James Middleton, Kate Middleton’s younger brother, recently provided an update regarding her cancer treatment, indicating that the Princess of Wales is doing “OK” after completing chemotherapy earlier this month. James expressed confidence that Kate is receiving top-notch care.

During a September 26 appearance on *Today*, he said, “It’s not for me to share on her behalf how everything is going, but she’s getting all the right support and focus that she needs.” While acknowledging that Kate, who disclosed her cancer diagnosis in March, is improving, he noted that her battle is ongoing, stating, “Like anything, it takes time to process.”

James also shared that Kate and her husband, Prince William, have been vital sources of support for him during his own struggles with clinical depression. “Catherine and William have both been involved in mental health charities, from which I got help,” he explained. “They served as a fantastic bridge for me to convey my feelings to the family.”

This isn’t the first time James has publicly supported Kate’s wellness. Following her diagnosis announcement in March, he shared an encouraging message on Instagram, stating, “Over the years, we have climbed many mountains together. As a family, we will climb this one with you too.”

Kate made her first public appearance since completing chemotherapy by attending a church service in Scotland earlier this month. In a September 9 video message, she expressed her focus on staying cancer-free. “Although I have finished chemotherapy, my path to healing and full recovery is long, and I must continue to take each day as it comes,” said the Princess of Wales, who is the mother of Prince George, 11, Princess Charlotte, 9, and Prince Louis, 6.

Kate Middleton Completes Chemotherapy

On September 9, the Princess of Wales announced that she had completed her chemotherapy treatment after being diagnosed with an unspecified type of cancer earlier this year. In a video statement, she reflected on the complexities and challenges of her cancer journey. “The cancer journey is complex, scary, and unpredictable for everyone, especially those closest to you,” she stated. “It brings you face to face with your own vulnerabilities and offers a new perspective on everything.”

Despite completing chemotherapy, Kate emphasized that her road to recovery is ongoing, expressing eagerness to return to work and participate in public engagements when possible.

Kate’s First Formal Appearance Since Diagnosis

Kate returned to public life on June 15, attending the Trooping the Colour ceremony in London with Prince William and their three children.

Updates on Other Royals

In other royal news, Princess Anne was recently discharged from the hospital after a five-day stay following a concussion sustained at her estate. Her husband, Tim Laurence, thanked the medical staff for their care.

On the health front, nearly three months after announcing her cancer diagnosis, Kate shared on Instagram that she is “making good progress” but experiences “good days and bad days.” She highlighted the importance of rest during her weaker moments while cherishing the stronger days.

Meanwhile, King Charles III and Queen Camilla continue to fulfill their royal duties while managing their health challenges. Charles was diagnosed with cancer during a recent hospital stay but remains positive about his treatment.

Lastly, Princess Claire and Prince Felix of Luxembourg welcomed a new baby, Balthazar Felix Karl, marking the first royal birth of the year.

US military member set himself on fire in front of an Israeli embassy today. What are your thoughts? He said he didn’t want to take part in genocide

U.S. Air Force Member Sets Self on Fire Outside Israel’s Embassy in D.C. to Protest War in Gaza

An active-duty member of the U.S. Air Force set himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, in apparent protest of the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, which he described as a “genocide.”

DC Fire and EMS (DC FEMS) said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that it responded to an incident outside the embassy at 12:58 p.m. to find the fire extinguished by U.S. Secret Service members. Secret Service spokesperson Joe Routh told TIME in a statement that officers of its uniformed division responded to what appeared as “an individual that was experiencing a possible medical / mental health emergency.”

The burn victim, who identified himself in video of the incident as 25-year-old Aaron Bushnell, reportedly succumbed to his injuries on Sunday night, according to independent journalist Talia Jane, who posted on social media that she is in contact with Bushnell’s family and friends.

DC FEMS initially said an adult male was transported with critical, life-threatening injuries to an area hospital, and authorities have confirmed neither the identity nor updated condition or status of the person when asked by TIME.

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) said in a post on X that it also investigated a suspicious vehicle near the scene but that no hazardous materials were found. Embassy spokesperson Tal Naim told media outlets that no embassy personnel were injured. Secret Service, MPD, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are investigating the incident.

Spokespersons for the U.S. Air Force confirmed to CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post that the man who set himself on fire, prior to his public identification, was an active-duty airman. Defense Department policy states that service members on active duty should “not engage in partisan political activity.” Military regulations also prohibit wearing the uniform during “unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration which may imply sanction or endorsement by [the Defense Department] or the Military Service.”

Bushnell, who was wearing fatigues on Sunday in Washington, was a DevOps engineer based in San Antonio, Texas, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Bushnell reportedly sent a message to media outlets before his planned self-immolation. “​​Today, I am planning to engage in an extreme act of protest against the genocide of the Palestinian people,” he warned. He also reportedly live-streamed the act on the web-broadcasting platform Twitch, which has since removed the video for guideline violations and has not responded to a request for comment from TIME.

“I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I’m about to engage in an extreme act of protest,” the airman repeated, in footage reviewed by TIME, as he walked toward the driveway of the Israeli embassy. “But compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.”

After Bushnell doused himself with liquid and reached for his lighter, unidentified law enforcement or security officers could be heard asking off-screen, “Can I help you?” After setting himself aflame, he repeatedly shouted “Free Palestine.”

Protests have become commonplace against Israel’s military actions in Gaza as well as against U.S. support for Israel since war broke out after the Oct. 7 assault from Palestinian militant group Hamas that Israeli officials claim killed about 1,200 people. Gaza’s health ministry, overseen by Hamas, has said that Tel Aviv’s bombardment of the enclave has in turn killed some 30,000 people.

Israel’s diplomatic outposts have since become sustained areas of protest against the war in the Middle East, and it is not the first time someone had set themselves on fire outside it.

Self-immolation has a long history as a form of protest, gaining particular prominence during the Vietnam war and in Tunisia during the Arab Spring.

In December, an unidentified person with a Palestinian flag was left in critical condition after they lit themself on fire outside the Israeli consulate in Atlanta.

In her complaint, the woman claimed that Mewaram Jain raped her. She also alleged that the former Congress leader molested her in front of her minor daughter. The complainant had also mentioned about two obscene videos in the FIR. And the two videos going viral are said to be related to the same incident.

Mewaram Jain, former MLA of Congress from Barmer, Rajasthan, has been in the headlines once again for his two videos, which are going viral on social media. Notably, a rape case is already underway against Mewaram Jain, and it is alleged that the videos are related to the same case. The development comes a few days after a woman filed a rape case against nine people, including the former Congress MLA. In her complaint, the woman claimed that Mewaram Jain raped her. She also alleged that the former Congress leader molested her in front of her minor daughter. The complainant had also mentioned about two obscene videos in the FIR. And the two videos going viral are said to be related to the same incident. It is alleged that the person in the video is Mevaram Jain. Although the FIR mentions two videos, the question is how the clips leaked.

mewaram jain video, mewaram jain cd, barmer mla, mevaram jain, barmer viral video, #RTH, mevaram jain viral video, mevaram jain video, mevaram jain cd, mewaram jain, barmer cd, mewaram jain viral video, mevaram jain scandal, mevaram jain rajasthan, mevaram jain member of the legislative assembly, mevaram jain indian national congress, mewaram jain scandal, mewaram jain rajasthan, mewaram jain member of the legislative assembly, mewaram jain indian national congress

A Ukrainian village councilor set off hand grenades at a meeting in an attack that was captured on video and left 26 people wounded, the country’s national police said Friday. The incident took place Friday morning at the headquarters of the village council of Keretsky, in western Ukraine’s mountainous Zakarpattia region.

A video posted by the police on Facebook showed a man dressed in black entering a council meeting during a heated discussion. The faces of the man and other people in the meeting are blurred in the clip.

The man then pulled three hand grenades from his pockets, released the safety pins and dropped them on the floor, triggering explosions as those in the meeting scream.

“As a result, 26 people were wounded, six of whom are in a grave condition,” the police statement said, adding that medics were trying to resuscitate the man who threw the grenades.

The police said the Ukrainian secret service (SBU) had opened a terrorism investigation. Police also opened a probe into the illegal handling of weapons.

The video released by the police came from a live video stream of the meeting provided by the town council on social media, which showed the man walking in more than 1.5 hours into the debate and standing momentarily by the door before taking the grenades from his pockets.

It then showed chaos inside the small room, which went dark and was filled with smoke, with injured people on the floor.

Authorities did not name the man but the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper reported that he was identified as Serhiy Batryn, a parliamentarian who is a member of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party.

A woman who was watching the live broadcast of the council session reported the explosion to authorities, Ukrainian Pravda reported.

A frisky Congressional staffer has been accused of filming an amateur gay porn video inside a Senate hearing room.

The employee had sex with an unknown man within the confines of the politically significant building, according to the Daily Caller.

A video obtained by the outlet shows the staffer allegedly engaging in sex acts within what appears to be a conference room in the Hart Senate Office Building.

The staffer is seen in a separate picture naked and on all fours on a table where Senators often sit and ask questions during hearings.

Footage of the explicit scene initially shows the staffer allegedly having sex with an unknown man.

It then pans to show off the interior of the clearly identifiable Senate hearing room.

A separate photo published by the Daily Caller shows the man on his hands and knees facing the camera while only wearing a jock strap.

The content was allegedly shared in a private group for gay men in the political scene.

A public account on X regularly shows the young man, who identifies as a ‘twink’, engaging in sex acts with his older ‘bear’ partner.

The images and videos are explicit in nature and contain his face, according to The Spectator.

Congressman Mike Collins reacted to the video on social media and hit out at the actions of the alleged staffer.

‘Heck of a week for the Left,’ he wrote. ‘Gay porn in the Senate, swearing in ceremony on child porn in Virginia, t****y tap dancers in the White House, and Satanic statues in Iowa. What else am I missing?’

Special counsel Jack Smith has withdrawn a subpoena seeking records about fundraising by the political action committee Save America — a group that is controlled by former president Donald Trump and whose activities related to efforts to block the results of the 2020 presidential election have come under investigation, people familiar with the matter said.

The withdrawal of the subpoena earlier this month indicates Smith is scaling back at least part of his inquiry into the political fundraising work that fed and benefited from unfounded claims that the election was stolen, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation.

Save America was still working to gather all of the records sought in the subpoena when it was notified by Smith’s office that the demand for information had been withdrawn, two of the people familiar with the matter said. The federal indictment of Trump filed in August, which charged him with four counts related to alleged obstruction of the 2020 election, does not refer specifically to Save America.

A spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment on the withdrawal of the Save America subpoena. Smith’s office issued a flurry of similar subpoenas to other groups and individuals earlier this year, probing Trump campaign officials, Republican operatives and others about fundraising related to efforts to overturn the presidential election in the months before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

A representative for Save America declined to comment.

“It is not unusual for prosecutors to cast a broad net in seeking documents at the outset of an investigation,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice. While it’s difficult to say where this part of Smith’s probe is ultimately headed, Mintz said, the withdrawn subpoena “may simply reflect a pragmatic decision to narrow the scope of the investigation.”

Broadly, the subpoenas and related interviews by Smith’s investigators sought information about the post-election, pro-Trump fundraising, and what people inside Save America and other groups knew about the veracity of the claims they were making to raise money, the people familiar with the matter said.

The Save America PAC was founded in the wake of the 2020 election. The group raised more than $100 million, largely on fundraising appeals that made baseless claims that Democrats had conducted widespread voter fraud and stolen the election from Trump, when in fact Joe Biden had defeated the incumbent president.

Save America has been a key source of funding not just for political activities, but also for the legal costs associated with the various state and federal investigations that have resulted in four separate indictments of Trump — the election-obstruction case in D.C., a state-level election-obstruction case in Georgia, a classified-documents case in Florida and a state-level case in New York involving a hush money payment in the 2016 election. In two cases, Trump’s aides or advisers also were charged.

The PAC has spent tens of millions of dollars on legal bills for Trump, who has denied wrongdoing, and those around him.

While interviewing potential witnesses associated with Trump, Smith’s prosecutors have asked pointed questions about who is paying for their lawyers and why, people familiar with the questions have said. Trump advisers have said the Save America PAC, which raises most of its money through small-dollar contributions by Trump supporters across the country, is footing the legal bills for almost anyone drawn into the Trump investigations who requests help from the former president and his advisers.

While false fundraising claims by nonprofit or commercial groups can be and sometimes are prosecuted federally or locally as crimes, historically the Justice Department and state authorities have given wide latitude to political organizations, even ones that make outlandish claims not supported by evidence, partly out of a reluctance to try to police political activity.

A subpoena withdrawal doesn’t mean that a case is closed or that investigators’ interest in the subject has ended, but it does indicate that prosecutors no longer think the information they once demanded is necessary for their work. Nothing prevents Smith’s team from reviving a particular demand for records if they change their minds later.

Four people with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors had not asked questions about fundraising in recent months, after several subpoenas and witness interviews on that topic earlier in 2023.

One unanswered question in the D.C. election-obstruction investigation is whether Smith plans to seek indictments of six alleged co-conspirators described in the indictment as having plotted with the former president to try to block Biden’s victory.

The indictment filed this summer does not explicitly identify the six individuals, but it offers certain information about their alleged conduct. That information clearly matches with what is known about five lawyers involved in Trump’s efforts: Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, and Kenneth Chesebro. All five have denied wrongdoing. The Washington Post has not confirmed the identity of the sixth alleged co-conspirator.

Trump is tentatively scheduled to go to trial in the D.C. case in March. While the indictment charges a multipart, multi-person conspiracy by him and others, prosecutors have given no indication that they plan to indict anyone else to join him at the defense table in that trial.

For nearly three years, the pillow entrepreneur Mike Lindell has been one of the leading financial supporters of the election denial movement, a tireless promoter of false claims that Donald J. Trump won the 2020 election and of efforts to change how Americans vote.

But recent public records, as well as interviews with Mr. Lindell and others, suggest that he is facing financial troubles.

Lawyers defending Mr. Lindell in several defamation lawsuits this week filed to withdraw from the cases, citing “millions” of dollars in unpaid fees. The withdrawal would leave Mr. Lindell without a lawyer in lawsuits where plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 billion in damages.

In an interview, Mr. Lindell said he didn’t blame his lawyers for dropping him. “They have to feed their families,” he said. He said that his activism related to the 2020 election had contributed to his financial woes.

In a filing late on Friday, Smartmatic, one of the firms suing Mr. Lindell for defamation, said it did not object to the withdrawal of lawyers but expressed concern that he was using the news “as an opportunity to fund-raise for his election fraud campaign.” The voting equipment firm noted that Mr. Lindell had already sent out a fund-raising email seeking $200,000 from supporters that invoked his lawyers’ motion.

Since 2021, Mr. Lindell, the chief executive of the bedding company MyPillow and a Trump associate, has financed conferences, legal efforts and even his own digital media venture to further unproven or debunked conspiracy theories regarding the use of voting machines to steal the 2020 election.

He has worked with state-level groups across the country, and continues to speak with activists on weekly conference calls. And he has used MyPillow advertising to support a range of conservative and right-wing media, including many outlets that amplify his claims.

Mr. Lindell says he has directly spent as much as $60 million on his political endeavors.

Days after Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Lindell was photographed entering a brief meeting at the White House with Mr. Trump, carrying notes on which the phrase “martial law if necessary” was visible. That month, MyPillow lost brick-and-mortar distribution contracts with major big-box retailers. (The stores offered a variety of explanations unrelated to Mr. Lindell’s politics.) Last year, after Walmart pulled the company’s products from its stores, it recorded a loss of $7 million, according to Mr. Lindell. MyPillow is a private company, and these figures could not be independently verified.

Property records show that one of the two residences he owns through a limited-liability corporation is under an Internal Revenue Service lien for $4.6 million in unpaid taxes from 2020. Mr. Lindell said the lien was related to an ongoing negotiation over a tax write-off for an investment in a pharmaceutical company.

Editors’ Picks

A Jack-o’-lantern by Any Other Name, Lewis Is Defining Halloween

How to Protect Your Retirement From Nagging Inflation

Bedbugs, and Everything Else to Know About Fashion Month
In April, an arbitration panel ordered Mr. Lindell to pay $5 million to a software engineer who took up Mr. Lindell’s challenge to debunk data he claims proves that the 2020 election was hacked. Mr. Lindell has refused to pay the engineer, Robert Zeidman, and both men have filed lawsuits over the matter.

In August, Mr. Lindell said, American Express cut his line of credit to $100,000 from $1 million, effectively ending his ability to pay his lawyers in the defamation suits. The decision, he said, was an “absolute hit job” related to his political activities, though he said the company had not said as much.

American Express did not comment on Mr. Lindell’s credit, but said in a statement that it “does not make customer decisions based on personal views or political affiliations. Our risk and underwriting models take into account a number of financial factors, including business inflows and outflows, and credit history.”

On Thursday, Andrew Parker, a lawyer at the Minneapolis firm Parker Daniels Kibort who has represented Mr. Lindell in many of his recent legal battles, filed motions to withdraw from the defamation suits filed by Dominion Voting Systems, Smartmatic, and Eric Coomer, the former director of product strategy and security at Dominion.

Mr. Parker did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, he stated that Mr. Lindell started falling behind on payments early this year, and on Oct. 2, Mr. Lindell informed the firm that he and his company were “not able to get caught up or make any payment” on the “millions of dollars” owed to the firm.

Dominion also sued Fox News on similar grounds, and this April it reached a $787.5 million settlement with the media company. Asked if he had considered settling his own suit, Mr. Lindell said, “Absolutely not.”

It remains to be seen how Mr. Lindell’s finances will affect the broader election denial movement or the conservative news media, which he had helped finance on multiple fronts.

In emails and interviews, several influential activists said that Mr. Lindell continued to be an important figure in the movement, though some noted that their financial support came from other backers. Other donors contributed about one-third the cost of a conference Mr. Lindell hosted in Missouri in August, Mr. Lindell and other participating activists said.

MyPillow’s advertising and revenue-sharing agreements with conservative media have been a major source of support for right-wing figures, such as Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump adviser who has a revenue-sharing agreement to promote MyPillow on his “War Room” podcast. Such promotions have increased slightly in the last year, according to the analytics companies iSpot.tv, which covers television advertising, and Magellan.ai, which covers podcasts.

Mr. Bannon has been highlighting Mr. Lindell’s financial woes on his show, portraying Mr. Lindell as the victim of corporate and government overreach and imploring viewers to buy more pillows to support him, which boosts sales. He is planning to host his show from Mr. Lindell’s Minnesota factory in the coming weeks, he said.

WASHINGTON — Dissident Republicans in the U.S. House voted with Democrats on Tuesday to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker, a historic move that came just nine months after he secured the gavel following days of negotiating with the GOP’s right flank and 15 rounds of voting.

It wasn’t immediately clear after the vote how the House would proceed in the coming days, having entered uncharted territory. No speaker has ever before been removed by the House. North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry was named speaker pro tem until the election of a new speaker.

The 216-210 vote on a motion to vacate, which Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz filed Monday evening, capped off months of growing dissent among a small group of House Republicans.

Republican Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ken Buck of Colorado, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eli Crane of Arizona, Gaetz, Bob Good of Virginia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Matt Rosendale of Montana voted to remove McCarthy.

They also voted against tabling the motion, which took place just before the vote and would have stopped the process from moving forward.

Warren Davidson of Ohio, Cory Mills of Florida and Victoria Spartz of Indiana voted against tabling, but for keeping McCarthy as speaker.

All House Democrats present voted to declare the office of the speaker vacant.

So far, there have only been three instances where a motion to vacate was filed, one in March 1910, one in July 2015 and the one this month.

Only three motions to vacate in history

McCarthy said before the vote that he was calling Gaetz’s bluff, though he appeared to accept he would be ousted as speaker.

“At the end of the day, if you throw a speaker out that has 99% of their conference, that kept the government open and paid the troops — I think we’re in a really bad place for how we’re going to run Congress,” McCarthy said.

The California Republican said he believed his support for passing a bipartisan short-term spending bill on Saturday, preventing a partial government shutdown, was the “right decision.”

“I stand by that decision and at the end of the day, if I have to lose my job over it, so be it,” McCarthy said. “I’ll continue to fight.”

McCarthy excoriated

Gaetz and other hard-line conservatives have publicly rebuked McCarthy for not holding to a private deal he struck with them in January in order to secure the speakership.

The group of GOP lawmakers, some of whom are in the Freedom Caucus, have lamented McCarthy striking an agreement with President Joe Biden in May to avoid a default on the nation’s debt and for relying on Democratic votes to pass the short-term government spending bill.

Gaetz, speaking Monday on the floor, called on McCarthy to detail whether he had brokered a private deal with Biden to hold a vote on legislation that would provide additional aid to Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion. He also criticized McCarthy for reportedly adding border security to those talks.

“I get that a lot of folks might disagree with my perspectives on the border or Ukraine,” Gaetz said. “But could we at least agree that no matter how you feel about Ukraine or the Southern border, they each deserve the dignity of their own consideration and should not be rolled together.”

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a “Dear Colleague” letter just before the vote announcing House Democrats would vote to vacate the chair.

“Given their unwillingness to break from MAGA extremism in an authentic and comprehensive manner, House Democratic leadership will vote yes on the pending Republican Motion to Vacate the Chair,” Jeffries wrote.

The group of Republican dissenters who voted to remove McCarthy represents a small fraction of the House Republican Conference, many of whom backed McCarthy on the floor Tuesday and defended his record.

GOP supporters: ‘He did the right thing’

“He’s being punished because he did the right thing on Saturday and made sure that the government didn’t shut down, and we bought more time to continue the appropriations process,” GOP Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma told reporters.

Cole offered the motion to table on behalf of McCarthy.

Arkansas GOP Rep. Steve Womack told reporters before the vote the motion to vacate was a distraction and a “fool’s errand.”

Womack, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, said Republicans should focus on clearing all 12 appropriations bills before the new mid-November deadline.

“We just took the country to the brink of a shutdown for the purpose of what? Moving the rest of our appropriation bills,” Womack said. “We need to finish our work, and the only way to do that is to pass the rule and get these bills across the floor and move to the Senate in conference.”

Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota told reporters Gaetz’s push for a motion to vacate showed there are “middle school grudges” against McCarthy.

“I think that Matt (Gaetz) is making a huge error,” Johnson said. “I think America is gonna be less well off because of his efforts. I think chaos has not served this country.”

Republican Rep. Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma told reporters she was skeptical of the motivations some have stated for removing McCarthy as speaker.

“This isn’t about the appropriations process, and don’t be fooled. (Gaetz) wants to talk about the fact that we should have been doing our (appropriations) work in August. Look, it didn’t happen. So now is the time, and instead of focusing on that for the next 43 days, we’re going to be focusing on this,” Bice said.

GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania told reporters that Republicans should focus on clearing legislation to fully fund the government and work on getting aid to Ukraine.

“If we vacate the chair, the government will shut down, our credit rating will go down, interest rates will go up,” Fitzpatrick said. “Ukraine will be victimized and lose that war to Russia. That is what is at stake here.”

Democrats cheer behind closed doors

Democrats huddled behind closed doors for nearly 90 minutes Tuesday morning to plot a path forward and allow members to speak for up to one minute about the motion to vacate. Rounds of applause and some cheering could be heard from the hallway outside the meeting.

Democratic lawmakers said after the meeting that McCarthy hadn’t built trust.

New Hampshire Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster told reporters the party had “unity of purpose” ahead of the vote.

“What has happened that all of you have witnessed and the American people have witnessed is that the current speaker has chosen to cater to a very extreme element that, in my view, it’s sort of a post-truth world,” Kuster said. “I think you can see that within his own caucus, but you can certainly see it in the way he’s treated us and the American people.”

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat, told reporters that the House GOP could “wallow in their pigsty of incompetence and inability to govern.”

Jayapal said that Republican infighting about who their speaker should be was not an issue that Democrats felt the need to solve. She also noted that McCarthy has repeatedly broken trust with Democrats, making the party reluctant to help him keep the speakership.

“Nobody trusts Kevin McCarthy, and why should we? He has broken his commitment over and over again,” Jayapal said.

McCarthy, Jayapal said, has made a series of decisions that have eroded any support he would have had from Democrats. Those include his public comments following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by pro-Trump rioters, his decision to walk away from a spending agreement he and Biden brokered earlier this year and his decision to withhold bringing a bill to the floor that would provide additional aid to Ukraine.

“Kevin McCarthy stood on the House floor and said one thing and then talked to Donald Trump and immediately did something else,” Jayapal said. “He has supported the insurrectionist president that enabled January 6 to happen and tried to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.”

Jeffries, a New York Democrat, told reporters before the vote the party would “continue to put people over politics and to fight to make life better for everyday Americans.”

“From the very beginning that has been our objective and it will continue to be our sole focus,” Jeffries said. “We encourage our Republican colleagues, who claim to be more traditional, to break from the extremists.”

Jeffries said that Democrats were “ready, willing and able to work together with GOP lawmakers.

“But it is on them to join us to move the Congress and the country forward,” Jeffries said.

Rep. Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat, told reporters after the closed-door meeting there wasn’t “a lot of goodwill in that room for Kevin McCarthy.”

“If you’re gonna negotiate, you have to negotiate with somebody you can trust who can actually keep their word,” Neal said. “And there’s not been a lot of evidence that Kevin McCarthy has kept his word along the way.”

Disputes over spending, Ukraine

Just hours before a shutdown would have begun this weekend, Congress approved a short-term bill to fund the government until Nov. 17. The House passed the stopgap measure in a 335-91 vote, with 90 Republicans opposing it. Senators approved the bill 88-9, with nine Republicans opposed.

The deal didn’t include additional funding for Ukraine, though Biden said Sunday that he and McCarthy agreed to find the votes needed to pass a supplemental package with military assistance and humanitarian relief for the war-torn country as it resists further invasion by Russia.

The stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown was not the only time McCarthy worked with Democrats to avert financial calamity. In May the speaker brokered a deal with Biden to raise the debt ceiling and keep the U.S. from defaulting on its loans.

The deal, signed into law as the Fiscal Responsibility Act, included agreed-upon spending levels for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

McCarthy has been unable to unify his far-right members around the established spending levels during this year’s appropriations process, bringing the federal government within hours of a partial shutdown.

House lawmakers on the far-right of the spectrum have been browbeating McCarthy since before he took the gavel.

McCarthy’s path to the speakership in January took 15 ballots as more than a dozen far-right conservatives blocked him during a four-day stalemate.

The California Republican won on the 15th ballot after several concessions to the ultra-conservative wing of his party, including a change to the motion to vacate that will allow any one member to essentially call for a no-confidence vote on the speaker.

McCarthy also reserved spots on key committees for far-right members and entered a handshake deal with members of the House Freedom Caucus, promising to cut spending levels.

In today’s political landscape, characterized by increased polarization and reduced productivity, the documentary “Carterland” provides a fresh perspective on the often criticized one-term presidency of Jimmy Carter. It portrays his time in office as a comprehensive and largely successful endeavor in addressing challenges.

The documentary sets the stage with the measured words of the late Walter Mondale, Carter’s running mate in 1976, who challenges the common narrative about President Carter. He asserts, “The usual narrative about President Carter is, ‘He’s a nice guy and a good person, a great ex-president, but he’s a failed president who couldn’t rise to the challenges of his time.’ That’s the story we’ve been told, but it’s all wrong.”

The film aims to correct this prevailing narrative by highlighting Carter’s accomplishments while providing context for his less successful moments. For instance, it delves into how Carter led by example in energy conservation, opting to wear sweaters instead of cranking up the heat. He even ventured into cutting-edge territory by installing solar panels on the White House roof in 1979, a concept that sounded like science fiction at the time.

The documentary raises questions about what could have transpired if the nation had continued investing in clean energy. Conservation activist and former Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario reflects on this missed opportunity.

Additionally, the film sheds light on other Carter administration achievements:

– The Camp David Accord, where President Carter personally shuttled proposals between Israeli and Egyptian presidents who refused direct communication.
– The Ethics in Government legislation, a response to Watergate, which established the independent counsel mechanism to investigate allegations of presidential misconduct.
– Carter’s efforts to diversify the federal judiciary by appointing 40 female judges, a significant departure from its history of just eight female judges.

“Carterland” omits certain infamous aspects of Carter’s presidency, such as his controversial “lust in my heart” remark in a Playboy interview, which nearly derailed his election campaign. It also touches only briefly on the long gas lines and provides a somewhat nuanced portrayal of the Iran hostage crisis.

The filmmakers, the Pattiz Brothers, are unabashed partisans, but they skillfully weave a compelling narrative of Carter’s political capital expenditure. They highlight his renegotiation of the Panama Canal treaty, the appointment of Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker, and his defiance of the oil industry by designating vast areas of Alaska as National Parkland, effectively preventing drilling for a generation.

The documentary paints Carter as an honorable leader who consistently pursued what he believed was right. His legacy is exemplified by his post-presidential work, including receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in human rights, fair elections, and Habitat for Humanity, among other causes.

While “Carterland” does not delve into Carter’s post-presidential years, it captures the essence of his presidency. As Andrew Young, Carter’s ambassador to the United Nations, aptly puts it, “We may not fully appreciate Jimmy Carter’s greatness as a president until he has moved on to the next life.” This film offers a compelling argument for reconsidering Carter’s legacy.