October 2022

Singletary’s tenure at Rochester’s police department ended shortly after the death of Daniel Prude, a black man who died in March 2020 after being physically restrained by Rochester police officers. He has accused Morelle of not speaking out against those who support the “defund the police” movement.

Singletary spent most of his life as a Democrat and holds some moderate positions on gay rights and gun safety.

In recent days, Democratic money has been pouring into seats once considered safe. House Majority PAC is also providing air cover this week to Rep. Annie Kuster (D-N.H.), an incumbent thought to be in a strong position because a far-right challenger emerged from the Republican primary for her seat. The group is placing a $240,000 buy in the Burlington, Vt. market to help her defeat Bob Burns, the GOP nominee.

Burns has not been able to air any TV ads of his own. Biden carried the seat by 9 points in 2020.

It’s possible the late spending is only out of an abundance of caution — but it’s not a good sign for Democrats with just a week to go until the midterms. At least two other seats Biden carried by 20 points have become problem spots for Democrats. Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.) has begun warning colleagues that her Southern California district could be in trouble.

And Pennsylvania Democrat Summer Lee went on TV with an ad last week, warning voters not to be confused by the fact that her Republican opponent has the same name as retiring Democratic Rep. Mike Doyle.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce panel on consumer protection, said she was worried about Twitter becoming “a platform that is a sewer of hateful and harmful content” and planned to leave if Musk allowed it to become more of a Wild West.

The immediate anxiety comes from a false story about the brutal attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that Musk personally tweeted over the weekend. Musk has now deleted the tweet, but the story continues to ricochet around the conservative political world.

In the larger sense, political players are worried that Musk’s promises to bring Twitter’s policies closer in line with his own ideas about politics and society, as well as his firing of its top accountability executives, will permanently change a platform they’ve come to rely on, and trust to police misinformation and hate speech.

Musk has left no doubt who’s in charge of the company since he took Twitter private Thursday night. He renamed himself “Chief Twit” on his official bio, and told the Securities and Exchange Commission that he dissolved the board and named himself sole director.

Musk himself acknowledged the concerns about Twitter’s future directly last week when he assured advertisers that Twitter wouldn’t become a “hellscape” and will be “warm and welcoming to all.” He also promised to set up a “content moderation council” that will presumably set standards for policing the site.

Late on Saturday Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of safety and integrity, tweeted that the company’s content moderation policies “hadn’t changed.” Musk himself pointed to Roth’s tweet to assuage concerns raised by NBA star Lebron James, following a report of a 500% increase of racial slurs on the platform 12 hours after Musk’s takeover.

And when a user suggested that Roth should be fired, Musk tweeted that: “We’ve all made some questionable tweets, me more than most, but I want to be clear that I support Yoel. My sense is that he has high integrity, and we are all entitled to our political beliefs.”

For now, it’s not clear what unhappy Democrats are going to do. Even its critics are still on the platform — “It’s really hard to draw a line. Collectively people in the public eye will know when it’s time to pick up shop and leave,” said Jablonowski. Some are vowing to stay simply to prevent it being taken over by misinformation and trolls.

Republicans long frustrated by what they see as Twitter’s too-liberal moderation policies have launched rival platforms over the past several years — most prominently Parler, Gettr and Donald Trump’s Truth Social — though none has become the kind of public square that Twitter has.

Neera Tanden, the former Hillary Clinton adviser now serving as White House staff secretary, on Sunday tweeted from her personal account a request for alternative platforms, eliciting a handful of suggestions for social media sites outside Musk’s orbit, with no obvious consensus and none coming close to the user base of Twitter.

Some pushback

In the absence of a concerted Democratic effort, there have been a few apparent shots at Musk.

With just eight days until the midterm elections, Musk likely isn’t top of mind for most lawmakers, particularly Democrats who are campaigning to avoid losing control of both chambers of Congress.

But Monday morning, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tweeted that he’s requesting an investigation of Musk’s investors in Twitter, specifically the involvement of Saudi Arabia. Though his request seemed to be based on a Bloomberg report that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States was looking into the deal, that report was a week old, and his tweet came first thing in the morning on the Monday after Musk’s weekend Pelosi tweet. (Murphy’s office declined to comment about the timing of the letter.)

Regulators in Europe have also taken note of the potential changes in Musk-era Twitter, and have warned the company that it needs to abide by EU content moderation rules, and Musk has reportedly responded to their concerns.

Advocacy groups have continued to sound the alarm about what they see as Musk’s indifference to the consequences of what he puts on the platform. Bridget Todd, communications director of the gender equity group UltraViolet, saw Musk’s weekend tweet as “very serious. I think that we’re past the point of this being a business story about acquiring a company — it has very real world implications that we saw on Jan. 6, that we saw on the attack on Pelosi.”

Yael Eisenstat, vice president of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center for Technology and Society, similarly raised alarms, but said it wasn’t clear where advocates would go instead of Twitter. “The reality is there’s not an incredibly competitive landscape yet,” Eisenstat said.

Brendan Bordelon and Mohar Chatterjee contributed to this report.

He reiterated his call for the oil industry to use the surging profits to increase its oil production and refining capacity, and said it was time they looked beyond “the narrow self-interest” of their executives and shareholders.

“If they don’t they are going to pay a higher tax on their excess profits and face other restrictions,” he said. “It’s time for these companies to stop war profiteering, meet their responsibility to this country, give the American people a break and still do very well.”

Oil majors Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Shell Oil alone reported quarterly profits last week totaling about $40 billion.

Biden did not endorse any specific proposal, which could frustrate Democrats in Congress who’ve proposed legislation months ago to tax the “windfall” profits of large oil and gas companies, only for the administration to hold back on declaring support for the idea. Democratic candidates running in swing states and districts have also deployed the tactic in their campaigns.

Instead, Biden said he’d consult with Congress on legislative options when it returns from recess after the election.

But business groups and the oil industry said the latest calls are a politically motivated attack on the sector that Biden has targeted since his campaign and won’t help bring down prices.

“Experience proves that adding new taxes to punish companies actually hurts consumers,” said Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In this case, it will raise gasoline prices by removing the incentive to produce and refine more oil. To lower our energy costs we need a long-term energy strategy focused on boosting production, not finger-pointing.”

Biden and Democrats in Congress for months have called for oil and gas companies to invest more capital into expanding production rather than returning profits to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks. But they have found their appeals mostly ignored, and industry executives have been wary of committing to major new production plans given the volatility that has seen crude prices swing by more than $100 in the past three years.

U.S. crude oil futures prices climbed above $120 per barrel in the spring, boosting gasoline to a record high national average of $5.01 per gallon. Those pump prices averaged $3.76 a barrel on Monday, while crude was trading near $85.50 a barrel.

Democrats in the Senate and House, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Ro Khanna of California, introduced legislation this spring that would tax large oil companies for windfall profits and give the proceeds to consumers as a rebate.

“I’m thrilled to see President Biden publicly consider this approach,” Khanna told POLITICO in a statement Monday. “I’ve had a number of private conversations with White House officials and I hope they will act to help lower prices at the pump and send money back to hardworking Americans.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, chairman of the Finance Committee, introduced a bill this summer applying a 21 percent tax on the “excess” profits of large oil and gas companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue.

Oil companies have defended their approach, saying their bumper profits are the result of a surge in oil and natural gas prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine scrambled global energy markets.

Energy analysts have dismissed Democratic accusations that oil companies are keeping prices high through anti-competitive behavior, noting that previous gasoline price gouging investigations over recent decades have not proved any wrongdoing.

LONDON — She’s already been forced to resign as U.K. home secretary once this fall.

And now scandal-hit Suella Braverman — controversially restored to her role by new PM Rishi Sunak just last week — is clinging to her job for a second time over claims she broke the law by holding thousands of undocumented migrants in bleakly unsuitable conditions at a former military base in southeast England.

In a statement to the House of Commons Monday, the Tory hard-liner denied widespread reports that she personally prevented officials from mass-booking hotel rooms for hundreds of asylum seekers who could no longer be hosted at the overcrowded Manston processing facility in Kent. Experts said if proven this could amount to a breach of the ministerial code — a resigning matter.

“Like the majority of the British people I am very concerned about hotels, but I never blocked their usage,” Braverman insisted, as opposition MPs called for her to resign. “As a former attorney general, I know the importance of taking legal advice into account.”

The Manston site is currently holding about 4,000 people, more than three times its maximum capacity of 1,600. Many are being forced to stay far longer than the legally permitted 24 hours. Reports suggest hundreds are sleeping on bare floors, and that disease is rife.

David Neal, the U.K. government’s independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told MPs last week he was left speechless by the “wretched conditions.” He revealed some migrants from Afghanistan had been held in a marquee for 32 days, though the facility is designed only to host people for a maximum 24 hours while they undergo checks before being transferred to detention centers or hotels.

The crisis has been triggered by a huge increase in the number of undocumented migrants attempting to cross the English Channel — numbering nearly 40,000 so far this year, according to Ministry of Defense figures. On Sunday alone some 468 people made the dangerous journey in eight boats, the MoD said.

Since leaving the EU, the U.K. has been asking for a bilateral deal with France and the wider EU bloc to return those crossing the Channel to the first country deemed safe they enter into. So far, none has been forthcoming.

“The system is broken,” Braverman admitted. “Illegal migration is out of control and too many people are more interested in playing political parlor games, covering up the truth, rather than solving the problem.”

She said the Home Office is currently negotiating extra accommodation for undocumented migrants with private providers and considering “all available options” to tackle overcrowding at processing centers in the U.K.

She also told MPs she was “appalled” to learn, on her first appointment as home secretary in September, that there were “over 35,000 migrants” staying in hotels around the U.K. at an “exorbitant cost” to the British taxpayer. She instigated an urgent review into alternative options, she said, but that the department has continued procuring hotel rooms in the meantime.

But earlier Monday, local Conservative MP Roger Gale described the overcrowding at the Manston facility as “wholly unacceptable” and suggested the situation may have been allowed to happen “deliberately.”

“I was told that the Home Office was finding it very difficult to secure hotel accommodation,” he said. “I now understand this was a policy issue, and that a decision was taken not to book additional hotel space.”

The accusations add to the pressure on the home secretary, whose return to the Cabinet last week was widely questioned given she had been forced to quit only six days earlier after being caught using her personal email account to share sensitive government documents.

A Home Office review published Monday found Braverman sent six Home Office documents to her personal email address between September 15 and October 16. One was then forwarded on to a backbench ally for his perusal — a clear breach of security rules.

Striking a defiant tone, Braverman admitted to having made mistakes but insisted the broader claims about her conduct were a conspiracy to keep her out of high office. She told MPs that some people would like to “get rid” of her, adding: “Let them try.”

A Braverman ally conceded the home secretary is “in great difficulty” but warned she had “deliberately put in an impossible position by those who would rather her not to hang around.”

“The pressure is not easing in any way, and I think it may be too much for her.”

In opening statements, Hoffinger detailed allegations that Trump personally paid private school tuition for Weisselberg’s grandchildren and signed a lease for the top lieutenant’s Upper West Side apartment overlooking the Hudson River, because he wanted him to live in Manhattan rather than commuting from Long Island.

Trump Corp. attorney Susan Necheles, meanwhile, tried to insulate the former president and urged the jury not to let their opinions of Trump cloud their judgment.

“You must not consider this case to be a referendum on President Trump or his politics,” she said. “It started and it ended with Allen Weisselberg. Allen Weisselberg did this.”

Weisselberg pleaded guilty in August to all 15 counts he faced, including tax fraud and larceny. Now he’ll play star witness in the expected month-long trial, where prosecutors must convince a jury that Trump Org. units — the Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corporation — share responsibility for concealing $1.76 million in compensation.

Necheles claimed Weisselberg was only implicating the company to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. If he fulfills his plea agreement and testifies truthfully, he is expected to be sentenced to five months on Rikers Island. Should he violate the deal, he could face up to 15 years in prison.

“The prosecutors had him paraded in front of cameras in handcuffs. Mr. Weisselberg realized he was facing not just public humiliation, but a potential jail sentence that could be years long,” she said. “I will ask you to consider the extreme pressure he is under.”

Prosecutors said Weisselberg and corporate defendants also dodged taxes by reporting some of his bonuses as being paid to an independent contractor rather than an employee. They also failed to disclose that he lived in New York City, allowing him to avoid paying local income taxes.

Weisselberg reported directly to Trump for 35 years, Hoffinger said. And Trump so confided in him that he made Weisselberg a trustee when he became president and put his personal assets in a trust. The fraudulent tax practices came to an end after Trump became president, prompting the company to clean up its act out of concern for increased scrutiny, the assistant DA said.

If convicted, the company could be fined $1.6 million. The corporations are charged with nine felony counts, including criminal tax fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records.

The case is one of a slew of legal threats bearing down on the former president. Also in New York, Attorney General Tish James brought a lawsuit against Trump, his children and his company last month, accusing them of large-scale fraudulent financial practices.

That suit charges Trump falsely inflated his assets for more than a decade and seeks to bar him and his family members from engaging in real estate transactions or serving as officers of any business in New York.

A separate Justice Department investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents led to an FBI raid of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where reams of documents were seized.

A broader criminal investigation by the Manhattan DA into Trump’s business practices also remains open, though it stalled early this year when Bragg declined to bring charges against Trump personally. Bragg was in the courtroom for Monday’s opening argument.

Prosecutors hoped to compel Weisselberg to cooperate with that broader probe, but he did not agree to do so as part of his plea deal.