<There was a mainstream media race to the bottom recently, and The New York Times was the ringleader. The consequences were immediate, terrible, and may be felt for years to come.

Announcing the horrifying news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza, the Times made a series of deliberate and unconscionable choices that contorted the story, and in a way that may have contributed to lost lives.

Their headline "Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say" is abominable journalistic malpractice. Think of the editorial decisions involved here: repeating an inflammatory claim (an "Israeli strike"), one that is highly likely to provoke a violent response, one that is unsubstantiated and heavily disputed, and subtly bending the rules of writing by burying the extraordinarily suspect source of this allegation as an afterthought at the end of the headline.

Think of the decision to further whitewash the accusers by attributing the claim to generalized "Palestinians" rather than the "terrorist group Hamas," which was the actual source, and which is defined as a terrorist group by the U.S. government and numerous other Western allies.

As if there were any lingering doubt about who they are after Oct. 7.

Did I mention that they put the headline over a gruesome photo of a bombed-out building? A building that was somewhere else entirely, not associated with the hospital, and that was just an available and sensational image intended to amp up readers? Why not deepfake a mushroom cloud?

In the ensuing hours, one could watch the Gray Lady's "sorry, not sorry" back peddling in real time. Sorry in the sense that the Times did eventually change their headline as the evidence that they had been played mounted. Not sorry in the sense that they did everything possible to leave the reader with the exact same impression that they started with. First they took out the word "Israeli" but left the word "strike" and added a new, even more highly-charged photo. Then, they dialed back "strike" to the more neutral "blast" but added the subhead, "Israelis Say Misfired Palestinian Rocket Was Cause of Explosion."

When they want to emphasize that something is an unsubstantiated claim, and when the claimant is Israel, they remember to put the "source says" attribution first. Go figure.

Make no mistake: There is now video evidence, audio evidence, and the assessment of our own intelligence agencies that the blast was caused by a misfired rocket from another Palestinian terrorist group, Islamic Jihad. Yet, the Times has merely retreated to a mealy-mouthed hash that the facts are disputed and they "have not been independently verified." Go figure again.

So to sum up, the most prominent media institution on Earth decided to take an unproven allegation from a vicious terrorist group that 11 days earlier had murdered 1,300 innocent people, taken 200 hostages, and burned alive and decapitated their victims including children, and present it in the way that most served the propaganda aims of the terrorists.

And because they eliminated their public editor position, it was left to Twitter sleuths to call out the shameful episode, as well as their ham-handed attempts to cover their tracks....>

<.....This moment really matters, for three reasons.

First, and most immediately, the consequences are horrible. This was a huge win for terrorists. The media enabled them to spin a botched terror attack on Israel into a PR victory, one which stoked mass protests that have led to two deaths so far. The early coverage decisions left a mistaken impression that may turn the tide of world opinion—that Israel so desperately needs for its survival—permanently.

Second, it matters because it's The New York Times. If they establish a tone, other news organizations follow suit, and the herd mentality of timidity and bothsidesing from other news outfits has been obvious and growing. Which means that the media is actively helping some of the most repugnant, racist, violent murderers on Earth to muddy the waters on what they have done, and it is only getting worse. The Times could help change that. If they chose.

Third, like hearing a clock chime for a 13th time, this moment is not only wrong in itself, it calls the entire underlying mechanism into question. Democrats like me have spent years beating back attacks on the mainstream media by right-wing politicians with bad agendas. And to be clear: There is still no equivalence between The New York Times and Fox News, the latter being a full-time propaganda outlet for the Republican Party that doesn't even try to practice journalism or adhere to facts.

But it is hard for defenders to wave the recent coverage away. Does it mean all these media institutions are overcome by wokeness? Not necessarily. But does it suggest that they have been overtaken by weakness, a glaring awareness of the business reasons for playing to a social media-driven audience that is farther left than most Americans, and that will make the most noise? The Times just made that a lot harder to deny.

It pains me to write this. Growing up in New York City, my reverence for the Times was so great that as a high schooler, when I didn't have the money to buy a copy, from time to time I might have used a street trick that allowed me to pop open the old-fashioned newspaper vending machines to borrow a copy (after reading, I'd sometimes repeat the trick and put it back).

After this week, that credibility is fractured. And this time, they didn't just hurt themselves.>

<The rancor amongst Republicans in Washington over the House Speaker vacancy has some flinging insults and sinking to high school hallway social media blocking.

Rep. Greg Murphy, M.D. (R-NC) went tit-for-tat on Twitter/X with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) after she issued a statement earlier on Thursday that read:

"We should not go home until we have a Speaker."

The lawmakers are slinging word arrows after they and their counterparts failed to deliver Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) enough support to take over the Speaker reins.

Jordan, a hard-right backer of former President Donald Trump, has gone to the floor twice and failed to notch 217 votes to claim the speaker gig since it was left vacant when a small faction of Republicans voted to boot Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

The essence Mace's messaging, first reported by MSNBC's Tim Miller, is that lawmakers should dig in and not leave the Capital until a speaker is voted into power.

An hour later, it appears Murphy challenged Mace's call to stick it out in town with a reply to her comment.

Murphy posted: "How about apologizing for causing this mess?"

Quick to the draw, Mace then fired back.

"If you want to vote against the people who elected you that’s on you [Murphy], but I’m gonna stand with them, not Washington," she wrote. Then she claims Murphy gave her the stiff arm.

"For context," she tweeted. "Tried to reply but he blocked me after posting this. What a [cat emoji])."

Mace then posted a screenshot of Murphy's account, replete with idyllic ocean breakers and golden sand beaches, showing he blocked her on the social network.

This had Mace literally going below the belt with her comeback.

"This is exactly what’s wrong with this place - too many men here with no b-lls," the post says.>

<The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to revive a district court hearing to craft a new Louisiana congressional map that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had unceremoniously canceled in late September.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in concurrence to clarify that the Supreme Court was not greenlighting the Fifth Circuit’s interference in the case — which experts told TPM was bizarre.

“Nothing in our decision not to summarily reverse the Fifth Circuit should be taken to endorse the practice of issuing an extraordinary writ of mandamus in these or similar circumstances,” she wrote.

She continued on that she understood the Fifth Circuit’s canceling of the hearing to be solely in service of giving the Louisiana legislature time to consider alternative maps. Now that state officials have said that they won’t consider other maps while this case is pending, she said, she expects the crafting of the remedial maps by the lower court to continue as planned.

“The District Court will presumably resume the remedial process while the Fifth Circuit considers the State’s appeal of the preliminary injunction,” she wrote.

The Louisiana redistricting case is one that was tied to the Alabama decision the Supreme Court handed down this summer. It was a surprise victory for the Voting Rights Act, and led many experts to expect that contested maps in other states — Louisiana’s among them — would soon be knocked down in favor of those with greater minority representation. But red state officials have struggled mightily against that current.

In Louisiana, as the district judge scheduled a hearing to craft a remedial map, the better to have one ready to go if the state’s appeals fail, state officials lobbed a Hail Mary to the Fifth Circuit, asking the judges to cancel the hearing. In a highly unusual move, the Fifth Circuit panel complied.

Experts told TPM that it was “striking” to see an appellate court micromanaging a lower court’s docket this way. And they worried that the move from state officials — and acquiescence from the Fifth Circuit panel — is all in service of slow-walking fixing the maps, so the state has to conduct another election without crafting an additional likely Democratic House seat.>

<In a ruling with major implications for Donald Trump and hundreds of accused rioters charged with storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a federal court Friday again upheld a key finding in the felony conviction of a Virginia police officer who jurors agreed engaged in his own self-described “counterinsurgency” before obstructing Capitol police and disrupting congressional proceedings that day.

The former police officer is Thomas Robertson of Rocky Mount, Virginia, and the pivotal ruling was delivered by way of a 2-1 opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

A jury found Robertson, then 49, guilty on six counts, including five felonies. Those included: obstruction of an official proceeding, civil disorder, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds while carrying a dangerous weapon, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building while carrying a dangerous weapon; and tampering with a document or proceedings. Robertson was also found guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

It was the language of that obstruction charge — 18 USC § 1512 (c) — on which Robertson, and many Jan. 6 defense lawyers alike, have hung their hopes for a winning argument on appeal.

Specifically, Robertson had pointed to the use of the term “corruptly” in the statute when he sought to overturn the verdict. He argued that he did not storm the Capitol out of ill intent or maliciousness to target Congress and delay proceedings. Instead, he premised his appeal on the notion that he genuinely believed the 2020 election was “stolen” and felt he had a right to stalk the halls of the Capitol to express himself.

But the 80-page opinion from U.S. Circuit Judges Florence Pan, with a concurrence by U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, highlighted how the former police officer’s attempt to limit the word “corruptly” to “his preferred, single meaning is wholly unconvincing.”

“It finds no support in the statute and is contrary to precedent,” Pan wrote....>

<.....Robertson declared an intention to join a “counterinsurgency” and planned to engage in “open armed rebellion,” the judge noted, rolling through Robertson’s conduct at the Capitol.

Then off-duty from his work as a patrol sergeant for Rocky Mount, Virginia police, Roberston drove to Washington, D.C., with his friend and fellow off-duty officer Jacob Fracker. They came with gas masks and Robertson wielded a large wooden stick to push back officers ordering him to stand down or leave the overrun building altogether.

Pan noted Robertson used the stick to swing at police officers and wielded it in a show of intimidation by bashing it loudly on the ground. He also joined a crowd he described as “out of hand.” And he did this, the judges noted, as the mob continued “surging into the Capitol building despite the blaring of alarms and warnings by police officers that the area was restricted.”

Then once inside, Robertson “enthusiastically” joined the riot that had forced both houses of Congress to halt proceedings.

Before his arrest — but after authorities told him his arrest was imminent — Pan emphasized how Robertson then hid a phone containing key evidence before procuring another. On that phone, police found a text message where Robertson wrote, “anything that could have been problematic, has been destroyed.”

These factors combined with the brute force he deployed in the thick of the rioting proved he acted corruptly, the judges found.

“Using force to obstruct, influence, or impede a congressional proceeding is plainly wrongful and therefore corrupt,” Pan wrote.

Robertson was sentenced to 87 months, or just over seven years, in prison for his conduct at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The circuit court’s ruling also signaled that this case is very likely destined for the U.S. Supreme Court (citations omitted):

Whether [the statute] applies to defendants who obstruct Congress by means of only “minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses,” or by “non-criminal tortious activity,” is beyond the scope of our “limited” review and should be decided in a case that requires resolution of that question. Here, we have no trouble rejecting Robertson’s specific claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he acted “corruptly” when he participated in the Capitol riot. A jury could find that he used independently felonious means to obstruct a congressional proceeding, which falls within the core meaning of “corruptly.”

Critics of the “corruptly” verbiage, like Robertson, contend that his conduct was not “corrupt” because it was not done with the “consciousness of wrongdoing” or “knowing dishonesty.” To act “corruptly,” the argument goes, one would have to use unlawful means to achieve a desired unlawful purpose or outcome....>

<....Not so, the judges found — at least, not across the board.

“Not all attempts to obstruct or impede an official proceeding involve acting corruptly. For example, a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding, but he does not act corruptly. In contrast, an individual who obstructs or impedes a court proceeding by bribing a witness to refuse to testify in that proceeding, or by engaging in other independently unlawful conduct does act corruptly,” the ruling stated.

Although Robertson previously endorsed a district court’s definition of the phrase “corruptly,” now he argues that the proper definition of it holds a different meaning altogether, Pan noted. Robertson claims that the term describes only “an act dishonestly done ‘with a hope or expectation of either financial gain or other benefit to oneself or a benefit to another person,'” and that any benefit he could have hoped to derive from his action at the Capitol were “too remote.”

Unpersuaded, the opinion asserts that the plain meaning of the word satisfies his guilty convictions, while also acknowledging that it “[does] not write on a clean slate” in terms of defining ‘corruptly.'”

Congress has not defined the word in the statute to mean something else, either.

In an Enron-related case before the Supreme Court in 2005, the high court found the “natural meaning of ‘corruptly'” was clear when it was associated with “wrongful, immoral, depraved or evil” acts. This April, a federal appeals court found that Jan. 6 rioters could in fact be prosecuted for obstructing Congress but the question of the language of “corrupt” divided the panel. In a dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker essentially argued that for something to be corrupt, there must be an unlawful benefit obtained.

Walker, however, was bested by the court majority which found Robertson was properly tried, charged and convicted nonetheless due to the reams of evidence jurors found proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted unlawfully in a bid to keep Trump in power.

In Friday’s ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson dissented, saying that Robertson only meant to protest the election results and did not seek another benefit. Hundreds of other Jan. 6 rioters have been charged with the statute, including none other than former President Trump.>

<With the Capitol in chaos and the speaker’s position going on its third week of vacancy, Rep. Matt Gaetz surveyed the consequences of his actions and declared he had no regrets.

“I have extreme confidence,” the Florida Republican said in an interview from his Capitol Hill office, “that we will have an upgrade at the position.”

The House has had no speaker since Gaetz made a motion to vacate the position, then joined on Oct. 3 with seven other Republicans and 208 Democrats to oust Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) from the role. Rep. Jim Jordan, the archconservative Ohio Republican whom Gaetz calls a mentor, this week failed on three ballots to secure the majority of the body’s votes, losing support on each roll call and then bowing out of the race Friday afternoon. No one else seems to have a clear path to 217 GOP votes for the position.

Many of his colleagues blame Gaetz for the paralysis and acrimony that have ensued. When Gaetz rose to speak in a closed-door party meeting on Thursday, McCarthy told him to “sit your ass down,” and another Republican, Rep. Mike Bost of Illinois, cursed and lunged at Gaetz.

Asked about the encounter afterward, McCarthy told reporters, “Listen, the whole country, I think, would scream at Matt Gaetz right now.”

Any majority party is bound to have divisions. But the upheavals that have racked the House GOP since January are less a reflection of any coherent faction than one man’s singular will. It was Gaetz who took it upon himself to block McCarthy from the speakership in January, joining with 19 others to deny him a majority until he agreed to crippling concessions. One of those was the ability for a single member to bring the motion to vacate, which Gaetz then deployed to remove McCarthy this month. Gaetz doesn’t have a posse: He isn’t a member of the rabble-rousing Freedom Caucus, and his anti-McCarthy crusades haven’t been joined by his fellow far-right provocateur, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Only half the members who joined him in forcing out McCarthy this month were members of the group he assembled to block McCarthy nine months ago. Instead, Gaetz, a canny student of procedure with a knack for tapping the conservative zeitgeist, has taken it upon himself to assemble a shifting band of dissidents. And up to now, he’s been dramatically successful.

To many Republicans, the hair-gelled Gaetz is personally responsible for not only sparking the current chaos but setting a destructive precedent that continues to hobble the body, as small minorities assemble to block any speaker from being elected. Colleagues have called him a “charlatan,” a “vile person” and a “Republican running with scissors.” Former Speaker Paul Ryan said on CNBC, “What Matt Gaetz did is a disgrace.” Rep. John Rutherford, one of 20 Republican holdouts who consistently didn’t support Jordan for speaker, explained his opposition: “I’m a no on allowing Matt Gaetz and the other seven to win by putting their individual in as speaker.”

While critics accuse Gaetz of attention-mongering, he insists he is about outcomes, not headlines. He says he has received a flood of approving feedback from conservatives across the country. “Chaos doesn’t scare me! American decline does,” he wrote on social media late Thursday. Gaetz accuses McCarthy of breaking promises for how he would handle spending bills, which McCarthy allies deny.

In the interview, Gaetz argued that McCarthy left him no choice. “The motion to vacate occurred because those of us who fought for a better way back in January were losing credibility with our own voters,” he said. “Things we told them were going to happen hadn’t happened, and it became increasingly clear that McCarthy had no plan to make them happen.”

Politics is the family business for Gaetz, 41 years old, whose grandfather was a Republican legislator in North Dakota and whose father, Don Gaetz, served as president of the Florida Senate. (Forced out by term limits in 2016, Don Gaetz this month announced he is running to retake his old seat.) The younger Gaetz grew up in Seaside, Fla., a planned community west of Tallahassee, in the house where the movie “The Truman Show” was filmed. In three terms in the Florida House, he relished sparring with Democrats but also prided himself on unconventional stances, passing legislation legalizing gay adoption and medical marijuana. In 2016, Gaetz was elected to represent a safe Republican congressional seat in the Panhandle....>

<.....“He was the privileged son of one of the most powerful politicians in Florida, and he walked into a congressional seat without much effort, so there were very low expectations for him” in Washington, said David Jolly, a former Republican congressman from Florida. “The harder road was to develop the legislative and political acumen sufficient to take down a speaker of the House, and he did that in just six years—credit where credit is due.” Gaetz, Jolly said, has successfully positioned himself as a hero to Donald Trump’s movement and the front-runner for the 2026 GOP gubernatorial nomination should he choose to seek it. “He’s a perfect reflection of Trumpism and what the Republican base wants today.”

Gaetz has publicly denied he is considering a gubernatorial bid despite widespread reports he is sounding out allies in private. Should Gaetz become the favorite for the GOP nomination, Jolly, who left the Republican Party in 2018, said he would consider getting in the race as a Democrat.

In Congress, Gaetz styled himself a pro-Trump populist. He also faced lurid accusations and was investigated by the Justice Department for allegations of sex trafficking, which he denied. The investigation was closed without charges this year, but the House Ethics Committee continues to probe Gaetz. An enthusiastic exponent of Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, Gaetz continues to champion those imprisoned for their role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot as “political prisoners.”

During his years in the minority, Gaetz studied the tactics of the left-wing Squad—the name coined by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for the informal group of younger, progressive House Democrats—viewing them as role models in asymmetric power....>

<.....In last year’s midterm elections, he recruited like-minded candidates to increase his clout, most of whom lost when the predicted “red wave” failed to materialize. But Gaetz recognized that the thin GOP majority that resulted worked to his advantage, reducing to single digits the number of votes any leader could afford to lose on party-line legislation—or a vote to become speaker. The result was January’s messy, dayslong, 15-ballot ordeal. During one late-night floor session, Rep. Richard Hudson (R., N.C.), physically restrained Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), as Rogers lunged toward Gaetz. Gaetz and his allies finally voted “present” in the 15th round, allowing McCarthy to take up the gavel in exchange for changes to the House’s function, including the single-member motion to vacate.

In the months since, Gaetz bided his time, scrutinizing McCarthy’s leadership, waiting to make his move. It wasn’t something he did on the spur of the moment. Rather, he said, he made up his mind while the House was on vacation in August.

Touring the country, Gaetz said he felt a weighty obligation to the millions of Americans whose awareness—and expectations—he’d raised with his actions during the speaker fight. “I heard the same message from people: ‘Why have you guys not done more?’” he said. “‘Why does the House Republican conference look like the surrender brigade? Didn’t you have a motion to vacate in the event of noncompliance with your January agreement?’”

In the speakerless weeks since he pulled the trigger, Gaetz has tried to be strategic, fading into the background at times and speaking little in the conference meetings he terms “struggle sessions.” Recognizing that he might hurt more than help his cause of electing a new, more conservative speaker, he has sought to avoid further inflaming his colleagues. On Tuesday he apologized for a fundraising email that called the Jordan holdouts “RINOs”—Republicans in Name Only—saying it was sent by his campaign without his approval. McCarthy on Wednesday suggested the email was responsible for losing Jordan votes.

As the House feuded last week, Gaetz jetted to Florida to co-headline an event with Trump, who shouted him out as “a big celebrity.” Asked on Fox News Radio whether Gaetz’s actions had hurt the party, Trump said it depended. “Maybe we’ll end up with one of the great speakers of all time, in which case Matt Gaetz did a tremendous favor,” the former president mused. On a recent episode of his “Firebrand” podcast, Gaetz touted “the America First vision for public policy—that’s what I represent, that’s what President Trump represents, and undeniably it is what Jim Jordan represents.”

On Friday, Gaetz failed in a last-ditch effort to boost Jordan. He and a few others who voted against McCarthy offered to be censured or kicked out of the party, if in exchange Jordan foes dropped their opposition to his speaker bid. Colleagues dismissed the offer as a stunt, and a majority of Republicans voted behind closed doors for Jordan to end his quest.

Whether McCarthy is replaced by a similar figure or a more conservative one, Gaetz wins either way, said Liam Donovan, a Republican lobbyist. If a conservative wins it would make Gaetz a hero to the right; otherwise it would further his argument that the D.C. “cartel” is conspiring to frustrate conservatives’ aims.

“It just sets up the grievance-based grift that powered him to this point,” Donovan said. “Matt Gaetz can’t do anything but win in this situation.”>

<It was a bad place to keep a secret.

When Republicans gathered on December 14, 2020, claiming to be legitimate electors casting the state's 16 electoral votes for Donald Trump, they met at the Georgia Capitol in a room just upstairs from the building's public entrance. A Trump campaign official asked for the electors' “complete discretion,” telling them to say only that they were meeting with two state senators who were there.

“Your duties are imperative to ensure the end result — a win in Georgia for President Trump — but will be hampered unless we have complete secrecy and discretion," Robert Sinners wrote in an email uncovered by investigators.

But reporters for The Associated Press and other news organizations noticed the Republicans entering the building and were eventually admitted into the room, where they photographed and recorded video of the proceeding. In the chaotic weeks after the 2020 election, the gathering's significance wasn't immediately clear. But it has emerged as a critical element to the prosecution of Trump and 18 others who were indicted by a Georgia grand jury in August for efforts to overturn Democrat Joe Biden's narrow win in the state.

The meeting was cited as a central element in court proceedings Friday as part of a last-minute deal with attorney Kenneth Chesebro, who pleaded guilty to one felony charge of conspiracy to commit filing false documents. Chesebro, who prosecutors have said helped originate the plan for Republican electors to meet in states where Biden was certified as the winner, is now one of three people who have pleaded guilty in the case. Attorney Sidney Powell pleaded guilty Thursday to six misdemeanors accusing her of intentionally interfering with the performance of election duties as part of a broader conspiracy prosecutors say violated Georgia's anti-racketeering law.

While Democrats met in the ornate state Senate chamber to cast electoral votes for Biden, the Republicans sat around three worn and nicked wooden conference tables to consider options for keeping Trump in the White House. In the language of the case laid out by prosecutors, these were “fake" or “false” or “fraudulent” electors. At least eight Georgia Republican electors present that day have agreed to testify in exchange for immunity from state charges.

The meeting was led by David Shafer, then chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. Lending it the air of an official proceeding, a court reporter was present, something Shafer denied during questioning by Fulton County prosecutors in April 2022. That denial contributed to a charge of false statements and writings against Shafer.

More improvised elements of the meeting became clear as the group considered its officers. Shawn Still, who is now a state senator, wasn't initially elected as secretary, for instance. But halfway through the meeting, Shafer noted that Still’s name was printed as the secretary on documents.

“I would like to avoid reprinting the documents,” Shafer said, asking the electors to replace another Republican with Still.

One of only three people the grand jury indicted for participating in the vote, Still may have been dragged into legal jeopardy when he was elected secretary. The third indicted elector, Cathy Latham, was also charged for helping outsiders access state voting equipment in south Georgia's Coffee County....>

<....As the meeting unfolded, the Republicans sought to replace four electors who were previously lined up to support Trump. One had registered to vote in Alabama and was no longer eligible. State Sen. Burt Jones, later elected lieutenant governor with Trump’s backing, took his spot.

Three other electors didn’t show up, including John Isakson Jr., son of late Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson. Isakson told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in 2022 that he stayed away because the meeting seemed like “political gamesmanship.”

Prosecutors allege Shafer and Still committed yet more felonies by creating a document claiming to fill those vacancies. State law says that action needed Gov. Brian Kemp’s consent. The Republican governor had days earlier certified Biden as Georgia's winner for a second time after a recount.

Sinners, the Trump official, printed new elector certificates on a noisy portable printer. The racket of the machine gave the meeting a mundane, bureaucratic feel in an unadorned space usually set aside for state lawmakers to host constituents.

One by one, the 16 Republicans were called. Each rose and walked to the table, signing certificates pronouncing Trump and then-Vice President Mike Pence as the preferred choice of Georgia voters. That’s the moment, grand jurors allege, when they committed the felonies for which they’ve been charged: impersonating a public officer, first degree forgery and making false statements in writing.

“They were fake electors; they were impersonating electors. They were no electors," Fulton County prosecutor Anna Cross told a federal judge in September, adding there was no evidence that Shafer, Still, Latham or other Republicans believed Trump had actually won.

Their defenders call them “alternate” or “contingent” electors, saying they were just trying to keep Trump's legal options open as a lawsuit challenged Georgia's election results. Some Republicans argue Trump never got a fair shake in Georgia because that lawsuit was never tried, despite a state law calling for election challenges to be heard within 20 days. A Georgia Republican Party website raising money to defend electors calls them “patriots who served."

“If we did not hold this meeting, then our election contest would effectively be abandoned,” Shafer said during the December meeting, talking to attorney Ray Smith, who was there advising the electors and was also indicted. “And so the only way for us to have any judge consider the merits of our complaint, the thousands of people who we allege voted unlawfully, is for us to have this meeting.”

Shafer defended his actions then and now by citing an episode that played out in Hawaii in 1960. Democrats met that year after Republican Richard Nixon was certified as the state’s winner and sent three electoral votes to the U.S. Senate backing John F. Kennedy.

Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, signed a July 11 declaration concluding actions by Shafer and other Georgia Republican electors were “lawful, reasonable, proper and necessary” considering the election contest and the Hawaii precedent.

Lawyers for the indicted electors argue it was up to Congress to determine which slates should be counted.

But Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ office, in a court filing, disputed Shafer’s claim that the actions of Georgia Republicans in 2020 bore any similarity to those of Hawaii Democrats in 1960. Her staff cites a major distinction — Democrats eventually won a recount in Hawaii that a court affirmed and the governor certified, sending official documents to the Senate.

“The factual situations are so readily distinguishable as to make the comparison meaningless,” Willis’ team wrote, arguing against Shafer’s attempt to remove his case to federal court. Willis’ office wrote that the Republican meeting “was used to further a clumsy but relentless pressure campaign on the vice president and state legislatures, and as a means to publicly undermine the legitimate results of the presidential election.”

Sinners, the Trump campaign staffer who helped arrange the meeting, now rejects its purpose. He denies the notion that Trump won Georgia and now works for Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state who came to national attention for rebuffing pressure from the then-president to “find” enough votes to ensure his win. Sinners cooperated with the U.S. House committee that investigated the violent insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. He hasn't said whether he's cooperating with Willis.

In an interview, he made his regrets clear about what unfolded in the Georgia Capitol during one of the most turbulent periods in American politics.

<Arkansas Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed an executive order this week banning the use of certain words for government employees and official government documents.

"We are all here today to say, frankly, that we've had enough," Sanders said during a press conference Thursday. "Enough trying to erase women and girls, enough denying our biological differences from men, and enough of the craziness that is taking over our country.

"I've had the honor of being both the first woman and the first mother to serve as the governor of Arkansas. Before that, I was the first mother and only the third woman to serve as the White House press secretary. Because of that, I came into this role with a few pretty unique experiences. Among them is giving birth to three amazing kids. That experience underscored to me that a woman's perspective is important and fundamentally different from a man's."

Sanders went on to criticize some on the left for their use of what she called "nonsense words to erase women and girls and more importantly, to erase our voices and experiences."

Many conservatives have taken aim at the idea of a "woke" agenda this year and have criticized issues relating to members of the LGBTQ+ and transgender community, such as seeking to stop transgender women from competing in female sports.

It is an executive order that's drawing strong mixed reactions.

According to her executive order, these are the words Sanders banned in official government use and the words that should be used instead.

Instead of using the terms "pregnant people" or "pregnant person," Sanders calls for the use of the word, "pregnant mom."

Instead of the terms "chestfeeding," "body fed" or "person fed," use the terms "breastfeeding" or "breast fed."

Instead of the term "human milk," the executive order requires the use of "breast milk."

Instead of the terms "birthing person" or "laboring person," use the term, "birth mom."

Use the terms woman or women, instead of "menstruating person," "menstruating people" or "birth-giver."

Instead of the terms "womxn" or "womyn," use "woman."

"All state offices, departments, boards, and commissions are prohibited from using exclusionary, sexist language in official state government business, effective immediately," Sanders wrote in the executive order.

Many of the terms that Sanders banned in official state government use are focused on gender-neutral issues and can be used to refer to transgender or non-binary individuals. A poll commissioned by Newsweek and conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies this year found that 50 percent of Gen Z respondents opposed the use of "guys" to refer to both males and females in the workplace.

"There is an argument that the term 'guys' is gender-neutral," Sacha Thompson, the founder of the inclusive consulting firm The Equity Equation, told Newsweek following the release of the poll in April. "However, let's make a word switch. Would there be the same gender-neutral positioning if a mixed-gendered group was referred to as 'gals' or 'ladies'? I'm sure some men would take offense."

Newsweek was directed to Sanders' press conference after reaching out to her office for comment.>

<Michigan's attorney general has reached a cooperation deal with one of the 16 Republicans who signed a certificate falsely claiming that Donald Trump won the state's 2020 presidential election.

James Renner, 76, could serve as a witness in future legal proceedings as state prosecutors pursue charges against 15 other Republicans who signed the false certificate on December 14, 2020. The deal between Renner and Attorney General Dana Nessel says that the former will cooperate fully with law enforcement to provide information about "Michigan false slate of electors."

The agreement between Nessel's office and Renner of Lansing, Michigan, could open the potential for Georgia-style criminal proceedings against yet more Trump supporters involved in alleged tampering in the election.

The deal with Renner was revealed at an Ingham County District Court hearing on Thursday morning. Judge Kristen Simmons granted a motion to drop eight felony charges against Renner, The Detroit News newspaper reported.

It also noted that Simmons granted a request for a mental evaluation of another Trump elector, Timothy King of Ypsilanti, whose lawyer, Michael Vincent, said in court that King suffered delusional" and illogical thinking. He added that it had been difficult to get his client to focus on the serious charges he's facing. The dismissal came the same day lawyer Sidney Powell, who brought an unsuccessful lawsuit to overturn Michigan's 2020 election, pleaded guilty to reduced charges in Georgia as part of a deal with prosecutors there.

Renner could testify in future legal proceedings as state prosecutors pursue charges against 15 other Republicans who signed the false certificate on December 14, 2020. Renner was one of two Republicans who filled in for previously selected Trump electors who couldn't attend the gathering at Michigan's Republican headquarters.

Joe Biden won Michigan, but Trump and his supporters wrongly claimed the election was rigged. As part of the push to undermine Biden's victory, Trump backers allegedly schemed to replace Michigan's electoral-college representatives with Republicans. They gathered in the basement of the then-Michigan Republican Party headquarters on December 14, 2020, and signed a certificate, claiming to cast the state's 16 electoral votes for Trump.

In the documents, they claimed to be "the duly and qualified electors" convening in Michigan's Capitol to cast votes as required by Congress. After walking to the Capitol, Michigan State Police turned them away at the door, as the true electors had already been there and signed the correct certificate.

Eventually, the Republican false certificate was sent to the National Archives and Congress.

The fake certificates were ignored, but the attempt has been subject to investigations, including by the U.S. House committee that investigated the January 6, 2021 riots in the U.S. Capitol.

With Renner's cooperation agreement, charges remain pending against 15 of the 16 false electors. Among them are Shelby Township Clerk Stan Grot and former Michigan Republican Party Co-Chairwoman Meshawn Maddock, who, in July, pleaded not guilty to eight felony charges.>

<A Chinese newspaper has given an ominous warning to the United States, claiming it is "inciting the risk of war on a global scale."

A Friday editorial from the Global Times, a nationalistic English-language tabloid published by the propaganda department of the ruling Communist Party, criticized the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on China's military power.

The Pentagon's report, which was released on Thursday, detailed China's strengthening nuclear capabilities, resistance to military-to-military communications with the U.S., expansion of national power, deepening ties to Russia as well as the country's provocative actions in the Indo-Pacific region, specifically in and around the Taiwan Strait.

The Global Times, whose views do not always reflect official policy in China, called the intel gathered in the Pentagon's report "malicious speculations and smears," adding that the U.S. was trying to "fabricate a terrifying image of China."

Speaking on China's heightened showing of military force in Taiwan in recent years, which the Department of Defense (DOD) detailed as ballistic missile overflights, increased flights into Taiwan's self-declared air defense identification zone and large-scale simulated joint blockade and simulated joint firepower strike operations, the Pentagon's report outlines six scenarios that could prompt China to take military action. unrestricted and unburdened interactions between people across the Strait.

However, the Global Times claimed in its editorial titled, "China's military power only makes those with malicious intent feel 'threatened,'" that it is rather the U.S. who has been provoking tensions in the Indo-Pacific region.

"In the past year, the actions of the US military have made it even clearer who the escalating threat in the Asia-Pacific region truly is and what poses the greatest challenge to peace and stability in that region," the Chinese media outlet said.

Meanwhile, the DOD has budgeted over $9 billion to the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which aims at keeping the Indo-Pacific region open. In addition, the U.S. has sent "its most modern and capable weapons systems" to the region, according to the department.

Former Indo-Pacific Command chief Admiral Harry Harris warned this week that China might attempt to invade Taiwan within this decade. Meanwhile, Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen said earlier this month that peace with China was "the only option."

In its Friday editorial, the Global Times also warned that "the real danger facing the US does not actually stem from its imagined challenge to its position of leadership by China. Rather, it arises from its excessive interventions and the blowback resulting from creating tension and inciting the risk of war on a global scale."

Newsweek reached out to the DOD and China's Ministry of National Defense via email for comment.>

<On Oct. 4, a small group of Republican Party rebels did what no one had done before and removed the speaker of the House from office in a mid-Congress floor vote. These eight members, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), tossed Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) aside and left the House speakerless for two weeks and counting.

Subsequent efforts to find a replacement have failed. First, Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) won a closed-door party vote to be the party’s choice for speaker ahead of a floor vote. But he was immediately rejected by the same rebels who overthrew McCarthy, and he withdrew before he hit the floor.

Then came Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a verbal-bomb-throwing, election-denying, hard-line Trumpist conservative who gained the backing of the rebels as well as McCarthy and Scalise. This time, a coalition of Appropriations Committee members, vulnerable New Yorkers and enigmatic lawmakers teamed up to reject him — three times now. It’s unclear what’s going to happen next.

All of this may leave one wondering what the hell is going on in the House, and more specifically, with the Republican Party. To answer this, I decided to ask Daniel Schlozman, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University and an expert on political party history and behavior.

Schlozman, along with his co-author, Colgate University political scientist Sam Rosenfeld, has written a series of papers explaining how the political parties have been hollowed out to the point where they lack the ability to impose order on their elected members and how the hollow shell of the Republican Party has been filled by a political movement — the New Right — that prioritizes a “commitment to conflict and the ruthless instrumentalism toward institutions” above all else. This research is the subject of their forthcoming book, “The Hollow Parties: The Many Pasts and Disordered Present of American Party Politics.” Our interview has been edited for clarity and length.

To start, what is your take on what is going on with Republicans in the House?

In a broad sense, there is a faction on the right, the Freedom Caucus,that is interested in performative antics — demonstrating their commitment to making trouble, worried about leaders who will sell them out — and not interested in the work of governing. They have been empowered by a very, very narrow majority, and their tendencies have infected the whole party. You combine the narrow majority and the tendencies, which long predated Trump, and you get to the present mess.

I think it’s worth going through the history. The Freedom Caucus emerged from the tea party, which rose as a right-wing faction in the late ’00s. At the time, the tea party was mischaracterized as small government zealots, but immigration was really more salient. And when Donald Trump takes office, he clashes with the Freedom Caucus over repealing Obamacare in 2017. But they then become his most ardent defenders.

Their consistent role has been being the big, nasty thing making trouble for Republican leaders. That then takes on a much more public-facing role, with people like Rep. Matt Gaetz, the libertine, Fox-News-attention-seeking player, as their most visible voices.

What’s the route to power and success in the Republican Party today? This is where Fox News becomes so important as the vessel through which a lot of the wilder instincts are channeled, as the entertainment complex that is leading the policy story rather than just responding to it. The party press goes back to the 19th century, but that particular manifestation is new.

Through it, you get Matt Gaetz going from an entertaining and mockable figure to getting some influence by being on television a lot, to Matt Gaetz as the dry, institutional actor. It is more substantial than it seems.

Republican leaders getting deposed in the House because they are not doctrinaire enough is a very, very old story. Everybody does it. Bob Michel gives way to Newt Gingrich by saying he won’t run for reelection, but it’s very clear Gingrich would challenge him and win. Boehner. Ryan.

Doing it mid-Congress is really, really new. As is the fact that the world that has produced the rebels is not the right-wing policy world, but from the wild world of the right-wing media complex. That is what is distinctive about this.....>

<.....When we talk about what’s new here, you’ve described the parties as being hollowed out and replaced by para-party blobs — an amorphous collection of nonprofits, think tanks, media companies and fundraising groups. Is this lack of structure fueling what’s going on in the House? You mentioned Fox News — who do you see among these para-party groups as the primary actors?

Figures like Fox News have such a prominent role because the parties have ceded theirs. To answer the question is to imagine an alternative universe in which there is much more gatekeeping against this conservative media complex — in which Republicans see the route Gaetz took to success, as this entertaining buffoon, and say, “We will not allow that person in any way to dictate our strategy.”

And so, it is a story both of people like Gaetz and also the story of why there aren’t adults in the room. Why is it that the people who were supposed to come up with a responsible conservatism seem to have whiffed time and time again? They never really get it. They don’t organize. They play short-term deals. They talk about character and principles, and that’s nice to have individually, but you have to organize together.

The world that has produced the rebels is not the right-wing policy world, but from the wild world of the right-wing media complex. That is what is distinctive about this.Daniel Schlozman, Johns Hopkins University Look at the incentives of the McCarthy disruptors. You start by asking whether you are going to get the things you want in the House. And what you can get are, first, policy outcomes. Second, you can move up in the chamber. Just look at Marjorie Taylor Greene serving as Kevin McCarthy’s lieutenant and whip. This fitness instructor in her second term is doing what it takes folks decades to do. And, third, you can aim for long-term options, like becoming a figure of influence outside of the House. This is where you can see the rebels’ incentives, because a lot of their goals are, in a sense, to be on television and to be an influencer more than they are to exercise power in the old-fashioned way.

So the question is, why is gaining influence in the right-wing media and movement ecosystem the goal for the anti-McCarthy rebels? It’s because you’ve got this conservative movement that survives on antics. They’re not interested in governing; this is what they’re interested in. You start with insights like those, and the patterns we are seeing start to make more sense. They see chaos as a strategy. There’s some substance concerns about who gave away what, but mostly it is about, “Why are we not using our control over the House for more performance and drama and confrontation?” McCarthy had not done enough of it for those who were toppling him.

As for Jordan, he can’t make it because he’s just a very factional figure. Take a classic congressional analysis and look at the DW-Nominate scale; that gives you a sense of a member’s ideology within the chamber, and Jordan is in the 93rd percentile most conservative in the caucus. It’s just really hard to be that far out on an extreme. The Freedom Caucus types have the power to dominate the conversation and to dethrone, but at really just a basic level, if you’re going to govern, you need to do so with the broad authority of your members. It shows that while Republicans are not a “normal party” in any way, that some laws of standard-issue parliamentary politics hold.

It seems that there are two major explanations given by Matt Gaetz and the others who ousted McCarthy: One, he worked with Democrats to reach deals on government funding and the debt limit, and two, there is an opposition to the structure of the House under the strong speaker system. How much weight should we give to each of these rationales?

It’s the job of the researcher to understand the motivations of the survey respondents, not the job of the survey respondents to describe their own motivations. And the second thing you’re supposed to do is figure out what’s actually motivating them, no matter what they say.

Every set of dissidents has a mixture of different motives. Whenever you say the speaker is too strong, you can argue against the speaker’s power and get support from other members who are restive. And that’s real, but it’s not enough to explain why they are rebelling now. Junior members always want more influence and complain about the centralization of power under the speaker.

But you’ll notice that the rebels have not actually suggested a real alternative. The institutional alternative to speaker power is committee power. But they don’t trust the committees, which have staff they don’t trust. The committees are trying to do policy. The staff is deep in these policy communities. They may be beholden to interest groups.....>

<....What the rebels want to do is move power away from the speaker to themselves and their media friends and the movement. So, there’s not really an institutional solution here. There’s some hope that there’s some magic procedural trick that will give them more power than they’ve got. It’s chaos for its own sake.

And it is creating narratives of betrayal that can be used down the line. That we could have had this, but for their perfidy. Those narratives are not really about what we could have had, they are about the claim that others are insufficiently loyal to the cause. That is the central dynamic that is going on.

You’ve got this conservative movement that survives on antics. They’re not interested in governing; this is what they’re interested in. You start with insights like those, and the patterns we are seeing start to make more sense. They see chaos as a strategy.

Schlozman

As to the solutions, because we can see the solutions are not going to work for them, it’s not worth going too deep down that road. Instead, look at the narrative they’re reproducing: “McCarthy promised us in January he wouldn’t betray us, and then he betrayed us just like they’ve betrayed us before. We are anti-anti-their opponents, and we’ve been sold out.” This is basically the same thing since Joe McCarthy came up and said the State Department sold us out and “Who lost China?” That they are not thinking like typical Congresspeople is almost the point.

To say, “These guys are really powerful now and we’re going to take them seriously” does not mean we need to take them literally. We have to think through what their power means for Congress, the American political system, the Republican Party, but that doesn’t mean thinking through what their proposals are or that we need to write an explainer about them.

You were talking about narratives of betrayal, which have a very long history on the right and have become the underlying political mythology of the right under Trump. Do you think that the purpose of these rebellions within the right is the reproduction of this mythology, rather than achievement of other outcomes?

There is very much a myth that is being created. No matter how this drama ends, with who’s running the House for the next year-plus, it will end with a betrayal. And the idea [that] there were consequences for betrayal, but we still need to make sure that we do not have this betrayal in the future because the people we thought were our friends betrayed us. We can see that narrative being constructed every day....>

<....As with all great stories like this, the details matter less than the feeling after you’ve heard the story, that you’ve been emotionally moved and you understand what this story has done to you. It’s been both a call to principle and a call to action.

On the other side, why isn’t this happening to Democrats? Nancy Pelosi held Democrats together despite significant disagreements over the course of her two stints as speaker. And Hakeem Jeffries, at least so far, has kept centrist Democrats from breaking off to reach an agreement with Republicans on the speaker.

Democrats haven’t been able to articulate a sense of their political project, but it’s basically a functional, normal political party. It’s notable that Jeffries got every @#$%*!& Democratic vote.

That it’s not happening on the Democratic side makes you say we should not look for explanations like “the parties cannot organize in Congress anymore.” No, if one of these parties has its act together and the other doesn’t, then we look to that other party. That there is not a story on the Democratic side is less that there’s a great “puzzle” there, but more that the puzzle is on the Republican side.

If Republicans are the puzzle here, what would you say is the purpose of the Republican Party at this point?

Their purpose is to win elections. Whether or not they succeed at it is another story. When Martin Van Buren created the mass party in the 1820s, it was “All for the party and nothing for the man,” and the idea there is some subordination — this was something Pelosi was very good at — that there is some subordination of individual ambition for the collective good of the party. The idea was that, in subordinating individual initiative, the party itself could gain power and distribute the perquisites of office to the members who then lash themselves to the mast of the party.

That is not the ethos of the contemporary Republican Party. When that is not your ethos, then the question arises: What is this party all about? It’s about the dominance of social forces that are behind figures like Matt Gaetz, but in ways that prioritize their own desires for chaos, troublemaking and betrayal narratives.

The creation of narratives that are themselves a justification for action. It can even be a justification for explaining betrayals when other Republicans are collaborating with liberals, who are the enemy. For a lot of Republicans, it is, “If we collaborate with McCarthy, who is passing bills with the Democrats, then we are complicit in the great crimes of liberalism. If we really, really want to own the libs, we cannot countenance the ordinary politics of getting a House in order that means the libs and Joe Biden, and behind him, the dark forces that are modern liberalism, are given legitimacy and power. We then need to take measures that are beyond what our lily-livered predecessors would have done.”>

<An agency set up under Donald Trump to protect elections and key U.S. infrastructure from foreign hackers is now fighting off increasingly intense threats from hard-right Republicans who argue it’s gone too far and are looking for ways to rein it in.

These lawmakers insist work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices and infringes upon free speech rights — an allegation the agency vehemently denies and the Biden administration is contesting in court. The accusations started in the wake of the 2020 election and are ramping up ahead of 2024, with lawmakers now calling for crippling cuts at the agency.

“CISA has blatantly violated the First Amendment and colluded with Big Tech to censor the speech of ordinary Americans,” Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which oversees CISA, said in a statement to POLITICO.

The fight over CISA underscores yet another way Trump’s election fraud claims are reverberating into 2024. And though the hard right doesn’t have enough votes to defund CISA today, the growing backlash against it has supporters worried that a hard-right faction could hobble the agency in the years ahead — undermining its efforts not just to secure future elections, but also protect key U.S. and federal networks from major hacks. CISA had broad bipartisan support in Congress when lawmakers passed legislation creating the agency in 2018. At the ceremony where Trump signed it into law, he called it “very, very important legislation” to protect the U.S. against both nation-state hackers and cybercriminals.

But when Chris Krebs, the then-head of CISA, debunked Trump’s 2020 election fraud claims, the president fired him. And since the GOP assumed control of the House in 2022, like-minded Republicans have been ratcheting up their scrutiny of the agency.

In June, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jim Jordan of Ohio, issued a fiery report labeling CISA “the nerve center” of the federal government’s censorship apparatus. Then at the end of September, more than 100 House Republicans launched an unsuccessful bid to dramatically slash CISA’s $3 billion budget by 25 percent. And earlier this month, Republican attorneys general, who had taken CISA and other federal agencies to court over possible First Amendment violations, won new restrictions against it.

The Supreme Court temporarily froze those restrictions on Friday, allowing the government to continue working with social media platforms until it has a chance to review the case itself.

In addition to election security, CISA protects government computer networks and essential private sector institutions, like chemical manufacturers, schools and hospitals, from both physical and digital sabotage. Of the agency’s $3 billion budget, roughly $45 million is dedicated to election security, according to internal figures shared with POLITICO by the agency. A fraction of that, less than $2 million, goes to combating foreign influence operations and disinformation.

“Defunding CISA is inviting a Chinese and/or Russia cyberattack against our government and thousands of costly ransomware attacks against small and medium-sized businesses,” Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee’s cyber subcommittee, said in a text message.

Conservatives’ frustrations with CISA stem from work it started five years ago to prevent the brand of online influence operations Russian hackers deployed in the run-up to the 2016 elections.

Up to the 2022 election, CISA coordinated regular calls between social media platforms and federal agencies on election-related disinformation. Through the 2020 elections, it also engaged in a practice known as “switchboarding,” in which the agency forwarded tips about hoaxes it received from state and local election authorities to companies like Facebook and X, (formerly Twitter).

Conservatives now argue that activity has become a smokescreen for left-leaning government censorship. In Congress and within the courts, they contend that pressure from federal agencies like CISA led social media companies to limit the spread of information perceived as damaging to Joe Biden’s campaign, such as stories relating to Hunter Biden.

In a sign of trouble for an agency once boasting strong bipartisan support, 108 Republicans supported the failed push to cut CISA’s budget last month — a near majority within the conference....>

<.....Backers of the budget cut included a swathe of increasingly influential hard-right lawmakers, like Jordan and James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House Oversight Committee. Those with direct oversight over CISA also backed the vote, such as the chief of the Homeland Security Committee, Mark Green (R-Tenn.), and another panel member, August Pfluger (R-Texas).

CISA vehemently denies the allegations against it. It contends that it acted only as an intermediary and never pressured social media platforms to censor specific posts. “CISA does not and has never censored speech or facilitated censorship,” spokesperson Avery Mulligan said in a statement.

CISA supporters also argue the allegations are overblown and outdated, pointing out that the agency halted its switchboarding activity ahead of the 2022 election. Some argue that CISA’s role in rebutting Trump’s claims in 2020 left Republicans hungry for payback.

“To criticize CISA and this leadership for stuff that happened in the previous administration makes no sense,” said former Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), a longtime agency supporter who left Congress last year. He added that he hopes whoever becomes House speaker “would do some homework and really look at the facts.”

In the court case against CISA brought by GOP attorneys general, a Republican-dominated appeals court ruled Oct. 3 that the agency “likely violated” the First Amendment in its interactions with social media companies. It concluded the agency’s efforts were improper because it coordinated with the FBI, a law enforcement agency, and opined on the veracity of certain posts flagged to social media platforms.

The Biden administration is now challenging the ruling, which would curb CISA’s communications with Silicon Valley. But the appeals court's conclusions — which the Supreme Court intends to review by June — have nonetheless emboldened conservatives.

“Federal courts have ordered CISA to stop, but the trust CISA has abused cannot be restored until the agency gives a full accounting of what it has done, and Congress changes the law to create severe penalties for anyone who tries to do the same thing in the future,” Paul said in his statement to POLITICO.

Several influential House Republicans still back CISA, including Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, the chair of the cyber panel on the House Armed Services Committee, and Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who heads the House Oversight Committee’s cyber subcommittee. The House recently passed an annual appropriations bill that would keep the agency’s funding roughly on par with what Biden sought in this year’s budget request.

Still, CISA supporter Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), the chair of the Homeland Security Committee’s cyber subcommittee, expressed concern about the spread of “misinformation” within his party.

“At a time when America is facing more complex cyber threats than ever before, attempting to kneecap our lead civilian cybersecurity agency is dangerous,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “Those of us who support CISA are working to educate the members who voted to cut CISA’s funding to ensure its cyber and physical resilience work can continue.”

A key concern for lawmakers like Garbarino and the agency itself is that large funding cuts would hamper other key aspects of its mandate — like protecting government networks, schools and private hospitals from criminal ransomware groups.

“As our nation continues to face complex and urgent cyber threats, funding at levels below the amounts that the administration has requested would put the safety and security of the critical infrastructure Americans rely on every day at serious risk,” CISA’s Mulligan said.

Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee’s cyber panel, told POLITICO: “Any cuts to the agency, whether targeted or across-the-board, will do measurable damage to our ability to protect our critical infrastructure and maintain system security across the federal government.”>

<A recession will strike the US economy next year, pummeling stocks and house prices, a Wall Street veteran has warned.

Harley Bassman, the managing partner of Simplify Asset Management, issued the bleak forecast during a recent Rosenberg Research webcast.

Bassman spent over 25 years at Merrill Lunch, and has worked at both Pimco and Credit Suisse. He compared inflation to carbon monoxide, and recalled that he once ignored a warning from one of the stars of "The Big Short" about the mid-2000s housing bubble.

Here are Bassman's 7 best quotes, lightly edited for length and clarity:

1. "Inflation is nothing more than a slow-motion default. It's a nice tax, nice in the sense that it's quiet and silent. It's kind of like CO poisoning in your house. You can't feel it and it goes across everybody."

2. "Housing is not going to go down because there's no sellers. Everyone is locked into their house. This is some weird form of rent control where you can't move unless your house burns down, because you can't refinance at 7%. You already have a 3% mortgage. So that's why prices aren't going down. Until people lose their job, lose their income, they're going to stay in their houses."

3. "The Fed's going to keep tightening until they get that unemployment rate up, or at least they're not going to lower rates until then. When that happens, you get the housing down and you get the stock market down." (Bassman predicted asset prices would fall once people start losing their jobs, defaulting on their mortgages, and stop piling money into their retirement accounts.)

4. "The Fed has told us, 'Inflation we don't like, we're going to slam on these brakes until something breaks,' which is the economy. When that happens, bad things will happen to credit. There will be defaults, by definition. That's how it plays out."

5. "I think we're going to get the recession a year from now. The Fed's done or close to being done. We're going to get the inflation down, but it's still a year away because we have not gone into that maturity wall yet. So, I predict that's going to happen not until sometime, at best, mid next year." (Bassman was underscoring the fact that many companies will need to refinance loans at much higher interest rates next year.)

6. "I used to be on a finance committee for one of our kids' schools. There was this guy, kind of crazy guy, named Steve Eisman, who was in this thing. I remember one day he walks in, and he says, 'You work at Merrill, right?' I go, yes. 'I've got some advice for you.' What's that? 'Sell everything, you're going bankrupt.' And I didn't listen to him. That was a mistake." (Steve Carrell played a character named Mark Baum in "The Big Short" movie, who was based on Eisman.)

7. You're welcome to be against immigration. You're welcome to go and lock the door and have nobody come in. But let's be clear, if you slam the door, you will get inflation and you will have slower GDP because you have fewer workers.">

<Death threats. Intimidation. Family members called out by strangers.

A number of House Republicans who refuse to support right-wing Rep. Jim Jordan for House speaker are suddenly learning the true language of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, a movement they have either tolerated or nurtured for years. While MAGA fury is usually directed at liberals, this time it's hitting them like unfriendly fire.

Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, after voting against Jordan, said he received an email that read: “Go f--- yourself and die if I see your face, I will whip all the hair out of your f---ing head you f---ing scumbag.”

Some Republicans are learning how it feels when MAGA attacks Rep. Drew Ferguson of Georgia said in a statement that after voting against Jordan, his family started receiving death threats: "That is simply unacceptable, unforgivable, and will never be tolerated.”

Axios reported that Ferguson told other House Republicans in a Thursday meeting “that he’s had to have a sheriff stationed at his daughter’s school over death threats from the far right. Also one at his house.”

The New York Times reported that the wife of Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska "has begun sleeping with a loaded gun after receiving increasingly menacing anonymous calls and texts.”

Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado said Thursday: “I've had four death threats. I've been evicted from my office in Colorado … because the landlord is mad with my voting record on the speaker issue, and everybody in the conference is getting this. ... Family members have been approached and threatened.”

With Trump, 'violence is his political project now'

This behavior is horrible and unacceptable. It’s also entirely predictable to anyone who has paid attention to a political movement forged in violent rhetoric and seemingly driven by the destruction of social and political norms.

Just recently, Trump has suggested that a top U.S. general be executed, mocked the violent hammer attack on a Democratic lawmaker’s husband and talked about shooting shoplifters.

In March, he railed against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s hush money investigation on Truth Social, warning of “potential death & destruction” if he is charged and calling Bragg “a degenerate psychopath.”

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a New York University historian, told The Associated Press: “Violence is his political project now. It is the thing, besides his own victimhood, that he brings up the most.”

Folks who identify as MAGA often parrot Trump's violent rhetoric

Like their avatar, Trump loyalists often lean into bullying and threats, enamored with flexing a faux toughness that comes easy when anonymous emails and social media accounts protect them from consequences....>

<....When Jordan became a House speaker candidate, he quickly got Trump’s blessing and the extended MAGA universe rose up, excited to see one of their own get a shot at running the show.

Steve Bannon, a former Trump White House adviser and human embodiment of the phrase “all hat, no cattle,” ordered his Trump-obsessed podcast listeners to go after Republican holdouts: “Call them and get in their grill. Let them know what you think … Email, call their local office, all of it, burn it down. That's right. Get up in their face.”

And so they did. And it backfired, because these Republicans finally got a close look at the kind of folks they’ve been pandering to and thought, “Yikes, these people are scary. I don’t want to support this!”

That's to their credit. Fear of the MAGA base is a big reason so many Republican lawmakers have remained loyal to Trump through an insurrection and a slew of indictments. Bucking that trend, in today's chaotic and unraveling Republican Party, is downright courageous.

MAGA enthusiasts tend to be bullies who run at the first sign of consequences

Jordan responded to the threats by putting out a statement on social media Wednesday saying, “We condemn all threats against our colleagues.”

But that has always been Trump and the broader MAGA movement’s game. Say outrageous things and then, when those statements spark chaos or violent threats, pretend that was never the point.

Of course it’s the point. It has always been the point, ever since Trump first bullied his way onto the political scene and cowed so-called normal Republicans with veiled threats and truckloads of red meat to throw at a base right-wing talk radio and television spent years priming for violence.

We saw it all culminate at the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Republicans of all stripes created this MAGA monster, now they have to deal with it

Plenty of folks critical of Trump have dealt with threats and bullying over the years, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, Republican, Democrat or otherwise. But it seems a bit remarkable that so-called moderate Republicans who’ve watched all this happen, who’ve offered either full-throated or tacit support for Trump because it was in their own political interest, now need a fainting couch because the MAGA monster is attacking them.

This is your monster, Republicans. You brought this beast to life by tolerating an unmoored narcissist. You let it grow and gave it permission to lash out in all directions.

And I bet if the presidential election were tomorrow and I asked you who you’re supporting, you’d utter these two ridiculous words: Donald Trump.

Some never learn. If you put up with a dog that bites strangers, you can’t be surprised when it sinks its teeth into you.>

<Former Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney said in an interview that former President Donald Trump is the “single most dangerous threat” the country faces and did not rule out a 2024 presidential bid.

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” host Jake Tapper said it was likely Trump would be the Republican nominee and asked Cheney what a second Trump term would look like for Americans. Cheney responded that “he cannot be the next president.”

“If he is, all of the things he attempted to do, but was stopped from doing by responsible people around him at the Department of Justice, at the White House counsel's office, all of those things he will do,” Cheney said. “There will be no guardrails.”

Cheney, one of Trump's most vocal critics, was the vice chair of the now-dissolved House select committee investigating the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

“I think Donald Trump is the single most dangerous threat we face,” she said.

When asked whether she would join the already crowded field of 2024 candidates, Cheney said she will “definitely” spend the year until the 2024 election helping elect candidates who "believe in the Constitution and who take their responsibilities seriously to Congress."

“But you're not ruling out a presidential run?” Tapper asked.

“No I’m not,” Cheney said.

Cheney has said she wouldn’t run for president if she thought it would help Trump return to the White House, such as launching an independent bid that would ultimately pull votes from President Joe Biden.>