Posts tagged with "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi"

Pelosi names impeachment managers before House votes to send articles to Senate

January 16, 2020

Under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House voted across party lines on January 15 to send two articles of impeachment to the Senate—and tapped seven managers for the trial in the upper house, ending weeks of speculation over just who would lead the effort to remove President Donald Trump from office, The Hill reported.

named to prosecute the case. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-California), will take the helm. He commented in a formal statement, “I am humbled by the responsibility of serving as the lead House Manager in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, and thank Speaker Pelosi for the trust she has placed in me and our team. It is a solemn responsibility and one that I will undertake with the seriousness that the task requires.

Representative Jerry Nadler (D-New York), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee also was selected for a high-profile role. He, too commented-directly, addressing the management of the trial: “Our Speaker has led our fight for a fair trial in the Senate. Above all, a fair trial must include additional documents and relevant witnesses. The American people have common sense. They know that any trial that does not allow witnesses is not a trial. It is a cover-up.”

Among the other Democratic House members chosen were Hakeem Jeffries (New York.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus; Val Demings (Florida), a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence panels; and Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), a senior member of the Judiciary panel and the only member of Congress to have participated in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments.

More unexpected were the final two picks —Representatives. Sylvia Garcia (Texas), and Jason Crow (Colorado), The Hill said. Both are freshmen, and Crow—a former Army Ranger—does not sit on any of the six committees with jurisdiction over impeachment.

In making the announcement, Pelosi touted the legal bona fides of her picks, saying their experience before entering Congress was an outsize factor in her decision-making.

The announcement came comes just hours before the House voted to send the two articles of impeachment to the Senate. Passed by the House on December 18, the articles accuse Trump of abusing his power in his dealings with Ukraine; then, obstructing Congress as Democrats sought to investigate the episode.

Aside from transmitting the articles and naming the impeachment managers, the resolution provides funding for the impeachment process.

Research contact: @thehill

Don’t count Schumer out: He plans to force votes on evidence, testimony that will ‘squeeze’ Republicans

January 14, 2020

While, in the run-up to the impeachment trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has appeared to be unflinching in his support of President Donald Trump, he should not underestimate his political rival, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Politico reports.

Indeed, although McConnell already has locked up enough Republican votes to ignore demands for a bipartisan framework for the trial, his Democratic counterpart is preparing a counteroffensive. Schumer plans to force a series of votes designed to squeeze vulnerable Republicans and harm them on the campaign trail if they side with Trump, the news outlet says.

Democrats argue the half-dozen at-risk GOP senators will need some daylight between them and Trump to get reelected. And if they vote against Schumer’s motions to hear new evidence and witness testimony, they’ll be seen as Trump sycophants — undermining their bids and boosting Schumer’s odds of becoming majority leader.

Support for obtaining new documents at the trial is “even stronger than we thought, with large numbers of Republicans supporting it,” Schumer said in an interview with Politico. “And when you go against what the American people feel strongly about, on an issue they’re paying attention to, it’s not a good idea.”

Public surveys in key swing states back up Democrats’ claims. Polling from Hart Research found that 63% of voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina would react unfavorably if their senator voted against calling witnesses or subpoenaing documents during the Senate impeachment trial.

Another poll from Morning Consult found 57% of voters believe the Senate should call additional witnesses. That includes 71% of Democrats, 56% of Independents, and 40% of Republicans.

What’s more, the president’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s offer to testify has given some momentum to Democrats’ calls for witnesses and documents about the White House’s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine. Democrats also want to hear from Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey, and Mulvaney Adviser Robert Blair.

“If the Republicans ram through process that ultimately leads to no witnesses, I think they do it at their own peril,” Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), a former chairman of the party’s campaign arm, told Politico. “Some of these members: They have an audience of one. But I think they forgot that there’s a broader audience that they’re going to have to face at election time.”

“The procedural votes may be more important than the vote on removal or acquittal. Because what will matter more to voters than where a senator lands is how he or she got there,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster for Hart Research. “So if Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) or any of the other Republicans vote for acquittal and the takeaway for voters is this is a political or partisan vote on an important issue, that will have a long lasting impact.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she will release the articles of impeachment to McConnell this week.

Research contact: @politico

Trump jeers at Democrats’ outcry about war powers

January 13, 2020

At his first campaign rally of 2020, in Toledo, Ohio, President Donald Trump scoffed at Democrats for insisting that he should have complied with the War Powers Act—a congressional resolution enacted in 1973, designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroadbefore taking out Iranian Maj Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Had he followed the requirements of that resolution to consult with Congress “in every possible instance” before committing troops to war, the president would have informed, at a minimum, the Gang of Eight about the planned assassination of the commander who had led the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps since 1998.

Instead, NBC News reported on January 9,  the president alleged at the campaign event that Democrats would have leaked sensitive national security information, had it been shared with them.

Specifically, the network news outlet said, Trump professed that “he hadn’t had time” to call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the attack, adding that “she is not operating with a full deck now.”

He then acted out a parody of how House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff might have leaked the planned killing of Soleimani to reporters.

“Schiff is a big leaker, you know, he leaks like crazy,” Trump said, claiming that Democrats “want us to tell them so that they can leak it to their friends in the corrupt media.”

The White House hasn’t cited any instances of Democrats’ leaking sensitive national security information to the media.

“Soleimani was actively planning new attacks, and he was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad,” Trump claimed.

Trump’s comments came hours after the House voted mostly along party lines to adopt a new war powers resolution to limit his military actions against Iran.

The five-page non-binding resolution, sponsored by freshman Representatie Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan), a former CIA analyst, emphasizes that if a president wants to take the United States to war, he or she must get authorization from Congress.

Specifically, it directs the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities against Iran unless Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization— or unless military action is necessary to defend against an imminent attack, NBC News reported.

Research contact: @NBCNews

Bombs away! Pelosi says Trump launched strike killing Iranian general without authorization

January 6, 2020

Saying that the United States “cannot put the lives of American service members, diplomats, and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi castigated President Donald Trump for ordering a January 2 airstrike at Baghdad International Airport in a formal statement issued the same day

Pelosi (D-California) on Thursday said that an airstrike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani was not authorized and Congress was not consulted on the decision, according to a report by The Hill. 

“The Administration has conducted tonight’s strikes in Iraq targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran,” an irate Pelosi remarked in the statement.

“Further, this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress,” the top House Democrat said, adding, “Tonight’s airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America—and the world— cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return.” 

Pelosi said that Congress must be briefed on the situation and be informed of the next steps that are being considered.

According to the report by The Hill, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had defended the strike, saying that it was in response to “imminent threats to American lives.”

He said in a CNN interview that Soleimani “was actively plotting in the region to take actions … that would have put dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk.”

However, the acting chief of the Department of Homeland Security. Chad Wolf, said on January 3, “There are currently no specific, credible threats against our homeland, “ CNN reported.

Iran, meanwhile, has vowed “harsh retaliation” for the airport strike.

The Pentagon announced Thursday that Soleimani had been killed. Iraqi state TV first reported that Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of the Iranian-backed Iraqi militia Popular Mobilization Forces, were killed at Baghdad International Airport.

Research contact: @thehill

Yale psychiatrist: Pelosi ‘has the right’ to submit Trump to an ‘involuntary evaluation’

December 31, 2019

Ya think? Bandy X. Lee, a professor of Forensic Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine who also serves as president of the World Mental Health Coalition, is again sounding the alarm about President Donald Trump’s mental health—and warning that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not doing enough to respond to the danger it poses, Salon reports.

Lee actually began warning about the dangers posed by the president’s mental health before his election. She then edited the book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President and convened a conference on the president’s mental health at Yale shortly after the president’s inauguration.

In addition, she recently joined psychiatrists across the country in calling for the House Judiciary Committee to convene a panel of mental health experts to weigh in on the ongoing impeachment proceedings.

Worried by the tone and content of President Trump’s tweets, Lee  has gone so far as to “translate” some of them on her own Twitter feed, which she described to Salon as a “public service.” Lee said she wants her “translations” to help readers see past Trump’s efforts to muddle reality with his “negative influence.”

She recently “translated” Trump’s scorching six-page letter to Pelosi  in a Medium post.— noting that the president had accused the speaker of trying to “steal the election” ahead of the House vote to impeach him.

Arguing that the letter effectively served as a “confession,” Lee said that Trump’s letter was an example of the president projecting his own motives onto Pelosi. But Lee warned that Pelosi has not done enough to respond to the president.

“As a coworker, she has the right to have him submit to an involuntary evaluation, but she has not,” Lee told Salon. “Anyone can call 911 to report someone who seems dangerous, and family members are the most typical ones to do so. But so can coworkers, and even passersby on the street. The law dictates who can determine right to treatment, or civil commitment, and in all 50 U.S. states this includes a psychiatrist.

While Lee told Salon that Pelosi’s strategy of withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate has been effective, she also warned that the delay risks making Trump even more dangerous.

“I am beginning to believe that a mental health hold, which we have tried to avoid, will become inevitable,” Lee said.

Among the most troubling symptoms? “First, Lee told Salon, he is highly unwell, which I am glad many finally seem to see now. More specifically, you can tell how unwell he is by the degree he cannot deviate from his defenses: mainly, denial and projection. We often say he is “doubling down.” A truly sick person will be unable to show any tolerance of ambiguity, doubt or flexibility in thinking. The letter, like his lengthy interviews or his chronic tweeting over years, is unable to show any variation from the characteristic rigidity of pathology.

She noted, “Some people will dispute the ethics of disclosing what I see, and my response is: danger. We are legally bound to break patient confidentiality for safety reasons, and a president is not even a patient.”

Research contact: @Salon

Pelosi puts impeachment trial on hold until McConnell reveals his plans

December 23, 2019

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken steps to prevent Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell from riding roughshod over the Democrats’ requests for a fair impeachment trial—complete with witnesses close to the president, Politico reports.

She refused to commit last Wednesday—the day on which impeachment passed the House—to deliver the two articles of impeachment to the Senate, citing concerns about an rigged, partisan process that would protect President Donald Trump from being embarrassed; let alone, ousted from office.

Indeed, according to Politico, senior Democratic aides said the House was “very unlikely” to take the steps necessary to send the articles to the Senate until at least early January, a delay of at least two weeks and perhaps longer.

Pelosi told reporters at a news conference that, until she was informed by McConnell of the plans for the trial, the House would not name impeachment managers and the articles would not be handed over.  “That would’ve been our intention, but we’ll see what happens over there.”

Although the House adopted two articles of impeachment– charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of congressional investigations— it must pass a second resolution formally naming impeachment managers to present the case in the Senate. That second vehicle triggers the official transmission of articles to the Senate.

By delaying passage of that resolution, Pelosi and top Democrats retain control of the articles and hope to put pressure on McConnell to adopt trial procedures they consider to be bipartisan, Politico said.

McConnell has boasted that he has closely coordinated the planning of the trial with the White House and has repeatedly predicted Trump would be acquitted. He’s also suggested Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to call new witnesses as they attempt to present their case.

“I’m not an impartial juror,” he said flatly. “This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision.”

In response to those words, several members of Congress have said that McConnell should recuse himself from the impeachment process–advice he is unlikely to follow.

The White House lashed out at the move. “House Democrats have run a fatally flawed process with fake facts, and now they want to deny the President his day in court with another procedural maneuver that proves anew they have no case,” said Eric Ueland, Trump’s top congressional liaison to Congress.

Research contact: @politico

‘No one is above the law.” With Pelosi imprimatur, impeachment inquiry hurtles forward

September 26, 2019

With gravity and solemnity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California)—who had stood firm as the voice of reason for many months, resisting efforts to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump—said at 5 p.m. on September 24 in an address to the American people, “No one is above the law.”

And with those words, she announced a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, saying that the president’s growing Ukraine scandal marked a “breach of his Constitutional responsibilities,” NBC News reported.

“This week the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically,” Pelosi said.

Indeed, several media outlets, including NBC News, reported that, last summer, the president had withheld hundreds of millions in Congressionally approved military aid to the Eastern European nation—using the funds as leverage to get the “oppo research” he wanted on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

On Monday, The Washington Post and other media outlets reported that Trump, in lockstep with the attorney general, instructed his acting chief of staff to place a hold on about $400 million in military aid for Ukraine in the days before a late July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“The actions of the Trump presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” she continued. “Therefore, today I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.”

Pelosi said she was formally directing the House’s six committees that have jurisdiction over impeachment, oversight and other related matters to “proceed with their investigations under that umbrella.”

“The president must be held accountable,” she said. “No one is above the law.”

Pelosi’s change of heart came as dozens of House Democrats—now about 200 members—have come out in support of an impeachment inquiry in the wake of reports that Trump may have withheld aid to Ukraine to pressure officials there to investigate the son of political rival Joe Biden.

Trump responded on Twitter within moments of Pelosi’s announcement, saying, “They never even saw the transcript of the call. A total Witch Hunt!”

He also demeaned the House Speaker, and the chairmen of the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Financial Services committees—all of whom are expected to collaborate on impeachment charges—tweeting, “Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and, of course, Maxine Waters! Can you believe this?”

Earlier, Trump told reporters that an impeachment inquiry would help him in the 2020 election but would harm the country.

“If she does that they all say that’s a positive for me in the election. You could also say who needs it, it’s bad for the country,” he said, according to NBC News.

And in an effort to defuse the situation, on Wednesday, he released a transcript of the call to the Ukraine president.

Pelosi reacted to the release of the transcript with a statement on her website:

“The release of the notes of the call by the White House confirms that the President engaged in behavior that undermines the integrity of our elections, the dignity of the office he holds, and our national security. The President has tried to make lawlessness a virtue in America and now

“I respect the responsibility of the President to engage with foreign leaders as part of his job. It is not part of his job to use taxpayer money to shake down other countries for the benefit of his campaign. Either the President does not know the weight of his words or he does not care about ethics or his constitutional responsibilities.

“The transcript and the Justice Department’s acting in a rogue fashion in being complicit in the President’s lawlessness confirm the need for an impeachment inquiry. Clearly, the Congress must act.“As we await the transmittal of the full whistleblower complaint to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, it is important to note that the complaint was determined by the Inspector General to be a matter of ‘urgent concern’ and ‘credible

“The Intelligence Community has long recognized that whistleblowers constitute a vital part of our national security apparatus and that they must be protected. I reiterate my long-standing call to protect the whistleblower from retaliation.”

While Senate Republicans continue to support the president; once the whistleblower complaint is in the hands of Congress, the inquiry is expected to gain momentum—at least in the House.

Research contact: @NBCNews

Pelosi forewarns of ‘new stage of investigation,’ if Trump continues to block whistleblower

September 24, 2019

Patience has its limits: And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), who has remained reluctant to start impeachment proceedings until a majority of the U.S. electorate demands them, may just have been pushed too far.

Indeed, Pelosi has said in a letter to House members that—unless the White House allows Acting Director of National Security Joseph Maguire to hand over a whistleblower complaint to the House Intelligence Committee, as required by law—she is prepared to take steps.

The complaint, it has now been revealed, relates to phone calls by President Donald Trump last summer to the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

During those conversations, the POTUS allegedly asked Zelenskyy numerous times to investigate Democratic candidate for president Joe Biden and his son Hunter—or he would not release $250 million in Congressionally approved military aid to the Eastern European nation.

In her letter of September 22, Pelosi said, “The Administration is endangering our national security and having a chilling effect on any future whistleblower who sees wrongdoing”

She noted that the White House’s efforts to block the House Intelligence panel from seeing the complaint “must be addressed immediately” and warned of a “new stage of investigation” if the administration continues to block the whistleblower. 

“This violation is about our national security. The Inspector General determined that the matter is ‘urgent’ and therefore we face an emergency,” Pelosi wrote.

“If the Administration persists in blocking this whistleblower … they will be entering a grave new chapter of lawlessness which will take us into a whole new stage of investigation,”she said. 

Pelosi also called on congressional Republicans “to join us” in asking the acting director of national intelligence to “obey the law as we seek the truth to protect the American people and our Constitution.”

To date, Trump has not confirmed whether he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden, and the White House has not released the complaint or a transcript of the call, according to a report by The Hill.

Members of the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday received a briefing from the intelligence community’s inspector general but did not receive information about the complaint’s contents, the news outlet said.

Trump told reporters Sunday he would consider releasing the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president.

In her letter, Pelosi, who has been cautious of calling for impeachment, fails to go as far as some of her fellow Democrats, The Hill said —many of whom have accused Trump using the presidency to bully foreign leaders into digging up information on

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-California) has been similarly cautious to back impeachment, but said Sunday that if allegations over Trump reaching out to Ukraine are true, impeachment “may be the only remedy.”

Research contact: @thehill

Brinksmanship: Unable to cut deal, Nadler soon may subpoena Mueller to testify before U.S. public

June 12, 2019

When and if former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies before Congress, his face will be familiar—but the story he tells won’t be, according to findings of a CNN poll fielded in May, which found that fully 75% of Americans have not read the Mueller report on Russian interference into the last presidential election and obstruction of justice by the Trump administration.

Most legislators have failed to read the 448-page document, either.

But that doesn’t include House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-New York)—who  told Democratic leaders at a closed-door meeting this past week that he could issue a subpoena to within two weeks to Mueller, if he is unable to reach an agreement to secure the former special counsel’s public testimony, according to two sources familiar with the meeting, Politico reported.

Nadler’s comments clarified whether the chairman had considered compelling Mueller’s attendance at a public hearing. The committee is still negotiating with Mueller, who, according to Nadler, is thus far only willing to answer lawmakers’ questions in private—a nonstarter for most House Democrats.

The sources cautioned the news outlet that the committee has not settled yet on a timetable for a potential subpoena to Mueller. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) hosted the meeting, and four other committee chairs were in attendance.

However, according to Politico’s sources, Nadler told reporters that he was “confident” Mueller will appear before his panel, and that he would issue a subpoena “if we have to.”

“We want him to testify openly. I think the American people need that,” Nadler added. “I think, frankly, it’s his duty to the American people. And we’ll make that happen.”

This week, the committee began to hear testimony related to the report, in an effort to educate the American public.

In addition, Nadler said that, with the threat of a civil contempt citation from the committee hanging over his head, Attorney General William Barr had agreed to release the underlying documents to the report, which had been requested by the House Judiciary Committee back in April.

However, on June 11, word came out that the White House would work with the Department of Justice to decide exactly how much (and what type of) material would be released—leaving the actual evidence that the committee would be permitted to see in question yet again.

Research contact: @politico

House Dems to hold contempt vote against Barr and McGahn on June 11

June 5, 2019

The House will vote next week on a resolution to hold Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt of Congress, Politico reports.

Barr—who misrepresented the findings of the Mueller report to Congress and the U.S. public, according to the investigators—also has failed to comply with a subpoena for a fully unredacted copy of the report and underlying evidence; McGahn balked at a subpoena to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

According to Politico, the resolution, to be introduced on June 11, would clear the way for the House Judiciary Committee to take Barr and McGahn to court to enforce their subpoenas; and would enable Democrats to set in motion their obstruction of justice investigation against President Donald Trump.

“This Administration’s systematic refusal to provide Congress with answers and cooperate with Congressional subpoenas is the biggest cover-up in American history, and Congress has a responsibility to provide oversight on behalf of the American people,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said in a statement.

The vote also will offer broad authority for congressional committees to take legal action against the Trump administration in future subpoena fights, Democratic sources told the news outlet.

The vote—which is supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Hoyer, and other top members of House leadership—will authorize the House to hold the two men in civil contempt. Democrats will forgo an effort to hold them in criminal contempt—which Democratic sources described as an empty gesture because Barr, in particular, would never face charges from his own Justice Department.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on June 1 that he was pressing for a floor vote on contempt for Barr as quickly as possible so that the committee could take Barr to court and attempt to enforce its subpoena.

The move comes as a growing number of House Democrats are calling for Trump’s impeachment—and they may not be satisfied with a slap at his attorney general, Politico said.

Meanwhile, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are threatening to hold Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena seeking information about efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

Research contact: @politico