In one of the last acts of the Democratic-led Congress, the House and the Senate are set to pass an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act, the arcane election law that then-President Donald Trump tried to subvert after his 2020 election defeat. The legislation, which Democrats and Republicans have been working on since the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol, is the most significant policy response so far to the attack and Trump’s aggressive efforts to upend the popular vote. Led by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, along with members of the House Jan. 6 panel, the bipartisan legislation was added to a massive year-end spending bill that was unveiled early Tuesday and will be voted on this week. The bill would amend the 19th century law that governs, along with the U.S. Constitution, how states and Congress certify electors and declare presidential election winners, ensuring that the popular vote from each state is protected from manipulation and that Congress does not arbitrarily decide presidential elections when it meets to count the votes every four years. Supporters in both chambers — Democrats and some Republicans — have pushed to pass an overhaul before the start of the next Congress and ahead of the 2024 presidential campaign cycle, as Trump has announced that he is running again. More than a dozen GOP senators have publicly backed the legislation, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We are now one step closer to protecting our democracy and preventing another January 6th,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who moved the bill through her committee. A look at what the bill would do: CLARIFY THE VICE PRESIDENT’S ROLE Lawmakers and legal experts have long said the 1887 law is vague and vulnerable to abuse, and Democrats saw Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat ahead of Jan. 6, 2021, as a final straw. Supporters of the Republican former president attacked the Capitol that day, echoing his false claims of widespread election fraud, interrupting the congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory and calling for Vice President Mike Pence’s death because he wouldn’t try to block Biden from becoming president. The bill clarifies that the vice president has a purely ceremonial role presiding over the certification every Jan. 6 after a presidential election and that he or she has no power to determine the results of the election — an effort to make that point emphatically in the law after Trump and some of his allies put massive pressure on Pence. Pence resisted those entreaties, but many lawmakers were concerned that the law wasn’t definitive enough. The legislation states that the vice president “shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes” over the counting of electors in Congress. MORE DIFFICULT TO OBJECT The legislation would also make it more difficult for lawmakers to object to a particular state’s electoral votes. Under current law, just one member of the Senate and one member of the House need to lodge an objection to automatically trigger votes in both chambers on whether to overturn or discard a state’s presidential election results. The bill would significantly raise that threshold, requiring a fifth of each chamber to object before votes

The long-rumored memoir-policy book by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is coming out next year. The HarperCollins imprint Broadside will release “The Courage to Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Revival” on Feb. 28. Wednesday’s announcement comes in the wake of DeSantis’ decisive reelection victory and likely will add to speculation that he plans a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. Former President Donald Trump has already declared his candidacy and warned DeSantis that he will reveal information “that won’t be very flattering” should the governor oppose him. According to Broadside, DeSantis will cover everything from his childhood to his service in the Iraq War to his years as Florida governor, when he made opposition to COVID-19 restrictions and the fight against “woke” culture centerpieces of his first term. “What Florida has done is establish a blueprint for governance that has produced tangible results while serving as a rebuke to the entrenched elites who have driven our nation into the ground. Florida is proof positive that we, the people are not powerless in the face of these elites,” DeSantis writes in his book, according to Broadside. HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. The Murdoch-run New York Post has openly disparaged Trump recently, burying news of his announcement for president and later referring to Trump’s announcement speech as “meandering” and criticizing him for “false and divisive claims about the 2020 election being stolen from him.” (AP)

Trailing badly in his Arizona Senate race as votes poured in, Republican Blake Masters went on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program and assigned blame to one person: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “You know what else is incompetent, Tucker? The establishment. The people who control the purse strings,” Masters said before accusing the long-serving GOP leader and the super PAC aligned with him of not spending enough on TV advertising. “Had he chosen to spend money in Arizona, this race would be over. We’d be celebrating a Senate majority right now.” Masters not only lost his race against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly. He trailed every other Republican running for statewide office in Arizona. But there’s another problem Masters didn’t acknowledge: He failed to raise significant money on his own. He was hardly alone. As both parties sift through the results of Democrats’ stronger-than-expected showing in the midterm elections, Republicans are engaged in a round of finger-pointing, including a failed attempt by Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who led the Senate GOP’s campaign arm, to challenge McConnell for his leadership post. But the recriminations obscure a much deeper dilemma for the party. Many of their nominees — a significant number of whom were first-time candidates who adopted far-right positions — failed to raise the money needed to mount competitive campaigns. That forced party leaders, particularly in the Senate, to make hard choices and triage resources to races where they thought they had the best chance at winning, often paying exorbitant rates to TV stations that, by law, would have been required to sell the same advertising time to candidates for far less. The lackluster fundraising allowed Democrats to get their message out to voters early and unchallenged, while GOP contenders lacked the resources to do the same. “This has become an existential and systemic problem for our party and it’s something that needs to get addressed if we hope to be competitive,” said Steven Law, a former McConnell chief of staff who now leads Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC that spent at least $232 million on advertising to elect Republicans to the Senate this year. “Our (donors) have grown increasingly alarmed that they are being put in the position of subsidizing weak fundraising performances by candidates in critical races. And something has got to give. It’s just not sustainable,” Law said. In key Senate and House battlegrounds, Democratic candidates outraised their Republican counterparts by a factor of nearly 2-to-1, according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance data. Consider the handful of races that helped Democrats retain their Senate majority. In Arizona, Masters was outraised nearly 8-to-1 by Kelly, who poured at least $32 million into TV advertising from August until Election Day, records show. Masters spent a little over $3 million on advertising during the same period after Senate Leadership Fund pulled out of the race Meanwhile, in Nevada, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto raised $52.8 million compared to Republican Adam Laxalt’s $15.5 million. And in Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen.-elect John Fetterman took in $16 million more than his GOP opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz. That’s despite the celebrity TV doctor lending $22 million to his campaign, records show. Similar disparities emerged in crucial House races, including in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia, helping to limit House Republicans to a surprisingly narrow majority.

Legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriages crossed a major Senate hurdle Wednesday, putting Congress on track to take the historic step of ensuring that such unions are enshrined in federal law. Twelve Republicans voted with all Democrats to move forward on the legislation, meaning a final vote could come as soon as this week, or later this month. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the bill ensuring the unions are legally recognized under the law is chance for the Senate to “live up to its highest ideals” and protect marriage equality for all people. “It will make our country a better, fairer place to live,” Schumer said, noting that his own daughter and her wife are expecting a baby next year. Senate Democrats are quickly moving to pass the bill while the party still controls the House. Republicans are on the verge of winning the House majority and would be unlikely to take up the issue next year. The bill has gained steady momentum since the Supreme Court’s June decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and the federal right to an abortion. An opinion at that time from Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that an earlier high court decision protecting same-sex marriage could also come under threat. The legislation would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed. The new Respect for Marriage Act would also protect interracial marriages by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” Congress has been moving to protect same-sex marriage as support from the general public — and from Republicans in particular — has sharply grown in recent years, as the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized gay marriage nationwide. Recent polling has found more than two-thirds of the public supports same-sex unions. Still, many Republicans in Congress have been reluctant to support the legislation, with many saying it was unnecessary while the marriages are still protected by the courts. Democrats delayed consideration until after the midterm elections, hoping that would relieve political pressure on some GOP senators who might be wavering. A proposed amendment to the bill, negotiated by supporters to bring more Republicans on board, would clarify that it does not affect rights of private individuals or businesses that are already enshrined in law. Another tweak would make clear that a marriage is between two people, an effort to ward off some far-right criticism that the legislation could endorse polygamy. Three Republicans said early on that they would support the legislation and have lobbied their GOP colleagues to support it: Maine Sen. Susan Collins, North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman. They argued that there was still value in enshrining the rights for such marriages even if the courts don’t invalidate them. “Current federal law doesn’t reflect the will or beliefs of the American people,” Portman said ahead of the vote. “It’s time for the Senate to settle the issue.” In the end, nine of their GOP colleagues joined them in voting for it, bringing the total to twelve and providing enough votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the 50-50 Senate. The other Republicans who voted for the legislation were Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Todd

A federal judge has blocked Penguin Random House’s proposed purchase of Simon & Schuster, agreeing with the Justice Department that the joining of two of the world’s biggest publishers could “lessen competition” for “top-selling books.” The ruling was a victory for the Biden administration’s tougher approach to proposed mergers, a break from decades of precedent under Democratic and Republican leadership. U.S. District Court Judge Florence Y. Pan announced the decision in a brief statement Monday, adding that much of her ruling remained under seal at the moment because of “confidential information” and “highly confidential information.” She asked the two sides to meet with her Friday and suggest redactions. Penguin Random House quickly condemned the ruling, which it called “an unfortunate setback for readers and authors.” In its statement Monday, the publisher said it would seek an expedited appeal. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division praised the decision, saying in a statement that the decision “protects vital competition for books and is a victory for authors, readers, and the free exchange of ideas.” He added: “The proposed merger would have reduced competition, decreased author compensation, diminished the breadth, depth, and diversity of our stories and ideas, and ultimately impoverished our democracy.” Pan’s finding was not surprising — through much of the 3-week trial in August she had indicated agreement with the Justice Department’s contention that Penguin Random House’s plan to buy Simon & Schuster, for $2.2 billion, might damage a vital cultural industry. But it was still a dramatic departure from recent history in the book world and beyond. The publishing industry has been consolidating for years with little interference from the government, even when Random House and Penguin merged in 2013 and formed what was then the biggest publishing house in memory. The joining of Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster would have created a company far exceeding any rival and those opposing the merger included one of Simon & Schuster’s signature writers, Stephen King, who testified last summer on behalf of the government. King tweeted Monday that he was “delighted” by the ruling, adding: “The proposed merger was never about readers and writers; it was about preserving (and growing) PRH’s market share. In other words: $$$.” The Biden Justice Department has been pushing forward with aggressive enforcement of federal antitrust laws that officials say aim to ensure a fair and competitive market. Monday’s news follows recent losses for the department in two significant antitrust cases in separate federal courts. The DOJ lost its bid to block a major U.S. sugar manufacturer, U.S. sugar, from acquiring its rival Imperial Sugar Co., one of the largest sugar refiners in the nation. The prosecutors signaled that they intended to appeal the decision. They also were stymied in their effort to block the roughly $8 billion acquisition by UnitedHealth Group, which runs the largest U.S. health insurer, of Change Healthcare, a healthcare technology company. The DOJ also has been battling American Airlines and JetBlue in an antitrust trial in federal court in Boston, challenging their regional partnership in the Northeast, which the government calls a de facto merger. The Justice Department’s case against Penguin Random House did not focus on market share overall or on potential price hikes for customer. The DOJ instead argued that the new

An evacuation order has abruptly forced out residents of a 14-story oceanfront building on the same avenue where a condominium collapse killed nearly 100 people last year. The city posted an unsafe structure notice Thursday evening at the Port Royale condominium, Miami Beach spokesperson Melissa Berthier said in an email. A structural engineering report prompted the evacuation of the 164-unit structure, which is in the process of undergoing a required recertification. An engineer discovered that a main support beam identified for repair 10 months ago had shifted and that a crack in the beam had expanded, and other structural supports may need repair as well, the report said. At least one observer said the damage extends beyond a single support beam. “There’s cracks in the column, cracks in the base, I mean in the garage, in the two storage garages, there’s cracks in the beams, everywhere,” Marsh Markaj, a building resident who said he works in construction and noticed the problems, told WPLG-TV. Inspection Engineers Inc. said in a letter to the city that it’s working to obtain a city permit so that “comprehensive shoring” can be installed within 10 days. That will be followed by another inspection of the building, which was constructed in 1971. During an inspection about 10 months ago, engineers found “areas of concern that we designated as a priority to be repaired,” Arshad Vioar said in an email sent to the Miami Beach Building Department. The building’s association selected a contractor and the repairs started about four weeks ago. The firm that inspected the building was asked to supervise the work and this week “noticed that one of the main beams in the garage had experienced a structural deflection of approximately ½ inch and also the existing crack that was marked for repair had extended,” Vioar said in the email. The Port Royale is about 1.3 miles (2 kilometers) south of the Champlain Towers South condo building in Surfside, Florida, also on Collins Avenue, where 98 people were killed in a June 2021 collapse. The disaster at the 12-story oceanfront condo building in Surfside drew the largest non-hurricane emergency response in Florida history, including rescue crews from across the U.S. and as far away as Israel to help local teams search for victims. (AP)

Inside the Minneapolis Police Academy’s sprawling campus on the city’s north side, six people sat soberly and listened to a handful of officers and city officials make their pitch about joining an understaffed department that is synonymous with the murder of George Floyd. Officers would live in a bustling, vibrant metro area with a high quality of life, they said, working in a large department where they could choose a wide variety of career paths with comprehensive benefits. But those who take the oath must understand it is a dangerous job and that they would be expected to protect the sanctity of human life — even if it means reining in a fellow officer. And everything they do must be aimed at rebuilding trust in a city left in tatters by the killing of Floyd and other Black men. “There’s still people who still value us,” Sgt. Vanessa Anderson told the potential recruits. “The community still values us. I really do think that.” Crime rose in Minneapolis during the pandemic, as in many American cities. Homicide offenses nearly doubled from 2019 to 2021, aggravated assaults jumped by one-third, and car-jackings — which the city only began tracking in fall 2020 — exploded. And the city’s crime problem has been compounded by a mass exodus of officers who cited post-traumatic stress after Floyd was killed, gutting the department of roughly one-third of its personnel. Some residents say the city can feel lawless at times. On July 4, police appeared unable to cope when troublemakers shot fireworks at other people, buildings and cars. That night sparked more than 1,300 911 calls. One witness described a firework being shot at one of the few police cars that responded. “Our city needs more police officers,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said in August, while presenting a proposal to boost police funding in a push to increase officer numbers to more than 800 by 2025. Adding to the pressure: a court ruled in favor of residents who sued the city for not having the minimum number of officers required under the city’s charter. One of the six who attended the late summer presentation at the Minneapolis Police Academy was 36-year-old Cyrus Collins of suburban Lino Lakes, who identifies as mixed race. Collins sports a facial tattoo of an obscenity against police. He told The Associated Press that it is directed at the “evil ones,” such as those who killed Floyd and Breonna Taylor, who was shot to death by officers serving a search warrant in Louisville, Kentucky. The department said it has no policy governing tattoos. “I don’t want people of color to be against cops,” said Collins, who works as a pizza cook and a FedEx package distributor. “What other career would be doper to send that message than to be a Minneapolis police officer?” Also at the meeting was William Howard, a 29-year-old Black man who said he installs office furniture, writes stories for video games, and has only lived in Minneapolis for a few months. Howard said he has studied meditation and that he thinks it would be a useful skill when de-escalation is required. “I feel like I can bring more heart into the police force. Heart isn’t about power and control, it’s about courage and protecting people and serving people,” Howard

House Democrats are voting this week on changes to a 19th century law for certifying presidential elections, their strongest legislative response yet to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The vote to overhaul the Electoral Count Act, expected Wednesday, comes as a bipartisan group of senators is moving forward with a similar bill. Lawmakers in both parties have said they want to change the arcane law before it is challenged again. Trump and his allies tried to exploit the law’s vague language in the weeks after the election as they strategized how they could keep Joe Biden out of office, including by lobbying Vice President Mike Pence to simply object to the certification of Biden’s victory when Congress counted the votes on Jan. 6. Pence refused to do so, but it was clear afterward that there was no real legal framework, or recourse, to respond under the 1887 law if the vice president had tried to block the count. The House and Senate bills would better define the vice president’s ministerial role and make clear that he or she has no say in the final outcome. Both versions would also make it harder for lawmakers to object if they don’t like the results of an election, clarify laws that could allow a state’s vote to be delayed, and ensure that there is only one slate of legal electors from each state. One strategy by Trump and his allies was to create alternate slates of electors in key states Biden won, with the ultimately unsuccessful idea that they could be voted on during the congressional certification on Jan. 6 and result in throwing the election back to Trump. “We’ve got to make this more straightforward to respect the will of the people,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., whose committee will hold a vote on the legislation bill next week. “We don’t want to risk Jan. 6 happening again,” she said. The bills are a response to the violence of that day, when a mob of Trump’s supporters pushed past police, broke into the building and interrupted Biden’s certification. The crowd was echoing Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud and calling for Pence’s death after it became clear that he wouldn’t try to overturn the election. Democrats in both chambers have felt even more urgency on the issue as Trump is considering another run for president and is still claiming the election was stolen. Many Republicans say they believe him, even though 50 states certified Biden’s win and courts across the country rejected Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud. While the House vote is expected to fall mostly along party lines, the Senate bill has some Republican support and its backers are hopeful they will have the 10 votes they need to break a filibuster and pass it in the 50-50 Senate. But that could be tricky amid campaigning for the November midterm elections, and Republicans most aligned with Trump are certain to oppose it. The Senate Rules panel is expected to pass the measure next Tuesday, with some tweaks, though a floor vote will most likely wait until November or December, Klobuchar said. Even though they are similar, the House version is more expansive than the

Sarah Collins Rudolph lost an eye and still has pieces of glass inside her body from a Ku Klux Klan bombing that killed her sister and three other Black girls at an Alabama church 59 years ago, and she’s still waiting on the state to compensate her for those injuries. Gov. Kay Ivey sidestepped the question of financial compensation two years ago in apologizing to Rudolph for her “untold pain and suffering,” saying legislative involvement was needed. But nothing has been done despite the efforts of attorneys representing Rudolph, leaving unresolved the question of payment even though victims of other attacks, including 9/11, were compensated. Rudolph will meet with President Joe Biden at the White House for a summit about combatting hate-fueled violence on Thursday, the anniversary of the bombing. Rudolph, known as the “Fifth Little Girl” for surviving the infamous attack, which was depicted in Spike Lee’s 1997 documentary “4 Little Girls,” has been rankled by the state’s inaction. Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Rudolph said then-Gov. George C. Wallace helped lay the groundwork for the Ku Klux Klan attack on 16th Street Baptist Church with his segregationist rhetoric, and the state bears some responsibility for the bombing, which wasn’t prosecuted for years. “If they hadn’t stirred up all that racist hate that was going on at the time I don’t believe that church would have been bombed,” said Rudolph. Rudolph said she still incurs medical expenses from the explosion, including a $90 bill she gets every few months for work on the prosthetic she wears in place of the right eye that was destroyed by shrapnel on Sept. 15, 1963. Anything would help, but Rudolph believes she’s due millions. Ishan Bhabha, an attorney representing Rudolph, said the state’s apology — made at Rudolph’s request along with a plea for restitution — was only meant as a first step. “She deserves justice in the form of compensation for the grievous injuries, and costs, she has had to bear for almost 60 years,” he said. “We will continue to pursue any available avenues to get Sarah the assistance she needs and deserves.” Five girls were gathered in a downstairs bathroom at 16th Street Baptist Church when a bomb planted by KKK members went off outside, blowing a huge hole in the thick, brick wall. The blast killed Denise McNair, 11, and three 14-year-olds: Carole Robertson, Cynthia Morris, also referred to as Cynthia Wesley, and Addie Mae Collins, who was Rudolph’s sister. Three Klan members convicted of murder in the bombing years later died in prison, and a fourth suspect died without ever being charged. The bombing occurred eight months after Wallace proclaimed “segregation forever” in his inaugural speech and during the time when Birmingham schools were being racially integrated for the first time. The church itself has gotten government money for renovations, as has the surrounding Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument, formed by President Barack Obama in 2017 in one of his last acts in office. “But not me,” Rudolph said. Ivey, at the time of the apology, said in a letter to Rudolph’s lawyer that any possible compensation would require legislative approval, said press secretary Gina Maiola. “Additionally, in attorney-to-attorney conversations that ensued soon after, that same point was reiterated,” she said. No bill

As the sun set in Wyoming, U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney described her blowout loss as the beginning of a more consequential step in her political career. She summoned Abraham Lincoln, who lost elections for the House and Senate and still went on to become one of the nation’s most accomplished presidents. But in the days since, would-be supporters in key states have openly expressed skepticism about a Cheney presidential run, even one solely designed to block Donald Trump’s return to the White House. In fact, Republican voters and local officials in three of the states that matter most in presidential politics — Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — believe the soon-to-be-unemployed congresswoman has little path to relevancy in a 2024 presidential primary, never mind a path to victory. Some sympathizers fear she would actually help Trump if she runs. Such is the colossal political challenge ahead for Cheney, a Republican seeking to transform a 37-percentage-point home-state loss into a national campaign to destroy Trump’s White House ambitions. There is no precedent for what she hopes to accomplish. “The Republican Party is a lot more diverse than it’s given credit for, and there will be some number of people who find her, and her message, appealing, but that is far from saying that there would be a warm reception, or a large reception,” said Micah Caskey, a Republican state representative in South Carolina. “I don’t see a Liz Cheney candidacy as being viable.” In the hours after she conceded her Wyoming congressional primary to a little-known Trump acolyte, Cheney’s team transferred leftover campaign funds into a new entity she named “The Great Task,” borrowing a phrase from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. She vowed to devote the weeks before the November midterms to defeating Trump loyalists who continue to promote the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. “I will be doing whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office,” Cheney told NBC’s “Today” show. She acknowledged she is thinking about a 2024 presidential run. “I’ll make a decision in the coming months.” Cheney, the 56-year-old daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, has not ruled out running in 2024 as a Republican or an independent. But those close to her now believe an independent run would likely attract more support from Democrats than Republicans, which would undermine her goals. Therefore, if she runs, it would almost certainly be as a Republican. Her team believes that Cheney would enter the 2024 Republican contest as the undisputed leader of the anti-Trump lane, which could include the likes of Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The Cheney name is universally known, they note, and she enjoys a national fundraising base that brought in more than $15 million for her failed reelection bid. She would also have the support of her father and maintains close ties to former President George W. Bush, who hosted a fundraiser for Cheney last fall. She will continue to play a leading role in the House investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection, which is set to host another round of hearings in September. Despite those factors, there has been little sign of enthusiasm for Cheney in the states most likely to decide the next GOP presidential nomination.

A judge in Colorado on Tuesday ordered a legal adviser for former President Donald Trump’s campaign to travel to Georgia to testify before a special grand jury that’s looking into whether Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia. Judge Gregory Lammons in Fort Collins, Colorado, made the decision after holding a hearing on a request from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to compel testimony from attorney Jenna Ellis. Prosecutors are interested in Ellis’s role in helping to coordinate and plan legislative hearings in Georgia and others states where false allegations of election fraud were pushed, according to testimony in court. Fulton County prosecutors have purchased plane tickets and made a hotel reservation in preparation for Ellis to testify on Aug. 25. The investigation, prompted by a January 2021 phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, began early last year. During that call, Trump suggested Raffensperger could “find” the votes to overturn his narrow election loss in the state. It has become clear since the special grand jury was seated in May that the focus of the investigation extends well beyond that call. Willis last month filed petitions with the judge overseeing the special grand jury seeking to compel testimony from seven Trump associates and advisers, including Ellis, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. Because they don’t live in Georgia, she had to use a process that involves getting a judge in the state where they’re located to order them to appear before the special grand jury in Atlanta. Giuliani, who’s been notified he’s a target of the investigation, is set to testify before the special grand jury on Wednesday. Graham’s subpoena orders him to testify on Aug. 23, but he has said he’ll appeal a judge’s Monday order declining to quash his subpoena. In the petition seeking Ellis’s testimony, Willis identified her as “an attorney for the Trump Campaign’s legal efforts seeking to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.” Ellis appeared with Giuliani at a Dec. 3, 2020, state Senate committee hearing at the Georgia Capitol during which false allegations of election fraud were made, Willis wrote. She also wrote at least two legal memos to Trump and his attorneys advising that then-Vice President Mike Pence should “disregard certified electoral college votes from Georgia and other purportedly ‘contested’ states” when Congress met to certify the election results on Jan. 6, 2021, the petition says. Evidence shows that Ellis’s actions were “part of a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump Campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere,” Willis wrote. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, who’s overseeing the special grand jury, signed off on Willis’s petitions to order Ellis and other Trump associates to testify. He issued so-called certificates of material witness stating that they are “necessary and material” witnesses for the special grand jury investigation. Lammons, the Colorado judge, heard arguments from Ellis’s lawyer, Michael Melito, and prosecutor Dawn Downs, with the Larimer County district attorney’s office in Colorado, in a hearing that was streamed online. Fulton County Deputy District Attorney Will Wooten appeared by video conference from Atlanta as a witness to testify why

Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Democrat Joe Manchin made the case on Wednesday for overhauling the 1800s-era Electoral Count Act, pushing for quick passage of a bipartisan compromise that would make it harder for a losing candidate to overturn legitimate results of a presidential election. Proposals from their group of 16 senators — nine Republicans and seven Democrats — are a response to former President Donald Trump and his allies pushing courts, state legislatures and Congress to somehow overturn his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden. Trump’s efforts culminated in the violence of Jan. 6, 2021, when hundreds of his supporters pushed past police and broke into the Capitol as Congress was certifying the results. An update to the electoral law is “something our country desperately needs,” Manchin said Wednesday, testifying at a Senate hearing on the bill. “The time for Congress to act is now.” Manchin and Collins, who introduced a series of proposals to reform the law last month along with 14 other senators, are pushing for passage of the legislation before the end of the congressional session in January. The bills could face a harder path after November’s midterm elections if Republicans take over the House, where Democrats are leading a separate effort to revise the law. “This is something we shouldn’t carry over into another election cycle,” said Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, the top Republican on the Senate Rules Committee who has been supportive of the effort. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 governs the counting and certification of electoral votes in presidential elections and has long been criticized as arcane, vaguely written and vulnerable to abuse. Those fears were realized after the 2020 contest when Trump’s allies worked to exploit those weaknesses, pushing states to put forward alternate slates of electors and pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to use his ceremonial role in the congressional joint session on Jan. 6 to object to the results or delay certification. The bipartisan group of senators has worked for months to find agreement on a way to revamp the process, eventually settling on the series of proposals introduced last month. The legislation would add a series of safeguards to the electoral count, increasing the thresholds for challenging results so state or federal officials can’t exploit loopholes to advocate for a preferred candidate. It would reinforce that the vice president’s role over the electoral count is “solely ministerial,” with no power to change the results. It would make clear that Congress can only accept the one legitimate slate of electors from each state and make it harder for members of either party to object to the results. And it would strike an outdated law that could allow some state legislatures to override the popular vote. “Nothing is more essential to the survival of a democracy than the orderly transfer of power,” said Sen. Collins,, of Maine, who testified alongside Manchin, of West Virginia. “And there is nothing more essential to the orderly transfer of power than clear rules for effecting it.” It is unclear how quickly the Senate might act when it returns from its August break in the fall. Both Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell have signaled support, and the legislation is expected to have enough backing to overcome any objections and

A bipartisan group of senators is pushing compromise legislation to restore abortion access in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a long shot effort to put a majority of the Senate on the record opposing the decision. While the bill is not expected to pass — and is unlikely to even get a vote — the legislation introduced by two Republicans and two Democrats on Monday is intended to send a signal to state legislatures and the public that a majority of the Senate supports codifying Roe, even if they can’t get the necessary 60 votes to pass it in the 50-50 Senate. “We still think there is utility in showing there is a bipartisan majority that would want to codify Roe,” even though the bill doesn’t have enough votes, said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who introduced the legislation with Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The legislation would prohibit most state regulations that prevent abortion access before fetal viability, generally considered to be around 24 weeks. It would allow state restrictions after that point, as long as the mother’s life is protected. It would also protect access to contraception, an issue after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in a concurring opinion to the decision overturning Roe that decisions guaranteeing access to contraception and other rights may need to be revisited. The bipartisan bill is narrower than legislation preferred by most Democrats — passed by the House but blocked by Senate Republicans — that would have protected abortion rights and expanded them beyond what was allowed in the landmark 1972 Roe v. Wade decision. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Collins and Murkowski all voted against that bill despite opposition to the overturning of Roe. Kaine said he felt like Democrats “left votes on the table” after that effort. He said he was encouraged by a new law designed to reduce gun violence that passed the House and Senate after horrific shootings in Texas and New York. “There were not 60 votes either” for that legislation until members decided that inaction was no longer an option, he said. Democrats would need 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster and get a bill through the 50-50 Senate, but only Collins and Murkowski have publicly backed abortion rights. By overturning Roe, the court has allowed states to enact strict abortion limits, including many that had previously been deemed unconstitutional. The ruling is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half of the states. Already, a number of GOP-controlled states have moved quickly to curtail or outlaw abortion, while states controlled by Democrats have sought to champion access. Voters now rank abortion as among the most pressing issues facing the country, a shift in priorities that Democrats hope will reshape the political landscape in their favor for the midterm elections. The support of Kaine and Sinema, a moderate, comes as some activists have accused President Joe Biden and other top Democrats of failing to respond forcefully enough to the decision. Kaine said there is an increased sense of urgency since the June decision, and suggested he or others may go to the floor at some point and request a vote, an effort

It’s been more than a year in the making and has seen plenty of ups and downs. Now, a Democratic economic package focused on climate and health care faces hurdles but seems headed toward party-line passage by Congress next month. Approval would let President Joe Biden and his party claim a triumph on top priorities as November’s elections approach. They have not forgotten that they came close to approving a far grander version of the bill last year, only to see Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., one of their most conservative and contrarian members, torpedo it at the eleventh hour. This time, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has crafted a compromise package with Manchin, to the surprise of everyone, transforming the West Virginian from pariah to partner. The measure is more modest than earlier versions but still checks boxes on issues that make Democrats giddy. Here’s what they face: WHAT’S IN IT? The measure would raise $739 billion in revenue over 10 years and spend $433 billion. More than $300 billion would be left for trimming federal deficits. Those are meaningful cuts in red ink. But they’re tiny compared with the $16 trillion in new debt the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will accumulate over the next decade. The package would save consumers and the government money by curbing prescription drug prices, and it would subsidize private health insurance for millions of people. It would bolster the IRS budget so the tax agency can collect more unpaid taxes. The plan would foster clean energy and offshore energy drilling, a balance demanded by Manchin, a champion of fossil fuels. It also would collect new taxes from the largest corporations and wealthy hedge fund owners. It’s a fraction of the $3.5 trillion package that Biden proposed early in his presidency, which also envisioned sums for initiatives such as paid family leave and universal preschool. It’s also smaller than the roughly $2 trillion alternative the House passed last November after Manchin demanded cuts then derailed the deal anyway, citing inflation fears. IT’S NOW CALLED THE “INFLATION REDUCTION ACT,” BUT … … will it do that? It certainly could, but there are dissenters. First, some context. By one inflation measure the Federal Reserve studies closely, prices jumped 6.8% in June from a year ago, the biggest increase in four decades. That followed government figures showing the economy shrank anew last quarter, fueling recession worries. “Improved tax collection, drug savings, and deficit reduction would put downward pressure on inflation,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Friday. In what passes for a rave review, the bipartisan fiscal watchdog group called the legislation “exactly the kind of package lawmakers should put in place to help the economy in a number of ways.” “Deficit reduction is almost always inflation-reducing,” Jason Furman, a Harvard University economics professor who was a top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, wrote Friday in The Wall Street Journal. He said the measure would also “reduce inflation by slowing the growth of prescription-drug prices.” A more sobering assessment came from the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyzes economic issues. “The act would very slightly increase inflation until 2024 and decrease inflation thereafter,” the group wrote Friday. “These point estimates are statistically indistinguishable from zero, thereby indicating low confidence that

On the 53rd anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, NASA announced Wednesday it’s shooting for a late August launch of its giant, new moon rocket. NASA will attempt the more than month-long lunar test flight with three mannequins, but no astronauts, as early as Aug. 29. There are also two launch dates in early September, before NASA would have to stand down for two weeks. NASA’s Jim Free noted the test flight begins “our Artemis program to go back to the moon.” The space agency’s new lunar program is named Artemis after Apollo’s twin sister in Greek mythology. The 30-story Space Launch System rocket and attached Orion capsule are currently in the hangar at Kennedy Space Center, following repairs stemming from last month’s countdown test. Fuel leaks and other technical trouble cropped up during NASA’s repeated launch rehearsals at the pad. NASA officials assured reporters Wednesday that the problems have been resolved and that testing is almost complete. But they cautioned the launch dates could slip, depending on the volatile Florida weather and issues that might arise before the rocket is supposed to return to the pad on Aug. 18. “We’re going to be careful,” said Free, head of exploration systems development. At 322 feet (98 meters), the rocket and Orion capsule are taller than the Statue of Liberty. If Orion’s trip to the moon and back goes well, astronauts could climb aboard in 2023 for a lunar loop-around and actually land in 2025. Astronauts last explored the moon in 1972. The first of the 12 moonwalkers, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, stepped onto the dusty gray surface on July 20, 1969, while Michael Collins orbited the moon. The 92-year-old Aldrin, the sole survivor of the three, noted the anniversary in a tweet: “Neil, Michael & I were proud to represent America as we took those giant leaps for mankind. It was a moment which united the world and America’s finest hour.” (AP)

The House has voted to restore abortion rights nationwide in Democrats’ first legislative response to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The bill has little chance of becoming law, with the necessary support lacking in the 50-50 Senate. Yet voting marks the beginning of a new era in the debate as lawmakers, governors and legislatures grapple with the impact of the court’s decision. The legislation passed 219-210. The House also passed a second bill to prohibit punishment for a woman or child who decides to travel to another state to get an abortion, 223-205. “Just three weeks ago the Supreme Court took a wrecking ball to the fundamental rights by overturning Roe v. Wade,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ahead of the votes, gathering with other Democratic women on the steps of the Capitol. “It is outrageous that 50 years later, women must again fight for our most basic rights against an extremist court.” Republicans spoke forcefully against the two bills, praising the Supreme Court’s decision and warning that the legislation would go further than Roe ever did when it comes to legalizing abortion. Urging her colleagues to vote no, Washington GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers called abortion “the greatest human rights issue of our generation.” She said the Democratic legislation “has nothing to do with protecting the health of women. It has everything to do with forcing an extreme agenda on the American people.” By overturning Roe, the court has allowed states to enact strict abortion limits, including many that had previously been deemed unconstitutional. The ruling is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. Already, a number of GOP-controlled states have moved quickly to curtail or outlaw abortion, while states controlled by Democrats have sought to champion access. Voters now rank abortion as among the most pressing issues facing the country, a shift in priorities that Democrats hope will reshape the political landscape in their favor for the midterm elections. This is the second time the House has passed the bill, which would expand on the protections Roe had previously provided by banning what supporters say are medically unnecessary restrictions that block access to safe and accessible abortions. It would prevent abortion bans earlier than 24 weeks, which is when fetal viability, the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus, is generally thought to begin. It allows exceptions for abortions after fetal viability when a provider determines the life or health of the mother is at risk. The Democrats’ proposal would also prevent states from requiring providers to share “medically inaccurate” information, or from requiring additional tests or waiting periods, often aimed at dissuading a patient from having an abortion. The bill that would prohibit punishment for traveling out of state would specify that doctors can’t be punished for providing reproductive care outside their home state. Democratic Rep. Lizzie Fletcher of Texas, one of the bill’s authors, said the threats to travel “fail to reflect the fundamental rights that are granted in our Constitution.” Democrats have highlighted the case of a 10-year-old girl who had to cross state lines into Indiana to get an abortion after being raped, calling it an example of how the court’s decision is already having severe consequences. “We don’t have to imagine why

Russia on Tuesday announced that it was banning the wife and daughter of President Joe Biden from entering the country, in response to widening sanctions against Russia. The Foreign Ministry said 25 names were being added to the country’s “stop list” including Biden’s wife Jill and daughter Ashley. It also banned entry to four senators whom it identified as “responsible for the formation of the (U.S.) Russophobic course:” Republicans Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins and Ben Sasse and Democrat Kirstin Gillibrand. The list also includes prominent academics including Francis Fukuyama, noted for his book “The End of History and the Last Man” that posited the spread of liberal democracies could mark the ultimate development of society. (AP)

It’s Groundhog Day at the IRS. After digging out of a daunting backlog from 2021, the agency has an even bigger backup for this tax season than it did a year ago and its pace for processing paper returns is slowing down, according to a watchdog report released Wednesday. The National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent watchdog within the IRS, also said taxpayers are experiencing longer wait times on the telephone, and delays in processing paper returns have been running six months to one year. The report on taxpayer challenges, which must be submitted twice a year to Congress, comes one day after the Internal Revenue Service announced that it is on track to eliminate its 2021 backlog of tax returns this week. The Objectives Report to Congress contains proposals for lawmakers to consider going forward. “When I released my Annual Report to Congress six months ago, I wrote that ‘Paper is the IRS’s Kryptonite, and the agency is still buried in it,’” National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins wrote in the report. “Fast forward to this Objectives Report: It’s Groundhog Day.” She added: “At the end of May, the IRS had a larger backlog of paper tax returns than it did a year ago, and its pace of processing paper tax returns was slowing.” Collins, who serves as an IRS ombudsman, said of the agency’s problems: “The math is daunting.” According to the report, at the end of May the agency had a backlog of 21.3 million unprocessed paper tax returns, an increase of 1.3 million over the same time last year. The agency fell short on its goal to bring on 5,473 new employees to process returns, with just 2,056 employees hired. Additionally, phone wait times increased to 29 minutes on average, compared with last year’s 20-minute average wait time. “That the backlog continues to grow is deeply concerning, primarily because millions of taxpayers have been waiting six months or more to receive their refunds,” Collins said. In a joint letter addressed to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who heads the Senate Finance Committee, Treasury Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo and IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig said that roughly six to eight IRS employees manually handle each paper return that is filed. “What the agency requires to avoid a crisis like this in the future is sustained, multi-year funding to invest in overhauling antiquated technology, improving taxpayer service, and increasing voluntary compliance,” the letter said. “Those resources will be crucial to automating operations to increase efficiency.” The Taxpayer Advocate report said credit is due to agency leadership for the burden it carries with “an extraordinarily complicated tax code,” antiquated technology, inadequate staffing and lingering challenges that have come from distributing COVID-19 related programs. “Despite these challenges, the tax system, as a whole, has held up well during the past two years,” the report said. (AP)

Standing in the sweltering summer heat on the steps of the Alabama Capitol earlier this month, Republican Senate candidate Mo Brooks was hailed by organizers of the Jan. 6, 2021, rally in Washington for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and keep then-President Donald Trump in power. “I was proud to stand with Mo Brooks on that stage that day,” said Amy Kremer, chair of Women for America First. “Mo has the truth on his side.” Less than 10 hours later, Trump returned the favor by snubbing the congressman — for a second time — and instead endorsing rival Katie Britt in Tuesday’s Republican runoff election for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Britt’s former boss, retiring GOP Sen. Richard Shelby. Alabama is one of a handful of states holding contests Tuesday at the midpoint of a primary season that has been shaped by Trump’s effort to influence the GOP. In Virginia, Republicans are choosing between Trump-aligned congressional candidates to take on some of the most vulnerable Democrats in the fall. And in Georgia, Democrats will settle several close races, including deciding which Democrat will challenge Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state who overcame a Trump-backed challenge last month. In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser is seeking reelection amid concerns over homelessness and rising crime. But the Alabama Senate runoff has drawn particular attention both because of the drama surrounding Trump’s endorsement and the fact that the winner will likely prevail in November in a state Trump won twice by more than 25 percentage points. Trump initially endorsed Brooks in the spring of 2021, rewarding an ardent champion of his baseless claims of a stolen election. Brooks had voted against certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential election victory and delivered a fiery speech at the rally that proceeded the U.S. Capitol insurrection, telling the crowd, “Today is the day that American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.” But nearly a year later, Trump rescinded his support after the pair’s relationship soured and as the conservative firebrand languished in the polls. Trump blamed his decision on comments Brooks had made months earlier, at an August rally, when he said it was time for the party to move on from the 2020 presidential race — comments Trump claimed showed Brooks, one of the most conservative members of Congress, had gone “woke.” But the move was widely seen as an effort by Trump to save face amid other losses, and Brooks alleged that it came after he informed Trump that there was no way to “rescind” the 2020 election, remove Biden from power, or hold a new special election for the presidency. Trump’s un-endorsement was widely expected to end Brooks’ campaign. Instead, Brooks managed to finish second in the state’s May 24 primary, earning 29% of the vote to Britt’s 45% and forcing a runoff. Brooks tried once again to get Trump to endorse him, but Trump, who has had a mixed record in backing winning candidates, instead chose Britt, Shelby’s former chief of staff, calling her a “fearless America First Warrior.” While Brooks and Britt have similar views, their race represents a clash between two wings of the party and different generations. Shelby for decades epitomized the old-guard political style, using his clout

The outline of a bipartisan Senate agreement to rein in gun violence has no game-changing steps banning the deadliest firearms. It does propose measured provisions making it harder for some young gun buyers, or people considered threatening, to have weapons. And there are meaningful efforts to address mental health and school safety concerns. It all reflects election-year pressure to act both parties feel after mass shootings in May killed 10 people in Buffalo, New York, and 21 more in Uvalde, Texas. Details of the plan remain in negotiation between Democrats and Republicans, with disagreements over how tightly the initiatives should be drawn. That means the proposal’s potency — and perhaps whether some parts survive — remain undetermined as it’s translated into legislation. Here’s what’s in and out of the agreement: A STRENGTHENING, NARROWLY, OF BACKGROUND CHECKS When people age 18 to 20 try buying firearms, the required federal background check would for the first time include their juvenile crime and mental health records. To allow time for getting data from state and local authorities, the process’ current three-day maximum would be extended up to seven more days, according to aides following the talks. Once the 10 days lapse, the buyer could get the weapon, even if the record search is incomplete. Currently, dealers considered in the “business” of selling guns are required to get federal firearms licenses. Such sellers must conduct background checks. Bargainers want to cover more people who, while not running a formal business, occasionally sell weapons. OTHER MEASURED CURBS The framework calls for grants to help states enforce or enact “red flag” laws that let authorities get court orders temporarily taking guns from people deemed dangerous. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have such statutes, but some lack funds to enforce them robustly. Penalties would be toughened for so-called straw purchasers, those buying guns for others who don’t qualify. More current or former romantic partners convicted of domestic abuse, or targeted with restraining orders by their victims, would be barred from getting guns. The ban applies today if the couple was married, lived together or had children together. Inclusion of the tougher restrictions against straw purchasers and estranged partners were surprises because they’d been blocked by Republicans before. ADDRESSING BROADER PROBLEMS Democrats say there will be billions of dollars to expand mental health initiatives. This would pay for more community behavioral health centers, strengthened suicide prevention and violence intervention efforts and increased access to mental telehealth visits. There would be new sums for school safety. These could include better security at building entrances, training for staff and violence prevention programs. The dollar amount is unclear. HURDLES AHEAD Democrats responsive to constituents who strongly favor gun curbs want the new law to be as stringent as possible. Republicans want nothing that would turn their adamantly pro-gun voters against them. This means tough bargaining on the fine print of the legislation. How narrowly will a new definition of which sellers need federal firearms licenses be written? Are there limits on which juvenile records would be accessible during background checks for younger buyers? What conditions would states have to meet to qualify for “red flag” funds? What legal protections would people have if the authorities consider them too risky to have firearms? How much money will the package cost?

Democrats’ first attempt at responding to the back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, failed in the Senate Thursday as Republicans blocked a domestic terrorism bill that would have opened debate on difficult questions surrounding hate crimes and gun safety. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tried to nudge Republicans into taking up a domestic terrorism bill that had cleared the House quickly last week after mass shootings at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and a church in Southern California targeting people of color. He said it could become the basis for negotiation. https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1529882618216554496?s=20&t=OQ4-azopaYFzY1NF-sbyxw But the vote failed along party lines, raising fresh doubts about the possibility of robust debate, let alone eventual compromise, on gun safety measures. The final vote was 47-47, short of the 60 needed to take up the bill. All Republicans voted against it. “We’re disappointed,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. She said it’s “shameful” that the National Rifle Association and others have stood in the way of advancing such measures but encouraged Congress to press ahead. “The president has been very clear that’s it’s time to act,” she said. Rejection of the bill, just two days after the mass shooting at a Texas elementary school that killed 19 children and two teachers, brought into sharp relief Congress’ persistent failure to pass legislation to curb the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. It also underscored the prevalence of mass shootings in the U.S. as Congress struggled to react to earlier shootings but was confronted by yet another massacre. Schumer said he will give bipartisan negotiations in the Senate about two weeks, while Congress is away for a break, to try to forge a compromise bill that could pass the 50-50 Senate, where 60 votes will be needed to overcome a filibuster. “None of us are under any illusions this will be easy,” Schumer said ahead of the vote. A small, bipartisan group of about 10 senators who have sought to negotiate legislation on guns met Thursday afternoon for the second time searching for any compromise that could win approved in Congress. They narrowed to three topics — background checks for guns purchased online or at gun shows, red-flag laws designed to keep guns away from those who could harm themselves or others, and programs to bolster security at schools and other buildings. “We have a range of options that we’re going to work on,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who is leading the negotiations. They broke into groups and will report next week. Murphy has been working to push gun legislation since the 2012 attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 20 children and six educators. He was joined Thursday by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and others. Collins, a veteran of bipartisan talks, called the meeting “constructive.” What is clear, however, is that providing funding for local gun safety efforts may be more politically viable than devising new federal policies. GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina exited the meeting saying there is no appetite for a federal red flag law or a so-called yellow flag law — which permits temporary firearm confiscation from people in danger of hurting themselves or others, if a medical practitioner signs off. But Graham

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer swiftly set in motion a pair of firearms background-check bills Wednesday in response to the school massacre in Texas. But the Democrat acknowledged Congress’ unyielding rejection of previous legislation to curb the national epidemic of gun violence. Schumer implored his Republican colleagues to cast aside the powerful gun lobby and reach across the aisle for even a modest compromise bill. But no votes are being scheduled. “Please, please, please damnit – put yourselves in the shoes of these parents just for once,” Schumer said as he opened the Senate. He threw up his hands at the idea of what might seem an inevitable outcome: “If the slaughter of schoolchildren can’t convince Republicans to buck the NRA, what can we do?” The killing of at least 19 children plus a teacher at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, has laid bare the political reality that the U.S. Congress has proven unwilling or unable to pass substantial federal legislation to curb gun violence in America. In many ways, the end of any gun violence legislation in Congress was signaled a decade ago when the Senate failed to approve a firearms background check bill after twenty 6- and 7-year-olds were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Despite the outpouring of grief Wednesday after the starkly similar Texas massacre, it’s not at all clear there will be any different outcome. “We are accepting this as the new normal,” lamented Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., on “CBS Mornings.” “It’s our choice.” While President Joe Biden said “we have to act,” substantial gun violence legislation has been blocked by Republicans, often with a handful of conservative Democrats. Despite mounting mass shootings in communities nationwide — two in the past two weeks alone, including Tuesday in Texas and the racist killing of Black shoppers at a Buffalo, New York, market 10 days earlier — lawmakers have been unwilling to set aside their differences and buck the gun lobby to work out any compromise. Even the targeting of their own failed to move Congress to act. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., was shot in the head at a Saturday morning event outside a Tucson grocery store in 2011, and several Republican lawmakers on a congressional baseball team were shot years later during morning practice. “The conclusion is the same,” said Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. “I’m not seeing any of my Republican colleagues come forward right now and say, ‘Here’s a plan to stop the carnage.’ So this is just normal now, which is ridiculous.” It’s “nuts to do nothing about this,” Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Giffords’ husband, said Wednesday using an expletive. Pleading with his colleagues for a compromise, Murphy said he was reaching out to the two Texas Republican senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, and had called fellow Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin who authored the bill that failed after Sandy Hook. “When you have babies, little children, innocent as can be, oh God,” Manchin told reporters late Tuesday, noting he had three school-age grandchildren. “It just makes no sense at all why we can’t do common sense — common sense things — and try to prevent some of this from happening.” In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, compromise legislation, written by Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday that Finland and Sweden would be “important additions” to NATO as he led a delegation of GOP senators to the region in a show of support against Russia’s aggression. McConnell also called on President Joe Biden to designate Russia as state sponsor of terrorism over its invasion of Ukraine. Speaking to reporters from Stockholm, McConnell said that Finland and Sweden, unlike some members of the Western alliance, would likely be in a position to pay their NATO obligations and would offer significant military capabilities. “They will be important additions to NATO, if they choose to join,” he said, adding, ”I think the United States ought to be first in line to ratify the treaty for both these countries to join.” McConnell is a longtime NATO supporter, and his trip to the Nordic nations with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John Barrasso of Wyoming and John Cornyn of Texas follows their surprise stop Saturday in Ukraine’s capital to express solidarity in the fight against the Kremlin. McConnell was in Sweden while leading diplomats from the 30 NATO member states met in Berlin to discuss providing more support to Ukraine and moves by Finland, Sweden and others to join NATO in the face of threats from Russia. Several hours after Finland’s announcement that it would seek to join NATO, Sweden’s governing party also endorsed becoming an alliance member, a move that could lead to the country’s application within days. The office of Finland’s president, Sauli Niinisto, said the American lawmakers will meet with the president to discuss Finland’s NATO membership, the Ukraine war and other issues. McConnell’s office confirmed the visit. But NATO-member Turkey is “not favorable” toward those two additions, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday, complicating the move to bolster the alliance as a deterrent to Russia. The high-level meetings comes as the Congress is working to approve $40 billion in military aid to Ukraine, a substantial infusion of support for the region. The measure includes $6 billion for Ukraine for intelligence, equipment and training for its forces, plus $4 billion in financing to help Ukraine and NATO allies build up their militaries. The latest round of assistance would push U.S. support to Ukraine beyond $50 billion, which has raised concerns from some conservative Republicans in the party’s isolationist wing wary of the price of overseas spending. The measure stalled in the Senate over the objection of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., but McConnell is determined to see that it passes in the coming week. “We’ll get the job done,” McConnell told reporters on a conference call. McConnell said it is in America’s interest to support Ukraine as he brushed aside criticism from some fellow Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, about the level of spending. It’s a a reemergence of the isolationist “America First” approach to foreign policy by a faction of the Republican Party. McConnell said he told Zelenskyy that there is vast bipartisan support in Congress for helping Ukraine. “This is not a charity we’re involved in here,” McConnell said. “This is to prevent this group of thugs from beginning a march through through Europe.” Asked about a resolution introduced in the Senate designating Russia a state sponsor of terror, McConnell said he supports it. But he also said

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and a delegation of GOP senators met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv during an unannounced visit Saturday, delivering the latest show of American solidarity with the country at war with Russia. A video posted on Zelenskyy’s Telegram account showed McConnell, R-Ky., and Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John Barrasso of Wyoming and John Cornyn of Texas greeting him in the capital. Zelensky, in an Instagram post, called the visit “a strong signal of bipartisan support for Ukraine from the United States Congress and the American people.” Later, in his nightly video address. Zelenskyy said he believed that the senators’ trip showed “the strong connection between the Ukrainian and American people. We discussed various areas of support for our country, including defense and finance, as well as strengthening sanctions against Russia.” The trip came at a time when the Senate is working to approve a nearly $40 billion package for Ukraine, a substantial infusion of support that will push American aid to the region well above $50 billion. The measure includes $6 billion for Ukraine for intelligence, equipment and training for its forces, plus $4 billion in financing to help Ukraine and NATO allies build up their militaries. Passage was delayed Thursday by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who demanded the inclusion of a proposal to have an inspector general scrutinize the new spending. But final approval is not in doubt and could come in the week ahead, reflecting overwhelming support in Congress for replenishing the Ukrainian war effort. “They’re only asking for the resources they need to defend themselves against this deranged invasion,” McConnell said this past week of the Ukrainians. “And they need this help right now.” It was the second high-profile congressional delegation to stop in Ukraine in as many weeks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., visited on May 1 with a group of House Democrats and promised Zelenskyy that the United States will “be there for you until the fight is done.” First lady Jill Biden visited western Ukraine last weekend for a Mother’s Day meeting with Zelenskyy’s wife, Olena Zelenska. (AP)

Russian troops were withdrawing from around Ukraine’s second-largest city after bombarding it for weeks, the Ukrainian military said Saturday, as Kyiv and Moscow’s forces engaged in a grinding battle for the country’s eastern industrial heartland. Ukraine’s military said the Russian forces were pulling back from the northeastern city of Kharkiv and focusing on guarding supply routes, while launching mortar, artillery and airstrikes in the eastern province of Donetsk in order to “deplete Ukrainian forces and destroy fortifications.” Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said Ukraine was “entering a new — long-term — phase of the war.” In a show of support, a U.S. Senate delegation led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday in Kyiv. A video posted on Zelenskyy’s Telegram account showed McConnell, who represents the state of Kentucky, and fellow Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine, John Barrasso of Wyoming and John Cornyn of Texas greeting him. Their trip came after Kentucky’s other senator, Rand Paul, blocked until next week Senate approval of an additional $40 billion to help Ukraine and its allies withstand Russia’s three-month-old invasion. After failing to capture Kyiv following the Feb. 24 invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin has shifted his focus eastward to the Donbas, an industrial region where Ukraine has battled Moscow-backed separatists since 2014. The offensive aims to encircle Ukraine’s most experienced and best-equipped troops, who are deployed in the east, and to seize parts of the Donbas that remain in Ukraine’s control. Airstrikes and artillery barrages make it extremely dangerous for journalists to move around in the east, hindering efforts to get a full picture of the fighting. But it appears to be a back-and-forth slog without major breakthroughs on either side. Russia has captured some Donbas villages and towns, including Rubizhne, which had a prewar population of around 55,000. Zelenskyy said Ukraine’s forces have also made progress in the east, retaking six towns or villages in the past day. In his nightly address Saturday, he said “the situation in Donbas remains very difficult” and Russian troops were “still trying to come out at least somewhat victorious.” “Step by step,” Zelenskyy the president said, “we are forcing the occupants to leave the Ukrainian land.” Kharkiv, which is near the Russian border and only 80 kilometers (50 miles) southwest of the Russian city of Belgorod, has undergone weeks of intense shelling. The largely Russian-speaking city with a prewar population of 1.4 million was a key military objective earlier in the war, when Moscow hoped to capture and hold major cities. Ukraine “appears to have won the Battle of Kharkiv,” the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, said. “Ukrainian forces prevented Russian troops from encircling, let alone seizing Kharkiv, and then expelled them from around the city, as they did to Russian forces attempting to seize Kyiv.” Regional Gov. Oleh Sinegubov said via the Telegram messaging app that there had been no shelling attacks on Kharkiv in the past day. He added that Ukraine launched a counteroffensive near Izyum, a city 125 kilometers (78 miles) south of Kharkiv that has been held by Russia since at least the beginning of April. Fighting was fierce on the Siversky Donets River near the city of Severodonetsk, where Ukraine has launched counterattacks but failed to halt Russia’s advance,

The Senate fell far short Wednesday in a rushed effort toward enshrining Roe v. Wade abortion access as federal law, blocked by a Republican filibuster in a blunt display of the nation’s partisan divide over the landmark court decision and the limits of legislative action. The almost party-line tally promises to be just the first of several efforts in Congress to preserve the nearly 50-year-old court ruling, which declares a constitutional right to abortion services but is at serious risk of being overturned this summer by a conservative Supreme Court. President Joe Biden said that Republicans “have chosen to stand in the way of Americans’ rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives.” Biden urged voters to elect more abortion-rights lawmakers in November and pledged in the meantime to explore other ways to secure the rights established in Roe. For now, his party’s slim majority proved unable to overcome the filibuster led by Republicans, who have been working for decades to install conservative Supreme Court justices and end Roe v. Wade. The vote was 51-49 against proceeding, with 60 votes needed to move ahead. Congress has battled for years over abortion policy, but the Wednesday vote to take up a House-passed bill was given new urgency after the disclosure of a draft Supreme Court opinion to overturn the Roe decision that many had believed to be settled law. The outcome of the conservative-majority court’s actual ruling, expected this summer, is sure to reverberate around the country and on the campaign trail ahead of the fall midterm elections that will determine which party controls Congress. Security was tight at the Capitol where Vice President Kamala Harris presided, and it has been bolstered across the street at the Supreme Court after protesters turned out in force last week following the leaked draft. Scores of House Democratic lawmakers marched protest-style to the Senate and briefly watched from the visitor galleries. Harris can provide a tie-breaking vote in the 50-50 split Senate, but that was beside the point on Wednesday. One conservative Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted with the Republicans, saying he supported keeping Roe v. Wade but believed the current bill was too broad. “The Senate is not where the majority of Americans are on this issue,” Harris said afterward. Over several days, Democratic senators delivered speeches contending that undoing abortion access would mean great harm, not only for women but for all Americans planning families and futures. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., said that most American women have only known a world where abortion access was guaranteed but could face a future with fewer rights than their mothers or grandmothers. “That means women will not have the same control over their lives and bodies as men do, and that’s wrong,” she said in the run-up to Wednesday’s vote. Few Republican senators spoke in favor of ending abortion access, but they embraced the filibuster to block the bill from advancing. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, an architect of the effort to install conservative justices on the Supreme Court — including three during the Trump era — has sought to downplay the outcome of any potential changes in federal abortion policy. “This issue will be dealt with at the state level,” McConnell said. Some other Republicans,

The Senate fell far short Wednesday in a rushed effort toward enshrining Roe v. Wade abortion access as federal law, blocked by a Republican filibuster in a blunt display of the nation’s partisan divide over the landmark court decision and the limits of legislative action. The almost party-line tally promises to be just the first of several efforts in Congress to preserve the nearly 50-year-old court ruling, which declares a constitutional right to abortion services but is at serious risk of being overturned this summer by a conservative Supreme Court. President Joe Biden said that Republicans “have chosen to stand in the way of Americans’ rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives.” Biden urged voters to elect more abortion-rights lawmakers in November and pledged in the meantime to explore other ways to secure the rights established in Roe. For now, his party’s slim majority proved unable to overcome the filibuster led by Republicans, who have been working for decades to install conservative Supreme Court justices and end Roe v. Wade. The vote was 51-49 against proceeding, with 60 votes needed to move ahead. Congress has battled for years over abortion policy, but the Wednesday vote to take up a House-passed bill was given new urgency after the disclosure of a draft Supreme Court opinion to overturn the Roe decision that many had believed to be settled law. The outcome of the conservative-majority court’s actual ruling, expected this summer, is sure to reverberate around the country and on the campaign trail ahead of the fall midterm elections that will determine which party controls Congress. Security was tight at the Capitol where Vice President Kamala Harris presided, and it has been bolstered across the street at the Supreme Court after protesters turned out in force last week following the leaked draft. Scores of House Democratic lawmakers marched protest-style to the Senate and briefly watched from the visitor galleries. Harris can provide a tie-breaking vote in the 50-50 split Senate, but that was beside the point on Wednesday. One conservative Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted with the Republicans, saying he supported keeping Roe v. Wade but believed the current bill was too broad. “The Senate is not where the majority of Americans are on this issue,” Harris said afterward. Over several days, Democratic senators delivered speeches contending that undoing abortion access would mean great harm, not only for women but for all Americans planning families and futures. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., said that most American women have only known a world where abortion access was guaranteed but could face a future with fewer rights than their mothers or grandmothers. “That means women will not have the same control over their lives and bodies as men do, and that’s wrong,” she said in the run-up to Wednesday’s vote. Few Republican senators spoke in favor of ending abortion access, but they embraced the filibuster to block the bill from advancing. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, an architect of the effort to install conservative justices on the Supreme Court — including three during the Trump era — has sought to downplay the outcome of any potential changes in federal abortion policy. “This issue will be dealt with at the state level,” McConnell said. Some other Republicans,

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says Democrats’ abortion legislation is “very simple,” as it would enshrine into federal law the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Senate Democrats are moving quickly to try to codify the 50-year-old ruling after a draft U.S. Supreme Court opinion suggesting the court is poised to overturn the case was leaked last week. But they don’t have enough votes, and Republicans are expected to block the bill in a test vote Wednesday. But if the Democratic legislation were to become law, it would do more than just preserve the status quo. The bill would also expand protections, invalidating many state laws that Democrats and abortion rights advocates say have infringed on the original 1973 ruling. Two Republican senators who support abortion rights have indicated they won’t vote for it, instead favoring their own, narrower legislation. A look at the legislation the Senate is voting on Wednesday: CODIFYING ROE V. WADE Broadly, the main objective of the legislation is to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law, meaning it would be much harder for the Supreme Court to overturn. In the five decades the ruling has been court precedent, abortion rights supporters have not been able to pass federal legislation to legalize abortion. And because the Supreme Court decided on that right, it can also take it away — however rare that move may be. In codifying Roe, the legislation would establish that health care providers have rights to provide abortion services and that patients have a right to receive abortions. BANNING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS The Democrats’ bill would also end certain state laws that they say have chipped away at the original Roe v. Wade decision, banning what they say are medically unnecessary restrictions that block access to safe and accessible abortions. The court has allowed states to regulate but not ban abortion before the point of viability, around 24 weeks, resulting in a variety of state laws and restrictions that abortion-rights supporters oppose. The bill would end bans earlier than 24 weeks, in addition to any restrictions that do not make exceptions for the patient’s health or life. It would also stop states from requiring providers share “medically inaccurate” information, or from requiring additional tests or waiting periods, aimed at dissuading a patient from having an abortion. REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska support abortion rights but have opposed the Democratic legislation, saying it is too expansive and could threaten some religious liberties that states have sought to protect. They have introduced legislation that would hew closer to what the court currently allows, more generally prohibiting states from imposing an “undue burden” on the ability of a woman to choose whether to have an abortion prior to fetal viability. It is not expected to get a vote. NEXT STEPS Without the votes to pass their bill, Democrats have few options to block the eventual court ruling, if it overturns Roe v. Wade. Democratic leaders have signaled that they instead intend to take the fight to voters ahead of this year’s midterms. “We’ve got to win elections,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Tuesday. (AP)