RNC’s New “Election Integrity” Specialist Ought to Scare You

The Republican National Committee is getting serious about election integrity. And to head up a new unit dedicated to the issue, the RNC has tapped a far-right, pro-Trump election denier.

Since Donald Trump successfully installed his daughter-in-law in an RNC leadership position, the committee has seen a dramatic reshuffle. After major layoffs, senior positions have been stacked with Trump allies, including lawyer Christina Bobb, who has been tapped to lead the RNC’s new election integrity division, The Washington Post reported Tuesday night.

“I look forward to working to secure our elections and restore confidence in the process,” Bobb told the Post in a statement.

Bobb’s appointment should be a major cause for concern. Bobb joined Trump’s legal team last year, and before that, she was an anchor at the far-right network OAN. She was a vocal supporter of 2020 election fraud conspiracy theories, and a nonprofit she founded donated more than $600,000 to the bogus “audit” of votes in Maricopa County, Arizona.

During the 2022 midterm elections, Bobb continued to push falsehoods that the elections might be rigged. She said that any delay in election results should be considered “suspicious,” stoking fear about valid votes.

Trump managed to force out former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel last week and has been quick to install his stooges at the committee’s highest levels. Although McDaniel was loyal to Trump, she exhibited more restraint than he would have liked. McDaniel and her co-chair were replaced by Trump’s picks: former North Carolina Republican Party Chair Michael Whatley and Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump.

Since taking the reins, Lara Trump has made it clear that she intends to corral all of the RNC’s influence and finances into supporting her father-in-law’s reelection campaign. She even warned that there was no longer a place in the GOP for anti-Trump Republicans.

“Anyone who is not on board with seeing Donald Trump as the forty-seventh president and America-loving patriots all the way down the ticket being supported by the RNC is welcome to leave because we are not playing games,” she said, shortly before she assumed power.

Donald Trump and his 17 co-defendants woke up to some good news regarding their Georgia election interference case on Wednesday: Judge Scott McAfee threw out some of the charges.

McAfee decided that six of the charges against Trump and some of his co-defendants lacked too much detail to be brought to trial. That includes charges related to Trump and Mark Meadows’s alleged pressure campaign on state officials, like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and then–Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, to unlawfully appoint alternative presidential electors. Trump will now face 10 felony charges in Georgia, instead of the original 13.

“The Court’s concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants—in fact it has alleged an abundance. However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned’s opinion, fatal,” McAfee wrote in Wednesday’s order.

“As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited,” McAfee continued. “They do not give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways.”

“In other words, a naked charge of solicitation cannot survive unless accompanied by additional elements establishing the solicited felony,” he added.

Still, the Georgia Superior Court judge did leave most of the case intact, noting that the entirety of the indictment is not dismissed. He also wrote that several of the “overt acts” related to racketeering charges that Trump had attempted to dismiss will in fact remain.

Meanwhile, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s future on the case remains murky. McAfee has said he will rule on her alleged ethics violations pertaining to her relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, and potential disqualification from the case, by the end of the week.

Despite drumbeating for more than a year to impeach Joe Biden, House Republicans have quietly begun looking for an off-ramp in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence against the president—and a rapidly shrinking majority in the chamber.

Republicans have accused Biden and his son Hunter of corruption and influence peddling, but their lengthy investigation has failed to turn up any proof of the president’s wrongdoing. In fact, the biggest criminal act revealed during the course of the probe was committed by the GOP’s own star witness, Alexander Smirnov. The Department of Justice has accused him of making up the allegations against the Biden family that jump-started the whole impeachment effort.

As the investigation crumbles, Republicans are starting to sour on it entirely. “I don’t think we have the will to impeach Joe Biden,” Texas Representative Troy Nehls told Fox News on Tuesday. “We just don’t.”

Some lawmakers don’t even want to bring the impeachment to the floor for a vote. Although Tennessee Representative Tim Burchett warned Politico that “the base is going to demand it,” his fellow party members don’t think it’s worth it.

“That’s not a vote you put on the floor if you don’t have a chance of passing it,” North Dakota Representative Kelly Armstrong said.

What’s more, Colorado Representative Ken Buck announced Tuesday that he would leave Congress in a matter of days. His departure further shrinks the House GOP’s already razor-thin majority, making it that much more difficult to pass anything, let alone articles of impeachment.

Republicans have three main options to take their foot off the gas. First, they could issue criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, recommending that the department prosecute certain people. These referrals are nonbinding, meaning the department can choose whether or not to act on them.

“At the end of the day, what does accountability look like?” House Oversight Chair James Comer, who has spearheaded the charge against the Biden family, said last week on Fox News. “It looks like criminal referrals. It looks like referring people to the Department of Justice.”

A criminal referral falls far short of Comer’s originally stated goal, which was to impeach and ultimately remove Biden from office. But with his probe going up in flames around him, the Kentucky representative is just looking for an “exit strategy,” a congressional Republican told ABC, speaking anonymously.

Comer could be seeking to play a longer game here, though. He could issue criminal referrals in the hope that Donald Trump will be reelected in November. Trump, who backs the impeachment effort, could then instruct the Justice Department to take up the charges.

Republicans could also seek to pass laws that tighten restrictions on influence peddling, but that could backfire. It’s unclear whether the Democratic-controlled Senate would pass such a bill, but Democrats could agree to pass the measures in order to crack down on Trump’s profiting off the Oval Office.

Finally, the GOP could continue to subpoena documents and witnesses and even sue people who don’t comply. But this could drag the process out for years, which would do nothing to actually help Republicans going after Biden.

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to ban TikTok, a highly controversial move done in the name of national security that has sparked accusations of First Amendment violations.

The House voted 352–65 to pass the bill. It will now go to the Senate, where it is likely to pass again, as TikTok is one of the few issues that unites Democrats and Republicans. President Joe Biden, who is currently campaigning for reelection on TikTok, has said he will sign the measure if it reaches his desk.

Only 15 Republicans and 50 Democrats voted against the legislation. Here are all the members who voted “no”:

Andy Biggs (AZ)

Dan Bishop (NC)

Suzanne Bonamici (OR)

Jamaal Bowman (NY)

Brendan Boyle (PA)

Cori Bush (MO)*

Greg Casar (TX)

Joaquin Castro (TX)

Katherine Clark (MA)

Jim Clyburn (SC)

Warren Davidson (OH)

John Duarte (CA)

Adriano Espaillat (NY)

Maxwell Frost (FL)

Matt Gaetz (FL)

Ruben Gallego (AZ)

Chuy Garcia (IL)

Robert Garcia (CA)

Jimmy Gomez (CA)

Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA)

Jahana Hayes (CT)

Clay Higgins (LA)

Jim Himes (CT)

Steven Horsford (NV)

Val Hoyle (OR)

Jonathan Jackson (IL)

Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)

Sara Jacobs (CA)

Pramila Jayapal (WA)

Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA)

Ro Khanna (CA)

Rick Larsen (WA)

John Larson (CT)

Barbara Lee (CA)

Summer Lee (PA)

Zoe Lofgren (CA)

Nancy Mace (SC)

Thomas Massie (KY)

Tom McClintock (CA)

Morgan McGarvey (KY)

Jim McGovern (MA)

Gregory Meeks (NY)

Grace Meng (NY)

Alexander Mooney (WV)

Barry Moore (AL)

Gwen Moore (WI)

Kevin Mullin (CA)

Jerry Nadler (NY)

Richard Neal (MA)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY)

Ilhan Omar (MN)

Scott Perry (PA)

Dean Phillips (MN)

Mark Pocan (WI)

Katie Porter (CA)

Ayanna Pressley (MA)

Delia Ramirez (IL)

Janice Schakowsky (IL)

David Schweikert (AZ)

Greg Steube (FL)

Eric Swalwell (CA)

Norma Torres (CA)

Juan Vargas (CA)

Nydia Velazquez (NY)

Nikema Williams (GA)

The bill stipulates that ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, must sell TikTok to an American company within six months. Otherwise, TikTok will be banned from U.S. app stores. A company associated with the Chinese government owns a 1 percent stake in Bytedance, leading politicians on both sides of the aisle to warn that TikTok poses a threat to national security and data privacy.

With both political parties eager to seem tough on China, particularly during an election year, cracking down on TikTok is an easy move. But critics of the bill have accused lawmakers of seeking to make themselves look good instead of actually enacting meaningful legislation.

“We’re deeply disappointed that our leaders are once again attempting to trade our First Amendment rights for cheap political points during an election year,” Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement last week. “Just because the bill sponsors claim that banning TikTok isn’t about suppressing speech, there’s no denying that it would do just that.”

This article has been updated.

*This article originally misidentified Cori Bush’s state.

Donald Trump was tuned in and watching the Biden classified documents hearing on Tuesday, but one part he didn’t enjoy was the opportunity to look at his own reflection.

Hours after the House Judiciary Committee hearing had ended, Trump was back on Truth Social, falsely insisting that the lackluster interview of special counsel Robert Hur was a “disaster” for Biden and that the results constituted a “two tiered standard of justice.”

But the last part of Trump’s missive hinted at which part of the hearing really bit at the GOP presidential nominee: multiple extended clips of his mental glitches.

“Artificial Intelligence was used by them against me in their videos of me. Can’t do that Joe!” Trump wrote.

It’s of course odd that he’s drawing attention to his gaffes on his own social media platform. But unfortunately for Trump, unlike other examples of A.I. manipulation that have run the political circuit in recent memory, the clips of him are all too real. But the thread he’s picking up on is an alarming one—if Trump insists they’re fake, does that mean his supporters will believe it too? And if they won’t believe recorded evidence of his cognitive decline, what will sway them?