A hands-off approach to moderating content at Elon Musk’s Twitter could clash with ambitious new laws in Europe meant to protect users from disinformation, hate speech and other harmful material. Musk, who describes himself as a “free speech absolutist,” pledged to buy Twitter for $44 billion this week, with European Union officials and digital campaigners quick to say that any focus on free speech to the detriment of online safety would not fly after the 27-nation bloc solidified its status as a global leader in the effort to rein in the power of tech giants. “If his approach will be ‘just stop moderating it,’ he will likely find himself in a lot of legal trouble in the EU,” said Jan Penfrat, senior policy adviser at digital rights group EDRi. Musk will soon be confronted with Europe’s Digital Services Act, which will require big tech companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook parent Meta to police their platforms more strictly or face billions in fines. Officials agreed just days ago on the landmark legislation, expected to take effect by 2024. It’s unclear how soon it could spark a similar crackdown elsewhere, with U.S. lawmakers divided on efforts to address competition, online privacy, disinformation and more. That means the job of reining in a Musk-led Twitter could fall to Europe — something officials signaled they’re ready for. “Be it cars or social media, any company operating in Europe needs to comply with our rules — regardless of their shareholding,” Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner, tweeted Tuesday. “Mr Musk knows this well. He is familiar with European rules on automotive, and will quickly adapt to the Digital Services Act.” Musk’s plans for Twitter haven’t been fleshed out beyond a few ideas for new features, opening its algorithm to public inspection and defeating “bots” posing as real users. France’s digital minister, Cedric O, said Musk has “interesting things” that he wants to push for Twitter, “but let’s remember that #DigitalServicesAct — and therefore the obligation to fight misinformation, online hate, etc. — will apply regardless of the ideology of its owner.” EU Green Party lawmaker Alexandra Geese, who was involved in negotiating the law, said, “Elon Musk’s idea of free speech without content moderation would exclude large parts of the population from public discourse,” such as women and people of color. Twitter declined to comment. Musk tweeted that “the extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all.” He added that by free speech, he means “that which matches the law” and that he’s against censorship going “far beyond the law.” The United Kingdom also has an online safety law in the works that threatens senior managers at tech companies with prison if they don’t comply. Users would get more power to block anonymous trolls, and tech companies would be forced to proactively take down illegal content. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s office stressed the need for Twitter to remain “responsible” and protect users. “Regardless of ownership, all social media platforms must be responsible,” Johnson’s spokesman Max Blain said Tuesday. Damian Collins, a British lawmaker who led a parliamentary committee working on the bill, said that if Musk really wants to make Twitter a free speech haven, “he will need to clean up the digital town square.” Collins said Twitter has

Many Americans still question whether President Joe Biden is showing enough strength in response to Russia’s war against Ukraine, even as most approve of steps the U.S. is already taking and few want U.S. troops to get involved in the conflict. A poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 54% of Americans think Biden has been “not tough enough” in his response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Thirty-six percent think his approach has been about right, while 8% say he’s been too tough. But as the war has dragged on, Americans’ desire to get involved has waned somewhat. Thirty-two percent of Americans say the U.S. should have a major role in the conflict. That’s ticked back down from 40% last month, though that remains slightly higher than the 26% who said so in February. An additional 49% say the U.S. should have a minor role. The results underscore the conundrum for the White House. As images of Russian attacks on civilians and hospitals are shared around the world, there’s pressure to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin and help millions of Ukrainians under attack in their home country or fleeing for safety. But Biden must also manage the threat of escalation with Putin, who has raised the alert level on using Russia’s nuclear weapons, and prevent the U.S. from getting involved in a much larger conflict. “Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they’ve faced so far militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons,” CIA Director William Burns said in a recent speech at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Burns added that “so far we haven’t seen a lot of practical evidence” of Russian nuclear escalation. The White House has authorized more than $2 billion in weapons and led Western sanctions that have crushed the Russian economy. Biden has ruled out sending U.S. troops — a decision supported by a majority of Americans. The U.S. has also held back some weapons and defensive systems sought by Ukraine and placed early limits on intelligence sharing that have been loosened throughout the conflict. The poll and follow-up interviews with respondents indicate many Americans, responding to images of Ukrainians being killed and Russian forces allegedly committing war crimes, want to see more action to stop Putin. A majority — 57% — say they believe Putin has directed his troops to commit war crimes. Just 6% say he has not, while 36% say they aren’t sure. “I know that we’re not directly responsible,” said Rachel Renfro, a 35-year-old from Nashville, Tennessee. “But we’ve always been the kind of people that insert ourselves into these kinds of situations and I don’t understand why we’re not doing that now to a bigger degree.” Renfro wants to see the U.S. accept more refugees and provide more aid to Ukraine. Sending troops should be “an absolute last resort,” she said. Most Americans are in favor of the U.S. sanctioning Russia for the invasion, providing weapons to Ukraine and accepting refugees from Ukraine into the U.S. More Americans also support than oppose deploying U.S. troops to Eastern Europe to support U.S. NATO allies in response to Russia’s invasion, and about two-thirds say NATO

A milestone Supreme Court confirmation that endured a flawed process. The collapse of a bipartisan compromise for more pandemic funds. The departure of a stalwart of the dwindling band of moderate House Republicans. Party-line fights on Capitol Hill are as old as the republic, and they routinely escalate as elections approach. Yet three events from a notable week illustrate how Congress’ near- and long-term paths point toward intensifying partisanship. THE SENATE’S SUPREME COURT BATTLE Democrats rejoiced Thursday when the Senate by 53-47 confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first Black female justice. They crowed about a bipartisan stamp of approval from the trio of Republicans who supported it: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Yet by historical standards, the three opposition party votes were paltry and underscored the recent trend of Supreme Court confirmations becoming loyalty tests on party ideology. That’s a departure from a decades-long norm when senators might dislike a nominee’s judicial philosophy but defer to a president’s pick, barring a disqualifying revelation. Murkowski said her support for Jackson was partly “rejection of the corrosive politicization” of how both parties consider Supreme Court nominations, which “is growing worse and more detached from reality by the year.” Republicans said they would treat Jackson respectfully, and many did. Their questions and criticisms of her were pointed and partisan, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., saying “the Senate views itself as a co-partner in this process” with the president. Yet some potential 2024 GOP presidential contenders seemed to use Jackson’s confirmation to woo hard-right support. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., misleadingly accused her of being unusually lenient on child pornography offenders. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., suggested she might have defended Nazis at the Nuremburg trials after World War II, before she was born. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said some Republicans “went overboard, as far as I’m concerned, to the extreme,” reflecting “the reality of politics on Capitol Hill.” Cotton was “fundamentally unfair, but that is his tradition,” said Durbin. SUPREME COURT BATTLES PAST Senate approval of high court nominees by voice vote, without bothering to hold roll calls, was standard for most of the 20th century. Conservative Antonin Scalia sailed into the Supreme Court by 98-0 in 1986, while liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg won 96-3 approval seven years later. There were bitter fights. Democrats blocked conservative Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987 and unsuccessfully opposed Clarence Thomas’ ascension in 1991 after he was accused of sexual harassment. Hard feelings intensified in early 2016. McConnell, then majority leader, blocked the Senate from even considering President Barack Obama’s pick of Merrick Garland to replace the deceased Scalia. McConnell cited the presidential election nearly nine months away, infuriating Democrats. Donald Trump was elected and ultimately filled three vacancies over near-unanimous Democratic opposition. Democrats opposed Brett Kavanaugh after he was accused of sexually assaulting a woman decades earlier, which he denied. They voted solidly against Amy Coney Barrett after Trump and McConnell rushed through her nomination when a vacancy occurred just weeks before Election Day 2020, a sprint Democrats called hypocritical. COVID SPENDING FIGHT, TRANSFORMED Senators from both parties agreed to a $10 billion COVID-19 package Monday that President Joe Biden wants for more therapeutics, vaccines and tests. With BA.2, the

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney announced Monday night they will vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s historic elevation to the Supreme Court, giving President Joe Biden’s nominee a burst of bipartisan support and all but assuring she’ll become the first Black female justice. The senators from Alaska and Utah announced their decisions ahead of a procedural vote to advance the nomination and as Democrats pressed to confirm Jackson by the end of the week. GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announced last week that she would back Jackson, noting her “stellar qualifications” as a federal judge, public defender and member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. All three Republicans said they did not expect to agree with all of Jackson’s decisions, but they found her extremely well qualified. Romney said Jackson “more than meets the standard of excellence and integrity.” Murkowski said she will “bring to the Supreme Court a range of experience from the courtroom that few can match given her background in litigation.” With three Republicans supporting her in the 50-50 split Senate, Jackson is on a glidepath to confirmation and on the brink of making history as the third Black justice and only the sixth woman in the court’s more than 200-year history. Beyond the historic element, Democrats have cited her deep experience in nine years on the federal bench and the chance for her to become the first former public defender on the court. Both Collins and Murkowski said they believed that the Senate nomination process has become broken as it has become more partisan in the past several decades. Murkowski, who is up for reelection this year, said her decision partly rests “on my rejection of the corrosive politicization of the review process for Supreme Court nominees, which, on both sides of the aisle, is growing worse and more detached from reality by the year.” After the vote, Murkowski said she had “assumed a level of risk” but “there’s three of us that found ourselves in this place where I believe the strength, qualifications of the candidate are such that are appropriate for the court.” Biden nominated Jackson to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, who will step down after the court’s session ends this summer. Biden has sought bipartisan backing for his pick, making repeated calls to senators and inviting Republicans to the White House. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday that administration officials would work the phones until the last minute to maximize support. “Judge Jackson will bring extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and a rigorous judicial record to the Supreme Court,” Biden tweeted earlier Monday. “She deserves to be confirmed as the next justice.” The Senate’s 53-47 vote Monday evening was to “discharge” Jackson’s nomination from the Senate Judiciary Committee after the panel deadlocked, 11-11, on whether to send the nomination to the Senate floor. The committee vote, split along party lines, was the first deadlock on a Supreme Court nomination in three decades. The Judiciary committee’s top Republican, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, said he opposed Jackson’s nomination because “she and I have fundamental, different views on the role of judges and the role that they should play in our system of government.” The committee hadn’t deadlocked since 1991, when Biden was chairman and a motion to send

The Senate Judiciary Committee debated Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination for Supreme Court justice on Monday with Democrats aiming to confirm her by the end of the week as the first Black woman on the high court. The panel recessed at midday after one of the Democrats, California Sen. Alex Padilla, was delayed on a flight. The committee was expected to vote later in the day and deadlock on the nomination, 11-11. All of the Republicans on the panel are opposing Jackson, and the full Senate is evenly split 50-50. If the committee deadlocks, Democrats are expected to immediately move to the Senate floor to “discharge” Jackson’s nomination. While that won’t delay the process for long, it is still another blow for Democrats who had hoped to confirm Jackson with bipartisan support. President Joe Biden urged senators to support her in a tweet as the committee meeting began. “Judge Jackson will bring extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and a rigorous judicial record to the Supreme Court,” Biden tweeted. “She deserves to be confirmed as the next justice.” The discharge vote, expected late Monday, would be the first of several procedural steps on the Senate floor with a goal of a final confirmation vote by Friday. With the support of at least one Republican, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Jackson is on a glidepath toward confirmation to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. After more than 30 hours of hearings and interrogation from Republicans over her record, Jackson is on the brink of making history as the third Black justice and only the sixth woman in the court’s more than 200-year history. Democrats cite her deep experience in nine years on the federal bench and the chance for her to become the first former public defender on the court. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said as he opened Monday’s meeting that Jackson has “the highest level of skill, integrity, civility and grace.” “This committee’s action today in nothing less than making history,” Durbin said. “I’m honored to be a part of it. I will strongly and proudly support Judge Jackson’s nomination.” The committee’s top Republican, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, said he was opposing Jackson’s nomination because “she and I have fundamental, different views on the role of judges and the role that they should play in our system of government.” The committee hasn’t deadlocked since 1991, when Biden was chairman of the panel and a motion to send the nomination of current Justice Clarence Thomas to the floor with a “favorable” recommendation failed on a 7-7 vote. The committee then voted to send the nomination to the floor without a recommendation, meaning it could still be brought up for a vote. A deadlocked vote on Jackson would be “a truly unfortunate signal of the continued descent into dysfunction of our confirmation process,” Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the committee, said last week. So far, Democrats know they will have at least one GOP vote in favor on the floor — Collins, who announced last week that she will support the nominee. Collins said that even though she may not always agree with her, Jackson “possesses the experience, qualifications and integrity to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court.” It’s unclear so far whether any

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday he won’t vote for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressing concerns about her record despite supporting her confirmation as an appeals court judge last year. The South Carolina senator’s announcement had been expected after he criticized Jackson during her four days of hearings last week. But it gives Democrats one less Republican vote as they seek bipartisan backing for President Joe Biden’s pick to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. Graham, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were the only three Republicans to vote to confirm Jackson on the appeals court in 2021. Collins announced Wednesday that she’ll vote for Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination, as well, giving Democrats at least one GOP vote. Murkowski has said she’s still undecided. A final confirmation vote is expected next week. Jackson would be the first Black woman on the high court in its more than 200-year history, and the sixth woman. In a speech on the Senate floor, Graham said his decision is based partly on what he sees as a “flawed sentencing methodology regarding child pornography cases,” echoing a line of questioning by some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Several senators, some eyeing a run for president, repeatedly asked her about her sentencing decisions in her nine years as a federal judge in an effort to paint her as too lenient on sex criminals. Jackson told the committee that “nothing could be further from the truth” and explained her sentencing decisions in detail. She said some of the cases have given her nightmares and were “among the worst that I have seen.” Democrats pointed to testimony last week by the chair of the American Bar Association committee that makes recommendations on federal judges. Ann Claire Williams, the head of that ABA panel, said the idea that Jackson is out of the mainstream on sentencing “never came up” in a review of more than 250 judges and lawyers. The review found Jackson and her record to be “outstanding, excellent, superior, superb,” Williams said. Graham also mentioned Jackson’s her legal advocacy on behalf of terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay more than a decade ago and her support from liberal groups. “After a thorough review of Judge Jackson’s record and information gained at the hearing from an evasive witness, I now know why Judge Jackson was the favorite of the radical left,” Graham said. At the hearing, Graham also aired past grievances, asking Jackson about her religion and how often she goes to church — heated comments that he said were fair game after some Democratic questions about Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholicism ahead of her confirmation hearings in 2020. Graham’s “no” vote will be the first time he has voted against a Supreme Court nominee. He voted for President Barack Obama’s two picks, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and has often said that he believes a president’s nominees should win confirmation no matter the party. But he has become increasingly angry about the process in recent years, especially as Democrats enthusiastically opposed then-President Donald Trump’s three nominees. Graham has also expressed frustration that Biden didn’t pick the South Carolina judge he was pushing for the job. “To my Democratic colleagues, I’ll work with you when I can, but

Maine Sen. Susan Collins said Wednesday she will vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, giving Democrats at least one Republican vote and all but assuring that Jackson will become the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. Collins met with Jackson a second time after four days of hearings last week and said Wednesday that “she possesses the experience, qualifications, and integrity to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court.” “I will, therefore, vote to confirm her to this position,” Collins said. Collins’ support gives Democrats at least a one-vote cushion in the 50-50 Senate and likely saves them from having to use Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote to confirm President Joe Biden’s pick. Senate Democratic leaders are pushing toward a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the nomination Monday and a final Senate vote to confirm Jackson late next week. White House chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted that he was “grateful” to Collins for “giving fair, thoughtful consideration” to Jackson and to other lower court nominees she has supported. Jackson, who would replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, would be the third Black justice, after Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and the sixth woman. She would also be the first former public defender on the court. It is expected that all 50 Democrats will support her, though one notable moderate Democrat, Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, hasn’t yet said how she will vote. Collins was the most likely Republican to support Jackson, and she has a history of voting for Supreme Court nominees picked by presidents of both parties, as well as other judicial nominations. The only Supreme Court nominee she’s voted against since her election in the mid-1990s is Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated by then-President Donald Trump after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the weeks before Trump’s election defeat to Biden in 2020. Collins, who was up for reelection that year, said she voted against Barrett because of the accelerated six-week timeline. “It’s not a comment on her,” Collins said of Barrett at the time. In her statement supporting Jackson, the Maine senator said she doesn’t expect that she will always agree with Jackson’s decisions. “That alone, however, is not disqualifying,” Collins said. “Indeed, that statement applies to all six justices, nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents, whom I have voted to confirm.” Collins said she believes the process is “broken” as it has become increasingly divided along party lines. When Collins first came to the Senate, Supreme Court confirmations were much more bipartisan. Breyer, who will step down this summer, was confirmed on an 87-9 vote in 1994. “In my view, the role the Constitution clearly assigns to the Senate is to examine the experience, qualifications, and integrity of the nominee,” Collins said. “It is not to assess whether a nominee reflects the ideology of an individual senator or would rule exactly as an individual senator would want.” In Jackson’s hearings, several Republican senators interrogated her on sentencing decisions in her nine years as a federal judge and in child pornography cases in particular. The senators, several of whom are eyeing a run for president, asked the same questions repeatedly in an effort to paint her as too lenient on sex criminals. Jackson told the committee that “nothing

As President Joe Biden meets with key allies in Brussels to coordinate a stronger response to Russia’s monthlong assault on Ukraine, a new poll shows Americans have yet to rally around his leadership. Concern about Russia has swelled and support for a major U.S. role in the conflict strengthened in the last month, but Biden’s negative approval rating has not budged, according to the poll Thursday from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Few are very confident that he can handle a crisis, and a majority thinks he lacks toughness in dealing with Russia. Only 43% of Americans approve of Biden and a similar percentage approve of his handling of the relationship with Russia. Both measures are little different from an AP-NORC poll conducted days before the Feb. 24 invasion. The U.S., along with NATO allies, have tried to isolate Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin with sanctions, including freezing foreign assets of Russia’s central bank and cutting off its supply to essential war materiel. But Russia has continued for a month to batter cities in Ukraine with air strikes and artillery, despite a stalled ground invasion. Over the next three days, the Biden administration aims to work with key European allies on a united strategy to aid Ukraine militarily, increase sanctions on Russia and wrestle with the worsening humanitarian crisis, according to Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser. Biden does so on shaky ground with the American public. Only about a quarter are very confident that the president has the ability to handle a crisis, promote U.S. standing in the world or effectively manage the U.S. military, though most have at least some confidence. Fifty-six percent of Americans think Biden has not been tough enough on Russia, while 36% say his approach has been “about right.” Even among members of his own party, Biden faces pressure to do more. The poll shows Democrats are closely divided over the president’s response, with 43% saying he hasn’t been tough enough. Somewhat more, 53%, say it’s been “about right.” “I understand he’s between a rock and a hard place,” said Rachel Collins, a 41-year-old Democrat from Chicago. “It just feels like Putin’s not going to stop at Ukraine.” Collins, an elementary school teacher, said she feels like she’s watching history unfolding yet again. “How many years are we gonna watch this happen and then have to step in anyway?” she added. “It just feels inevitable and, in the meantime, we’re just watching all these people suffer.” While support for a major U.S. role has grown since last month, from 26% to 40%, Biden faces a tightrope walk to avoid war and to curb the impact on the American people. The poll shows close to half of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about being drawn into war with Russia. Biden has repeatedly said that he will not send American troops to Ukraine, though some have been deployed to neighboring NATO countries. “I think that he’s doing the right thing and being cautious, but it’s really hard when you’re watching and reading about these stories day to day,” Collins said. “More aggressive at where we are means putting troops on the ground, and I don’t necessarily know if that’s the answer either.” “Then, you know, there’ll be people saying ‘why are

Republican U.S. senators are imploring the Biden administration to reverse course and allow the transfer of Poland’s MiG fighter jets to the Ukrainians to fight the Russian invasion, a sign the Defense Department’s rejection of the offer may be running into steep resistance on Capitol Hill. Forty GOP senators signed onto a letter Thursday from Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa and Mitt Romney of Utah urging President Joe Biden to answer the plea from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who told lawmakers over the weekend that if the U.S. could not help with a no-fly zone over his skies, it could at least send more planes for his people to defend against the attack from Russia. “Enough talk. People are dying,” Romney said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “Send them the planes they need.” The groundswell of Republican opposition to the Pentagon’s rejection of Poland’s offer has apparently caught the attention of the highest ranks of the administration — senators said Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was reaching out in calls to Capitol Hill. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said it’s hard to see the destruction — especially the Russian airstrike on a maternity hospital — and be opposed to providing the Ukrainians “with these essential aircraft.” The Biden administration had initially indicated that the Soviet-era planes now in NATO ally Poland could be transferred to help provide air support as Ukraine battles Russia’s assault. But the Pentagon on Wednesday slammed the door on a surprise offer from Poland to instead transfer the planes to NATO by handing them off at a U.S. base in Germany. The Pentagon said the planes are not the most effective weaponry and the Polish plan could run a “high risk” of escalating the war. The GOP senators rejected the administration’s arguments, saying the U.S. needs to stand by its commitments and provide Zelenskyy what he needs to defend Ukraine, as ordinary people take up arms in what many around the world have viewed as a heroic effort to save their country. “We implore you to act without delay to provide urgently needed airpower that will bolster the ability of the Ukrainian armed forces to defend their country and help save civilian lives,” the senators wrote. The Republican senators dismissed the Pentagon’s concern that transferring the planes through NATO would be viewed by Russia as provocative at a time when the U.S. is already sending anti-aircraft missiles and other military support to the Ukrainians. The senators also argued that the logistical problems the administration has raised against replacing Poland’s MiGs with U.S. F-16s, which have been promised elsewhere, could be handled in other ways, perhaps with other surplus aircraft in U.S. storage. While some on and off Capitol Hill have argued that lethal drones and anti-aircraft missiles could be more effective in the fight against Russian airpower, some of the GOP senators argued for an all-of-the-above approach. Mostly the senators were hopeful — if not confident — that if they applied pressure to the White House it would reverse course. That has happened repeatedly in recent weeks, as lawmakers pushed the White House to take a tougher stand than the Biden administration first appeared willing to take. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky criticized the Biden administration for

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson began courting senators on Capitol Hill Wednesday, making her case for confirmation in private meetings as Democrats worked to move her through the Senate within weeks. Senate Democrats concerned about their narrow 50-50 majority — Vice President Kamala Harris breaks the tie — announced Wednesday that Jackson’s hearings will begin March 21, just three weeks after President Joe Biden nominated her to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. With a goal of an April confirmation, they are using Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s quick confirmation ahead of the 2020 presidential election as a model for Jackson, who would be the first Black woman to serve as a justice in the court’s 200-plus year history. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin called the quick confirmation process “a contemporary standard” on Wednesday after he met with Jackson in his office, while acknowledging that part of the reason for the rapid timeline was because of his party’s tenuous hold on the Senate. “There’s no reason to wait,” Durbin said, even though Breyer has said he won’t leave the bench until summer. He noted that the committee is also familiar with Jackson, who was just confirmed as an appeals court judge last year and had been confirmed by the Senate two times before that. The sped-up timeline is just one byproduct of increased partisanship, and a decade of gradual rules changes, in the once-collegial Senate. The majority party knows it can win confirmation with a simple majority, and bipartisan outreach is more symbolic than necessary. While the Senate once took up to two months to review cases and credentials before questioning a nominee, Republicans held hearings just two weeks after Barrett’s nomination to replace the late liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the presidential election loomed.   Senators will have a bit more time to review Jackson’s record, but not much. There has been little pushback from Republicans, who confirmed Barrett and two other justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, while they controlled the Senate and President Donald Trump was in office. While few GOP senators are expected to vote for Jackson, and several have questioned whether she is too liberal, they are not spending much political energy to oppose her, so far. Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a GOP member of the Judiciary panel, said, “I don’t think there’s a lot of mystery involved,” since Jackson isn’t new to the committee. “Given the fact that she’s not going to change the balance, the ideological balance on the court, I think people will be respectful, and they’ll do their due diligence and ask questions, but I think we all have a pretty good idea what the outcome is likely to be, unless there’s a big surprise,” Cornyn said. So far, there have been few surprises with Jackson, who has been a federal judge for nine years and is well-liked by members of both parties. After his own meeting with Jackson, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said the Senate will move her nomination “fairly but expeditiously.” He gushed about the nominee to reporters, saying she is “an optimistic person” who tries to see all sides of an issue. He said they spoke some about her judicial philosophy but mostly about her life and her family. “You can see it when you meet

If there’s one thing that pains everyone trying to reach the IRS at tax time, it’s being stuck on endless hold. Well, not everyone. E. Martin Davidoff’s accounting firm spends upwards of $5,000 a year to a company that can zip him and others to the front of the line to get through to an IRS customer service representative. He says paying for enQ’s line-jumping service cuts out hours every day that he would otherwise spend waiting to talk to an agent. “It’s the epitome of American entrepreneurship,” says Davidoff, who heads the National Tax Controversy Practice for Prager Metis in New Jersey. Consumer advocates are less enamored with enQ, seeing it as a pay-to-play arrangement that gives those who can afford it a way to get quick access to what should be a free government service equally available to all. Members of Congress from both parties have concerns, too. The service is expected to come up on Thursday when the Senate Finance Committee holds a hearing on customer service problems at the IRS, where call volumes have reached record levels. “No taxpayers should have to fork over $1,000 to a private company to get their phone calls answered by the IRS. It’s maddening,” committee chairman Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote in an email to the AP. “Rebuilding this agency so it can serve hardworking taxpayers is a top priority, and the committee will again examine the issue this week.” Last November, Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La.; Todd Young, R-Ind.; Bob Menendez, D-N.J.; and Mark Warner, D-Va., wrote to the IRS to urge the agency to investigate how the company’s robocalls to the IRS affect agency phone systems. The company’s bots regularly get in the queue for various IRS service lines, and then clients who dial in to enQ can swap in to spots at the front of the waiting list. Tax professionals who need regular access to IRS services during the busy filing season say that while enQ may be controversial, it’s necessary for them to do complicated tax work. The service, which can cost $300 a month or $1,000 a year, claims to cut phone hold times by up to 90%. And the problem is immense. At the height of the 2021 filing season, the IRS was receiving more than 1,500 calls per second. National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins, who serves as an IRS ombudsman, told a House subcommittee earlier this month that taxpayers had more difficulty reaching the IRS by phone in 2021 than ever before. Because of staffing issues and an overload of work, just 11% of the 282 million phone calls received last year were answered. Andrew Valiente, founder and CEO of enQ, declined to comment in detail, stating in an email that he was “hyper-focused on building” the business. In a video on his website, he says his approach may be “unorthodox,” but it’s also a “no-brainer” to avoid wasting time on hold. Mark Steber, chief tax officer at Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, is among the many CPAs who use enQ. “We’re conflicted that it costs money to access a free government service,’” Steber said, “but in the service of serving American taxpayers, I kind of fault the IRS for not having funding and resources — but they haven’t been funded for 20 years.”

The list of Republicans willing to support President Joe Biden’s forthcoming nominee to the Supreme Court “is longer than you would initially imagine,” the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat recently teased to reporters. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin declined to name names. But it’s clear that Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is near the top of the list. Graham, who tethered himself to former President Donald Trump, is among a handful of Republicans declaring their willingness to break party lines and vote for the yet-to-be-announced White House choice to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. Whether Graham or any Republican ends up backing Biden’s eventual nominee in the 50-50 Senate will be a new test for the president’s long stated and rarely achieved ambitions to see Washington embrace a more bipartisan approach after the bitterness of the Trump era. Democrats say obtaining a bipartisan vote is a top priority during the upcoming confirmation battle. “It will be great for the Senate. It will be great for the Supreme Court,” Durbin said after a White House meeting Thursday. “I hope we can achieve that goal.” That effort will make Graham a senator to watch. Whether Democrats can win Graham’s vote — and that of other Republicans such as Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — remains to be seen. Enduring bitterness over the way Republicans steamrolled their way to a Supreme Court majority under Trump is still a dividing line. Graham has at times signaling a willingness to partner initially with Democrats, only to retreat to a partisan corner. Graham led efforts in the Senate to defend Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump nominee for the high court, from accusations of sexual assault, and it was Graham who brazenly abandoned a promise to refrain from confirming a justice in a presidential election year. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he helped to seat Amy Coney Barrett on the court just days before Biden’s election win in November 2020. But Graham also has a history of working with Democrats and has long said lawmakers should show deference to a president’s picks. He was the only Republican on the committee to vote for two of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. Graham also has voted against only a handful of Biden’s judicial nominees while supporting about 30. “I’m playing the game different than everybody else,” Graham told The Associated Press in explaining his votes. While some in the GOP have mocked Biden’s promise to nominate a Black woman, a historic first, Graham was quick to defend it. “Put me in the camp of making sure the court and other institutions look like America,” he said. But there’s a catch. Graham wants the choice to be a fellow South Carolinian, U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs, and has said his vote will be “much more problematic” if it isn’t her. He calls Childs someone “I can see myself supporting — if she does well here” and argues that she could win the most GOP support. “She has a hell of a story, and she would be somebody I think that could bring the Senate together and probably get more than 60 votes,” Graham said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” The White House says Childs, who had been nominated for a federal appeals court at the time Breyer made his retirement announcement, is under consideration even

President Joe Biden had zeroed in on a pair of finalists for his first Supreme Court pick when there were rumors last year that Justice Stephen Breyer would retire. But since the upcoming retirement was announced late last month, it has come with the rise of a third candidate, one with ready-made bipartisan support that has complicated the decision. For Biden, it’s a tantalizing prospect. The president believes he was elected to try to bring the country together following the yawning and rancorous political divide that grew during the Trump administration and especially following the Capitol insurrection in January 2021. And a Supreme Court nominee with a raft of qualifications who has the vocal support of even one or two Republican senators could well attract the backing of other Republicans. That, in turn, could make for a smoother nomination process after some painfully partisan ones in recent years. This story is based on accounts from seven people familiar with Biden’s decision-making who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to talk about private discussions. Two of the three judges now on Biden’s short list were evaluated last year by White House aides, although that early vetting did not include deep dives into their opinions or backgrounds, formal interviews or FBI background checks. They are Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, a recent appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where she has served since June 2021, and Leondra Kruger, 45, a California Supreme Court judge since 2015 who would be the first person in more than 40 years to move from a state court to the Supreme Court if she were to be confirmed. Jackson is seen as the top candidate. And she, too, has a proven record of bipartisan support: She was confirmed to the appeals court on a 53-44 vote. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted for her. But J. Michelle Childs has rapidly become a serious third candidate after House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D.-S.C., publicly announced his support for her, as did the state’s Republican senators, Graham and Tim Scott. Graham has made clear Childs is his preferred choice. The 55-year-old is a federal judge in South Carolina who has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That nomination is on hold while she’s under consideration for the high court. Childs lacks the elite law school credentials of many current Supreme Court justices — she attended the University of South Carolina School of Law. But that’s part of her appeal to Clyburn and others who question why Ivy League credentials are necessary. Eight of the court’s nine current members attended law school at Harvard or Yale. Childs also has a master’s degree from the school as well as a different legal degree from Duke. Among the three justices on Biden’s short list, Childs is considered the most moderate, and she has been criticized by progressives and labor groups who say her record is not sufficiently supportive of worker rights. She was previously a state court judge and has served as a federal trial court judge since 2010. Jackson did attend Harvard Law School and has expertise that would bring considerable

Senate Republicans blame the Republican National Committee. The RNC blames two Republican House members. They blame former President Donald Trump. And Trump blames Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. In the midst of the GOP’s first major election year blowup, each bloc believes it represents the real Republican Party and its best interests in the bid to regain control of Congress. The Republican rift over a symbolic RNC vote to censure Trump’s two GOP House critics has exposed in stark contrast the competing forces fighting to control the party. The sudden burst of infighting shattered a period of relative Republican peace just as party leaders insist they need to come together to defeat Democrats in the looming midterms. But this week, at least, Republican unity is hard to find. “Mitch McConnell does not speak for the Republican Party, and does not represent the views of the vast majority of its voters,” Trump said in a statement Wednesday. Instead of fighting President Joe Biden’s agenda, the former president said, McConnell “bails out the radical left and the RINOs” — shorthand for Republicans In Name Only. To drive home his point, Trump issued another statement later in the day saying McConnell’s position is “so against what Republicans are about.” At issue were McConnell’s comments a day earlier in which he criticized the RNC for censuring Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois at the party’s winter meeting in Salt Lake City. The two Republicans sit on a Democrat-led House committee that is aggressively investigating the violent Jan. 6 siege at the U.S. Capitol and has subpoenaed many in the former president’s inner circle. The RNC resolution accused the House panel of leading a “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse” — words that drew outrage from Democrats and firm pushback from several GOP senators. The fight has quickly emerged as a proxy for the larger political tug-of-war between Trump and the party’s establishment wing. While Trump’s allies believe there should be no limits in their loyalty to the former president, McConnell and other establishment leaders believe there is a line Republicans should not cross. McConnell, for example, has refused to amplify Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud, even as polls suggest a vast majority of the Republican electorate wrongly believes that Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election. The Senate Republican leader said he opposed the RNC’s vote to censure Kinzinger and Cheney, who are Trump’s fiercest Republican critics in Congress, because the committee was “singling out members of our party who may have different views than the majority.” “That’s not the job of the RNC,” McConnell told reporters this week. Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah were among those Republicans who also raised concerns about the RNC vote. But Sen. Josh Hawley, the Missouri Republican who led the Jan. 6 push to block the certification of Biden’s victory, said McConnell and like-minded Republicans were hurting the party’s midterm ambitions by speaking out. “Whatever you think about the RNC vote, it reflects the view of most Republican voters,” Hawley said. “So I’m just telling you, in my state, it’s not helpful to have a bunch of DC Republicans commenting on the RNC.” For many Republicans, the emerging

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin on Sunday endorsed Republican colleague Lisa Murkowski for reelection, crossing party lines to back the incumbent from Alaska who faces a primary challenger supported by former President Donald Trump. The conservative West Virginia lawmaker said he has teamed well with Murkowski in the 50-50 Senate to build bipartisan support for legislation such as President Joe Biden’s infrastructure law. He said Alaska and the Senate are well-served with her in office. “It’s hypocritical to basically work with a person day in and day out and then, when they’re in cycle, you’re supposed to be against them because they have an R or D by their name,” said Manchin, who appeared with Murkowski on CNN’s “State of the Union” to promote the values of bipartisanship. “Alaska could only be so lucky to have her continue to serve them,” he said. Murkowski faces GOP primary challenger Kelly Tshibaka, who has support from Trump and Alaska Republican party leaders but who significantly trails the incumbent in fundraising. A Democrat has yet to enter the race; the state’s last Democratic senator, Mark Begich, lost reelection in 2014. It isn’t the first time that Manchin has bucked his party’s political operation. In 2020, he endorsed Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in her reelection bid. Manchin had indicated last April that he would support Murkowski if she chose to run again this year. Murkowski is one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial for his role in stoking the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. Her reelection bid plays up her credentials as a centrist in the Senate, working across party lines to “stand up to any politician or special interest that threatens our way of life.” A member of the Senate since 2002, Murkowski lost the Republican primary for her seat in 2010 but ultimately won after launching a successful write-in campaign. She’s joined Democrats several times on high-profile votes, including opposing Trump’s effort to repeal President Barack Obama’s health law in 2017 and her 2018 refusal to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice. Murkowski said Sunday she as well would support Manchin, who is up for reelection in 2024. “If he’s running, I’m endorsing him,” she said. Manchin has drawn ire from the progressive wing of his party over his reluctance to back broad climate and social safety net legislation that Biden envisioned would pass with support from all 50 Democratic senators. After initially indicating he could support a version of that bill, Manchin announced in December that he would not back the effort and that the legislation in its present form was dead. On Sunday, Manchin indicated he recently talked to Biden but said the topic didn’t really come up because of the need for separate action by Feb. 18 on a separate funding bill. He reiterated a desire to pass smaller pieces of Biden’s proposal with input and support from Republicans. “These are major changes,” Manchin said. “It is going to change society as we know it.” (AP)

Donald Trump’s relentless, false claims about the 2020 presidential election have sparked fresh urgency in Congress — and in both parties — for changing the Electoral Count Act to ensure no one can undo a future presidential election. Lawmakers are working furiously to update the 135-year-old law that was put in place in the aftermath of the Civil War and came perilously close to unraveling on Jan. 6, 2021. At that time, the defeated president urged his followers to “fight like hell” over the election and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to ditch his ceremonial role presiding over the session and reject the results. While Pence ignored the president’s demands that day, Trump continues to insist the vice president “could have overturned the election” — a deeply troubling development as the former president considers another White House run. “President Trump’s comments underscored the need for us to revise the Electoral Count Act, because they demonstrated the confusion in the law and the fact that it is ambiguous,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told reporters at the Capitol. The outcome of the bipartisan effort in Congress remains highly fluid, and could easily collapse, especially as Republicans are wary of crossing Trump and Democrats seek broader changes after their own sweeping elections and voting legislation fell apart last month. Any update to the 19th century law would likely face the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold in the Senate, meaning the legislation would need bipartisan support in the evenly split chamber to advance. Yet the effort to change the Electoral Count Act has been gaining political currency, especially with Trump edging toward another run. The urgency has continued to rise over the past year as the former president and his allies have led a steady drumbeat in state legislatures, working to install sympathetic leaders in local election posts and, in some cases, backing political candidates who participated in the riot at the Capitol. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday he’s open to the effort, as he also rejected the idea Trump floated at a weekend rally of pardoning people who have been criminally charged in the deadly riot at the Capitol. ”What we saw here on January the 6th was an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another,” McConnell said. The Kentucky Republican went on to say the Electoral Count Act “is flawed and it needs to be fixed.” He also said of those charged criminally in the riot, ”I would not be in favor of shortening any of the sentences for any of the people who pleaded guilty.” A bipartisan group led by Collins, the rare and frequent Republican Trump critic, has been meeting behind closed doors and hopes to present a draft as soon as this week. Senators are delving into potential changes to Electoral Count Act with ideas that would make it more difficult to challenge results. They are also considering ways to protect election workers, who are being harassed at alarming rates nationwide, and funding for election assistance and voting equipment. Some 16 senators, Republicans and Democrats, are working swiftly, with the blessing of party leaders, much the way they did last year to produce the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill President Joe Biden signed into law. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told The Associated Press

President Joe Biden stretched out for Republican support for his Supreme Court nominee Tuesday, inviting the GOP’s top Judiciary Committee senator to the White House along with the panel’s Democratic chairman and phoning Republican leader Mitch McConnell for a one-on-one discussion. Biden and fellow Democrats are working for significant Republican backing for the still-to-be-named nominee to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer — a steep challenge in a Senate that has been sharply and bitterly divided over the past three confirmations. At the White House, former longtime Sen. Biden called Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois and the ranking Republican, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, “two good friends” and noted that they had worked on many Supreme Court nominations together in their decades on the panel. He noted that the Constitution calls for Senate “advice and consent,” on a nominee, and he said, ”I’m serious when I say I want the advice of the Senate as well as the consent.” As Biden mulls a replacement for Breyer — a Black woman, he has promised — Durbin has been proposing a ceasefire of sorts after wrenching partisan fights over former President Donald Trump’s three nominees. The Democratic Illinois senator has been vigorously reaching out to GOP colleagues since Breyer announced last week that he will step down this summer. McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, emphasized in his phone conversation with Biden the importance of a nominee who believes in judicial independence and will resist efforts by politicians to bully the court or change the structure of the judicial system, a McConnell spokesman said. The meetings are an attempt at détente by the president, who along with Durbin and Grassley is a veteran of a bygone era when Supreme Court justices were confirmed with overwhelming support from both parties. Durbin called their meeting “old home week.” Senate confirmation of Biden’s nominee is far from assured, as advocates push him to nominate a strong liberal and some Senate Republicans criticize the president even before he makes his decision. At a committee meeting Tuesday morning, Grassley criticized Democratic advocates who pressured Breyer to retire, and he said nominees should be judged “solely on their qualifications.” He said he told the president “that I want somebody that’s going to interpret law, not make law.” Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican who might be the most likely GOP senator to vote for a Biden nominee, called the president’s handling of the nomination so far “clumsy.” Other Republicans have openly stoked a debate over Biden’s promise to nominate a Black woman. Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker said he views the process as “affirmative action.” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said it’s discriminatory because Biden is saying “wrong skin pigment and wrong Y chromosome” to white men and women. The court was made up entirely of white men for almost two centuries. Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Thurgood Marshall are the only two Black men who have served on the court. There has never been a Black woman. Durbin has noted that Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump both promised to pick women and were praised when they nominated Sandra Day O’Connor and Amy Coney Barrett, respectively. There have been only five female justices in U.S. history, while there have been 110 men. “It is not uncommon for

Democrats in Congress have fractured repeatedly over President Joe Biden’s agenda, stalling legislation and creating an atmosphere of mistrust that has made it increasingly difficult for progressives and centrists to work together. But one area where the party has not cracked, not even an inch, is on Biden’s nominations to the courts. That ironclad unity has helped Biden appoint the most judges during the first year of a presidency since John F. Kennedy. The achievement is giving Democrats hope that the coming fight over the Supreme Court seat will allow them to go on the political offensive and move past an ugly stretch of legislating that depressed their base. But unity is far from assured as Republicans prepare to oppose what they predict will be a “radical” Biden pick to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. As always, two Democratic senators will be the center of attention: Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. While their opposition to changing Senate rules stalled the party’s signature voting legislation this month, they have been reliable votes on Biden’s nominees to the courts. Indeed, in the 44 roll call votes held so far on Biden’s judicial picks, there has yet to be a single Democratic defection.   That streak bodes well for the future nominee in the 50-50 Senate, where Vice President Kamala Harris would break any ties. If Democrats are able to stay together, Republicans would lack the power to stop Biden’s pick from being confirmed. Supreme Court nominees can no longer filibustered, thanks to a rules change put in place by GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, making party unity the path to certain victory. On this particular vote, analysts suspect that Democrats will have a better chance of staying united than Republicans. “I’d say the progressive wing probably has less to worry about than McConnell & Company,” said Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution who closely tracks the judicial nomination process. “But you just never know.” Yet the news of Breyer’s pending retirement — he plans to leave at the end of the court’s term — drew cautious, noncommittal responses from both Sinema and Manchin. Sinema tweeted that she would examine Biden’s pick on three criteria: “whether the nominee is professionally qualified, believes in the role of an independent judiciary, and can be trusted to faithfully interpret and uphold the rule of law.” Manchin told a local radio show, “Talkline,” that he would evaluate whether the nominee has the disposition to work with other justices and that “a lot of it will be the character of the person.” Asked if he could support someone who was more liberal than himself, Manchin responded that “as far as philosophical beliefs, no, that will not prohibit me from supporting somebody.” Outwardly, progressive groups don’t sound worried about the prospects of Manchin or Sinema tanking Biden’s pick. The president has promised to nominate a Black woman — that would be a first for the court — and a short list of top contenders has quickly emerged. “Frankly, I am very confident that President Biden’s nominee will be confirmed because, as he has with the lower court nominees, he’s going to put forward somebody with unimpeachable credentials who’s eminently qualified,” said Daniel Goldberg, the legal director at the Alliance

Former Attorney General William P. Barr has a memoir coming out March 8 titled “One Damn Thing After Another,” and billed by his publisher as a “vivid and forthright book” of his time serving two “drastically different” presidents, Donald Trump and George H.W. Bush. “Barr takes readers behind the scenes during seminal moments of the Bush administration in the 1990s, from the LA riots to Pan Am 103 and Iran Contra,” William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, announced Tuesday. “With the Trump administration, Barr faced an unrelenting barrage of issues, such as Russiagate, the opioid epidemic, Chinese espionage, big tech, the COVID outbreak, civil unrest, the first impeachment, and the 2020 election fallout.” The title of the long-rumored book refers to an expression Barr had heard about the nature of the job of attorney general. Barr, now 71, served under Bush from 1991-93 and under Trump from 2019-2020. Barr had initially been one of Trump’s most ardent allies and was accused of being willing to sacrifice the independence of the Justice Department on behalf of the president. One of his most controversial actions involved special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of ties between Russian officials and Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. Before the full report was made public, Barr framed the results in a manner favorable to Trump, even though Mueller pointedly said he couldn’t exonerate the president of obstruction of justice. But Barr parted with Trump a month after the 2020 election when he told The Associated Press that the DOJ had uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud. That contradicted Trump’s false contentions that fraud cost him the race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden. An enraged Trump met with Barr soon after the AP interview was published and alleged, ”You must have said that because you hate Trump, you must really hate Trump.” Barr stepped down shortly before Christmas in 2020. After the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters seeking to overturn the election results, Barr issued a statement in which he condemned Trump for “orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress.” “The President’s conduct yesterday was a betrayal of his office and supporters,” he added. (AP)

Democrats are mounting an impassioned bid to overhaul Senate rules that stand in the way of their sweeping voting legislation, arguing dark forces unleashed by Donald Trump’s falsehoods about the 2020 election demand an extraordinary response. In fiery speeches and interviews, President Joe Biden and top congressional Democrats have seized on the one-year anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection as a reason to advance their long-stalled voting, ethics and elections package. Senate Republicans, who have repeatedly blocked the legislation, excoriate the measures as a “partisan power grab” and warn that any rule changes will haunt Democrats someday under a GOP majority. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election not only incited the mob that stormed the Capitol, Democrats say. His unrelenting campaign of disinformation also sparked a GOP effort to pass new state laws that have made it more difficult to vote, while in some cases rendering the administration of elections more susceptible to political influence. Democrats’ voting legislation would usher in the biggest overhaul of U.S. elections in a generation, striking down hurdles to voting enacted in the name of election security, reducing the influence of big money in politics and limiting partisan influence over the drawing of congressional districts. The package would create national election standards that would trump the state-level GOP laws. It would also restore the ability of the Justice Department to police election laws in states with a history of discrimination. Many Democrats say the moment has come to act decisively in what they view as the civil rights fight of the era. Changing Senate rules early in 2022 offers perhaps the last best chance to counteract Republicans’ state-level push before the midterm elections, when Democrats’ House majority and slim hold in the 50-50 Senate could be wiped out. “If Republicans continue to hijack the rules of the chamber to prevent us from protecting our democracy, then the Senate will debate and consider changes to the rules,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday. Yet what action they will take remains highly uncertain, depending on the often elusive support of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. Key Democrats have been meeting with Manchin for weeks, brainstorming options while also enlisting outside allies to lobby his support. Manchin has made no firm commitments. He has repeatedly said he will not support lowering the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold for passing most legislation, a stance shared by fellow centrist Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. Until the threshold is lowered, enacting election legislation could prove difficult, if not impossible. But Democrats say they are focused on what’s achievable now, amid escalating pressure from allies for action. Even modest changes to Senate rules, they say, would be a significant step forward. Leaning into the fight, Biden is set to deliver a speech in Atlanta on Tuesday focused on voting rights. And Schumer has added to the civil rights symbolism by setting the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, on Jan. 17, as the deadline to either pass the voting legislation or consider revising the rules. The Senate is likely to hold a series of test votes this week intended to underscore Republican opposition. “I’m not going to say ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ because I don’t know what votes will come to the floor,” Manchin said last week, noting that he has supported some changes to Senate

Long lines formed Monday at vaccination centers across England as people heeded the government’s call for all adults to get booster shots to protect themselves against the omicron variant, and as the U.K. recorded its first death of a patient infected with omicron. In a televised announcement late Sunday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said everyone 18 and up would be offered a third vaccine dose by Dec. 31 — less than three weeks away, and a month earlier than the previous target. Johnson said boosters would “reinforce our wall of vaccine protection” against an anticipated “tidal wave of omicron.” U.K. health authorities say omicron cases are doubling every two to three days in Britain, and that the variant will replace delta as the dominant coronavirus strain within days. Health Secretary Sajid Javid told lawmakers Monday that omicron will be dominant in London “within 48 hours.” While omicron is acknowledged to be much more transmissible than previous coronavirus variants, it’s unclear both how virulent it is and whether the expected wave of infections will inundate the country’s state-funded health care system. Barely two weeks after it was identified in South Africa, 10 people are in British hospitals with omicron-related COVID-19. The British government raised the country’s coronavirus threat level on Sunday, warning that the rapid spread of omicron “adds an additional and rapidly increasing risk to the public and health care services.” Scientists in South Africa say the variant may cause less severe disease than the delta variant but caution that it’s too soon to be certain. Health authorities around the world are watching Britain closely to see what an omicron surge looks like in a country with an older, more highly vaccinated population than South Africa’s. “The idea that this is somehow a milder version of the virus, I think that’s something we need to set on one side and just recognize the sheer pace at which it accelerates through the population,” Johnson said as he visited a vaccination center in London. “So the best thing we can do is all get our boosters.” The U.K. Health Security Agency says existing vaccines appear less effective in preventing symptomatic infections in people exposed to omicron, though that effectiveness appears to rise to between 70% and 75% after a third dose. More than 80% of people age 12 and up in Britain have received two vaccine doses, and 40% of adults have had three. But the acceleration of the booster program will be a huge challenge, requiring almost 1 million doses given out each day — more than the previous high of around 850,000 a day. Some 750 soldiers and thousands of volunteer vaccinators will be drafted to give the shots at doctors’ offices, hospitals, pharmacies and pop-up vaccination centers. Many routine procedures will be postponed as Britain’s National Health Service swings into high gear for the boosters. While the online booster appointment system will not be open to under-30s until Wednesday, adults could — and did — show up at a walk-in centers to get a booster starting Monday. At St. Thomas’ Hospital, on the south bank of the River Thames in London, the lines of people waiting for booster shots stretched across Westminster Bridge toward Parliament. At the Gordon Hospital walk-in clinic in central London, most of those lining up

Search efforts at an Amazon facility in Illinois where at least six people were killed in a tornado were expected to take several days, but authorities said they did not expect to find additional survivors. The company has not said how many people were in the building not far from St. Louis when the tornado hit at 8:35 p.m. Friday — part of a swarm of twisters across the Midwest and the South that leveled entire communities. Authorities said they didn’t have a full count of employees because it was during a shift change and there were several part-time employees. Both sides of the warehouse used to prepare orders for delivery collapsed inward and the roof caved, according to Edwardsville Fire Chief James Whiteford. Authorities received reports of workers being trapped and the fire unit arrived within six minutes, Whiteford said. Police helped pull people from the rubble. While 45 employees survived, six people were killed and a seventh person was airlifted to a hospital. Whiteford said crews would search the rubble for several days. Madison County Coroner Stephen Nonn on Sunday identified the six people who were killed. Four were from Illinois: 26-year-old Austin J. McEwen of Edwardsville, 29-year-old Clayton Lynn Cope of Alton, 46-year-old Larry E. Virden of Collinsville and 62-year-old Kevin D. Dickey of Carlyle. Two others — 28-year-old Deandre S. Morrow and 34-year-old Etheria S. Hebb — were from St. Louis. Cope’s younger sister, Rachel Cope, said her brother had worked for Amazon for over a year and served in the Navy. He was also an avid motorcycle rider, lover of video games and his dog, Draco. “He would go out of his way for anyone,” she told The Associated Press in a written message. Nonn’s said Sunday there were no pending reports of missing people related to the building collapse. “Search efforts continue to ensure that there are no additional victims,” he said in a statement. The damage to the building was extensive; the structure’s steel support pillars were exposed after the walls and roof caved. “These walls are made out of 11-inch thick concrete, and they’re about 40 feet tall, so a lot of weight from that came down,” Whiteford said at a Saturday news conference. Employee Amanda Goss had just started her first week in a new job as an Amazon delivery driver when the tornado hit. “As I look up, the corner of the building was shaking, and it comes down the garage area and then I felt the gates coming in behind me,” Goss told KTVI-TV. “All I do is sit there in my van hoping it don’t move.” The Amazon facility, among three in Edwardsville, is a 1.1 million square foot (102,193 square meter) “delivery station” that employs about 190 workers across several shifts, according to Amazon. The facility, which opened in July 2020, prepares orders for “last-mile delivery” to customers. Edwardsville is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northeast of St. Louis. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their loved ones, and everyone impacted by the tornado,” Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel said in a statement. “We’re continuing to support our employees and partners in the area.” Amazon said that when a site is made aware of a tornado warning, all employees are notified and directed to move to

Allyship, an old noun made new again, is Dictionary.com’s word of the year. The look up site with 70 million monthly users took the unusual step of anointing a word it added just last month, though “allyship” first surfaced in the mid-1800s, said one of the company’s content overseers, John Kelly. “It might be a surprising choice for some,” he told The Associated Press ahead of Tuesday’s unveiling. “In the past few decades, the term has evolved to take on a more nuanced and specific meaning. It is continuing to evolve and we saw that in many ways.” The site offers two definitions for allyship: The role of a person who advocates for inclusion of a “marginalized or politicized group” in solidarity but not as a member, and the more traditional relationship of “persons, groups or nations associating and cooperating with one another for a common cause or purpose.” The word is set apart from “alliance,” which Dictionary.com defines in one sense as a “merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states or organizations.” It’s the first definition that took off most recently in the mid-2000s and has continued to churn. Following the summer of 2020 and the death of George Floyd, white allies — and the word allyship — proliferated as racial justice demonstrations spread. Before that, straight allies joined the causes of LGBTQ oppression, discrimination and marginalization. “This year, we saw a lot of businesses and organizations very prominently, publicly, beginning efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion. Allyship is tied to that. In the classroom, there is a flashpoint around the term critical race theory. Allyship connects with this as well,” Kelly said. In addition, teachers, frontline workers and mothers who juggled jobs, home duties and child care in lockdown gained allies as the pandemic took hold last year. Without an entry for “allyship,” Kelly said the site saw a steep rise in lookups for “ally” in 2020 and large spikes in 2021. It was in the top 850 searches out of thousands and thousands of words this year. Dictionary.com broadened the definition of “ally” to include the more nuanced meaning. The terms “DEI” and “critical race theory” made their debuts as entries on the site with “allyship” this year. What it means to be an authentic ally has taken on fresh significance as buzz around the word has grown louder. One of the aspects of allyship, as it has emerged, is how badly it can go. Among the example’s of how to use the word in a sentence cited by Merriam-Webster is this one written by Native activist Hallie Sebastian: “Poor allyship is speaking over marginalized people by taking credit and receiving recognition for arguments that the unprivileged have been making for their entire lives.” As global diversity, equity and inclusion executive Sheree Atcheson wrote in Forbes, allyship is a “lifelong process of building relationships based on trust, consistency and accountability with marginalized individuals and/or groups of people.” It’s not, she said, “self-defined — work and efforts must be recognized by those you are seeking to ally with.” Allyship should be an “opportunity to grow and learn about ourselves, whilst building confidence in others,” Atcheson added. Among the earliest evidence of the word “allyship,” in its original sense of “alliance,” is the 1849, two-volume work,

Cases of the omicron variant of the coronavirus popped up in countries on opposite sides of the world Sunday and many governments rushed to close their borders even as scientists cautioned that it’s not clear if the new variant is more alarming than other versions of the virus. The variant was identified days ago by researchers in South Africa, and much is still not known about it, including whether it is more contagious, more likely to cause serious illness or more able to evade the protection of vaccines. But many countries rushed to act, reflecting anxiety about anything that could prolong the pandemic that has killed more than 5 million people. Israel decided to bar entry to foreigners, and Morocco said it would suspend all incoming flights for two weeks starting Monday — among the most drastic of a growing raft of travel curbs being imposed by nations around the world as they scrambled to slow the variant’s spread. Scientists in several places — from Hong Kong to Europe — have confirmed its presence. The Netherlands reported 13 omicron cases on Sunday, and Australia found two. Noting that the variant has already been detected in many countries and that closing borders often has limited effect, the World Health Organization called for frontiers to remain open. Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, meanwhile, emphasized that there is no data yet that suggests the new variant causes more serious illness than previous COVID-19 variants. “I do think it’s more contagious when you look at how rapidly it spread through multiple districts in South Africa. It has the earmarks therefore of being particularly likely to spread from one person to another. … What we don’t know is whether it can compete with delta,” Collins said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Collins echoed several experts in saying the news should make everyone redouble their efforts to use the tools the world already has, including vaccinations, booster shots and measures such as mask-wearing. “I know, America, you’re really tired about hearing those things, but the virus is not tired of us,” Collins said. The Dutch public health authority confirmed that 13 people who arrived from South Africa on Friday have so far tested positive for omicron. They were among 61 people who tested positive for the virus after arriving on the last two flights to Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport before a flight ban was implemented. They were immediately put into isolation, most at a nearby hotel. Authorities in Australia said two travelers who arrived in Sydney from Africa became the first in the country to test positive for the new variant. Arrivals from nine African countries are now required to quarantine in a hotel upon arrival. Two German states reported a total of three cases in returning travelers over the weekend. Israel moved to ban entry by foreigners and mandate quarantine for all Israelis arriving from abroad. “Restrictions on the country’s borders is not an easy step, but it’s a temporary and necessary step,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said at the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting. Morocco’s Foreign Ministry tweeted Sunday that all incoming air travel to the North African country would be suspended to “preserve the achievements realized by Morocco in the fight against the

Donald Trump’s opulent hotel near the White House that drew lobbyists and diplomats seeking favor with the ex-president as well as criticism as a symbol of his ethics conflicts is being sold to a Miami investment group, according to published reports citing anonymous sources. CGI Merchant Group agreed to pay the Trump Organization $375 million for the rights to the 263-room hotel and has plans to rebrand it as a Waldorf Astoria, according to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, citing sources with knowledge of the matter. Neither the Trump Organization nor CGI responded to numerous requests for comment. The deal is expected to close early next year after which the hotel will be managed by the Waldorf Astoria under a separate deal struck by CGI, according to the Journal. The Waldorf Astoria business is owned by Hilton Worldwide Holdings. The hotel has been a big money loser for the Trump family since it won rights to convert a stately federal building called the Old Post Office from the federal government under a lease that, with extensions, can run nearly 100 years. The federal agency that owns the property, the U.S. General Services Administration, must sign off on any sale. The Trump Organization poured $200 million to convert it into a luxury hotel, opening its doors in late 2016, shortly before Trump became president. It then proceeded to lose more than $70 million over four years, according to audited reports obtained by a House committee investigating Trump’s conflicts of interest with the business. The losses came even before the pandemic led to shutdowns, hammering the hotel industry. Ethics experts urged Trump to sell the hotel and other business holdings before he took office, but Trump refused and the hotel soon became a magnet for the powerful and power seeking: Lobbyists for industries trying to shape policy, Republican politicians looking for a presidential imprimatur, and diplomats from Azerbaijan, the Philippines, Kuwait and other countries. Looming over all the din in his glittering lobby was the question: How much were decisions made by Trump a few blocks away in the Oval Office being shaped by his financial interests and, even if not at all, why risk tarnishing U.S. policy with even the appearance of conflict? Trump dismissed such worries, saying he was too busy with the business of governing to bother with making money off his office. The Trump Organization promised to send a check to the U.S. Treasury each year equivalent to profits from foreign government patrons, a response to criticisms he was violating the emoluments clause in the U.S. Constitution forbidding foreign government gifts. “The Trump hotel DC stood as a bright neon sign telling foreign countries and moneyed interests how to bribe the president and a stark reminder to Americans that his decisions as president were just as likely to be about his bottom line as about our interests,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group. “Selling it now that he’s out of office and the grift dried up is, to say the least, too little, too late.” The purchaser, CGI, manages $325 million from wealthy families, entertainers and sports figures, investing in office buildings and hotels among other kinds of property, according to its website. In addition,

The $1 trillion infrastructure bill that President Joe Biden signs into law represents a historic achievement at a time of deeply fractured politics. But the compromises needed to bridge the political divide suggest that the spending might not be as transformative as Biden has promised for the U.S. economy. Faced with flagging support as the U.S. continues to slog through a pandemic and rising inflation, the president has treated infrastructure as proof that government can function again. Ahead of Monday’s signing ceremony, he instructed his Cabinet on Friday to rigorously police the coming investments in roads, bridges, water systems, broadband, ports, electric vehicles and the power grid to ensure they pay off. “It’s hard, but we can still come together to get something big done for the American people,” Biden said. “It will create millions of new jobs. It will grow the economy. And we’ll win the world economic competition that we’re engaged in in the second quarter of the 21st century with China and many other countries around the world.” Biden held off on signing the hard-fought infrastructure deal after it passed on Nov. 5 until legislators would be back from a congressional recess and could join in a splashy bipartisan event. On Sunday night before the signing, the White House announced Mitch Landrieu, the former New Orleans mayor, would coordinate the implementation of the infrastructure spending. The gathering Monday on the White House lawn will include governors and mayors of both parties and labor and business leaders. In addition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the president plans to welcome Republicans including Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, New York Rep. Tom Reed, Alaska Rep. Don Young and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. The president began the process of selling it to the broader public with a trip last week to the Port of Baltimore. He’ll go to New Hampshire on Tuesday to visit a bridge on the state’s “red list” for repair and to Detroit on Wednesday for a stop at General Motors’ electric vehicle assembly plant. In order to achieve a bipartisan deal, the president had to cut back his initial ambition to spend $2.3 trillion on infrastructure by more than half. The bill that becomes law on Monday in reality includes about $550 billion in new spending over 10 years, since some of the expenditures in the package were already planned. Yet the administration still views the bill as a national project with a broad range of investments and the potential ways to improve people’s lives with clean drinking water and high-speed internet. Historians, economists and engineers interviewed by The Associated Press welcomed Biden’s efforts. But they stressed that $1 trillion was not nearly enough to overcome the government’s failure for decades to maintain and upgrade the country’s infrastructure. The politics essentially forced a trade-off in terms of potential impact not just on the climate but on the ability to outpace the rest of the world this century and remain the dominant economic power. “We’ve got to be sober here about what our infrastructure gap is in terms of a level of investment and go into this eyes wide open, that this is not going to solve our infrastructure problems across the nation,” said David

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen told British lawmakers Monday that the social media giant stokes online hate and extremism, fails to protect children from harmful content and lacks any incentive to fix the problems, providing momentum for efforts by European governments working on stricter regulation of tech companies. While her testimony echoed much of what she told the U.S. Senate this month, her in-person appearance drew intense interest from a British parliamentary committee that is much further along in drawing up legislation to rein in the power of social media companies. It comes the same day that Facebook is set to release its latest earnings and that The Associated Press and other news organizations started publishing stories based on thousands of pages of internal company documents she obtained. Haugen told the committee of United Kingdom lawmakers that Facebook Groups amplifies online hate, saying algorithms that prioritize engagement take people with mainstream interests and push them to the extremes. The former Facebook data scientist said the company could add moderators to prevent groups over a certain size from being used to spread extremist views. “Unquestionably, it’s making hate worse,” she said. Haugen said she was “shocked to hear recently that Facebook wants to double down on the metaverse and that they’re gonna hire 10,000 engineers in Europe to work on the metaverse,” Haugen said, referring to the company’s plans for an immersive online world it believes will be the next big internet trend. “I was like, ‘Wow, do you know what we could have done with safety if we had 10,000 more engineers?’” she said. Facebook says it wants regulation for tech companies and was glad the U.K. was leading the way. “While we have rules against harmful content and publish regular transparency reports, we agree we need regulation for the whole industry so that businesses like ours aren’t making these decisions on our own,” Facebook said Monday. It pointed to investing $13 billion (9.4 billion pounds) on safety and security since 2016 and asserted that it’s “almost halved” the amount of hate speech over the last three quarters. Haugen accused Facebook-owned Instagram of failing to keep children under 13 — the minimum user age — from opening accounts, saying it wasn’t doing enough to protect kids from content that, for example, makes them feel bad about their bodies. “Facebook’s own research describes it as an addict’s narrative. Kids say, ‘This makes me unhappy, I feel like I don’t have the ability to control my usage of it, and I feel like if I left, I’d be ostracized,’” she said. The company last month delayed plans for a kids’ version of Instagram, geared toward those under 13, to address concerns about the vulnerability of younger users. Haugen said she worried it may not be possible to make Instagram safe for a 14-year-old and that “I sincerely doubt it’s possible to make it safe for a 10-year-old.” She also said Facebook’s moderation systems are worse at catching content in languages other than English, and that’s a problem even in the U.K. because it’s a diverse country. “Those people are also living in the U.K. and being fed misinformation that is dangerous, that radicalizes people,” Haugen said. “And so language-based coverage is not just a good-for-individuals thing, it’s a national security issue.” Pressed on