ReportWire

Tag: Congress

  • Trump to meet with top congressional leaders Monday ahead of government shutdown deadline at midnight on Wednesday | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump plans to meet with the top four congressional leaders at the White House on Monday, one day before the deadline to fund the federal government or face a shutdown.

    The meeting involving House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune as well as House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was confirmed Saturday by a White House official and another person familiar with the planning. Both were granted anonymity to discuss a meeting that has not been announced.

    The meeting was first reported by Punchbowl News.

    The parties have been in a standoff for days as Democrats, namely in the Senate, have refused to offer the necessary votes to pass a funding measure that would keep the government open beyond Tuesday.

    Absent any action, a shutdown would begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday.

    Democrats, believing they have leverage, have insisted on key health care provisions in exchange for their votes. They want an extension of subsidies that help low- and middle-income earners purchase insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Democrats are also insisting on reversing cuts to Medicaid that were included the GOP’s signature tax measure earlier this year.

    Republicans say those demands are nonstarters and that they are willing to have a conversation with Democrats on those issues separate from government funding talks. The GOP is asking for a straight extension of current funding for seven weeks.

    Earlier in the week, Johnson acknowledged he encouraged Trump not to meet with the Democratic leaders this past week after the White House had already scheduled a meeting for last Thursday. Trump abruptly pulled out.

    “He and I talked about it at length yesterday and the day before. I said, look, when they get their job done, once they do the basic governing work of keeping the government open, as president, then you can have a meeting with him,” Johnson, R-La., said on the Mike & McCarty Show. “Of course, it might be productive at that point, but right now, this is just a waste of his time.”

    Thune, R-S.D., said he “did have a conversation with the president” and offered his opinion on the meeting, which he declined to disclose. “But I think the president speaks for himself, and I think he came to the conclusion that that meeting would not be productive,” Thune said.

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Seung Min Kim, The Associated Press

    Source link

  • FBI’s Patel clarifies role of hundreds of agents on Jan 6, says Wray lied to Congress

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    EXCLUSIVE: The FBI responded on Saturday to a report that 274 plainclothes agents were at the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, clarifying the role of bureau personnel while still blasting former Director Christopher Wray.

    While the agents were on hand, they were sent in after the riot had begun to try to control the unruly crowd, officials told Fox News Digital. That is not the proper role of FBI agents, and Wray was not forthcoming about what happened when he testified numerous times on Capitol Hill, Director Kash Patel said.

    “Agents were sent into a crowd control mission after the riot was declared by Metro Police – something that goes against FBI standards,” Patel told Fox News Digital. “This was the failure of a corrupt leadership that lied to Congress and to the American people about what really happened.”

    He added, “Thanks to agents coming forward, we are now uncovering the truth. We are fully committed to transparency, and justice and accountability continues with this FBI.” 

    There’s no indication any FBI agents were involved in any events related to Trump’s speech on the morning of Jan. 6 at the Ellipse, an FBI official told Fox News Digital, adding that Wray should have disclosed that agents were there when he was asked by congressional leaders.

    FBI’S KASH PATEL VOWS ‘DEFINITIVE ANSWER’ ON TOP JAN 6 QUESTION IS ‘COMING’

    The FBI responded on Saturday after President Donald Trump said that former FBI Director Christopher Wray “has some major explaining to do” following a report that said 274 plainclothes agents were at the riot on Jan. 6, 2021.  (Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

    President Donald Trump, citing a report that the agents were in the crowd which did not make clear their mission, said earlier that Wray, “has some major explaining to do.”

    “It was just revealed that the FBI had secretly placed, against all Rules, Regulations, Protocols, and Standards, 274 FBI Agents into the Crowd just prior to, and during, the January 6th Hoax,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Saturday afternoon following a report from The Blaze, revealing the number of agents that were there. 

    Trump added, “This is different from what Director Christopher Wray stated, over and over again! That’s right, as it now turns out, FBI Agents were at, and in, the January 6th Protest, probably acting as Agitators and Insurrectionists, but certainly not as ‘Law Enforcement Officials.’”

    The president said he wanted to know each officer’s identity and what they were doing at the U.S. Capitol. 

    “Many Great American Patriots were made to pay a very big price only for the love of their Country,” he said, referring to Trump supporters who faced charges for their involvement on Jan. 6.

    Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of every person charged for involvement on Jan. 6 after he took office this year. 

    DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL DOES NOT DENY FBI INFORMANTS WERE AMONG JAN. 6 CROWD

    Christopher Wray speaking to Congress

    Then-FBI Director Christopher Wray told the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 15, 2023, “If you are asking if the violence at the Capitol was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents, the answer is no.”  (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

    He concluded, “I owe this investigation of ‘Dirty Cops and Crooked Politicians’ to them! Christopher Wray, the then Director of the FBI, has some major explaining to do. That’s two in a row, Comey and Wray, who got caught LYING, with our Great Country at stake. WE CAN NEVER LET THIS HAPPEN TO AMERICA AGAIN!” 

    Citing a senior congressional source, the Blaze report said that the number of agents wasn’t “necessarily a surprise” because the FBI often “embeds countersurveillance personnel at large events.”

    Wray told a House Committee on Nov. 15, 2023, “If you are asking if the violence at the Capitol was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents, the answer is no,” but he wouldn’t disclose if any agents or sources were embedded within the crowd. 

    Kash Patel speaking

    FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement that agents were sent to the Capitol on Jan. 6 for crowd control after it was declared a riot against agency policy.  (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

    The 274 agents also includes those who were responding to the pipe bombs placed near the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee headquarters the night before Jan. 6, according to Politico. 

    Trump nominated Wray as FBI director in 2017 after he fired former FBI director James Comey, who was just indicted by a grand jury this week for allegedly making false statements to Congress. 

    FBI AGENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE TOLD TO RESIGN, RETIRE OR BE FIRED

    A report released last December by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said: “We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,” although he acknowledged there were 26 paid informants, but only three of them were assigned by the FBI to be there.

    The report also said that FBI personnel were sent to the Capitol at the request of overwhelmed Capitol Police to help with crowd control. 

    Horowitz said that none of the informants were allowed to incite the crowd, break the law or enter the U.S. Capitol. 

    Police pushing back rioters

    Rioters and U.S. Capitol police battle over a barricade at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    In its reporting, Blaze noted that there may have been confusion regarding “plainclothes” and “undercover,” meaning both the inspector general and the FBI could be telling the truth. 

    Many of the agents weren’t happy to have been sent to the Capitol to do crowd control, another official told Fox News Digital. It was a chaotic scene with no pre-planning that contradicted the agency’s original plan to not get involved in the event. The official said that agents are not trained to do crowd control. 

    The first agents arrived at the Capitol around 2:30 p.m. — there’s no evidence there were any there before a riot was declared — and agents continued to arrive after that, the official added. 

    Police on Jan. 6

    Trump supporters clash with police and security forces at the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021. (Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Wray had testified before Congress prior to the inspector general’s report being released in December, but Patel called out Wray for deflecting and giving a “D.C. answer” when pressed by lawmakers. 

    “Why it took a ton of time and questioning in Congress for the director to get that point is what I’m trying to eliminate from the FBI,” Patel said. “If Congress asks you a question under oath, whether or not there were sources in [or] around Jan. 6th at the Capitol, you as the director of the FBI need to know that and not deflect and give a D.C. answer. You have to be prepared for that.”

    Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kash Patel tellingly ties James Comey’s indictment to the legally unrelated ‘Russiagate hoax’

    [ad_1]

    In his 2023 book Government Gangsters, Kash Patel, now the director of the FBI, described a “deep state” conspiracy against Donald Trump that he equated with a conspiracy to subvert democracy and the Constitution. An appendix to the book listed 60 “Members of the Executive Branch Deep State,” whom Patel described as “corrupt actors of the first order.” The list included former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired in 2017 out of anger over the FBI’s investigation of alleged ties between his presidential campaign and the Russian government.

    After Trump picked Patel to run the FBI, the nominee assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that, despite his vow to “come after” the “conspirators,” there would be “no politicization at the FBI” and “no retributive actions” against the president’s enemies. Thursday’s indictment of Comey, which charges him with two felonies based on allegedly false congressional testimony in September 2020, epitomizes the emptiness of that promise.

    As Patel tells it, the indictment, which was filed just a few days before the charges would have been barred by the five-year statute of limitations, is not a “retributive action.” Rather, it is “another step” in keeping the FBI’s “promise of full accountability.” It just so happens that accountability in this case coincides with pursuing one of the president’s many personal vendettas.

    “For far too long, previous corrupt leadership and their enablers weaponized federal law enforcement, damaging once proud institutions and severely eroding public trust,” Patel said in a press release. “Every day, we continue the fight to earn that trust back, and under my leadership, this FBI will confront the problem head-on. Nowhere was this politicization of law enforcement more blatant than during the Russiagate hoax, a disgraceful chapter in history we continue to investigate and expose. Everyone, especially those in positions of power, will be held to account—no matter their perch. No one is above the law.”

    Despite that framing, the Comey indictment, on its face, has nothing to do with “the Russiagate hoax.” It alleges that Comey lied during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 30, 2020, when he reaffirmed his earlier testimony that he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to “be an anonymous source in news stories about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation”—i.e., the FBI probe that examined Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material as secretary of state, including her use of a private email server.

    As Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) noted at the 2020 hearing, Comey’s testimony contradicted what Andrew McCabe, Comey’s former deputy, had told the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). McCabe claimed Comey had approved the disclosure of information about an FBI probe of the Clinton Foundation to The Wall Street Journal, which mentioned that new wrinkle in a story about the email investigation published on October 30, 2016. But the OIG report on the leak credited Comey’s version of events and portrayed McCabe as persistently dishonest.

    “McCabe lacked candor when he told Comey, or made statements that led Comey to believe, that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who did,” the report said. “McCabe lacked candor when he told [FBI] agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did….McCabe lacked candor when he stated that he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he [McCabe] had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ” and that “Comey agreed it was a ‘good’ idea.”

    The OIG report concluded that “McCabe did not tell Comey on or around October 31 (or at any other time) that he (McCabe) had authorized the disclosure of information about the [Clinton Foundation] Investigation to the WSJ.” It added that “had McCabe done so, we believe that Comey would have objected to the disclosure.”

    Based on the contrary assumption that McCabe was telling the truth, the indictment charges Comey with “willfully and knowingly” making “a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under 18 USC 1001(a)(2), that’s a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The indictment also alleges a related felony, subject to the same maximum penalty, under 18 USC 1505, which applies to someone who “corruptly” attempts to “influence, obstruct, or impede” a congressional proceeding.

    To successfully defend Comey against those charges, National Review‘s Jim Geraghty notes, his lawyers “will have to convince at least one juror that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is a duplicitous SOB who lied when he claimed Comey had given permission to leak the information when Comey did not. That does not exactly sound like Mission: Impossible.”

    Given the weakness of the case against Comey, it is not surprising that career prosecutors did not think it was worth pursuing. That resistance explains why the indictment is signed only by Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump lawyer with no prosecutorial experience whom the president appointed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia this month after her predecessor, Erik Seibert, proved insufficiently receptive to pursuing charges against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, another Trump nemesis. Even Attorney General Pam Bondi, who on Thursday claimed Comey’s indictment reflected the Justice Department’s “commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people,” reportedly was skeptical of the case in private.

    It is telling that Patel explicitly tied Comey’s indictment to “the Russiagate hoax” even though the charges are legally unrelated to that investigation. In a December 2023 podcast interview, Patel made it clear that he was determined to punish the “corrupt actors” who had wronged Trump even if it required some legal creativity. “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out,” he said. “But yeah, we’re putting all of you on notice.”

    [ad_2]

    Jacob Sullum

    Source link

  • Former FBI Director James Comey Charged With Lying To Congress

    [ad_1]



    The Justice Department Thursday charged former FBI Director James Comey with perjury and obstruction of Congress.

    “No one is above the law,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.”

    “Today, your FBI took another step in its promise of full accountability,” FBI Director Kash Patel said. “For far too long, previous corrupt leadership and their enablers weaponized federal law enforcement, damaging once proud institutions and severely eroding public trust.”

    ““Every day, we continue the fight to earn that trust back, and under my leadership, this FBI will confront the problem head-on,” he added. “Nowhere was this politicization of law enforcement more blatant than during the Russiagate hoax, a disgraceful chapter in history we continue to investigate and expose. Everyone, especially those in positions of power, will be held to account—no matter their perch. No one is above the law.”

    The DOJ alleges Comey lied in testimony to Congress, a charge that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.

    He faces charges of a false statement and obstruction of a congressional investigation.

    The DOJ’s complaint concerns testimony Comey delivered in September 2020 on his handling of the investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election

    In that testimony, Comey asserted that he had not authorized the leak of information on the investigation to the media.

    Comey headed up the Russia investigation briefly during his tenure as FBI director before President Donald Trump fired him in May 2017.

    The charges against Comey come just days before the five-year statute of limitations for perjury was set to take effect on Sept. 30.

    Comey’s case will be heard in the Eastern District of Virginia. That office is headed by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide who was appointed recently following the resignation of Erik Siebert, the previous attorney for the district. 

    Syndicated with permission from The Daily Signal.

    [ad_2]

    Tyler ONeil

    Source link

  • White House tells federal agencies to prepare layoff plans as government shutdown looms

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is telling federal agencies to draw up reduction-in-force (RIF) plans ahead of a possible government shutdown on Oct. 1, according to an internal memo obtained by Fox News. 

    The guidance says agencies must consider issuing RIF notices to employees working on programs that are not legally required to continue if funding lapses.

    “With respect to those Federal programs whose funding would lapse and which are otherwise unfunded, such programs are no longer statutorily required to be carried out,” the memo states.

    Under the guidance, RIF notices would be issued on top of furlough notices and should go to all employees tied to the affected programs.

    GARBAGE COLLECTION, TOURS TO BE SUSPENDED ON CAPITOL HILL IF THERE’S A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

    An internal memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget obtained by Fox News warns agencies of reduction in force measures if a government shutdown cannot be avoided by Oct. 1. (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)

    Agencies would later revise those plans once Congress approves fiscal year 2026 appropriations, keeping only the staff needed for core statutory functions.

    The memo notes that while Congress has usually passed short-term funding bills on a bipartisan basis, they believe this year is different. 

    The same memo accuses Democrats of breaking that trend and pushing for “insane demands, including $1 trillion in new spending,” which it says could force a shutdown.

    SCOOP: GOP RAMPS UP SHUTDOWN FIGHT, TARGETS 25 VULNERABLE DEMOCRATS IN NEW AD BLITZ

    Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought

    Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought speaks to reporters outside the West Wing of the White House. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images)

    Last week, the House passed H.R. 5371, described as a clean continuing resolution (CR) that would extend current funding through Nov. 21. The administration backs the bill, but the memo says Democrats are blocking it in the Senate.

    “We remain hopeful that Democrats in Congress will not trigger a shutdown and the steps outlined above will not be necessary,” the memo says.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “The President supports enactment of a clean CR to ensure no discretionary spending lapse after Sept. 30, 2025, and OMB hopes the Democrats will agree.”

    The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Reporter’s Notebook: Trump cancels meeting with Democrats as shutdown looms

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    The Cincinnati Bengals missed the playoffs the past two seasons. They finished 9-8 both years, despite a loaded offense headed by quarterback Joe Burrow (when healthy).

    During the offseason, the Bengals refused to re-sign All-Pro defensive end Trey Hendrickson. He led the league in sacks last season with 17.5. The Bengals considered trading Hendrickson. They then grudgingly signed him to a year-long contract just before the first game.

    Cincinnati drafted defensive end Shemar Stewart of Texas A&M in the first round last spring. But then the Bengals and Stewart tussled over a contract.

    TIT FOR TAT: HOUSE CENSURES ARE BECOMING ‘SNAP’ SOLUTIONS 

    Tuscaloosa County initially forfeited its win over Bessemer City.

    The Bengals have been less parsimonious in recent years when doling out the dollars to top-flight players. But owner Mike Brown has a miserly reputation. And despite a talent-laden roster, the Bengals are peerless in mediocrity. They have never won the Super Bowl. That fuels a narrative about the franchise.

    Stewart summed up the Bengals when speaking to Sports Illustrated:

    “Y’all just want to win arguments (more) than winning games,” he declared.

    “Arguments” and “games” are now afoot in Washington, D.C. over avoiding a government shutdown next week. 

    The question is what counts as winning an “argument” and what constitutes prevailing in a “game.” Both Republicans and Democrats can compete in both categories over the next few days. A government funding deadline looms at 11:59:59 p.m. ET Tuesday night. In fact, both sides might secure victories in the argument category. But marshaling a true title in the win column is an altogether different enterprise. Moreover, this tournament’s rules don’t dictate that one side emerges victorious and the other loses. In fact, both sides could execute losing campaigns.

    DEMOCRATS SKIP CHARLIE KIRK ARIZONA MEMORIAL AFTER 58 VOTE AGAINST HOUSE RESOLUTION

    Capitol Building

    US Capitol Building at sunset on January 30th, 2025  (Fox News Digital/Emma Woodhead)

    That said, do the sides have more interest in echoing the Cincinnati Bengals and winning “arguments?” Or would they rather win “games” and avert a government shutdown.

    “I don’t have any meetings or any scheduling updates for you today,” said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt at the briefing early Monday afternoon.

    But there was a flicker of hope a few hours later.

    Word came that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would head to the White House on Thursday to meet with President Donald Trump. Neither leader has huddled with the president since he took office in January. But one wasn’t quite sure what this session might accomplish.

    “We want a clean funding extension to keep the government open. That’s all we’re advocating for,” said Leavitt.

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt speaking.

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that President Donald Trump will make a decision on the U.S. becoming involved in Israel’s conflict with Iran within the next two weeks. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

    Democrats pushed for something else. They advocated a renewal of subsidies to defray the cost of Obamacare. The price tag for health care coverage for millions of Americans is set to skyrocket early next year unless Congress intervenes. Democrats want to dial back other health care reductions which were part of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill – passed by Congress earlier this summer. Democrats also insist on assurances that the president won’t claw back any money for programs already doled out by Congress. Finally, Democrats want the administration to reinstate dollars cut from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

    The House is out of session this week – and prospectively until October 7 – after passing a GOP-backed interim spending plan late last week. But House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., materialized at the Capitol early Tuesday morning.

    Johnson told Fox News he was skeptical that a meeting between President Trump, Schumer and Jeffries “is necessary.” But the Speaker noted that he would attend the Oval Office conclave.

    “Why would I not be there? This is the legislative branch communicating with the executive branch. If there is such a meeting with the leaders, then (Senate Majority Leader) John Thune, R-S.D., and I will certainly be a part of it,” said Johnson.

    Speaker Johnson, Donald Trump

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., speaks as President Donald Trump listens during a news conference, Friday, April 12, 2024, at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla.  (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)

    It was news that Johnson and Thune were set to be part of a meeting with the president on government funding. But it would have been news to Johnson that Trump nixed the meeting. Moments later, Trump posted a lengthy screed to Truth Social, scrubbing the session.

    “I have decided that no meeting with their Congressional Leaders could possibly be productive,” he wrote.

    He argued that the Democratic request would provide “free healthcare for Illegal Aliens,” along with government funded “Transgender surgery for minors.” He also said the Democrats proposal would “allow men to play in women’s sports, and essentially create Transgender operations for everybody.”

    It’s not clear where the provisions the president cited lie in the Democratic counteroffer. But the fact of the matter is that the government will shutter early next Wednesday morning unless the Senate can secure Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster. The House passed an interim bill renewing funding at current levels last week. Only one Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, voted “yea.” 

    But the Senate is a different animal. Republicans only have 53 votes there. Sixty votes are necessary to crack a filibuster. So if Democrats don’t accede to the GOP demands, there’s a shutdown. And, by contrast, if Republicans refuse to grant Democrats their wishes, there’s a shutdown.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., panned Senate Democrats for their resistance to a government funding extension, and blasted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for trying to appease his “far Left” base with threats of a shutdown.  (Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

    Avoiding a shutdown could qualify as winning “games.” But we’re not certain if the sides are interested in that sweepstakes just yet.

    “The statement that Donald Trump issued today was unhinged,” said Jeffries, adding that “Trump always chickens out.”

    “Today seems to be tantrum day for Donald Trump,” said Schumer. “He just ain’t up to it. He runs away before the negotiations even begin.”

    Since the House greenlighted its interim bill, Johnson cut everyone loose – cancelling scheduled session days next week when the House could at least be in a position to wrangle with any spending bill which comes over from the Senate. But Republicans are adamant that it’s the House bill or nothing.

    “You’re not planning to bring the House back at any stage now?” I asked Johnson.

    “The House is on district work period right now. We got our work done in the House. We got it done early with regard to the funding. People have a lot to do back in their districts. So we’re on the ready at any time. But the plan would be to come back when it’s necessary. But the current plan is to not have session days on September 29 and 30th,” he said.

    “Is that a bad look if the House is not here and the government shuts down despite what you did?” I countered.

    “The government would not shut down until the earliest, October 1st,” replied Johnson, slightly cracking open the door to a potential recall. “But if Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries decide to shut the government down, they’ve created the problem.”

    Chuck Schumer speaks

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was briefly hospitalized Wednesday for dehydration, his office said.  (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)

    So, we’re less than a week before a possible government shutdown. Seemingly each September, just before the end of the fiscal year, the chances of a government shutdown are “high” and there’s almost no way to avert a shutdown. Yet nearly each time, Democrats and Republicans, the House and Senate, figure out a way to stave off a shutdown at the last minute. In fact, that might be the case this time. But the calculus is different, with the House nowhere to be found, and the Senate left with just the House bill. That’s only exacerbated by a lack of negotiations.

    One can only imagine the arguments which may have emanated from the Oval Office had Trump huddled with Jeffries and Schumer this week. They may have viewed a televised meeting with the president as the perfect forum to skirmish. Democrats have struggled for months to demonstrate to their base that they’re “fighting.” That said, Trump may have been ready for a tilt, ala his verbal combat with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in February. And who can forget former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., storming out of a meeting with Trump during his first term?

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

    At this stage, everyone is trying to win arguments. Not games. And we’ll truly know if they lost the game when the government’s new fiscal year begins at 12:00:01 a.m. ET next Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrat succeeds her late father in Congress as GOP House majority shrinks

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Democrat Adelita Grijalva has won a special election in battleground Arizona, securing the congressional seat left vacant by her father’s death and further eroding Republicans’ razor-thin House majority.

    The Associated Press reports that Grijalva, a former Pima County supervisor, defeated business owner and contractor Daniel Butierez, the Republican nominee, in Tuesday’s election in southern Arizona’s 7th Congressional District.

    Grijalva will serve the remaining 15 months of the term of Raul Grijalva, who died in March following complications from cancer treatment.

    TRUMP NOT ON BALLOT BUT FRONT-AND-CENTER IN 2025 ELECTIONS

    Arizona Congressional District 7 special election nominees Republican Daniel Butierez, left, and Democrat Adelita Grijalva participate during a televised debate, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2025, in Tucson, Ariz. (Kelly Presnell/Arizona Daily Star via AP)

    The younger Grijalva’s victory was anything but a surprise in the left-leaning district. Democrats enjoy a nearly two-to-one voter registration advantage over Republicans in the Hispanic-majority district, which stretches from Yuma to Tucson and includes almost the entire length of the state’s border with Mexico.

    HEAD HERE FOR FOX NEWS’ 2025 ELECTION COVERAGE

    Republicans currently control the House 219-214, with two vacant seats remaining. 

    Besides Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, there’s also a vacancy in Texas 18th Congressional District, a heavily Democrat-dominated district in Houston, following the March death of Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner. The special election to fill the seat will be held on November 4, which is Election Day 2025.

    Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, a right-leaning seat where Republican Rep. Mark Green stepped down in July to take a job in the private sector, is also currently vacant. The special election to fill the seat will be held on December 2.

    grijalva

    The late Democratic Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, died in March of complications due to cancer treatment. (Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    Grijalva, thanks in part to her family name and her support from national progressive rock stars, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, grabbed over 60% of the primary vote this summer in a five-candidate showdown.

    Progressive activist and social media influencer Deja Foxx came in a distant second.

    Grijalva, who with her victory became Arizona’s first Latina in Congress, targeted President Donald Trump as she campaigned,

    “In Congress, I commit to fight Trump’s cruel agenda, like the Big Ugly Bill that took away coverage from nearly 383,000 Arizonans and 142,000 children,” Grijalva pledged in a social media post, as she took aim at Trump, congressional Republicans, and their sweeping domestic policy measure that they named the One Big Beautiful Bill.

    Adelita Grijalva

    Democratic congressional candidate Adelita Grijalva is interviewed in Tuscon, Arizona, on July 15, 2025.  (Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

    Grijalva had also said that if she won, she would immediately sign a discharge petition by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. The petition, which is currently just one vote shy of passing, calls on the GOP-controlled House to vote to urge the Justice Department to release the files on the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    Butierez, as he campaigned, had been promoting himself as the change candidate in a district controlled by Democrats since the seat was created over two decades ago.

    “This is your chance to actually get a Representative who will represent everyone. If you vote we win, if you don’t only the radicals will have representation,” he wrote on X.

    Candidate Daniel Butierez

    Candidate Daniel Butierez answers a question during the Republican primary debate inside the Arizona Public Media studio in Tucson, Arizona, on June 9, 2025. (Mamta Popat/Arizona Daily Star via AP)

    Butierez, who as the 2024 GOP congressional nominee lost to the elder Grijalva while Trump narrowly carried the southwestern battleground state at the top of the ballot, easily won this summer’s Republican primary in the special election.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

    While Trump carried Arizona last year after losing it in 2020, 2024 Democratic presidential nominee and then-Vice President Kamala Harris won the district by 23 points. 

    Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin, in a statement after the race was called, said that “Rep.-elect Grijalva won a hard-fought race. Now, Arizonans will have a fighter in their corner who will stand up to Trump on behalf of families who want to see real leadership in Washington.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former DACA recipient dies in ICE custody after being hospitalized

    [ad_1]

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Tuesday that a Mexican national and former DACA recipient had died in their custody after being transferred to a local hospital in Victorville.

    Ismael Ayala-Uribe, 39 was pronounced dead Sunday at the Victor Valley Global Medical Center, according to an ICE statement.

    Ayala-Uribe is now the 14th detainee to die in immigration detention since January, when federal immigration officials began to carry out President Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

    News of his death comes on the day that two Democratic senators from Georgia sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Todd Lyons, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, raising concerns about the rise in the number of deaths in ICE custody, in particular two that occurred at the Stewart Detention Center in Georgia. NPR was the first to report on the letter.

    In July, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga) released the findings of a probe into alleged human rights violations that have occurred at immigration detention centers, including dozens of reports of physical and sexual abuse, and mistreatment of pregnant women and children. DHS rejected the senator’s allegations in a statement.

    In California, the Adelanto Detention Center, one of the largest in the state, has long been the focus of complaints from detainees, attorneys and state and federal inspectors about inadequate medical care, overly restrictive segregation and lax mental health services.

    In June, critics — including some staff who work inside — told The Times that conditions inside the detention center were unsafe and unsanitary. The facility, they said, was unprepared to handle the large waves of detainees pouring into the center.

    That month, U.S. Rep Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), toured the detention center with four other Democratic members of Congress from California amid concern over the increasing number of detainees and deteriorating conditions inside.

    The facility’s manager “has to clearly improve its treatment of these detainees,” Chu said at a news conference after inspecting the facility.

    Some of the detainees told lawmakers they were held inside Adelanto for 10 days without a change of clothes, underwear or towels, Chu said. Others said they had been denied access to a telephone to speak to loved ones and lawyers, even after repeatedly filling out forms.

    A spokesperson for DHS could not immediately be reached for comment on Sunday’s death. But the agency said in its statement about Ayala-Uribe that immigration agencies such as ICE and Customs and Border Protection are committed to ensuring the safety of people who are in their custody.

    “Comprehensive medical care is provided from the moment individuals arrive and throughout the entirety of their stay,” the agency’s statement read. “All people in ICE custody receive medical, dental and mental health intake screening within 12 hours of arriving at each detention facility, a full health assessment within 14 days of entering ICE custody or arrival at a facility, access to medical appointments and 24-hour emergency care. At no time during detention is a detained illegal alien denied emergent care.”

    According to the agency statement, Ayala-Uribe, a Mexican national, was being held at a processing center in Adelanto where he had been seen by an on-call medical provider, who prescribed medication to him, although immigration officials did not say why.

    But three days later, Ayala-Uribe was sent to the Victor Valley Global Medical Center to further evaluate an “abscess on his buttock” and was scheduled to undergo surgery for it, the statement said.

    “Ayala was also hypertensive and displayed abnormal tachycardia,” immigration officials wrote in the statement. “At 1:48 a.m. the [medical center] declared Ayala unresponsive and initiated lifesaving measures. He was declared deceased at 2:32 a.m. by medical staff.”

    According to ICE, Ayala-Uribe entered the United States at an unknown date and location. He applied for, and received, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals protection in 2012. He was sentenced to three years probation after he was convicted of driving while under the influence in 2015, the agency said.

    In 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his application to renew his DACA status. He was convicted of his second DUI in June 2019 and sentenced to 120 days in jail, plus five years of probation, according to ICE.

    Ayala-Uribe was arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Aug. 17 and transferred to Adelanto on Aug. 22.

    Immigration officials said the cause of death is still under investigation. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill of 2018 requires that ICE make public reports regarding any in-custody deaths within 90 days.

    ICE officials said they make official notifications to Congress, nongovernmental organization stakeholders and the media about a detainee’s death and post a news release with relevant details on its website within two business days per the agency’s policy.

    Ayala-Uribe’s family has organized a fundraiser, selling tamales, carnitas and pozole on Saturday, to raise money for his funeral.

    Times staff writer Nathan Solis contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Ruben Vives, Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • He’s back! Schwarzenegger aims to terminate gerrymandering once again in California

    [ad_1]

    Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of an independent commission to draw California’s congressional districts, returns to state voters’ TV sets on Tuesday in a new ad opposing a November ballot measure by state Democrats to boost their party’s ranks in Congress.

    A committee opposing Proposition 50, which would replace districts drawn by an independent commission with ones crafted by partisans, plans to spend $1 million per day airing the ad statewide. Schwarzenegger describes the ballot measure as one that does not favor voters but is in the interest of entrenched politicians.

    “That’s what they want to do is take us backwards. This is why it is important for you to vote no on Proposition 50,” the Hollywood celebrity and former governor says in the ad, which was filmed last week when he spoke to USC students. “The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people.’ … Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

    Redistricting is the redrawing of congressional boundaries that typically occurs once a decade following the U.S. census to account for population shifts. The process rarely attracts the attention it has this year because of a heated battle to determine control of a closely divided Congress in the final two years of President Trump’s tenure.

    After Trump urged Texas and other GOP-led states to redraw their congressional districts earlier this year to boost the number of Republicans in the House, California Democrats, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, countered by putting a rare mid-decade redistricting on a special-election November ballot that would likely boost the number of Democrats in the body.

    Schwarzenegger, long a champion of political reform, is not part of any official Proposition 50 campaign. Since leaving office, he has prioritized good governance at his institute at USC and campaigned for independent redistricting across the nation.

    His remarks were filmed, and the ad is being aired by the most well-funded effort opposing Proposition 50, which is bankrolled by Charles Munger Jr., a major GOP donor who underwrote the ballot measures that created California’s independent commission.

    Munger has already donated $30 million to a campaign opposing the November ballot measure, according to fundraising disclosures filed with the secretary of state’s office. The other large opposition effort has raised more than $5 million. The main group supporting Proposition 50, led by Newsom, has raised more than $54 million.

    These fundraising figures are based on required disclosures of large contributions. More complete fundraising numbers must be filed with the state on Thursday.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Supreme Court to reconsider a 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency officials

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide on reversing a 90-year precedent that has protected independent agencies from direct control by the president.

    The court’s conservative majority has already upheld President Trump’s firing of Democratic appointees at the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. And in a separate order on Monday, it upheld Trump’s removal of a Democratic appointee at the Federal Trade Commission.

    Those orders signal the court is likely to rule for the president and that he has the full authority to fire officials at independent agencies, even if Congress said they had fixed terms.

    The only hint of doubt has focused on the Federal Reserve Board. In May, when the court upheld the firing of an NLRB official, it said its decision does not threaten the independence of the Federal Reserve.

    The court described it as “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” Trump did not share that view. He threatened to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell during the summer because he had not lowered interest rates.

    And he is now seeking to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a Biden appointee, based on the allegation she may have committed mortgage fraud when she took out two home loans in 2021.

    Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court last week seeking to have Cook removed now.

    Long before Trump’s presidency, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had argued that the president has the constitutional power to control federal agencies and to hire or fire all officials who exercise significant executive authority.

    But that view stands in conflict with what the court has said for more than a century. Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, lawmakers on Capitol Hill believed they had the authority to create independent boards and commissions.

    Typically, the president would be authorized appoint officials who would serve a fixed term set by law. At times, Congress also required the boards have a mix of both Republican and Democratic appointees.

    The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that understanding in a 1935 case called Humphrey’s Executor. The justices said then these officials made judicial-type decisions, and they should be shielded from direct control by the president.

    That decision was a defeat for President Franklin Roosevelt who tried to fire a Republican appointee on the Federal Trade Commission.

    In recent years, the chief justice and his conservative colleagues have questioned the idea that Congress can shield officials from direct control by the president.

    In Monday’s order, the court said it will hear arguments in December on “whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.”

    Justice Elena Kagan has repeatedly dissented in these cases and argued that Congress has the power to make the law and structure the government, not the president.

    Joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she objected on Monday that the court has continued to fire independent officials at Trump’s request.

    “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” she wrote. “Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • WATCH: Lawmakers wrestle with how to approach hateful political rhetoric in wake of Kirk assassination

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    In the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a debate about political rhetoric and its impact on recent spates of political violence has taken hold on Capitol Hill and across the country. 

    While both Republicans and Democrats have condemned political violence of all kinds, their views vary on how much inflammatory political rhetoric plays a role. Some Republicans have accused the left’s rhetoric of fostering an “assassination culture” on the left, while Democrats have accused Republicans of attacks on free speech. 

    One member of Congress, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., attempted to steer the conversation towards gun control as opposed to rhetoric as the cause for the increase in political violence.

    “This isn’t just about what happened to Charlie Kirk. At the same time his tragic killing was happening, three kids were getting shot in school, and that was one or two weeks after another couple of kids were getting shot, in church, at mass, at a Catholic school,” Ocasio-Cortez said. 

    EXPERTS WARN LEFTIST CELEBRATIONS OF CHARLIE KIRK’S DEATH SIGNAL A DANGEROUS MAINSTREAM SHIFT IN POLITICS

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., suggested gun control was more to blame than violent rhetoric when asked about the potentially growing ‘assassination culture’ in the United States.  (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

    But GOP firebrand Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., did not mince words about those who continue to foment hatred for conservatives with inflammatory rhetoric.

    “We need to shame these people out of polite society, shame them out of existence. They need to be fired from their jobs. They are putting lives in danger,” Mace said. “They are denying that they’re celebrating the political assassination and murder of Charlie Kirk, but they’re liars. They’re lying through their teeth.”

    Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have called on others to “turn down the heat” in the wake of Kirk’s assassination. Americans from all walks of life have been facing repercussions over their decision to mock, or praise, Kirk’s death, including K-12 education officials, college professors, healthcare professionals, political pundits, writers and a list of other professionals from various sectors and major companies, such as the law firm Perkins Coie, the company behind the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, and Office Depot, among others.

    Charlie Kirk memorial in Berlin

    Memorials honoring Charlie Kirk have been held across the country and overseas, including in Berlin. Kirk was assassinated on Sept. 10, 2025. ( Ilkin Eskipehlivan /Anadolu via Getty Images)

    FOLLOWING KIRK’S ASSASSINATION, LAWMAKERS REACT TO LETHAL POLITICAL CLIMATE: ‘VIOLENT WORDS PRECEDE VIOLENT ACTIONS’

    Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., said that everyone should have “the right to speak freely, otherwise America’s democratic tradition could be threatened. 

    “Look, there’s a limit to what Congress can do, because, you know, we have the First Amendment, which protects all forms of speech, including hate speech, but we should have a culture of condemning any rhetoric that glorifies violence. I see violence as the downfall of American democracy,” Torres said. “We all should have the right to speak freely, to think freely, without fear of harassment or intimidation or violence. And once we lose the ability to speak freely in the public square then democracy as we know it has come to an end.”

    Rep. Ritchie Torres

    Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., said political violence may become the “downfall of American democracy.” (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., suggested possible remedies Congress could take to help reduce inflammatory rhetoric and its potential impact on violence. 

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “You have to look at the role that social media companies play in allowing violent rhetoric to be on their sites. And what more can we do so that law enforcement can see these attacks sooner?” Swalwell asked. “I wait, and stand ready to learn, where there are signs that were missed by law enforcement. Because if that’s the case, we have to do better, because the temperature is only increasing.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DC Council member Robert White says he will bring ‘fire’ and ‘energy’ to DC Congress seat – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    D.C.’s nonvoting delegate in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, will face her toughest political challenge in more than 30 years, if she chooses to run again in 2026.

    D.C.’s nonvoting delegate in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, will face her toughest political challenge in more than 30 years, if she chooses to run again in 2026.

    At-large D.C. Council member Robert White has announced he’ll run for the seat, and has expressed admiration and gratitude for Norton, who’s now 88 years old, and her decades of service for D.C.

    White said during this moment, when D.C. is having its Home Rule challenged, the District needs a leader with “fire and energy” to defend it.

    Listen to the full conversation and read the full transcript below.


    At-large D.C. Council member Robert White speaks with WTOP’s Nick Iannelli about his decision to run for Congress and challenge Eleanor Holmes Norton.


    The transcript below has been lightly edited for clarity.

    • Nick Iannelli:

      Is this a tough decision for you?

    • Robert White:

      Absolutely a tough decision, Nick. Like almost everybody in the District, I see Congresswoman Norton as somebody who has been a lion, just an icon in that seat for so many decades, the only member I remember in my lifetime, and I altered my legal career to work with her. But this year, like other D.C. residents, we have just been brutally attacked by the administration and Congress. Our money’s been stolen. We have masked agents, federal agents in our streets, our bills being overturned, and the congresswoman, after so many years of great work, just can’t defend the District the way that she once did. And we really need someone who can carry that torch, and I believe I can carry it and do justice to the work she’s done.

    • Nick Iannelli:

      And what is she doing that is falling short right now, in your opinion?

    • Robert White:

      Well, we need a member who can be fully engaged in the debates, going to every member of the House and Senate and letting them know why this moment matters, not just for D.C., but for the country. And I’ve spent a lot of my time, spent most of my summer on Capitol Hill, trying to cover that gap. But I also talk to residents every day who have this fear in their eyes about what’s happening because they don’t see the defense that we once had. And this is a body, this Congress, where D.C. has one elected member. They’re supposed to be helping us with the cost of housing, safety in our streets, funding for our schools, and they are not on the ball. So we need somebody with the fire and the energy in that building making Congress work for D.C., and that’s what I plan to do.

    • Nick Iannelli:

      So you’re saying your plans, and what you say needs to happen in this position, but you still haven’t really addressed what Eleanor Holmes Norton is not doing. In your opinion, what is she doing that is falling short in her current position that has led you to have these concerns?

    • Robert White:

      What I’ve said Nick is, again, this year, we have been on our heels. The entire time, we have not seen the defense of Congress, even Democrats voting against D.C., often. We have not gotten our money back that Congress stole from us. The bills to hurt D.C. that will make D.C. less safe are passing the Congress, and so we need someone in there who can fight those back. I’m not here to criticize Congresswoman Norton because she has given us decades of service. What I am saying is she doesn’t have the fire that she once had, and we need someone who has that fire and that energy right now and and that’s what I will bring to Congress for D.C.

    • Nick Iannelli:

      We anticipate that Eleanor Holmes Norton is going to run for reelection at this point. Have you heard differently?

    • Robert White:

      I’ve not heard differently from her. I have spoken to Eleanor Holmes Norton, and I talked to her and told her, I hope we can sit down, and my hope is that at some point in this race, she will see fit to pass the torch and endorse me. We’ve worked together before, and we’ve done some incredible work. And she knows that. I know that building in D.C. and D.C. government very well, so my hope is that she will see fit to pass the torch. She’s not there today, but I think we have some time.

    • Nick Iannelli:

      Look, I’m not going to ask you your exact words exchanged with Eleanor Holmes Norton, but what was the general attitude or the general vibe that you got, the feeling that you got when you had that short conversation with her? Can you tell us a little bit about just the general feeling that you got from her?

    • Robert White:

      She didn’t convey much. She said that she still plans to run at this point. I told her, I respect that, and I respect her. And I said I hope she’ll be open to getting together and really talking about this as as time goes on.

    • Nick Iannelli:

      What do you think about the leadership of Mayor Muriel Bowser in the face of the Trump administration’s continued chipping away at D.C.’s Home Rule, basically, the extreme challenges that the Trump administration is putting on D.C.’s autonomy and its self government. How do you think Mayor Muriel Bowser has handled this situation so far?

    • Robert White:

      Well, look, we have seen the president, no matter how kind or complicit we are, push harder and harder and come down worse on D.C. residents. Our folks are losing their jobs. They’re feeling less safe. We’re not getting mental health and medical services covered, and we have been defenseless. So as the Congress member, I’m going to coordinate with the city, but also national leaders to protect us, but also bring to the forefront for the Democratic Party D.C. statehood, because as the nation gets into these redistricting battles, we need two senators in the District of Columbia who can help stabilize the balance of power for the next decade, and that’s something I want to see more of our Democratic Party talking about. This is in the interest not just of the District of Columbia, but the entire country.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Thomas Robertson

    Source link

  • Only 2 Michigan Democrats vote against legislation calling Charlie Kirk a hero – Detroit Metro Times

    [ad_1]

    House Republicans forced Democrats into an awkward vote Friday by pushing through a resolution that hailed conservative provocateur Charlie Kirk as a champion of “unity” and “respectful, civil discourse,” despite his record of racist, misogynistic, and homophobic rhetoric. 

    The measure passed 310-58 with support from nearly 100 Democrats. It condemns political violence and eulogizes Kirk, who was fatally shot at an outdoor rally in Utah on Sept. 10, as a “courageous American patriot” who “worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction.”

    Only two of the six Democrats in the Michigan delegation — Reps. Shri Thanedar and Rashida Tlaib, both of Detroit — voted no. The states other four Democratic representatives, Debbie Dingell of Ann Arbor, Hillary Scholten of Grand Rapids, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Bay City, and Haley Stevens of Birmingham, supported the resolution. 

    Stevens is running for U.S. Senate and was recently endorsed by the Michigan Democratic Party Black Caucus. 

    In a statement, Dingell said she “vehemently” opposes Kirk’s “ideology, beliefs, and views, which were often divisive and cruel — but I voted in support of this resolution because his horrific killing, and this volatile time require all of us to reject violence, hate, and anger without hesitation.”

    Thanedar said honoring Kirk crossed a line. 

    “Empathy is not a celebration, and I will not call Charlie Kirk a hero,” he wrote on X after the vote. “I represent Detroit, the Blackest major city in the country. Given Kirk’s history of disparaging remarks towards Black Americans, I could not vote yes on House Resolution 719.”

    In written remarks shared with Metro Times, Thanedar said he mourned with Kirk’s family and opposed political violence, but could not endorse a resolution that whitewashed Kirk’s record of disparaging Black achievement. 

    “Charlie Kirk was obsessed with affirmative action and DEI,” Thanedar wrote. “He not only questioned the qualifications of Black Americans, but he also implied that there was no chance Black Americans could possibly be qualified for the positions they held. … This pattern — questioning Black intelligence, denying Black merit — runs through his years of commentary.”

    Tlaib’s office has yet to release a statement regarding her vote.

    Kirk built much of his brand by tearing down affirmative action, diversity programs, and civil rights gains, often with language that critics called outright racist. He railed against affirmative action and diversity initiatives, disparaged Martin Luther King Jr., and even described the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a “huge mistake.”

    On one podcast, Kirk singled out four prominent Black women — Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee — and declared, “You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

    In another broadcast, Kirk said, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”

    Kirk was also a crusader in the culture wars around gender and sexuality. He derided women in leadership as “diversity hires” and frequently attacked LGBTQ+ people, dismissing same-sex marriage as illegitimate and promoting the “groomer” slur against gay teachers. He championed anti-trans legislation across statehouses and condemned immigrants, espousing the Great Replacement conspiracy theory which promotes the idea of ethnic cleansing of white Americans.

    On Wednesday, the Congressional Black Caucus condemned Kirk’s assassination while rejecting the resolution as a political ploy

    “It is, unfortunately, an attempt to legitimize Kirk’s worldview — a worldview that includes ideas many Americans find racist, harmful, and fundamentally un-American,” the caucus said.

    For Thanedar, who represents a majority-Black district, the issue was personal as well as political. 

    “A hero is someone who fights for everyone, including those who have been historically left behind,” he wrote. “For white, conservative Christians, Kirk was their biggest champion. For the rest of us, it feels like Kirk was constantly putting us down and demeaning us. He did not earn a hero’s recognition.”


    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • GOP threatens clampdown on social media after Charlie Kirk suspect allegedly confessed on Discord

    [ad_1]

    Just before Tyler Robinson turned himself in for the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, authorities say he appeared to leave a trail of incriminating messages on the online gaming platform Discord.

    At first, his messages were playful. When a friend on a group chat noticed his likeness to the skinny white man in the grainy photos released by the FBI of the Utah Valley University shooting suspect — asking Robinson “wya,” an abbreviation of “where you at?” — Robinson was quick to joke: “My doppelganger is trying to get me in trouble.”

    But in a later Discord chat, Robinson appeared to confess.

    “Hey guys, I have bad news for you all,” Robinson said before he went to a police station the next day to surrender: “It was me at UVU yesterday.”

    Discord, the gaming messaging platform used by more than 200 million people, now finds itself at the center of the Kirk murder investigation and a roiling, heavily politicized national discussion about the internet’s role in fomenting violent extremism. Some lawmakers are threatening to impose more aggressive regulations and oversight on social media platforms.

    After federal agents served Discord with a search warrant, FBI Director Kash Patel said Tuesday at a Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing that agents are investigating “anyone and everyone” who interacted with Robinson on the platform. Asked if they were investigating more than 20 Discord users, Patel said, “It’s a lot more than that.”

    “We’re running them all down,” Patel said.

    But as prosecutors say they will pursue the death penalty — bringing seven charges including aggravated murder — Discord is only one part of the evidence investigators say they have against Robinson. They have cited DNA from the scene, text messages with his roommate and partner, and testimony from his family about statements at the dinner table about Kirk being full of hate.

    So far, officials have provided no evidence that Robinson planned the shooting on Discord or that any of his contacts on the platform knew of a plan to target Kirk .

    A Discord spokesperson said last week that an internal investigation has “not found or received any evidence that the suspect planned this incident on Discord or promoted violence on Discord.” Messages “about weapon retrieval and planning details,” the spokesperson stressed, “were not Discord messages, and likely took place on a phone-number based messaging platform.”

    That did not stop Kentucky Republican Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, from sending letters Wednesday to the chief executive officers of Discord — and other online gaming and social platforms Steam, Twitch and Reddit — requesting them to testify at an Oct. 8. committee hearing on online radicalization.

    “In the wake of this tragedy, and amid other acts of politically motivated violence, Congress has a duty to oversee the online platforms that radicals have used to advance political violence,” Comer said in a statement. He called on the CEOs of Discord and other networks to “explain what actions they will take to ensure their platforms are not exploited for nefarious purposes.”

    This is not the first time Discord, a network developed a decade ago for video gamers to chat directly by text, video or voice calls as they play games, has been accused of being a platform for extremists.

    In 2017, two years after Discord was founded, white supremacists used the site to plan the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va.

    The platform, which allows users to connect with other players, find teammates, get game updates and participate in community discussions, then took steps to prioritize content moderation. Over the next four years, it said in 2021, its trust and safety team swelled from one person to about 60 people, split between responding to user complaints and “proactively finding and removing servers and users engaging in high-harm activity like violent extremist organizing.”

    But in 2022, Discord made the news again: Payton Gendron, an 18-year-old white supremacist who killed 10 people in a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket, used the platform for more than a year and a half to plan his attack.

    While Discord is a platform extremists use to communicate, it is not the only one and extremists do not make up the bulk of its users, said Brian Levin, founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism and professor emeritus at California State University, San Bernardino.

    Rather than scrutinize Discord and other social platforms, Levin said, Congress would be better served examining the evolving nature of extremism.

    “Discord is just the latest device, much like the cell phone,” Levin said. “If you target a platform, young people and extremists will find a new place to go.”

    After the Kirk shooting, about 20 Discord users had been questioned, a law enforcement source told The Times. Not all of the people questioned were in the same chats.

    Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and current president of West Coast Trial Lawyers in Los Angeles, said the texts and Discord conversations can be effectively used by prosecutors as a confession if they can be determined to come from Robinson.

    “To the extent that those are his words, then absolutely,” Rahmani said. “They will be used against him.”

    But Rahmani said there doesn’t seem to be any criminal liability for members of the Discord chat group where Robinson appeared to have to confessed to the shooting, unless any of them took steps to help Robinson commit the crime or hide evidence.

    Merely being part of the chat group, he said, did not mean they were criminally responsible.

    “A normal civilian, you and me, you have no legal duty to stop or report it,” Rahmani said.

    Members of the chat would also not be required to stop or report anything to police, even if the killing was planned on the platform, he said. Unless someone in the chat was a mandated reporter, like a psychiatrist or therapist, they have no legal requirement to reach out to authorities.

    “By not reporting, that’s not enough to be obstructing an investigation,” he said.

    But that could change if someone in the chat tried to hide the text messages, or delete the conversations, Rahmani said.

    “That’s an affirmative act,” he said. “That’s destroying evidence, and that’s very different.”

    The platforms would have the same responsibility, Rahmani said, and although many of them take steps to monitor and report suspicious activity, not detecting or reporting it would not make them criminally liable.

    In 1996, Congress passed Section 230, a law to protect the evolving world of online communication. “No provider or user of an interactive computer service,” it says, “shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

    Catherine Crump, a clinical professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, said messaging and social media platforms have a virtual “ironclad immunity” from the content made by its users under Sec. 230. She noted that the law has long been viewed as out of date — artificial intelligence and algorithms to monitor speech or content, she noted, did not exist when it was passed — but the platforms are protected from their own content until an act of Congress makes changes.

    “We’re dependent on Congress to act here,” Crump said. “And Congress has not been effective on doing that under any kind of administration.”

    Focusing on Discord as an online source of political radicalization in this case, some argue, does not make sense: Evidence has yet to emerge that Robinson engaged politically on the site or discussed any plan to target Kirk ahead of the shooting.

    According to officials, Robinson sent some of his most incriminating messages via text message.

    After the shooting, court documents indicate, Robinson texted his partner to say: “Drop what you’re doing, look under my keyboard.” The roommate found a message that read: “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.”

    “What?????????????? You’re joking, right????” the roommate responded.

    “You weren’t the one who did it right????” his roommate asked.

    “I am,” Robinson responded. “I’m sorry.”

    During the conversation, court documents show, Robinson told his partner he left a rifle wrapped in a towel in a bush and needed to retrieve it from a drop point. He also appeared to provide a motive:

    “Why?” his partner texted Robinson.

    “Why did I do it?” Robinson responded.

    “Yeah,” the roommate replied.

    “I had enough of his hatred,” Robinson replied. “Some hate can’t be negotiated.”

    During Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called for the repeal of Sec. 230 and accused social media platforms of radicalizing users. “These companies are taking content that makes you sick, that could get you killed, get you poisoned, “ he said, “and there’s nothing we can do about it under our law … because of Section 230. “

    It appeared to be a sentiment Patel agreed with.

    “Do you believe that social media is one of the instruments radicalizing America and inciting violence?” Graham asked Patel.

    “The data shows that social media is wildly out of control when it comes to radicalizing,” Patel said.

    Graham then asked the FBI director if he would support a repeal of Sec. 230.

    “I’ve advocated that for years,” Patel said.

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie, Salvador Hernandez, Richard Winton

    Source link

  • EXCLUSIVE: New DC watchdog aims to become ‘leading voice’ for conservative values, effective governance

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    A new watchdog group aiming to hold major institutions accountable and promoting good governance says it plans to become a “leading voice” for conservative values and effective governance across the country.

    The Safety and Prosperity Oversight Coalition, which launched on Wednesday, will be led by seasoned political operative Chris Zeller. The group announced its creation this week and said it will be focused on promoting transparency, integrity and efficiency across American governmental institutions and the private sector. Zeller has a long history in GOP politics, including work on numerous national campaigns and a stint as the executive director for multiple state Republican parties. 

    “The coalition brings together some of the nation’s top attorneys and financial investigators, leveraging their expertise to scrutinize institutional practices, expose inefficiencies, and advocate for policies that prioritize safety and prosperity for all Americans,” stated a press release from the group. “Backed by a team of established professionals, the coalition is poised to become a leading voice for conservative values and effective governance.”

    EXCLUSIVE: HOUSE GOP REPORT ALLEGES $20B GREEN GRANTS ENRICHED BIDEN ALLIES 

    A police officer is seen stationed outside of the U.S. Capitol. (Getty Images)

    Per the press release, the watchdog will focus on three core pillars: “rigorous oversight of government spending, accountability for corporate and public sector misconduct, and advocacy for common-sense reforms to strengthen democratic institutions.” This work will subsequently be accomplished via independent audits, legal challenges to governmental overreach brought forward by the nonprofit, and public education campaigns “to empower citizens with the facts.”

    A GOP strategist who was willing to speak on background said the new watchdog group is a much-needed entity to combat efforts from the left. The strategist highlighted how the new conservative watchdog will help Republicans hold corporate America’s feet to the fire the same way the left did during the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, or the same way they did with “woke” diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

    DEPT OF ED SPENDING SOARED 749% DESPITE DOWNSIZING, NEW DOGE-INSPIRED INITIATIVE REVEALS

    Demonstrators in Michigan protest Trump’s anti-DEI agenda.

    Protesters in Michigan rally against President Donald Trump’s anti-DEI policies, denouncing federal rollbacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. (Getty Images/Dominic Gwinn)

    “The Safety and Prosperity Oversight Coalition is a response to the growing need for accountability in our institutions,” Zeller added. “Americans deserve leadership that upholds integrity and delivers results. Our coalition will shine a light on waste, corruption, and mismanagement, ensuring that those in power serve the public, not themselves.”

    Zeller most recently spent time as a top aide for Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., which followed his stint working on Kari Lake’s Arizona Senate bid in 2024. Lake ultimately lost to Democrat challenger Ruben Gallego.

    Elise Stefanik

    Former House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., speaks during a news conference in the U.S. Capitol. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Zeller also worked as the campaign manager for Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., when she successfully won her 2021 bid to represent New York’s 22nd Congressional District by a razor-thin margin of just over 100 votes.

    Meanwhile, Zeller has spent time as the Executive Director at both the Connecticut and New Hampshire state Republican parties as well.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • OMG! An Epstein List Name REVEALED! Plus MAJOR CLUES About Others In Congressional Hearing! – Perez Hilton

    [ad_1]

    Are these the biggest clues yet about who exactly is in the Epstein files?!? Plus an actual name?! HOW IS THIS NOT THE BIGGEST STORY RIGHT NOW???

    Donald Trump and his loyal DOJ and FBI leaders shocked some of the MAGA faithful with their about-face on Jeffrey Epstein. They went from teasing a big reveal to actually having teams of agents spend hundreds of hours reading the files… and suddenly deciding it all needed to be swept under the rug.

    Well, a small handful of Republicans have stood up to Trump on the Epstein issue, and their leader, Representative Thomas Massie from Kentucky, finally got one of those rug-sweepers in the hot seat this week.

    Kash Patel has been testifying to Congress the past couple days, being grilled on numerous scandals and mistakes, by Democrats and Republicans alike. But on Wednesday, Massie got to ask the biggest question we think America has right now: WTF?!?

    Kash In Pocket

    OK, Massie didn’t say that. But he did confront the seemingly confused FBI director about his inane claim to the Senate on Tuesday that Epstein didn’t traffic the girls to anyone. If you missed that claim, Patel maintained to Senator John Kennedy:

    “There is no credible information, none… that he trafficked to other individuals.”

    So Jeffrey Epstein trafficked underage girls to NO ONE? Despite the victims saying very clearly they were trafficked to powerful men? Well, Massie made his big play here. When Epstein’s victims got together and said they’d make their own list, Massie said he and Marjorie Taylor Greene might be able to reveal it even if the girls couldn’t themselves. And on Wednesday he gave us the first name! He defied Patel, saying:

    “According to victims who cooperated with the FBI in that investigation, these documents in FBI possession — in your possession — detail at least 20 men, including Mr. Jes Staley, CEO of Barclays Bank, who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked victims to.”

    Whoa, what?!?

    HE ACTUALLY NAMED SOMEONE! HE DROPPED A NAME FROM THE EPSTEIN LIST! HOW IS THIS NOT THE BIGGEST STORY OF THE DAY?!

    The First Name

    Who the heck is James Edward “Jes” Staley? A few months after Epstein’s death, the CEO of Barclays was investigated for mischaracterizing his relationship with him. Ultimately he resigned from his position.

    (c) Bloomberg/YouTube

    He was later named in a lawsuit against JP Morgan. An Epstein victim accused the bank of enabling Epstein financially — and Staley specifically of knowing exactly what he was doing. According to The New York Times, Staley was Epstein’s “chief defender” at JP Morgan, helping him keep his huge accounts despite suspicions he was up to no good. The lawsuit, revealed in January 2023, alleged Staley personally witnessed Epstein’s abuse of an underage girl.

    Related: Staley Was On This List With Trump…

    Why would he look the other way, so to speak? Well, it sounds like Massie says one of the victims told the government she’d been trafficked TO HIM!

    Currently he’s only facing civil and financial consequences.

    Major Effing Clues!

    Massie was far from finished. He may have only given one actual name, but he made very clear there’s a list of men accused of wrongdoing, and it’s in the government’s hands. He spoke about the men who were named by Epstein’s victims — and gave some major clues on who they are! He said:

    “That list also includes at least 19 other individuals: One Hollywood producer worth a few hundred million dollars. One royal prince. One high profile individual in the music industry. One very prominent banker. One high profile government official. One high profile former politician. One owner of a car company in Italy. One rock star. One magician. At least six billionaires, including a billionaire from Canada. We know these people exist in the FBI files, the files you control. I don’t know exactly who they are, but the FBI does. Have you launched investigations into any of these individuals?”

    YOWZA! That is a lot of clues all at once!

    Well, look, the Royal prince one is easy. Prince Andrew is one of the only men who have been accused publicly. Virginia Roberts Giuffre claimed she was trafficked to him by Epstein multiple times, including when she was just 17 years old. Here they are together in a photo with Epstein’s convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

    Prince Andrew Virginia Roberts scandal
    (c) BBC/WENN

    As for the “high profile government official” and “high profile former politician”? Pretty horrific to know our taxes have supported people like this, isn’t it?

    And then there’s “magician” — what a wild profession to throw out, right? But probably the most intriguing to us? A rich Hollywood producer?? A “rock star”? A “high profile individual in the music industry”?? Our minds are racing with ideas, though we’ve never, to our recollection, heard of any connection between Epstein and any specific people who fit these bills. Do YOU know who he’s talking about??

    Anyway, let’s check back in on what Patel has to say for himself…

    Kash Tries To Pass The Buck

    When Patel tried to reiterate that he hadn’t seen credible evidence yet, Massie pressed, remind him VICTIM TESTIMONY is evidence! He straight up asked the FBI head:

    “Is it your assertion that these victims aren’t credible? That the 302s maybe didn’t produce credible statements that rise to probable cause?”

    Patel said it was the decision of US attorneys, noting some were in past administrations. Totally passing the buck. Massie didn’t let him get away with it. He

    “Have you viewed the 302 documents where they victims name the people who victimized them?”

    Patel admitted he has not “personally” viewed the documents in question. So Massie hit him with:

    “So how can you sit here, and in front of the Senate, and say there are no names? I named one today.”

    He sure as hell did.

    Patel squirmed again, saying the FBI won’t release “victim names” or “in-credible evidence.” So let’s see if we’ve got this right… Despite the fact he was such a vocal crusader for the Epstein list before this job, Patel hasn’t made it a priority to personally look at any of this evidence, any of the victim testimony, in the nearly SEVEN MONTHS he’s been on the job. Instead, he’s totally satisfied being told there’s nothing to see, and he’s accepted that without looking for himself??

    Yeah, it didn’t sound like Massie bought any of that. You can see his full interrogation (below):

    Out Of The Frying Pan…

    Look, so far we’ve only been speaking about Kash Patel getting grilled by Republicans. But when it came to Dems, it was pretty bad, too. Though it did lean a little worse for Trump, as you might imagine…

    Eric Swalwell asked Patel did he ever “tell Donald Trump his name is in the files?” The FBI director said he’d never spoken to Trump about Epstein files. (Wow, but OK.) So Swalwell asked next:  

    “Did you ever tell the the Attorney General that Trump’s name is in the Epstein files?”

    This should have been a simple NO, right? Instead Patel gave a non-answer, saying:

    “The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.”

    Yeah, definitely didn’t answer that one. So Swalwell pressed him on it, asking again if he’d ever told the AG that Trump’s name was in the Epstein files. Patel again tried to skate around the answer, saying:

    “During many conversations that the Attorney General and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed…”

    Swalwell wasn’t having it. He said, “The question is simple,” asking again sarcastically slowly. Patel refused to answer and started attacking Swalwell and his home state of California instead. Eventually the Congressman had to give up and said simply:

    We’ll take your evasiveness as consciousness of guilt.”

    It went on like that with some others. At no time, speaking to either side of the aisle, did Patel look like he had any interest in getting to the truth about Epstein and his co-conspirators. Shame.

    Do you want Congress to demand release of the full Epstein files? Learn how to peacefully contact your reps to demand action at https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials.

    [Image via DOJ/MEGA/WENN/CBS News/Bloomberg/YouTube.]

    [ad_2]

    Perez Hilton

    Source link

  • House approves DC crime bills involving police chases and judges – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    The House on Wednesday approved more legislation aimed at D.C. crime, including a bill that would loosen restrictions on police car chases on city streets, when officers are trying to arrest suspected criminals.

    For all the latest developments in Congress, follow WTOP Capitol Hill correspondent Mitchell Miller at Today on the Hill.

    The House on Wednesday approved more legislation aimed at D.C. crime, including a bill that would loosen restrictions on police car chases on city streets when officers are trying to arrest suspected criminals.

    A second bill would give the president more authority over the appointment of D.C. judges by eliminating the Judicial Nomination Commission, which for decades has recommended judicial nominees.

    The measure to change police chase guidelines was approved on a bipartisan vote of 245-182.

    The legislation involving judges passed on a vote of 218-211, along party lines.

    The bill related to police vehicle chases was sponsored by Rep. Clay Higgins, a Republican who represents Louisiana’s 3rd District.

    “We’re restoring the discretion of the professional law enforcement officer to make a decision in a fraction of a second or two, based upon his policies and his training,” said Higgins, who is a former police officer.

    Higgins said “it’s got to be an option that you’re going to pursue that car,” noting he was involved in numerous car chases when he was in law enforcement.

    But Rep. Glenn Ivey, a Democrat who represents Maryland’s 4th District, spoke out against the bill.
    Ivey was a prosecutor in Prince George’s County, which often deals with criminal activity that begins in D.C.

    He noted that police chases can be dangerous — and in some cases deadly.

    Speaking on the House floor, Ivey recalled a case in which someone stole a motorcycle and an officer in Prince George’s County gave chase on the Capital Beltway.

    Speeds topped 100 miles an hour and the police officer, while trying to avoid debris on the side of the road, caused a major accident.

    “When he did that, the car jumped over the Jersey barrier between the two lanes and took him into the opposite lane of oncoming traffic,” Ivey said. “The car jumped over, hit the top of the car coming in the opposite direction and killed two men on their way to a concert.”

    GOP lawmakers say judicial panel needs to go

    Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, a Republican who represents the state’s 17th District, is the sponsor of the legislation to jettison the Judicial Nomination Commission.

    He argued that it “does not work” and that it “inappropriately limits the president’s authority.” Sessions, like many Republicans, praised President Donald Trump’s broader efforts to crack down on crime.

    “We’ve got a lot at risk, which is the same reason why President Donald Trump finally had the guts — yes, I will call them guts — to call in the National Guard to take on the crime presence that exists in Washington, D.C.,” he said.

    D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton spoke against the bill, pointing out that the commission has existed for 50 years.

    “Republicans claim the Judicial Nomination Commission is unconstitutional because it limits the president’s authority to make nominations,” she said. “They are wrong.”

    Approval of the two bills follows bipartisan votes Tuesday approving two other GOP crime bills.

    D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb are scheduled to testify Thursday before the House Oversight Committee.

    They are expected to discuss the latest efforts to bring down crime in the District.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Mitchell Miller

    Source link

  • Democrats unveil funding alternative to counter GOP in shutdown brawl

    [ad_1]

    Congressional Democrats released bill text Wednesday night for their own stopgap spending proposal as they dig in against a House Republican-backed measure that would fund the government until late November.

    The new Democratic proposal links funding the government through Oct. 31 to two of the party’s other priorities: health care assistance and placing limits on President Donald Trump’s ability to unilaterally roll back funds previously approved by Congress.

    The Democratic stopgap bill has virtually no chance of passing the Senate — much less getting to Trump’s desk before the end-of-the-month deadline to avert a shutdown. But it allows Democrats to rally behind a plan that will win a broad swath of support among their members in the House and Senate.

    “We invite Republican leadership to finally join Democratic leadership at the negotiating table, which they have refused for weeks to do, to prevent a shutdown and begin bipartisan negotiations to keep the government funded,” Congress’ top Democratic appropriators, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Washington Sen. Patty Murray, said in a joint statement.

    The Democrats’ bill would extend boosted Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies that will otherwise expire on Dec. 31. It also would reverse cuts to Medicaid and other health programs that Republicans enacted as part of their party-line megabill this summer.

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer hasn’t explicitly demanded that an extension of the expiring health care subsidies be attached to the stopgap bill, but Democrats also believe Congress can’t wait until the end of the year because Americans will need to make decisions about health insurance before that time.

    The bill contains several mandates for how the Trump administration can spend money, in an attempt to stifle the president’s moves to freeze, shift and cancel funding Congress approves.

    Under the measure, the president would be barred from carrying out his budget request while the government is running on a temporary funding patch. That includes increasing, reducing or eliminating funding unless Congress enacts those changes into law.

    The bill would also hamperTrump’s attempt this month to unilaterally cancel almost $5 billion. The president is planning to withhold the funding through its Sept. 30 expiration, but the bill would extend that date to thwart the cancellation of funding.

    This Democratic alternative comes after House Republicans unveiled their own funding proposal to punt the shutdown deadline to Nov. 21, which they want voted on their chamber floor by Friday. That offer also would include $30 million for lawmaker security and another $58 million in security assistance requested by the White House for the Supreme Court and executive branch.

    But Democrats have bristled over the GOP proposal because Republican leaders are, so far, not negotiating with them. Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries sent two letters to Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson requesting a meeting but said they had been ignored.

    “Donald Trump continues to push for a shutdown by not negotiating with us but are confident when the American people contrast these two proposals they are going to side with us,” Schumer told reporters Wednesday after the Democratic proposal was released.

    Thune opened the door Tuesdayto meeting with Schumer. But Democrats largely brushed off his comments, accusing Republicans of bending to Trump after the president said in a Fox News interview late last week that he didn’t need Democratic support. The Senate will need 60 votes to advance the spending deal, which will necessitate help from Democrats.

    Despite both Senate leaders now claiming they are willing to meet, as of early Wednesday evening nothing was on the books yet.

    Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the gambits to avoid a government shutdown over the next few days

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Gaming out what might happen over the next couple of days on an effort to avert a government shutdown…

    The newest wrinkle today is that Democrats intend to release their version of an interim spending bill soon. The question is when? One senior source said it may not come until Friday. 

    The House is now expected to vote on the GOP’s “clean” CR to simply renew all funding at the present levels through November 21 on Friday. First of all, the House must pass the bill. That could be tough because Democrats believe all of their members will vote no. It’s about the math: Republicans can only lose two votes on their side and still pass a bill without assistance from across the aisle. But let’s just operate under the presumption that the House can approve the bill Friday.

    Then the measure goes to the Senate.

    HOUSE PLANS THURSDAY VOTE ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING BILL TO EXTEND SPENDING THROUGH NOVEMBER

    The House is expected to vote on a GOP-backed “clean” CR to renew present funding through November 21. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

    Getting to final approval of this bill would require two rounds of “cloture” to break a filibuster. By the book, this process could take days and certainly bleed into the weekend for the initial round.

    However, Senate Republicans want to attend Charlie Kirk’s funeral on Sunday. And both sides are anxious to blame the other for blowing up an interim spending bill.

    SENATE REPUBLICANS PUSH MAJOR RULE CHANGE TO FAST-TRACK TRUMP NOMINEES IN BATCHES THIS WEEK

    Charlie Kirk vigil, including photo of TPUSA founder

    Senate Republicans intend to attend Charlie Kirk’s funeral Sunday. (Melissa Majchrzak/AFP via Getty Images)

    So, staring into the crystal ball – and speaking with senior sources from both sides – the following could happen in the Senate:

    The Senate gets the interim spending bill from the House on Friday afternoon. Both sides waive all of the rules and clocks in order to have two “show” votes sometime on Friday or Friday night.

    Republicans will insist on having a vote to break a filibuster on the motion to proceed to the House-passed bill. That needs 60 yeas. There are 53 Senate Republicans. Fox is told that Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is expected to be a no on the procedural vote.

    That means eight Democrats would have to join Republicans to vote to break the filibuster to hit the 60-vote threshold. That is not going to happen.

    TRUMP PRESSURES REPUBLICANS TO PASS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION TO AVERT A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

    Sen. Rand Paul speaks during a confirmation hearing.

    Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is reportedly expected to come out against the procedural vote. ( Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    The Senate would then vote in similar fashion on starting debate on the Democrats’ still-unwritten plan. The Senate would subject that vote to a 60 threshold. That too will fall short, since there are only 47 senators who caucus with the Democrats.

    That produces an impasse.

    “It’s good to have a logjam this early in the process,” said one senior Senate Democrat to Fox. “It shows that nothing can pass yet.”

    That gambit allows both sides to make their points and get the other side on the record.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Such a scenario would prevent a weekend session in the Senate. Both the House and Senate are scheduled to be out of session next week. Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown Monday. However, the House and Senate could come back to session after Rosh Hashanah (Wednesday at nightfall) if necessary. The House and Senate have until 11:59:59 p.m. ET on September 30 to both pass a Band-Aid bill and send it to the President to avoid a shutdown.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Republicans just voted to give even more tariff power away to Trump

    [ad_1]

    Since President Donald Trump took office, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority—and responsibility—to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” to the executive branch. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted yet again to prevent itself from reclaiming these powers from the president.

    The vote was on a procedural measure that passed out of the Rules Committee on Monday, which included a provision to “extend until March 31 a block on efforts…to end the national emergencies underlying Trump’s sweeping tariffs,” reports Politico. The measure passed in a partisan 213–211 vote, with only Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Kevin Kiley (R–Calif.), and Victoria Spartz (R–Ind.) breaking party ranks.

    The measure mirrors House Resolution 211, which cleared the House in March and “blocked the most direct pathway for lawmakers to revoke the emergency executive powers” Trump used to levy tariffs “on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China,” Reason‘s Eric Boehm wrote at the time. The March resolution deemed each remaining day of the first session of the 119th Congress as not a day “for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act [NEA] with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1.”

    The NEA grants Congress the authority to cancel all national emergencies declared by the president through a law or joint resolution. This includes emergencies invoked by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—the law that Trump has used to levy tariffs on many of America’s trade partners—which authorizes the president to impose asset freezes, trade embargoes, and sanctions, but not tariffs. By refusing to recognize days during which Section 202 of the NEA is considered, Congress ceded its ability to nullify Trump’s February IEEPA tariffs until January 3, 2026.

    Tuesday’s resolution follows the same logic. House Resolution 707 nullified the provisions of “section 202 of the National Emergencies Act…from September 16, 2025, through March 31, 2026 [with respect to] a joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared by the President on July 30.” That national emergency was declared the day before Trump’s July 31 executive order further modifying the reciprocal tariff rates, which were first imposed on “Liberation Day” in April. This order not only levied across-the-board duties on Mexico, Canada, and China, as Trump did in February, but imposed not-so-reciprocal tariffs on every country with which the U.S. has normal trade relations. By passing this resolution, the only way Congress can interfere with Trump’s reciprocal tariffs would be to pass a law amending the IEEPA statute itself, which almost certainly will not happen.

    Rep. Suzan DelBene (D–Wash.), who voted against the resolution, tells Reason that “House Republicans have yet again abdicated their constitutional role over trade policy to President Trump, effectively capitulating to the largest tax increase on Americans in history.”

    As Congress has sat idly by, courts have been deliberating the constitutionality of Trump using IEEPA to set tariffs.

    In May, the Court of International Trade (CIT) unanimously ruled that Trump’s IEEPA tariffs were “beyond the scope of executive power, and…blocked [them] by a permanent injunction,” Ilya Somin, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, explained at the time. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the CIT’s ruling on August 29, but vacated the lower court’s universal injunction. Pending an oral argument before the Supreme Court in the first week of its November session, Trump’s tariffs remain in effect.

    The Supreme Court wouldn’t be involved if Congress hadn’t delegated its tariff power to the president through laws like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (responsible for Section 232 tariffs) and the Trade Act of 1974. Unfortunately, Congress has long been eager to offload its constitutional duties to the executive branch. Tuesday’s resolution is merely a continuation of this trend.

    [ad_2]

    Jack Nicastro

    Source link