Daily Archives: April 11, 2021

TipRanks

After a volatile first quarter, Q2 has kicked off in style, and the major indexes sit at or hover near all-time highs. The government bond market has also been steadying as yields have pulled back after rising higher earlier in the year, soothing investor fears that inflation could get out of hand. Moreover, the economic recovery seems to be gathering steam at a faster pace than anticipated. We had been expecting the data to improve about this time, and early signals are that the recovery is absolutely on track, said Hugh Gimber, J.P. Morgans global market strategist. This is the period where the forecast of a strong recovery in growth is starting to look more like the fact of a strong recovery in growth. Against this backdrop, the analysts at J.P. Morgan have pinpointed 2 names which they believe are set for strong growth in the year ahead; both are expected to handsomely reward investors with at least 80% of gains over the coming months. We ran them through TipRanks database to see what other Wall Street's analysts have to say about them. Tencent Music Entertainment (TME) Well start in China, where Tencent Music Entertainment is the offspring of Chinas giant online venture company, Tencent, and Spotify, the Swedish streaming company that makes music and playlists easy. Tencent Music has seen consistently strong sales and earnings for the past year, with the top line growing year-over-year in each quarter of 2020. The Q4 report showed $1.26 billion in the top line, the highest in the last two years, along with 12 cents per share in earnings, up 33% year-over-year. Strong streaming revenue, which showed 29% growth, helped drive the results. And, Tencent Music, through its variety of apps, is the top music streaming service in the Chinese online market as shown by the 40.4% yoy increase in paid subscribers during Q4. In its quarterly results, the company reported 4.3 million net new users in Q4, to reach 56 million active premium accounts across its apps. That said, the stock has pulled back sharply recently, as like many other high-flying growth names, worries regarding an overheated valuation have come to the fore. But pullbacks often spell opportunity, and covering the stock for JPM, Alex Yao notes the strong subscription growth, as well as the potential in the companys other businesses, online ads and long-form audio, for monetization. We believe TME is entering a healthy development cycle with successive growth engines: 1) music subscription remains the core revenue driver with consistent paying ratio improvement, 2) ads revenue ramps up quickly, and 3) active investments in long-form audio initiative, which could become a new growth driver in 2022 and afterwards," Yao noted. To this end, Yao puts a $36 price target on TME, suggesting a one-year upside of 84%, to back his Overweight (i.e. Buy) rating on the stock. (To watch Yaos track record, click here) Overall, TME has a thumbs up from Wall Street. Of the 11 reviews on record, 7 are to Buy, 3 are to Hold, and 1 says Sell, making the analyst consensus a Moderate Buy. The shares are priced at $19.50, and their $30.19 average price target implies an upside of 55% for the months ahead. (See TME stock analysis on TipRanks) Y-mAbs Therapeutics (YMAB) The next JPM pick were looking at is Y-mAbs, a late-stage clinical biopharma company with a focus on pediatric oncology. The company is working on the development and commercialization of new antibody-based cancer therapeutics. Y-mAbs has one medication Danyelza approved for use to treat neuroblastoma in children age 1 and over, and a broad and advanced pipeline of drug candidates in various stages of the clinical process, as well as five additional products in pre-clinical research stages. Having an approved drug is a holy grail for clinical biopharmaceutical companies, and in 4Q20 Y-mAbs saw considerable income from Danyelza. The company announced at the end of December that it had agreed to sell the Priority Review Voucher for the drug to United Therapeutics for $105 million. Y-mAbs will retain the rights to 60% of the net proceeds from the sale, under an agreement with Memorial Sloan Kettering. Also in December, the company announced a license agreement with SciClone. The partnership gives Y-mAbs and Danyelza an opening for treating pediatric patients in China. The agreement includes Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, and is worth up to $120 million for Y-mAbs. The company has entered other agreements making Danyelza available in Eastern Europe and Russia. Danyelza is Y-mAbs flagship product, but the company also has omburtamab in advanced stages of the pipeline. This drug candidate saw a setback in October last year, when the FDA refused to file the company's Biologics License Application, proposed for the treatment of pediatric patients with CNS/leptomeningeal metastasis. Y-mAbs has been in steady communication with the FDA since then, with a new target date for the BLA at the end of 2Q21 or early in 3Q21. These two drugs one approved and one not yet form the basis of the JPM outlook on this stock. Analyst Tessa Romero writes, Our thesis revolves around the de-risked nature of the pediatric oncology pipeline. Our recent KOL feedback is enthusiastic about use of lead asset Danyelza in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma (NB). For second lead asset omburtamab in NB metastatic to the central nervous system (CNS/LM from NB), while the Refuse to File last year and subsequent regulatory delays were certainly disappointing, we still see a high probability of approval for the product in the 2Q/3Q22 timeframe Looking ahead, Romero sees an upbeat outlook for the company: Coupling our anticipation of a healthy launch for Danyelza, with regulatory/clinical momentum expected in the near- to mid-term, we see shares poised to rebound and see an attractive buying opportunity at current levels. The analyst puts a $52 price target on YMAB shares, implying an upside of 86% for the year ahead, and supporting an Overweight (i.e. Buy) rating. (To watch Romeros track record, click here) Overall, the Wall Street reviews break down 3 to 1 in favor of Buys versus Holds on Y-mAbs, giving the stock a Strong Buy consensus rating. The shares have an average price target of $61.25, suggestive of a 121% upside potential this year. (See YMAB stock analysis on TipRanks) To find good ideas for stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks equity insights. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

See the rest here:

The National Archives won't be able to host Donald Trump's tweets on Twitter - Yahoo Tech

Donald Trump speaks during a farewell ceremony at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Jan. 20.

Photographer: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg

Photographer: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg

Donald Trump and his lawyers should pay more than $65,000 in legal fees to Milwaukee County and face additional sanctions for filing a baseless lawsuit trying to overturn the result of the presidential election, Wisconsins biggest metropolitan area told a judge.

The former president never had a valid reason to sue to toss out Wisconsins 3.3 million votes, a long-shot effort that would have paved the way for the states GOP-dominated legislature to appoint a slate of electors more favorable to Trump, the county said in a filing Thursday in federal court in Milwaukee.

Trump never offered any legal or factual basis for his breathtaking request, and none exists, the county, a heavily Democratic area in a swing state, said in the filing. The relief he sought was entirely baseless and amply justifies the imposition of sanctions.

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers filed a similar request last week seeking $145,000 in legal fees incurred by the state. Trump and his allies sued unsuccessfully more than 60 times as they tried to overturn election results in battleground states like Wisconsin, which narrowly went for Joe Biden. A federal appeals court affirmed the rejection of Trumps Wisconsin case, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review.

Read more: Trumps Effort to Hijack Wisconsin Election Could Cost Him

Also on Thursday, former Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell asked a judge to deny a similar request for sanctions against her in a separate suit she filed in Wisconsin to overturn the election result. Powell represented a Trump voter in that case, which also failed. The state is seeking $106,000 in legal fees from Powell, saying her case alleging a vast voter-fraud conspiracy involving a complicit voting-machine company, foreign hackers and communist money was too far-fetched to justify it being filed.

But Powell, who was ditched by the Trump campaign after going public with the extent of her conspiracy theory, argues the request for fees comes too late and affronts common sense.

Defendants motion is, in essence, a request that the Court conduct a review and issue a decision on the merits of Plaintiffs evidence without trial or evidentiary hearing, Powell said. While the case was pending, Defendant aggressively opposed the Court hearing the evidence at all, much less deciding its merits.

Read More: Powell Sued by Dominion for $1.3 Billion Over Fraud Claims

(Updates with filing by Sidney Powell)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

View post:

Milwaukee Asks to Sanction Donald Trump Over 'Baseless' Election Lawsuit - Bloomberg

In this April 26, 2012 file photo, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaks during his weekly news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.(Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP Photo)

John Boehnerleft Washington, D.C.over five years ago when he retired as Speaker of the House but he took his grudges with him.

The West Chester Republican's memoir due to be released on Tuesday, "On the House," slams Republicans, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump, among others. He also recounts the many times he tangled with other politicians and gives the public a peek behind the curtain at the cut-throat world of congressional politics.

It's once again made Boehner the talk of the political world, at least for this week.

Here are five takeaways from his memoir:

He put the responsibility for the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol on the shoulders of former President Trump, saying he's responsible for "that bloody insurrection."

"Trump incited that bloody insurrection for nothing more than selfish reasons, perpetuated by the (expletive) he'd been shoveling since he lost a fair election the previous November," Boehner wrote.

Trump's "refusal to accept the result of the election not only cost Republicans the Senate but led to mob violence."

Boehner uses the terms "crazy," "nutty," "Looneyville," and "Crazytown," when describing Congress during his time as speaker from 2011 to 2015.

He particularly questions the sanity of the current Republican Party.

Boehner describes the Republican Party's metamorphosis during the rise of Fox News and just before the election of Donald Trump as president.

"I dont think Ronald Reagan would recognize the Republican Party today," Boehner wrote.

A picture of Boehner's memoir, On the House(Photo: Scott Wartman/The Enquirer)

He has particular disdain for Republicans elected during the 2010 midterms, whom he describes as kooks and crazies.

"You could be a total moron and get elected just by having an R next to your name and that year, by the way, we did pick up a fair number in that category," Boehner wrote.

He described Fox News founder Roger Ailes as paranoid, with safe rooms to protect him from government spies and guards that were "combat-ready."

At one point he likened leading the Republican-controlled House to driving a "clown car."

"I pushed for spending cuts and entitlement reforms when they were unpopular," Boehner wrote. "Now I was being denounced by the talk show circuit as if I were a hippie with flip flops and beads plotting a socialist takeover of America."

While in office, Boehner found himself at odds with the new breed of Republicans, who frequently tried to oust him as speaker. Boehner wrote he's glad he's no longer in Congress.

"I dont even think I could get elected in todays Republican Party anyway," Boehner wrote."Just like I dont think Ronald Reagan could either."

Boehner in 1998 supported impeaching President Bill Clinton on perjury charges. It's a vote he wishes he could have back.

In my view, Republicans impeached him for one reason and one reason only because it was strenuously recommended to us by one Tom DeLay, Boehner wrote of the Texan who served in the party's House leadership. Tom believed that impeaching Clinton would win us all these House seats, would be a big win politically, and he convinced enough of the membership and the GOPbase that this was true."

Boehner directs much venom at Republican "bomb throwers" who he sees as more interested in appearing on Fox News than getting something accomplished. He singles out Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for some of his harshest criticism.

"There is nothing more dangerous than a reckless a**hole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Senator Ted Cruz," Boehner wrote.

Read or Share this story: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/09/john-boehner-slams-donald-trump-republicans-and-talks-clinton-impeachment-memoirs/7155438002/

Original post:

Boehner blames Trump, regrets impeaching Clinton and other things we learned from his memoirs - The Cincinnati Enquirer

Charles R. Kessler, Crisis of the Two Constitutions: The Rise, Decline and Recovery of American Greatness (New York, NY: Encounter Books).488 pp; $29.95.

When woke mobs spun the outrage at George Floyds killing in late May into carte blanche for widespread lawlessness, Charles Kessler took to the New York Post calling out the 1619 Riots. Would labeling as a 1776 Riot the Capitol storming on January 6 overdo the cynicism?

Nikole Hannah-Jones, in all fairness, owned up to inciting more than the spray-painting of 1619 on Confederate monuments. The eponymous New York Times projects lead writer tweeted her delight at Kesslers implicating headline (itd be an honor), resting all lawbreaking by Antifa and BLM on the high moral ground of just redress. Kessler and the so-called West Coast Straussians at the Claremont Institute, on the defensive mission of Recovering the American Idea, have instead everything to lose from a descent into right-wing violence. Their embrace of Donald Trump as a nuclear option to reaffirm Americas Founding in the face of woke revisionism is looking increasingly like the gambit Kessler himself reckons it to be in Crisis of the Two Constitutions (2021). Whether he woke on January 7 to pangs of compunction depends on the line drawn between the anti-establishment instincts he happily egged on in Trump and his presidencys insurrectionary last gasp. One toll, though, is beyond contestthe nationalistic celebration of the Founders statesmanship that Claremont exists to impart is, for more Americans than pre-2016, stained by radicalism and tribalization.

Kessler founded Claremont on the eve of Ronald Reagans 1980 landslide to keep alive the thought of Leo Straussthus the arcane epithet. Yet the Institutes parallel crusade to vindicate the Founding from 1619-type indictments only became a conservative brand name in 2016. Its a brand synonymous with a bet that Trumps populist Americanismas famously schemed in the Flight 93 Election essay by Kesslers colleague Michael Antoncould provide a once-in-a-lifetime impetus to uphold the Constitution and the fundamental goodness of our country, inspiring a bulwark presidency against the administrative state and the woke rewriting of history. Since January 7, Trumpisms liberal executors in the media have been searching for mob inciter fingertips, predictably. But for even some of its East Coast allies, the bill for Claremonts 2016 gamble is coming due, with Joe Bidens victory hiking the interest. The healing presidencys day-one woke pandering has smacked of retribution, with collateral damage including the 1776 Commission on patriotic education that Kessler advised and Biden has since disbanded.

Kessler has anthologized his lifes key essays in the sweeping fashion of a magnum opus, but the books rollout in Trumps aftermath is eerily apposite. The result is an authoritatively sober assessment of Americas interlocked constitutional ills from a Claremonsters viewpoint and, right until his futile contestation of the November result, of Trumps own significance for the Right, which the author blames for ducking the hard cultural and constitutional questions that propelled his 2016 run. Yet the dead angles that Kessler indicts in mainstream conservatism are not the usual. Beyond realigning away from libertarian economics and neoconservative foreign policy, the cultural deplorables of Trumpian imagery, he diagnoses, cried out for an almost romantic, wrapped-in-the-flag patriotism, uncompromising with the elite post-nationalism of even some mainstream Republicans. Before Trumps primary win sent GOP worthies on a dizzying soul-search, Claremont was reputed as the solitary rock that progressives march through the liberal arts couldnt wash away, a nucleus of academic counterculture in the Californian wilderness. It has since been joined by other thriving bastionsHillsdale, run by the 1776 Commissions President and Claremont founder Larry P. Arnn, and Claes Ryns Center for the Study of Statesmanship at Catholic University, to name just two. Yet Claremont remains its own species in Conservative Inc., synonymous with a purist suspicion of fellow scholars who deserted the sinking ship of academia for comfortable think-tank jobs supplying spreadsheets and boilerplate journalese for the policy fight du jour. Kesslers mission all along has been keeping the tablets, as biblically metaphorized in another compendium co-authored with William F. Buckley, Jr. on Reagans last year in office.

Granted, august credentials were first wed to coherent Trump endorsements in the pages of the Claremont Review. Yet equating Kesslers journal with intellectual Trumpism, as some press reports have done, overlooks its longer record of taboo-breaking on issues such as immigration and multiculturalism. It also misses the Rights larger travails to anchor its ongoing realignment on firm footing. Trumpian academics would come closer, though another post-2016 new normal is the blurred boundaries between run-of-the-mill punditry and highbrow specialism. Beyond the Claremont-compatible American Greatness, The American Conservative, and the NatCons, a mosaic of scholarly outlets has stepped into the heterodox space first cleared by Kessler & co. These include American Affairs, Julius Kreins journal-type effort to wrestle the monopoly of sound trade, state aid and immigration policy from Reaganite pieties, and American Compass, a media-savvy, think-tank type version of the same led by Oren Cass. The common creed of these emerging cliques is a looser approach to state power in the service of partisan ends, yet Claremonsters are cut from a special cloth, their unique persuasion built around how those ends are built. While not dismissive of policy argumentssome cut their teeth as Reagan aidestheir relevance is in the Claremonsters mind dwarfed by the context of constitutional decay in which they occur. Focusing on them exclusively as the republics foundations shift underfoot amounts to another form of disconnect with the base, akin to what Hillsdales David Azerrad decries as fiddling while Rome burns.

In this view, out-of-tune policies are at worstsymptoms of a deeper straying across the intertwined whole of American law, sentiment, and imagination, away from an originalist understanding of the Founders institutional legacy, underpinned by a robust communitarian, didactic and religious ethic. Fine-tuning a given consensus will at best amount to a band-aid, with the deeper constitutional bullet wound likely to manifest itself elsewhere. This emphasis on regime politicsthe pursuit of ends towards which the American experiment itself is orderedis Kesslers wake-up call to the post-Trump Right, one where the wonk-sage chasm palpable between Claremont and the Kreins and Casses of the world is shaping up to be a realignment within the realignment. Newer voices, some even calling for a new national-populist vehicle to dislodge the GOP, have rallied onto Kesslers premise that a conservatism fit for conquering and keeping power needs more than occasional policy wins on the marginthat snatching the Republic from the throes of its progressive assaulters and dismounting the myopic hacks on the partys front-seat are of equal importance. Once niches so diverse as Adrian Vermeules common-good constitutionalism and the Catholic integralists he has inspired, to name just two, have been sucked into the post-Trump vortex by this heightening of the stakes. Yet these arent factions battling for the Trumpian soul so much as persuasions vying to leave an imprint on its afterlife, still up for grabs by a partisan figurehead. Though a poster child of Trumps cultural and educational agendaearning the National Humanities Medal in 2019Claremont seems in fact resigned to political orphanage. Its crusade against constitutional decay synthesizes the warring spirit of the GOPs crop of new leadersSenators Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Josh Hawleyand the old guards constitutional sensibilitiesSenators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Ben Sassebut the events of early January have further deepened the gulf between these two groups.

So down to what comes the constitutional rot that so bedevils Claremont? Here again, much of the Rights future is gleaned from spotting Claremonts uniqueness not in its diagnosis of the status quootherwise identical to the standard Republican one since Barry Goldwaterbut in their belligerence in seeking to reverse it. As a first impression, the Institutes aloof stature amongst conservative mortals can mislead, its sincerity borne out by considerable investments in high-flying fellowships for constitutionalist jurists and pundits. For Claremont, the self-evident truths of natural equality of rights and governments just role in securing them isnt stump language, but a binding faith that should articulate all public life, lest its ultimate replacement by progressives competing philosophy of government ends the American experiment as we know it. Let alone the larger populace, these highbrow predicates may strike even Trumps base as abstract in an almost out-of-touch way, to say nothing of the instruction required to grasp their comparative significanceKessler was Harvey C. Mansfields doctoral student at Harvards government department in the early 1980s. Yet their erosion, Kesslers warning goes, is ultimately channeled in one form or another into normal politics, making Claremonts educational mission around the Founding principles a more defensively vital enterprise than the corporatist entre-soi of the Federalist Society, for instance.

If unaddressed, this philosophischer Kampf comes back to bite, also. That is Kesslers read of the connection between constitutional negligence and the Progressive waves spanning the twentieth century that threatens to accelerate in the twenty-first century, producing the altogether parallel constitutional culture alluded to by another Claremonsters broadside last year, Chris Caldwells The Age of Entitlement (2020). The role given to government in regulating American life since Woodrow Wilson, besides running roughshod over the Constitution, desensitizes Americans to its meaning, in turn feeding a vicious cycle of further assaults. When a Chronicle of Higher Education reporter asked for a one-sentence summation of Claremonts philosophy, Senior Fellow William Voegeli rung good-naturedly patronizingwe just happen to believe that governments just powers only stem from the consent of the governed.. Heightened woke morality and the credentialed expertise of unelected rulemakers, in this sense, have merely seized the vacuum of meaning left by the constitutionalist retreat diagnosed by Claremontbut the threat to the republics long-term viability is worse this time. The conservative habit of praising the Founding principles for little more than applause lines has spent their inner force, leaving us disarmed against the high moral ground of wokeism and the professed benevolence of the administrative state. The philosophical uprooting that both enemies thrive on is also fertile ground for cancel culture against old-fashioned patriotism, precisely enabling Trump to compensate his philistine ignorance of the Constitution with hard-edged bellicoseness la Claremont. His instinctive Americanismnot out of some abiding faith in the Founders truths but a self-interested reading of cultural tectonicsmade him neither better nor worse in Claremonts eyes than the fifteen other Republicans on that debate stage, but it did enlarge the toolkit. The stakes had never been higher, so the constitutional restorationists cheerfully rode the Trumpian Trojan horse.

The rest is here:

Donald Trump and the Art of the Faustian Deal - The National Interest

For all the predictions and talk of a slump in support among evangelicals, it appears Donald Trump's election loss was not at the hands of religious voters.

As an analyst of religious data, I've been crunching data released in March 2021 that breaks down the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by faith. And by and large there was very little notable change in the vote choice of religious groups between 2016 and 2020 in fact, for most faiths, support for Trump ticked up slightly. Instead, it was among those who do not identify with any religion that Trump saw a noticeable drop.

Despite exit poll data initially pointing toward a drop in white evangelical support for Trump in 2020, the latest data shows this not to be the case. The data is based on the Cooperative Election Study, which has become the gold standard for assessing vote choice because of its sample size and its ability to accurately represent the voting population of the United States.

In fact, with 80% of white evangelicals backing Trump in 2020, support actually ticked up from the 78% who voted for him four years earlier. Trump also saw two-point increases in the vote of nonwhite evangelicals, white Catholics, Black Protestants and Jews compared with four years ago.

These differences are not statistically significant, and as such it would be wrong to say it definitively shows Trump gained among religious groups. But it indicates that among the largest religious groups in the U.S., voting patterns in the November 2020 vote seemed to hold largely steady with four years earlier. Trump did not manage to win significantly larger shares, nor was winner Joe Biden able to peel away religious voters from the Trump coalition.

Losing the nonreligious

However, there are some interesting and statistically significant trends when you break down the data further. Nonwhite Catholics shifted four points toward Donald Trump. This fits with what we saw in places like the heavily Hispanic and Catholic Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Trump's overall vote share improved from 35% to 46% between 2016 and 2020.

Trump also managed to pick up 15 percentage points among the Mormon vote. On first glance this would appear a large jump. But it makes sense when you factor in that around 15% of the Mormon vote in 2016 went to Utah native and fellow Mormon Evan McMullin, who ran in that year's election as a third-party candidate. Without McMullin in 2020, Trump picked up Mormon voters as did Joe Biden, who did slightly better than Hillary Clinton had among Mormons.

There is also some weak evidence that the Republican candidate picked up some support among smaller religious groups in the U.S., like Hindus and Buddhists. Trump increased his share among these two groups by four percentage points each. But it is important to note that these two groups combined constitute only about 1.5% of the American population. As such, a four-point increase translates to only a very small fraction of the overall popular vote.

What is clear is that Trump lost a good amount of ground among the religious unaffiliated. Trump's share of the atheist vote declined from 14% in 2016 to just 11% in 2020; the decline among agnostics was slightly larger, from 23% to 18%.

Additionally, those who identify as "nothing in particular" a group that represents 21% of the overall U.S. population were not as supportive of Trump in his re-election bid. His vote share among this group dropped by three percentage points, while Biden's rose by more thanseven points, with the Democrat managing to win over many of the "nothing in particulars" who had backed third-party candidates in the 2016 election.

Looked at broadly, Trump did slightly better among Christians and other smaller religious groups in the U.S. but lost ground among the religiously unaffiliated. What these results cannot account for, however, is record turnout. There were nearly 22 million more votes cast in 2020 than in 2016. So while vote shares may not have changed that much, the number of votes cast helped swing the election for the Democratic candidate. A more detailed breakdown of voter turnout is due to be released in July 2021 by the team that administers the Cooperative Election Study; that will bring the picture of religion and the 2020 vote into clearer focus.

Ryan Burge, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Eastern Illinois University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Continue reading here:

Trump held steady among believers at the ballot it was the nonreligious vote he lost in 2020 - Salon

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Democratic U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur and other Congress members have joined an NAACP lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers over their roles in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The riot temporarily kept Kaptur and other members from doing their duty to record the electoral votes giving Joe Biden his presidential victory.

Were talking about the reasons for the lawsuit and the legal argument behind it on This Week in the CLE.

Listen online here.

Editor Chris Quinn hosts our daily half-hour news podcast with Leila Atassi and Jane Kahoun.

Youve been sending Chris lots of thoughts and suggestions on our from-the-newsroom account, in which he shares what were thinking about at cleveland.com. You can sign up for free by sending a text to 216-868-4802.

Here are the questions were answering today:

What is Congresswoman Marcy Kapturs claim against Donald Trump in a lawsuit over the Jan. 6insurrection in the U.S.Capitol?

How big is the broadband expansion that Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced Wednesday for East Cleveland?

Is Gov. MikeDeWine starting to regret setting the standard of 50 coronavirus cases per 100,000 in order to lift his health orders?

The Wolstein Center coronavirus vaccine clinic has been a rare and repeated source of good news during the pandemic. What did we find out that makes it even better news, especially for immigrants who might be here without necessary papers?

How is a Southern Ohio conservative trying to use election laws to pry loose more information about how Larry Householder used dark money to support sycophants who would be loyal to him in the Ohio Statehouse?

What do we know about the big Rocky River teacher purge announced Wednesday, with five resigning and one retiring?

How are some people in the Legislature trying to make things right for children who need expensive hearing aids?

Want more? You can find all our past episodes here.

We have an Apple podcasts channel exclusively for this podcast. Subscribe here.

Do you get your podcasts on Spotify? Find us here.

If you use Stitcher, we are here.

RadioPublic is another popular podcast vehicle, and we are here.

On Google Podcasts, we are here.

On PodParadise, find us here.

And on PlayerFM, we are here.

Read more:

To hold Donald Trump to account for the Jan. 6 riot, Marcy Kaptur joins a lawsuit against him: This Week in t - cleveland.com