TODAY IN CONGRESS (TIC):
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
Here’s today’s schedule with the events I think may be the most interesting in bold. You can watch C-Span HERE. NOTE: Sometimes C-Span posts additional Congressional events not on my list, later in the day.
Today’s Events:
House — House Pro-Forma Session only.
Senate — Not in Session.
Thursday’s Votes:
House —
1. House Joint Resolution 79 (H.J.Res. 79): Vote on Passage of H.J.Res.79 - Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment (This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.)
Democrats- 227 Yes 0 No 0 Present 5 Not Voting
Republicans- 5 Yes 182 No 0 Present 10 Not Voting
Independents- 0 Yes 1 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Totals- 232 Yes 183 No 0 Present 15 Not Voting
PASSED
Voting Details HERE.
Senate —
1. Senate Joint Resolution 68 (S.J.Res. 68): Vote on Passage of S.J.Res.68 - A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress (This joint resolution directs the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran unless explicitly authorized by a congressional declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.)
Democrats- 45 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Republicans- 8 Yes 45 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Independents- 2 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Totals- 55 Yes 45 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
PASSED
Voting Details HERE.
Comments:
Today’s Events – No events today because it’s another “no work” Friday.
Thursday’s Votes — A couple of historic votes in Congress yesterday.
One was a joint resolution passed in the House which would remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). For those young-ens among our readers, the ERA is a Constitutional Amendment that was passed by Congress back in the 1970s (I think) that would enshrine equal rights for men and women in the Constitution. Its been working it’s way to ratification through the State Legislatures and was just ratified by enough States to make it a Constitutional Amendment, but past the deadline for States to ratify such amendments. So the House passed a resolution to end the deadline, which would make the ERA a Constitutional Amendment now that enough States have ratified it. But don’t get your hopes up. The chances #MoscowMitch will ever let his GOP Senators vote on this resolution are slim to none. Sorry!
In the Senate, they actually passed S.J.Res. 68 to prohibit the President from taking any military action against Iran without a congressional declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force. That is after a number of amendments proposed by Trump GOP loyalists to water it down were successfully tabled (killed) by majority votes. The good news is that 8 Republicans grew a set of balls and voted to defy the President and reign in his military authority. The brave GOP Senators are: Alexander, Cassidy, Collins, Lee, Moran, Murkowski, Paul and Young. The bad news is that this is nowhere near the 67 votes needed to overcome an already threatened Trump veto. Still, it’s worth sending a shot across Trump’s bow if nothing else. BTW, this Bill is similar, but not identical to an Iran Bill passed by the House last week. So this Senate Bill still needs to go back to the House for passage, before going on to the President’s desk.
COMMITTEE ACTIVITY:
Introduction:
NOTE #1: Each background section will include a link to my September 26 Diary containing the full backgrounds for those who need to get up to speed. Below, I will post only recent developments (stuff that happened the day before) and any new developments.
NOTE #2: I have removed the Committee subpoenas that have been inactive for weeks. You can still find out about them in my September 26 Diary (CLICK HERE). Also, I will still keep a check on them and if something new happens in any of them, I will post it in future TIC diaries.
NOTE #3: Well my September 26 Diary containing the full backgrounds on each of the subpoena and impeachment activities has gotten too long, so the character limit has made it impossible for me to use this diary to post new background information. So starting November 22, I have posted background information from November 22 going forward in this November 22 Background #2 Diary and I will keep it updated until I run out of space again. I have put in a new link to the November 22 TIC for you to access it in each Committee Activity below. I have also kept the old link to the September 26 Diary so you can obtain the pre-November 22 background information.
NOTE #4: Well my September 26 Diary and my November 22 Diary containing the full backgrounds on each of the subpoena and impeachment activities below have both gotten too long, so the character limit has made it impossible for me to use these diaries to continue to post new background information. So starting January 30, I have posted background information from January 30 going forward in this January 30 Background Diary #3 and I will keep it updated until I run out of space again. I have put in a new link to the January 30 TIC Diary for you to access it in each Committee Activity below. I have also kept the old links to the September 26 and November 22 Diaries so you can obtain all the pre-January 30 background information.
Now on with the show. (New and Important stuff in bold)
House Judiciary Committee Barr Subpoena for Mueller Grand Jury Materials —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None, still awaiting decision by Appeals Court Three Judge Panel.
House Judiciary Committee McGahn Subpoena —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None. We’re still awaiting decision by Appeals Court Three Judge Panel.
House Oversight Committee Files Lawsuit to Enforce its Subpoenas to Wilbur Ross (Commerce Secretary) and AG William Barr —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None, awaiting Federal Judge’s decision.
House Judiciary & Intelligence Committees’ Investigations —
NOTE #1: This used to be the “House Intelligence Committee’s Whistleblower Investigation”. Then it was titled the “House Intelligence, & Judiciary Committees’ Impeachment Investigation”. Then it was titled the “House & Senate Impeachment Proceedings.” But since Trump’s first impeachment is over, I have changed the heading again.
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — Here’s some recent stuff:
- Barr Agrees To Testify Before House Judiciary Committee — The news broke yesterday that AG Barr has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. According to this DK Post by Dan K:
The House Judiciary Committee has just released a letter it sent to AG Barr confirming his agreement to testify before them on March 31st. The letter lists several specific topics the committee wants to ask him about:
- The removal USDA Jessie Liu
- Rudy Giuliani’s “process” by which he can “feed the Department of Justice information, through you, about the President’s political rivals.”
- The interference in Roger Stone’s sentencing recommendation.
The letter didn’t mention Barr’s memo that any investigation into a political campaign requires his personal approval, but it did state that these are not the only issues the committee wants to ask him about.
A couple of points I would like to make about the Stone case and the resignations of the Prosecutors in this case.
First, the Committee needs to hear public testimony from the four (4) former DoJ Prosecutors in the Stone case to get straight answers as to what was going on this case before hearing from Barr. Getting their testimony on the record first will allow the Committee to force Barr to either confirm their testimony of what happened or lie under oath. Just bringing Barr in without hearing from the Prosecutors beforehand will just allow Barr to evade, tell half-truths and generally BS the Committee, something he has shown to be very good at in the past. Since we have well over a full month before Barr testifies, I’m hoping the Committee is going to bring in the resigned Prosecutors before Barr. We will see.
Second, something I heard a former DoJ person (who I can’t remember) say is that it’s possible the sentence for Stone of 7 to 9 years originally suggested by the now resigned DoJ Prosecutors was designed to provide Stone some incentive to flip on you know who. Some have said this sentence seems harsh, but not from a perspective of trying to entice Stone into cooperating for a lesser sentence down the road. This theory makes sense for a lot of reasons. First, Stone regardless of all his bluster, has always been deathly afraid of going to jail according to people who are closest to him. So the original Prosecutors knew that when it comes down to sentencing day facing the prospect of almost a decade in jail, he might finally be interested in a cooperative plea bargain. My guess is that Barr and Trump also knew this when they decided to interject themselves in the sentencing process and recommend a highly reduced sentence. This makes total sense when you remember that Trump never does anything for his “friends” unless there is something in it for him, and this case what’s in it for him is Stone’s continued loyalty and silence.
- Nunes & Fellow GOP Intelligence Committee Members Decide Not To Play — Yes, Nunes and his gang decided to take their ball and go home. House Intelligence Committee Republicans boycotted a public hearing on Wednesday in what they say is a protest of the committee's focus on "publicity events" rather than intelligence community oversight. The intelligence panel's ranking Republican, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, and the other GOP members on the committee sent a letter to House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff saying they would not take part in a public subcommittee hearing Wednesday on emerging technologies and national security. The Republican letter charged that the committee has not addressed the December Justice Department inspector general report on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant for former Trump campaign associate Carter Page, which identified major problems with the warrant and its renewals."Until the Committee prioritizes oversight activities related to urgent and critical concerns, Republican members cannot support distractions from our core responsibilities," the Republicans wrote. So let me interpret this GOP letter. “Until you agree to conduct our phony investigations into past FBI FISA warrants on Carter Page instead of your real investigations of stuff like foreign interference in our elections, we will not play ball with you.” Will anyone really miss these clowns?
New Developments — Here’s what’s new:
- Barr Tries To Set Stage Before His House Judiciary Committee Appearance — In a rare public appearance Barr agreed to sit down for an ABC News interview, which you can watch HERE in its entirety. In it, Barr seemed to try to distance himself from Trump with regard to DoJ’s
handling mishandling of the Stone case. Here are some examples from the interview courtesy of ABC News:
“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr told ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas.
When asked if he was prepared for the consequences of criticizing the president – his boss – Barr said “of course” because his job is to run the Justice Department and make decisions on “what I think is the right thing to do.”
“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president,” Barr said. “I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know … I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
Is this Barr’s genuine sentiment or is it an attempt to distance himself from Trump to save what’s left of his reputation or is it Barr’s attempt at stemming a flood of Career Prosecutors exiting DoJ and becoming potential whistle blowers? Who knows, but my guess it’s the latter. Barr did not indicate that he felt there was anything wrong with his sentencing recommendation reversal in the Stone case or any of his other pro-Trump decisions. The thing he seems most upset about is that Trump came out with a bunch of tweets touting his approval of Barr and “his decision” in the Stone case. I still think Barr is a willing puppet who received and carried out Trump’s orders in this case to keep Stone quiet. Barr is upset that Trump keeps publicly revealing his puppet strings. We will have to wait and see how this plays out.
House Intelligence Committee Flynn Subpoena —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None.
House Committees Subpoenas/Requests for Trump Banking/Financial Records & Taxes:
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE.
NOTE: In previous TICs, there were 3 separate topic threads (1. Deutsche/Capital One Bank Subpoenas, 2. Mazars’ Subpoena, and 3. Trump Taxes) covering 5 different court cases. Since they are all dealing with the same general topic (Trump’s hidden financial history) and were starting to get intertwined in my brain, I have rolled them all under the single header above to hopefully make things less confusing.
Also, to further help keep things organized, below are the five (5) ongoing court cases dealing with Trump’s Banking/Financial Records and tax returns.
1. Trump vs. Deutsche Bank and Capital One — Case brought by Trump against the the two banks in an effort to block a subpoena from the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees for the Trump Organization’s banking records, including tax returns.
2. Trump vs. Mazars (Congressional Case) — Congressional Mazar’s case brought by Trump against Mazars (the Trump Organization’s former Accounting Firm) in an effort to block a subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee for the Trump Organization’s financial records, including tax returns.
3. Trump vs. Mazars (Criminal Case) — Case brought by Trump against against Mazars (the Trump Organization’s former Accounting Firm) in an effort to block a subpoena from the Manhattan DA for Trump’s tax returns. The DA has subpoenaed these takes returns in conjunction with his criminal investigation of Trump’s hush money pay off to Stormy Daniels.
4. Congress vs. the IRS & Treasury Department (Trump’s Federal Tax Returns) — This case is a lawsuit brought by the House Ways & Means Committee against the IRS and Treasury Department for their failure to turn over Trump’s tax returns upon the Committee’s request as required BY LAW.
5. Trump vs. NYS Tax Department (Trump’s State Tax Returns) — This case is a lawsuit brought by Trump to block NYS from turning over his State tax returns to Congress.
I will use these case #s below to help keep things organized.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None.
House Committees’ Iran Assassination Investigation —
Background — Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE.
Recent Developments — There were some fireworks about the Treasury Department’s withholding Trump’s tax returns from Congress during yesterday’s Senate Hearing with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. According to this story from The Hill:
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, grew testy with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Wednesday during an exchange over the department's response to information requests.
Wyden criticized Mnuchin for refusing to comply with a request from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) for President Trump's tax returns, even as Treasury complies with requests for financial records from Senate GOP chairmen. Wyden said the move "looks political."
Wyden did not mention specifics of the GOP probe but appeared to be referring to the investigation from Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) are conducting about Hunter Biden, Burisma Holdings and Ukraine.
“It looks to me like there’s a double standard here,” Wyden said.
Mnuchin said that he hasn't provided Neal with Trump's tax returns because Treasury has "significant concerns" about the request on the advice of counsel. He said the tax return request is "very different" from requests for SARs.
“On a bipartisan basis, we have responded to thousands of SARs requests to the committees from both Republicans and Democrats,” Mnuchin said.
Wyden appeared to be unsatisfied with Mnuchin's answer, interjecting and saying, "Mr. Secretary, you are stonewalling about stonewalling."
So Republicans getting financial information on Democrats, GOOD, but Democrats getting financial information on Republicans, BAD! makes sense to me.
New Developments — None.
AS PORKY WOULD SAY: “THAT’SSSSSSS ALL FFFFFFOLKS! Have a Happy Weekend!