Cori Bush joins fellow Squad members in calling for Clarence Thomas impeachment

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) is calling for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be impeached, joining other members of the progressive “Squad” who have called for the conservative justice to be reprimanded following a bombshell report on his relationship with a Republican donor.

In a statement on Tuesday, Bush said Thomas “holds a complete disregard for law and ethics that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in federal judges.”

“For these reasons, and because the federal judiciary has failed to hold Justice Thomas accountable, I am calling for impeachment proceedings to begin regarding Justice Thomas’s apparent violations of federal law,” she said.

ProPublica reported earlier this month that Thomas, who has served on the bench since 1991, went on luxury vacations with Republican donor and real estate developer Harlan Crow. The donor paid for the trips, which have been happening for more than two decades, according to ProPublica.

Supreme Court justices are required by federal law to file annual financial disclosures that include gifts, unless they fall under certain exemptions. In a statement following the report, Thomas said that he “was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

Days later, ProPublica reported that Thomas did not disclose a 2014 real estate deal he did with Crow. The donor reportedly purchased a series of properties in Savannah, Ga., from Thomas, his mother and his late brother’s family for $133,363. On Monday, CNN reported that Thomas plans to amend his financial disclosure forms to disclose the real estate deal.

And The Washington Post reported that Thomas has reported that his family received rental income from a real estate firm launched by his wife and her family that has not existed since 2006.

The revelations regarding Thomas have angered judicial watchdog groups and congressional Democrats, leading some to call for the justice’s impeachment, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and now Bush.

Bush in her statement on Tuesday said Thomas “has made a mockery of his ethical obligations and disgraced himself and the entire judiciary,” and said recent discoveries “are just the latest in a pattern of lawless and shocking behavior that has characterized Justice Thomas’s career.” 

Ocasio-Cortez, who was among the first House Democrats to call for Thomas’s impeachment amid the recent revelations, acknowledged in an interview with CNN that it is “very difficult” to see a path where Thomas is impeached by a House controlled by Republicans.

But Bush, nonetheless, wants the chamber to plow forward with impeachment. And if that does not work, she called on the Judicial Conference of the United States to refer Thomas to the attorney general.

“History will judge how Congress responded during this crisis in our federal judiciary. House Republicans must move forward with impeachment proceedings,” she said. “But if they continue choosing not to act, the Judicial Conference of the United States must immediately exercise its authority and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for further action.”

In addition to impeachment, Bush on Tuesday called on Congress to approve Supreme Court ethics reform, to expand the court, institute term limits “and take other actions to rein in this unaccountable, anti-democratic, and dangerous institution.”

“Holding judges accountable for their behavior is a matter of life-or-death for our communities. They wield enormous power, and the current hands-off approach to the judiciary has only emboldened lawless, corrupt, far-right judges to strip away our rights and make our lives worse off,” she added.

Goldman slams Jim Jordan over planned NYC hearing: ‘not welcome in my district’

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) slammed Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) over the House Judiciary Committee’s planned hearing in New York City next week, telling the GOP chairman he is “not welcome” in Goldman's district, where the event is taking place.

“Instead of focusing on improving the lives of the American people, Jim Jordan has decided to come to my district at the behest of Donald Trump to continue to weaponize Congress to obstruct an ongoing, non-federal criminal prosecution,” Goldman said in a statement. “If Jordan truly cared about public safety, he’d be having a field hearing in Nashville, Tennessee or Louisville, Kentucky, where the most recent of the daily mass shootings have killed more innocent Americans.”

Three children and three adults were killed in a shooting at a Nashville school late last month, and at least four people were fatally shot at a bank in Louisville on Monday.

“Chairman Jordan is not welcome in my district for this political stunt that is simply a further waste of taxpayer money to support Donald Trump’s legal defense,” Goldman added.

Goldman represents New York’s 10th Congressional District, which includes the Javits Federal Building — the location of the Judiciary Committee’s planned hearing.

The Republican-led panel announced earlier on Monday that it will hold a hearing in Manhattan on April 17 focused on crime in the city. The event is titled “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan.”

In the hearing advisory, House Judiciary Committee Republicans — led by Jordan — zeroed in on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), who has been the target of GOP ire after a grand jury he empaneled indicted former President Trump. Last week, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts for his alleged involvement in orchestrating hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Republicans have accused Bragg of being soft on crime while conducting a politically-motivated prosecution of the former president. Bragg, however, has said his office is enforcing the law.

Next week’s hearing, according to the committee, “will examine how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s pro-crime, anti-victim policies have led to an increase in violent crime and a dangerous community for New York City residents.”

Goldman served as lead counsel during Trump’s first impeachment, after which he became a frequent guest on cable news to discuss the legal proceedings surrounding Trump. He also served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York.

The Hill reached out to Jordan for comment.

Rep. Dan Goldman endorses Gallego for Senate

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) endorsed Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) for Senate on Thursday, marking the Arizona Democrat's third endorsement from a House lawmaker as he vies for the seat currently held by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.).

“Now, more than ever, our country needs elected officials who stand firm in the face of extremist Republicans who are threatening our legal and democratic institutions,” Goldman said in a statement. “As a Marine veteran who fought for our democracy overseas, Ruben understands the importance of the rule of law and, more importantly, that no one is above it —not even a former president.”

“Ruben is exactly the kind of elected official and candidate this moment demands and I am proud to endorse his campaign for United States Senate,” he added.

Gallego — who represents Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District — announced a campaign for Sinema’s seat in January after much speculation about whether or not he would jump in the race. This week, his campaign revealed that it raised $3.7 million in the first quarter.

Sinema, who changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Independent in December, has not yet indicated if she will run for reelection next year. Her strong fundraising, however, suggests she may — the senator will report $9.9 million on hand following the most recent fundraising quarter, according to Politico.

Gallego is currently the only candidate in the race from any party.

Despite Sinema not yet entering the race, Gallego has gone on the offensive. In an interview with The Associated Press around his launch, the congressman said, “I’m better for this job than Kyrsten Sinema because I haven’t forgotten where I came from.”

“I think she clearly has forgotten where she came from. Instead of meeting with the people that need help, she meets with the people that are already powerful,” he added.

Gallego has picked up a number of endorsements since launching his bid, including from Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Seth Moulton (D-Mass.). He welcomed Goldman’s support on Thursday.

“I’m deeply honored to have earned the trust and support of my friend and colleague Dan Goldman,” Gallego said. “From leading the first impeachment inquiry against Trump to fighting for his constituents and our country in Congress, he is a champion and critical voice in our fights for democracy and justice.”

“I’m grateful to have his endorsement as we fight for the future of Arizona and our country,” he added.

Democrats hail, Republicans blast Trump indictment

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

The indictment of former President Trump by a Manhattan grand jury rocked Capitol Hill on Thursday, with Democrats hailing the decision and Republicans blasting what they described as a political witch hunt.

“The indictment of a former president is unprecedented. But so too is the unlawful conduct in which Trump has been engaged,” tweeted Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who served as lead impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment trial. “A nation of laws must hold the rich and powerful accountable, even when they hold high office. Especially when they do. To do otherwise is not democracy.”

Some Democrats, including House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), expressed their excitement on Twitter.

“SO Trump finally got indicted! I predicted he would and I predicted that Stormy Daniels would get him! Sometimes justice works!” Waters said.

Others stressed letting the legal process play out and that "no one is above the law."

"There should be no outside political influence, intimidation or interference in the case,” Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "I encourage both Mr. Trump’s critics and supporters to let the process proceed peacefully and according to the law.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tweeted that “No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence. Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.”

“We must allow the judicial process to continue unimpeded and free from any form of political interference or intimidation," said Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.).

Republicans, meanwhile, jumped to criticize Bragg, with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) pledging to “hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account” for “this injustice.”

“Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election,” McCarthy tweeted. “As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee and an ally of Trump, summed up the Republican reaction in a one-word tweet: “Outrageous.” And Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) — the chair of the Senate GOP campaign arm — called the indictment “a political prosecution.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chair of the Senate GOP Conference, called the indictment a “politically-motivated prosecution by a far-left activist.”

“If it was anyone other than President Trump, a case like this would never be brought. Instead of ordering political hit jobs, New York prosecutors should focus on getting violent criminals off the streets,” Barrasso said in a statement.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) similarly called the indictment a “sham” and accused Democrats of “weaponizing government to attack their political opponents.” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), chair of the House Republican Conference and the only member of House GOP leadership to endorse Trump, called the move “unprecedented election interference” and “a dark day for America,” adding that it would fuel support for Trump in 2024.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) took a more aggressive approach, seeking revenge.

“Our side chants ‘lock her up’ and their side is going to get a mug shot based on a witch hunt. It’s time to change that. Gloves are off,” Greene tweeted.

The Manhattan grand jury voted on Thursday to indict Trump on criminal charges stemming from his role in organizing a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, a source familiar with the proceedings confirmed to The Hill. The specific charges, however, remain unknown.

The indictment marks the culmination of a winding investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), and the end of a days-long waiting game that began when Trump publicly predicted he would be indicted in the case last week.

A trio of House Republican committee chairs sent a letter to Bragg last week — after Trump’s social media announcement — demanding that he sit for a transcribed interview about his investigation. The lawmakers also asked that Bragg provide documents and communications regarding the probe.

Jordan — who also chairs the Judiciary’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government — expanded the congressional investigation into Bragg days later, requesting testimony from two prosecutors who resigned from the Manhattan case because of disagreements with Bragg.

"It's Trump derangement," Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said leaving his Capitol Hill office Thursday evening. "It's an illness of hatred that just — it shouldn't be in American politics. I don't feel that way toward anybody."

Wilson said House Republicans will move "immediately" to uncover the details of Bragg's probe, and he has confidence that GOP investigators — notably Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), chairman of the Administration Committee who signed the letter to Bragg last week — will demonstrate that Bragg's prosecution has been politically motivated from the start.

"We're going to find out, from the inside, as to their correspondence and communications," he said.

Democrats, meanwhile,

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), who served as an impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment, said Thursday was “a somber day for our nation.”

“Former President Trump’s indictment reminds us that no one is above the law and that we are all afforded due process and equal protection under the law,” he added on Twitter.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) tweeted that the New York indictment “is only the beginning of being held accountable for his crimes.”

“Trump attempted to illegally overturn election results in Georgia and worked to incite the insurrection at the Capitol, both in an effort to overthrow our government to advance his fascist cause,” Bowman said, calling for Trump to be banned from running for public office again.

Trump is also the subject of investigations by the Fulton County, Georgia district attorney’s office — which is looking into his efforts to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election — and the Justice Department, which is probing the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and the mishandling of classified documents.

Attorney General Merrick Garland in November appointed a social counsel to oversee the Justice Department investigations related to Trump.

At least one lawmaker took a softer approach to the news that Trump had been indicted on Thursday, noting that the Manhattan grand jury has not formally announced its decision to charge Trump in the matter.

“Just a reminder that there is no rule that you have to express your opinion before reading the indictment,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on Twitter.

Mike Lillis and Al Weaver contributed. Updated at 8:20 p.m.

Congress ponders TikTok ban after CEO’s grilling

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Discussions of a potential ban on TikTok in the United States are expected to heat up this week after the CEO of the social media app was grilled by House members during a blockbuster hearing last week.

Congressional leaders from both chambers and parties have backed bills that could lead to the Chinese-owned app being banned, while Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has explicitly said he would support a national ban on TikTok.

“The House will be moving forward with legislation to protect Americans from the technological tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party,” McCarthy said in a tweet on Sunday.

What that legislation will look like remains unclear, but will likely be a topic of conversation among lawmakers this week.

Also this week, House and Senate committees are slated to hold hearings on recent bank failures, after Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were seized by regulators earlier this month. The collapses spooked markets and raised concerns about future bank runs.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold an oversight hearing this week featuring testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — his first appearance before the 118th Congress. A number of GOP House members have expressed a desire to impeach Mayorkas.

Additionally, former interim Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is set to testify at a Senate hearing on the company’s alleged union busting.

On the legislative front, the House is slated to take up a major energy package — given the esteemed H.R. 1 nomenclature — and the Senate is expected to hold a final vote on legislation to repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

TikTok in the crosshairs

Fallout from last week’s heated TikTok hearing will likely continue to reverberate on Capitol Hill this week, as lawmakers look toward legislation targeting the app, which is used by some 150 million Americans.

McCarthy on Sunday said the House would move ahead with legislation pertaining to TikTok, writing on Twitter “It's very concerning that the CEO of TikTok can't be honest and admit what we already know to be true—China has access to TikTok user data.”

McCarthy told reporters last week that he supported Congress moving to ban the app, but said he wanted to "make sure we get it right."

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday, during which lawmakers from both sides of the aisle expressed concerns about national security threats, data privacy, the spread of misinformation and safety for minors.

TikTok is owned by Chinese-based company ByteDance, a fact that has fueled the worries over data privacy and national security. However, TikTok’s chief operating officer blasted the hearing, saying it "felt rooted in xenophobia.”

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), the top Democrat on the House select committee on competition with China, told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that the hearing “created more concerns” regarding the popular social media app.

A number of TikTok-related bills have been introduced this Congress, including one bipartisan measure that would give the federal government the ability to ban the app. The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act (RESTRICT Act) would direct the Commerce Department to review and mitigate risks posed by technology that has ties to foreign adversaries, including China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Senate Republican Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced the bill, which currently has nearly two dozen bipartisan co-sponsors. The White House endorsed the measure earlier this month, and Warner on Sunday said the bill has received “strong interest from the House.”

“I think they wanted to get through their hearing. And, clearly, while I appreciated Mr. Chew's testimony, he just couldn't answer the basic question,” Warner told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told the CBS show “we'd love to see that passed by the Congress, so that the president can have additional tools and authorities,” referring to the RESTRICT Act.

Separately, House Republicans earlier this month advanced a separate measure — titled the Deterring America’s Technology Adversaries Act (DATA Act) — which would allow the president to possibly ban software applications, including TikTok.

It specifically calls for amending an existing exemption under the Berman Amendments — which restrict the president from regulating informational materials to encourage the exchange of ideas across country — so it does not pertain to “sensitive personal data.”

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the sponsor of the bill, told “Fox News Sunday” this weekend “I think Congress is going to move forward on this.”

“One thing you saw from the hearings in a bipartisan way that both sides of the aisle were standing together saying this is a threat to our children and we need to stop it,” he added.

Hearings on Silicon Valley Bank collapse

Senate and House panels are set to hold hearings this week on this month’s collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, marking the first congressional events looking into the failures.

On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Recent Bank Failures and the Federal Regulatory Response.” Those slated to testify are Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg, Federal Reserve System Board of Governors Vice Chairman of Supervision Michael Barr, and Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Nellie Liang.

On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee is slated to hold a hearing titled “The Federal Regulators' Response to Recent Bank Failures,” featuring the same trio of witnesses.

Federal regulators took over Silicon Valley Bank on March 10 after a significant run on the bank amid liquidity issues. Two days later, state regulators seized Signature Bank in New York.

The collapse of the two banks sparked a blame game on Capitol Hill. Democrats generally cited a 2018 deregulation bill that former President Trump signed into law, despite the fact that 49 Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with Democrats voted for the measure. Some Republicans, on the other hand, blamed the collapse on Silicon Valley Bank pursuing “woke" strategies, while others have pointed to inflation and raised questions about regulators.

The failures have also prompted discussion about what action Congress can take in response to the collapses.

“The House Financial Services Committee is committed to getting to the bottom of the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) and Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) wrote in a statement.

“This hearing will allow us to begin to understand why and how these banks failed,” the pair continued. “We will conduct this hearing without fear or favor to get the answers the American people deserve.”

Mayorkas to testify before Senate panel

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is heading to Capitol Hill this week for his first hearing before the 118th Congress. The DHS secretary is slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday at 10 a.m. for an oversight hearing.

The hearing comes as Republican lawmakers, particularly those in the House, have harshly criticized Mayorkas, arguing that he has not made enough of an effort to secure the southern border and decrease the influx of migrants into the U.S.

In February, a coalition of House Republicans introduced a second impeachment article against Mayorkas. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the sponsor, accused him of being the “chief architect of the migration and drug invasion at our southern border,” and said the increase in migration was a “willful and intentional” violation of the secretary’s oath of office.

House Republicans, however, have been split on how to move ahead on Mayorkas.

Former Starbucks CEO Schultz to testify

Former Starbucks interim CEO Howard Schultz is scheduled to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee this week on the coffee chain’s treatment of union organizing efforts.

The hearing, titled “No Company Is Above the Law: The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks,” is scheduled to begin on Wednesday at 10 a.m.

Schultz’s testimony comes after weeks of back-and-forth between the executive and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has accused the company of not bargaining in good faith after a number of employees working at shops across the country have unionized.

More than 350 of the company’s stores have voted to unionize since the first one, in Buffalo, N.Y., voted to do so in December 2021. Starbucks has tried to crack down on the unionizing efforts by utilizing methods that, according to the National Labor Relations Board, are unlawful.

Sanders announced earlier this month that the Senate panel would vote on issuing Schultz a subpoena. But before the vote, Schultz agreed to testify. Last week, Schultz — who was set to step down in the beginning of next month — announced that he was stepping down immediately, two weeks earlier than planned.

“I look forward to hearing from Mr. Schultz as to when he intends to end his illegal anti-union activities and begin signing fair first contracts with the unions," Sanders wrote in a statement last week.

House to take up energy package; Senate expected to hold final vote on AUMF

The House this week is scheduled to consider a major energy package, titled the Lower Energy Costs Act. The legislation received the title of H.R. 1, signaling that it is a top priority for the House Republican conference.

The package aims to, broadly speaking, accelerate the approval process for energy projects. It also includes provisions that zero in on bolstering mining and domestic production of oil and gas.

The office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said the measure “reduces expenses across the board for American families by unleashing American energy and restoring our energy independence” in a floor lookout released Sunday night.

In the upper chamber, senators this week are expected to hold a final vote on a bill to repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the Invasion of Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War AUMF. The Senate advanced the legislation in a 68-27 vote earlier this month.

A cloture vote is scheduled for Monday evening, and then the chamber could vote on a number of amendments. Final passage could come on Tuesday or Wednesday, sending the measure to the House.

McCarthy signaled support for the legislation last week, telling reporters during the House GOP retreat in Orlando “I’m into it.”

“I don’t have a problem repealing that,” he added.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will work from home this week after announcing this weekend that he completed impatient therapy following a fall that left him with a concussion.

Senate, House committee hearings

A number of Senate and House committees are scheduled to hold hearings this week on various topics, including the situation at the southern border and the 2022 midterm elections.

  • House Oversight and Accountability’s Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services: “FDA Oversight Part I: The Infant Formula Shortage”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witness: Frank Yiannas, Former deputy commissioner of food policy and response at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • House Oversight and Accountability’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic: “The Consequences of School Closures: Intended and Unintended”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: David Zwei, author and investigative journalist at The Atlantic, New York Magazine, The Free Press; Tracy Beth Høeg, physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist, epidemiologist, private practice physician; Virginia Gentles, director of the Education Freedom Center at the Independent Women’s Forum
  • House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability: “Biden’s Growing Border Crisis: Death, Drugs, and Disorder on the Northern Border”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses
      • Panel I: Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), Pete Stauber (R-Minn.)
      • Panel II: Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council; Robert Quinn, commissioner of New Hampshire’s Department of Safety; Laura Dawson, executive director of the Future Borders Coalition; Andrew R. Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy and the Center for Immigration Studies
  • House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials: “Government Response to East Palestine: Ensuring Safety and Transparency for the Community”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: Debra Shore, regional administrator for Region Five at the Environmental Protection Agency; Anne Vogel, director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Wesley J. Vins, health commissioner of the Columbiana County (Ohio) General Health District
  • House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs: “Examining Progressivism’s Impact on an All-Volunteer Military”
    • When: Tuesday at 2 p.m.
    • Witnesses: Jeremy Hunt, media fellow at the Hudson Institute; Brent Sadler, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense; Meaghan Mobbs, senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum
  • House Committee on Oversight and Accountability: “Overdue Oversight of the Capital City: Part I”
    • When: Wednesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson; D.C. Councilmember Charles Allen; D.C. Chief Financial Officer Glen Lee; D.C. Police Union Chairman Greggory Pemberton
  • House Foreign Affairs Committee: “Oversight, Transparency, and Accountability of Ukraine Assistance”
    • When: Wednesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: Diana R. Shaw, deputy inspector general performing the duties of the Inspector General at the State Department; Nicole L. Angarella, acting deputy inspector general, performing the duties of the Inspector General at the U.S. Agency for International Development; Robert P. Storch, inspector general at the Defense Department
  • Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government: Examine the Missouri v. Biden case
    • When: Thursday at 9 a.m.
    • Witnesses: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.); Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry; D. John Sauer, special assistant attorney general at the Louisiana Department of Justice

House Republicans pass bill to ban federal officials from pressuring tech platforms on content

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

House Republicans passed a bill on Thursday that seeks to ban federal officials from promoting censorship, a measure Republicans brought to the floor in response to what they say are efforts by the Biden administration to persuade social media companies to suppress certain information.

The measure, titled the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, passed in a party-line 219-206 vote.

The legislation specifically calls for prohibiting “federal employees from advocating for censorship of viewpoints in their official capacity,” which includes recommending that a third party should “take any action to censor speech.”

According to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the lead sponsor of the measure, the bill would expand limitations under the Hatch Act to prohibit federal employees from encouraging censorship on private sector internet platforms.

Republicans accuse Democrats of pressuring social media companies to suppress content — including about Hunter Biden and the origins of COVID-19. They also point to platforms limiting the reach of or adding fact checks to posts containing misinformation about the 2020 election and the coronavirus pandemic.

When introducing the measure in January, the bill’s sponsors — Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Comer — cited what they said were instances when federal officials in the Biden administration “used their positions, influence, and resources to police and censor ordinary Americans’ speech expressed on social media platforms.”

On the House floor Wednesday, Comer — who chairs the Oversight and Reform Committee — pointed to the group’s hearing last month when lawmakers “learned just how easy it was for the federal government to influence a private company to accomplish what it constitutionally cannot: limit the free exercise of speech.”

At one point during the hearing, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) asked Yoel Roth, the former global head of trust and safety at Twitter, how many tweets were flagged and removed at the behest of the Biden administration.

Roth denied the characterization of the question, telling lawmakers that “tweets were reported and Twitter independently evaluated them under its rules.”

The hearing also featured references to the “Twitter Files,” reports by journalists that include internal communications between company employees and outside actors. David Zweig, who released one of the “Twitter Files” installments, said internal files from the company that he reviewed “showed that both the Trump and Biden administrations directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s pandemic content according to their wishes.”

“It is inappropriate and dangerous for the federal government to decide what lawful speech is allowed on a private sector platform,” Comer said during debate on Wednesday.

“My bill, the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, makes this type of behavior an unlawful activity for federal officials to engage in — subjecting those who attempt to censor the lawful speech of Americans to disciplinary actions and monetary penalties,” he continued. “The federal government should not be able to decide what lawful speech is allowed — we have the First Amendment for a very good reason.”

Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) argued that the bill was unnecessary because of protections provided under the First Amendment.

“This bill purports to protect free speech from government censorship. And I agree, it’s a great idea. It’s such a good idea, in fact, that the Founding Fathers put it in the Constitution,”  Goldman said on the House floor Wednesday. “It’s called the First Amendment.”

“We don’t need a new bill to protect free speech because that is currently the law of the land. So we must ask ourselves: what is the point of this bill?” he added.

The congressman, who serves as lead counsel in former President Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, argued that the measure would allow malign actors to continue using social media “unfettered” or adverse reasons.

“H.R. 140 would effectively allow these and other foreign malign actors — who have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into online propaganda — to create chaos, mistrust, hate and confusion for Americans, to continue using social media platforms unfettered to wreak havoc on our democratic institutions, including the integrity of our elections,” Goldman said.

“It would do so by undermining the only defense that we have against these operations, which is the ability of our national security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to warn social media platforms and the public about the deployment of counterfeit accounts, disinformation and cyber surveillance by malign actors,” he added.

Lawmakers approved a number of amendments to the bill, including one that would prohibit law enforcement officials from sharing information with social media companies unless it pertains to speech not protected by the First Amendment — such as obscenity, fraud or incitement to imminent lawless action.

The measure also exempts actions from federal employees meant for “exercising legitimate law enforcement functions directly related to activities to combat child pornography, human trafficking, or the illegal transporting of or transacting in controlled substances and safeguarding, or preventing, the unlawful dissemination of properly classified national security information.”

McCarthy to lead congressional delegation to southern border

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is leading a congressional delegation to the southern border on Thursday, marking his first visit to the border since winning the gavel last month.

Republican Reps. Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.), Jen Kiggans (Va.) and Derrick Van Orden (Wis.) — all first-term lawmakers — will accompany McCarthy on the trip. The group will be traveling within the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector, and they will be briefed and receive an aerial tour from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, according to McCarthy.

Ciscomani delivered the Republicans' State of the Union response in Spanish last week.

The trip comes a little more than one month after McCarthy won the Speakership in a 15-ballot election that forced him to give up a number of concessions to shore up support among the party’s right flank, including a floor vote on border legislation.

McCarthy made securing the border a key part of his agenda during the midterm elections, and in the lead-up to the Speaker race. In November, shortly after the midterms, McCarthy traveled to El Paso, Texas, and called on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign over his handling of the southern border — a gesture toward conservative Republicans who had been pushing for impeachment.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) in December said the Border Safety and Security Act would pass in the first two weeks of the new Congress, but it has not yet come to the floor because of disagreements within the party.

The legislation would allow Mayorkas to turn away migrants in an effort to reach "operational control" at the border. Some lawmakers, however, have raised concerns about the limits it would place on asylum.

Some Republicans have been adamant about impeaching Mayorkas. Earlier this month, GOP lawmakers filed a second bill to impeach the secretary. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) called Mayorkas the “chief architect of the migration and drug invasion at our southern border.”

McCarthy has on a number of occasions said he will not use impeachment for political purposes, vowing to launch an inquiry if a reason presents itself. He reiterated that stance last week.

“We will never use impeachment for political reasons. It's just not going to happen,” McCarthy said during a press conference when asked about a potential timeline for impeachment. “That doesn't mean if something rises to the level [of] impeachment, we would not do it.”

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security hired a law firm to help respond to a potential impeachment of Mayorkas.

Spartz won’t support McCarthy in denying Omar seat on Foreign Affairs committee

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) said she will not support Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (Calif.) effort to deny Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) a seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, making matters more difficult for the GOP leader as he looks to follow through on his pledge to not seat the congresswoman on the panel.

Spartz also said she opposes McCarthy’s vow to block Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) from the House Intelligence Committee.

But while McCarthy has the power to unilaterally block Schiff and Swalwell from the Intelligence Committee, unseating Omar would take a vote of the full House, where Republicans hold only a narrow majority.

Spartz pointed to the Democratic-led moves in 2021 to strip Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) of their panel assignments — which she voted against — as a reason for her resistance.

“Two wrongs do not make a right,” Spartz wrote in a statement on Tuesday. “Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] took unprecedented actions last Congress to remove Reps. Greene and Gosar from their committees without proper due process. Speaker McCarthy is taking unprecedented actions this Congress to deny some committee assignments to the Minority without proper due process again.”

“As I spoke against it on the House floor two years ago, I will not support this charade again,” she added. “Speaker McCarthy needs to stop ‘bread and circuses’ in Congress and start governing for a change.”

McCarthy has pledged to keep Schiff and Swalwell off the Intelligence Committee and Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee after Democrats kicked Greene and Gosar off their panels.

The Intelligence panel is a select committee, which means the Speaker assigns members in consultation with the minority leader. That authority also gives him the ability to unilaterally deny members seats on the committee. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on the other hand, are chosen by each party and then ratified by the full House.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has also expressed a coolness to denying Omar the committee seat after voting against booting Greene and Gosar from their panels in 2021.

“I'm going to treat everybody equally,” Mace told CNN. “I want to be consistent on it.”

That GOP opposition to not seating Omar on the Foreign Affairs Committee could present a math problem for McCarthy as he looks to make good on his vow in the narrowly split chamber.

Republicans can afford to lose only two more of their members, in addition to Spartz and Mace, and still deny Omar a seat on the committee. That number, however, could fall to three if Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — who is recovering from injuries after falling 25 feet off a ladder — misses the vote. The Florida Republican wrote on Twitter on Monday that he will be “sidelined in Sarasota for several weeks.”

In 2021, 11 Republicans, seven of whom are still in Congress, voted with Democrats to boot Greene from her committees. Former Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) were the only two Republicans who voted to oust Gosar from panels.

It is unclear when the House will vote to ratify committee assignments. The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee is scheduled to meet this week and complete committee assignments. Omar is expected to be put on the Foreign Affairs Committee, according to several sources familiar with the Democrats’ plans.

After that, the slates will go to the floor for approval.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) officially tapped Schiff and Swalwell for the Intelligence Committee in a letter this weekend to McCarthy, setting the foundation for a showdown over panel assignments for the pair.

McCarthy's frustrations with the trio stem from different areas.

Omar, a Somali refugee, has criticized the Israeli government and its supporters in the past, leading some to accuse her of antisemitism. The congresswoman was forced to apologize in 2019 after indicating that wealthy Jews were buying congressional support for Israel.

Republicans have accused Schiff of lying to the public while leading investigations into former President Trump, and McCarthy has pointed to Swalwell’s association with a suspected Chinese spy who helped fundraise for his 2014 reelection campaign. After the FBI told Swalwell about their concerns, he put an end to his ties with the Chinese national, who left for Beijing.

Both Schiff and Swalwell played prominent roles in Trump's impeachments.

“I’m doing exactly what we’re supposed to do,” McCarthy told reporters earlier this month, doubling down on his vows to deny the lawmakers assignments.

Jan. 6 committee releases final report

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol released its highly anticipated final report Thursday night, capping off the panel’s year-and-a-half-long probe.

The report, which spans 845 pages, was made public three days after the committee held its final meeting and unveiled several criminal referrals targeting former President Trump. During that presentation, members voted unanimously to adopt the expansive body of work.

The final document includes eight chapters, an executive summary and a list of 11 legislative recommendations, all of which are part of the committee’s responsibility of investigating the events surrounding Jan. 6 and putting forward suggestions to prevent a similar event from happening in the future.

“This report will provide greater detail about the multistep effort devised and driven by Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election and block the transfer of power,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the committee, wrote in a foreword in the report.

“Building on the information presented in our hearings earlier this year, we will present new findings about Trump’s pressure campaign on officials from the local level all the way up to his Vice President, orchestrated and designed solely to throw out the will of the voters and keep him in office past the end of his elected term,” he added.

The report was initially set to publish on Wednesday, but the committee punted the release to Thursday. The panel did not give a reason for the delay, but the announcement came a few hours before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered an address to a joint meeting of Congress.

The body of work largely details arguments and evidence the committee laid out during its series of public hearings this year. But for the first time, the panel outlined its full slate of legislative recommendations, including one that seeks to bar Trump from holding office in the future under the 14th Amendment.

The panel argued that Trump should not be allowed to serve in government office because the constitutional amendment prohibits people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding such posts. The committee pointed to Trump’s impeachment by the House on incitement of insurrection, cited the 57 senators who voted to convict him and referenced its criminal referral to the Justice Department on a similar charge.

The committee also recommended increased subpoena enforcement for Congress and more aggressive oversight of the Capitol Police, among other suggestions.

The release of the final report marks the final act of the committee’s sprawling investigation, which has been ongoing since the panel was created in the summer of 2021.

The group held 11 public presentations, interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses and poured over thousands of documents during the past 18 months to understand the events before, on and after Jan. 6.

As a precursor to the publication of the report, the panel made its final public presentation on Monday, during which members voted on criminal referrals to the Justice Department that target Trump.

The panel recommended that the agency investigate Trump for inciting, assisting or aiding and comforting an insurrection; obstructing an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to make a false statement.

The referrals, while symbolic, do not have any legal heft because the Justice Department is not required to investigate recommendations from congressional committees.

But they nonetheless marked a significant moment in the committee’s quest to make its case to the American people that Trump was at the heart of a conspiracy to keep himself in the White House.

“In the Committee’s hearings, we presented evidence of what ultimately became a multi-part plan to overturn the 2020 Presidential election,” the report reads. “That evidence has led to an overriding and straight forward conclusion: the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed.”

“None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him,” the report added.

Ahead of the release of the final report, the committee published the transcripts of a number of witness testimonies — including two conversations the panel had with Cassidy Hutchinson.

During those discussions, the former aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows detailed an effort by what she referred to as “Trump World” to lessen the effect of her testimony and hold back information from investigators.

The referrals and release of the report and transcripts come at a particularly tenuous moment for Trump, whose third bid for the White House is struggling to pick up steam amid poor polls and mockery over a new business venture involving digital trading cards.

Updated Dec. 23 at 12:41 a.m.

Five things to know ahead of the Jan. 6 committee’s crucial week

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is heading into a crucial week as it prepares to hold its final presentation, release a highly anticipated report outlining findings from the panel’s year-plus probe and vote on criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.

The votes on criminal referrals are expected during Monday’s business meeting, marking a significant step for the panel, which has said one of its goals is to prevent what happened on Jan. 6 from happening again.

The week’s closely watched events are the culmination of the committee’s sprawling investigation, which began months after last year’s deadly riot and has consisted of almost a dozen hearings, testimony from more than 1,000 witnesses and millions of documents.

Here are five things to look for as the committee kicks off a pivotal week:

Committee to vote on referrals Monday

Sunrise at the U.S. Capitol, Monday, Dec. 19, 2022, as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol prepares to hold its final meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington.

The committee will vote on criminal referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) during its final business meeting on Monday.

Multiple outlets reported on Friday that the committee will vote on urging the DOJ to pursue at least three charges against former President Trump, including obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, insurrection and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

The referrals will be closely watched inside and outside Washington, but they are also largely symbolic. The DOJ is not obligated to consider recommendations from congressional committees and is in the midst of conducting its own investigation into Jan. 6.

Criminal referrals likely won’t be the only ones the panel considers. 

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the committee, previously said the panel was considering “five or six categories” for referrals. The committee has highlighted behavior that would be under the purview of the Justice Department, House Ethics Committee and professional organizations, such as bar associations.

“We’re focused on key players and we’re focused on key players where there is sufficient evidence or abundant evidence that they committed crimes, and we’re focused on crimes that go right to the heart of the Constitutional order such that the Congress can’t remain silent,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the committee, told reporters last week.

Raskin suggested earlier this month that the five Republican lawmakers who ignored subpoenas from the committee — House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Reps. Scott Perry (Pa.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Mo Brooks (Ala.) — could be referred to the Ethics Committee.

On Sunday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, told CNN's "State of the Union" that the committee has considered censure and ethics referrals.

Asked last week if he or any of his GOP colleagues are concerned about being referred for criminal contempt for ignoring subpoenas, McCarthy told reporters “no, not at all, we did nothing wrong.” 

The committee could also be mulling referrals to bar associations as a rebuke to the lawyers who assisted Trump in his quest to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Panel to release full report on Wednesday

Representatives sit on the dais as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol holds a hearing at the Capitol in Washington, July 12, 2022.

The committee is set to release its report, which will be comprised of eight chapters outlining the findings of the panel’s months-long investigation, on Wednesday.

Those chapters, according to Politico, will closely correspond with the evidence presented at its nine public hearings this year. The committee will also provide an executive summary.

After Monday's business meeting, the panel is expected to release certain materials, including an executive summary of the report, details on referrals, and additional information about witnesses who have appeared before the committee, according to a select committee aide.

But on Wednesday, the public will get access to the full report, including “attachments and some other things,” according to Thompson. The public may have to wait longer, however, to sift through transcripts of witness interviews.

Committee to release legislative recommendations

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) speaks during a House Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday, October 13, 2022 to focus on former President Trump’s efforts to remain in power following his 2020 election defeat.

Monday’s business meeting will also feature some legislative recommendations, Thompson told reporters, which are core part of the Jan. 6 committee’s purpose.

“A lot of our work is also focused on recommendations, legislatively what needs to be done to prevent coups, insurrections, political violence and electoral sabotage in the future,” Raskin, who is a constitutional law expert, said in the Capitol last week.

“And in some sense that’s the heart of it because we think there is a clear, continuing, present danger to democracy today,” he added.

The House has already passed one legislative proposal crafted by members of the committee — the Presidential Election Reform Act, which clarifies the vice president’s role in certifying elections and significantly increases the number of lawmakers needed to object to the certification of a state’s electors.

But Raskin told reporters that the measure was “a very minimal first step.”

In September, he laid out a laundry list of areas the committee wanted to address following its investigation.

“We want to strengthen and fortify the electoral system and the right to vote. We want to do what we can to secure the situation of election workers and keep them safe from violence. We want to solidify the states in their determination that private armed militias not operate in the name of the state. You know, we don’t have any kind of federal law or policy about private armed militias,” the Maryland Democrat said.

It remains to be seen what the scope of the final recommendations will be. And they will be released just as Republicans take control of the House, leaving no time for the Democratic majority to pursue legislation.

Asked last week if there is any regret that the recommendations are coming at such a late stage, Raskin told reporters “I hope that they will have an impact on the thinking of Congress going forward.”

DOJ will finally get committee’s report Wednesday

The Department of Justice logo is seen at their headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, August 5, 2021 prior to a press conference regarding a civil rights matter.

The DOJ has spent months requesting evidence from the panel as it conducts its own investigation and on Wednesday it will finally get its hands on the committee’s final report.

Attorney General Merrick Garland had said the department would like to view the transcripts and other materials “so that we can use it in the ordinary course of our investigations.”

In June, the DOJ wrote in a court filing that the committee’s refusal to share information was making its work more difficult.

“The Select Committee’s failure to grant the Department access to these transcripts complicates the Department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” a letter in the filing read.

“Accordingly, we renew our request that the Select Committee provide us with copies of the transcripts of all the interviews it has conducted to date,” it added.

But Thompson told reporters last month that the DOJ would have to wait until the final report was published to view evidence the committee collected throughout its year-and-a-half investigation. 

The DOJ will finally get its wish on Wednesday, when the committee’s report is made available to the public — including those who work in the agency.

Cheney, Kinzinger to have final moments in the spotlight

Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)

Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) are seen during a House Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday, July 21, 2022 to focus on former President Trump’s actions during the insurrection.

Monday’s business meeting will also mark a swan song of sorts for Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), who are departing Congress at the end of this month after breaking from the Republican Party and denouncing Trump.

Cheney, one of two Republicans serving on the panel, is leaving the House after losing reelection over the summer, in part because of her participation on the Jan. 6 committee.

She has emerged as an outspoken critic of Trump, using her prominent position as vice chair of the committee to lay out the case that the former president was responsible for what happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

It is a main reason why she lost reelection last year to Wyoming lawyer Harriet Hageman, who Trump handpicked to challenge Cheney after she voted for his impeachment and joined the Jan. 6 committee.

Kinzinger has also become a top GOP critic of Trump, though he opted out of running for reelection this year.

Despite their departures, the GOP duo has continued in their crusades against Trump, criticizing him for recent comments he made regarding the Constitution and for dining with noted white supremacist Nick Fuentes.

But Monday’s meeting will likely be the last time they can make the case against Trump with the audience and platform that come with being a member of Congress.