data_id
int64 1
1.12M
| id
stringlengths 32
138
| date
timestamp[s] | source
stringlengths 2
24
| title
stringlengths 12
203
| content
stringlengths 32
65.4k
⌀ | author
stringlengths 2
242
⌀ | url
stringlengths 27
244
| published
stringlengths 14
32
| published_utc
int64 1.55B
1.58B
| collection_utc
int64 1.57B
1.58B
| category_level_1
stringclasses 17
values | category_level_2
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
48,866 |
bigleaguepolitics--2019-12-29--Michael Moore Admits Trump Has Increased Support in Rust Belt, Predicts He Will Win Re-Election
| 2019-12-29T00:00:00 |
bigleaguepolitics
|
Michael Moore Admits Trump Has Increased Support in Rust Belt, Predicts He Will Win Re-Election
|
Left-wing documentarian Michael Moore now believes that President Trump will win re-election, based upon his strength in his home state of Michigan and other states in the rust belt throughout the Midwest. Moore confessed his fears during a recent appearance on Democracy Now! with host Amy Goodman. He believes that if the re-election were to take place today, Trump would certainly be the winner. “I think if the election were held today,” Moore said. “Hillary won by 3 million popular votes. I believe whoever the Democrat is next year is going to win by 4 to 5 million popular votes. There’s no question in my mind that people who stayed home, who sat on the bench, they’re going to pour out, in California, New York and — you know, but also in Texas and whatever, I mean, places that Trump will probably win, but, yeah, there’s going to be a much higher percentage of people voting against him.” Trending: Pope Francis Unveils Globalist New World Religion at Summit with United Nations Leader “The problem is, if the vote were today, I believe, he would win the electoral states that he would need, because, living out there, I will tell you, his level of support has not gone down one inch,” he added. “In fact, I’d say it’s even more rabid than it was before, because they’re afraid now. They’re afraid he could lose, because they watched his behavior. So they are voracious in their appetite for Donald Trump. That’s the bad news.” take our poll - story continues below Although he believes President Trump will win, he isn’t giving up all hope quite yet. Moore predicts that 70 percent of the voting public will be women, minorities, and young people who he believes are “on our side.” He thinks that these people could be galvanized if Democrats elect a “fighter” instead of “another Hillary Clinton.” “What we have to do is we have to make sure we don’t give them another Hillary Clinton to vote for. The Democrats who are encouraging moderation, go to the center — you know, ‘Let’s not upset the angry white guys’ — that’s really what it is,” Moore said. “Ninety thousand wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party: ‘You forgot us a long time ago out here, and we will not put up with this anymore. We’re not going to vote for Trump, but we’re not going to tolerate you sending us another Republican-lite Democrat.'” “If we go that route, it’s guaranteed we will lose the Electoral College,” Moore continued. “We will win when we put somebody on that ballot that excites the base — women, people of color, young people. When they wake up that morning and they feel the way that many of us, many of you watching, felt the morning that you were going to — in 2008, and you were going to get to go and vote for Barack Obama. That feeling has got to happen in the 18-to-35-year-old demographic. It has to happen with people of color and with women. We already feel that way. They already feel that way. It’s just: Will they come out and vote for a centrist, moderate candidate. I don’t think that is going to happen. They’re going to come out and vote for the fighter, for the person that shares their values.” Moore believes that nominating a bona fide extremist would be the best way for Democrats to capitalize on the growing polarization in the country and defeat Trump in 2020. “Polarization is always talked about like it’s a bad thing,” Moore said. “I think it’s a good thing. I think if you think women should have the right to vote, I don’t think there’s a middle position on that. You either believe that women should vote or women shouldn’t vote. You either believe that a fertilized egg is a human being or not. There’s no middle ground there.” However, recent results in the British election – which saw a populist Conservative Party crush a far-left Labour Party – do not seem to back up Moore’s recipe for electoral victory: The Conservative Party has crushed Labour in Thursday’s general election, which is expected to result in a substantial majority in Parliament. According to exit polls conducted by the BBC, the Tories will end up with 368 Members of Parliament (MPs), which is 50 more than they had following the 2017 election. Labour is expected to have 191 MPs while the SNP is expected to take 55 and Lib Dems are expected to have 13. The official totals are expected to be known by midday on Friday. BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg predicts that this victory will be enough to allow Prime Minister Boris Johnson to remove the UK from the European Union, finally going through with the Brexit that was approved in 2016. Labour’s projected loss of 71 seats would be their worst result since 1935, a damning indictment of radical leftist party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has drawn a great deal of criticism for his alleged anti-Semitism. He was forced to begrudgingly apologize for the growing anti-Semitism within his party just last week. Moore’s entire interview can be seen here:
|
Shane Trejo
|
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/michael-moore-admits-trump-has-increased-support-in-rust-belt-predicts-he-will-win-re-election/
|
Sun, 29 Dec 2019 00:54:43 +0000
| 1,577,598,883 | 1,577,624,678 |
politics
|
election
|
57,962 |
birminghammail--2019-03-13--General Election odds SLASHED as Theresa Mays Brexit deal rejected
| 2019-03-13T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General Election odds SLASHED as Theresa May's Brexit deal rejected
|
Theresa May is facing renewed calls for a General Election THIS YEAR after her Brexit strategy was dealt a devastating blow. May faces the calls after the House of Commons rejected her EU Withdrawal Agreement by an overwhelming majority for the second time. A Downing Street spokesman said: "We are not preparing for and we do not want a general election." MPs voted by 391 to 242 against the deal despite the Prime Minister's assurance new agreements reached with Jean-Claude Juncker in Strasbourg would ensure the UK cannot be trapped in the controversial backstop arrangement indefinitely. Although the 149 margin was reduced from the record 230-vote defeat of the first "meaningful vote" in January, Mrs May was left far adrift from a majority with just 17 days to go to the scheduled date of Brexit on March 29. The next general election is set to be held no later than 5 May 2022. Theresa May has repeatedly said that calling an early election isn't in the national interest. Whether or not Theresa May will survive as Prime Minister until then remains to be seen. Some 75 Conservative MPs rebelled to vote against the deal, while just three Labour MPs and four independents joined the 235 Tories who backed it. In line with a promise set out by Mrs May last month, MPs are now due to vote on Wednesday on whether they are willing for the UK to leave the EU without a deal on March 29. Mrs May announced she will grant Conservative MPs a free vote on a motion stating "this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a framework on the future relationship on March 29". If MPs reject no-deal - as most Westminster observers expect - a third vote will follow on Thursday on whether to authorise Mrs May to request an extension of the two-year Article 50 negotiation process. Members of the Malthouse Compromise group of Tories from both Leave and Remain wings immediately tabled an amendment proposing a "standstill" agreement lasting as late as the end of 2021, during which the UK would observe EU rules and pay into Brussels budgets while a full trade deal is negotiated. A Labour Party spokesman said: "Allowing a free vote on no deal shows Theresa May has given up any pretence of leading the country. "Once again, she's putting her party's interests ahead of the public interest." Battling with a croaky voice, Mrs May said she still believed leaving with a deal was the best option for Britain and "the deal we've negotiated is the best and indeed the only deal available". She told MPs: "Let me be clear. Voting against leaving without a deal and for an extension does not solve the problems we face. "The EU will want to know what use we mean to make of such an extension and this House will have to answer that question. "Does it wish to revoke Article 50? Does it want to hold a second referendum? Or does it want to leave with a deal, but not this deal? "These are unenviable choices. Thanks to the decision that the House has made this evening, they are choices that must now be faced." Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said his party would once more put forward its own proposal for a deal and repeated his demand for a general election. "The Prime Minister has run down the clock and the clock has been run out on her," Mr Corbyn said. "It's time that we have a General Election and the people can choose who their Government should be." An extension of Article 50 requires the unanimous agreement of all 27 remaining member states and Mr Juncker has warned it cannot stretch beyond May 23 unless the UK takes part in the European Parliament elections starting on that date. The European Commission president had already said if MPs turned down the package agreed in Strasbourg on Monday there would be "no third chance" to renegotiate. Following the vote, a spokesman for European Council president Donald Tusk said the EU had done "all that is possible" to reach an agreement and would require "a credible justification" from the UK for any extension. "It is difficult to see what more we can do," he said. "If there is a solution to the current impasse it can only be found in London." He added: "Should there be a UK reasoned request for an extension, the EU27 will consider it and decide by unanimity. "The EU27 will expect a credible justification for a possible extension and its duration. "With only 17 days left to March 29, today's vote has significantly increased the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit. "We will continue our no-deal preparations and ensure that we will be ready if such a scenario arises." The UK is set to publish further details of its own no-deal plans - including tariff rates for imports - on Wednesday. A day of drama in Westminster began with Cabinet giving its approval to Mrs May's package at an early-morning meeting in 10 Downing Street, which ended with the PM telling colleagues: "Today is the day. Let's get this done." But the momentum moved sharply against the Prime Minister shortly afterwards as Attorney General Geoffrey Cox released formal legal advice that the changes secured by Mrs May "reduce the risk" the backstop will be permanent but do not remove it altogether. The Star Chamber of lawyers convened by the Brexit-backing European Research Group declared three new documents agreed in Strasbourg failed to deliver the legally-binding changes demanded by the Commons. The Democratic Unionist Party - which props up Mrs May's minority administration in the Commons - said its 10 MPs would vote against the latest deal as "sufficient progress has not been achieved at this time". With husband Philip watching from the Commons gallery, the Prime Minister warned MPs "Brexit could be lost" if they gave her deal the thumbs-down again. But she met a wall of hostility from opposition parties, while only a handful of former Tory rebels fell in behind her. Brexit figurehead and former foreign secretary Boris Johnson told the Commons that Mrs May and Mr Cox had "sowed an apron of fig leaves that does nothing to conceal the embarrassment and indignity of the UK." Speaking ahead of the vote, the vice-chairman of the influential 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs, Charles Walker, said defeat would mean "a general election within a matter of days or weeks". He told the BBC: "It is not sustainable, the current situation in Parliament." Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable later told the Press Association Mrs May's authority was "completely shot". "How she can continue with the same plan of action is incomprehensible," said Sir Vince. "Something has got to give. I should imagine the Conservative Party will just put an end to this." A Downing Street source said the Prime Minister had not discussed resigning with her team and pointed out MPs had only recently expressed their confidence in the Government in a Commons vote.
|
James Rodger
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/general-election-odds-slashed-theresa-15965366
|
2019-03-13 08:23:24+00:00
| 1,552,479,804 | 1,567,546,367 |
politics
|
election
|
58,087 |
birminghammail--2019-03-14--Four-year elections for Walsall backed by city council boss
| 2019-03-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Four-year elections for Walsall backed by city council boss
|
Birmingham City Council leader Ian Ward has advised his Walsall counterparts that four-yearly elections have provided "many benefits" to his authority. Walsall Council is considering the implications of moving from annual elections to a four-year cycle - a move which could see the cash-strapped authority save more than £500,000 over four years. The issue was discussed at a scrutiny overview committee meeting on Tuesday (March 12) where chairman Councillor John Murray said he had written to three councils who had made the move. Members of Walsall's ruling Conservative administration and the Labour group were for and against the move but Councillor Ward said four-yearly elections had been a success in the city. He said: "In May 2018, Birmingham changed to four-yearly elections. As leader of the Labour group, this change is welcomed as it has provided many benefits. "This has included the opportunity to make difficult decisions, unfortunately necessary in these times of austerity, without constantly being in election mode. "It has provided a continuity that has been enhanced by the decision of the Labour group to align leader and deputy leader elections with the four year cycle. Other appointments by the groups are still on a yearly basis." Members of the committee, however, were divided on Walsall becoming the latest metropolitan borough council to move to four-year ballots. Conservative councillor Adam Hicken said: "I think there would be a loss to the democratic process and engagement with the community would decrease." Labour's Aftab Nawaz added: "I'm not really convinced this is the way forward. If it is about saving money, then why not get rid of all councillors? "There is also the issue of democracy - anyone who doesn't like the party in power would have a long wait to change." But his Labour colleague Doug James said he was in favour of changing to four-years but added he'd like to see the number of councillors on the authority reduced. He said: "A lot of people feel this is positive because there would be an opportunity for all parties to field councillors across the board and really go for it. "We want people to be fully engaged with the process and I think this move would make that stronger." Walsall Council and Tory group leader Mike Bird said: "The monetary savings are a by-product really. If we had one election every four years, it would give stability to the people of Walsall and the council. "As it is, when there is an election people coming in unpick everything the previous administration has done. "The message to the public would be clear - you can make a difference by voting for four years stability rather than 12 months' chaos."
|
Gurdip Thandi
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/four-year-elections-for-walsall-15969474
|
2019-03-14 12:03:05+00:00
| 1,552,579,385 | 1,567,546,208 |
politics
|
election
|
59,979 |
birminghammail--2019-04-05--Dudley Council local elections 2019 The candidates standing in every ward
| 2019-04-05T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Dudley Council local elections 2019: The candidates standing in every ward
|
Next month's election for Dudley Council has attracted 104 candidates vying for one of the 24 seats being contested. With the political balance in the council chamber on a knife edge, Labour and Conservatives have fielded full slates for all of the borough's wards with UKIP standing 15 candidates in its bid to win back the councillors it lost last year. The Greens are fighting in 13 wards as are the Liberal Democrats. The election has seen the emergence of a hyperlocal group in the shape of the Black Country Party which is also contesting seats in Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton. One of the Conservative's target wards is Norton whose sitting Independent, Cllr Heather Rogers, switched her support to the Labour party last year letting them take political control of the authority. The leader of the council and the Labour group, Cllr Qadar Zada, will be defending his Netherton, Woodside & St Andrew's seat. The borough will go to the polls on Thursday, May 2.
|
George Makin
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/dudley-council-local-elections-2019-16082289
|
2019-04-05 10:40:12+00:00
| 1,554,475,212 | 1,567,543,839 |
politics
|
election
|
60,026 |
birminghammail--2019-04-05--Sandwell Council local elections 2019 The candidates standing in every ward
| 2019-04-05T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Sandwell Council local elections 2019: The candidates standing in every ward
|
A total of 88 candidates have thrown their hats into the ring for the 24 council seats being contested in Sandwell at next month's local elections. Both Labour and the Conservatives have fielded a full slate of nominees followed closely followed by the Green Party, which is putting up 18 people this time round. The election has also seen the first appearance of a new hyperlocal group in the shape of the Black Country Party which is standing two candidates in Sandwell, along with others across the region. Former councillors, Dave and Shirley Hosell, are now standing as Independents after being de-selected by the Labour Party. Voting takes place on Thursday, May 2 and the full list of candidates are:
|
George Makin
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/sandwell-council-local-elections-2019-16081240
|
2019-04-05 10:18:03+00:00
| 1,554,473,883 | 1,567,543,838 |
politics
|
election
|
61,603 |
birminghammail--2019-05-02--Local election results 2019 LIVE Conservatives gain Walsall results from Dudley Sandwell and Wolv
| 2019-05-02T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Local election results 2019 LIVE: Conservatives gain Walsall; results from Dudley, Sandwell and Wolverhampton
|
The political landscape of the Black Country – and indeed the nation – could change overnight as thousands of voters take to the polls in the local elections. Already the leadership of Walsall Council has changed - the Conservatives have gone from being in minority control of the authority to majority control. There are 8,425 seats up for grabs in a total of 248 councils, including metropolitan, district and unitary authorities. The elections are expected to be a major battleground for the Conservative Party and Labour on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from Brexit to bin collections. Dudley Council will see candidates contest one seat in each of 24 wards, with 104 candidates in the running. With the political balance in the council chamber on a knife edge, Labour and Conservatives have fielded full slates for each of the borough’s wards, while UKIP is standing 15 candidates in its bid to win back the councillors it lost last year. Sandwell remains one of the most politically unbalanced local authorities in the country, with Labour holding all 72 seats. Twenty-four seats are up for grabs in a poll that comes on the back of a turbulent year. One third of Walsall Council seats are up for grabs, with 64 candidates set do battle across 20 wards. Both the ruling Conservative group and Labour are fielding candidates in every single one of the 20 wards. Eighty would-be councillors from eight different parties will be vying for seats on Wolverhampton Council. Polls close at 10pm and the first results could begin to arrive at around midnight and are expected to be in full flow by 2am. This live blog will update throughout the early hours to bring details of voting in the four boroughs - as well as the national flavour.
|
Jordan Coussins
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/live-dudley-walsall-wolverhampton-election-16194897
|
2019-05-02 20:44:51+00:00
| 1,556,844,291 | 1,567,541,358 |
politics
|
election
|
61,692 |
birminghammail--2019-05-03--Jubilant Tories seize overall majority on Walsall Council in local elections
| 2019-05-03T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Jubilant Tories seize overall majority on Walsall Council in local elections
|
Jubilant Tories became the first party to hold a majority in Walsall since 2011 following the local council elections. The Conservatives seized Bloxwich East and Birchills-Leamore - two traditional Labour strongholds - to take complete control of the authority. It was a desperately disappointing night for the Labour group who now must dust themselves down and elect a new leader later today (Friday, March 3). Last year, the Tories controversially took control of the authority - which was split between 30 Conservative and 30 in the Labour-Liberal Democrat alliance with the 2017/18 Mayor Marco Longhi using his casting vote to re-elect himself as civic leader and put his party back in control. But following this year's success, the Conservatives now have 32 members with Labour down to 26 and the Liberal Democrats having two. Walsall Council leader Mike Bird said: "It is a fantastic night. I think all the candidates worked exceptionally hard and I have to pay special tribute to my deputy and election manager Adrian Andrew. We all know how hard he works and without him we'd be lost. "I think it is a good result for the efforts we have put in and that in itself should never be under-estimated. "We delivered probably half a million pieces of literature although there is always someone who says 'I had nothing from you' but that is a lot of shoe leather. "The vote tonight says to me that the people out there believe the council is in better hands and better run by the Conservatives rather than the Labour group. "Our plans are to build on what we have done this evening and looking forward to the next election and building our majority. He added he was disappointed with the low turnout which, in some wards, got little over 20 per cent. Councillor Bird said: "The turnout is appalling and I understand why people might be apathetic to voting as they have probably been electioned out. "I think there is a great deal of anger on the doorstep because the MPs in Westminster have not delivered the vote that the country cast - 17.5 million people said we should be out of Europe and that's exactly where we should be." Walsall Labour group deputy leader Lee Jeavons said he and his colleagues would assess where things went wrong for them once the dust had settled. He said: "Well clearly it is disappointing. We came here hoping to gain seats and we lost two and you can't get around the fact that is disappointing. "We will have to sit down in the cold light of day when people are not so tired and emotional and work out exactly what happened tonight. "I'm not pointing fingers. Everybody worked their socks off. "We need to ask 'why did this happen?' When you look at Walsall, we've had two sets of disappointing results two years in a row so clearly there needs to be some analysis." "We believe what is going on is an anti-democratic thing. A lot of people stopped at home and we had more spoiled ballot papers tonight than I've ever seen. And they were deliberately spoiled and I think that reflects the mood of the people." Last month, Councillor Sean Coughlan stepped down as Labour leader due to mental health issues and a new chief will be elected this evening. Councillor Jeavons added: "The group will make some decisions tomorrow and we will choose a leader and a deputy leader and we will move on. "The party in Walsall is beginning to renew itself and reinvigorate but we have reached a low point so we need to see how we are going to work up to a high point."
|
Gurdip Thandi
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/jubilant-tories-seize-overall-majority-16218640
|
2019-05-03 02:25:09+00:00
| 1,556,864,709 | 1,567,541,246 |
politics
|
election
|
61,696 |
birminghammail--2019-05-03--Local election 2019 results IN FULL as 248 councils declare polls
| 2019-05-03T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Local election 2019 results IN FULL as 248 councils declare polls
|
Voters have vented their anger at the two main parties over the continuing Brexit deadlock as both the Tories and Labour suffered losses in the English council elections. Conservatives shed more than 400 seats and 16 councils in early results, with voters apparently expressing frustration at the Government’s failure to deliver Brexit as promised on March 29. There were calls from Tory MPs for Theresa May’s removal as leader, with senior Brexiteer Sir Bernard Jenkin warning that the party would be “toast” unless it “mends its ways pretty quickly”. Watch above to see the results from the Midlands local elections at a glance But Labour also struggled, losing seats at a point in the electoral cycle when they could expect to be making significant gains at the expense of the Government. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats were enjoying a good night, with some predictions that they could pick up as many as 500 seats. With results in from 109 of the 248 councils where elections are being held, the Conservatives had lost 409 seats and Labour 60, while the Lib Dems had gained 283 and the Greens 35. There were 85 more independent councillors, while Ukip lost eight. With some analysts predicting overall Tory loses of 800 seats or more, Brexit Minister James Cleverly suggested it would be a good result if they could be kept down to 500. “If it was 500 rather than 1,000 I would be happy with that,” he said. The Conservatives lost Peterborough, Basildon, Southend, Worcester, St Albans, Welwyn Hatfield, Folkestone and Hythe, Broxtowe, Tendring and Tandridge to no overall control while Winchester, Chelmsford, Bath and North East Somerset, Somerset Wesand Taunton, Vale of White Horse, Cotswold and Hinckley and Bosworth fell to the Liberal Democrats, with North Kesteven going to independents. However the party held on in the bellwether council of Swindon, seen as a possible Labour gain, and took Walsall and North East Lincolnshire from no overall control. Education Minister Nadhim Zahawi said the losses reflected the anger among voters over Brexit and called on MPs to rally behind Theresa May’s deal. “Because we haven’t been able to deliver Brexit on March 29 we are seeing these results,” he said. “The Prime Minister has stretched every sinew, she has tried everything. We can keep blaming the Prime Minister, ultimately it is in the hands of us parliamentarians.” Sir Bernard Jenkin said voters overwhelmingly believed that she had “lost the plot” and that the time had come for a change of leader. “They can see that she has lost the plot. They can see she is not in control of events,” he said. “Certainly among Conservative activists and council candidates there is an almost universal feeling that it is time for her to move on.” His comments were echoed by former cabinet minister Priti Patel who said voters saw Mrs May as “part of the problem”. “I just don’t think we can continue like this. We need change, we need a change of leadership. Perhaps the time has now come for that,” she told the BBC. Labour meanwhile lost control in Bolsover, Hartlepool and Wirral and the mayoralty in Middlesbrough, where its vote was down 11% as independent Andy Preston was elected, although it did gain Trafford from no overall control. Even where the party held on in its traditional stronghold of Sunderland, which voted heavily for Brexit in the 2016 referendum, it still lost 10 council seats. Council leader Graham Miller said the party had paid the price for its stance on Brexit, with some MPs calling for a second referendum. “The people of Sunderland have said ‘We are just not accepting that’. We have seen a massive protest vote on that issue tonight,” he said. And MP Jess Phillips blamed the party’s position on Brexit, which has seen it offer support for a second referendum only in a limited set of circumstances. “I think our position on Brexit has failed,” said the Birmingham Yardley MP. “Bravery is needed. If you combine kindness and effectiveness with a bit of grit most people will respect you even when they don’t always agree.” Labour’s national elections co-ordinator Andrew Gwynne accepted it had been “a difficult set of elections” for the party and that Brexit had “undoubtedly” been a factor. “We have to look at the reasons why the Labour vote either didn’t come out or felt frustrated and voted for independents and smaller parties,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme. “Undoubtedly, Brexit played a part in the results. It was the first opportunity people have had to vote and there’s been that sense of frustration.” Polling expert Professor Sir John Curtice of Strathclyde University said the voters appeared to be punishing whichever of the main two parties was in control in their area. “The Labour Party is losing where they are strong historically, the Conservatives are losing where they are strong historically. It’s a plague on all your houses,” he said. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats, who fought on a pro-Remain platform, were in buoyant mood. As well as picking up councils from the Tories, they took North Norfolk and North Devon from no overall control. Home affairs spokesman Sir Edward Davey said the results were “equivalent to our best strides forward ever in our history”. “We are clearly back in the game,” said Sir Edward. “People have been frustrated with the appalling Tory Government, who have let them down not just on Brexit but with cuts to police and schools, and a split opposition with such poor leadership. “They have been crying out for a strong alternative. The Liberal Democrats have proven we are that strong alternative to the Tories and Labour.” With results in from 100 of the 248 councils where elections are being held the Liberal Democrats had a net gain of 235 seats and the Greens 34. The Lib Dems took four councils from the Tories: Winchester, Cotswold, Bath and North East Somerset, and Hinckley and Bosworth, while North Kesteven went to independents. Another point of satisfaction for the party came from the fact leading Brexiteer MP Jacob Rees-Mogg now has a Liberal Democrat councillor representing him in Somerset. The Conservatives had a net loss of 332 seats and Labour 45. While the Tories took two councils – Walsall and North East Lincolnshire from no overall control – they lost Peterborough, Basildon, Southend, Worcester, St Albans, Welwyn Hatfield, Folkestone and Hythe, and Tandridge to no overall control. Labour was hoping to take Swindon from the Tories, but didn’t manage to. Brexit-backing Conservative MP Sir Bernard Jenkin said: “If the Conservative Party doesn’t mend its ways pretty quickly, the Conservative Party is going to be toast. “It is quite obvious that the Conservative Party has got to deliver Brexit – and a Brexit that really is Brexit.” Education Minister Nadhim Zahawi said the losses reflected the anger among voters over Brexit and called on MPs to rally behind Theresa May’s deal. Jeremy Corbyn’s party also struggled, losing seats at a point in the electoral cycle when they could expect to be making significant gains at the expense of the Government. Labour lost control in Bolsover for the first time ever, in Hartlepool and in Wirral, although it did gain Trafford from no overall control. Labour MP Jess Phillips reacted by saying her party’s position on Brexit had “failed”. Fellow Labour MP Wes Streeting said losses in Sunderland and Liverpool demonstrated that “looking both ways on Brexit isn’t doing Labour any good”. Labour MP Neil Coyle, a prominent critic of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, made clear that he believes the party should have done better. Trafford: Lab gain 6, LD gain 2, Green gain 1, C lose 9. New council: Lab 36, C 20, LD 4, Green 3 Hartlepool: Lab lose to No Overall Control. Ind gain 3, UKIP gain 1, Lab lose 4. New council: Ind 16, Lab 13, C 3, UKIP 1 Wirral: Lab lose to No Overall Control. Green gain 2, C gain 1, LD gain 1, Lab lose 2, Ind lose 2. New council: Lab 32, C 22, LD 6, Ind 3, Green 3 Bolsover: Lab lose to NOC. Boundary change. Ind up 10, C up 2, LD up 1, Lab down 13. New council: Lab 18, Ind 16, C 2, LD 1 Walsall: Cons gain from No Overall Control. C gain 2, Lab lose 2. New council: C 32, Lab 26, LD 2 North East Lincolnshire: Cons gain from No Overall Control. C gain 5, UKIP gain 1, Lab lose 4, LD lose 1, Ind lose 1. New council: C 23, Lab 14, LD 4, UKIP 1 Basildon: Cons lose to No Overall Control. Lab gain 2, Ind gain 2, C lose 4. New council: C 20, Lab 15, Ind 6, UKIP 1 Tandridge: Cons lose to No Overall Control. R gain 3, LD gain 2, Ind gain 1, C lose 6. New council: C 16, LD 11, Ind 8, R 7. Peterborough: LD gain 2, Lab gain 1, Green gain 1, C lose 3, UKIP lose 1. New council: C 28, Lab 17, LD 9, Ind 3, Green 2, Lib 1C lose to NOC Southend-on-Sea: Cons lose to No Overall Control. Lab gain 3, LD gain 3, Ind gain 2, C lose 8. New council: C 20, Lab 14, Ind 12, LD 5 St Albans: LD gain 7, C lose 7. New council: LD 25, C 23, Lab 6, Ind 3, Green 1 Worcester: Green gain 1, C lose 1. New council: C 17, Lab 15, Green 3 Winchester: LD gain 5, C lose 5. New council: LD 27, C 18 Welwyn Hatfield: LD gain 4, C lose 2, Lab lose 2. New council: C 23, Lab 13, LD 12 Folkestone & Hythe: Lab gain 6, Green gain 6, LD gain 2, C lose 10, UKIP lose 2, Ind lose 2. New council: C 13, Lab 6, Green 6, UKIP 2, LD 2, Ind 1 North Kesteven: Ind gain from C. Ind gain 8, C lose 8. New council: Ind 22, C 20, Vacant 1 Tendring: Cons lose to No Overall Control. Ind up 5, Lab up 2, LD up 1, C down 17, R down 3 New council: Ind 17, C 16, Lab 6, UKIP 5, LD 2, Vacant 2 Broxtowe: Lab gain 3, LD gain 1, Ind gain 1, C lose 5. New council: C 20, Lab 14, LD 5, Ind 3, Vacant 2 Winchester: LD gain 5, C lose 5. New council: LD 27, C 18 North Norfolk: LD up 11, C down 14, Ind down 5. New council: LD 30, C 6, Ind 4 Cotswold: LD gain 7, Green gain 1, C lose 8. New council: LD 18, C 14, Ind 1, Green 1 Bath & North East Somerset: LD up 20, Ind up 1, C down 25, Lab down 1, Green down 1. New council: LD 37, C 11, Ind 6, Lab 5 Hinckley & Bosworth: LD gain 9, Lab gain 1, C lose 10. New council: LD 21, C 11, Lab 2 North Devon: LD up 8, Green up 2, C down 7, Ind down 4. New council: LD 21, C 11, Ind 7, Green 2, Vacant 1 Chelmsford: LD gain 26, Ind gain 5, C lose 31. New council: LD 31, C 21, Ind 5 Somerset West & Taunton: LD up 18, Ind up 10, Lab up 1, Green up 1, C down 28, UKIP down 2. New council: LD 30, Ind 14, C 10, Lab 3, Green 2 Vale of White Horse: LD gain 22, Green gain 1, C lose 23. New council: LD 31, C 6, Green Ashfield: Ind gain from NOC. Ind gain 14, Lab lose 12, C lose 2. New council: Ind 30, C 3, Lab 2 Thurrock: Lab gain 1, C lose 1. New council: C 22, Lab 18, Ind 9 Stockport: LD gain 1, Ind gain 1, C lose 1, Lab lose 1. New council: Lab 29, C 16, LD 4, Ind 2 Colchester: LD gain 1, Green gain 1, C lose 2. New council: C 23, LD 13, Lab 11, Ind 3, Green 1 Portsmouth: Lab gain 1, LD gain 1, C lose 1, Ind lose 1. New council: LD 18, C 16, Lab 6, Ind 2 Derby: LD gain 2, UKIP gain 2, C gain 1, Ind gain 1, Lab lose 6. New council: C 20, Lab 16, LD 7, UKIP 5, Ind 3 Hart: LD gain 2, Ind gain 1, R gain 1, C lose 4. New council: R 11, C 11, LD 10, Ind 1 Torbay: LD up 6, C down 3, Ind down 2, UKIP down 1. New council: C 15, LD 13, Ind 8 Stoke-on-Trent: C gain 8, Ind lose 5, Lab lose 3. New council: Lab 16, C 15, Ind 13 Allerdale: Ind up 9, Lab down 14, C down 1, UKIP down 1. New council: Ind 20, C 15, Lab 14 Bolton: LD gain 3, Ind gain 3, C gain 1, Lab lose 7. New council: Lab 23, C 20, Ind 8, LD 6, UKIP 3 Harlow: Lab hold 7, C hold 4. New council: Lab 20, C 13. Lincoln: Lab 10, C 1. New council: Lab 24, C 9 Rochdale: Lab gain 1, C lose 1. New council: Lab 47, C 9, LD 4 Stevenage: Lab gain 1, LD gain 1, C lose 2. New council: Lab 27, C 7, LD 5 Exeter: LD gain 1, Ind gain 1, C lose 2. New council: Lab 29, C 6, LD 2, Green 1, Ind 1 Wolverhampton: C gain 1, Lab lose 1. New council: Lab 50, C 10 Wigan: Ind gain 2, C gain 1, Lab lose 3. New council: Lab 57, Ind 10, C 8 Southampton: Lab gain 3, Ind lose 2, C lose 1. New council: Lab 29, C 18, Ind 1 Bury: LD gain 1, Ind gain 1, C lose 1, Lab lose 1. New council: Lab 29, C 16, LD 4, Ind 2 Tameside: Lab gain 1, Green gain 1, C lose 1, Ind lose 1. New council: Lab 51, C 5, Green 1 Sefton: Ind gain 2, C lose 2. New council: Lab 43, LD 12, C 6, Ind 5 Barnsley: Ind gain 5, LD gain 3, Lab lose 7, C lose 1. New council: Lab 49, Ind 7, LD 4, C 3 Coventry: Lab 14, C 4. New council: Lab 40, C 13, Ind 1 Ipswich: Lab gain 2, LD gain 1, C lose 3. New council: Lab 36, C 9, LD 3 Reading: LD gain 1, Green gain 1, C lose 2. New council: Lab 30, C 10, Green 4, LD 2 Plymouth: Lab gain 1, C lose 1. New council: Lab 31, C 25, Ind 1 Luton: LD gain 4, Ind lose 2, C lose 1, Lab lose 1. New council: Lab 32, LD 12, C 4 Leeds: LD gain 2, C gain 1, Green gain 1, Lab lose 3, Ind lose 1. New council: Lab 58, C 23, LD 8, Ind 7, Green 3 Slough: Lab gain 3, C lose 2, Ind lose 1. New council: Lab 37, C 5 Nottingham: Ind up 3, Lab down 2, C down 1. New council: Lab 50, Ind 3, C 2 Telford & Wrekin: Lab gain 8, C lose 7, Ind lose 1. New council: Lab 36, C 13, LD 4, Ind 1 Eastleigh: LD gain 2, C lose 2. New council: LD 34, Ind 3, C 2 South Lakeland: LD gain 3, Green gain 1, C lose 4. New council: LD 32, C 15, Lab 3, Green 1 Epping Forest: LD gain 1, Green gain 1, Ind gain 1, C lose 3. New council: C 37, R 13, Green 3, LD 3, Ind 2 North Warwickshire: Lab gain 1, C lose 1. New council: C 21, Lab 14 Rugby: C 8, Lab 3, LD 3. New council: C 24, LD 9, Lab 9 Maldon: Ind gain 10, C lose 10. New council: C 16, Ind 15 Bracknell Forest: Lab gain 2, LD gain 1, C lose 3. New council: C 38, Lab 3, LD 1 North West Leicestershire: LD gain 3, Lab gain 1, Green gain 1, C lose 5. New council: C 20, Lab 10, LD 4, Ind 3, Green 1 Wokingham: LD gain 8, Lab gain 1, Ind gain 1, C lose 10. New council: C 31, LD 16, Lab 4, Ind 3 Melton: Ind gain 4, Green gain 1, C lose 4, Lab lose 1. New council: C 22, Ind 5, Green 1 New Forest: LD gain 11, C lose 11. New council: C 46, LD 13, Ind 1 East Hertfordshire: LD gain 5, Lab gain 2, Green gain 2, C lose 5, Ind lose 4. New council: C 40, LD 6, Lab 2, Green 2 South Holland: Ind gain 4, C lose 4. New council: C 24, Ind 13 Derbyshire Dales: LD gain 5, Green gain 2, Lab gain 1, Ind gain 1, C lose 9. New council: C 20, LD 8, Lab 6, Ind 3, Green 2 West Lindsey: LD gain 5, Ind gain 3, C lose 5, Lab lose 3. New council: C 19, LD 12, Ind 5 Dartford: Boundary change. Lab gain 3, C lose 5. New council: C 29, Lab 10, R 3 Test Valley: Ind up 5, LD up 3, C down 13. New council: C 24, LD 12, Ind 7 Braintree: Green gain 5, R gain 2, Ind gain 1, C lose 6, Lab lose 2. New council: C 34, Green 6, R 4, Ind 3, Lab 2 East Riding of Yorkshire: LD gain 5, C gain 2, Ind gain 2, Lab lose 6, UKIP lose 3. New council: C 49, Ind 10, LD 8 Medway: Lab gain 5, C lose 2, Ind lose 2, UKIP lose 1. New council: C 33, Lab 20, Ind 2 East Hampshire: LD up 7, Lab up 2, Ind up 1, C down 11. New council: C 32, LD 7, Lab 2, Ind 2 South Gloucestershire: LD up 1, C down 5, Lab down 3, Ind down 2. New council: C 33, LD 17, Lab 11 Windsor & Maidenhead Royal: LD up 8, R up 3, C down 24, Ind down 3. New council: C 23, LD 9, R 5, Ind 4 Dacorum: LD gain 14, C lose 12, Lab lose 2. New council: C 31, LD 19, Ind 1 South Kesteven: LD gain 2, Ind gain 2, C lose 4. New council: C 40, Ind 11, Lab 3, LD 2
|
James Rodger
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/local-election-2019-results-full-16219087
|
2019-05-03 07:42:07+00:00
| 1,556,883,727 | 1,567,541,246 |
politics
|
election
|
61,712 |
birminghammail--2019-05-03--Sandwell Council local elections 2019 This is how you voted
| 2019-05-03T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Sandwell Council local elections 2019: This is how you voted
|
Sandwell remains one of the most politically unbalanced local authorities in the country, with Labour holding all 72 seats. The party went into the 2019 local elections with 72 Labour councillors and emerged with the same number after successfully defending all 24 of the seats. It came on a night where Labour found it difficult elsewhere - including seeing Walsall Council become a Conservative majority. It comes on the back of a turbulent year in Sandwell for Labour. Former leader Steve Eling, a councillor for more than 30 years, quit after the national Labour Party suspended him following a complaint, and did not contest the Abbey seat. The run up to the elections also saw allegations that Labour’s national office had interfered in candidate selections, amid claims that allies of West Bromwich East MP Tom Watson had been dumped in favour of Corbynites. A total of 88 candidates threw their hats into the ring for the highly-contested seats. Both Labour and the Conservatives fielded a full list of nominees followed closely by the Green Party, which put 18 people this time round. The election also saw the first appearance of a new local group in the shape of the Black Country Party, which stood two candidates in Sandwell, along with others across the region. This is how the votes looked:
|
Jordan Coussins
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/sandwell-council-local-elections-2019-16186358
|
2019-05-03 01:48:10+00:00
| 1,556,862,490 | 1,567,541,247 |
politics
|
election
|
61,716 |
birminghammail--2019-05-03--Solihull Council local elections 2019 - Tories suffer losses after Brexit backlash
| 2019-05-03T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Solihull Council local elections 2019 - Tories suffer losses after 'Brexit backlash'
|
The Conservatives have held on to Solihull by the skin of their teeth, in what proved to be the toughest elections for the ruling group in many years. Losses to both the Greens and the Lib Dems took the Tories from 31 seats to 26 - the minimum needed for an overall majority. Amid a backlash over Brexit, many Tory voters were said to have stayed at home and opposition parties reaped the rewards in the borough. The Greens made gains in Castle Bromwich, Shirley West and Shirley South, while the Lib Dems were victorious in both Lyndon and Elmdon. And in a shock result in Knowle, Alan Rebeiro, who quit the Conservatives last year, won a knife-edge contest against his former party to hold his seat as an independent. Cllr Ian Courts, deputy leader of Solihull Council and the frontrunner to take over from Cllr Bob Sleigh, who announced ahead of the election that he was standing down as the group leader, admitted it had been a difficult set of results but insisted "the wheel would turn." "A large number of people ... are unhappy that the whole Brexit issue hasn't been dealt with and inevitably that will reflect on local voting," he said. "It is a shame really that on the doorstep people don't sometimes distinguish [between local and national issues]. "Because I think most people regard Solihull as a very well-run council and stable and consistent over the years." He also argued that his party was defending seats last contested "on a very good night" in 2015, when local elections coincided with a national contest. Cllr James Burn, leader of the Green group, suggested that Brexit was transforming the political landscape but also believed that his party had become better organised and voters welcomed the fact they were doing things "in a different way". "People are fed up," he said, when asked about the apparent backlash against the two main parties nationally. "First past the post has bred a stale system. [The Conservatives and Labour] have ended up being such broad churches they are struggling to say something without offending someone." On the situation locally, he said: "We have been saying for years that Solihull is one of the most unequal boroughs in the entire country. That should be a scandal, that should be front and centre of the council plans." Cllr Glenis Slater, leader of the Lib Dems, said she had detected a lot of anger on the doorstep and had seen many spoiled ballot papers while watching the count. She argued that there was "definitely" an opportunity for her party to regain ground in the face of voters' frustration but admitted it was more challenging in areas like Solihull, where a majority voted to Leave. Cllr Alan Rebeiro (Ind, Knowle) hailed his win as "a victory for the village", paying tribute to the residents who had helped in his campaign. "This goes to show that if you work hard and are in contact with the community what you do is appreciated," he said, after winning by 29 votes. Labour, which had a bruising elections in many parts of the Midlands, gained some solace in Solihull after winning Kingshurst & Fordbridge. Independent Rob Hall had chosen not to defend the seat. The new Conservative leader is set to be elected this evening, although they will have to govern with a much reduced majority. There may be speculation over whether Cllr Jeff Potts (Knowle), who has sat as an independent following controversy over retweeting "anti-Muslim" messages in 2017, could formally rejoin the Conservative group. He was readmitted as a party member last year but Cllr Courts confirmed he was still an "independent" on the council itself. Julian Knight, Solihull's MP, was also at the count and told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that it was important that the Brexit deadlock was brought to an end. "Turn-out is very low, in some wards I was in frankly I thought the turn-out was just over half what it would normally be in an election like this," he said. "And that's because frankly people are fed up and want politicians to get on and deliver Brexit and I totally agree with them in that respect." Although he has been critical of some council decisions recently, including a controversial shake-up of contracts covering support services, Mr Knight argued Solihull "delivers the best services for the best value in the West Midlands".
|
David Irwin
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/solihull-council-local-elections-2019-16218960
|
2019-05-03 14:30:07+00:00
| 1,556,908,207 | 1,567,541,247 |
politics
|
election
|
61,728 |
birminghammail--2019-05-03--Walsall Council local elections 2019 Conservatives take control
| 2019-05-03T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Walsall Council local elections 2019: Conservatives take control
|
The Conservatives have taken control over Walsall Council following a dramatic election night – breaking an eight-year deadlock for control of the authority. The Tories took Birchills-Leamore and Bloxwich East wards from Labour to securing a majority of four councillors. A total of 64 candidates went head-to-head across 20 wards in a bid to win the highly-contested council. It meant a rare ray of sunshine for Theresa May amid Brexit pressure and cabinet sackings. The council had been running as a minority Conservative administration, but now has 32 to Labour’s 26. Both the ruling Conservative group and Labour fielded candidates in every single one of the 20 wards. Liberal Democrats fielded seven, UKIP selected 10 candidates, the Green Party had four and three stood as independents. Among the high-profile candidates, former council chief Mike Bird defended his Pheasey Park Farm seat and will clock up his 40th year on the authority. Walsall's former mayor, Marco Longhi, defended his Pelsall ward seat while a former civic leader of the town, Pete Smith, lost his seat on the council in Blakenall. Elsewhere in the Black Country, Labour maintained control of Sandwell and Wolverhampton councils. The full results are below:
|
Jordan Coussins
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/walsall-council-local-elections-2019-16186824
|
2019-05-03 01:53:38+00:00
| 1,556,862,818 | 1,567,541,247 |
politics
|
election
|
61,940 |
birminghammail--2019-05-07--This is where 2019 election results leave Solihull
| 2019-05-07T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
This is where 2019 election results leave Solihull
|
After one of Solihull's most dramatic local elections for several years , the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) takes a closer look at what the results might mean for the borough. Eight new councillors will be at the first Full Council meeting of the new municipal year. Four replaced men and women who were not defending their seat, while the others ousted the incumbent in last week's elections. Overall the number of women has increased slightly from 15 to 17, although they still only make up a third of the total in the chamber. There are a number of new councillors from a BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) background and they are in fact the first elected in Solihull since Cllr Ade Adeyemo (Lib Dem, Lyndon) took his seat in 2016. The new intake is also on the whole younger, although Olton councillor Katy Blunt (Con) remains the only member under the age of 30. There was an anxious few hours for Solihull's Conservatives last Friday, with all eyes on whether the ruling group would lose control. Six losses would have seen the council revert to "no overall control" for the first time in almost a decade. With both the Lib Dems and Greens having three plausible targets apiece, the Tories knew they would have to win in at least one of them or, failing this, snatch victory in either Knowle or Kingshurst & Fordbridge. In the end holding off the Lib Dems in Olton was enough to keep the council blue, although the majority is incredibly slender compared with this time last week. While Green councillor Tim Hodgson described the buffer as "wafer-thin", Cllr Ian Courts, the council's deputy leader, argued it was not the first time his party had needed to get by with fewer councillors. While Bickenhill has, in recent years, been considered a safe seat for the Tories, there had been a few rumours early on Friday that Labour could claim a major scalp. At one stage it was said that Cllr Bob Sleigh, the outgoing leader of the council, may be at risk, although the lack of bodies around the table suggested that the speculation could be wide of the mark. In the end he held the seat by a comfortable margin and another four year term lies ahead. It remains to be seen if he follows in the footsteps of his two immediate predecessors and takes a cabinet role or else returns to the backbenches. Despite his own victory, it would have been a bittersweet day for Cllr Sleigh, whose wife Gail was defeated in Castle Bromwich. For the first time in recent memory this was an election in which all three of Solihull's main opposition parties had something to smile about when all the ballot papers were counted. For a brief few hours, the borough's Green group was the largest in the country, although it was leapfrogged when the Brighton results were declared later in the day. In Chelmsley Wood, Karl Macnaughton amassed more than 80 per cent of the vote and it has been suggested that the party has no safer seat anywhere in the country. Although the growing base will mean yet more seats to defend going forward and increased scrutiny of the party's own policy platform. The Lib Dems are finally showing signs of recovery having seen a dramatic collapse in support following the party's decision to go into government in 2010. Valuable gains in Elmdon and Lyndon will mean that the group isn't quite so stretched when it comes to shadowing the various portfolios, although there may be slight disappointment that the other target seat, of Olton, remained Conservative. Labour's win in Kingshurst & Fordbridge means that Solihull has an "all-red" ward once again and the party will be pleased to have edged the Tories in the sort of traditional working class area where many voted for Brexit. Although the size of the Green majorities in Smith's Wood and Chelmsley Wood suggests there is a lot of work needed to win back neighbouring wards. It was a good election for independent candidates across the country and Alan Rebeiro was among those who emerged victorious last week. His narrow victory in Knowle was especially significant, given that the seat is a traditional Conservative stronghold. Commenting on the triumph against his old party, Cllr Rebeiro said it was proof that it was possible to beat both the odds and the party machine. While he has said he will support "all sound and progressive" policies from the administration, he has also signalled he will be able to be more forthright in his comments on, for example, the Local Plan - which is set to bring hundreds of new homes to the village. It's worth remembering that two new parties, which did not field candidates in this month's council contests, are about to enter the fray. The Brexit Party - set up by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage - and Change UK, founded by a group of disillusioned ex-Labour and Conservative MPs, could yet change the dynamic in the borough. Given that Lyndon, for instance, was decided by just nine votes, it's likely that the arrival of new political forces could have an impact, especially in the most marginal seats. And considering that UKIP had borough councillors as recently as last year, it would be wrong to dismiss the possibility that those standing for upstart parties might not win outright in some parts of Solihull.
|
David Irwin
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/2019-election-results-leave-solihull-16239092
|
2019-05-07 16:18:42+00:00
| 1,557,260,322 | 1,567,540,940 |
politics
|
election
|
66,057 |
birminghammail--2019-09-04--Boris Johnsons government in crisis as MPs stop him calling an election and demand Brexit delay
| 2019-09-04T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Boris Johnson's government in crisis as MPs stop him calling an election and demand Brexit delay
|
Boris Johnson's government was plunged into chaos tonight after he asked for a general election to decide who runs Britain - and his plea was rejected by MPs. Earlier in the day, the Commons approved a new law designed to force the Prime Minister to ask the European Union to delay Brexit until at least January 31, despite his vow that he will take the UK out of the EU on October 31. Mr Johnson responded by telling MPs there an election "must now" be held, so that the British people can decide whether they back his Brexit plans or not. But Jeremy Corbyn ordered Labour MPs to vote against an election - and said he would only change his mind if Mr Johnson delayed Brexit. Mr Corbyn said: "If he has a Brexit plan - be it No Deal or this new mystery proposed deal we are yet to see any detail of - then he should put it before the people in a public vote, a referendum or a general election and seek a mandate from them. "Let the Prime Minister go to Brussels tomorrow and ask for an extension so that he can seek a mandate for his unknown Brexit plan and put it before the people." Mr Johnson has insisted he would never do that, but it's unclear what he can do instead. While MPs have approved a law to ban him from carrying out Brexit if there is no withdrawal agreement, they have also repeatedly rejected the agreement negotiated between the EU and the UK. There is no sign that the EU is willing to offer a different one. In the past, Prime Ministers had the power to call a general election whenever they wished. But the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which became law in 2010, means that they now need the support of two thirds of MPs to do so. In a vote on holding an election, 298 MPs backed the proposal and only 56 opposed it - but this did not mean the measure had the support of two thirds of MPs. Mr Johnson may find some other means of calling an election, perhaps by introducing a new which only needs the support of a simple majority of MPs. But it's unclear whether he could even win that vote, following a week of drama which has torn the Conservative Party apart. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister expelled 21 former Tory MPs from the Parliamentary party, after they backed legislation to block a no-deal Brexit. By stripping them of the party whip, he has made it unlikely they will able to stand as Conservative candidates in any future election - but it also means they have no incentive to support him in any future Commons votes. Stourbridge MP Margot James was one of the MPs to lose the Tory whip. Meriden MP Dame Caroline Spelman later joined the rebellion against a no-deal Brexit, but remains a Conservative MP. Mr Johnson insists he still hopes to agree a deal with the European Union. He argues that preparing for a no-deal Brexit will make the EU more willing to negotiate, and by blocking no-deal, MPs have sabotaged the Government's attempts to negotiate. Birmingham MP Jess Phillips (Lab Yardley) condemned Mr Johnson in a powerful speech in the Commons. She said she would not vote to hold any election due to take place before October 31. She said: "I have absolutely no faith in anything that the current Prime Minister says. Literally none. I wouldn't trust him." She added: "The Prime Minister is playing some bully boy game ... the reality is that what we have here is a game where we're not being tolf what he rules are. "The Prime Minister could bring a deal to this House. He could tell us what his plans are for Northern Ireland. He could tell us what his plans are for trade." Earlier, the Prime Minister said: "I think it's very sad that MPs have voted like this, I do, I think it's a great dereliction of their democratic duty. "But if I'm still Prime Minister after Tuesday October 15, then we will leave on October 31 with, I hope, a much better deal." He mocked Jeremy Corbyn for opposing a referendum, saying: "The PM put pressure on Jeremy Corbyn to get Labour to back a vote for an early general election. Mr Johnson said: "He has demanded an election for two years while blocking Brexit. "He said only two days ago that he would support an election and now Parliament, having passed a Bill that destroys the ability of Government to negotiate, is he now going to say that the public can't be allowed an election to decide which of us sorts out this mess? The PM continued: "I don't want an election, the public don't want an election, the country doesn't want an election, but this House has left no other option than letting the public decide who they want as Prime Minister."
|
[email protected] (Jonathan Walker)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/boris-johnsons-government-crisis-mps-16867747
|
2019-09-04 20:39:20+00:00
| 1,567,643,960 | 1,569,331,372 |
politics
|
election
|
66,058 |
birminghammail--2019-09-04--Boris to demand General Election after MPs defeat him again over no-deal Brexit
| 2019-09-04T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Boris to demand General Election after MPs defeat him again over no-deal Brexit
|
Boris Johnson will attempt to call a General Election, after he was defeated by MPs for a second time over Brexit. The House of Commons voted in favour of a law, by 329 in favour and 300 against, that will ban the Prime Minister from carrying out his promise to deliver Brexit on October 31, if there is no deal with the EU. Today's defeat for Mr Johnson, in a vote at around 5pm, had been expected after the Prime Minister lost an historic Commons vote on Tuesday night which began the process of making the legislation possible. It means he is now bound by law to write to the EU asking for Brexit to be delayed until at least January 31, unless MPs either approve a deal with the EU, or vote to allow a no-deal Brexit to go ahead. But Mr Johnson has vowed that he will never ask for a further delay. Instead, he will now attempt to carry out his threat to call a general election, by moving a motion calling for a poll. The Prime Minister could once again, be defeated by MPs. No election is officially due until 2022, and he needs to win a vote in the Commons with a two-thirds majority in order to hold an early one. As Labour says it currently opposes an election until it can be certain a no-deal Brexit has been blocked, he's unlikely to get the support he needs. It's thought that Mr Johnson may try other methods of getting an election, such as trying to introduce a new law or even encouraging a "no confidence" vote in his own government. But at this point it's impossible to say if such a ploy would succeed. Philip Hammond, who was Chancellor in Theresa May's Conservative Government until July, was one of those opposing Mr Johnson today. He criticised the "mass purge" of Tory MPs who defied the Government on Tuesday night, which saw him and others lose the Tory whip. Mr Hammond said the Bill aiming to block a no-deal Brexit is not about undermining the Prime Minister's negotiating position or handing power to Labour. He said: "I would sooner boil my head than hand power to the leader of the opposition." He added: "Most of us will have no truck with a vote of no confidence. The purpose of this Bill is to instruct this Government and this administration how to conduct the UK's future arrangements with the European Union. It is not an attempt to remove this Government, it is certainly not an attempt to hand power to the leader of the opposition." He said there is "no mandate" for a no-deal Brexit. Other former Tory ministers who have lost the whip include Margot James, the MP for Stourbridge. She told Birmingham Live that she believed Mr Johnson may want to negotiate a deal with the EU, but the same was not true of his chief adviser, Dominic Cummings. “I think the main obstacle to him [Mr Johnson] in getting a deal is that he has set the bar unrealistically high. I don’t know whether deliberately or not. I’m not going to cast aspersions on his motives. “I do think his erratic and reckless decisions, such as proroguing Parliament, provoking everybody, creating even more division, and finally the summary dismissal of over 20 of his colleagues - and the eradication overnight of his majority - I think is reckless in the extreme. And I'm afraid it really does underline all the reasons that I did not vote for him as our leader back in July. “I’m absolutely deeply suspicious of the motives of his chief of staff, Cummings. Cummings couldn’t care less if we got a deal.” Labour MP Hilary Benn introduced the legislation. He told the Commons: "The purpose of the Bill is very simple. It is to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on October 31 without an agreement. He said the Bill has "wide cross-party support", including from former senior Cabinet members. Mr Benn added: "You could describe it as a somewhat unlikely alliance, but what unites us is a conviction that there is no mandate for no-deal, and that the consequences for the economy and for our country would be highly damaging." The Bill gives the PM until October 19 to strike a deal or be forced to ask for an Article 50 extension from the EU up until January 31. Despite this afternoon's vote, the Bill has not yet become law. It will require further debate in the Commons and debate in the House of Lords first. Labour said it was taking legal advice to ensure Boris Johnson cannot "wriggle out" of attempts to block a no-deal Brexit. Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said Mr Johnson's opponents had no confidence that the Prime Minister would "abide by the law" even if they pass legislation effectively blocking a no-deal Brexit on October 31. Mr McDonnell called the PM a "slippery customer" and said legal advice was being sought to ensure the Conservative Party leader could not ignore the legislation MPs are looking to pass to prevent a no-deal exit. Speaking to journalists in Westminster, Mr McDonnell said: "We want to get the legislation secured (with) royal assent but we are not going to be tricked or conned by Johnson, so we are looking at every way in which, having secured the legislation, that he can't wriggle out of abiding by the law and implementing it. "We are dealing with an extremely slippery customer whose association with the truth can be construed as passing to say the least. "At the moment, there is nothing that Johnson has done that gives us the confidence he will abide by the law." Opposition parties will meet on Thursday morning to look at the options and have been seeking legal advice, the Hayes and Harlington MP confirmed.
|
[email protected] (Jonathan Walker)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/boris-demand-general-election-after-16866420
|
2019-09-04 16:23:18+00:00
| 1,567,628,598 | 1,569,331,372 |
politics
|
election
|
67,474 |
birminghammail--2019-11-01--Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson live TV general election debate date set
| 2019-11-01T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson live TV general election debate date set
|
The first televised election debate between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn has been set for November 19. The debate will be aired on ITV and it will be the first time the party leaders go head to head in the election campaign. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn challenged Mr Johnson to a debate earlier in the week, and on Friday said it was "welcome" that he accepted. "This is a once in a generation election. So it's welcome that Boris Johnson has accepted our challenge of a head to head TV debate. The choice could not be clearer: Boris Johnson's Conservatives protecting the privileged few or a Labour government on the side of the many," Mr Corbyn tweeted on Friday. Mr Johnson also took to Twitter to comment on the debate. "Looking forward to making the positive case to the country that we should £GetBrexitDone & deliver on the people's priorities - £OurNHS, schools, tackling crime & the cost of living," he said. The Prime Minister was accused of running scarred from TV debates by rival Jeremy Hunt during the race to take over the Tory Party after the departure of Theresa May. Mr Johnson did take part in two one-on-one debates during the battle for the Tory crown, but not before Mr Hunt and others placed him under great pressure to do so. ITV Press Centre made the announcement on Twitter on Friday afternoon and said details of further multi-party debates will be released in due course.
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-live-17188308
|
Fri, 1 Nov 2019 18:21:23 +0000
| 1,572,647,468 | 1,572,647,468 |
politics
|
election
|
67,978 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--Election 2019: Who will win the general election?
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Election 2019: Who will win the general election?
|
Everybody wants to know who's going to win the general election. But there's only one honest answer to this question - nobody knows who's going to come out on top, and we won't know until the votes are counted after voting on December 12. It wasn't always like that. There have been periods in British history when one party was very clearly ahead of the other. For example, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was clear that Labour was more popular than the Conservatives. We're in a period now where politics is very unpredictable. That's partly because of Brexit, which might affect how people vote. It's also because smaller parties like the Brexit Party, the Green Party and the SNP have done well in recent elections. And both Labour and the Conservatives - but Labour most of all - have been through radical changes in recent years. Despite all that, it's still possible to make a guess about what might happen in this election. Opinion polls show the Conservatives are in the lead Recent opinion polls all show that the Conservatives are more popular than Labour. a poll by YouGov found 39% of voters plan to back the Conservatives, with 26% supporting Labour. A poll by Opinium found 41% backing the Conservatives and 29% supporting Labour. A Deltapoll survey also found 41% backing the Conservatives and 29% backing Labour. As we all know, the only poll that matters is the actual vote on December 12. But until then, these opinion polls are the only real measure of what the public is thinking. Reasons why the Conservatives might win • Boris Johnson might be more popular with voters than Theresa May, the last Conservative leader • His promise to "get Brexit done" might appeal to people who support Brexit, and to people who don't really support Brexit but think we have to leave the EU and should get it over with • He's abandoned austerity. Boris Johnson doesn't talk about cutting spending, he talks about spending more on police, schools and the NHS • Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, appears to be unpopular with some votes • Boris Johnson is unpopular with some voters, and Labour is trying to convince voters that he's done a secret deal to sell the NHS to Donald Trump • Labour is offering a second referendum on Brexit. If you want to stop Brexit then getting a Labour government is probably your best hope of doing so • The Conservatives have been in power for more than nine years and you can argue that some things have got worse. For example, there are fewer police officers, council services have been cut and more people are forced to use food banks • Labour has moved to the left under Jeremy Corbyn and for some voters, that's exactly what they want. Labour's plans to introduce a four-day week and for the government to own 10% of the shares in larger businesses may prove to be popular • Labour probably doesn't need to get a majority of the seats in order to form the next government (and the real definition of "winning " an election is being in power once it is over). In a hung Parliament, smaller parties such as the SNP and Liberal Democrats can help decide who forms a government. Even if they don't do an official deal with Labour, they are likely to prevent Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister if they possibly can, because they don't support Brexit. The SNP also wants a second Scottish independence referendum, which the Conservatives would block.
|
[email protected] (Jonathan Walker)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/election-2019-who-win-general-17255349
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:36:15 +0000
| 1,573,749,375 | 1,573,734,810 |
politics
|
election
|
67,981 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--General Election 2019 Aldridge-Brownhills candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Par
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General Election 2019 Aldridge-Brownhills candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and other
|
On December 12, voters in the Aldridge-Brownhills constituency will flock to polling stations to have their say on who will run the country. During the last election in 2017 the Conservatives saw a staggering 13 per cent rise in votes. The party have managed to hold their seat since 1979, when they gained it from Labour - where votes saw a swing of 9.8 per cent from Labour to Conservatives. Although the Tories have taken some hits in losing votes over the years, they have still managed to keep their seat. Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (Charlotte Regen)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/general-election-2019-aldridge-brownhills-17243339
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:49:39 +0000
| 1,573,750,179 | 1,573,734,812 |
politics
|
election
|
67,982 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--General Election 2019 Cannock Chase candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General Election 2019 Cannock Chase candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and others
|
A general election is set to take place on December 12- meaning voters across the Cannock Chase constituency will have their say on who gets the seat. The conservatives gained the seat in the 2010 poll after a 14 per cent swing in their favour. Every election since then they have managed to hold the seat. The party saw an increase of 10.8 per cent in votes in the 2017 election and have seen the parties votes rise in every poll. Here are the candidates: Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson. Keep up-to-date with all things bostin' in the Black Country on our We Love The Black Country Facebook group - where you'll get the latest news, travel, weather and events in your area. To keep up-to-date with crime in your community, join the Black Country Crime Watch Facebook group where you will be alerted to any suspicious or criminal behaviour happening in your area.
|
[email protected] (Charlotte Regen)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/general-election-2019-cannock-chase-17243545
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:45:19 +0000
| 1,573,749,919 | 1,573,734,813 |
politics
|
election
|
67,983 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--General Election 2019 Stafford candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and othe
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General Election 2019 Stafford candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and others
|
A new candidate is set to replace James Lefroy for the Conservatives in the up coming election. Voters will have their say on December 12, on who gets the keys to number 10 following the dissolution of Parliament. The Conservatives gained Labour's seat back in 2010 and have held it ever since. Jeremy Lefroy has been the MP for the last nine years, but now the party has a new selected candidate - Theo Clarke. The party has seen a successful increase in votes during the last three elections, snapping up 54.7 per cent of the voters last time. The last time the Conservatives saw a decrease in votes was back in the 2005 general election. Here are the candidates: Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (Charlotte Regen)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/general-election-2019-stafford-candidates-17225665
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:51:19 +0000
| 1,573,750,279 | 1,573,734,809 |
politics
|
election
|
67,984 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--General Election 2019 Stourbridge candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and o
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General Election 2019 Stourbridge candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and other
|
The general election is fast approaching, meaning that voters in Stourbridge will soon cast their votes on whether the constituency seat remains blue. The Conservatives have won the majority of votes since the general election in 2010, after Margot James nudged out Lynda Waltho. Margot James has been the MP for the last nine years and is the selected candidate for this years election. In 2017, she won more than 54.5 per cent of the voters but has now stood down. The Tories have seen an increase in every election after 1997, where they saw a steep drop of 13 per cent in voters. Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (Charlotte Regen)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/general-election-2019-stourbridge-candidates-17226288
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:50:28 +0000
| 1,573,750,228 | 1,573,734,809 |
politics
|
election
|
67,985 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--General Election 2019: Dudley North candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General Election 2019: Dudley North candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and others
|
On December 12, voters will flock to polling stations across the Dudley North constituency. Ian Austin was the incumbent for Dudley North but now the party has selected a new candidate. Austin has been the MP for the constituency since 2005 after taking Ross Cranston's place. However, Melanie Dudley will now takeover as Labour's new candidate. Labour first won their seat back in the 1997 general election, with 5.2 per cent of votes. Despite seeing a fluctuation in voters, the party have managed to keep their seat. Also in the running for Dudley North's seat is: Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson. Keep up-to-date with all things bostin' in the Black Country on our We Love The Black Country Facebook group - where you'll get the latest news, travel, weather and events in your area. To keep up-to-date with crime in your community, join the Black Country Crime Watch Facebook group where you will be alerted to any suspicious or criminal behaviour happening in your area.
|
[email protected] (Charlotte Regen)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/general-election-2019-dudley-north-17244734
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:42:36 +0000
| 1,573,749,756 | 1,573,734,809 |
politics
|
election
|
67,986 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--General Election 2019: Dudley South candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General Election 2019: Dudley South candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and others
|
Voters in the Dudley South constituency are gearing up to cast their votes in this year's poll. A general election has been called for December 12, after the dissolution of Parliament. The Conservatives gained their seat from Labour in the 2010 general election. Prior to the Conservatives victory, Labour initially won the seat in 1997. However, since 2010, the Conservatives have managed to steadily increase their votes. Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson. Keep up-to-date with all things bostin' in the Black Country on our We Love The Black Country Facebook group - where you'll get the latest news, travel, weather and events in your area. To keep up-to-date with crime in your community, join the Black Country Crime Watch Facebook group where you will be alerted to any suspicious or criminal behaviour happening in your area.
|
[email protected] (Charlotte Regen)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/general-election-2019-dudley-south-17244869
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:41:59 +0000
| 1,573,749,719 | 1,573,734,810 |
politics
|
election
|
67,987 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--General Election 2019: Redditch candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and oth
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General Election 2019: Redditch candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and others
|
An election is coming, meaning voters in Redditch will soon voice who they want to run the country. Before Parliament was dissolved, the constituency was represented by the Conservatives - with Rachael Maclean as the MP. Redditch has been a Conservative constituency since the 2010 general election, when Karen Lumley nudged out Jacqui Smith. Since then the party has held the seat and secured 5.2 per cent of the votes in the last election. Rachel Maclean who was the latest MP is also the party's selected candidate for this year's election. Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (Charlotte Regen)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/general-election-2019-redditch-candidates-17244989
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:38:55 +0000
| 1,573,749,535 | 1,573,734,811 |
politics
|
election
|
67,989 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--General Election 2019:Tamworth candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and othe
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General Election 2019:Tamworth candidates for Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party and others
|
The people of Tamworth are gearing up for the upcoming general election following the dissolution of Parliament. On December 12, voters will pile into their local polling station to mark their ballots in favour of who they want to see running the country for the next five years. The conservatives gained the seat from Labour back in the 2010 election. In the last election the party won over the majority, bagging 61 per cent of votes. Labour were far behind with just 34.8 per cent but the Liberal Democrats didn't get a look in with a mere 4.2 per cent. Tamworth's latest incumbent, Christopher Pincher, will also stand to run again in this year's election as he has done for every one since 2005. Below are the selected candidates: Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (Charlotte Regen)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/general-election-2019tamworth-candidates-conservatives-17253006
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:38:14 +0000
| 1,573,749,494 | 1,573,734,809 |
politics
|
election
|
68,008 |
birminghammail--2019-11-14--What was voter turnout in the last general election and what will happen this time?
| 2019-11-14T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
What was voter turnout in the last general election and what will happen this time?
|
Something remarkable happened in the last general election, in 2017. Voter turnout was up. That means more people decided to vote in 2017 than voted in other recent elections. However, it's still not good news. Because turnout in general elections over the past 20 years, including in 2017, is much lower than it used to be. Turnout is the number of people who vote in an election as a proportion of all the people who were eligible to vote. So a turnout of 70%, for example, would mean seven out of ten people who could have voted actually did so. Turnout in 2017 was 68.8%. That means that for every 1000 people who were eligible to vote, 688 people actually voted. If you simply look at the number of votes cast, you'll find that tends to go up as time goes by. But that's because the population of the country keeps on growing. So the turnout figure is a better guide to whether people are taking part in elections or not. How has turnout changed over time? The 2017 figure of 68.8% was an improvement over other recent elections. Perhaps the 2017 election seemed particularly interesting to people. Turnout in 2015 it was 66.4%. In 2010 it was 65.1%, in 2005 it was 61.4% and in 2001 it was 59.4%. However, if you look at elections before 2001, turnout used to be much higher. In 1997 it was 71.3%. In 1992 it was 77.7%, in 1987 it was 75.3%, in 1983 it was 72.7% and in 1979 it was 76%. What will turnout be in 2019? We don't know, but this election is similar to the 2017 election in many ways. Brexit is an issue, and Jeremy Corbyn is still Labour leader. Also, the election began with the Conservatives apparently in the lead - according to opinion polls - but nobody is sure what the final result will be. That's also what happened in 2017. So it's possible turnout might be similar too.
|
[email protected] (Jonathan Walker)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/what-voter-turnout-last-general-17255602
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:12:13 +0000
| 1,573,751,533 | 1,573,734,811 |
politics
|
election
|
68,021 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Coventry North East Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Coventry North East Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Coventry North East was held by Labour in 2017, and since 2015, the ward has been represented by Colleen Fletcher of the Labour Party. Since its 1974 creation the area has been a Labour Party stronghold with the Conservative Party finishing second. In 2017 General Election , Fletcher won a majority with 29,499 votes, up 11 per cent. Conservative candidate Timothy Mayer made a six per cent gain, receiving 13,919 votes, with Russell Field of the Liberal Democrats achieving 1,350, down two per cent. Ukip suffered a loss of 11 per cent, with 1,350 votes. Incumbent Colleen Fletcher, who represents Labour, will contest the seat once again, along with candidates from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and the Brexit Party. The General Election will take place on December 12. Who are the candidates for Coventry North East in 2019?
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/election-coventry-north-east-results-17262644
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:08:14 +0000
| 1,573,837,694 | 1,573,820,992 |
politics
|
election
|
68,022 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Coventry North West Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Coventry North West Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Coventry North West was held by long-serving Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson in the 2017 General Election . Mr Robinson, who will be 79-years-old by the time of the General Election, was contesting his seat for the 11th time. But this year, Robinson is stepping down. Mr Robinson has represented the ward since 1976 – a total of 43 years – and made the announcement earlier this year that he was retiring due to ill health. With a General Election set to take place on December 12, Labour have announced their candidate to stand for the seat. Other parties have also announced who they will be putting forward. Mr Robinson has represented the ward since 1976 – a total of 43 years – and made the announcement earlier this year that he was retiring due to ill health. With a General Election set to take place on December 12, Labour have announced their candidate to stand for the seat. Other parties have also announced who they will be putting forward. In 2015, Mr Robinson won with an overall majority of 18,557. This year, he received 26,894 votes, up 12.94 per cent. Conservative candidate Resham Kotecha racked up 36 per cent of the vote with 18,134. Ukip's Michael Gee was down 12 per cent, to just 1,525 votes, while Liberal Democrat and Green candidates Andrew Hilton and Stephen Gray were down one and three per cent respectively. Who are the candidates for Coventry North West? The Brexit Party have not yet declared a candidate. A party spokesman said the candidate will be revealed "in due course".
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/election-results-coventry-north-west-17262656
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:09:30 +0000
| 1,573,837,770 | 1,573,820,991 |
politics
|
election
|
68,023 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Coventry South Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Coventry South Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Labour held Coventry South in the 2017 General Election, after MP Jim Cunningham emerged victorious. Mr Cunningham’s seat had been a key target for the Conservatives but he increased his majority to more than 8,000. The candidates contesting the seat were the Conservative Party's Michelle Lowe, Labour's Jim Cunningham, UKIP's Ian Rogers. The Green Party's Aimee Challenor, Liberal Democrat Greg Judge and Independent Sandra Findlay. Coventry South was held by the Labour Party in 2015 with a majority of 3,188 over the Conservatives. It has been a Labour seat since it was established in 1997. This year, in Coventry South there’ll be changes whatever happens, as incumbent Jim Cunningham is stepping down. The long-serving MP is retiring after representing the constituency since 1992 – although the boundaries have changed slightly and it was known as Coventry South East before 1997. He announced he was stepping down in September and said it was time to "pass the baton on to someone new". Who are the candidates for the Coventry South constituency?
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/election-results-2017-coventry-south-17262618
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:05:44 +0000
| 1,573,837,544 | 1,573,820,993 |
politics
|
election
|
68,033 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Kenilworth and Southam Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Kenilworth and Southam Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Kenilworth and Southam was held by the Conservatives in the 2017 general election after the constituency was created seven years earlier. Since then, it has been represented by Jeremy Wright, who defended successfully two years ago. It contains the district of Warwick wards of Abbey, Cubbington, Lapworth, Leek Wootton, Park Hill, Radford Semele, St John’s, and Stoneleigh, the District of Stratford-on-Avon wards of Burton Dassett, Fenny Compton, Harbury, Kineton, Long Itchington, Southam, Stockton and Napton, and Wellesbourne, and the Borough of Rugby wards of Dunchurch and Knightlow, Leam Valley, and Ryton-on-Dunsmore. The seat was established in 1983. Who are the candidates for Kenilworth and Southam ? Conservatives won with a majority of 28,474 in 2015. Jeremy Wright received 31,207 votes, up two per cent. Labour's Bally Singh was up 10 per cent, to 13,121 votes, while Ukip, Green and Lib Dems all suffered losses of nine, one and 0.48 per cent respectively. Richard Dickson, of the Lib Dems, racked up 4,921 votes, while Green candidate Rob Ballantyne achieved 1,133. The turnout of 51,311 was a healthy 77.37%.
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/kenilworth-southam-election-candidates-2019-17262676
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:11:48 +0000
| 1,573,837,908 | 1,573,820,995 |
politics
|
election
|
68,038 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Meriden Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Meriden Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Meriden was held by the Conservative Party in the 2017 general election, and the constituency has been represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 1997 by Caroline Spelman. Ms Spelman won in 2010 with an overwhelming majority of 28,791 - and, in 2017, she has racked up 33,873 votes, a share of 61.99 per cent, up 7.26 per cent from two years ago. In September, Ms Spellman confirmed that she was standing down after months of abuse and threats relating to Brexit. Labour candidate Tom McNeil has racked up 14,675 votes, up seven per cent, while Antony Rogers, of the Liberal Democrats, achieved 2,663 votes, down 0.14 per cent. Ukip suffered considerable losses, down 13 per cent, with candidate Leslie Kaye achieving 2,016 votes. The Conservative Party has announced Ms Spelman's successor as parliamentary candidate as Saqib Bhatti. A vote took place on Tuesday with Charlotte Hodilva and former Nick Timothy, an advisor to former PM Theresa May, also running for the spot. Who are the candidates for Meriden ?
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/meriden-election-candidates-2019-labour-17262724
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:17:14 +0000
| 1,573,838,234 | 1,573,820,991 |
politics
|
election
|
68,043 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Newcastle-under-Lyme Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Newcastle-under-Lyme Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Constituents in Newcastle and Stafford are guaranteed to be getting new MPs, whatever happens on December 12, as previous seat-holders Paul Farrelly and Jeremy Lefroy have both stood down. Anyone looking to vote in the December 12 election who is not already registered has until midnight on Tuesday, November 26 to submit their application. Registration for postal voting must be completed by 5pm on November 26 if you live in England, Scotland or Wales, or by 5pm on November 21 if you live in Northern Ireland. Jason Cooper, from the Brexit Party, will stand against the Tories' Aaron Bell, Carl Greatbatch of Labour, and Lib Dem candidate Nigel Jones. The Green Party's Carl Johnson completes the list, which can be viewed below. These are the candidates for 2019: Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/newcastle-under-lyme-election-candidates-17262263
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:48:44 +0000
| 1,573,836,524 | 1,573,820,994 |
politics
|
election
|
68,044 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--North Warwickshire Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
North Warwickshire Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
North Warwickshire was held by the Conservatives in the 2017 General Election. The constituency has been represented by the Conservatives since 2005. In 2015, Craig Tracey won with a majority of 20,042 and Mr Tracey extended this to 26,860 two years later. Keith Kondakor of the Green Party received 940 votes, just a shade under 1,028, which was achieved by Liberal Democrat candidate James Cox. Turnout was down on 2015 - from 68% to 65.46%. The General Election will take place on December 12. The Brexit Party said it will be announcing candidates for seats in Warwickshire and Coventry ‘in due course’. Incumbent Craig Tracey will be defending his seat after serving as the constituency’s MP since 2015. The previous MP was also Conservative. Dan Byles held the seat from 2010 – when the constituency was lost by Labour – until 2015. Mike O’Brien held the seat for Labour from 1992. Who are the candidates for Warwickshire North?
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/north-warwickshire-election-candidates-2019-17262778
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:21:09 +0000
| 1,573,838,469 | 1,573,820,991 |
politics
|
election
|
68,045 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Nuneaton Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Nuneaton Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
The Conservative Party held Nuneaton in the 2017 general election after Marcus Jones increased his majority to 23,755, from 20,827 in 2015. His share of the vote was just six per cent from 2015. Philip Johnson, of Labour, received 41 per cent of the voters, to Jones' 51 per cent, with 19,016. The result means Johnson has increased his share of the vote by six per cent, too, with Ukip losing 10 per cent. Turnout was 66 per cent, with Craig Carpenter of Ukip receiving 3.51 per cent of the vote, with 1,619. Since 1997, the seat has been seen as an important national bellwether. The boundaries of the seat changed in 2017. Now, it takes in the borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth wards of Abbey, Arbury, Attleborough, Bar Pool, Camp Hill, Galley Common, Kingswood, St Nicolas, Weddington, Wem Brook, and Whitestone, and the Borough of North Warwickshire wards of Arley and Whitacre, and Hartshill. Who are the candidates for Nuneaton in 2019? The Brexit Party have not yet declared a candidate. A party spokesman said the candidate will be revealed "in due course".
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/nuneaton-election-candidates-2019-labour-17262704
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:14:56 +0000
| 1,573,838,096 | 1,573,820,994 |
politics
|
election
|
68,048 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Rugby and Bulkington candidates Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Rugby and Bulkington candidates Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Rugby, Warwickshire, was held by the Conservatives at the 2017 general election after a total of four parties were represented on the ballot paper. These included The Green Party, The Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and The Labour Party. The constituency has been represented by Mark Pawsey, a Conservative, since its creation in 2010. Pawsey once again won a majority, with 27,872 votes. This is up five per cent from 2015, with Claire Edwards of Labour receiving a 10 per cent increase with 19,600 votes. Jerry Roodhouse of the Liberal Democrats received 2,851 votes, down 0.11 per cent, while Green Party candidate Graham Bliss received 953 votes. The turnout was 72 per cent. The constituency contains: The Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth ward of Bulkington, and the Borough of Rugby wards of Admirals, Avon and Swift, Benn, Bilton, Brownsover North, Brownsover South, Caldecott, Earl Craven and Wolston, Eastlands, Fosse, Hillmorton, Lawford and King's Newnham, New Bilton, Newbold, Overslade, Paddox, and Wolvey. Who are the candidates for Rugby and Bulkington in 2019?
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/rugby-bulkington-candidates-election-candidates-17262794
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:23:16 +0000
| 1,573,838,596 | 1,573,820,991 |
politics
|
election
|
68,049 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Staffordshire Moorlands Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Staffordshire Moorlands Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
As announced by Nigel Farage on Monday, the Brexit Party withdrew its previously named candidates for seats currently held by the Conservatives. As well as the Staffordshire Moorlands, this included Stoke-on-Trent South, Stafford and Congleton. But the party will contest Labour-held seats, such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Stoke-on-Trent Central and Newcastle. Karen Bradley will vie for the seat alongside Andrew Gant of the Lib Dems, and the Green Party's Douglas Rouxel. These are the candidates standing in Staffordshire Moorlands for 2019: Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/staffordshire-moorlands-election-candidates-2019-17262253
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:47:02 +0000
| 1,573,836,422 | 1,573,820,995 |
politics
|
election
|
68,050 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stoke-on-Trent Central Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Stoke-on-Trent Central Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Stoke-on-Trent Cental's five candidates for the General Election in December have been revealed. The Green Party are represented, alongside the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems. The Brexit Party is also featured, after it withdrew its previously named candidates for seats currently held by the Conservatives. The party will contest Labour-held seats, such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Stoke-on-Trent Central and Newcastle. These are the candidates for 2019's upcoming poll on December 2019: Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/stoke-trent-central-election-candidates-17262208
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:42:28 +0000
| 1,573,836,148 | 1,573,820,994 |
politics
|
election
|
68,051 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stoke-on-Trent North Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Stoke-on-Trent North Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Stoke-on-Trent North looks set to be the most intriguing contest in the area, with six candidates standing in the marginal seat. Labour incumbent Ruth Smeeth is likely to face a strong challenge from Conservative Jonathan Gullis. The Brexit Party’s Richard Watkin, who was previously set to stand in the Staffordshire Moorlands, has now been moved to Stoke-on-Trent North to replace Daniel Rudd. Mr Rudd was dropped after offensive tweets were uncovered. Lib Dem Peter Andras, Alan Borgars of the Greens, and independent Matt Dilworth complete the line-up for the seat. These are the candidates for 2019: Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/stoke-trent-north-election-candidates-17262219
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:40:46 +0000
| 1,573,836,046 | 1,573,820,992 |
politics
|
election
|
68,052 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stoke-on-Trent South Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Stoke-on-Trent South Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
The Brexit Party will not contest the Stoke-on-Trent South seat at the general election in 2019. Nigel Farage has withdrew his MPs from seats held by Conservatives, meaning there are only three representatives for December 12. The Tory Party's Jack Brereton will contest the seat with Rosalyn Gordon, of the Lib Dems, and Mark McDonald, of Labour. Voters in Stoke-on-Trent South will have the shortest list to choose from, with just three candidates standing. But the line-up does include Lib Dem Rosalyn Gordon, who was brought in as a late replacement for former Labour MP Rob Flello, whose bid to win back his old seat for his new party ended abruptly with his de-selection on Tuesday. Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their are Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/stoke-trent-south-election-candidates-17262234
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:44:12 +0000
| 1,573,836,252 | 1,573,820,993 |
politics
|
election
|
68,053 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stone Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Stone Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Four candidates will do battle in the forthcoming General Election from Stone, in Staffordshire, it has been announced. The Green Party is represented, as is the Conservatives, as well as Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Voters will rush to the polls across the region on December 12, it has been confirmed. There is no Brexit Party representative in Stone, after Nigel Farage withdrew his MPs from seats held by Tories. That means the candidates for the upcoming election are: Why are we having an early election? A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years. There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area. Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/stone-election-candidates-2019-labour-17262243
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:45:51 +0000
| 1,573,836,351 | 1,573,820,991 |
politics
|
election
|
68,054 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stratford-on-Avon Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem, Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Stratford-on-Avon Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem, Brexit party and more
|
Tory Nadhim Zahawi triumphed in Stratford on Avon with an increased number of votes back in 2017 - but can he repeat the feat? His share rose by 4.5 per cent polling 32,657 votes - a majority of 20,958 over his nearest challenger Labour's Jeff Kenner, who received the backing of 11,699 electros. However this was an increase of 9.29 per cent on the party's 2015 haul - and a 2.4 per cent swing to Labour. The constituency includes the historic town itself, Warwick, and is the home of the Royal Shakespeare Company theatre. It is surrounded by green belt villages southeast of Birmingham. , with the next largest wards being Studley and Alcester each with just under 5,000 electors. In 2019, Mr Zahawi will represent the Tories, and the full list of candidates can be seen below: The electorate is some 70,800 people. Traditionally, elections are held every five years to determine which party will head up the British government. However since 2015, this year will be the third time that voters have been called to the ballot box. Following the controversial Brexit referendum in 2016, the public has witnessed tiresome debates in Parliament resulting in several failed exit deal suggestions. Three-and-a-half years on, we’re still quite a way off deciding what the state of play will be when the UK leaves the European Union. At present, Prime Minister, Boris Johnson does not have enough Conservative MPs to pass new laws and approve plans for a Brexit strategy. It is hoped the general election on December 12, will amend that.
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/stratford-avon-election-candidates-2019-17267185
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:09:52 +0000
| 1,573,873,792 | 1,573,864,870 |
politics
|
election
|
68,058 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Warwick and Leamington Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Warwick and Leamington Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more
|
Labour gained Warwick & Leamington from the Conservative Party two years ago - but will the feat repeat itself in 2019? Warwick and Leamington is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament. In 2010, Chris White, a Conservative, won. But two years ago, Matt Western - of the Labour Party - achieved a majority. Mr Western racked up 25,227 votes, up 11 per cent. Mr White achieved 24,021, down three per cent. The Conservatives have now fielded a new candidate as Mr Western prepares to defend the seat. The General Election takes place on December 12 and with big issues like Brexit and the NHS on the agenda, the nation’s eyes will be on the headlines as election night unfolds. Who are the candidates for Warwick and Leamington ? The Brexit Party have not yet declared a candidate. A party spokesman said the candidate will be revealed "in due course".
|
[email protected] (James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/warwick-leamington-election-candidates-2019-17262749
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:19:16 +0000
| 1,573,838,356 | 1,573,820,993 |
politics
|
election
|
68,060 |
birminghammail--2019-11-15--Who's standing in the 2019 general election in Birmingham?
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Who's standing in the 2019 general election in Birmingham?
|
If you want to be a candidate in the December 12 general election then I'm afraid you're out of luck - nominations how now closed. That means we now know for certain who's standing as a candidate, because the official list has been published by Birmingham City Council, which is responsible for overseeing the elections in the city. NB - Liberal Democrats have registered the name “Liberal Democrats – to stop Brexit" with the Electoral Commission and for some candidates that is the description of their party as it appears on the official statement of persons nominated, and as it will appear on ballot papers.
|
[email protected] (Jonathan Walker)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/whos-standing-2019-general-election-17262333
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:49:23 +0000
| 1,573,836,563 | 1,573,820,992 |
politics
|
election
|
68,169 |
birminghammail--2019-11-19--The diversity of your general election candidate list in Birmingham revealed
| 2019-11-19T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
The diversity of your general election candidate list in Birmingham revealed
|
In December there could be record numbers of women and ethnic minority MPs in parliament. However, the diversity of the candidate list varies wildly depending on where you live. The Reach Data Unit looked at candidate data from non-profit organization Democracy Club to find out how diverse the ballot paper is in Birmingham - including the political choice on offer, and the gender and age of candidates. Looking across the entire election, the average number of candidates standing in each constituency is five. That figure doesn’t change much across the country. In Birmingham, there are an average 5.3 people standing in each constituency. Nine different political parties are standing across the city’s seats, representing a broad range of political views. They are (in no particular order) the Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Labour Party, Conservative and Unionist Party, Independent, The Brexit Party, UK Independence Party (UKIP), Yeshua, and the Christian Peoples Alliance. Before parliament was dissolved there were 206 women in the House of Commons - a record high. However, that figure still only makes up 32% of the chamber. Looking at the candidate list for this election across all Birmingham constituencies, 32% are female - mirroring the current situation in the Commons. Birmingham, Hall Green and Birmingham, Hodge Hill have proportionally the most female representation on the ballot, with three out of the six candidates in each constituency being women. On the other hand in Birmingham, Northfield and Birmingham, Perry Barr, just one of the five candidates is female. In Birmingham, the Brexit Party are standing the most female candidates (five), followed by the Tories and the Lib Dems (three each). Some 53% of the candidates that Labour have put forward are women - followed by the Green Party with 41% and the SNP with 34%. The Conservatives have selected 30% women, and the Lib Dems 31%. The date of birth for every candidate standing in this election isn’t known. However, there is information recorded for 1,438 of the 3,320 candidates across the country. It shows that the average prospective MP was born in 1969 - making them around 50 years old. In Birmingham, the average candidate (where the year of birth is known) is 49 years old. The youngest person standing in our area is Alexander Nettle (born in 1998) who is the Green Party candidate for Birmingham, Ladywood. The oldest is Roger Godsiff (born in 1946) who is standing as an independent in Birmingham, Hall Green. Unfortunately the data from Democracy Club doesn’t include the ethnicity of candidates. However, recent analysis of candidate selections by think tank British Future has found that the next parliament looks likely to be the most ethnically diverse ever, with more ethnic minority candidates likely to be elected whichever party comes out on top on election night. They found that there would be 67 ethnic minority MPs elected to Parliament if each party were to win the constituencies that it won at the last General Election – up from the 52 sitting in the previous parliament. They would be 44 Labour MPs, 21 Conservative MPs and two Liberal Democrat MPs. They also found that there would be 65 ethnic minority MPs if each party won the seat that it was favoured to win.
|
[email protected] (Michael Goodier, James Rodger)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/diversity-your-general-election-candidate-17284189
|
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 21:04:09 +0000
| 1,574,215,449 | 1,574,210,062 |
politics
|
election
|
68,296 |
birminghammail--2019-11-22--General election 2019 - here are the seats to watch in Birmingham and the Black Country
| 2019-11-22T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
General election 2019 - here are the seats to watch in Birmingham and the Black Country
|
There are a number of key seats in Birmingham and the Black Country that are worth keeping an eye on during this election. They're considered particularly important because they are marginal seats, which either the Conservatives or Labour could win. As the results are announced after the December 12 election, we'll get a good idea which party is winning when the results in these seats are announced. Whichever party does well in these constituencies is likely to form the next government. Here are some of the key seats, along with the gap between the winner and the party that came second place in the 2017 general election. It’s worth remembering that a majority of, let’s say, 1,000 doesn’t require 1,000 voters to change their votes - it only takes 500 people to switch from one party to another to wipe out a majority of 1,000. That’s because the votes for one party will go down by one while the votes for the other party would go up by one at the same time. To put it another way, if one party has a majority of 10% it might only take a swing of 5% for the other party to take the seat. Seats the Conservatives could win from Labour The Labour majority here was just 22, a majority of 0.1% of all the votes cast. The winning candidate, Ian Austin, has since left the Labour Party and is now an independent MP. However, we are looking at the result at the last election, when Mr Austin won as the Labour candidate. Labour is defending a majority of 2,185, or 5.2% of votes. Labour is defending a majority of 4,460 or 12.4%. Labour has a majority of 4,587 or 12.6%. This should be hard for the Tories to win, but reports from the constituency suggest Labour may be in trouble here. A Conservative target seat in recent elections, although they have been repeatedly disappointed as Labour have held on to it. In 2017 Labour won with a majority of 4667, or 10.5%. This was once a Conservative stronghold, but it’s been a Labour seat since 1997. Labour held it in 2017 with a majority of 6,917, or 15.9%. Labour held this with a majority of 7,285, or 19.6%. Labour held this seat with a majority of 7,713 or 19.7% in 2017. The MP, Tom Watson, is Labour’s Deputy leader. Labour held with a majority of 8,514, or 23.5%. Labour held this seat with a majority of 8,892, or 20.2%. Seats Labour could win from the Conservatives Conservatives gained this seat from Labour in 2017 with a majority of 2,601 or 6.8%. Conservatives held this seat in 2017 with a majority of 7,730 or 20.2%. That may seem like an impregnable majority but, as an indication of how things can change, it’s worth noting that this seat was held by Labour from 1997, when it was first created in its current form, until 2010. How to find your constituency The United Kingdom has 650 Parliamentary constituencies. And each constituency elects one MP. That means that when you vote on December 12, you're not just voting for which party should form the Government. You are also voting for who should be your local MP. And for some people, that's important. They may feel that one of the local candidates is particularly good (or bad), regardless of which party they belong to. Some voters also like to know who came first and second in their constituency in the last election. That might affect the way they vote this time. But if any of those things are important to you, the first thing you need to know is which constituency you are actually in. Just enter your postcode in the box below and we will find out your constituency. We'll also show you some useful information about it.
|
[email protected] (Jonathan Walker)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/general-election-2019-here-seats-17302751
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 16:43:17 +0000
| 1,574,458,997 | 1,574,470,370 |
politics
|
election
|
1,072,382 |
usatoday--2019-06-24--Supreme Court limits access to government records in loss for Argus Leader part of the USA TODAY Ne
| 2019-06-24T00:00:00 |
usatoday
|
Supreme Court limits access to government records in loss for Argus Leader, part of the USA TODAY Network
|
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court limited public and media access to government records Monday by expanding a federal law's definition of what can be deemed confidential. At issue was whether confidentiality, as used in a section of the Freedom of Information Act, means anything intended to be kept secret or only information likely to cause harm if publicized. The high court adopted the broader definition. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 decision, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. A retailers trade group, the Food Marketing Institute, and the federal government had argued for a broad definition that would leave ample room to keep data from the public. Media organizations and public interest groups favored a more narrow definition requiring harm, which would make confidentiality apply to fewer FOIA requests. In 2011, the case began with a request that the Argus Leader newspaper made under the Freedom of Information Act. The Sioux Falls, S.D., newsroom is part of the USA TODAY Network. More: Conservative gains at Supreme Court leading to anger, frustration and 'peeks behind the curtain' The Argus Leader asked the Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to release the annual amounts taxpayers paid to more than 320,000 retailers participating in the program. Data was requested as part of the newsroom's ongoing projects into food access deserts and fraud in the food stamp program. More: F-word wins in Supreme Court free speech case on trademark protection for 'immoral, scandalous' material The court's six-member majority rejected the request, overruling a lower court decision in the process. It said the requirement that releasing the information must cause harm stemmed from a faulty 1974 federal appeals court ruling. "At least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is 'confidential' under the meaning of (FOIA)," Gorsuch wrote. Breyer differed by noting that "the whole point of FOIA is to give the public access to information it cannot otherwise obtain." "Given the temptation, common across the private and public sectors, to regard as secret all information that need not be disclosed, I fear the majority's reading will deprive the public of information for reasons no better than convenience, skittishness, or bureaucratic inertia," Breyer said. The decision drew criticism from the Argus Leader, which fought for eight years to get the information, as well as from Gannett Co., which owns the paper. "We’re disappointed in today’s outcome, obviously," Argus Leader news director Cory Myers said. "This is a massive blow to the public’s right to know how its tax dollars are being spent, and who is benefiting. Regardless, we will continue to fight for government openness and transparency, as always." After the Agriculture Department refused to release the data, the Argus Leader sued. The case wound its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and back to federal district court in South Dakota, where a judge ruled the information should be released. The government did not appeal that ruling, but the Food Marketing Institute intervened and appealed again to the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court ruled against the Institute in 2018, prompting its request to the Supreme Court to hear the case. A key issue in the case, which was argued April 22, was whether a 1974 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had twisted FOIA beyond Congress' original intent. Enacted eight years earlier in 1966, FOIA included an exemption allowing the government to withhold information it obtained from businesses that include trade secrets or financial data considered confidential. But the 1974 ruling narrowed what was considered confidential to records that, if released, would cause substantial competitive harm. More: Supreme Court refuses to consider whether Second Amendment protects gun silencers The Food Marketing Institute argued the ruling overstepped congressional intent and asked the Supreme Court to allow businesses to decide the need for confidentiality. The group was supported by other industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Argus Leader argued that records of government spending, including taxpayer payments to food stamp retailers, were at the heart of why Congress created FOIA. It also argued that Congress had acquiesced to the 1974 ruling's standard by failing to change it during numerous reviews of FOIA since 1974. Gannett Co., which owns the South Dakota newspaper, expressed disappointment with the ruling and warned it is likely to result in greater government secrecy and less accountability to taxpayers. The company urged Congress to restore the interpretation that stood for 40 years. “The court’s decision effectively gives businesses relying on taxpayer dollars the ability to decide for themselves what data the public will see about how that money is spent," said Maribel Perez Wadsworth, president of the USA TODAY Network and publisher of USA TODAY. "This is a step backward for openness and a misreading of the very purpose of the Freedom of Information Act.”
|
Jonathan Ellis and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
|
http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~/603458924/0/usatodaycomwashington-topstories~Supreme-Court-limits-access-to-government-records-in-loss-for-Argus-Leader-part-of-the-USA-TODAY-Network/
|
2019-06-24 18:03:47+00:00
| 1,561,413,827 | 1,567,538,281 |
politics
|
government
|
82,102 |
cbsnews--2019-02-14--Shutdown watch Congress to vote on funding bill
| 2019-02-14T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
Shutdown watch: Congress to vote on funding bill
|
After weeks of deliberations, the bipartisan conference committee negotiating funding for the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies whose funding expires Friday night has finally finished its work. The bill contains $1.375 billion for physical barriers at the southern border and completes the six other appropriations bills to fund the roughly 25 percent of federal government that shut down for 35 days. Text of the 1,159-page bill was released late Wednesday night. The House and Senate are expected to vote on it Thursday. Freshman Dems come out against funding bill Reps. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib said in a statement that they will vote against the bill because it gives money to ICE. "We want to be abundantly clear: this is not a rebuke of federal workers or those who depend on the services they provide, but a rejection of the hateful policies, priorities, and rhetoric of the Trump Administration," the congresswomen said. They added, "This Administration continues to threaten the dignity and humanity of our immigrant population. The Department of Homeland Security has separated thousands of children from their parents, denied asylum to those fleeing danger, and used taxpayers dollars as a slush fund to incite terror in immigrant communities. The efficacy of a government agency must be determined by assessing 'outcomes.' By any reasonable measure, Donald Trump's weaponization of ICE and CBP has been a failure. The Department of Homeland Security does not deserve an increase in funding, and that is why we intend to vote no on this funding package." Still waiting on word from Trump The president has yet to guarantee lawmakers that he'll sign the legislation. The House and Senate have yet to announce when they will vote, although they're still expected to vote Thursday. Shelby says Trump has "indicated" he'll sign bill but hasn't "said" so There is still no guarantee Mr. Trump will sign the bill. "He's indicated that but he hasn't said it," Shelby said, asked if the president will sign the bill. House Freedom Caucus urges Trump to use executive authority to build wall Four leading members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, a group that railed against President Obama's use of executive authority to accomplish what he could not legislatively, urged Mr. Trump to use executive action to build his border wall. House Freedom Caucus Mark Meadows, Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and Rep. Jim Jordan wrote to the president Wednesday, saying, "If you feel the need to sign the legislation we also urge you to immediately use your authority pursuant to Title X, Sections 284 and 2808, to access funds to begin building a much-needed border wall," the letter says. "We support your use of the authority delegated to you as president by the United States Congress to use federal funds to protect the American people." Pence says it's clear Trump doesn't like the deal Vice President Mike Pence, who is in Europe, told reporters he's spoken with the president several times on the trip, and it's clear the president isn't very happy with the deal. Mr. Trump has a variety of options at the border, Pence said. Pence would not say whether the president will sign the bill, noting Mr. Trump is carefully examining the legislation. Grassley prays Trump will have "wisdom" to sign bill As the Senate came to order Thursday morning, Republican Chuck Grassley offered his own prayer in addition to the usual pledge to the flag and opening prayer: "Let's all pray that the president will have wisdom to sign the bill so government doesn't shut down," said Grassley. In addition to Homeland Security, the legislation reflects conference agreements for six other appropriations bills: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies. Here's a look at what's in the bill: $1.375 billion for 55 miles of bollard fencing along the southern border and Rio Grande Valley of Texas; Funding for 40,520 ICE detention beds by the end of the fiscal year, a reduction from the current 49,060; $415 million for enhanced medical support, transportation, food and clothing for migrants who are in detention centers; $900 million for enhanced inspections at ports of entry, new technology, opioid detection and customs officers; A 1.9 percent pay raise for federal civilian workers (overriding President Trump's order to deny them a pay raise); $100 million for border security technology between the ports on U.S. southern and northern borders, such as mobile surveillance capability and innovative towers (surveillance towers that are able to differentiate between people and vehicles and whether they're carrying weapons or drugs) $564 million for non-intrusive inspection equipment at land ports of entry to scan vehicles entering the U.S. for narcotics and other contraband; $563.4 million to hire new immigration judges to reduce the backlog of cases; $527.6 million to support the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America, a program focused on addressing the causes of migration of undocumented Central Americans to the U.S.; $191 million for new infrastructure at the Calexico land port of entry; $112.6 million for aircraft and sensor systems, including $86 million for 3 additional multi-role enforcement aircraft; $14.5 million for integrated coastal interceptor vessels for patrolling U.S. maritime borders; and $76.9 million for countering opioids with detection equipment and staffing at international mail facilities. What it does NOT include: Back pay for federal contractors affected by the shutdown; An extension of the Violence Against Women Act (though it does include nearly $500 million in grant money for VAWA programs); No increase in total fencing money compared to fiscal year 2018 (the appropriation is $1.375 billion); Funding can't be used for any concrete wall or other Trump wall prototypes. Only "existing technologies" for fencing or barriers can be used CBS News' Rebecca Kaplan and Nancy Cordes contributed to this report Trump says he has options people don't understand to build the wall President Trump, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office alongside the Colombian president Wednesday, said he has options most people don't understand to build the wall. It's unclear just what those options the administration is considering, are. The president insisted the deal has $23 billion for border security, calling Democrats "stingy" on the issue. Mr. Trump also warned that the White House would be "looking for landmines" in the bill before signing the legislation.
| null |
http://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/shutdown-watch-latest-congress-vote-today-government-funding-bill-2019-02-14-live-updates/
|
2019-02-14 19:10:37+00:00
| 1,550,189,437 | 1,567,548,525 |
politics
|
government
|
98,974 |
cnbc--2019-04-23--Sen Kamala Harris calls on Congress to take steps toward Trump impeachment
| 2019-04-23T00:00:00 |
cnbc
|
Sen. Kamala Harris calls on Congress to take steps toward Trump impeachment
|
Sen. Kamala Harris late Monday said she would support Congress starting impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. That comes on the heels of fellow Democratic presidential contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren last week calling for impeachment. "I think we have very good reason to believe that there is an investigation that has been conducted, which has produced evidence that tells us that this president and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice," Harris said in response to a question at a CNN town hall in New Hampshire. "I believe Congress should take the steps toward impeachment." Harris, the junior senator from California and a member of the Senate's Judiciary Committee and Select Intelligence Committee, said the report released following Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election made it clear there was "good evidence" to make a case for obstruction of justice. "For those of us who have been following the investigation, and have seen any part of that report, it's very clear that there's a lot of good evidence pointing to obstruction and obstruction of justice," said Harris, a former prosecutor who once served as district attorney in San Francisco and later as California attorney general. Added Harris: "I believe that we need to get rid of this president." Similarly, Warren last week urged Congress to begin the process of impeachment action against Trump. The Massachusetts politician thus became the first 2020 presidential candidate to call for impeachment proceedings. "To ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways," Warren tweeted Friday. She also called on elected officials in both parties to "set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty." Aside from Harris, Warren also was one of five 2020 Democratic presidential candidates participating in Monday evening's New Hampshire town hall event. Others were Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar as well as Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind. Warren reiterated her call for impeachment in Monday's town hall, saying the impeachment process is a "tool" of accountability Congress is given. "This is not about politics. This is about principle." Despite calling for impeachment, Harris told the town hall audience that she's "a realist" and recognizes the Democratic-controlled House probably will look at the impeachment issue differently than the Republican-led Senate. "When I look at what has been happening over the last two years and some months that I've been in the United States Senate," Harris added, "I have also witnessed folks in the United States Congress, and in particular in the GOP, who have been presented with many reasons to push back against this president — and they have not." Harris said an investigation by the House of Representatives "is very likely to happen" and would require a simply majority vote. Still, she noted that even if the House does vote to impeach, the next step would be up to the Senate. "I've not seen any evidence to suggest that (Senate Republicans) will weigh on the facts instead of partisan adherence to, to being protective of this president," said Harris. "And that's what concerns me about what will become the eventual outcome. So we have to be realistic about what might be the end result, but that doesn't mean that the process should not take hold."
| null |
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/23/kamala-harris-calls-on-congress-to-move-toward-trump-impeachment.html
|
2019-04-23 04:40:00+00:00
| 1,556,008,800 | 1,567,542,063 |
politics
|
government
|
104,314 |
cnn--2019-04-23--Kamala Harris on Trump I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment
| 2019-04-23T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
Kamala Harris on Trump: 'I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment'
|
Harris' comment at a CNN town hall in New Hampshire comes amid a growing debate among Democrats over whether the House should move to impeach the President in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller releasing his report on Russian intervention in the 2016 election and Trump's efforts to obstruct the investigation. "I think we have very good reason to believe that there is an investigation that has been conducted which has produced evidence that tells us that this President and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice," Harris said. "I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment." Harris added: "I believe that we need to get rid of this President. That's why I'm running to become president of the United States. That is part of the premise, obviously, of my plan." For months, Democrats have not made impeachment a premier issue in their pitch to voters. But Mueller's report has upped the ante on the issue, causing candidates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro to call for impeachment proceedings against Trump. Warren first announced her support of impeachment proceedings last week. But she said during her hour-long CNN town hall on Monday that if anyone else did what Trump did, according to the Mueller report, " they would be arrested and put in jail ." "He serves the whole thing up to the United States Congress and says in effect, if there's going to be any accountability, that accountability has to come from the Congress," Warren said of Mueller. "And the tool that we are given for that accountability is the impeachment process. This is not about politics; this is about principle." Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar took a more wait-and-see approach to the issue Monday night, refusing to go as far as Warren, Castro or Harris. "Here is my concern: At the end of the day, what is most important to me is to see that Donald Trump is not re-elected President, and I intend to do everything I can to make sure that that doesn't happen," Sanders said. Klobuchar told the audience in New Hampshire that she doesn't want to "predispose things." The senator also pushed the decision on impeaching Trump to her colleagues in the House, noting that it is their decision. "The impeachment proceedings are up to the House. They're going to have to make that decision. I am in the Senate," Klobuchar said, adding that she "believe(s) very strongly that President Trump should be held accountable."
|
Dan Merica
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/Xp2rGRTMoSU/index.html
|
2019-04-23 04:20:39+00:00
| 1,556,007,639 | 1,567,542,059 |
politics
|
government
|
109,640 |
cnsnews--2019-01-29--Kamala Harris Urges Gun Control Put Members of Congress in Locked Room With Autopsy Photos of Babie
| 2019-01-29T00:00:00 |
cnsnews
|
Kamala Harris Urges Gun Control: Put Members of Congress in Locked Room With Autopsy Photos of Babies
|
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) told a CNN town hall Monday night she has a "harsh" suggestion on how to force Congress to pass stricter gun control. Citing the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Harris noted that "twenty 6- and 7-year-old babies were massacred," but still, Congress "failed to act." "I think somebody should have required all those members of Congress to go in a room, in a locked room, no press, nobody else, and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies. And then you vote your conscience. "This has become a political issue. This has become a political issue, and it is -- there is no reason why we cannot have reasonable gun safety laws in this country," Harris said. "And guess what, guys. Here's the reality of it also. We're not waiting for a good idea We have the good ideas, an assault weapons ban, background checks, right? We're not waiting for a tragedy. We have seen the worst human tragedies we can imagine. So what's missing? What's missing is people in the United States Congress to have the courage to act the right way." Harris was responding to the pastor of a Presbyterian church in Des Moines, who asked her what she would do as president to address the problem of "gun violence." Here is Harris's complete response, which the Democrat crowd cheered enthusiastically:
|
Susan Jones
|
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/harris-urges-gun-control-put-members-congress-locked-room-autopsy-photos
|
2019-01-29 10:54:02+00:00
| 1,548,777,242 | 1,567,550,350 |
politics
|
government
|
219,406 |
freedombunker--2019-01-30--How Congress Can Take a Step Toward Trade Stability
| 2019-01-30T00:00:00 |
freedombunker
|
How Congress Can Take a Step Toward Trade Stability
|
After protracted smashmouth negotiations, the United States, Canada, and Mexico agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) with the new United States Mexico Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) on November 30, 2018. The new USMCA is largely NAFTA with certain positive elements drawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”). Unfortunately, certain new protectionist provisions unnecessarily take the USMCA in the wrong direction. Now, a new trade bill called the “Reciprocal Trade Act” could make trade turmoil much worse. First, let’s consider the USMCA. Commentators have hailed the signing of the USMCA as ending uncertainty related to the NAFTA negotiations. Of course, it was the United States that unnecessarily created the uncertainty by demanding the renegotiations and threatening to pull out of the trade pact in the first place. To the extent that there was uncertainty that disrupted American businesses, it was self-induced. The failure of the USMCA to resolve the issue of the steel tariffs, whether in the body of the agreement or by side letter, is a disappointment. One positive from the new USMCA is the increased access to the Canadian dairy market. However, as Scott Lincicome has pointed out, the USMCA only opens up the Canadian dairy market by .34 percent more than would have been but for the withdrawal from the TPP. This is hardly a major accomplishment that is worth months of uncertainty and diplomatic ballyhoo. The USMCA fails to remove the tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum from Canada and Mexico pursuant to Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Under Section 232, Congress delegated its Article 1, Section 8 constitutional authority of regulating trade by authorizing the president to impose tariffs in cases necessitated by national security. The president’s claims that tariffs are necessary to protect the US steel industry on the grounds of national security are belied by the facts that the US Defense Department only requires about 3 percent of steel produced domestically and that US steelmakers enjoy a market share of about 74 percent of the domestic steel market. The steel tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and other importers are harming American companies. Canada has retaliated against the US steel 25 percent tariffs by imposing its own 25 percent tariff on US steel imports into Canada. The failure of the USMCA to resolve the issue of the steel tariffs, whether in the body of the agreement or by side letter, is a disappointment. Now, Congress has some decisions to make. Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI), working in concert with the White House, has authored the Reciprocal Trade Act, which would expand presidential powers to raise US tariffs. Before the USMCA goes into effect, the United States Congress has to ratify it. The president has threatened to withdraw from NAFTA if Congress does not ratify the new USMCA. In light of the contentious government shutdown negotiations, it is less than certain that Congress will approve USMCA. Congress should ratify the new USMCA to avoid the trade turmoil that would come from not having either NAFTA or USMCA. Still, Congress could make matters even worse. Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI), working in concert with the White House, has authored the Reciprocal Trade Act, which would expand presidential powers to raise US tariffs. According to the Peterson Institute of International Economics: “The bill would give Trump unfettered discretion to raise US tariffs against imports from countries that impose higher duties than existing US rates.” Congress should reject the Reciprocal Trade Act, then turn to legislation to rein in the president’s authority to impose Section 232 tariffs. The latter would require a veto-proof majority. Such a level of bipartisanship is probably too much to hope for in today’s Washington. But approving the USMCA and rejecting the RTA would be a step toward trade stability.
|
Sean McBride
|
http://freedombunker.com/2019/01/30/how-congress-can-take-a-step-toward-trade-stability/
|
2019-01-30 20:00:33+00:00
| 1,548,896,433 | 1,567,550,190 |
politics
|
government
|
224,363 |
freedomoutpost--2019-03-09--Hawaii Senators Urge Congress To Repeal Second Amendment
| 2019-03-09T00:00:00 |
freedomoutpost
|
Hawaii Senators Urge Congress To Repeal Second Amendment
|
I don't know where these people come from but "rights" are not repealable. They are "unalienable," which means they can't be given up nor taken (Only cowards acquiesce to either of those). Yet, here are cowardly tyrants in the state of Hawaii introducing resolutions that encourage Congress to violate the Constitution and the rights of the people, the very thing they took an oath before God and man to uphold. Hawaii state senators, all of them Democrats, introduced Senate Resolution 29 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 42, both of which conclude with these lines: BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Thirtieth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2019, the House of Representatives concurring, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and adopt a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and Trending: List Of Major Corporations Who Oppose Your Right To Keep & Bear Arms BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right. take our poll - story continues below Unbelievable! The senators of Hawaii have just declared war on the united States, its Constitution and its people and should summarily be arrested for undermining the very law they swore to uphold. Chris Gomez at The New American writes: This proposal to deny Americans their right to posess firearms underscores the serious dangers of amending the federal Constitution in this current age. And although neither resolution is an application to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments, also known as a “convention of states” or constitutional convention (Con-Con), under Article V, they offer a preview into the type of amendments that a Hawaii delegation to such a convention would propose, should one be called by Congress. In fact, Hawaii lawmakers have already suggested a convention to propose, among one of its aims, an amendment to do just that. In 2012, liberal Democratic state legislators introduced House Concurrent Resolution 114, a radical leftist Con-Con application that sought to repeal the Second Amendment, declare ObamaCare to be constitutional, and to abolish the Electoral College. The key excerpts from Hawaii’s HCR 114 (2012) read: Whereas, the Legislature supports the proposal and ratification of the following amendments to the United States Constitution: (1) The repeal or modification of the Second Amendment to strengthen firearms restrictions; (2) A declaration of the constitutionality of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance; (3) An amendment to Article I, Section 5, to prohibit the supermajority cloture requirement under Rule 22 of the United States Senate for ending floor debates and filibusters, to facilitate a more reasonable voting standard for cloture; (4) An amendment abolishing the electoral college established under Article II, Section 1, and providing for the direct election of the United States President and Vice President by voters; and (5) An amendment to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, to require that Senate confirmations of appointments of officers of the United States be made by a simple majority vote within sixty days of the nomination.... BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Concurrent Resolution constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the United States Constitution until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have made application for a constitutional convention that is limited to consideration of the amendments to the United States Constitution enumerated in this Concurrent Resolution. (Emphasis added throughout.) Fortunately, HCR 114 failed to pass in 2012. However, like both SR 29 and SCR 42 of 2019, it also reveals just how far some on the Left are willing to go to eviscerate our constitutional freedoms. One should not expect liberal delegates to an Article V convention — especially coming from stronghold “blue states” such as Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington — to sit idly by as purportedly conservative Republicans make changes to the nation’s law of the land. In fact, even the so-called conservatives at Mark Meckler’s Convention of States Project/Action organization, also known as COS, may not be reliable guardians of the Second Amendment. These aren't the only lawless tyrants who have advanced this idea. We have had all sorts of past and present politicians who have pushed for outright gun confiscation to what they call "common sense" regulations, which are actually stupid. And yet, she blurts out the truth in 2017, she admits that no guns laws can stop mass shootings or any gun crime for that matter. Then there was "relic of the twentieth century," former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who wrote that the Second Amendment should be repealed because it was a "relic of the eighteenth century." These people have no idea why the Second Amendment was written, no idea that corrupt men and governments will continue to exist to advance tyranny and arms a means of the people keeping them in check, not to mention the defense of their persons, families, and communities. The John Birch Society put out a video titled "Tricked Into Gun Control," which demonstrates that the idea of "clarifying the Second Amendment" is just another way of attempting to create outlaws out of law-abiding citizens and leads to gun confiscation.
|
Tim Brown
|
https://freedomoutpost.com/hawaii-senators-urge-congress-to-repeal-second-amendment/
|
2019-03-09 00:26:07+00:00
| 1,552,109,167 | 1,567,546,810 |
politics
|
government
|
250,255 |
inquisitr--2019-02-26--Barack Obama Not Only Had His Own Green New Deal He Got It Passed By Congress 10 Years Ago
| 2019-02-26T00:00:00 |
inquisitr
|
Barack Obama Not Only Had His Own ‘Green New Deal,’ He Got It Passed By Congress 10 Years Ago
|
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims that 'no one else has even tried' to create climate change legislation, but President Barack Obama passed a $90 billion climate spending package in 2009. On February 7, first-term New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the sweeping Green New Deal resolution. According to the text posted on the United States Congress site, the non-binding resolution aims “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions,” as well as numerous other broad goals, all “through a 10-year national mobilization.” Critics immediately slammed the Green New Deal as overly vague, unworkable, and too expensive, with some estimates putting the price tag at $93 trillion, according to the business magazine Fortune. But at an event in New York City on Saturday evening, the 29-year-old Ocasio-Cortez fired back at critics of the resolution, claiming that “no one else has even tried” to create a sweeping climate change legislation package. “I just introduced Green New Deal two weeks ago, and it’s creating all of this conversation. Why? Because no one else has even tried,” she said at the event, as quoted by the conservative Daily Caller site. But in fact, the Green New Deal resolution is far from the first broad climate change package introduced in Congress. In 2009, President Barack Obama not only introduced a $90 billion climate change spending bill, but he also succeeded in passing the bill through the House and Senate — all within the first month of his presidency. Obama signed the bill, which was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — better known as the “stimulus package” — on February 17, 2009, as The Guardian recounts. The ARRA, or “stimulus,” was intended to save the United States economy from collapse in the disastrous wake of the 2008 economic crisis and recession. But according to journalist Michael Grunwald, writing in Politico, the environmental portion of the $800 billion package “jump-started America’s gradual transition to a low-carbon economy.” Grunwald, author of a book on the stimulus package, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era explained to the site The Grist that the climate-change portion of the bill was “ginormous.” The bill’s programs, Obama claimed, would “double renewable power generation” during the four years of his first term alone. That goal was accomplished successfully, Grunwald said. In addition, by changing the financing structure for renewable energy companies, Obama’s bill “unlocked” the wind and solar power industries, which were “dead” before the Obama bill’s passage, Grunwald recounted. The Obama climate bill “was also a huge deal for the smart grid, for electric vehicles,” Grunwald said, two other key components in reducing carbon emissions and slowing the process of climate change.
|
Jonathan Vankin
|
https://www.inquisitr.com/5314610/barack-obama-not-only-had-his-own-green-new-deal-he-got-it-passed-by-congress-10-years-ago/
|
2019-02-26 03:55:58+00:00
| 1,551,171,358 | 1,567,547,211 |
politics
|
government
|
250,729 |
inquisitr--2019-04-08--Rudy Giuliani Not Worried About Mueller Report Says Congress Should See Full Document
| 2019-04-08T00:00:00 |
inquisitr
|
Rudy Giuliani ‘Not Worried’ About Mueller Report, Says Congress Should See Full Document
|
For the past three years, top Democrats have mercilessly accused President Donald Trump of working for Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and of colluding with the Russian government to sway the 2016 election in his favor. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, appointed to investigate whether Trump officials had colluded with the Kremlin or not, found no Trump-Russia conspiracy. Mueller has officially wrapped the investigation up, submitting his final report to Attorney General William Barr. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, in his own memo, Barr directly quoted Mueller who wrote that the investigation “did not establish” that the Trump campaign collaborated with official Moscow. Nevertheless, top Democrats are doubling down on conspiracy claims, and urging Barr to release the full report as soon as possible. Leading the effort are House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. Barr will, he announced, release the report by mid-April, and gladly testify before both chambers of the United States Congress. Not even this has silenced the Democrats, who continue to allege conspiracy, urging Barr to immediately release the report and all the underlying information pertaining to Mueller’s probe, without redacting anything. The White House is not only taking aim at the Democrats’ conspiratorial claims, but also agreeing with them that the full report should be released. Even the president himself has said that he would be OK with the public seeing the report. “I don’t mind. I mean, frankly, I told the House, ‘If you want, let them see it,'” Trump said, according to The Washington Post. Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani is in agreement with his most prominent client. In an interview broadcast Sunday, Giuliani said that he is “not worried” about the Mueller report, adding that Congress should have access to “everything” in it, Newsweek reports. Giuliani added that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who has consistently criticized William Barr, should “get all the information” and “everything” from Robert Mueller’s 400-page document. As Newsweek notes, multiple media reports have alleged that members of Mueller’s legal team are not happy with Barr’s summary of the Mueller report. This was first reported by The New York Times, and The Washington Post confirmed the reporting, revealing that Mueller team members are concerned about Barr’s interpretation of the special counsel’s findings pertaining to obstruction of justice.
|
Damir Mujezinovic
|
https://www.inquisitr.com/5381546/mueller-report-conspiracy-trump-attorney/
|
2019-04-08 00:27:34+00:00
| 1,554,697,654 | 1,567,543,526 |
politics
|
government
|
329,749 |
nationalreview--2019-01-31--Congress Must Prevent Any Military Intervention in Venezuela
| 2019-01-31T00:00:00 |
nationalreview
|
Congress Must Prevent Any Military Intervention in Venezuela
|
As the Trump administration’s response to the crisis in Caracas heats up, lawmakers must prepare to assert their Constitutional power and check the president. If the scribbled notes on national-security adviser John Bolton’s legal pad are to be believed, the Trump administration is seriously considering a sizeable deployment of American military forces to South America as it ratchets up pressure on embattled Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro to step down from power. President Trump has already recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó, the head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, as the country’s rightful president, and is instituting sanctions against a state-run oil company in an effort to squeeze Maduro’s supporters. Meanwhile, influential voices in Washington who have been advocating regime change in Venezuela for decades are finding allies and sympathizers in Trump’s inner circle. The United States Congress, which is given the power to declare war by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, has lately been distracted by the government shutdown and various investigations of Trump. But if the administration attempts to intervene militarily in the Venezuela crisis, lawmakers must immediately assert their constitutional authority and prevent such an intervention. The situation in Venezuela is heartbreaking and frustrating, as the poisoned fruits of socialist despotism are now being reaped. It is common for those in the Washington foreign-policy establishment to respond to the destabilization of an unfriendly dictator or threats of civil war in a foreign country by calling for U.S. action, imagining a benevolent American intervention to bring about the liberation of the downtrodden or the end of a humanitarian crisis. But the results of recent interventions in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have proven less than ideal for Americans and those countries, and there is little reason to be more optimistic about a military adventure in Venezuela. As Benjamin Denison has pointed out in the Washington Post, regime-change efforts in Latin America have a poor track record of success, and academic research shows that any military intervention in Venezuela would likely result in a costly long-term occupation for the United States. What’s more, as tragic as the failed policies of the Chavez and Maduro regimes have been for the people of Venezuela, the country poses no serious economic or national-security threat to the U.S. The benefits of empowering Congress to decide when the United States goes to war were spelled out by the drafters of our Constitution at the Founding. The Founders were rightly concerned about the potential for abuse of the war-making power if it was vested in the commander-in-chief. In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton compared the powers of the president with those of the British monarch in order to relieve concerns about an all-powerful executive. “It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy,” he wrote, “while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.” During the Constitutional Convention, Virginia’s George Mason put it more bluntly, declaring that he was “against giving the power of war to the executive” because the president “is not to be trusted with it.” Elbridge Gerry, who went on to serve as vice president, said he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive to declare war.” Congress has a responsibility to our republic to assert and defend its constitutional powers over war-making, and it should prepare to do so as the Trump administration’s response to the Venezuelan crisis grows more and more aggressive.
|
Robert Moore
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/venezuela-crisis-congress-must-prevent-american-military-intervention/
|
2019-01-31 11:30:23+00:00
| 1,548,952,223 | 1,567,550,075 |
politics
|
government
|
330,965 |
nationalreview--2019-05-02--James Buckley Urges Congress to Stay out of State Affairs
| 2019-05-02T00:00:00 |
nationalreview
|
James Buckley Urges Congress to Stay out of State Affairs
|
An omnipresent, micromanaging federal government will necessarily be presidential government, with the chief executive’s discretion unbound. At 96, James Buckley still is, like good cheddar, sharp and savory. Buckley, whose life has been no less accomplished than his brother Bill’s, recently said at a National Review gathering that his speech there would be his last public appearance. Let us hope not. He adorned all the government’s branches — senator; undersecretary of state for international security affairs; judge on the nation’s second-most important court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Shortly after his 1970 election to the Senate (as a member of New York’s Conservative party; the age of miracles had not yet passed) he was handed a recent study showing that “the work of the average congressional office had doubled every five years since 1936.” He explains: Given the fact that, in simpler times, Congress worked at a leisurely pace and was in session for only five or six months a year, its members could take the initial increases in stride simply by devoting more hours per day and more months per year to their work. Over time, however, the available hours and months had been exhausted, and the doubling could only be accommodated by squeezing deliberation out of the legislative process. In 1934, after 145 years of congressional activity, the U.S. Code consisted of one volume of federal statutes. Buckley says when he came to Congress 36 years later, there were eleven volumes. Today, 49 more years on, there are 41 volumes — supplemented by 242 volumes of regulations having the force of law. This, says Buckley, is the result of a Congress “that largely substitutes political reflex for reflection,” and that is so averse to “messy details” that it delegates “essentially legislative authority to executive agencies.” All this stems, however, from “abandonment of the Constitution’s limits on federal authority.” Buckley says that the mischief erupted after a 1937 Supreme Court ruling that Congress, in promoting the “general welfare,” can supply states with money to implement programs that Congress has no enumerated power to write into law. When Buckley entered the Senate, such programs distributed $24 billion. Today, he says, the sum, properly computed, is in “mid-$700 billions.” The idea of enumerated powers having been erased, so has the Tenth Amendment (“the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”). Buckley has hitherto proposed converting all such programs into block grants to states. He now proposes a presidential tweet vowing to veto “any bill that tells the states how to run their own affairs.” He proposes, and believes “there is a chance,” that the Supreme Court might reverse its 1937 ruling on the ground that federal grants to states “have proven to be inherently coercive.” These proposals are equally sensible, and — the age of miracles has now passed — equally unlikely. The problem, as Yuval Levin says, is Congress’s “willful underactivity.” But the growing problem that will continue to exacerbate this problem is this: Having marginalized itself, with judicial encouragement, Congress now attracts members who either disdain it or think members of the president’s party exist to tug their forelock when the president issues orders. Senator Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), who has been campaigning to escape from the Senate into the White House since arriving there 28 months ago, considers the legislative branch a constitutional superfluity: “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their [sic] act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun-safety laws, and if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.” The 100 days are granted by the grace of Queen Kamala I. In January, Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.) explained why Republicans would not consider a bill funding the government without money for a border wall: “The president won’t sign it. Why would we work on it?” Perhaps because there is value in Congress expressing its independent view of the public good? An omnipresent, micromanaging federal government will necessarily be presidential government, with the chief executive’s discretion unbound, and unsupervised by a Congress that manages to be both harried and lethargic. Many progressives have long understood this — and have approved of it because they thought Woodrow Wilson and the two Roosevelts would be the sort of presidents who would benefit from it. But because of the 45th president, progressives are having second thoughts. They should consider Buckley’s thoughts.
|
George Will
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/james-buckley-federal-government-congress-states/
|
2019-05-02 10:30:29+00:00
| 1,556,807,429 | 1,567,541,365 |
politics
|
government
|
334,644 |
naturalnews--2019-02-12--Its time for radical Israel-hating Leftist Ilhan Omar to resign from Congress for racist attacks o
| 2019-02-12T00:00:00 |
naturalnews
|
It's time for radical, Israel-hating Leftist Ilhan Omar to resign from Congress for racist attacks on Jewish people
|
(Natural News) The more skeptical among us had bad vibes when voters in Michigan and Minnesota elected, respectively, Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib, a Muslim woman of Palestinian descent, and Ilhan Omar, a Muslim woman of Somalian descent, to Congress. Why? Given Democratic outrage over some of POTUS Donald Trump’s first official acts in office — signing executive orders banning people from certain countries known to harbor active terrorist factions and known to be “majority Muslim” — we were certain that these two ladies would arrive in Washington with chips on their shoulders. And boy, did they. On the day that the new Congress was sworn in last month, at a post-session party Tlaib was wild with joy and loose of tongue, proudly telling gathered guests and supporters that Democrats “are going to impeach the motherf**ker,” in reference to POTUS. Here’s hoping she doesn’t kiss her son with that mouth. Beyond that, following reports Tuesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has come up short in finding “Trump-Russia collusion” and likely won’t even issue a public statement or report, good luck with finding support for impeachment, Rep. Tlaib. (Related: BOOM: Mueller will NOT issue final report in POTUS Trump probe, says former Prez lawyer.) The Michigan mouth isn’t the only anti-Trump Muslim congresswoman with a penchant for dissing the president as well as America’s allies. Omar arrived in D.C. with her own intolerance and hate — for the president and Jews. Shortly after taking office previous tweets Omar sent out that were not just critical of Israel but extremely unnerving surfaced, laying the groundwork for what was to come. As The National Sentinel reported, Omar drew the ire even of Democratic leaders after she insinuated in tweets that other members of Congress supported Israel because Jewish lobbying organizations donated to their campaigns. “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she wrote in response to a tweet from liberal reporter Glenn Greenwald, who was complaining about Republican angst over criticism of the Jewish state by both Omar and Tlaib. “Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive,” said Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn and other party leaders in a statement, Politico reported. “We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.” Omar eventually apologized for her bigoted tweet, but it was panned by POTUS Donald Trump who called it “lame,” adding that she ought to consider resigning from Congress. “One other thing I might want to say is that anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress, and Congressman Omar is terrible [for] what she said,” the president said. “And I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. What she said is so deep-seated in her heart that her lame apology – and that’s what it was, it was lame and she didn’t mean a word of it – was just not appropriate.” Even a major newspaper from her home state was critical of what she said this week — and what she’s said in the past — about our best ally in the Middle East (and the region’s only true bastion of freedom). The editorial board of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the state’s largest daily paper, wrote, “Getting attention does not equal effective leadership. That is a reality that U.S. House Rep. Ilhan Omar urgently needs to grasp as she settles into her new role representing Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District.” The paper went on to call her apology “grudging.” We call it hypocritical. For a Muslim immigrant who is among the first to cry “bigotry!” when she feels slighted over her faith to then target Jews over their faith is monumental speciousness. At a minimum, she should be stripped of her committee assignments like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) after he uttered what many believed to be pro-White nationalism comments. Read more about why Democrats like Omar and Tlaib are a great reason to VoteRepublican.news.
|
JD Heyes
|
http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02-12-time-for-radical-israel-hating-leftist-ilhan-omar-to-resign-from-congress.html
|
2019-02-12 20:49:07+00:00
| 1,550,022,547 | 1,567,548,790 |
politics
|
government
|
461,375 |
renegadetribune--2019-08-07--Feeding the Israel Lobby Congress Gives the Jewish State Whatever It Wants
| 2019-08-07T00:00:00 |
renegadetribune
|
Feeding the Israel Lobby: Congress Gives the Jewish State Whatever It Wants
|
If you have been wondering when the twenty Democratic aspirants for the presidency will begin a serious discussion of American foreign policy in the Middle East, where Washington has been bogged down in both current and impending wars, you are not alone. With the honorable exception of Tulsi Gabbard, no one seems keen to touch that particular live wire. Part of the problem is the journalists who are asking the questions in the debates. To be sure, the publication of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt back in 2007 opened the door to a frank discussion of why the United States is involved in unresolvable conflicts on behalf of a tiny client state. But unfortunately, while it is now possible to find in the mainstream media some honest analysis of Israel’s ability to corrupt policy formulation in Washington, in general the Jewish state continues to get a pass from both the press and politicians on all issues that matter. And then there is the problem of Congress itself, which is precisely the institution that has been most corrupted by Israel and Jewish money. Almost thirty years ago, American politician Pat Buchanan described Congress as “Israeli occupied territory.” As a result, he was viciously attacked by the mainstream media and the political leadership of both parties, demonstrating beyond all doubt that he was correct in his observation. Today the Israel Lobby in the United States is far more powerful than it was in 1990, so much so that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually boasts to his voters that he directs U.S. policy. The hypocrisy inherent in the Israel-philia of America’s political leadership is such that it sometimes produces comic results. The whiney head of the House Intelligence Committee Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, was beside himself prior to the Robert Mueller testimony before Congress on July 24th, denouncing Russia and President Donald Trump, saying that the president’s actions amounted to “Disloyalty to country… Those are strong words… But disloyalty to country violates the very obligation of citizenship, our devotion to a core principle on which our nation was founded, that we, the people, not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide, who shall govern, us.” Strong words indeed, but Adam Schiff knows perfectly well that Moscow’s alleged involvement in the 2016 election, which was relatively insignificant, had no measurable impact on the result. And both he and Mueller have been coy about presenting any real evidence that Russia is gearing up to do major damage in 2020, which is what they claim to be the case. By way of contrast, everyone in Washington knows very clearly but will never admit that Israel has seriously corrupted the United States government and its elected officials at all levels. But Schiff did not mention Israel, nor did he express concern that Israel’s clearly unsavory involvement with Trump transition team members General Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner was never thoroughly investigated or included in the final Mueller report. One might assume that a deliberate decision was made by some parties in power to avoid embarrassing Israel. Those parties almost certainly included Schiff. Schiff, who is Jewish, frequently tells audiences about his love for Israel, sometimes complaining that it is treated unfairly. It might be suggested that if anyone in the government is partial to a foreign power it is Schiff, and that foreign power is Israel, not Russia. Unfortunately, Schiff is far from unique. Perhaps he and a number of other Congressmen should register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as required by law. Congressmen are not exempt when they work to benefit a foreign nation, though they frequently believe themselves to be not subject to the very laws that they pass. In May a letter was sent to the White House with the signatures of 400 congressmen, purely to express America’s legislature’s solidarity with Israel and to give it a green light to do whatever it wishes vis-à-vis its neighbors. The letter cites some questionable American interests relating to Syria, but it also mentions Israel no less than 13 times. If that does not convince one that Congress has always been and continues to be Israeli occupied territory, check out some bills that have been working their way through the legislature. The House voted overwhelmingly on July 23rd to formally oppose the Palestinian-backed nonviolent movement to boycott Israel. The measure, H.Res.246 opposes “efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement [BDS] targeting Israel.” The bill had 349 co-sponsors and passed by a 398–17 vote. Sixteen Democrats and only one Republican opposed the bill. The bill is not a law but is rather intended to express the will of congress, which is perhaps the only good thing to say about it. Other bills have not yet been voted on, presumably because friends of the Jewish state are looking for more goodies to add in. The pending legislative action includes the aid to Israel bill H.R.1837 the “United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act”, which has 279 cosponsors. When the bill is approved, which it will be, it will increase the amount of aid given to Israel over ten years to $38 billion, though this is now regarded as a minimum figure which will be supplemented to meet the Jewish state’s expressed needs. And the aid is now unconditional, meaning that Israel will receive the money no matter how it behaves, while the Jewish state will also be able to use the U.S. taxpayer-provided money to buy weapons from its own arms industry, cutting American defense contractors out of the loop and costing jobs in the United States. Another bill to benefit Israel is also pending: H.R. 1850, the “Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2019,” a law that would authorize and encourage financially sanctioning any foreign organization or individual that provides “support” to any group, organization or individual considered to be part of the Palestinian resistance. Interestingly, the bill does not even pretend to be based on U.S. national security: it is all about and for Israel. It could mean that foreign supporters of BDS, which is now considered a hostile entity by “the will of” Congress, could be subject to sanctions even though they are non-violent and threaten no one. One final bit of bipartisan legislation best described as a pander to both Israel and the Jewish community is a bill that has appeared recently in the Senate that will prioritize and pay for health care and nutrition services for those who claim to be holocaust survivors. The bill is entitled the “Trauma-Informed Modernization of Eldercare for Holocaust Survivors Act” or “TIME for Holocaust Survivors Act.” It is intended to “increase the chances that survivors could age in their own homes” and also “to ensure that Holocaust survivors have care and services tailored to their needs.” Sponsor Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who is, of course, Jewish, elaborated: “Holocaust survivors came to the United States seeking refuge from unimaginable horrors. They have lived their lives here and enriched our nation. With an average age of 85, we have an obligation to provide Holocaust survivors the community support and special services they need to live out their final days,” WE have an obligation? How about you and your co-religionists Ben as you seem to have a lot of money to spend on lobbying for Israel and corrupting our government? Special services? Why do they need help? Because, the bill states, “institutionalized settings, with confined spaces or restrictions on food, can induce panic, anxiety, and re-traumatization due to their holocaust experiences.” What about other elderly American who have problems with “institutionalized settings” or “confined spaces” or “restrictions on food?” How the Senate will justify special benefits for a small group of self-described victims drawn from the wealthiest demographic in the U.S. remains to be seen. If there is anyone who actually needs help, it is the U.S. taxpayer, who has to bear the burden of this utter nonsense, which sets up Jews as a special privileged group within our social services network. So-called holocaust survivors are identified in the bill’s “Findings” as “(2) More than 200,000 Jews fleeing from Nazi-occupied territory found refuge in the United States from 1933 through 1945, and approximately 137,000 additional Jewish refugees settled in the United States from 1945 through 1952. (3) Hundreds of thousands of additional Jewish refugees continued to immigrate to the United States from Europe and countries of the former Soviet Union during the subsequent decades. (4) The number of Holocaust survivors living in the United States at the end of 2018 was approximately 80,000 individuals, down from an estimated 13 127,000 in 2010.” Thus, Holocaust survivors who will benefit from the bill are inevitably and by intention only Jews – no Christians who went through 1933-1945 in Europe need apply. That one highly privileged group should deserve special benefits from government that other retirees cannot have is a disgrace. So, is the United States Congress Israeli and also, by extension, Jewish occupied territory? I think the question answers itself. This article was originally published on UNZ Review. Renegade Editor’s Note: It would be great if Mr. Giraldi would read my report on Tulsi Gabbard.
|
renegade
|
http://www.renegadetribune.com/feeding-the-israel-lobby-congress-gives-the-jewish-state-whatever-it-wants/
|
2019-08-07 12:33:57+00:00
| 1,565,195,637 | 1,567,534,684 |
politics
|
government
|
472,047 |
rferl--2019-12-21--Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's Energy Grip On Europe
| 2019-12-21T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's Energy Grip On Europe
|
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Congress has approved legislation to bolster its security and energy cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean, where newly discovered, major natural-gas fields have the ability to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian energy. The bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act, which was approved on December 19, is the latest piece of U.S. legislation passed this year that aims to diversify Europe’s energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled companies. “This legislation marks the dawn of a new day for the United States’ engagement in the Eastern Mediterranean. By including this legislation in the government funding package, the United States Congress has prioritized our significant national security interests in the region,” Senator Bob Menendez (Democrat-New Jersey), who is the leading minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement on December 20. Congress also passed legislation on December 20 that sets up a $1 billion fund to finance energy infrastructure projects that promote energy independence in Eastern and Central Europe. Earlier in the week, Congress approved legislation to halt construction of Russia’s new natural-gas pipeline to Germany. The Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act authorizes the United States to give new security assistance to Cyprus and Greece and lifts the U.S. arms embargo on Cyprus. It also authorizes the establishment of an Energy Center to enhance cooperation between the United States, Israel, Greece, and Cyprus. Major gas fields have been found off of Israel, Egypt, and Cyprus over the past few years with more expected, potentially making the Eastern Mediterranean a supplier of energy to Europe via Greece. Most recently, Texas-based ExxonMobil in February announced a major gas find off of Cyprus. However, regional security is a major issue that could hamper development of the fields, thus driving U.S. interest to enhance security in the region. Turkey’s military occupies the northern part of Cyprus and Ankara has challenged the island’s drilling rights in its exclusive economic zone. Turkey’s Navy last year stopped European vessels seeking to drill off the waters of Cyprus. The legislation has also expressed concern about the existence of Russian vessels in the region to support Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad. The legislation requires the U.S. secretary of state to produce a report within 90 days assessing Russia’s security, political, and energy goals in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act also requires the secretary of state to submit a strategy on enhancing U.S. security and energy cooperation with the countries in the region, including evaluating ways to deliver the gas to Europe. While an undersea pipeline has been proposed, the gas could be shipped as liquefied natural gas to ports in Greece and elsewhere.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/congress-passes-more-legislation-aimed-at-curbing-russia-s-energy-grip-on-europe/30337217.html
|
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 07:39:37 +0000
| 1,576,931,977 | 1,576,931,543 |
politics
|
government
|
540,169 |
sputnik--2019-08-06--Bipartisan Bedfellows in Congress Push for Bill Curbing Trumps Iran War Powers Report
| 2019-08-06T00:00:00 |
sputnik
|
Bipartisan ‘Bedfellows’ in Congress Push for Bill Curbing Trump’s Iran War Powers – Report
|
A coalition of 28 congressmen, including both Republicans and Democrats, is championing an amendment to the defence authorisation bill, which would prohibit the use of funds for military action against Iran without prior approval from Congress. In a letter to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees obtained by Foreign Policy, senators and representatives expressed their concerns that the risk of the United States entering a war with Iran without authorisation is “acute”. “Bipartisan majorities in both chambers have spoken up to defend Congress’ constitutional authority over matters of war and peace,” the lawmakers wrote. “We have no illusions about the potential threats that Iran may pose, or its destabilising activities in the Middle East. These bipartisan amendments do not interfere with the United States Armed Forces’ ability to defend themselves,” they added, addressing concerns that the amendment could affect the military’s ability to quickly respond to potential security threats. “But under our constitution, any war requires congressional authorisation.” The push for curtailing Trump’s war powers reportedly saw Republican supporters of Donald Trump, such as Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, join forces with his Democratic critics, including New Mexico Senator Tom Udall and California Rep. Ro Khanna. “This is the most urgent national defence issue we are discussing in Congress, and it’s this rare issue where you have real bipartisan agreement and also very strange bedfellows from the farther right and farther left,” an unnamed congressional aide was quoted as saying. On 12 July, the House passed a similar amendment to the fiscal 2020 National Defence Authorisation Act that would prohibit the Trump administration from funding military action against Iran without authorisation. It was passed in a 251-170 vote that drew 27 Republicans, and has yet to be approved by senators. Rep. Ro Khanna, who co-sponsored the bill, called it "the most important foreign policy vote in the United States Congress". Another similar measure languished in the Republican-controlled Senate; the final vote tally was 50 in favour to 40 against the amendment, which stopped short of meeting the 60-vote threshold. The House and Senate have published their versions of the defence policy bill, supporting $733 billion and $750 billion for military programmes, respectively. The House bill, adopted by a Democratic majority through a strict party-line vote, would block the Trump administration from using military funds for a border wall, ban emergency arms sales to Saudi Arabia, end US military support to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, prohibit military parades for political purposes, and prevent the transfer of new prisoners to Guantanamo Bay. The Senate has included none of those provisions, and the two parties have yet to face difficulties reconciling their versions in the fall. Tensions between the United States and Iran continue to run high, with Washington seeking an allied naval coalition following a series of incidents in the Gulf of Oman in recent months. The US accused Iran of attacking foreign oil tankers in May and June – something Tehran denied. Washington later condemned the seizure of tankers by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important waterways. In June, Trump ordered and called off, at the last minute, an air strike against Iran after the downing of a US spy drone, which could have led to a full-scale military conflict.
| null |
https://sputniknews.com/us/201908061076477869-bipartisan-bedfellows-in-congress-push-for-bill-curbing-trumps-iran-war-powers--report/
|
2019-08-06 05:39:55+00:00
| 1,565,084,395 | 1,567,534,765 |
politics
|
government
|
599,049 |
thedailycaller--2019-02-08--Former Democratic Rep John Dingell Longest Serving Member Of Congress Ever Dies At 92
| 2019-02-08T00:00:00 |
thedailycaller
|
Former Democratic Rep John Dingell, Longest Serving Member Of Congress Ever, Dies At 92
|
Former Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell died Thursday, a day after his family revealed he was in hospice care. Dingell was the longest-serving member of Congress in history, according to The Detroit News. “It is with a heavy heart that we announce the passing of John David Dingell, Jr., former Michigan Congressman … Congressman Dingell died peacefully today at his home in Dearborn, surrounded by his wife Deborah. He was a lion of the United States Congress and a loving son, father, husband, grandfather and friend,” Democratic Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell, Dingell’s wife, said in a statement. She now represents his former district. Dingell was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2018 and wanted to share a message with his social media followers after the hospice announcement. “The Lovely Deborah is insisting I rest and stay off here, but after long negotiations we’ve worked out a deal where she’ll keep up with Twitter for me as I dictate the messages,” Dingell wrote on Twitter Wednesday, referencing his wife. “I want to thank you all for your incredibly kind words and prayers. You’re not done with me just yet.” (RELATED: The Hill Posts Article About Retired Congressman Who Attacked Trump, Gets Party Wrong) The former congressman had stepped down from office in 2014 after serving since 1955. He first came to represent Michigan’s 12th Congressional District after winning a special election following the death of his father, Rep. John D. Dingell Sr, according to Ballotpedia. He helped draft many of the nation’s important environmental and energy laws, reported The Detroit News. He was also a big supporter of the Affordable Care Act. “Let me just say this: You ain’t seen nothing yet. My dad was one of the authors of Social Security, [and] worked a long time to get it through. We finally, under your leadership, Madame Leader [Nancy Pelosi], we got the Affordable Care Act,” Dingell said in March 2013. Politico health care reporter Dan Diamond predicted his influence would outlast him through the progressive left’s push for Medicare for all. “Dingell was one of the key architects — for nearly 60 years in the House! — in the movement that’s become Medicare-for-All,” Diamond wrote Wednesday after news broke that Dingell had entered hospice care. Dingell was not a fan of President Donald Trump, having called on him to resign in August 2017. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
|
Evie Fordham
|
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/07/john-dingell-death-age/
|
2019-02-08 03:13:41+00:00
| 1,549,613,621 | 1,567,549,249 |
politics
|
government
|
720,563 |
thehill--2019-02-13--Congress poised to put Trump in veto bind
| 2019-02-13T00:00:00 |
thehill
|
Congress poised to put Trump in veto bind
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpSchultz won't say if he will sell all Starbucks shares if he becomes president Sarah Sanders cites El Chapo in push for border security Pence rips Omar's 'inadequate' apology for tweets criticized as anti-Semitic MORE has not issued a veto since taking office more than two years ago, but that may soon change. The House will move a step closer to a major confrontation with Trump by voting as soon as Wednesday on a resolution that would cut off U.S. military support to the Saudi-led coalition in neighboring Yemen. The measure is expected to easily pass the chamber controlled by Democrats. After that, it will move to the GOP-led Senate, where is it also expected to have enough votes. Once the resolution reaches his desk, Trump will be faced with the decision of whether to follow through on a White House-issued veto threat for a resolution his administration characterized as “flawed.” “I also am hopeful the president may sign it. I know it’s uphill still,” Rep. Ro Khanna Rohit (Ro) KhannaThe Hill's 12:30 Report — Presented by Kidney Care Partners — Negotiators look to revive stalled border talks This week: Border deal remains elusive as shutdown looms Dem tells Venezuela’s Guaidó: ‘You don't get to authorize US military interventions’ MORE (D-Calif.), the lead House sponsor, told The Hill in a phone interview. “You can’t be for withdrawal in Afghanistan and withdrawal in Syria and then say we need to escalate the war in Yemen. It just doesn’t make sense.” Khanna downplayed the potential of confronting Trump with his first veto, saying, “I don’t want to politicize the issue.” “The issue is not to score points against the administration or make this a Democratic or Republican issue,” he added. “The issue is: What can the United States do to avert a famine that could affect 14 million people?” The resolution would direct the president to withdraw U.S. military forces in or “affecting” Yemen within 30 days unless they are fighting al Qaeda or associated forces. The United States has been providing logistics, intelligence sharing and arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition fighting Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Previously, the U.S. military also provided aerial refueling to coalition jets, but the administration suspended that support in November. The war powers resolution is coming to the House floor at a time when congressional fury over Saudi Arabia — and the administration’s continued support for the kingdom — is reaching a boiling point, much like it did in 2018. Lawmakers’ anger reached a fever pitch last year after the slaying of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. During the height of the ire, the Senate passed a Yemen war powers resolution similar to the one now being considered in the House, with seven Republicans siding with Democrats. The measure did not advance in the House, which was controlled by the GOP at the time. Bipartisan anger started bubbling up again after Trump declined to adhere to a congressionally mandated deadline Friday to report on whether Saudi leadership, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, is responsible for Khashoggi’s killing and should be sanctioned. On the day of the deadline, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry warned on Twitter that “our leadership is a red line.” “We warn against any attempt to link Khashoggi’s crime to our leadership,” the ministry added. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Michael (Mike) Richard PompeoThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by the American Academy of HIV Medicine - All eyes on Trump after lawmakers reach spending deal Trump tweets in Persian to send message to Iran on revolution's anniversary Mike Pompeo must strengthen diplomacy with Central Europe MORE this week responded to congressional critics who said the lack of adherence to the deadline shows the administration is helping cover up a crime, with Pompeo saying that’s “flat-out wrong.” “America has taken more action in response to the tragic murder of Jamal Khashoggi and will continue to take more action, continue our investigation,” he told reporters traveling with him in Budapest. “We are working diligently on that. The president has been very clear, couldn’t have been more clear, as we get additional information we’ll continue to hold all of those responsible accountable.” But Congress is fuming about being ignored and will have its first chance to voice its displeasure with the House vote. “The slaughter and the starvation and the water and all the things that are going on in Yemen that are atrocious, coupled with Khashoggi and his murder, bring all of this to the fore,” Rep. Ed Perlmutter Edwin (Ed) George PerlmutterCongress poised to put Trump in veto bind Oregon Dem top recipient of 2018 marijuana industry money, study finds Trump snubs highlight Pelosi’s grip on Dems MORE (D-Colo.) said at a House Rules Committee hearing on the Yemen resolution. “It’s hard to feel any affection or some obligation to a regime that does that kind of stuff.” The White House on Monday issued a statement saying Trump’s “senior advisors would recommend he veto the joint resolution” if it reaches his desk. The statement of administration policy argued the resolution has an “erroneous premise” because U.S. forces are not directly engaged in combat. “Because the president has directed United States forces to support the Saudi-led coalition under his constitutional powers, the joint resolution would raise serious constitutional concerns to the extent it seeks to override the president’s determination as Commander in Chief,” the White House said. The administration further argued that the measure would “harm bilateral relationships” by defining hostilities as including “defense cooperation” such as aerial refueling. “Our continued cooperation with regional partner nations allows the United States to support diplomatic negotiations to end the conflict, promote humanitarian access, mitigate civilian casualties, enhance efforts to recover United States hostages in Yemen and defeat terrorists who seek to harm the United States,” the White House added. It’s an argument that has found sympathy from House Republicans, who have shown no sign of supporting the war powers resolution even as they express frustration at Trump’s response to the Khashoggi killing. Rep. Michael McCaul Michael Thomas McCaulCongress poised to put Trump in veto bind Congress must stand with the people of Venezuela Overnight Defense: Trump announces Korea summit, defends Syria withdrawal in State of the Union | Pentagon official sides with Mattis on Syria withdrawal | 250 troops relocating at border ahead of migrant caravan | House panel advances Yemen resolution MORE (R-Texas), ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has said he was “deeply troubled” by the administration ignoring the sanctions deadline but later caracterized the resolution as a misuse of the War Powers Act. “U.S. Armed Forces are not engaged in hostilities against Houthi forces in Yemen,” he said. “This resolution stretches the definition of hostilities to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries.” McCaul said he and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel Eliot Lance EngelWhy Democrats are pushing for a new nuclear policy Omar apologizes after Dem leaders blast tweets as 'anti-Semitic' Ted Cruz tweets 'Bravo Nancy' after Dem leadership criticizes Omar MORE (D-N.Y.) sent a “very strongly” worded statement to the administration Sunday about the lack of a sanctions report on Khashoggi, but that “it has really nothing to do with Yemen.” House Democrats will not need Republican support to send the resolution to the Senate and are charging forward, with supporters arguing the resolution is a long overdue chance for Congress to reassert its authority on war and force the Saudis to negotiate peace in Yemen. “It’s great to see the House of Representatives finally taking decisive action to end the war in Yemen,” Khanna said. “It sends an incredible message. The United States Congress has never in our history passed a War Powers resolution, since 1973. Never happened.”
|
Rebecca Kheel
|
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/429716-congress-poised-to-put-trump-in-veto-bind
|
2019-02-13 11:00:11+00:00
| 1,550,073,611 | 1,567,548,722 |
politics
|
government
|
730,391 |
thehuffingtonpost--2019-12-16--Congress Agrees To Fund Gun Violence Research Again After Decades-Long Ban
| 2019-12-16T00:00:00 |
thehuffingtonpost
|
Congress Agrees To Fund Gun Violence Research Again After Decades-Long Ban
|
Congress decided Monday to fund federal gun violence research for the first time in more than 20 years, marking a historic moment in the country’s gun safety movement. The $25 million in funding is found in a $1.3 trillion federal spending deal that congressional negotiators have finalized and are expected to pass later this week before Friday’s government shutdown deadline. The deal allocates $12.5 million each for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health to study gun violence in the United States and evidence-based prevention and solutions. “Gun violence is a public health emergency. After years of obstruction from Republicans and the [National Rifle Association] … I secured a historic $25 million investment for gun violence prevention research,” House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “With this investment, the best public health researchers in the country will be put to work to identify ways to reduce injury and death due to firearms.” I am pleased to announce that as Chairwoman of @AppropsDems, I secured a historic $25 million investment for gun violence prevention research. The best public health researchers in the country will be put to work to identify ways to reduce injury and death due to firearms. — Nita Lowey (@NitaLowey) December 16, 2019 In last year’s spending agreement, Democrats managed to clarify in future spending bills that the amendment does not actually stop agencies from studying gun violence. But the CDC said it required allocated funding from lawmakers in order to actually study the issue. Democrats initially tried to get $50 million in funding for gun violence research, with the House approving that amount in June. Though negotiations resulted in only half that amount, Democrats and gun safety advocates still consider the funding a win. “For far too long, the United States Congress put the political agenda of the gun lobby over our nation’s public health and safety. But today, with outraged Americans demanding solutions to gun violence and a new gun safety majority elected to the House of Representatives, change is happening,” said former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), a gun violence survivor and the co-founder of the gun violence prevention organization named after her. For years, the NRA held gun violence research funding hostage. But now, our movement is stronger. I’m so proud of the @giffordscourage team’s work with our public health and medical partners & allies in Congress to get this done. https://t.co/XYoK4jkZx0 — Gabrielle Giffords (@GabbyGiffords) December 16, 2019 “We celebrate this momentous step, and we will use it to power us forward as we continue our fight to save lives,” Giffords added. The funding allocation comes just days after the seventh anniversary of the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which killed 20 children and six adults. Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass gun control legislation as the country continued to experience mass shooting after mass shooting, but Republicans have blocked all efforts to enact gun safety measures. “While we wish the Senate had agreed to fully fund gun violence research, we are grateful to our House allies … for continuing to fight for it,” tweeted Shannon Watts, a mother of five who founded the gun safety advocacy organization Moms Demand Action in response to the Sandy Hook massacre. Many other lawmakers, activists and organizations spoke out on Twitter in response to the new gun violence research funding: BREAKING NEWS: Gun violence prevention research funding I requested for the @CDCgov and @NIH has been APPROVED in end-of-year budget talks. This is the first funding like this in 20 years, and it will help keep our families whole. Read more⬇️https://t.co/yxqD6ZhuQl — Rep. Lucy McBath (@RepLucyMcBath) December 16, 2019 It’s not often that you can feel a seismic political shift at the very moment it’s happening. 2019 started with bipartisan House passage of background checks, ends with landmark $25m investment in gun violence research. Our movement is winning. And this is just the start. — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 16, 2019 BREAKING: for the first time in more than 20 years, Congress has appropriated money for gun violence research. Federal agencies (CDC & NIH) will receive $25M to study gun violence in a government spending deal reached by House & Senate. THIS. IS. A. HUGE. VICTORY! — igorvolsky (@igorvolsky) December 16, 2019 Huge. We have worked relentlessly to get here. An entire generation has grown up in an era where our government didn't research gun violence while hundreds of thousands of Americans died. These issues aren't political. Keep showing up & we'll get where we need to be together. https://t.co/WYiEZ8WPXN — ChristianHeyne (@TChristianHeyne) December 16, 2019
| null |
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-funding-gun-violence-research-again_n_5df847d8e4b03aed50f4054f
|
Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:54:26 -0500
| 1,576,554,866 | 1,576,584,824 |
politics
|
government
|
818,931 |
theonion--2019-07-25--Aging Congress Moves Into More Manageable Single-Story Ranch Capitol
| 2019-07-25T00:00:00 |
theonion
|
Aging Congress Moves Into More Manageable Single-Story Ranch Capitol
|
WASHINGTON—Explaining that the lawmakers had really begun to slow down over the last few years, the aging United States Congress announced Thursday that they would move into a more manageable single-story ranch Capitol. “We don’t do too much nowadays anyway, so it’ll be easier to have a smaller place—plus, all those stairs out front were really messing with our knees,” said all 535 combined members of the House of Representatives and Senate, noting that the move was “bittersweet” after 200 years in the historic First Street Capitol, but that the ranch structure was ultimately a safer and more comfortable choice for all. “We don’t even move around as much as we once did, so we don’t need all that space with the big fancy dome and everything. Now everything we need is on the first floor. It’s just more comfortable, especially for those of us who are starting to get confused easily.” Congress disclosed that the ultimate catalyst for the move came when Joe Manchin (D-WV) fell down in the previous Capitol’s bathroom and was trapped there helpless for nine hours.
|
The Onion on Politics, shared by The Onion to The Onion
|
https://politics.theonion.com/aging-congress-moves-into-more-manageable-single-story-1836682443
|
2019-07-25 12:00:00+00:00
| 1,564,070,400 | 1,567,535,833 |
politics
|
government
|
823,898 |
thepoliticalinsider--2019-02-08--Former Democratic Rep John Dingell Longest Serving Member Of Congress Ever Dies At 92
| 2019-02-08T00:00:00 |
thepoliticalinsider
|
Former Democratic Rep John Dingell, Longest Serving Member Of Congress Ever, Dies At 92
|
Evie Fordham on February 7, 2019 Former Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell died Thursday, a day after his family revealed he was in hospice care. Dingell was the longest-serving member of Congress in history, according to [The Detroit News](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/02/07 /political-giant-john-dingell-congressional-legend-dies/2789108002/). “It is with a heavy heart that we announce the passing of John David Dingell, Jr., former Michigan Congressman … Congressman Dingell died peacefully today at his home in Dearborn, surrounded by his wife Deborah. He was a lion of the United States Congress and a loving son, father, husband, grandfather and friend,” Democratic Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell, Dingell’s wife, said in a [statement](https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1093700485880709121). She now represents his former district. Dingell was [diagnosed with prostate cancer](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2019/02/06 /john-dingell-in-hospice-care-after-cancer-diagnosis/2788039002/) in 2018 and wanted to share a message with his social media followers after the hospice announcement. ### More from The Political Insider “The Lovely Deborah is insisting I rest and stay off here, but after long negotiations we’ve worked out a deal where she’ll keep up with Twitter for me as I dictate the messages,” Dingell [wrote](https://twitter.com/JohnDingell/status/1093278546255056897) on Twitter Wednesday, referencing his wife. “I want to thank you all for your incredibly kind words and prayers. You’re not done with me just yet.” The former congressman had [stepped down from office](https://dailycaller.com/2014/02/24/john-dingell-longest-serving- member-of-congress-announces-retirement/) in 2014 after serving since 1955. He first came to represent Michigan’s 12th Congressional District after winning a special election following the death of his father, Rep. John D. Dingell Sr, according to [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/John_Dingell). He helped draft many of the nation’s important environmental and energy laws, reported The Detroit News. He was also a [big supporter of the Affordable Care Act](https://dailycaller.com/2013/03/20/rep-dingell-obamacare-will-make-the- american-people-live-longer-and-be-happier-video/). “Let me just say this: You ain’t seen nothing yet. My dad was one of the authors of Social Security, [and] worked a long time to get it through. We finally, under your leadership, Madame Leader [Nancy Pelosi], we got the Affordable Care Act,” Dingell said in March 2013. Politico health care reporter Dan Diamond predicted his influence would outlast him through the progressive left’s push for Medicare for all. “Dingell was one of the key architects — for nearly 60 years in the House! — in the movement that’s become Medicare-for-All,” Diamond [wrote](https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1093265424240836616) Wednesday after news broke that Dingell had entered hospice care. Dingell was not a fan of President Donald Trump, having [called on him to resign](https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/09/dem-lawmaker-taunts-trump-on- anniversary-of-nixons-resignation/) in August 2017. _[Follow Evie on Twitter @eviefordham.](https://twitter.com/eviefordham?lang=en)_ _Send tips to[ [email protected]](/cdn-cgi/l/email- protection#bbdecdd2defbdfdad2d7c2d8dad7d7dec9d5deccc8ddd4ced5dfdacfd2d4d595d4c9dc)._
|
Daily Caller
|
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/john-dingell/
|
2019-02-08 14:10:03+00:00
| 1,549,653,003 | 1,567,549,256 |
politics
|
government
|
1,047,374 |
truepundit--2019-02-08--Former Democratic Rep John Dingell Longest Serving Member Of Congress Ever Dies At 92
| 2019-02-08T00:00:00 |
truepundit
|
Former Democratic Rep John Dingell, Longest Serving Member Of Congress Ever, Dies At 92
|
Former Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell died Thursday, a day after his family revealed he was in hospice care. Dingell was the longest-serving member of Congress in history, according to The Detroit News. “It is with a heavy heart that we announce the passing of John David Dingell, Jr., former Michigan Congressman … Congressman Dingell died peacefully today at his home in Dearborn, surrounded by his wife Deborah. He was a lion of the United States Congress and a loving son, father, husband, grandfather and friend,” Democratic Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell, Dingell’s wife, said in a statement. She now represents his former district. Dingell was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2018 and wanted to share a message with his social media followers after the hospice announcement. “The Lovely Deborah is insisting I rest and stay off here, but after long negotiations we’ve worked out a deal where she’ll keep up with Twitter for me as I dictate the messages,” Dingell wrote on Twitter Wednesday, referencing his wife. “I want to thank you all for your incredibly kind words and prayers. You’re not done with me just yet.” The former congressman had stepped down from office in 2014 after serving since 1955. He first came to represent Michigan’s 12th Congressional District after winning a special election following the death of his father, Rep. John D. Dingell Sr, according to Ballotpedia. He helped draft many of the nation’s important environmental and energy laws, reported The Detroit News. He was also a big supporter of the Affordable Care Act. “Let me just say this: You ain’t seen nothing yet. My dad was one of the authors of Social Security, worked a long time to get it through. We finally, under your leadership, Madame Leader , we got the Affordable Care Act,” Dingell said in March 2013. Politico health care reporter Dan Diamond predicted his influence would outlast him through the progressive left’s push for Medicare for all. “Dingell was one of the key architects — for nearly 60 years in the House! — in the movement that’s become Medicare-for-All,” Diamond wrote Wednesday after news broke that Dingell had entered hospice care.
|
Staff
|
https://truepundit.com/former-democratic-rep-john-dingell-longest-serving-member-of-congress-ever-dies-at-92/
|
2019-02-08 13:17:38+00:00
| 1,549,649,858 | 1,567,549,238 |
politics
|
government
|
1,052,703 |
truepundit--2019-07-02--Cruz Calls Out Congress for Refusing to Change Asylum Laws That Put Children at Risk It Is Not H
| 2019-07-02T00:00:00 |
truepundit
|
Cruz Calls Out Congress for Refusing to Change Asylum Laws That Put ‘Children at Risk’: ‘It Is Not Humane’ (VIDEO)
|
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called out his colleagues in Congress for failing to close asylum loopholes that put migrant families at risk. During a press conference from the border on Monday, Cruz outlined the treacherous journey that migrants from Central America take as they head to the United States. He called out Congress for refusing to come together to address some of the asylum loopholes that encourage families to make the journey. “This is a crisis — and unfortunately, this is a man-made crisis. The responsibility for this crisis lies directly on the United States Congress. On loopholes that Congress has put into law that are encouraging far too many people to make this arduous journey. Today, a group of reporters walked one mile in the blazing sun with water, with medical assistance if we needed it. Now, imagine doing that if you were a 4-year-old child. Imaging doing that if you were a woman eight months pregnant. Our policies — the loopholes that Congress has put in place — is encouraging people to risk their lives.” – READ MORE
|
admin
|
https://truepundit.com/cruz-calls-out-congress-for-refusing-to-change-asylum-laws-that-put-children-at-risk-it-is-not-humane-video/
|
2019-07-02 20:08:53+00:00
| 1,562,112,533 | 1,567,537,264 |
politics
|
government
|
1,064,469 |
unian--2019-09-11--Reuters US senators expect Congress to reinstate aid for Ukraine even if Trump cuts it
| 2019-09-11T00:00:00 |
unian
|
Reuters: U.S. senators expect Congress to reinstate aid for Ukraine even if Trump cuts it
|
Trump administration officials said last month that the White House was reviewing whether the $250 million in military assistance for Ukraine should be sent to the country. Republican and Democratic senators said on Tuesday they expected the U.S. Congress would pass legislation restoring $250 million in military aid for Ukraine if President Donald Trump goes ahead with plans to block the assistance. "If he decides not to spend this money, I truly am fairly confident, that, on a bipartisan basis, Congress will reappropriate it," Republican Senator Ron Johnson told reporters, according to Reuters. Johnson made his remarks at a news conference with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy about their recent trip to Europe, which included stops in Ukraine, Kosovo and Serbia. Murphy also visited Germany. Trump administration officials said last month that the White House was reviewing whether the $250 million in military assistance for Ukraine should be sent to the country, even though it had already been approved by Congress in legislation signed into law by the president. Johnson said he had spoken to Trump about the aid just before the trip, and Trump had told him his concern was about whether European countries, not the United States, should be providing funds to Ukraine because the country is in their "backyard." Read alsoTrump says ready to join Normandy talks on Donbas settlement – media Murphy said it was clear in meetings with Ukrainian officials that they did not have a full understanding of why the money might be withheld. He said the Ukrainians brought up the issue in every meeting with the U.S. lawmakers. The two senators said they had sought to reassure the Ukrainians that Congress was behind the country as it faces Russian aggression. "Regardless of what the president does, the United States Congress is with you, and we support the courage of the Ukrainian people," Johnson said.
| null |
https://www.unian.info/politics/10680918-reuters-u-s-senators-expect-congress-to-reinstate-aid-for-ukraine-even-if-trump-cuts-it.html
|
2019-09-11 06:00:00+00:00
| 1,568,196,000 | 1,569,330,483 |
politics
|
government
|
1,069,496 |
usatoday--2019-01-03--How this Congress is different from the past Meet the lawmakers making historic firsts
| 2019-01-03T00:00:00 |
usatoday
|
How this Congress is different from the past: Meet the lawmakers making historic firsts
|
WASHINGTON – The 116th Congress kicked off Thursday with more women and racially diverse lawmakers than ever before – and many freshmen marking "firsts" for their states or the nation. The surge was driven largely by Democrats as the party took over House control for the first time in eight years. Among those taking the oath on Thursday was freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., one of the first Muslim women in Congress. Omar, with family in tow, navigated through the U.S. Capitol and down a hall to a space crowded with statues and mostly new members of Congress. Her father, Nur Mohamed, was by her side as he was 23 years ago when they first landed at a D.C. airport from a refugee camp in Kenya. “He had really high hopes, but I don’t think when he was thinking about the opportunities that awaited his children as he brought us here,’’ Omar recalled as she rushed to get in line for a ceremonial picture with the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. “I don’t think that he imagined that they would be of abundance - that he would within a little over 20 years take his daughter to get sworn in into the United States Congress. And so we are humbled and overwhelmed really with joy.” Sworn in were 127 women – 102 in the House and 25 in the Senate – breaking a record of 110, set in 2018, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Of the 127, 106 are Democrats and 21 are Republicans. The House will also have the largest number of women of color ever – 43 – plus the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. Pelosi, the only woman to have ever served as House speaker, was re-elected to the post on Thursday. Women weren’t the only ones to make history Thursday. Rep. Jim Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat and the first quadriplegic elected to Congress in 2010, presided over the first day of business for the new Congress, serving as the "Speaker Pro Tempore." “The American people elected our new Democratic majority to enact a more positive and forward-looking agenda,’’ Langevin, co-chair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, said in a statement. “Serving as Speaker pro tempore tomorrow reaffirms our commitment to creating a more inclusive government that works for everyone.” Here's a breakdown of some of the firsts: The New York activist and Democrat, 29, cruised to victory after upsetting established Democrat Rep. Joe Crowley in the primary race. She is already making waves. In November, she kicked off her first day of new-member orientation by participating in a climate change protest at Pelosi's office. Ocasio-Cortez, who voted for Pelosi as speaker Thursday, has said she will oppose a rules package, crafted by Democratic leaders. She opposes its new budget rules that she tweeted are a "dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare+other leg." Minnesota voters elected Omar, and Michigan voters elected Tlaib. Omar also became Minnesota's first Somali-American legislator, the first woman of color elected to Congress from the state and the first woman in Congress to wear a hijab, a Muslim head covering. Democrats will vote on new rules, clarifying the prohibition on wearing hats in the House does not apply to religious headwear. Omar, who sported a red hijab Thursday, said she understands the symbolism of her historic election, “especially in a time when there is so much divisiveness in our nation…It still tells people that there is hope and we should still be optimistic about the American dream. And it’s really not one off. There are so many of us that are walking into Congress that really are showing this nation that we are capable of having the American dream realized.” For her ceremonial swearing-in photo, Tlaib put her hand on her Koran. She also wore a traditional Palestinian robe made by her mom. "For my mom, it honors her in so many ways," she said. Aside from making history, Tlaib said the whole event made her a little emotional. "Just being here, you have to think, 'Is it really happening?'" she said. Pressley, a former Boston City Councilor who became the first black women to represent Massachusetts in the House, tweeted a picture of the plaque bearing her name outside her new door in one of the House office buildings. Pressley, with black shoes in hand, rushed around National Statuary Hall, hoping to find her place in in line to take her photo with Pelosi. “It feels good,’’ she said of the day. Democrat Jahana Hayes became the state's first black woman – along with the state's first black Democrat – elected to the House. She is a political newcomer who was the 2016 National Teacher of the Year. Davids is a Kansas Democrat and member of the Ho-Chunk Nation. She is also Kansas’ first LGBTQ member of Congress. Haaland is a New Mexico Democrat and member of the Pueblo of Laguna tribe. “I’m so excited to be here,’’ said Haaland, sporting native garb, before rushing off to cast a vote. “It took native women 240 years to get on the House floor.” Republican Marsha Blackburn defeated former Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen in a closely watched race for the Senate. Blackburn succeeds retiring Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, as the state's next junior senator and first woman elected to the seat. Sinema, a Democrat, won a competitive election against McSally, a Republican, to replace the retiring GOP Sen. Jeff Flake and become Arizona's first woman elected to the U.S. Senate in November. McSally was then appointed to fill the seat once held by the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and must face voters again in 2020. Hyde-Smith, a Republican, had been appointed to fill a vacancy before winning her election. A former state agriculture commissioner and state senator, she will complete the two years remaining of GOP Sen. Thad Cochran’s term. She fended off a challenge from Democrat Mike Espy last November. Her campaign got a 11th hour boost from President Donald Trump, who traveled to Mississippi on the eve of the Senate run-off. Iowa had women as governor and senator, but the state elected women to the U.S. House for the first time. Abby Finkenauer and Cindy Axne, both Democrats, beat out their incumbent opponents, both men. Escobar, El Paso's first woman in Congress, posted a picture of the nameplate on her door and invited visitors to D.C. to stop by. “I’m very grateful for the opportunity to serve our beloved community and country,’’ she tweeted. Contributing: Joel Shannon, Aamer Madhani and Michael Collins, USA TODAY; Seth A. Richardson, Reno Gazette-Journal; Jonathan Ellis, Sioux Falls Argus Leader; Sara Sanchez, El Paso Times; Joey Garrison and Joel Ebert, Nashville Tennessean; Robin Opsahl, Des Moines Register; The Associated Press, Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press
|
Deborah Barfield Berry and Nicole Gaudiano, USA TODAY
|
http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~/590359424/0/usatodaycomwashington-topstories~How-this-Congress-is-different-from-the-past-Meet-the-lawmakers-making-historic-firsts/
|
2019-01-03 23:31:17+00:00
| 1,546,576,277 | 1,567,554,063 |
politics
|
government
|
1,069,527 |
usatoday--2019-01-04--How this Congress is different from the past Meet the lawmakers making historic firsts
| 2019-01-04T00:00:00 |
usatoday
|
How this Congress is different from the past: Meet the lawmakers making historic firsts
|
WASHINGTON – The 116th Congress kicked off Thursday with more women and racially diverse lawmakers than ever before – and many freshmen marking "firsts" for their states or the nation. The surge was driven largely by Democrats as the party took over House control for the first time in eight years. Among those taking the oath on Thursday was freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., one of the first Muslim women in Congress. Omar, with family in tow, navigated through the U.S. Capitol and down a hall to a space crowded with statues and mostly new members of Congress. Her father, Nur Mohamed, was by her side as he was 23 years ago when they first landed at a D.C. airport from a refugee camp in Kenya. “He had really high hopes, but I don’t think when he was thinking about the opportunities that awaited his children as he brought us here,’’ Omar recalled as she rushed to get in line for a ceremonial picture with the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. “I don’t think that he imagined that they would be of abundance - that he would within a little over 20 years take his daughter to get sworn in into the United States Congress. And so we are humbled and overwhelmed really with joy.” Sworn in were 127 women – 102 in the House and 25 in the Senate – breaking a record of 110, set in 2018, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Of the 127, 106 are Democrats and 21 are Republicans. The House will also have the largest number of women of color ever – 43 – plus the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. Pelosi, the only woman to have ever served as House speaker, was re-elected to the post on Thursday. Women weren’t the only ones to make history Thursday. Rep. Jim Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat and the first quadriplegic elected to Congress in 2010, presided over the first day of business for the new Congress, serving as the "Speaker Pro Tempore." “The American people elected our new Democratic majority to enact a more positive and forward-looking agenda,’’ Langevin, co-chair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, said in a statement. “Serving as Speaker pro tempore tomorrow reaffirms our commitment to creating a more inclusive government that works for everyone.” Here's a breakdown of some of the firsts: The New York activist and Democrat, 29, cruised to victory after upsetting established Democrat Rep. Joe Crowley in the primary race. She is already making waves. In November, she kicked off her first day of new-member orientation by participating in a climate change protest at Pelosi's office. Ocasio-Cortez, who voted for Pelosi as speaker Thursday, has said she will oppose a rules package, crafted by Democratic leaders. She opposes its new budget rules that she tweeted are a "dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare+other leg." Minnesota voters elected Omar, and Michigan voters elected Tlaib. Omar also became Minnesota's first Somali-American legislator, the first woman of color elected to Congress from the state and the first woman in Congress to wear a hijab, a Muslim head covering. Democrats will vote on new rules, clarifying the prohibition on wearing hats in the House does not apply to religious headwear. Omar, who sported a red hijab Thursday, said she understands the symbolism of her historic election, “especially in a time when there is so much divisiveness in our nation…It still tells people that there is hope and we should still be optimistic about the American dream. And it’s really not one off. There are so many of us that are walking into Congress that really are showing this nation that we are capable of having the American dream realized.” For her ceremonial swearing-in photo, Tlaib put her hand on her Koran. She also wore a traditional Palestinian robe made by her mom. "For my mom, it honors her in so many ways," she said. Aside from making history, Tlaib said the whole event made her a little emotional. "Just being here, you have to think, 'Is it really happening?'" she said. Pressley, a former Boston City Councilor who became the first black women to represent Massachusetts in the House, tweeted a picture of the plaque bearing her name outside her new door in one of the House office buildings. Pressley rushed around National Statuary Hall, hoping to find her place in in line to take her photo with Pelosi. “It feels good,’’ she said of the day. Democrat Jahana Hayes became the state's first black woman – along with the state's first black Democrat – elected to the House. She is a political newcomer who was the 2016 National Teacher of the Year. Davids is a Kansas Democrat and member of the Ho-Chunk Nation. She is also Kansas’ first LGBTQ member of Congress. Haaland is a New Mexico Democrat and member of the Pueblo of Laguna tribe. “I’m so excited to be here,’’ said Haaland, sporting native garb, before rushing off to cast a vote. “It took native women 240 years to get on the House floor.” Republican Marsha Blackburn defeated former Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen in a closely watched race for the Senate. Blackburn succeeds retiring Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, as the state's next junior senator and first woman elected to the seat. Sinema, a Democrat, won a competitive election against McSally, a Republican, to replace the retiring GOP Sen. Jeff Flake and become Arizona's first woman elected to the U.S. Senate in November. McSally was then appointed to fill the seat once held by the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and must face voters again in 2020. Hyde-Smith, a Republican, had been appointed to fill a vacancy before winning her election. A former state agriculture commissioner and state senator, she will complete the two years remaining of GOP Sen. Thad Cochran’s term. She fended off a challenge from Democrat Mike Espy last November. Her campaign got a 11th hour boost from President Donald Trump, who traveled to Mississippi on the eve of the Senate run-off. Iowa had women as governor and senator, but the state elected women to the U.S. House for the first time. Abby Finkenauer and Cindy Axne, both Democrats, beat out their incumbent opponents, both men. Escobar, El Paso's first woman in Congress, posted a picture of the nameplate on her door and invited visitors to D.C. to stop by. “I’m very grateful for the opportunity to serve our beloved community and country,’’ she tweeted. Contributing: Joel Shannon, Aamer Madhani and Michael Collins, USA TODAY; Seth A. Richardson, Reno Gazette-Journal; Jonathan Ellis, Sioux Falls Argus Leader; Sara Sanchez, El Paso Times; Joey Garrison and Joel Ebert, Nashville Tennessean; Robin Opsahl, Des Moines Register; The Associated Press, Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press
|
Deborah Barfield Berry and Nicole Gaudiano, USA TODAY
|
http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~/590359424/0/usatodaycomwashington-topstories~How-this-Congress-is-different-from-the-past-Meet-the-lawmakers-making-historic-firsts/
|
2019-01-04 01:55:00+00:00
| 1,546,584,900 | 1,567,553,910 |
politics
|
government
|
1,069,559 |
usatoday--2019-01-05--Did you catch these sometimes hidden messages from lawmakers as Congress returned to work
| 2019-01-05T00:00:00 |
usatoday
|
Did you catch these sometimes hidden messages from lawmakers as Congress returned to work?
|
WASHINGTON - The choice of earrings. The book that was used to swear them in. A flag outside their office. Congress' newly sworn in lawmakers have taken bold stances in seemingly subtle ways to raise awareness and show off what makes the 116th Congress so diverse. Here's a rundown of some of the sometimes subtle or hidden messages lawmakers have used during their swearing-in and first few days in Washington that you may have missed. She's already the youngest person elected to Congress and doesn't shy away from taking bold stances. New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offered an array of subtle messages in her clothing choice during her swearing in this week to honor women's suffrage and embolden young women who will come after her. Wearing an all-white suit, gold hoops earrings and bold red lipstick, Ocasio-Cortez said her outfit was to "honor the women who paved the path before me, and for all the women yet to come." White is one of the official colors of the suffragist movement and a similar effort was done in 2017 with dozens of Democratic women wearing all white to protest President Donald Trump. "I wore all-white today to honor the women who paved the path before me, and for all the women yet to come," Ocasio-Cortez posted on Twitter. "From suffragettes to Shirley Chisholm, I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the mothers of the movement." She added in another tweet that her lipstick and gold hoop earrings were inspired by Sonia Sotomayor. Ocasio-Cortez said in the tweet that Sotomayor "was advised to wear neutral-colored nail polish to her confirmation hearings to avoid scrutiny." "She kept her red. Next time someone tells Bronx girls to take off their hoops, they can just say they’re dressing like a Congresswoman," Ocasio-Cortez wrote. Rep. Deb Haaland made history as being one of the first of two Native American women sworn into Congress this week. She paid homage to those roots and her heritage with wearing traditional pueblo garb during her swearing in. Haaland, a member of the Pueblo of Laguna tribe, donned moccasins, turquoise jewelry and a tunic with bright turquoise sleeves. Her family, including her mother who was in a wheelchair, similarly wore pueblo attire with intricate patterns and hues of red, brown and bright turquoise colors. After she was sworn in, Haaland shared a moment with fellow Democrat Sharice Davids of Kansas. The pair, who were the first Native American women to ever be elected in Congress, shared a hug. Minnesota's Ilhan Omar became the first Muslim woman in Congress, along with Michigan's Rashida Tlaib. But Omar also became Minnesota's first Somali-American legislator, the first woman of color elected to Congress from the state and the first woman in Congress to wear a hijab, a Muslim head covering. She celebrated that during her swearing-in on Thursday with wearing a traditional red hijab. She also placed her hand on the Quran of her late grandfather when she was sworn in. "As a kid, I acted as my grandfather's translator at our caucuses and he was the one who first sparked my interest in politics," Omar wrote on Twitter. "I wish he could be here to witness this historic moment, but he was here in spirit as I placed my hand on his Quran for the ceremonial swearing-in." Military and state flags are common sights throughout the office buildings that surround the U.S. Capitol but outside Rep. Jennifer Wexton's office sits something different. Wexton, the newly sworn-in Congresswoman representing Virginia's 10th district, hung up a transgender flag outside her new office in the Longworth House office building. Wexton, who is an aunt to a transgender child, told the Washingtonian that the white, pink and blue striped flag was a showing of solidarity with the LGBT community. "The trans community has been under attack," Wexton told the Washingtonian. "I wanted to show my solidarity because we are talking about my friends and family." Rashida Tlaib, who along with Omar became the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, also paid homage to her heritage during her first act in Congress. Tlaib wore a Palestinian thobe, an ankle-length Arab garment, when she was sworn in. Tlaib, a Democrat representing Michigan's 13th district, also was sworn in with a Quran. In an opinion piece for Elle magazine, Tlaib wrote about the importance of the garment and watching her mother stitch similar dresses when she was young. She wrote that her mother had to drop out of school in 8th grade and work for a tailor to help support her family in Palestine. "Throughout my career in public service, the residents I have had the privilege of fighting for have embraced who I am, especially my Palestinian roots," she wrote. "This is what I want to bring to the United States Congress, an unapologetic display of the fabric of the people in this country. This is why I decided to wear a thobe when I am sworn into the 116th Congress." Kyrsten Sinema made history Thursday when she and Martha McSally became the first two women from Arizona sworn into the U.S. Senate. Sinema, a Democrat, made even more history than that, becoming the first openly bisexual person in the Senate. But her outfit during her swearing-in and first day in Congress got a lot of attention and many saw a deeper meaning. Sinema’s wore a pink coat during her first day as a U.S. Senator and during the campaign, Sinema was attacked for protesting the Iraq war while wearing a pink tutu. Some online saw the choice of a pink coat as a hidden dig to those who attacked her. Andrew Kaczynski, a reporter for CNN, tweeted, “One of attacks from Republicans on Sinema during the campaign was she worn a pink tutu while protesting Iraq — which Republicans attempted to label as denigrating service members. I can't help but thinking this is an elaborate troll.”
|
Christal Hayes, USA TODAY
|
http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~/590656818/0/usatodaycomwashington-topstories~Did-you-catch-these-sometimes-hidden-messages-from-lawmakers-as-Congress-returned-to-work/
|
2019-01-05 17:11:49+00:00
| 1,546,726,309 | 1,567,553,797 |
politics
|
government
|
794 |
abcnews--2019-01-02--Art of the deal Lawmakers float options to Trump for end to shutdown
| 2019-01-02T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
Art of the deal: Lawmakers float options to Trump for end to shutdown
|
With the new year underway and a new Congress set to reconvene with the partial government shutdown stretching into its 12th day, Republican lawmakers are floating multiple different options to the White House ranging from short-term deals to potential grand bargains on immigration reform. The public appeals follow a joint announcement by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and presumptive incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of bills that would fully fund the agencies who have experienced a lapse in federal funding but not supply the president with any money for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The White House on Tuesday evening made clear in a statement it would reject the proposal from Schumer and Pelosi, but did not offer any apparent counter-offer ahead of a planned Situation Room briefing on border security for leaders of both parties at the White House on Wednesday afternoon. "Speaker-Designate Nancy Pelosi released a plan that will not re-open the government because it fails to secure the border and puts the needs of other countries above the needs of our own citizens," press secretary Sarah Sanders said. "The Pelosi plan is a non-starter because it does not fund our homeland security or keep American families safe from human trafficking, drugs, and crime." However, the announcement from Pelosi that House Democrats would seek to pass the government funding measures immediately upon her taking the Speaker's gavel on Thursday put renewed pressure on Republicans. Leaders in the party have yet to announce a concrete package with the White House on any legitimate counter-offer in between the $1.3 billion for border security funding proposed by Democrats and the $5.7 billion for a border wall previously passed by House Republicans before relinquishing control of the chamber. Sources familiar with the president's thinking say he doesn't plan to make any sort of counteroffer to Democrats during Wednesday's meeting with congressional leaders, though in a Cabinet meeting Tuesday he signaled he would support a border wall funding provision with a fix for the more than 700,000 individuals protected by the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) program who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. It was not immediately clear, however, which of the several possible deals floated by Republicans the president found as preferable. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, penned an op-ed in the Washington Post Tuesday outlining three different paths lawmakers could choose to take that the president should accept. One option, per Alexander, would involve Democrats providing $1.6 billion in funding to the Department of Homeland Security, with "an additional $1 billion to improve border security at ports of entry." The second, broader deal pushed by Alexander proposes a deal previously passed out of the Senate in February that would have allocated $25 billion in border security funding with a fix for the more than 700,000 individuals protected by the DACA program who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. A third, much broader compromise deal floated by Alexander would involve a DACA fix as well as measures to protect others in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), along with more than $40 billion for border security. The so-called 'Gang of Eight' bill was passed in 2013 but was never brought for a vote in the House, and was largely dismissed by Trump and his campaign during 2016 as an 'amnesty' deal prioritizing undocumented immigrants. Sources familiar with President Donald Trump's thinking tell ABC News he has drawn a red line of at least $2.5 billion in wall funding, a figure that Vice President Mike Pence and acting chief of staff had last presented to lawmakers as a potential compromise. But asked during his Cabinet meeting whether he would accept less than $2.5 billion, Trump seemed to rule out the figure altogether. "No, not $2.5, no," Trump said. "We're asking for $5.6. And you know, somebody said 2.5. No. This is national security we're talking about." Emerging from a two-hour Sunday lunch with the president, Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters that he was "encouraged" Trump might support $5 billion for a border wall in exchange for a declaration of support of 'the Bridge Act.' Graham and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin previously introduced the bill that would provide one-time renewable three-year work permits to DACA recipients and extend legal status for temporary protected status holders. "There is a lot of sympathy for the population in Congress and I think the president is open-minded about this dilemma," Graham said. "The president didn't commit, but he's open-minded." Despite Trump's public declaration of support for a DACA deal, Democrats have said that communication between both sides has been scarce. Ahead of the Situation Room meeting Wednesday afternoon, there was no direct contact between Trump to Schumer or Pelosi in 22 days, aside from feuding via their Twitter accounts. For their part, Pelosi and Schumer have made no indication they will back down from their pledge to introduce the series of six appropriations bills that would fully fund the shuttered government agencies through September, and fund DHS through Feb. 8, temporarily delaying the fight over immigration and the border wall. While Trump has framed the shutdown as a dilemma for Pelosi as she assumes the speakership, Pelosi tweeted Tuesday that it provides an opportunity for Democrats to show unity in providing a path to reopen the government as Republicans continue the debate over a possible compromise that would appeal to Trump's demands.
|
Alexander Mallin, Katherine Faulders
|
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/end-sight-shutdown-lawmakers-mull-options/story?id=60119861
|
2019-01-02 20:11:20+00:00
| 1,546,477,880 | 1,567,554,225 |
politics
|
government
|
830 |
abcnews--2019-01-04--As shutdown heads into 3rd week Trump hosts lawmakers for 2nd White House meeting
| 2019-01-04T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
As shutdown heads into 3rd week, Trump hosts lawmakers for 2nd White House meeting
|
President Donald Trump is hosting Democratic and Republican lawmakers at the White House Friday for the second meeting in three days as the government shutdown heads into its third week. The meeting will largely mirror a Situation Room briefing on border security Wednesday with the same eight members of leadership for both parties in the House and Senate. Friday's briefing will similarly take place in the Situation Room and is not expected to be open to press coverage. The meeting also comes after the House and Senate adjourned Friday morning. The two chambers are set to return next Tuesday, all but assuring that the partial government shutdown will likely continue well into next week. Fresh off her election as House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi is expected to pressure the president to sign a series of measures House Democrats passed Thursday evening that would open the six federal agencies shuttered in the government shutdown and extend Department of Homeland Security funding through Feb. 8 to make time for negotiations on border security. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he would not bring the bills for a vote in his chamber without approval from the president, who has only dug in on his demands for more than $5 billion in funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. "The package presented by the House's new Democratic leaders yesterday can only be seen as a time-wasting act of political posturing," McConnell announced on the Senate floor Friday morning. He went on: "It does not carry the support of the president ... the president would actually veto it. And it cannot earn the support of 60 of my colleagues over here in the Senate. My friends across the aisle understand the ground rules perfectly well." But there were new signs of cracks in the GOP line as Republican members awaited word from the White House on what exactly the president might sign that would satisfy a sufficient number of Democrats to pass out of the Senate, where a 60-vote threshold is required. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, both said they would support measures that would end the partial shutdown and not provide the funding demanded by the president for his border wall. Reacting to Gardner and Collins' statements, press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Friday the president wouldn't back down. "Look the president has the support of the American people because they want to feel safe," Sanders said. "The number one duty that the president has and frankly that Congress shares with him is to protect the people in this country." Both sides made no progress in the Wednesday meeting as President Trump and DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen sought to exclusively focus on the need for a wall, which Democrats have described as unnecessary and "immoral" in the broader argument for enhanced border security.
|
Alexander Mallin, Mariam Khan
|
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/shutdown-heads-3rd-week-trump-hosts-lawmakers-2nd/story?id=60159969
|
2019-01-04 17:27:35+00:00
| 1,546,640,855 | 1,567,553,932 |
politics
|
government
|
877 |
abcnews--2019-01-06--Some Texas lawmakers see less appetite for divisive measures
| 2019-01-06T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
Some Texas lawmakers see less appetite for divisive measures
|
Texas' last legislative session ended with one lawmaker threatening to shoot another after reporting Hispanic protesters to immigration agents, and corporate giants from Amazon to the NFL issuing warnings over a "bathroom bill" targeting transgender people. More than a year later, comes a test: whether a humbling 2018 for Texas Republicans will soften one of the most conservative statehouses in the country. The Texas Legislature returns Tuesday, and unlike places such as Colorado and Minnesota where Democrats seized control of legislative chambers in November's midterm elections, Republicans remain firmly in power. They're ringing in a 20th consecutive year of controlling every statewide office. But they also took their licks: Democrats flipped 14 seats in the Legislature, closing the gap. Beto O'Rourke's star-making challenge against Republican Sen. Ted Cruz at the top of the ticket propelled the upsets, igniting his own White House prospects and leaving Texas Republicans wobbled after their worst election in a generation. Now after years of the Texas Capitol playing host to some of the nation's biggest fights over abortion, immigration and anti-LGBT laws, some legislators in both parties foresee the midterm results and 2020's high stakes as curbing the appetite for divisive bills that derailed past sessions and turned off voters in the state's booming big cities. The party in power after the 2020 election will draw new voting maps — an upper hand Republicans used last time to carve Texas into a 101-49 House supermajority in 2011. That advantage has since shrunk to 83-67. "I think the voters made it clear what issues they want us focused on," said Republican state Rep. Jeff Leach, who held onto his suburban district near Dallas, where the GOP lost five House seats. "Their message to Republicans, at least, was: Don't compromise your values and your principles and beliefs, but focus on the big aspirational issues that keep Texas strong for a generation to come." During Texas' most recent legislative session in 2017, Leach supported a contentious bill that would have required transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond with the sex on their birth certificate. The bill ultimately failed amid a backlash from Fortune 500 companies. Now, Leach says, "I have not had anyone tell me" that issue needs to be a priority. Across the U.S., Democrats picked up more than 330 statehouse seats in November, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures. Other states where Republicans absorbed big losses while maintaining legislative power include Georgia, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Already in Texas, there are hints of less turbulence on the eve of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's second term. Like many states, public school funding is the biggest issue singled out by both parties. Paying to help rebuild the Texas coast in the aftermath of 2017's Hurricane Harvey, the nation's most destructive storm since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, is another task. Of course, calls for bipartisanship and getting to the unflashy business of state governance ring eternal at the start of every legislative session. And some Republicans lawmakers had signaled to audiences of Texas conservative activists before the midterms that they would continue pushing bills on social issues, which would likely rekindle opposition with gay rights groups and big businesses. The Texas Legislature is only at work for five months every two years, but reliably packs drama and spectacle into such a short amount of time. In 2003, Democrats fled the state to a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma to break quorum and stop a redistricting bill that cost them seats. A decade later, then-Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis staged a 13-hour filibuster to temporarily block a sweeping anti-abortion law, propelling her to a failed run for governor. The last session saw Texas Republicans mostly at war with themselves. Abbott demanded the "bathroom bill," though opponents included moderate House speaker, who is now leaving office. All the while, Texas was passing one of the nation's toughest crackdowns on "sanctuary cities," allowing police to ask people during routine stops whether they're in the U.S. illegally. Tensions over the bill spilled into chaos on the session's final day, when Republican state Rep. Matt Rinaldi called U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Latino protesters in the House gallery. Democratic state Rep. Poncho Nevarez angrily confronted Rinaldi, who later wrote on Facebook that he had warned Nevarez that he would "shoot him in self-defense." Rinaldi lost re-election to his Dallas-area district last year, and Navarez — re-elected to a fourth term in his district along the border with Mexico— says Republicans who push divisive bills this time do so at their own electoral risk. "I think it's going to be different. We went down a real dark path last session," Nevarez said.
|
Paul J. Weber, Associated Press
|
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/texas-tests-gop-losses-soften-hard-statehouse-60193192
|
2019-01-06 20:07:08+00:00
| 1,546,823,228 | 1,567,553,716 |
politics
|
government
|
2,845 |
abcnews--2019-12-04--NYC lawmakers to consider cracking down on paper receipts
| 2019-12-04T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
NYC lawmakers to consider cracking down on paper receipts
|
New York City lawmakers are considering a ban on paper receipts coated with the chemical BPA and a requirement that retailers offer emailed receipts instead of paper ones. The City Council announced last week that it will hold hearings on a package of bills aimed at cracking down on paper receipts. “Nobody needs foot-long receipts," said Council Speaker Corey Johnson, a Democrat. “We will work with businesses and consumers to cut out paper receipt waste and protect the planet. Let’s not print receipts when they aren’t wanted, especially when we have technology to issue environmentally friendly alternatives." Most cash register receipts are coated with bisphenol A, known as BPA, or the related chemical BPS. Some studies have determined the chemicals could harm the female reproductive system at high levels. The City Council will consider bills in the next few months to restrict the use of BPA-coated paper, to require stores to offer e-receipts, to require that receipts be printed on recyclable paper and to require businesses to recycle receipts.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-lawmakers-cracking-paper-receipts-67502350
|
Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:01:01 -0500
| 1,575,496,861 | 1,575,504,379 |
politics
|
government
|
77,194 |
breitbart--2019-12-10--Report: Vulnerable Democrat Lawmakers Floating Censure Instead of Impeachment
| 2019-12-10T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Report: Vulnerable Democrat Lawmakers Floating Censure Instead of Impeachment
|
A small group of almost a dozen moderate House Democrats is floating the long-shot idea of censuring President Donald Trump instead of impeaching him, according to a report. The group, representing Democrats whose districts went for Trump in 2016, huddled on Monday afternoon in an “11th-hour bid to weigh additional — though unlikely — options,” according to Politico. Schrader said Tuesday that censure would be “certainly appropriate and might be a little more bipartisan, who knows,” according to the outlet. But he added, “Time’s slipping by.” Censure — unlike impeachment — could be bipartisan, whereas impeachment has not garnered the support of one House Republican. In fact, two Democrats defected on the vote to begin an impeachment inquiry — Reps. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) and Collin Peterson (D-MN). Impeachment is particularly risky for the 31 Democrats who won seats in districts that went for Trump in 2016. A recent McLaughlin & Associates poll showed Brindisi underwater for 2020 and even lower if he supports impeachment. He and other moderates were crucial to the Democrats winning control of the House in 2018. And polls have shown support for impeachment slipping, notably among independents and in swing states critical to the 2020 presidential race. Censure, versus impeachment, would also help Democrats avoid a lengthy Senate trial that could distract Democrats in the run-up to the election, and is expected to acquit Trump anyway. “Right now, there’s no other options. This is another option,” one lawmaker told Politico. A censure resolution would be “nearly impossible to sell to the caucus at this point, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team have already settled on impeaching the president,” Politico reported. Still, some of the worried Democrats have quietly reached out to centrist House Republicans in recent days to see whether they would be willing to censure Trump, according to the outlet. “I don’t think [moderate Democrats] have enough to block impeachment. Ten to 12 max. But they’re working to raise it,” one Republican lawmaker, who has discussed censure with some Democrats, told the outlet. “And [they’re] obviously reaching out to Republicans to see if they would join them.”
|
Kristina Wong
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/kLmM3g0gxjQ/
|
Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:21:39 +0000
| 1,576,023,699 | 1,576,066,046 |
politics
|
government
|
77,770 |
breitbart--2019-12-20--Lawmakers Signal Impeachment Trial Details Will Remain Unsettled into the New Year
| 2019-12-20T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Lawmakers Signal Impeachment Trial Details Will Remain Unsettled into the New Year
|
Senate leaders signaled on Thursday that the details of the Senate impeachment trial will largely remain a mystery heading into the New Year, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) failed to reach an agreement on key details of the trial. The two leaders had what McConnell described as a “cordial” conversation on Thursday but confirmed that they remain at an “impasse.” McConnell said, according to the Hill: Those logistical questions revolve around documents and witnesses — including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton — which Schumer claims are necessary to “ensure a fair trial.” McConnell is expected to “consider Sen. Schumer’s proposal over the holidays,” according to Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman. “Senator Schumer made clear to Sen. McConnell that the witnesses and documents are necessary to ensure a fair trial in the Senate,” Goodman stated, according to the Hill. “Sen. Schumer asked Sen. McConnell to consider Sen. Schumer’s proposal over the holidays because Sen. Schumer and his caucus believe the witnesses and documents are essential to a fair Senate trial,” he added. Senate leaders, however, say additional witnesses are unnecessary, as Democrats should have already made their case in the House. “The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury to hear a trial, not to rerun the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it,” McConnell said on Tuesday. So now the Senate Democratic leader would apparently like our chamber to do House Democrats’ homework for them. He wants to volunteer the Senate’s time and energy on a fishing expedition to see whether his own ideas could make Chairman Schiff’s sloppy work more persuasive than Chairman Schiff himself bothered to make it. So, madame president, this concept is dead wrong. The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury to hear a trial, not to rerun the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it. The trajectory that the Democratic leader apparently wants to take us down or before he’s even heard opening arguments could set a nightmare nightmarish precedent for our institution. If the Senate volunteers ourselves to do House Democrats’ homework for them, we will only incentivize an endless strain of dubious partisan impeachments in the future, and we will invite future Houses to paralyze future Senates with frivolous impeachments at will. I am not going to support witnesses being called for by the president. I am not going to support witnesses being called for by Sen. [Charles] Schumer [D-N.Y.],” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Wednesday. “I continue to believe that the unanimous bipartisan precedent that was good enough for President Clinton ought to be good enough for President Trump,” McConnell added on Thursday. “Fair is fair.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has yet to indicate when she will transfer the articles to the Senate. McConnell said on the Senate floor on Thursday that she is too afraid to send “their shoddy work product to the Senate.” As Breitbart News reported, “the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.”
|
Hannah Bleau
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/YuVTmfo3Z8I/
|
Fri, 20 Dec 2019 21:56:34 +0000
| 1,576,896,994 | 1,576,886,857 |
politics
|
government
|
78,554 |
businessinsider--2019-06-14--Republican lawmakers are closing in on a bill that would challenge Trumps tariff powers
| 2019-06-14T00:00:00 |
businessinsider
|
Republican lawmakers are closing in on a bill that would challenge Trump’s tariff powers
|
As President Donald Trump hails protectionist policies as a key way to gain leverage abroad, Republican lawmakers are moving toward legislation that would shift tariff powers to Capitol Hill. Trump has upended a key GOP platform over the past year by igniting trade wars with multiple countries, including US allies. Now, senators appear to be closing in on a plan that seeks to limit presidential trade authority. Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio put out competing bills this year that seek to reform Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which lets the president unilaterally impose tariffs on the grounds of national security concerns. Toomey told Business Insider he hopes a markup will be ready "in the coming weeks." Trump was met with sharp backlash from Republican lawmakers this month after holding the threat of tariffs over Mexico until the US ally agreed to take steps to stem the flow of migrants across the southern border. The president has separately drawn criticism from his party for invoking Section 232 to impose blanket duties on steel and aluminum imports. "Misusing this trade tool not only hurts our exports and our manufacturers, but also our consumers, and I'm hopeful the Senate Finance Committee takes action on this legislation," said Portman. A bonus just for you: Click here to claim 30 days of access to Business Insider PRIME Both Toomey's Bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act and Portman's Trade Security Act have bipartisan support and seek to rein in trade powers at the White House. Toomey's plan is seen as the tougher of the two, requiring congressional approval for the president to declare an import a national security threat. It would also retroactively include all presidential orders up to four years prior to its passage. Portman's bill would add administrative steps to the Section 232 process and allow congressional committees to issue a joint resolution of disapproval to tariff actions by the president. Proponents say that approach might be less likely to face opposition, while critics argue that it lacks binding language. "The problem is that there's no guarantee that that bill would get time on the floor in the Senate or the House," said a Republican aide familiar with the legislation. "The Toomey legislation guarantees a vote." Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is leading efforts to forge a compromise on the dueling bills. In a call with reporters Tuesday, the Iowa Republican acknowledged Trump would likely not be fond of the legislation but avoided criticizing the president. "This is not about Trump," he said during the call, according to POLITICO. "It's about the balancing of power." Economists say protectionist policies distort trade flows while acting as a tax on businesses and consumers at home. That has put some Republican lawmakers in an uncomfortable spot, especially as Trump restricts trade to address issues like immigration. "Trump is unusual in his fondness for tariffs as a bargaining chip, and his comfort in using emergency powers to justify it," said Donald Moynihan, the McCourt chair at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. "We have gotten to a point where some Republican members of the Senate have lost trust in Trump when it comes to tariffs." The president argues that duties will ultimately benefit Americans, making any short-term pain at home worth it. He believes reshaping trade policies will bring jobs back to the US, a signature promise of his that dates back to the 2016 campaign trail. "The President's tariffs have not come anywhere close to tanking this unprecedented level of economic and job growth but have instead brought our allies and adversaries to the table all for the benefit of the American worker," White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere said when asked about the Section 232 reform bills. While Democrats tend to support a tougher stance toward perceived trade policy imbalances, there is no shortage of disagreement with the president's approach. When asked about legislation that would limit presidential tariff authority, a spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred Business Insider to a comment she had made earlier this year. "I really haven't seen that legislation, but I do support reclaiming some of Congress's – it is Congress's prerogative," Pelosi said in February. Now read more markets coverage on Markets Insider and Business Insider: Trump's trade war strikes again: Broadcom plummets after cutting its yearly sales forecast, dragging the entire chipmaker industry lower GOLDMAN SACHS: Buy these 17 'superstar' stocks, which dominate sales in their industries and have been crushing the market Beware a 'Trump recession': JPMorgan unloads on the president's role in erasing a full year of market progress — and lays out a scenario that could save the day
|
Gina Heeb
|
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-trade-war-republicans-move-to-limit-presidential-tariff-powers-2019-6-1028281326
|
2019-06-14 18:37:57+00:00
| 1,560,551,877 | 1,567,539,095 |
politics
|
government
|
81,293 |
cbsnews--2019-01-16--Lawmakers push bill to boost minimum wage to 15 an hour
| 2019-01-16T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
Lawmakers push bill to boost minimum wage to $15 an hour
|
Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday are expected to introduce new legislation that would bring the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024 after wage hikes took effect in 20 different states this year. More than 100 Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors of House Committee on Education and Labor Chairman Bobby Scott's Raise the Wage Act of 2019, which aims to ensure all working Americans earn a living wage. It's expected to give roughly 40 million Americans a bump in pay, according to a press advisory. Once fully phased in, the average affected worker would see about a $3,500 increase in annual pay. Today, one in nine U.S. workers earn wages that leave them in poverty, according to the Economic Policy Institute. "No person working full-time in America should be living in poverty," said Chairman Scott. "Raising the minimum wage is not only good for workers, it is good for businesses, and good for the economy. When we put money in the pockets of American workers, they will spend that money in their communities. This bill is a stimulus for Main Street America," he said. Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a companion bill in the Senate with 31 cosponsors. He laid out an argument on Twitter Monday for a hike in the federal minimum wage, which remains stuck at $7.25, where it has hovered since 2009. "The federal minimum wage of $7.25 is a starvation wage. That is why I, along with many other members of Congress, will introduce legislation this week to raise that wage to $15 an hour. If you work 40 hours a week, you should not live in poverty," Sanders said. A follow-up tweet read: "A job must lift workers out of poverty, not keep them in it. We must raise the federal minimum wage from a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour. Doing so would directly increase the wages of more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce." Speaker Nancy Pelosi is also behind the bill. "A $15 federal minimum wage affirms the bedrock idea of fairness in our country: that hard work deserves a decent wage. We will open up opportunities for working families and drive economic growth that lifts up all communities -- because our economy works best when it works for everyone, not just the wealthy and privileged few," she said. Fast-food workers have been fighting for $15 an hour since 2012, when 200 McDonald's employees walked off the job in New York City. The Fight for $15 has become a global movement that's now active in more than 300 cities across six continents. Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, the organization behind Fight for $15, called the prospective bill "a huge step forward in deciding to end poverty work in America." She said recent minimum wage hikes across the country illustrate "the power of the idea that when you work hard for a living you ought to be able to lead a decent life and provide for your family." She also touted the economic benefits of a minimum wage increase. "Workers have more money to spend in communities spurred by economic activity and growth," she said. "Businesses are positively impacted by people having more money in their pockets." Restaurant owners in some states have argued that wage hikes actually result in operators cutting jobs to offset increases in payroll. "Should Congress drastically increase operating costs then these small businesses will be forced to hire fewer people, reduce hours, or even close their doors," Shannon Meade, Vice President of Public Policy and Workforce for the National Restaurant Association said in a statement. Heidi Shierholz, senior economist and director of policy at the Economic Policy Institute, concedes that while some restaurants might feel the pinch in the near term, a mandated federal minimum wage will, in the long run, benefit workers and businesses by putting money "into the hands of people who have no choice but to spent it" and generate economic activity. She cited empirical evidence that shows minimum wage increases have increased wages without causing job loss. "That doesn't mean there aren't businesses that don't have the right business practices that struggle in environments where they have higher wages," she said. The Raise the Wage Act would also lift provisions that allow businesses to pay subminimum wage for tipped workers. Minimum wage workers weighed in on the bill. "100% of the people who make less than $15.00/hour want the federal minimum wage to be $15.00/hour," said Twitter user Sharon Fane. The bill will likely be challenged in the GOP-controlled Senate. President Donald Trump's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, opposes the idea of mandating any federal minimum wage.
| null |
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-bill-calls-for-15-federal-minimum-wage/
|
2019-01-16 17:06:43+00:00
| 1,547,676,403 | 1,567,552,194 |
politics
|
government
|
84,417 |
cbsnews--2019-06-27--Trump and lawmakers react to tragic photo of migrants
| 2019-06-27T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
Trump and lawmakers react to tragic photo of migrants
|
A haunting image that shows the danger so many are willing to face to try and enter the U.S., has gone viral. Now, officials are pointing blame. Oscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his almost 2-year-old daughter Valeria are seen face down in south Texas' Rio Grande. The child's arm is still holding on to her father's neck after they both drowned trying to cross into the country. As the bodies were taken away, Tania Ramirez, the wife can be heard sobbing. Oscar's mother, who is in El Salvador, broke down when she heard the news. She said the last message she got from her son was Saturday, when he told her he loved her and to take care of herself. The final act of desperation came after weeks of trying to seek asylum at the U.S. consulate in Mexico. But the family said they couldn't get anyone to talk to them. The image brought immediate comparisons to Aylan Kurdi, the 3-year-old Syrian refugee who drowned just outside Turkey during Europe's refugee crisis in 2015. President Trump reacted to the photo on Wednesday, saying "I hate it," but quickly blamed the Democrats in Congress for not changing the asylum policy that he said has encouraged the migrant surge at the border. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer shot back. "These are not drug dealers or vagrants or criminals. They are people simply fleeing a horrible situation in their home country," he said. The Senate on Wednesday passed a $4.6 billion humanitarian aid package for the border after rejecting a House measure. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Mr. Trump, saying there needs to be negotiations. The political posturing in Washington, D.C., doesn't change the reality at the border. "I don't know how the government will be able to fix those systemic problems in one day's time," said Elora Mukherjee, an attorney who recently toured Customs and Border Protection's facility in Clint, Texas, where hundreds of migrant children are being held. CBP has downplayed her description of conditions being unsanitary when she visited the facility last week. There are 117 children at the facility, which has a capacity of 106. CBP officials on Wednesday allowed reporters into the crowded facility for a guided tour. Officials showed CBS News where the children play, eat, shower and sleep. But CBS News was not allowed to speak with any of the children.
| null |
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/photo-of-migrant-father-and-daughter-trump-lawmakers-react-today-2019-06-26/
|
2019-06-27 02:43:31+00:00
| 1,561,617,811 | 1,567,537,848 |
politics
|
government
|
84,721 |
cbsnews--2019-07-22--Trump and lawmakers reach 2-year deal on budget and debt ceiling
| 2019-07-22T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
Trump and lawmakers reach 2-year deal on budget and debt ceiling
|
Congressional leaders and the White House said they have reached an agreement to avoid automatic budget limits and suspend the debt ceiling for two years, which would push a contentious battle over spending beyond the 2020 election. President Trump and Democratic leaders announced the deal, which increases spending by $320 billion, according to a congressional aide. "I am pleased to announce that a deal has been struck with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy - on a two-year Budget and Debt Ceiling, with no poison pills," Mr. Trump tweeted. "This was a real compromise in order to give another big victory to our Great Military and Vets!" A Pelosi aide told CBS News that the speaker spoke to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin three times on Sunday, with Schumer joining on one occasion. The conversations continued Monday morning when the three spoke again, and in the afternoon, when Mnuchin called to address any outstanding issues. Mnuchin then hosted a conference call with Pelosi, Schumer and McCarthy at 5 p.m. and told them the president would be tweeting within the hour announcing the deal. After the president's tweet, Schumer and Pelosi quickly hailed the "bipartisan agreement" in a statement, saying they were "pleased that the Administration has finally agreed to join Democrats in ending these devastating cuts." The Democratic leaders said they had secured an increase in non-defense spending that "exceeds the defense number by $10 billion over the next two years" and agreed to suspend the debt limit until July 31, 2021. "The House will now move swiftly to bring the budget caps and debt ceiling agreement legislation to the Floor, so that it can be sent to the President's desk as soon as possible," Schumer and Pelosi said. "With this agreement, we can avoid the damage of sequestration and continue to advance progress for the people."
| null |
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/budget-deal-trump-says-deal-has-been-struck-on-budget-and-debt-ceiling/
|
2019-07-22 22:32:37+00:00
| 1,563,849,157 | 1,567,536,145 |
politics
|
government
|
85,077 |
cbsnews--2019-08-07--Lawmakers urge leaders to call Congress back to address racist attacks
| 2019-08-07T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
Lawmakers urge leaders to call Congress back to address racist attacks
|
Several House members are urging Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call Congress to return to Washington, D.C., to address white supremacy, in light of the recent shooting in El Paso, Texas, which has been classified as domestic terrorism. Reps. Veronica Escobar, whose district includes El Paso, and Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey, are circulating a letter that will call on Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to interrupt the summer recess and bring Congress back to Washington. Forty-eight House members have signed onto the letter as of Tuesday afternoon, according to Vice, which first reported it. "After yesterday's shootings in El Paso, it is beyond question that terrorists motivated by a common white supremacist ideology are committing deadly attacks against Jewish, Muslim, African-American, Hispanic and other non-white communities in the United States and around the world, and pose a clear and present danger to our national security," Malinowski said in a statement obtained by CBS News. At least two recent shootings in the U.S. have targeted synagogues, and the shooting suspect in the El Paso case was allegedly motivated by anti-immigrant animus. "There is legislation pending in the House and Senate that would strengthen our government's ability to defeat domestic terrorism, while making it harder for terrorists to acquire guns. Congress should be called back into session as soon as possible to act on this urgent threat," Malinowski continued, adding that it is too long to wait until Congress reconvenes on Sept. 9. Malinowski cited the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act as an example of legislation which could be passed if Pelosi and McConnell called Congress back to Washington. This bill would hold the Justice and Homeland Security departments responsible for addressing domestic terrorism and improve data collection. "Congress should quickly appropriate supplemental funds to both departments, including for programs to counter violent extremism in the United States that the administration had previously cut," Malinowski said. He also called on Congress to "condemn any political leader or public figure who echoes the beliefs of these terrorists, including that immigrants are "invading" the United States or set on "replacing" any of our citizens." The proposal, a veiled reference to President Trump's previous language on immigration, is unlikely to gain much support in the Republican-controlled Senate. Malinowski also mentioned a bill on universal background checks which passed the House in February. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and GOP Rep. Peter King urged McConnell to call the Senate back to Washington to vote on the bill in a press conference on Tuesday.
| null |
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-members-urge-congressional-leaders-to-call-session-to-address-white-supremacy/
|
2019-08-07 01:19:16+00:00
| 1,565,155,156 | 1,567,534,656 |
politics
|
government
|
85,821 |
cbsnews--2019-09-26--Explosive Lawmakers get first look at whistleblower complaint
| 2019-09-26T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
"Explosive": Lawmakers get first look at whistleblower complaint
|
The office of the director of national intelligence gave lawmakers access to a whistleblower complaint that includes President Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president on Wednesday, hours after the White House released a memorandum summarizing the call between the two leaders. After seeing the complaint, one Democratic congresswoman described it as "nothing short of explosive." The complaint precipitated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday. The administration's decision to give lawmakers the document came one day after the Senate voted unanimously on a resolution demanding the material. The House was set to vote on its own resolution on Thursday before the committees were given the document. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr told reporters his committee had received the whistleblower complaint shortly after 4 p.m. Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and party leaders streamed in and out of a secure hearing room on Capitol Hill late Thursday afternoon to examine the document, which one lawmaker said was 10 to 12 pages long. In a quick statement after viewing the report, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said: "I want to thank the whistleblower for coming forward." "I found the allegations deeply disturbing and very credible. I can understand why the inspector general found them credible," Schiff said. Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley told reporters the complaint "reinforces our concerns," and called it "disturbing" and "alarming." Democratic Representative Jackie Speier, of California, said on MSNBC Wednesday night that the complaint is "nothing short of explosive. It is so much more than the summary of the telephone call that has been presented by the White House as evidence. I am not even in a position to say that that was involved in the complaint until it is actually declassified. I can tell you that I was stunned by the breadth of the complaint and the details (with) which the whistleblower expressed his concerns." The Associated Press says, "Most Republicans were quiet or defended the president as they left the secure rooms." Senate Intelligence Committee member Ben Sasse, of Nebraska, said, "This is going to take a lot of time but there's obviously some really troubling things here." He criticized Republicans he said are rushing to defend the administration and Democrats he said are rushing to impeach the president. The complaint involves the call between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, during which Mr. Trump asked Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. The call came days after the Trump administration froze nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine. The complaint was submitted to the inspector general for the intelligence community, who found it to be of "urgent concern." However, the Justice Department, which said that the complaint involved a possible campaign finance violation, reviewed the record of the call and determined that there had been no wrongdoing and concluded that "no further action was warranted," according to spokesperson Kerri Kupec. The White House released a document summarizing the call earlier on Wednesday, which revealed that the president had urged Zelensky to probe Biden and Hunter Biden, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company. The president met with Zelensky in New York on Wednesday, where he is attending the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. "I think you read everything. I think you read text," the Ukrainian leader said, when asked whether he felt pressured to investigate the Bidens. "I'm sorry, but I don't want to be involved [in] democratic, open elections of USA. We had, I think, good phone call. It was normal." According to the memo, Zelensky said Ukraine was "almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes," referring to powerful anti-tank missiles. Mr. Trump responded he "would like you to do us a favor though," telling Zelensky he would like to find out what happened with "this whole situation with Ukraine." Mr. Trump also mentioned CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity company that helped investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mr. Trump later mentioned "the other thing," saying "there's a lot of talk about Biden's son." Zelensky pledged that a new prosecutor would look into the case and asked for additional information. Mr. Trump told Zelensky he would have Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr call. The Justice Department, which released the memo of the call, said Wednesday that Barr never discussed anything related to Ukraine with Giuliani. On Wednesday, Democrats said the memo was worse than they anticipated, with Schiff saying it was reminiscent of a "classic mafia-like shakedown." But Mr. Trump claimed that the document vindicated him and said that the memo showed no explicit quid pro quo with Ukraine. Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, will testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday. He disputed a report by The Washington Post that he had threatened to resign if the White House tried to block him from talking about the complaint before Congress. "I have never quit anything in my life, and I am not going to start now," he said in a statement. The whistleblower also wants to testify before the committee, according to Schiff. Stefan Becket, Kathryn Watson and Emily Tillett contributed to this report
| null |
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-whistleblower-complaint-dni-to-provide-congress-with-whistleblower-complaint-today-live-updates-2019-09-25/
|
2019-09-26 07:05:49+00:00
| 1,569,495,949 | 1,570,222,156 |
politics
|
government
|
86,320 |
cbsnews--2019-11-03--Hoyer: Lawmakers "have a duty" to pursue impeachment inquiry
| 2019-11-03T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
Hoyer: Lawmakers "have a duty" to pursue impeachment inquiry
|
Washington — Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer, the second-highest ranking Democrat in the House, said lawmakers in Congress have a constitutional responsibility to continue the intensifying impeachment inquiry into President Trump — regardless of the potential political fallout his party may face. "This is not a calculation about whether this is good for us politically or bad for us politically," Hoyer said on "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Hoyer conceded that the impeachment drive — as well as potential articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump — "may well" have political ramifications for Democrats. But he suggested it is a price his party is willing to pay. "But we have a duty. We have a duty to the country, to the American people, and to the Constitution of the United States," he said. For weeks, Democratic-led committees in the House have arranged close-door hearings with current and former Trump administration officials familiar with efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to enlist the help of the Ukrainian government in digging up dirt on political rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. On Thursday, the House voted to formalize the impeachment inquiry that Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in September. Unlike California Congresswoman Jackie Speier, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Hoyer would not offer a specific timeframe for public hearings, which were authorized through the resolution on Thursday. Speier said earlier on "Face the Nation" that they could start to take place next week. "Time is not constraining us," Hoyer said. "The truth and the facts are constraining us. We are going to move as soon as the facts and the truth dictate that we have."
| null |
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-rep-steny-hoyer-says-lawmakers-have-a-duty-to-the-country-to-pursue-inquiry-on-face-the-nation/
|
Sun, 03 Nov 2019 21:37:37 +0000
| 1,572,835,057 | 1,572,881,406 |
politics
|
government
|
87,078 |
cbsnews--2019-12-07--Lawmakers near agreement on parental leave for federal workers
| 2019-12-07T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
Lawmakers near agreement on parental leave for federal workers
|
Capitol Hill leaders are nearing agreement in negotiations on an annual defense policy bill that would extend 12 weeks of paid parental leave to federal workers, both military and civilian, in exchange for establishing President Trump's space force initiative. The agreement would trade a major expansion of benefits to federal workers for a legacy initiative of Mr. Trump's. Federal workers currently can take unpaid leave. Democratic and GOP aides confirmed the developments. The agreement is not finalized and comes after extensive behind-the-scenes battling on the annual defense measure, which has passed Congress every year since the Kennedy administration. Further details were not available. The parental leave provision is a victory for federal workers, who would face benefit cuts under Mr. Trump's budget submissions. Those cuts have always been ignored by Congress, though pension changes were approved under GOP control of the House. The parental leave issue was a priority for Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who weighed in forcefully this week. Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter and adviser, said Friday that such a provision would "mark a HUGE step forward towards making paid leave a reality for all Americans." Numerous details regarding the space force program remain to be worked out and funding for the program would be delivered through separate spending legislation that's also taking shape behind the scenes. The aides requested anonymity because the agreement is not finalized.
| null |
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawmakers-near-agreement-to-expand-paid-parental-leave-for-federal-workers/
|
Sat, 07 Dec 2019 12:08:28 -0500
| 1,575,738,508 | 1,575,763,714 |
politics
|
government
|
87,342 |
cbsnews--2019-12-17--New Jersey lawmakers pass marijuana referendum for 2020 ballot
| 2019-12-17T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
New Jersey lawmakers pass marijuana referendum for 2020 ballot
|
Trenton, New Jersey — A super-majority of New Jersey lawmakers on Monday passed a proposed ballot question to legalize recreational marijuana, putting the referendum before voters on the 2020 ballot. The Democrat-led Assembly passed the measure 49-24, with one abstention, while the Senate passed the question 24-16. The proposal need not go before Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, though he supports marijuana legalization. The question asks voters if they'll approve recreational cannabis for people 21 and older. All sales of marijuana products would be subject to the state's 6.625% sales tax, and towns could pass ordinances to charge local taxes as well. "The time to end the prohibition of adult-use cannabis is now," Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin said. If approved by voters, New Jersey would become the 11th state, along with the District of Columbia, to legalize recreational marijuana. Medical marijuana is legal in 33 states and the District of Columbia. The ballot question was the second choice of Murphy and legislative leaders, who failed in March to advance legislation that would have legalized cannabis. Legislators at the time cited a number of concerns with the bill, including worries that some who were convicted of dealing marijuana could too easily get their records cleared. The opposition at the time was on both sides of the political aisle. Supporters of the question accepted it after it became clear that legislation didn't have enough support. Some worried that the ballot question defers lawmakers' responsibility to address racial and social justice concerns since black residents get arrested on marijuana charges at a disproportionate rate compared with whites. "A constitutional amendment asks voters to make a decision first and find out the details later, undermining the principles of a representative, participatory democracy," said Amol Sinha, the executive director of the state American Civil Liberties Union. The larger-than-three-fifths majorities in both chambers matters because it ensures the question will be put to voters by 2020. Had only a simple majority of both houses passed the question, then lawmakers would have had to hold a second vote in the new session, which starts Jan. 14.
| null |
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-jersey-marijuana-legalization-to-be-on-ballot-in-2020/
|
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:20:55 -0500
| 1,576,585,255 | 1,576,627,723 |
politics
|
government
|
87,466 |
cbsnews--2019-12-21--Lawmakers locked in impeachment impasse as Trump heads to Florida
| 2019-12-21T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
Lawmakers locked in impeachment impasse as Trump heads to Florida
|
President Trump is spending the holidays in Florida as lawmakers are locked in an impasse over how to proceed with a Senate trial following a House vote to impeach him. Mr. Trump traveled to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Friday evening, after signing the National Defense Authorization Act at Joint Base Andrews in Virginia. He later signed a package of government spending bills while onboard Air Force One, en route to Florida. His trip comes after he became the third president in U.S. history to be impeached, with a historic House vote this week on two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House must deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate, which will then hold a trial overseen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Senate Majority Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are at an impasse over the rules for the trial. Schumer has called for witnesses from the White House, including acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, but McConnell has indicated that's a nonstarter. "He wants a special pre-trial guarantee of certain witnesses whom the House Democrats did not even bother to pursue themselves as they assembled their case, or he wants to proceed without any organizing resolution whatsoever," McConnell said about Schumer in a speech on the Senate floor Thursday. "So as I said, a cordial conversation, we remain at an impasse on these logistics." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also said she would not send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, which adjourned until January, and that the House would not vote on impeachment managers until the Senate finalizes its plans for the trial. Pelosi and Democrats in the House and Senate are trying to pressure the Senate to call for more documents and for witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment proceedings because the White House prevented them from appearing. Given that Pelosi has not transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate, the White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been officially impeached, two sources involved in the president's impeachment defense told CBS News this week. The White House is considering making that case based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office. "If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all," Feldman wrote. However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict Mr. Trump in order for him to be removed from office, and as the Senate is controlled by Republicans, that outcome is unlikely. Mr. Trump slammed Pelosi on Friday, suggesting that she should be impeached. Members of Congress cannot be impeached, only voted out of office. "Nancy Pelosi is looking for a Quid Pro Quo with the Senate. Why aren't we Impeaching her?" Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. The impeachment developments came in the same week that the House voted to approve the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement on a bipartisan basis, a legislative victory for Mr. Trump. The National Defense Authorization Act also establishes the Space Force, a defense priority for Mr. Trump, in a deal that Democrats agreed to in return for 12 weeks of paid parental leave for federal workers. The president is expected to speak at the Turning Points USA Student Action Summit in West Palm Beach on Saturday evening.
| null |
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawmakers-locked-in-impasse-over-impeachment-trial-as-trump-spends-holidays-in-florida-2019-12-21/
|
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:55:21 -0500
| 1,576,943,721 | 1,576,973,368 |
politics
|
government
|
92,527 |
chicagosuntimes--2019-02-05--Illinois lawmakers sending pointed messages with their State of the Union guests
| 2019-02-05T00:00:00 |
chicagosuntimes
|
Illinois lawmakers sending pointed messages with their State of the Union guests
|
WASHINGTON – Illinois lawmakers are using their guests, even their very presence and what they wear to President Donald Trump’s second State of the Union address on Tuesday night, to send political messages of their own. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., boycotted Trump’s first two speeches to a joint session of Congress, but he will be in the House chamber on Tuesday, his spokesman said, to show support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the record 106 women in the House. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., boycotted in 2018; she is attending this year with a federal furloughed worker to spotlight the negative effect of the shutdown. Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill, won’t decide about going until Tuesday. Many of the Democratic women — including Schakowsky, Cheri Bustos, Robin Kelly and Lauren Underwood from Illinois — will be wearing “suffragette white,” sending a message the mostly male GOP congressional contingent can’t come close to matching. Rush will also sport white. This will be Trump’s first speech with the Democrats in control of the House and with Pelosi, the first and only female House speaker, seated over his shoulder on the dais. Quick reminders, since we only do this story once a year: Many Democratic guests have a common theme this year — people who have been hurt by Trump’s immigration policies and by the record 35-day partial government shutdown, triggered by Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion for his southern border wall. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has invited as his guest Toby Hauck, a furloughed Aurora air traffic controller and Air Force veteran. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., is highlighting the contributions immigrants make with her guest, Lily Wu, a first-generation Chinese-American from Chicago, an Illinois Brotherhood of Electrical Workers apprentice. Duckworth’s political career is a direct result of Durbin inviting her to attend President George W. Bush’s 2005 State of the Union, when she was an unknown wounded Iraq war vet recovering at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center here. Here’s the rest of the Illinois rundown, by district: 1st: Rush “will not bring a guest because he can’t find anyone who wants the ticket,” said his communications director Ryan Johnson. 2nd: Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., is inviting Diane Latiker, a constituent from Roseland on the Far South Side who is a founder of Kids of the Block. 3rd: Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., will bring Chicago Police Officer Gino Garcia, an advocate for victims of domestic violence. 6th: Freshman Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., has invited Judie Caribeaux, the executive director of Family Shelter Service in DuPage County and a survivor of domestic abuse. 8th: Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., invited Joe Podlasek who runs the Trickster Art Gallery of native art in Schaumburg. 9th: Schakowsky’s guest is Frank Lagunas, a Chicago Environmental Protection Agency Remedial Project Manager who was furloughed. 10th: Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., is hosting “Dreamer” Ivan Hernandez, 26, of Waukegan whose legal immigrant status is imperiled by Trump’s policies. 11th: Rep. Bill Foster, D-Ill., has invited Marilyn Weisner, the Executive Director of the Aurora Food Pantry in Aurora. She is the widow of the late former Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner, who died last December. 13th: Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., asked Taylorville Fire Chief Mike Crews to highlight his efforts following the Dec. 1 Taylorville tornado. 14th: Freshman Underwood may well have the youngest guest at the SOTU, Allie Bland, a 7-year-old from Naperville who left uplifting notes at the Family Shelter Service in DuPage. 15th: Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., will let one of his interns guest. 17th: Bustos’ guest is Tom Mueller a soybean farmer from Edgington, hit by Trump’s trade wars. 18th: No word yet from Rep. Darin LaHood, R-Ill.
|
Lynn Sweet
|
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/illinois-lawmakers-sending-pointed-messagesstate-of-union-guests-trump-pelosi/
|
2019-02-05 01:16:44+00:00
| 1,549,347,404 | 1,567,549,521 |
politics
|
government
|
98,303 |
cnbc--2019-01-29--Lawmakers offer proposals to end government shutdowns for good while the pain is fresh
| 2019-01-29T00:00:00 |
cnbc
|
Lawmakers offer proposals to end government shutdowns for good — while the 'pain is fresh'
|
The longest government shutdown in U.S. history is finally over. Now lawmakers from both parties are seeking a way to ensure it never happens again. Several proposals are on the table. They go beyond the immediate discussions over border security that will need to be resolved over the next three weeks, when the government could once again run out of money. Instead, these bills would guarantee that the lights stay on even if lawmakers can't reach a spending agreement by Feb. 15, or any future date. At the heart of the proposals are continuing resolutions that would keep government funding unchanged and automatically take effect during any lapse in appropriations. Lawmakers wouldn't have to debate whether to take action — it would just happen. "We have to put an end to budgeting by crisis, and auto-CRs are a very reasonable approach," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Of course, our political leaders should actually do their jobs and pass thoughtful budgets, but given how often they routinely demonstrate that cannot be counted on, this would take the damaging shutdown threat out of the equation." One of the idea's most vocal supporters on Capitol Hill is Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who has introduced the proposal in every session of Congress since 2010. His bill has 19 co-sponsors, including Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley, Alaska moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski and GOP conference chairman John Barrasso. Portman said he is urging lawmakers to include the measure as part of any deal to fund the government by Feb. 15. "Let's do something about it now while the pain and inefficiency of this moment is fresh on our minds," he said Friday. House GOP leadership also signaled openness to the idea. On NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy said he supports an automatic funding measure but would amend it to ensure that lawmakers and their staffs would not get paid until a spending deal is reached. Democrats also appear to be warming to the plan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed tentative support for the idea on Friday during a lunch with columnists, saying she hopes it's something "we might be able to put forward." Democratic Sen. Mark Warner introduced legislation earlier this month instituting an automatic continuing resolution. The bill is titled the Stop Shutdowns Transferring Unnecessary Pain and Inflicting Damage In The Coming Years Act, or simply Stop STUPIDITY. "Workers, business owners and tax payers are currently paying the price of D.C. gridlock and my legislation will put an end to that," Warner said in a statement. But there is still plenty of partisan politicking around a proposal that ostensibly aims to end the damaging effects of partisan politicking. One critical difference between the Republican and Democratic bills is the level of automatic spending. Portman's proposal would reduce federal spending by 1 percent if lawmakers do not reach an appropriation agreement within 120 days — and another 1 percent every 90 days after that until a deal is reached. Experts say the cuts are intended to ensure that the automatic spending levels do not become an easy way out for lawmakers reluctant to wrestle with thorny appropriations bills. "It's probably not the right approach to fixing this issue," said Shai Akabas, director of the Economic Policy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "A CR, while it's certainly better than a shutdown, is pretty much the next worst thing. If we make it easier to do a CR by making it automatic, we're probably going to have a lot of CRs." Portman's baked-in spending cuts also make his proposal a nonstarter for many Democrats. A spokeswoman for Warner called it "sequestration by another name." Warner's proposal would adjust the automatic spending level for GDP growth. The only portions of the government not covered would be the White House and the legislative branch. "It's a just more neutral default option," said Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former Obama aide. "Senator Warner's bill doesn't try to stack the deck one way or the other. It just aims to prevent shutdown." Still, the length and cost of the most recent shutdown are stoking growing interest in the idea. The Congressional Budget Office on Monday estimated the damage to the economy at $11 billion, with $3 billion of economic activity permanently lost. And in just three weeks, lawmakers could be standing on the brink of shutdown once more. "It's not supposed to be ideal," Hanlon said. "It's just a tradeoff between the need for Congress to set priorities and the need to prevent a shutdown."
| null |
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/29/lawmakers-offer-proposals-to-end-government-shutdownsfor-good.html
|
2019-01-29 13:00:00+00:00
| 1,548,784,800 | 1,567,550,425 |
politics
|
government
|
98,414 |
cnbc--2019-02-12--Lawmakers have a tentative deal to avoid a shutdown but Trump isnt backing it just yet
| 2019-02-12T00:00:00 |
cnbc
|
Lawmakers have a tentative deal to avoid a shutdown — but Trump isn't backing it just yet
|
Congressional negotiators said they reached a tentative deal Monday to fund the government and avoid another shutdown. As always, President Donald Trump will hold the fate of any potential border security agreement in his hands. The announcement came only minutes before the president took the rally stage in the Texas border city of El Paso to argue that "walls save lives" as he made the case for his proposed border barrier. The top four congressional appropriators emerged from a meeting on border security funding Monday night and announced an agreement in principle to fund the government past a midnight Friday deadline. The group, including Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., did not immediately give details of the deal or say when they would release bill text. A congressional source told CNBC it would put about $1.4 billion toward physical barriers, but not a wall. It would include about 55 new miles of bollard fencing. The agreement would also reduce the cap for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds by about 17 percent from the current 49,057 to 40,520, according to the source. Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said Tuesday that "there is no wall money" in the tentative deal. It includes the same amount of money for physical barriers as a spending bill passed last year, he said. A bill could get unveiled late Tuesday or early Wednesday. But that timing could change. Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said "I look forward to reviewing the full text as soon as possible and hope the Senate can act on this legislation in short order." Making remarks shortly after McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the "tentative agreement represents a path forward for our country, away from another round of fraught negotiations up against a government funding cliff. Away from a dreaded government shutdown." If passed, the measure would avoid reopening fresh wounds from a 35-day partial closure in December and January. About 800,000 federal workers were furloughed or worked without pay, missing two paychecks during the funding lapse.They face the prospect of more financial hardship if nine federal departments, or about a quarter of the government, close again. The measure's passage depends on Trump's support. The president said during Monday's rally that he'd heard about a developing deal before he took the stage but did not hear the details. He contended that the agreement did not matter because "we're building the wall anyway." WATCH: These virtual walls could be the cheaper and more effective answer to Trump's border wall
| null |
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/negotiators-an-agreement-in-principle-to-avoid-government-shutdown.html
|
2019-02-12 01:38:00+00:00
| 1,549,953,480 | 1,567,548,823 |
politics
|
government
|
101,158 |
cnn--2019-01-05--Trump told lawmakers he prefers word strike to government shutdown sources say
| 2019-01-05T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
Trump told lawmakers he prefers word 'strike' to government shutdown, sources say
|
Trump also kicked off the meeting with a profanity laden opening salvo lasting more than 15 minutes in which he made it clear that he had no plans to move on from his demand for $5.6 billion to build a border wall, according to a person familiar with the meeting. Trump also addressed the issue of impeachment, directing his remarks at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to two people familiar with what happened inside the room. Pelosi, in response, told him the meeting was supposed to be about re-opening the government, not impeachment, the people said. The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment. The shutdown stretched into its 13th day Friday, with no signs of either side relenting on their stance over Trump's request for additional funding for a border wall, even after the meeting. According to two people familiar with what happened inside the room, Trump told the leaders his hard number was $5.6 billion for border wall funding, and he wasn't willing to negotiate. That was when he made clear that it didn't matter how long it would take -- months, years, "even to the election," according to those people. Trump also "said he'd keep the government closed for a very long period of time -- months or even years," according to Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who was also at the Friday morning meeting and spoke to reporters in the White House driveway. "Absolutely I said that," Trump affirmed from the Rose Garden shortly afterward. "I don't think it will, but I'm prepared." Talks at the staff level will continue Saturday, but even those were clouded with confusion in the wake of the meeting. Trump said during his Rose Garden remarks that a working group had been formed to continue negotiations, led by Vice President Mike Pence. But Democratic officials familiar with the meeting said the idea of a specific "working group" never came up during the meeting, only that Pence had suggested staff discussions. In the hours immediately following Trump's remarks, the make up of who would meet this weekend -- and what the group would represent -- appeared to be a point of confusion for both sides. Invitations were eventually sent for leadership staff from both parties to meet at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which sits next to the White House and where Pence has an office. The meeting, which Pence is expected to attend and lead, will take place at 11 a.m. Saturday.
|
Phil Mattingly
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/-Z53MK1Q_FA/index.html
|
2019-01-05 05:58:23+00:00
| 1,546,685,903 | 1,567,553,846 |
politics
|
government
|
102,030 |
cnn--2019-01-29--Lawmakers skeptical that a broad immigration deal can be reached
| 2019-01-29T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
Lawmakers skeptical that a broad immigration deal can be reached
|
(CNN) Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill enter the next chapter in the fight over President Donald Trump's border wall skeptical that a broad immigration deal can be reached and with a mission: Keep negotiations narrow and avoid another shutdown. "I am not ruling anything out at this point. It's just an effort to pass a (Department of Homeland Security) appropriations bill and put an end to recurring presidential threats of a shutdown," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber. "I go into this to solve the problem as best I can, but I don't go in with any high expectations when it comes to the immigration side. ... I don't go in with any high hopes that will be successful on immigration issues and I am not walking in there with an immigration agenda." "That would be really challenging," Sen. John Thune of Texas, the second-ranking Republican in the chamber, told reporters Monday night. "I think this is going to be all about the number. But who knows? That would be great. The President put some stuff in play. If the Democrats are willing to make a broader deal, I don't think we know the answer to that yet." The contours of the spending negotiations are still taking shape. The conference committee -- made up of Republican and Democratic lawmakers from both the House and Senate -- will begin meeting Wednesday afternoon. "My focus is on the appropriation aspect," said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia who's serving on the conference committee. "Whether we go bigger remains to be seen." Asked if negotiators should try to tackle a broader immigration overhaul, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said that should depend on whether it brings them votes for a final deal. "In my view, it depends on how you get the votes," she said. "I very much want the (recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program) given a path to citizenship. I don't think that's going to happen." Each party has long established its immigration battle lines. For Republicans, the President's border wall will be the prize even as rank-and-file Republicans acknowledge that the showdown may come down to a game of semantics. On Monday, many Republicans referred to the wall as a "barrier," a nod to a détente over the war of words that has transpired over the President's signature campaign promise. On Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wouldn't definitively rule out a barrier at the Southern border. Democrats, meanwhile, still argue they too support border security, just more in the form of technology and at ports of entry than in the form of a wall. Many Republicans, meanwhile, have long agreed there should be some protection for individuals with DACA status even as the extent of those protections is a source of division within the party. As part of his negotiation during the shutdown, the President proposed $5.7 billion for his border wall in exchange for three years of protections for DACA recipients and another three years for immigrants who had Temporary Protected Status. Democrats rejected the offer, arguing they wanted a more permanent solution. But even keeping a negotiation about border money and DACA recipients has proved too difficult in the past. The White House rejected a bipartisan proposal last year that included $25 billion for the wall over a decade in exchange for a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and significant changes to the country's legal immigration system. "I think what the President proposed on TPS and DACA are a good starting point. That's not a comprehensive immigration bill, but they are significant changes, and I think that is possible, so I'm very interested in helping the President getting money for barriers as part of a broader border security package," said Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. "I think the way that happens is to focus on the two areas: DACA and TPS. If you go beyond that in a short period of time, I think it is difficult to see a solution." Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters that he talked Monday to Trump and he thought "the President's in the mode of doing a deal." "We'll just see if we can get reasonable people to agree," Graham said. But winning over Democrats for significant funding for the border wall will be a tall task. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat who is on the conference committee, said Democrats are going to go in with a "united front." Asked if Democrats would agree to any money for the wall, he said, "I will be with the group together -- whatever the consensus of the group, I will be with." "We do have a consensus with the wall -- I think we are all against the wall."
|
Lauren Fox
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/T9HEle-GQ9M/index.html
|
2019-01-29 02:42:00+00:00
| 1,548,747,720 | 1,567,550,423 |
politics
|
government
|
102,071 |
cnn--2019-01-30--Lawmakers kick off border negotiations in effort to avert shutdown
| 2019-01-30T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
Lawmakers kick off border negotiations in effort to avert shutdown
|
(CNN) Democratic and Republican negotiators expressed optimism on Wednesday that Congress can find a deal on border security to avert a shutdown. Lawmakers left the first meeting of a bipartisan negotiating committee with no agreement on the President's coveted border wall, but outlined some opening proposals as negotiations begin. House Democratic negotiators confirmed after the meeting that their opening offer at the start of negotiations does not include any new money for a border wall -- the key sticking point in the standoff between Democrats and President Donald Trump, who has demanded $5.7 billion in wall funding. "If you're asking if there is any money for the border wall? No, there is not," Democratic Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard said bluntly at a press conference following the meeting. Democrats did, however, outline a long list of border security-related initiatives they are willing to fund. Their proposal includes money for 1,000 new customs officers and to hire new Homeland Security agents who can work on issues such as drug smuggling. House Appropriations Committee Chair Nita Lowey said at the news conference that the committee will "work thoughtfully and quickly to produce a compromise," but would not give a total dollar amount for what Democrats are willing to spend and sidestepped a question about whether Democrats will negotiate over physical barriers. Republican Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota left the meeting saying, "Everybody talked about the need for funding for a good, strong border security package — that means people, technology and a border barrier — so I'm hopeful we can get to a good solution." The clock is ticking to find a deal. Lawmakers only have until February 15 before government funding will once again expire and it is not yet clear they will find a deal to prevent yet another shutdown. Conference committee meetings are hardly known as blockbuster events on Capitol Hill. But with another shutdown at stake, the room was jam-packed with staffers and reporters from every major media outlet, as more reporters lined the hallways outside the room. Sen. Pat Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, acknowledged the attention surrounding the meeting. "Rarely has the work of our appropriations committee been watched as closely as it is today," the Vermont Democrat said during opening remarks. "The American people are depending on us to get our job done." Leahy said later in the day that he had a "huge amount of respect" for his fellow negotiators and that "if left to us, left to the grown-ups in the room, we could get it done in a couple hours." Following the first meeting, staffers will continue to work behind the scenes in an effort to broker a deal. Trump attempted to sway the debate hours before the meeting started, tweeting in the early morning, "If the committee of Republicans and Democrats now meeting on Border Security is not discussing or contemplating a Wall or Physical Barrier, they are Wasting their time!" Republican and Democratic congressional leaders urged Trump Wednesday to let the group do its work. Sen. John Thune, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said, "I think we ought to give them some room to negotiate this." When asked if Trump should stay out of the negotiations, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "He should sign the bill." "I think a conference committee can reach a good result left to its own devices without interference from anybody else," the California Democrat told CNN. "I have confidence in the appropriators." In a private meeting with freshman Democrats Wednesday, Pelosi did not draw a red line in the spending talks, saying she has faith in the conference negotiators to reach an agreement, according to two attendees. Pelosi also discussed poll numbers showing the President upside down on a number of issues, suggesting Democrats won the argument over the shutdown. The negotiators are 17 members of the House and Senate who serve on committees to appropriate government funding, dealmakers who rarely come from the hardline elements of either side of the party. Last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee came to a bipartisan agreement on a homeland security bill -- that included $1.6 billion in border security including funds for fencing and barrier repairs. But Trump has lately called for much more funding to build the wall. While the negotiators believe they could come up with a compromise, they went into the meeting not knowing how their respective party's leadership will ultimately shape the debate. "My goal would be to fund the government," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby earlier this week. The Alabama Republican added he couldn't "preclude" whether some immigration proposals, such as extending legal protections to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, would be negotiated because Trump, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky "might want to get involved." On Tuesday, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said that Congress could reach a deal, but "if the President has the last word, it may not be enough" to avert a shutdown. This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday.
|
Clare Foran
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/W5Sw0sZIOrc/index.html
|
2019-01-30 22:44:59+00:00
| 1,548,906,299 | 1,567,550,279 |
politics
|
government
|
105,817 |
cnn--2019-07-07--AOC hits back at Pelosi for knocking far-left lawmakers who voted against border bill
| 2019-07-07T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
AOC hits back at Pelosi for knocking far-left lawmakers who voted against border bill
|
Washington (CNN) Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit back at Nancy Pelosi after the House Speaker criticized her and three other far-left Democrats in Congress for voting against a Senate measure on border funding that President Donald Trump recently signed into law. Ocasio-Cortez argued that Democrats cannot trust the Trump administration not to divert money for humanitarian aid toward immigration enforcement -- a comment that comes after the President acknowledged that ICE raids would begin after the Fourth of July. "I don't believe it was a good idea for Dems to blindly trust the Trump admin when so many kids have died in their custody. It's a huge mistake," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Saturday echoing comments she made to CNN following the June vote on border funding. The New York Democrat was responding to remarks Pelosi made in an interview with the New York Times where Pelosi slammed four liberal members of Congress -- Ocasio-Cortez, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley -- who broke with moderates and voted against the bill. "All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world," Pelosi said in the interview with Times' columnist Maureen Dowd published Saturday. "But they didn't have any following. They're four people and that's how many votes they got." Pelosi had faced mounting pressure last month to get the $4.6 billion Senate bill passed to send emergency funds to the southern border amid a humanitarian crisis there. The vote in the House triggered outrage from progressives, including Ocasio-Cortez, who objected to the legislation because they felt it did not go far enough to include demands for stronger protections for migrant children, among other issues. Pelosi, on the other hand, believed it was the strongest bill that Congress could agree upon to pass. On Sunday, Tlaib responded to a comment Pelosi made in the Times that the progressive cohort made themselves "irrelevant to the process" by voting against the funding bill. "We know what it feels like to be dehumanized, we know what it feels like to be brown and black in this country," Tlaib said on ABC's "This Week," referring to the four singled-out congresswomen. "I honor the fact that we are there ... all of us have these experiences that I think have been missing in the halls of Congress. Honor that, respect that, put us at the table. Let's come up with a solution together," Tlaib said. "Still, I will not support anything that is broken and that dehumanizes people." "We have to have a solution, not just a Twitter fight," Pelosi told the Times. The White House had made it clear that it would veto the House version of the legislation. Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi appear to have differing views on the power of Twitter when it comes to politics. Ocasio-Cortez fired back at Pelosi, saying Saturday on Twitter, "I find it strange when members act as though social media isn't important," she tweeted. "I haven't dialed for dollars *once* this year & have more time to do my actual job. Yet we'd rather campaign like it's 2008." Omar also weighed in Sunday about Pelosi's comments.
|
Jamie Ehrlich
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/5W8wzximBlg/index.html
|
2019-07-07 16:54:37+00:00
| 1,562,532,877 | 1,567,536,586 |
politics
|
government
|
108,009 |
cnn--2019-11-30--Pelosi to lead group of Democratic lawmakers to UN climate change conference
| 2019-11-30T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
Pelosi to lead group of Democratic lawmakers to UN climate change conference
|
The House speaker on Saturday announced she will lead the congressional delegation to the UN COP25 environmental summit "to combat the existential threat of our time: the climate crisis." Pelosi did not specify which dates the group will attend the conference, which takes place from December 2-13 in Madrid. "On behalf of the United States Congress, I extend my gratitude to the Spanish government for hosting this critical meeting, and for elevating the priority of the climate crisis to the forefront of the international conversation," Pelosi said Saturday in a statement. Pelosi said she was proud to lead the congressional group -- which includes Florida Rep. Kathy Castor, who Pelosi tapped to lead the House's select committee on climate change -- "to reaffirm the commitment of the American people to combating the climate crisis." In May, the Democratic-led House passed the Climate Action Now Act , which aims to keep the US in the Paris climate agreement. Under the landmark agreement to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases, countries are supposed to increase their commitments to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases every five years -- with the first of these updated pledges submitted by the end of 2020. Those revised pledges will be a key focus of the UN COP25 summit.
| null |
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/2mQTHTerwW0/index.html
|
Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:08:29 GMT
| 1,575,155,309 | 1,575,159,014 |
politics
|
government
|
109,164 |
cnsnews--2019-01-15--Trump Invites Lawmakers to Lunch Stop Playing Political Games
| 2019-01-15T00:00:00 |
cnsnews
|
Trump Invites Lawmakers to Lunch; 'Stop Playing Political Games'
|
(CNSNews.com) - The border-wall/government funding impasse will be a main topic of discussion today when President Donald Trump has lunch with members of Congress at the White House. Later this afternoon, he will join a telephone briefing on the border crisis with state, local and community leaders. President Trump began this Tuesday with a number of tweets in defense of his call for a border wall. He also questioned why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is "getting paid when people who are working are not." "Polls are now showing that people are beginning to understand the Humanitarian Crisis and Crime at the Border," Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. "Numbers are going up fast, over 50%. Democrats will soon be known as the Party of Crime. Ridiculous that they don’t want Border Security!" "A big new Caravan is heading up to our Southern Border from Honduras. Tell Nancy and Chuck that a drone flying around will not stop them. Only a Wall will work. Only a Wall, or Steel Barrier, will keep our Country safe! Stop playing political games and end the Shutdown!" On Monday, President Trump suggested that "many" Democrats "are calling" and "many are breaking" when it comes to ending the stalemate. "I think maybe in his dreams he's gotten phone calls from Democrats," Rep Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) told CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday morning. "There's not a Democrat that I'm aware of in the House that would have called the president to say, I want to work with you and I want this wall to go up. There's not a Democrat that wants to see $5 billion wasted on a partial payment on a wall which would cost probably $60 billion when there's technology available to us that would do the job and do it much better than building a concrete or steel slatted fence." Host John Berman noted that Trump has invited some "moderate" Democrats to Tuesday's lunch at the White House. "Do you think Democratic members should meet with the president?" Berman asked Speier. "I think when the president calls, it is incumbent upon us to respect the office and to attend the meeting," Speier replied. "And if they have been asked, I would suggest that they go." "What do you think they should tell the president?" Berman asked. "I think they should tell the president he should cut his losses," Speier said. "He had a deal. It was supported by the Senate and the House. He has now caused so much disruption in the country that it's cost over $3.8 billion in lost revenues to businesses, people who are now struggling, who are federal employees. "This has got to come to an end. It's really very shameful. And I'm one of those that feels we've got to come up with a compromise that's a win-win for everybody right now." Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told Fox News on Tuesday he spoke with the president just yesterday, and "he's not budging." Kennedy called it "ludicrous" to think you can secure the entire Southwest border without a barrier. "And frankly, I don't understand why Speaker Pelosi is not tested more on her assertio that somehow a border wall...is ineffective and immoral. How's she going to seal a 1,900-mile border without using a barrier? Maybe she doesn't want to seal it," Kennedy said.
|
Susan Jones
|
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/trump-invites-lawmakers-lunch-stop-playing-political-games
|
2019-01-15 14:20:09+00:00
| 1,547,580,009 | 1,567,552,339 |
politics
|
government
|
127,180 |
dailyheraldchicago--2019-06-01--Lawmakers OK rushed balanced state budget capital plan with tax increases awaits votes
| 2019-06-01T00:00:00 |
dailyheraldchicago
|
Lawmakers OK rushed, balanced state budget; capital plan with tax increases awaits votes
|
SPRINGFIELD -- In a historic and busy day at the state Capitol, lawmakers released a $40.6 billion general revenue fund budget and a $45 billion capital spending plan Friday just 12 hours before the General Assembly's scheduled adjournment. The Illinois House approved a balanced, $40 billion state operating budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1 on a bipartisan vote before adjourning Friday night, pushing further action on a host of other issues to an impromptu Saturday morning session Funding for infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges would rely on an increase to the state's motor fuel tax and several other license and registration fee increases, and Cook County could add even more to the motor fuel tax. The House approved the budget, after a day of negotiating between Democrats and minority Republicans, before adjourning for the night, The Associated Press reported. The legislative leaders of each chamber had several meetings with Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker throughout the day as House Republicans withheld their votes while seeking concessions from Democrats. While House Speaker Michael Madigan announced the House session would extend through Sunday, Senate President John Cullerton reportedly had no plans to extend the Senate's stay at the Capitol. To take effect at the legislature's target dates, several key pieces of legislation would require three-fifths majorities, as opposed to simple majorities, if they were not passed by midnight Friday. But Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly. Minority Leader Jim Durkin, a Western Springs Republican, called the budget "a start" to progress in Illinois that is "fair" to taxpayers and businesses. "Because we worked together and we made some concessions, both sides tonight, we're able to say that we have a balanced budget for this FY 20 year," he said. Durkin said several business-centric measures requested by Republicans are expected to be approved Saturday. Business-backed measures released with Demmer's afternoon statement include tax incentives aimed at enticing data centers to locate in Illinois; eliminating reporting of the retailer's discount in the comptroller's tax expenditure report; eliminating the franchise tax; reinstating the manufacturers purchase credit; and a "Blue Collar Jobs Act to help attract large-scale projects." Republican Rep. David McSweeney, however, said he was not happy with the limited debate or the contents of the budget bill, calling Durkin a "failed leader" that is "in bed with the Democrats." "Republicans and Democrats got together in a closed room and put together a budget that is at least $1 billion over what the governor himself requested," he said. "There's no provision for controlling spending. There's no pension reform. There's no Medicaid reform. There's actually no reduction in spending." McSweeney, of Barrington Hills, said few if any lawmakers had time to read the 1,581 pages in the appropriations bill, which was released at noon, less than 10 hours before it was passed. The General Revenue Fund spending in the fiscal year 2020 budget is estimated at $39.9 billion. An added $600 million in supplemental spending for fiscal year 2019, most of which will go to paying back pay for step increases to state employee salaries that former Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner withheld, would bring the total to about $40.6 billion. The budget includes $375 million in added state funding for K-12 education, $25 million more than is mandated by the state's evidence-based funding formula. It also increases mandated categorical funding for K-12 education by $47.3 million, bringing expenditures in that area to $928.8 million. Funding for early childhood education would increase by $50 million, up to $543.7 million. Higher education will see an increase by $134 million over fiscal year 2019 levels, increasing to $1.94 billion. The increase would include $50 million more than last year for Monetary Award Grant funding and 5% increases to state university and college operations. The Department of Human Services, the Department on Aging, and the Department of Children and Family Services would all see rate increases to cover the state's increase to the minimum wage. Overall, human service departments would see an increase of $567 million from last year's budget. General revenue funding for DCFS would increase by $89 million from fiscal year 2019, bringing the total up to $845 million. The agency is reeling from criticism over its inability to save three children in its care who have died this year. An ambitious infrastructure spending package would fund billions of dollars of backlogged road and bridge projects as well as vertical projects at schools, state higher education facilities and other state-owned buildings. It has been more than 10 years since the state last had a capital plan, leading to crumbling roads, bridges and other state infrastructure. More than 2,300 bridges are deemed structurally deficient, and the American Society of Civil Engineers gave Illinois transportation infrastructure a D grade. The plan released Friday included $45 billion in spending, with $10.7 billion going to pay-as-you-go projects, $20.6 billion for bonded capital projects, $10 billion in federal funding and $2.6 billion to local governments for infrastructure projects. That bill would allocate $33.2 billion for transportation projects including roads and bridges, $3.5 billion for education infrastructure projects, $4.3 billion for state facilities, $1.2 billion for environmental conservation projects, $420 million for broadband expansion and $465 million for health care and human services facilities. The infrastructure spending is encompassed in House Bill 62, and it is made possible by increased transportation-related taxes and fees, a massive gambling expansion and other measures. An increase to the state's per-gallon gas tax to 38 cents from 19 cents indexed each year at the consumer price index would generate $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2020. An additional 5-cent increase on diesel fuel would generate $78 million. Cook County municipalities would be allowed to add a 3-cent tax on top of the state-issued motor fuel tax. A $50 increase to vehicle registration fees, bumping them up to $151 for most vehicles, would generate $475 million. Electric vehicle registrations would cost $251, with the standard vehicle fee plus $100 replacing what would have been generated by gas usage. That would create an estimated $4 million in revenue. An increase to title registration fees would generate $146 million in revenue, and $50 million in revenue would result from a $100 increase to truck registrations. The bill also shifts 1% of revenues generated from a separate sales tax on motor fuel to the road fund. The measure is House Bill 3096, and any funds raised from the motor fuel tax and licensing fees would be required to be spent on road and bridge safety due to a "lock box" amendment passed by voters in 2016.
| null |
http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20190601/lawmakers-ok-rushed-balanced-state-budget-capital-plan-with-tax-increases-awaits-votes
|
2019-06-01 05:01:29+00:00
| 1,559,379,689 | 1,567,539,493 |
politics
|
government
|
127,437 |
dailyheraldchicago--2019-06-20--The Latest Lawmakers getting briefed on Iran at White House
| 2019-06-20T00:00:00 |
dailyheraldchicago
|
The Latest: Lawmakers getting briefed on Iran at White House
|
WASHINGTON -- The Latest on the United States and Iran (all times local): Top administration officials and lawmakers are arriving at the White House for a briefing about Iran's downing of an American surveillance drone in the Middle East amid mounting tension between the U.S. and Iran. The White House invited House and Senate leaders of both parties and Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate intelligence and Armed Services committees to meet with President Donald Trump on Thursday. It's unclear if Trump is planning a U.S. response. He told reporters that Iran made a "very big mistake" but also said he has the feeling that it might have been the result of someone being "loose" or doing something "stupid." Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Army Secretary Mark Esper, who Trump has said he'll nominate as defense secretary, also arrived for the meeting. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden says that President Donald Trump has made military conflict with Iran more likely and that "another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need." Biden made the remarks Thursday as tensions between Washington and Tehran escalated over the downing of an American drone over Iranian airspace. Biden says Trump's strategy in Iran is "a self-inflicted disaster" since Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated when Biden was vice president. Biden says there's no question that Iran "continues to be a bad actor that abuses human rights and supports terrorist activities." But he says the U.S. needs presidential leadership at this moment. Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand is demanding that President Donald Trump abstain from sending American troops into a conflict with Iran without congressional approval. The New York senator outlined her position in a sharply worded letter to the White House on Thursday. Gillibrand writes that she's "deeply concerned that your administration's stepped up military presence in the Middle East, in conjunction with your dangerous and confusing rhetoric, may lead the United States into a protracted, costly, and unnecessary war with Iran. Such a war is not authorized, would unnecessarily risk the lives of Americans and our allies, cause enormous human suffering, and destabilize the economy." Gillibrand's position is not unique in her party, but she becomes one of the first Democratic presidential candidates to share her concerns with the White House directly. The White House is inviting House and Senate leaders for a briefing with President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon to discuss tensions with Iran. That's according to two people familiar with the invitation who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. In addition to House and Senate leaders of both parties, the White House extended the invitation to the top Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate intelligence and Armed Services committees. The briefing comes after Iran's Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. surveillance drone. Trump said it might have been a mistake executed by someone just being "loose and stupid" and was coy about whether the U.S. would respond. He told reporters, "you'll find out." President Donald Trump is playing down Iran's downing of an American drone, saying that it might have been a mistake executed by someone just being "loose and stupid." Trump told reporters Thursday that the shoot down of the drone was a "new wrinkle" in escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran - a "fly in the ointment." He was coy about whether the U.S. would respond, saying only that "you'll find out." He said he has a feeling that it was a mistake - that a "general or somebody" made a mistake in shooting that drone down. But he added that Iran made a "big mistake" and that the U.S. "will not stand for it." Trump's words appear to signal that there may not be an immediate U.S. response to the incident. President Donald Trump says Iran made a "very big mistake" when it shot down a U.S. drone, but he isn't saying how the U.S. plans to respond, saying only "you're going to find out." Trump is speaking to reporters while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as tensions between Washington and Tehran escalated over the downing of the drone, the U.S. exit from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and sanctions crippling Iran's economy. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it shot down the drone over Iranian airspace. The U.S. military is calling the downing an "unprovoked attack" and said it occurred over international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump said: "It was in international waters." Iran's Revolutionary Guard says it shot down the RQ-4 Global Hawk drone over Iranian airspace. A senior U.S. military official says Iran shot down an unmanned American aircraft over international waters in an attempt to disrupt U.S. efforts to monitor the Persian Gulf area. Air Force Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella says the shooting down of the drone follows recent threats to international shipping commerce in the region that the U.S. has blamed on Iran. The commander of U.S. Central Command air forces in the region disputed Iranian claims that the drone was over Iranian air space. Guastella told reporters Thursday that the aircraft was at high altitude and at least 34 kilometers from Iranian territory when it was shot over the Gulf of Oman. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the U.S. cannot be "reckless" amid rising tensions with Iran. Pelosi said Thursday she doesn't think President Donald Trump wants to go to war. And she said the American people don't want war either. "There's no appetite for going to war in our country," she said. The country needs to be "strong and strategic" about protecting its interests, Pelosi said, and "cannot be reckless." Pelosi called a caucus-wide meeting of Democrats for later Thursday on Iran. House and Senate leadership will also be briefed by administration officials. Tensions between Tehran and Washington have been rising over the collapsing nuclear deal with world powers. On Thursday, Iran's Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. surveillance drone. President Donald Trump declared Thursday that "Iran made a very big mistake" in shooting down a U.S. drone. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders says Trump was briefed Wednesday night and again Thursday morning about the incident. She says the administration also will keep in touch with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Trump made his comment on Twitter in midmorning. American and Iranian officials are disputing the circumstances of the incident. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it shot down the drone over Iranian airspace. The U.S. military is calling the downing an "unprovoked attack" and said it occurred over international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz.
| null |
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20190620/news/306209893/
|
2019-06-20 18:31:00+00:00
| 1,561,069,860 | 1,567,538,648 |
politics
|
government
|
127,683 |
dailyheraldchicago--2019-06-28--Supreme Court refuses to intervene in gerrymandering cases What Illinois lawmakers want to do
| 2019-06-28T00:00:00 |
dailyheraldchicago
|
Supreme Court refuses to intervene in gerrymandering cases: What Illinois lawmakers want to do
|
Saying it's none of its business, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that partisan gerrymandering of congressional and state legislative districts will be allowed to continue. The case involved a Republican-drawn congressional district map in North Carolina and a legislative district drawn by Democrats in Maryland. But Illinois leaders and "fair map" advocates were following the case closely because of the state's own long-documented history with rigging political district maps to help a specific party. Madeleine Doubek, executive director of CHANGE Illinois, a nonpartisan anti-gerrymandering government research group, called the Supreme Court's decision a "failure of their duty." "And they were cowardly in their refusal to protect the concept of one person, one vote," Doubek said. "But that ought to make all of us more committed than ever to advocate on our own behalf." State Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican, urged his legislative counterparts to approve a joint constitutional amendment that he said will "create a new, nonpartisan system for drawing maps." "A healthy democracy requires competitive elections and new ideas, which is in the people's best interest," Brady said. "We need to take the power of drawing legislative maps away from politicians and put it in the hands of the people." A supermajority of state senators in Illinois have signed on as sponsors of a constitutional amendment to depoliticize the map-drawing process. If approved by a three-fifths majority of both chambers of the legislature and then voters, a special commission would be created to draw the district map. It would be made up of seven Democrats, seven Republicans and two non-politically affiliated nominees chosen by the Illinois Supreme Court chief justice and the most senior justice from the opposing party, state officials said. Ultimately, Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan would have to call for a vote on the constitutional amendment. Madigan fought such a plan just a few years ago that would have wrested control of the state's political map drawing process from him. "I believe it makes it more urgent than ever that all of us rise up and pressure the parties that be to take this up," Doubek said. Critics of Illinois' current system often point to the state's 4th Congressional District, which contains two large chunks of Chicago's northwest and southwest neighborhoods sandwiching the 7th District. It's often referred to as the "Pac-Man" district because it looks like the 4th District is eating the 7th District. Thursday's Supreme Court ruling dealt a huge blow to efforts to combat the redrawing of district lines to benefit a particular party. Voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court. Federal courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes, he said. "We have never struck down a partisan gerrymander as unconstitutional -- despite various requests over the past 45 years. The expansion of judicial authority would not be into just any area of controversy, but into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life," Roberts wrote. The decision, on the last day before the justices' long summer break, has no effect on racial gerrymandering challenges. Courts have barred redistricting aimed at reducing the political representation of racial minorities for a half-century. But the outcome brings an immediate halt to lawsuits that sought to rein in the most partisan districting plans that can result when one party controls a state's legislature and governor's office. In the short term, Republicans are the prime beneficiaries of the ruling. They made dramatic political gains in the 2010 election just before the last round of redistricting, so they have controlled the process in many states. Democratic voters had persuaded lower courts to strike down districting plans in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin. The one Republican suit came in Maryland, against a single congressional district. Redistricting will next take place in 2021, once 2020 census results are available. In a dissent for the four liberals, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, "For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities." Kagan, in mournful tones, read a summary of her dissent in court to emphasize her disagreement. Partisan gerrymandering at its most extreme "amounts to 'rigging elections,'" Kagan wrote, quoting retired Justice Anthony Kennedy in a case from 2004. The practice allows politicians to "cherry-pick voters to ensure their re-election," she wrote. • The Associated Press contributed to this report.
| null |
http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20190627/supreme-court-refuses-to-intervene-in-gerrymandering-cases-what-illinois-lawmakers-want-to-do
|
2019-06-28 04:08:03+00:00
| 1,561,709,283 | 1,567,537,783 |
politics
|
government
|
132,154 |
dailymail--2019-04-17--Trump demands lawmakers return from their Vacations to work on an immigration overhaul
| 2019-04-17T00:00:00 |
dailymail
|
Trump demands lawmakers 'return from their Vacations' to work on an immigration overhaul
|
Donald Trump demanded Wednesday that lawmakers end a congressional recess and come back to Washington to work on an immigration overhaul. 'Democrats in Congress must return from their Vacations and change the Immigration Laws, or the Border, despite the great job being done by Border Patrol, will only get worse. Big sections of Wall now being built!' he said. Legislators are working are working from their districts, and in some cases traveling abroad with their families or congressional delegations, in the lead-up to Easter Sunday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in Dublin, wrapping up a trip to the U.K and Ireland. The president usually leaves town later in the week to spend the Christian holiday at his Palm Beach resort with family and friends and was expected to make the trip again this year, assuming the release of the Mueller report doesn't get in his way. Attorney General William Barr says he'll release the redacted report on Thursday, creating a mad dash to read the 400-page document and review the special counsel's determination that that no one in the Trump campaign committed criminal collusion. Trump's tweet on Wednesday morning about immigration reform - something he knows isn't going to happen over a holiday that's celebrated by most Americans and almost all of his base - was his second attempt to compel legislators to come back. He made a similar plea on Monday morning, after watching a '60 Minutes' special on Pelosi, who was in London at the time. 'Congress should come back to D.C. now and FIX THE IMMIGRATION LAWS!' he insisted. The President has the power, under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, to call a special session of the Congress any time he chooses. So far, he has not opted to override Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican. Instead, he has harped about immigration on Twitter from the White House as he awaits the release of Mueller's final report on the Russian-led conspiracy to meddle in the 2016 election. The president claimed in a Monday tweet that illegal immigrants the Department of Homeland Security cannot keep in custody will be transported to cities that promote themselves as safe spaces for migrants without papers. 'Those Illegal Immigrants who can no longer be legally held (Congress must fix the laws and loopholes) will be, subject to Homeland Security, given to Sanctuary Cities and States!' he said. DHS has not formally announced such a policy since, nor has it responded to requests for comment on the topic. Trump made building a border wall and stemming the tide of illegal immigrants a key promise of his 2016 campaign. But as his 2020 re-election bid gets closer, his wall remains unfunded by Congress. He declared a national emergency to get the money but he will not be able to finish the border barrier before the next presidential election. Even if he does, his administration has admitted that it won't totally solve the immigration problems the president has been raging about. That will take additional legislation from Congress and new Department of Homeland Security regulations. Trump fired his Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen a week ago as he moved to put immigration hardliners in charge of it. He insisted Monday, at a tax day event, that American immigration laws are 'horrible and foolish' and they allow thugs to claim asylum. 'It's a big con job that's what it is,' he contended. 'And Congress has to get smart. and when I say Congress, I can't blame the Republicans. The Republicans want to do it.' He noted that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass most bills and Democrats currently control the House. The president predicted in Minnesota, he state he lost in the 2016 election, that immigration would be a winning issue for him. 'We can retake the House,' he said. 'We can retake the House.' He said last week that the White House was considering alternative ideas - such as dumping illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities - to control where migrants roam after they're mandatory release from government custody. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Sunday that Trump likes an administration plan to send them to sanctuary cities and called it a win 'everybody' as she appeared on Sunday morning news programs. 'The president likes the idea and Democrats have said they want these individuals into their communities so let's see if it works and everybody gets a win out of it,' she said on ABC's 'This Week.' The president confirmed that he was 'strongly' considering the measure, after the Washington Post reported on a plan to send immigrants in custody to the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Trump also made clear he intends to target the immigrants in U.S. custody in the home-states and districts of his political rivals – despite statements by his staff that it was not in the offing. 'California is always saying 'We want more people.' We will give them a lot. We will give them an unlimited supply,' Trump said Friday. Pelosi's office blasted his idea. 'Using human beings - including little children - as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable,' said Pelosi spokeswoman Ashley Etienne said in statement Friday. Sanders said the White House has explored a number of options to stop illegal immigrants from coming over the U.S.-Mexico border. She added that the sanctuary cities option would not be a top choice. 'We talked about a number of different things over the last two years that we'd love to see happen. Certainly, this wouldn't be our first choice because ideally we wouldn't be dealing with the massive influx of illegal immigrants coming across the border, the crisis that we have both from a national security and humanitarian standpoint,' she told ABC News. She said if immigrants were released into sanctuary cities it would be because of the Democrats. 'If Democrats continue to be unwilling to do that, then we're going to look at all of our options and we don't want to put all of the burden on one or two border communities. And Democrats have stated time and time again they support open borders, they support sanctuary cities. So, let's spread out some of that burden and let's put it in some of those other locations if that's what they want to see happen and are refusing to actually help fix the problem,' she said. Sanders also sought to unravel a situation in which White House staff and the president had been contradicting one another. 'This was raised at a staff level initially and pushed back on. The president wants us to explore again, so that is being done and they're doing a complete and thorough review. But again, the big thing is, if Democrats, including the mayors and members of Congress in these communities want these individuals, they should be helping the president frankly look for solutions to bring them to their communities instead of fighting that president every step of the way,' she said on 'Fox News Sunday.' Trump said last week in tweets that the idea was indeed under consideration. 'Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only,' Trump wrote, confirming a story in the Washington Post, an outlet he often attacks as part of the 'fake news.' 'The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!' Trump said. By adding the word 'only,' the president provided a new detail to the plan. Although the paper had reported top aides pushed the idea with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it did not say sanctuary cities would be the only location where his administration would ship the illegal immigrants. He also took a different tack than the White House, which shortly before his tweet downplayed the idea. 'The idea was briefly and informally raised and quickly rejected, according to a White House statement, the Washington Post reported. A White House statement in the original story said: 'This was a suggestion that was floated and rejected, which ended any further discussion.' Trump denied a separate claim from two other news outlets that he offered to pardon his acting DHS secretary if he violates U.S. immigration law. 'I never offered Pardons to Homeland Security Officials, never ordered anyone to close our Southern Border (although I have the absolute right to do so, and may if Mexico does not apprehend the illegals coming to our Border), and am not 'frustrated.' It is all Fake & Corrupt News!,' he said in a Saturday tweet. Sanders also said Sunday that President Trump did not tell the top border agent he would pardon him if he arrested for enforcing policies to stop immigrants. 'We're a country of laws and we have a president who supports that and is not asking anybody to do anything outside of those bounds. In fact, he's asking Congress to step up and give greater legal standing so they can do more to stop this crisis. No one's trying to skirt the law and certainly not being encouraged by the president to do so,' she said on ABC's 'This Week.' CNN and The New York Times reported last week that the president - during an earlier visit to the border - offered Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan a pardon should he be arrested for enforcing any policy to keep out immigrants that ran afoul of the law. Sanders slammed a source of the story, picking a fight with Trump nemesis CNN. 'I don't know about you, but CNN isn't usually my first stop for a good source, particularly not when it comes to this president. The president is actually the president trying to enforce laws not go around them,' she said. Sanders said the president has asked border agents to do 'everything they are allowed to do under the law. 'It's the same thing he says publicly day in and day out. It's the same thing he says behind closed doors to staff, is figure out how we stop this crisis, how we fix this problem,' she said on 'Fox News Sunday.' The president was reported to have told McAleenan he 'would pardon him if he ever went to jail for denying US entry to migrants,' according to the CNN report, which said the comment was paraphrased. Trump allegedly dangled the offer on his visit to the border town of Calexico, amid a looming staff shakeup at DHS that would leave McAleenan in charge temporarily. The network sourced the report to two officials briefed on the exchange, and said it was unclear if it was intended as a joke. Trump met with McAleenan during a border visit, where he railed against immigration and declared the nation 'full' and unable to take any additional people. 'The system is full. Can't take you anymore. Whether it's asylum, whether it's anything you want, it's illegal immigration. We can't take you anymore, Trump said. 'We can't take you. Our country is full. Our area is full. The sector is full. Can't take you anymore, I'm sorry. Can't happen. So turn around. That's the way it is,' he said. After mentioning the Border Patrol at the event, Trump mentioned backstage conversations, where he expressed a hint of defeatism about the existing laws. 'And I was telling some of the people before: If it's full, there's nothing you can do about it. We have some horrible court decisions that have been made over the years. It's very unfair and that's the way it is.' 'But the system is full. And when it's full, there's nothing you can do. You have to say, 'I'm sorry, we can't take you.' We've been trying to take people, and I have to disagree with it. We've been trying to take people and you can't do it. You can't do it. So we're going to look at that and we're going to look at it very, very strongly,' Trump said. As the acting head McAleenan does not need Senate confirmation, although he could be required to testify before Congress on budget matters or as his role as head of the Border Patrol. This would give lawmakers an opportunity to ask him about the reported exchange under oath.
| null |
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6932001/Trump-demands-lawmakers-return-Vacations-work-immigration-overhaul.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
|
2019-04-17 13:03:36+00:00
| 1,555,520,616 | 1,567,542,646 |
politics
|
government
|
135,304 |
dailymail--2019-10-30--Purple Heart colonel told lawmakers there WAS a quid pro quo linking military aid to a Biden probe
| 2019-10-30T00:00:00 |
dailymail
|
Purple Heart colonel told lawmakers there WAS a quid pro quo linking military aid to a Biden probe
|
White House Ukraine expert Alexander Vindman told lawmakers he became convinced that President Trump was personally holding up $400 million in aid for Ukraine to force the country into announcing that it was investigating 2020 presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son. CNN reported Wednesday that Vindman, who sat down for a deposition on Capitol Hill Tuesday, was convinced that a quid pro quo existed by July 10, which was before the now-infamous July 25 call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman also told lawmakers, according to Politico, that he planned to debrief Trump on Zelenksy's May inauguration, but was instructed 'at the last second' not to attend because advisers worried it might confuse the president. Trump, Vindman said, was under the impression that the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert was Kash Patel, a longtime staffer of Rep. Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee's top Republican. Vindman's boss, NSC Senior director for European and Russian affairs Fiona Hill told Vindman that she and national security adviser John Bolton decided to keep Vindman out of the meeting to avoid 'an uncomfortable' situation. Vindman said Patel 'misrepresented' himself as a Ukraine expert, Politico reported. The president began his day on Twitter swinging at Vindman, an active-duty Army lieutenant colonel who was awarded a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq, saying he had 'never heard of' him but insisting he is a 'Never Trumper.' But hours in, Vindman's testimony was already alarming Democratic members of Congress. Acting chair of the Oversight Committee, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, called it 'extremely disturbing,' NBC News reported. During the closed-door questioning by lawmakers in a secure room used by the House Intelligence Committee, Republicans and Democrats clashed. Democrats, led by panel chair Rep. Adam Schiff, accused Republicans of trying to use the interview to out the whistle-blower who first brought forward claims of an alleged effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, using military aid and a White House meeting as leverage. 'It's very hard to out somebody that you don't know who they are,' Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a Trump ally, told DailyMail.com, denying the charge. 'In general, you want to know who your witnesses have talked to about certain information that they're sharing. And that's the extent of the conversation,' he said. He said he wanted to know 'whomever they've talked to.' Even as he denied trying to unmask the whistle-blower though stoked the impeachment inquiry, Meadows said he had a high amount of certainty of who it might be. 'This was just some questions about who did you talked to, and [Democrats] got all weirded out because they thought we were going to out somebody that we have no knowledge of who they are,' he said. 'If I had a degree of certainty of who the whistle-blower is, I promise you I would tell you. I have no idea who it is. Well, I have an idea, but I don’t – I’m less than 80 per cent confident,' he continued. 'I think there’s three or four people it could be.' 'I don’t do anything without a hundred per cent knowledge. It’s not 100, I’m not going to say it,' he concluded. Vindman told investigators Tuesday that he listened to Donald Trump's call with Ukraine's new president Volodymr Zelensky and 'did not think it was proper' - potentially a huge boost to the Democrats' impeachment inquiry. The White House also ordered the officer not to testify, prompting the House Intelligence Committee to issue a subpoena directing him to give evidence. Vindman testified that he twice raised concerns over the Trump administration's interest in having Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son. He is the first White House official to say he heard the July 25 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry. House Republican conference chair Rep. Liz Cheney blasted 'shameful' questioning of Vindman's patriotism after attacks from Trump allies. Cheney, a Wyoming Republican and the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, issued her public admonition hours after high-profile conservative commentators sought to discredit Vindman before his testimony – with a former top Bush administration comparing him to a spy. 'I also want to say a word about something else that's been going on over the last couple of hours, and last night, which I think is also shameful, and that is questioning the patriotism, questioning the dedication to country, of people like Mr. Vindman – Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who will be coming today – and others who have testified,' Cheney said at a House leadership press conference. She spoke after former top Bush Administration official John Yoo even compared some of Vindman's activities on the National Security Council to 'espionage.' Former Wisconsin GOP Rep. Sean Duffy joined in the attack, saying on CNN Tuesday about Vindman: 'It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense. I don't know that he's concerned about American policy ... we all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from ... he has an affinity for the Ukraine.' Vindman arrived at the Capitol wearing his dress uniform, displaying his Purple Heart and a series of other decorations for his service. He was due to tell lawmakers he was a Ukrainian-born Jewish refugee who had lived 'the American dream' by serving his country in combat and as a diplomat. Trump vented just before Lt. Col. Vindman arrived that that a transcript of the call makes it clear he did nothing wrong, and that Vindman is an unimportant figure who never crossed paths with him. 'Why are people that I never even heard of testifying about the call. Just READ THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND THE IMPEACHMENT HOAX IS OVER! Ukrain [sic] said NO PRESSURE,' Trump tweeted. But calling Vindman a 'Never Trumper' came as pro-Trump pundits were attacked by other Republicans for questioning Lt. Col Vindman's patriotism, with one Fox News commentator going as far as to accuse him of 'espionage' against the president. The officer was to testify that he is explicitly not the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint about the call launched a now weeks-long chapter in the impeachment saga. 'The Impeachment Hoax is a disgrace. Read the transcript!' Trump added in another message. Trump used the same 'never Trumper' insult to go after career diplomat William Taylor, who said in his own deposition that the was troubled by the administration's push to get Ukraine to make public statements about investigations that would help the president in order to get military aid and a White House meeting. Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call with Trump to take action. The transcript doesn't appear to support Democrats' contention that Trump directly linked U.S. military aid to Ukraine with Zelensky's decision on launching an investigation that could give the president a political advantage in 2020. Trump followed up his social media outrage with a string of retweets of congressional allies calling the entire impeachment inquiry illegitimate because of its secretive and one-sided beginning. In his opening statement, first published by The New York Times, Vindman claimed the National Security Council proposed that Trump call President Zelensky to congratulate him after his party won parliamentary elections. He explained: 'On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. 'As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said. I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine. 'I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.' Burisma Holdings is the Ukrainian energy company where Biden's son Hunter held a lucrative board seat while his father was vice president. 'I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. Vindman claimed: 'This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel.' The New York Times reported that Vindman is due to be interviewed privately on Tuesday by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees. Vindman served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and was deployed to Iraq for combat operations. He was wounded in an IED attack and was subsequently awarded a Purple Heart. He served in United States' embassies in Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow, Russia. In Washington, D.C., he was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before his appointment to the NSC. In his statement he adds: 'I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics.' Vindman is due to tell the committee that he is not the whistle-blower who brought the issue to the CIA and the Committees' attention. He also claimed he never had direct contact or communications with the President. 'I did convey certain concerns internally to National Security officials in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to operate within the chain of command. 'As an active duty military officer, the command structure is extremely important to me.' Vindman said there was another incident which he thought was improper and he reported it to the National Security Council's lead counsel. He claimed that on July 10, Oleksandr Danylyuk, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor John Bolton. He said that Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, and Kurt Volker, who resigned as U.S. special envoy to Ukraine earlier this month, were also in attendance. In his testimony he claimed the Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner. 'Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short. 'Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. 'I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. 'Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.' Vindman is married with one child and has a twin brother named Eugene, who also serves in the military. It is understood he is a lawyer in the National Security Council. In his statement, Alexander claimed his family fled the Soviet Union when he was three. Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, his father worked multiple jobs to support them while learning English at night. The Trump campaign has alleged that Biden quashed a Ukrainian investigation into Burisma, where Biden's son Hunter served on the board from 2014 until earlier this year, using the threat of withholding U.S. foreign aid. Biden has denied any wrongdoing, and Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian president asking him to look into the matter is at the heart of House Democrats' mounting impeachment probe into Trump. Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump's personal attorney, claimed earlier this month that Ukrainian gas company Burisma paid Joe Biden $900,000 in lobbying fees, citing documents released by a Ukrainian member of parliament. 'Biden, his son and his brother had a 30-year-long scam to make money, millions, selling his public office,' Giuliani said in an interview on Wednesday night with Fox News host Sean Hannity. The interview with Giuliani was just hours after Biden backed the impeachment of Trump for the first time. 'Senator first, vice president second. Ukraine, just the tip of the iceberg,' Giuliani continued. Giuliani cited new allegations raised at a press conference in Kyiv by Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach, who claimed he had investigative documents showing that Burisma paid Biden nearly a million dollars in lobbying fees. In his concluding remarks, Vindman said it is vital that the U.S. and Ukraine remain 'stragetic partners' with a relationship that is rooted in the idea that free citizens should be able to exercise their democratic rights, choose their own destiny, and live in peace. He adds: 'It has been a great honor to serve the American people and a privilege to work in the White House and on the National Security Council. I hope to continue to serve and advance America' s national security interests.' Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced there will be a vote this week on a resolution to affirm the impeachment investigation, set rules for public hearings and outline the potential process for writing articles of impeachment against Trump. Pelosi told colleagues Monday in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that the vote will 'eliminate any doubt' about whether the Trump administration must comply with the investigation. Republicans argue the impeachment probe is not legitimate unless the House takes a vote to authorize it. Pelosi disputes that view as having 'no merit.' The White House released the bombshell transcript of President Donald Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine where Trump urges his counterpart to investigate Joe Biden and work directly with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani – and even brings up the DNC's hacked email server. But the transcript does not show Trump tying the investigation to aid for Ukraine as he spoke to Zelensky, the quid pro quo which some reports had suggested it contained. The call forms part of the whistle-blower complaint from an unknown intelligence official which alleges a pattern of wrongdoing by the president in his dealings with Ukraine, but which has been blocked from being given to Congress. In the call, the president mentions political rival Biden by name, seeks an inquiry into a company tied to Biden's surviving son, Hunter, and predicts Ukraine's economy will do 'better and better' - but does not explicitly tie the United States' aid to the country to the investigation he demands. He urges the president to contact Giuliani, who this summer called off a planned mission to Ukraine after bringing up a Ukrainian energy company where Hunter Biden served on the board. 'There is a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,' Trump says, according to the transcript. 'Biden went about bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... it sounds horrible to me,' the president told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Ukrainian president assured Trump: 'The next prosecutor general will be 100 per cent my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start. As a new prosecutor in September. 'He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation.'
| null |
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7632511/Purple-Heart-colonel-told-lawmakers-quid-pro-quo-linking-military-aid-Biden-probe.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
|
Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:59:02 GMT
| 1,572,490,742 | 1,572,535,976 |
politics
|
government
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.