Democrats in the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of admitting the majority of Washington, D.C., as the Union’s 51st state, and partially renaming the area after abolitionist Frederick Douglass.
“The United States is the only democratic country that denies both voting rights in the national legislature and local autonomy to the residents of the nation’s capital,” Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC’s non-voting member of the House, wrote in prepared remarks ahead of the vote.
“Congress has two choices. It can continue to exercise undemocratic, autocratic authority over the 705,000 American citizens who reside in our nation’s capital, treating them, in the words of Frederick Douglass, as ‘aliens, not citizens, but subjects.’ Or Congress can live up to this nation’s promise and ideals,” she said. 
Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) was the only Democrat to note vote in favor of Norton&#8217;s legislation.
Under Norton’s legislation, two square miles of Washington, D.C., including the White House, Capitol Building, Supreme Court, and several other adjacent federal buildings, would not join the proposed state. The new area, which would be home to about 700,000 residents, would be named Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.
Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD), the Republican congressman from Maryland, has called the DC-statehood idea “pure political bull,” on account that Washington, D.C., could simply go to the government of Maryland and ask them to join, reports <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-statehood-vote/2020/06/25/c2ac1670-b6ee-11ea-a8da-693df3d7674a_story.html">The Washington Post</a>.
During an <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/d-c-mayor-bowser-says-we-re-in-a-historic-march-for-statehood-as-house-gets-set-to-vote-86050373831">MSNBC</a> appearance on Friday, Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser told host Andrea Mitchell that the move toward statehood was part of an “historic march,” and that “becoming the 51st state is the only way the 700,000 tax-paying Americans are fully represented and become full Americans.”
“Our population is already greater than that of two states, we’re bigger than Wyoming and Vermont, and unlike the territories, which we’ve been compared to recently, we pay all of the federal taxes that every American pays in the fifty states,” she said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to bring the legislation to a vote in the upper chamber, according to the Post. President Donald Trump told <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/05/05/trump-says-washington-dc-will-never-be-a-state-because-of-all-the-democrats/">the New York Post</a> last month that Washington, D.C., will never become a state: “Why? So we can have two more Democratic – Democrat senators and five more congressmen? No thank you. That’ll never happen.”
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has indicated that he is fully on-board with making a new state out of the land in the nation’s capital: “D.C. should be a state. Pass it on.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
DC should be a state. Pass it on. <a href="https://t.co/xUJ1sud76f">https://t.co/xUJ1sud76f</a>
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1276285377595281408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2020</a></blockquote>
Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) has accused the House of ignoring more important priorities, such as protecting small businesses from lawsuits, getting Americans back to work, or holding China accountable.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Want to know what Pelosi’s House prioritized today? Washington DC statehood. That was the vote.
-Not protecting small businesses from lawsuits 
-Not getting Americans off unemployment &amp; back to work 
-Not holding China accountable.
Progressive priorities. Not American priorities.
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1276648195016327175?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2020</a></blockquote>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Washington D.C.

House Democrats Vote To Make Washington, D.C., The 51st State

Democratic Party

U.S. House of Representatives

Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) requested on Thursday that the House Clerk remove the portraits of four past speakers who joined the Confederacy of the American Civil War.
“Tomorrow, Americans will mark Juneteenth, a beautiful and proud celebration of freedom for African Americans. Very sadly, this day comes during a moment of extraordinary national anguish, as we grieve for the hundreds of Black Americans killed by racial injustice and police brutality, including George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and so many others,” said Pelosi in a statement.
The list of names includes three congressmen who served in the position before the Civil War: Speaker Robert Hunter, a Whig who joined the Democratic party after his speakership from 1839-1841, Speaker Howell Cobb, a Democrat who left his two-year stint as speaker in 1851 to serve as governor of South Carolina, and Speaker James Orr, a Democrat who served as speaker from 1857-1859.
Pelosi also requested that the portrait of Congressman Charles Crisp, who served as speaker between 1891 and 1895 and continued to serve in Congress as a Democrat until his death in 1896, be removed from display in the Capitol building. Crisp, who was 16-years-old at the outbreak of the Civil War, joined the Confederacy and was <a href="https://bioguideretro.congress.gov/Home/MemberDetails?memIndex=C000908">commissioned</a> as a lieutenant in Company K of the 10th Virginia Infantry.
According to <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/18/nancy-pelosi-removes-paintings-of-confederate-leaders-328476">Politico</a>, Pelosi has said that she didn’t know their portraits were on display in the Capitol until she was informed of them. The three speakers who served in the position before the Civil War all held prominent political positions in the Confederacy.
During the Civil War, Hunter was the Secretary of State for the Confederacy before he became the President Pro Tempore of the Confederate Senate, where he served as a senator from Virginia. Cobb served as the president of the Confederate States Provisional Congress for one year before joining the Confederate Army. Orr served in the Confederate Senate for South Carolina.
“As I have said before, the halls of Congress are the very heart of our democracy,” Pelosi told the House Clerk in a letter on Thursday. “There is no room in the hallowed halls of Congress or in any place of honor for memorializing men who embody the violent bigotry and grotesque racism of the Confederacy.”
“We cannot honor men such as James Orr, who swore on the House Floor to ‘preserve and perpetuate’ slavery in order to ‘enjoy our property in peace, quiet, and security,’ or Robert Hunter, who served at nearly every level of the Confederacy, including in the Confederate Provincial Congress, as Confederate Secretary of State, in the Confederate Senate and in the Confederate Army. The portraits of these men are symbols that set back our nation’s work to confront and combat bigotry,” said Pelosi.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Speaker Pelosi Holds Weekly News Conference

Pelosi Orders Removal Of House Portraits For Four Speakers Who Served In Confederacy

confederate

Nancy Pelosi

Multiple news outlets are reporting that House Republicans plan to file a lawsuit in federal court against Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over a recent pandemic-related rule change that allows a single member of Congress to serve as a proxy vote for up to 10 other members of Congress. 
According to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-republicans-move-to-block-proxy-voting-11590525018">The Wall Street Journal</a>, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) will lead the lawsuit and be joined by nearly two dozen other legislators, including GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). 
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/us/politics/house-lawsuit-proxy-voting-coronavirus.html">reports</a> the lawsuit will argue that the rule change, while temporary, will fundamentally transform the nature of the legislature as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. According to <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2020/05/20/pelosi-activates-45-day-authorization-for-proxy-voting-remote-committee-meetings/">Roll Call</a>, Pelosi can extend the 45-day proxy voting period, or shorten it, based on public health information provided by the Sergeant-at-Arms. 
After publication, McCarthy posted a statement on Twitter acknowledging the lawsuit and blasting Pelosi&#8217;s &#8220;voting scheme&#8221; as empowering 20 representatives &#8220;to control the votes of 220.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I just filed a lawsuit in federal court to overturn Speaker Pelosi’s unconstitutional proxy voting scheme.
It could allow as few as 20 Representatives to control the votes of 220. This is NOT the representative democracy our Founders envisioned or what our Constitution allows.
— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1265422040795951110?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2020</a></blockquote>
Earlier this month, the House voted along party lines to allow Speaker Pelosi to temporarily change the voting rules, with Pelosi noting that &#8220;if some people should stay home because of a health issue — thank you for not sharing. We’d rather you do stay home. And if transportation is difficult in that regard we want their voices to be heard,&#8221; according to <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/21/nancy-pelosi-defends-proxy-voting-rule-change-we-w/">The Washington Times</a>. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mcconnell-blasts-house-dems-for-precedent-breaking-rule-change-never-ending-spring-break">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, three Democrats voted against the bill and no Republicans voted for it — although Congressman Francis Rooney (R-FL), who was absent the day of the vote, later expressed support for the move. 
In the time since Pelosi enacted the rule change, fifty-six members of Congress have <a href="https://clerkpreview.house.gov/ProxyLetter#AllProxies">submitted letters</a> to the clerk’s office designating other members of Congress as their proxies. According to the clerk’s office, “members designated as proxies may only cast votes on behalf of other members once they have received separate exact instruction with respect to each vote.”
During a speech on the Senate floor last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blasted Democrats for “playing games with the Constitution so they can continue their never ending spring break well into July.” 
“Since the early days of this crisis, the self-described ‘People’s House’ has been suspiciously empty of people,” said McConnell. “I understand they’ve convened for legislative session a grand total of two days — two — in the last eight weeks.”
“But there’s a new wrinkle: House Democrats jammed through a precedent-breaking remote voting scheme that will let one member cast ten additional votes,” he continued. “There will be enormous constitutional questions around anything the House does if they fail to demonstrate a real quorum but plow ahead anyhow.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said in a memo that the “new proxy voting system has been developed to afford members greater flexibility to safely record their votes during this national pandemic.”
Article updated with tweet from McCarthy.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

House Democrat Press Conference In Washington, US

Report: House Republicans To File Lawsuit Against Nancy Pelosi For Proxy Voting Plan

House Democrats passed a massive $3 trillion spending bill late on Friday that gives money to illegal aliens while America struggles from the economic fallout caused by the coronavirus pandemic, which originated in China.
Illegal aliens, who do not have social security numbers, “can still file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN),” Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-3t-coronavirus-relief-bill-extends-stimulus-checks-certain-undocumented-immigrants">reported</a>. “These ITIN filers could receive the full $1,200 under the Democrats’ new plan.”
Politico Playbook, which is an insider newsletter, wrote the following about Pelosi’s bill: “It’s not been through a single congressional committee. And it’s caught flak from both moderates and liberals in the caucus. It’s a messaging bill.”
When a bill is referred to as a “messaging bill” that means that it has no chance of passing but it is pushed through so that the party that passed the bill can say that they advocated for something and that the other party shot it down.
The American Action Forum independently <a href="https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/health-policy-provisions-in-the-heroes-act/">analyzed</a> Pelosi&#8217;s bill and concluded:
<blockquote>The HEROES Act constitutes a gargantuan collection of member priorities—both related and unrelated to COVID-19—that where either not included in the previous rounds of pandemic response legislation or were not funded at levels desired by the legislation’s authors. While the House will likely pass HEROES as early as this week, the legislation is dead on arrival in the Senate. Further, because of the staggering breath of policy items included in HEROES, it does not even serve to clearly establish House Democrats’ priorities in any future legislative negotiation with the Senate and White House.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Here&#39;s <a href="https://twitter.com/playbookplus?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@playbookplus</a>&#39;s assessment of Pelosi&#39;s bill.
This is what House Democrats are spending their time and energy on: <a href="https://t.co/8suxZKpCm2">pic.twitter.com/8suxZKpCm2</a>
&mdash; Mark Bednar (@MarkBednar) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkBednar/status/1261264638517313536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Pelosi&#8217;s bill would also push a mass mail-in voting scheme that does not require any form of voter ID.
Even left-wing ProPublica <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/voting-by-mail-would-reduce-coronavirus-transmission-but-it-has-other-risks">concluded</a> on the issue: &#8220;There is bipartisan consensus that mail-in ballots are the form of voting most vulnerable to fraud. A 2005 commission led by President Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III — George W. Bush’s secretary of state — concluded that these ballots ‘remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.’&#8221;
Acting Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli called out what he said amounted to &#8220;amnesty&#8221; for illegal aliens that was included in Pelosi&#8217;s bill.
&#8220;Is it really a good idea to not only grant an amnesty to illegal aliens but to absolve employers who have been breaking the law in the last few months?&#8221; Cuccinelli tweeted. &#8220;I don&#8217;t think so!&#8221;
Cuccinelli explained, &#8220;These pages of the proposed bill create a deferred action program for aliens based on the CISA essential workforce list. Granting both deferred action and employment authorization. The aliens wouldn’t even have to apply for an EAD or deferred action, they get it automatically.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
These pages of the proposed bill create a deferred action program for aliens based on the CISA essential workforce list. Granting both deferred action and employment authorization. The aliens wouldn’t even have to apply for an EAD or deferred action, they get it automatically.
&mdash; Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli (@HomelandKen) <a href="https://twitter.com/HomelandKen/status/1260585490484547587?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 13, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Pelosi&#8217;s bill also includes a massive tax break for the wealthy that will mostly benefit those in Democrat-controlled states.
CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/house-democrats-stimulus-bill-rolls-back-10000-salt-cap-for-2-years.html">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Tucked away in the bill is a measure that will reinstate the so-called SALT itemized deduction for 2020 and 2021.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which went into effect in 2018, limited the amount of state and local tax deductions filers could claim on their tax returns to $10,000.
This write-off includes income taxes paid at the state and local level, so it hit taxpayers in high-tax states the hardest.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The bill gives a tax cut to upper income blue state real estate owners for 2020 and 2021. <a href="https://t.co/8dODlIRFZB">pic.twitter.com/8dODlIRFZB</a>
&mdash; Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1260262113454546944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Speaker Pelosi Announces Members Of House Select Committee On Coronavirus

BREAKING: Democrats Pass $3 Trillion Bill That Would Give Money To Illegal Aliens While America Struggles From Economic Fallout Due To Pandemic

Coronavirus

COVID-19

Illegal Immigration

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) doesn&#8217;t just intend to face off with Republicans on the floor of Congress. Her affiliated super PAC, the House Majority PAC, is looking to launch an all-out assault on President Donald Trump in the fall, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/11/pelosi-super-pac-fall-ad-buys-248431">according to Politico</a>.
House Majority PAC has allocated a whopping $18 million in &#8220;broadcast, cable and radio ads and is spread across 20 markets,&#8221; concentrating its influence in New York and Los Angeles markets, which encompass large swaths of both New York state and California &#8212; two areas where Democrats are running into a surprising amount of trouble, particularly in House races.
“House Majority PAC is committed to ensuring we have the resources we need to protect and expand the Democratic majority across the map, from rural areas to America’s largest cities,” the group&#8217;s executive director told Politico.
&#8220;The largest buys include $3.1 million in the New York City market, where Democrats will need to defend Reps. Antonio Delgado and Max Rose,&#8221; Politico added, &#8220;and $3.25 million in the Los Angeles market, which covers seats held by Democratic Reps. Harley Rouda, Gil Cisneros, and Katie Porter, and the seat vacated by former Rep. Katie Hill that will be filled this week in a hotly contested special election.&#8221;
Overall, the House Majority PAC is expected to spend more than $50 million in the runup to the November elections. And by starting early, Pelosi and the HMP circumvent the risks associated with waiting until former Vice President Joe Biden launches his own campaign.
The spend provides some insight into Pelosi&#8217;s strategy and Democrats&#8217; chances of keeping the House. So far, the Democrats say they&#8217;re aiming to control both the House and Senate, though the latter is a long shot. Whether Pelosi remains Speaker hinges largely on Biden, who will lead the ticket, and whomever he chooses for his own running mate.
Right now, Biden is running ahead in most major polls nationally, but that lead has started to shrink in recent weeks, as Biden has faded from headlines. Last week, Biden&#8217;s national average lead declined from seven points to just three points &#8212; within the margin of error in most major polls &#8212; potentially because of problematic headlines, investigating whether Biden sexually assaulted a former staffer named Tara Reade, who worked in his offices in the mid-1990s.
The concern among Democrats seems to be whether Biden can maintain his lead when the 2020 presidential campaign begins in earnest. At this point, President Donald Trump is dominating the media landscape and Biden, forced to &#8220;social distance&#8221; because of the coronavirus, can only hold livestream events and Zoom fundraisers &#8212; no in-person appearances. That means most of the fluctuation in support happens on Trump&#8217;s end, with Biden reaping the rewards.
When Biden surfaces for the debates, the landscape changes, particularly with debates.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>

Biden Pelosi

Pelosi-Affiliated PAC Goes All In On 2020, Will Spend $18 Million On Anti-Trump Ads

2020 Election

Donald Trump

Joe Biden

Rep. Dan Crenshaw slammed House Democratic leadership for caving to its caucus and delaying the next session of Congress indefinitely amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The House was expected to reconvene on May 4, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/reverse-dems-give-in-house-will-not-return-to-session-next-week">backtracked</a> on Tuesday after members of his caucus expressed concern over the coronavirus outbreak. Democratic members reportedly <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/huddle/2020/04/28/congress-plans-its-capitol-comeback-489056?cid=su_tw_hu">complained</a> to Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that returning to the Capitol may be &#8220;dangerous.&#8221;
&#8220;What blatant lack of leadership. What cowardice. Congress must come out of hiding,&#8221; Crenshaw (R-TX) tweeted on Tuesday. &#8220;We shouldn’t fly in every few weeks to pass massive spending bills. We should be discussing &amp; debating solutions to problems facing our constituents.&#8221;
&#8220;Stop acting scared. Let’s get back to work,&#8221; the 36-year-old former Navy SEAL added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
What blatant lack of leadership. What cowardice. Congress must come out of hiding. 
We shouldn’t fly in every few weeks to pass massive spending bills. We should be discussing &amp; debating solutions to problems facing our constituents. 
Stop acting scared. Let’s get back to work. <a href="https://t.co/coBn3SuaHA">https://t.co/coBn3SuaHA</a>
&mdash; Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1255218283072102405?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 28, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hoyer announced the decision in a press conference, saying that he made the decision after consulting with the House physician.
&#8220;The House doctor, when I talked to him yesterday, was concerned because the numbers in the District of Columbia are going up,&#8221; Hoyer <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2020/04/28/house-not-coming-back-to-washington-next-week-after-all-hoyer-says/?utm_source=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=newsletters&amp;utm_content=04/28/2020">said</a>, according to Roll Call. &#8220;They’re not flat, and they’re not going down.&#8221;
&#8220;We will not come back next week, but we hope to come back very soon to consider the CARES 2 legislation,&#8221; Hoyer added, noting that the legislators needed more time to get the next round of emergency relief in order.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced on Monday that the upper chamber would stick to the May 4 date.
&#8220;Senators will return to Washington D.C. one week from today. We will modify routines in ways that are smart and safe, but we will honor our constitutional duty to the American people and conduct critical business in person,&#8221; McConnell said in a statement. &#8220;If it is essential for doctors, nurses, healthcare workers, truck drivers, grocery-store workers, and many other brave Americans to keep carefully manning their own duty stations, then it is essential for Senators to carefully man ours and support them.&#8221;
Economic damage from the coronavirus crisis and subsequent wide-spread lockdowns continues to build. Last week, the Labor Department announced that 4.4 million new unemployment claims had been filed, bringing the total number of claims since the start of the outbreak to roughly 26 million. Although the CARES 2 legislation is not finalized, lawmakers have hinted at what may be included in the eventual bill.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/reverse-dems-give-in-house-will-not-return-to-session-next-week">The Daily Wire</a> reported:
<blockquote>Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already signaled that there will be a partisan battle over the bill, which is expected to cst $1.1 trillion, and may include bailouts of state and local governments. McConnell has said he does not want to burden taxpayers with more debt if it could further imperil the shaky American economy, and the Senate Majority Leader has been adamant that he will not allow Republicans to support a bill that bails out state like Illinois, whose massive debt long predates the coronavirus lockdowns.</blockquote>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Dan Crenshaw

Dan Crenshaw Rips Democrats’ ‘Cowardice,’ Says Congress ‘Must Come Out Of Hiding’

U.S. Senate

The House of Representatives has passed a coronavirus <a href="https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20200309/BILLS-116hr6201-SUS.pdf">funding bill</a> that will provide federal relief to areas across the nation as families are expected to undergo increasing economic strain.
According to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-bill-whats-in-it/">CBS News</a>, the bill includes funding for food security programs and a guaranteed 2-weeks of paid sick leave to employees at companies with fewer than 500 people. It also provides for increased funding for unemployment insurance and Medicaid, in addition to an emergency expansion to existing food service programs.
The bill, which was negotiated between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, also ensures that both public and private medical care providers accommodate for free coronavirus testing.
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/14/us/politics/coronavirus-house-vote.html">The New York Times</a>, 363 members of the House voted in favor of the bill, while 40 members – all Republicans – opposed the bill.
After the bill was passed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) <a href="https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-update-on-combating-the-coronavirus">lauded</a> the quick progress Mnuchin and Pelosi made on the deal, but encouraged Republican Senators to examine the 110-page bill carefully.
“The rough draft that Speaker Pelosi published Wednesday night fell far short of what American families and small businesses deserve,” said McConnell. “I want to commend Secretary Mnuchin for his hard work over the past two days to improve it.”
“Of course, Senators will need to carefully review the version just passed by the House. But I believe the vast majority of Senators in both parties will agree we should act swiftly to secure relief for American workers, families, and small businesses,” said the senator.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Senate minority leader, has also endorsed the bill, but in a <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1238631299193147399/photo/1">statement</a> publicly argued that Republicans didn’t go far enough with the legislation.
“Make no mistake: This legislation is very necessary but not sufficient,” said Schumer in a statement.
“There are still desperately needed steps that the Trump administration must take to ensure there is enough testing and treatment for everyone who needs it, as well as other broader economic measures that Senate Democrats outlined earlier this week to help states and local communities deal with the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak,” said Schumer.
According to The <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/14/ron-johnson-gop-senator-signals-opposition-coronav/">Washington Times</a>, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has already declared he will oppose the bill, in part, because of the language on the paid sick-leave requirement.
“Although mandating that all employers must pay for sick leave might sound good, we need to consider the unintended consequences of this legislation. I fear that rather than offering a workable solution, the House bill will exacerbate the problem by forcing small businesses to pay wages they cannot afford and ‘helping’ them go further into debt,” said Johnson, reports the news agency.
President Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1238626531510976512">encouraged</a> Republicans on Friday evening to support the measure, emphasizing “that in no way will small business be hurt.”
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/us/politics/congress-coronavirus-bill.html">The New York Times</a>, the department of labor will have the authority to exempt sick-leave requirements for companies with fewer than 50 people that can demonstrate that the measure “would jeopardize the viability of the business as a growing concern.”

Speaker Pelosi Addresses The Media In Weekly Briefing

House Passes Coronavirus Bill With Bipartisan Support

With all the hype over the Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders face-off during Tuesday night’s Democratic primaries, a dirty little secret for the Democrats was revealed in California, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn’t going to like it: nine seats currently held by Democrats in California look vulnerable enough that the GOP might grab them.
As J.D. Rucker notes at <a href="https://noqreport.com/2020/03/04/9-seat-flip-results-of-congressional-races-in-california-are-terrifying-for-democrats/">NOQ Report</a>:
<blockquote>Keep two things in mind. First, these aren’t nine seats that are deemed “in play” through some election miracle. These are nine seats currently held by Democrats where Republicans have the upper hand based on analysis of Tuesday’s primary votes. Second—and this is very important to understand—with only one statewide ballot measure, the main draw was the Democratic presidential primary in which Republicans may not vote. That means that even without the draw of a presidential primary choice, nine seats showed Republicans either within striking distance or outright beating Democrats.</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-GOP-makes-strong-bid-to-flip-back-15106053.php">The San Francisco Chronicle</a> reported, &#8220;Republicans took a strong first step in the primary election toward grabbing back at least some of the seven California congressional districts that Democrats flipped in 2018. With millions of late-arriving mail ballots still uncounted from Tuesday’s election, Republicans have so far combined for a majority of the votes in six of those seven districts. GOP candidates have solid leads in two of them.&#8221;
The Chronicle noted, &#8220;In Orange County, GOP candidates were winning a majority of the votes in three of the four targeted districts.&#8221; Fred Whitaker, chairman of the Orange County GOP, stated, “On Tuesday night, the waters of the blue wave began to recede &#8230; and Republicans showed that we will take back Orange County. The pathway to restoring the House of Representatives is through Orange County.”
Here was the data at the time of Rucker’s post on Wednesday:
District 7: Although incumbent Ami Berra garnered 44.5% of the total votes cast, and his Democratic challenger Jeff Burdick gained 6.6%, their total was not significantly ahead of the total of GOP candidates Buzz Patterson (38.9%) and Jon Ivy (7.8%), and that was with a heavy turnout for the Democratic presidential primary. Rucker noted of Patterson, a former carrier of the “nuclear football” for President Clinton and former Air Force Lt. Colonel, “If he can get some wind on his back, he has a strong chance of flipping the seat and beating the incumbent.”
District 10: With 58% of precincts reporting, Dem Josh Harder had 38.9% of the vote; GOP candidate Ted Howze had 38.2%. GOP candidates had a total of 56.3% of the vote.
District 16:Jim Costa (Dem) 37.5%; the GOP’s Kevin Cookingham 38.5%. Rucker noted, “Costa is clearly in trouble with his own base; this is the first time he’s faced other Democrats for his 16th district seat. It’s also the only time he’s come in second in the primary.”
District 21: David Valadao (GOP) 54.1%; Dems total; 43.1%.
District 24: Salud Carbajal (Dem) 51.8%; Andy Caldwell (GOP) 44.5%. Rucker pointed out, “The last two elections, Democrat Salud Carbajal has easily won CA-24, defeating his opponent by over 17-points in 2018.”
District 25: This is ex-Congresswoman Democrat Katie Hill’s district; the Democrat, Christy Smith, won 30.25% while the two GOP candidates, Mike Garcia and Steve Knight, won 27.4% and 20.4% respectively. (55% of precincts reporting)
District 39: In a rematch of the 2018 election, GOP candidate Young Kim won 52.4% of the cote, incumbent Gil Cisneros won 42.6%
District 45: Democratic incumbent Katie Porter got 48.1% of the vote; GOP candidates got the rest, 51.9%
District 48: Rucker noted that the incumbent, Harley Rouda, got roughly 10% less than the GOP candidates’ total.
District 50: The Democratic candidate, Ammar Campa-Najjar, got 34.4%; the three GOP candidates totaled almost 60%.

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Holds News Conference Day After Midterm Elections

CA Primary Reveals Bad News For Pelosi. GOP Could Win House Back.

At long last, the most brazenly partisan presidential impeachment in over a century and a half has come to an end. President Trump was formally acquitted on Wednesday by the U.S. Senate on each of the U.S. House’s adopted articles of impeachment: “Abuse of power” and “<a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">obstruction of Congress</a>.” The president was acquitted on the “abuse of power” article by a count of 52–48, and he was acquitted on the “obstruction of Congress” article by a count of 53–47. That lone vote discrepancy, of course, is due to the fact maverick Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), the Republican Party’s presidential standard-bearer a mere eight years ago, voted to convict on the first article and acquit on the second article.
Romney thus becomes the first senator in the history of the United States to vote to convict an impeached president from his/her own political party. His Senate floor speech explaining his vote made it seem like it was a decision he deeply wrestled with, but the reality is that his vote had — and will have — serious consequences.
First, Romney’s conviction vote — from a senator representing a deep-red state like Utah, no less — will place many moderate Republican senators facing potentially difficult re-election bids later this year (perhaps especially Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Thom Tillis (R-NC)) in a very difficult spot when they are grilled by adversaries as to why they did not join the former Republican presidential nominee in voting to convict Trump. Second, Romney providing nominal Republican cover to vote to convict Trump likely caused at least one — and perhaps more than one — of more moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Doug Jones (D-AL), and Kyrsten Sinema to flip their respective votes from acquittal to conviction. Third, because of the second point, Romney thus likely single-handedly transformed a bipartisan acquittal of the president into a bipartisan conviction of the president.
Nonetheless, this impeachment is officially in the books. The outcome was foreordained, of course, from day one, and all signs still point toward the Democrats having overplayed their hand and the electoral politics redounding to Republicans’ interests in November.
From a historical perspective, The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky has a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-history-hans-von-spakovsky">good piece</a> on the eerie similarities between this impeachment and the post-Civil War impeachment of President Andrew Johnson on similarly frivolous grounds. I offered my own final commentary on the serious harm wrought by this lamentable saga in <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/this-whole-pathetic-impeachment-effort-was-worse-than-a-waste-of-time/">last weekend’s New York Post</a>: “[T]o call it a mere waste of time is likely far too charitable. The Democrats took stock of the decrepit state of our national politics, the bitterly fractious nature of our partisan tribalism, the pathetic regard the American people have for their Congress and took a sledgehammer to it all. The most immediate tangible result of this failed gambit will be to only further coarsen and debase our politics. … Most damaging of all, the Democrats’ pursuit of the draconian remedy of impeachment based on their claims of Trump’s corrupt subjective intentions on a diplomatic phone call has set a truly reckless precedent for the future. … For Democrats to argue that Trump’s purportedly corrupt motive somehow transmogrifies … constitutionally protected conduct into an impeachable offense is nothing short of astonishing.”
History will not judge the Democrats kindly for this stunt. But it’s now time to move on.
&nbsp;
This piece will be frequently updated.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-mitt-romney-is-no-shining-example-of-political-principle">Mitt Romney Is No Shining Example Of Political Principle</a>
RELATED: <a href="http://lp.dailywire.com/getelectionwire/">Sign up here for Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer&#8217;s weekly newsletter on election news, polling data, and analysis: &#8220;Election Wire&#8221;</a>

Chief Justice John Roberts

Impeachment Wire: The Latest On The Effort To Impeach President Trump

Impeachment

On Tuesday, House Democrats launched a new demand for the Senate&#8217;s nascent impeachment trial of President Donald Trump: White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who is helping to lead the president&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trumps-impeachment-team-adds-more-big-names-two-from-bill-clinton-report">prolific legal defense team</a>, must either disclose any pertinent information he has about Democrats&#8217; substantive impeachment claims or otherwise be dismissed as a Trump defense lawyer at trial.
&#8220;President Donald Trump&#8217;s lead impeachment lawyer, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, was a central witness to many of the facts of the case against Trump, House Democrats argued Tuesday, demanding that the Cipollone disclose any firsthand knowledge and warning that his role &#8216;threatens to undermine the integrity of the pending trial,'&#8221; Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/pat-cipollone-trump-ukraine-scandal-101355">reported</a>.
&#8220;You may be a material witness to the charges against President Trump, even though you are also his advocate,&#8221; House Democrats&#8217; impeachment managers wrote in a letter to Cipollone, the outlet noted. &#8220;[A]t a minimum, you must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with the evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President&#8217;s legal advocate so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues, conflicts, or biases,&#8221; the impeachment managers continued.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has been a consistent defender of the president&#8217;s throughout the entirety of Democrats&#8217; partisan impeachment push, is having none of it. The junior senator from Texas, a formerly prolific constitutional attorney who clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, blasted the Democratic demand in no uncertain terms. Cruz called the demand an &#8220;absurd request&#8221; on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10157741123607464">Facebook</a>:
<blockquote>Democrats’ opening salvo in impeachment: they demand Trump get rid of his lawyer, Pat Cipollone.
Absurd request.
Unlike the House, the Senate will have a FAIR trial. That means we won’t deny the President his lawyer ON THE DAY the trial starts.
The Sixth Amendment provides the accused the right &#8220;to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.&#8221; Note that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the prosecution; it protects only the accused. Under the standard put forth by the House Democrats today – that any potential fact witness cannot serve as counsel in the impeachment hearing – there is an obvious person who should be disqualified: Adam Schiff.
Schiff, it has been alleged, spoke directly with the so-called &#8220;whistle-blower&#8221; and may even have helped him draft the complaint that launched this entire impeachment.
So, maybe we should disqualify Schiff as a lawyer, and schedule him instead as a witness to explain his role in creating the &#8220;evidence&#8221; in this proceeding?</blockquote>
The Constitution affords no role for the impeachment trial prosecution to impose procedural demands upon the Senate itself. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 2, Clause 5</a>  says that the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 3, Clause 6</a> says that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” The <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">obvious textual implication</a> is that House members and Senate members, respectively, possess plenary authority to establish their own internal procedures for conducting the impeachment process.

Ted Cruz being interviewed

Ted Cruz Blasts Democrats’ Opening Impeachment Demand

Adam Schiff

Constitution

Ted Cruz

Tomorrow will commence the third presidential impeachment trial in the history of the United States Senate. And on the eve of such a rare and solemn institutional undertaking, it is still not entirely clear what exactly President Donald Trump has done to deserve such a fate.
At the outset of this saga, House Democrats spent weeks promoting an oh-so nefarious &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; that transpired during Trump&#8217;s now-infamous July 25 phone call last summer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. It turns out that abstruse Latinate didn&#8217;t poll-test well — and never mind that such a &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; when cabined to a public official&#8217;s lawful exercise of his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-trumps-alleged-impoundment-of-ukraine-money-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-offense">constitutional authority</a>, amounts to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-there-is-one-terrific-impeachment-defense-that-the-white-house-is-not-making">constitutionally protected free speech</a>. Democrats next engaged in the hilariously public floating of bribery — which is actually enumerated as a presidential impeachment criterion in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">Article II, Section 4</a> of the Constitution — before deciding that they simply lacked the grist to advance such a claim. Democrats ultimately settled on the mealy-mouthed, amorphous gibberish of &#8220;abuse of power&#8221; and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">utterly nonsensical</a>, constitutionally illiterate &#8220;obstruction of Congress&#8221; as their charges of choice.
As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro and I have each <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-todays-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-is-yet-another-waste-of-time">observed</a> countless times since Democrats first glommed onto the Ukraine phone call as possible grounds for impeachment, it is true that actually committing a black-letter crime is not a constitutional requirement to impeach a sitting president. &#8220;High crimes and misdemeanors,&#8221; the catch-all presidential impeachment criterion enumerated in the Constitution after treason and bribery, was a well-known term of art in the English common law. Alexander Hamilton <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">explained</a> in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">The Federalist No. 65</a> that it encompasses &#8220;offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.&#8221;
True, the Hamiltonian language presents a necessarily political and malleable standard. But it is also true that the Constitution&#8217;s Framers did not view everything as a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-stop-calling-everything-impeachable-offense-josh-hammer">potentially impeachable offense</a>. To wit, the Framers <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/">expressly deliberated</a> whether to make the far lesser &#8220;maladministration&#8221; an impeachment criterion before rejecting it out of fear that it could lead to highly partisan impeachment proceedings motivated by either a mere policy disagreement or the raw pursuit of political power. Hamilton certainly understood that, writing in the same Federalist that impeachment would &#8220;seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.&#8221;
Accordingly, even though the actual violation of a law is not constitutionally required, Democrats&#8217; current partisan gambit represents the first time in the history of the republic that an impeachment has nonetheless been attempted without the undergirding of a legally violative act. President Andrew Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act — an unambiguously unconstitutional statute, but technically a statutory violation nonetheless. President Bill Clinton, investigated for years by former independent counsel Ken Starr, committed perjury. President Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace before a formal House vote on impeachment, was knee-deep in the Watergate scandal.
What exactly has President Trump done? He acted in a ham-fisted and sloppy manner on a phone call with a foreign leader when it came to the conducting of his foreign policy — an action squarely within his well-established <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-trumps-alleged-impoundment-of-ukraine-money-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-offense">constitutional bailiwick</a>. True, he should not have mentioned Joe Biden by name. But ultimately, Trump tried to attach <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">corruption-related strings</a>, however clumsily, to the doling out of one of the most consistently <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/03/11/foreign-aid">politically unpopular</a> items in annual federal budgets: Foreign aid.
The conduct upon which Democrats are now attempting to impeach the president is orders of magnitude less destructive than the conduct upon which the Framers would have considered impeachment justified. It reeks of the sort of petty politics and jostling for power that led the Framers to conscientiously reject the far lesser &#8220;maladministration&#8221; as a possible grounds for impeachment. What&#8217;s worse, House Democrats rushed their process due to political timing and, in their rush, have <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-09/opinion-trump-impeachment-hearings-democrats">fundamentally failed to make their case</a> to the American people. They have <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2020/01/20/democrats-have-failed-at-impeachment-trump-will-remain-president/">failed at impeachment</a>, and they have no one to blame but themselves. And in their recklessness, Democrats have also set a deeply pernicious precedent for the future of the Constitution&#8217;s carefully calibrated separation of powers framework.
Alas, let the trial commence.

House Speaker Pelosi And Senator Schumer Hold News Conference On DACA Case

HAMMER: What Exactly Are They Impeaching Him For, Again?

Charles Schumer

Federalist

Jerry Nadler

George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who served last month as one of three House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-todays-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-is-yet-another-waste-of-time">legal academic witnesses</a> on the topic of the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s specified criteria for impeachment, has been very outspoken since his testimony. Shortly after testifying, Turley took to the Los Angeles Times to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-09/opinion-trump-impeachment-hearings-democrats">pen an over-arching message</a> to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Democrats: You have rushed this process and have not sufficiently convinced the American public. &#8220;The problem is that this is the thinnest record of any modern impeachment as well as arguably the shortest impeachment investigation in history,&#8221; he wrote in the Times.
Later last month, as The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-law-prof-turley-not-a-sin-to-testify-for-republicans">reported</a>, Turley — who, despite being House Republicans&#8217; lone witness at the aforementioned House Judiciary Committee hearing last month, is hardly a Republican partisan and is best described as an old-school liberal civil libertarian — took to The Hill to defend his decision to testify as a Republican-called witness. “Journalist Henry Louis Mencken once observed, ‘Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them,&#8217;” Turley <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/476088-testifying-for-republicans-should-not-be-a-sin-for-academics">wrote</a>. “Despite unending respect for Mencken, this is an occasion in which I found him mistaken, after I violated the Eleventh Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not testify for Republicans.&#8217;”
Now, as Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/jonathan-turley-pelosi-blunder-impeachment">reports</a>, Turley has written a blog post that is simply scathing of Pelosi&#8217;s decision to delay the formal transmission of impeachment articles from the House of Representatives to the Senate in a (failed) attempt to extract procedural concessions from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as to the conduct of a prospective impeachment trial.
&#8220;From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical,&#8221; Turley <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/14/pelosis-blunder-how-the-house-destroyed-its-own-case-for-impeachment/">wrote</a> yesterday in a column entitled, &#8220;Pelosi&#8217;s Blunder: How the House Destroyed its Own Case for Impeachment.&#8221;
&#8220;There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.&#8221;
&#8220;The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles,&#8221; Turley later added.
At the time that Pelosi announced her withholding of the formal transmission of impeachment articles, I pointed out Democrats&#8217; hypocrisy in a <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">New York Post op-ed</a>:
<blockquote>
Thorny legal issues aside, ­Pelosi’s gambit lays bare the brazen hypocrisy of the sanctimonious “norm”-worshippers. Most of Trump’s purportedly grievous sins pale in comparison to the destructive and ­destabilizing nature of Pelosi’s transmission delay — not to mention the unfair and underhanded nature of the proceedings in her own chamber.
The president may not have an explicit constitutional right to a Senate trial. But if Democrats really cared about rule of law and good order, they would have allowed the Framers’ process to unfold as it was supposed to do. Their delay tactics merely expose the frivolity of their Trump-induced mass hysteria.
</blockquote>

Jonathan Turley testifying at House Judiciary Committee

Law Prof Turley: Pelosi ‘Destroyed’ Democrats’ Case For Impeachment

Last night, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney by training, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRvUG6NTn78&amp;feature=youtu.be">joined</a> “Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler” on One America News Network to discuss the latest twists and turns in Democrats&#8217; ongoing partisan impeachment saga, as well as to recap the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">deeply flawed nature</a> of House Democrats&#8217; two finalized articles of impeachment.
&#8220;House Democrats emerged from a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning to finally announce the much-delayed vote on sending their articles of impeachment against President Trump — passed nearly a month ago without a single Republican vote — to the Senate,&#8221; The Daily Wire&#8217;s James Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/defeated-democrats-announce-vote-on-sending-impeachment-articles-but-not-wholl-be-running-the-show">reported</a> earlier today. &#8220;The big vote will take place Wednesday, though one particularly important detail has yet to be determined: who exactly from the House is going to be presenting the Democrats’ case against the duly elected president during the Senate trial,&#8221; Barrett continued.
In a <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">New York Post op-ed</a> last month, Hammer explained why House Democrats&#8217; second article of impeachment, &#8220;obstruction of Congress,&#8221; is &#8220;an utterly ridiculous impeachment charge&#8221;:
<blockquote>
Our tripartite separation-of-powers edifice was hardly devised for the purpose of ensuring amiability between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. On the contrary, the Framers envisioned a national government in which the three branches existed in a state of continuous, unyielding tension with one another.
In particular, the two political branches — Congress and the executive branch — were meant to be jealous guardians of their own ambits and spheres of influence. Ceaseless tussling between them was to be the norm. “Ambition,” James Madison told us in Federalist 51, “must be made to counteract ambition.” &#8230;
That is how our separation of powers is supposed to function — in a state far closer to animosity than to geniality. Which is precisely why House Democrats alleging “obstruction of Congress” as an article of impeachment makes no sense.
</blockquote>
Wheeler began the segment last night by asking about that deeply problematic second article of impeachment. Wheeler noted that the Democrats accused the president of &#8220;obstructi[ng]&#8221; Congress without even waiting for the judiciary to weigh in with respect to congressional subpoenas issued for Trump administration officials. Hammer agreed and also reiterated, in similar fashion to the Post op-ed, that the article of impeachment is also non-sensical from the broader perspective of structural constitutionalism:
<blockquote>[T]his impeachment charge is so risible. &#8230; The entire separation of powers construct is built around tension. The three branches of government — the legislative branch, the executive branch, the judicial branch — are not &#8230; intended to exist in some state of harmony. &#8230; No, that&#8217;s not what the Framers envisioned.
James Madison, in The Federalist No. 51, maybe the most famous Federalist Paper of them all, clearly says &#8220;ambition must be made to counteract ambition.&#8221; They&#8217;re supposed to be zealous guardians of their own idiosyncratic spheres of influence. They&#8217;re supposed to butt heads. They&#8217;re supposed to use all the various tools at their disposal to push back and try to encroach upon each other&#8217;s spheres. They&#8217;re [each] supposed to want to be the most dominant branch. Each one is supposed to not get along with the others. &#8230;</blockquote>
Wheeler agreed, noting that the second impeachment charge is therefore &#8220;both practically and philosophically ridiculous.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Impeachment Proceedings to Begin in the Senate" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yRvUG6NTn78?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hammer OANN screen grab 1.13.20

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: A Senate Impeachment Trial Looms

Mitch McConnell

Political observers in the year 2020 know that, for the Democratic Party and the broader political Left alike, intersectionality often reigns supreme. For those still wondering what exactly &#8220;intersectionality&#8221; is, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro has produced a helpful explanatory video on the topic:
<iframe title="What Is Intersectionality?" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rc7VUoytoU4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;Intersectionality is a form of identity politics in which the value of your opinion depends on how many victim groups you belong to,&#8221; Shapiro <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-shapiro-what-intersectionality-jacob-airey">explained</a>. &#8220;At the bottom of the totem pole is the person everybody loves to hate: The straight, white male. And who’s at the top? Well, it’s very hard to say, because new groups claim victim status all the time. No one can keep track.&#8221;
Alas, it should come as no surprise that contemporary Democrats would rally around what is perhaps one of the most readily identifiable sub-identity groups boasting immense &#8220;intersectional&#8221; street credibility: The transgender illegal alien.
&#8220;House Democrats plan to call on a key immigration agency to release all transgender people who are currently being detained, arguing that the U.S. has failed to follow guidelines to protect individuals who face more perilous conditions in detention than other migrants,&#8221; The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/477954-lawmakers-to-call-on-ice-to-release-all-transgender-detainees">reported</a> yesterday.
The outlet then reported on the precise contents of the early copy of the letter it obtained. The letter will be sent to Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Matthew Albence. Per <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/477954-lawmakers-to-call-on-ice-to-release-all-transgender-detainees">The Hill</a>, the letter reads, in relevant part:
<blockquote>We write to demand the release of all transgender people currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Transgender migrants and asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment, solitary confinement, physical assault, and medical neglect. These inhumane conditions and systematic abuses are evidenced in countless reports and accounts by formally detained people.</blockquote>
According to the outlet, the letter cites research from left-wing organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, Amnesty International, and the Center for American Progress in order to argue that &#8220;due to their gender identity, transgender migrants are more likely to face &#8216;the pervasive use of solitary confinement&#8217; and that they are &#8217;97 times more likely to be sexually victimized&#8217; compared to &#8216;their cis-gender and straight counterparts in detention.'&#8221;
The effort is being led by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), who TheBlaze <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/house-democrats-want-ice-to-release-all-transgender-detainees">notes</a> is of the belief that ICE is actually required to release all transgender detainees. In order to advance that claim, the letter cites a 2015 ICE memo and the Department of Homeland Security&#8217;s 2020 appropriations bill.
&#8220;Quigley&#8217;s office is working to get lawmakers&#8217; signatures on the letter and expects to send it to acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf and ICE Director Matt Albence later this week,&#8221; the Washington Examiner <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-democrats-to-ask-ice-to-release-all-transgender-immigrants-in-custody">reports</a>.
The year 2019 was a busy year for ICE, especially over the first six months. Record numbers of illegal aliens seemed to flood over America&#8217;s porous southern border on a seemingly monthly basis, although the tide has stemmed over the <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/month-decline-unauthorized-border-crossings-nearing-million/story?id=66134521">past few months</a>. As the 2020 election heats up, President Donald Trump is continuing to emphasize border security and immigration enforcement as key political priorities.

ICE logo

Jailbreak: House Democrats Call To Release All Transgender ICE Detainees

Immigrants

Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Intersectionality

Leftism

LGBT

Progressivism

Sexuality

House Democrats emerged from a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning to finally announce the much-delayed vote on sending their articles of impeachment against President Trump — passed nearly a month ago without a single Republican vote — to the Senate. The announcement, which comes amid mounting pressure from both sides of the aisle, signals, as <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/house-vote-wednesday-to-transmit-trump-impeachment-articles-to-senate.html">CNBC</a> puts it, a &#8220;political defeat&#8221; for the Nancy Pelosi-led Democrats.
The big vote will take place Wednesday, though one particularly important detail has yet to be determined: who exactly from the House is going to be presenting the Democrats&#8217; case against the duly elected president during the Senate trial.
At a press conference held after the Democrats&#8217; meeting Tuesday morning, House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (NY) gave reporters the big news. “[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] indicated that the articles of impeachment &#8230; will be transmitted to the Senate at some point tomorrow,” said Jeffries, as reported by CNBC.
<div class="BoxInline-container ">
<div id="BoxInline-ArticleBody-5" class="BoxInline-container" data-module="mps-slot">
&#8220;Wednesday’s House resolution is expected to have three functions: To transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, name the House members who will serve as managers of the impeachment trial, and fund the trial itself,&#8221; CNBC explains.
&#8220;Absent a last minute change of heart by McConnell, Wednesday’s delivery of the articles by the House to the Senate will represent a political defeat for Pelosi, the de facto architect of the impeachment process so far,&#8221; the outlet notes.
As for those managers, who will &#8220;effectively act as prosecutors in the president’s trial,&#8221; their identities are not yet been revealed, but Jeffries said Pelosi will be providing them before the vote.
Among those expected to be the House Democrats&#8217; &#8220;prosecutors&#8221; are two obvious choices: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who led the House&#8217;s widely criticized impeachment inquiry, and House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who oversaw the crafting of the Democrats&#8217; two articles of impeachment against Trump.
The announcement comes as support for impeachment has <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/">flatlined</a>, with some polls showing a decline in support, and as key Democrats began to turn on Pelosi, publicly criticizing her &#8220;delay&#8221; gambit. Among the critics of the move is high-ranking Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA), who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-dianne-feinstein-tells-pelosi-to-send-over-impeachment-articles-i-dont-see-what-good-delay-does">said</a> last week, “If we’re going to do it, she should send them over. I don’t see what good delay does.”
While the Democrats dragged their heels on sending over the articles, they did accomplish one official act last week: As Trump announced that Iran was &#8220;standing down&#8221; after its attack on two Iraqi bases that resulted in no U.S. or Iraqi casualties and minimal damage, Pelosi led the charge to vote on a War Powers Resolution limiting the president&#8217;s ability to respond to Iranian aggression in the region.
Trump, meanwhile, has been using the Democrats&#8217; focus on trying to censure him against them, repeatedly hammering them online in front of cameras. “The Democrats and the Fake News are trying to make terrorist Soleimani into a wonderful guy, only because I did what should have been done for 20 years,” Trump tweeted Monday morning. “Anything I do, whether it’s the economy, military, or anything else, will be scorned by the [Radical] Left, Do Nothing Democrats!”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-pelosi-asked-would-it-be-a-good-thing-if-iranian-protesters-brought-down-regime-after-showdown-with-trump-gets-ripped-for-response">WATCH: Pelosi Asked ‘Would It Be A Good Thing’ If Iranian Protesters Brought Down Regime After Showdown With Trump; Gets Ripped For Response</a>
This article has been expanded to include more context.
</div>
</div>

‘Defeated’ Democrats Announce Vote On Sending Impeachment Articles, But Not Who’ll Be Running The Show

On Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) threw down the gauntlet to Democrats, as he announced he would introduce a resolution supporting the protestors in Iran who are fighting against the theocratic, despotic Islamic regime. The resolution states that it condemns the actions of the government of Iran and supports the protestors’ desire for the government of Iran to respect freedom and human rights. McCarthy thus put Democrats in the position of either supporting the protestors or refusing to do so and thus tacitly supporting the Iranian regime.
The resolution lists various actions the Iranian government has committed, including November 2019, when “Iranian security forces killed approximately 1,500 demonstrators when they rose up across the country in protest”; January 8, 2020, when “the Government of Iran shot down Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752, lied about its responsibility, and then admitted to mistakenly shooting the airliner down, killing all 176 people on board,” and  January 11, 2020, when the “government of Iran arrested the British Ambassador to Iran, in violation of the Vienna Convention.”
The resolution then segues to the protestors, noting on January 11 they “gathered across Iran to denounce what they called lying and incompetence by the country’s leadership”; that at Amirkabir University of technology in Iran, “protestors tore down posters of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani”; that on January 13 “video from inside Iran showed protestors chanting slogans including ‘Clerics get lost,’” and that “video appears to show Iranian security forces firing live ammunition at protestors and a woman being carried away leaving a trail of blood on the ground as people shout that she has been shot.”
The resolution notes President Trump’s support for the protestors before it again condemns the Iranian regime.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The people of the United States support freedom and democracy, and we will always stand beside those who seek it.
Here is the full text of my resolution supporting the protestors in Iran. I expect the full House to vote on it this week. <a href="https://t.co/nFk25Gjj4P">pic.twitter.com/nFk25Gjj4P</a>
&mdash; Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1216908744073891841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Last week McCarthy bluntly criticized the Democrats for their lack of support for the Trump administration as it battles the despotic Iranian regime, tweeting, “Think of the contrast. ↴While Democrats are trying to remove President Trump from office, the President is focused on removing terrorists from the face of the earth.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Think of the contrast. ↴ While Democrats are trying to remove President Trump from office, the President is focused on removing terrorists from the face of the earth.
&mdash; Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1213834480387014656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This week McCarthy doubled down, saying, “Any time I hear a Democrat talk about him (Soleimani) and say he was ‘bad,’ but then use the word ‘but,’ yes, I question it. There is no ‘but’ when it comes to Soleimani; he was bad ‘because,’ not ‘but.’ He was bad because he killed more than 600 American soldiers; he was bad because of the attacks and the American citizens he killed; he was bad because he went after our embassy. He was bad because he was planning to kill more Americans. So, no: I never use the word ‘but’ when I refer to him, and I don’t think any other America should either, and if they do, I’ll question them on it as well.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Any time a Democrat says &quot;Soleimani was bad, BUT&#8230;&quot; they need to be called out.
Soleimani was bad BECAUSE he was a terrorist who targeted and murdered hundreds of Americans. <a href="https://t.co/q6mnDo65aG">pic.twitter.com/q6mnDo65aG</a>
&mdash; Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1216367426843152384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
McCarthy’s reference to Democrats using “but” when describing Soleimani has resonance; last week, Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UHrvp-UeyU">said</a>, “We have some questions to ask of our own president. Look, there is no question that Soleimani had American blood on his hands, that he was a bad actor in the region, but if there is anything that we have learned in the last twenty years in the Middle East, it’s that taking out a bad guy is not necessarily a good idea.”
Fellow presidential contender Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1212951889060470788?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1212951889060470788&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fthe-left-criticized-elizabeth-warren-for-calling-soleimani">tweeted</a>, “Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.&#8221;
Then, of course, there’s Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whose legendary history of cozying up to dictators apparently precluded him from even mentioning Soleimani’s brutal history, as Sanders only <a href="https://twitter.com/CaraKorte/status/1212961215707844608/photo/1">condemned</a> Trump’s “dangerous escalation.”

Health And Human Service Department Announces New Division On Conscience And Religious Freedom

Kevin McCarthy Backs House Dems Into Corner, Will Introduce Resolution Supporting Iranian Protestors

Iran

Kevin McCarthy

On Thursday, vocal Trump supporter Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) joined Democrats in voting for the Democrat-sponsored War Powers Resolution, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-the-war-powers-resolution-is-and-always-has-been-unconstitutional">seeks to limit</a> President Donald Trump&#8217;s authority to take prolonged military action against Iran without congressional approval.
As noted by <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-house-send-clear-war-powers-statement-trump-thursday-n1113006">NBC News</a>, the resolution &#8220;directs the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities against Iran unless Congress has declared war or enacted a specific authorization or unless military action is necessary to defend against an imminent attack.&#8221;
The president and many Republicans have voiced their opposition to the measure.
&#8220;The president has the right and duty to protect this nation and our citizens from terrorism. That&#8217;s what he continues to do, and the world is safer for it,&#8221; a statement read from White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley. &#8220;This House resolution tries to undermine the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevent terrorist activity by Iran and its proxies, and attempts to hinder the president&#8217;s authority to protect America and our interests in the region from the continued threats.&#8221;
Speaking on the House floor, Gaetz explained his support for the resolution.
&#8220;This resolution offers no criticism of the president — no critique. It doesn&#8217;t criticize the president&#8217;s attack on Soleimani. Matter of fact, this resolution doesn&#8217;t even say Soleimani&#8217;s name it,&#8221; the Republican said, according to <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/watch-gop-rep-matt-gaetz-explains-why-he-voted-for-war-powers-resolution?utm_content=buffereeb13&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_campaign=tw-theblaze">TheBlaze</a>.
&#8220;I represent more troops than any other member of this body. I buried one of them earlier today at Arlington,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;If our servicemembers have the courage to fight and die in these wars, Congress ought to have the courage to vote for or against them.&#8221;
During a Fox News appearance on Thursday, Gaetz said the resolution &#8220;did say that if any president wants to drag our nation into another forever Middle East war, that they require the approval of the United States Congress. That&#8217;s something that I deeply believe, and I think it&#8217;s something the president deeply believes.&#8221;
Before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) went after the president for killing terrorist and Iranian terrorist general Qassem Soleimani last week.
&#8220;Last week, in our view, the administration conducted a provocative disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans, and did so without consulting Congress,&#8221; Pelosi said.
&#8220;Asked whether the Trump administration misled the public in justifying the airstrike, Pelosi said that while she can&#8217;t share the classified information that she has been briefed on, &#8216;I do not believe in terms of what is in the public domain that they have made the country safer by what they did,'&#8221; <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-house-send-clear-war-powers-statement-trump-thursday-n1113006">NBC News</a> detailed.
Republicans argue that the resolution is non-binding.
&#8220;The bill is what&#8217;s known as a &#8216;concurrent resolution,&#8217; meaning it requires only the approval of both chambers of Congress and does not go to the president for his signature. Republicans argue this makes the bill non-binding and largely symbolic,&#8221; <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-powers-resolution-house-votes-to-limit-trumps-ability-act-against-iran/">CBS News</a> outlined.
Two other Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie (KY) and Francis Rooney (FL), also voted in favor of the resolution.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I represent more troops than any other member of this body. I buried one of them earlier today at Arlington. 
If our servicemembers have the courage to fight and die in these wars, Congress ought to have the courage to vote for or against them. 
I’m voting for this resolution. <a href="https://t.co/cSCBG7CmIm">pic.twitter.com/cSCBG7CmIm</a>
&mdash; Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1215398328944545797?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mike-lee-details-why-he-was-upset-with-intel-briefing-new-resolution-with-democrat">Mike Lee Details Why He Was Upset With Intel Briefing; New Resolution With Democrat</a>

Rep. Matt Gaetz

Pro-Trump Rep. Matt Gaetz Joins Dems On War Powers Resolution. Here’s His Explanation.

Foreign Policy

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Matt Gaetz

Middle East

Congressional Democrats, who seemed <del>willfully naive</del> blissfully unaware of then-President Barack Obama&#8217;s rather expansive interpretation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during his strategically disastrous 2011 operation to oust Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi, suddenly seem to care an awful lot about constitutional norms and separation of powers principles again.
Intellectual inconsistency much?
Specifically, Speaker Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s House of Representatives is <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/politics/war-powers-act-explainer-iran/index.html">debating today</a> whether to congressionally impose War Powers Resolution limitations upon President Donald Trump&#8217;s unilateral ability to ratchet up militancy with the Islamic Republic of Iran. In their crusade to hamstring the president&#8217;s conduct of his foreign policy vis-à-vis the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-iranian-revolution-forty-years-old-stand-josh-hammer">jihadist</a> Iranian regime, House Democrats have even found some libertarian-leaning <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-lee-senator-utah-lambasts-trump-briefing-soleimani-strike-worst-hes-received-on-military-issue/">Republican allies</a>.
But this exercise is misguided, because the War Powers Resolution is, and always has been, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304186404576389474268093278">unconstitutional</a>.
Let&#8217;s start with what the War Powers Resolution, which was passed during the closing stanzas of the Vietnam War, actually does. The <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/93/hjres542/text">statute</a> requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces abroad, and it precludes deployed U.S. forces from remaining engaged in &#8220;hostilities&#8221; abroad for more than 60 days without an affirmative authorization for the use of military force that has passed through Congress. At the time, President Richard Nixon vetoed the bill on constitutional grounds, <a href="https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/president-richard-nixons-letter-house-representatives-regarding-his-veto-war">arguing</a> that the measure would define presidential war powers &#8220;in ways which would strictly limit his constitutional authority.&#8221; Nonetheless, a two-thirds majority in each congressional chamber overrode the veto.
Nixon&#8217;s veto was correct.
The Constitution famously divides foreign affairs powers between the legislative and executive branches. Among other enumerated powers in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8">Article I, Section 8</a>, Congress has the ability to &#8220;declare War,&#8221; &#8220;raise and support Armies,&#8221; &#8220;provide and maintain a Navy,&#8221; &#8220;make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,&#8221; &#8220;provide for calling forth the Militia,&#8221; and &#8220;provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.&#8221;
By contrast, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">Article II</a> of the Constitution provides that &#8220;[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.&#8221; The very first clause of Article II also vests the president with &#8220;[t]he executive Power&#8221; — meaning a &#8220;residual&#8221; foreign affairs power that encompasses all those powers not expressly delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8. As legal scholars Saikrishna B. Prakash and Michael D. Ramsey <a href="https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-executive-power-over-foreign-affairs">persuasively argued</a> in a 2001 Yale Law Journal article, 18th century English common law had an &#8220;ordinary &#8230; meaning of executive power&#8221; that &#8220;included foreign affairs power.&#8221;
A careful, line-by-line overview of Congress&#8217;s enumerated powers does not actually provide a legislative means that could feasibly justify the War Powers Resolution. The most likely candidate is the Declare War Clause, but that provision happens to be woefully misunderstood by many lawyers and politicians across the ideological spectrum. As John Yoo <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=426862">compellingly laid out</a> in a 2003 University of Chicago Law Review article, &#8220;[t]he Declare War Clause simply confers on Congress juridical power to both define the United States&#8217;s legal relations with other countries and trigger domestic constitutional authorities during wartime.&#8221; It is the president of the United States, under Article II&#8217;s Commander in Chief Clause, who is actually responsible for initiating and conducting hostilities. Congress can then intervene to halt a president it views as a reckless warmonger using the manifold tools it does have at its disposal: Decreasing the size of the Pentagon&#8217;s budget, going line item-by-line item and removing various offensive-oriented materiel from the Department of Defense&#8217;s arsenal, or using its more general power of the purse to defund a war effort in its entirety (as eventually happened with Vietnam).
This interpretation of the Declare War Clause should not be nearly as controversial as it is. At the 1787 constitutional convention, the Framers actually conscientiously substituted out &#8220;make War&#8221; with &#8220;declare War.&#8221; In so doing, James Madison <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/qasem-soleimani-strike-president-trump-has-constitution-precedent-on-his-side/">famously explained</a> to Elbridge Gerry that it was imperative to leave to the president the &#8220;<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_11s4.html">power to repel sudden attacks</a>.&#8221; This ought to make a great deal of sense; as Alexander Hamilton would explain only six months after the constitutional convention in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp">The Federalist No. 70</a>, &#8220;[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.&#8221;
Finally, in Article I, Section 10, the Constitution precludes a state from &#8220;engag[ing] in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.&#8221; The Framers were therefore aware of multiple verbs — &#8220;make&#8221; and &#8220;engage&#8221; — that could have clearly conveyed the meaning of an initiation of hostilities. But they didn&#8217;t use those words, and they didn&#8217;t use them for a reason. The Framers understood that there was great merit to leaving decisions such as the commencement of hostilities to one man, and not to a fractious Congress.
To reiterate, Congress already has a number of tools at its disposal to push back against a crusading commander-in-chief. As Andrew McCarthy <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/war-powers-resolution-vote-trump-andrew-mccarthy">wrote</a> this week at Fox News, &#8220;No statute is needed to provide Congress with the power to frustrate unauthorized presidential war-making. The Constitution empowers the legislature to do so by simply refusing to appropriate funds for military action.&#8221; But the Declare War Clause means something fundamentally different than what many believe it does.
The War Powers Resolution may or may not be good policy. But it does not matter, because it runs afoul of the Constitution&#8217;s carefully calibrated separation of powers.

United States Constitution

HAMMER: The War Powers Resolution Is, And Always Has Been, Unconstitutional

Barack Obama

Congress

Libya

Qassem Soleimani

Fissures have erupted between the House and Senate Democrats, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) continues to delay sending articles of impeachment to the upper chamber of Congress in an effort to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) into revealing the trial details, such as witnesses called and topics discussed.
According to Laura Litvan of Bloomberg News, none other than Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has called upon Nancy Pelosi to send over the articles, arguing that delay will do no good.
&#8220;If we&#8217;re going to do it, she should send them over,&#8221; Feinstein said, as reported by Litvan. &#8220;I don&#8217;t see what good delay does.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Dianne Feinstein says it’s time for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send the impeachment articles to the Senate.
“If we’re going to do it, she should send them over,” the California Democrat said. “I don’t see what good delay does.”
&mdash; Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) <a href="https://twitter.com/LauraLitvan/status/1214954518900854788?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) also said, “Now that we have John Bolton saying he wants to testify, she’s accomplished something.”
Working in tandem with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Pelosi has been withholding two articles of impeachment from proceeding to a Senate trial in an effort to negotiate more favorable terms with McConnell.
“It is important that he immediately publish this resolution, so that, as I have said before, we can see the arena in which we will be participating, appoint managers and transmit the articles to the Senate,” Pelosi wrote in a note on Wednesday.
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2020/01/07/e0f49d52-313b-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html">The Washington Post</a> also reported that Pelosi &#8220;told Democrats in a closed-door meeting Tuesday that she will not send articles of impeachment to the Senate until she learns more about how the chamber would conduct a potential trial, according to three people present for her remarks who were not authorized to comment publicly.”
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-witnesses-in-senate-impeachment-trial">reported</a> by The Daily Wire&#8217;s Emily Zanotti, Mitch McConnell announced on Tuesday that he has whipped up the votes to call whatever witnesses he likes, effectively blocking any witnesses the Democrats might wish.
<blockquote>The Democrats’ effort to forestall the Senate half of the impeachment process may have backfired, according to reports from outlets in Washington, D.C. With the extra time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has reportedly whipped enough votes to block Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) bid to force witness testimony in the Senate impeachment trial.
<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump">The Hill reports Tuesday</a> that McConnell is confident that he has at least 51 votes — a simple majority — against allowing witnesses to give testimony in front of the Senate, blocking a Democratic effort to plug holes in their case for impeaching President Donald Trump, something Democrats in the House had been pushing for with the help of Senate Democratic leadership.
It seems the House Democrats’ decision to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate until McConnell agreed to a trial that involves witnesses worked against them, giving McConnell time to convince even moderate Republicans that a Senate trial should operate according to the rules crafted by Schumer and others back in 1998, when then-President Bill Clinton was on trial.</blockquote>
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-08/pelosi-still-holding-on-to-trump-charges-impeachment-update?srnd=politics-vp&amp;sref=tmIR2vcd">said</a> the House will continue to wait and see what the terms are in order to &#8220;see the arena&#8221; in which they will be competing.
“We are waiting to see what the terms are,” Pelosi said. “How we choose our managers depends on what the arena is that we are going into. We can’t do it until we see the arena they’re going into.&#8221;
Speaking on the Senate floor, Mitch McConnell blasted House Democrats for “dragging their heels and refusing to proceed to a Senate trial.&#8221;
“There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedures,” McConnell said. “We will not cede our authority. The Senate is not a creature of the House.”

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Tells Pelosi To Send Over Impeachment Articles: ‘I Don’t See What Good Delay Does’

Dianne Feinstein

For House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), it’s time to fish or cut bait.
Most Missouri voters are familiar with this colloquial expression; it means either take action or step back —and do something useful instead. That’s the position Pelosi finds herself in, now that Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senator-josh-hawley-introducing-measure-to-dismiss-democrats-articles-of-impeachment">introduced a resolution</a> that would allow the Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment if the House continues to refuse to formally transmit them to the Senate.
The Republican senator’s message is as sensible as it is salient — the Constitution does not abide your half measures, and neither will we.
Sen. Hawley’s proposal is by no means revolutionary. According to his resolution, if the House has failed to send the articles to the Senate after 25 days, a senator could offer a motion to dismiss “with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles” with a simple majority vote. This idea of dismissal for want of prosecution, or &#8220;DWOP,&#8221; is commonplace in both civil and criminal litigation.
To date, House Democrats’ rationalizations for holding impeachment in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold">perpetual state of suspension</a> are marked by rampant hypocrisy and duplicity. A month ago, when the House announced that it would move forward with an impeachment vote, Pelosi claimed there was urgency to do so because “civilization as we know it &#8230; is at stake in the next election.” But once the House, with bipartisan opposition, did vote to impeach, House Democrats acted immediately and urgently — to go home for the holidays.
The Constitution clearly establishes each chamber’s role in the impeachment process. While Article I, Section 2 gives the House the power to impeach, Section 3 unequivocally provides the Senate with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This was, by no means, an inconsequential part of the Framers’ constitutional design.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp">The Federalist No. 66</a>, dividing impeachment “between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges.” It is the Senate’s sole prerogative to resolve the impeachment process.
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-dismiss-impeachment-senate-pelosi" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-dismiss-impeachment-senate-pelosi&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1578499082587000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFAtj6CNmkObeLQd_BuqSksdA1JMQ">As Hawley himself has pointed out</a>, perpetual stalemate in the impeachment process could easily result in some sort of October surprise (a last-ditch attempt to sway the November election) or, worse still, an attack on the president’s second term following re-election. If House Democrats truly respected the will of the people, they would act now on impeachment rather than using it to influence or undermine this year’s election. If the House won’t decide whether to cast or cut the line, then Hawley, joined by 10 original co-sponsors, signaled that the Senate will.
Congress already has a long list of unfinished business from 2019 and other urgent matters at hand in 2020 that are vital to the continued safety and prosperity of our country. Iran continues to make threats and escalate tensions. The border remains unsecured. Obamacare is failing, with no legislative fix in sight. And our government’s reckless spending continues to pilfer from future generations.
If House Democrats still think that all these things should be placed on the back burner in order to impeach this president, they should get on with it. And if not, they should move on. But either way, Hawley is right — delaying the process while distracting from the important work that needs to be done on behalf of the American people should no longer be an option.
&nbsp;
The Honorable Robert &#8220;Rob&#8221; Henneke is the general counsel and director of the Center for the American Future at the <a href="https://www.texaspolicy.com">Texas Public Policy Foundation</a>.

Menu

U.S. House of Representatives

House Democrats Vote To Make Washington, D.C., The 51st State

Pelosi Orders Removal Of House Portraits For Four Speakers Who Served In Confederacy

Report: House Republicans To File Lawsuit Against Nancy Pelosi For Proxy Voting Plan

BREAKING: Democrats Pass $3 Trillion Bill That Would Give Money To Illegal Aliens While America Struggles From Economic Fallout Due To Pandemic

Pelosi-Affiliated PAC Goes All In On 2020, Will Spend $18 Million On Anti-Trump Ads

Dan Crenshaw Rips Democrats’ ‘Cowardice,’ Says Congress ‘Must Come Out Of Hiding’

House Passes Coronavirus Bill With Bipartisan Support

CA Primary Reveals Bad News For Pelosi. GOP Could Win House Back.

Impeachment Wire: The Latest On The Effort To Impeach President Trump

Ted Cruz Blasts Democrats’ Opening Impeachment Demand

HAMMER: What Exactly Are They Impeaching Him For, Again?

Law Prof Turley: Pelosi ‘Destroyed’ Democrats’ Case For Impeachment

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: A Senate Impeachment Trial Looms

Jailbreak: House Democrats Call To Release All Transgender ICE Detainees

‘Defeated’ Democrats Announce Vote On Sending Impeachment Articles, But Not Who’ll Be Running The Show

Kevin McCarthy Backs House Dems Into Corner, Will Introduce Resolution Supporting Iranian Protestors

Pro-Trump Rep. Matt Gaetz Joins Dems On War Powers Resolution. Here’s His Explanation.

HAMMER: The War Powers Resolution Is, And Always Has Been, Unconstitutional

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Tells Pelosi To Send Over Impeachment Articles: ‘I Don’t See What Good Delay Does’

HENNEKE: Josh Hawley Is Right To Tell Nancy Pelosi To ‘Fish Or Cut Bait’ On Impeachment

Menu

U.S. House of Representatives

House Democrats Vote To Make Washington, D.C., The 51st State

Pelosi Orders Removal Of House Portraits For Four Speakers Who Served In Confederacy

Report: House Republicans To File Lawsuit Against Nancy Pelosi For Proxy Voting Plan

BREAKING: Democrats Pass $3 Trillion Bill That Would Give Money To Illegal Aliens While America Struggles From Economic Fallout Due To Pandemic

Pelosi-Affiliated PAC Goes All In On 2020, Will Spend $18 Million On Anti-Trump Ads

Dan Crenshaw Rips Democrats’ ‘Cowardice,’ Says Congress ‘Must Come Out Of Hiding’

House Passes Coronavirus Bill With Bipartisan Support

CA Primary Reveals Bad News For Pelosi. GOP Could Win House Back.

Impeachment Wire: The Latest On The Effort To Impeach President Trump

Ted Cruz Blasts Democrats’ Opening Impeachment Demand

HAMMER: What Exactly Are They Impeaching Him For, Again?

Law Prof Turley: Pelosi ‘Destroyed’ Democrats’ Case For Impeachment

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: A Senate Impeachment Trial Looms

Jailbreak: House Democrats Call To Release All Transgender ICE Detainees

‘Defeated’ Democrats Announce Vote On Sending Impeachment Articles, But Not Who’ll Be Running The Show

Kevin McCarthy Backs House Dems Into Corner, Will Introduce Resolution Supporting Iranian Protestors

Pro-Trump Rep. Matt Gaetz Joins Dems On War Powers Resolution. Here’s His Explanation.

HAMMER: The War Powers Resolution Is, And Always Has Been, Unconstitutional

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Tells Pelosi To Send Over Impeachment Articles: ‘I Don’t See What Good Delay Does’

HENNEKE: Josh Hawley Is Right To Tell Nancy Pelosi To ‘Fish Or Cut Bait’ On Impeachment

Don't miss a beat of our coverage.