 365 Republicans.
It has a credibility interval - a measure of precision - of 4 percentage points.
Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden- ... 022-01-20/
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
REUTERS
"U.S. weekly jobless claims at three-month high amid Omicron wave"
By Lucia Mutikani
January 20, 2022
Summary
* Weekly jobless claims increase 55,000 to 286,000
* Continuing claims jump 84,000 to 1.635 million
* Mid-Atlantic factory activity picks up in January
* Existing home sales drop 4.6% in December
WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits jumped to a three-month high last week, likely as a winter wave of COVID-19 infections disrupted business activity, which could weigh on job growth in January.
The third straight weekly increase in jobless claims reported by the Labor Department on Thursday was also influenced by unfavorable seasonal factors after the holidays.
But coronavirus cases, driven by the Omicron variant, are subsiding and the seasonal factors, the model used by the government to iron out seasonal fluctuations in the data, are seen normalizing soon, suggesting the recent surge in applications is a blip.
"The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is hurting the U.S. labor market, but the good news is that this will be temporary," said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits surged 55,000 to a seasonally adjusted 286,000 for the week ended Jan. 15, the highest level since mid-October.
The increase was the largest since last July.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast 220,000 applications for the latest week.
Unadjusted claims fell 83,418 to 337,417 last week.
The decline was, however, less than the 138,773 decrease that had been anticipated by the seasonal factors.
Claims rose 6,075 in California, but plunged 14,011 in New York.
The United States is reporting an average of 752,698 new coronavirus infections a day, according to a Reuters analysis of official data.
The Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey on Wednesday showed 8.8 million people reported not being at work because of coronavirus-related reasons between Dec. 29 and Jan. 10.
That was up from the 3 million from Dec. 1 to Dec. 13.
The bureau's Small Business Pulse Survey released on Thursday also showed an increase in establishments reporting large negative impacts from the pandemic.
It was led by accommodation and food services businesses, with big rises also in education as well as arts entertainment and recreation.
The labor market setback is unlikely to stop the Federal Reserve from raising interest rates in March to tackle high inflation.
Claims have plunged from a record high of 6.149 million in early April 2020.
Employers are desperate for workers, with 10.6 million job openings at the end of November.
The unemployment rate is at a 22-month low of 3.9%, a sign the labor market is at or close to maximum employment.
"The underlying strength in the labor market suggests this is a temporary blip due to Omicron," said John Lynch, chief investment officer at Comerica Wealth Management in Charlotte, North Carolina.
"We look for job growth to continue to firm as global cyclical recovery persists."
Stocks on Wall Street were higher.
The dollar rose against a basket of currencies.
U.S. Treasury yields fell.
BAD OMEN?
But some economists worried that the jump in claims, which followed a plunge in retail sales in December as well as manufacturing production, could be signaling a faster slowdown in economic activity than currently anticipated.
"The higher layoffs are a cautionary tale for the economy where despite inflation pressures, the Fed will have to proceed with their interest rate hikes at a measured pace," said Christopher Rupkey, chief economist at FWDBONDS in New York.
"The economy may be slowing down more than previously believed."
Manufacturing, however, appears to be picking up, though shortages and higher prices remain a headache.
The Philadelphia Fed said on Thursday its business activity index rose to a reading of 23.2 in January from 15.4 in December.
Any reading above zero indicates expansion in the region's manufacturing sector, which covers eastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and Delaware.
News on the housing market was discouraging.
A fourth report from the National Association of Realtors showed existing home sales dropped 4.6% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.18 million units in December as higher prices amid record low inventory continued to shut out some first-time buyers.
Economists expect demand for housing to remain strong even as mortgage rates increase.
"Unless job and income growth slow sharply, owner-occupied housing demand is likely to remain solid, keeping upward pressure on house prices," said David Berson, chief economist at Nationwide in Columbus, Ohio.
Worker shortages are boosting wages, and households are sitting on savings accumulated during the pandemic.
The claims data covered the period during which the government surveyed businesses for the nonfarm payrolls component of January's employment report.
Last week's jump in claims together with the rise in businesses negatively impacted by COVID-19 and persistent labor shortages raise the risk of a drop in payrolls this month.
The economy added 199,000 jobs in December, the fewest in a year.
The workforce is about 2.2 million smaller than before the pandemic.
The recent softening in the labor market trend was also highlighted by the claims report, which showed the number of people receiving benefits after an initial week of aid increased by 84,000 to 1.635 million in the week ended Jan. 8.
"The pandemic continues to displace workers from the labor force," said Van Hesser, chief strategist at Kroll Bond Rating Agency in New York.
"We need the labor force to grow to sustain healthy economic growth."
Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Andrea Ricci and Leslie Adler
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-wee ... 022-01-20/
"U.S. weekly jobless claims at three-month high amid Omicron wave"
By Lucia Mutikani
January 20, 2022
Summary
* Weekly jobless claims increase 55,000 to 286,000
* Continuing claims jump 84,000 to 1.635 million
* Mid-Atlantic factory activity picks up in January
* Existing home sales drop 4.6% in December
WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits jumped to a three-month high last week, likely as a winter wave of COVID-19 infections disrupted business activity, which could weigh on job growth in January.
The third straight weekly increase in jobless claims reported by the Labor Department on Thursday was also influenced by unfavorable seasonal factors after the holidays.
But coronavirus cases, driven by the Omicron variant, are subsiding and the seasonal factors, the model used by the government to iron out seasonal fluctuations in the data, are seen normalizing soon, suggesting the recent surge in applications is a blip.
"The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is hurting the U.S. labor market, but the good news is that this will be temporary," said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits surged 55,000 to a seasonally adjusted 286,000 for the week ended Jan. 15, the highest level since mid-October.
The increase was the largest since last July.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast 220,000 applications for the latest week.
Unadjusted claims fell 83,418 to 337,417 last week.
The decline was, however, less than the 138,773 decrease that had been anticipated by the seasonal factors.
Claims rose 6,075 in California, but plunged 14,011 in New York.
The United States is reporting an average of 752,698 new coronavirus infections a day, according to a Reuters analysis of official data.
The Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey on Wednesday showed 8.8 million people reported not being at work because of coronavirus-related reasons between Dec. 29 and Jan. 10.
That was up from the 3 million from Dec. 1 to Dec. 13.
The bureau's Small Business Pulse Survey released on Thursday also showed an increase in establishments reporting large negative impacts from the pandemic.
It was led by accommodation and food services businesses, with big rises also in education as well as arts entertainment and recreation.
The labor market setback is unlikely to stop the Federal Reserve from raising interest rates in March to tackle high inflation.
Claims have plunged from a record high of 6.149 million in early April 2020.
Employers are desperate for workers, with 10.6 million job openings at the end of November.
The unemployment rate is at a 22-month low of 3.9%, a sign the labor market is at or close to maximum employment.
"The underlying strength in the labor market suggests this is a temporary blip due to Omicron," said John Lynch, chief investment officer at Comerica Wealth Management in Charlotte, North Carolina.
"We look for job growth to continue to firm as global cyclical recovery persists."
Stocks on Wall Street were higher.
The dollar rose against a basket of currencies.
U.S. Treasury yields fell.
BAD OMEN?
But some economists worried that the jump in claims, which followed a plunge in retail sales in December as well as manufacturing production, could be signaling a faster slowdown in economic activity than currently anticipated.
"The higher layoffs are a cautionary tale for the economy where despite inflation pressures, the Fed will have to proceed with their interest rate hikes at a measured pace," said Christopher Rupkey, chief economist at FWDBONDS in New York.
"The economy may be slowing down more than previously believed."
Manufacturing, however, appears to be picking up, though shortages and higher prices remain a headache.
The Philadelphia Fed said on Thursday its business activity index rose to a reading of 23.2 in January from 15.4 in December.
Any reading above zero indicates expansion in the region's manufacturing sector, which covers eastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and Delaware.
News on the housing market was discouraging.
A fourth report from the National Association of Realtors showed existing home sales dropped 4.6% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.18 million units in December as higher prices amid record low inventory continued to shut out some first-time buyers.
Economists expect demand for housing to remain strong even as mortgage rates increase.
"Unless job and income growth slow sharply, owner-occupied housing demand is likely to remain solid, keeping upward pressure on house prices," said David Berson, chief economist at Nationwide in Columbus, Ohio.
Worker shortages are boosting wages, and households are sitting on savings accumulated during the pandemic.
The claims data covered the period during which the government surveyed businesses for the nonfarm payrolls component of January's employment report.
Last week's jump in claims together with the rise in businesses negatively impacted by COVID-19 and persistent labor shortages raise the risk of a drop in payrolls this month.
The economy added 199,000 jobs in December, the fewest in a year.
The workforce is about 2.2 million smaller than before the pandemic.
The recent softening in the labor market trend was also highlighted by the claims report, which showed the number of people receiving benefits after an initial week of aid increased by 84,000 to 1.635 million in the week ended Jan. 8.
"The pandemic continues to displace workers from the labor force," said Van Hesser, chief strategist at Kroll Bond Rating Agency in New York.
"We need the labor force to grow to sustain healthy economic growth."
Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Andrea Ricci and Leslie Adler
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-wee ... 022-01-20/
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
POLITICO
"Why Schumer picked a filibuster fight he couldn't win"
By Burgess Everett and Marianne LeVine
19 JANUARY 2022
Chuck Schumer doesn’t typically lead his caucus into losing votes that divide Democrats.
He made an exception for election reform.
“We sent our best emissary to talk to the Republicans."
"That was Joe Manchin."
"And we gave him months,” Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.
The Senate majority leader has run a 50-50 Senate for a year now, longer than anyone else.
The whole time, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin have consistently communicated to Schumer that he wouldn’t get their votes to weaken the filibuster, no matter the underlying issue.
But his decision to force the vote on the caucus anyway — and get 48 Democrats on the record for a unilateral rules change dubbed "the nuclear option" — will go down as one of Schumer’s riskiest moves as leader.
The New Yorker was a defender and wielder of the filibuster while serving as minority leader during Donald Trump's presidency.
But Democrats’ year of work on writing elections and voting legislation — and GOP opposition to an effort designed to undo state-level ballot restrictions — turned Schumer into a proponent of scrapping the Senate's 60-vote threshold, at least for this bill.
He and most of his members have endorsed what they see as a limited change to chamber rules.
Even so, Schumer has set the table for a future majority with a slightly bigger margin, whether it's Democratic or Republican, to follow through where he fell short and perhaps go further.
Schumer gave Manchin months of space to work on a compromise elections bill, despite activists pushing him to move quicker.
The leader's insistence on a vote that will split his caucus has only trained more ire on the West Virginian and Sinema of Arizona, whom he needs to execute the rest of President Joe Biden’s agenda.
Yet Schumer says he had no choice.
“We sent our best emissary to talk to the Republicans."
"That was Joe Manchin."
"And we gave him months,” Schumer said in an interview on Wednesday.
“The epiphany that occurred on a rules change?"
"He didn’t even get any bites.”
Though social spending, coronavirus relief and infrastructure have at times consumed the Senate this Congress, no topic has riveted Democrats like voting and election reform.
Schumer designed Democrats’ first version of the bill “S. 1” — denoting it as the party’s top priority.
Even when senators were digging into other legislation, Schumer was still maneuvering on elections, convening weekly meetings with a small group of senators for months.
His long arc of aligning Democrats for a bill designed to fight gerrymandering, expand early voting and make Election Day a federal holiday ended up persuading literally dozens of them to change the filibuster — despite previous vows in writing that they would do no such thing.
In quick succession this summer, Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) informed Schumer they would back a rules change.
That same trio tried and failed to sway Manchin to their side.
“Truly, he’s worked every way possible to try to get us to yes."
"This is the last piece of the puzzle."
"If this doesn’t do it, then he has literally turned over every rock in the crick."
"He’s done everything,” Tester said of Schumer.
There are no moral victories in the Senate: Bills either pass or they fail.
And Schumer has repeatedly acknowledged it was a fight he might not be able to win.
Sinema and Manchin support Democrats’ election reforms but not going around the 60-vote threshold to pass them, which assures that the legislation will ultimately not succeed.
Still, by midday Wednesday the rules change had won over Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), all previously reluctant to chip at the filibuster.
Early last year, “maybe only half would be for changing the filibuster rule."
"And by the fall it grew,” Schumer said.
“We have 48.”
Sinema and Manchin, however, have been remarkably consistent in opposing changes to the filibuster.
In a 2019 interview, Sinema bluntly warned Schumer and Democratic leaders that they “will not get my vote” to tweak the supermajority requirement.
Manchin voted against his party's 2013 move to end the filibuster for most nominations and vowed last January that "I will not vote in this Congress” to change the threshold.
Sinema declined to comment for this story.
In a floor speech on Wednesday, Manchin said Schumer should keep the voting and elections package on the Senate floor for weeks rather than move quickly to a rules change to pass the bill.
“We could have kept voting rights legislation as the pending business for the Senate today, next week, a month from now," Manchin said.
"This is important.”
Just one year ago, Manchin's and Sinema’s positions were a boon to Schumer; at that time, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to sign off on an organizing resolution for a 50-50 Senate without a vow from Schumer not to change the filibuster.
Schumer never gave that promise, even as two of his moderates did.
Yet the Democratic leader has been deliberate and almost painstaking in his drive against the filibuster, to a degree that his predecessor, the late Sen. Harry Reid, was not after he left the Senate and campaigned against the supermajority requirement.
Schumer convened a small group of centrist Democrats for “family conversations” about rules changes after another failed vote on voting legislation earlier last year.
He made his first explicit push in December, after Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) blocked a bipartisan amendment deal on a defense bill.
At that point Schumer was most focused on passing Biden’s $1.7 trillion climate and social spending bill.
When Manchin derailed that, Schumer quickly moved to the voting legislation, even while acknowledging it was an “uphill” battle.
Schumer usually touts his caucus' unity, declining to engage in extended debates over issues that divide his 50 members.
This time, Democrats were fine with isolating the holdouts.
“There’s been a lot of anxiety as to how high of a priority this is for us."
"And this, I think, makes it clear there is no higher priority,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).
Republicans view the real leftward pressure on Schumer as coming from outside the chamber.
“He’s feeling incredible pressure from his progressive base."
"And also, his own political future may depend on his performance, too, to avoid a difficult primary,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a frequent sparring partner of Schumer’s.
Schumer is up for reelection but has yet to draw a primary opponent, despite the GOP’s hopes that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) challenges him.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said it’s “extremely cynical” to believe Schumer’s actions as leader stem from a primary threat that she said won’t materialize anyway: “I doubt it.”
There are other political considerations afoot.
While Republicans are planning to hammer Democratic incumbents up for reelection this fall, the four Democrats facing the toughest Senate races all back Schumer's rules change.
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said Wednesday that the Senate needs to be restored “to a time where we can debate these issues,” and Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said when she vowed to protect the filibuster she “never imagined that today's Republican Party would fail to stand up for democracy."
Kelly said simply that Schumer's "prerogative" is to call votes.
“My job is to come here and represent my constituents in the best way I know how."
"And to vote on legislation, even if it’s not going to pass.”
Some Democrats suggested that Schumer's move on Wednesday was only the start of a long campaign to peel off Manchin and Sinema.
Another unilateral rules change vote this year isn't off the table for the party.
But as Schumer neared the on-record floor vote he craved, he still sounded a note of willingness to keep working with Republicans.
Even, it seems, on overhauling chamber rules.
“We have to restore the Senate,” Schumer said.
“What I intend to do on rules changes is get a group together, maybe even bipartisan, to come up with rules changes and see what we can do to make the Senate better.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
"Why Schumer picked a filibuster fight he couldn't win"
By Burgess Everett and Marianne LeVine
19 JANUARY 2022
Chuck Schumer doesn’t typically lead his caucus into losing votes that divide Democrats.
He made an exception for election reform.
“We sent our best emissary to talk to the Republicans."
"That was Joe Manchin."
"And we gave him months,” Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.
The Senate majority leader has run a 50-50 Senate for a year now, longer than anyone else.
The whole time, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin have consistently communicated to Schumer that he wouldn’t get their votes to weaken the filibuster, no matter the underlying issue.
But his decision to force the vote on the caucus anyway — and get 48 Democrats on the record for a unilateral rules change dubbed "the nuclear option" — will go down as one of Schumer’s riskiest moves as leader.
The New Yorker was a defender and wielder of the filibuster while serving as minority leader during Donald Trump's presidency.
But Democrats’ year of work on writing elections and voting legislation — and GOP opposition to an effort designed to undo state-level ballot restrictions — turned Schumer into a proponent of scrapping the Senate's 60-vote threshold, at least for this bill.
He and most of his members have endorsed what they see as a limited change to chamber rules.
Even so, Schumer has set the table for a future majority with a slightly bigger margin, whether it's Democratic or Republican, to follow through where he fell short and perhaps go further.
Schumer gave Manchin months of space to work on a compromise elections bill, despite activists pushing him to move quicker.
The leader's insistence on a vote that will split his caucus has only trained more ire on the West Virginian and Sinema of Arizona, whom he needs to execute the rest of President Joe Biden’s agenda.
Yet Schumer says he had no choice.
“We sent our best emissary to talk to the Republicans."
"That was Joe Manchin."
"And we gave him months,” Schumer said in an interview on Wednesday.
“The epiphany that occurred on a rules change?"
"He didn’t even get any bites.”
Though social spending, coronavirus relief and infrastructure have at times consumed the Senate this Congress, no topic has riveted Democrats like voting and election reform.
Schumer designed Democrats’ first version of the bill “S. 1” — denoting it as the party’s top priority.
Even when senators were digging into other legislation, Schumer was still maneuvering on elections, convening weekly meetings with a small group of senators for months.
His long arc of aligning Democrats for a bill designed to fight gerrymandering, expand early voting and make Election Day a federal holiday ended up persuading literally dozens of them to change the filibuster — despite previous vows in writing that they would do no such thing.
In quick succession this summer, Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) informed Schumer they would back a rules change.
That same trio tried and failed to sway Manchin to their side.
“Truly, he’s worked every way possible to try to get us to yes."
"This is the last piece of the puzzle."
"If this doesn’t do it, then he has literally turned over every rock in the crick."
"He’s done everything,” Tester said of Schumer.
There are no moral victories in the Senate: Bills either pass or they fail.
And Schumer has repeatedly acknowledged it was a fight he might not be able to win.
Sinema and Manchin support Democrats’ election reforms but not going around the 60-vote threshold to pass them, which assures that the legislation will ultimately not succeed.
Still, by midday Wednesday the rules change had won over Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), all previously reluctant to chip at the filibuster.
Early last year, “maybe only half would be for changing the filibuster rule."
"And by the fall it grew,” Schumer said.
“We have 48.”
Sinema and Manchin, however, have been remarkably consistent in opposing changes to the filibuster.
In a 2019 interview, Sinema bluntly warned Schumer and Democratic leaders that they “will not get my vote” to tweak the supermajority requirement.
Manchin voted against his party's 2013 move to end the filibuster for most nominations and vowed last January that "I will not vote in this Congress” to change the threshold.
Sinema declined to comment for this story.
In a floor speech on Wednesday, Manchin said Schumer should keep the voting and elections package on the Senate floor for weeks rather than move quickly to a rules change to pass the bill.
“We could have kept voting rights legislation as the pending business for the Senate today, next week, a month from now," Manchin said.
"This is important.”
Just one year ago, Manchin's and Sinema’s positions were a boon to Schumer; at that time, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to sign off on an organizing resolution for a 50-50 Senate without a vow from Schumer not to change the filibuster.
Schumer never gave that promise, even as two of his moderates did.
Yet the Democratic leader has been deliberate and almost painstaking in his drive against the filibuster, to a degree that his predecessor, the late Sen. Harry Reid, was not after he left the Senate and campaigned against the supermajority requirement.
Schumer convened a small group of centrist Democrats for “family conversations” about rules changes after another failed vote on voting legislation earlier last year.
He made his first explicit push in December, after Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) blocked a bipartisan amendment deal on a defense bill.
At that point Schumer was most focused on passing Biden’s $1.7 trillion climate and social spending bill.
When Manchin derailed that, Schumer quickly moved to the voting legislation, even while acknowledging it was an “uphill” battle.
Schumer usually touts his caucus' unity, declining to engage in extended debates over issues that divide his 50 members.
This time, Democrats were fine with isolating the holdouts.
“There’s been a lot of anxiety as to how high of a priority this is for us."
"And this, I think, makes it clear there is no higher priority,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).
Republicans view the real leftward pressure on Schumer as coming from outside the chamber.
“He’s feeling incredible pressure from his progressive base."
"And also, his own political future may depend on his performance, too, to avoid a difficult primary,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a frequent sparring partner of Schumer’s.
Schumer is up for reelection but has yet to draw a primary opponent, despite the GOP’s hopes that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) challenges him.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said it’s “extremely cynical” to believe Schumer’s actions as leader stem from a primary threat that she said won’t materialize anyway: “I doubt it.”
There are other political considerations afoot.
While Republicans are planning to hammer Democratic incumbents up for reelection this fall, the four Democrats facing the toughest Senate races all back Schumer's rules change.
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said Wednesday that the Senate needs to be restored “to a time where we can debate these issues,” and Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said when she vowed to protect the filibuster she “never imagined that today's Republican Party would fail to stand up for democracy."
Kelly said simply that Schumer's "prerogative" is to call votes.
“My job is to come here and represent my constituents in the best way I know how."
"And to vote on legislation, even if it’s not going to pass.”
Some Democrats suggested that Schumer's move on Wednesday was only the start of a long campaign to peel off Manchin and Sinema.
Another unilateral rules change vote this year isn't off the table for the party.
But as Schumer neared the on-record floor vote he craved, he still sounded a note of willingness to keep working with Republicans.
Even, it seems, on overhauling chamber rules.
“We have to restore the Senate,” Schumer said.
“What I intend to do on rules changes is get a group together, maybe even bipartisan, to come up with rules changes and see what we can do to make the Senate better.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE WASHINGTON POST
"Biden’s Ukraine comments prompt uproar at home and abroad"
Tyler Pager, Paul Sonne
20 JANUARY 2022
President Biden faced a furor Thursday — including a highly unusual rebuke from Ukraine’s president and sharp criticism from Republican members of Congress — after appearing to downplay a hypothetical “minor incursion” by Russia into its neighbor’s territory.
The administration was hastily thrown into cleanup mode, reassuring allies and foes that the U.S. would view any crossing by Russian troops into Ukraine as unacceptable aggression.
Administration officials said Biden’s comments amounted to clumsy language unrepresentative of his position, which they said is amply clear from his oft-stated commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
In a lengthy, freewheeling news conference Wednesday, Biden, answering several questions on the Ukraine crisis, managed to spook Ukrainian leaders, undercut a united front sought by NATO and suggest that if Moscow’s incursion into Ukraine were “minor,” the reaction by U.S. allies might be less severe.
Still, by day’s end, the administration appeared to have largely calmed the diplomatic waters.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the tempest with a tweet on Thursday morning, rejecting the notion that there was such a thing as a “minor incursion” when it comes to the invasion of one country by another.
“We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations."
"Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones,” Zelensky wrote.
“I say this as the President of a great power.”
Members of Congress were also critical.
“The president’s press conference was an absolute train wreck that will have serious consequences,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said in a statement Wednesday.
“President Biden basically gave Putin a green light to invade Ukraine by yammering about the supposed insignificance of a ‘minor incursion.’"
"He projected weakness, not strength.”
The White House clearly recognized that Biden’s comments were problematic.
The National Security Council quickly issued a statement Wednesday night, as did White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, saying any Russian move across the Ukraine border would be “met with a swift, severe, and united response.”
The damage control picked up speed on Thursday with live comments from Vice President Harris in morning television interviews and from Biden himself later in the day.
Administration officials said no extra back-channeling was needed with European allies to reassure them of Biden’s views on Russian aggression, and Psaki said Biden had not spoken with Zelensky since the news conference.
Other American officials did speak to their counterparts in Kyiv, she said.
“We have been in touch at a high level with Ukrainian officials and leaders,” Psaki said.
“They certainly understand from those conversations what the president meant.”
One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations, said European allies and partners reached out to thank Washington for quickly clarifying Biden’s comments.
Psaki also cited Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trips to Kyiv and Berlin this week as further evidence of the administration’s commitment to doing all it can to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty.
“We cannot choose the path for Moscow,” Blinken told reporters Thursday in Berlin.
“But we can make crystal clear the stark consequences of that choice.”
Blinken spoke after a meeting of the so-called Transatlantic Quad, comprising the United States, Germany, Britain and France.
But after Biden’s Wednesday remarks, those consequences seemed less than crystal clear to some.
“I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades."
"And it depends on what it does,” Biden said.
“It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.”
Still, the Biden administration has consistently vowed to impose far-reaching sanctions, including steps to cut Russia off from the global financial system, if President Vladimir Putin orders a move into Ukraine.
The president said Wednesday he believed Putin would invade.
“I’m not so sure that he is certain what he’s going to do,” Biden said at the news conference.
“My guess is he will move in."
"He has to do something.”
In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Biden became known on the national stage for public gaffes, including when he described his future boss, Barack Obama, as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean” to run for president.
Over his time as vice president, Biden’s tendency to put his foot in his mouth was often dismissed as an endearing characteristic, part of a broader image he cultivated of the nation’s sometimes impolitic but always authentic Uncle Joe.
But his Ukraine comments demonstrated the far higher stakes when a commander in chief uses unclear language during a global crisis.
The weight of a president’s words is a point Biden himself regularly made in criticizing Trump’s often intemperate rhetoric.
“The words of a president matter,” Biden said.
“They can move markets."
"They can send our brave men and women to war."
"They can bring peace.”
U.S. officials are alarmed about the possibility of a large-scale invasion by Russian forces on Ukrainian territory that would bring mass casualties and escalate a simmering conflict in Europe.
U.S. intelligence has assessed that Russia is making plans for such an invasion, even if it isn’t certain that Putin ultimately will proceed.
Biden’s comments prompted his staff to come out and clarify immediately that any movement of Russian forces into Ukrainian territory — regardless of the size of the land occupied — would count as an invasion and prompt the severe sanctions and economic penalties the United States has been preparing with allies.
Biden later endeavored Thursday to make that clear himself.
“I’ve been absolutely clear with President Putin."
"He has no misunderstanding: Any, any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion,” Biden told reporters Thursday at the start of a White House meeting on infrastructure.
An invasion would be met with a “severe and coordinated economic response” that has been “laid out very clearly for President Putin,” he said.
By then, Biden’s remarks had already unnerved European and Ukrainian officials.
Apart from his comments about the “minor incursion,” Biden also made other remarks that went against the grain of U.S. messaging on the crisis.
For weeks, top U.S. officials have been emphasizing that Washington is fully united with its European allies about how to respond to the Russian threat.
But Biden said that was not entirely the case in all circumstances, suggesting that Russian action short of an invasion could cause a divide among allies about how forcefully to respond.
Many officials conceded Biden was probably accurately portraying real divisions that could emerge within NATO regarding how the alliance would respond to some Russian tactics.
But U.S. and European leaders have been at pains to emphasize their unity, not their differences.
Biden said there are “differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happens, the degree to which we have to go.”
The comment reflected the way Putin, who has long taken aggressive actions abroad short of war, may be able to exploit disagreements within the alliance.
And instead of coming out and offering a robust defense of NATO’s “open door” policy, which gives any nation the opportunity to join the military alliance, Biden underscored that Ukraine was not likely to enter the organization anytime soon.
That’s because NATO members must meet certain criteria for democracy and stability.
“The likelihood that Ukraine is going to join NATO in the near term is not very likely, based on much more work they have to do in terms of democracy and a few other things going on there,” the president said.
Although Biden’s awkward reference to a “minor incursion” — he later suggested he was referring to an action such as a cyberattack — unsettled officials from Washington to Brussels, the White House’s aggressive effort to restate the U.S. position appeared to reassure many allies.
“What I can tell you is that the president has been very clear that if Russia takes aggressive action, it will be met with serious, severe and a unified response and consequences,” Harris said Thursday morning on ABC News.
“And that position that we have taken is grounded in a number of values that we hold dear, including the importance of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity in this case of Ukraine."
"We have not wavered from that perspective.”
The gaffe also had a different character than Trump’s many deliberate comments essentially taking Russia’s side in its aggression toward Ukraine.
The former president signaled that he had little interest in backing Kyiv’s aspirations to further develop democracy in the country or deepen cooperation with the West.
Trump told aides in the Oval Office, for example, that Ukrainians were “horrible, corrupt people” who had tried to take him down during his 2016 campaign, and suggested he agreed with the common view among Kremlin hard-liners that Ukraine was not a real country.
On the campaign trail and afterward, Trump said the United States would consider recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, even though Moscow had seized that territory from Ukraine in a military invasion widely condemned in the West.
Trump declined to rule out recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea and reportedly told leaders at a Group of Seven summit that the peninsula was Russian because the people there speak Russian.
Despite his muddled comments Wednesday, few doubt Biden's commitment to Ukraine.
As Moscow bulks up its military presence along the Ukrainian border, diplomatic talks between U.S. and Russian delegations have hit an impasse, as Russia continued to deny plans to invade Ukraine and continues to make demands such as the permanent exclusion of Ukraine from NATO.
On Monday, a bipartisan group of senators met with Ukrainian leaders in Kyiv to assure them the United States remained steadfast in its support of Ukraine‘s territorial integrity and independence.
For Biden, even if the quick cleanup efforts reassured allies for now, a burgeoning security crisis nonetheless remains on the horizon.
“Let there be no doubt at all: If Putin makes this choice, Russia will pay a heavy price,” he said Thursday.
paul.sonne@washpost.com
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
"Biden’s Ukraine comments prompt uproar at home and abroad"
Tyler Pager, Paul Sonne
20 JANUARY 2022
President Biden faced a furor Thursday — including a highly unusual rebuke from Ukraine’s president and sharp criticism from Republican members of Congress — after appearing to downplay a hypothetical “minor incursion” by Russia into its neighbor’s territory.
The administration was hastily thrown into cleanup mode, reassuring allies and foes that the U.S. would view any crossing by Russian troops into Ukraine as unacceptable aggression.
Administration officials said Biden’s comments amounted to clumsy language unrepresentative of his position, which they said is amply clear from his oft-stated commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
In a lengthy, freewheeling news conference Wednesday, Biden, answering several questions on the Ukraine crisis, managed to spook Ukrainian leaders, undercut a united front sought by NATO and suggest that if Moscow’s incursion into Ukraine were “minor,” the reaction by U.S. allies might be less severe.
Still, by day’s end, the administration appeared to have largely calmed the diplomatic waters.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the tempest with a tweet on Thursday morning, rejecting the notion that there was such a thing as a “minor incursion” when it comes to the invasion of one country by another.
“We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations."
"Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones,” Zelensky wrote.
“I say this as the President of a great power.”
Members of Congress were also critical.
“The president’s press conference was an absolute train wreck that will have serious consequences,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said in a statement Wednesday.
“President Biden basically gave Putin a green light to invade Ukraine by yammering about the supposed insignificance of a ‘minor incursion.’"
"He projected weakness, not strength.”
The White House clearly recognized that Biden’s comments were problematic.
The National Security Council quickly issued a statement Wednesday night, as did White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, saying any Russian move across the Ukraine border would be “met with a swift, severe, and united response.”
The damage control picked up speed on Thursday with live comments from Vice President Harris in morning television interviews and from Biden himself later in the day.
Administration officials said no extra back-channeling was needed with European allies to reassure them of Biden’s views on Russian aggression, and Psaki said Biden had not spoken with Zelensky since the news conference.
Other American officials did speak to their counterparts in Kyiv, she said.
“We have been in touch at a high level with Ukrainian officials and leaders,” Psaki said.
“They certainly understand from those conversations what the president meant.”
One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations, said European allies and partners reached out to thank Washington for quickly clarifying Biden’s comments.
Psaki also cited Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trips to Kyiv and Berlin this week as further evidence of the administration’s commitment to doing all it can to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty.
“We cannot choose the path for Moscow,” Blinken told reporters Thursday in Berlin.
“But we can make crystal clear the stark consequences of that choice.”
Blinken spoke after a meeting of the so-called Transatlantic Quad, comprising the United States, Germany, Britain and France.
But after Biden’s Wednesday remarks, those consequences seemed less than crystal clear to some.
“I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades."
"And it depends on what it does,” Biden said.
“It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.”
Still, the Biden administration has consistently vowed to impose far-reaching sanctions, including steps to cut Russia off from the global financial system, if President Vladimir Putin orders a move into Ukraine.
The president said Wednesday he believed Putin would invade.
“I’m not so sure that he is certain what he’s going to do,” Biden said at the news conference.
“My guess is he will move in."
"He has to do something.”
In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Biden became known on the national stage for public gaffes, including when he described his future boss, Barack Obama, as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean” to run for president.
Over his time as vice president, Biden’s tendency to put his foot in his mouth was often dismissed as an endearing characteristic, part of a broader image he cultivated of the nation’s sometimes impolitic but always authentic Uncle Joe.
But his Ukraine comments demonstrated the far higher stakes when a commander in chief uses unclear language during a global crisis.
The weight of a president’s words is a point Biden himself regularly made in criticizing Trump’s often intemperate rhetoric.
“The words of a president matter,” Biden said.
“They can move markets."
"They can send our brave men and women to war."
"They can bring peace.”
U.S. officials are alarmed about the possibility of a large-scale invasion by Russian forces on Ukrainian territory that would bring mass casualties and escalate a simmering conflict in Europe.
U.S. intelligence has assessed that Russia is making plans for such an invasion, even if it isn’t certain that Putin ultimately will proceed.
Biden’s comments prompted his staff to come out and clarify immediately that any movement of Russian forces into Ukrainian territory — regardless of the size of the land occupied — would count as an invasion and prompt the severe sanctions and economic penalties the United States has been preparing with allies.
Biden later endeavored Thursday to make that clear himself.
“I’ve been absolutely clear with President Putin."
"He has no misunderstanding: Any, any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion,” Biden told reporters Thursday at the start of a White House meeting on infrastructure.
An invasion would be met with a “severe and coordinated economic response” that has been “laid out very clearly for President Putin,” he said.
By then, Biden’s remarks had already unnerved European and Ukrainian officials.
Apart from his comments about the “minor incursion,” Biden also made other remarks that went against the grain of U.S. messaging on the crisis.
For weeks, top U.S. officials have been emphasizing that Washington is fully united with its European allies about how to respond to the Russian threat.
But Biden said that was not entirely the case in all circumstances, suggesting that Russian action short of an invasion could cause a divide among allies about how forcefully to respond.
Many officials conceded Biden was probably accurately portraying real divisions that could emerge within NATO regarding how the alliance would respond to some Russian tactics.
But U.S. and European leaders have been at pains to emphasize their unity, not their differences.
Biden said there are “differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happens, the degree to which we have to go.”
The comment reflected the way Putin, who has long taken aggressive actions abroad short of war, may be able to exploit disagreements within the alliance.
And instead of coming out and offering a robust defense of NATO’s “open door” policy, which gives any nation the opportunity to join the military alliance, Biden underscored that Ukraine was not likely to enter the organization anytime soon.
That’s because NATO members must meet certain criteria for democracy and stability.
“The likelihood that Ukraine is going to join NATO in the near term is not very likely, based on much more work they have to do in terms of democracy and a few other things going on there,” the president said.
Although Biden’s awkward reference to a “minor incursion” — he later suggested he was referring to an action such as a cyberattack — unsettled officials from Washington to Brussels, the White House’s aggressive effort to restate the U.S. position appeared to reassure many allies.
“What I can tell you is that the president has been very clear that if Russia takes aggressive action, it will be met with serious, severe and a unified response and consequences,” Harris said Thursday morning on ABC News.
“And that position that we have taken is grounded in a number of values that we hold dear, including the importance of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity in this case of Ukraine."
"We have not wavered from that perspective.”
The gaffe also had a different character than Trump’s many deliberate comments essentially taking Russia’s side in its aggression toward Ukraine.
The former president signaled that he had little interest in backing Kyiv’s aspirations to further develop democracy in the country or deepen cooperation with the West.
Trump told aides in the Oval Office, for example, that Ukrainians were “horrible, corrupt people” who had tried to take him down during his 2016 campaign, and suggested he agreed with the common view among Kremlin hard-liners that Ukraine was not a real country.
On the campaign trail and afterward, Trump said the United States would consider recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, even though Moscow had seized that territory from Ukraine in a military invasion widely condemned in the West.
Trump declined to rule out recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea and reportedly told leaders at a Group of Seven summit that the peninsula was Russian because the people there speak Russian.
Despite his muddled comments Wednesday, few doubt Biden's commitment to Ukraine.
As Moscow bulks up its military presence along the Ukrainian border, diplomatic talks between U.S. and Russian delegations have hit an impasse, as Russia continued to deny plans to invade Ukraine and continues to make demands such as the permanent exclusion of Ukraine from NATO.
On Monday, a bipartisan group of senators met with Ukrainian leaders in Kyiv to assure them the United States remained steadfast in its support of Ukraine‘s territorial integrity and independence.
For Biden, even if the quick cleanup efforts reassured allies for now, a burgeoning security crisis nonetheless remains on the horizon.
“Let there be no doubt at all: If Putin makes this choice, Russia will pay a heavy price,” he said Thursday.
paul.sonne@washpost.com
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
BUSINESS INSIDER
"The January 6 committee obtained a draft of post-insurrection White House remarks that said 'the election fight is over.' Trump gave a speech but left out that sentence."
oseddiq@insider.com (Oma Seddiq)
21 JANUARY 2022
The January 6 committee reportedly has a Trump White House document titled "Remarks on National Healing."
The document was drafted for delivery a day after the riot, and Trump gave nearly identical remarks.
A line in the document that Trump didn't say in his Twitter video is: "The election fight is over."
The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot has obtained a document from President Donald Trump's White House titled "Remarks on National Healing," according to a Politico report published Friday.
The document is part of a slew of executive-branch records that Trump's legal team tried to block the committee from getting access to, Politico reported.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied Trump's request to block the release of some of his presidential records, clearing the way for the committee to obtain them.
The document contains remarks that appear to have been scheduled for delivery a day after the Capitol riot.
It's unclear who wrote the document, Politico said.
On that day, January 7, 2021, Trump released a video on Twitter in which he gave remarks nearly identical to those in the document.
"Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness, and mayhem," Trump said in the video, which has since been taken down because the social-media platform permanently suspended his account in the wake of the riot.
In the document, the remarks are: "Like all Americans, I was outraged and sickened by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem."
One line in the document that was not uttered by Trump in his Twitter video is: "The election fight is over."
"But as for THIS election, Congress has now certified the results," the document says, according to Politico.
"The election fight is over."
"A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th."
"My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power."
"This moment calls for healing and reconciliation."
What Trump did say was: "Now Congress has certified the results."
"A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th."
"My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power."
"This moment calls for healing and reconciliation."
A spokesperson for Trump's office did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
Since leaving office, Trump has continued to push the debunked claim that the 2020 election was rigged and included widespread voter fraud.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
"The January 6 committee obtained a draft of post-insurrection White House remarks that said 'the election fight is over.' Trump gave a speech but left out that sentence."
oseddiq@insider.com (Oma Seddiq)
21 JANUARY 2022
The January 6 committee reportedly has a Trump White House document titled "Remarks on National Healing."
The document was drafted for delivery a day after the riot, and Trump gave nearly identical remarks.
A line in the document that Trump didn't say in his Twitter video is: "The election fight is over."
The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot has obtained a document from President Donald Trump's White House titled "Remarks on National Healing," according to a Politico report published Friday.
The document is part of a slew of executive-branch records that Trump's legal team tried to block the committee from getting access to, Politico reported.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied Trump's request to block the release of some of his presidential records, clearing the way for the committee to obtain them.
The document contains remarks that appear to have been scheduled for delivery a day after the Capitol riot.
It's unclear who wrote the document, Politico said.
On that day, January 7, 2021, Trump released a video on Twitter in which he gave remarks nearly identical to those in the document.
"Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness, and mayhem," Trump said in the video, which has since been taken down because the social-media platform permanently suspended his account in the wake of the riot.
In the document, the remarks are: "Like all Americans, I was outraged and sickened by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem."
One line in the document that was not uttered by Trump in his Twitter video is: "The election fight is over."
"But as for THIS election, Congress has now certified the results," the document says, according to Politico.
"The election fight is over."
"A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th."
"My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power."
"This moment calls for healing and reconciliation."
What Trump did say was: "Now Congress has certified the results."
"A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th."
"My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power."
"This moment calls for healing and reconciliation."
A spokesperson for Trump's office did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
Since leaving office, Trump has continued to push the debunked claim that the 2020 election was rigged and included widespread voter fraud.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
REUTERS
"U.S. Navy pilot ejects, 7 hurt in F-35 South China Sea 'landing mishap'"
By Reuters Staff
JANUARY 24, 2022
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven U.S. military personnel were hurt on Monday when an F-35C warplane had a “landing mishap” on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in the South China Sea and the pilot ejected, the U.S Navy said.
A Navy statement said the incident happened during “routine flight operations” in the South China Sea.
“The pilot safely ejected from the aircraft and was recovered via U.S. military helicopter,” it said.
“The pilot is in stable condition."
"There were seven total Sailors injured.”
The statement said three of personnel required evacuation to a medical facility in Manila and four were treated by on-board the carrier and released.
It said all the personnel evacuated were assessed as being in stable condition.
The Navy said the cause of the “inflight mishap” was under investigation.
The F-35 jet is made by Lockheed Martin.
The Pentagon said two U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Groups, led by the Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln began operations in the South China Sea on Sunday.
The carriers entered the disputed sea for training as Taiwan reported a new Chinese air force incursion at the top of the waterway.
Reporting by David Brunnstrom, Phil Stewart and Mike Stone
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sout ... SKBN2JY27D
"U.S. Navy pilot ejects, 7 hurt in F-35 South China Sea 'landing mishap'"
By Reuters Staff
JANUARY 24, 2022
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven U.S. military personnel were hurt on Monday when an F-35C warplane had a “landing mishap” on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in the South China Sea and the pilot ejected, the U.S Navy said.
A Navy statement said the incident happened during “routine flight operations” in the South China Sea.
“The pilot safely ejected from the aircraft and was recovered via U.S. military helicopter,” it said.
“The pilot is in stable condition."
"There were seven total Sailors injured.”
The statement said three of personnel required evacuation to a medical facility in Manila and four were treated by on-board the carrier and released.
It said all the personnel evacuated were assessed as being in stable condition.
The Navy said the cause of the “inflight mishap” was under investigation.
The F-35 jet is made by Lockheed Martin.
The Pentagon said two U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Groups, led by the Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln began operations in the South China Sea on Sunday.
The carriers entered the disputed sea for training as Taiwan reported a new Chinese air force incursion at the top of the waterway.
Reporting by David Brunnstrom, Phil Stewart and Mike Stone
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sout ... SKBN2JY27D
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
REUTERS
"U.S. orders departure of Ukraine embassy staff family members"
By David Shepardson and Costas Pitas
January 24, 2022
WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - The United States on Sunday ordered the departure of family members of staff at its embassy in Ukraine, citing the continuing threat of military action from Russia.
The U.S. State Department also authorized the voluntary departure of U.S. government employees and said Americans should consider departing immediately.
"We have been in consultation with the Ukrainian government about this step and are coordinating with Allied and partner embassies in Kyiv as they determine their posture," the U.S. Embassy said.
Russia has massed troops near the border with Ukraine prompting tensions with Western powers.
Moscow has insisted it has no plans to invade.
The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv warned in a statement that "military action by Russia could come at any time and the United States government will not be in a position to evacuate American citizens in such a contingency, so U.S. citizens currently present in Ukraine should plan accordingly."
The State Department also said it was authorizing the "voluntary departure of U.S. direct hire employees."
The New York Times reported late Sunday that President Joe Biden was considering deploying several thousand U.S. troops to NATO allies in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.
The Pentagon declined to comment on the New York Times report but noted that Pentagon spokesman John Kirby on Friday said, "we're going to make sure that we have options ready to reassure our allies, particularly on -- on NATO's Eastern Flank."
"If there's another incursion and if they need that reassurance, if they need the capabilities to be bolstered, we're going to do that and we're going to make sure that we're -- that we're ready to do that,” Kirby said.
U.S. and Russian diplomats made no major breakthrough at talks on Friday.
On Sunday, Britain accused the Kremlin of seeking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv.
The State Department late Sunday also reissued its advisory for Russia warning Americans not to travel, citing "ongoing tension along the border with Ukraine."
It also added "given the on-going volatility of the situation, U.S. citizens are strongly advised against traveling by land from Russia to Ukraine through this region."
State Department officials declined to say how many Americans are currently believed to be in Ukraine.
The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine said the decision was made "out of an abundance of caution due to continued Russian efforts to destabilize the country and undermine the security of Ukrainian citizens and others visiting or residing in Ukraine."
The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv is continuing to operate and its Chargé d’Affaires Kristina Kvien remains in Ukraine, State Department officials said.
Reporting by David Shepardson in Washington and Costas Pitas in Los Angeles; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Diane Craft
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ord ... 022-01-23/
"U.S. orders departure of Ukraine embassy staff family members"
By David Shepardson and Costas Pitas
January 24, 2022
WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - The United States on Sunday ordered the departure of family members of staff at its embassy in Ukraine, citing the continuing threat of military action from Russia.
The U.S. State Department also authorized the voluntary departure of U.S. government employees and said Americans should consider departing immediately.
"We have been in consultation with the Ukrainian government about this step and are coordinating with Allied and partner embassies in Kyiv as they determine their posture," the U.S. Embassy said.
Russia has massed troops near the border with Ukraine prompting tensions with Western powers.
Moscow has insisted it has no plans to invade.
The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv warned in a statement that "military action by Russia could come at any time and the United States government will not be in a position to evacuate American citizens in such a contingency, so U.S. citizens currently present in Ukraine should plan accordingly."
The State Department also said it was authorizing the "voluntary departure of U.S. direct hire employees."
The New York Times reported late Sunday that President Joe Biden was considering deploying several thousand U.S. troops to NATO allies in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.
The Pentagon declined to comment on the New York Times report but noted that Pentagon spokesman John Kirby on Friday said, "we're going to make sure that we have options ready to reassure our allies, particularly on -- on NATO's Eastern Flank."
"If there's another incursion and if they need that reassurance, if they need the capabilities to be bolstered, we're going to do that and we're going to make sure that we're -- that we're ready to do that,” Kirby said.
U.S. and Russian diplomats made no major breakthrough at talks on Friday.
On Sunday, Britain accused the Kremlin of seeking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv.
The State Department late Sunday also reissued its advisory for Russia warning Americans not to travel, citing "ongoing tension along the border with Ukraine."
It also added "given the on-going volatility of the situation, U.S. citizens are strongly advised against traveling by land from Russia to Ukraine through this region."
State Department officials declined to say how many Americans are currently believed to be in Ukraine.
The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine said the decision was made "out of an abundance of caution due to continued Russian efforts to destabilize the country and undermine the security of Ukrainian citizens and others visiting or residing in Ukraine."
The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv is continuing to operate and its Chargé d’Affaires Kristina Kvien remains in Ukraine, State Department officials said.
Reporting by David Shepardson in Washington and Costas Pitas in Los Angeles; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Diane Craft
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ord ... 022-01-23/
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
RIGZONE
"Oil Rebounds After Focus Shifts to Steady Demand Outlook"
by Bloomberg | Devika Krishna Kumar and Sheela Tobben
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Oil prices rallied Tuesday after the biggest one-day tumble this year, with traders refocusing on the outlook for strong demand and the risk that a Russia-Ukraine conflict could disrupt supplies.
West Texas Intermediate futures settled above $85 a barrel as fears about fresh lockdowns and a hit to global demand due to the omicron variant eased.
Prices have whipsawed as the U.S. Federal Reserve prepares for interest-rate increases, while Russia builds troops along the border with Ukraine.
“Crude prices are soaring on expectations that an already tight oil market could see geopolitical risks exacerbate the current imbalance,” said Ed Moya, Oanda’s senior market analyst for the Americas.
“The risks are not just with the Russia-Ukraine border, but also include Iran nuclear talks and also North Korea.”
In recent months, oil bears have retreated with speculators turning more bullish amid lower stockpiles.
Crude rallied to a seven-year high last week as global consumption remained strong in the face of the fast-spreading, but milder, omicron variant.
While inventories usually grow early in the year, traders are fretting that by the Northern Hemisphere’s summer, when demand typically rises, stockpiles may be too low to prevent a jump in prices.
“Markets have proved to be tighter than we thought,” said David Martin, head of commodity desk strategy at BNP Paribas.
He sees small reductions in inventories this quarter, “and that underpins this view that the market continues to tighten up.”
Inventories in key regions have tightened with stockpiles at Cushing, Oklahoma, the delivery point for benchmark U.S. crude futures, sliding to the lowest levels in more than five years seasonally.
The market is also skeptical the Biden administration can do anything to slow down oil’s move higher as OPEC+ seems set to stick to gradual production increases, Moya said.
The U.S. Energy Department announced that it loaned another 13.4 million barrels as part of an 32 million barrel exchange program announced in November, aiming to ease a rise in domestic gasoline prices.
Prices:
WTI for March delivery jumped $2.29 to settle at $85.60 a barrel in New York.
Brent for the same month rose $1.93 to $88.20.
The U.S. is putting thousands of soldiers on alert for deployment to Eastern Europe.
The risk of a Russian invasion of Ukraine in the next few weeks stands at more than 50%, according to RBC Capital Markets analyst Helima Croft.
Disruption to oil flows from Russia could easily send prices to $120 a barrel, JPMorgan Chase & Co. wrote last week.
Costlier oil is helping fan inflationary pressures worldwide, prompting central banks to tighten monetary policy and forcing governments to take steps to cushion the impact on consumers.
On Tuesday, Japan said it will give subsidies to refiners in a bid to curb gasoline prices.
(with assistance from Elizabeth Low and Alex Longley)
https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/oil_r ... 3-article/
"Oil Rebounds After Focus Shifts to Steady Demand Outlook"
by Bloomberg | Devika Krishna Kumar and Sheela Tobben
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Oil prices rallied Tuesday after the biggest one-day tumble this year, with traders refocusing on the outlook for strong demand and the risk that a Russia-Ukraine conflict could disrupt supplies.
West Texas Intermediate futures settled above $85 a barrel as fears about fresh lockdowns and a hit to global demand due to the omicron variant eased.
Prices have whipsawed as the U.S. Federal Reserve prepares for interest-rate increases, while Russia builds troops along the border with Ukraine.
“Crude prices are soaring on expectations that an already tight oil market could see geopolitical risks exacerbate the current imbalance,” said Ed Moya, Oanda’s senior market analyst for the Americas.
“The risks are not just with the Russia-Ukraine border, but also include Iran nuclear talks and also North Korea.”
In recent months, oil bears have retreated with speculators turning more bullish amid lower stockpiles.
Crude rallied to a seven-year high last week as global consumption remained strong in the face of the fast-spreading, but milder, omicron variant.
While inventories usually grow early in the year, traders are fretting that by the Northern Hemisphere’s summer, when demand typically rises, stockpiles may be too low to prevent a jump in prices.
“Markets have proved to be tighter than we thought,” said David Martin, head of commodity desk strategy at BNP Paribas.
He sees small reductions in inventories this quarter, “and that underpins this view that the market continues to tighten up.”
Inventories in key regions have tightened with stockpiles at Cushing, Oklahoma, the delivery point for benchmark U.S. crude futures, sliding to the lowest levels in more than five years seasonally.
The market is also skeptical the Biden administration can do anything to slow down oil’s move higher as OPEC+ seems set to stick to gradual production increases, Moya said.
The U.S. Energy Department announced that it loaned another 13.4 million barrels as part of an 32 million barrel exchange program announced in November, aiming to ease a rise in domestic gasoline prices.
Prices:
WTI for March delivery jumped $2.29 to settle at $85.60 a barrel in New York.
Brent for the same month rose $1.93 to $88.20.
The U.S. is putting thousands of soldiers on alert for deployment to Eastern Europe.
The risk of a Russian invasion of Ukraine in the next few weeks stands at more than 50%, according to RBC Capital Markets analyst Helima Croft.
Disruption to oil flows from Russia could easily send prices to $120 a barrel, JPMorgan Chase & Co. wrote last week.
Costlier oil is helping fan inflationary pressures worldwide, prompting central banks to tighten monetary policy and forcing governments to take steps to cushion the impact on consumers.
On Tuesday, Japan said it will give subsidies to refiners in a bid to curb gasoline prices.
(with assistance from Elizabeth Low and Alex Longley)
https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/oil_r ... 3-article/
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
CNBC
"Biden administration withdraws Covid vaccine mandate for businesses after losing Supreme Court case"
Spencer Kimball @SPENCEKIMBALL
PUBLISHED TUE, JAN 25 2022
KEY POINTS
* The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said it is pulling the vaccine and testing rules for businesses effective Wednesday.
* The Supreme Court’s conservative majority blocked the rules earlier this month, saying OSHA had exceeded the authority given to the agency by Congress.
* Biden has called on businesses to voluntarily implement the requirements.
The Biden administration is formally withdrawing its vaccine and testing mandate for businesses, after the Supreme Court blocked the requirements earlier this month.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration will pull the rule for businesses effective Wednesday, Jan. 26, the agency said in a statement posted to its website Tuesday.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that OSHA had exceeded its authority.
“Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.
The Biden administration is ending its legal battle over the mandate — at least for now.
OSHA will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to dismiss all cases related to the mandate, according to a Labor Department spokesperson.
The administration had faced dozens of lawsuits from Republican-led states, private businesses, religious groups and national trade associations.
The 6th Circuit has jurisdiction over those cases.
OSHA issued the mandate under its emergency powers, which the agency can use to shortcut the normal rulemaking process if the labor secretary determines workers face a grave danger.
The agency’s emergency rules also serve as proposals for permanent regulations.
OSHA left open the possibility that it might try to finalize a permanent vaccine and testing rule in the future.
“OSHA is evaluating the record and the evolving course of the pandemic."
"OSHA has made no determinations at this time about when or if it will finalize a vaccination and testing rule,” the Labor Department spokesperson said.
However, it’s unlikely that a vaccine and testing mandate would fare any better under the agency’s normal process.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority was mostly concerned about the scope of the mandate, rather than how it was issued.
Under the defunct rule, businesses with 100 or more employees had to ensure their employees were fully vaccinated, or submitted a negative Covid test weekly to enter the workplace.
It would have covered some 80 million private-sector employees.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a major blow to President Joe Biden’s strategy to control the spread of the virus.
Biden has called on businesses to voluntarily implement the requirements.
Labor Secretary Marty Walsh has vowed that OSHA will use its existing powers to protect workers from Covid.
OSHA still has general authority to investigate and fine employers if they fail to maintain a safe workplace.
The U.S. reported a seven-day average of more than 731,000 new daily infections, an increase of 4% over last week, according to a CNBC analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University.
Though new infections are plateauing, they have stalled at significantly higher levels than in past waves.
OSHA on Tuesday said it will shift resources to focus on creating a permanent Covid safety standard for health-care workers.
The agency issued temporary emergency rules for the industry last summer, but it pulled them in December after missing a deadline to create a permanent safety standard.
The health-care Covid safety standard required most facilities to provide personal protective equipment, install physical barriers in certain areas, clean and disinfect the workplace and maintain proper ventilation among a number of other measures.
The AFL-CIO and National Nurses United, among other labor groups, have asked a federal appeals court to force OSHA to reinstate the safety rules for health-care workers.
OSHA, in a court filing, said it was unable to finish a permanent rule for health-care workers because its resources were tied up preparing the business mandate.
Hospitals around the U.S. are grappling with a surge of patients infected by the highly contagious omicron variant.
There are about 155,000 patients in U.S. hospitals with Covid, according to a seven-day average of Department of Health and Human Services data, higher than peak levels seen last winter but down 2.4% from one week ago.
Many hospitals are facing staff shortages as health-care professionals are forced to call out sick after getting infected with the omicron variant.
“Many places across the country are getting to the point where even their backup staff are getting sick,” Dr. Gillian Schmitz, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told CNBC earlier this month.
“Pretty much the whole country right now is feeling this surge of cases that is impacting staffing.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/covid-v ... -case.html
"Biden administration withdraws Covid vaccine mandate for businesses after losing Supreme Court case"
Spencer Kimball @SPENCEKIMBALL
PUBLISHED TUE, JAN 25 2022
KEY POINTS
* The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said it is pulling the vaccine and testing rules for businesses effective Wednesday.
* The Supreme Court’s conservative majority blocked the rules earlier this month, saying OSHA had exceeded the authority given to the agency by Congress.
* Biden has called on businesses to voluntarily implement the requirements.
The Biden administration is formally withdrawing its vaccine and testing mandate for businesses, after the Supreme Court blocked the requirements earlier this month.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration will pull the rule for businesses effective Wednesday, Jan. 26, the agency said in a statement posted to its website Tuesday.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that OSHA had exceeded its authority.
“Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.
The Biden administration is ending its legal battle over the mandate — at least for now.
OSHA will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to dismiss all cases related to the mandate, according to a Labor Department spokesperson.
The administration had faced dozens of lawsuits from Republican-led states, private businesses, religious groups and national trade associations.
The 6th Circuit has jurisdiction over those cases.
OSHA issued the mandate under its emergency powers, which the agency can use to shortcut the normal rulemaking process if the labor secretary determines workers face a grave danger.
The agency’s emergency rules also serve as proposals for permanent regulations.
OSHA left open the possibility that it might try to finalize a permanent vaccine and testing rule in the future.
“OSHA is evaluating the record and the evolving course of the pandemic."
"OSHA has made no determinations at this time about when or if it will finalize a vaccination and testing rule,” the Labor Department spokesperson said.
However, it’s unlikely that a vaccine and testing mandate would fare any better under the agency’s normal process.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority was mostly concerned about the scope of the mandate, rather than how it was issued.
Under the defunct rule, businesses with 100 or more employees had to ensure their employees were fully vaccinated, or submitted a negative Covid test weekly to enter the workplace.
It would have covered some 80 million private-sector employees.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a major blow to President Joe Biden’s strategy to control the spread of the virus.
Biden has called on businesses to voluntarily implement the requirements.
Labor Secretary Marty Walsh has vowed that OSHA will use its existing powers to protect workers from Covid.
OSHA still has general authority to investigate and fine employers if they fail to maintain a safe workplace.
The U.S. reported a seven-day average of more than 731,000 new daily infections, an increase of 4% over last week, according to a CNBC analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University.
Though new infections are plateauing, they have stalled at significantly higher levels than in past waves.
OSHA on Tuesday said it will shift resources to focus on creating a permanent Covid safety standard for health-care workers.
The agency issued temporary emergency rules for the industry last summer, but it pulled them in December after missing a deadline to create a permanent safety standard.
The health-care Covid safety standard required most facilities to provide personal protective equipment, install physical barriers in certain areas, clean and disinfect the workplace and maintain proper ventilation among a number of other measures.
The AFL-CIO and National Nurses United, among other labor groups, have asked a federal appeals court to force OSHA to reinstate the safety rules for health-care workers.
OSHA, in a court filing, said it was unable to finish a permanent rule for health-care workers because its resources were tied up preparing the business mandate.
Hospitals around the U.S. are grappling with a surge of patients infected by the highly contagious omicron variant.
There are about 155,000 patients in U.S. hospitals with Covid, according to a seven-day average of Department of Health and Human Services data, higher than peak levels seen last winter but down 2.4% from one week ago.
Many hospitals are facing staff shortages as health-care professionals are forced to call out sick after getting infected with the omicron variant.
“Many places across the country are getting to the point where even their backup staff are getting sick,” Dr. Gillian Schmitz, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told CNBC earlier this month.
“Pretty much the whole country right now is feeling this surge of cases that is impacting staffing.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/covid-v ... -case.html