Liz Cheney vote updates: House GOP removes Cheney from ...

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who was ousted from her role as House Republican Conference chair Wednesday told the Today Show's Savannah Guthrie on Wednesday that she will be a leader "to restore" the Republican Party.

"I intend to be the leader — one of the leaders — in a fight to help to restore our party, in a fight to bring our party back to substance and principle and in a fight to make clear that we won't participate in the really dangerous effort that's under way," she said in a clip of the interview expected to air Thursday.

When asked about a potential primary challenger in 2022, Cheney told Guthrie: "Bring it on."

– Sean Rossman

Nancy Pelosi: Cheney 'a leader of great courage'

Shortly after House Republicans voted to strip Rep. Liz Cheney of her leadership post, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi weighed in.

"Congresswoman Liz Cheney is a leader of great courage, patriotism and integrity. Today, House Republicans declared that those values are unwelcome in the Republican party," reads a statement issued by Pelosi, D-Calif.

“The Republican denial of the truth presented by Congresswoman Cheney is reflected in their denial of the need to seek the truth in a January 6th commission and to repair the damage of January 6th with a security supplemental immediately."

Cheney's speech:'I will not sit back': In fiery speech, Rep. Liz Cheney calls Trump a 'threat'

Cheney defenders: Vote was too quick and a display of 'fake unity'

Despite the slow buildup, the meeting to determine Rep. Liz Cheney’s fate in House Republican leadership lasted just a few minutes. Cheney spoke briefly as did House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. But it featured no secret ballots or long speeches. And its shortness pleased some members while angering others.

That’s how several GOP lawmakers described the caucus gathering Wednesday morning that ended with the ouster of Cheney as chair of the House GOP Conference.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a Cheney supporter, told USA TODAY afterwards there were “people ready to go to battle for her.” So, having a voice vote rather than a roll call or ballots was a show of “fake unity,” he said.

“There were a lot of people who wanted to defend Liz,” said Kinzinger, adding that people who wanted to defend her didn’t realize they had little opportunity to do so.

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., who also did not support removing Cheney, told reporters there was a question of “whether we could do a recorded vote” but it was not agreed to.

“To me” a debate is what “the Republican Party is all about,” Buck continued. “This discussion is all about disagreement and coming to the best solution … I just think that we are healthier as a party, by having disagreements on issues.”

– Savannah Behrmann and Ledyard King

Democrats react to Liz Cheney ouster from GOP House leadership

Shortly after House Republicans voted to remove conference chair Rep. Liz Cheney from her post over her opposition to former President Donald Trump, Democrats reacted.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Republicans had "reached a new and very dangerous low” in their removal of Cheney, while Rep. Ilhan Omar — a fierce critic of Cheney’s politics — said the reason Republicans are removing her from leadership is "shameful.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., similarly condemned Cheney’s ouster. “Political parties that promote lies and propaganda are setting their countries up for authoritarianism and fascism. The cancellation of Liz Cheney by Trump and the GOP is a flashing red danger sign for our democracy,” he wrote on Twitter.

The chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said Wednesday at a hearing about the Capitol riot Jan. 6 that no member of Congress should be punished for speaking the truth. Maloney quoted Cheney, R-Wyo., that remaining silent and ignoring the lie about whether the election was stolen would only embolden the liar.

“No member of Congress, whether a freshman representative or a House conference chair should face punishment for speaking the truth about what happened that day,” Maloney said. “It is time for the American people and this Congress to look at the events of Jan. 6 and say never again.”

– Matthew Brown and Bart Jansen

Elise Stefanik makes formal push to replace Cheney

Shortly after Rep. Liz Cheney was removed from her position in House Republican leadership Wednesday, Rep. Elise Stefanik announced a formal effort to replace her as the chamber’s third-ranking Republican.

In a two-page letter to House Republicans, Stefanik did not mention Cheney, former President Donald Trump or his election fraud claims. Cheney’s ouster came after she repeatedly slammed the former president’s debunked claims the election was stolen from him.

Instead she railed against the media and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“I know firsthand the discipline and message it takes to fight back against the biased national media and the entire Democrat and Far-Left infrastructure. I know what it takes to flip a district and grow the Republican Party,” she wrote. “I look forward to working with you as we share our unified conservative vision, regain the Majority, fire Speaker Pelosi once and for all, and fight on behalf of the American people to save our country.”

– Sean Rossman

Cheney’s replacement expected to be chosen Friday

Republicans will reconvene Friday to decide who will replace Rep. Liz Cheney in House GOP leadership, according to several lawmakers leaving the vote.

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., told USA TODAY following Wednesday's vote he expects Rep. Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican who formally announced her bid for the House GOP Conference chair post Cheney held, to visit the Freedom Caucus and others tonight to lobby for support.

The Freedom Caucus is comprised of hard-right members of the party who are most loyal to former President Donald Trump.

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., already has endorsed Stefanik. But some more conservative members are not sold on her yet.

On Thursday, the conference will hold a candidate forum, but several lawmakers were skeptical that someone besides Stefanik would emerge successful.

– Savannah Behrmann and Ledyard King

Elise Stefanik:Who is Elise Stefanik, the congresswoman Trump and Scalise want to replace Liz Cheney in GOP leadership?

What does the chair do?:Liz Cheney has been removed as House GOP Conference chair. What does the chair do?

Liz Cheney spoke before the vote about hewing to “truth”

Rep. Liz Cheney made one last pitch to her fellow Republicans before they voted to oust her as chair of the House GOP Conference on Wednesday.

Speaking to the assembled lawmakers in a closed-door meeting at the Capitol, the Wyoming Republican told reporters assembled outside the meeting room that she reiterated what she has been saying for weeks: “That we must go forward based on truth. We cannot both embrace the ‘big lie’ and embrace the Constitution.”

The “big lie” is what Cheney calls former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims that the November election was stolen from him due to widespread voter fraud.

Colorado GOP Rep. Ken Buck told reporters after the meeting that Cheney received a standing ovation after she spoke from some members of the caucus.

– Ledyard King and Savannah Behrmann

After vote, Trump says Cheney is 'bad' for Republicans

After House Republicans voted to oust Rep. Liz Cheney from her House GOP leadership role, former President Donald Trump denounced her as "bad for the Republican Party."

“She is a talking point for Democrats, whether that means the Border, the gas lines, inflation, or destroying our economy," he said in a statement issued through his Save America PAC

Prior to the meeting, Trump had exhorted Republicans to demote her from her post as chair of the GOP House Conference.

“The Republicans in the House of Representatives have a great opportunity today to rid themselves of a poor leader, a major Democrat talking point, a warmonger, and a person with absolutely no personality or heart,” Trump said in a statement issued through his PAC. “As a representative of the Great State of Wyoming, Liz Cheney is bad for our Country and bad for herself. Almost everyone in the Republican Party, including 90% of Wyoming, looks forward to her ouster—and that includes me!”

Trump’s statements came only hours after Cheney was on the House floor imploring colleagues not to buy into the former president's “big lie” that the election was stolen from him due to baseless claims of wide voter fraud.

– Ledyard King

Frequent Trump critic Rep. Adam Kinzinger calls Cheney’s removal ‘sad'

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a frequent critic of former President Donald Trump said Rep. Liz Cheney's removal from House Republican leadership Wednesday was "sad."

“What happened today was sad,” the congressman told reporters staking out the closed-door meeting.

“Liz has committed the only sin of being consistent and telling the truth. The truth is the election was not stolen,” he said, rebutting the former president’s claims of widespread election fraud in November. “Seventy-four million voters were not disenfranchised, they were outnumbered. And it’s important our party take inventory of that and go out and win the next election instead of continuing the big lie."

– Ledyard King

Cheney removed by voice vote, not secret ballot

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said Rep. Liz Cheney had “a lot” of supporters in the House Republican Conference on Wednesday, but it was unclear how many there were because she was ousted form her leadership position by a voice vote, not a secret ballot as the caucus rules usually dictate.

“I stand with Liz. I’m proud of her. There’s a lot of people who are proud of her for what she’s done and a lot of people who feel threatened by her,” he said. “It was a sad day.”

– Ledyard King

'I will not sit back':In fiery speech, Rep. Liz Cheney calls Trump a 'threat'

Cheney ousted from leadership position in closed-door vote

House Republicans stripped Liz Cheney of her leadership post Wednesday after GOP House members said her public sparring with former President Donald Trump became a distraction to the party hoping to regain the House in 2022. The vote, cast by secret ballot and behind closed doors.

As chair of the GOP House Conference, the three-term Wyoming congresswoman had been the third most powerful Republican member of the House. Her ouster leaves a vacancy GOP officials expect to fill in the coming weeks.

Cheney is a staunch conservative from a red state and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. But her willingness to push back against Trump's "big lie" about widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election led to a break with other House Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who remain loyal to the former president and his baseless claims of a stolen election.

– Ledyard King

What is a House GOP Conference chair?:Liz Cheney is set to be removed from her post as House GOP Conference chair. What does the chair do?

Cheney's Tuesday night speech:'I know the topic is cancel culture.' What Rep. Liz Cheney said in her House floor speech about Trump

Meeting begins

A closed-door meeting of House Republicans in which they expect to vote on whether to remove Rep. Liz Cheney from House GOP leadership has begun.

Some House Republicans want to remove Cheney from her post as House Republican Caucus chair after she repeatedly criticized former President Donald Trump's debunked election fraud claims.

The members are meeting behind closed doors in the Capitol, where they'll vote by secret ballot.

– Savannah Behrmann and Sean Rossman

Members seem confident in a Cheney ouster

Several House GOP lawmakers walking into the Capitol seemed confident Rep. Liz Cheney would be ousted as House Republican Conference chair in a closed-door vote expected Wednesday morning.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told USA TODAY he expects there to be “strong support” to remove her, but couldn’t give an estimated number of how many lawmakers may vote to oust her.

– Savannah Behrmann

GOP lawmakers arrive for meeting to decide Cheney’s leadership future

Republican lawmakers have begun to arrive this morning for their closed-door meeting at the Capitol to decide whether Rep. Liz Cheney should remain in House GOP leadership. The meeting is scheduled to start at 9 a.m.

The Wyoming Republican, who has forcefully pushed back against former President Donald Trump’s widely discredited claims of rampant voter fraud in the 2020 election, faces the loss of her seat as the chair of the GOP House Conference.

On the House floor Tuesday night, Cheney urged her GOP colleagues not to bend to the former president. House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has recommended GOP lawmakers remove Cheney, saying she’s distracting from the party’s effort to win back Congress in next year’s elections.

– Ledyard King and Savannah Behrmann

Effort to remove Rep. Liz Cheney has been building

The opposition to Rep. Liz Cheney began building after she voted to impeach former President Donald Trump after the Capitol riot in January – one of 10 House Republicans to do so.

Supporters of the 45th president called for her to be removed, and she survived an attempt to remove her from leadership in a secret ballot vote in February. But she has since remained firm in her belief that Trump's rhetoric led to the violence.

After Trump recently insisted the presidential election was stolen, Cheney tweeted "The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system.”

Her position on Trump in February was backed up by other prominent Republicans like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who soon after the riot said, "The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters." He has now walked back those remarks, and has publicly signaled he supported removing Cheney following her recent comments against Trump, highlighting a fracture within the Republican party.

– Savannah Behrmann

Who is Elise Stefanik?

The person emerging as a potential replacement for Liz Cheney’s position as House GOP Conference chair, should she be ousted Wednesday, is Rep. Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican who in the last years of the Trump administration emerged as a loyal and vocal defender of the 45th president.

Stefanik, 36, gained support from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, and Trump over the last few weeks as being able to unify and represent the message of the caucus.

Stefanik, when she was elected in 2014 at age 30, was then the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. Prior to being a member of Congress, she attended Harvard University before joining the George W. Bush administration as an aide. She also advised then-vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan in 2012.

She rose to GOP prominence during Trump’s first impeachment, after Trump called Stefanik a “new Republican star” as she defended him against Democrats.

– Savannah Behrmann

What’s with the secret ballot?

House Republicans have debated about Rep. Liz Cheney's future in public. The actual vote will be conducted in private.

When the meeting starts around 9 a.m. Wednesday, the doors will close to the press. Members will have a chance to say something and then they will cast a secret ballot to decide whether she should remain chair of the GOP Conference.

That means no one will really know how each of the 212 Republicans vote on whether to keep Cheney even if they make public pronouncements about her. The vote will be decided by a simple majority of the caucus.

When the votes are cast and the tabulation is complete, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is expected to come out of the meeting and announce the results to the press.

– Ledyard King

'I will not sit back':In fiery speech, Rep. Liz Cheney calls Trump a 'threat'

Cheney's speech:'I know the topic is cancel culture.' What Rep. Liz Cheney said in her House floor speech about Trump

Who is Liz Cheney, the third most-powerful House Republican?

Rep. Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney — who served alongside former President George W. Bush — has been widely respected in conservative politics and was considered one of the next in line to lead House Republicans.

But she was one of 10 Republicans in the House to vote for Trump's impeachment over his alleged incitement of the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, and has since remained firm in her belief that Trump's rhetoric led to the violence.

She has headed the House Republican Conference since 2019 and is the third-ranking Republican in the House. Cheney, Wyoming's only representative, faces a vote to remove her from her leadership position Wednesday morning.

– Savannah Behrmann

Liz Cheney: 'I will not sit back'

Rep. Liz Cheney, who on Wednesday faces a vote to remove her from House Republican leadership, tore into former President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening in a fiery speech on the House floor.

Cheney, the third most-powerful House Republican, has angered some in the party for her repeated criticism of Trump and his claim the 2020 election was stolen from him. A vote behind closed doors and by secret ballot is scheduled for Wednesday morning.

"This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship. This is about our duty as Americans," she said. "Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar. I will not participate in that. I will not sit back and watch in silence, while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former president's crusade to undermine our democracy."

– Phillip M. Bailey and Ledyard King

House GOP expected to vote on Liz Cheney Wednesday

House Republicans meet behind closed doors on Capitol Hill Wednesday to make a major decision likely to highlight a deepening rift in a party hoping to retake control of Congress in 2022.

Will they keep Rep. Liz Cheney as the chamber's third-ranking Republican, or toss her out to make way for a leader more supportive of former President Donald Trump?

Lawmakers will vote by secret ballot whether to oust Cheney as chair of the House Republican Conference, the result of weeks of drama within the House GOP.

The three-term congresswoman from Wyoming and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has drawn anger from her GOP colleagues in recent weeks as her vocal pushback against Trump's false claims of a stolen 2020 election aggravated party leaders loyal to the former president.

'I will not sit back':In fiery speech, Rep. Liz Cheney calls Trump a 'threat'

What is a House GOP chair?:Liz Cheney is set to be removed from her post as House GOP Conference chair. What does the chair do?

Secret ballot:Liz Cheney's future in Republican leadership to be decided by secret ballot in closed-door meeting

They've said Cheney has become a distraction from the mission to take back the House in next year's mid-term races.

"Having heard from so many of you in recent days, it's clear that we need to make a change," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., wrote in a letter Monday to fellow Republican lawmakers.

High-ranking Republicans including Trump, are backing New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, a fierce defender of the former president, to replace Cheney.If Cheney is removed Wednesday, a vote on her replacement is expected to take place at a later time.

Should the House GOP purge Cheney from leadership, it would be the latest evidence of a deep split in the Republican Party, in which some see Trump as its best path to electoral victory while some, like Cheney, say it should move beyond the former president.

Democrats hold slim majorities in the House and Senate and Republicans are eager to pick up seats in 2022 to regain majorities in both chambers.

In a fiery Tuesday evening speech on the House floor, Cheney ripped into Trump and his fraud claims, calling him a "threat."

"This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship. This is about our duty as Americans," she said. "Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar. I will not participate in that. I will not sit back and watch in silence, while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former president's crusade to undermine our democracy."

Kevin McCarthy:Vote to oust Liz Cheney puts spotlight on House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, a Trump loyalist

More:GOP takes sides on Cheney's ouster, with one congressman calling party 'basically the Titanic'

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, believes ousting Cheney will hurt Republican efforts to win back Congress.

"I think we're better trying to expand the number of people who want to vote for Republicans as opposed to shrink that number," he told reporters on Capitol Hill Monday. "I think she's a person of integrity who follows her conscious and speaks the truth. And I think it will do nothing but drive some people away from our party."

House Republicans will meet at 9 a.m. ET Wednesday behind closed doors to hold a secret-ballot vote on Cheney. She can be removed by a simple majority of the 212-member Republican caucus.

More:Sen. Joe Manchin says Trump ‘called me all the time.’ Senator said he was ready ‘to stay and fight’ during Capitol riots

In the letter to Republican House members Monday, McCarthy wrote the party's "driving focus would be taking back the House in 2022" and "internal conflicts need to be resolved so as to not detract from the efforts of our collective team."

Trump issued a statement last week through his Save America PAC in which he slammed Cheney as a "warmongering fool who has no business in Republican Party Leadership" and threw his support behind Stefanik.

"We want leaders who believe in the Make America Great Again movement, and prioritize the values of America First," the former president said.

Cheney angered many of her GOP colleagues in January when she not only led a group of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump on a charge he incited the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol but also publicly called the former president out for his unfounded election fraud claims.

Adam Kinzinger:Kinzinger claims McCarthy ignored warning that Jan. 6 events could turn violent

In February, Cheney retained her post in the party during a tumultuous, hours-long, closed-door meeting. Her fellow Republicans voted 145-61 (with one abstention) by secret ballot to keep her as chair.

After the meeting, Cheney told reporters the vote made clear "that we're not divided and that we're not going to be in a situation where people can pick off any member of leadership. It was a very resounding acknowledgment that we need to go forward together, and we need to go forward in a way that helps us push back the really dangerous and negative Democratic policies."

Republicans, including Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, who chairs the Republican Study Committee within the GOP caucus, insist her removal has less to do with her ongoing skirmish with Trump and more about the distraction she had become.

"Any leader who is not focused on pushing back against the radical and dangerous Biden agenda needs to be replaced," he told "Fox News Sunday."

Opinion:Trump Republicans have had it with Liz Cheney and the democracy she chooses to defend

Confidence vote: Even if Boris Johnson survives, his premiership is ...

London (CNN) Boris Johnson will face the darkest moment of his premiership on Monday evening, after it was finally announced after days of speculation that enough letters had been submitted by his own Conservative Party lawmakers to hold a confidence vote in his leadership.

The letters come after months of Johnson being dogged by the so-called "Partygate" scandal and after he was booed in public during the Queen's Platinum Jubilee celebrations.

Despite the obvious stress of facing a vote that could ultimately end his time in office, Johnson will to some extent be relieved for more than one reason.

First, the rebels who had been plotting in secret to get rid of him have finally been forced to show their hand. In order for him to lose the vote, 180 -- 50% plus one -- of Johnson's Conservative MPs would need to vote against him.

That is a tall order. Any MP currently deemed to be on the government payroll is expected to support the government position, and it is obviously the position of Johnson's government that he remain in power. There are thought to be around 180 MPs on the government payroll -- among them ministers, parliamentary private secretaries and party vice chairs -- though due to the murky arrangement of people who serve in non-public facing jobs it is hard to get an exact number.

Read More

With help from Manchin and Sinema, a Republican revolution from ...

(CNN) Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country are approving a wave of new voting restrictions on virtually party-line votes that require only a simple majority to pass. The US Supreme Court has likewise decided the key voting rights rulings that helped trigger this surge of state legislation on a party-line, majority-vote basis over the past decade.

But the announcements last week by Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona that they will not support exempting voting rights legislation from the filibuster means Congress can respond to these moves only with a bipartisan supermajority of 60 votes.

Their decision effectively provides Senate Republicans a veto on whether Congress can undo the restrictions on voting advanced by their fellow Republicans in the states and GOP-appointed justices on the Supreme Court. And that means Democrats have little chance through this decade of preserving a national floor of voting rights.

Voting rights is the most dramatic example of how the axis of Republican-controlled state governments, the GOP-appointed majority on the Supreme Court and filibusters mounted by Senate Republicans is limiting Democrats' ability to set the national agenda, even as they hold unified control of the White House, House and Senate for the first time since 2010. The same combination threatens to roll back other civil rights and liberties, most prominently the nationwide right to abortion, which has prevailed since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, but also including transgender rights and the First Amendment rights of public school teachers over the discussion of race in the classroom.

With the filibuster severely limiting the prospects for legislation on those fronts that imposes any mandates on business or individuals, President Joe Biden is turning to unilateral regulatory action. But the Catch-22 he faces is that the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority, often in cases brought by red-state attorneys general, has signaled its willingness to aggressively block those regulations, most recently by striking down the administration's vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers.

Taken together, the offensive and defensive maneuvers by this axis amount to a revolution from below -- a powerful attempt by Republican-controlled institutions to drive national policy even while Democrats hold the executive branch and Congress, the traditional levers of federal policy-making. By upholding the filibuster, Manchin and Sinema have effectively neutralized the most powerful tool Democrats have to push back: their capacity, through that unified control of the White House and Congress, to pass legislation setting new national standards in all the areas under siege from the Republican axis. And with history suggesting Democrats face a high risk of losing control of one, or both, congressional chambers in November, it may be years before they get another chance to respond.

The forceful move from the GOP-appointed Supreme Court majority and Republican red state officials to retrench previously guaranteed national rights "really magnifies the significance of this filibuster fight," says Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, a nonpartisan group that advocates for voting rights. That struggle, he continues, represents "a major question of what the shape of the country is going to look like, because if Congress can't act to protect voting rights, can't act to protect abortion rights, unless there are 60 [Senate] votes as well as a president, then states have an open field to abuse the rights of their people and the extreme conservatives have nothing in their way."

Battles over elections

The conflict around voting rights over roughly the past decade clearly illuminates the interlocking action-reaction dynamics of the new GOP axis.

Though intermittent skirmishes over voting rights had already erupted, the first decisive step in this modern struggle came in 2013. In the Shelby County v. Holder ruling that year, the GOP-appointed majority on the Supreme Court lit the fuse for the current confrontation by overturning the central provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act: the requirement that states and local governments with histories of discrimination against minorities receive "preclearance" from the Justice Department before changing their voting laws. The landmark decision was rendered on a party-line and majority-rule basis, with the five justices (at that point) appointed by Republican presidents outvoting the four appointed by Democrats.

That ruling had the immediate impact of freeing from preclearance the 15 states covered in whole or part under the law (a list that includes Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Arizona in whole and Florida and North Carolina in part). It also encouraged other Republican-controlled states to pursue new restrictions by signaling "that this is a Supreme Court that doesn't really give a blank about your voting rights," as Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Marymount Law School who specializes in election law, recently told me.

In Shelby's aftermath, red states erected an array of new barriers to voting, including imposing tighter voter-identification requirements, intensifying voter purges and closing hundreds of polling places in urban and minority neighborhoods. These actions enormously escalated after former President Donald Trump's false claims of fraud in the 2020 election: In 2021, 19 Republican-controlled states passed 34 laws making it more difficult to vote, according to a Brennan Center roundup

For all the Republicans who say we ought to keep the filibuster, should we also do that in the state senates? Well, maybe the Texas voting law should have required a 60% threshold? Maybe the Georgia law should have required a 60% threshold? Lee Drutman, senior fellow, New America

As I quantified last year with data from the Brennan Center, the most restrictive state laws approved in 2021 have divided state legislatures almost entirely along party lines: Apart from one law in Arkansas that mixed provisions restricting and expanding access, Brennan calculated that just three of 816 state legislative Democrats had voted for any of the major bills approved by last summer, while just 19 of 1,601 state legislative Republicans had voted against any of them. Almost all of these bills faced uniform opposition from every state legislative Democrat.

Yet these bills advanced into law anyway on virtually party-line, majority-rule votes because no state legislature has a filibuster rule that requires a supermajority to approve legislation.

"Not a single state requires a 60% threshold for passing legislation," says Lee Drutman, a senior fellow in political reform at the center-left think tank New America. "For all the Republicans who say we ought to keep the filibuster, should we also do that in the state senates? Well, maybe the Texas voting law should have required a 60% threshold? Maybe the Georgia law should have required a 60% threshold?"

Democrats don't have the votes to stop these laws in the red state legislatures. And the Supreme Court has clearly signaled it is unlikely to impose meaningful limits on the red states: Since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005, it has never struck down a state voting-law restriction , and in 2021 the GOP-appointed majority issued another sweeping ruling (in the Brnovich vs. Democratic National Committee case) severely weakening the remaining section of the Voting Rights Act that the Justice Department and civil rights advocates are using to challenge the state laws.

Operating on the same rules as the state legislatures (and effectively as the Supreme Court), Democrats in the House of Representatives last year passed two bills, on a party-line, majority-rule basis, to counter the GOP moves. Those bills, respectively, reversed the court's decisions eviscerating the Voting Rights Act and established a new nationwide floor of voting rights, including access to mail and early voting and same-day voter registration.

But the refusal of Manchin and Sinema to exempt voting rights from the filibuster means that for the only time in this long sequence of events, Democrats must reach a bipartisan, supermajority of support to pass voter protections through the Senate and into law. The two senators' decision means Congress can respond to the new voting restrictions only on the dim chance that Republicans in the Senate agree to override what Republicans in the states and on the Supreme Court have already done.

"If Congress is now going to be held hostage by the 60-vote supermajority requirement and be unable, even with a majority, to protect democratic rights in the states, then the national government has disarmed and leaves people unprotected from the abuses of partisans or White backlash in their own states," says Waldman.

States' divergence on rights widening

The voting rights struggle most clearly demonstrates the leverage of the new Republican axis. But the same pattern is coming into view on abortion. Republican-controlled states, including Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Oklahoma, have passed a torrent of laws in recent years severely tightening or virtually eliminating access to abortion, typically over preponderant opposition from Democratic legislators. Courts have blocked most of those laws from taking effect because they violate the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which established a nationwide right to abortion. In other cases, the laws are "triggered" to go into effect only if the high court overturns Roe. That day may be coming: In oral arguments during a challenge to the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks (as well as the decision not to temporarily block an even more restrictive Texas statute), the GOP-appointed Supreme Court majority has signaled it may overturn or severely weaken Roe in a decision next summer. The odds are near zero that any of the three Democratic-appointed justices would join in such a ruling.

The House of Representatives has already responded: Again on a majority-rule, near party-line basis, the Democratic majority approved legislation last September codifying a national right to abortion. But because of the filibuster rule that requires a bipartisan supermajority, that legislation is doomed in the Senate.

Multiple Republican-controlled states also are squeezing First Amendment rights by limiting how public school teachers can talk about race . The filibuster likely precludes any federal legislative pushback against those moves, and it's unclear whether this Supreme Court will constrain those state laws (though some civil rights advocates hope that libertarian impulses might lead at least some GOP-appointed justices toward opposition). Likewise, multiple red states have passed laws targeting transgender young people (for instance, by barring them from competing in high school sports). The House, on another majority-rule, near-party line vote, last year passed legislation that would override those laws , but that bill too is blocked by the Senate filibuster.

Again it's unclear whether this Supreme Court will intervene against the states in the lawsuits brought by LGBTQ rights groups ; to the contrary, some legal analysts believe that if the GOP-appointed court majority overturns Roe, it might eventually use similar logic to reverse the 2015 Obergefell decision establishing the national right to same-sex marriage. (If that happens, it would allow red states to again bar same-sex unions, while the filibuster would almost certainly prevent Congress, as on abortion, from restoring the national right through legislation.)

Whether or not your children can attend integrated schools, whether or not you enjoy full First Amendment rights, your right to vote ... access to your right to choose ... should not depend on whether you are in Texas or New York, whether you are in Georgia or in California. Deborah Archer, president, American Civil Liberties Union

All of this points toward a widening divergence in the basic rights available in red and blue states. That's an America that looks more like it did before Congress and the Earl Warren-led Supreme Court engineered the "rights revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s, which established a broad array of common national rights in area from voting to abortion to discrimination based on race or gender.

Republican elected officials and conservative thinkers who support these trends argue that permitting states more freedom to diverge on questions such as abortion and voting rights reduces political tensions by allowing policies to reflect local sentiments. And they uniformly insist that the voting laws states are passing will merely buttress election integrity without curtailing citizens' right to vote. Reversing the accusation that the Republican axis is gutting long-standing national rights, many conservatives argue it is Democrats who are seeking to undermine political institutions by eliminating the filibuster or enlarging the Supreme Court, two ideas that have surfaced as possible responses to the GOP axis.

"There is almost no appetite on the right for changing the fundamental institutions of our democracy," conservative policy analyst John C. Goodman, a senior fellow at the right-leaning Independent Institute, wrote earlier this month. "But there is on the left."

But civil rights advocates almost uniformly consider the new state voting laws harmful to minority participation. And they argue that state leeway should end at the point where it endangers basic civil rights and liberties, like voting or abortion access.

"These are constitutional rights, and your ability to enjoy those constitutional rights should not depend on what state you live in," says Deborah Archer, a New York University law professor who's the president of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Whether or not your children can attend integrated schools, whether or not you enjoy full First Amendment rights, your right to vote ... access to your right to choose ... should not depend on whether you are in Texas or New York, whether you are in Georgia or in California."

When it comes to how far the GOP-appointed Supreme Court majority may go in allowing red states to roll back previously shared national rights, she adds, "I don't think we have seen the line, and I think that's really scary."

To come: Backlash or a new tilt?

Compounding the frustration of Democrats and civil rights advocates is how this axis is rooted in the structural imbalances of our political system that amplify the influence of the smaller, conservative, preponderantly White states least touched by demographic and cultural change . Five of the six Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices were chosen by presidents who had lost the national popular vote in their first races but won Electoral College majorities: George W. Bush and Donald Trump. (Clarence Thomas, appointed by George H.W. Bush, is the only exception).

Four of the six were approved by senators who represent less than half of the US population (if you assign half of each state's population to each senator). Roberts is the only one of the six GOP-appointed justices who received at least 60 Senate votes, the threshold still required under the filibuster to preserve any of the national rights that court majority is targeting. (Senate Democrats did not filibuster Thomas or Roberts and mounted only a half-hearted, easily overcome filibuster against Samuel Alito. The GOP Senate majority eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017, which prevented Democrats from applying the tool against Trump's three appointees.)

JUST WATCHED MLK shares view on the filibuster in 60-year-old interview clip Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH MLK shares view on the filibuster in 60-year-old interview clip 01:10

Brian Fallon, a former senior Democratic Senate aide who's the executive director of Demand Justice, a group that advocates for enlarging the Supreme Court and reducing the influence of federal courts, says Democrats share the blame for the success of the GOP axis by failing to place sufficient priority on federal judicial appointments or winning state legislative races. But he also argues that Republicans are seeking to roll back rights in areas such as voting and abortion through the combination of federal court and state legislative action because they don't want to trigger highly visible nationwide debates. "Their best strategy is to strangle the elected branches of the federal government and to work their will through federal judiciary ... and state legislatures, where they have eaten our lunch in the last several years," he says.

Fallon says he believes a strategy centered on Supreme Court rulings from justices appointed and confirmed by Republicans who did not receive support from public majorities carries the seeds of its own destruction. That approach, he argues, will eventually produce a backlash by undoing rights with broad popular support -- for instance, the right to abortion. "I do not think that strategy can long endure," he says. "When a critical mass of rulings emanate from that court that is the product of all those counter-majoritarian steps upon each other, I think you end up with front-page news that shocks the public."

A backlash is one possibility. But others point to the prospect that this GOP revolution from below could change the political equation enough to shift the national balance of power.

The GOP-appointed Supreme Court majority and Republican senators wielding the filibuster are, in effect, providing air cover for the ground offensive from Republican legislatures and governors to tighten voting restrictions, impose extreme partisan gerrymanders and enhance partisan influence over the counting of ballots. The combined effect may be not only to entrench GOP control over those state governments but also to reduce Democrats' chances of winning those states in presidential or congressional elections.

If Republicans can tilt the playing field that way in enough states, they will increase their odds of controlling the White House and Congress, with or without majority support. So long as Manchin and Sinema uphold the filibuster, they are blocking Democrats' best, and maybe only, chance to disrupt the Republicans' tightening red state/Supreme Court/Senate axis -- and to resist the political system's growing bent toward minority rule.

Analysis Ronald Brownstein
Lee Drutman
Senior Fellow
New America
Deborah Archer
President
American Civil Liberties Union

Biden is close to the point of no return with Americans on the ...

(CNN) President Joe Biden and his administration appear perilously close to an irreversible severing of public confidence in his capacity to deliver prosperity and financial security as stiff economic challenges balloon into huge political liabilities.

The main culprit is inflation , a corrosive force that the White House initially underestimated and has failed to tame. It's been decades since Americans have experienced this demoralizing cycle of spiraling costs for basic goods and services. That shock is twinned with punishing gasoline prices that also hammer family budgets and spread pain across the population -- in a way that a regular recession, which can destroy millions of jobs but not hurt everyone -- may not.

The result is a looming political disaster for Democrats, with voters in a disgruntled mood ahead of midterm elections that were already historically tough for a first-term President.

The depth of voter disquiet about the economy also suggests that a potential backlash against the Supreme Court possibly overturning the nationwide right to abortion may not save Democrats in November.

The party seems stuck in a dangerous political position of insisting the economy is doing well while voters think it's in the tank.

The CNN poll, conducted by SSRS from April 28 to May 1, showed that a majority of Americans think Biden's policies have hurt the economy, while 8 in 10 say the government is not doing enough to combat inflation. It was released on the same day the Federal Reserve made its biggest swing against the rising cost of living in 22 years.

White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein admitted on CNN on Thursday that some households are "experiencing extreme discomfort" because of inflation, but said some were in a better position because of the strong job market.

"So I think you have to be more nuanced when you're trying to assess the economy ... we're doing all we can to try to help ease these inflationary pressures," Bernstein told Brianna Keilar on "New Day." He pointed to White House efforts to end supply chain blockages, to tackle port congestion, to lower energy prices and the release of millions of barrels of oil from strategic reserves among other measures.

Bernstein is right about the external factors pushing inflation. But the problem for the White House is that nuance is the first thing that goes missing in political campaigns and voter anguish offers an easy opening for Republicans.

The Federal Reserve raised interest rates by half a percentage point, but it triggered a stocks rally by indicating that despite adjustments to come, it did not anticipate further huge spikes in the price of borrowing.

"I'd like to take this opportunity to speak directly to the American people," Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said at the start of a news conference. "Inflation is much too high, and we understand the hardship it is causing. We are moving expeditiously to bring it back down."

Yet the strikingly direct moment may not quell concerns that the Fed and the White House have acted too slowly to tackle inflation, are not using sufficiently aggressive methods to ease it and may still be overtaken by global factors, including the war in Ukraine and the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic, which clogged supply chains, sent energy prices soaring and triggered other rising prices.

JUST WATCHED Fed raises interest rates as it tries to catch up with inflation Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Fed raises interest rates as it tries to catch up with inflation 02:00

What the interest rate hike means

The rate increase will make new home and car loans and payments on credit card balances more expensive. But in the process, it could cool the housing market, making it easier to buy a home and taking the heat out of rising prices.

Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, explained that Americans could see results from the rate hikes in their daily lives, as inflation simmers at the highest levels since Ronald Reagan's 1980s presidency.

"What the Fed is hoping to do is cool inflation a little so your paycheck will go a little further, although that will mean slowing the economy and that might mean a little less bargaining power for workers and fewer prospects of a wage rise anytime soon," Wolfers said on CNN's "Newsroom."

The White House is showing clear signs of frustration that inflation is overshadowing the strong aspects of an economy that appears in remarkably robust shape -- despite a small contraction of 1.4% in the first quarter -- given the cataclysm of a two-year pandemic and the worst war in Europe since 1945.

Biden, for example, on Wednesday touted cuts in the federal budget deficit and an unemployment rate that is approaching 50-year lows in a speech that appeared to be an attempt to get ahead of the Fed announcement and to signal resolve.

Yet his political plight is underscoring why inflation remains a force that is dreaded by political leaders everywhere.

JUST WATCHED Home buyers aren't using a realtor. Here's what they're doing instead Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Home buyers aren't using a realtor. Here's what they're doing instead 02:42

Despite Republican claims in midterm campaign ads that Biden's public spending policies are the sole cause of inflation, the President is correct to identify outside factors, including the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, as the main drivers of rising prices.

But the reality doesn't mean voters will give Biden a pass. It's the nature of the job that when the country is in a grim mood, the President gets the blame. And when the White House's efforts to explain the problems and fix them have sometimes been muddled and too late, the political damage mounts. Biden may never shake off the initial White House line that high inflation was a "transitory" phase coming out of the pandemic. And while the economy is strong in many areas, voters' perception is often more important politically than the data that tells the real story.

A daunting poll for the White House

The CNN poll, for example, says that only 23% of Americans rate economic conditions as even somewhat good, down from 37% in December. The last time public perception of the economy was this poor in CNN's polling was November 2011. Only 34% approve of Biden's management of the economy. And his approval rating on helping the middle class -- 36% -- is devastating for a President who has made that issue the foundation of his political career.

The question of public perception versus the true state of the economy is also borne out in the poll. Americans said by nearly 4 to 1 that they were more likely to hear bad news than good news about the economy.

Some 94% of Republicans rate economic conditions as poor. This suggests that views of the economy may be shaped by partisan leanings as much as a neutral judgment of conditions. Conservative news channels keep a constant drumbeat of horror stories about rising prices, and Republicans have made the issue an effective campaign tool while hyping the strength of ex-President Donald Trump's economic performance.

Yet 81% of independents and 54% of Democrats also think the economy is poor, suggesting that Biden has taken a hit among some of the voters who put him in office.

Americans are more positive about their own finances than about the national economic situation, with 53% saying they're satisfied with their personal financial situations. That could again indicate that a wider sense of malaise is coloring views of the economy. Still, that figure is down from 66% in 2016.

Given this catalog of gloom, Biden's tone and topic on Wednesday were a little surprising.

He claimed credit for a $1.5 trillion cut in the federal deficit by the end of the year. This compares with the profligacy of the debt-laden Trump years and exposes the hypocrisy of Republican deficit hawks who forget their supposed principles when one of their own is in the Oval Office.

Yet how many Americans stretching their weekly budgets care that much about deficits -- even if, as Biden said, lowering them could bring down inflation in the long term?

The White House event also exposed the President's frustration that he's not getting credit for what's good about the economy.

When a reporter asked him about Ukraine and the Supreme Court's abortion drama, he replied: "No one asked about deficits, huh? ... You want to make sure this doesn't get covered."

What happens next

JUST WATCHED Here's why stocks could rebound after a volatile month Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Here's why stocks could rebound after a volatile month 02:00

The best hope for Biden, other Democratic politicians and all Americans facing an economic crunch is that the Fed's approach works and prices fall. And some perspective here: The economy isn't facing the full-blown disaster of 2008 or even the inflationary nightmares of 40 years ago.

"I don't think we have the economy of the 1980s or the 1970s," Betsey Stevenson, who was a member of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said on "The Lead with Jake Tapper" on Wednesday.

But it's hard to see how things get better quickly -- or anywhere near in time to make a difference to Biden before the midterms.

Even if the war in Ukraine ends soon, the fundamental shifts it has unleashed in the global economy will play out for years. More pressure on food prices is certain if the harvest in Europe's breadbasket -- a major source of grain and sunflower oil -- is disrupted by the war. New Covid-19 lockdowns in China could revive supply chain chaos that helped push up inflation in the first place. Some observers think the Fed has moved too slowly. Others think that its assault on inflation will cause a recession.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon , appearing on Bloomberg TV on Wednesday before the Fed's announcement, said that although the economy is strong and consumers are in good shape, vulnerabilities are everywhere. He sees, for instance, a 1 in 3 chance of a "mild recession" that spans six to nine months but warned there's "a chance it's going to be much harder than that."

So for the country, and for Biden especially, there's more frustration to come.

Trump acquitted in Senate impeachment trial over Ukraine charges

WASHINGTON - The Senate acquitted President Donald Trump for his dealings with Ukraine on Wednesday, culminating months of bitter partisan clashes over accusations he tried to cheat in the 2020 election by pressuring the U.S. ally to investigate political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

The Republican-led Senate voted to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, was the only senator to cross party lines by voting to convict for abuse of power.

Here is how the day and events played out. Refresh for updates.

Protest gathers outside Capitol following acquittal vote

A group of about 200 protestors, organized by progressive groups like Common Cause, Indivisible, Greenpeace, and the Women's March, gathered outside the Capitol following the Senate’s votes to acquit Trump.

Protestors shouted “Moscow Mitch,” “shame,” and “November is too late” as they rallied against Trump. Kim Shyman, a 59-year-old candy company owner from Maryland, said she joined in the protest because she “could not sit at home with this going on.”

The trial was a “sham,” she said and the acquittal was “awful.” Sara Anzalone from New York, 21, told USA TODAY she met the group at the Women’s March.

“I think that, you know, getting a foreign power to interfere with our country is just completely against the constitution and completely out of his power,” Anzalone said. “And I really think that he should be held responsible and it really kind of makes me pissed off that he could have been held accountable today. So, I'm coming out here to show my support for other people who are agreeing with me and agree that he should have removed from office today.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., addressed the crowd to cheers, and shouts of “fascist” when she said Trump’s name.

Trump has been “committing crimes and cover-ups in broad daylight,” she said. “I will focus my ire on Senate Republicans. Shame on you, Mitch McConnell. We will not forget this betrayal."

A man pulled a “roaming anti-Trump bandwagon” around the perimeter of the protest, giving out anti-Trump paraphernalia.

-Nicholas Wu and Savannah Behrmann, USA TODAY

Pelosi highlights bipartisan trial vote against Trump

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued a statement saying the Senate vote to acquit Trump “normalized lawlessness and rejected the system of checks and balances in our Constitution.”

Trump and Senate Republicans who acquitted the president had criticized the two articles of impeachment for being supported by only Democrats in the House. GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah joined Senate Democrats in voting to convict Trump of abuse of power, but they fell short of the two-thirds majority required to remove Trump or even a majority. But Pelosi noted that Trump got the first bipartisan trial vote in history.

“The president will boast that he has been acquitted,” Pelosi said. “There can be no acquittal without a trial, and there is no trial without witnesses, documents and evidence. By suppressing the evidence and rejecting the most basic elements of a fair judicial process, the Republican Senate made themselves willing accomplices to the president’s cover-up.”

- Bart Jansen

Schumer calls Trump, GOP trial victory temporary

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said history would view Trump’s acquittal as a temporary win, while Republicans will face questions as additional evidence dribbles out.

“History will view this as a Pyrrhic victory for Senate Republicans and the Republican Party and for President Trump,” Schumer said. “They’re afraid to hear the other side. They’re afraid to hear the truth. They’re afraid to talk about what was right.”

Schumer complained against that the Senate voted largely along party lines to reject his proposals to subpoena witnesses and documents for additional evidence in the trial.

“I believe the American people will realize this is one of the largest coverups in the history of our nation,” Schumer said. “I believe the American people will know who stood in the way of truth.”

Schumer said the bipartisan vote for conviction, with GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah joining Democrats in voting unsuccessfully to convict Trump for abuse of power, would go down in history.

“No one had illusions that the president would be convicted,” Schumer said. “But we made the fight for truth and we made the fight for facts and it created a bipartisan impeachment that can never be erased from history.”

- Bart Jansen

McConnell said impeachment is net win for GOP

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell focused his political commentary after the Senate acquittal on surmising that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been dragged into the impeachment inquiry against her better political judgment and then tried to get it over with as quickly as possible.

“I think this was a thoroughly political exercise from the beginning to the end,” said McConnell, R-Ky.

McConnell said he had observed Pelosi, D-Calif., carefully over the years because their leadership terms overlapped and they worked on appropriations bills together earlier in their careers.

“I’m pretty sure she didn’t want to do this,” McConnell said. “But the fact that she was pulled into this direction against what appeared to be her political instincts a year ago underscores that this was a purely political exercise.”

Pelosi resisted declaring an impeachment inquiry after special counsel Robert Mueller announced the results of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But after revelations about Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, she declared a formal inquiry Sept. 24 that produced articles of impeachment before the end of the year.

“Having been dragged into something she instinctively felt was a mistake, then the second impulse was to get it over with as quickly as possible,” McConnell said of what he called an “abbreviated, truncated, rush job over in the House.”

McConnell then guessed that House Democrats would make the case a fight over witnesses in the Senate. But his staff counted 60 times when House managers had declared during the trial that they had already proved their case.

“I’m proud of my colleagues for seeing through that,” McConnell said of the nearly party-line votes to reject additional witnesses in the trial.

He also said it was right to avoid having Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts resolve a tie over witnesses, if a vote had come to that.

“It’s pretty clear that would have dragged the Supreme Court into the maelstrom,” McConnell said.

He concluded that impeachment was a political loser for Democrats because Trump enjoyed the highest approval ratings of his presidency.

“Right now this is a political loser for them,” McConnell said. “At least for the short term it has been a colossal political mistake.”

- Bart Jansen

President Trump acquitted on both impeachment charges

WASHINGTON - The Senate acquitted President Donald Trump for his dealings with Ukraine on Wednesday, culminating months of bitter partisan clashes over accusations he tried to cheat in the 2020 election by pressuring the U.S. ally to investigate political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

The Republican-led Senate voted to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, was the only senator to cross party lines by voting to convict for abuse of power. Conviction was always unlikely in the GOP-led Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority because it required the support of at least two-thirds of the Senate or 67 senators.

Trump was just the third president to face a Senate impeachment trial in U.S. history. Former Presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton 1999 were both acquitted.

More:What we learned (and still don't know) after the Trump impeachment saga

The thrust of the accusations from House Democrats was that Trump invited foreign influence in the 2020 election by pressuring Ukraine to gather dirt on Biden, and then stonewalled the investigation after getting caught. The lead House manager who prosecuted the case, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said the misconduct was part of a pattern, which included invitations to Russia and China to investigate his rivals, that would continue if left unchecked.

“You can’t trust this president to do the right thing, not for one minute, not for one election, not for the sake of the country,” Schiff said. “A man without character or ethical compass will not find his way.”

More:Sen. Mitt Romney will vote to convict President Trump on abuse of power charge

But Trump’s defense lawyers and congressional Republicans argued the president’s conduct didn’t warrant removal from office and amounted to a policy dispute. Trump’s defiance of subpoenas during the investigation was to protect the executive privilege, to keep advice from top aides confidential, according to his defenders.

“The president has done nothing wrong, and these types of impeachments must end,” said White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

The main allegation was that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, while withholding $391 million in military aid and a White House meeting.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the inquiry Sept. 24, after revelations about Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the call, Trump urged his counterpart to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter, who worked at the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings. Trump has claimed Biden strong-armed the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor in order to thwart an investigation into Burisma.

"Pelosi disgraced herself':GOP outraged by Pelosi ripping up Trump State of the Union speech

House Democrats impeached Trump on Dec. 18 after taking depositions from 17 current and former federal officials and gathering more than 28,000 pages of evidence. Senators asked 180 questions during the trial.

Through testimony and depositions, Democrats pieced together what they have argued is a chronology of Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine’s government into announcing investigations into the Bidens.

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified that he assured Ukraine officials at the White House July 10 that a meeting would be arranged between Trump and Zelensky in exchange for investigations.

“Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” Sondland said.

A staffer from the White House Office of Management and Budget announced the suspension of the aid to Ukraine during a July 18 National Security Council conference call. “I and others sat in astonishment,” testified Bill Taylor, the former top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine. “I also said I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Taylor later told other diplomats.

A whistleblower filed a complaint Aug. 12 with the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, about Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky. Atkinson said the complaint “appeared credible.”

House committees announced an investigation on Sept. 9. And Trump released the aid Sept. 11.

“President Trump tried to cheat, he got caught, and then he worked hard to cover it up,” said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., one of the House managers.

But Trump’s defenders argued the president had the sole authority to conduct foreign affairs and that the request stemmed from longstanding concerns about corruption in Ukraine. Trump repeatedly called the investigation a partisan “witch hunt” and a “hoax.”

Alan Dershowitz, who represented Trump, cited arguments from scholars from the period 150 years ago – around Johnson’s impeachment – that the “high crimes and misdemeanors” of impeachment should be based on criminal statutes such as treason and bribery described in the Constitution.

“It is inconceivable that the framers would have intended so politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as abuse of power to be weaponized as a tool of impeachment,” Dershowitz said.

Trump’s defense focused on the House procedures and called the inquiry illegitimate because it began with Pelosi’s announcement rather than the House vote authorizing it on Oct. 31. Patrick Philbin, a deputy White House counsel, called the impeachment “defective” and “half-baked” because 23 subpoenas were issued before the House vote and because the Democrats decided not to fight in court for testimony from witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton.

-Bart Jansen

Mitt Romney will vote to convict Trump on the first article of impeachment

WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said he’ll vote to convict President Donald Trump on the first article of impeachment – abuse of power – in the Senate trial.

Romney's office said he will not vote to convict on the second article of impeachment - obstruction of Congress.

“The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust,” he said. “A president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes they would demand removal from office."

Romney’s decision makes him the first and perhaps only Republican to announce he would vote to convict the president.

The 2012 Republican nominee for president choked up at times as he discussed his decision- making process. Calling it the “most difficult decision” he ever faced, Romney said the question before senators was whether Trump’s actions rose to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

“Yes, he did,” Romney said.

Mitt Romney:a solitary GOP voice battling Trump for the soul of the Republican Party

Trump’s alleged actions - pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival - amounted to “a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values,” Romney said.

“Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine,” he argued.

Romney acknowledged he would face a backlash from within his party, and “abuse” from Trump and his supporters, but he had an “inescapable conviction” that his oath demanded he adhere to the facts of the case.

“We’re all footnotes at best in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen,” he concluded.

- Nicholas Wu

Sen. Gardner, a swing-state Republican, will vote to acquit

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., who faces a tough re-election race this year, announced on the Senate floor he would vote to acquit President Donald Trump on both articles of impeachment.

“What we did not see over the last two weeks was a conclusive reason to remove the President of the United States,” he said.

Gardner said removal would “nullify the 2016 election” and “rob half the country of their preferred candidate for the 2020 election.”

The House had not proved its case, he said, so “it’s time to move forward with the people’s business” beyond impeachment.

- Nicholas Wu

Sen. Feinstein says nearly 90,000 constituents contacted her office

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said calls, emails and letters were pouring into her office supporting the conviction of President Donald Trump at a rate “seldom seen” in her 27 years in the chamber.

“Nearly 90,000 constituents have contacted my office in support of impeachment, compared to 20,000 in opposition,” said Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “I’m heartened to see an engaged American public at such a difficult time for our country. It’s clear to me where Californians stand on this issue and I thank everyone who took the time to contact my office with their views.”

- Bart Jansen

Sen. Jones announces he'll vote to convict Trump

Following a speech on the Senate floor announcing his decision to convict President Donald Trump on two articles of impeachment, Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., told reporters his reelection was not a major concern for him.

“No, did y'all hear that speech? Did anybody hear that speech? It has never crossed my mind,” he said when asked if he was concerned about reelection.

Asked about Republican challenger Jeff Sessions’ attacks on him, Jones smiled, shrugged, and said, “So?" Sessions served as Trump's attorney general.

Jones said his decision had been made consulting with his staff, who “put in a lot of time and a lot of hours,” rather than with his Democratic colleagues.

The Alabama Democrat said he made up his mind “just a couple of days ago" adding that, "I did what I thought was the right thing.”

The Senate Leadership Fund, a political campaign committee aimed at electing Republicans to the Senate, predicted that Jones would be voted out of office for his position on impeachment.

"The Senate Leadership Fund would like to be the first to congratulate Doug Jones on his impending retirement from politics,” said Jack Pandol, communications director for the fund. “From voting against Justice Kavanaugh, to opposing the border wall, to repeatedly supporting abortion, Jones hasn't made an effort to hide his far-left stripes.”

- Nicholas Wu

Sen. Jones announces he'll vote to convict Trump

Sen. Doug Jones, an Alabama Democrat who has previously not said how he'd vote in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, announced Wednesday he would vote to convict the president because his misconduct reflected an abuse of power rather than simply being inappropriate.

“In this case, the evidence clearly proves the president used the weight of his office and that of the United States government to seek to coerce a foreign government to interfere in our election for his personal political benefit,” Jones said a statement. “With impeachment as the only check on such presidential wrongdoing, I felt I must vote to convict on the first charge of abuse of power.”

Jones said he was sensitive to protecting presidential powers, giving him pause about the charge of obstruction of Congress. But he said it was critical for Congress to retain its powers, too.

“In this matter it was clear from the outset that the President had no intention whatsoever of any accommodation with Congress when he blocked both witnesses and documents from being produced,” Jones said.

The vote comes as Jones faces a challenging campaign this year in a conservative state. Jones beat Republican Roy Moore with 50% of the vote in a special election in 2017 to succeed Jeff Sessions, who became Trump’s first attorney general. Jones could face Moore or Sessions this year.

Jones said in December that he hadn’t watched all of the testimony and debate in the House inquiry, saying he was still “trying to see if the dots get connected.”

Jones said he tried to cut through the partisan fog by reading thousands of pages of transcripts, watching videos of testimony, taking copious notes, reviewing history and discussing precedents with colleagues.

“Senators are elected to make tough choices,” Jones said. “The gravity of this moment, the seriousness of the charges, and the implications for future presidencies and Congresses all contributed to the difficulty with which I have arrived at my decision.”

- Bart Jansen

Sen. Kamala Harris: Senate trial is 'miscarriage of justice'

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said the Senate impeachment trial has been a "miscarriage of justice," claiming President Donald Trump is getting away with abusing his power.

“The Senate trial of Donald Trump has been a miscarriage of justice,” said Harris, a former prosecutor. “Donald Trump is going to get away with abusing his position of power for personal gain, abusing his position of power to stop Congress from looking into his misconduct.”

“He’s going to escape accountability because a majority of senators have decided to let him,” Harris said.

- Bart Jansen

Hawley: impeachment is a 'circus.' Alexander calls it 'shallow'

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., gave a fiery speech blasting House Democrats for initiating an unauthorized inquiry that resulted in the first partisan impeachment in history.

“Animating it all has been the bitter resentment of a professional political class that cannot accept the verdict of the people in 2016, that cannot accept the people’s priorities and that now seeks to overturn the election and entrench themselves in power,” Hawley said during a speech on the Senate floor. “We must leave this impeachment circus behind us.”

Senators will vote today on whether to acquit or convict President Donald Trump of two articles of impeachment – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., called Trump’s conduct pressuring Ukraine to investigate his rival “inappropriate,” but said the decision about whether to remove him from office should be left to the voters.

“If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist,” Alexander said. “It would create a weapon of permanent impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.”

- Bart Jansen

Trump to meet with Venezuela's opposition leader before vote

As senators await to vote on the impeachment verdict, President Donald Trump will engage in some foreign policy Wednesday by meeting with the opposition leader in Venezuela.

The session with Juan Guaido is an opportunity for Trump "to reaffirm the commitment of the United States to the people of Venezuela and to discuss how we can work with President Guaido to expedite a democratic transition in Venezuela," said White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham.

Guaido declared himself interim president in 2019 after President Nicholas Maduro was sworn into office for a second term. Maduro’s re-election was marred by accusations of fraud and election rigging.

Trump also welcomed Guaido to Tuesday's State of the Union speech, hailing him as Venezuela's rightful leader denied power by the socialist government in Caracas.

Guaido is scheduled to arrive at the White House at 2 p.m. EST, two hours before the Senate impeachment vote.

Trump, who expects to be acquitted by the Senate, is planning to address impeachment later in the day – after the vote.

- David Jackson and Deirdre Shesgreen

Sen. Cornyn: impeachment is 'nuclear option'

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said when it comes resolving policy disputes between Congress and the White House, impeachment is the “nuclear option."

Cornyn said he would vote to acquit Trump because House Democrats failed to provide enough evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor.

“Impeaching the president of the United States is simply the gravest undertaking we can pursue in this country,” Cornyn said. “It is a choice of last resort when a president has committed a crime so serious that Congress must act rather than leave the choice to the voters in the election.”

Cornyn argued said House Democrats failed to prove evidence of a crime and also argued the accusation of obstruction of Congress, stemming from Trump's defiance of subpoenas, would make future presidents subservient to the legislative branch if enforced.

“They channeled personal, policy and political grievances, and attempted to use the most solemn responsibility of Congress to bring down a political rival in a partisan process,” Cornyn said of House Democrats.

- Bart Jansen

Merkley urges GOP to remove Trump from office

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., was the first of dozens of senators expected to speak in the chamber Wednesday before voting on the verdict in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

Merkley made no secret of where he stood in supporting conviction of Trump. He recited how the president directed his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to work with U.S. government officials to withhold an Oval Office meeting and $391 million in military aid for Ukraine unless that country investigated former Vice President Joe Biden.

“When our president invites and pressures a foreign government to smear a political opponent and corrupt the integrity of our 2020 presidential election, he must be removed from office,” Merkley said.

Trump is expected to be acquitted because removal would require a two-thirds majority in a chamber with 53 Republicans and 47 members of the Democratic caucus. Merkley directed his comments to Republicans, some of whom have acknowledged inappropriate behavior by Trump but said it didn’t warrant removal from office.

- Bart Jansen

Senate poised to acquit Trump, end trial

It's decision day for the Senate – and a pivotal day for President Donald Trump.

The Senate impeachment trial will end Wednesday when senators, who have served as jurors through weeks of arguments and debate, vote on whether to acquit Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, or to convict him and remove him from office.

The historic vote at 4 p.m. EST culminates months of investigations and debate over Trump's alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden by withholding $391 million in security aid. For senators, the vote will be one of the most-remembered of their careers and will surely play a role in 2020 congressional campaigns.

On Monday and Tuesday, senators spent hours explaining their positions in 10-minute speeches on the Senate floor and Trump gave his annual State of the Union address . The speeches will continue Wednesday.

‘He shouldn’t have done it':GOP senator who scolded Trump on Ukraine explains why he backs acquittal

But the result of the final vote has been anticipated for months, even before the House voted Dec. 18 to impeach Trump on two articles of impeachment: abuse of power for the alleged Ukraine pressure campaign and obstruction of Congress for directing his administration to defy subpoenas for witnesses and documents. That's because a two-thirds majority of the Senate is required to convict and remove a president from office, which is unlikely in a chamber with 53 Republicans and 47 members of the Democratic caucus.

The trial has hinged on whether the seven impeachment managers, all Democratic House members prosecuting the case, could make a convincing enough case against Trump to persuade enough Senate Republicans to vote with Democrats on the president's conviction.

The managers argued that Trump tried to cheat in the 2020 election and then tried to cover it up.

“You can’t trust this president to do the right thing, not for one minute, not for one election, not for the sake of our country," said the lead manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “A man without character or ethical compass will not find his way.”

Rep. Jason Crow:Democrat reads from his children's Constitutions during the Trump impeachment trial

But Trump's defense team argued that Democrats' accusations were unproven and that impeachment would threaten future presidents with removal over policy disputes if he were convicted. The defense lawyers argued that neither of the two articles alleged violations of criminal statutes, as was customary in previous impeachments. And they argued that if the obstruction charge were upheld, confidential advice to future presidents would be at risk.

“We have an impeachment that is purely partisan and political. It’s opposed by bipartisan members of the House," said White House counsel Pat Cipollone. “It is wrong. There is only one answer to that, and the answer is to reject those articles of impeachment, to have confidence in the American people, to have confidence in the result of the upcoming election, to have confidence and respect for the last election and not throw it out."

The vote will end only the third Senate trial of a president, after the acquittals of Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Pelosi announced the inquiry Sept. 24. The House voted to authorize it Oct. 31. No House Republicans joined Democrats to impeach Trump in December.

The House provided the Senate with 28,578 pages of evidence in the trial, including 17 depositions of current and former government officials. Senators asked 180 questions of House managers and Trump's defense team.

Nancy Pelosi:It was 'sad' for Mitch McConnell to 'humiliate' Chief Justice John Roberts with witness vote

But congressional Democrats wanted to hear from more witnesses, most notably former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton after excerpts from his forthcoming book surfaced during the trial and appeared to counter the president's defense. The debate over whether to hear witnesses became a heated issue and was a crucial test of whether Democrats could bring Republicans to their side.

A Democratic push to subpoena additional witnesses or documents failed Friday. Only two Republicans – Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah – joined Democrats in an unsuccessful effort to call Bolton. Broader proposals to subpoena more witnesses and documents were rejected in party-line votes.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the impeachment was a partisan effort by Democrats and must be rejected.

‘He shouldn’t have done it':GOP senator who scolded Trump on Ukraine explains why he backs acquittal

“We must vote to reject the House abuse of power,” McConnell said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Vote to protect our institutions. Vote to reject new precedents that would reduce the framers’ design to rubble. Vote to keep factional fever from boiling over and scorching our republic. Vote to acquit the president of these charges.”

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said the House managers failed to meet the “high bar” set by the nation’s founders to remove a president from office.

“Removing the president from office – and from the ballots for the upcoming election – would almost certainly plunge the country into even greater political turmoil,” he said.

A handful of Republicans said Trump's conduct was inappropriate but said it wasn't worthy of removing him from office.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said that it was inappropriate for Trump to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent but that "the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate."

"The president’s behavior was shameful and wrong," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, but the foundation of the House case "was rotten."

'We’ll find the right time':Pompeo demurs on White House visit for Ukraine's Zelensky

Democrats argued that Trump should be removed or his misconduct would continue. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said House managers made a compelling case, and Republican opposition to gathering more evidence "fails the laugh test."

“The Republicans refused to get the evidence because they were afraid of what it would show, and that’s all that needs to be said," Schumer said.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said failure to convict Trump would send a terrible signal "that this president and any future president can commit crimes against the Constitution and the American people and get away with it."

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., whose state Trump won narrowly in 2016, said the White House engaged in a “systematic and unprecedented effort to cover up the scheme” in Ukraine.

"A vote against the articles of impeachment will set a dangerous precedent, and will be used by future presidents to act with impunity,” he argued.

Tensions high at State of the Union

The vote will come just a day after the president gave his State of the Union address, an event that put on display the country's divisions and between the president and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who led her caucus to impeach him.

The president refused to shake her hand after she introduced him. Pelosi ripped up his speech after he concluded his remarks. The two slights left many stunned and wondering whether the tensions between political parties would ever mend.

"I'm not sure I've ever seen the Speaker do something so disrespectful," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said after watching Pelosi rip up the address just inches behind Trump's head.

State of the Union:Fact-checking Trump's claims on jobs, wealth and wages

Many Democrats said Pelosi's actions stemmed from frustration but others noted that the American public is counting on Congress to move forward and try to come together.

"Our Congress is a representative body and we represent a very divided country," said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., noting some of the topics touted by Trump were divisive. "I think it's our job to try and bridge the divides even when they're very sharp and very difficult."

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said he hadn't seen Pelosi ripping apart Trump's speech but caught Trump withholding a handshake with the speaker.

Susan Page:From a snub to a ripped speech to campaign messaging, this was not your typical address

"The speaker extended the invitation to President Trump to deliver the speech on behalf of the House of Representatives. She was gracious enough to extend her hand," he said. "Notwithstanding the nasty personal comments that he's continuously directed at her. And he behaved like a petulant child."

The speech, in the House chamber where Trump was impeached just weeks ago, did not mention impeachment or the president's almost certain-acquittal Wednesday in the Republican-dominated Senate.

What happened Tuesday:Sen. Susan Collins said she'll vote to acquit Trump

In 1974, Goldwater and Rhodes told Nixon he was doomed

Dan Nowicki

The Republic | azcentral.com

Saturday is the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's resignation.

Thursday, however, marks the anniversary of a related incident that has since become legendary in Arizona political lore. On Aug. 7, 1974, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., U.S. House Minority Leader John Rhodes, R-Ariz., and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, R-Pa., made it clear to the embattled Nixon that he faced all-but-certain impeachment, conviction and removal from office in connection with the Watergate scandal.

Nixon announced his resignation the next evening, effective at noon on Aug 9, 1974.

Over the years, Goldwater, Rhodes and Scott have been lionized for their often exaggerated role in precipitating Nixon's exit.

In his 2006 book "Conservatives Without Conscience," former Watergate figure John W. Dean wrote that the Capitol Hill trio "traveled to the White House to tell Nixon it was time to resign." A Los Angeles Times headline over Rhodes' 2003 obituary recalled that the longtime representative from Mesa "helped persuade Nixon to resign." A 2007 Politico column recalled the episode as "When the GOP Torpedoed Nixon."

Actually, Goldwater, Rhodes and Scott did not try to persuade or urge Nixon to resign in their meeting in his "working office" in the Old Executive Office Building. They just confirmed to the doomed president the extent to which his support on the Hill had evaporated.

"My dad kind of bristled at the idea that he and Goldwater talked Nixon into doing what he did," son Tom Rhodes told The Arizona Republic. "I don't think any one of the three of them took any pride in that moment."

Contemporary news reports and later retellings of the meeting by Goldwater and Rhodes indicate that they didn't lobby Nixon to quit, although both were disillusioned by the Watergate scandal and cover-up.

Goldwater, who had been the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, told Arizona reporters in a conference call shortly after the meeting that resignation "never came up" during the conversation.

"I don't think it would be proper for me to say what I think," Goldwater said, according to an account of his media call in the Aug. 8, 1974, edition of the Tucson Daily Citizen. "And, anyway, I'm not sure the president would pay much attention."

In his 1988 autobiography, Goldwater wrote that after hearing their grim assessment, Nixon "knew beyond any doubt that one way or another his presidency was finished."

"None of us doubted the outcome. He would resign," Goldwater wrote.

Rhodes, who served in the U.S. House from 1953 to 1983, also recounted the meeting in his 1995 memoir "I Was There," but noted, "I got the very strong impression that he had already decided to resign when he talked to us."

Jack August, Jr., an Arizona political historian and author, agreed that Nixon probably "had already seen the writing on the wall," but said that doesn't diminish the fact that Goldwater and Rhodes were important players at a time of national crisis, even if they were just messengers.

"This is part of Arizona's historical brand at the national level," August said. "These two guys played a significant role during a critical period of transition."

In other developments:

* U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., is dismissing suggestions that the GOP-controlled House is angling to impeach President Barack Obama. National Democrats have been using the prospect to raise money.

"It's a non-starter," Gosar, a conservative Obama critic, said Friday. "Even if you could get it out of the House, you're never going to have it work in the (Democrat-controlled) Senate. A wise man said that if you beat your head against the wall, and it hurts, stop beating it. Find a different remedy."

* U.S. Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., has reserved $818,000 in campaign advertising time in Tucson's local and cable TV market for Sept. 2 through Nov. 4. Barber's re-election race in the state's 2nd Congressional District is viewed as one of the toughest in the country. He will face the winner of the Aug. 26 Republican primary: either Shelley Kais, Martha McSally or Chuck Wooten.

Nowicki is The Republic's national political reporter. Follow him on Twitter at @dannowicki.

Analysis: A grim portrait of Biden's unhappy America - CNNPolitics

U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, center, before a State of the Union address by U.S. President Joe Biden at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, March 1, 2022. Biden's first State of the Union address comes against the backdrop of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions placed on Russia by the U.S. and its allies.

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 06: Pro-Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol following a rally with President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. Trump supporters gathered in the nation's capital today to protest the ratification of President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College victory over President Trump in the 2020 election. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 20: House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) talks with reporters during a news conference with House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) (L) following a House Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on October 20, 2021 in Washington, DC. The GOP members of Congress were critical of the entire Democratic slate of legislation and accused them of being unwilling to compromise. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump speaks on May 28, 2022 in Casper, Wyoming. The rally is being held to support Harriet Hageman, Rep. Liz Cheneys primary challenger in Wyoming.

Attorney General William Barr participates in a press conference at the Department of Justice along with DOJ officials on February 10, 2020 in Washington, DC.

CNN —

President Joe Biden often says America’s best days are ahead. It just doesn’t feel that way right now.

A nation exhausted by a two-year pandemic, struggling against rising food and gas prices, driven to distraction by school closures and torn apart by a political schism that erupted into violence is far from at ease with itself.

The sense of turmoil was captured in a new CNN/SSRS poll released Thursday that showed waning faith in US elections and found that most of the nearly 60% of Americans who disapprove of how Biden is handling his presidency were unable to name one single thing they like that he has done. “He’s not Donald Trump. That’s pretty much it,” one despondent respondent said. Another answered: “I really like his new cat, Willow Biden.”

Also on Thursday there was news that a key measure of inflation had climbed to a near-40-year high last month. Rising prices have a kind of strange magic that not only spooks voters, but also seeds the kind of political derangement in which extremists like former President Donald Trump can prosper. His assault on facts – aided by pliant right-wing media – has his fans yearning for his authoritarian return to power 13 months after he incited the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol. The country no longer has a common understanding of the truth, with 37% of Americans saying Biden did not legitimately win enough votes to be president, according to CNN’s new poll.

This foul national mood is primarily a disaster in the making for Democrats in November’s midterm elections, but it’s been a long time coming.

The first two decades of this century have delivered morale-busting military defeats, a generational economic crisis and an age of political turmoil, including sweeping social and demographic change and an equally intense backlash.

Rising violent crime rates are making a nation awash in guns feel less safe.

Talk of a new civil war in some media outlets is overblown. But divided blocs of conservatives and liberals genuinely seem to believe that the other is determined to rip away their vision of America. A powerful force on the right is the idea that a country that is becoming more racially diverse (partly through immigration), more socially liberal on gender issues and more secular, is being stripped of its quintessential, White identity. Up-and-coming Republicans have seized on public health guidelines and masks, meanwhile, to conjure a wave of fury based on the notion that Americans’ individual freedoms are being eroded.

There’s also angst on the left, where people are furious the Covid-19 pandemic was prolonged by vaccine holdouts. And there’s rising alarm among liberals that a conservative Supreme Court, starting to make radical shifts on social, racial and other issues, is set on turning a cosmopolitan nation into an idealized right-wing version of the 1950s.

A Republican Party wielding the filibuster in the Senate, meanwhile, is thwarting Biden’s power to rescue the country’s democracy from a flurry of new laws in GOP-led states that make it harder to vote and easier to politicize election results.

Trump has weaponized the nation’s divides for his own political ends. His lie that the last election was stolen from him has captivated his followers and made Biden an illegitimate leader in the eyes of millions of people – an impression it will be impossible for the President to mend.

American dominance under siege

The sense of national unease is being exacerbated by events abroad. The unipolar world led by America at the end of the 20th century has evolved into multiple challenges to US dominance from a rising China to a revanchist Russia that threatens the democratic world order. Their mission to destroy democracy is, remarkably, being aided by Trump acolytes inside the United States, in a scenario that would have been impossible to believe a few years ago.

Much of this catalog of woes is impossible to quantify. But everyone sees the strain and emotional toll in their friends and families of a once-in-a-100-year public health crisis. Even if average new daily cases are currently on their way down, the pandemic will bequeath trauma that will take years to heal.

The psychological impact of the way America is feeling will be for history to describe. But it is having political consequences in real time.

A grungy mood in a nation divided in multiple ways is translating to ever-diminishing confidence in political leaders and the system itself. It also helps to explain why a summer economic spurt, a dip in inflation and more legislative success on Capitol Hill are unlikely to rescue Biden’s presidency.

“We have to keep it going. And I think our best days are ahead of us,” Biden said last month at an event highlighting a push to increase the semiconductor supply. But the President’s attempt to buck up the national psyche and his own political prospects rang rather hollow.

There has been some mystification in Washington as to why administration successes have not registered more. The unemployment rate is near 50-year lows following a bumper monthly jobs figure last week. America’s economy is recovering more quickly than many other developed nations’ after the pandemic. A huge vaccine rollout saved thousands of lives. A massive Covid-19 relief bill that passed early in Biden’s presidency made significant reductions in child poverty. And while an audacious multitrillion-dollar climate and social spending bill is stalled in the Senate, Biden did what all of his recent predecessors had failed to do – pass a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

A terrible poll for Biden

But Biden is getting little credit, and CNN’s latest polling is simply brutal for the President.

Just 41% of those asked approve of the way Biden is handling his job. His approval rating on the economy has dropped to 37% – down 8 points since early December alone. Only 45% approve of his handling of the pandemic he was elected to end. When those who disdain Biden’s overall performance were asked to name a single thing he’d done that they approved of, 56% had nothing positive to say. “I’m hard pressed to think of a single thing he has done that benefits the country,” wrote one respondent.

It is true that no modern president has faced the confluence of crises that Biden did when he was sworn in nearly 13 months ago. And any commander in chief might have struggled. But Biden has rarely reached the heights of empathy and rhetoric he showed in an inaugural address meant to bring the nation back together after the pandemonium of the Trump years.

“Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear and demonization have long torn us apart,” Biden said after he was sworn in.

A year on, the second half of that equation appears to be dominating the first, not least because of the pernicious influence of his predecessor, who seems to be plotting a 2024 comeback attempt.

But Biden may also have done too little to rally the nation behind him. He lacks the steadying and sunny confidence of President Franklin Roosevelt, who piloted his nation through the great crises of the Great Depression and World War II. Some Americans also saw the ambition of Biden’s social spending plan as a betrayal of the moderate image he had cultivated on the campaign trail. The pandemic’s refusal to loosen its grip over the first year of his presidency hammered his reputation for competence. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan, which should have been a political winner, was instead a parable of presidential incompetence when it descended into bloody chaos. High inflation has been responsible for ending countless political careers in the last century, and the White House’s repeatedly wrong comments downplaying the seriousness of price hikes for basic goods haven’t helped.

Biden has restored decency and decorum to the White House. But a President nearing 80 may lack the galvanizing power to inspire much younger Americans. And Biden admitted last month that he had not fully mastered the role of the presidency after decades in the US Senate.

“One of the things that I do think that has been made clear to me – speaking of polling – is the public doesn’t want me to be the ‘President Senator.’ They want me to be the President and let senators be senators,” he said.

Republicans are deepening the national malaise

So entrenched are America’s divides that it’s hard to see how Biden will get his approval rating up the 10 or 15 points or so that history suggests is a safer zone for the party of first-term presidents in midterm elections. Even sudden deliverance from Covid-19 and an economic spurt might not alter perceptions of a country in crisis, especially given the lack of a common national reality.

Given the circumstances, the midterm elections ought to be some of the easiest on record for Republicans hoping to win the Senate and the House of Representatives. But the party is tearing itself apart, split between lawmakers fully bought into Trump’s personality cult – either by conviction or political cowardice – and an apparently smaller, more traditional bloc of conservatives. The feud erupted afresh this week when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized a Republican National Committee censure resolution that described the January 6 insurrection as “legitimate political discourse.” Trump and his acolytes quickly hit back, raising the possibility of internecine GOP strife that could detract from its midterm message and once again alienate the suburban voters who helped eject Trump from the presidency after a single term.

The widespread appeasement of Trump and efforts by his partisans to whitewash the truth about the Capitol insurrection, which are being revealed by the House select committee, have raised questions of whether the GOP has now become an anti-democratic movement that sees violence as a legitimate form of political expression. Trump has, for instance, recently issued racially explicit threats against prosecutors probing his election-stealing efforts and his business empire. While he retains a hold over the party, the GOP’s course only seems more certain to tear the country further apart.

In previous eras, an election might have been seen as a cathartic device to ease divides and frustration. But the fury of recent months may have rendered that traditional, democratic balm less powerful. In the CNN poll, 56% of respondents said they have little or no confidence that elections reflect the will of the people and about half think it’s likely that a future election will be overturned for partisan reasons.

Russia sends U.S. dire warning, Tiger Woods' future: 5 Things podcast

On today's episode of the 5 Things podcast: Russia warns of 'direct military confrontation' with US

The war in Ukraine continues. Plus, a Texas DA will file a motion dismissing a murder charge in a 'self-induced' abortion case, Golfweek's Adam Woodard looks at Tiger Woods' future, wellness reporter Jenna Ryu talks about vanilla sex shaming and you can now put an 'X' for gender on your passport.

Podcasts:True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here.

Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Taylor Wilson:

Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson and this is 5 Things you need to know Monday, the 11th of April 2022. Today, Russia's offensive in Ukraine's east, plus the changing conversation around sex, and more.

Here are some of the top headlines:

Imran Khan has been pushed out of office as Prime Minister of Pakistan. His political opponents ousted him with a no confidence vote yesterday. The new Prime Minister is expected to be Shehbaz Sharif, brother of disgraced former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif after a parliament vote later today. Incumbent Emmanuel Macron will face far-right nationalist Marine Le Pen in a winner takes all runoff for the French presidency. They both advanced yesterday in the first round of voting. And Scottie Scheffler is the 2022 Masters champion. It was the 25 year old golfer's first major win.

♦

Russia is warning of a direct military confrontation with the United States. Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov told Newsweek that the West is provoking Russia. And he added, "We warn that such actions are dangerous. They can lead the US and the Russian Federation onto the path of direct military confrontation." His comments come as Russia's invasion of Ukraine stretches into a seventh week. The Russian diplomat also told Newsweek that the invasion came because Ukraine would not stop what he called the genocide of Russians, and that the invasion has its roots eight years earlier when an uprising toppled a Ukrainian government with close ties to Moscow and put a pro-West administration in charge. He said that was particularly problematic because the government has sought closer ties with NATO and the European Union.

Meanwhile, Russia's new offensive in Eastern Ukraine could be a decisive chapter in the conflict. Russia has given up most of its military positioning in Northern and Western parts of the country, but looks determined to take control of the mostly Russian speaking Donbas region in the east. Western military analysts though say Russia is focusing on a larger region stretching from Kharkiv in the north, Ukraine's second largest city, to Kherson in the south. Russian forces shelled Kharkiv yesterday and also continued their assault on Mariupol, the Southern coastal city that's seen some of the war's worst and most consistent violence. In Kharkiv, resident Natalia described how she narrowly survived an attack on her residential building.

Taylor Wilson translating for Natalia:

"I got hit on the head and the shockwave threw me back. The stairs collapsed, the windows and doors were knocked out. Miraculously, I survived."

Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said yesterday in his nightly address that the coming week would be crucial in the war. He also accused Russia of trying to avoid responsibility for war crimes in Ukraine. Officials in Ukraine and around the west have accused Russia of war crimes for attacks on civilians. Zelenskyy said, "When people lack the courage to admit their mistakes, apologize, adapt to reality and learn, they turn into monsters. And when the world ignores it, the monsters decide that it is the world that has to adapt to them. The day will come when they will have to admit everything except the truth."

♦

A Texas district attorney will file a motion today to dismiss a murder charge against a woman who was arrested in the death of an individual by self-induced abortion. 26-year-old Lizelle Herrera was arrested last week, but it's not clear whether she was accused of having a self-induced abortion or whether she helped someone else get an abortion. The Sheriff's Office didn't say which law Herrera was charged under. In Starr County, District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez ruled that under Texas law, Herrera should not be prosecuted. The case comes in the same state where a bill last year banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

♦

Tiger Woods returned to the Masters this week. The golf legend's status at the tournament was up in the air until the week of, but he played and made the cut to compete into the weekend. After his comeback, Tiger also announced when we'll be seeing him again, at least once later this summer. Producer PJ Elliott spoke with Golfweek's Adam Woodard about Tiger's future and how he performed this week at Augusta National.

Adam Woodard:

Look, a couple of years ago, when Tiger came back and won for the first time in the Masters in 2019, I kind of learned that you can't doubt this guy. He's always going to be able to have a trick up his sleeve. But then 14 months ago, he has that crash. We're not sure is he ever going to be able to walk again. And then let alone, he comes out here, plays four consecutive rounds, beats about five or six people, makes the cut. I mean, it's truly remarkable. Not enough can be said about what he's able to accomplish this week. He's not going to be happy about the result where he finished, but if anything, it's going to motivate him even more. And then today, he said he's going to play The Open Championship in July. He's going to try and play The PGA Championship in May. I mean, he's back and he's coming back, and he's only going to get better. And this week was a huge step forward for him.

PJ Elliott:

Did he talk about how he felt after four days of playing in the tournament without playing in one since the accident?

Adam Woodard:

Tired, exhausted. I mean, his body was broken down. I mean, you could tell he had a hitch in his giddy up the entire second nine when he was walking today. He was telling us the other day that it's going to be a lot of ice baths, a lot of recovery. I mean, and that's a guy who's already had multiple back surgeries. He's had a spinal fusion, let alone the fact that he's got a bunch of rods, screws, and plates holding his ankle and right leg together. And the fact that he was able to walk Augusta National, which is a very hilly terrain, a very hilly course, for four days and then even shoot under par the first day was just truly incredible. But I think when you kind of saw him struggling the last few days, that was all his body fatigue and not being able to clear a few shots. But I mean, if anything, this was a great test for what's to come later this year.

Taylor Wilson:

For more, head to golfweek.com.

♦

The conversation around sex is changing, and there's a new trend on social media around the topic of vanilla sex shaming. Wellness Reporter Jenna Ryu has more.

Jenna Ryu:

Yeah. So vanilla sex shaming is a trend on TikTok, mostly among younger people, but it's basically ridiculing or mocking people who enjoy conventional sex. So, kind of devoid of kinks and fetishes. Obviously, shaming people of any sort is not acceptable, but experts have said that it's interesting that this trend of vanilla shaming is showing how people are kind of opening up about their views on what healthy sex looks like. So for example, talking about sex has usually been something that's uncomfortable or considered taboo. And when we do talk about it, the only kind of permissible form of sex we talk about is vanilla sex. So kind of seeing people rejecting that with vanilla shaming and instead embracing more unconventional methods like consensual BDSM, swinging with other couples, threesomes, role play, sex toys, et cetera, kind of shows how people are expanding their views on a once taboo topic.

I think a lot of people try to avoid talking about sex, just one, because it can be an uncomfortable and private topic. But also because they assume that if you don't talk about sex, people just won't have sex which isn't true. And experts say that it doesn't stop people from having sex, it stops people from having safe sex. So for example, it doesn't give them the opportunity to openly talk about STD transmission, or for example, how to have of safe sex, pleasurable sex, knowing when you're comfortable, when you're not. So that's why it's important to kind of have these healthy conversations about sex that go beyond this one dimensional view we used to have of what is healthy and what isn't, because the reality is that sex is not a monolith and there's a lot of ways you can have healthy sex even if it's not conventional.

Taylor Wilson:

You can find Jenna's full story in today's episode description.

♦

An update has arrived for some US passports. Beginning today, US citizens will be able to select the letter X as the gender marker on their passport application instead of M or F. The State Department announced the move last year and added that transgender travelers would no longer have to provide medical certification if their gender identity doesn't line up with the marker on their birth certificate or other documents. A human rights campaign said more than 1.2 million non-binary adults in the US, 2 million transgender people, and 5.5 million people born intersex could be affected by the changes.

Thanks for listening to 5 Things. You can find us on whatever your favorite podcast app is seven mornings a week. Thanks to PJ Elliott for his great work on the show, and I'm back tomorrow with more of 5 Things from USA TODAY.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds defends lifting limited mask mandate.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday defended her decision to rescind a limited mask mandate and related restrictions, saying Iowans don’t need a government order to protect themselves from the coronavirus.

"Iowans know what to do. We've been telling them for a year what they need to do. And they're doing it," Reynolds said in her first news conference since she announced Friday she was lifting the state's mask mandate and social distancing rules.

Unlike many other governors, Reynolds did not implement a mask mandate during the initial wave of coronavirus infections in the spring. She issued her mandate in November, when infections and hospitalizations were surging throughout the state. The rule she put in place required Iowans to wear masks when indoors and unable to socially distance for 15 minutes or more.

At the time, more than 1,500 Iowans were hospitalized with the disease. More than half of the more than 5,170 Iowans killed by COVID-19 died in November and December, state reports show.

Reynolds said Wednesday that Iowa’s hospitalizations for COVID-19 have dropped 80% since November, and deadly outbreaks in nursing homes have plummeted from a peak of 166 to 39 on Wednesday.

More:'We're dialing down, we're opening up': Gov. Kim Reynolds explains why she dropped mask rules

Online appointment system expected within two weeks

Iowa and other states are now working to vaccinate their most vulnerable populations, including more than 500,000 seniors, plus school staffers, child care workers, police and firefighters. The state has been receiving fewer than 50,000 doses per week for all those people, leaving many eligible Iowans scrambling to find open appointments at county health departments, pharmacies and clinics.

The governor announced last week that she was seeking proposals from private companies to centralize and streamline the appointment process. Microsoft, a winner of that bidding process, will have a new online system up and running within two weeks, Reynolds said. Another company will be chosen to launch a centralized call center, she said.

Several other states are also looking for such help from private companies, Reynolds said when asked Wednesday why Iowa hadn't set up a centralized registration system before vaccinations began in December. She said Iowa faced additional complications because of the large number of nursing homes in the state, and because of antiquated computer systems.

“We've been working with local public health. We've been working with our hospitals. We've been working with our clinics. But that doesn't mean every day that we don't learn something new and there's not a way that we can be more efficient and effective in what we're doing,” Reynolds said.

West Des Moines resident Diane Freeman, who watched the governor's news conference from home Wednesday, said she was unimpressed with Reynolds' answer on why the state did not have a vaccination scheduling system ready in December.

"They should have had a plan in place," Freeman said in an interview after the news conference. "I see it as derelict."

Freeman, 75, spent many hours during the previous three weeks online, searching for a vaccination appointment. She would wake up in the middle of the night to check the websites of multiple pharmacies and clinics. She struck out repeatedly, and was feeling dejected until this week, when a friend snagged an appointment for her at a CVS pharmacy.

Freeman, a retired computer sales executive, considers herself fairly savvy with technology. But she knows many other seniors aren't capable of searching online for appointments.

"I just wonder how many people aren't even trying — or can't even try," she said.

Public Health Association: Removing mask mandate 'detrimental'

Reynolds also drew criticism from the Iowa Public Health Association, which represents public health officials around the state. The association shared a letter that it sent to the governor, calling her decision to rescind the mask mandate and other precautions "actively detrimental to our pursuit to end the pandemic."

The letter was signed by the association's executive director, Lina Tucker Reinders, and its board president, Jeremy Whitaker, who directs the public health program at Allen College in Waterloo.

Whitaker and Tucker Reinders acknowledged that COVID-19 statistics reported by the Iowa Department of Public Health have been heading down. But they contended those numbers are a cause for cautious optimism — not reason to lift mitigation efforts.

"The mandate that was in place until last Sunday reinforced the correct message that masks and social distancing are critical to reducing the spread of COVID," the letter states. "The new message from you is that it is no longer necessary to be conscientious in protecting ourselves and our communities. This is wrong, and for many, will be dead wrong."

Reynolds emphasized at her news conference that she still encourages Iowans and Iowa businesses to take steps to prevent the virus's spread.

"I'm not saying, 'Go out there and be carefree and not be responsible,'" she said. "I'm saying, 'I trust Iowans to do the right thing.' And I know our businesses will do the right thing, too. They're doing it every day. Our schools are doing the right thing."

At a news conference last week, the governor said she was unhappy with the quantity of vaccine being provided by the federal government. She said then that Iowa was ranked 47th in vaccine supply, and she said she was pressing federal officials to find out why the state was being shorted.

On Wednesday, the governor said she spoke to top federal officials recently who told her vaccine amounts were being determined by population size.

Although she said she still has questions, she said she was pleased to hear the supply is steadily increasing. Among other things, she noted that the Biden administration is bumping up states' allocation by 5% this week, which should translate to enough to give a total of 49,900 Iowans their first of two doses required for full protection.

Federal officials also plan to start sending some vaccine directly to pharmacies next week, which will be on top of allocations sent to states. In Iowa, such shipments are expected to go to more than 40 Hy-Vee stores and 30 other pharmacies, she said.

Reynolds also said she spoke to the president of Walgreens, who pledged to offer 10,000 more coronavirus shots this week to Iowa seniors.

That would be on top of 32,000 such shots that CVS and Walgreens stores made available last week to Iowa seniors. Those doses are coming from leftover vaccine from the CVS and Walgreens campaign to vaccinate residents and staff at long-term care facilities, which hasn't drawn as much interest as expected from staffers.

For subscribers:Not every Iowan eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine is eager to take it — though many teachers are

Tony Leys covers health care for the Register. Reach him at tleys@registermedia.com or 515-284-8449.

Nick Coltrain is a politics and data reporter for the Register. Reach him at ncoltrain@registermedia.com or at 515-284-8361.

Why Ex-MLB commissioner Fay Vincent doesn't watch baseball ...

Bill Dow

Special to Detroit Free Press

Free Press special writer Bill Dow continues his "where are they now" series about former Detroit Tigers players, coaches and managers.

Today's profile is on former Major League Baseball commissioner Fay Vincent:

How we remember him

Elected as the eighth MLB commissioner on Sept. 1, 1989, the attorney and Yale Law School graduate succeeded his close friend, Bart Giamatti, who died just five months into his term. As Giamatti’s deputy, the first in baseball history, Vincent played a pivotal role in the investigation of gambling allegations against Pete Rose, baseball’s all-time hits leader who agreed to a lifetime ban from the game. A month into his term, he was present on Oct. 17, 1989, during the massive San Francisco Bay area earthquake right before Game 3 of the World Series at Candlestick Park. The following year, he helped settle the labor dispute between MLB owners and players that ensured a full regular season. He later suspended Yankees owner George Steinbrenner for spying on his player, Dave Winfield, and oversaw the addition of two new National League teams, the Florida Marlins and Colorado Rockies.

Vincent resigned as commissioner on Sept. 7, 1992, precluding a potentially bitter legal battle with a majority of owners who wanted to remove him.

After his tenure

He became a private investor and the president of the New England Collegiate Baseball League and wrote his memoir, "The Last Commissioner: A Baseball Valentine," published in 2002. He spearheaded the Baseball Oral History Project, and his countless videotaped interviews of former players from the 1930s to the 1980s can be viewed at the Baseball Hall of Fame. he also authored three books that contain highlights of the interviews.

Today

Vincent, 82, lives in Vero Beach, Florida, with his wife, Christina. He has three children and five grandchildren.

On the Pete Rose scandal

“As Peter Ueberroth was finishing his term as commissioner, he was tipped off by Sports Illustrated that they were doing a story about a bookie who claimed Rose had bet on baseball. Bart and I were waiting in the wings to take over, so Peter asked us to get involved. He asked what we should do and I said, ‘ we can’t have SI do a story and not investigate it.' I suggested we hire John Dowd, who I knew from his work at the Justice Department and who had investigated the mob. We called Rose to our office and he was present with his lawyer. There was a lot of jocular talk about baseball. Finally, I said, ‘Mr. Rose, everyone is having fun talking about baseball but I have a very important question to ask you. And no matter what your answer is we will have to investigate this. Have you ever bet on baseball as a manager or player?’ He said, ‘I’m not stupid. I’ve bet on horses, basketball and football, but I don’t bet on baseball.’ He was very convincing and we all believed him.

"John Dowd took off to Cincinnati to investigate. He called me and said, ‘Fay, I’ve only been here three days and the evidence is overwhelming that he bet on baseball.' We were shocked. Rose was always in debt, borrowed money from the mob and was mobbed up, which was very scary. He was very vulnerable and there’s no telling what could have happened. They could have really squeezed him. The evidence was overwhelming and Rose accepted without a hearing that he be permanently ineligible with the right to apply for reinstatement. Eight days later, Bart Giamatti died of a massive heart attack and I took over as commissioner. I’m sure the Rose investigation helped play a role in Bart’s death with all the stress around that, but the central reality is that Bart was a five-pack-a-day smoker and did not take care of himself.”

The 1989 World Series

"I was standing, holding the railing to my field box before the game, and I heard this enormous roar. I looked up and thought somebody had engaged the Air Force to do a F-52 squadron flyover. I learned that when the ground moves it makes an enormous roar. I held onto the railing with both hands because I have a physical disability and felt the ground shake. Suddenly, a squad car came screaming out of the center field gate to me. This handsome, Black, 6-foot 2 man with high boots steps out and says, ‘Mr. Commissioner, I’m Commander Isiah Nelson in charge of security. We’ve had a major disaster so you need to cancel the game immediately because we need to get the people out of here safely. You need to stay right here and I am going to go around an announce to the crowd that you have canceled the game and to leave quietly. They will be looking at you and you have to stay visible. If you go into the dugout people will think you are running for the hills.’

"This was the first Bay series ever and people suggested it be moved to Anaheim. The Mayor of San Francisco gave me a lot of grief because he felt the Series should be delayed for weeks. I knew we couldn’t do that. I said if we stayed, it would provide the biggest message that the area was making a comeback. The safety people determined in just a few days that the ballparks and area were safe. Ten days later, we were able to resume the Series.”

1990 labor dispute

“The bigger franchises wanted to settle but the smaller market clubs like Bud Selig’s Brewers were hopeful that the union would give back concessions given to them over the years. I told them that the union does not trust you because you cheated the players by your collusion in agreeing not to sign free agents a few years ago. They did it and were given a $280 million judgment by an arbitrator (during Ueberroth’s tenure). I told them, 'you wanted to break the union when you engaged in your price-fixing operation. You violated the collective bargaining agreement because you cheated. The Union has the upper hand and you’re stuck.’ To this day, Bud Selig says collusion never took place. But it was proven. The key evidence were notes taken by Phillies owner Bill Giles that were subpoenaed and turned over. Giles had written in his notes that White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf had called him and told him not to sign Tigers free agent Lance Parrish. I said on my watch that I will not allow the owners to collude. I was sitting in the stands one day and two owners were sitting behind me. These guys were talking about what a particular free agent should be paid. I turned around and said, ‘you dumb son of a bitches, here I am, the commissioner, and you are colluding literally right behind my back.’ I left baseball 28 years ago and the central reality of baseball’s current problems goes back to collusion.”

His resignation

“The owners gave me an 18-9 no-confidence vote. Jerry Reinsdorf and Bud Selig were primarily behind it. The only time a no-confidence vote occurs is when an organization is reluctant to fire somebody. They voted no confidence because they didn’t have the balls to fire me because they knew I would beat them in court. I had a five-year agreement whose terms dates back to the first commissioner, Judge Landis. In essence, the contract says you cannot fire a commissioner during their term. I had hired Edward Bennett Williams and Brendan Sullivan to represent me and they assured me that I would win a case all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Ultimately, I told them I would not pursue the lawsuit because I would have to work every day for people who don’t want me. Essentially, they didn’t like me because they wanted to break the union and I told them that wasn’t going to happen because of collusion and that I was firmly committed to building a better relationship with the union over a long period of time. They tried to break the union two years later in 1994 with replacement players and it backfired. They also didn’t like my realignment plans.”

What he's most proud in his tenure

“Not necessarily in this order, but I tried to represent the best parts of baseball to the best of my ability as commissioner and that I recognized the Black players from the Negro Leagues for the first time. We provided them with a pension, and health plan but they were dying at a very high rate. I also chaired the Committee with the Hall of Fame to start having the Black stars of that period inducted.”

The steroids era

“It was very unfortunate but, in some respects, I think Bud Selig gets a bad rap because the (players') union simply would not allow any form of testing. On the other hand, the Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa home run title chase had a lot to rejuvenate baseball after the disaster of 1994 that was caused by Selig and Reinsdorf. The union knew that Sen. John McCain had the votes to pass legislation to straighten out the mess in baseball, so they gave in and that made the difference.”

The game today

“I’m not watching baseball now. I’m very disappointed. There are a number of players not playing and it is all geared to television. The absence of fans eliminates a lot of the excitement of the game. I like the sound of baseball. I don’t think silent movies are very attractive. I hope it passes quickly. I think the bigger concern is that the union and owners are still at loggerheads."

Changes he'd like to see

“Baseball has to change. I like the idea of seven-inning games. Shorter is better. Given the pace of the game these days, I think starting a game at 7 or 9 and have it go until 11 p.m. is ridiculous. I also am concerned that young people are less engaged in large part because of the pace. I would take the union and some owners and go to MIT or Cal Tech and come up with a game that young people are going to be excited about. Who could be played at the same time the old fashioned game is being played. Kids could be at home and play against the real game and perhaps interact with the manager in the dugout. The future of baseball cannot be the technology of wooden bats, baseballs and leather gloves that came together in the 1900s. Technology is the key to the future of entertainment.”