This Week In Congress (TWIC)
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
Every week Congress is in session (usually on Sunday evening or Monday morning) I will recap the previous weeks important legislative and committee activity and look ahead to what Congress has planned for the coming week, with my 2 cents of opinion from time to time of course. Hope you find it both informative and worthy of discussion in the comments section.
So without further babbling on my part, let’s jump into this week’s TWIC!
Last Week in Congress: Here is your C-Span Link where you can view some of last week’s events.
Here Are The Previous Week’s Headlines:
House & Senate Use Rube Goldberg Process To Raise The Debt Limit
Meadows Does 180 Again (For A Full 360) — After Turning Over 6000 E-mails, Meadows Says He Will NOT Cooperate With Jan. 6 Committee
Appeals Court Rules In Favor Of Jan. 6 Committee Receiving White House Documents, Handing Trump Yet Another Loss In Court
Stone follows Eastman and Clark’s Lead, and Pleads the Fifth
Marc Short (Former VP Pence’s Chief of Staff) Cooperating With Jan. 6 Committee
Legislative Activity -
House:
1. 12/7/21 — Senate Resolution 610 (S. 610) - Vote on passage of S.610 — Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act (This bill makes several budgetary, technical, and procedural changes, particularly in relation to Medicare and increasing the debt limit.
Specifically, the bill continues to exempt Medicare from sequestration until March 31, 2022. (Sequestration is a process of automatic, usually across-the-board spending reductions under which budgetary resources are permanently cancelled to enforce specific budget policy goals.)
The bill also establishes expedited Senate procedures for considering legislation to increase the debt limit. The procedures limit debate, waive points of order, and prohibit amendments. The procedures may only be used once and expire after January 16, 2022.
Additionally, the bill (1) temporarily extends other provisions under Medicare, including a payment increase under the physician fee schedule; and (2) requires any debits recorded for FY2022 on the statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) scorecards to be deducted from the scorecards for 2022 and added to the scorecards for 2023.) (Full Text of S.610 can be read HERE)
Democrats- 221 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Republicans- 1 Yes 212 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Independents- 0 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Totals- 222 Yes 212 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
PASSED
Voting Details HERE.
2. 12/7/21 — Senate Resolution 1605 (S. 1605) - Vote on passage of S.1605 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Full Text of S.1605 can be read HERE) (Amendments to s.1605 can be found HERE.)
Democrats- 169 Yes 51 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Republicans- 194 Yes 19 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Independents- 0 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Totals- 222 Yes 212 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
PASSED
Voting Details HERE.
3. 12/9/21 — House Resolution 5314 (H.R. 5314) — Vote on passage of H.R.5314 - Protecting Our Democracy Act (This bill addresses issues involving (1) abuses of presidential power; (2) checks and balances, accountability, and transparency; and (3) foreign interference in elections.) (Summary of H.R. 5314 can be read HERE.) (Full Text of S.5314 can be read HERE)
Democrats- 219 Yes 0 No 0 Present 2 Not Voting
Republicans- 1 Yes 208 No 0 Present 4 Not Voting
Independents- 0 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Totals- 220 Yes 208 No 0 Present 6 Not Voting
PASSED
Voting Details HERE.
Details & Commentary —
- S.610 — Debt Limit Procedure — On Thursday, the House passed a Bill which among other things, sets up a convoluted (Rube Goldberg Machine) process to allow the Senate to raise the Debt Limit by a simple majority vote (sort of). As described above, the procedures limit debate, waive points of order, and prohibit amendments with regard to the raising of the debt limit. The procedures may only be used once and expire after January 16, 2022. I will go into more detail on this in the “Senate” section below. But on the House vote, it is again amazing that only one (1) Republican voted for a procedure to avoid having the Country drive itself over a fiscal cliff. That Republican is Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, the sole remaining sane Republican in the House.
- S.1605 — Defense Authorization — On Thursday, the House once again passed the $768 Billion Defense Authorization Act for 2022. I say once again because the House originally passed a Defense Authorization Bill in September which was sent over to the Senate. But the deal struck in the Senate on amendments, prohibited the passage of the Bill with one of Marco Rubio’s amendments in it, as explained in this report from The Hill:
Rubio's amendment was included in a list, sent out to Senate offices earlier Wednesday, of the amendments that would get voted on as part of the agreement.
But Rubio faced a procedural snag because of the how amendment deal was structured, so that even if senators voted for his amendment it would have been stripped out before a final vote on the defense bill.
And when Reed came to the floor to ask for consent to set up the amendment votes, Rubio's proposal wasn't among the amendments being set up for a vote.
Democrats warned that Rubio's amendment would kill the legislation in the House because it violates Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates that bills that raise revenue have to originate in the lower chamber.
But Rubio blocked the amendment deal after he failed to get his amendment included in the package that would get votes before a final vote in the Senate. Rubio's proposal would ban imports from China’s Xinjiang region, where administration officials have accused the government of carrying out genocide against the Uyghur ethnic minority.
So Rubio threw a hissy fit over his amendment in November, forcing the whole Bill to be sent back to the House for inclusion of his amendment and another vote, as well as another Republican change to strip out a provision in the original Bill requiring women to enlist in the draft.
The amended Bill passed overwhelmingly in the House mainly due to the 194 Republicans who voted for it, because Republicans are all for sending Billions to mainly Military contractors but not sending any more than crumbs to middle class and poor people. To illustrate this huge disparity and explain why this Bill was opposed by 51 Democrats, keep in mind that the $768 Billion in this Bill is for one year (2022). The Build Back Better Act $1.75 Trillion price tag is spread out over 10 years, making its average one year spending on domestic needs around $175 Billion, almost $600 Billion BELOW the Military’s one year budget. More guns less food, clothing and shelter is the Republican policy. BTW, keep in mind, that this Military 2022 budget is $40 Billion more than the 2021 Military Budget even though when the 2021 Budget was passed we had a war going on, and now we don’t.
- H.R.5314 - Protecting Our Democracy Act — If you haven’t read the Full Text of what this amazing Bill from Rep. Adam Schiff has in it, you should. But if you don’t have time, here is a summary:
Specifically, regarding abuses of presidential power, the bill
- requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the President to submit to Congress specified materials relating to certain pardons,
- prohibits self-pardons by the President,
- suspends the statute of limitations for federal offenses committed by a sitting President or Vice President,
- prohibits the acceptance of foreign or domestic emoluments, and
- sets forth provisions regarding Office of Government Ethics and Office of Special Counsel jurisdiction and enforcement authority.
To address checks and balances, accountability, and transparency, the bill
- authorizes specified actions to enforce congressional subpoenas,
- imposes limits on presidential declarations of emergencies,
- requires DOJ to maintain a log of specified communications between it and the White House,
- requires cause for removal of inspectors general,
- increases whistleblower protections,
- requires a candidate for President or Vice President to submit to the Federal Election Commission a copy of the individual's income tax returns for the 10 most recent taxable years, and
- establishes penalties for political appointees who engage in prohibited political activities.
To protect against foreign interference in elections, the bill
- requires federal campaign reporting of foreign contacts,
- requires federal campaigns to establish a foreign contacts compliance policy, and
- specifies that foreign donations to political campaigns and candidates of nonpublic information relating to a candidate are prohibited.
I am a BIG Proponent of everything that’s in this Bill, especially the provisions to limit Presidential power and enhance the power of Congress to help prevent us from slipping towards autocracy. But from the vote above, only one (1) out of 209 House Republicans (4 did not vote) appears interested in preventing our Country from becoming an Autocracy, and that Republican is once again, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, the sole Republican interested in preserving our democracy.
Senate:
1. 12/8/21 — Senate Joint Resolution 29 (S.J.Res. 29) - Vote on passage of S.J.Res.29 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to "COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard". ; (This joint resolution nullifies a Department of Labor emergency temporary standard for preventing the transmission of COVID-19 in employment settings.
Under the standard issued on November 5, 2021, employers with 100 or more employees must require their onsite employees to either be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. (Full Text of S.J.Res. 29 can be read HERE)
Democrats- 2 Yes 46 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Republicans- 50 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Independents- 0 Yes 2 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Totals- 52 Yes 48 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
PASSED
Voting Details HERE.
2. 12/9/21 — Senate Resolution 610 (S. 610) - Vote on Cloture Motion To Limit Debate on S.610 — Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act (This bill makes several budgetary, technical, and procedural changes, particularly in relation to Medicare and increasing the debt limit.
Specifically, the bill continues to exempt Medicare from sequestration until March 31, 2022. (Sequestration is a process of automatic, usually across-the-board spending reductions under which budgetary resources are permanently cancelled to enforce specific budget policy goals.)
The bill also establishes expedited Senate procedures for considering legislation to increase the debt limit. The procedures limit debate, waive points of order, and prohibit amendments. The procedures may only be used once and expire after January 16, 2022.
Additionally, the bill (1) temporarily extends other provisions under Medicare, including a payment increase under the physician fee schedule; and (2) requires any debits recorded for FY2022 on the statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) scorecards to be deducted from the scorecards for 2022 and added to the scorecards for 2023.) (Full Text of S.610 can be read HERE)
Democrats- 48 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Republicans- 14 Yes 36 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Independents- 2 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Totals- 64 Yes 36 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
PASSED (Requires 60 Votes to Pass)
Voting Details HERE.
3. 12/9/21 — Senate Resolution 610 (S. 610) - Vote on Passage of S.610 — Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act (This bill makes several budgetary, technical, and procedural changes, particularly in relation to Medicare and increasing the debt limit.
Specifically, the bill continues to exempt Medicare from sequestration until March 31, 2022. (Sequestration is a process of automatic, usually across-the-board spending reductions under which budgetary resources are permanently cancelled to enforce specific budget policy goals.)
The bill also establishes expedited Senate procedures for considering legislation to increase the debt limit. The procedures limit debate, waive points of order, and prohibit amendments. The procedures may only be used once and expire after January 16, 2022.
Additionally, the bill (1) temporarily extends other provisions under Medicare, including a payment increase under the physician fee schedule; and (2) requires any debits recorded for FY2022 on the statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) scorecards to be deducted from the scorecards for 2022 and added to the scorecards for 2023.) (Full Text of S.610 can be read HERE)
Democrats- 48 Yes 0 No 0 Present 0 Not Voting
Republicans- 10 Yes 35 No 0 Present 5 Not Voting
Independents- 1 Yes 0 No 0 Present 1 Not Voting
Totals- 59 Yes 35 No 0 Present 6 Not Voting
PASSED
Voting Details HERE.
Details & Commentary —
- S.J.Res. 29 — Disapproval of COVID Vaccine Mandate Regulation — In a nutshell, this Resolution, when passed by BOTH Houses would nullify the Department of Labors recently promulgated OSHA Regulation requiring employers with 100 or more employees to require their onsite employees to either be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. Before we get into how a Resolution to end one of the most effective means we have to get people vaccinated and end this pandemic ever passed the Senate, we have to answer a couple of questions many of you probably have:
1. How did Schumer let this come to the Senate Floor?
and
2. Why didn’t it get filibustered?
Short Answers: 1. Schumer had no choice; and 2. It can’t be filibustered.
Longer Answers: Resolutions such as this one, come under the jurisdiction of a law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which sets out rules and procedures for nullifying (doing away with) Regulations promulgated by Agencies within the Executive Branch. You can read about it in this Congressional Research Service publication. From this publication:
The most notable feature of the CRA is its special set of parliamentary procedures for considering a joint resolution disapproving an agency’s final rule. These procedures make it easier for Congress to pass a joint resolution of disapproval, particularly in the Senate. Perhaps most significantly, when a joint resolution of disapproval meets certain criteria, it cannot be filibustered in the Senate. In addition, when 20 calendar days have elapsed after the receipt and publication of a rule, a petition, signed by 30 Senators, can be presented on the floor to discharge a Senate committee of the further consideration of a disapproval resolution. Once the committee is discharged, any Senator can make a nondebatable motion to proceed to consider the disapproval resolution. Should a majority of the Senate vote to consider the disapproval resolution, debate on it is limited, and a final vote would be all but guaranteed.
So that provides the longer answers to Questions 1 & 2.
Now the two (2) Democrat Senators who voted “yes” and allowed it to pass were Manchin (WV) and Tester (MT). They both voted for it to please their respective MAGA Freedom Caucus majorities in their States, so as to avoid being put on the spot by a future Trump Party opponent. While Manchin is no surprise since he is a cowardly follower and not a leader, I am a bit surprised at Tester who usually doesn’t make selfishly politically motivated votes. He usually has the courage to lead on such votes, then fully explain to his constituents why his vote benefits them.
Anyway, This Joint Resolution will never be “joint”, because I don’t see the House ever taking it up, (unless all House Republicans were to get the needed # of Democrats to sign a Discharge Petition). Even if it somehow did pass the House, it is still subject to a certain Presidential Veto, which would never be overridden. So fortunately this Resolution is dead as a door nail.
- S.610 — Debt Limit Procedure — This whole ”procedure” for raising the debt limit cobbled together mainly by Schumer and McConnell is truly bizarre. It was born out of McConnell’s desire to somehow allow the debt limit to rise without a single Republican vote. McConnell’s plan would then be to have Republicans run in 2022 on a record that it was Democrats who added to taxpayers debt to pay for their Socialist Build Back Better (BBB) Bill. The fact that this is lying to voters in at least two ways, matters little to McConnell and the GOP (1st LIE is the debt limit increase is not for any of the BBB spending, but rather to pay for past government allocated spending, with 80% of such past debt incurred during the Trump administration mainly due to the tax cuts to the very rich; and the 2nd LIE is that no Republicans ever cast any vote to help raise the debt limit, which I will explain why that’s a lie below).
So what is this Rube Goldberg procedure to purportedly “get around the filibuster”. I think it is best explained in this Joan McCarter Post, which I will use to try to explain the step-by-step process below:
1. The House passed a Bill (S.610 which was originally a Senate Medicare/Farm that the House amended) which includes procedures to limit debate (i.e., cannot be filibustered), waive points of order, and prohibit amendments in the Senate on a debt limit raise, that may only be used once and expire after January 16, 2022.
2. This Bill (S.610) was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate, but received more than the required 60 Cloture Votes to limit debate which included 14 Republicans.
3. The Bill (S.610) was then passed by a simple majority vote in the Senate and sent to the President’s desk for signing.
4. Once signed the Bill will become a law which will allow the House to create a debt limit increase Bill (amount of the increase TBD) which it will pass, send to the Senate which will be allowed to pass it with only 51 votes (all Dems. + VP) and send it to the President for signature, all to happen next week before the current debt limit is reached on December 15.
Hope that explains it as clear as mud. How is this really any different than voting “yes” on a procedural motion to limit debate on the actual debt limit Bill? The answer is, it isn’t (IMO).
So why did 14 Republican Senators vote to end the filibuster? Because in their convoluted logic, they didn’t vote to end a filibuster on a Bill that was necessary to raise the debt limit (which is what they really did), they voted on a Bill that prevents them from having to vote “yes” on a future Bill to limit debate on a Bill to raise the debt limit. So “yes” they are lying to their voters when they say they did not vote to help pass a debt limit increase, and “yes” if your like me, your hair follicles are hurting trying to figure out the GOP’s twisted logic.
BTW, if your wondering why we can’t pass a similar procedural law to allow us to pass other Bills (e.g., voting rights, gun safety, etc.) in the Senate without them being subject to a filibuster (i.e., by just a simple majority), it’s because at least 10 Republicans would have to vote to limit debate on such a procedural bill in order to get to voting on the actual (e.g., voting rights, gun safety, etc.) Bill. So this procedural law filibuster get-around only worked this time because 10 or more Republicans wanted it to, which of course won’t happen on any of these other Bills.
Nominations — The Senate confirmed five (5) Biden appointees this week.
1. Jessica Rosenworcel, of Connecticut, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission — Vote 68-31.
2. Deirdre Hamilton, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Mediation Board — Vote 52-48.
3. Chris Magnus, of Arizona, to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security — Vote 50-47.
4. Rachael S. Rollins, of Massachusetts, to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts — Vote 51(50+VP)-50.
5. Michael D. Smith, of Virginia, to be Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service — Vote 58-41.
Details & Commentary — Of the Nominee confirmations above, the Rosenworcel confirmation is the most notable. Ms. Rosenworcel will Chair the FCC and is a supporter of Net Neutrality. While the FCC is currently a four member Board with two Democrats and two Republicans, Biden’s nomination of Gigi Sohn to fill the fifth open seat should be confirmed in the next few weeks, giving Democrats control of the FCC.
Committee Activity:
House Jan. 6 Select Committee:
- Mark Meadows Committee Subpoena — If you remember Meadows announced through his attorney that he would “cooperate” with the Jan. 6 Committee by both agreeing to be deposed by the Committee (under Oath) and turning over 6000 E-mails documenting his correspondence between the election and Jan. 6, 2021. The E-mails he turned over to the Committee have painted a clearer picture of the planning behind the Coup Plot and Insurrection. Included among these E-mails was a Power Point presentation as described below in this Rolling Stone Article:
The PowerPoint presentation, which spanned 38 pages and was titled “Election fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 JAN,” was part of an email sent on Jan. 5, the day before the attack on the Capitol. The email pertained to a briefing that was to be provided “on the hill.” Hugo Lowell of The Guardian tweeted slides from the presentation on Thursday detailing a conspiracy theory-laden plan for Vice President Pence to install Republican electors in states “where fraud occurred,” and for Trump to declare a national emergency and for all electronic voting to be rendered invalid, citing foreign “control” of electronic voting systems.
Also,
The committee noted in a letter on Wednesday that Meadows had provided text messages in which he discussed a “highly controversial” plan to overturn the election results by appointing alternate electors in certain states. “I love it,” Meadows replied to the idea, which was sent to him by a lawmaker. Meadows discussed the same plan, which was described as a “direct and collateral attack,” in a separate email.
Then after turning over the E-mails, but before his scheduled Deposition, Meadows once again did a 180, per this AP News Report:
In an abrupt reversal, Meadows attorney George Terwilliger said in a letter that a deposition would be “untenable” because the Jan. 6 panel “has no intention of respecting boundaries” concerning questions that former President Donald Trump has claimed are off-limits because of executive privilege. Terwilliger also said he learned over the weekend that the committee had issued a subpoena to a third-party communications provider that he said would include “intensely personal” information.
“As a result of careful and deliberate consideration of these factors, we now must decline the opportunity to appear voluntarily for a deposition,” Terwilliger wrote in the letter.
The committee’s Democratic chairman, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, and Republican vice chairwoman, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, said in a statement that they will have “no choice” but to vote on recommending contempt charges against Meadows if he does not show up for a previously scheduled closed-door deposition Wednesday.
Finally, after thumbing his nose at the Committee (Bannon Style), Meadows decided to throw gasoline onto his self-engulfing fire per this
NY Times Article:
Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff for President Donald J. Trump, filed suit on Wednesday against Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol in an attempt to persuade a federal judge to block the committee’s subpoenas.
Mr. Meadows’s suit came hours after the committee said it would move forward with a criminal contempt of Congress referral against Mr. Meadows after he refused to appear for a scheduled deposition.
His lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, accuses the committee of issuing “two overly broad and unduly burdensome subpoenas” against him, including one sent to Verizon for his phone and text data.
-
Subpoena for Trump White House records — On December 9, a three judge panel of the District Court of Appeals issued its ruling in the Trump White House Records case. Per this
CNN Report:
A federal appeals court Thursday ruled against former President Donald Trump in his effort to block his White House records from being released to the House select committee investigating January 6.
However, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals paused its ruling for two weeks so that Trump could seek a Supreme Court intervention.
Besides just ruling against Trump, the Court’s decision went into scathing detail regarding the seriousness of the insurrection the Committee is investigating. Here are some highlights, again from the
CNN Report:
"The events of January 6th exposed the fragility of those democratic institutions and traditions that we had perhaps come to take for granted," said the DC Circuit opinion, which was written by Judge Patricia Millett, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. "In response, the President of the United States and Congress have each made the judgment that access to this subset of presidential communication records is necessary to address a matter of great constitutional moment for the Republic. Former President Trump has given this court no legal reason to cast aside President Biden's assessment of the Executive Branch interests at stake, or to create a separation of powers conflict that the Political Branches have avoided."
"The very essence of the Article I power is legislating, and so there would seem to be few, if any, more imperative interests squarely within Congress's wheelhouse than ensuring the safe and uninterrupted conduct of its constitutionally assigned business," the opinion said.
"Here, the House of Representatives is investigating the single most deadly attack on the Capitol by domestic forces in the history of the United States. Lives were lost; blood was shed; portions of the Capitol building were badly damaged; and the lives of members of the House and Senate, as well as aides, staffers, and others who were working in the building, were endangered. They were forced to flee, preventing the legislators from completing their constitutional duties until the next day.
You can read the Full 68 page Court Opinion
HERE. If you have time it is worth the read.
- Roger Stone Joins Clark and Eastman in Pleading the Fifth — Per NBC News:
Roger Stone, a long-time adviser to former President Donald Trump, just became the latest Trump ally to refuse to cooperate with House’s Jan. 6 investigation by invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The growing list includes John Eastman — a former law professor and legal adviser to Trump, and Jeffrey Clark, who served as an assistant attorney general from 2018 until 2021. Alex Jones, a radio show host and a staunch supporter of Trump’s re-election campaign, has also threatened to plead the Fifth in response to his own House subpoena.
While these witnesses may be able to avoid testifying before the select committee by standing on the Fifth, they are merely postponing — and perhaps increasing — their future legal woes.
- Marc Short (Former VP Pence Chief of Staff) Cooperating — Per this NBC News Report:
Marc Short, who was chief of staff to then-Vice President Mike Pence, is cooperating with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to two people familiar with the panel's activities.
"He is," one of the sources said. "So far."
A second source, who confirmed that Short had been subpoenaed, said the panel is assessing what information he might be able to provide.
And from the Business Insider:
The congressional panel looking into the January 6 insurrection is getting "significant cooperation from Team Pence," a source told CNN on Monday, with the former vice president's ex-chief of staff reportedly complying with the committee's investigation.
Marc Short, the Pence aide, could provide key testimony concerning both the lead-up to the attack on the US Capitol and events on January 6 itself to the committee, which is led by Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, and Rep. Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican.
Details & Commentary —
- Meadows 360 — Meadows off again, on again and now off again cooperation with the Jan. 6 Committee is truly BIZZARE! After releasing to the Committee 6000 E-mails and other text messages that show the details of the plans Team Trump had to subvert our electoral process and his clear involvement in the illegal activities, he decides to not appear before the Committee and cuts off all future cooperation.
So what motivated his sudden about face? The only thing that appears to have changed since when he turned over the E-mails/texts is the Committee’s announcement that they had issued a subpoena to a third-party communications provider (Verizon) that Meadow’s attorney described as including “intensely personal” information. Whatever is in the information subpoenaed from Verizon by the Committee, Meadow’s behavior suggests that it is even more incriminating against him and/or others in Trump’s Crime Family than the E-mails/texts he handed over to the Committee, however hard to believe that may be.
- White House Records — What I find most interesting in the Appeals Court’ opinion is the length the Judges went to fully describe the seriousness and potential crimes being investigated by the Committee, well beyond what was necessary to support their decision. They even weigh in on the urgency of the matter:
Mr. Trump argues that the Committee “would suffer no harm by delaying production while the parties litigate the request’s validity.” Appellant Opening Br. 52. We disagree. Both the public interest and the balance of hardships decidedly disfavor issuance of a preliminary injunction. Even under ordinary circumstances, there is a strong public interest in Congress carrying out its lawful investigations, McGrain, 273 U.S. at 174, and courts must take care not to unnecessarily “halt the functions of a coordinate branch, ”Eastland, 421 U.S. at 511 n.17. That public interest is heightened when, as here, the legislature is proceeding with urgency to prevent violent attacks on the federal government and disruptions to the peaceful transfer of power. Importantly, the Supreme Court has instructed that Congress’s “desire to restore public confidence in our political processes” by “facilitating a full airing of the events leading to” such political crises constitutes a “substantial public interest[.]” Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 453.
If you ask me, this is a shot across the bow intended for SCOTUS, warning against an unnecessary delay in proceedings and the potentially catastrophic ramifications of such delay.
- Stone’s Fifth — So Stone joins Clark and Eastman in pleading the Fifth. They apparently believe this is some sort of “Get Out of Testifying FREE CARD”, but is it. I’m not sure what legal game they think they are playing, but I don’t see how it prevents the House from finding them in Contempt of Congress and referring them to the DoJ for prosecution. Yes, they could use what they are pleading the Fifth to, to negotiate a Plea Deal with DoJ, but that would mean double-crossing Trump, which none of these fools seem willing to do.
One good thing I do see coming out of all this is it will ramp up the pressure on DoJ to investigate the possible crimes that the three Fifth Pleadings suggest have occurred.
- Marc Short (Former VP Pence Chief of Staff) — Of all the over 275 witnesses who have been providing testimony/documents to the Committee, Marc Short is probably one of, if not the most important. He was involved in all the post-election meetings with Trump that involved Mike Pence, and was with Pence on the day of the insurrection and likely privy to phone conversations/texts Pence had with the White House on that day. Even better, Short is described as a prolific note taker.
Next Week in Congress: Here is your
C-Span Link where you can view some of next week’s events.
Here Are The Coming Week’s Headlines:
House/Senate To Bill This Week To Raise The Debt Limit By $$?
Will the House Punish Boebert This Week for Her Offensive Omar Comments?
BBB Bill Progress in the Senate?
Meadows Contempt Vote By Jan. 6 Committee?
Legislative Activity —
House:
- Debt Limit — Now that Biden has signed the law allowing for a one time passage of a Debt Limit Raise Bill with only a simple majority in the Senate, the House will likely quickly put forth and pass a Debt Limit Raise Bill early this coming week. The only question left is the amount of the raise ($$)?
- Boebert’s Racist Comments Against Rep. Ilhan Omar — Questions still remain as to what, if any punishment will be dealt out by Congress for Rep. Lauren Boebert’s racist comments against Ilhan Omar. Here is the latest per this CPR Report:
"I have had a conversation with the speaker, and I'm very confident that she will take decisive action next week," Omar told CNN's "State of the Union" program.
"When I first got to Congress, I was worried that I wasn't going to be allowed to be sworn in because there was a ban on the hijab. She promised me that she would take care of it. She fulfilled that promise. She's made another promise to me that she will take care of this. And I believe her."
There was no immediate comment from Pelosi or Boebert.
House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy defended Boebert last week, saying she had apologized publicly and personally to Omar.
Omar did not say what action Pelosi might take.
Details & Commentary — Sounds to me like we are heading for another Censure vote on the House floor, maybe stripping Boebert of her Committee assignments. I know it isn’t much and Boebert probably won’t take it seriously, but it’s the most Democrats can do with only a simple majority vote.
Senate:
- Debt Limit Cliff — As soon as the House sends over the Debt Limit Raise Bill, the Senate is likely to quickly bring it to the floor and pass it by a simple majority vote as allowed under the one-time procedural law passed last week.
- Build Back Better (BBB) Bill In The Senate — The bill commonly referred to as the Build Back Better Act has the designation H.R. 5376. A Summary of H.R. 5376 can be read HERE and the Full Text of the Bill can be read HERE. CAUTIONARY NOTE: The Summary and Text of the Bill posted on these House websites appear to be an earlier version of H.R 5376. Provisions have been deleted and added to the BBB Bill since the time they were posted. But here’s a good update from JDSUPRA which provides a good summary of what’s in and out of the original Bill.
Once the Debt Limit Raise is dealt with, there is a chance we will see some action on the BBB Bill this week. Here are the optimistic and pessimistic views. First the optimistic:
From this Dec. 8 Joan McCarter Post:
No, the last 10 months have primarily been about Manchin and Sinema pumping the breaks and undermining their president to prevent really essential stuff from happening. For his part, Schumer is trying to push back. While Manchin is on a big public “slow it down” campaign, Schumer is plowing ahead, setting up a game of chicken now with Manchin, who will have to decide if he will let 93% of his state’s children down when the expanded Child Tax Credit monthly payments end.
Schumer announced on the Senate floor Wednesday morning that four committees have the full text of their pieces of the big reconciliation bill ready. “We are clearing the path for Democrats to turn to our biggest domestic priority of the year: passing President Biden’s Build Back Better Act before Christmas,” he vowed. “We continue to make good progress and we are still on track to vote on a final product before Christmas.”
From CNBC, Wall Street is Bullish on BBB’s chances of passage:
Wall Street economists believe some version of President Joe Biden’s nearly $2 trillion Build Back Better plan will become law.
And they also think the measure, which includes hundreds of billions of dollars in funds to fight climate change, will be another big deal for the infrastructure industry on the heels of a separate, $1 trillion public works law the president signed earlier this fall.
Economists at Goldman Sachs, Evercore ISI, Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan have all written in recent weeks that they believe it’s a matter of time until the Senate passes Biden’s Build Back Better legislation.
That could mean a business boom for some of the country’s biggest construction and materials companies, they say.
Now the pessimistic:
From Meteor Blades:
Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) on Tuesday sounded a slew of alarms about his own party’s $2 trillion tax-and-spending package, raising fresh questions about Democrats’ ambitious attempts to adopt the final piece of President Biden’s economic agenda before Christmas.
For Manchin, the package still may be too large in size and scope, it may not be financed it full, it might intensify a recent uptick in prices and it could inflict other harm on the economy. The concerns prompted the pivotal moderate lawmaker to reiterate his call from September to pause the process — though Manchin declined to say if he actually supports or opposes the bill.
“I was concerned then, and I said let’s take a strategic pause,” the senator said at a conference hosted by The Wall Street Journal, adding he “still feel[s] strongly about that.”
So, after months of the Democratic leadership lopping off entire programs from an already truncated bill to appease Manchin, the man STILL won’t commit even hypothetically to supporting the Build Back Better bill.
To make matters worse, Republicans are playing their Concern Troll Deficit Warning Card, per this CNN Report:
The Congressional Budget Office has released a new analysis of the Democrats' social safety net plan to see how much the bill would cost if a series of provisions were extended long term, fulfilling a GOP request intended to portray the bill as far more expensive than it seems.
The CBO estimates that the version of the legislation without sunsets would "increase the deficit by $3 trillion over 2022 to 2031." The analysis assumes that any extension wouldn't be paid for. The current bill, known as the Build Back Better Act,
does not include such extensions to the provisions.
The latest CBO score is a Republican-led effort to show that the bill costs more than Democrats say it does, but Democrats are arguing that many provisions in their proposal sunset and therefore the true cost is not what Republicans say it is.
President Joe Biden has also said publicly that if any of the programs in Build Back Better were extended, they would be paid for in those subsequent years.
"I welcome a serious conversation about how to pay for the investments we make, but here is what those critics are not telling you. They're not telling you that I've committed to paying for every single program that extended, if any are, in future legislation, whether that's for a day or a decade," Biden said at the end of November during remarks about Build Back Better.
Yet, the analysis could be important to a key moderate Democratic member, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has long been concerned that many programs in the Democratic bill may end up being extended or even become permanent.
Also, the DACA Immigration provisions that are currently in the House version of BBB are once again before the Senate Parliamentarian to see if she offers an opinion that they can be included in the Bill under Budget Reconciliation rules (3rd times a charm they say). If her recommendation is in the negative, chances are slim that Manchin and possibly other Democrats will vote to override the Parliamentarian’s recommendation.
Details & Commentary — I have to say I’m cautiously optimistic about the BBB Bill’s chance of getting through the Senate. All indications are that Schumer is moving Full Steam Ahead towards a vote on some version of the BBB Bill before the Holiday recess. No more allowing Manchin to continually move the goal posts. Time to tell Manchin that the goal post are cemented down and he will no longer be able to move them. Put the latest version of the Bill on the Senate floor and tell Manchin it’s time to vote yes or no. His record suggests he will be a yes if you tell him the game playing is over.
It’s also smart to hold the vote just before the recess. If Republicans decide to play Parliamentarian games to delay things, Schumer can delay their recess, which is strong incentive to NOT play such games.
Committee Activity:
House Jan. 6 Select Committee:
- Meadows Contempt Vote This Week? — From CNBC:
The leader of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives on Thursday notified members to next week expect to consider a resolution recommending that former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows be held in contempt of Congress.
Details & Commentary — Looks like the Committee is done playing games with Mr. Meadows. But look for his lawyers to pull some last minute stunt to try to get the Committee to delay it’s contempt vote. Except for Bannon, all the others have tried a last minute, “please don’t Contempt Me” letter. Let’s hope the Committee sees through this ploy and proceeds with its Contempt Report vote.,
That’s It For Now! Hold on to your hats, it’s going to be a Congressional Rollercoaster Ride for the next few weeks!