#U.S. Representative Francis Rooney

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

More than a year after the 2020 presidential election, the GOP is still covering numerous legal bills for the benefit of former President Donald Trump -- and the price tag is ruffling the feathers of some longtime GOP donors who are now critical of Trump.

In October and November alone, the Republican National Committee spent nearly $720,000 of its donor money on paying law firms representing Trump in various legal challenges, including criminal investigations into his businesses in New York, according to campaign finance records.

Trump's legal bills have sent the Republican Party's total legal expenditures soaring in recent months, resulting in $3 million spent just between September and November. In contrast, the Democratic National Committee has been gradually winding down its legal expenses over the last few months.

Traditionally, national political parties have at times covered presidents and their advisers' legal fees in matters related to their presidential campaigns. And throughout his presidency, the Republican Party has footed legal bills for Trump, his family members and his political allies, going back to the days of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the 2016 election, through the impeachment proceedings following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

But experts say the GOP's recent payments of Trump's attorney fees after he left the White House, for investigations that are not relevant to the next presidential campaign, is a very unusual move that's indicative of the ongoing influence that the former president has over the party.

"Campaign finance law does not strictly prohibit a national party committee from paying for private legal expenses, but it is very rare for a party committee to use donor money in that way," said Brendan Fischer, federal reforms director at nonpartisan government ethics group Campaign Legal Center.

"And it is entirely unprecedented for a national party committee to cover a former president's private legal bills, especially when those legal expenses arise out of an investigation into activity that preceded Trump's time in the White House, and when Trump is sitting on millions of his own PAC funds," Fischer said.

RNC spokesperson Emma Vaughn told ABC News that the RNC's executive committee approved paying for "certain legal expenses that related to politically motivated legal proceedings waged against President Trump," while declining to comment on which specific cases are being paid for.

"As a leader of our party, defending President Trump and his record of achievement is critical to the GOP," Vaughn said. "It is entirely appropriate for the RNC to continue assisting in fighting back against the Democrats' never ending witch hunt and attacks on him."

The RNC has so far paid three law firms on behalf of Trump, paying $328,000 to NechelesLaw LLP, $200,000 to van der Veen, Hartshorn and Levin, and $172,000 to Fischetti & Malgieri LLP, according to its recent disclosure filings. The Washington Post reported that the RNC has agreed to pay up to $1.6 million of Trump's legal bills.

Fischetti & Malgieri represents Trump in the parallel investigations by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and New York state Attorney General Letitia James into the business practices of Trump's eponymous company. Vance and James have said their investigations are not politically motivated.

Susan Necheles of NechelesLaw reportedly joined the legal team representing Trump and the Trump Organization last summer. Michael van der Veen was part of Trump's defense team during the impeachment proceedings after Jan. 6.

The law firm payments haven't sat well with some Trump critics within the GOP.

"It is very disheartening to see RNC donors funding Trump's legal bills," former Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., told ABC News.

Rooney, who is among several Republican lawmakers who announced their retirement after clashing with pro-Trump forces within the GOP, was previously a U.S. ambassador to the Holy See under the Bush administration and a generous donor to the Republican Party, giving upwards of $1 million to various GOP candidates and groups over the years.

"I used to support the RNC quite a bit, especially when Reince Priebus was there," Rooney said. "But I don't see myself doing it right now because they keep giving money to Trump."

Many Republicans are "exhausted and bothered by" Trump allies' continued election challenges, Rooney said, "because all it's doing is giving a lot of grist to people who want to oppose the Republican Party, at least the one that I used to know."

"We're getting tarred with this big lie and this claim of election fraud, and that is damaging our most important institution in our country -- belief in elections," Rooney said.

The RNC's financial support of Trump's legal bills also complicates the party's vow to remain neutral ahead of nominating process for the 2024 presidential election. "The party has to stay neutral. I'm not telling anybody to run or not to run in 2024," RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel said last January. She has since reaffirmed that Trump "still leads the party."

Financial support notwithstanding, the GOP and Trump have not always had a smooth relationship over the past year. In the final days of Trump's presidency, Trump told McDaniel he was leaving the GOP and creating his own political party, only to back down after McDaniel threatened to stop paying Trump's legal bills for his post-election challenges, according to a book by ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl.

Both Trump and McDaniel have denied the story.

Not long after that, Trump and the party again clashed over the use of Trump's name in fundraising appeals, with the GOP eventually reaching an agreement to use his name.

In addition to covering many of Trump's legal bills, the RNC has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting lawsuits across the country "to ensure the integrity of our elections," said RNC Spokeswoman Danielle Alvarez.

Gearing up for the 2022 election cycle, the RNC has been building an aggressive nationwide "election integrity program," engaging in election-related lawsuits in states like Georgia, Florida, Arizona and Texas, stationing state-directors in battleground states, engaging hundreds of attorneys at the state level and training thousands of poll watchers.

The party is engaged in 30 such "election integrity" lawsuits, Alvarez said, with financial disclosures showing payments of $500,000 to the law firm of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, more than $260,000 to McGuireWoods, and $243,000 to Consovoy McCarthy PLLC.

Even with all the legal expenditures, the RNC has continued to build a huge war chest over the past year. Backed by megadonors that include Blackstone Group CEO Stephen Schwarzman and casino mogul Steve Wynn, the RNC ended November with more than $65 million in cash on hand.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

On Thursday, North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows announced he won’t be seeking reelection in 2020, making him the 21st “pure” GOP retirement this cycle (in other words, excluding those who are leaving Congress to seek another office). But unlike many other GOP retirees, Meadows’s motivation for leaving Congress isn’t because he had reelection concerns, disagreements with President Trump or feared the loss of institutional clout if the GOP doesn’t retake the House in 2020.

In fact, Meadows is one of the most powerful and highly influential members of the GOP caucus and is thought to have the president’s ear. And it might be that sway that is now taking him on to bigger and better things. In his announcement, Meadows hinted that he might soon take a job working for the president, although it’s unclear what that role might be.

We’ve been tracking retirements over the past few months now, and although Meadows’s retirement is different than many of the retirements we’ve seen so far, one thing that is readily apparent is just how lopsided the GOP retirements are. With Meadows’s exit, roughly 10 percent of the 197 Republicans currently in the chamber are retiring and not running for something else. And since the start of December, five Republicans have announced their retirement, tying it with July for the busiest month this cycle. (By comparison, there have only been six “pure” retirements among the 233 Democrats in the House.)1

21 GOP House members are now retiring

Republicans who declined to seek reelection in the 2020 cycle, excluding those leaving to run for another office, as of Dec. 19, 2019

District Member Trump Score 2018 vote margin Partisan lean NC-02 George Holding 94.5% 5.5 D+19 NC-06 Mark Walker 95.7 13.0 D+18 TX-23 Will Hurd 57.4 0.4 R+4 NY-02 Pete King 79.6 6.2 R+7 IN-05 Susan Brooks 92.6 13.5 R+15 NC-11 Mark Meadows 92.7 20.5 R+17 GA-07 Rob Woodall 98.2 0.2 R+17 TX-24 Kenny Marchant 92.0 3.1 R+17 TX-22 Pete Olson 94.2 4.9 R+19 FL-03 Ted Yoho 98.1 15.2 R+20 OR-02 Greg Walden 74.5 16.9 R+21 WI-05 Jim Sensenbrenner 87.0 24.0 R+24 TX-17 Bill Flores 94.2 15.5 R+25 FL-19 Francis Rooney 75.0 24.5 R+27 MI-10 Paul Mitchell 94.3 25.3 R+27 AL-02 Martha Roby 92.6 23.0 R+31 UT-01 Rob Bishop 96.2 36.7 R+41 IL-15 John Shimkus 94.4 41.9 R+45 GA-14 Tom Graves 98.2 53.0 R+57 TX-11 Mike Conaway 96.4 61.7 R+65 TX-13 Mac Thornberry 94.3 64.6 R+68

Highlighted names announced their retirements in December.

Sources: ABC News, U.S. House of Representatives, Media Reports

In terms of what we know about the recent spate of GOP retirements in December, one major factor is North Carolina’s new House map, which was finalized in earlier this month. Along with Meadows, Republican Reps. George Holding and Mark Walker are also retiring, and for those two congressmen, it’s because the new district lines meant their formerly Republican-leaning seats were much more Democratic and they risked losing reelection. Meadow’s seat, on the other hand, didn’t change all that much. About three-fourths of the voters in his old district are also in the new North Carolina 11th and it’s still 17 points more Republican than the country as a whole, according to FiveThirtyEight’s partisan lean metric.2

As for the other two GOP members who retired in December, their retirements had nothing to do with redistricting, and, in fact, their departures were a bit of a surprise, considering how often they have both voted in line with the president. Georgia Rep. Tom Graves, in particular, was unexpected, considering he is young (49 years old) and according to FiveThirtyEight’s Trump Score one of the president’s most ardent backers. Graves had been floated to possibly fill Sen. Johnny Isakson’s Senate seat, but he didn’t officially apply for the post, and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp ended up appointing businesswoman Kelly Loeffler instead. Florida Rep. Ted Yoho also has one of the highest Trump scores of any Republican in the 116th Congress, but his retirement was a bit less of a surprise as he had pledged to serve only four terms when he was first elected in 2012. Although, it wasn’t entirely clear Yoho would stick to his pledge — he actually filed with the Federal Election Commission for a 2020 bid — but in the end, he decided to move on, even though at 64 he isn’t that old by Congress’s standards and hails from a safe Republican seat.

But considering how influential Meadows has been since he won his House seat in 2012, his exit is definitely the most notable of the December retirements (so far). It’s worth mentioning, though, that Meadows’s departure may not end up counting as a “pure” retirement — and that’s because he could end up resigning before his term is over. He told Politico that he might not serve out the remainder of his term in order to take a position in Trump’s administration or join the president’s reelection campaign. And if Meadows does resign, that could precipitate a special election.

For now, though, the North Carolina 11th is in line to be an open seat next November, but that might change by the time the general election rolls around. After all, it’s not unheard of for a representative to announce a retirement but later resign early to do something else — Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania did this last cycle, for example. The real question will be whether this spate of GOP retirements is a final flurry of sorts or if more are coming. With the count now at 21, the 2020 cycle is closing in on the 23 “pure” Republican retirements that happened ahead of the 2018 midterms, and as most state filing deadlines don’t come up until next year, there’s still plenty of time for at least a few more.

[minnesotafollower]

Cuban-American Congressmen Reiterate Call for Re-Designation of Cuba as "State Sponsor of Terrorism"

Cuban-American Congressmen Reiterate Call for Re-Designation of Cuba as “State Sponsor of Terrorism”

On July 10, 2019, two Republican Congressmen from Florida=–Mario Diaz-Balart and Francis Rooney– asked Secretary of State Pompeo to re-designate Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.”[1]

Their letter said the following:

“We strongly commend you and President Trump and his administration for imposing tough sanctions on the brutal regime in Cuba, and for the unprecedented decision to allow…

[damedarcy]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Dame Darcy (@damedarcy)

In the United States, #healthyoceans support more than 2.6 million jobs and generate over $180 billion in GDP every year. Congressman Francis Rooney and State Senator Bill Cunningham and State Representative Fran Hurley proposed legislation that will protect our clean coast economies from dirty and dangerous offshore drilling. Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on these important bills. Tell Congress to vote YES on H.R. 1941 & 205. It is time to #ProtectOurCoast #dolphins @oceana (at Ocean Breeze By The Sea) https://www.instagram.com/p/B19wQ17lvtb/?igshid=1a7mdellw2gx

[rjzimmerman]

Competing carbon tax bills in Congress.....are the politicians finally paying attention? Are they getting nervous about the public opinion polls about climate?

In the House of Representatives, from The Hill:

A Florida Republican is bucking the party line and pushing a carbon tax as a way to stem global warming.

A coming bill from Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) would impose a $30 tax per metric ton of carbon. It would also bar new regulations on power plants as long as they meet the emissions targets set by the bill.

Modeling from Rooney’s office shows the bill, which applies to fossil fuel producers and large industrial emitters, would reduce energy-related carbon pollution by approximately 42 percent by 2030.

A one page report on the bill obtained by The Hill shows the funds raised through the tax would be used to reduce payroll taxes for employees and employers, fund research into clean energy and compensate low-income households for increased costs.

In the Senate, from Reuters:

Two Democratic U.S. senators will unveil a bill on Thursday to curb climate change by slapping a fee on oil, natural gas and coal and delivering most of the revenues to low- and middle-income Americans, one of the lawmakers said.

Senator Chris Coons said on Wednesday he and Senator Dianne Feinstein will introduce the Climate Action Rebate Act, which aims to generate $2.5 trillion in revenues over 10 years starting in 2020. It would rebate about 70 percent of the money to families that make less than $130,000 per year, and use the rest for energy infrastructure, job retraining for fossil fuel workers, and research and development.

Coons, a centrist, hopes his bill will channel much of the enthusiasm for the Green New Deal into practical solutions. The bill is a “serious legislative attempt at taking bold vision and turning it into a specific, enactable, concrete strategy,” he said.

[patriotsnet]

Which Republicans Voted Against National Emergency

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/which-republicans-voted-against-national-emergency/

Which Republicans Voted Against National Emergency

Washington Rep Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers

Five Republicans will vote against Trumps emergency declaration

The former House GOP conference chairwoman bucked her party after voicing concerns about a Democratic president using national emergency powers to advance his or her agenda.

McMorris Rodgers was not listed as a DCCC;target in 2020 after fending off former state Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown by 10 points last year. Trump carried;her 5th District by 13 points in 2016. Inside Elections rates the 5th District race Solid Republican.

Michigan Rep Justin Amash

The five-term congressman was the only GOP lawmaker to co-sponsor the disapproval resolution, arguing that the national emergency declaration usurped Congress constitutional role. Amash blasted fellow Republicans who decried executive overreach under former President Barack Obama, saying in a tweet, If your faithfulness to the Constitution depends on which party controls the White House, then you are not faithful to it.

Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates;his 3rd District race as Solid Republican. Trump carried the;seat by 9 points in 2016, and Amash won re-election;last year by 11 points. The;DCCC did not list Amash as one of its 2020 targets.

These 12 Republicans Defied Trump And Voted To Overturn His Declaration Of An Emergency At The Border

Twelve Republican senators defied President Trump on Thursday, rebuffing his public and private pleas for GOP unity and voting for a resolution overturning his declaration of a national emergency at the border.

The vote marked congressional Republicans first significant defection from Trump in more than two years. Throughout his presidency, he has enjoyed almost universal support from his party save for a few GOP lawmakers who bucked him in big moments like the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and some foreign policy issues.

But this was a rejection of Trump on his signature campaign promise. Since the day he announced his candidacy for president, Trump spoke about ending illegal immigration and building a wall along the southern border that he originally said would be paid for by Mexico. It is the defining issue among his core supporters. Build the wall is a Trump rallying cry.

The Senate Republicans who voted to block Trumps ability to unilaterally circumvent Congress and shift money to build his wall were swift to point out they still supported the wall, but they were voting to preserve the constitutional separation of powers.

To make clear, a border fence, a border barrier is a policy that I support, wholeheartedly, unequivocally, said Sen. Mike Lee on the Senate floor, in announcing his support for the resolution.

You May Like: Did Trump Really Say Republicans Are Dumb

Pennsylvania Rep Brian Fitzpatrick

Clinton would have carried Fitzpatricks 1st District by 2 points had the new Pennsylvania congressional lines been in place in 2016. To survive in the swing district, the two-term lawmaker has emphasized his penchant for bipartisanship and his experience as a former FBI agent. Fitzpatrick previously said declaring a national emergency sets a bad precedent.

He is once again a top Democratic target after defeating self-funder Scott Wallace by nearly 3 points points last fall. Inside Elections rates his re-election race Tilts Republican.

President Trump May Have Hurt His Own Case When He Said I Dont Have To Do This When Declaring The National Emergency

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” Pres. Trump says.

“I didn’t need to do this. But I’d rather do it much faster.”

President Trump announced on February 15, 2019, that he was signing a bipartisan spending deal and declaring a national emergency at the same time.

The congressional deal provided $1.375 billion for bollard-style fencing at the border. It provided an overall $1.7 billion increase in spending for the Department of Homeland Security, which would pay for more customs officers, humanitarian aid and technology. The bill also funds approximately 45,000 beds at immigration detention centers operated by ICE.

In making the announcement, President Trump provided opponents with ammunition against the national emergency. He stated during the Rose Garden speech, I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didnt need to do this. But Id rather do it much faster. You can see that portion of the speech embedded above.

Don’t Miss: What Party Is Donald Trump Affiliated With

The House Voted To Block The National Emergency On February 26 2019 With 13 Republicans Voting With Democrats To Approve The Measure

The House voted to block President Trumps national emergency on February 26, 2019. Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas sponsored the joint resolution, which passed mainly along party lines in a vote of 245 to 182. Thirteen Republicans joined with Democrats to approve the measure:

Rep. Francis Rooney of FloridaRep. Thomas Massie of KentuckyRep. Justin Amash of MichiganRep. Fred Upton of MichiganRep. Elise Stefanik of New YorkRep. Greg Walden of OregonRep. Brian Fitzpatrick of PennsylvaniaRep. Dusty Johnson of South DakotaRep. Will Hurd of TexasRep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of WashingtonRep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of WashingtonRep. Jim Sensenbrenner of WisconsinRep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin

One of those Republicans, Rep. Will Hurd, represents a district that includes more land along the border with Mexico than any other member of Congress more than 800 miles. He has pushed for more security agents and technological measures to secure the border but has stated that a physical barrier is not the most effective measure.

According to congressional rules, a joint resolution concerning a national emergency is something the Senate cannot refuse to take a vote on. The Senate had 18 days after the House passed the resolution to take a vote on it.

Senate Rejects Trumps Border Emergency Declaration Setting Up First Veto

By Emily Cochrane and Glenn Thrush

WASHINGTON A dozen Republicans joined Senate Democrats on Thursday to overturn President Trumps declaration of a national emergency at the southwestern border, arguing that the president had exceeded his powers in trying to build a border wall over Congresss objections.

The 59-to-41 vote on a measure already approved by the House set up the first veto of Mr. Trumps presidency. It was not a big enough margin to override his promised veto, but Congress has now voted for the first time to block a presidential emergency declaration and on one of the core promises that animated Mr. Trumps political rise.

Never before has a president asked for funding, Congress has not provided it, and the president then has used the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to spend the money anyway, said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee. Our nations founders gave to Congress the power to approve all spending so that the president would not have too much power. This check on the executive is a crucial source of our freedom.

It was the latest sign that the cautious Republican majority in the Senate, spurred on by a far bolder Democrat-controlled House, was beginning to reassert its authority with a president who had gone virtually unchecked during his first two years in office.

Mr. Trump had sought to frame the vote publicly as not only a declaration of support for his border security policies but as a sign of personal loyalty.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Are In The United States

The 26 Republicans Whove Voted Against Trumps Border Wall Emergency

Last week, with a 53-36 vote , the U.S. Senate failed to get the two-thirds necessary to override President Trumps veto of a resolution reversing his February 15 national emergency . That declaration, coming after Trump failed to force Congress to pay billions for his border wall demands, would take more than $6 billion from the Defense Department budget and Treasury seized-asset funds, and plow it into border wall construction.

A quick rundown:

2019 started with much of the U.S. government shut down because Congress would not pass a budget giving Trump the $5.7 billion he wanted for his border wall.

Finally, after a 35-day shutdown, Trump caved and signed a budget with far less wall funding.

On February 15, using power he claimed that the 1976 National Emergencies Act gives him, Trump declared an emergency at the border requiring him to move money out of defense accounts and into wall-building.

Court challenges to this emergency declaration are ongoing. In July, the Supreme Court allowed wall-building to proceed while judicial deliberations continue. In mid-October, though, a federal judge in El Paso froze much of the Defense Department money.

Twice nowin February-March and September-OctoberCongress has passed joint resolutions to take down Trumps emergency declaration. Both times, Trump has vetoed the resolutions. Both times, a strong majority, but not the necessary two-thirds, has voted to override the veto.

How Every Senator Voted On Ending Trumps National Emergency

12 Republicans Vote With Democrats In Terminating Trumps National Emergency | Hardball | MSNBC

59 41

Twelve Republican senators joined Democrats on Thursday to block President Trumps declaration of an emergency on the United States border with Mexico. The Republicans included Mike Lee and Mitt Romney, both of Utah, as well as Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Mr. Trump is expected to veto the resolution; two-thirds of both the House and the Senate would have to vote to override the veto.

Don’t Miss: Who Has Started The Most Wars Democrats Or Republicans

Senators Argue That This Vote Was About Preserving The Constitution And That They Actually Still Agree With The President On Border Security

Many Republicans justified their vote against Trump by citing more abstract concerns about executive power.

Several GOP lawmakers who voted against the national emergency went out of their way to argue that they were simply preserving the sanctity of the Constitution, and not so much disagreeing with Trump at all.

I share President Trumps goal of securing our borders, but expanding the powers of the presidency beyond its constitutional limits is something I cannot support, Sen. Jerry Moran emphasized in a statement explaining his vote in favor of the resolution.

Instead of calling out Trump, their stances on the vote were broadly reframed to focus on Congresss responsibility to respect the Constitution and protect the separation of powers.

I think the Senates waking up a little bit to our responsibilities, said Sen. Lamar Alexander . Weve gotten a little lazy about our responsibilities, and forgotten the founders had very good reason to give powers to the Senate. The reason was to keep from having an executive with too much power.

Alexander, who is retiring in 2020, told Vox he hoped the two recent votes would remind senators of their constitutional power.

I think the value of these last two weeks has been to remind the Senate of our constitutional place, and the reason for it, he said. It goes to the very source of our freedom; its the way we balance power in this country.

Senate Votes To End Trump National Emergency As 12 Republicans Join In Rebuke

WASHINGTON The Senate voted 59-41 on Thursday to cancel President Donald Trump’s national security declaration to fund a wall on the border, as 12 Republicans joined Democrats in an unusual rebuke of the president.

Trump has vowed to veto the measure, which would block him from making an end run around Congress to obtain billions of federal dollars that have been set aside for other purposes to build the wall he has promised along the border with Mexico.

The vote could play a role in coming lawsuits challenging the emergency declaration. Before the vote, nine Republican senators said they would support the measure: Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mike Lee of Utah, Mitt Romney of Utah, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine.

The number of GOP defections grew when the final votes were tallied to include Marco Rubio of Florida, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Roger Wicker of Mississippi. Moran and Alexander have announced that they don’t plan to seek re-election next year, while Collins is up for re-election in 2020.

After the measure passed, Trump tweeted simply:

VETO!

The measure, passed by the House of Representatives in February, now heads to Trump’s desk. It would be the first veto of his presidency.

Earlier at the White House, the president told reporters that the result of the vote didn’t matter.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Are In The Senate Vs Democrats

Sen Rand Paul Of Kentucky

Paul announced at a GOP Lincoln Day dinner earlier this month that he would support the resolution, noting that Congress did not appropriate the funds Trump was looking to use for the border wall. If we take away those checks and balances, its a dangerous thing, the two-term senator said.

Paul has described his political views as libertarian, and has been known to break with his party on foreign policy and surveillance issues.;He was re-elected to the Senate in 2016 after a failed White House bid, and he will not face voters again until 2022.

Senate Again Votes To End Trump Emergency Declaration On Border Wall

The Senate again voted on Wednesday to end President TrumpDonald TrumpFormer Sen. Heller to run for Nevada governorOvernight Defense & National Security Milley becomes lightning rodJoint Chiefs Chairman Milley becomes lightning rod on rightMOREs emergency declaration on the U.S.-Mexico border wall, paving the way for a veto showdown with the White House.

Senators voted 54–41;on a resolution to end the declaration, which Trump used to shift billions of dollars from the military toward wall construction.

Under the National Emergencies Act, a resolution ending the declaration needed only a simple majority to clear the Senate, making it likely to be approved.;But underscoring the broad swath of concern about Trumps actions among the Senate GOP caucus, 11 Republican senators voted to nix the declaration.

Roger Frederick WickerTop Republican: General told senators he opposed Afghanistan withdrawalNY Democrat tests positive for COVID-19 in latest House breakthrough caseFlorida Democrat becomes latest breakthrough COVID-19 case in HouseMORE voted to end the president’s declaration.;

Democrats have seized on the administrations decision to shift money away from military construction projects as a way to politically box in Republicans by forcing them to decide between breaking with Trump or voting to allow money to be shifted away from projects in their own states.

Same way I voted last time. How would I square voting differently? Cornyn asked.

You May Like: Which Republicans Are Running For President

Sen Thom Tillis Of North Carolina

The Senate has not yet voted on the resolution, but due to the procedure required for this type of action, the upper house of Congress will take up the matter within the next several weeks.

Sen. Tillis wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post saying that “President Trump has few bigger allies than me when it comes to supporting his vision of 21st-century border security, encompassing a major investment in technology, personnel and infrastructure, including new physical barriers where they will be effective.”

Despite his support of Trump’s border security proposals, he said he would support a resolution to disapprove of Trump’s declaration of a national emergency.

“As a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress,” Tillis wrote.

Lawmakers Expressed Concern About Funds Being Taken Away From Military Projects That Had Been Deemed Essential

Spoke with today on the national emergency declaration I am seeking assurances that the money will not come from Arizona military construction projects. We can & must secure our border while ensuring our armed forces have the resources and facilities they need.

Martha McSally

Senate Republicans such as Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Martha McSally from Arizona both expressed concern about funding being taken away from military construction projects. Neither of them confirmed ahead of time how they planned to vote on the presidents national emergency. Other Senate Republicans whose decisions appeared uncertain ahead of the vote included Mitt Romney of Utah, Rob Portman of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Roy Blunt of Missouri. Even Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a frequent defender of the president, had indicated he could vote against the national emergency if it jeopardized military funding.

The Trump administration had laid out plans to use up to $3.6 billion from the Department of Defense. Projects that could be delayed if the money is diverted include improvements to F-35 aircraft hangars, maintenance upgrades at bases overseas and building new family units for service members.

Don’t Miss: Did Any Republicans Own Slaves In 1860

The Challenge To Republicans In The Vote To Terminate Trumps Emergency

Save Story

Save this story for later.

Save Story

Save this story for later.

At around 6:30 P.M. on Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted to terminate President Trumps at the southern border, 245182. The interesting number within that tally is thirteen: the number of Republicans who broke with Trump to vote yes on the bill. Their votes, strictly speaking, werent needed to get the termination through the House, which the Democrats control. The same wont be true in the Senate, which the Republicans narrowly control and which, under the terms of the law allowing Presidents to declare national emergencies, must now take up the House bill within eighteen days. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, cant simply push this one aside. The vote will be an open test of the willingness of Republicans to place a limit on this Presidents grab for power. Speaking to reporters on Monday, McConnell said that he could not handicap the outcome of the vote. All I can tell you is that it certainly will occur.

And, sometimes, it takes a bad President to expose the flaws in a bad law. When all of this is over, Congress should look at the National Emergencies Act and do something about one of its key failures: it leaves it up to the President to define what, exactly, constitutes an emergency. Members of Congress in both parties can, and should, argue with the law. And they can, and should, argue with this President.

[collapsedsquid]

A new bill, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, aims to “motivate students” to graduate by taking aim at Pell Grants.

The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Francis Rooney, Republican of Florida, and Rep. Ralph Norman, Republican of South Carolina, would compel students to repay Pell Grants — which, unlike loans, do not require repayment — if they did not complete their program within six years. The bill would apply to all students eligible for Pell Grants, including students at community colleges.

Startin to feel like a general attack on higher education. Bryan Caplan would be pleased.

[nemolian]

Report: 51 Members of Congress and Their Spouses Collectively Own Millions in Defense Stocks

Troops with the U.S. Army’s 1st Armoured Battalion of the 9th Regiment, 1st Division from Fort Hood in Texas prepare for defense exercises in Lithuania in 2019.

Photo: Mindaugas Kulbis (AP)

51 members of Congress or their spouses own between $2.8 million to $5.3 million worth of stock in the top 30 defense contractors worldwide, Sludge reported on Monday, thus placing them in a position to potentially profit from the U.S. military contracting process or wars waged with the firms’ equipment.

According to Sludge, the data was compiled by having a bot sift through financial disclosure forms hosted on the House and Senate websites; the $2.5 million gap between the upper and lower estimates is because many members of Congress only report in ranges. 18 of the congresspeople collectively own up to $760,000 in Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor by revenue, and which surged 4.3 percent after the Trump administration assassinated a top Iranian official by drone earlier this month, Sludge wrote.

According to the review, nearly one-third of the Senate Appropriations subcomittee for defense spending—which regularly reviews big-ticket expenditures in the billions of dollars for the U.S. military—own stocks in big contractors. Four members of the House Foreign Affairs committee, which approves arms sales, have stock in companies that must seek their approval to sell weaponry and other military equipment to foreigners. That list includes Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics, per Sludge.

The investments appear to be broadly bipartisan. In the Senate, Dianne Feinstein ($650,000), Sheldon Whitehouse ($348,998), John Hoeven ($250,000), Tom Carper ($130,000), Rick Scott ($106,000), Susan Collins ($101,000), Roy Blunt ($100,000), and David Perdue ($100,000) top the list.

In the House, Steve Cohen ($415,000), Gerry Connolly ($400,000), Ro Khanna ($376,000), Greg Gianforte ($309,856), Debbie Dingell ($300,000), Phil Roe ($203,230), Fred Upton ($155,000), Bob Gibbs ($150,000), Joe Kennedy ($150,000), Kevin Hern ($150,000), Francis Rooney ($135,000), and David Joyce, David Price, and Thomas Suozzi ($100,000 each) come in on top.

Spokespeople for members of Congress contacted by Sludge said their or their spouses’ investments in defense contractors do not affect their decision-making. Senator Feinstein’s office told the site that she “has no involvement in her husband’s financial and business decisions” and that the $650,000 in Boeing stock belonging to her spouse was managed by a blind trust. Representative Ro Khanna, whose wife holds $376,000 in stock from seven defense companies, told Sludge that he has “not personally invested in any defense stocks” and has “consistently voted against bloated defense spending and sought accountability from some of our nation’s largest defense contractors.”

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) recently estimated that approximately $420 billion in arms sales were conducted globally in 2018, up around 4.6 percent from the year prior, according to USA Today. U.S. companies accounted for roughly 59 percent of sales by the top 100 contractors.

Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and L3 all saw their stocks rise in the wake of a Dec. 27, 2019 attack on a U.S. contractor in Iraq in the leadup to the drone assassination, Marketwatch recently reported. Estimates of the total U.S. defense budget have come in far higher than the $750 billion Donald Trump requested in his fiscal year 2020 budget, with a report by the Nation in May 2019 finding total defense-related spending requests came to around $1.25 trillion (“much of it wasted, misguided, or simply counterproductive”). Reports regularly find countless billions of dollars in Pentagon waste.

“Members of Congress should divest from all investments tied to their congressional responsibilities and avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest or ethics dilemmas,” Project on Government Oversight general counsel Scott Amey told Sludge.

Defense is one of the most politically powerful industries in DC. While overall donations to candidates are lower than many other sectors, Open Secrets data shows the industry donated over $27 million to candidates and committees from 2019-2020 and usually spends well over $100 million annually. In the wake of the U.S. strike on the Iranian official, retiring chairman of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations Representative Pete Visclosky was among the Democrats who remained silent. He received $1.7 million in campaign contributions from the defense industry since 1989, Sludge separately reported.

via:Gizmodo, January 13, 2020 at 08:54PM

[paulbenedictblog]

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

News top stories daily news hot topics Republicans to push for censure of Schiff in probe

News top stories daily news hot topics

For completely the fourth time in U.S. historical past, the House of Representatives has started a presidential impeachment inquiry. House committees strive and procure out if President Donald Trump violated his oath of office by asking a distant places country to analyze a political opponent.

A short abstract of doubtlessly the most contemporary news:

WHAT'S NEXT

House Republicans are anticipated to push a vote Monday on a decision to censure Democratic Earn. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, one of the panels investigating impeachment. Republicans, who're a minority within the House, are taking issue with how Schiff is conducting the investigation.

"The very least we are able to prevent is censure him," the House Republican leader, California Earn. Kevin McCarthy, talked about on Fox Recordsdata Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures."

———

MORE WITNESSES ON TAP, BUT WILL THEY APPEAR?

William "Invoice" Taylor, the diplomat who expressed unease about the Trump administration's sustain on U.S. security assistance for Ukraine, is anticipated to testify in inside of most Tuesday.

Taylor at one level despatched a text finding out: "As I talked about on the telephone, I maintain or not it's loopy to sustain security assistance for abet with a political campaign." The text induced the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, to answer: "Invoice, I agree with you are improper about President Trump's intentions. The president has been crystal obvious no quid pro quo's of any model. The President is in search of to review whether Ukraine is in point of fact going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised at some stage in his campaign.

"I counsel," he added, "we pause the backward and forward by text."

Among others invited for closed-door testimony this week are Philip Reeker, performing assistant secretary of remark for Europe; Michael Duffey of the White House's Keep of job of Management and Budget; Alexander Vindman of the National Safety Council; and Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia.

———

CRACKS IN TRUMP'S SUPPORT?

Trump's toughen among Republicans in Congress has held at some stage within the impeachment inquiry, nonetheless there are hints of stress amid broader frustrations about the president's going by of distant places protection.

Earn. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., made waves by announcing he used to be conserving an originate thoughts about impeachment. The subsequent day, he announced he would retire on the tip of his term.

For now, no other Republicans seem to be following Rooney's lead, nonetheless it bears looking at within the times ahead as Trump fights to protect up impeachment a purely procure collectively-line affair.

Asked Sunday on CNN's "Inform of the Union" what his message is to GOP colleagues as impeachment proceeds, Rooney talked about: "Effectively, we completely gain one ingredient in our life, and that is our repute. The whole lot else is transitory, in conjunction with life itself. And so I'm not going to crash mine over anything, mighty less politics. And I maintain or not it's very substandard that the machine that we have now, which may doubtlessly disappoint our founders, is so oriented toward reelection, raising cash. And it creates a bias in opposition to action. Everyone is quaking in ache of being criticized by the president or one thing."

———

WORTH WATCHING

An Associated Press-produced animation covers the basics of the impeachment project in not as a lot as 2 minutes: https://youtu.be/TSuLV—kDzeo

———

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Thursday's news convention by performing White House chief of workers Mick Mulvaney confirmed that the choice to delay defense force reduction to Ukraine used to be linked to a quiz that Ukraine investigate the Democratic National Committee and the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Mulvaney later clarified his remarks, and Trump has stood by him.

Mulvaney, in an interview on "Fox Recordsdata Sunday," used to be requested whether he equipped or thought to office his resignation to Trump, after the news convention, given the criticism he bought from his efficiency.

"No, entirely not. ... I'm very tickled working there. Did I if truth be told gain the suitable press convention? No. But again, the info were on our aspect," he talked about.

Video of Mulvaney's news convention feedback: https://youtu.be/iQFAh—MU69E

[mrhenryharrell]

The Rise of Carbon Taxes

 Taking Care of Business

 by Joel Makower, Chairman and Executive Editor

reprinted from Greenbuz

The conversation about levying taxes on carbon emissions — a controversial one in many countries and practically a third-rail no-no in the United States political arena — is heating up around the world, seemingly in lockstep with the planet itself.

As vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere sweat out record heat, much as the Southern Hemisphere did this past winter, politicians and policymakers seem to be warming to the notion of putting a financial cost on carbon emissions as a means of reducing them.

The outlook for a carbon tax remains cloudy, but lately there are hints of a change in the weather.

In the U.S. Congress last week, no fewer than three bills were introduced by members of both political parties:

The Stemming Warming and Augmenting Pay (SWAP) Act, by Republican Rep. Francis Rooney (Fla.) and Democrat Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.), would set a tax of $30 per metric ton, rising by $2 every two years, with the goal of reducing energy-related carbon by 42 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.

The Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act, a second bill from representatives Rooney and Lipinski, would levy a $40-a-ton tax, rising 2.5 percent a year, to reduce U.S. emissions to 20 percent of their 2005 levels.

The Climate Action Rebate Act, a bill by three Democrats — Sen. Chris Coons (Del.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (Calif.) — would price carbon at $15 a metric ton for emissions-heavy companies, rising quickly if the targets (55 percent reduction by 2030, 100 percent by 2050) weren’t met.

Each of these has a slightly different scheme for how to allocate the collected revenues, which can be considerable — the Climate Action Rebate Act aims to generate $2.5 trillion over 10 years — though there’s a common theme: reduce middle-class taxes or send a monthly dividend to low- and moderate-income households.

That’s just the action in the United States. In the past week or so:

Europe’s carbon market neared the psychologically important threshold of 30 euros a ton after indications the region will tighten supplies of emissions allowances, reported Bloomberg. “Crossing 30 euros would be a crucial milestone for the market, since that is the floor price economists and experts have suggested as a minimum needed to prod industry away from the most polluting fuels,” the news service explained. The price has almost doubled over the past year, finishing Friday at its highest weekly close since 2006.

In that same light, a report from Ireland’s Climate Change Advisory Council argued for raising that country’s carbon tax from the current 20 euros per ton to 35 euros, increasing to at least 80 euros per ton by 2030.

Ontario’s Court of Appeal ruled that Canada’s federal carbon tax is constitutional after a challenge from the province’s Conservative government.

All told, around 52 countries, From Australia to Zimbabwe, have implemented some kind of carbon-tax scheme, with others in the pipeline. Just last month, South Africa joined the coalition of the willing. Last week, the Financial Express, one of India’s largest business publications, asked, “Is it time to impose a carbon tax?”

Few of these are without opposition, or at least controversy — affected parties railing about job losses, reduced consumer spending and wasteful government spending, among other arguments. Fossil-fuel companies typically lead the charge in fighting such taxes, often aided by the courts.

But the resistance is easing, even if slightly, in large part due to the evidence at hand: an upsurge in severe weather and signs that some of the more severe impacts of climate change could hit us sooner than most experts expected. For example:

Glaciers may be melting 10 to 100 times faster than previously believed, new research shows.

A report from Morgan Stanley released last week found that “Rising global temperatures could put an additional 1 billion people at risk of contracting an infectious disease by the year 2080.” (It concluded Big Pharma could benefit, via ”$125 billion in incremental vaccinations” needed to fight off the additional cases.)

A study released earlier this year found that the world’s oceans are heating up about 40 percent faster than previously estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Make no mistake: Carbon taxes are complicated: equal parts art, science and politics. David Roberts, over at Vox, broke down some of the complexities last month, pointing out that an effective carbon tax needs to be “pretty damn high” to be effective — probably around $50 per ton, far higher than any current levels; that such a tax would, first and foremost, accelerate the decline of coal, along with associated jobs and communities; and that its impact will depend on how the tax revenue is spent, which will also determine how equitable it is across the income spectrum.

Clearly, a carbon tax would be economically disruptive. It would raise the cost of fuels and electricity, along with energy-intensive products such as steel and aluminum. Consumers would complain, potentially upending political alliances. Americans’ threshold for rising energy prices has traditionally been extremely low; politicians have exploited citizens’ concerns about even a few cents’ rise in gasoline taxes, for example.

They are also painfully aware of France’s recent “yellow vest” protests, in which a proposed gas tax increase — a rise of about 30 cents per gallon, on top of the roughly $7-a-gallon price — led to violent protests and, ultimately, a withdrawal of the proposed increase. A cautionary tale, to be sure.

Still, debates over a carbon tax are destined to become part of the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign. Just this week, CNN announced it will hold a climate debate with the Democratic candidates on Sept. 4, part of a concerted effort to ensure that climate is part of the 2020 discourse, which it wasn’t in 2016. Taxes will no doubt be on the agenda.

Along with the changing conversation is a shift in the climate calculus, from “Is it happening?” to “How bad will it be?” In other words, a conversation about risk. As Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff wrote last week in Forbes, there’s a big difference between likelihood and impact: “Things can be highly unlikely and still be very risky. Risk involves not just the chance something will happen, but its impact if it does.”

Kotlikoff notes that the probability that our house burns down is about one in 1,000. But the costs, financial and psychological, from this happening are so high that we buy homeowners insurance. Thus, he notes:

Unfortunately, the debate between climate believers and climate deniers is about the probability of man-made climate change, not the size of damages, particularly worst-case damages. But we’ve all heard enough from enough credible sources to know those costs may be enormous. Consequently, if we could buy climate-change insurance, everyone, even President Trump, would run to do so.

That last sentence may seem farfetched. But at some point, economics may trump politics. At least, an economist can dream.

The Rise of Carbon Taxes posted first on Green Energy Times

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

When things look bad, people have a tendency to head for the exits. The same is often true of Congress. Back in early August, nine Republican House members had said they would not seek reelection in 2020 and would instead retire. That number has now grown to 16 “pure” GOP retirements (in other words, excluding those who left to seek another office.)

This isn’t that far off from the 23 Republicans who voluntarily hung up their House spurs in the 2018 cycle — even though there are comparatively fewer potential GOP retirees this time around, as the party lost 40 seats in the midterms. It’s not always easy to nail down why someone has decided to leave public office, and there could be a number of factors at play, including dissatisfaction with President Trump, reelection worries or loss of institutional clout. But given that many of these recent retirees have been members of the House for at least two decades and would have been safe bets for reelection, their retirements could be taken as a sign that many Republicans aren’t confident in their party’s ability to win a majority in 2020. By contrast, only six Democrats have said they won’t seek reelection in 2020.1

To retake the House2 in 2020, Republicans need to pick up 19 seats, but swings that large are atypical for an incumbent president’s party. So instead of hanging around to see if their party can reclaim control, these seven members are retiring even though all but Rep. Pete King of New York represent districts that are at least 20 points more Republican than the country as a whole, according to FiveThirtyEight’s partisan lean metric.3.

16 GOP House members are now retiring

Republicans who declined to seek reelection in the 2020 cycle, excluding those leaving to run for other office, as of Dec. 4, 2019

Retired after Aug. 7 District Member Trump Score Partisan lean* 2018 vote margin TX-13 Mac Thornberry 94.3 R+68.2 +64.6 IL-15 John Shimkus 94.4 R+44.7 +41.9 FL-19 Francis Rooney 75.0 R+26.9 +24.5 WI-05 Jim Sensenbrenner 87.0 R+24.5 +24.0 OR-02 Greg Walden 74.5 R+21.4 +16.9 TX-17 Bill Flores 94.2 R+24.9 +15.5 NY-02 Pete King 79.6 R+7.0 +6.2 Retired before Aug. 7 District Member Trump Score Partisan lean* 2018 vote margin TX-11 Mike Conaway 96.4 R+64.7 +61.7 UT-01 Rob Bishop 96.2 R+40.5 +36.7 MI-10 Paul Mitchell 94.3 R+27.0 +25.3 AL-02 Martha Roby 92.6 R+31.0 +23.0 IN-05 Susan Brooks 92.6 R+15.3 +13.5 TX-22 Pete Olson 94.2 R+19.4 +4.9 TX-24 Kenny Marchant 92.0 R+17.3 +3.1 TX-23 Will Hurd 57.4 R+4.3 +0.4 GA-07 Rob Woodall 98.2 R+17.2 +0.2

Trump Score is just for the 116th Congress.

*FiveThirtyEight’s partisan lean metric is the average difference between how a state votes and how the country votes overall, with 2016 presidential election results weighted at 50 percent, 2012 presidential election results weighted at 25 percent and results from elections for the state legislature weighted at 25 percent. Note that the partisan leans in this article were calculated before the 2018 elections; we haven’t calculated FiveThirtyEight partisan leans that incorporate the midterm results yet.

Sources: ABC News, U.S. House of Representatives, Media Reports

So what do we know about these recent retirees other than the majority of them are from safe Republican districts? Well, age could have played a role in many of these departures. Combined, these seven retirees share about 150 years of experience in the House and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, for instance, is the second-longest serving House member, having first been elected in 1978. But only two — King (75) and Sensenbrenner (76) — are actually older than 70. The others are still in their early-to-mid 60s, which isn’t that far off from 58, which is the average age of a congressional member in the 116th Congress. In fact, because Reps. John Shimkus of Illinois, Mac Thornberry of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon are all still in their early 60s, the relatively young age of these retirees reinforces the idea that Republicans might have misgivings about winning back the House.

Members who plan to retire will also often telegraph their intentions with diminished fundraising totals, but that wasn’t the case for many of these retirees. In Walden’s case, for instance, he raised $650,000 in the third quarter, which was more money than all but six Republican incumbents who are still seeking reelection, so his Oct. 28 retirement announcement came as a surprise to many in Oregon. Similarly, Shimkus decided to retire on Aug. 30 despite raising $450,000 in the first half of the year, although he did briefly reconsider his decision after Walden announced he was retiring as that meant Shimkus could have taken Walden’s seat as the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

But that door may have already been closed to Shikmus. And that’s because he broke with the president over his plan to withdraw troops supporting the Kurds in Syria, asking his name be removed as an official supporter of Trump’s reelection bid. Yet unlike some of the other outgoing Republicans, Shimkus hadn’t demonstrated anti-Trump behavior prior to retirement; in fact, he’s voted with Trump 94 percent of the time in this Congress, according to FiveThirtyEight’s Trump Score.

Meanwhile, although it was Thornberry’s final term as the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, his fundraising numbers didn’t foreshadow an imminent departure either. In fact, he had raised about the same amount — about $405,000 in the first two quarters of 2019 — prior to his retirement announcement as he had during the same period in 2017.

And even though King and Sensenbrenner were older, that didn’t mean they were sure bets to leave office, either. Based on their fundraising reports, both incumbents actually raised more money prior to retiring in 2019 than they had at the same point in 2017. Not to mention, both of them represent Republican-leaning districts where they would have been favored to win.

As for the other two Republican retirements, they’re a bit harder to classify, although in the case of Texas Rep. Bill Flores, there’s an argument to be made that he may, too, have been concerned about Republicans’ chances in the House. A supporter of congressional term limits, Flores had never planned to serve more than six terms; however, he was only in his fifth term, which means he could have served one more term before his self-imposed term limit was up. He, too, had raised more in the first two quarters of 2019 before his announcement than in the first two quarters of 2017.

Florida Rep. Francis Rooney’s retirement doesn’t say as much about a pessimistic GOP outlook for taking back the House, but he does fit in with some of the other Republican retirees from earlier this year who may have faced reelection woes over their anti-Trump comments. Rooney was the first (and only) House Republican to publicly say he was open to impeaching Trump. He then announced he was retiring the next day.

In sum, Republican retirements since early August — particularly those by veteran GOP members — collectively suggest a lack of confidence in winning back the House in 2020. That’s understandable, too, given the last time control of the House changed hands in a presidential cycle was 1952. Big swings are just more likely in midterm years. Moreover, the electoral environment doesn’t look all that promising for Republicans: Democrats have about a six-point lead in early generic ballot polling, a measure that even this far out tends to be fairly predictive.

We can probably expect a few more GOP (and Democratic) retirements considering the large number of states with outstanding filing deadlines. However, it’s unclear just how many more Republican exits might happen, given the turnover the GOP caucus has experienced since Trump was elected in 2016. There just are not as many members who might retire anytime soon. Still, these retirements aren’t a promising tea leaf for the Republicans.

[democratsunited-blog]

Guess what? Democrats will have two primaries; Brian Hamman automatic winner

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=4405

Guess what? Democrats will have two primaries; Brian Hamman automatic winner

Commissioner Brian Hamman hopes the county can work to improve North Fort Myers infrastructure to stimulate revitalization(Photo: NEWS-PRESS STAFF FILE PHOTO)

Brian Hamman will retain his county commission seat without having to run for re-election.

Hamman automatically won when nobody else sought to run. Qualifying ended at noon Friday. 

“This is really a blessing. This is a humbling experience to be able to be re-elected without opposition. I know I can’t make everyone happy all of the time, but it makes me realize that people are happy enough with you that no one ran against you,” he said.

This will be Hamman’s second term. He originally was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to fill the seat vacated by Tammy Hall. 

More: Say what? Southwest Florida will have its first congressional Democratic primary in decades

More: GOP candidates for Florida agriculture commissioner, Congress court SWFL citrus growers

Hamman was the only candidate Friday who automatically won re-election. In fact, in a Lee County rarity, there will be two Democratic primaries. David Holden of Naples and Todd James Truax of Bonita Springs will face off Aug. 28 in the District 19 U.S. House race. They qualified last month. The winner will face Republican incumbent Francis Rooney.

Neilson Ayers and David Bogner will face off in the August primary in the Florida House District 76 contest. The winner will face incumbent Ray Rodrigues.

Republicans will have Democratic opponents in all of Southwest Florida’s House and Senate races in November. 

Republicans dominate Southwest Florida politics. The last time Lee County voted to elected a Democrat to the House of Representatives was in 1964 when it was part of a 12-county district. A Southwest Florida Democrat hasn’t won a state House or Senate seat in more than two decades.

“It is very exciting,” said Yoseph Tedros, chairman of the Lee County Democratic Party. “I’m so very happy so many Democrats have stepped up to run for office.”

Usually there are two or three local candidates, he said. This year there are more than 20. 

“I think we’re motivated,” he said.

Candidates qualifying Friday

Friday was the deadline to qualify to run in the August primary and November general election.

Lee County Commission

District 2

Bill Taylor (NPA)

Cecil Pendergrass (R)

District 4

Brian Hamman (R)

School Board (Non-partisan)

District 1

Charles Dailey

Mary Fischer

District 4

Don Armstrong

Moses Jackson

Debbie Jordan

Pamela LaRiviere

Gerri Ware

Louis C. Navarra

District 5

Jon Larsen Shudlick

Gwynetta “Gwyn” Gittens

Taruas A. Pugh

District 6

Nicholas Alexander

Betsy Vaughn

Karen Putnam Watson

Lori Fayhee

State Representative

District 76

Ray Rodrigues (R)

Neilson Croll Ayers (D)

David Bogner (D)

District 77

Dane Eagle (R)

Alanis Garcia (D)

District 78

Heather Fitzenhagen (R)

Parisima Taeb (D)

District 79

Mark Lipton (D)

Spencer Roach (R)

Matthew Miller (R)

District 80

Byron Donalds (R)

Jennifer Boddicker (D)

Dustin Lapolla (NP)

State Senate

District 28

Annisa Karim (D)

Kathleen Passidomo (R)

  Read or Share this story: https://newspr.es/2tmwzxu

Read full story here

[fullspectrum-cbd-oil]

Three Republicans Cross Party Lines to Vote for Resolution to Limit Trump’s Military Actions Against Iran

As the House of Representatives passed a resolution with the goal of limiting President Donald Trump’s military actions regarding Iran, three Republican lawmakers joined the Democratic-led House in voting “yes.”

The House passed a War Powers Resolution, H. CON. RES. 83, with a 224 to 194 vote on Thursday, with Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and Francis Rooney (R-Fl.) tossing in their support behind it. On the other hand, eight Democratic lawmakers voted “nay” on it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) noted last Sunday that the resolution was going to be introduced and voted on this week, in response to the U.S. airstrike that killed Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force. Pelosi also previously denounced Trump’s authorization of the strike and said Congress was left in the dark on it.

In defense of being one of the few Republicans who voted for the resolution, Gaetz told Fox News, “I think this War Powers Resolution is worthy of support because it did not criticize the president.”

He continued:

“It did not say he was wrong in killing Soleimani. But it did say if any president wants to drag our nation into another forever Middle East war, that they require the approval of the United States Congress. That’s something I deeply believe and I think it’s something the president deeply believes.”

See Gaetz’s remarks below:

I spoke to @POTUS today and he told me he’s more anti-war than I am. This resolution did not criticize the president. It said if any president wants to drag our nation into war Congress must approve it. That’s something I believe and something I think @POTUS deeply believes. pic.twitter.com/pScotpCtO2

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) January 10, 2020

Well said. https://t.co/bOkTuRuGVr

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 10, 2020

“This vote isn’t about support or opposing President Trump,” Massie said on the House floor on Thursday.

"If we go to war, it needs to be with the blessing and the support of the people and a clear mission that our soldiers can accomplish. We do that by following the vision of our founding fathers – we debate it on the floor of the House." pic.twitter.com/ByKDVQF5od

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 9, 2020

As a matter of fact, I did introduce this when Obama was President. H.R.2507 – “War Powers Protection Act of 2013,” 113th Congress (2013-2014) Sponsor:Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4] (Introduced 06/26/2013)https://t.co/hNonDITPaZ https://t.co/GyhYTWOlEd

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 10, 2020

The president himself also chimed in on the resolution’s passage in the House.

At his rally on Thursday evening, Trump claimed that Democratic lawmakers would have leaked the information if they knew of the airstrike beforehand.

“They’re saying, ‘You should get permission from Congress, you should come in and tell us what you want to do — you should come in and tell us, so that we can call up the fake news that’s back there, and we can leak it,'” the president said, adding, “Lot of corruption back there.”

from IJR https://ift.tt/39WfcYb via IFTTT

[aapnugujarat1]

Islamic rebels spreading terror throughout J&K and elsewhere in India: U.S. lawmaker

A American lawmaker has said that Islamic terrorists are spreading terrorism across India, including Jammu and Kashmir. US MP Francis Rooney said this while appealing to his colleagues in Parliament to cooperate in India’s fight against terrorism. Rooney said, India faces many regional and geopolitical threats. Islamic terrorists are constantly threatening and spreading terrorism throughout Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in India. We should cooperate with the government in New Delhi in the fight against terrorism. Florida MP Rooney said in his speech in the US House of Representatives on important relations with ‘allies’ India that he had a meeting with India’s Ambassador to the US Harsh Vardhan Shringla recently in which the importance of bilateral relations between India and America and India’s Important matters present were discussed. China’s behavior is destabilizing India’s neighbors, laden its neighbors with debts that they are unable to pay, as happened in the Hambantota port project in Sri Lanka. Rooney said that India is always alert due to its enemy country, unstable and Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons. Describing India as an important US business partner, he said, “We should work continuously towards strengthening trade relations with India and increasing bilateral foreign direct investment and consider negotiating a free trade agreement.” Let me tell you that many MPs of America have been supportive of India’s stance on Kashmir from terrorism. Read the full article

[bountyofbeads]

A divided House passes resolution on impeachment inquiry, setting stage for televised hearings and release of witness testimony

By Karoun Demirjian, Rachael Bade, Mike DeBonis and Elise Viebeck | Published October 31 at 11:36 AM ET | Washington Post | Posted October 31, 2019 |

A divided House approved legislation Thursday formally authorizing and articulating guidelines for the next phase of its impeachment inquiry, a move that signaled Democrats are on course to bring charges against President Trump later this year.

The 232-196 vote, which hewed closely to party lines, was likely to fuel the partisan fighting that has accompanied every stage of the impeachment probe and much of the Trump presidency. Nearly all Democrats backed the resolution, and House Republicans, who spent weeks clamoring for such a vote, opposed it.

At issue is whether Trump abused the power of his office to pressure a foreign leader to investigate his domestic political rivals.

In remarks before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described the impeachment inquiry as a “solemn” and “prayerful” process — “not cause for any glee or comfort.”

At the same time, Pelosi said, “I don’t know why Republicans are afraid of the truth.”

“Every member should support the American people hearing the facts for themselves,” she said in a floor speech. “That is what this vote is about. It’s about the truth. And what is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy.”

House Republicans accused Democrats of seeking to undo the results of the 2016 election with “Soviet-style proceedings” against Trump.

“We’ve seen since the day that President Trump was inaugurated that there have been some people who made it public that they wanted to impeach him,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said on the floor. “...That, madam speaker, is not why you impeach a president.”

“Don’t run a tainted process like this [resolution] ensures,” he said.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called the impeachment inquiry “an attempt to undo the last election” and “an attempt to influence the next one as well.”

The House’s resolution clears the way for nationally televised hearings as Democrats look to make their case to the American people that Trump should be impeached.

At the same time, House investigators were hearing testimony from Timothy Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on the National Security Council, who was expected to corroborate testimony from a senior U.S. diplomat who gave the most detailed account of the alleged quid pro quo.

[Democrats unveil procedures for Trump’s impeachment inquiry, rebutting GOP attacks]

Democratic leaders expected that two to four of their members would vote against the resolution. In the end, Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.), who represent Republican-leaning districts, opposed it.

Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.), one of the few Trump-district Democrats who has been reluctant about backing an impeachment inquiry, voted yes.

“It’s about transparency in the process; I like the fact that the transcripts will be made public and the American public will get the chance to understand what’s going on,” he said Wednesday, adding that he still is not convinced Trump needs to be impeached. “I am not prejudging anything . . . until I see all the evidence.”

Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), who was undecided as of Wednesday night, also supportd the resolution.

“I think the vote will allow a fair and open process and will finally let Americans judge for themselves,” Brindisi told Syracuse.com Thursday morning.

The House’s resolution allows the president and his counsel to request and query witnesses and participate in impeachment proceedings once they reach the Judiciary Committee, which is tasked with writing any articles of impeachment that will be voted on by the House. It also authorizes the House Intelligence Committee to release transcripts of its closed-door depositions to the public, and it directs the committee to write and then release a report on that investigation in the same fashion.

The resolution gives the Republican minority on both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees a chance to subpoena documents and testimony — provided that either the Democratic chairman or a majority of the committee agrees. And it establishes special procedures under which the chairman and top Republican on the panel can take up to 90 minutes to make their cases or defer to a staff lawyer to do so.

Before the roll call on Thursday morning, partisan tensions were visible on the floor of the House, as Democrats called attention to mounting evidence against Trump while Republicans decried the process as secretive and unfair.

“This moment calls for more than politics,” said House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a speech. “If we don’t hold this president accountable, we will be ceding our ability to hold any president accountable.”

“It’s a sad day for all of us,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), McGovern’s counterpart. “It’s not a fair process. It’s not an open process.”

Leading Republicans were adamant that not a single GOP member wwould back the measure — and they leaned heavily on Republicans who have openly criticized the president in the past.

“It is still not a fair process in my mind,” said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who, like most Republicans, voted against the resolution. “It is still a process where the Democrats call all the shots and we were not consulted along the way. . . . So, no. I’m a no.”

The resolution does not deal with the merits of impeaching the president, just procedure. But even Republicans who have expressed concern about points of Trump’s conduct — such as Walden, who Democrats believe could be swayable on an ultimate impeachment vote — held the party line on Thursday.

Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), who like Walden recently announced his upcoming retirement and has refused to rule out voting to impeach Trump, also voted against the measure.

*********

This is a key insight. Greg is 100% right. The position of Trump & the GOP is not just that what he did with Russia in 2016 and with Ukraine in 2019 is ok, they will argue that it is right, a president's prerogative...and they will do it again and again.👇👇🤔

"Republicans have no wiggle room left. Trump has made it absolutely clear that he is willing to press the government into service to rig the next election on his behalf -- and that he’ll keep doing just that, by any means necessary."

New piece and thread Greg Sargeant by:

"In a spectacularly disingenuous interview, @SecPompeo told Fox News that Trump's conduct was "appropriate" and confined to pressing Zelensky to investigate "corruption.""

"So here's a list of officials who were deeply alarmed by this "appropriate" conduct":

https://t.co/CFTYb2CNcZ

"Trump keeps saying, "Read the transcript!""

"This is not evasion. It's an explicit declaration that his pressure on Ukraine is *fine.*"

"Trump is stating clearly that he will use the government to cheat in 2020 in any way he can. Pompeo and Barr are all in:"

https://t.co/CFTYb2CNcZ

🔥This is the crucible on which to hammer at his support in the Senate.

🔥🔥America needs to know how wrong this pressure was- threatening to allow Russian aggression to have its deadly way.

🔥🔥🔥When a vote to acquit is rightly seen as a vote for kill Ukrainians for dirt, we’re done.

New developments confirm it: Pompeo and Barr are all-in on Trump’s corrupt scheme

By Greg Sargent | Published October 31 at 10:33 AM ET | Washington Post | Posted October 31, 2019 |

The impeachment inquiry is set to shift into a more damning mode, as House Democrats will vote Thursday on processes establishing the public hearings phase. This comes as a new witness, top national security adviser Tim Morrison, is set to shed more light on the quid pro quo at the heart of the scandal consuming Donald Trump’s presidency.

But while the inquiry concerning Trump himself continues to march forward, another big question looms: What should we do about the fact that numerous Trump Cabinet officials are in on his corrupt scheme as well, and are placing the government at its service?

These Cabinet officials are either actively validating the idea that there was nothing whatsoever wrong with conduct that we all now know actually happened — that is, Trump’s pressure on a foreign leader to help him corrupt our election on his behalf — or are working to cover it up.

This is driven home by a spectacularly disingenuous interview that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave to Fox News on Wednesday night. Pompeo floated a bizarre conspiracy theory hinting that the Obama administration held up military assistance to Ukraine to do a favor to Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

“I listened to the call,” Pompeo also said, referring to Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “appropriate.” Pompeo added:

I heard the president very clearly on that call, talking about making sure that corruption, whether that corruption took place in the 2016 election, whether that corruption continued to take place, that the monies that were being provided would be used appropriately, was very consistent with what I’ve understood President Trump and our administration to be doing all along.

One searches the White House summary of the call in vain for any mention of broad-based “corruption.” Instead, Trump pressed Zelensky to investigate a conspiracy theory that Ukraine set up Russia to take the fall for sabotaging the 2016 election, and explicitly targeted potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden, based on a narrative involving Hunter and the Burisma company that is complete nonsense.

In saying all this, Pompeo is echoing Trump’s constant refrain that his call was “perfect." But Morrison’s testimony, set for Thursday, could provide new information that further dismantles this running claim.

'WHAT TIM MORRISON KNOWS'

Morrison may corroborate parts of the damning testimony from William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor testified that around Sept. 1, Morrison described a conversation with Gordon Sondland — the ambassador to the European Union — in which Sondland said he’d told a top Zelensky aide that the military aid was conditional on Zelensky committing to investigate Burisma.

Taylor also testified that on Sept. 7, Morrison told him of a “sinking feeling” after learning from Sondland of strong signals that Trump had conditioned the money on Zelensky announcing an investigation of Biden. Taylor said this was confirmed in a Sept. 8 conversation.

These calls prompted Taylor to send those now-infamous texts raising alarms about this quid pro quo.

Morrison will reportedly confirm key aspects of this account. CNN reports that Morrison may nuance this, but if he merely confirms he conveyed word of this quid pro quo to Taylor, that will be deeply damaging.

'LOTS OF OFFICIALS WERE DEEPLY ALARMED'

So let’s take stock of all the officials who acted deeply alarmed by Trump’s “appropriate” and “perfect” conduct:

The Post reports that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that after he alerted White House lawyer John Eisenberg to his shock over the call, Eisenberg proposed stashing the transcript on the top-secret server. Vindman also testified he saw a threat to national security.

At least four national security officials alerted Eisenberg in similar fashion (that may include Vindman).

White House lawyers actually did stash the transcript on that server, which is normally reserved for ultra-sensitive secrets.

The whistleblower, whose claims have largely been validated, reported that numerous White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by Trump’s conduct.

Former national security adviser John Bolton described the scheme as a “drug deal."

Marie Yovanovitch, who was ousted by Trump as ambassador to Ukraine to enable the shadow Ukraine policy on Trump’s behalf, saw that policy as a threat to national security.

Taylor repeatedly texted about his deep alarm over withholding of military aid to leverage the investigations Trump wanted, and testified about that alarm.

Morrison got a “sinking feeling” about that quid pro quo, according to Taylor.

How do we square all this deep alarm about the pressure on Ukraine with the constant refrain that the conduct was just fine?

What this all must inescapably show is that the administration’s actual black-letter position — articulated by the White House counsel — is that the conduct as detailed in the transcript is just fine.

Pompeo is echoing this. And Attorney General William P. Barr is busily enlisting other foreign officials to help validate a set of narratives — which may even overlap with the one that Trump is pushing Ukraine to help validate — that will absolve Russia of its interference on Trump’s behalf in 2016, as Trump wants.

Barr’s Justice Department also tried to cover up Trump’s pressure on a second foreign power (Ukraine) to interfere on his behalf in 2020, advising against the transmission of the whistleblower complaint to Congress, and declining to investigate its charges.

As one Democrat argued to me, the Democratic argument now should be that Republicans have no wiggle room left. Trump has made it absolutely clear that he is willing to press the government into service to rig the next election on his behalf — and to cover it up. He has made it absolutely clear that he’ll keep doing just that, by any means necessary.

If Republicans don’t stop this, it can only mean they’re perfectly fine with it, or are even actively supportive of it.

*********

White House official expected to confirm diplomat’s account that Trump appeared to seek quid pro quo

By Carol D. Leonnig and John Hudson | Published October 31 at 11:18 AM ET | Washington Post | Posted October 31, 2019 |

Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council, is expected to corroborate the testimony of a senior U.S. diplomat who last week offered House impeachment investigators the most detailed account to date for how Trump tried to use his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, said a person familiar with the matter.

Morrison is expected to tell impeachment investigators on Thursday that the account offered by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine, is accurate. He also is expected to note that he alerted Taylor to a push by Trump and his deputies to withhold both security aid and a White House visit for the Ukrainian president until Ukraine agreed to investigate the Bidens and interference in the 2016 presidential election, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.

Morrison is expected to say that he did not necessarily view the president’s demands as improper or illegal, but rather problematic for U.S. policy in supporting an ally in the region, the person said.

Morrison’s testimony comes as the House votes on a resolution formalizing the impeachment inquiry and a day after he told colleagues that he plans to leave the Trump administration. His testimony was sought because of his proximity to critical White House decisions and recurring presence in testimony from previous U.S. officials. House investigators have also requested testimony from Morrison’s boss, former national security adviser John Bolton.

Morrison will corroborate that he spoke with Taylor at least twice in early September. The first conversation was to alert him that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, had told the Ukrainians that no U.S. aid would be forthcoming until they announced an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had hired Biden’s son Hunter, the person said.

Morrison also is expected to tell lawmakers that he spoke with Taylor again on Sept. 7 to share a “sinking feeling” about a worrisome conversation between Trump and Sondland, the person said. Morrison will say that, during that conversation, Trump said he wasn’t seeking a “quid pro quo” but went on to insist that Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky had to publicly announce that he was opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference.

Robert Luskin, an attorney for Sondland, said that Sondland never mentioned Biden by name and did not know that Burisma was linked to the vice president’s son.

Morrison’s testimony could take away an often-cited Republican complaint that many of the accounts from U.S. officials describing a quid pro quo are secondhand. Taylor mentioned Morrison’s name 15 times in the 15-page opening statement of his congressional testimony, portraying him as an official often in the know about critical U.S. policy in Ukraine.

Morrison has been on the job for about 15 months, having joined the National Security Council during Bolton’s tenure as national security adviser. In a statement on Wednesday, a senior U.S. official said Morrison “decided to pursue other opportunities — and has been considering doing so for some time.”

To replace Morrison, the White House has hired Andrew Peek, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary of state for Iraq and Iran, said a person familiar with the decision.

Morrison’s departure from the National Security Council removes an important vestige of Bolton’s tenure in the administration. Bolton handpicked Morrison to join the NSC because of his shared opposition to arms-control agreements, which both men consider an unacceptable constraint on American power. Morrison was initially brought on as the senior director for weapons of mass destruction and biodefense.

He is a staunch foe of nuclear nonproliferation advocates, who view arms control accords as the only workable means to reducing the risk of nuclear war and managing defense budgets.

During his tenure, Morrison oversaw the U.S. withdrawal from the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and continued to look for ways the United States could pull out of other nuclear accords.

This summer, Morrison urged Republican offices not to support an amendment to a defense authorization bill encouraging the administration to extend a landmark nuclear arms-reduction treaty known as New START, which will expire in February 2021.

In July, Morrison replaced Fiona Hill — who also testified in the impeachment inquiry — as the president’s top Russia adviser.

Taylor testified that Morrison told him Trump didn’t want to provide “any assistance at all” to Ukraine.

“That was extremely troubling to me,” Taylor said, adding, “If the policy of strong support for Ukraine were to change, I would have to resign. Based on my call with Mr. Morrison, I was preparing to do so.”

Morrison later notified NSC lawyers about the pressure being exerted on Ukraine, according to Taylor’s testimony.

Reis Thebault and Anne Gearan contributed to this report.

*********

Trump impeachment effort passes first test of support in Congress

By Patricia Zengerle, Richard Cowan | Published October 31, 2019, 6:14 AM ET | Reuters | Posted October 31, 2019 |

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives took a major step in the impeachment effort against U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday when lawmakers approved rules for the next stage of the Democratic-led inquiry into the president’s attempt to have Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival.

The Democratic-controlled House voted by 232 to 196 to establish how to hold public hearings in Congress, which could be damaging for Trump ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

It was the first formal test of support for the impeachment probe and showed that Democrats have enough backing in the House to later bring formal charges, known as articles of impeachment, against Trump if they feel they have enough evidence.

House Democrats say Trump has abused his office for personal gain and jeopardized national security by asking Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskiy to investigate Trump’s Democratic political rival Joe Biden, a former U.S. vice president, and his son Hunter, who had served as a director for Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Biden is a leading candidate in the Democratic presidential nomination race to face Trump in the November 2020 election.

“It’s a sad day. No one comes to Congress to impeach a president,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said before the vote.

Republicans have largely stuck by Trump, blasting the effort as a partisan exercise that has given them little input.

“This is Soviet-style rules,” said Representative Steve Scalise, the chamber’s No. 2 Republican, as he stood next to a poster depicting the famous onion domes of Moscow’s St. Basil’s Cathedral.

The vote largely broke along party lines. Only two Democrats voted against and no Republicans backed it.

Trump has denied wrongdoing and called the inquiry a sham.

If the House eventually votes to impeach Trump, that would set up a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate. Trump would not be removed from office unless votes to convict him by a two-thirds margin.

*********

Democrats push impeachment rules package through House

By ALAN FRAM and MATTHEW Daly | Published October 31, 2019 12:05 PM ET | VIDEO | AP | Posted October 31, 2019

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats rammed a package of ground rules for their impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump through a sharply divided House Thursday, the chamber's first formal vote in a fight that could stretch into the 2020 election year.

The tally was 232-196, with all Republicans against the resolution and just two Democratic defectors joining them: freshman Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and 15-term veteran Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, one of his party's most conservative members. Both represent GOP-leaning districts.

The vote laid down the rules as lawmakers transition from weeks of closed-door interviews with witnesses to public hearings and ultimately to possible votes on whether to recommend Trump's removal from office.

The action also took on more than technical meaning, with each party aware that the impeachment effort looms as a defining issue for next year's presidential and congressional campaigns.

The vote, which occurred on Halloween, drew a familiar Twitter retort from Trump: "The greatest Witch Hunt in American History!"

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats of an "unhinged obsession with this illegitimate impeachment proceeding."

During the debate, Democrats spoke of lawmakers' duty to defend the Constitution, while Republicans cast the process as a skewed attempt to railroad a president whom Democrats have detested since before he took office.

"What is at stake in all this is nothing less than our democracy," said Pelosi. Underscoring her point, she addressed the House with a poster of the American flag beside her and began her remarks by reading the opening lines of the preamble to the Constitution.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said Trump had done nothing impeachable and accused Democrats of trying to remove him "because they are scared they cannot defeat him at the ballot box."

No. 3 House GOP leader Steve Scalise, R-La., accused Democrats of imposing "Soviet-style rules," speaking in front of a bright red poster depicting the Kremlin.

Independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, who left the Republican Party earlier this year after saying he was open to considering whether Trump should be impeached, also backed the measure.

The investigation is focused on Trump's efforts to push Ukraine to investigate his Democratic political opponents by withholding military aid and an Oval Office meeting craved by the country's new president.

Democrats said the procedures — which give them the ability to curb the president's lawyers from calling witnesses — are similar to rules used during the impeachment proceedings of Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Republicans complained they were skewed against Trump.

It is likely to take weeks or more before the House decides whether to vote on actually impeaching Trump. If the House does vote for impeachment, the Senate would hold a trial to decide whether to remove the president from office.

Both parties' leaders were rounding up votes as Thursday's roll call approached, with each side eager to come as close to unanimity as possible.

Republicans said a solid GOP "no" vote would signal to the Senate that the Democratic push is a partisan crusade against a president they have never liked.

Democrats were also hoping to demonstrate solidarity from their most liberal elements to their most moderate members. They argued that GOP cohesion against the measure would show that Republicans are blindly defending Trump, whatever facts emerge.

"It will show the other party has become the party of Trump. It's really not the Republican Party any longer," said Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich.

Republicans said they'd use the vote to target freshman Democrats and those from districts Trump carried in 2016. They said they would contrast those Democrats' support for the rules with campaign promises to focus on issues voters want to address, not on impeaching Trump.

The House GOP's campaign arm sent emails to reporters all but taunting some of those Democrats including freshman Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H. "Pappas wants to be a one-termer," one said.

GOP leaders called the rules "Speaker Pelosi's sham process designed to discredit the Democratic process" in their daily impeachment email to lawmakers.

Pelosi decided to have the vote following weeks of GOP claims that the inquiry was invalid because the chamber had not voted to formally commence the work.

The rules lay out how the House Intelligence Committee — now leading the investigation by deposing diplomats and other officials behind closed doors — would transition to public hearings.

That panel would issue a report and release transcripts of the closed-door interviews it has been conducting.

The Judiciary Committee would then decide whether to recommend that the House impeach Trump.

According to the rules for hearings, Republicans could only issue subpoenas for witnesses to appear if the entire panel approved them — in effect giving Democrats veto power.

Attorneys for Trump could participate in the Judiciary Committee proceedings. But in a bid for leverage, panel Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., would be allowed to deny "specific requests" by Trump representatives if the White House continued refusing to provide documents or witnesses sought by Democratic investigators.

The rules also direct House committees "to continue their ongoing investigations" of Trump.

Top Democrats think that language will shield their members from weeks of Republican complaints that the inquiry has been invalid because the House had not formally voted to begin that work.

Democrats have said there's no constitutional provision or House rule requiring such a vote.

[trumpfeed]

Francis Rooney, a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives who expressed concerns about President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine, said on Saturday he would not run for a third term.