John Curtis, the junior Senator from Utah, sent a letter to Chuck Grassley yesterday asking him to hold a hearing on familial influence peddling.
I therefore respectfully request that the Senate Judiciary Committee launch an investigation into the use of presidential family relationships for private financial benefit, preferential treatment, or access by domestic and foreign interests. As part of that investigation, I urge the Committee to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden to testify regarding their past business dealings, relationships with foreign individuals and entities, gifts, or other benefits they have received, and any instances in which their relationship to the President was invoked or understood to provide value.
The purpose of such an inquiry should be straightforward: establish the facts, determine whether existing ethics, disclosure, or anti-corruption laws apply, and identify reforms necessary to prevent the presidency from becoming a vehicle for private enrichment by those closest to it.
Curtis named Hunter Biden in the letter, but the real purpose would be to review Don Jr’s corruption.
More recently, questions have arisen about the relationships of President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., with foreign business figures and the acceptance of significant gifts. These include a lavish wedding afterparty, on a private island, provided by Russian oligarch Umar Kremlev, who reportedly traveled to China as part of a delegation accompanying Vladimir Putin shortly before giving the gift.5
These concerns are compounded by Donald Trump Jr.’s active promotion of family-backed cryptocurrency ventures,6 his continued pursuit of international real estate deals involving direct meetings with foreign heads of state, and his reported investments in defense contracting.7 This pattern extends to his significant financial and advisory ties to prediction-market platforms8 that depend on favorable federal regulatory decisions being considered by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
These reports raise legitimate questions about foreign access to members of a sitting president’s family and whether such relationships can create actual or perceived expectations of favorable treatment. They also may create expectations of a returned favor that would not be in the best interests of the American people or our allies, and could even create national security vulnerabilities.9
It was a cautious letter — a performative bid to make a request of Grassley rather than doing something himself in the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which he is a member. But it’s one of a number of things that lead me to believe Curtis might be persuadable for certain kinds of votes in a new Senate, if Democrats win the majority (and I think Curtis is one of the Republicans likely to vote to convict Whiskey Pete Hegseth when impeachment gets to the Senate).
That, in turn, led me to try to envision what the Senate will look like, especially if Dems win a majority, particularly given the certainty the Senate will get at least some impeachments sent their way.
Democrats are expected to start with 42 seats plus Fetterman (who will be a nuisance and who probably might flip if he made the difference in the Senate). If they win six or seven of the growing number of swing races, they will get the majority.
Once all is said and done, the number of batshit Republicans will be 25 or larger. If Dems get a majority, the big question will be what the remaining Republicans will do.
Update: This Politico review of the state of the race quotes a GOP pollster complaining, “The map is hilariously big right now,”
Update: Semafor describes issues — in addition to Curtis’ subpoena request and the war, Roger Wicker criticized Trump’s welcome for Xi Jiping — on which Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Trump.
John Fetterman [D-PA]
As Trump drags his party down, this list is getting longer — for example, with two polls showing the megachurch minister challenging Roger Marshall in Kansas leading in the polls.
Democrats need to win six (or seven, given Fetterman’s unreliability) of these to win a majority.
These are all considered safe GOP seats, but for one reason or another (chatter about closer poll numbers than they should be, a possible Callais swing, especially in MS), I’ve put them here. In a crazy year, one or another of these could turn into a surprise, and it looks to be a crazy year.
These are safe GOP seats about which I’ve seen no chatter to question that.
Both Blackburn and Klobuchar are expected to win their gubernatorial races. Both would appoint their successor.
I consider gettable Senators those who, at least on some issues (war and civil liberties for Rand Paul, anti-trust for Josh Hawley), sometimes break with their party.
By “workable,” I mean those Senators who take their job seriously (except in the case of Jim Justice who rarely shows up to work), and so might cooperate with Democrats.
These are returning Senators who are stark-raving nutjobs. A number of the likely incoming Senators, like Hagerman and whoever Blackburn appoints to replace herself, will join this list. With other expected GOP wins and people like Hawley who are normally nutjobs, this list will end up being over 25 Senators.
The post What the Senate Might Look Like appeared first on emptywheel.