TODAY IN CONGRESS (TIC):
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
Here Are The Headlines:
Day 93 Since the House Passed the HEROES Bill! Trump Reveals the REAL Reason for the Stalled Negotiations!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Full DC Circuit Court of Appeals Pours Cold Water on Flynn/Barr Arguments in Flynn Case Yesterday!
NOTE: You may have noticed I have not been posting regularly, and that and that will likely continue for awhile. Besides the fact I am busy with other endeavors, not much is going on in Congress these days in case you haven’t noticed. The House is basically out on recess having done their job by passing the HEROES Act and Mitch is simply letting folks give speeches on the Senate Floor. So Congress is basically twidelling it’s thumbs while COVID Relief Bill negotiations go on behind the scenes (or not). So my sporadic TIC posts will continue until something major happens.
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 — No scheduled events except Pelosi Press Conference at 10:45 am.
Senate —
11:00 am — Senate Session (The Senate returns for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. No votes are currently scheduled.)
Tuesday & Wednesday Votes:
House — No votes.
Senate — No significant votes.
Comments:
Legislative (IN-) Action —
H.R.6800 - HEROES Act — Well here we are at Day 93 (by my count) since the House passed the HEROES Act (a comprehensive Bill to provide additional Federal Aid related to the health and economic hardships caused by COVID-19) and the latest argument is over whether negotiations are stalled or not. Here is an excerpt on that subject from an NPR Interview with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:
KELLY: So you just heard Kelsey describe the efforts here as totally stalled. Do you agree? Are you still trying to get to a deal, or have you all given up?
HOYER: I don't agree to this extent. Totally stalled would imply that neither side wants to get together and make a deal. Both sides, in my opinion, believe that we need to act. I know that we do. I know that we want to get to a place where we can reach agreement on so many of these items - states testing, direct payments to families and people, medical, elections money - we have an election coming up - education - we want to get the schools open, et cetera, et cetera.
KELLY: A whole lot of sticking points, yeah.
HOYER: Yeah.
SANDY VILLATORO: I've stayed up nights hoping that some miracle will come that I don't have to resort to that. I hate asking for help. I hate asking for hands-out (ph). But it's something I need at the current moment, and my kids need it.
KELLY: Congressman, would you respond to that? How do you explain to Sandy and the millions like her who really needed that money why Congress failed to reach a deal here?
HOYER: Well, let me say what I would not say. When the president was asked a similar question, not specifically, but he said, it is what it is. It is what it should not be. Three months ago, Mary Louise, we passed legislation which would have made sure that that woman did not lose her support. That should not have happened.
KELLY: And I'm talking about Democrats and Republicans on the Hill. It's up to you to pass this money, and you didn't manage to get it done.
HOYER: You're right. We don't control the United States Senate. McConnell's response was, let the states go bankrupt. Secretary Mnuchin and Speaker Pelosi, on four different occasions, reached a deal. We should have been able to do that this time. There's one difference. Mr. Meadows is in the room.
KELLY: Talking about Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff. Go on.
HOYER: Mark Meadows, who is the president's chief of staff and used to serve in the House of Representatives. I don't know why we haven't been able to reach the agreement. I do know we're willing to compromise. That's the nature of this business.
So Steny makes 2 very important points:
1. House Democrats passed the HEROES Act months ago which could have provided adequate relief without any lapse in benefits. So don’t let the media portray this “both-side-er-ism” crap as to who is to blame for the current and increasing economic pain.
2. What is different about past CARES Act deals that have been successfully negotiated between Dem Leadership and the White House (Mnuchin)? Mark Meadows! No need to say more.
What happens next? Maybe nothing. Here is the latest from the Washington Post:
A new attempt to restart economic relief negotiations between the White House and Democrats ended just minutes after it began on Wednesday, with President Trump appearing to cast doubt on the whole process by announcing a deal is “not going to happen.”
Just a few days earlier, he had suggested the he was open to a new round of talks.
In declaring the whole process over, Trump used a news conference to criticize Democrats’ proposals for funding election preparations and the Postal Service as part of a broader spending measure.
So the real reason for the stalled negotiations comes out. Trump is willing to let the whole Country’s health and economic well-being go down the tubes just to make sure the USPS can’t deliver millions of (likely Biden) ballots on time.
Today’s C-Span TV Picks — Nothing much to watch in Congress today, as has been the case for over a week now. Still you might want to watch the Senate Floor to see if any Dem. Senator actually takes the bold (but necessary) move to read into the Congressional Record, the Classified Report by the Intelligence Agencies regarding Russia’s plans to interfere in the 2020 election to help Trump, as is their prerogative under the Senate Rules.
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)
Senate Judiciary Committee Russia Investigation —
Background — See Aug. 7 TIC.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None.
House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis —
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. Also see my May 15 & Aug. 5 TICs for additional background.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments - None.
Senate Judiciary Committee — Police Reform Legislation —
Background — See my June 8, 18 & 23 TICs.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None.
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 , 19, 20, June 5 & July 21 TICs.
Recent Developments — None.
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. Also, see my May 5 TIC for details on the April 28 DC Circuit Court (virtual) Hearing in this case.
Recent Developments — I somehow missed this last week, but thanks to this comment by Lealex for catching it. We have at least a partial decision in the McGahn case, and it’s another win for our side. According to this NYTimes Report:
The House Judiciary Committee can sue to force the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II to testify before Congress, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a 7-to-2 decision that enforcement of congressional subpoenas was crucial to its oversight duties over the executive branch and remanded to a panel of judges other issues Mr. McGahn raised in the case. Mr. McGahn is unlikely to appear before Congress ahead of the election, but the decision endorsed strong congressional oversight powers and Congress’s ability to take the White House to court if an administration fails to comply with its subpoenas.
“Effective functioning of the legislative branch critically depends on the legislative prerogative to obtain information, and constitutional structure and historical practice support judicial enforcement of congressional subpoenas when necessary,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote for the court’s majority. “And it cannot undertake impeachment proceedings without knowing how the official in question has discharged his or her constitutional responsibilities.”
I know some will say “too little, too late”, but a win is a win. Any Court decision that confirms the power of the Legislative Branch to oversee and subpoena the Executive Branch is another step away from the Imperialistic Cliff, and that’s fine with me. Here is the Complete Decision.
New Developments — None.
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, June 5, 8, 11, 15 & July 22 TICs.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None.
House Judiciary Committee Barr Whistleblowers (Berman & Others) —
Background — See my June 24, 25, 29, July 21, 22, 29 & 30 TICs.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None.
House Judiciary & 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 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19, 20, 27, June 3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 18, 23, 29 , July 22 & Aug. 4 TICs.
Recent Developments — Flynn case goes before Full DC Circuit Court in oral arguments TODAY to re-hear the case on the DoJ’s post-guilty plea dismissal of charges against Flynn previously ruled on by the Circuit’s 3-Judge Panel. Here’s a recap from JustSecurity:
Many readers will recall that after Flynn pleaded guilty (twice) to the federal crime of lying to investigators, the Justice Department abruptly announced that it intended to drop the charges against him. Not so fast, said the district judge presiding over the case. Dropping charges requires “leave of court,” and Judge Emmet Sullivan announced he’d want to receive briefing from a court-appointed amicus curiae (or “friend of the court”) and to hold a hearing before deciding whether to grant such leave. Before the briefing could be completed or the hearing held, Flynn’s lawyers—though not the Justice Department—ran to the court of appeals seeking an emergency form of intervention called “mandamus relief” to block Judge Sullivan from even understanding—and ensuring the public can understand—what had occurred at the Justice Department to cause such an about-face. The Department then chimed in to support Flynn. And, much to the astonishment of many close observers, the three-judge panel that initially heard the case agreed with Flynn in a split decision.
But that decision is now gone, wiped away by the D.C. Circuit’s decision to rehear the case en banc, in this instance in front of ten judges.
Please read the JustSecurity article for an educated glimpse into what to look for during oral arguments.
New Developments — Reading the tea leaves from Monday’s oral arguments in the Flynn case before the Full (en banc) DC Court of Appeals, it appears that the Barr/Flynn Team may be in trouble. From this CNN Report:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday pushed back on former national security adviser Michael Flynn's effort to have his criminal case dismissed immediately and the Justice Department's reasoning that a judge shouldn't consider why prosecutors dropped his almost 3-year-old guilty plea deal this year amid a political firestorm.
Ten judges on the appeals court reheard the arguments, after wiping out a previous Circuit Court ruling that ordered a quick dismissal earlier this summer, wresting oversight of the case from the trial judge.
The judges questioned lawyers for Flynn, the Justice Department and for his trial Judge
Emmet Sullivan for almost four hours Tuesday, with several judges directing harsh questions primarily to Flynn's lawyer and then the Justice Department's acting solicitor general, both of whom want the case dismissed.
A judge's role in reviewing case dismissals was "created by the Supreme Court to examine cases of favoritism to politically powerful defendants, and that seems to be part of the wheelhouse of what is going on here," Judge Thomas Griffith, a Republican-appointed jurist who is retiring from the bench Sept. 1, said during the hearing.
Most telling about how things might be decided by the Appeal’s Court was this:
The judges on Tuesday pressed for explanations on why an appeal in Flynn's case is worthy at this stage -- before Sullivan reviews the Justice Department's motion to dismiss -- and about the authority of Sullivan to second-guess the Justice Department. The judges also closely read the legal steps taken in Flynn's case, raising the possibility that the appeal came out of order.
It certainly sounds like the Court may say a ruling in this case is premature, (i.e., before any ruling by Judge Sullivan), allowing Judge Sullivan to at least move forward with his planned Hearing in this case.
But the highlight of the over 4 hours of argument was this gem from the DoJ (Team Barr):
In one of the more surprising exchanges during the almost four-hour hearing, the Justice Department's attorney told the court that Attorney General William Barr may have additional information that he hasn't shared in court that contributed to the decision to drop Flynn's criminal case.
"I just wanted to make clear that it may be possible that the Attorney General had before him information that he was not able to share with the court," acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said during the arguments. "And so what we put in front of the court were the reasons that we could, but it may not be the whole picture available to the executive branch."
Barr may have other reasons for letting Flynn off the hook and if he did, we can’t reveal them to the Court. What a Load of BS!
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 , 13, 14, July 22, 23, 29 & Aug. 4, 5 & 7 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. Vance (Criminal Case) — Case brought by Trump against against the Manhattan DA for Trump’s tax returns and other financial records. Trump is attempting to block a subpoena from the Manhattan DA to Mazars (the Trump Organization’s former Accounting Firm). 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 —
Case #4 — McGahn decision is likely to effect the progress of Case #4 above (Congress vs. the IRS & Treasury Department (Trump’s Federal Tax Returns), in not a good way. Here is the connection as put forth in this Bloomberg Tax Article:
House Democrats’ pursuit of President Donald Trump’s tax returns from the Treasury Department likely faces long delays ahead, despite an appeals court ruling that removes a roadblock.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in March paused the lawsuit between the House Ways and Means Committee and Treasury Department as he waited for a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a separate case concerning a congressional subpoena.
The appeals court issued that ruling on Friday, holding that Congress does have standing to sue to enforce subpoenas of White House officials, including former White House counsel Donald McGahn.
While the ruling removes a stated reason from McFadden for pausing the Ways and Means lawsuit, law professors said to nonetheless expect a long road to resolution. That means even if House Democrats ultimately prevail, their win almost surely won’t come until after the presidential and congressional elections, and their case could even be abandoned if Republicans win control of the House.
Basically, while the McGahn decision allows the Congress to sue to enforce their subpoena, it left things up to the lower court to resolve other issues raised by McGahn. So it leaves McFadden with his reason for blocking the Congressional tax case intact. Sorry, so much of this legal wrangling seems like 1 step forward and 2 steps back.
Case #3 — Trump’s legal team makes Court Filing in Case #3 (Trump vs. Vance (Criminal Case)). According to this TPM Article:
Attorneys for President Trump hit back in a Monday court filing at suggestions that the President is under investigation for fraud, saying that the allegations only meet the bar for civil wrongdoing.
“Many of the allegations in the District Attorney’s extraneous sources that form the basis of his invitation to imagine an investigation broad enough to justify this subpoena, relate to civil, not criminal, conduct,” attorneys for the President wrote in a footnote as part of a broader attempt to prevent a criminal subpoena issued for the President’s financial records from going forward.
Trump is trying to block a subpoena obtained by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance for his financial records, held by accounting firm Mazars USA LLP.
The Supreme Court last month struck down a previous round of arguments from Trump that his status as President rendered the subpoena unenforceable, but remanded the case back to the district court while giving Trump leave to raise further objections.
Since then, Trump has claimed that the subpoena is “wildly overbroad.” And with Vance’s suggestion last week that press reports documenting fraud allegations against the Trump organization fit within the scope of the district attorney’s probe, Trump claimed again that there was no basis for an investigation based out of New York City.
What a Joke! They can’t be serious. Here is the Full 33 Page Court Filing by the Trump legal team if you want a good laugh.
New Developments — None.
THAT’S IT FOR TODAY!