TODAY IN CONGRESS (TIC):
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
Today’s Headlines:
Recap of Fauci (& Others) Virtual Testimony in front of Senate Committee!
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Recap of SCOTUS Oral Arguments Over Trump Financial Records Subpoena Cases!
___________________________________________________________________________________________
House CARES 4.0 Bill Unveiled!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Details below.
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 —
9:30 am — House Pro Forma session.
3:00 pm — House Select Subcommittee on Coronavirus Hearing (The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis holds its first hearing with public health experts, including former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb.)
Senate —
10:00 am — Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on Broadband Access and Capabilities During Pandemic (The Senate Commerce Committee convenes a hearing to examine broadband access and capabilities amid the coronavirus pandemic.)
10:00 am — Senate Session (The Senate will debate H.R. 6172, USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020, a bill to reauthorize and reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) through December 1, 2023.)
Comments:
Recent Events —
CARES 4.0 — Well we finally have a draft of the CARES 4.0 Bill from the House. It’s officially called the ‘‘Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act’’ or the ‘‘HEROES Act’’. Yes, another catchy acronym from Congress. Anyway you can read the full 1800 pages of the Bill HERE. If you don’t have time for all that reading, here’s a nutshell summary from CBS News:
The text of the bill, which spans more than 1,800 pages, includes assistance to state and local governments, hazard pay for frontline health care workers, forgiveness of student debt and bolstering Medicaid and Medicare.
The bill also includes provisions to assist farmers, protect renters and homeowners from evictions and foreclosures, and extend family and medical leave provisions previously approved by Congress. The legislation would also provide relief for essential workers, such as aviation, rail and Amtrak workers, as well as extend work visas for immigrants.
I would guess it also includes funding for the US Postal Service, but I will find out once I read it. I hope to have more details on the Bill and its path forward in later posts.
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 — See my May 12 TIC.
Recent Developments — None, Bright Hearing tomorrow.
New Developments — Holds first Hearing today at 3:00 pm.
Senate Health Committee to Hold COVID-19 Hearing —
Background — See my May 12 TIC.
Recent Developments — All eyes will be on the Senate Health Committee Hearing on the Corona virus which will feature remote testimony from Dr. Robert Redfield, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Stephen Hahn, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, and of course the STAR of the show, Dr. Anthony Fauci, all testifying remotely under self-quarantine. All are waiting to see what the historically honest Dr. Fauci will have to say. This CNN Report has some juicy hints:
Dr. Anthony Fauci, a key member of the White House's coronavirus task force, plans to tell a Senate committee on Tuesday that the country risks "needless suffering and death" if states open up too quickly, he told The New York Times late Monday evening.
"If we skip over the checkpoints in the guidelines to: 'Open America Again,' then we risk the danger of multiple outbreaks throughout the country," Fauci said in an email to the Times, referring to the federal government's plan for states to re-open. "This will not only result in needless suffering and death, but would actually set us back on our quest to return to normal."
Since Fauci probably gave his opening statement to the White House yesterday, it is my guess that it caused Trump and Pence to do their surprising 180 on Federally funded widespread testing. Anyway, let’s all watch the virtual fireworks.
New Developments — Well Dr. Fauci did not disappoint. Here’s the highlighted Fauci quote from CNN:
"My concern that if some areas -- cities, states or what have you -- jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely open up, without having the capability of being able to respond effectively and efficiently, my concern is we will start to see little spikes that might turn into outbreaks," Fauci said in testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
"There is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control, which in fact, paradoxically, will set you back, not only leading to some suffering and death that could be avoided but could even set you back on the road to try to get economic recovery," Fauci later added.
Will Trump fire Fauci? Probably not. It seems the new Trump plan is to move on to the economy only model, and sideline Fauci and the other medical experts.
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. Also, see my May 11 TIC.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None. Since I haven’t heard any Breaking News that the Grand Jury Materials were handed to Congress yesterday, I have to assume that SCOTUS granted at least a 7 day stay, while they decide whether to hear the DoJ’s appeal. If anyone else knows more, please comment.
House Judiciary Committee McGahn Subpoena —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE. Also, see my May 5 TIC for details on the April 28 DC Circuit Court (virtual) Hearing in this case.
Recent Developments — None.
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. Also, see my May 11 TIC.
Recent Developments — None.
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. Also, see my May 11 & 12 TICs.
Recent Developments — Still waiting to hear from Judge Sullivan, but hears a little nugget I found over at CNN:
A correction notice filed Monday with a different bar number is signed by Jocelyn Ballantine, the assistant US attorney who was handling Flynn filings. Ballantine did not sign the motion to dismiss last week, and was blamed by a Justice Department official for making the ID number mistake.
"The error was not intentional," the new filing says.
I guess corruption and incompetence go hand-in-hand at the Barr DoJ.
New Developments — Well Judge Sullivan has (partly) broken his silence on the Flynn case. According to this TPM Report:
After days of silence, the federal judge overseeing Michael Flynn’s criminal case made his first public move since the Justice Department announced its controversial request to drop the prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a lengthy, yet also cryptic, order Thursday that announced he would, “at an appropriate time,” lay out a schedule for him to consider friend-of-the-court briefs.
It is unclear whether Sullivan publicly laid out this guidance because he anticipated outside parties would want to file amicus briefs, because he wanted to encourage the filing of amicus briefs or because someone had already tried to file an amicus brief. (CNN noted earlier Tuesday that there is a docket entry in the Flynn case for which the underlying filing has not been made public.)
But regardless, the order suggests that Sullivan is not going to be wrapping up the case up ASAP, as he intends to provide an opportunity for the filing of friend-of-the-court briefs.
This case is far from over. So don’t give up hope!
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. Also, see my May 11 & 12 TICs.
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 — SCOTUS to hear Oral Arguments (virtually via audio link) in the Trump tax Cases 1 & 2 above. As reported by CNN:
The Supreme Court will consider Tuesday whether the House of Representatives and a New York prosecutor can subpoena President Donald Trump's accounting firm and banks for his financial documents, two momentous disputes concerning separation of powers and Trump's broad claims of immunity.
Arguments in the cases, conducted over the telephone because of the
coronavirus pandemic, come after Trump has sought for years to shield his tax returns and other records, while his critics launched a variety of investigations into hush money payments and potential violations of financial disclosure as well as ethics rules.
Now the justices, including two of Trump's nominees, will be drawn into some of the hottest political disputes of the day that also raise profound constitutional questions regarding Congress' ability to investigate and the scope of executive power. The justices will render their decision sometime by early summer, potentially inserting a bombshell into the center the presidential campaign.
Somewhat surprised to hear that there will be a decision this summer. I thought they might try to punt it until after November to avoid entering into the political Frey.
Anyway, as we all listen intently to hear if Roberts or other Justices offer any hints in their question as to which way they may be leaning (often a futile endeavor), keep in mind that these two cases are far more than just Trump’s tax returns. As pointed out in an interview with NY Times Reporter David Enrich on last night’s
Rachel Maddow Show, these cases are about Congressional subpoenas for
ALL of Trump’s and the Trump Family Business’s Financial Records held by Duetsche Bank, Capital One and Mazars, Trump’s former Accounting Firm. That means handing over to Congress Trump’s entire financial history, warts and all. Also, as pointed out by Mr. Enrich, that is likely to mean records of potential money laundering flagged by Duetsche Bank staff, as well as the effort made by Duetsche Bank executives to cover it up. So release of these financial records will not only open a can of illegal worms for Trump, it would likely open several cans.
New Developments — SCOTUS hears oral arguments (virtually) on Trump Financial Records (including Tax Returns). SCOTUS heard arguments in combined Cases 1 & 2 above (the Congressional Cases) in a single session, and later in the day heard arguments in Case 3 above (Manhattan CA Criminal Case) in a separate session. So I will recap the two sessions separately below:
Cases 1&2 SCOTUS Session — I actually found time to listen to this session. So before I pollute my mind with all the opinions of the legal pundits, I thought I would provide you with my takeaways. Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, nor do I have much of a legal background, so this is all from a laymen’s standpoint.
First, as I pointed out in my May 11 TIC, at least one Justice on the Court was looking for a way to punt on this case. That is to decide in a manner which finds this case to be a political dispute between Congress and the Executive Branch which is best resolved between them and not by the Court. That Justice appears to be John Roberts who asked only a few questions in the first 2 minutes, then just played the role of Moderator and timekeeper for the rest of the session. But he did ask why the Court should act as arbitrator between the other two Branches. However, I did not hear any of the other Justices pick up on this line of questioning at all, potentially signalling that they are not interested in punting on this case. That might be because, as pointed out in numerous examples during the session (e.g., Nixon Watergate case, Clinton Paula Jones case, etc.), they feel that SCOTUS has a long history of arbitrating Presidential cases and they may feel that they have no choice but to make a definitive ruling since they have already agreed to hear the case. But for whatever reason, it didn’t sound like any of the other Justices were willing to follow Roberts down the path of punting it back to the other two Branches for them to solve on their own.
Second, I found most of the discussion to revolve around the question of “Legislative Intent”. That is, did Congress have adequate legislative intent in issuing the subpoenas as apparently required by statute, it was their intent purely political and designed to harass the President. To be perfectly honest, I thought the case for legislative intent made with respect to the Financial Services Committee’s subpoena was weak. I could see how some justices could view the issuance of this subpoena as having mainly political motives. But, I thought a strong case of legitimate Legislative Intent was made with respect to the Intelligence Committee’s subpoena. Remember, that subpoena dealt with the Trump/Russia investigation and the Committee wanted Trump’s Financial Records to determine what economic support he might have been getting from Russia in the years before he became President. That seemed to me to be a legitimate Legislative Oversight purpose for the subpoena. It was also, as pointed out by the lawyer for Congress, to be most closely analogous to the Nixon Tapes Subpoena case was decided unanimously by SCOTUS in favor of Congress. That’s because the Nixon subpoena was issued by the Senate Committee investigating Watergate before the impeachment process had started and was based solely on Legislative intent.
Third and last, I was intrigued by the line of questioning pursued by Justices Ginsberg and Sotameyor. They brought up the fact that the subpoenas were both for Trump’s financial records BEFORE he became President, and as such this case should be viewed as a case of subpoenaing records of any private citizen, not as subpoenaing Presidential records. In pursuing this line of questioning they seemed to be poking at Trump’s claim that you can’t investigate a sitting President. As I listened, I took their private citizen argument full circle in my head. Could a private citizen evade Justice for 4 years (or 8) by getting elected President? That, I think is the ridiculous argument Team Trump wants SCOTUS to swallow.
Anyway, enough of my thoughts, now on to the legal pundits.
There are of course numerous “tea leaf” readers out there with there thoughts and opinions today. Too numerous to summarize hear. But you should take a look at the CNN Recap and the MSNBC Recap with Ari, Neil & Mia. However, probably the most trusted SCOTUS observer with years of experience, Nina Tottenberg, who appeared on last night’s Rachel Maddow Show, described the Justice’s reaction to this case in one word, Befuddled. She explained that it appeared to her that they were looking for some way to rule in this politically charged case so that neither side could get 100% of what they want. I think she is right, but I don’t know how they can come up with some Rube Goldberg “equitable” ruling in a case that seems black and white to me, either you uphold the Congressional subpoenas or you don’t.
Case 3 SCOTUS Session — This is the case where the Manhattan DA has subpoenaed Trump’s financial records in conjunction with a Grand Jury criminal investigation of Trump’s Bimbo payoffs. From all the reports I heard, this one did not go as well for Team Trump as Cases 1 & 2 above. Most pundits found at least 5 Justices including Roberts, as sounding highly skeptical about buying into Trump’s claim of “temporary immunity” from criminal investigation while in office. So I don’t see them ruling in a way that gives credence to Trump’s argument.
Bottom Line — First, here is a good summary of both sessions on all 3 cases from CNN. So if you pin me down, here is my reading of the “tea leaves” for what it’s worth. I think Congress either loses Cases 1 & 2 or at best there is some sort of convoluted ruling that somehow doesn’t allow either side to claim victory. However, on Case 3, I do see a 5 to 4 decision in favor of upholding the Manhattan DA’s subpoena. My speculation is based on the theory that Roberts wants to do his best to keep the court from either withholding or releasing documents of such huge political significance. By only allowing the Manhattan DA to access these documents, Roberts avoids having his court be the one who releases Trump’s financial records, since the Grand Jury proceedings are secret unless and until an indictment is issued. This would effectively punt the decision on the public release of these records to the Grand Jury and out of his court, which seems to be his #1 objective. Feel free to agree or disagree in the comments.
THAT’S IT FOR TODAY! Stay Healthy All!