Month: December 2023

Trump is blocked from the ballot in two states. Can he still run for president?

Posted on by Associated Press

First, Colorado's Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump wasn't eligible to run for his old job in that state. Then, Maine's Democratic secretary of state ruled the same for her state. Who's next?

Both decisions are historic. The Colorado court was the first court to apply to a presidential candidate a rarely used constitutional ban against those who “engaged in insurrection.” Maine's secretary of state was the first top election official to unilaterally strike a presidential candidate from the ballot under that provision.

But both decisions are on hold while the legal process plays out.

That means that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado and Maine and that his political fate is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Maine ruling will likely never take effect on its own. Its central impact is increasing pressure on the nation's highest court to say clearly: Can Trump still run for president after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol?

WHAT'S THE LEGAL ISSUE?

After the Civil War, the U.S. ratified the 14th Amendment to guarantee rights to former slaves and more. It also included a two-sentence clause called Section 3, designed to keep former Confederates from regaining government power after the war.

The measure reads:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Congress did remove that disability from most Confederates in 1872, and the provision fell into disuse. But it was rediscovered after Jan. 6.

HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO TRUMP?

Trump is already being prosecuted for the attempt to overturn his 2020 loss that culminated with Jan. 6, but Section 3 doesn't require a criminal conviction to take effect. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed to disqualify Trump, claiming he engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6 and is no longer qualified to run for office.

All the suits failed until the Colorado ruling. And dozens of secretaries of state have been asked to remove him from the ballot. All said they didn't have the authority to do so without a court order — until Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' decision.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on Section 3. It's likely to do so in considering appeals of the Colorado decision — the state Republican Party has already appealed, and Trump is expected to file his own shortly. Bellows' ruling cannot be appealed straight to the U.S. Supreme Court — it has to be appealed up the judicial chain first, starting with a trial court in Maine.

The Maine decision does force the high court's hand, though. It was already highly likely the justices would hear the Colorado case, but Maine removes any doubt.

Trump lost Colorado in 2020, and he doesn't need to win it again to garner an Electoral College majority next year. But he won one of Maine's four Electoral College votes in 2020 by winning the state's 2nd Congressional District, so Bellows' decision would have a direct impact on his odds next November.

Until the high court rules, any state could adopt its own standard on whether Trump, or anyone else, can be on the ballot. That's the sort of legal chaos the court is supposed to prevent.

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE?

Trump's lawyers have several arguments against the push to disqualify him. First, it's not clear Section 3 applies to the president — an early draft mentioned the office, but it was taken out, and the language “an officer of the United States” elsewhere in the Constitution doesn't mean the president, they contend.

Second, even if it does apply to the presidency, they say, this is a “political” question best decided by voters, not unelected judges. Third, if judges do want to get involved, the lawyers assert, they're violating Trump's rights to a fair legal procedure by flatly ruling he's ineligible without some sort of fact-finding process like a lengthy criminal trial. Fourth, they argue, Jan. 6 wasn't an insurrection under the meaning of Section 3 — it was more like a riot. Finally, even if it was an insurrection, they say, Trump wasn't involved in it — he was merely using his free speech rights.

Of course, the lawyers who want to disqualify Trump have arguments, too. The main one is that the case is actually very simple: Jan. 6 was an insurrection, Trump incited it, and he's disqualified.

WHAT'S TAKEN SO LONG?

The attack was three years ago, but the challenges weren't “ripe,” to use the legal term, until Trump petitioned to get onto state ballots this fall.

But the length of time also gets at another issue — no one has really wanted to rule on the merits of the case. Most judges have dismissed the lawsuits because of technical issues, including that courts don't have the authority to tell parties whom to put on their primary ballots. Secretaries of state have dodged, too, usually telling those who ask them to ban Trump that they don't have the authority to do so unless ordered by a court.

No one can dodge anymore. Legal experts have cautioned that, if the Supreme Court doesn't clearly resolve the issue, it could lead to chaos in November — or in January 2025, if Trump wins the election. Imagine, they say, if the high court ducks the issue or says it's not a decision for the courts to make, and Democrats win a narrow majority in Congress. Would they seat Trump or declare he's ineligible under Section 3?

WHY DID MAINE DO THIS?

Maine has an unusual process in which a secretary of state is required to hold a public hearing on challenges to politicians' spots on the ballot and then issue a ruling. Multiple groups of Maine voters, including a bipartisan clutch of former state lawmakers, filed such a challenge, triggering Bellows' decision.

Bellows is a Democrat, the former head of the Maine chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and has a long trail of criticism of Trump on social media. Trump's attorneys asked her to recuse herself from the case, citing posts calling Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and bemoaning Trump's acquittal in his impeachment trial over the attack.

She refused, saying she wasn't ruling based on personal opinions. But the precedent she sets is notable, critics say. In theory, election officials in every state could decide a candidate is ineligible based on a novel legal theory about Section 3 and end their candidacies.

Conservatives argue that Section 3 could apply to Vice President Kamala Harris, for example — it was used to block from office even those who donated small sums to individual Confederates. Couldn't it be used against Harris, they say, because she raised money for those arrested in the unrest after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020?

IS THIS A PARTISAN ISSUE?

Well, of course it is. Bellows is a Democrat, and all the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats. Six of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans, three by Trump himself.

But courts don't always split on predictable partisan lines. The Colorado ruling was 4-3 — so three Democratic appointees disagreed with barring Trump. Several prominent legal conservatives have championed the use of Section 3 against the former president.

Now we'll see how the high court handles it.

Maine secretary of state bars Trump from ballot

Posted on by Associated Press

Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Trump remains eligible to continue his campaign.

The decision by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows follows a ruling earlier this month by the Colorado Supreme Court that booted Trump from the ballot there under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That decision has been stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether Trump is barred by the Civil War-era provision, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

The Trump campaign said it would appeal Bellows' decision to Maine's state courts, and Bellows suspended her ruling until that court system rules on the case. In the end, it is likely that the nation's highest court will have the final say on whether Trump appears on the ballot there and in the other states.

Bellows found that Trump could no longer run for his prior job because his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol violated Section 3, which bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.” Bellows made the ruling after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenged Trump’s position on the ballot.

“I do not reach this conclusion lightly,” Bellows wrote in her 34-page decision. “I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”

The Trump campaign immediately slammed the ruling. “We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter,” campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement.

Thursday's ruling demonstrates the need for the nation's highest court, which has never ruled on Section 3, to clarify what states can do.

“It is clear that these decisions are going to keep popping up, and inconsistent decisions reached (like the many states keeping Trump on the ballot over challenges) until there is final and decisive guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, wrote in response to the Maine decision. “It seems a certainty that SCOTUS will have to address the merits sooner or later.”

While Maine has just four electoral votes, it’s one of two states to split them. Trump won one of Maine’s electors in 2020, so having him off the ballot there, should he emerge as the Republican general election candidate, could have outsized implications in a race that is expected to be narrowly decided.

That's in contrast to Colorado, which Trump lost by 13 percentage points in 2020 and where he wasn't expected to compete in November if he wins the Republican presidential nomination.

In her decision, Bellows acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court will probably have the final word but said it was important she did her official duty.

That won her praise from the former state lawmakers who filed one of the petitions forcing her to consider the case.

“Secretary Bellows showed great courage in her ruling, and we look forward to helping her defend her judicious and correct decision in court. No elected official is above the law or our constitution, and today’s ruling reaffirms this most important of American principles,” Republican Kimberly Rosen, independent Thomas Saviello and Democrat Ethan Strimling said in a statement.

The Trump campaign on Tuesday requested that Bellows disqualify herself from the case because she'd previously tweeted that Jan. 6 was an "insurrection” and bemoaned that Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate after the capitol attack. She refused to step aside.

“My decision was based exclusively on the record presented to me at the hearing and was in no way influenced by my political affiliation or personal views about the events of Jan. 6, 2021,” Bellows told the Associated Press Thursday night.

Bellows is a former head of the Maine chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. All seven of the justices of the Colorado Supreme Court, which split 4-3 on whether to become the first court in history to declare a presidential candidate ineligible under Section 3, were appointed by Democrats. Two Washington, D.C.-based liberal groups have launched the most serious prior challenges to Trump, in Colorado and a handful of other states.

That's led Trump to contend the dozens of lawsuits nationwide seeking to remove him from the ballot under Section 3 are a Democratic plot to end his campaign. But some of the most prominent advocates have been conservative legal theorists who argue that the text of the Constitution makes the former president ineligible to run again, just as if he failed to clear the document's age threshold — 35 years old — for the office.

Likewise, until Bellows' decision, every top state election official, whether Democrat or Republican, had rejected requests to bar Trump from the ballot, saying they didn't have the power to remove him unless ordered to do so by a court.

Speaker Mike Johnson faces same old GOP dysfunction in the new year

Posted on by Joan McCarter

There’s a big backlog of critical business facing Congress when members return in January, thanks to all those issues they put off dealing with in 2023. The House will reconvene with an ever-slimmer Republican majority that is somehow even more dysfunctional than the one that kicked off this year. An ousted speaker, an expelled member, a simmering civil war, and midterm retirements made for a bitter end to the first session of the 118th Congress and set Speaker Mike Johnson up for a potentially catastrophic second half in 2024.

Congress left for its holiday break in mid-December, one-quarter of the way into the 2024 fiscal year, with no agreement between the House and Senate on overall funding levels after House Republicans reneged on the agreement they made with President Joe Biden to resolve the last big crisis over the debt ceiling. That deal was brokered under the last speaker, Kevin McCarthy, in one of his desperate attempts to keep his job. The current speaker is showing little inclination to reverse course.

“We all shook hands, we passed it,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, told Politico earlier this month. “And now the speaker is saying: ‘Never mind, we’re going to go backwards.’”

The continued stalemate is going to make meeting the Jan. 19 and Feb. 2 deadlines to fund the government for the rest of the 2024 fiscal year challenging, to say the least, even while Congress is supposed to be putting together its budget for the 2025 fiscal year. As if.

Though still a newbie speaker, Johnson is already stymied by the extremist Freedom Caucus, whose far-right members keep holding the threat of what happened to McCarthy over him. One of the eight Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy, Eli Crane of Arizona, is making that abundantly clear.

“One of the positives is that the precedent has now been set for the first time in history that at least with this group, and this slim majority: If you make repeated promises that you do not keep, you will be held accountable,” Crane told The Hill.

A bunch of less extreme House Republicans took a stab at changing the rules so that one chaos agent—aka Matt Gaetz—no longer has the individual power to get the ball rolling on ending a speakership. The push to overhaul the “motion to vacate” rule went nowhere, and is still causing tension in the conference.

“We looked like a bunch of idiots. We looked like a banana republic a few months ago,” McCarthy ally Rep. Garret Graves of Louisiana told The Messenger. “I don't think you should have one moron that should be able to trigger that vote.”

Speaking for the “morons,” new Freedom Caucus chair Bob Good of Virginia is happy with the status quo—and happy to wield the threat against Johnson.

“I think most of us hope it would never need to be filed again,” Good said, but added, “you can’t control the future.”

While that internecine war is bubbling away, Johnson also faces the reality of an even slimmer majority than his predecessor wrestled with. With said predecessor deciding to jump ship early, New York’s George Santos expelled, and Ohio’s Bill Johnson on his way out the door early next year, the new speaker is only going to have two Republican votes to spare—that is, as long as Democrats remain unified, something they’ve become remarkably good at.

Johnson has already had to rely on Democrats to keep the government running and pass the big defense authorization bill his party’s hard-liners hated, moves that made him even less popular with the maniacs running roughshod over his conference. Any way you slice it, the first few weeks of January are going to be pretty darned miserable for Johnson, and he’s finally going to be forced to make decisions about how to deal with his fractious caucus.

RELATED STORIES:

Defense bill deal made, hard-right House members fume

Hey, Kev—Don’t let the door hit you on the way out

GOP infighting intensifies as Matt Gaetz targets Republicans

It's official: GOP House did a whole lot of nothing this year

Campaign Action

House Republicans ask White House for records on Hunter Biden deposition

Posted on by Congress

House Republicans were surprised by Hunter Biden’s press conference outside the Capitol earlier this month. And now, they are hunting for potential details on the backstory.

Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent a letter to the White House on Wednesday, requesting records related to Hunter Biden’s deposition with the House investigators. The president’s son had been subpoenaed to appear behind closed doors on Dec. 13. But he did not, reiterating that he was willing to testify publicly instead.

The two chairs are requesting documents and communications sent or received by Executive Office of the President employees related to Hunter Biden’s scheduled deposition.

“In light of an official statement from the White House that President Biden was aware in advance that his son, Hunter Biden, would knowingly defy two congressional subpoenas, we are compelled to examine as part of our impeachment inquiry whether the President engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding of Congress,” Comer and Jordan wrote in the letter to White House counsel Edward Siskel.

Read the full letter.

A person close to Hunter Biden’s legal team told POLITICO earlier this month that the president's son had huddled with his attorney, Abbe Lowell, and attorney Kevin Morris to plan his remarks.

Two people familiar with Hunter Biden’s appearance at the Capitol also told POLITICO earlier this month that Hunter Biden notified the president in advance of his plans. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre separately told reporters that “the president was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,” but referred questions about if Hunter Biden should comply with the subpoena to his legal team.

“I’m just not going to get into private conversations, because what you’re asking me is actually a private conversation. I’m just not going to get into it,” Jean-Pierre added when asked if Joe Biden attempted to talk his son out of his plan.

House GOP investigators said they were given no heads up that Hunter Biden would not attend their deposition — though his attorney, in statements and letters, had rebuffed a closed-door meeting and countered with a public hearing. Investigators also said at the time that they were not given a heads up that he intended to speak outside the Capitol.

House Republicans view Hunter Biden as a key witness in their sweeping impeachment inquiry into his father. And Wednesday’s letter is the latest sign that Republicans are eyeing obstruction as a potential article of impeachment, even as they likely remain well short of the votes to recommend booting Joe Biden from office.

Republicans are hoping to decide as soon as late January about whether or not to pursue articles of impeachment. But the House GOP is still facing skepticism within its own ranks despite a vote earlier this month to formalize their investigation.

GOP lawmakers have poked holes in previous statements made by the president and the White House, and found evidence that Hunter Biden used his last name to try to bolster his own influence. But they’ve struggled, so far, to find a smoking gun linking actions taken by Joe Biden as president or vice president to his family’s business deals.

In addition to questions about Hunter Biden’s deposition, the two House investigators are also requesting records related to comments President Joe Biden made on Dec. 6 regarding the business deals of his family members.

At the time, a reporter asked Joe Biden why he “interacted with so many of your son and brother's foreign business associates.” The reporter also cited an Associated Press-NORC poll from October, which found that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed the president acted either illegally or unethically in regard to his son’s business deals.

“I’m not going to comment on that. I did not, and it’s just a bunch of lies,” the president said in response to the question.

Devon Archer, a former Hunter Biden business associate, previously told House investigators that Joe Biden attended dinner with or was put on the phone with Hunter Biden’s business associates. But there is no evidence business was discussed during those meetings.

Betsy Woodruff Swan contributed to this report.

Posted in Uncategorized

House GOP probing if Biden was involved in Hunter’s ‘scheme’ to defy subpoena, potential ‘impeachable offense’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: House Republicans are investigating whether President Biden was involved in his son Hunter Biden’s "scheme" to defy his subpoena for deposition earlier this month — conduct, they say, "could constitute an impeachable offense." 

The House Oversight Committee, House Judiciary Committee, and House Ways & Means Committee are investigating "whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden for consideration by the full House." The House formalized the inquiry earlier this month. 

JORDAN SAYS HUNTER BIDEN MADE A 'HUGE CHANGE' BY SAYING HIS FATHER WAS 'NOT FINANCIALLY INVOLVED' IN BUSINESS

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday penned a letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, to White House Counsel Edward Siskel, notifying him of the additional area of their investigation. 

"In light of an official statement from the White House that President Biden was aware in advance that his son, Hunter Biden, would knowingly defy two congressional subpoenas, we are compelled to examine as part of our impeachment inquiry whether the President engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding of Congress," Comer and Jordan wrote to Siskel. 

The subpoenas were both for Hunter Biden's deposition — one from Comer and one from Jordan. The two chairmen planned to hold the deposition in the same room, at the same time. 

The president’s son was subpoenaed to appear for a deposition before the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees earlier this month. Hunter Biden defied that subpoena, and instead, appeared on Capitol Hill and delivered a public statement before the press.

"On December 13, Mr. Biden did not appear for the deposition as required by the Committees’ subpoenas. Instead, Mr. Biden appeared on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol with his attorney and Representative Eric Swalwell," they wrote. "Mr. Biden gave a lengthy public statement to an assembly of reporters in which he made several statements that are relevant to the House’s impeachment inquiry, including representations about his business activities, assertions about President Biden’s awareness and ‘financial’ involvement in these activities, and attacks on the Committees’ inquiry." 

Hunter Biden "indicated that he would only testify in a public forum, a demand for special treatment that the Committees had previously rejected." 

HUNTER BIDEN WILL NOT SIT FOR DEPOSITION BY GOP, SAYS FATHER NOT 'FINANCIALLY' INVOLVED IN HIS BUSINESS

"Although Mr. Biden professed an interest in answering questions about his actions, he departed the Capitol grounds without taking any questions. The committees subsequently recorded Mr. Biden’s non-appearance at his deposition," they wrote. 

But later that day, Comer and Jordan pointed to a statement made by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. She was asked whether the president had watched his son’s public statement. 

"White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated that President Biden was ‘certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,’" they wrote. "Ms. Jean-Pierre declined, however, to provide any further details about the President’s actions on whether the president approved of his son defying congressional subpoenas." 

They added, though, that Jean-Pierre’s statement "suggests the President had some amount of advanced knowledge that Mr. Biden would choose to defy two congressional subpoenas." 

The chairmen pointed to the criminal code, citing the section which it states that it is unlawful to "corruptly…endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any investigation or inquiry is being had by…any committee of either House or any joint committee of Congress." 

"Likewise, any person who ‘aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures’ the commission of a crime is punishable as a principal of the crime," they wrote. 

"In light of Ms. Jean-Pierre’s statement, we are compelled to examine the involvement of the President in his son’s scheme to defy the Committees’ subpoenas," they wrote. "The Committees have accumulated substantial evidence that Hunter Biden’s business endeavors have improperly included his father, and the President has made false claims about his knowledge and involvement in these schemes." 

WHITE HOUSE, HUNTER BIDEN’S TEAM KEEP SHIFTING GOALPOSTS IN DENYING DAD’S INVOLVEMENT WITH BUSINESSES

Comer and Jordan also said that just days before Hunter Biden was scheduled to appear for his deposition, the president "claimed he had not interacted with any of his son’s business partners." 

"This is false," they wrote. "The President has met with, spoken to, and received money sourced from his son’s foreign business partners." 

Comer and Jordan said that in light of the evidence they have collected, "the fact that the President had advanced awareness" that his son would defy the subpoenas "raises a troubling new question that we must examine: whether the President corruptly sought to influence or obstruct the Committee’s proceeding by preventing, discouraging, or dissuading his son from complying with the Committee’s subpoenas." 

"Such conduct could constitute an impeachable offense," they wrote.

The chairmen demanded all documents and communications sent or received by the White House regarding Hunter Biden’s deposition, including communications with Hunter Biden, law firm Winston & Strawn LLP, and Kevin Morris. 

They also demanded all documents and communications sent or received by employees of the White House Executive Office regarding the president’s statement about his family’s business associates on Dec. 6, 2023. 

Comer and Jordan gave Siskel until Jan. 10, 2024 to produce the information. 

Congress’ fight over immigration reform could last a while

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Let’s game out a potential agreement on border security.

There was the Christmas rush to try securing a deal before the holiday. The plan was to link an immigration accord to a massive international aid package for Israel and Ukraine requested by President Biden. 

The Senate stuck around Washington for a few extra days before Christmas. Talks even ran through one weekend in mid-December. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., partially delayed the Senate’s holiday recess to maintain momentum in the talks. However, few senators thought much of the effort. A meager 61 senators surfaced on the evening of Dec. 18 for a vote to confirm former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley as the Social Security Administration Commissioner. 

It was the sparest attendance for any Senate vote since 56 senators cast ballots on an appropriations bill on May 28, 1959. 

BIDEN HAS ANOTHER CALAMITOUS YEAR AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER IN 2023 AS RECORDS SHATTER

The 1959 tally was only rivaled by a scant 54 senators who showed up to vote on May 5, 1960. The issue at hand was more like the issue "afoot": duties the government levied on lathes used to make shoes. The Senate voted to give the duties the boot. 

Border security talks are taking so long that senators may well burn through a few pairs of shoes before they strike a deal. Even though attendance was thin last week, Senate negotiators plodded ahead. Dropping things for the holidays would likely have cost the process momentum, such as it was. Maintaining any modicum of momentum is paramount if you consider the difficult path ahead for a border security/supplemental spending package. 

Talks resumed this week, remotely. One source signaled to Fox News that the negotiators might meet in person before Congress reconvenes on Jan. 8, if it is believed that face-to-face negotiations would help. In fact, Fox was told it is entirely possible the sides cannot even reach an agreement until the week of Jan. 8. Of course, it remains to be seen whether they can get a deal at all.

MENENDEZ BLOCKS 2 BIDEN NOMINEES OVER FRUSTRATION WITH BORDER NEGOTIATIONS

Let’s consider a middle-of-the-road scenario here.

Imagine the sides reach a handshake agreement late next week, before Congress returns to session. At a minimum, it will take congressional legislative counsel a week or so to actually write the very complex, intricate changes to border and immigration policy. So that gets us toward the end of the first full week of January before the bill text is ready.

All the while, interest groups and factions in Congress will inevitably start to chip away at this provision or that one after details of the agreement begin to dribble out. You can anticipate that opposition from both parties could be fierce to any proposal as controversial and complicated as immigration. That is why even a deal may be far from a true agreement. 

So this could drift until mid-January for the Senate to begin to process this proposal — even working on an expedited timetable. 

However, even if things go swimmingly, there is no guarantee the Senate can move quickly. Sixty votes are necessary to extinguish filibusters to both start debate and close debate on the bill. So bet on the Senate spending at least a week-and-a-half on this measure — even on a fast track.

However, what we neglected in this narrative is the realpolitik of January and February on Capitol Hill.

The first two months of the year might qualify as a parliamentary Superfund site. 

For starters, the government could run out of money on Jan. 19. Even if lawmakers limp along past that deadline and avoid a government shutdown, they will get a second crack at it on Feb. 2.

Yes. Groundhog Day. 

You cannot make this stuff up. 

No Punxsutawney Phil, here. 

We’ll see if "Louisiana Mike" and "Brooklyn Chuck" can pull a marmot out of their hat to avert a shutdown. Otherwise, look for clues. If they see their shadows, the government may operate for six weeks on a Continuing Resolution. If they don’t see their shadows, the stopgap bill may only last for four. 

You think this is daft? Considering the perils of Congressional prognostication, you could do worse than relying on a soothsaying rodent from central Pennsylvania. 

The potential of a government shutdown will consume everything on Capitol Hill. 

Of course, some longtime Capitol Hill observers might suggest that they Velcro the border security/supplemental aid package onto one of the spending bills. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., argued against that. But you never know, when you consider how few legislative trains might depart from the Congressional station early next year. 

The House will also delve into a potential impeachment of the president. That will demand significant oxygen on Capitol Hill. The House will likely hold a vote to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for failing to appear for a deposition before the Oversight Committee. Lawmakers still haven’t sorted out a potential plan to reform the foreign surveillance program commonly known as FISA. 

Any and all of this could sidetrack efforts to finish the border/supplemental package. 

And that’s if there’s ever a deal.

So, don’t bank on a vote right away in January. In fact, a Senate vote could come in late January or beyond. 

Then, on to the House. 

And that is a complete wild card.

Fox is told that Johnson understands that Israel and Ukraine need aid and can’t wait too long for that to materialize. But advancing any sort of immigration package through the House which deviates from the strict border security plan Republicans approved in the spring (known as "HR 2") is going to be a monster. Johnson still has goodwill among House Republicans. But he doesn’t have much political capital. That account will dwindle even further — hinging on what Johnson decides to do about government funding. Remember that it’s far from clear what if anything the House can do to actually fund the government. So political problems for Johnson could impede passage of any border security/supplemental plan.

That’s to say nothing of problems on the Democratic side of the aisle.

As much as there are many Republicans who won’t vote for any immigration plan, there are likely just as many Democrats who will oppose what’s framed as "border security." Liberals will watch to see what changes are made to parole and asylum. Potential migration limits could be problematic. And then there are enforcement questions. 

Now you see how this could easily slip into February. And frankly, it may go deeper into the new year if a government shutdown or impeachment capsizes the Congress.

So, no one truly thought there was any realistic chance of moving any sort of border security/supplemental spending package in December, despite the rush. 

And it may be rushing things to try to complete this by February or March. 

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Christmas edition

Posted on by Greg Dworkin

Jonathan V Last/The Bulwark:

2024 Is Democracy's Moonshot

Like it or not, a crisis is coming. But we are facing it on good ground.

Just objectively speaking, the forces of stability are actually in a strong position.

The pandemic is over. I don’t think we appreciate this enough. COVID was so traumatic that we’ve memory-holed how unstable and deadly a place America was in four years ago.

The economy is strong. Forget the attitude surveys. If you were handed reams of economic data you would come to two rock-solid conclusions:

(1) The American economy is in a good place: Low unemployment, bottom-led wage growth, increasing household wealth, solid GDP growth.

(2) Relative to the rest of the world, the American economy has performed marvelously. Every advanced economy would trade places with us in a heartbeat.

We are not involved in any wars. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are over and our troops are no longer in harm’s way. This gives America extra freedom of maneuver in dealing with our adversaries because we no longer have active conflicts leaching away our political will on a daily basis.

We are certainly involved in Ukraine, Gaza and other places but that’s not at all the same thing.

Steve Almond/WBUR:

Joe Biden’s drama-free White House is America’s most under-appreciated Christmas gift

Whatever the reasons, I can’t help but think of Biden and his economic team, toiling away without much fanfare, like Santa and his elves. Whether or not you support him, it’s worth acknowledging a few of the gifts Santa Joe has tucked under our tree this year.

A holiday meal sans masks. COVID hasn’t gone away; it’s now endemic. But thanks, in part, to Biden’s aggressive push to vaccinate the public, 2023 brought the end of the national emergency phase of the pandemic.

More buying power. For all the hyper-ventilating about inflation in the conservative media, Biden and the Federal Reserve have managed to engineer the “soft landing” once thought impossible. The result? Wage growth is now outpacing inflation.

Cheaper prescription drugs. As part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden took the fight to Big Pharma and capped the cost of insulin at $35 per month. By allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly, the law will eventually lower the price of numerous additional drugs.

A reminder of how Democrats always, always, always fret, from New York Times (September, 2011):

Democrats Fret Aloud Over Obama’s Chances

And in a campaign cycle in which Democrats had entertained hopes of reversing losses from last year’s midterm elections, some in the party fear that Mr. Obama’s troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races.

“In my district, the enthusiasm for him has mostly evaporated,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon. “There is tremendous discontent with his direction.”

Democrats feared Mitt Romney and—uhm—Rick Perry, according to that piece. Meanwhile:

2024 GE, Battleground States: Biden 52% (+8) Trump 44% . Biden 50% (+8) DeSantis 42% . Biden 45% (+2) Haley 43% .@EchelonInsights, 1,012 LV, 12/12-16 https://t.co/mjsGvNVmdx

— Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) December 24, 2023

Same as all the other polls, (I) too early for predictive value and (II) basically tied before the campaign gets started in earnest, but not where it matters most. If that bothers you, see the New York Times piece above from 12 years ago.

USA Today with a headline we should be reading more often, because it’s true:

Donald Trump faces many signs of potential political trouble; here are a few of them

Here are some of the things that can and will happen to Trump as he pursues the presidency again.

Adverse court rulings

The potential of legal trouble is all around Trump, and could pop up any time..

Falling poll numbers; rising rivals

Trump's GOP rivals warn that his continued legal woes will eventually wear out voters who might start to consider alternatives…

Bad voter reaction

The ultimate bad sign for Trump would come from voters.

Des Moines Register:

Why does Trump keep saying migrants are 'poisoning' America? Many GOP caucusgoers like it

The poll found that 42% of likely Republican caucusgoers are more likely to support Trump for his "poisoning the blood" comments; 28% said they are less likely to support him; and 29% said it does not matter.

The poll, conducted by Selzer & Co., has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

…

That includes respondents of all age and income levels. It also includes married and single caucusgoers and those with children under 18, as well as likely caucusgoers from all four of Iowa's congressional districts.

Pluralities of men and women both say their support increases, with 45% of men and 38% of women saying they are more likely to support Trump after hearing him say illegal immigrants are "poisoning the blood" of America.

In 1962, “a star dancing in the night with a tail as big as a kite” couldn't help but remind of a rocket. https://t.co/KjlSLLgvcv

— Anthony Clark Arend (@arenda) December 25, 2023

Politico:

House GOP traps itself in impeachment box

Republicans are barreling toward an impeachment vote, still short of a majority. But if they skip one altogether, it might look like failure to the base.

Much of the House GOP has tried to keep the question of a full-scale removal vote at arm’s length, despite the course they’ve charted toward formal articles of impeachment. It’s not hard to see why: They’ll start the election year with only a three-vote majority, which could shrink even further, and 17 incumbents who represent districts Biden won. Plus, Democrats are almost guaranteed to unanimously oppose impeachment.

All that means a vote to recommend booting the president from office would be highly risky.

Wall Street Journal:

Prices Fell in November for the First Time Since 2020. Inflation Is Approaching Fed Target.

Spending and personal income rose, as Americans’ confidence in the economy rebounded

The Federal Reserve is winning its fight over inflation, boosting Americans’ spirits and offering greater reassurance that the U.S. economy can avoid a recession while bringing prices under control.

The Fed’s preferred inflation measure, the personal-consumption expenditures price index, fell 0.1% in November from the previous month, the first decline since April 2020, the Commerce Department said Friday. Prices were up 2.6% on the year, not far from the Fed’s 2% target.

New York Times:

What Went Wrong for Ron DeSantis in 2023

The Florida governor entered the year flush with cash and momentum. In the months since, internal chaos and Donald Trump’s indictments have sapped even his most avid supporters.

“I don’t think it’s fair,” Mr. DeSantis said. “But it’s reality.”

He was talking about Mr. Trump’s predicament. But he could just as easily have been talking about his own.

Boxed in by a base enamored with Mr. Trump that has instinctively rallied to the former president’s defense, Mr. DeSantis has struggled for months to match the hype that followed his landslide 2022 re-election. Now, with the first votes in the Iowa caucuses only weeks away on Jan. 15, Mr. DeSantis has slipped in some polls into third place, behind Nikki Haley, and has had to downsize his once-grand national ambitions to the simple hopes that a strong showing in a single state — Iowa — could vault him back into contention.

For a candidate who talks at length about his own disinterest in “managing America’s decline,” people around Mr. DeSantis are increasingly talking about managing his…

“He lacks charisma,” [New Hampshire voter] Mr. Scaer said in an interview later. “He just doesn’t have that.”

If the great promise of the DeSantis candidacy was Trump without the baggage, Stuart Stevens, a top strategist on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, said that what Republicans got instead was “Ted Cruz without the personality.”

Cue the “Never Back Down” jokes about the DeSantis campaign backing down.

Can’t be good for business having a quote like this about your client appear in the NYT pic.twitter.com/kJGllnDHQw

— Pat Dennis (@patdennis) December 24, 2023

Matt McNeil and Cliff Schecter:

YouTube Video

2023’s biggest losers in politics

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Competitiveness is a cornerstone of American politics, so much so that it’s been called a blood sport at times. And, as in any competition, winners and losers always emerge.

Fox News Digital takes a look at some of the biggest political losers of 2023.

Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot's re-election campaign, which culminated in her loss to current Mayor Brandon Johnson, was marked by several self-inflicted wounds.

The former Democratic mayor took the brunt of criticism directed at city officials over the city's rising rate of violent crime. Lightfoot also faced bipartisan blowback for her handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, including clashes with progressives and the teachers union.

OUTGOING HOUSE LAWMAKERS LAMENT CHAOS IN CONGRESS: 'A BIT OF A CARNIVAL'

Youngkin’s upset victory in 2021 over former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe set him on a path to political stardom. The parental rights-focused Republican governor was almost immediately touted as a future presidential candidate, even possibly as early as 2024. 

But he staked his national reputation on Republicans winning the full Virginia legislature in November, even suggesting a 15-week abortion limit would be on the table if the commonwealth went red. 

Democrats, however, ended up flipping the Virginia House of Delegates while retaining control of the state Senate.

VIRGINIA SENATE NAMES CAUCUS LEADERS FOR UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SESSION

One Virginia Democrat who did not fare well in the latest election cycle, however, is Gibson, the nurse practitioner whose promising campaign for a swing seat in the House of Delegates was derailed by revelations laid bare just weeks before Election Day.

The Washington Post first reported that Gibson and her husband broadcast sex acts on social media, accepting tips in exchange for lewd requests. 

She wound up losing the Richmond-area seat by less than 1,000 votes.

Rep. Tlaib, D-Mich., the only Palestinian-American in Congress, has long been a critical voice against the Israeli government, part of a small but growing faction of progressives bucking Democrats’ traditional pro-Israel stance. 

However, she’s isolated herself this year after Hamas’ Oct. 7 surprise attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent military response, going further than most with her reaction to the war in Gaza. 

Her response to the crisis resulted in a formal House censure along bipartisan lines in November. 

ISRAEL RESUMES BOMBARDMENT OF GAZA AFTER CEASE-FIRE WITH HAMAS ENDS

Embattled former House Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., dominated headlines with an array of colorful scandals, from federal charges that included wire fraud to allegations he was responsible for the cancer death of a military veteran’s dog. 

Santos’ backstory quickly unraveled when he got to Congress, and it was found he lied about his college degree, work and ancestry. 

But criminal charges related to misuse of campaign funds were the final nail in the coffin for Santos’ House career, and he was expelled by a two-thirds majority vote Dec. 1.

This year has seen the country’s octogenarian commander in chief dealing with an impeachment inquiry as he continues to struggle with low poll numbers.

Despite traveling the country touting key victories, mainly his bipartisan infrastructure bill, Biden is still working to convince voters he is fit for another four years in the White House.

In addition to questions about his age and whether he profited from his role as vice president, Biden is also dealing with progressive outrage over his support for Israel in its war on Hamas. 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, MATT GAETZ TRADE JABS AS FIERCE RIVALRY CONTINUES: HE 'BELONGS IN JAIL'

It’s culminated in early voter polls that show gloomy forecasts for his re-election prospects over the last several weeks.

McCarthy began his 2023 with a marathon 15 rounds of voting across three days, the world watching him wrangle a divided House GOP Conference to eventually win the speaker’s gavel.

On Dec. 14, McCarthy was giving his final speech to a House floor filled with less than a dozen lawmakers, mostly his allies.

He told reporters later that day it was a "bittersweet" ending to his career in Congress, which saw him make history in October as the first ousted speaker of the House. He announced in December he would leave Congress altogether.

McCarthy chalked it up to personal vendettas during a final exit interview with reporters later that day, but he remained optimistic. 

"I loved every minute, good or bad," he said.

But while he made Fox News Digital’s list of 2023’s political losers, McCarthy could ascend again.

He intends to remain a significant figure in the GOP fundraising sphere and is almost certain to be a hot commodity in Washington, D.C., for some time. He didn’t rule out a return to government either.