Congress

An Elderly Lawmaker’s Staff Keeps Walking Back Things She Tells Reporters. Should They Keep Quoting Her?

Published

1 year ago

July 7, 2025

A few weeks ago, my Blue Light News colleague Nicholas Wu and NBC’s Sahil Kapur ran into D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton in the Capitol. Like good congressional reporters, they jumped at the opportunity to pepper a lawmaker about the news of the day. In this case, one question concerned Norton herself, a civil rights icon who is now the oldest House member: Would she run for another term next year, by which point she would be 89 years old? “Yeah, sure,” Norton said.

Coming on the heels of multiple stories about Norton’s alleged cognitive decline, the statement made news. But a few hours later, Norton’s office began unmaking that news. The Democrat “wants to run again but she’s in conversations with her family, friends, and closest advisors to decide what’s best,” a spokesperson told Wu. There was still no final decision.

It was all awkward and embarrassing — and did little to buttress Norton’s insistence that she’s as sharp as ever. And then, amazingly, it happened again. Last week, Kapur once again approached the delegate and asked about her plans. Once again, she said she’s running: “Yeah, I’m going to run for re-election.” And once again, her spokesperson quickly walked back the comment, telling Axios that “no decision has been made.”

The spokesperson, Sharon Nichols, did not offer any explanation for the discrepancy. She also didn’t respond when I asked her for details of what happened or whether journalists should take future Norton statements at face value.

That last question is relevant even if you don’t much care about the electoral plans of one non-voting delegate. For people interested in how Washington works, it’s an increasingly common issue in our era of gerontocracy: Just how are you supposed to interact with an elected official who might not be all there?

It’s an ongoing private conversation among reporters, animated by a sense that the watchdogs haven’t been zealous enough — but featuring no real agreement on how to handle these moments.

“I’m on the fence about it,” said New York Times congressional reporter Annie Karni, the author of her own recent piece about Norton’s struggles. “Is it newsworthy to be even doing this dance where you ask her a thing, she says something that makes no sense, and staff has to walk it back? Like, what are we doing? Or are we showing the problem? I don’t know what the answer is.”

“Every reporter has a story about this,” said Kristin Wilson, who was a BLN Capitol Hill producer until last year. Incidents that couldn’t be explained away sometimes made news, like the time the late GOP Sen. Thad Cochran got lost in the Capitol, or the time a colleague had to instruct late Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to “just say aye” at a vote. When Texas Rep. Kay Granger struggled with dementia at the end of her term last year, it fell to a Dallas news site to reveal it. But many quieter interactions involving nonsensical quotes never got published. “I think we have pulled punches,” Wilson said.

Wilson recalled an incident when her team was interviewing the late GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch for a story on senators’ hideaway offices: “Hatch kind of went off on a tangent of a story, and as he’s telling the story, his aide is just like looking at me and his eyes are just massive, like he knew Hatch had just sort of gone down a bad path.”

In the end, the tangent wasn’t germane to the story. “Blue Light News is like living in a small town,” Wilson said. “And you know all these people, and you’re around them all the time. Are you going to be that person in that small town that you’re in?”

For journalists, the answer to that question is supposed to be: Yes, that’s exactly who we are! But the exigencies of managing a Hill beat that requires a daily stream of scoops makes it tough to latch onto every potentially embarrassing comment. Publishing them, after all, might enrage the staffers who tip you to those scoops — and confuse readers who just want accuracy.

It turns out Norton’s staff had good reason to think they could simply contradict their boss’ comments without it becoming a story: There’s a long history of spokespeople cajoling media outlets into cleaning up the incorrect, impolitic, or downright addled things that lawmakers say when they get buttonholed by Capitol Hill reporters.

Oftentimes, these involve non-craven fixes. “My rule of thumb was that I’m not in the business of playing gotcha,” said Todd Gillman, a former longtime Washington bureau chief for the Dallas Morning News. “People misspeak. They mix up a bill, a vote or a person. There’s a slip of the tongue. I’ve always let people clean up things like that. I’m going for substance.”

Yet the culture of cleaning up makes it harder to say no when you suspect that the slip of the tongue may actually be the substance. “Seems like the tradeoffs don’t change, though the calculus might,” Gillman told me. “Are you willing to incur some wrath for ignoring their lobbying?” Until Joe Biden’s presidency pushed the national conversation about aging officials, the answer wasn’t always self-evident.

And it comes up particularly often in the Capitol, one of the strangest media environments in America, a place where beat reporters can count on running into VIPs in public hallways and asking for quotes on even the most obscure matters. It’s as if Hollywood reporters could count on buttonholing Clint Eastwood every time he was at the office.

For staffers, this means a lot of work keeping track of potential messes. Brad White, who ran Cochran’s senatorial office before the Republican’s retirement amid health problems at age 80, said his colleagues’ clean-up work was more often about vernacular than mental capacity. “He would confuse some reporters because somebody would say, ‘Well, how are y’all coming on the budget negotiations?’ And he would say something that was more of a generational statement from Mississippi, like, ‘Well, we’re getting down to the lip lock.’ And nobody knew what the hell that might mean.”

All the same, as Cochran struggled, White managed around the edges. “He was an older guy,” White said. “He’d have good days and bad days, and there were days maybe that I would decide today is not the day we need to talk about this issue.” In Cochran’s case, he said, the senator was planning to resign but the timing was complicated by a budget process. “If you’ve got a member that is facing those types of issues, and you can tell that they’re working their way out, then that deserves some grace,” he said. “If you got a member that has no business being there and they’re clutching onto it like the Pope, then maybe that’s worthy of a discussion.”

To their credit, Wu and Kapur both reported the interactions with Norton as they happened, and reported the office’s statements to the contrary. It was an easy call, they both told me: The question at issue — would Norton run again? — was personal and ultimately can only be answered by her. It’s not the same as flubbing details of a 1,000-page bill.

Ed Wasserman, the former dean of the University of California’s graduate school of journalism and a longtime writer about media ethics, thinks the journalistic hand-wringing about how to describe cringey moments may actually make it harder to enlighten the public: “One of the problems is that reporters routinely handle incoherence and inconsistency by ignoring it, so a decision to convey it to readers as significant already rests on a belief that there’s some underlying dysfunction,” he said.

Wasserman said the principled position ought to be that lawmakers’ moments of confusion are news, period. Cleaning it up “is not really an option,” Wasserman said. “This is clearly performance related. And their job performance is your job to report on.”

The challenge is that it’s also a reporter’s job to cover the day’s debate about a bill or a nomination. Inserting incoherent comments from a lawmaker can confuse most readers — even if it enlightens a subset of folks interested in that particular lawmaker’s state of mind. “It’s weird that in the Capitol, people know which lawmakers you can’t really talk to substantively, and avoid them,” said Karni. “When you’re not reporting on the age issue, which I have reported a lot on, I think it’s important to just know who is not able to participate like that.”

By way of example, she cites yet another kerfuffle over yet another Norton comment: In April, the lawmaker told a reporter that she might try to become the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. The news kicked off a round of Democratic agita about aging leadership clinging to power. Hours later, her office put out a statement from Norton taking herself out of contention. The incident may have said something about Norton, but it didn’t really help the (probably larger) number of people who just want to be up to date about the committee’s future.

“Is this productive? Is this fair? She’s clearly not running for Oversight. So having her say that, it created a dumb news cycle with this kind of faux outrage,” Karni said. “You could say, ‘Are you thinking about running for president?’ And she might say, ‘I’m thinking about it.’ So what are we doing when we’re asking that question?”

It makes for a weird status quo: One set of lawmakers who can be grilled about legislative issues, another who are considered out to lunch, everyone keeping secret mental lists of who’s who, and no one feeling able to publish them because, after all, who can really prove what’s going on in someone’s head?

“The conundrum is you’re not going to be able to reach that judgment without applying certain standards that you’re not necessarily able to reach because you’re not a psychiatrist or you don’t really know them,” Wasserman said. “But at the same time, you know enough. You see what’s an indication that they’re not enough in command of the intellectual challenges of the job. … You have no reason to apologize for that. It’s your job.”

Congress

Top House Judiciary Democrat escalates scrutiny of Paramount merger in new letter

Published

4 minutes ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats are ramping up their scrutiny of Paramount Skydance’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery — and previewing their plans to crack down on the merger if they win the majority next year.

In a new letter Wednesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland — the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee — invited Paramount CEO David Ellison to appear for a transcribed interview “to tell Congress and America your story and answer the Committee’s questions about your Donald Trump-enabled shopping spree to consolidate news organizations, movie studios, cable channels and streaming services.”

As a member of the minority party, Raskin has no power to force Ellison’s cooperation. A spokesperson for committee Republicans did not immediately return a request for comment about whether they were also interested in hearing from Ellison.

But should Democrats win back control of the House in the midterms, Raskin is expected to become the committee chair, and he would at that time have the power to exercise subpoena authority to compel Ellison’s testimony.

Raskin previewed his plans to ramp up oversight of the Paramount merger earlier this week, telling Blue Light News that the investigation is a “priority” and that “anyone involved should be prepared to answer under oath for their role in this brazen campaign to bend America’s free press to Donald Trump’s political, financial and personal will.”

A spokesperson for Paramount did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Paramount Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim, during a California policy summit Tuesday hosted by Blue Light News, said the company has been “transparent” and responsive to lawmaker’s concerns.

In his letter Wednesday, however, Raskin said that Ellison has not responded to four letters Judiciary Democrats have sent over the past year seeking clarity on the proposed $110 billion merger, which has sparked opposition from Democrats worried about antitrust violations, corruption and national security implications.

“The House Committee on the Judiciary is committed to scrutinizing how the antitrust laws are being enforced to promote the public interest; how market power abuses may be harming not only competition but consumers, workers, and the public generally; and whether the federal antitrust agencies are successfully promoting free competition and innovation — or whether they are using their governmental powers to distort the market and undermine freedom of speech and freedom of the press, in violation of the First Amendment,” Raskin wrote.

Congress

NRSC pushes Republicans to endorse Darline Graham

Published

4 minutes ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is officially throwing its support behind Sen. Darline Graham ahead of the primary runoff — and it wants other South Carolina Republicans to follow.

On Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, NRSC officials called the primary’s top finishers who didn’t make the runoff in South Carolina’s snap Senate primary — Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.), former Gov. Mark Sanford and businessman Mark Lynch — and urged them to endorse Sen. Darline Graham, according to two people with knowledge of the outreach, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

On Wednesday morning, NRSC Chair Tim Scott — South Carolina’s senior senator — publicly threw his support behind Graham, who secured a first place finish in Tuesday’s primary with early support from President Donald Trump.

“I voted for Darline in yesterday’s primary, and I’ll vote for her again in the runoff,” Scott said in a post on social media. “I’m proud to endorse Darline Graham for the U.S. Senate, and I encourage South Carolina Republicans across our state to join me in voting for her in the runoff.”

Scott hadn’t publicly endorsed Graham before Wednesday, though he told Blue Light News earlier this month that Graham “will win” the race.

“If I were going to endorse in the South Carolina GOP Senate primary, I wanted to do so with confidence,” he said in his Wednesday morning post. “After watching Darline Graham in the Senate and on the campaign trail, I’m confident she’s the real deal.”

Key to both Graham and Norman’s paths to victory in the two-week runoff sprint will be how quickly they can consolidate their former opponents’ support behind them. A similar push to secure backing from ex-rivals proved decisive for Attorney General Alan Wilson in his governor’s primary runoff win over Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette earlier this summer.

In a statement conceding the race on Tuesday night, Fry congratulated Graham and Norman but did not throw his support behind either candidate. Sanford similarly declined to endorse in an interview with a local television station, but left the possibility on the table.

Noel Fritsch, a spokesperson for Lynch, who also ran against then-Sen. Lindsey Graham, said that the Upstate businessman had already thrown his support behind Norman because the House Republican is “the only one capable of or interested in draining the swamp.”

Spokespeople for Norman, Graham and Fry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NRSC’s outreach, nor did Sanford respond.

Asked for comment, an NRSC spokesperson pointed to Scott’s social media post.

Congress

Capitol agenda: GOP mum on returning Miller’s campaign cash

Published

4 hours ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Max Miller gave more than $70,000 in campaign cash to over a dozen congressional Republicans in the cycle’s most competitive races.

So far, most of those members aren’t saying whether or not they will return it.

The Dependable Conservative Leadership PAC kicked money to 16 vulnerable GOP candidates for Congress, according to FEC filings. The PAC is aligned with Miller, who has continued his reelection bid while denying allegations of domestic abuse.

The donations put these members in a politically delicate position as they have welcomed the cash in their fights to hold onto their seats this November — and help the party protect its fragile majorities in both chambers.

Spokespeople in the congressional and campaign offices for 13 of the 16 candidates who took the Miller-aligned money did not respond to requests for comment on if they planned to return the funding.

Only the campaign for Rep. Brad Finstad said it had already returned its contribution.

Meanwhile, a campaign spokesperson for Rep. Mike Lawler said the incumbent Republican had no plans to relinquish the money. He instead slammed Democratic challenger Cait Conley for attending a fundraiser hosted by former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in 2008 after allegations of involvement in a prostitution ring.

And Derrick Van Orden, asked Tuesday night about the contribution he received from Miller during about an interview about the results of his state’s primary elections, refused to discuss the matter, calling the accusations against Miller “allegations” he had heard about “the day before yesterday.”

The recipients of Miller’s campaign cash who didn’t respond to inquiries include: Reps. Rob Bresnahan, Ryan Mackenzie, Brian Fitzpatrick, Zach Nunn, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Nick Begich III, Tom Barrett, Juan Ciscomani, Gabe Evans, Tom Kean Jr., Jen Kiggans, and David Valadao.

Sen. Jon Husted is also staying quiet about whether he’ll return the cash. He previously said Miller should not run for reelection after Emily Miller — Max Miller’s ex-wife and Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno‘s daughter — accused her former husband of assaulting herself and their young child.

Democrats are already seizing on the matter, with a campaign spokesperson for Mackenzie’s opponent, Bob Brooks, saying in a statement the GOP incumbent is “open for business for whoever’s willing to pay up, no questions asked.”

Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Tuesday Democrats are “shameless hypocrites who conveniently look the other way when their vulnerable members are bankrolled by scandal-plagued Democrats like [former Rep.] Eric Swalwell.”

The NRCC also claimed that some of the Democrats who said they’d give away Swalwell campaign contributions have, in fact, not returned the money as promised.

Unlike Miller, Swalwell resigned in April and ended his gubernatorial bid in California amid intense pressure from inside his own party over sexual assault allegations he denies.

What else we’re watching:

— NANCY PELOSI CORRECTS THE RECORD ON BIDEN: For the first time, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi disclosed what she told President Joe Biden before he withdrew his 2024 presidential reelection bid. “I only said to President Biden, ‘I’ve come to question the polling that you have and how your campaign is being conducted. I think there has to be a better campaign to win the White House,’” she shared Tuesday. Pelosi’s comments — shared on stage with Jonathan Martin at Blue Light News’s The California Agenda: Sacramento Summit — shed new light on the scramble that led to Biden dropping his campaign. But she pushed back on the narrative that she puppeteered the president’s withdrawal. She added she advised Biden to hear from outside pollsters and told him, “I think the public would like to hear that you’ve had testing that demonstrates that you can serve.”

— JEFFRIES VAGUE ON IMMIGRATION AGENDA: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Tuesday said Democrats are “committed to an accountability agenda” on immigration should they take the majority. But the New Yorker offered few specifics on what immigration policies a future House Democratic majority might pursue. “We’ll have a conversation about what dramatic change looks like” after November, Jeffries said, adding that what “unites the entirety of the House Democratic caucus family” is that “immigration enforcement should be fair, just and humane in this country.”

Riley Rogerson and Joey Fox contributed to this report.