35 Burst results for "Congress Congress"
Deadly breach could delay decisions about Capitol fencing
"I'm I'm Julie Julie Walker Walker there there needs needs to to be be a a balance balance between between security security and and public public access access at at the the capitol capitol even even in in the the wake wake of of last last week's week's deadly deadly attack attack that that killed killed an an officer officer says says the the lawmaker lawmaker leading leading a a bipartisan bipartisan effort effort to to investigate investigate the the January January six six riots riots publican publican senator senator Roy Roy blunt blunt says says the the capital capital is is an an important important symbol symbol of of who who we we are are it it must must be be secure secure but but free free I I think think the the permanent permanent fencing fencing should should come come down down I I don't don't think think it it does does the the job job in in fact fact the the fencing fencing was was right right there there when when the the car car drove drove through through officer officer William William Evans Evans was was killed killed Friday Friday when when police police say say no no a a green green ran ran his his car car into into a a barrier barrier then then lunged lunged with with a a knife knife green green was was shot shot and and killed killed retired retired lieutenant lieutenant general general Russel Russel honore honore who who led led a a review review of of security security failures failures in in the the January January attack attack says says the the proposal proposal to to Congress Congress includes includes more more officers officers updated updated screenings screenings and and fencing fencing that that comes comes out out of of the the ground ground as as required required but but it it takes takes money money police police in in the the capital capital desert desert is is automation automation deserve deserve it it and and those those families families who who lost lost loved loved ones ones deserted deserted their their comments comments were were made made on on ABC's ABC's this this week week I'm I'm Julie Julie Walker Walker
Estimated 25 million to see boost in federal food benefits
"Hi hi Mike Mike Rossi Rossi you're you're reporting reporting an an estimated estimated twenty twenty five five million million people people will will see see a a boost boost in in federal federal food food benefits benefits about about twenty twenty five five million million Americans Americans will will be be eligible eligible to to receive receive more more money money in in food food assistance assistance and and renew renew by by did did ministration ministration policy policy the the change change was was announced announced late late Thursday Thursday after after the the U. U. S. S. department department of of agriculture agriculture reached reached a a settlement settlement with with two two California California plaintiffs plaintiffs who who sued sued last last year year after after being being blocked blocked from from increased increased benefits benefits approved approved by by Congress Congress for for corona corona virus virus pandemic pandemic relief relief the the USDA USDA says says households households not not receiving receiving at at least least ninety ninety five five dollars dollars per per month month an an increased increased benefits benefits during during the the pandemic pandemic will will be be eligible eligible to to receive receive up up to to that that amount amount going going forward forward it it could could take take several several weeks weeks for for states states to to process process the the increased increased benefits benefits Mike Mike Rossi Rossi out out Washington Washington
Car rams into police at Capitol barricade; officer killed
"There there has has been been another another deadly deadly attack attack at at the the U. U. S. S. capitol capitol capitol capitol police police say say a a man man rammed rammed a a vehicle vehicle into into two two officers officers at at a a security security checkpoint checkpoint about about one one hundred hundred yards yards from from the the building building the the suspect suspect exited exited the the vehicle vehicle with with a a knife knife in in hand hand at at officers officers opened opened fire fire after after he he lunged lunged at at them them acting acting chief chief Yogananda Yogananda Pittman Pittman says says the the suspect suspect was was killed killed two two officers officers were were taken taken to to hospitals hospitals one one of of our our officers officers have have succumbed succumbed to to his his injuries injuries making making him him the the second second capital capital police police officer officer killed killed this this year year after after one one died died in in January's January's riot riot police police say say today's today's attack attack does does not not appear appear related related to to terrorism terrorism nor nor to to any any particular particular member member of of Congress Congress which which is is on on recess recess this this week week Sager Sager mag mag ani ani Washington Washington
AP-NORC poll: Majority in US back easier voter registration
"A a new new survey survey finds finds solid solid support support for for Democrats Democrats proposals proposals to to overhaul overhaul voting voting in in the the U. U. S. S. the the Associated Associated Press Press and and O. O. R. R. C. C. center center for for public public affairs affairs research research poll poll finds finds about about half half of of those those surveyed surveyed support support expanding expanding access access to to early early in in mail mail in in voting voting about about thirty thirty percent percent opposed opposed the the ideas ideas while while the the other other twenty twenty percent percent expressed expressed no no opinion opinion automatic automatic voter voter registration registration was was the the most most popular popular democratic democratic proposal proposal in in the the survey survey that that drew drew the the support support of of sixty sixty percent percent of of respondents respondents but but nearly nearly three three quarters quarters of of all all Americans Americans including including majorities majorities of of both both parties parties say say they they support support laws laws requiring requiring voters voters to to present present photo photo identification identification to to cast cast their their ballot ballot the the democratic democratic legislation legislation in in Congress Congress would would ease ease those those laws laws Ben Ben Thomas Thomas Washington Washington
Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin to file legislation to make broad-based voting by mail permanent
"Of the the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, Bill, Bill, Galvin Galvin is is calling calling for for Congress Congress to to pass pass new new law law guaranteeing guaranteeing every every voter voter the the right right to to cast cast the the mail mail in in ballot ballot in in all all federal federal elections. elections. This This comes comes in in response response to to recent moves. By several states to restrict access to voting by mail. Galvin says those actions and state legislatures across the country should concern anyone who believes in free and fair elections. He says that there should be some federal standards and place and adds that voting by mail worked well here in Massachusetts and other states that embraced the measure in the 2020 elections.
"congress congress" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW
"Here. All right, so the Congress Congress, the Democrat controlled Congress and President, Joe Biden. Covert relief is now a thing that is moving forward one of the things I don't know if this got buried in because there's some talk. It was kind of buried in there, but it make move separately through and This is always a case of government. Especially now, right is that there's always things that went up getting stuck into bills and covert relief. As May be the case again, my heart percent Sure it was a spark of this, but They may do this separately. And you're always looking at the big things over here, and it's always the little things that wind up flying under the radar that I'd like to pay attention to, because that's where that's where the contradictions. That's where the double speak, and that's where us getting screwed over comes into play it. Some of the big ones usually is. We're all complaints. The We need extend benefits to people that Yeah, Okay. Well, here's an example for your quick here because I've got some other stuff I want to get into. Super Bowl related, but I think it's important. On Dis is in reaction. What happened in January 16 capital, So we have the domestic Terrorism prevention Act. Now hold on just a second. There you go. Okay. What are we talking about here? Domestic terrorism that act That law provides protection for Us domestically, right is is we get that, um domestic terror big issue. But what it does, though, the way they want to rewrite this, it would provide protection for wait for it. Islamic terrorists. Now, let's keep in mind Last time, Joe Biden was running anything in government. What happened? The word terrorism. Under the eight years the Obama administration you couldn't say the word terrorist member that was forbidden what they called vinyl and extremism. Whatever it was, was this because terrorism is just a nasty word. Until now that we're going to go well, it's it's the people who oppose us and what we want to accomplish. They must be terrorist. It's funny, because four years ago you couldn't say terrorism. I mean, you could, but Wasn't friendly. It was frowned upon by the administration. Now he's back. It's like, Well, yeah, we we We want to use the word terrorist but just domestic terrorism. So listen to this. Um The law, and it's been this way for a long time. It's really it's a simple on it makes sense. Here's the definition of domestic terrorism when you do something that is dangerous to human life. You have to accomplish three objectives to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Check to influence government policy by intimidation of coercion, check and to affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping and violence. Okay, so if if the actions meet that standard of domestic terrorism, it's domestic terrorism. Or it applies to any terrorist because it's pretty broad, right? Coercion influence government policy affect government conduct. Yes, yes, it is whether it's domestic or international foreign terrorism. Okay. It's a good death that solid right Because now you're not picking winners and losers. It doesn't matter if those being motivated or that person being motivated is motivated by antifa. Proud boys. Black lives matter. Democrats, Republicans Islam anarchism, communism, socialism. Any of that stuff. That's a good law right salad. Now we need exception. Wait for it. Here we go. Exception is this They want to rewrite this. So this new proposal would not include acts perpetrated by individuals associate with her inspired by foreign, a foreign person organization designated a foreign terrorist organization. An individual organization designated under the executive order. Biden sign which relates the foreign terrorism are state sponsors of terrorism. So in other words, basically is this. Let me bottom line this for it. If you target the U. S capitol because you're on the fringe, right? Your domestic terrorist. You're a terrorist. If you're an American who targets the U. S capitol because you're a jihadi. Currently you're not a terrorist. Remember this long? We applies to domestic, not foreign terrorism. If your foreign operative here 9 11 example that's a different story. So you could be a American jihadist. And this apparently doesn't cover you. Under the rules of what they want to rewrite domestic terrorism is why this is I'm guessing that well, we'd have to have more funding and department, Homeland Security and justice and FBI and they'd have to be new committees and task force and which means spending a lot more money. Which is in law enforcement, So that's actually a bad thing. But Um, I don't understand what we're getting here. Because if you look at things like San Bernadino, Fort Hood, right, the FBI and you know they would back then. Well, we don't wanna really call this terrorism on a question, even though these were Muslim extremists. Or people who were sympathetic to that cost to these two Islamic Jihad, right means pretty clear What happened at Fort Hood San Bernadino there, but they're like, Yeah, but there were no operational ties there. That's different. There was these air foreign, but there's no foreign terrorist behind this. Where Okay? So this would exclude anyone who's American jihadist. Who may be inspired by associating with a foreign terrorist organization. What are we doing here? So you know if you're inspired by neo Nazis And white supremacist domestic terror. And you want to do what they did at the Capitol. Okay, Great. That's definitely domestic terrorism. 100% of this, But if you do it in the name of Allah You're not a terrorist. You're not a domestic. What do you What are you? Well, You're just you're misunderstand youth, I guess. Mean, that's I'm sorry, but that's horrific. It's all. So I guess. You know what was the whole thing about this thing that the law should be a player applied fairly to everyone is that kind of what? All these protests and everything and certainly what Democrats got behind was that Hey, we're gonna take the need or the national anthem. It's about fairness. We got have inclusion. We gotta have the same policies. The young man who was shot in Columbus and the officer has been indicted. All those things come into play right? And I look at this and go. OK, That's that's great. So we want equals want the rules apply fairly to everybody. That was what we're being told, anyway. And I'm with that. I don't know how you could.
House members say they're "targets" and ask for more security in letter
"Attacks, attacks, more more members members of of Congress Congress are are concerned concerned about about their their safety safety more more than than 30. 30. House House members members are are asking asking top top leadership leadership if if they they may may use use their their congressional congressional allowances allowances to to hire hire local local law enforcement or other security personnel when they return to their home districts. The request came in a letter obtained by CBS News to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. There is increasing uneasiness about personal safety for lawmakers in their home districts where they lack the protection of Capitol police and where most spend the majority of their time 9
Washington DC Statehood Bill Introduced By Senate Democrats
"A statehood bill has now been introduced in the Senate more from W. C o ps Mitchell Miller on Capitol Hill. Hill. The The bill bill is is sponsored sponsored by by Delaware Delaware Democratic Democratic Senator Senator Tom Tom Carper. Carper. Who Who is is working working with with D D C C delegate, delegate, Eleanor Eleanor Holmes Holmes Norton Norton to to get get the the statehood statehood measure measure to to move move forward forward in in Congress. Congress. The The House House passed passed Norton's Norton's bill last year, which Norton argued for on the floor. We stand out as the only democracy which did guys democracy to the residents of its own capital. Now, with Democrats in control of the Senate, Norton and Statehood supporters believe they have a better chance than ever. Getting D C to become the 51st state in a statement, Norton thank Senator Carper, saying, This is the time to finally correct what she calls a historic injustice and to give D C residents the same rights as other tax paying Americans on Capitol Hill, Mitchell Miller w T o P New, brutal day on Wall Street with severe losses for
Farewell address: Trump stresses record, condemns Capitol riot, does not name Biden
"All Americans were horrified by the assault on our capital. Political violence is an attack on everything we cherish is Americans. It can never be tolerated and a farewell speech, Trump urged the the unity unity unity and and and said said said Americans Americans Americans should should should rise rise rise above above above partisanship. partisanship. partisanship. On On On January January January 6th. 6th. 6th. The The The group group group of of of pro pro pro Trump Trump Trump supporters supporters supporters stormed stormed stormed the the the capital capital capital just just just as as as Congress Congress Congress was was was certifying certifying certifying the the the election election election results results results in in in favor of Joe Biden KBC Weather
Deal on Fed removes obstacle to agreement on COVID-19 relief package
"There are two things going on with this two point three trillion dollar package. Congress is working its way through and the fading hours of this year one point four trillion dollars to fund the government through next september and nine hundred billion dollars in pandemic economic relief. It looks like and one stress is looks like because you never know but it looks like the thing is gonna pass and we're going to talk about what's in it through the program today but over the weekend. There were some hiccups. The biggest of which centered on the federal reserve. and what it will and won't be allowed to do genus. Molly covers the fed for the new york times. Also she is a regular here on friday. Hey gene hey so in. Lay person's terms here if i might What was the up. With the fed and senator toomey and the feds authorities so basically the fed did a couple of emergency lending programs in this crisis that it has never tried before it bought corporate bonds it bought municipal bonds and it lent directly to small size businesses via banks and so all of those programs were real sort of departures. From what we've seen in the past in senator. Toomey wanted to make sure that they couldn't happen again. He said that congress had intended for them to only lasted twenty twenty one and so he inserted language into this bill that would have basically prohibited them or anything similar to them from ever happening in the future. Without congress. congress's approval. Compromise was what the compromise is that we made that were similar. Same which sounds pretty simple right down like a big deal but it was a big deal. Because i think the way that similar could have been interpreted is to mean that basically any sort of credit like program would be impossible in the future. The way democrats are painting the word same means that specifically these exact programs set up precisely the way that these ones were set up cannot just be restarted. Once you know the next treasury secretary presumably janet yellen who's likely to be the nominee for that job is in place next year. And so the idea is. You can't have this immediate copycat but you could potentially do something. That looks a little bit like this way down the road if there's another financial crisis will that's my next question right. This is really about the crisis next time because there is another one come in as we know right and i think it's it's you know it's worth noting that some of these markets at the fed intervened in this time municipal bond market. I think being a good example. They were melting down in march. You know the the fed stepped in and and gotham tour again but there was a moment there where it was looking pretty dicey in corporate bonds and municipal bonds and so the idea that this legislation would just take away all of those powers. I think could definitely raise some concerns among people certainly who work markets but i think also people who are concerned about you know who has crisis fighting power who saves us first. How much what was going on here was about fed independence and its ability to do what it sees is right. I note that Chair powell has not said a word We had rob kaplan from dallas on On friday and he ducked my question on at. Your brunetti actually said something over the weekend. Right right i think the fed has been caught in some political crossfire here. And what i mean by that is democrats. Have kind of been eyeing these facilities that the fed set up this time and thinking about how they could enhance them to make them more generous once. They're in office. And so the idea is you could potentially use things like the municipal program to really funnel cheap money to states and localities. Now the problem is all of your listeners. Will be aware is that democrats tend to be much more concerned about those constituents than republicans are and so the idea is the fed could be used for political means in. That's why senator to me was really concerned about the future of these programs I think the fed basically wants to stay out of the political conversation here. The important wants to gets missed is they would have had to agree to that. Sweetening up of the municipal facility But yes they got caught in the crossfire. Little ben bernanke you wait into say. Hey don't take away powers. The fed used to have and that it needs but even his statement was done in very a political terms. I think you very very burnett elect terms genus alex. She covers the fed of the new york times and here every now and then on a friday june. Thanks a lot appreciate. Thanks so much
Chicago - Coronavirus in Illinois updates: 7,598 new confirmed and probable COVID-19 cases, 76 additional deaths reported Sunday
"Numbers are Ian. On Sunday, the Illinois Department of Public Health reported 7598 new cases of cover 19 that brings a statewide total number of infections to 787,573 Heidi pH is also reporting 76 new fatalities from Corona virus, which now means that 13,255 Illinois residents have died from the disease. 5160 people are hospitalized with the virus. 1103 of those patients are in the ICU with 643 of them on ventilators. A statewide positivity rate is 10.1% gave Salgado WGN. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot was on CBS TV's face The Nation Sunday discussed have Chicago share of the first wave of vaccines will be distributed. She addressed concerns that people of color may not have access to the vaccine, so there will be an equity lens as it applies to distribution of the vaccine here in Chicago. And she said Once frontline workers are vaccinated, first responders will be next. She said. The city will follow the protocol set by the CDC to determine access to the vaccine. She expects about 23,000 doses in the first distribution. As Chicago prepares to receive the vaccine. We're learning about how the vaccines work. Dr. Richard Novak, director of infectious diseases for University of Illinois Health, is the principal investigator for the Moderna vaccine trial. He details how the vaccines work inside the body Express the spike protein, which is so your body makes antibodies to that spike protein. And then when you get the actual infection if you're enjoying counter Coronavirus, the antibodies you have with buying to the spike protein of the virus and keep that person getting into yourself. Dr Dr Novak Novak appearing appearing on on the the Steve Steve Dale Dale program program here here on on WGN WGN radio radio today. today. Don't Don't know know A A Democratic Democratic U U S. S. Senator Senator Dick Dick Durbin Durbin pushing pushing Congress Congress to to get get a a coronavirus coronavirus relief package
Why the Georgia Senate Runoff Elections Matter
"Let's talk about these runoffs. That's happening january. Fits for georgia. We have senator. David perdue running against david also off and then we have reverend raphael warnock going against khalil. Lafler a Jacob can you explain to listeners. How important this is for georgia to win the senate for the democrats okay and so important thing about it. Is i think that people think the presidency is the polish right. And they don't understand that it's really the legislative branch which congress congress has the power. They'd passed the laws. The president's job is to sign laws into power. Have you signs off on it. But he's not really the guy that it aside from executive orders executive orders are not laws right they can be overturned but no matter which president comes laws are passed by congress right it goes from the house. Representatives to the senate in laws of pat. So again you have laws. Currently that's been bills that have been four hundred bill sitting with mitch mcconnell. He hasn't passed. And that's because republicans. Control the senate simple bills at nonpartisan bills. Kamala harris and tim cook from south carolina republican Senate on the anti lynching. Bill blocked by mitch mcconnell. Simple things like you know first responders bills right that helps them blocked by mitch mcconnell. There's many bills that sitting there for hundred because he has the ability to do it because the republicans control the senate ranks it will data with matt would what what a what. Joe biden does at that moment. if he doesn't have a lot more control a set because what you run into is. He sends a bill down a he goes to. Congress said hey i want to. I want to put this particular bill right now. He talks about systematic races and he turns around to nancy pelosi. And says hey. I want to do something about systematic racism and they create a bill and because the democrats control the house right. They can pass that bill. Then it goes to the senate mitch. Mcconnell and the republicans who says there's no such thing assistant Can block and then. Joe biden didn't have the water that bill down to a bill that they think is worse than passing less removing things from it or adding things to just so the republicans pick pass it or he'll have to as an executive order and lo and behold for years from now of a of a trump gets elected again just reverse and will react to start again and so the important thing is if you get and a ed to place but democrats and republicans will then have equal amount of people in the senate and kamala harris i'll mix vp. The vp of the united states is the president of the senate. Yes yes oh she will sit there and then she will be the deciding. Vote on all these lots should break the filibuster and so if you wanna see certain laws get through. It's important to get out and get these. These two gentlemen elected as sems. Senators have more power than almost anyone in this country. As where does that but they did. The president uniquely enough. If you look at the history. America but president was really put into place to deal with international affairs more than he was put into place to deal with domestic affairs. Congress really dealt with domestic affairs. The president was really because it was a of different states right and they operate with only kind of presidents called governors. Had been own congress with investigates which is the paper had on supreme court's that they own police force their own military force but they did not know how to deal with national international issues. Like hot. who's gonna deal with us. We're going to deal with london. England who's going to france was going to deal with germany. And who's going to deal with all this stuff international fuss. We need to nominate a national guy in place undo. Vat stunts for us. That's how it originally started loan and so the as time went by the president became more and more empowered but at the beginning. They just wanted him to deal with like. How much are we going to sell. Cotton ustralia for. Who's gonna talk to australia for us. We can't have fifty governors right right so we have to nominate two senators. I stay with nominate people from within the district's in america to go to a federal house. We got to nominate someone on top of them and then they can handle the guys on of the senators on the house of representatives which created congress national dishes fuss and then the president can handle international issues like if we decided to go to war outside. The president can do that right internally. We can handle right. So that's how it really started. As time went by the federalist which is people that wanted federal power to control more the president of more and more more more power within the state within the country so always understand that senators have a ton of i and we have to make sure and the map is set up. It's two senators for state. It doesn't matter if your california was sixty million. You're you're not the cold with nine hundred thousand. It's two senators per state and if you notice there's more red states than there are blue states so it's very interesting high back stabler thing. Worse and senators can stop everything they they they're responsible for nominating supreme court justices involved in pass laws and the bacon block you. It doesn't matter. What joe biden tries to do. You'll have to use the executive power or he has the water down that bill right to stop you. Don't like lights cryer. Bill ninety four where he had the water bill down as a senator so that to get the republicans supporting you get three strikes. You're out and then you get this. Mass incarceration everybody gets mad at him and he's like well. I can't acid through the senate without involved in them because we don't control the senate and so they put things in and we put things in and you get bills that don't turn out the way you want it to but you try to get the best of both worlds to get the republicans to sign off. So it's important to understand that we can't put the president in place and not help him with backing him up with the senate the vp can sit there and as the president of the senate. She can help to move things away. We need to move
What Biden can and can't do without the Trump administration's cooperation
"Here and now President elect Joe Biden has vowed to make climate change a priority and get the US back in the Paris climate accord on day one of his administration President Trump in the waning days of his presidency. Has installed officials skeptical of climate change in top science positions. Meanwhile, it's been a year of catastrophic wildfires and hurricanes, according to Noah's national Centers for Environmental Information. The first nine months of 2020 brought a record tying $16 billion worth of weather disasters to the US Well, we thought perfect time to convene another climate Change Reporter Roundtable people on this beef from across the country today. Tegan Wendland and Energy and Environment Reporter for W W. An O in New Orleans. Teegan Welcome Thanks for having me Sam. Brash is a climate reporter for Colorado Public radio in Denver. I Sam Glad to be here and rounding out our group today. Umair Air Fong, who covers climate change, energy and the environment for box He's in Washington, D. C. Umair. Thank you for being here. Thanks for having me, Robin. You going to going to start with you? Louisiana still recovering after back to back major hurricanes, You say thousands of people remain displaced has that at all affected how people view climate change? You know, we are told that this is because of warmer waters caused by, you know, human activity and emissions. Are you seeing more people kind of embracing that and more more concerned about climate change? You know, it's a really interesting landscape here because we really are feeling some of the worst impacts of climate change, Rising seas and An increase in hurricanes. We had five named storms hit the state this year. 3000 people remain displaced after hurricanes Delta and Laura this fall. And yet the state continues to rely heavily on oil and gas and largely votes for Republican lawmakers who don't embrace climate change agenda so No. Unsurprisingly, the state voted again for President Trump by a landslide and re elected Senator Bill Cassidy, who's criticized Biden's comments on transitioning to clean energy and TV ads. Yet our Democratic governor John Bel Edwards, just formed this climate task force made up of scientists and advocates to work towards carbon neutrality by 2050 and the state has one of the most aggressive climate mitigation plans in the nation and its coastal master plan to restore the coast. So Louisiana's just really a land of contradictions, Right? Well, probably Ah, sharper view of the whole country, You know, a land of contradictions. And what is something that You want to focus more on going into 2021? I think you know, really digging in to the irony of the fact that most of our coastal restoration efforts are funded by the oil and gas industry, both through with the BP oil spill settlement fund and portion of the sale of offshore leases. That's the way it's set up right now. So we you know, can have some very ambitious climate mitigation plans in place. But they're reliant on the continued success of the oil and gas industry. Right and people they're just relying on the job. So is there some sensitivity to that? Some sense of How do we help people transition? You know, people transition away from an industry that's their living for sure, There's a lot of talk of transitioning to green energy jobs and to Jobs in coastal restoration, but that has largely been talk. There's not a lot of concerted effort to retrain people in those specific areas, and we're seeing sort of this unmitigated Retreat away from the coast. With every damaging storm. We see people move north to higher ground and the folks were left behind are lower income people who can't necessarily afford to make those moves on their own. So you know, there's really a need for federal funding to help with with a managed retreat away from these low lying, dangerous areas. Yeah, Assam brash there in Denver, Colorado. Much of your recent reporting has been on the late season wildfires. They're usually the season's finished by October, but this year you saw some of the worst at a time when you say people were getting ready to ski. So what have you been focusing on? In terms of your climate reporting there in Colorado? I mean, a lot of what we've had to worry about. It's just Picking up the pieces here from what we saw last month. I mean, it was truly catastrophic. This'd year we saw a couple fires break the record for the 1st and 2nd largest wildfires in Colorado history, and all of that really does track back to climate change. I mean, climate change is causing droughts. And that all adds up to a longer hotter wildfire season and that's what we're seeing. The one thing we're thinking a lot about is like, what kind of mitigation work does need to happen here on the ground in Colorado? What does it look like? And how does it look different from place to place? That sounds like what you'll be looking at going into 2021 anything else? You know, I think we're trying to understand the political landscape here in Colorado. I mean, Teegan talked about what's going on in Louisiana. I mean, I think the political shift here in Colorado is truly remarkable. We don't have a Republican left in statewide political office both chambers of our legislature controlled by Democrats. Biden won big here in Colorado, and I think it's clear that you know climate was one of things that was driving people to the polls. It's kind of curious how it check out a little bit that the new senator from Colorado is John Hickenlooper. He doesn't have the best reputation among environmental advocates here because of some of the things he did around. Fracking is governor. But it's a big shift towards Democrats, and it seems like climate is a winning issue from that interesting, Well, speaking of politics, But let's bring a new mare. You're fun. Who's with box and you're looking at this on a national scale. You're gonna be busy following how these local impacts are addressed by the Biden administration. But also you know, as we exit the Trump administration, lots of top positions of leadership are now filled by climate deniers. So just what are you looking at? Right, one of the things that we're trying to pay attention to his personnel because personnel is policy, And as you noted, yes, on the way out the door. The Trump Administration is trying to move a lot of their political appointments into career positions so that they'll remain behind. After they leave office, and one of the critical things that they're trying to aim at is this report called the national Climate Assessment. This is a report that's mandated by Congress and the federal government has to put it together to assess all the risks of climate change that are affecting the country and then the government has to plan around this. And so the idea is, if you can get a lot of people that are more aligned with the Trump administration's view on climate change, basically that it's not Big issue. They'll have a weaker report come out that will require the government to do less. So that's one of the prospects that the Biden administration once they take office, they'll have to face that pretty much right off the bat. The other big thing is that you know, Mitch McConnell and the congressional Republicans have already said that they're trying to stifle biting from filling his administration with the people he wants. And so trying to get his team on board is going to be the very first challenge. He's going to face. Yeah, s Oh, definitely. Personnel. What else you washing? Just tell us briefly. Yes. And so without Congress. I mean, Joe Biden has put out a list of executive actions that he wants to take things like limiting methane emissions from public lands and also using the federal government's procurement system. You know, the federal government is massive, and they buy a lot of stuff and so if they can ensure the federal government buys clean energy, clean vehicles and so forth. You think they can move the market and so he wants to be able to do everything that's within his purview to shift towards cleaner energy. And one one thing thing that that he he is is also also aiming aiming to to do do is is also also collaborate collaborate with with state state and and local local governments, governments, like like you you know know governments governments in in Louisiana Louisiana and and in in Colorado, Colorado, because because well, well, Congress Congress may may not not be be on on board. board. A lot of state and local officials do realize that climate change is a problem, and it built a coalition over the last four years to
Coronavirus: Hollywood Filmmakers Issue Warning Theaters Are Facing Extinction
"This week. Some of Hollywood's biggest names names joining joining forces forces to to warn warn Congress Congress that that movie movie theatres theatres are are facing facing extinction. extinction. Jason Jason Nathan, Nathan, with with a a story story like like a a plot plot out out of of the the Avengers. Avengers. Dozens Dozens of of Hollywood Hollywood heavyweights heavyweights joining joining forces forces to save movie theaters. Clint Eastwood, Jordan Peele, Christopher Nolan, Lee Daniels, Martin Scorsese, Greta Gerwig andMe or sending a letter to the leaders of the Senate and the House, asking them to work together on cinema stimulus cinemas. Support millions of jobs, the letter states. But now we fear for their future, and it warns that the country can't afford to lose the social, economic and cultural value Theaters provide multiplexes have been mostly empty since the start of the pandemic.
Allstate Arena goes red to draw attention to impact of pandemic on entertainment workers
"And good workers gathered at red lit parking lot. Outside the Allstate Arena last night, is part of an industry drive to push Congress to pass legislation to help them with covert 19, which has brought the entertainment and event business almost to a complete halt. Bob readers, president of the Chicago Federation of Labor. Right now, it's not hard to ask. Pass the Heroes Act to sign things like the restart act and make sure that we're taking care of folks. Last night's event was part of a national effort to get Congress to pass the restart active bill guaranteeing Loans to small businesses hit by the pandemic groups also urging you to contact your local member of Congress Congress to help get that bill passed Northwestern University's cutting undergraduate
Washington DC concert venues say they can’t continue without help from Congress
"Venues venues in in the the district district say say they they could could be be closing closing if if they they don't don't get get help help from from Congress. Congress. D C. Music venues close that Kamina hit for area businesses. The community needs us to be able to survive. This is well because of what we bring in terms of foot traffic for them. Audrey Fix Schaefer, spokesperson for the 9 30 club, the anthem, the Lincoln Theater and Merriweather Post Pavilion, said D. C. Small concert venues are shut down by the government until there's a vaccine and they will fold without help from Congress were the places where stars get their start. The Saver Stages Act, introduced in the Senate in late July, would establish A $10 billion grant program to help independent concert venues. Valerie Bonked w T O P. News. There's a new
Memorial Service Held For Congressman And Civil Rights Icon John Lewis in Atlanta
"Georgia congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis has been honored at a memorial service in Atlanta. NPR's Debbie Elliot reports that the funeral ended six days of mourning contributes to Luis's Life and service. Thie final celebration of Life for Democratic Congressman John Lewis was held in his longtime church. Atlanta's historic Ebenezer Baptist senior pastor, Raphael Warnock, called Louis the hope and promise of democracy. He became a living walking sermon about truth telling. And justice making in the Earth. He loved America until America learn how to love him back. We celebrate Thie service was a mix of personal and political tributes, including from three former presidents who honored his pivotal role in in the the the civil civil civil rights rights rights movement movement movement and and and as as as an an an advocate advocate advocate for for for human human human rights rights rights in in in Congress. Congress. Congress. Debbie Debbie Debbie Elliot. Elliot. Elliot. NPR NPR NPR News News News parts parts parts of of of
Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google Testify Today
"Tech CEOs will testify before Congress Congress today. today. Mark Mark Zuckerberg, Zuckerberg, Jeff Jeff Bezos Bezos soon soon our our pitch pitch and and Tim Tim Cook Cook are are said said to to answer answer questions questions for for their their company's company's practice practice is is part part of of the the House House panels panels investigation investigation of of market market dominance dominance in the industry. Addict's question whether they stopped competition and innovation and raise prices for consumers will be testifying remotely.
The Racial Justice Reckoning Over Sports Team Names Is Spreading
"Week, week, There's There's been been another another reckoning reckoning in in sports, sports, whether whether to to change change team team names names or or logos logos that that contain contain Native Native American American emblems. emblems. In In stereotypes. stereotypes. There There is is time time to to Move Move for for Major Major League League Baseball's Baseball's Cleveland Cleveland Indians Indians announced announced they're they're considering considering changing changing the the team's team's name name manager manager Terry Terry Francona Francona feels feels now now is is an appropriate an appropriate time time for for change change Older. Older. We're We're never never trying trying to to be be disrespectful. disrespectful. I I still still feel feel that that way, way, but but I I don't don't think think that's that's a a good good enough enough answer. answer. Today. Today. The The announcement announcement comes comes a a little little over over a a year year after after Cleveland Cleveland removed removed its its chief chief Wahoo Wahoo logo, logo, a a cartoonish cartoonish caricature caricature of of a native a native American American man man long long considered considered racist. racist. It It also also came came shortly shortly after after the the announcement announcement at at Washington's Washington's NFL NFL franchises franchises weighing weighing whether whether to to change change its its team team name, name, which which is is widely widely regarded regarded as as a racial a racial slur. slur. Julian Julian Brave Brave Noise Noise Cat Cat contributes contributes to to ESPN ESPN is is the the undefeated undefeated He He writes writes that that the the team team name name references references Native Native American American skin skin color. color. In the In the bloody bloody scouts scouts of of indigenous indigenous People People taken taken his his bounty bounty by by white white colonists. colonists. If If a group a group of of people people are are speaking speaking out out about about the the racism racism of of a team a team logo, logo, it's it's It's It's quite quite the the thing thing to to go go and and claim claim that that actually actually know know you you are are honoring honoring them, them, and and it's it's hard hard for for me me to imagine to imagine the the same same thing thing happening happening for for another another racial racial group group in in the United the United States. States. Team Team owner owner Dan Dan Snyder Snyder has has bound bound for for years. years. He He never never changed changed the name. the name. Saying Saying the the term term actually actually embodies embodies honor, honor, respect respect and and pride. pride. Protesters Protesters and and advocacy advocacy groups groups have have called called for for change change for for decades. decades. But But on on ly ly in the in face the face of of mounting mounting economic economic pressure pressure did did Snyder Snyder finally finally announced announced they're they're reconsidering reconsidering investors investors with with major major sponsors sponsors from from Pepsi. Pepsi. FedEx FedEx in in Nike Nike sent sent letters letters asking asking the the companies companies to to terminate terminate their their relationship relationship with with Washington Washington unless unless it it agreed agreed to to a name a name change, change, which which you know you know kind kind of of exciting exciting on on the the one one hand, hand, but but the the reality reality it it reveals reveals about about the the power power of of capital. capital. In In our our culture culture and and society society is is a a little little bit bit of of a downer a downer for for me. me. But But those those two two franchises franchises don't don't stand stand alone. alone. A A world world without without native native mascots mascots is is the the ideal ideal world. world. Nick Nick Marin Marin is is a member a member of of this this a pony a pony tribe tribe in in a staff a staff writer writer for for the the New New Republic Republic any any kind kind of of imagery imagery like like that that and and specifically specifically as as it it relates relates to to native native people, people, because because we we have have been been made made invisible, invisible, forcibly forcibly the the idea idea that that we we would would You You get get rid rid of of the the walking walking Jim Jim NFL NFL team team and and keep keep the the Kansas Kansas City City Chiefs Chiefs It It speaks speaks a a certain certain hollowness hollowness that that I I think think this this kind kind of of corporate corporate social social justice justice campaigns campaigns often often involve involve the Kansas the Kansas City City Chiefs. Chiefs. Atlanta Atlanta Braves Braves in in Chicago Chicago Blackhawks Blackhawks are are among among professional professional franchises franchises that that continue continue to to employ employ Native Native American American imagery imagery on on their their jerseys jerseys in in their their team team names names and and in in cheers cheers by by fans fans has has become become a a very very normalized normalized thing, thing, which which I think I think is is common common place place with with a lot a lot of of systems systems and and forms forms of of institution. institution. Oppression. Oppression. These These things things we we don't don't think think of of them them in in the moment the moment as as being being particularly particularly egregious egregious because because they've they've become become so so normalized normalized in society. in society. Those Those franchises franchises aren't aren't following following the the lead lead of of Washington Washington in in Cleveland. Cleveland. None None of them of them announce announce name name changes, changes, though though Atlanta Atlanta is is reportedly reportedly considering considering no no longer longer allowing allowing the the Tomahawk Tomahawk chop chop chance chance at at games, games, and and the Blackhawks the Blackhawks went went on on to to say say that that their their team team name name and and logo logo symbolizes symbolizes an an important important native native American American figure. figure. And And they they aren't aren't moving moving toward toward formal formal change. change. It It reduces reduces you you to to a a caricature caricature there, there, 570 570 plus plus tribal tribal nations. nations. That's That's 570 570 plus plus tribal tribal cultures. cultures. Any Any kind kind of of idea idea that, that, like like there there is is one one kind kind of of Indian Indian is is very very reductionist reductionist kind kind of of view view of of US. US. President President Trump Trump even even weighed weighed in in this this week week via via Twitter, Twitter, saying saying the the names names of of Washington's Washington's in in Cleveland's Cleveland's teams teams Signify Signify strength strength and and not not weakness, weakness, and and they're they're merely merely considering considering the the change change to to be be politically politically correct. correct. The The president's president's statement statement in in the the very very decisions decisions of of these these franchises franchises do do raise raise questions questions isn't isn't important important to to distinguish distinguish between between the the offensiveness offensiveness of of each each individual individual team team name, name, and and is is any any of this of this iconography, iconography, actually actually honor honor or or respect respect the Native the Native Americans? Americans? Or Or in in same same team team names names and and logos logos on on our our native native people. people. Is Is that that merely merely perpetuating perpetuating cultural cultural appropriation appropriation and and the the use use of of stereotypical stereotypical Native Native American American imagery, imagery, Martin Martin says. says. It's It's not not that that slippery slippery of a of slope. a slope. If If you're you're saying saying our our mascot, mascot, our our team team name name is is not not as as racist racist as as Washington Washington NFL NFL team team still still an an admission admission that that it it is is races, races, Washington's Washington's head head coach, coach, Ron Ron Rivera, Rivera, who who is is one one of of four four minority minority head head coaches coaches in in the the NFL, NFL, told told The The Washington Washington Post. Post. It It would would be be awesome awesome if if the the team team changed changed its its name. name. In the In the National National Congress Congress of of American American Indians Indians have have long long opposed opposed the the use use of of Native Native American American stereotypical stereotypical imagery imagery in in professional professional sports. sports. As As professional professional sports sports franchises franchises are are choosing choosing to to reexamine reexamine these these issues issues in in the midst the midst of of America's America's reckoning reckoning over over race race relations, relations, they're they're faced faced with with a new a new choice. choice. Well, Well, economic economic pressures pressures determine determine if if they they choose choose to to rename rename their their teams teams or or will will they they listen listen to to decades decades long long calls calls from from Native Native American American advocacy advocacy groups groups to to eliminate eliminate the the use use of of these these emblems emblems of the of only the only reasons reasons happening happening so so swiftly swiftly is is because because their their this this is is something something that that native native people people years years of of ground ground Work Work into into and and so so what what this this moment moment kind kind of of larger larger cultural cultural reckoning reckoning has has become. become. It's It's just just kind kind of of an an impetus impetus to to say say Okay, Okay, Now Now is is the the time time to to finally finally get get rid rid of of these these things. things. Reporting for perspective. I'm Eric Mollo ABC News
"congress congress" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Of the federal pie for both defense programs and nondefense programs now what Congress needs to do is fill it all of those details about how that money is actually going to be allocated. The House made a fair amount of progress on its spending bills. Dell's version of the spending bills before leaving on the summer recess the Senate did none of that work and so now kind of in a sprint over the next couple of weeks to to get some of that done Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby has indicated that he would like to try and get several of those individuals spending thing bill done in the next couple of weeks particularly the ones for the Defense Department and the bill that funds the Department of Labor Health and Human Services and education together those let's make up about two thirds of the federal discretionary budget so it's it's a lot of money and so actually getting that done however is going to require both sort of sustained effort on the part of Congress and resolving some of these complex about individual spending items. Those conflicts frankly are going to be present in conjunction with a temporary spending bill as well. I'm the White House has indicated has released released list of sort of additional legislative language that would like to see in a temporary spending bill and several of those provisions are potentially really controversial including things around as you mentioned the the border wall and this sort of I think this conflict ratcheted ratcheted up a notch or two when the trump administration released its list of military construction projects that were potentially going to go unfunded did so that the administration could transfer money that was going to go to those projects in order to redirect it to the border so things like ah a new Middle School on a military base in Kentucky which I will also remind us the home of the Senate Majority Leader and so we're going to see a fair amount of this this conflict play out over initially the next couple of weeks and then also over the next couple of months and so my son says that there's very little appetite on Capitol Hill for another actual shutdown like the one that we saw at the end of last year and the beginning of this year but that doesn't mean that the process festive avoiding a shutdown isn't going to be ugly somehow. I think that Middle School in Kentucky is going to be just fine. Bottom line between actual actual shutdown and process is going to be ugly as a lot of space is the bottom line to be that we're going to spend a lot of time this fall talking about budget brinksmanship and the possibility of shutdown or is this going to be a situation like the debt ceiling where you know people get out a few weeks or months wants ahead of the problem and say let's not have this fight. Let's have you know a clean presidential election without this as a kind of off hanging over it overlay to it so they it's probably a little closer to the second into the first again because I think folks were a little bit spooked by ah how badly things went off the rails at the end of last year but I have been wrong about these things in the past and I do think that by and large the conflicts are likely to be concentrated on as opposed to sort of diffuse across amac.us issues. It helps that I'm in the deal that they reached reached. I'm at the end of July. There is more money available on both the non-defense side and the defense side of the budget and so you know it's it's easier to make everyone happy when you when you have more money to to spread around we'll see Margaret in the entire postwar history of the Congress Congress in the United States. One piece of significant l'affaire related work has always happened and Congress has never failed failed to pass a national defense authorization act no matter how dysfunctional things have gotten so here's my question is this the year we are finally going to break the record and fail to pass an NDA. I don't think so I think this is going to get done that said you you know depending on what happens with the impeachment staff have back at super rancorous depending on what happens a how the border wall issues get sorted out. We don't it really know how Senate Republicans are kind of play that border wall issue so with that caveat my sense is that all the players are pretty pretty committed to getting the NDA done the outside conference as meaning the people who can participate in the conference soon the House and the Senate but are not what on Senate Armed Services our housing services. They were all told to complete their work as of last Friday this month the month of timber but think will be taken up with the conference so reconciling both houses have bills. Yes Sir past and they are in the process of reconcile. How different are they so that that is the million dollar question. There's a lot that's shared in there and we'll be perfectly fine. There are however a pretty long list of issues that that will be controversial in our different between the House and the Senate version so just to give you a very short list. I'm not going to go on forever. there are a bunch which of Wall Related Border Wall Related Provisions in the House Bill. There's a prohibition on the use of force against Iran there's language also in the House bill repealing repealing the two thousand and two Iraq. Am F- which is a general matter Democrats sort of support but the administration will almost certainly oppose various reasons. There's there's a bunch of provisions related to Guantanamo and could could have the potential to sort of change the status quo on one Tahoe there. There's a disagreement on whether to block the deployment of low yield nuclear weapons on submarines which is is controversial and very important. There's a whole North Korea sanctions bill There's a whole Burma sanctions bill. There are a bunch of climate related provisions so just tons of things in there that you know the conference are going to have to work out and as look at them. It's just not clear to me what the Middle Path is on a lot of those things. It sounds like we need an NDA walkout podcast all all of its definitely. Let's let's definitely we will bring that to you. As the conference committee proceeds with its work. I do think though but this will get done. I suspect it will get done sort of in October November time frame. I think one thing that is we'll be important to watch frankly both on the resolution solution of the a process and on the NDA is the degree to which increasingly in recent years these large bills large omnibus spending bills the NDA have become the target for moving other pieces of legislation because they are seen as must pass so margaret mentioned an entire tire two different entire sanctions bills that are in the NBA and this is you know in the Contemporary Congress is something we see a lot of so for folks out there who have interests interests in these areas. That's something to watch out for that when we talk about the NDA when we talk about the omnibus it's often not just you know individual spending provisions individual defense authorization provision this what other major policy priorities hitch a ride and on that in that vein. I would also note that the intelligence authorization snacked is hitching a ride on the day as well that is a is an authorization bill hasn't basically been done in three years. I think it is going to get done this year. There's a bunch of of really important and interesting things in there. One I would just note is a provision which are seems to be agreement on which twelve additional weeks of paid leave for intelligence community employees so that is something I'm watching with interest well any intelligence community employees who want to take their additional twelve weeks of leave and come hang out at law fair and do podcasts and talk about Congress are more than welcome Margaret Taylor Dr Mollie Reynolds. Thanks for joining us. Thanks the law fair podcast produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. This week is a good example of why two of my brookings colleagues are here talking about Congress. That's kind of Brookings Fair cooperation right there. You need to do your part to promote the law fair podcast to buy lots of law fair merch. You need to rate us on. I tunes on Stitcher on pod track. Whatever you use and you need to share US on social media. I want you to tweet about this episode of the Law Fair podcast and I want you to listen to every piece of music that Sophia Yan who is playing the music to take us out of this episode has ever recorded. Safiya Yan has been playing the welfare podcast music since the beginning of the l'affaire podcast. This episode was recorded by Michaela Fogel. The l'affaire podcast is produced produced and edited by Gen Paci. Howl and as always thanks for listening..
"congress congress" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"So the resolution itself doesn't articulate the scope specifically but what it signals is that Nadler presumably with Speaker Pelosi's blessing is gathering in from the other committees information from other investigations and from reporting what what we know that to include almost certainly is the potentially illegal payments to story Daniels and care McDougal prior to the election election which of course Michael Cohen is going to jail for in his actions in connection activities and the president is individual individual one in those materials the second bucket of issues. It seems that they will be pulling in our other corruption. Related did inquiries. I'm Benjamin with us and this is the law fair podcast September tenth two thousand Nineteen Congress Congress is back. You may have heard it. The lengthy August recess has come to a close. We have an impeachment investigation not an inquiry in Korean investigation. We haven't expanded scope of it. We have confrontations between the executive branch and the legislature and all that work congress is supposed to do isn't going away. There are budget issues. Here's a national defense authorization. Act and Molly Reynolds and Margaret Britt Taylor are here to discuss it. All we talked about what we should call the impeachment. Whatever it is that the House Judiciary Committee is doing we talked about who's going to be forced to testify and what courts are GonNa rule and win and we talked about whether any normal congressional business this will get done. It's the law fair podcast episode four hundred fifty one congress congress and more Congress. I want to start with the question. The sort of increasingly metaphysical question of impeachment are we at this point dealing with a real impeachment process and what is behind the nomenclature dispute about whether to have you know the speaker doesn't want an impeachment process the house judiciary chairman does does and so we seem to have compromised with an impeachment process that we don't call one only now were suddenly have rules proposed to govern the impeachment process that we won't call an impeachment process so molly got US started. What are the metaphysics of impeachment sure so uh. I think where we are to understand that we need to go back a little bit too earlier. In the year where Margaret I actually spent some time thinking about this question. Shen earlier in the year and a lot of this has to do with the fact that in the last two times that that House has considered impeaching Chang President so Clinton Ninety eight Nixon in nineteen seventy four they begin the process formerly with vote of the full house on a resolution one of the really important things in those resolutions involved. What were the powers that the Judiciary Committee needed to conduct the investigative work doc that would go into a possible vote on articles of impeachment and the current Congress. Thanks to evolution in congressional power since the seventy since the late ninety s the judiciary committee already had a lot of power didn't really need to go to the full house to get it which is convenient for the political political reasons that you outlined because there is this disagreement between the speaker between Chairman Nadler and others about whether and how aggressively pursue impeachment and so I would argue that you know we've been doing things. Congress has been doing things that fall under the heading of an impeachment investigation which is is the terminology that I think now there has been using in recent weeks for quite some time we are seeing this week a little bit of an escalation of that process with the Judiciary Sherry Committee setting out some rules and procedures for it to US inside the committee as it continues us this investigation Margaret Molly and Jerry Nadler like the term impeachment investigation. Some people including joining me have made fun of the House about this because it's you know it's it seems to be trying to get the the the legal benefits of of having an impeachment process to the extent that there are such legal benefits particularly in litigation without actually taking responsibility for having the House House pass a resolution saying now. We're contemplating the impeachment of the president. Is there a good reason to go through this weird dance of calling it an impeachment investigation and not having that resolution or is that really a matter of political convenience. It's for the Democratic leadership so I think you know one of the words that we use are used in passes this impeachment inquiry in this word inquiry specifically so traditionally connotes there has been a full vote by the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings readings. That's what sort of missing here. There's no specific resolution authorizing the judiciary committee to do the the inquiry. Kore- so that's why you're not hearing were inquiry. you use your hearing these other terms investigation impeachment proceedings. I think is also some of the the language that that Chairman Nadler has used in terms of whether it's sort of absolutely necessary or not. I mean I. I actually think it's it's a different proceeding that we sort of backed into here or a different situation but I'm not sure for practical purposes. It's really any different from where where the Judiciary Committee was in the context of the Clinton impeachment proceedings or inquiry and the Nixon impeachment increase so I think think practically speaking we've sort of landed in the same place why that has occurred. I think there's a number of different theories out there as you both sort of noted the political ramifications perhaps of having Red State Democrats vote on on impeachment inquiry is maybe it's not make having everyone feel particularly comfortable. There's also as you know. The various litigation matters that the judiciary committee committee and other committees are are pursuing one of which is this desire to get a grand jury material connected with the Muller reports and in order for the committee to have the strongest case before the court in getting that grand jury material because it's restricted by statute they leave the themselves as sort of having to either be in a formal impeachment proceeding or doing something preliminary to formal impeachment proceeding. I mean I do think when I when I think about it strategically from the Democrats point of view I do think there's a kind of unprincipled elegance to the solution in the sense that you know you have people who are slamming their fists on the table and demanding a formal impeachment inquiry by which they mean a set of hearings earings antecedent to impeaching the president and you have a group of people who were saying impeachment including the speaker impeachment would be a bad idea. We don't want to do it and so they don't want to. Formally sat out on the road that will lead eventually there because the president's conduct is so awful and so once you say okay now. We're going to have a formal process that evaluates this. It's pretty hard to say. Okay Nancy not that bad so what they do. Instead is they don't formally start that process. They just act like they've always been engaged in that that process and that leaves them a little bit more room to back down later and say hey. We'll never actually said we were pursuing wing impeachment. We were just kind of investigating it. Is that a a happy from Pelosi's point of view. Is that a happy collateral darrelle effect of the way they've chosen to proceed molly or do you think that's actually behind the way they've chosen to proceed so like. I don't know what's inside. The speaker of the House is head if I did. I would have a different job or some older pay more money but I think that it's really important again to think about the powers that the house needs to do what it's doing and the fact that in some ways they didn't need to take a form of out of the full House to have the investigative authorities that they want to use here. They didn't need to take a photo of the full House for the judiciary committee to have really robust subpoena power and so at the end of the day they can afford to kind of take this the solution for a little bit of a political compromise for the different parts of the the Democratic Party because they already have the eye procedural backup to do it. I think how I think about it all all right so let's turn to the substance of what this resolution says Margaret. Let's start by just explain what this resolution is. Yeah sure so what we have as of today is is the Monday for listeners who will not be hearing this until Tuesday or later. It's a draft and so this draft resolution won't be formal or official until it is voted on in committee which we expect will happen on on Thursday but what we can tell from the draft. It's actually quite a simple document. It's only about five pages. Long has abundant three pages or so of what we call whereas clauses which are paragraphs sort of set out the context and the history and sort of why the committee is doing something and then really the operative operative sections of the resolution. There's really just four pieces of it. The first is that the chairman can essentially have subcommittees do hearings earrings that are part of this impeachment investigation. The second is that committee staff as designated by the charing ranking member can question witnesses for an additional hour equally divided between the majority and the minority beyond the questioning. That's done by the members of the committee. The third point is it specifies that information received pursuant to written material written information or transcribed interviews depositions are received into the committee something called Quote Executive Session on quote and really what that that means here for for our purposes or the purpose of this resolution is it. It's not public. There's are not public materials that can just re released by any of the members they're considered sort out of confidential within the committee unless the chairman and ranking agree to to release it that provision also sort of touches on the grand jury materials as well and references an earlier set of parameters that the committee had put on those potential grand jury materials and then the fourth section is a just outlines the actually the president's sort of rights in this process specifies that the president's council can respond in writing to information testimony when he presented to the committee in open session and in addition the chairman and the ranking member can invite the President's council to review and respond in writing to executive session material so in other words the chairman actually after consultation with the ranking member can say to the President's council. You know here's the information we received. Please respond in writing to it and I would just say on that that fourth point molly and I were talking about this. It's interesting thing because those types of rights were provided to both Nixon and Clinton in the context of of those impeachment proceedings these proceedings things are actually a little bit more cabinet than those two prior instances in the two prior instances the president I think himself could you know shoe show but the open session and just had had sort of a broader swath of rights just interesting that there are a little bit more contained here in this draft resolution listen molly. How do you understand these rules. In relation to the committee's history admittedly somewhat limited committed modern history in impeachment inquiries or investigations yeah so I think the point market just made about the due process rights of the president resident and the participation of the President's council on it's exactly right. I think the rules that relate to the receipt of information and the degree to which the information is considered to be taken in quote unquote executive session for us more or less in line with where the Clinton and Nixon impeachment increase for the piece on the handling of the grand jury material in this case is a little bit different a lot of that has to do with.
"congress congress" Discussed on KGO 810
"Oh my god right that was loosely didn't surprise me one bit I did not really go into that today but that is horrifying to change yeah I can't even think that Clinton the Clintons would have some legal recourse to take against him for that going to do that so I mean you know yeah he's just yeah did so because there he we're gonna but also the other one we're gonna have a Congress Congress woman it we say or sick I remember and S. two and as you know she's she's good hard issue you're going to mess I say that right issue yeah you say like you say it's not you it's like you I should say using right it's an engine to and I'm just gonna color that you go that way to talk about this is is is is this an insane as anything else he's going after legal immigrants yeah and if that are on social services and it'll take away their their green card or deny them a green card so anyway so I mean sister if there were ever any other reason for you not to get politically active in the next two years I don't know what else we can do I mean this is you know I mean there's still hope this does panics wondering if there's gonna somebody come and gone gone down and now I got to worry about their own government coming after them simply because they're taking advantage of the legal things they are entitled to this country yeah so and you know for some of them I mean it when you take those things away because that you take with a green card yet take away the sins you take away the green card or not allow them to get a green card how are they going to get a job right how they gonna support them well and you know I mean that they are here legally they should be able to get a green card by the way even though I support this the idea if you have half a.
"congress congress" Discussed on 850 WFTL
"President is done. As put us in a position where we cannot get any information to do the oversight that we need to do. Here's A O C, I think impeaching and choosing to not impeach when there's an abundance of evidence could also be construed as a as politically motivated as well. We can't be scared of elections. We need to hold the rule of law, and that goes directly at Nancy Pelosi who they say doesn't want to go in that direction, because of, of, of politics and that they could lose twenty twenty if they go that way. She claimed in that meeting, she's doing it for the American people. Let's hear from Adam Schiff, if the case could stronger, the more, they will the congress. That's very interesting with that ship because Adam Schiff is you and I have said is the person who should actually be testifying before congress, and the Democrats should be demanding that he testified before congress, because he as recently as a month ago was continuing to say he has seen the evidence of collusion will if he seen it and won't testify about it and won't let the American public know. Wow, that really really is just Stadler should be calling across the hall to get wait. Adam Schiff to testify before the American people. What is Adam Schiff hiding, why is he protecting the president? I mean, the only other thing would be Adam Schiff has been lying all this time. And we can't imagine that a democrat would lie for two years. Oh, let us now go and hear from skater Bob Beto O'Rourke on impeachment. It's an incredibly serious sober decision that we should make a country, really the last resort when every other option has failed us. And at this point where the president has refused to respond to any subpoena. His attorney general will not testify where he will not furnish other witnesses that we can find out what happened to this great democracy in two thousand sixteen I think this moment of calls for us to, to look beyond the politics and the polling, and even the next election. It's very sanctity of the ballot box and the very future of the world's greatest democracy in this is important to us. And I think it is then passed those short term consequences to the consequences to the future of this country. It's very important understand that better work lied in their re said bar will not testify. Barr has said he will testify before the House Judiciary committee. You said he does not wish to testify before their lawyers BS questions by their lawyers as he said he is only a bylaw obligated to go before congress, not their lawyers. Also, not going to go outside the rule of law, and present a fully unredacted report. As to the Don Mcgann thing, this finally got to me yesterday. We didn't bring it up the last two days because it's just stupid. They're claiming that he has to testify. No, he doesn't, and this is very simple for people who understand the separation of powers. The majority of America does not understand the separation of powers, which is why the Democrats will continue to lie about it is because they know look, we can lie because they're ignorant. The media's not going to call us on her lies. But of course, whether you call it immunity, whether you call it executive privilege. The president and his close staff, do not have to testify before congress because it's a separation of powers thing. It's like the president can't demand, the Jerrell equally Ken demand that Jerrold Nadler, sit before him and his panel and answer questions. Why can't why can only congress do it to the president and the president? Can't do it to congress. Well, what they're saying is they gave up executive privilege when Mcgann testified before Robert Muller, therefore there is no executive privilege anymore. That's false. Because Robert baller people understand is Robert Muller, works for the executive branch, the executive branch is not giving up executive privilege when they allow one of their own to testify before the executive branch and they are not giving up any type of immunity or any type of, of executive privilege towards congress. Congress is a different branch of government. There. Okay. Are we done? Are we done today with separation of powers one? Oh, one doubt. No, we're not because people still don't get it. They just don't learn. They really don't. And here's the thing, though. Kimberley strassel Wall Street Journal was almost two weeks ago. She wrote what is Nadler, really want. He wants to show that was the conclusion basically that she came to in this article really lined out of number of things, but he's trying to put on the show, but he's trying to in this show what he's trying to do is send out subpoenas. He believes he wants to believe, well, he wants to be ignorant and not realize that the rules cannot be changed through a subpoena. He wants them to be ignorant on the three branches of government, which we've brought you the polls we already know that a great number of them are, unfortunately. And so he wants them to stay there in their ignorant little corner and not, not have any pushback, not have any question as to his behavior, but the facts the reality, the law does not change as a result of subpoena. They know by push. Shing things, and issuing subpoenas that nobody in their right? Mind would respond to, they can make it look like in the media at the president is hiding something right? And the differences, the president and his immediate staff people that he appoints to departments were congress has congressional oversight over like the attorney general, like members of his cabinet can be forced to testify before members of congress because there's over site there, congresses, not have oversight over the president. Right. The president doesn't have oversight over congress. The president can't call Jerrold Nadler to testify in front of him. Now, when you when we talked about, for example, William bar, the head of the department of Justice, they are overseen by congress. He is willing to testify before congress. He testified before the members of the Senate. He was willing and made it clear, I am willing to testify before the members of the House Judiciary committee. They came in and said, well, we're going to have you testify before our staff lawyers, he said, Nope, we will testify before you. So there is no law these broken. There's no constitutional crisis whatsoever. No, they are making it up as they go along. And they are out and outright lying about it, because they believe, hey, when the polling out there that almost recorders of America can't name all three branches of government. It means Americans have no idea, but separation of power is they have no idea when it comes to the electoral college, people that are saying that we need to be direct amok rec- of no idea why the electoral college even exist. They don't understand why the Senate exists they don't know the history of the country. They're completely, and totally ignorant and the democrat party is banking on the fact that the people that vote for them are ignorant, and they also believe stupid because we can sell them anything. And that's basically that's just of it. I mean, there's really isn't much more to go on it. Then even bring it up the last couple of days, whole again, thing, because the president was so clear, so stupid until the Democrats started doubling down on it yesterday. And it's like okay gotta bring it up. Just I will as I said earlier, it sort of gets to the point of we at times believed that we're just repeating ourselves over and over again, and I say to myself, repeating myself, it seems like sometimes every day go in and say the same thing. Oh, that's because the opposition, the people that aren't telling the truth or saying the same thing over and over again in camp back up. So the only way that I can defeat them because it's the story of the day, every day is to use the truth and the truth is going to be the same every single day. But sometimes it gets boring because it's like you're just up against this brick wall of complete lies and, and the loosening fought. And it's just like it, doesn't it doesn't matter to them. They don't care. They don't care about the truth. They don't care about lying. They don't care about having a complete delusional mindset that this gets us back earlier to talking about the, the, the whole transgender thing. Again. They don't mind it. Oh, no. I mean, we got to the point yesterday that head of Planned Parenthood. Was out saying that, that abortion laws today, punish more than women it punishes men who think to punishes men who think they're women, but not women. That think they're men because if they're women that think they're men than their men, so they can't be women. So there. It gets very, very confusing. The whole point that we're seeing now Tucker Carlson, talked about it last night and pointed out to the NBC story about the man being pregnant headline. No then can't be pregnant that's a woman living as a man who is pregnant. And we're whole point is then, wait a minute. Is Planned Parenthood actually saying them that men do have seen abortion, right? It just gets to be this complete. How do you write the laws if you're one of these over the top liberal, and you become a lawmaker you become the president? How would you if you were to craft the laws and the rules? How do you do it? How do you do you know former President Obama talking about how they're in a circular firing squad the parties in a circular firing squad? In other words, they're going after each other, and it's not gonna stop you help create that they did. So don't act like none of it is, is because of you, by the way, this is also the reason you created a party that within just a couple of years no longer needs you. But where will they go on and peach mint? I don't know. We, we have told the White House look just don't say anything about it. Nope. Sorry. Don't get into arguments about it. Let them argue between themselves. You know, we'll take a look at it every once in a while is we do and say, okay, did they make any sense today? It's a different person stating. The same stupid thing that they stated yesterday, just like when the whole thing about, well, it's Republican Representative out of Michigan. It's a Republican, he's a conservative libertarian, and he says, Trump should be impeached, and we had to go point by point on his argument, and there was nothing new, and there was nothing. There. Over and over again over and over different people saying the exact same thing, and clearly now the Democrats just want to get into shouting match with Republicans. And so they make these absurd allegations that are just outright lies and the White House does feel like they should respond some they respond the fight continues. We've suggested the White House. They just don't respond anymore, right? Blend on move on how long will the impeachment go if they're just talking between themselves..
"congress congress" Discussed on KGO 810
"No one can be above the law. Not even the attorney general of the United States, in fact, especially the attorney general of the United States he should comply immediately with this with this valid congressional requests. And if he refuses to do, so I think the house is going to hold them in contempt. I think an attorney general held in contempt of congress someone who should resign. Can I say that we will sadness because I don't like to see that happen. It's not good for our country that's tiny hands. Marco Rubio, the Senator from Florida, and he's talking about two thousand twelve and air colder, I would like to ask him today. Again, you know, Bill bar is going to be held and is being held in contempt of congress for well for lying for starters. And then telling other people not to appear telling the president giving others the like Dom again a pass under executive privilege telling them that they do not appear and then instructing the president what to do in that regard. It is contempt of congress, congress has oversight responsibility and they're exercising. It was this three. You just told me. So basically, let me get his name. It's a guy for the Washington Post columnist and his name is Dana Millbank, and he had a woman. There's a picture of a man you really, okay. Backwards. I used to think it was a man there you go. Well, apparently he had his Prescott essentials really revoked today along with pretty much the entire White House. Press corps. They had it revote and then given back on exemptions. He didn't get his back. But a lot of people did basically saying that unless you're in the White House for ninety of the previous one hundred eighty days, which is seven out of every ten workdays. He said, you wouldn't have those hard credentials as hard media passes. So you can get an exemption, which also means in Millbank opinion, you serve at the pleasure of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, which means if if you annoy them or or maybe right on Sunday take offense to they could just revoke your your president are circling the wagons. They are circling the. Violation of the of the free press. It's like they'll get doesn't matter anymore because you don't have twenty of his Mike question that's hiding hiding. It. Can't just be bad price every fiction. Always news criticism from the fake news, and they won't talk. All right. Coming up congressman ro Khanna will join us here from the bay area and try to get his take on. There's a lot going on. And we'll ask him a question. Impeach or not because that seems to be where this is heading. That's coming up next. The Cam ships kids you. Gertie on K G O. And the chairman of the House Judiciary committee says the panel's recommendation to hold attorney general William bar in contempt of congress will come before the full house for a vote soon. The committee voted along party lines as Democrats battle the Trump administration for access to the full version of the mullahs reports before the vote the White House invoked executive privilege, claiming the rights of block lawmakers from seeing the full document. The Senate intelligence committee has subpoenaed Donald Trump junior dancer questions about his 2017 testimony in the Russia probe the committee has more questions of the president's son this following the testimony of Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen bar. Police have arrested multiple teens in connection with a series of cell phone thefts on the trains.
"congress congress" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"That mean that the share committee can do some things now that it needed special authorisation. To do in earlier impeachment proceedings. And so just in terms of kind of the nut simple of the process that that's the taking a resolution to the house floor. That says we are beginning an investigation that may result in impeachment proceedings and having the full house vote on that that as a matter of kind of investigative power doesn't matter as much that used to know. But I want to suggest that it matters very deeply in a different way. Which is that you know, when you're doing investigative hearings the goal is to create a factual record. And you know, you're trying to examining question you're looking at talking to witnesses, but you're not of valuating that evidence against the standards of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The historic record of what we do in. Don't impeach for. And you're not a valuating that conduct in the way that you are when you say, okay. This is the setting in which we. Try to decide whether to have an impeachment. I remember very clearly during the Clinton impeachment. You know, the house had these hearings where they talked about the historic standard of what an impeachable offense. Was right. They talked about prior impeachments. And you don't do that in an investigative committee setting. You do that in the context of evaluating the record that exists for purposes of a particular house power that exists, right? And I I do wonder if the all the focus on investment went Democrats say investigation nodded, the I stands for investigation. Not impeachment. What they're really saying is we don't want to evaluate. So I think that that that's an important point. And I think it speaks to a broader point, which is that we members of congress others in the public needs to be clearer about what we mean when we say doesn't peach mint matter. And so I've. Have laid out one set of factors that have to do with process, and they -bility of the committee to get information. Margaret has written about the question of would it be easier for the judiciary committee to get access to the grand jury materials if they were doing impeachment as opposed to just investigation. That's one argument you've laid out a different, but important argument, and I think that we all would benefit from being clearer about what when we say like dozen peach matter just calling it impeachment matter what exactly are we talking about. And I just say in response been that I will be watching closely. Exactly the types of questions that House Democrats are asking people like Don Mcgann, Don mckim comes before the committee. Do they reference impeachment ideas or not in their questioning because when you're in a committee hearing, and your, you know, questioning someone you can say whatever you want you can talk about impeachment. If you want members can do whatever they want. And so I will be very key. Keenly interested maybe there will be a split. Maybe some on the committee who favor impeachment proceedings will talk about impeachment in the context of those investigation hearings and people who don't won't. I mean, it will be an interesting way to see where individuals are and how they are wanting to talk about these issues, not alone is a sort of additionally interesting political question in how does the chairman how to other house leaders kind of manage those impulses on the part of their members. And you know, we have a proceedings and procedures that we usually see I'm committee hearings. Follow the five minute role aware member stat five minutes to answer. Amt ask ask questions, you know, we've seen some people call for a different format for coming hearings using say instead of having members each have five minutes, I'm using a different a different format. So those kinds of like very. Specific questions about what form does all of this take..
"congress congress" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"And there seemed to be a lot of people who are kind of interested in using continued investigation as some kind of surrogate for an impeachment process was like how do you assess the the dynamics within the democratic caucus? Yes, ever. So I think that's a pretty good summary of kind of where we are is that there are there are some folks in the democratic caucus who have an an you pointed out that Senator Warren has said this on her presidential campaign trail, one more general consequences. The fact that we're in the very early stages of the twenty twenty election is that and we. Have you know, twentyish Democrats running for president is that they could be asked about things like this on the trail. And then that puts it on everyone's agenda to get asked about, particularly when you know members of congress are back in town next week. So you know, there's there's that part of the party. There's a there's a part of the party who's much more skeptical of this. And then as you described there's folks in the middle who say, you know, we need to continue to use our investigative authority. Do we need to call it impeachment? We need to say that that's what we're building towards maybe not maybe not yet. And so one of the challenges for speaker Pelosi the other democratic leaders in the house, including Jerry, Nadler, the chair of the House Judiciary committee is how to manage those tensions within the House Democratic caucus and importantly, they don't exist in isolation from other debates that are happening within the democratic caucus in the house about the direction of the party. And so this is obviously a very substantive. Important issue. But we can't think about it in isolation. From the fact that there are lots of other things that the folks who tend to want to be more aggressive on impeachment might disagree with the folks who wanna who are less aggressive on on impeachment going forward. And so Margaret does raise this really important point that we're having this conversation at a moment where the member members of the House Democratic caucus have not physically been in Washington since their appointments released. They've been back in their districts. There was this conference call earlier this week where they have heard from various leaders in had a chance to to talk about what the party's strategy might be going forward. But I don't want to underestimate the importance of you know, them being in the same place. They get back into town next week. And I think we'll start taking a better sense of what what their strategy is going to be going forward. Margaret one question that I have when I watched these flurries of investigative activity, particularly out of the judiciary committee is whether. We should understand them as preparatory toward impeachment a surrogate in lieu of impeachment or may be one, and maybe the other and in the minds of Jerry, Nadler, it is an his staff at his genuinely unclear and they're actually having a sort of an undirected investigative process that leads wherever it leads..
"congress congress" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"We have mostly avoided talking about impeachment except for this one extreme remedy discussion at the end just now. But I I wanna talk about the congressional politics of impeachment. 'cause there it seems like a complicated iterative multi-level game at this point. And I'm zooming way out. Not avow you waiting whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. How do you understand the dynamics of the politics in both the Republican caucus and the democratic caucus? Let's I think the Republican caucuses simpler. So let's take that one first. Yes. So before I dive into the Republicans want to kind of make an important point about what we mean when we say we talk about the politics of impeachment and one part of that is this question of how does how does the public react to impeachment? What are? Our future electoral implications of pursuing impeachment, for example. But there's a second sort of way in which I think it's important to think of the politics of impeachment. And that is kind of where you're getting I think with this question, and it has to do with that because it is a process that involves collective decisions made by members of congress. It involves all of the same kinds of tensions within the Democratic Party within the Republican party. What does it mean for speaker Pelosi for the Republican leaders to manage their their respective conferences? That's a that in truck. Congressional politics is also really important. And so I appreciate the question because I think that when we think when people say impeachment is a political act. We tend to think about how does it play outside the chamber, but there's a lot of politics happening within the chamber so on the Republican side of the aisle in frankly, both the house and the Senate at this point, we've not seen any real. Will interest in in going down the the impeachment road?.
"congress congress" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"So so we do have that as a norm. I don't think we get necessarily to the articles of peach mint right away. I think the approach that Trump in the White House her taking the stiff arming total stiff-arming approach gets us further along that road think when we if and when we do see court, so for example, district courts making rulings and saying, no, you the president or the White House you must comply, and if we then see continued resistance to those sorts of directives, you know, meritless appeals and just sort of a continued blanket refusal, even when for example, a court has weighed in then I think we're getting more into that that type of territory and also if we see maybe volume it may also. Oh, be a factor too. You know, if we've got just tons of Pinos out there in terms of requests for documents and not one documents provided a not one witnesses provided. I mean, that's just that's a full frontal challenge to the article one branch of our constitution. And I just don't see it being healthy for our democracy for the constitution for congress, not to really make its views known about the unacceptability of that. And that may lead to an NPR type act. The law fair podcast has a sponsor. It's blinking. I since the Muller report was released. You probably have understandably spent a lot of time digesting the report checking social media for the latest analysis. I hope reading my diarist on the subject..
"congress congress" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"They like, hey, I'm gonna make this hard for you as I possibly can. And you're going to be defending lawsuits, and I'm an appeal them to the hilt. So you know, I think he's probably try he really doesn't want that information out. That's the first thing that says to me in the second thing is, you know, he's communicating people who might be involved that they're gonna be high costs to trying to get these this type of information. Yeah. I think that this your point Margaret about kind of the political symbolism of doing a full frontal assault on Congress's oversight. Power is really important. I think that the that President Trump and the folks in the White House likely kind of see their goal in this or one of their goals in this assault is just proved to their political base that you know. They're gonna do everything they possibly can to stand up against the Democrats on the hill who are you know, being unfair. And I think this gets again to away in which are current environment is different than previous episodes of even very contentious oversight conflict between congress and the executive branch and that historically the executive branch. The White House has seen potential political costs to not complying or taking a hardline no compliant stance. And that's why historically we've seen subpoenas be valuable in compelling negotiations. And then talked earlier about how in the Myers and Bolton case in the holder case there were protracted negotiations between congress and the White House, and everyone was trying to reach a politically and legally optimal for your respective side argument, but the politics here, it's the little I think are different. And so that there's this this value that the Trump administration sees in just being as aggressive as possible, and that's the politically optimal approach. Yeah. I think you know, this he sort of busting through norms here. Right. We've seen this president do that in a number of ways, he's definitely bussing through norms here. I think the question for the congress in particular House, Democrats will be you know, how do you respond to that? Do you you know, bus through your own norms. So for example, as we've talked about before there's several different ways to compel a person to appear before committee civil enforcement actions, which we've talked about in the potential for the executive branch to bring, you know, criminal misdemeanor or suit against someone which isn't going to happen. But there is this third option, which is this inherent contempt power which hasn't been used for years and years, it essentially what it means is, you know, the capitol police would be deployed to go and get someone and bring them to Capitol Hill. And this hasn't literally hasn't been used. In just decades and decades and decades, but you know, the question for the Congress's will what are we gonna do? Trump's Trump's bussing to these norms. Are we gonna bust through our norms of of not using that type of process, and I would just note that Gerry Connolly's democrat for Virginia actually mentioned this recently sort of just mentioning that there is this inherent contempt. Power to for the capitol. Police to go out and bring someone before the house. So, you know, these are sort of interesting times we're living. Yeah. And the the word that always gets thrown our our the discussion of why congress abandoned its use of the inherent contempt. Power in the early. Twentieth century is that arresting people and putting them in the capital jail was quote on unseemly. And so I think to your point about the times we're living in is it more unseemly than anything else were observing. Well, so the congress has one other power that's relevant to this Margaret as you pointed out in your piece yesterday and that is the power of impeachment. And in the the Nixon impeach me. Articles as you point out. There is actually an article that deals or a section that deals specifically with refusal to provide material to congress, and so talk a little bit about how you know, how bad situation would have to get before before the stiffening of congress might be thought about as a sort of independent basis for impeachment. So traditionally there is this conflict between the executive and legislative branches over documents and comply with with some Pena's, etc..
"congress congress" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"There is the possibility of a of a sufficient delay. I mean, we only have eighteen months until the next election. And if Trump can't even put off that information becoming public, basically, which is sort of pout would be if it went to a committee on if he can even put it off, you know, six months or eight months, I think that's probably valuable to President Trump in his run-up to twenty twenty. I mean, I think there's also this sense. Donald Trump is very aggressive when it comes to lawsuit than he's probably trying to maybe trying to signal to for example, other committees or other House Democrats who have this urge to do oversight. They like, hey, I'm going to make this as hard for you as I possibly can. I'm Benjamin with us. And this is the law fair podcast, April twenty-seventh two thousand nineteen the action has shifted to congress. The Muller report is filed and a blizzard of subpoena fights between the white. House and various congressional committees is already underway. The president has sued a committee chairman there's a question about whether Don Mcgann will testify or whether the White House will assert executive privilege over it and looming over it all is the question of how congressional Democrats and Republicans are thinking about impeachment. We thought it was a good time to focus on congress. So my to Brookings colleagues, Molly Reynolds and Margaret Taylor came to the jungle studio to chew it all over we talked about subpoenas. We talked about lawsuits we talked about impeachment. And we even talked about the much forgotten inherent contempt power of the congress. It's the law fair podcast episode four hundred twelve congress congress and more congress with Margaret Taylor. And Molly, right. Reynolds. All right, guys, we've gone from the completely orderly process of a criminal investigator who does not leak, and who does everything informal statements in legal documents to the chaotic unruly mess that is the congress of the United States Amalia smiling now 'cause faction chaotic unruly best as what gets Margaret and I out of bed in the morning true. So I don't quite know where to start here. So let's start with the president's statement that he is planning to defy all subpoenas. Margaret, you have been writing for some time about the resistance to document production in a range of areas, including most particularly the security clearance investigations that really expanded over the last week and a half. So the as. As a preliminary matter, give us a kind of overview of where things stand. So it's been very very interesting to see you this evolve. Earlier in the congress in the January, February March timeframe there were we got the sort of notes about what types of arguments, the White House would be making to resist certain demands for documents. And we saw that in connection with the house oversight and reform Camis requests for the documents and testimony related to security clearances. And the argument that they were making there was that. There's really no valid purpose that the congress has in looking into these matters. Now, what we've seen over the past week is that argument being expanded to essentially everything. And as you said, Ben the president said out loud this week. And I quote were fighting all the subpoenas. I say it's enough, unquote. Now this as far as I can see from the history. This is. Pretty unprecedented. You know, typically what has happened in the post? Watergate, your is that presidents will receive requests for information. Very subpoenas. Even they might supply some of the documents, they might authorise certain people to testify, but not others, and this sort of negotiation goes on between the two branches of government. But here what we're seeing is really kind of a full stonewalling and everything and that that's very unusual and Elijah Cummings was the chairman of the house oversight and reform committee through in response to this said, and I quote here to this is a massive unprecedented and growing pattern of obstruction. Both President Trump and attorney general bar on our openly ordering federal employees to ignore congressional subpoenas and simply not show up without any assertion of a valid legal privilege. So that's where we are. It's really kind of a stone wall situation or seeing it in a number of different settings. All right. I want to understand this. Because on the one hand, it's a. As you say stonewall situation on the other hand it maximizes the legal vulnerability to a relatively quick court..
"congress congress" Discussed on 860AM The Answer
"Hi, everybody. Dennis Prager here. There's a piece in USA today. Signed by a number of attorneys general. That's the plural of attorney general mutt? Attorney general. In various states. Donald Trump's national emergency declaration is constitutional. One of the authors of that peace is the attorney general of the state of Indiana, Curtis hill, attorney general hill. Thank you so much for coming on my show. Thank you Dennis. Thank you for having me. Okay. So why don't you let by listeners around the country understand the point that you're making? The point is this the president of the United States has the authority to declare a national emergency and much of what's occurring is really a misunderstanding the application of his power. The president is not exercising executive thority that he has under the constitution tabu on his own. He's actually adhering to a congressional action in nineteen seventy six congress enacted legislation that authorized the president of the United States to declare a national emergency and within that particular legislation. The discretion was completely up to the president as to what would constitute the national emergency. So much of what the current today in the debate about whether or not he had constitutional stories seems to miss the boat and suggest that he was acting in his executive authority would in fact, he was acting on the legislation that was created by congress to declare an emergency. And it's a proper emergency to declare right? My position is that there is if this is not a state of emergency defacto forgetting jury for a moment if it is not the factor state of emergency at our southern border. Then there's no such thing as an emergency. My my only hesitation is not in regard to whether there is an emergency. Not with regard to what you just very effectively answered. He has the right to my my only concern is is there any limit to what any president can then do based on the nineteen seventy six congressional authorization. Well, great question because the authorization doesn't seem to place a restriction on the president. There's no definition as to what what constitutes emergency no definition as to what he has to do in terms of the declaration. If you go back to. Nineteen seventy six every president since nineteen. Seventy six has exercised an emergency under the NEA. In fact, if you look at the the rationale folder does most of them had much less to do with securing this particular country as this particular action going back to the Iranian hostage crisis. For example. A thanking seventy nine and has been renewed every year since that time notwithstanding that the hostages were released back in nineteen eighty one. So that gives you an example of how third some of these emergencies might appear to common folk. So this is the in terms of whether or not the president has your story. Absolutely. Has the I agree. Okay. Literates restricted or not is up to congress. Congress is determined that they restriction is that there's not enough prescription. Well, they've got the responsibility. Retool it so just for just for my own understanding, if a democrat president and said, we have a national emergency because of gun violence. I will confiscate. I will see to it that all semiautomatic weapons are confiscated with with that would that be legal. Well, the the declaration of the emergency is one thing. What happens? After is another in this, particular instance, 'cause Trump has declared an emergency feeding off the southern border debate that whether that's the case where I said, I accept the fact that there is okay. I just wanna know. All right. Right. By virtue of his declaration. Is required to take other actions. He's taken to notify the Pentagon military construction options things of that nature. About emergency situation. What Lucas cried certainly the president can declare an emergency within his own discretion. But then carrying out with the function after has to be within constitutes keeping in that sense. So could the president to declare that there's a leader problem with guns or guy? See I see. Taking a step. Okay. Constitutional right. You have been absolutely clear a guest as one could wish for attorney general attorney general thank you for coming on. Dennis take care. Take care. Attorney general of Indiana Curtis hill. Hi, this is Fred dryer former Rams defensive in football.
"congress congress" Discussed on News Radio 690 KTSM
"Some legislation where does that? What do you call, but Mike Mike, Mike, Mike, it's academic? It doesn't matter. Whether if they means test in other words, if they reduced benefits in some way, or if they tax benefits or if they require a delay in benefits. It's going to happen to you. Whether you take the money at age, sixty seven or eight seventy it's not gonna make any difference. The better pursued reduced so I have a a few years. No, no, no, no, no, Mike, Mike, Mike think about this who wrote the law for social security was it the almighty or was it your local member of congress, congress what congress giveth congress can take away. So the fact that there's a given rule at the moment in place doesn't mean if the given rule at the moment is going to remain the rule congress can change it anytime they want they can do it retroactively. They've done that in the past. They've had we've seen retroactive tax increases. We've had a couple of presidents who have done that. So don't assume that whatever the rule is is going to be the rule into the future. And that therefore you ought to take it now in order to protect yourself. There is no protection from congress. Right. So all we can do is make a decision based on current law and current law says to us. Based on your circumstances. You'll need the money. Therefore, don't start wait until eight seventy simple as that. Thank you very much. You're very welcome, Mike. I'm really glad I was able to help you with that. You know, it's really fascinating. Sometimes folks overly think stuff make things a little more complicated than they necessarily have to be. I'm not suggesting that we aren't necessarily going to see benefit cuts or benefit delays or tax increases. We've been talking about the social security crisis.
"congress congress" Discussed on 1170 The Answer
"Message to parents in these countries not to put their kids through this. Now regarding the people that are calling President Trump tyrannical a dictator for suggesting that he should do what he can without congress. Congress is not acting. What did President Obama say about his frustrations with congress backing point fourteen? I take executive action only when we have a serious problem. A serious issue. And congress chooses to do nothing. And in this situation. Yeah. The failure of House Republicans to pass a darn Bill is bad for our security. It's bad for our economy, and it's bad for our future. So while I will continue to push House Republicans to drop the excuses enact. Yeah. What are you going to do about it? And I hope their constituents well too. Yeah. America cannot wait forever. For them to act. And that's why today I'm beginning. A new effort. To fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own. He did he say fixed much of the integration system on his own own. I think he did congress without congress. Who on your own without congress today? I'm beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own without congress. As a first step. I'm directing the secretary of homeland security and the attorney general to move available and appropriate resources from our interior to the mortar. Protecting public safety and deporting dangerous criminals has been and will remain the top priority. But we are going to refocus our efforts where we can to make sure we do what it takes to keep our border secure. I've also directed secretary Johnson and attorney general holder dot identify additional actions. My administration can take on our own within my existing legal authorities to do what congress refuses to do and fix as much of our immigration system as we can. If congress will not do their job at least we can do ours. Now, how many people screaming about Donald Trump overstepping? His bounds said the same thing. When Obama talked about his frustration and dealing with congress in two thousand fourteen and therefore he needs to act on his own is this thing on. Now, the IRS has one job folks and s to.
"congress congress" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot
"I am getting to the point where I can hardly turn on the television anymore. I just getting. It's getting to the point where. Each new time. They try something. Excuse me, a little back scene. Inside baseball there. Thank you, Tiffany. Each time. They try something new. It infuriates me even more. I'm out as well. Say it. The people in control of the democrat party right now. Are for the most part traders. They are not okay. They are not a good Americans. There dissenters for the sake of dissent. They're stupid for the sake of being stupid. I really think that. Here's what I mean. When you were younger and possibly prone to teasing somebody who was a little less than than you. You. Remember, I didn't do it. You didn't do it. But some people did some people picked on people just because they were a little less sharp. Than the average pencil point in any case. They did that you felt sorry for them. But you didn't really do anything. But if you did do something chances are somebody saw you got punished for it. These dissenters in the democrat party are doing things to this country doing things to this constitution constitution that they're not being called on. They're not being punished for they're not even having it pointed out to them that they're acting right on the edge of the law, and in some cases, breaking the law. They're just turning this country into their playground. And making people like you and me who want to make the country great who want to contribute. And so for the running around wasting our time watching these idiots. Who are ruining our country. And right at the head of it is this metoo movement. Bunch of silly women running around it on Senate office building silly women. Silly stupid looking women in their little black dresses with little sayings on their hands and lipstick to look like blood all over the faces. How doll? How nonsensical? I would be I wouldn't hang around with anybody that did that. They probably wouldn't want to hang around. With me. You're talking about people with nothing to do. People with nothing to say. People with no contribution to make. Picture themselves for you gladly Oliver, MSNBC CNN and the six o'clock evening news. If that's still on even if it is. It's just bizarre. How we as a productive strong? One of a kind country. Can elect people who will sit back and let this happen. Our congress. I Republican congress. Congress are establishment, congress is saying back, basically are they upset are they doing anything? No. They're just sitting back waiting for the Democrats, the socialists DISA's, or whatever they call them. They're just sitting back waiting for the next thing that they're gonna throw him. That's exactly what they're doing sitting back and waiting. It's disgusting. The establishment is disgusting. And they turned Washington into nothing that a smelly. Tar pit. Mixed with garbage. I've reached this point from my day being completely changed around at the point where as I recuperated. There sometime I have to spend on my back and rather than spending reading all the time. I can't do that can't watch television all the time. But I'm watching a lot more of it than I used to. Folks, we're in trouble. You folks in the audience right now who are working. You know, what's going on in the daytime unless you read it. And then you gotta be careful where you read it because the fake news is out to destroy his. It's really incredible. That's my contribution today. Let's get to yours. The rules are simple. We just use our heads. And we keep the language clean. And we don't talk about other hosts less I do. And that's okay. And basically as I said before just use your head anything and everything that's on your mind doesn't have to be political. We're happy to talk about it here on Obama Friday on the patriot. Let's start out with Joe and Wesland on the patriot. Hi, joe. Hi, john. Thanks. I just got a question. If I had the chance for doctor for. Dr. When you look back when you look at the wackos threatening, your you and your family's life threatening. Mrs cavanaugh. Her family's life asking her to put a bullet. And breads had was it really worth doing the bidding of the last to do this after thirty five years. That's all that's where it all boils down for me. Well, that's a great question. Here's mine. Exactly where and when. Did Bret Cavanaugh. Attempt to rape you. Exactly where and when. The bread Cavanaugh. Allegedly attempt to rape you. You don't forget. If it did happen you and I and just ask the two questions that'll bouncer right into the ducking chair if we had any Justice country, but at this point. We don't seem to Joe I appreciate it. That was a great call. Thanks for joining us. Eight hundred nine to three ninety three eighty five. That's eight hundred nine to three W DT Cape. Pam Saint Clair shores, you're next on the patriot. Go ahead. Hi, john. I just have to comments with the information coming out today about rod Rosenstein plan to tape record Donald Trump and then have him taken out of office. Why in the world, I just don't understand this. Why in the world did Jeff Sessions say a couple of months ago? If rod Rosenstein is fired that he will resign and the other common. I have is. I I don't know the answer to that. So I mean, I think it's awfully it is. And sessions. I just think he has to go just for that comment alone. I mean, he's obviously more rod Rosenstein than he is the Donald Trump and the other question I've had for a long time. And I'm hoping someone can answer for me. We know that call me wanted Hillary Clinton to win and he exonerated her months before why at the last minute did he come out just a few days before the election, the presidential election and say that the investigation was now ongoing again, I mean that really I never understood that why would he exonerate or and then come out and try to put the kabosh honor just before the election because he thought everybody was too stupid to see that. That's what he did. He's been doing stuff for years the defies the imagination that was one of them. But he's he's paying more than you know, even though he made his six million from whoever was. The not the punishment. But the. Whatever is going to be. Mr. Comey's state and all of this has yet to be completely written. Let's put it that way. I hope he does face the consequences. Not just being fired all of these people so far they've just been fired, but they're not held accountable for their actions. And it's pretty discouraging fire than they still take all their secrets with him. And then they set up a little cabal somewhere and work against Trump. Right. And they they don't lose all of their pension. Either the way I understand it. So it's pretty disgraceful. Yeah. I think the whole thing is, but Pam we're we're going to keep their feet to the fire. I think you're gonna see a happy ending to this helps. I hope you're right. I hope so too. Thank you for the call. And the reason I think I'm right is that you can push good people too far. You can push to good people too far. I know a lot of good people out here and the dregs of society, and we really got. We we've got the corner on the Republic. Once again, if we can keep it eight hundred nine to three ninety three eighty five that's eight hundred nine to three WD t k. This is the mouth Friday on the McCullough show on FM one zero one point five and AM fourteen hundred the patriot..
"congress congress" Discussed on Pod Save the People
"They they run the education system in your states they roam the job creation we're the ones who build the roads no no offense to congress congress's worthless it does nothing they do nothing to help me a better governor let me compete on a global basis they bicker fight all day long and they don't pass ending i don't mean to be so tough but it is what it is i've been consistent on the so to running for congress anytime soon utica it's just life short help people you know listen as governor you know we've now i'm sure you've read alshafi had record jobcreation record investment you'll sit here today of restored more felon rights in any governor in the history of the united states of america i'm proud of those things i can only do that as a governor i come to that as a legislator so with a governor you've got a lot of executive authority the party the dnc you know they they need give money and resources to help candidates running win but you know generally if you run for office denied raise mount money majelis candidate you do yourself is just it's an easy plays for people to consolidate their bright because it's night dan viable you know i vetoed array hundred twenty pieces of legislation very horrible pieces of legislation anti women anti lgbt antienvironment progun in antivoting rights this is not hypothetical these bills passed my republican legislature now if i were sitting there as governor iv told him and i'm very proud the most vetoes of any governor virginia history and i never lost veto 100 and twenty two zero but if i won't sitting there the rate today.