House of Representatives

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares17 Views

    Lawyer who prosecuted Trump hauled in front of House judiciary committee

    by

    The former special counsel prosecutor Jay Bratt is scheduled to appear before the Republican-led House judiciary committee next week as it attempts to find instances of politicization in the federal criminal cases brought against Donald Trump, according to three people familiar with the matter.The deposition of Bratt, who led the criminal case over Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents as a top deputy to the former special counsel Jack Smith, has been scheduled for 10am ET next Wednesday, according to a notice reviewed by the Guardian.Bratt’s appearance is the first known instance of a special counsel prosecutor being hauled before the judiciary committee since Trump took office vowing revenge and personally directing the firings of more than a dozen prosecutors who worked for Smith within days of his inauguration.It was not clear how long the deposition might last and whether Bratt planned to invoke any privileges to avoid testifying. A spokesperson for the judiciary committee did not immediately respond to questions about the deposition.Smith charged Trump in two cases: in Florida, for mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club and defying a subpoena commanding their return; and in Washington, for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The classified documents case was dismissed before it went to trial by the US district judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith had been unlawfully appointed because he was acting with the powers of a “principal officer” at the justice department, which requires confirmation by the US Senate.The topics that House investigators have prepared for Bratt were also not clear. But the judiciary committee, led by Republican chair Jim Jordan, has long believed that the special counsel cases were the result of political animus against Trump at the justice department.In repeated letters to the former special counsel last year, House investigators demanded information from Smith about contacts between the Biden White House and the justice department about the criminal cases, including when Bratt once travelled to the White House.They also sought documents and communications about meetings between FBI and justice department officials before the decision was made to ask a magistrate judge for a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. Bratt is widely understood to have encouraged FBI leaders to obtain a warrant.The warrant later proved to be the basis for the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice charges against Trump; the FBI retrieved 101 classified documents despite Trump’s lawyers having previously claimed that they had complied with an earlier subpoena to return all classified materials.The House judiciary committee has also taken a special interest in a fraught and disputed meeting between then-Trump legal team attorney Stanley Woodward and Bratt at justice department headquarters during the height of the classified documents case in November 2022.The Guardian previously reported on the complaint that Woodward filed in federal district court in Washington about the meeting, where he alleged Bratt discussed Woodward’s application to be a judge while trying to get the cooperation of Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet and Woodward’s client.In the filing, Woodward alleged that Bratt told him he did not think Woodward was a “Trump guy” and that “he would do the right thing” and get Nauta to testify against Trump in the classified documents case.The allegation was that Bratt had engaged in possible misconduct by suggesting Woodward’s judgeship application might be considered more favorably if he convinced his client to flip. The matter was referred to the justice department’s office of professional responsibility but it does not appear as though any action was taken.The extent of any potential impact on the case was unclear, since the meeting did not appear to have directly affected any testimony Nauta gave to prosecutors, and Bratt would not have had the ability to influence such an application, which is handled by the White House counsel’s office. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares28 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Agenda Hits Familiar Obstacle: State and Local Taxes

      by

      A small group of Republicans are threatening to torpedo President Trump’s agenda over the state and local tax deduction, long a headache for both parties.It was perhaps inevitable that the Republican effort to pass a vast fiscal package this year would, at some point, get caught up in the thicket of the state and local tax deduction.After all, the deduction, often called SALT, has long had the potential to cause a political standoff. Many G.O.P. lawmakers abhor it and, in 2017, imposed a $10,000 limit on the amount of state and local taxes Americans can write off on their federal returns. But to pass a tax bill this year, the party will need the support of a motivated clutch of Republicans who have made lifting that cap the animating promise of their political careers.Those lawmakers, who represent high-tax states like New York and New Jersey where the deduction is cherished, say they are willing to tank the package over the issue. Representative Nick LaLota, Republican of New York, can already visualize voting against the bill.“There’s a green ‘yes’ button and there’s a red ‘no’ button to press. Come time, if there’s not enough SALT in this bill, I’m pressing the red ‘no’ button,” he said. “It is a hill I am willing to stake my entire congressional career on.”Attempts by House Republican leaders to reach a deal with members like Mr. LaLota yielded little progress this week, leaving the issue unresolved as G.O.P. lawmakers prepare to release the first draft of their tax bill next week. Along with Medicaid, the health care program for the poor that Republicans have targeted for cuts, the state and local tax deduction could determine the fate of the entire G.O.P. legislative agenda.That’s because any change to the current $10,000 limit would be incredibly expensive, threatening to swamp the overall Republican budget for tax cuts. Even a relatively modest change, like doubling the cap for married couples, would cost $230 billion over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. More generous alterations along the lines of what New York Republicans have demanded could surpass $1 trillion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares38 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Writing Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Face Risks on Medicaid

      by

      Representatives from swing districts face tough votes as soon as next week, when key House panels are scheduled to consider legislation that would cut popular programs to pay for President Trump’s agenda.Gabe Evans, then a Republican state lawmaker in Colorado, defeated a Democratic member of Congress in November by less than 1 percentage point — just 2,449 votes — writing his ticket to Washington.Now Mr. Evans, 39, is helping to write legislation that could cement his own ticket back home.The first-term congressman, whose swing district just north of Denver includes 151,749 Medicaid recipients, sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Republican budget resolution that lays the groundwork for sweeping legislation to enact President Trump’s domestic agenda instructs the panel, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, to slash spending by $880 billion over the next decade to help pay for a large tax cut. That number is impossible to reach without substantially reducing the cost of Medicaid, the government program that provides health insurance for lower-income Americans.As Republicans in Congress struggle to coalesce around the core pieces of what Mr. Trump calls his “one big, beautiful bill,” Mr. Evans and other G.O.P. lawmakers from some of the most competitive districts in the country are facing committee votes next week to approve cuts to popular programs that could come back to haunt them politically.And Democrats are gleeful at the prospect of Republican incumbents going on the record supporting the effort.“These members of Congress won with fewer votes than the number of people in their district on Medicaid,” said Jesse Ferguson, a veteran Democratic strategist and a former spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Voting for this is like being the captain of the Titanic and deciding to intentionally hit the iceberg.”The group includes Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Republican of Iowa, who also sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee and is on even shakier ground than Mr. Evans, despite having warded off a challenger multiple times. Last year, Ms. Miller-Meeks, who represents 132,148 Medicaid recipients, won her seat by 0.2 percent, or 799 votes. Her local office in Davenport has been besieged by demonstrators concerned about spending cuts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares20 Views

      in Elections

      House Votes to Rename Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America, Taking a Symbolic Step

      by

      The legislation was all but certain to die in the Senate, but the move put the Republican-led House on the record supporting President Trump’s nomenclature.A divided House on Thursday approved legislation to permanently rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, moving over the taunting objections of Democrats to codify President Trump’s executive order renaming the body of water in line with his “America First” worldview.The 211-to-206 mostly party-line vote to pass the bill amounted to a symbolic show of Republican deference to Mr. Trump, given that Democrats are unlikely to allow the legislation to move forward in the Senate. But it put the G.O.P.-led House on the record backing the president in his effort to rewrite the rules of geography and to dare critics to defy him.Just one Republican, Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, voted no.The White House has barred journalists from The Associated Press from covering events in the Oval Office and flying aboard Air Force One, as punishment for the news organization’s continued use of the name Gulf of Mexico.“The American people deserve pride in their country, and pride in the waters that we own and we protect with our military and our Coast Guard,” said Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who sponsored the bill, calling it “one of the most important things we can do this Congress.”Democrats dismissed the legislation as a pandering and performative waste of time when Republicans were struggling to reach agreement on legislation to fulfill the president’s domestic policy agenda — the “big, beautiful bill” that could include unpopular cuts to Medicaid.Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, called it a “silly, small-minded and sycophantic piece of legislation.” He said the only silver lining of the exercise was that it underscored how Republicans were laboring to enact that domestic policy measure, which he warned would impose the largest Medicaid cut in history.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      House panel on campus antisemitism likened to cold-war ‘un-American’ committee

      by

      A congressional panel investigating antisemitism on US college campuses on Wednesday was accused of trying to chill constitutionally protected free speech and likened to a cold-war era committee notorious for wrecking the lives of people suspected of communist sympathies.The comparison was made by David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University law centre, who told the House education and workforce committee that its proceedings resembled those staged by the House un-American Activities Committee (Huac) during and after the second world war.Cole, a former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, accused the present-day committee of “broad-based charges of antisemitism without any factual predicate”.“These proceedings, with all due respect, have more in common with those of the House un-American Activities Committee,” he told committee members. “They are not an attempt to find out what happened, but an attempt to chill protected speech.”HUAC, originally formed in 1938 to investigate Nazi subversion, switched focus to communism after the war and grew infamous after its high-profile hearings – including into suspected communism in Hollywood – led to blacklists and people losing their jobs.Cole’s criticism came in the eighth hearing held by the committee, which has previously looked into antisemitism sparked by anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian protests at elite universities, including Harvard, Columbia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.The Trump administration has demanded sweeping changes in the governance of some of the country’s leading universities, including Harvard – prompting a backlash from academics and administrators, who believe antisemitism is being used as a pretext to curtail academic freedom.Pervious hearings had led to the resignations of several university heads after they were deemed to have given legalistic responses to questions – mainly posed by Republicans – over whether certain anti-Israeli slogans were genocidal or protected by free speech.Wednesday’s hearing included presidents from Haverford College in Pennsylvania, DePaul University in Chicago and California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.Even before it began, questions were raised about how truly concerned some members of Congress were prejudiced against Jews.A memo signed by Haverford academics – most of them Jewish – and reported by the Guardian expressed concern that one had quoted Adolf Hitler, others had failed to condemn antisemitic activity in their districts, and Tim Walberg, the committee’s Republican chair, had links to a Christian group that “trains students to convert Jewish people to Christianity”.Jewish Voice for Peace, a leftwing group, took nine Jewish students from Columbia to Capitol Hill to meet members of Congress on Tuesday, while condemning the hearings as “McCarthyite” and more concerned with suppressing pro-Palestinian protest than antisemitism.Walberg told the hearing campus antisemitism “continues to traumatize students, faculty and staff”. He cited a letter from a group of Jewish students at Haverford who claimed to have been “marginalized, ostracized and at times, outright attacked. College officials reacted with “indifference”, he said.Cole, who had been called as a witness by the committee’s ranking Democrat, Bobby Scott, said the hearings were flawed on free speech grounds and for focusing on the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, which – under Title VI – outlaws discrimination in education on the grounds of race, colour or national origin in institutions receiving federal funding.“Antisemitic speech, while lamentable, is constitutionally protected, just like racist speech, sexist speech and homophobic speech,” he said, adding that the US supreme court had defended the rights of the Nazi party to march in a town where Holocaust survivors lived.On civil rights, he said: “Title VI does not prohibit antisemitic speech. An antisemitic slogan at a protest or online does not deny equal access to education any more than a sexist or a racist comment.”More broadly, Cole said, committee members had not conducted proper investigations into specific incidents.“Getting to the bottom of what happened requires fair hearings where both sides are heard about specific incidents,” he said. “This committee has not held a single hearing looking into a specific incident, having the perpetrator and the complainant testify.”Suzanne Bonamici, a Democratic representative from Oregon, who is Jewish, cited a letter from 100 Jewish faculty members at Northwestern University in Illinois expressing “serious concerns” about how the committee was addressing antisemitism.“We are united by the conviction that our Jewishness must not be used as a cudgel to silence the vigorous exchange of ideas that lies at the heart of university life,” she quoted them as saying.She added: “As an active member of my synagogue for more than 25 years, I can no longer pretend that this is a good-faith effort to root out antisemitism.”Elise Stefanik, a Republican representative from New York, who rose to prominence in December 2023 with a high-profile cross-examination that prompted the resignation of the former president of the University of Pennsylvania, Elizabeth Magill, tried a similar tack with Haverford’s head, Wendy Raymond.“Is calling for the genocide of Jews protected speech on your campus?” Stefanik asked.Raymond replied that it was not, but struggled to answer when asked if students or staff had been disciplined or investigated for using such language. Stefanik said: “Respectfully, president of Haverford, many people have sat in this position who are no longer in the positions as president of universities for their failure to answer straightforward questions.”She added: “For the American people watching, you still don’t get it. Haverford still doesn’t get it. It’s a very different testimony than the other presidents who are here today, who are coming with specifics. This is completely unacceptable. Higher education has failed to address this gorge of antisemitism, putting Jewish students at risk at Haverford and other campuses across the country.” More

    • 150 Shares48 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats make long-shot effort to stop Trump cuts to Medicaid and Snap

      by

      House Democrats are making a long-shot attempt to stop Republicans from downsizing federal safety net programs including Medicaid to offset the costs of Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and tax cuts.The Democratic House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, on Tuesday announced that his lawmakers are circulating a petition which, should a majority of the chamber sign on to it, would force a vote on legislation preventing cuts to the Medicaid health insurance program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap).Known as a discharge petition, the effort faces long odds in the GOP-led chamber. Republican leaders have recently moved to stop such petitions, and while several Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns about some of the cuts being considered to pay for Trump’s agenda, they still generally support it.“House Republicans are determined to jam a reckless and extreme budget down the throats of the American people that will enact the largest cut to Medicaid and the largest cut to Snap in American history,” Jeffries told reporters.“All we need are four Republicans to do the right thing. Stand up for Medicaid and stand up for Snap, so they can stand up for the American people and we can stop the devastating cuts that Republicans are proposing.”Trump has called on Congress’s Republican majorities to send him what he has dubbed “one big, beautiful bill”, which is expected to extend tax cuts enacted during his first term, pay for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and potentially address other campaign promises, such as ending the taxation of tips, overtime and social security payments.The GOP plans to pass the bill using Congress’s reconciliation procedure, which requires only simple majorities in both the House and Senate.Some Republicans have blanched at the possibility of deep cuts to Medicaid and Snap. Under a budget framework that applies to the House, the former program could lose as much as $880bn, while the latter could lose $220bn, both major cuts that are expected to have far-reaching effects.Democrats are hoping to seize on their discontent to attract the small number of Republican signatures needed for their petition to succeed.“All of this poses a question for those House Republicans who like to call themselves moderate,” said Katherine Clark, the Democratic whip of the House of Representatives.“Here’s a chance for you, your friends, your fellow moderates, to show you actually care for your constituents. It only takes a handful of Republicans to stop this, just a few to protect Medicaid and save working families from losing their healthcare and going hungry.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDischarge petitions rarely gather enough signatures, and when they do, House Republican leadership moves forcefully to render them moot.Last month, a small number of Republicans signed on with Democrats to a petition that forced a vote on a measure to allow new parents to vote by proxy in the House. Republican leaders inserted language into a must-pass procedural motion to stop the petition, prompting several GOP lawmakers to join with Democrats in voting down the motion, after which leadership recessed the chamber early. The matter was later resolved by a compromise between the House speaker, Mike Johnson, and Anna Paulina Luna, the Republican representative who was leading the petition.The discharge petition to protect Snap and Medicaid comes after the Democratic National Committee last week announced plans to hold town halls and rally voters in the districts of four Republican lawmakers, with the goal of encouraging them to vote against the forthcoming reconciliation bill.Seven of 11 House committees have written up their section of the bill, which Johnson said he hopes to pass through the chamber by the 26 May Memorial Day holiday. More

    • 125 Shares54 Views

      in Elections

      Why Democrats Joined Republicans to Block a California Climate Policy

      by

      Some said they worried that California’s planned ban on gas-powered vehicles would raise the price of cars. Another cited “intense and misleading lobbying” by the oil industry.Representative Lou Correa, a Democrat who represents parts of Orange County, Calif., drives a hybrid car and wants the federal government to tackle climate change.But he joined 34 other Democrats last week to help Republicans repeal his state’s landmark requirement that all new vehicles sold in California be electric or otherwise nonpolluting by 2035. In doing so, he helped President Trump and the Republican majority to undercut the nation’s transition away from gasoline-powered cars.“I don’t like giving Trump a win,” Mr. Correa said in an interview after the vote. But electric vehicles remain expensive and impractical in his heavily blue-collar district, he said.“We just finished an election where every poll I’m seeing, everybody I talk to, says, ‘You guys need to listen to the working class, the middle class people,” Mr. Correa said. “I’m listening to my constituents who are saying ‘don’t kill us.’”The 246-to-164 vote in the House stunned environmentalists, who said they were struggling to understand why nearly three dozen Democrats voted to kill one of the most ambitious climate policies in the country. For the past few years, Democrats have overwhelmingly voted for stronger policies to tackle global warming.Some wonder whether that unity is starting to fray in the face of intense lobbying and worries about rising prices amid Mr. Trump’s trade wars.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares49 Views

      in Elections

      AOC Won’t Seek House Oversight Committee Role

      by

      Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats’ emphasis on seniority led her not to seek a leadership role on the powerful Oversight Committee.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said on Monday that she would not pursue becoming the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, citing her party’s emphasis on seniority as an obstacle.“It’s actually clear to me that the underlying dynamics in the caucus have not shifted with respect to seniority as much as I think would be necessary,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, 35, told reporters.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez initially sought the position last year but lost in an internal contest to Representative Gerald E. Connolly of Virginia, 75. Mr. Connolly announced last week that he would step back from his duties as he faces cancer, leading younger, more progressive lawmakers to start pitching themselves for the position.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who was elected in 2018, is one of the most prominent young Democrats. Her decision not to pursue the position would seem to clear the way for others in her mold to jockey for it. The Oversight Committee’s top Democrat is one of the party’s most visible opponents to the Trump administration.But her remarks cast doubt on whether House Democrats might buck their long adherence to the seniority system, even as many members of their party clamor for generational change.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s failed bid last year was seen as a setback for those in her party eager to break a long-established but unwritten rule that seniority should determine who gets prominent leadership roles, even as other younger members replaced older colleagues on some lower-profile committees.Weeks after the internal vote, she left the Oversight Committee for a spot on the influential Energy and Commerce Committee. That move would have complicated any effort that she might have made to succeed Mr. Connolly: House Democrats’ rules allow lawmakers to lead only committees they sit on.But Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who has been speaking before big crowds on a tour with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is one of her party’s brightest stars. Several Democrats on the Oversight Committee said last week that they were waiting to see whether she was interested, saying that she was a skilled messenger who would make a good foil to the Trump administration.Mr. Connolly’s position is not vacant. At a recent hearing, Representative Stephen F. Lynch of Massachusetts fulfilled his duties. Mr. Lynch, 70, has said he is interested in succeeding Mr. Connolly. More

    • 163 Shares62 Views

      in Elections

      Bob Filner, Mayor of San Diego Who Left Amid Scandal, Dies at 82

      by

      A progressive member of Congress for two decades, he resigned as mayor after 18 women accused him of sexual harassment.Bob Filner, a progressive Democrat who served two decades in Congress and then successfully ran for mayor of San Diego, promising to shake up City Hall — but whose career imploded within months amid a storm of sexual harassment charges — died on April 20. He was 82.His family announced the death. The announcement did not give a cause or say where he died, but The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that he died in an assisted living home in Costa Mesa, Calif.Mr. Filner, who was known for his brash and combative style, resigned as mayor under pressure in August 2013, after 18 women accused him of sexual misconduct in his time as mayor and during his years in Congress.The women included a retired Navy rear admiral, a university dean and Mr. Filner’s former communications director, who said that Mr. Filner had told her he wanted to see her naked and asked her to work without underwear.He left office denying any wrongdoing. But two months later, he pleaded guilty to a felony charge of false imprisonment and misdemeanor charges of battery involving two other women. He was sentenced to three months’ home confinement and three years’ probation.“I never intended to be a mayor who went out like this,” he said.Mr. Filner, when he was the mayor of San Diego, at a news conference in July 2013 at which he apologized for his conduct toward women. He would resign the next month.Fred Greaves/ReutersWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More