TODAY IN CONGRESS (TIC):
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
Here Are The Headlines:
Chuck & Nancy Hold Firm, Refusing to Let Republicans Throw Crumbs at the Masses After They Have Given Whole Cakes To Their Very Rich Friends!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Day 86 Since the House Passed the HEROES Bill and Negotiations Appear Stalled!
___________________________________________________________________________________
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 —
10:00 am — House Pro Forma Session.
Senate — Not in Session.
Thursday Votes:
House — No votes.
Senate — No significant votes.
Comments:
Legislative (IN-) Action —
H.R.6800 - HEROES Act — Well here we are at Day 86 (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 it appears that negotiations on a Bill which began the day in an air of slight optimism, ended the day at a stalled impasse.’
Early in the day, per this CNBC Report, Mitch (I will do whatever the White House tells me to do) McConnell and Nancy Pelosi took to the microphones both echoing a slightly positive tone:
The two most powerful lawmakers in Washington told CNBC on Thursday they believe Congress will strike a coronavirus relief agreement but said major differences must be resolved during an increasingly bitter process.
“Exactly when that deal comes together I can’t tell you, but I think it will at some point in the near future,” Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on “Squawk on the Street.”
Speaking to CNBC shortly after McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also said she expects an agreement to boost an economy and health-care system devastated by the pandemic.
McConnell also said that he expects the Bill to have the support of Democrats and “some” Republicans, indicating for the first time that he is willing to let the Senate pass a Bill even if it splits the GOP Caucus.
But after a day’s worth of negotiations, we get this depressing news courtesy of Huff Post:
Senators left town Thursday with nothing to show for days of negotiations between Democrats and Trump administration officials on another round of coronavirus pandemic relief.
“We might not get a deal,” Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told reporters on Thursday. “We’re at an impasse right now.”
The Senate is technically still in session and members have been told to be ready to return to the Capitol next week, when they were supposed to begin their August recess, in case there’s a last-minute breakthrough. But at this point, both sides are extremely pessimistic about a deal happening.
A three-hour meeting in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office on Thursday evening yielded no measurable progress, deepening a stalemate with no end in sight.
“We’re very far apart. It’s most unfortunate,” the California Democrat told reporters afterward.
So what are the sticking points? From this TPM Report:
One of the key sticking points that has emerged in negotiations is direct funding to states and municipalities.
Democrats have proposed over $1 trillion, about six times as much as was spent in the last relief package. That boodle would be split into $500 billion for states, $375 billion for municipalities and counties, $20 billion for territories and $20 billion for tribes. They’ve also sprinkled additional dollars on top for helping states to fund Medicaid, education and other priorities.
Republicans, as Politico reported Wednesday, have counter-offered $150 billion.
“I just don’t think it’s enough,” Wendy Edelberg of the Brookings Institute’s Hamilton Project said of the Republican proposal. “Even as the labor market was improving, the one sector that has repeatedly had negative employment numbers is the state and local sector.”
And that’s a problem, policy analysts told TPM — one we’ve seen before.
“One of the lessons of the Great Recession is that it affected state and local government very harshly due to property taxes, then unemployment getting very high, then income taxes falling,” said Stephanie Aaronson, director of economic studies at the Brookings Institute. “It’s part of the reason that the recovery from the Great Recession was so slow — state and local spending was a drag on overall spending for almost a decade.”
And states are in a worse place now than they were then. State budget shortfalls are on track to exceed $500 billion this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Even calculating in federal aid from the COVID-19 relief packages Congress has passed, plus states dipping into their rainy-day funds, that number still hovers around $360 billion — a figure that dwarfs the $283 billion they lost after the Great Recession.
Very Ominous predictions about State and Local budgets but unfortunately probably right on the mark.
Then there is the most publicized sticking point, again from Huff Post:
The most pressing disagreement concerns a $600 weekly boost to unemployment insurance, which expired last month amid Republican complaints that jobless workers shouldn’t have so much money. The lapse cut benefits by 50% to 85% for more than 25 million people, with major implications for the broader economy.
Democrats made clear they are holding firm in their demands to continue the benefits as part of a larger relief package, calling renewed Republican objections to more spending amid a historic pandemic cruel and heartless. The two sides remain “trillions” of dollars apart in their proposals, according to the White House.
Republicans, for their part, accused Democrats of being the ones holding hostage aid to millions of struggling Americans in order to exact political victories in November’s elections, even though Republicans criticized the benefits for four months and made no effort to replace them before they lapsed.
After the negotiations ended for the weekend, a defiant and angry Speaker Pelosi announced to the Press that the other side (i.e., the White House “B” Team of Mnuchin and Meadows) just don’t care. They rail against throwing the unemployed a $600 living unemployment benefit because they said it discourages people from going back to work in below living wage jobs at the same time record numbers of people are still getting laid off, indicating that there are not a lot of jobs to go back to. She also said it was shameful that they now say we cannot afford to continue supplementing unemployment benefits to the bottom 99% after improperly funneling Billions to the Upper 1% in CARES Acts 1 thru 3.
Glad to see Democrats holding firm for the common man. As far as the Republicans go, their argument that our side does not want a Bill because we would rather have a political advantage in November, is totally bunk. They would prefer the public forget it was the House Democrats who have already passed an excellent comprehensive aid Bill (the HEROES Act) months ago, that Republicans in the Senate have refused to even put on the floor for debate.
Although talks are stalled for the weekend, I continue to believe that we will eventually get a Bill pretty close to the HEROES Act with some minor concessions from our side so the GOP can save face. That’s because an accurate read of the politics of this situation indicates that the Republicans need this Bill before November more than the Democrats do. But if the GOP does not read the politics accurately, they could fantasize that they can get the political upper hand and walk away from the negotiating table. That would be a huge error on their part, and I think some of the more seasoned GOP veterans know it.
Today’s C-Span TV Picks — Sorry, really nothing to watch today. The troops have abandoned the Capital for the weekend.
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 — None.
Recent Developments — To start off, I did say awhile back that I would not cover the Senate investigation into 2016 Russian interference as the GOP was somehow trying to advance a FALSE anti-Trump conspiracy, that was a total joke. But since they had Former Deputy AG Sally Yates testify yesterday, it was too juicy to let go by. Here are some highlights from CNN:
Yates clashed with Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham over the FBI's interview of Flynn in January 2017. The South Carolina Republican charged that the FBI had moved to close its counterintelligence investigation into Flynn, before relying on allegations surrounding the Logan Act -- an obscure law that private citizens cannot interfere in foreign affairs -- but Yates argued that the interview was necessary to determine why Flynn had "neutered" then-President Barack Obama's administration sanctions against Russia in his calls with Kislyak.
Yates said that the recommendation to close the Flynn case came "before they knew about the conversations" between Flynn and Kislyak.
"They were absolutely material to a legitimate investigation," Yates said of the interview with Flynn. "Interviewing General Flynn was right at the core of the FBI's investigation at this point to try to discern what are the ties between the Trump administration and the Russians."
Graham also focused on that January 5, 2017, meeting, in which then-FBI Director James Comey and Obama discussed intercepted calls between Flynn and Kislyak. The South Carolina Republican said he was "stunned" that Yates was unaware of the matter at that point.
"How could it be that the No. 2 in the Department of Justice not know about an investigation of the incoming national security adviser and the President did?" Graham asked.
Yates responded that the issue was more logistical than anything, defending the reason for the meeting for the President "to find out whether, based on the calls between Ambassador Kislyak and Flynn, the transition team needed to be careful about what it was sharing with General Flynn."
"During the meeting, the President, vice president and national security adviser did not in any way attempt to direct or influence any kind of investigation," Yates said.
So Graham went to the Yate’s well and came up dry. HA!
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 — None.
New Developments — None, awaiting SCOTUS.
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 — 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. Also, see my May 11 , 12 , 13, 14, July 22, 23, 29 & Aug. 4 & 5 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 — I am not sure whether this new development relates to Case 1 or Case 3, but it’s certainly worthy of mentioning. Here are the highlights from CNBC:
- Prosecutors in New York have subpoenaed President Trump’s financial records from his longtime lender Deutsche Bank in a criminal probe, according to a new report.
- The Manhattan District Attorney’s office last year issued the subpoena for records that Trump and his company provided to the bank, The New York Times reported, citing four people familiar with the inquiry.
- The bank handed over financial statements and other records Trump had given it when he was seeking loans, two people familiar with the inquiry told the Times.
As previously revealed in the Manhattan DA’s Court Filing, the Manahattan DA’s Grand Jury is looking into matters beyond the Daniels’s/McDoggle Hush Money payments made by Trump, which include alleged Bank and/or Tax Fraud as first disclosed by Michael Cohen (Trump’s former “Fixer”) in Congressional testimony many months ago. Based on Cohen’s allegations Trump would greatly inflate the value of a piece of Real-estate when seeking a Bank loan, but greatly devalue that same piece of Real-estate when reporting it on his taxes, thereby committing Bank Fraud, Tax Fraud or perhaps both. So it would make complete sense for Vance to subpoena Deutsche Bank for Trump’s loan records and Mazars for Trump’s tax records.
But the larger question that remains is why Deutsche Bank complied with the subpoena and handed over Trump’s financial records without an effort by Team Trump to legally block the Deutsche Bank subpoena as they did with Mazar’s and with the Congressional subpoena of the same Deutsche Bank.
It could be that Team Trump was aware of it, but did not see any harm in letting the DA have the Deutsche Bank records. That seems implausible to me since it is highly likely that these records contain evidence of Trump crimes and Trump sues everyone who remotely comes close to getting his financial documents.
My best guess is that Team Trump was not aware of the Deutsche Bank subpoena and Deutsche Bank did not inform him before complying with it and handing over the records. It’s true Trump was aware and has sued to block Deutsche Bank from handing over his records to Congress, but Congressional subpoenas are made public where Proprietorial subpoenas often are not. So while Mazars apparently informed Trump of the DA’s subpoena, it is possible that Deutsche Bank did not, having no legal agreement with Trump to notify him. Anyway, it’s still a mystery at this point.
New Developments — None.
THAT’S IT FOR TODAY! HAVE A SAFE HEALTHY COVID FREE WEEKEND!