US Congress

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Unacceptable’: Biden denounced for bypassing Congress over Yemen strikes

      by

      A bipartisan chorus of lawmakers assailed Joe Biden for failing to seek congressional approval before authorizing military strikes against targets in Yemen controlled by Iranian-backed Houthi militants, reigniting a long-simmering debate over who has the power to declare war in America.The US president announced on Thursday night that the US and the UK, with support from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Bahrain, had launched a series of air and naval strikes on more than a dozen sites in Yemen. The retaliatory action was in response to relentless Houthi attacks against commercial shipping in the Red Sea since the start of Israel’s war in Gaza.“This is an unacceptable violation of the constitution,” said Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat and the chair of the Progressive Caucus. “Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress.”Biden, who served 36 years in the Senate, including as chair of the foreign relations committee, notified Congress but did not request its approval.“These strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea – including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history,” Biden said in a statement. “These attacks have endangered US personnel, civilian mariners, and our partners, jeopardized trade, and threatened freedom of navigation.”The escalation of American action came days after the Houthis launched one of their biggest salvoes to date, in defiance of warnings from the Biden administration and several international allies who implored the rebel group to cease its attacks or prepare to “bear the responsibility of the consequences”.Several lawmakers applauded the strikes, arguing they were necessary to deter Iran. In a statement, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, called Biden’s decision “overdue”.“The United States and our allies must leave no room to doubt that the days of unanswered terrorist aggression are over,” he said.Congressman Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House foreign affairs committee, said he supported the decision to launch “targeted, proportional military strikes”, but called on the Biden administration to “continue its diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation to a broader regional war and continue to engage Congress on the details of its strategy and legal basis as required by law”.Yet many progressive – and a number of conservative – members were furious with the president for failing to seek approval from Congress.“Unacceptable,” wrote Ayanna Pressley, a Massachusetts Democrat.Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin Democrat, wrote: “The United States cannot risk getting entangled into another decades-long conflict without congressional authorization.”He called on Biden to engage with Congress “before continuing these airstrikes in Yemen”.Ro Khanna, a California progressive who has led bipartisan efforts to reassert congressional authority over America’s foreign wars, said on X: “The president needs to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another Middle East conflict.”He pointed to article 1 of the constitution, vowing to “stand up for that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House”.Khanna has also led a years-long pressure campaign to end American support for Saudi Arabia’s devastating military offensive in Yemen. Biden said the US would end its support in 2021.Reacting to calls by Saudi Arabia for restraint and “avoiding escalation” in light of the American-led air strikes, Khanna added: “If you had told me on January 20 2021 that Biden would be ordering military strikes on the Houthis without congressional approval while the Saudis would be calling for restraint and de-escalation in Yemen, I would never have believed it.”Khanna’s dismay was shared by a number of House Republicans, including the far-right congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida and the arch-conservative senator Mike Lee of Utah.At the heart of Khanna’s criticism is a decades-long debate between the legislative and executive branches over Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war and the president’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief. Stretching back to the Vietnam war, lawmakers have accused administrations of both parties of pursuing foreign wars and engaging in military conduct without congressional approval.“These airstrikes have NOT been authorized by Congress,” tweeted Val Hoyle, an Oregon Democrat. “The constitution is clear: Congress has the sole authority to authorize military involvement in overseas conflicts. Every president must first come to Congress and ask for military authorization, regardless of party.”Some critics resurfaced a 2020 tweet from Biden, in which the then presidential candidate declared: “Donald Trump does not have the authority to take us into war with Iran without congressional approval. A president should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people.”The political fallout from the strikes in Yemen comes nearly a month after several Democrats were sharply critical of the administration’s decision to bypass Congress and approve the sale of tank shells to Israel amid a fraught debate within the party over Biden’s support for the war in Gaza.Barbara Lee, a California Democrat and longtime advocate of curtailing the president’s war-making authority, said Thursday’s strikes highlight the urgent need for Biden to seek an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.“This is why I called for a ceasefire early. This is why I voted against war in Iraq,” she wrote. “Violence only begets more violence. We need a ceasefire now to prevent deadly, costly, catastrophic escalation of violence in the region.” More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge bars Trump from presenting own closing arguments in fraud trial – as it happened

      by

      Donald Trump will be barred from his reported aim to deliver his own closing argument on Thursday in his New York civil business fraud trial.Judge Arthur Engoron had reportedly been prepared to allow the former president, in a highly unusual move, to address the court tomorrow in addition to his lawyers doing so.But fresh news now being reported by the Associated Press – Engoron has “rescinded permission”.Trump is a defendant in the case brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James. She claims his net worth was inflated by billions of dollars on financial statements that helped him secure business loans and insurance.An attorney for Trump informed Engoron earlier this week that Trump wished to speak during the closing arguments, and the judge approved the plan, according to one of the two people who spoke to the AP.Read more about the case from the Guardian’s Lauren Aratani, who had a great report from last weekend, here.As Republicans convened to weigh holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for not appearing for a deposition, the president’s son seized the spotlight by showing up unannounced at the House oversight committee room. It was something of a stunt, but succeeded in pulling media attention away from the hearing, and giving Democrats an opportunity to accuse the GOP of hypocrisy, since Biden’s attorney said he would have been willing to testify then, if asked. In New York City, Donald Trump was briefly set to personally deliver closing arguments at his civil fraud trial tomorrow, until judge Arthur Engoron said no.Here’s what else happened today:
      Conservative Republicans blocked the consideration of legislation on the House floor, in protest of speaker Mike Johnson’s government spending deal with Democrats.
      Joe Biden finally saw tentative improvement in his polling in a key swing state.
      Democrats of color blasted Republican Nancy Mace, who accused Hunter Biden of exhibiting “white privilege”.
      A group of constitutional law experts wrote an open letter saying that impeaching homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas simply because Republicans disagree with his policies is unjustifiable.
      Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania became the first House Democrat to call on Lloyd Austin to resign as defense secretary for not promptly telling the White House he had been hospitalized.
      Chris Deluzio, a freshman House Democrat from Pennsylvania and Iraq war veteran, has called on defense secretary Lloyd Austin to resign after he waited several days to notify the White House that he had been hospitalized.“I have lost trust in Secretary Lloyd Austin’s leadership of the Defense Department due to the lack of transparency about his recent medical treatment and its impact on the continuity of the chain of command. I have a solemn duty in Congress to conduct oversight of the Defense Department through my service on the House Armed Services Committee. That duty today requires me to call on Secretary Austin to resign,” Deluzio said.The White House has said Joe Biden has confidence in Austin, who remains hospitalized:Meanwhile, in Iowa, two of the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination will debate this evening, though frontrunner Donald Trump will not be joining them, the Guardian’s Alice Herman reports:Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis will face off one-on-one in Des Moines, Iowa, on Wednesday night in their fifth and most high-stakes attempt to take support away from Donald Trump before Monday’s Iowa caucus, the country’s first state primary election.The former president has repeatedly declined to debate his party’s opponents, and will again forgo this debate, instead participating in a town hall hosted by Fox News, also in Iowa.Unlike the prior debates, this one was not coordinated by the Republican National Committee (RNC), which decided in December to stop hosting GOP debates for the rest of the primary season.The RNC debates narrowed the field of Republican contenders to five, and CNN’s debate requirement that candidates poll at 10% in at least three national or Iowa-based surveys has left only Haley, DeSantis and Trump qualifying. Chris Christie, Trump’s most vociferous critic among the Republican contenders, did not make the cut, but will likely qualify in New Hampshire.House Republicans’ bad day just got worse, after conservative lawmakers disrupted a procedural vote in protest at speaker Mike Johnson’s deal with Democrats to fund the government:A vote on a rule to bring multiple pieces of legislation up for consideration just failed, and the House’s Republican leadership then announced there would be no votes for the rest of the day.It was the latest disruption for the House GOP, after Hunter Biden upstaged an oversight committee hearing convened this morning to hold him in contempt by showing up unexpectedly. That gave Democrats the opportunity to claim the majority does not actually want to hear from the president’s son about allegations of corruption. Just take it from the spokesman for the committee’s Democrats:After months of worrying poll numbers, Joe Biden has received some tentatively good news in the form of a just-released Quinnipiac University survey showing the president ahead of Donald Trump in must-win state Pennsylvania.Biden garnered 49% support against Trump’s 46% in what Quinnipiac said was the first time that the president led in their surveys of the swing state. Trump was ahead of Biden in two previous polls the university commissioned, though the university noted the race remained “too close to call”.Biden carried Pennsylvania when he was first elected in 2020, while Trump had won it in 2016.When Hunter Biden turned up before the House oversight committee today, South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace accused him of exhibiting “white privilege”.That comment did not sit well with at least two Democratic lawmakers on the panel, who excoriated Mace’s choice of words. Here’s Jasmine Crockett of Texas:And New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:In response to Florida’s Republican representative Byron Donalds who asked Maryland’s Democratic representative Jamie Raskin whether he has ever stayed at a Trump hotel, Raskin replied:
      “I would never stay at a Trump hotel. I’ve got too much self-respect and a concern for hygiene.”
      Raskin’s comments came as he offered to take Donalds “up on his challenge to see whether the Trump hotel in Washington, the Trump hotel in Las Vegas, the Trump hotel on Fifth Avenue, the Trump hotel on UN Plaza, the four of the more than 500 businesses that we got documentation for, whether they actually had the same level of business coming from Saudi Arabia, the communist bureaucrats of China … the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, India, Egypt … ”“We will make that comparison about what was done before if you get the chairman to call off the ban on further documents,” he added, referring to House oversight committee chairman James Comer.Last Thursday, a report published by Democrats from the House oversight committee found that Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8m in payment from 20 countries during his presidency.In an email New York judge Arthur Engoron sent to Donald Trump’s lawyer Chris Kise on Wednesday surrounding Trump’s closing arguments, Engoron wrote:
      “Dear Mr. Kise,
      Not having heard from you by the third extended deadline (noon today), I assume that Mr. Trump will not agree to the reasonable, lawful limits I have imposed as a precondition to giving a closing statement above and beyond those given by his attorneys, and that, therefore, he will not be speaking in court tomorrow.”
      Fani Willis, Georgia’s Fulton county district attorney who brought election interference charges against Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants, has been subpoenaed in a divorce case involving a special prosecutor she hired in the Trump case.A process server delivered the subpoena to Willis’s office on Monday, according to a court filing reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the subpoena. The subpoena requests Willis to testify in the divorce case involving her top prosecutor Nathan Wade and his wife Joycelyn Wade.The Wades filed for divorce in Cobb county, just outside Atlanta, in November 2021, according to a county court docket. The filings in the case have been sealed since February 2022.Earlier this week, Mike Roman, a former Trump campaign official and co-defendant in the election interference case who is facing seven criminal charges, filed a motion accusing Willis and Nathan Wade of an “improper, clandestine personal relationship during the pendency of this case”. The filing offered no proof of the relationship or of any wrongdoing.For the full story, click here:Donald Trump’s real estate empire is facing peril.For 11 weeks, the inner workings of his company have been discussed at a New York fraud trial. A judge has already decided Trump committed fraud. He will rule on punishment later.Trump’s companies could lose their New York licenses, making it nearly impossible for him to run his real estate business. He is also facing a vast fine – state lawyers made the case for a $370m penalty on Friday – which could force the company to sell off its properties.At this point, prosecutors and Trump’s defense team have rested their cases. Closing arguments are set to take place on Thursday.The last three months offered Trump and his lawyers their chance to defend Trump in court against accusations that he purposely exaggerated his net worth on government documents. Instead, they worked to uphold the shimmering portrait Trump has painted of himself for the last 40 years. The story that gave Trump celebrity and, ultimately, the White House could lead to the downfall of his company.A scathing pre-trial summary judgment made the trial an uphill battle for Trump’s team. Issued on 26 September, less than a week before the trial started, the ruling said documents submitted by prosecutors showed Trump had committed fraud. The ruling is currently under review by an appellate court, but if upheld, Trump will lose his business licenses, severely curtailing his real estate business in New York.You can read more here.Donald Trump will be barred from his reported aim to deliver his own closing argument on Thursday in his New York civil business fraud trial.Judge Arthur Engoron had reportedly been prepared to allow the former president, in a highly unusual move, to address the court tomorrow in addition to his lawyers doing so.But fresh news now being reported by the Associated Press – Engoron has “rescinded permission”.Trump is a defendant in the case brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James. She claims his net worth was inflated by billions of dollars on financial statements that helped him secure business loans and insurance.An attorney for Trump informed Engoron earlier this week that Trump wished to speak during the closing arguments, and the judge approved the plan, according to one of the two people who spoke to the AP.Read more about the case from the Guardian’s Lauren Aratani, who had a great report from last weekend, here.House Republicans today condemned Alejandro Mayorkas during the opening hearing in the impeachment process they’ve instigated against the homeland security secretary over record numbers of migrants making unauthorized entry across the US-Mexico border.Mark Green, the Republican chairman of the committee leading the impeachment effort, said in opening remarks that Mayorkas had intentionally encouraged illegal immigration with lax policies, Reuters reports.But congressman Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the committee, called the impeachment effort a “circus sideshow” crafted by Republicans “to try to distract from their own failures” to address border security.The impeachment effort is the culmination of years of Republican criticism of Joe Biden’s border management and the president’s moves to reverse some of the harshest policies of Donald Trump.“The secretary’s actions have brought us here today, not ours,” Green said at the hearing, calling Mayorkas “the architect of the devastation” at the border.Not only Democrats across both congressional chambers but also Senate Republicans have questioned the attempt to remove Mayorkas over a policy dispute, which legal experts say does not satisfy the high standard for impeachment.Border security is a core issue for Republican base voters and the party has intensified its criticism of the Biden administration in the run-up to 5 November election.The only cabinet secretary to ever be impeached was Ulysses Grant’s secretary of war in 1876 following allegations of corruption – demonstrating the exceptional nature of today’s proceedings.More on Thompson:It’s been a lively morning on Capitol Hill, to say the least. And there is a lot more action to come so stay with us as we bring you the US political news as it happens.Here’s where things stand:
      Hunter Biden made a surprise appearance at a congressional hearing, as Republicans on the US House oversight committee convened to consider a resolution to hold the US president’s son in contempt of Congress over his refusal to comply with a subpoena for testimony over his business interests.
      Appearing with his attorney, Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden sat silently in the front row of the hearing room as the chair and vice-chair of the oversight committee delivered their opening statements.
      After Hunter Biden walked into the House oversight committee hearing room in Washington, Republican Nancy Mace laid into him, prompting objections from Democrats. “Who bribed Hunter Biden to be here today? That’s my first question,” she said.
      Meanwhile, in a separate proceeding, House Republicans leading the homeland security committee were barreling ahead with efforts to impeach homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, part of a broader effort to make immigration and border security a defining issue of this year’s presidential election. The committee was holding its first hearing in the process, but Mayorkas was not attending.
      A group of constitutional law experts has written an open letter saying that impeaching Mayorkas simply because Republicans disagree with his policies is unjustifiable.
      The Republican campaign against Hunter Biden centers on allegations that his father, president Joe Biden, benefited illicitly from his business dealings overseas.The GOP has turned up no proof of such ties. What they have discovered is that, per the testimony of Hunter Biden’s former business partner, he would sometime put his father on speakerphone during business meetings, but their conversations were casual.As he was departing the House oversight committee room, Hunter Biden was asked why he had his father talk to his clients. Here’s what he had to say:According to Reuters, Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell spoke briefly to reporters about why the president’s son made an unexpected appearance in the House oversight committee’s audience.“We have offered to work with the House committees to see what and how relevant information to any legitimate inquiry could be provided,” Lowell said after Biden left the hearing room.“Our first five offers were ignored. And then in November, they issued a subpoena for a behind-closed-doors deposition, a tactic that the Republicans have repeatedly misused in their political crusade to selectively leak and mischaracterize.” More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Federal appeals judges begin hearing on Trump immunity arguments – live

      by

      Judge Karen Henderson gets into what the appeals court’s options are going forward.Trump attorney John Sauer says he thinks the judges should remand the case back to the lower district court, with instructions to go through the indictment and consider whether each alleged act is an official act, or private conduct.Sauer’s position is that private conduct can be prosecuted, but officials acts cannot, and that all the acts in the indictment are official acts.Judge Karen Henderson moved on to what acts are official acts for a president, saying, “I think it’s paradoxical to say his constitutional duty to say that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate the law”.Sauer replied that a president’s actions can never be examinable by the courts.Judges Karen Henderson and Michelle Childs pressed John Sauer on comments Donald Trump uttered while in office, when he conceded that no former officeholder is immune from investigation and prosecution.Senators might have relied on that to acquit Trump in the impeachment that followed the January 6 insurrection, Henderson said.Sauer replied that he disagrees with the judges’ interpretation of that line, which has been memorialized in the congressional record. He says the term “officeholder” would pertain to lesser government officials, not the president, and, in any case, Trump was referring to being investigated generally.Judge Florence Pan started off her questioning of Trump lawyer John Sauer by offering a novel scenario.“Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and was not impeached, could he be subjected to criminal prosecution?” Pan asked.After some back and forth, Sauer said, “Qualified yes, if he’s impeached and convicted first.”Circuit judge Florence Pan is putting Trump lawyer John Sauer in a tough spot. After Sauer said that presidents can be prosecuted so long as there’s impeachment and conviction in the Senate, Pan asks if he is conceding that presidents actually do not have absolute immunity, and that if president can be prosecuted, don’t “all of your separation of powers and policy arguments fall away”?Live television cameras are not allowed in federal courtrooms.But live audio is, and you can listen to the back and forth between Donald Trump’s lawyers and the three judges at the top of the page. The former president is not expected to address the court.Donald Trump’s lawyers have begun making their arguments to a panel of three federal appeals judges that the former president cannot be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election because the events took place while he was president.The three federal judges hearing the case are now in the courtroom.They are Michelle Childs, who was appointed by Joe Biden, Karen Henderson, a George HW Bush appointee, and Florence Pan, another Biden appointee.Donald Trump’s lawyers have arrived in the courtroom where a federal appeals court will consider whether he is immune from charges related to trying to overturn the 2020 election.Representing Trump today is former Missouri solicitor general John Sauer. Also in attendance for the former president are lawyers John Lauro, Greg Singer, Emil Bove and Stanley Woodward.There is at least one anti-Trump demonstrator waiting in the foul weather to greet the former president, WUSA9 reports:Since it’s 42 degrees Fahrenheit and raining in Washington DC today, do not expect the lively crowds that gathered for Donald Trump’s August arraignment to convene once again for his potentially pivotal immunity hearing.The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell, who is covering the hearing from within the E Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse, saw no supporters, protesters or lookie-loos outside, and this morning’s wire photos of the building show a pretty unremarkable scene:Good morning, US politics blog readers. Donald Trump is taking a break from the campaign trail today to appear in a Washington DC federal appeals court, where his lawyers will attempt to convince a three-judge panel that his “presidential immunity” prevents him from facing trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election. The stakes will be the highest of any court hearing for Trump since he was first indicted on the charges by special counsel Jack Smith in August, and if the former president prevails, Smith’s prosecution will end. We do not expect to get a decision today, and whichever way the three judges – two appointed by Joe Biden, and one by George HW Bush, rule, chances are the issue will go to the supreme court.Trump is not required to attend the hearing, but is using the proceedings as an opportunity to juice his claims of political persecution ahead of Monday’s Iowa Republican caucuses, which he is expected to win. “I was looking for voter fraud, and finding it, which is my obligation to do, and otherwise … running our Country”, the former president wrote yesterday on his Truth Social network. The hearing kicks off at 9.30am eastern time.Here’s what else is happening today:
      Nikki Haley’s support has peaked in New Hampshire, or perhaps not. Ahead of the state’s 23 January Republican primary, a Boston Globe/Suffolk University/USA Today poll reports she has 26% support compared with Trump’s 46%. But a CNN poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire shows a much closer race, with Trump at 39%, and Haley at 32%.
      The House returns today after the holiday break, and we get a better sense of whether rightwing lawmakers are prepared to reject a framework announced over the weekend to prevent a government shutdown.
      Joe Biden has no public events, but White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre will brief reporters at 2pm. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Will US spending deal be enough to avert government shutdown?

      by

      Congressional leaders reached an agreement on overall spending levels to fund the federal government in 2024, a significant step toward averting a shutdown later this month. But political divisions on immigration and other domestic priorities could stall its progress.The deal is separate from bipartisan Senate negotiations that would pair new border security measures with additional funding for Israel and Ukraine. That proposal was expected to be released as early as this week, but a senator involved in the talks said on Monday that the timeline was “doubtful”.The details of this deal, negotiated by the Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, and the Democratic Senate majority, Chuck Schumer, must still be worked out. Joe Biden praised the deal but some conservatives are unhappy, underscoring the fragile nature of the agreement with just days left to finalize it.What’s the deal?Congressional leaders agreed on a “topline” figure to finance the federal government in fiscal year 2024: $1.59tn. In a letter to colleagues over the weekend, Johnson said the spending levels include $886bn for the military and $704bn for non-defense spending.Johnson said Republican negotiators won “key modifications” as part of the deal, which he said will further reduce non-military spending by $16bn from a previous agreement brokered by Kevin McCarthy, then the House speaker, and Biden. Additionally, he noted that the overall spending levels were roughly $30bn less than a proposal the Senate had considered.The agreement rescinds roughly $6bn in unspent Covid relief funds and accelerates plans to slash by $20bn new funding that the Internal Revenue Service was supposed to receive under the Inflation Reduction Act, Johnson said.Congressional negotiators are now up against a tight deadline to write and pass 12 individual appropriations bills, an unlikely feat given the timeframe. Funding for roughly one-fifth of the government expires on 19 January, while the rest of the government remains funded until 2 February. Alternative options include a continuing resolution, known as a CR, or an all-in-one omnibus bill, both of which conservatives find unpalatable.How are leaders selling it?Biden said the agreement “moves us one step closer to preventing a needless government shutdown and protecting important national priorities”.“It reflects the funding levels that I negotiated with both parties and signed into law last spring,” Biden said in a statement. “It rejects deep cuts to programs hardworking families count on, and provides a path to passing full-year funding bills that deliver for the American people and are free of any extreme policies.”Democratic leaders cast the deal as a win. “When we began negotiations, our goal was to preserve a non-defense funding level of $772bn – the same level agreed to in our debt ceiling deal last June – and that $772bn was precisely the number we reached. Not a nickel – not a nickel – was cut,” Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor on Monday.While Johnson touted several “hard-fought concessions” secured in the deal, he also acknowledged that not everyone in his caucus would be pleased by the agreement.“While these final spending levels will not satisfy everyone, and they do not cut as much spending as many of us would like, this deal does provide us a path to: 1) move the process forward; 2) reprioritize funding within the topline towards conservative objectives, instead of last year’s Schumer-Pelosi omnibus; and 3) fight for the important policy riders included in our House FY24 bills,” he wrote in the letter.Can it hold?Even if lawmakers can work at lightning speed to draft a dozen appropriations bills in time, several hurdles lie ahead. Johnson, who holds a narrow majority in the House, is already facing a revolt from conservatives in his caucus.Hours after the speaker announced a deal had been reached, the arch-conservative House Freedom Caucus railed against it. “It’s even worse than we thought. Don’t believe the spin,” it said. “This is total failure.”Several conservatives say they want to see Johnson attach strict new border security measures to any government funding deal, and some have signaled a willingness to shut down the government if those demands are not met.In an interview on Sunday, Elise Stefanik, the No 4 House Republican, did not rule it out as a course of action.“We don’t support shutting down the government,” Stefanik said. “But we must secure the border. We must secure the border. That’s where the American people are. We’re losing our country in front of our very eyes.”Schumer said Democrats would balk at the inclusion of any “poison pill” amendments.“If the hard right chooses to spoil this agreement with poison pills, they’ll be to blame if we start careening towards a shutdown,” he said on Monday. “And I know Speaker Johnson has said that nobody wants to see a shutdown happen.”But Johnson is under pressure from the far right, and he knows his job could be on the line. Conservatives moved to oust his predecessor from the speakership after McCarthy struck a deal with Democrats to preserve spending levels and avert a government shutdown. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican and Democrat leaders reach spending deal to fund US government

      by

      The top Democrat and Republican in the US Congress on Sunday agreed on a $1.59tn spending deal, setting up a race for bitterly divided lawmakers to pass the bills that would appropriate the money before the government begins to shut down this month.Since early last year, House of Representatives and Senate appropriations committees had been unable to agree on the 12 annual bills needed to fund the government for the fiscal year that began 1 October because of disagreements over the total amount of money to be spent.When lawmakers return on Monday from a holiday break, those panels will launch intensive negotiations over how much various agencies, from the agriculture and transportation departments to Homeland Security and health and human services, get to spend in the fiscal year that runs through 30 September.They face a 19 January deadline for the first set of bills to move through Congress and a 2 February deadline for the remainder of them.There were already some disagreements between the two parties as to what they had agreed to. Republican House speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement that the top-line figure includes $886bn for defense and $704bn for non-defense spending. But Democratic Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, in a separate statement, said the non-defense spending figure will be $772.7bn.Last month, Congress authorized $886bn for the Department of Defense this fiscal year, which Democratic president Joe Biden signed into law. Appropriators will also now fill in the details on how that will be parceled out.The non-defense discretionary funding will “protect key domestic priorities like veterans benefits, healthcare and nutrition assistance” from cuts sought by some Republicans, Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a joint statement.Last spring, Biden and then-House speaker Kevin McCarthy reached a deal on the $1.59tn in fiscal 2024 spending, along with an increase in borrowing authority to avoid an historic US debt default.But immediately after that was enacted, a fight broke out over a separate, private agreement by the two men over additional non-defense spending of around $69bn.One Democratic aide on Sunday said that $69bn in “adjustments” are part of the deal announced on Sunday.Another source briefed on the agreement said Republicans won a $6.1bn “recission” in unspent Covid aid money.The agreement on a top line spending number could amount to little more than a false dawn, if hardline House Republicans make good on threats to block spending legislation unless Democrats agree to restrict the flow of migrants across the US-Mexico border – or if they balk at the deal hammered out by Johnson and Schumer.Biden said on Sunday the deal moved the country one step closer to “preventing a needless government shutdown and protecting important national priorities”.“It reflects the funding levels that I negotiated with both parties,” Biden said in a statement after the deal was announced.Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell said he was encouraged by the agreement.“America faces serious national security challenges, and Congress must act quickly to deliver the full-year resources this moment requires,” he said on Twitter/X.Unless both chambers of Congress – the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-majority Senate – succeed in passing the 12 bills needed to fully fund the government, money will expire on 19 January for federal programs involving transportation, housing, agriculture, energy, veterans and military construction. Funding for other government areas, including defense, will continue through 2 February. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Lauren Boebert denies allegations that she punched ex-husband in restaurant

      by

      Rightwing US congresswoman Lauren Boebert is denying allegations that she punched her ex-husband in the face in public after police in Colorado were reportedly called out to an encounter involving the pair Saturday night at a restaurant.The incident was first reported by the Daily Beast. The news site said that Jayson Boebert called police claiming that he was a “victim of domestic violence”. In an interview with the Daily Beast, Jayson Boebert alleged that the congresswoman had “punched” him in the face several times. He claimed to have a witness to the events.“I didn’t punch Jayson in the face and no one was arrested,” Boebert said in a statement provided to reporter Kyle Clark of television station KUSA. Calling Saturday night’s events “a sad situation for all that keeps escalating”, she added: “I will be consulting with my lawyer about the false claims he made against me and evaluate all of my legal options.”Denver Gazette reporter Carol McKinley had earlier reported that police in Silt, Colorado, had been called out to a confrontation between Lauren and Jayson Boebert at the local Miner’s Claim restaurant on Saturday evening, citing information from the city’s police chief. The chief, Mike Kite, said there had not been any arrests immediately despite reports that Lauren Boebert had punched Jayson Boebert, but investigators were looking for any relevant video, McKinley reported.In an interview with the Denver Post, Jayson Boebert said he told police he does not want to press charges. “I don’t want nothing to happen,” Jayson Boebert said. “Her and I were working through a difficult conversation.”In her statement, Lauren Boebert reiterated that the situation with her and Jayson Boebert was “another reason” for her 27 December 2023 announcement that she intended to relocate from Colorado’s third congressional district to the fourth and seek a third term in Congress there.Boebert, 37, won a second term in Congress after defeating Democratic challenger Adam Frisch by just 546 votes. Frisch signaled his intent to challenge Boebert again during the 2024 election cycle and had raised $7.7m to his Republican opponent’s $2.4m before she indicated she would seek a new term in another district rather than face a rematch.The congresswoman filed for divorce in May from her husband, with whom she has four sons, citing “irreconcilable differences”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn September, Boebert landed in scandal after she and a man with whom she was on a date were kicked out of a performance of the stage production Beetlejuice in Denver for inappropriate behavior, including vaping, recording and groping each other. She later issued a statement of apology, saying: “I simply fell short of my values.”Boebert’s party has a narrow majority in their chamber and is in the minority in the Senate. Ohio congressman Bill Johnson’s resignation will leave 219 Republicans when it takes effect on 21 January, meaning any measure favored by the party that loses votes from two of its members will not pass. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Harry Dunn, ex-officer who defended Capitol on January 6, to run for Congress

      by

      Harry Dunn, a former police officer who defended the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, will run for US Congress in Maryland.On Friday, a day ahead of the third anniversary of the deadly riot, Dunn said via X, formerly known as Twitter: “On January 6, I defended our democracy from insurrectionists as a Capitol police officer. After, President Biden honoured me with the Presidential Citizens Medal.“Today, I’m running for Congress, to stop Trump’s Maga extremists and ensure it never happens again.”“Maga” is short for Trump’s campaign slogan, Make America Great Again.Nine deaths have been linked to the attack on the Capitol on 6 January 2021, which happened when Donald Trump told supporters to “fight like hell” to block certification of his election defeat by Joe Biden.The attack failed. But one police officer, Brian Sicknick, died the next day. Other officers killed themselves.Dunn – a commanding presence at 6ft 7in and 325lbs, once an offensive lineman in college football – was one of a group of officers who acquired a public profile after the riot, testifying before the House January 6 committee, appearing on television and releasing an autobiography, Standing My Ground.He will now run for Congress in Maryland’s third district, a solidly Democratic seat north-east of Washington represented by John Sarbanes, re-elected eight times but not running this year. The primary, which Dunn now joins, will be held on 14 May.In an announcement video, Dunn appeared amid a re-enactment of January 6, a Trump flag seen in the background as actors re-created the Capitol riot.Dunn took aim at Republicans in Congress now ranged behind Trump as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination again.“I swore an oath to protect our constitution, to protect our democracy,” Dunn said. “It’s what allowed me to protect some members of Congress who I knew were bigots, who helped fan the flames that started all of this.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I put country above self. The problem is, a lot of them did not. Some of the same people who stood behind us when we protected them went back on the floor of Congress and stood behind Trump. They voted to acquit him [in his ensuing impeachment trial]. And worst of all, they deny the violence and trauma that led to the death of some of my fellow officers.”Trump now faces 91 criminal charges (17 concerning election subversion), numerous civil trials, and attempts to keep him off the ballot in Colorado and Maine under the 14th amendment to the US constitution, meant to stop insurrectionists running for office. Nonetheless, he leads Republican primary polling by huge margins.“I couldn’t stand by and watch,” Dunn said. “I had another role to play. I used my voice to speak out. And a few weeks ago, I left the force after more than 15 years of service, so that today I can announce I’m running for Congress.“We can’t ever let this happen again, and you’ve heard it from Trump himself: he is hellbent on finishing what he started this day … I believe every one of us has a role to play in this fight. So join me. We’ve got a democracy to protect.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump businesses received millions in foreign payments while he was in office

      by

      Donald Trump “repeatedly and willfully” violated the US constitution by “allowing his businesses to accept millions of dollars from some of the most corrupt nations on Earth”, prominently including China, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee charged on Thursday, unveiling a 156-page report on the matter.Four businesses owned by Trump’s family conglomerate received at least $7.8m in payments in total from 20 countries during his four years in the White House, the report said. It added that the payments probably represented just a fraction of foreign payments to the Republican president and his family during his administration, which ran from 2017 to 2021.The foreign emoluments clause of the US constitution bars the acceptance of gifts from foreign states without congressional consent.Trump broke with precedent – and his own campaign-trail promises – and did not divest from his businesses or put them into a blind trust when he took office, instead leaving his adult sons to manage them.The issue of foreign spending at Trump-owned businesses proceeded to dog Trump throughout his time in power.On Thursday, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the oversight committee, said: “After promising ‘the greatest infomercial in political history’ [regarding his business interests] … Trump repeatedly and willfully violated the constitution by failing to divest from his business empire and allowing his businesses to accept millions of dollars in payments from some of the most corrupt nations on earth.”Such countries spent – “often lavishly”, the report said – on apartments and hotel stays at properties owned by Trump’s business empire, thereby “personally enriching President Trump while he made foreign policy decisions connected to their policy agendas with far-reaching ramifications for the United States”.Raskin said: “The limited records the committee obtained show that while Donald Trump was in office, he received more than $5.5m from the Chinese government and Chinese state-owned enterprises, as well as millions more from 19 other foreign governments including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia, through just four of the more than 500 entities he owned.”Those four properties – Trump International Hotel in Washington, Trump Tower and Trump World Tower in New York, and Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas – represented less than 1% of the 558 corporate entities Trump owned either directly or indirectly while president, the report said.Raskin said: “The governments making these payments sought specific foreign policy outcomes from President Trump and his administration. Each dollar … accepted violated the constitution’s strict prohibition on payments from foreign governments, which the founders enacted to prevent presidents from selling out US foreign policy to foreign leaders.”Shortly after Trump was elected, Congress began investigating potential conflicts of interest and violations of the emoluments clause. The investigation led to a lengthy court dispute which ended in a settlement in 2022, at which point Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, began producing documents requested.After Republicans took over the House last year, the oversight committee stopped requiring those documents. A US district court ended litigation on the matter. Mazars did not provide documents regarding at least 80% of Trump’s business entities, Democrats said on Thursday.Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination this year, despite facing 91 criminal indictments, assorted civil threats and moves to bar him from the ballot in Colorado and Maine, under the 14th amendment meant to stop insurrectionists running for office.His campaign did not immediately comment on the Democratic report.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRaskin pointed a finger at a leading Trump ally, James Comer of Kentucky, the Republican oversight chair.“While the figures and constitutional violations in this report are shocking, we still don’t know the extent of the foreign payments that Donald Trump received – or even the total number of countries that paid him and his businesses while he was president – because committee chairman James Comer and House Republicans buried any further evidence of the Trump family’s staggering corruption.”Comer – who is leading Republican attempts to impeach Joe Biden over alleged corruption involving foreign money – issued a statement of his own.“It’s beyond parody that Democrats continue their obsession with former President Trump,” Comer said. “Former President Trump has legitimate businesses but the Bidens do not. The Bidens and their associates made over $24m by cashing in on the Biden name in China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Romania. No goods or services were provided other than access to Joe Biden and the Biden network.”Most observers say Republicans have not produced compelling evidence of corruption involving Biden, members of his family and foreign interests. The New York Times, for example, judged recently that “many messages cited by Republicans as evidence of corruption by President Biden and his family are being presented out of context”.On social media on Thursday, the California Democrat Eric Swalwell said: “No president ever personally enriched himself more while in office than Donald Trump. And mostly, in his case, from foreign cash. I don’t want to hear another peep about bogus Biden allegations. Game, set, match. Move on.”Raskin said: “By concealing the evidence of Trump’s grift, House Republicans shamefully condone former President Trump’s past conduct and keep the door open for future presidents to exploit higher office.”The family business empire, the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump and his two oldest sons, Don Jr and Eric, is in the closing stages of a civil trial brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James.Reuters contributed reporting More