A winery co-owned by the husband of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., was shuttered amid fraud claims, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said.
Comer said over the weekend that the winery had been selling empty barrels to investors under the guise of "wine to be aged."
"I can tell you from our initial investigation of Omar and her financial disclosure form that there are multiple fronts where you could get a search warrant issued," Comer told Trey Gowdy on Fox News' "Sunday Night in America."
"First of all, not only was there a huge discrepancy in the financial disclosure form, there was the winery that was the big base of her $25 million listing on her financial disclosure form. That winery has, according to the press, been shut down because of fraud."
ILHAN OMAR’S EMBATTLED HUSBAND APPEARS AT SCENE OF HSI RAID IN MIDST OF CRIMINAL FRAUD INVESTIGATION
The winery, co-owned by the congresswoman's husband, Tim Mynett, shut down in April this year amid congressional scrutiny over Omar's finances.
His and his business partner's lawyers told the Minnesota Reformer, "Any suggestion that Will or Tim deliberately defrauded investors or otherwise consciously conspired to rip people off would be false and defamatory."
The revelation is not new, but it's one of several details that have resurfaced in recent days amid a federal probe into Omar's citizenship in the U.S.
Federal law enforcement executed a search warrant at her D.C. home earlier this month. The operation was linked to allegations that she and her father misrepresented the congresswoman's age to more easily obtain American citizenship.
REP ILHAN OMAR'S IMMIGRATION HISTORY FACES NEW SCRUTINY AS FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS SUBPOENA RELATIVES
Omar's critics, like House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., have called for the progressive Democrat to be deported if the allegations were proved true.
She and her allies have denied wrongdoing and attacked the investigation as a partisan hit job against one of President Donald Trump's most vocal opponents.
But it's not the first time Omar has faced accusations of impropriety as a member of Congress.
The House Oversight Committee had earlier probed Omar's finances after her public disclosures showed a rapid, and at the time unexplained, increase in her net worth. Omar previously chalked up the discrepancy to an accidental accounting error.
Comer zeroed in on the winery in a February letter sent just weeks before the business closed down.
He wrote to Mynett that Omar's 2023 financial disclosure forms "lists a stake in your winery eStCru worth between $15,001 and $50,000." The following year, her financial disclosure form listed a stake in eStCru "worth between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000."
TRUMP RALLY CROWD CHANTS 'DEPORT' AS PRESIDENT RIPS ILHAN OMAR AFTER FEDERAL RAID
"There are serious public concerns about how your businesses increased so dramatically in value only a year after reporting very limited assets," the letter said.
Omar told The Wall Street Journal in mid-April that she and her husband have less than $100,000 combined.
The winery, eStCru, was based in California and was founded in 2020 by Mynett and a business partner. The industry outlet Wine Business named it one of its "Hot Brands of 2022."
When asked about the probe, a spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee pointed out to Fox News Digital that Comer had referred the case of Omar's finances to the House Ethics Committee for review.
"Regarding the investigation into her spouse, the House Oversight Committee referred the matter months ago to the House Ethics Committee and encouraged it to do its job and review the concerning allegations," the spokesperson said.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The bipartisan panel is tasked with investigating accusations of impropriety by lawmakers and recommending punishments if those probes turn up wrongdoing. It has not yet taken up Omar's case.
Fox News Digital reached out to Rose Lake Capital, another venture by Mynett and his business partner, for comment on Comer's remarks.
This is an adapted excerpt from the Oct. 18 episode of “Connect with Jacob Soboroff.”
According to a new Fox News poll, government corruption has now edged out inflation as voters’ top concern: 60% say they’re “extremely concerned” about the issue, compared with 58% who say the same about inflation.
America’s worry about government corruption shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been following this administration. And millions of Americans are still struggling to pay for the basics while the scandals keep raining down at our collective expense. At this rate, it feels like we’re seeing a new scandal or two every week.
Case in point: Last week federal agents carried out a raid of Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home at 6 a.m., taking with them boxes marked “Seized Property Evidence.” They also took her phone and passport.
You don’t need an actual conviction; you just need the performance: the raid, the headlines, the harassment of anyone who speaks out.
The search warrant listed potential violations involving immigration fraud, false statements in immigration proceedings, and conspiracy; but it didn’t identify any alleged crimes that appear to relate to Omar’s financial disclosures. Three people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that the investigation centers around claims that Omar or her late father may have lied on decades-old immigration paperwork to secure legal status. Omar became a naturalized citizen in 2000, when she was 17 — nearly three decades ago.
According to U.S. officials and other people familiar with the probe who spoke to The Wall Street Journal, the goal is to build a case to revoke the congresswoman’s citizenship and eventually deport her.
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has tried to make her citizenship an issue. The Post reports that in 2019, during President Donald Trump’s first term, immigration officials examined many of these same questions, including Omar’s birth date and her father’s military record in Somalia. At the time, officials found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a full investigation.
The Wall Street Journal reported the Biden administration also looked into a similar tip but did not move forward because it lacked evidence.
Former immigration officials say it’s highly unusual for an investigation like this to involve a search warrant, particularly when the government already has the immigration records.
So why raid her home? Like so much else with this administration, the spectacle and the intimidation appear to be the point. Not to mention the fact that we are about three weeks out from an election, and Omar is on the ballot.
On Friday, Omar’s lawyers blasted the raid in a letter to prosecutors, writing, “This vindictive, retributive, and politically motivated criminal investigation into one of the President’s chief congressional critics violates Representative Omar’s constitutional rights and threatens the separation of powers.” They say the search deviated from the specific procedures mandated by the judge who approved the warrant and violated specific restrictions meant to protect Omar’s legislative work.
According to her attorneys, agents were required to give them a copy of the warrant and to contact the House of Representatives’ own lawyers before conducting the search. They say agents did neither. The letter also states that Omar was prevented from contacting her lawyers for more than an hour after the search began.
A Justice Department spokesperson disputed the lawyers’ claim and said the letter was “riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies.”
In a statement on X, Omar said she would “not be silenced.” Adding, “This is just the latest escalation in [Trump’s] campaign of political intimidation.”
This is the authoritarian playbook at work. You don’t need an actual conviction; you just need the performance of the raid, the headlines, the harassment of anyone who speaks out. The investigations and the headlines become a substitute for due process. The spectacle itself sends a message: guilty until proven innocent.
If they can do this to Omar, the administration can do it to anyone. Omar is a sitting member of Congress. She has lawyers, a national platform and constitutional protections for her legislative work. If a sitting lawmaker can have her passport seized over paperwork dating back to her teenage years, what chance does a naturalized nurse in Minneapolis have? Or a cab driver in Chicago?
As The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg wrote, Trump’s government “is tacitly declaring the citizenship of all foreign-born people provisional.”
And Omar may not be the last; Tennessee Republican Rep. Andy Ogles has already asked the Justice Department to review the naturalization documents of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Look at the calendar. The raid on Omar’s home comes just over three weeks before the midterms. Historically, the Justice Department has treated searches involving political candidates and their associates as precisely the kind of step to avoid in the 60 days before an election. Omar’s lawyers say this search violated that policy. The department claims prosecutors cleared it through an internal review.
On the same day as the raid on Omar’s home, Trump mentioned her name at a rally in Ohio while his supporters chanted “deport.” Earlier that day, he claimed he had “nothing to do” with the search.
On the one hand, voters told Fox News their biggest concern is government corruption. On the other, this is an administration that wants you to worry about decades-old paperwork about a teenager’s age.
It appears the Trump White House response to growing concerns about corruption is to engage in more of it.
Allison Detzel contributed.
The post Trump’s raid on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home puts his authoritarian intimidation on display appeared first on MS NOW.
The telephone conversation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday, 20 October, has exposed an increasingly uncomfortable contradiction in American policy towards Russia. While President Donald Trump is easing economic pressure on Moscow and attempting to restrain Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure, senior members of his administration are having to address the consequences for Ukraine’s defence.
Zelenskyy raised three immediate concerns: the availability of Patriot interceptor missiles, interruptions to American early-warning intelligence concerning Russian ballistic attacks, and restrictions affecting Starlink and Starshield satellite communications. He described the discussion as constructive, expressing appreciation for Rubio’s willingness to help.
The significance lies less in the diplomatic language than in the circumstances surrounding the call. Washington is attempting to obtain concessions from Moscow while several of its own decisions have weakened confidence in the security arrangements on which Kyiv depends. Rubio’s involvement suggests that these difficulties cannot simply be left unresolved while Trump’s envoys pursue another round of negotiations.
Trump’s recent decisions concerning Russian energy exports have brought an existing disagreement over Ukraine into American domestic politics.
The administration has facilitated Russian diesel exports and waived new sanctions under the Graham Act, legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia and its principal energy customers. Rubio has said the president will use a 60-day period to assess the economic consequences of implementing the measures.
For Trump, the immediate attraction is apparent. Rising fuel prices have become a political liability ahead of the 3 November congressional midterm elections. Increasing supplies on international markets offers the administration a potential means of relieving pressure on American consumers.
The difficulty is that concessions to Vladimir Putin carry their own electoral consequences. Moscow remains deeply unpopular among substantial sections of the American political establishment, including Republicans who regard support for Ukraine as a matter of American strategic interest.
That opposition is no longer confined to public criticism. Republican senators have joined Democrats in challenging decisions affecting Ukraine’s military capabilities, creating an additional problem for an administration already facing a difficult electoral environment.
Trump can justify Russian energy concessions as an attempt to protect American consumers. Explaining why Ukraine should simultaneously experience interruptions to critical defence systems is considerably more difficult.
Rubio’s position within the administration is particularly important. As both Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, he occupies two offices central to the formulation and execution of American foreign policy.
His conversation with Zelenskyy took place during a diplomatic tour of Uzbekistan and India, demonstrating that the deterioration in relations with Kyiv required attention even while the administration was pursuing other international priorities.
It would be premature to interpret Rubio’s intervention as evidence of an independent foreign policy. There is no indication that he is acting against Trump’s instructions. The more plausible interpretation is that the administration recognises a need to contain the consequences of its recent decisions without requiring the president publicly to reverse his position.
The controversy surrounding Starshield is particularly revealing. Reuters reported that instructions to restrict the satellite service used by Ukrainian forces originated inside the White House. The officials cited did not identify who authorised the order, while the administration has denied Trump’s personal involvement.
Separately, Zelenskyy has reported failures to receive advance warnings of Russian ballistic attacks. The cause of those interruptions remains disputed.
These developments have already attracted congressional scrutiny. Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen led a bipartisan request for an investigation, warning that failures in communications and intelligence-sharing may have endangered American personnel in Ukraine.
Congress cannot directly manage the administration’s foreign policy. Nevertheless, its powers over expenditure, legislation and oversight make sustained opposition politically consequential, particularly when members of the president’s own party are involved.
The immediate requirements in Kyiv are considerably more specific than the objectives being discussed in Washington’s diplomatic negotiations.
Ukraine needs reliable satellite communications, uninterrupted intelligence concerning incoming missiles and sufficient Patriot interceptors to defend its cities and critical infrastructure. Delays in any of these areas have consequences that cannot be addressed through declarations about a future peace settlement.
The shortage of Patriot missiles is particularly serious. Zelenskyy has complained that American authorisation is delaying deliveries under arrangements financed by European governments. Washington’s commitments elsewhere, including the Middle East, add further pressure to American air-defence inventories.
Meanwhile, preparations for new negotiations in Oslo involving American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner continue. The involvement of European leaders may broaden the diplomatic discussion, but it does not resolve the central obstacle: Putin has offered no convincing indication that he is prepared to end the invasion on terms acceptable to Ukraine.
Proposals concerning Ukrainian elections, NATO membership or alternative negotiating arrangements remain subordinate to that problem. Without a ceasefire that can be enforced, even an agreement on the political framework for peace would leave fundamental questions of security unanswered.
Trump retains substantial authority over American sanctions, military assistance and diplomatic engagement. Yet his ability to offer Moscow meaningful concessions is constrained by several factors beyond his immediate control.
Congress can challenge further attempts to weaken sanctions or restrict assistance. European governments maintain their own sanctions regimes and are not obliged to follow Washington’s approach. Ukraine retains considerable military capacity, including the ability to attack Russian energy facilities that contribute to financing the war.
Nor can the American president compel Putin to accept a settlement. If Russia calculates that continuing military operations offers greater advantages than negotiations, additional concessions from Washington may encourage Moscow to prolong the conflict rather than end it.
Rubio’s conversation with Zelenskyy therefore suggests that the administration is being forced to confront the practical consequences of its policy. An American president may seek improved relations with Moscow, but the institutional interests of the United States do not necessarily change with his personal diplomatic priorities.
For Kyiv, the question is whether those interests will translate into the continued supply of weapons, intelligence and communications support. Russia’s attacks will continue irrespective of the timetable established for American diplomatic initiatives.
Last week, Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin came to the University of Chicago to send a message to young conservatives: stay out of government, or else.
The visit came with little attention initially. Senator Slotkin chose her words carefully. She talked about fighting for the middle class, criticized President Trump’s economic policies and kept her name in the running for president in 2028.
But, buried between her typical politician-speak, she made a clear threat towards young conservatives. Asked whether she wanted to impeach the president, she pivoted and spoke of effectiveness. She thought the 67-vote threshold for conviction in the Senate was too hard to meet, so instead the best course of action would be to go after the people around the president. That way, young people who may be interested in working in the Trump administration would say, "Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, so let me avoid participating in that."
MIKE DAVIS: SEN SLOTKIN REVEALS HER INSIDIOUS SCHEME TO TARGET YOUNG CONSERVATIVES
That threat felt personal to me. When I was in high school, I served as a United States Senate page. For those unfamiliar with the program, it selects 30 juniors from across the country to spend a semester going to school and working in the Senate. I did my math homework on the Senate floor when Congress was out of session and ran around delivering messages and papers during session. I made many of my closest friends during that program, few of whom share my viewpoints on politics. And I gained a deep respect for the body I worked for.
When I completed the program, my friends and family asked me whether I felt more optimistic or pessimistic about our government. The news coming out of Washington was so bad, they just assumed it would be pessimistic; they were interested in stories about senators yelling at one another and fighting to the death in meaningless partisan battles.
But I came out of that program more optimistic than ever. Top of the list of reasons was that no matter their political allegiance, senators encouraged us — a group of impressionable high schoolers — to go into politics and make our voices heard. I was excited about the prospect that I could really make a difference in the future of our country.
Hearing Senator Slotkin’s comments, I am left wondering whether that impression was incorrect.
But I choose to believe that the United States Senate can still be the world’s greatest deliberative body and that young people can, in fact, have a say in our shared future. Senator Slotkin’s remarks should be an exception to how the Senate operates, not the rule.
Thankfully, her threat could not have come at a more prescient time. The midterms are only two weeks away. Senator Slotkin’s words are not empty; they are a game plan for what Democrats will do if they retake power in Congress this November. Unfortunately, running that game plan will come at the expense of young men and women interested in serving their country. More still, in that very same discussion, Senator Slotkin left the door open to running for president in 2028. It is far from inconceivable that two years from now, we’ll be welcoming President-elect Slotkin into the Oval Office.
That is why it is more important than ever that young conservatives speak out and show up. It doesn’t matter whether you have a Ph.D. from Harvard or dropped out of high school — your voice matters in this country. If you love our country and have the capacity to serve in government, I encourage you to do so.
I recognize that that is not an easy ask. If Senator Slotkin is serious — and there is little reason to think she is not — serving your country will come at a great personal cost. Some very powerful people will seek to make you a pariah, as the host remarked to Senator Slotkin during her interview. And during the Biden administration, Democrats in the White House and Congress did so to many young conservatives. And one cannot forget Charlie Kirk’s assassination last September at the hands of a radical gunman.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
But the hardest fights are also the most important ones to win. Should our government fall into the hands of those who seek power for revenge and target the weak, our fates will be at the will of tyrants.
Preventing such a future requires the involvement of young people. John Adams once remarked to a crowd of young patriots in Philadelphia, "America and the world will look to our youth as one of our firmest bulwarks." 250 years after our nation’s founding, Adams’s words ring more true than ever before.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
So, do not cower in the face of Senator Slotkin’s threats. In fact, take her threats as a reason to serve our country. I sincerely believe that the fate of our Republic depends on it.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2026–2027 term just got a whole lot boozier. On Monday, the justices agreed to hear arguments later this year or next in the case of Department of Justice v. McNutt. At issue is whether the 1868 federal ban on distilling liquor at home is unconstitutional because it exceeds the lawful regulatory power of the federal government. If any modern Supreme Court case ever deserved its own drinking game, this one is it.
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found the federal ban on home distilling to be unconstitutional because Congress lacked the proper authority to issue such a ban in the first place. It was not a legitimate exercise of the congressional authority "To Lay and collect Taxes," the appellate court reasoned, because "the purpose of a tax is to raise revenue for the government;" yet this law "amount[s] to an anti-revenue provision" that only "prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence." And if it does not exist, of course, the government cannot tax it.
The 5th Circuit also denied that the federal ban on home distilling could be saved by the government's appeal to the Necessary and Proper Clause, which says that Congress has the authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
But the federal ban on home distilling cannot be "necessary" to the execution of the enumerated taxing power, the 5th Circuit argued, because the provisions of federal law at issue "tax nothing, and are distinct from the regulation of distilling alcoholic products that is permitted by federal tax law."
Nor did the 5th Circuit find the ban to be "proper." "By purporting to ban activity without a plain connection to the exercise of Congress's taxation power," it held, "Congress has essentially—and 'improperly'—invaded the reserved police and regulatory power of the states."
The Trump administration lost this case at the 5th Circuit and has now successfully urged the justices to hear its appeal. In its petition seeking review, the Trump administration faulted the 5th Circuit for its overeagerness to "second-guess" the "legislative judgment" of Congress. Instead, the Trump administration argued, the federal judiciary owes a great deal more deference to the federal government's regulatory priorities in a case like this. "A law is necessary and proper if it is 'convenient' or 'useful' for carrying an enumerated power into effect, and 'plainly adapted' to that legitimate end," the Justice Department's brief argued. "That is the case here."
This case may lead to an interesting divide among the Supreme Court's more conservative members. In United States v. Comstock (2010), a 7–2 Supreme Court embraced the Necessary and Proper Clause as sufficient constitutional grounding for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which had empowered federal officials to order the indefinite civil commitment of "sexually dangerous" individuals who had already finished serving their prison sentences. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority opinion in that case, while Justice Samuel Alito voted in concurrence. In other words, they both endorsed a broad view of congressional power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. By contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, voted in dissent. The Comstock ruling, Thomas protested, "comes perilously close to transforming the Necessary and Proper Clause into a basis for the federal police power that 'we always have rejected.'"
Are we about to see a similar Alito-Thomas split over the proper reach of federal power in this case? And what about Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh? Will one or more of them play the Scalia part and similarly reject the Trump administration's broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause?
Stay tuned.
The post Trump Administration Urges SCOTUS To Uphold Federal Ban on Distilling Liquor at Home appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Republican lawmakers are frustrated that President Donald Trump has paused new sanctions on Russia’s economy, all but ignoring a measure he signed into law just a month ago.
What’s less clear is what exactly they plan to do about it.
Trump paused the sanctions by executive order Friday, and the backlash grew as lawmakers questioned why Ukraine’s access to SpaceX’s Starlink satellite service was disrupted.
Few Republicans have been as forceful, or as specific, as Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who vowed Monday that Congress would punish the administration. He spoke to MS NOW after joining a bipartisan call between lawmakers and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
“There have not been sufficient answers forthcoming from the administration,” Fitzpatrick said Monday. “And you better well damn believe that we’re going to demand them. We’re going to demand accountability. And these are not just words; they’re not just hearings. We’re going to take budgetary action — punitive budgetary action — until we get to the truth, until this is fixed.”
Fitzpatrick said the administration wouldn’t get a pass on the satellite disruptions, either. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Saturday that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the problems affecting Starlink, SpaceX’s commercial service, and that Ukraine did not have access to Starshield, the company’s military-controlled counterpart. Democratic lawmakers have sought more information on whether the disruption originated with the U.S. government or with SpaceX.
“It’s not enough to say you had nothing to do with it,” Fitzpatrick said. “You need to tell us who did, right? So if he’s saying he had nothing to do with it, he’s the president. He can find out who did.”
Rubio also said that, to his knowledge, Starlink was working. But Zelenskyy told a bipartisan group of lawmakers on a video call Monday that the service remains degraded, according to a joint statement from Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C. Zelenskyy “also reported disruptions to U.S. intelligence sharing concerning early warning of Russian ballistic missile launches,” the senators said.
“This is wildly unacceptable, and it’s not going to stand,” Fitzpatrick said. “There’s going to be consequences to this. And by the way, it’s not just Starshield. It’s the diesel deal. It’s the lifting of sanctions. It’s all of this stuff.”
Making good on those threats will require help from other lawmakers. An opening for “punitive budgetary action” could come during the lame-duck session, when Congress faces a Dec. 11 government funding deadline and aims to pass the annual defense authorization bill. But no specific plan has taken shape.
Other Republicans have objected to both the sanctions pause and the Starlink disruptions, but few have threatened consequences.
Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that “there needs to be an investigation” by Congress into Starlink disruptions. But he stopped short of threatening to hold up the rest of Trump’s legislative agenda during the lame-duck session, saying there was no need for brinksmanship.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., a member of Senate Republican leadership, told reporters Monday that she disagreed with the decision to waive the sanctions. Lawmakers had “waited for a while” to set the sanctions deadline at a time Trump preferred, she said, only for him to ignore the law.
“We had timed this to when the president and the White House felt it was a good time to move forward with this so the work could be effective,” Capito said. “That’s why I think I was extremely surprised when he did it.”
But Capito didn’t commit to any specific response. Asked about a possible investigation into the Starlink disruptions, she cited Rubio’s assertion that the problems had been resolved and said the relevant information would “all come out.”
Pressed on whether Congress should take further action on the sanctions, she pointed to the upcoming election.
“It’s going to be difficult to say anything in the next two weeks that’s going to make any kind of difference,” she said.
Rep. Craig Goldman, R-Texas, also disagreed with the waiver but said he would defer to the president.
“I personally am not for that, but, you know, he’s in discussions at a much higher level than I am,” Goldman told reporters. “But no, I certainly would be in favor of keeping those sanctions on Russia until the war is over.”
Asked whether any committees should investigate the Starlink disruption, Goldman said, “Oh, I’m not going to tell any chairman how to run the committee.”
Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., criticized Trump’s decision at a discussion hosted by the Edward M. Kennedy Institute on Monday, but she didn’t call for Congress to act.
“I want to see us use the economic firepower that we have,” Britt said. “I want to see that peace through strength. I believe that Russia is at the weakest point that they have been in this war. I believe we are at that moment where, if we are able to utilize those tools, we can drive Putin to the table, driving him to the table, ending this war.”
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, led a delegation of lawmakers to meet with Zelenskyy in Ukraine last week. In a statement Sunday, he said Zelenskyy would be willing to halt strikes on Russian petroleum infrastructure in exchange for U.S. targeting assistance to counter Russian missiles.
Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., pointed out that her brother, the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, negotiated the sanctions bill before his death in July. She said she wanted the sanctions to stay in place and planned to talk to Trump when he visits South Carolina on the campaign trail.
“The president and I share the same goal, which is to end the war, get gas and diesel prices down, and the sanctions bill is one of the tools he can use to do that,” Graham told reporters on Saturday. “It’s up to him whether or not he chooses to use it.”
The post ‘Wildly unacceptable’: Trump’s moves on Russia are testing GOP patience appeared first on MS NOW.
Login