TODAY IN CONGRESS (TIC):
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
Today’s Headlines:
HOUSE TO INTRODUCE AND PASS CARES 4.0 BILL THIS WEEK!
___________________________________________________________________________________
Fauci & Others to Testify (virtually) in front of Senate Committee this Week!
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Rick Bight (Corona Virus Whistleblower) to Appear Before House Committee This Week!
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Trump Tax Cases Before SCOTUS This Week!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Details below.
Opening Comment: First let me say Welcome Back All! It’s good to be back reporting on the activities of Congress again after such a long pause. And it’s poised to be a VERY Active week as you can tell from the Headlines above. Now that the House is back in session, we will be seeing Committees at work on oversight of the out-of-control Executive Branch this week and Floor action on the passage of CARES 4.0, rumored to be the BIGGEST COVID-19 Relief Bill yet. More on that later.
But, in general, it will be interesting to see what House Committee Hearings and the House Floor will look like this week as Pelosi attempts to get the House back in business this week without endangering the health and lives of its Members and Staff. The idea that the House can either stay vacant and do nothing or convene and endanger its members, is a false choice. As my avid TIC followers know, I have been ranting about this for weeks (See my April 6 and April 30th TICs), complete with ideas of how the House can SAFELY conduct its business. Now after weeks of inaction, I think we are finally going to see some of these ideas put into action. My guess is you will see a lot of social distancing (> 6 feet apart) and mask wearing on both the House Floor and in Committees, as well as other prudent precautions. I am not sure if they will be entertaining a Rules change to allow for Proxy Voting on the House Floor as is already done in Committees, but I would gather some Rule Changes to make things safer might be in the works. One that I would like to see is a rule that requires ALL Members and Staff to wear a mask when withing 6 feet of one-another. Remember that the cloth masks many are wearing protect others from being exposed to your potential to spread the virus around. They are not as effective at protecting you from others without masks. So if idiotic, macho Republicans refuse to wear a mask, which they will if it’s left voluntary, they place all mask wearers around them at risk. So I would love to see Pelosi pass a rule that forces these GOP A’Holes to wear a mask to get on the Floor or into a Committee Hearing. It’s the only way to ensure everyone is protected.
Anyway, since it’s going to be a busy week, let’s get right to the action!
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 — Not in session.
Senate —
3:00 pm — Senate Session (Senators will resume consideration of the nomination of Brian Montgomery, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.)
Comments:
This Week’s Legislative Events:
CARES 4.0 — While the Senate continues to twiddle its thumbs with judicial and administrative nominations this week, the House is poised to act on potentially the LARGEST Corona virus relief bill to date, CARES 4.0. According to this CNBC Report:
Democrats are working to finalize their next relief proposal, as U.S. Covid-19 cases continue to rise and government data show unemployment soared to levels unseen since the Great Depression as businesses across the country shuttered in April. On a caucus call Thursday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told members that he hopes the House will vote on the bill next week, according to a Democratic leadership aide. He told lawmakers currently out of Washington that they would get 72 hours’ notice before they have to come back for a vote.
The price tag on the next plan could reportedly approach the $2 trillion cost of the unprecedented emergency package passed in March. While Democrats have not released a specific framework of the bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated it could include funding for state and local governments, money to test for and trace Covid-19, relief for the U.S. Postal Service and another direct payment to Americans, among a range of other provisions.
It doesn’t sound like this will not (at least initially) be a Senate and White House negotiated Bill, and that’s a good thing. It’s time for House Dems. to take the lead and put forth a truly Progressive piece of legislation that provides the things the lower 99% of Americans need to survive the pandemic, both medically and economically. House Dems. need to show that they are working for the lower 99% now that the GOP has made to upper 1% happy. They need to pass a Progressive CARES 4.0 Bill and put pressure on the Senate and Trump. On that note:
On Friday, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters that talks with Congress on another rescue plan may not resume until later this month.
“We’ve kind of paused as far as formal negotiations go,” he said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not ruled out another relief bill. However, he has called for it to include liability protections for businesses as they start up again during the outbreak — a provision Democrats oppose.
The Kentucky Republican has also expressed skepticism about more aid for states and municipalities, a priority for Pelosi.
“But now we need to carefully begin to reopen our economy,” he told Fox News Channel on Thursday. “That may or may not involve another rescue package.
Yes, we are in for a fight, but a fight that we must have for the American people.
COMMITTEE ACTIVITY:
Introduction:
NOTE #s1 — 4: To keep this diary as short as possible while still providing a means for new readers to obtain a chronological history on each Committee Activity topic/event below, I have squirreled away the Background information on these topics in other previously posted diaries. So each topic’s Background section below will include links to my September 26, 2019 Diary for Background prior to November 22, my November 22, 2019, 2019 Diary for Background between November 22, 2019 and January 30, 2020, and my January 30, 2020 Diary for Background from January 30, 2020 until today. This and other regular TIC diaries will only include Recent Developments (stuff that happened the day before) and New Developments on each Committee topic/event. Also, I will discontinue posting Committee topics/events that have been inactive for weeks, but their histories will remain in the Background Diaries. If something new happens on these discontinued topics/events, I will bring them back from the dead and post it in the regular TIC.
Now on with the show. (New and Important stuff in bold)
House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis (NEW) —
Background — This Committee was born on the same day that the House passed CARES 3.5, by passage of H.Res. 938. As the name implies it will provide and coordinate oversight of the Trump Administration with regard to the Coronavirus Crisis.
Recent Developments — None
New Developments — None.
House Energy & Commerce Committee COVID-19 Hearings —
Background — None
Recent Developments — None
New Developments — Rick Bright (demoted Corona virus Whistleblower) scheduled to appear before House Energy & Commerce Committee on Thursday, May 14. For those who might not know who Rick Bright is, here’s a little background from statnews:
Rick Bright, the ousted head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, has filed a formal whistleblower complaint alleging he was involuntarily transferred to a lower position at the National Institutes of Health because he raised concerns about the Trump administration’s Covid-19 response and about nepotism in the Department of Health and Human Services.
Among the most explosive accusations: Bright’s complaint alleges he was pressured by HHS Secretary Alex Azar to allow the distribution of hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug, unproven as a Covid-19 treatment that has nevertheless been championed by President Trump. According to the complaint, Bright worked “frantically,” alongside top Food and Drug Administration official Janet Woodcock, to resist a plan to distribute the drug widely.
Bright also alleges his decision to speak to a reporter about the dangers of hydroxychloroquine may have played a role in his ultimate ousting.
“HHS leadership, including Secretary Azar and Dr. Kadlec, were already gunning for Dr. Bright’s removal,” the complaint states. “But they chose to remove him as BARDA Director within days of publication of the article about chloroquine because they suspected that he was the source.”
As the head of BARDA, Bright played a leading role in doling out government funding for infectious disease treatments. STAT first reported on April 21 that Bright had been unwillingly reassigned to a narrower position at the National Institutes of Health. Bright will also testify before a subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee on May 14, an attorney for Bright announced Tuesday.
This Hearing, should it happen (these days you never can be sure of such things), will be a definite popcorn worthy event. I will probably have more on this as we get closer to Thursday. But for now I will leave you with this new tidbit to wet your appetite, courtesy of the NY Times:
A federal investigative office has found “reasonable grounds to believe” that the Trump administration was retaliating against a whistle-blower, Dr. Rick Bright, when he was ousted from a government research agency combating the coronavirus — and said he should be reinstated for 45 days while it investigates, his lawyers said Friday.
The lawyers, Debra S. Katz and Lisa J. Banks, said in a statement that they were notified late Thursday afternoon that the Office of Special Counsel, which protects whistle-blowers, had “made a threshold determination” that the Department of Health and Human Services “violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by removing Dr. Bright from his position because he made protected disclosures in the best interest of the American public.”
The recommendation is not binding. It will now be up to the secretary of health and human services, Alex M. Azar II, to decide whether to send Dr. Bright back to BARDA during the Office of Special Counsel inquiry.
Stay Tuned! More to come I’m sure.
Senate Health Committee to Hold COVID-19 Hearing —
Background — None
Recent Developments — None
New Developments — The Senate Health Committee (Chaired by Lamar Alexander (R-TN)) will hold a Corona virus Hearing on Tuesday, May 12 in which Dr. Fauci and others will testify remotely. Having been blocked by the White House (Trump) from testifying before the House Committee for “reasons?”, Dr. Anthony Fauci will appear before the Senate Committee via video link. According to this recent CNN Report, due to their recent exposure to Corona by contact with White House staff that tested positive for the virus:
The Tuesday hearing by the Republican-led Senate Health Committee was already going to feature remote testimony from
Dr. Robert Redfield, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
Dr. Stephen Hahn, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, both of whom are self-quarantining following
potential exposures to the virus last week.
The other two witnesses -- Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services -- had been planning to appear in person but will now do so remotely.
Alexander said he consulted with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Saturday about making a change to administration policies. The administration had previously opposed having its officials testify remotely.
The upcoming hearing will give senators on the panel a chance to hear "about what federal, state and local governments are doing to help Americans go back to work and back to school as rapidly and safely as possible,"
according to a release from the committee.
I get a kick out of the White House not wanting to have these folks risk spreading the virus to Senators by testifying in person rather than remotely. I guess they think it’s better to risk the lives of Senators than to increase the perception that there is a virus loose in the White House (Corona, not Trump) by taking the precaution of testifying remotely. Anyway, while I would have preferred to see Fauci testify before the House Committee, I’m sure Senate Democrats can get Fauci to reveal some uncomfortable truths about Trump’s management mis-management of the pandemic.
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 — In my March 10 TIC I reported that House Democrats scored a significant legal victory as a federal appeals court 3-Judge panel granted them permission to access grand jury secrets from Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. You can read the whole Appeals Court Panel’s decision HERE. Back then I stated that the Ball was in DoJ’s court. They could file an appeal to have the full Appeals Court hear the case or they could directly to SCOTUS, but an appeal of some sort seems certain.
Well, on Thursday, May 8 they decided to appeal to SCOTUS. According to this CNN Report:
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block the release of documents from former special counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury to the House of Representatives.
The administration is asking the justices to freeze a lower court opinion that cleared the way for the release of the grand jury secrets to the House.
Francisco [DoJ Attorney] also asked the justices to block a lower court's May 11 deadline for the release of the documents to give the parties more time to file court papers.
The Justice Department notified the court that while the House is expected to oppose the administration's request to block the release of the documents, it does support moving the current May 11 deadline by seven days out of respect for the court's schedule.
So its likely that SCOTUS will grant at least a 7 day stay, then we will have to wait to see if they decided to hear the DoJ’s appeal.
New Developments — None.
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 — See my May 5 TIC for details on the April 28 DC Circuit Court (virtual) Hearing in this case.
New Developments — None, awaiting Court Ruling.
House Judiciary & Intelligence Committee News —
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 — As reported in ericlewis0's post and annieli's post, the House Intelligence Committee released 57 Witness Transcripts from its Trump/Russia investigation. All 57 transcripts can be read HERE. I haven’t had time to comb through these yet, but I do have a couple of general comments.
The first fits in the “better late than never” category. The timing of the release seems odd to me. I have always argued that the former impeachment proceedings should have been broader including Trump/Russian Collusion. The release of these transcripts back then would have contributed key evidence of such collusion. On the other hand release of them in the Fall would have had a greater political impact. I don’t see what releasing them now accomplishes. However, I’m glad they are out there.
These transcripts are reportedly ripe with examples of “collusion” between the Trump Campaign and Russian Agents. The problem if you recall is that although Mueller was tasked to investigate Trump/Russia collision, “collusion” is not a crime, so instead Mueller focused on whether the Trump was guilty of “Conspiracy Against the United States” which is a crime. Unfortunately, evidence he needed to prove a conspiracy was destroyed by Team Trump before his investigated started so he couldn’t prove the crime of conspiracy. But in no way means there was no Trump/Russia collision as Barr likes to falsely portray it. In fact there was plenty of “collusion” between the Trump Campaign and Russia as shown by these transcripts. Collusion with a hostile foreign government while not a crime expressed in Federal statutes, can be and should have been an impeachable offense.
New Developments — None.
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 — By now you all know that DoJ made a legal motion to drop charges against Michael Flynn, since this was headline news. You can find details in annieli's post, so I won’t go into them here. You can also see zdefender's post for speculation on what Judge Sullivan (who has the final say) might do in this case. On that note I would offer up a ray of hope. Remember back in December 2018 when Judge Sullivan said this about Flynn:
While Mueller’s prosecutors had argued Flynn’s decades of military service warranted a lenient sentence for the three-star general even after he had admitted lying to the FBI, it was Sullivan who, gesturing to the American flag beside him, accused Flynn of selling his country out. Minutes later, he ponderously asked the government’s lawyers whether they had ever considered charging Flynn with treason. (No, they later answered.)
Then, pointing to the US Flag:
“Arguably,” Sullivan said, describing how Flynn had secretly been working for the Turkish government before he joined the White House, “that undermines everything this flag over here stands for.”
“I am going to be frank with you, this crime is very serious,” the judge said. “I can’t hide my disgust, my disdain, at this criminal offence.”
Doesn't sound to me like a Judge who is interested in letting Flynn off the hook!
New Developments — While we await Judge Sullivan’s ruling on Barr’s Motion to drop the charges, we have this little nugget from a NY Times OpEd by Mary B. McCord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department:
Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
Here’s her story:
The motion [to dismiss the charges] was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.
But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”
She goes on to totally eviscerate Shea’s Dismissal Motion in great detail. I would encourage you to click on the link and give it a full read. I sure hope someone got Judge Sullivan to read it.
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 — Cases 1, 2 & 3 above are all before SCOTUS and they are scheduled to hear (virtual) oral arguments this week.
But in a last minute twist, SCOTUS has requested the party’s in Cases 1 & 2 to submit Supplementary Briefs as reported in this Mopshell post. As detailed in that post, it appears some of the justices are fishing for reasons to decide the cases in Trump’s favor, presumably because what Trump’s legal team has presented thus far is woefully inadequate to support such a decision. While some are speculating that the “fix is in”, I’m not so sure. As I was informed, it only takes 2 Judges to request Supplementary Briefs. So Roberts, most likely the swing Judge in this case, may not be a part of this request, and it may just be 2 to 4 of the Conservative Judges making the request.
At any rate, I don’t expect to see a decision in these cases until after the election. Roberts is likely to delay the decision so as to not tip the political scales. Of course that is still unfair having only one of the two candidates release their taxes.
New Developments — SCOTUS to hear Oral Arguments (virtually via video link) in the Turmp tax cases on Tuesday, May 12. The Hearing will involve Cases 1 & 2 above, not sure about Case 3. As reported by NBC News:
The dispute actually involves two related cases. The first case asks whether a congressional committee has the constitutional and statutory power to subpoena the accountant for Trump and some of Trump’s lenders for the billionaire's financial records. The second case asks whether a subpoena issued by a state grand jury to Trump’s accountant is subject to precedent regarding political questions.
But, as eluded to above under recent developments, some of the SCOTUS Justices may be looking for a way out of these politically charged cases:
On April 27, the court asked whether or not the dispute between Congress and Trump is a political question, meaning whether the question should be left to the two political branches, not the judiciary. The fact that the court asked for briefing on this issue suggests it is looking for a way to obfuscate its responsibility.
The Supreme Court owes it to us to describe the breadth and depth of Congress’ oversight authority over a president and the president’s power to push back against that authority. Throwing up its hands and passing the buck would have grave implications not just for this case, but also for lawmakers' ability to police future presidents.
We will have to see what we can decipher from Tuesday’s questioning by the Justices. More tomorrow.
THAT’S IT FOR TODAY! Stay Healthy All!