Most Republicans to skip Trump's midterm convention, Politico survey shows

Republicans are steering clear of the upcoming GOP convention for fear that Donald Trump's rhetoric could hurt their chances in November.

A Politico survey of more than 70 Republican candidates and party members found that most were not planning to attend the two-day event, which begins September 9. Others were still debating whether to participate, and dozens more refused to disclose their plans.

A First-of-Its-Kind Convention

The Dallas-based event will be the first GOP midterm convention in American history. Trump and Vice President JD Vance are both expected to deliver speeches to the conservative assembly. The unprecedented conference appears to have been created out of an eleventh-hour necessity rather than a nationalistic groundswell, aiming to give Republicans a boost ahead of a contentious midterm cycle. However, many candidates feel that showing face at the event could only damage their odds.

Reasons for Absence

Some 45 Republicans told Politico they were skipping the convention due to obligations—such as fundraisers, weddings, or college tours—that were planned before the convention was announced in June.

But another group of conservatives planned to avoid the event, which has been dubbed "Trump-a-palooza," in order to avoid being held accountable for the president's inflammatory rhetoric.

"I just felt I'd be more useful in my district," Representative Tom Barrett told Politico. "I travel a lot for this job and if I can be back home and see my family and do the job back home as well, then that's sort of what I lean toward doing."

Barrett is in a tough battle against progressive William Lawrence for Michigan's pivotal 7th District. When asked if Trump's comments could make that race harder, Barrett told the outlet: "I can't control what the president's going to say at the convention, but I can control where I'm at, what I'm doing."

Another House Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Politico the convention is a "waste of time" and that the event planning was a "mess."

"You shouldn't be having to rally your base at this point," the member said. "You should be trying to convince independents. Independents are not attending nor watching the midterm convention."

High Costs and Corporate Sponsorship

Most major party conventions are centered on a specific item of business, such as formally nominating a presidential candidate. But this event will offer no such line items. Instead, it has been billed as a big Republican party—and the ticket prices reflect that.

The two-day convention has asked House members to pay a minimum of $25,000 to get in the door with a guest. Better packages have been priced closer to $100,000.

The conference has also been backed by corporate sponsors, with proceeds being funneled into a nonprofit that does not have to disclose its donors.

Read more about the convention: First-Ever Republican Midterm Convention Turning Into "Shit Show"

James Comey's Lawyers Argue Charges Should Be Dismissed

Former FBI Director James Comey may have undermined the federal government's case against him.

Comey's attorneys argued in a court filing Tuesday night that he was charged under the wrong law, rendering the government's criminal indictment moot.

"On the actual question before the court, the government has little to offer," the filing states. "A call for others to commit violence can only be incitement—which the indictment does not charge."

Comey was charged with making threats against President Donald Trump after posting a picture to social media of seashells spelling out "86 47" in May last year. His lawyers argued that the government made a mistake. Prosecuting Comey under the wrong law would unconstitutionally "broaden the possible bases for conviction beyond those included in the indictment."

"The government's attempt to prosecute an incitement case through a threats indictment violates settled law," Comey's lawyers wrote. "The indictment must be dismissed."

Comey's lawyers also mocked the federal government's rationale that "86 47" constitutes a death threat, accusing federal prosecutors of relying on "a 2005 edition of Cassell's Dictionary of Slang" and a 1991 New York Times article explaining to its readers that "86" was "military jargon for killed in action."

The fact that prosecutors had to explain the term means that "t