A Democratic lawmaker called out Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) for weaponizing the federal government to protect Donald Trump from a criminal investigation in Manhattan.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) debunked the Ohio Republican's claims that President Joe Biden had improperly pressured social media companies to restrict certain content during the 2020 election campaign because he would not even had any authority to do so at that time.
"You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep shouting that the Biden White House somehow influenced a private company to take down disinformation in 2020 before a Biden White House even existed," Sanchez said. "Chairman Jordan wanted to make this point so badly that he had the two Republican attorneys general who began this sham lawsuit come in and make five-minute statements where they could make all kinds of wild allegations, and then he let them scurry away so nobody could ask them any questions about their claims."
"But I really want to focus on the in on the fact that this hearing really isn't about social media companies and it's really not about COVID deniers," she added. "It's not even about Elon Musk. It's about protecting former President Donald Trump, and I'd like to spend a few minutes looking at what congressional Republicans are doing to try to keep him out of legal trouble."
House Republicans' hearings on the purported "weaponization" of the federal government against conservatives have gotten off to a rocky start, with even some Fox News personalities complaining that they've so far failed to dig up anything significant.
The hearings continue to misfire on Thursday, and USA Today reporter Bart Jansen likened them to a "Monty Python sketch" in his latest dispatch from the Capitol.
At issue was the fact that two witnesses called by House Republicans made incendiary claims about the federal government "censoring" them under President Joe Biden's direction, but then left the hearing before they could be asked any questions by Democratic members of the committee.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) called out Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) for not allowing anyone to question the witnesses he brought before the committee.
"They have scurried away with your complicity,” he scolded Jordan. “That’s pretty disgraceful.”
A defensive Jordan replied that the two witnesses didn't "scurry" despite the fact that they had left before any of their claims could be scrutinized.
One witness who didn't "scurry," noted Jansen, was Stanford constitutional scholar Matthew Seligman, who emphasized to the committee that private companies such as Twitter and Facebook are not obligated to let everyone use them and that their decision to remove certain content did not amount to government-sponsored censorship.
"Once again it bears repeating: the First Amendment applies to governmental restrictions of speech, not private conduct," he said.
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have proposed a fossil fuels-friendly bill they are calling the Low Energy Costs Act of 2023. If the bill passes, it will face two major hurdles: the U.S. Senate (where Democrats increased their small effective majority in the 2022 midterms) and Democratic President Joe Biden.
House Democrats who are critical of House Resolution 1, a.k.a. the Low Energy Costs Act of 2023, have another name for it: the "Polluters Over People Act." And one of the progressive Democrats who is being especially vehement in her condemnation is Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez (D-New York), who began serving her third term in January.
Speaking on the House floor on Tuesday, March 28, AOC declared, "The central argument and logic of this bill is that if you give big oil everything they want, then perhaps they will lower our gas prices. It's a form of trickle-down fantasy that just will not make life easier for everyday Americans."
The Bronx/Queens congresswoman went on to say that fossil fuel companies "already have thousands of unused permits on public lands, and yet, they want even more. This is not a problem of supply, it is a problem of greed and abuse of market power." And she slammed the bill as having "everything that" an "oil lobbyist" could "want."
AOC is not the only well-known Democrat who has been slamming the Low Energy Costs Act. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has said that if HR1 passes in the House, it will be "dead on arrival" in the U.S. Senate. And Biden has said he would veto HR1 if it went to his desk for approval.
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued a statement condemning HR1 and warning that it "would raise costs for American families by repealing household energy rebates and rolling back historic investments to increase access to cost-lowering clean energy technologies."
OMB warned, "Instead of protecting American consumers, it would pad oil and gas company profits —already at record levels — and undercut our public health and environment."
On March 27, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) published, on its website, a listicle laying some reasons to oppose the bill — which, according to NPCA, would "gut existing environmental laws" and "worsen climate change."
A new Quinnipiac poll is offering damning news to Donald Trump: The majority of Americans think he should not even be allowed to run for president if criminal charges are filed against him.
That majority, 57%, includes nearly nine in ten Democrats (88%), more than half (55%) of independents, and even close to one-quarter (23%) of Republicans.
"Yes, say Americans, it was all about him and not the country's well-being when Trump proclaimed he was targeted for arrest," says Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy. "And, yes he should be forever banished from office if he is charged as a criminal."
The poll serves up even more bad news for the ex-president. Despite the right's attempts to paint Trump's alleged hush money payoff as a mere bookkeeping issue, or Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against him, as one GOP lawmaker said recently, "wrongful persecution," the majority of Americans – 55% – say the accusations against Trump are "serious."
Conservatives' attempts to paint the investigation as political, however, appear to be working, at least among Republicans and independents.
More than nine out of ten Republicans (93%) and 70% of independents say they believe the investigation is motivated by politics, while two-thirds of Democrats (66%) say it is motived by the law.
Still more troubling news for the Trump team.
Exposing the growing partisan divide across the country, the majority of Americans, nearly six in ten (58%) say Trump has had a mainly negative impact on the Republican Party.
But inside the GOP, the view is far different.
The vast majority of Republicans (72%) say Trump has had a positive impact. Just 21% say he has had a negative impact. (The poll does not appear to take into account former Republicans who left the GOP because of Trump.)
Echoing the "positive impact" they believe Trump has had on their party, 79% of registered Republicans say they are supporters of his MAGA movement. The poll does not appear to define "support," nor the various "levels" of support some Republicans now express, including "ultra MAGA."
Meanwhile, when offered a choice between Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, or 11 other Republican candidates or potential candidates, Trump gets a plurality of voters: 47%. DeSantis gets one-third, 33%. Pence gets just 5%, and Haley – who has already officially declared she is running – gets even less, at 4%.
There's little change when GOP voters are asked who they would choose in a head-to-head matchup between Trump and DeSantis. Trump gets 52%, DeSantis 42%.
And even more bad news for Team Trump: In a head-to-head matchup among registered voters, President Joe Biden would beat Donald Trump, although by a slim margin: 48% to 46%.
There is one piece of good news for the DeSantis campaign, which technically does not exist yet. DeSantis would beat Biden, also by a slim margin: 48% to 46%.
But some believe DeSantis will not run, especially given his poor campaign pre-launch. Others, like top Trump critic and former Republican George Conway, say DeSantis shouldn't even bother.
"It makes no sense for DeSantis to run this cycle," Conway said Thursday morning, unrelated to the Quinnipiac poll. "To beat Trump, DeSantis would have to go hammer and tong in a one-on-one race against him. DeSantis isn't capable of that, it isn't going to be one-on-one, and even if he were and it was, DeSantis would end up alienating a good chunk of the GOP base. And no matter what, Trump would try to destroy the GOP if it ever became clear he wouldn't get the nomination. Trump would run as a third-party candidate to take the GOP nominee down. The smart play for DeSantis is to fleece donors by pretending to run, and pocket the cash for 2028, when he'll still be only 49."
Writing for the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday, columnist Scott Maxwell blasted the direction of Republican leadership in Florida.
"We make headlines for alligator attacks, radioactive sinkholes and bricks of cocaine that fall from the sky. Heck, if a guy’s strolling naked down the street in Key West, nobody calls the cops. They call it a parade," said Maxwell. But now, GOP leadership from Gov. Ron DeSantis on down are taking the Sunshine State "from quirky to full-on nuts."
Maxwell named a litany of stories humiliating the state, from a school principal in Tallahassee being forced to resign for showing students the "pornographic" Statue of David, to another school in St. Petersburg being forced to pull a civil rights documentary about Ruby Bridges, to GOP lawmakers threatening to pull all funding from St. Petersburg over contributions to an abortion-rights group.
Perhaps most absurd, argued Maxwell, is that DeSantis is now considering naming state Rep. Randy Fine the president of Florida Atlantic University — a man who, in Maxwell's words, is "absurdity incarnated."
"The Brevard County Republican called a school board member he disliked a 'whore' and got into a spat with the Special Olympics after the nonprofit group didn’t invite him to a party at a local Chick-fil-A," wrote Maxwell. "He once threatened to show President Joe Biden 'why the Second Amendment was written' and boasted on Facebook that, if anyone asked him for his pronouns, he’d reply: 'You / Are / A / Fu&$ng / Moron/.' (Just the kind of scholarly debate tactics you’d crave from a university leader.) Fine once called for shutting down the state’s largest university, the University of Central Florida. And he accused local school employees of 'child abuse' — only to have cops determine Fine was wrong, that the photos he cited as evidence had been staged and that the stepfather who’d first reported the 'abuse' had lied to officers. (Fine never apologized. In fact, he doubled down.)"
All of this, Maxwell said, is making him reconsider his long-held position, as an independent voter, that extremism doesn't define the Republican Party.
"I still disagree with my far-left friends and readers who believe there are no sensible and decent conservatives out there. I know there are. Some are my friends," wrote Maxwell. "But unless more of them start speaking up and saying: 'I’m tired of my state looking like an absurdist, rights-trampling joke,' we’re going to keep seeing more of it. Absurdity will continue to be our new norm."
On Thursday, the panel on "Morning Joe" couldn't contain their disbelief at the path that Donald Trump seems to be taking as he makes a third run for the presidency, with co-host Joe Scarborough laughing and noting the former president wants to "terminate the Constitution" if he is re-elected.
After touching on Trump's bizarre comments that implied he is at odds with his own children, the MSNBC host expressed amazement that the former president is still the leading GOP contender for the top spot on the 2024 ticket.
"You want to turn things around? You've got to change the dynamic," he exclaimed. "What is the dynamic you have to change so the game changes? So your business changes? Change the dynamic. They're not doing it as long as you don't change the dynamic."
"If you lost in '17, '18, '19, '20, '21, '22, you're going to lose in '24, but they're not," he continued. "If it is Ron DeSantis versus Joe Biden -- we all have our problems with Ron DeSantis -- you've just changed the dynamic and the Biden team has a reason to be very worried."
"If it's Trump and Biden, go to France for a month; he's lost his mind," he laughed. "Now, he is fighting his own children. He said he wanted to terminate the constitution."
It is still almost 300 days until the first ballot is cast but the fog is already lifting in the battle for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination -- leaving two men standing.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has emerged as the only genuine threat so far to frontrunner Donald Trump, with the primary contest narrowing to a bitter head-to-head over character and the ability to win elections.
A number of lower-profile hopefuls have been bystanders as the 76-year-old political brawler with a peerless aptitude for sniffing out weakness among his enemies has concentrated his fire on the young pretender, 32 years his junior.
Trump is making his third run for the White House after losing his re-election bid to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020, while DeSantis, who is yet to officially announce his candidacy, is untested on the national stage.
The similarities are unmistakable -- from the populist style honed in their respective fiefdoms at opposite ends of Florida to their love of showmanship, culture wars and a good old-fashioned dust-up with the media.
But their success in persuading Republicans to give them a shot at the White House in 2024 may well turn on their ability to play to their differences.
The pair weren't always foes. Trump endorsed DeSantis in his first run for governor in 2018, before distancing himself from his protege after the 44-year-old's landslide re-election victory last year.
The combative governor's crusade against the "woke" left-wing ideology he sees as infecting schools and other public institutions has made him a major player in American conservatism and, in many respects, a Trump "mini-me."
- 'No daily drama' -
Meanwhile, the de facto Republican leader has been rolling out his rhetorical artillery, labeling DeSantis a "mediocre governor," scoffing at his claims to have kept Florida open during the pandemic and painting him as a threat to the welfare safety net.
The Florida governor responded with his most direct shots yet at his adversary, drawing a distinction between his own "no daily drama" leadership style and the stubborn whiff of scandal and constant chaos around Trump.
As with the stragglers among the Republican White House hopefuls, DeSantis has not diverged meaningfully from Trump's stated positions or governing record, reducing the contest to a question of style over substance.
"On a policy front, they're probably very similar. They share some of the same basic America First kind of policies," says Saul Anuzis, a political consultant and former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party.
"But their style, their way of governance, that's where the big difference comes in."
DeSantis, the progeny of working-class parents, a war veteran and a Harvard and Yale graduate, is from different stock than the former president, heir to a real estate empire built up by his father.
"DeSantis seems to be less bombastic, more deliberate, while at the same time willing to take on the media," Anuzis notes.
"He is not afraid of a fight but he does it in a softer, kinder way."
Trump, on the other hand, is a "larger-than-life populist," according to Matthew Continetti, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute think tank and author of a history of the US conservative movement.
"He is someone whose personality overwhelms everything else," he said.
- 'Remarkably unpopular' -
For this expert, DeSantis has better odds than Trump for defeating the 2024 Democratic candidate, which will almost certainly be Biden.
"(Trump) is very popular among his base supporters, but two-thirds of the country don't want to see him (as) president again," Continetti says.
Another reason to think DeSantis might play better in the general election: he isn't facing criminal investigation in multiple jurisdictions and isn't seen as a one-man crime wave by much of Middle America -- the 30 percent of voters that decide elections.
Trump's controversies have not dampened his enthusiasm for swatting away rivals with puerile smears and DeSantis will be expected to hit back with alacrity.
But he will also need to contend with Trump's secret sauce -- the enormous leeway his supporters give him compared with the much higher standards to which other politicians are held.
The DeSantis campaign, for example, took a big hit from both parties when he downplayed Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine as a "territorial dispute" -- while Trump's nakedly pro-Putin rhetoric barely raises an eyebrow.
"I don't think there's any benefit for DeSantis or anybody to really attack Trump at this stage of the game," Azunis told AFP.
"DeSantis has set his own timetable," he added. "He has been very disciplined so far, and I think that discipline has served him well."
A Florida congressman on Wednesday assailed Republicans who oppose gun safety laws in the aftermath of a school shooting in Nashville earlier this week that killed six people including three children.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) noted that the Nashville shooting suspect used an AR-15, the assault rifle of choice for most mass shooters that was banned from 1994 to 2004.
Moskowitz made his comments during a Committee on Oversight and Accountability meeting on crime in Washington D.C.
“There are six people that are dead in that school including three children because you guys got rid of the assault weapons ban,” Moskowitz said during an exchange with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).
“Because you guys made it easy for people who don't deserve to have weapons, who are mentally incapable of having weapons of war, being able to buy those weapons and go into schools.”
Before the exchange with Greene, Moskowitz said it was absurd to focus on relatively minor crimes such as public urination and car theft amid an ongoing mass shooting epidemic that the nation is now experiencing.
“You guys want to talk about DC public schools and crime? I don't I don't want to burst your bubble over there, but mass murder in schools is crime,” Moskowitz said.
“You want to talk about 1,300 cars being stolen, 550 people have been murdered in school. Who cares about the cars? What about the kids?”
"No hearing for them. 330,000 kids have experienced gun violence in this country. The number one killer of school aged children in this country. Gun violence. How do you think for the parents who have had to bury their kids who have had to decide what to put their kids clothes, but their kids when they buried them? Or kind of box they have to pick out for their child or for when they come home?"
The exchange with Greene began after Moskowitz asked rhetorically whether anyone in the committee disagreed with his assertion that “murder in schools is murder.”
“I'll yield to anyone on this committee who disagrees that murder in schools is not murder,” he said.
“Is there any question?”
The far-right congresswoman from Georgia did not dispute Moskowitz’s characterization of school shootings being murderous, but instead cited her own lived experience and blamed the horrific incidents on gun laws.
“I was an 11th grade and Joe Biden made our school gun free school zones,” Greene said. “One of the students in my school brought three guns to school and our entire school went on lockdown, because he was the only person with a gun."
“There was no good guy with a gun to protect us kids at school.”
Greene cited police who fatally shot the suspect in Monday’s shooting as an example of a “good guy with a gun” saving lives.
“So, if you want to have a good talk about schools, and protecting children, we need to talk about protecting our children the same way we protect our president, the way we protect our celebrities,” Greene said.
Moskowitz disputed the notion that an armed presence offers much deterrence, noting that in the aftermath of the 2018 Parkland, Florida shooting, he supported School Resource Officers at every school.
“Did the good guys with the guns stop six people from getting murdered? No. But you know what? AR 15’s, have you ever seen what those bullets do to children? You know why you don't hunt with an AR 15 with a deer, because there's nothing left. And there's nothing left as these kids when people go into school and murder them while they're trying to read."
“You guys are worried about banning books – dead kids can't read.”
The About Face Beauty Spa in Royal Oak, Michigan, a quiet suburb north of Detroit, offers a variety of skin and body services, from $10 lip waxing to a $150 “bridal make-up” session.
But while owner Robin Manoogian generally caters to a local clientele, you’ve likely seen her work.
That’s because the Republican National Committee has paid the beauty spa more than $17,000 in recent years to do Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel’s hair and make-up ahead of the powerful Michigander’s many appearances on national television.
The payments to Manoogian’s spa are just a fraction of the nearly $100,000 the RNC has paid various beauty professionals since 2017, when McDaniel became chairwoman, according to a Raw Story analysis of federal campaign finance data. They include several in the Washington, D.C., area, where McDaniel also spends significant amounts of time.
Describing McDaniel as “a delight to work with” and possessing "the most beautiful bone structure and sparkling eyes,” Manoogian told Raw Story she routinely meets the RNC chairwoman on-location at Detroit television studios.
“When she's got a live interview, we just keep working. Rain, sleet, snow,” said Manoogian, adding she totes a beauty kit with her for her appointments with McDaniel. “You know, the hit is scheduled for a certain time frame and she's got to be in the chair mic'ed ready with not a hair out of place. In and out. Done and done.”
The RNC’s hair-and-make-up spending comes at a time when the Republican Party is courting blue-collar voters and lambasting President Joe Biden for what conservative leaders assert is an elitist and ineffectual economic policy that’s causing “nothing but pain and misery for American families.”
A recent payment from the Republican National Committee to the About Face Beauty Spa, per Federal Election Commission records.
And it’s the latest example in a storied string of prominent political figures — both Democrats and Republicans — who’ve enjoyed top-shelf pampering while simultaneously wooing the proletariat.
‘Incredibly sexist’
An RNC spokeswoman defended the committee’s hair-and-makeup spending, which it characterized in federal campaign finance filings as “media preparation.”
“These payments were for hair and make-up for TV appearances for GOP voices, and as chairwoman of the RNC, part of the job is to spread our great Republican message on the airwaves,” RNC spokesperson Emma Vaughn told Raw Story. “It is incredibly sexist of Raw Story to attempt to smear women in politics for getting their hair and make-up done for TV appearances, something that has been done by men on both sides of the aisle for decades without criticism.”
But there has been criticism, often from Republicans.
In 2015, prominent Republicans panned then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — perennially on television — for a $600 hair appointment at the posh John Barrett Salon in New York City, which put part of the Bergdorf Goodman department store on lockdown.
Then-GOP presidential frontrunner and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker tweeted a list entitled “The Economics of Hillary’s $600 Haircut.” The money spent on Clinton’s coiffure could buy a family “138 pounds of beef” or “buy four years’ supply of eggs,” Walker asserted. Hashtag: “#OutOfTouch.”
The College Republicans tweeted two photos of Clinton, her hair shorter and sleeker in the second image. “Before and After @HillaryClinton's $600 haircut #WeCanDoBetter,” it read.
In another tweet, the College Republicans scoffed: “.@HillaryClinton's $600 haircut: meanwhile college students struggling to pay for books this semester #WeCanDoBetter”
For example, Trump has called actress Rosie O’Donnell a “fat pig” and “slob” and media executive Arianna Huffington a “dog” and “ugly both inside and out.”
“I tell you what it really was shocking to see it because you’re right it must be, it was massive. Her hair became massive,” he told conservative radio host Mark Levin in 2017.
Levin warned Trump, whose own hair is the subject of endless fascination and mockery, that his comments might get him in trouble.
“I don’t care. I’m a person that tells the truth,” Trump said. “You know it was interesting to see but I’ve never seen Hillary with that hairdo so I think that’s an OK thing to say, but it was very different.”
More recently, Trump slammed the Super Bowl halftime performance of Rihanna, a longtime critic of the former president.
"Without her 'Stylist' she'd be NOTHING. Bad everything, and NO TALENT!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social site.
As the news spread about the possibility of a Trump indictment for the hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, the former president lashed out, calling her “horseface” and misspelling her name.
Political expense? Or personal?
There's a fine line between what the public will consider a legitimate political expense and a personal extravagance.
"If political donors knew their contributions would be funding $16,000+ spa retreats, $1,000+ haircuts, and thousands of dollars for suits, dresses, and makeup, many of these contributors likely wouldn't donate," said Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a government accountability group. "While these expenses likely aren't illegal, these examples show how big money continues to dominate politics and funds lavish lifestyles for certain political figures. We need reforms like those contained in the Freedom to Vote Act to get big money out of politics to help elevate the voices of everyday Americans in politics."
The COVID-19 era proved that TV talking heads, stuck in their living rooms and home offices with studios off-limits, could still do national media hits without the help of professional artists.
One prominent politician — Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) — boasted in a fundraising message to donors about his cut-rate approach to grooming.
“Just like my $12 flattop haircut from my local barbershop back home and my collection of dirt-stained t-shirts, my background is a big part of the reason I remain grounded and focused amid the partisan politics and nonsense happening in our government,” Tester said.
Nevertheless, politicians of all stripes will sometimes use donors’ campaign cash — often a little, occasionally a lot — to put on their best face.
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) paid a makeup artist $300 in August 2022. When Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland represented New Mexico in the U.S. House, she once spent $275 on a makeup artist.
And when Carla Sands, who served as an ambassador to Denmark during the Trump administration, ran for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania in 2022, she labeled her $845 makeup artist as "media prep.”
There are others: Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-OH) spent less than $300 on "media prep" at Macy's and Dillards. During her 2014 and 2016 campaigns, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat-turned-independent who now works as a Fox News contributor, spent just under $7,000 in campaign cash for makeup and hair expenses.
Raw Story also examined Rep. Nancy Pelosi's expenses, finding that among her campaign accounts and political PAC, the former Democratic House speaker used campaign money to fund $2,900 worth of makeup and hair expenses between 2014 and 2024.
But according to campaign finance reports, the former speaker didn’t regularly use political or campaign cash to have her makeup and hair done for public appearances. Rather, she paid for it out of her own pocket and not at the donors’ expense.
Pelosi’s appointments continued to make news during the past decade. Fox News, for example, reported on Pelosi having her hair done in San Francisco on Aug. 31, 2020 — during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, when trips to the beauty salon or barber shop came with perceived risk.
Campaign finance reports show that during the same month, the RNC paid District Bridal Company of Washington, D.C., $2,496 for hair and makeup services.
In the midst of these hair and makeup expenditures, the Republican National Committee stands apart for the frequency and amount of money it spends for such services, Raw Story’s analysis of federal campaign finance data indicates.
Among the charges the RNC had for hair and makeup includes $750 for a Michigan salon and a “celebrity” makeup artist that appears to work with Fox, who charged $2,546.97.
In the case of one makeup artist, who was paid $1,560 in 2018 and $778 in 2017, the same person was listed on OpenSecrets for "travel expenses," totaling $3,473 in 2017.
The RNC told Raw Story that, by its count, the DNC spent over $47,000 in hair and makeup expenses during the 2021-2022 election cycle.
The DNC refused to comment for this story. But a person familiar with the DNC expenditures told Raw Story the costs are not just for hair and makeup but for a variety of people and purposes.
FEC data indicated the DNC lists hair and makeup expenses using the catch-all term “event production,” which also includes site rentals, stage set-ups, lighting, filming, and event consultants for conventions. It’s all mixed together, making it difficult to suss out the exact amount out of the $167,817 of “event production” for the past decade.
The names of hair and makeup vendors that appear in the DNC’s financial disclosures also for the past year match the names of makeup artists that have posted photos touting their work with first lady Jill Biden during the 2020 campaign for her photoshoot with Vanity Fair.
Another DNC expense during the 2021-2022 years comes from the hair and makeup company Conceptual Beauty.
While they haven’t posted any photos of their work with political leaders in the past two years, they did share pics of Pelosi, tagging the location of the photos as the Capitol Visitor’s Center following Donald Trump’s 2019 State of the Union address.
Many of the DNC's hired hair and makeup artists are proud to publicly promote their clients, whether political or media. But DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison never turned up in the social media images for these hair and makeup artists.
It doesn’t mean he hasn’t utilized any services — but there’s no federal record indicating such expenditures have occurred. The DNC declined to comment on Harrison, as well.
The artist was hired via the communications department during Anthony Scaramucci’s short tenure. Then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ makeup changed enough during her time in front of the cameras that comedian Michelle Wolf joked about her “perfect smoky eye” during a White House Correspondents Association dinner.
‘Personal image to maintain’
According to Manoogian, McDaniel has never physically visited her spa in Michigan.
And while McDaniel may rank among Manoogian's most notable clients — the late Queen of Soul Aretha Franklin is another — Manoogian told Raw Story that she has worked for decades doing hair and makeup for television programs and more recently did the makeup for an episode of NBC show “Dateline.”
Manoogian’s spa website explained that she has worked for numerous clients and network television during her nearly 40 years in the business.
Manoogian emphasized that the money she’s made from the RNC came over a six-year period and that she does McDaniel's makeup and hair every time she's appearing on television from Michigan. Most cable news networks have their own hair and makeup staff in New York and Washington, but that might not be the case at the affiliates where the guest, such as McDaniel, appears via satellite.
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel appears on Fox News in November 2018.
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel appears on CNN in February 2023.
"I absolutely just go to the studio facility prior to the interview to handle getting her ready, and that's my craft," Manoogian explained. "I mean, with six years together, do the math. When she's in D.C., I know she's got her normal crew but, I know she travels all the time, so she's either coming or going."
Manoogian clarified that she has a "kit" and drives directly to the studio to meet McDaniel each time.
"It's not much per year for how many visits there are," Manoogian said. "And essentially, you have to go where the satellite is to reach the national, live. It's standard."
Manoogian also explained that one of the biggest problems with television is that it takes a three-dimensional world and renders it in two dimensions, which is why people always look like they've gained weight on camera. Light reflecting off the oils on the face also contributes. So, the most important thing a person can do when appearing on camera is to ensure there's no shine, she said.
“As a professional, you have a personal image to maintain, just like movie stars," Manoogian told Raw Story.
Politicians, tangled
Former President Bill Clinton and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)Photos by Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia and Peter Smith/Flickr
In a political era where the image is often everything, one can trace modern grooming and beauty brouhahas to President Bill Clinton, who once shut down part of Los Angeles International Airport with Air Force One’s engines running so his mononymous Beverly Hills hairstylist, Cristophe, could board the presidential jet and tend to the commander-in-chief’s salt-and-pepper locks.
Democrat John Edwards, a U.S. senator and 2004 and 2008 presidential candidate, drew gasps and pearl-clutching when this “son of a mill worker,” who championed impoverished Americans, used $1,250 worth of donor dollars to bankroll a traveling hairstylist who tended to his Kennedy-like coiffe.
During the 2008 campaign, the RNC spent $150,000 not on hair and makeup but on a wardrobe for vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her family, Politico reported at the time. Ahead of the Republican Convention in Minneapolis that year, the committee spent $75,062.63 at Neiman Marcus.
Trump’s White House didn’t use political donors’ money to handle hair and makeup, however.
Taxpayers funded Trump’s White House hiring a full-time artist to work at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and handle anyone there who appeared on television.
The RNC’s first financial report for 2023, covering spending in January, indicated more spending with Manoogian’s business, as well as other vendors that provide various hair, makeup and eyelash services — although it’s unclear exactly what services they provided the RNC.
Since the conclusion of the 2022 midterms, the RNC dropped another $3,867 on hair and makeup costs in January 2023. In February 2023, they had another $1,725 payment to the Michigan spa. It’s a total of $5,592 for 2023. The Democratic Party has spent $4,333.25 on "event production" during the same time period.
That put the Republican Party over $90,000 in donor-funded hair and makeup expenditures since McDaniel took over.
The RNC told Raw Story that they don’t intend to change their process of spending donor funds on the chair’s hair and makeup.
HANOI (Reuters) -The chief of Vietnam's ruling Communist Party Nguyen Phu Trong and U.S. President Joe Biden agreed in a telephone call on Wednesday to "promote, develop and deepen" ties, Vietnam's state media reported.
The call, a rare engagement for Biden with a foreign leader who is not a head of state or government, came as the U.S. president is hosting a second Summit for Democracy
In a statement, the White House said Biden reinforced in the call a U.S. commitment to a strong, prosperous, resilient, and independent Vietnam, adding they would work together to address regional challenges and ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific.
The United States is now Vietnam's largest export market and the two former foes are celebrating the 10th anniversary of a "comprehensive partnership" this year.
But Hanoi has been careful to ensure its ties do not alienate its giant neighbour China, while Vietnam's human rights record has been a sticking point in the relationship, with Washington critical of the government's intolerance of dissent and frequent jailing and harassment of those who speak out.
Biden also emphasized a U.S. commitment to the centrality of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), respect for human rights and cooperation on climate goals, according to the White House statement.
Experts say a push by the United States to upgrade ties with Vietnam this year is facing resistance in Hanoi over concerns that China could see the move as hostile at a time of tension between the two superpowers.
"The two leaders will assign relevant authorities of the two sides to discuss details for further promoting ties," the party's official newspaper, Nhan Dan, reported.
The report said Trong, who is Vietnam's most powerful figure, and Biden repeated invitations to visit each others country. Trong had spoken with former U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump when they were in power.
"Vietnam consistently pursues its foreign policy of independence, self-reliance, peace, friendship, cooperation, diversification and multilateralisation of relations, active and proactive global integration," Trong said during the call, according to Nhan Dan.
In October, Trong was the first foreign leader to meet Presdent Xi Jinping in Beijing after he secured a precedent-breaking third term as General Secretary at the Chinese Communist Party.
(Reporting by Khanh Vu in Hanoi and David Brunnstrom in WashingtonEditing by Ed Davies and Michael Perry)
CNN's Oliver Darcy reacted with astonishment on Wednesday evening to the newly released emails in Dominion Voting Systems' $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News, which provided even more evidence the network higher-ups, including CEO Suzanne Scott, knew they were pushing false conspiracy theories about the election — something Fox still denies.
"Stunning that the CEO of Fox said in an email or a text, said that fact-checking the former president, which some Fox employees were trying to do, was bad for business," said anchor Anderson Cooper. "Not something you would expect from a leader of a purported news network."
"Right," said Darcy. "Now we're having new emails that really shed light on the pressure that Fox News is under as a business, after they called the election accurately for Joe Biden. I want to read to you an email that Suzanne Scott, the CEO, sent another executive after a correspondent, Eric Shawn, fact-checked Trump's lies and a guest who went on Sean Hannity's program and spread some election lies, and she said, 'This has to stop,' and goes on to say 'This is bad business and there clearly is a lack of understanding of what is happening in these shows. The audience is furious and we are just feeding the material. Bad for business.'"
"Now, Fox News will say that this was because they fact-checked a guest that was spreading, again, these election conspiracy theories on Sean Hannity's show," Darcy added. "But still, regardless, like, if a guest went on cnn and spread election conspiracy theories, it would be pretty normal, it would be expected, that other anchors would then call it out. In fact, check that for the audience."
"There was also emails about concern about viewers dropping out of their streaming service, is that right?" Cooper continued.
"Viewers left in pretty large numbers after the election," said Darcy. "When they were rebelling against fox news, they switched over to Newsmax, which Donald Trump was telling them to do. But now we're also learning in this new email that 25,000 subscribers to Fox Nation, Fox News' streaming service, had also dropped. They had just unsubscribed, apparently because there were so angry that Fox News had the nerve to actually accurately call the election for Joe Biden. And in other another email that we also see, we see Dobbs producers talking about how putting on election liars like Rudy Giuliani, like Sidney Powell, was actually good for the ratings. In one email they write, 'I mean to keep this alive we really need Rudy or Sidney.' I mean, extremely stunning emails, again. There's just a mountain of evidence now showing the behind the scenes at Fox News."
Former President Donald Trump is asking his advisers for a plan to launch a military invasion of Mexico to attack drug cartels if re-elected in 2024, Rolling Stone reported on Wednesday.
"Trump lieutenants have briefed him on several options that include unilateral military strikes and troop deployments on a sovereign U.S. partner and neighbor, the sources say. One such proposal that Trump has been briefed on this year is an October white paper from the Center for Renewing America, an increasingly influential think tank staffed largely by Trumpist wonks, MAGA loyalists, and veterans of his administration," reported Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley. "The policy paper — titled 'It’s Time to Wage War on Transnational Drug Cartels' — outlines possible justifications and procedures for the next Republican commander-in-chief to 'formally' declare 'war against the cartels,' in response to 'the mounting bodies of dead Americans from fentanyl poisonings.'"
The magazine acknowledges that this would be an invasion of a sovereign country, writing that the U.S. should “conduct specific military operations to destroy the cartels and enlist the Mexican government in joint operations to target cartel-networked infrastructure, including affiliated factions and enablers with direct action.” However, it brushed off the legal concerns, saying that “It is vital that Mexico not be led to believe that they have veto power to prevent the US from taking the actions necessary to secure its borders and people.”
This idea is not new. In 2019, Trump considered designating the drug cartels as terrorist organizations, a move that could have opened the door to military action against them, but administration officials decided against it. More recently, some Republicans like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have called for the cartels to be bombed.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has made clear that he does not support American military operations inside his country's borders. And there are a number of ways such an operation can go wrong; this comes after the U.S. spent 20 years trying to stabilize Afghanistan and clear the Taliban out of the country, only for the government to collapse and the Taliban to re-emerge.
This comes as President Joe Biden has stepped up efforts against the cartels, which in addition to flooding the U.S. with dangerous drugs fueling a nationwide epidemic of overdose deaths, are committing widespread organized violence in Mexico on a level seen in some civil wars. The U.S. and Mexican governments are working toward a deal where the former cracks down on guns going south to arm the cartels, while the latter tries to stop fentanyl from going north.
Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware violated a transparency and conflicts-of-interest law by disclosing one of his wife's stock trades more than a year after a federal deadline, according to a Raw Story review of congressional financial disclosure records.
Carper on Tuesday disclosed that Martha Ann Stacy sold $2,991.98 worth of stock in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd., although the trade took place on Jan. 19, 2022.
His wife's sale of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd. came shortly before Carper, as chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, advocated for Taiwan's inclusion in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd., for its part, spent more than $2.8 million lobbying the federal government in 2022, according to federal records compiled by nonpartisan research group OpenSecrets.
Federal lawmakers and their spouses are legally permitted to trade individual stocks. But Carper is one among dozens of lawmakers who have violated the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012's transparency requirement that any stock trade must be publicly disclosed within 45 days of the trade being made.
Widespread violations of this provision, coupled with lawmakers' potential conflicts between their public responsibilities and personal stock trades, have prompted some in Congress to call for an outright ban on elected officials and their families buying and selling equities.
Carper's office characterized the late disclosure as a "simple clerical error".
"Senator Carper and his wife, Martha, have always been careful to ensure that their financial investments are handled separately by a financial adviser who makes decisions and transactions independently," Carper spokesperson Katie Grasso told Raw Story. "Senator Carper supported the STOCK Act, and he fully supports ongoing conversations in Congress on how to strengthen the legislation and improve transparency and accountability for our elected officials."
Grasso added that "immediately upon being made aware of this error, Senator Carper reported the transaction to rectify the situation."
The senator is working with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, a bipartisan body of three Republicans and three Democrats, "so he can fully resolve this matter," she said.
The typical fine for a late stock trade disclosure of this sort is $200, per federal law. Generally, neither the House nor the Senate ethics committees release details about their findings regarding lawmakers who violate the STOCK Act, nor do they maintain a public accounting of which lawmakers have been assessed fines, and how much those fines total.
During the 117th Congress from 2021 to 2022, at least 78 members of Congress — dozens of Democrats and Republicans alike — were found to have violated the STOCK Act's disclosure provisions, according to a tally maintained by Insider.
Some, like Carper, were late disclosing a few thousand dollars worth of stock trades. Others were late disclosing trades that soared into the hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars.
This year, Raw Story has identified two additional lawmakers — Reps. Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Gerry Connolly (D-VA) — who were late disclosing personal stock trades.
Carper, a close ally of President Joe Biden, who represents Biden's home state, is one of Congress' most active stock traders, as he and is wife have logged hundreds of individual trades during the past several years.
News organizations including the New York Times, Insider, NPR and Sludge have documented rampant financial conflicts of interests among dozens of members of Congress, such as those who bought and sold defense contractor stock while occupying positions on congressional armed services committees or otherwise voting on measures to send such companies billions of federal dollars. The executive and judicial branches are riddled with similar financial conflict issues, too, as the Wall Street Journal hasreported.
A plan to enact a congressional stock-trade ban failed during the 2021-2022 congressional session after Democratic House leaders declined to bring any of several existing bills — including one floated by House leaders themselves — up for a vote.
But this year, a bipartisan group members of Congress, including Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), are renewing efforts to ban federal lawmakers and their spouses from trading stocks altogether. Cryptocurrency trades are also a target.
Former President Bill Clinton and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)Photos by Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia and Peter Smith/Flickr