Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) on Thursday introduced a vote of no confidence resolution for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the first effort in the Senate to mirror impeachment efforts percolating in the House.
The resolution comes after Marshall said during an exchange with Mayorkas in a Senate appearance on Tuesday that the secretary was derelict in his duties and, “I would be derelict to not do something about this.”
The nine-page resolution lays out a series of complaints about the state of the border, blaming Mayorkas for everything from increased migration, including attempts to clear a camp of some 15,000 Haitians near the Texas border, to drug flows and overdoses.
"There isn't one American who believes our southern border is secure,” Marshall said in a release.
“In the real world, if you fail at your job, you get fired — the federal government should be no different.”
The resolution would have little effect if passed — an uphill battle in the Democrat-led Senate, and it would not have any bearing on impeachment efforts in the House, which have still not formally taken shape.
The resolution also points to an argument building in the House that Mayorkas was dishonest before Congress — a case built on the secretary asserting in prior appearances that he has maintained control of the border.
The GOP argues that Mayorkas is failing to meet the definition of operational control laid out under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which says the standard has only been met if the country prohibits “all unlawful entries” of both migrants and drugs.
Mayorkas recently told lawmakers that the standard of perfection laid out under the law has never been met, but it encourages the secretary to use all resources at their disposal to improve security.
“The Secure Fence Act provides that operational control means that not a single individual crosses the border illegally. And it’s for that reason that prior secretaries and myself have said that under that definition, no administration has had operational control,” Mayorkas said.
“As I have testified under oath multiple times, we use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational control. Are we maximizing the resources that we have to deliver the most effective results? And under that definition, we are doing so very much to gain operational control.”
With escalating impeachment discussions, the Department of Homeland Security has also called on Congress to do more to address problems with the U.S. immigration system that exacerbate efforts to enter and remain in the country illegally.
“Instead of pointing fingers and pursuing baseless attacks, Congress should work with the Department and pass legislation to fix our broken immigration system, which has not been updated in over 40 years,” the agency said in a statement.
While numerous House lawmakers have expressed an interest in impeaching Mayorkas, the process has not yet begun. If successful, an impeachment resolution would be forwarded to the Democrat-led Senate.
Republicans gave a preview Wednesday of a still materializing impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, zeroing in on a 2006 law that requires a standard of perfection at the border.
But what started as a fiery hearing filled with attacks on Mayorkas ended with promises to tone down the rhetoric and move towards civility in the House Homeland Security Committee — a panel with numerous members who have pledged to remove the secretary from office.
The GOP on Wednesday repeatedly referenced the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a law that defines operational control as achieved when there is not a single unlawful entry of either migrants or drugs at the border.
Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and other Republicans played numerous clips of Mayorkas previously answering questions about whether he has maintained operational control of the border — a tactic that comes after Green reportedly told donors at a fundraiser to “get the popcorn” ready ahead of the hearing.
Green rattled off a series of policies rolled out under the Biden administration, including the rescission of some Trump-era policies, though the current administration has alienated immigration advocates by retaining others.
“You have not secured our borders, Mr. Secretary, and I believe you've done so intentionally. There is no other explanation for the systematic dismantling and transformation of our border,” he said.
Several Republicans on the committee, including Green, leveled a series of accusations against Mayorkas, using their full five minutes for speeches, without asking questions of Mayorkas or allowing him to respond.
“I have no interest in asking the secretary any questions because he obfuscates and lies,” said Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) after arguing Mayorkas had “failed your country.”
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the committee, defended Mayorkas, pointing to reporting from The New York Times about Green’s comments to donors.
“I was dismayed to see that speaking to a group of campaign contributors last week about today's hearing the Chairman said, and I quote, ‘Get the popcorn. It's going to be fun.’ I think that tells Americans all they need to know about the Republican agenda here,” Thompson said.
“They don't want solutions to homeland security challenges. They want to make a headline or photo opp. They want a political wedge issue and something to talk to their deep-pocketed donors about more than they want to work together to get things done.”
Green later said the article misquoted him. He did not specify how but detailed he has no power to impeach Mayorkas, noting such a move would fall to the House Judiciary Committee and that his role is limited to oversight.
Republicans used much of the hearing to dissect Mayorkas’s previous statements on operational control of the border.
Mayorkas has repeatedly maintained he has control of the border, but the GOP has seized on prior comments from Border Patrol Chief Raúl Ortiz who answered “no” when asked if the department was meeting the high standard set under the Secure Fence Act.
It was a line Green said “told the truth” about the situation at the border.
Mayorkas on Wednesday said he was previously cut off by lawmakers from giving nuance to earlier answers, arguing the law leaves much discretion to the secretary in determining how to manage the border while the standard itself has never been met.
“The Secure Fence Act provides that operational control means that not a single individual crosses the border illegally. And it's for that reason that prior secretaries and myself have said that under that definition, no administration has had operational control,” Mayorkas said.
“As I have testified under oath multiple times, we use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational control. Are we maximizing the resources that we have to deliver the most effective results? And under that definition, we are doing so very much to gain operational control.”
Democrats took turns defending Mayorkas.
Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) accused Republicans of having “such short memories … with respect to the situation at the Southern border.” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) rattled off a list of Trump-era policies, including family separation, prompting Mayorkas to say they not only failed to achieve operational control but “disobeyed our values as a country.”
Thompson turned to the archives, citing comments from GOP lawmakers from when the Secure Fence Act was first passed, citing concerns over the standard it set, including Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a member of the committee who worked on the legislation.
“When you put this number as a metric in the definition of operational control, you make it impossible to achieve operational control. Perfection shouldn't be the enemy of the good,” McCaul said at the time, according to a portion of the transcript read aloud by Thompson.
Republicans, however, took issue with Mayorakas’s explanation, arguing the secretary has no right to interpret the laws passed by Congress.
“Congress set an objective in law. You haven't pursued it,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.). “Who are you to displace the legal definition of operational control by this Congress in favor of pursuing one of your own invention?”
Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who played a central role in the impeachment of then-President Trump, later pounced on Bishop’s phrasing.
“I have a little experience with impeachment and I can tell you, as well as everybody else, that there is no grounds for impeachment based on a policy dispute. And there is absolutely nothing that I've seen here today that amounts to a false statement under oath,” he said.
“In fact, Mr. Bishop, my colleague, in referencing operational control and that standard, stated himself that it is an objective. It is the objective of the Department of Homeland Security to have operational control and, as you pointed out, that is to allow no unlawful entry into this country. That, of course, is an impossible standard.”
Other Republicans sought to hold Mayorkas accountable with other methods.
One lawmaker brought a series of charts with multiple questions. Two others brought guests to the hearing, including parents of children that had died of a fentanyl overdose and the family of victims who died after a man carrying migrants crashed into their car while seeking to evade police in a high-speed chase.
The committee’s proceedings came to an almost 20-minute standstill following comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) accusing Mayorkas of lying.
Green agreed to a motion from Democrats to take down her words, ultimately resulting in the loss of her speaking privileges during the hearing.
It was a complex turn of events given that many Republicans at prior points in the hearing accused Mayorkas of being dishonest before Congress, though none, as Greene did, labeled him a liar.
Still, the hearing ended on a tone much different from how it started, with Thompson and Green both speaking to the need to maintain decorum during proceedings.
Thompson said the two men had "sidebarred" about the language used, noting other nations keep tabs on Congressional proceedings — “our adversaries look at us,” he warned.
“You and I pledge that going forward, we'll make every effort to get back to the civility that this committee has been known for,” Thompson said.
Green echoed that in his own closing remarks.
“I agree with the former chairman, now ranking member, that we disagree on a lot of policies. We really do. And we don't have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don't have to disparage someone because they disagree with us,” Green said.
“And we do need to dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.”
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on Tuesday defended the Supreme Court from Democrats’ calls to pass judicial ethics legislation or even conduct an impeachment inquiry after reports that Justice Clarence Thomas received gifts and hospitality from a billionaire.
“The Supreme Court and the court system is a whole separate part of our Constitution, and the Democrats, it seems to me, spend a lot of time criticizing individual members of the court and going after the court as an institution,” McConnell told reporters at his first leadership press conference in the Capitol since suffering a concussion on March 8.
McConnell accused Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) of threatening conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at an abortion rights rally outside the Supreme Court in 2020, when the Democratic leader warned they “won’t know what hit” them if they overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion rights case.
“My counterpart went over in front of the Supreme Court and called out two of the Supreme Court justices by name and actually threatened them with some kind of reprisal — I don’t know what kind — if they ruled the wrong way in a case he cared about,” he said.
McConnell also asserted that Attorney General Merrick Garland “seemed to be largely unconcerned with security issues around the homes of Supreme Court members” after a draft opinion of the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe, leaked in May.
The GOP leader said he has “total confidence” in Chief Justice John Roberts to handle any ethical issues facing the court.
“I have total confidence in the chief justice of the United States to deal with these court internal issues,” he said.
His comments came in reaction to a recent letter Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent to Roberts raising concerns about reporting by ProPublica that Thomas accepted luxury trips regularly from Texas billionaire Harlan Crow without disclosing the gifts.
ProPublica also reported that one of Crow’s companies bought a property in which Thomas owned a one-third share, which Thomas also failed to disclose.
Senate Democrats informed Roberts that they will hold a hearing on “the need to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards” and urged the chief justice to investigate the matter.
“And if the court does not resolve these issues on its own, the committee will consider legislation to resolve it,” they wrote.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in a CNN interview over the weekend suggested the House should conduct an impeachment inquiry into Thomas, telling CNN’s Dana Bash it is “the House’s responsibility to pursue that investigation in the form of impeachment.”
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is seeking a delicate balance in the new Congress where she’s ceded her official leadership duties but still exerts outsized influence within a caucus she piloted for 20 years.
The unusual dynamics — Pelosi is the first Speaker in almost two decades to remain in Congress after stepping out of power — have left the newly designated “Speaker Emerita” with the fragile task of navigating a new role in which she hopes to remain a potent voice for her district and her party without stepping on the toes of the Democrats’ new leadership team.
That’s no easy feat for an historic figure who maintains a national profile, is still shadowed by a security detail and retains a degree of authority unique in the House chamber.
Yet as lawmakers hit the 100-day mark of the new Congress, Democrats of all stripes said that, so far, she’s pulling it off.
“It is a difficult balancing act, but I think she’s managed it superbly,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), another West Coast liberal who has served with Pelosi for almost three decades. “She's been respectful to the new Democratic leadership — clearly being helpful, but not stepping on them, their message, or getting in their way. It's just been artful.”
It also appears to be by design.
In stepping out of the leadership ranks after Democrats lost control of the House last November, Pelosi said she would focus more of her energies on delivering for her San Francisco district. She also suggested she would take pains not to encroach on Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and the new, younger crop of Democrats who accompanied him into the top leadership spots vacated by Pelosi and her two longtime deputies, Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.) and James Clyburn (S.C.).
“I have no intention of being the mother-in-law in the kitchen saying, ‘My son doesn’t like the stuffing that way,’” Pelosi told reporters shortly after announcing her plans to step down.
“They will have their vision; they will have their plan.”
Pelosi this week amplified that message, praising the new leadership team for doing "a terrific job" while expressing appreciation for the many opportunities she continues to enjoy as honorary Speaker.
"I’ve been overwhelmed by generous invitations to speak across the country and around the world," Pelosi said Thursday in an email. "Yet there is no greater honor for me than to speak for the people of San Francisco in the United States Congress.”
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) said the former Speaker is making good on her promises.
“I see no evidence that there is any tension whatsoever,” Higgins said. “The Speaker has stayed in the background — literally and figuratively. And that is what she said she was going to do in deference to a new leadership team, and I think all evidence indicates that's exactly what she has done."
Yet while Pelosi has kept a much lower profile in her new role, she’s hardly faded into the furniture. Jeffries, for one, said he speaks with Pelosi frequently as he gains his footing as the new head of the party.
“It's been wonderful for me to be able to consistently talk to Speaker Pelosi, lean on her for her advice, her thoughts, her guidance, her suggestions, her experience as the greatest Speaker of all time,” Jeffries said earlier in the year. “The factual and historical record, in my view, makes that indisputable.”
Other Democrats delivered a similar message, saying Pelosi‘s transition out of leadership has made her more accessible to rank-and-file members seeking her counsel.
“People come up to her on the floor. They're interested, they're concerned, they have questions,” Blumenauer said. “And she's a tremendous resource.”
Not everyone in the House, of course, is thrilled to have Pelosi hanging around. Republicans, for decades, have accused her of advancing “socialist” policies they deem destructive to American innovation and free markets. And those attacks haven’t let up since Pelosi has stepped out of the leadership spotlight.
“Nancy Pelosi, honestly, should either be removed from Congress — she needs to retire on her own [or] she needs to be kicked out,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told The Hill this week by phone. “That is my personal feelings about her policies; they're that disruptive.”
Still, even a conservative firebrand like Greene — who was booted from her committees in the last Congress with Pelosi’s blessing — said Pelosi’s knack for wielding power is deserving of acclaim.
“Nancy Pelosi is someone I greatly respect for the career that she was able to build and the power that she was able to gain and wield, and she did it well,” Greene said. “She passed the Democrat agenda … She got the job done.”
However long she remains in Congress, Pelosi’s place in history is secure. She was elected House Democratic leader in 2003, and rose again four years later to become the country’s first female Speaker. After eight years in the minority wilderness, she took the gavel again in 2019, stepping down from leadership only this year after Republicans seized control of the House.
Over those years, she helped to enact some of the most consequential legislation of the last half-century, including ObamaCare, Wall Street reforms and a massive climate bill. And she orchestrated the impeachment of former President Trump, not once but twice.
That legislative track record is another reason Democrats say they’re happy to have Pelosi remain a part of the team.
“There is a lot she knows about negotiation and getting things done,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).
The practical changes in Pelosi’s daily routine are subtle but real.
Pelosi’s office releases far fewer statements on daily news items than she did when she was party leader, but when they do arrive they still tend to churn headlines — a testament to the weight she still holds.
Her praise of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) meeting with Taiwan’s president drew widespread coverage; her two-sentence statement on Trump’s recent indictment turned heads; and her endorsement of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) for Senate over two of her House colleagues was noted widely.
Most recently, Pelosi’s defense of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) amid calls for her resignation carried significant weight, especially after two House Democrats said the Senate stalwart should step down as she remains sidelined from Washington while battling shingles.
Inevitably, Pelosi’s schedule has also seen a change this year.
As Democratic leader, she was famous for keeping an excruciating pace — in the Capitol, on fundraising trips around the country and research excursions abroad — and sleeping very little. (She once claimed to sleep four hours a night as Speaker, and five-and-a-half as minority leader.)
Stepping out of leadership has given Pelosi a new luxury — time — which has allowed her to spend more hours at home with her husband, Paul Pelosi, as he recovers from a violent attack at the couple’s San Francisco home just before the midterms.
“She has time to herself,” Blumenauer said. “I've watched her for 25 years be in constant motion, juggling this, reaching out there, dealing with votes and paper and strategy and incoming crises. And this is a chance for her to exhale, to do what she does best in terms of being a thoughtful member of Congress. And I think she's delighting in it.
“I think it's going to add years to her life.”
This is part of a series from The Hill on the House GOP’s first 100 days in power. Check out more coverage on TheHill.com.
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.
Senate Republicans, including members of leadership and even Trump allies, say former President Trump should stay out of the 2024 Senate primaries, hoping to avoid a repeat of last year’s disappointing midterm elections.
They view Trump as becoming more of a political liability in next year’s Senate races as his legal problems mount.
The Manhattan district attorney charged the former president Tuesday with 34 felony counts related to payments to two women, and he could face additional charges from federal prosecutors and Georgia's Fulton County district attorney.
GOP lawmakers and strategists fear Trump will mire GOP candidates in debates over his pet issues such as election fraud and defunding the Department of Justice instead of issues that more voters care about, such as the economy, inflation and health care.
And they worry that Trump’s endorsements again will be more driven by how he perceives candidates’ loyalty to him and his agenda than on their electability in November.
Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.), who has stood in for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) while he recuperates from a concussion, said it would be better if Trump stays out of the way.
“Sure seems like that would be helpful based on our lack of success in 2022,” he said.
Even Trump’s strongest allies would like to see next year’s Senate races play out without Trump’s thumb on the scale.
“If I were him, I’d focus on his own election, but I doubt if he’ll take that advice,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
Trump announced his presidential campaign in November.
He had a mixed record supporting gubernatorial, Senate and House candidates last year.
He had a losing record in the six states where his super PAC spent money on behalf of Republican candidates gubernatorial and Senate races in Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania.
He compiled a 1-6 record in those states, where only Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), whom Trump endorsed in the primary, won.
And the candidates Trump endorsed in the five most competitive House races lost.
Many Senate Republicans think Trump hurt Republicans’ chances in Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania by endorsing candidates whom Republicans in Washington did not view as the candidates with the best chances of winning the general election.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted twice to convict Trump on impeachment charges, said the consensus in the Senate Republican conference is that Trump would do more harm than good if he tries to play kingmaker in next year’s primaries.
“I hope he stays out because him getting involved last time led to us losing key Senate races we could have won,” he said. “I think it’s viewed [that way] by almost every single member of the caucus, if not all of them, but I think few will say it because they don’t want to get the wrath of Donald Trump.”
Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and former Senate leadership aide, said Trump didn’t have a good record picking winners in last year’s toughest races.
“Trump has a very poor track record of backing top-tier candidates that can get elected to the Senate. It’s no wonder that Senate Republicans want Trump to stay away from the primaries as much as possible because he’s been radioactive in the general elections.”
Some Senate Republicans thought Trump dragged down candidates in the general election by making it tougher for them to appeal to moderate and swing voters.
Retired Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who twice won election statewide in Pennsylvania, blamed Trump for the loss of his seat.
“President Trump had to insert himself and that changed the nature of the race and that created just too much of an obstacle,” Toomey told CNN in November, explaining why he thought celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, whom Trump backed in the primary, lost to now-Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
Toomey was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump on the impeachment charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that he lost the 2020 presidential election because of widespread fraud became a litmus test in some Senate Republican primaries and came back to haunt those candidates who embraced those claims in the general election.
In New Hampshire, where at the start of the 2022 election cycle Republicans thought they had a good chance of knocking off vulnerable Sen. Maggie Hassan (D), Republican candidate Don Bolduc won the primary after embracing Trump’s election fraud claims. That turned out to be a liability in the general election, and Bolduc tried to back away from that stance after winning the primary, telling Fox News in September that he concluded after doing research on the matter that the election was not stolen. He wound up losing to Hassan by 9 points.
Mark Weaver, a Republican strategist based in Ohio, where Republicans are hoping to defeat Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) next year, said Trump’s endorsement is a liability for GOP candidates in a general election.
“In the general election, a Trump endorsement is always going to hurt because he will always be a red cape to the Democratic bull, and I don’t see independents growing any fonder of Donald Trump,” he said, referring to the energizing effect Trump has on Democratic voters.
Some Republican strategists outside the Beltway, however, see Trump as an asset for Republican candidates in battleground states such as Ohio.
Mehek Cooke, a Republican strategist and attorney based in Columbus, Ohio, said Trump’s endorsement is “a very net positive” in a general election.
“I think there’s a lot of support for President Trump in the state of Ohio,” she said. “If the Senate Republicans in Washington really want to win against Sherrod Brown, they’re going to come together and work with Trump or any other candidate, rather than continuing the division we see in our country."
Trump carried Ohio in 2016 and 2020 with 51 percent and 53 percent of the vote, respectively.
Now, Trump is dividing Republicans over another controversy: his call to defund the Department of Justice and FBI in response to federal investigations of his role in the incitement of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and his handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.
A Senate Republican aide told The Hill that idea won’t get any significant traction in the Senate GOP conference, while House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) says Congress should use its power of the purse to push back on federal investigations of Trump.
Jordan on Thursday subpoenaed Mark Pomerantz, who formerly worked in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, citing Congress’s interest “in preventing politically motivated prosecutions of current and former presidents by elected state and local prosecutors.”
Bonjean, the GOP strategist and former leadership aide, said that Trump shifts the debate in Senate races away from the topics that GOP leaders want to emphasize: inflation, gas prices, crime, the border and federal spending.
“When Trump injects himself into these primaries, then our candidates have to talk about Jan. 6, Stormy Daniels, stolen elections and those are not matters that Main Street voters really want to hear about,” he said.
“They want to know how you’re going to solve their problems and if you’re actually relatable as a politician, as an elected official, and those issues aren’t very relatable to general election voters,” he added.
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.
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.
The historic arraignment of former President Trump on Tuesday sparked an immediate — and highly caustic — dispute across Congress and the country, exacerbating tensions between Trump's GOP allies and his Democratic critics just as House Republicans have added a probe into the Manhattan District Attorney to their long list of investigative priorities.
Those hostilities were evident in the demonstrations outside the Manhattan courthouse where Trump appeared to face 34 felony charges related to hush payments to an adult film actress in 2016.
They emerged further on cable news, where lawmakers in both camps jousted over the nature and propriety of the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, against the Republican frontrunner in the 2024 presidential race.
And they were glaring on social media, where Republicans howled about political interference in elections, Democrats demanded equal treatment under the law and both sides sought to get an upper hand in the public relations battle heading into next year’s presidential contest.
The debate — in many ways an extension of the dispute over Trump that followed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — did not lack for melodrama.
Trump’s fiercest defenders compared the former president to Jesus and fat-shamed Bragg, while Republicans in general accused Democrats of using Trump’s arrest as a way to cling to power.
“Trump is joining some of the most incredible people in history being arrested today. Nelson Mandela was arrested, served time in prison. Jesus — Jesus was arrested and murdered by the Roman government,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told Right Side Broadcasting host Brian Glenn in New York on Tuesday.
Greene was drowned out by protesters when making brief comments outside the Manhattan courthouse before Trump’s arrest. Embattled Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) also made a brief appearance outside the courthouse.
Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), who served as physician to the president during the Trump and Obama administrations, referred to Bragg as “FAT ALVIN” on Twitter, urging him to “go ahead and celebrate with another jelly donut, but get ready to answer some serious questions from Congress!” In a subsequent statement, Jackson called Bragg a “spineless weasel.”
“Today is a historic low for our nation,” he tweeted.
Even some of Trump’s harshest GOP critics defended him against Bragg’s indictment.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said in a statement that while he finds Trump “unfit for office,” he thought Bragg’s case “sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages the public’s faith in our justice system.”
Democrats largely stopped short of celebrating Trump’s arrest, urging protesters to be peaceful and defending the judicial branch from congressional interference. But they wasted no time condemning Republicans for attacks on Bragg.
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) also appeared outside the courthouse ahead of Trump's arrest, saying Bragg "simply followed the facts where they led" and criticizing Greene for rallying outside.
“Marjorie Taylor Greene needs to take her ass back to Washington and do something about gun violence, do something about affordable housing, do something about childhood poverty, do something about climate change,” Bowman said in a video reposted to his Twitter account.
He added, “Do your freaking job Marjorie Taylor Greene, you don’t need to be in New York City talking that nonsense.”
"Instead of reflecting on the importance of holding leaders accountable to our American democracy, prominent Republicans have instead called Mr. Trump the victim, castigated the New York District Attorney, denigrated the justice system, and fomented national unrest,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.).
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also weighed in, suggesting Republicans are abusing their authority by going after Bragg.
“I believe that Mr. Trump will have a fair trial that follows the facts and the law. There’s no place in our justice system for any outside influence or intimidation in the legal process. As the trial proceeds, protest is an American right but all protests must be peaceful,” Schumer said.
Other Democrats were more strident, accusing Republicans of “bullying” law enforcers to protect a political ally.
“In a desperate attempt to protect Mr. Trump, the most extreme House Republicans are already trying to bully the law enforcement officers involved,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “I do not know how this case will be decided, but I do know that DA Bragg will not be deterred or intimidated by the political stunts Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy throw at him."
Some were pithier in their reactions. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) posted a photo of Trump on Twitter with the caption “Karma.”
The White House has declined to comment on Trump’s indictment and arrest.
Following Trump’s announcement last month that he expected to be arrested in the hush money probe, McCarthy (R-Calif.), the House Speaker, promised that Republicans would investigate Bragg. Jordan (R-Ohio), the Judiciary chairman, soon led two other committee chairs with a request for Bragg to testify to Congress about the case.
“Members of Congress simply should not be commenting or interfering in the legal process and we should let it play out,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on MSNBC just before Trump’s arraignment.
McCarthy reiterated his commitment to investigating Bragg after Trump’s court appearance on Tuesday, accusing him of trying to interfere in the “democratic process” and pushing back on Bragg’s suggestions that Congress does not have the authority to investigate the indictment.
“Bragg’s weaponization of the federal justice process will be held accountable by Congress,” McCarthy tweeted, noting that Bragg’s office admitted that approximately $5,000 spent on the investigation came from federal funds.
The heightened partisan tensions come at a volatile time in Washington, just as leaders in both parties are set to launch into a high-stakes battle over the size and scope of the federal government with enormous implications for the economy. A failure to raise the debt ceiling could lead to a government default; an impasse over government funding could lead to a shutdown; and there’s been no sign, even before Trump’s arrest, that the sides were ready to ease their demands for the sake of a deal.
The question of Trump’s fate will not let up on members of Congress any time soon. Trump’s next in-person court appearance was set for Dec. 4 — about two months before the official start of the 2024 Republican presidential primary race, which kicks off with the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 5.
Next year’s election loomed large over Tuesday’s arraignment, with some of Trump’s GOP allies rejecting the notion that his indictment will influence his 2024 bid.
“President Trump continues to skyrocket in the polls, and just like with the Russia hoax and both sham impeachments, President Trump will defeat this latest witch-hunt, defeat Joe Biden, and will be sworn in as President of the United States of America in January 2025,” House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) said in a statement.
Greene and other GOP members of Congress are set to join Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence on Tuesday evening, where the former president is scheduled to deliver remarks after he did not speak to reporters during his roughly two hours at the Manhattan courthouse.
Republicans are warning that the unprecedented indictment of former President Trump on multiple charges sets a dangerous precedent that will lower the bar for future political prosecutions while putting the nation on a precarious slippery slope.
Some Republicans are comparing Trump’s indictment — over crimes related to the payment of $130,000 to an adult film actress — to the House Republican impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 on charges related to his affair with a White House intern.
They predict that indicting Trump will make future former presidents and other political figures more susceptible to politically motivated prosecutions.
Democrats counter with the refrain that no person is above the law, regardless of whether he served in the Oval Office.
But some Democrats were not thrilled to hear that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) would be the first prosecutor to indict Trump; the conduct he is targeting has been publicly known for five years and other prosecutors, including Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., passed on the opportunity.
“I think it is a terrible precedent for the country. I think it’s bad for America, bad for the Republican Party and it’s bad for the political system in our country. Once you start down this path, there’s no way you’re going to reverse it. That’s what we saw with impeachment,” said Vin Weber, a Republican strategist and former member of the House GOP leadership.
“We’re going to see political prosecutions brought, some of them for meritorious reasons, some of them to advance the careers of the prosecutors. But all of this is harmful to America and our political process,” he added.
Weber said “another whole aspect” of the case is that Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, according to 10 of the most recent national polls.
“There are people in this vast country of ours who have less than sterling motivations and you want them to be inhibited by rules that we’ve established, informal rules, that are designed to protect the whole system,” he said.
“Once this wall of precedent has been destroyed, we’re going to find people around the country who are going to find reasons to engage in political prosecutions,” he added, noting that some Republicans are talking about the possibility of bringing charges against President Biden or his son Hunter after he leaves office.
“I don’t know if that’s likely or not but we’re going to see something somewhere,” he said.
Some Republican officeholders are framing Trump’s indictment as motivated purely by politics.
“These charges aren’t about enforcing the law. Democrats barely pretend they are. They are the left telling the nation, we’re in charge here. And if you threaten us, we will destroy you,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) tweeted last week.
Former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), a one-time adviser to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s (Ky.) leadership team, said “it’s extremely dangerous for our democracy to indict a former president unless there is an unequivocal violation representing a very significant offense.”
“This does not appear to rise anywhere near that. In fact it appears to be extremely political from a distance,” he added. “So I think it sets a precedent, and it’s a very dangerous precedent for democracy.
“It creates an atmosphere where the courts are being used as a political weapon,” he said. “It undermines I think the confidence of the American people in their democracy, in their legal system.”
Critics of Bragg’s case, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), point out that Trump’s then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, made the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election and the statute of limitations in New York is two years for misdemeanors and five years for minor felonies.
These critics believe Bragg will try to tie that payment to an effort to conceal another crime, most likely a violation of campaign finance law, to get around the statute of limitations.
Cruz noted that a similar charge was brought against former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and was thrown out at trial. Edwards used nearly $1 million in payments from his political backers to support his mistress during the 2008 campaign. Democrats at the time criticized the charges brought by a Republican prosecutor as politically motivated.
“Bragg’s case is even weaker because [the New York law in question] is ordinarily a misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations, so he couldn’t bring the claim,” he said. “In order to get it to be a felony, there’s a separate New York statute, which requires you have a fraudulent business record that aided in another crime.
“He’s got to bootstrap presumably a federal campaign finance violation, which the federal government declined to bring,” Cruz explained. “The core allegation at the heart of Bragg’s case is that Trump mischaracterized a payment as legal fees when it was not in fact legal fees.
“Hillary Clinton at the exact same time, in 2016 during the presidential campaign … paid $1 million for the Steele Dossier to be compiled — the fake and fantastical work of fiction that her oppo research team put together that tragically became the basis of [Special Counsel Robert’ Mueller’s] investigation,” he said.
Cruz said Clinton also characterized the funding of the Steele Dossier research as legal payments, arguing that this shows Bragg is playing politics.
“It make obvious this is partisan politics,” he said.
Experts say the precedent set by indicting Trump will reverberate into the future.
“Every time a threshold is crossed in politics, it sets a predicate for another line to be crossed. Once a taboo is violated politically, it just makes it easier to do it a second time. There’s precedent,” said Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University.
He said Bragg’s case appears to be weaker than possible charges anticipated from Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith and Georgia's Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
“I think it would be better if the precedent were stronger. If it were an open-and-shut case, it would be harder to argue … local district attorneys shouldn’t have the power to indict presidents,” he said.
Baker said the “gravity” of the allegations against Trump related to his alleged role inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and to his alleged role in trying to subvert the election results in Georgia in 2020 would give any charges brought by the Department of Justice or the Fulton County DA's office more credibility than Bragg's case.
House Democrats reacted with mixed emotions this week to the historic indictment of former President Trump, with some cheering the move with bald jubilation and others approaching much more cautiously ahead of Trump’s expected arraignment on Tuesday.
While both camps are united behind the central premise that no one in America is above the law, the tonal contrast highlights both the toxic nature of Trump’s relationship with his congressional rivals and the Democrats’ deep-seeded anxiety that the indictment will only invigorate his conservative base and make him a more formidable force in the race for the White House next year.
Fueling that divide is the nature of the case being brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), which centers around Trump’s role in providing hush payments to an adult film actress more than six years ago — a salacious saga divorced from the more serious allegations facing the former president, which relate to his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
On one side of the divide are Democrats who cheered Bragg’s decision with evident glee. That group is composed largely of liberal and minority lawmakers, including members of the far-left “squad,” who have long accused Trump of being a racist and are now relishing an indictment they view as karmic justice.
“Grand Jury votes to indict Trump!” tweeted Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), one of three Muslim lawmakers in Congress who has been a frequent target of Islamophobic Trump attacks.
“It’s time that we ensure Trump is banned from running for any public office again,” echoed Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.).
Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) shared in the celebration, saying the indictment is “one of many steps” toward eliminating Trump as a threat to fair elections.
“I will always believe that this twice-impeached former president is a threat to our democracy,” he tweeted.
Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) tweeted a short clip of a crowd of women giving a standing ovation.
The celebratory mood is not being shared — at least not publicly — by a long list of other Democratic lawmakers, who are treading more carefully into the explosive debate. Those voices, which include members of Democratic leadership, have been no less critical of Trump over his political career, but are taking pains not to jump to conclusions before seeing the charges — which remain under seal — or reach a verdict before a jury does.
“This is not a moment to celebrate. This is a terrible moment for the country. But no one is above the law,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said on Twitter. “Those lock her up chants that people were chanting like hyenas in a stadium around the country were never funny, perhaps they now understand why.”
There are also lingering anxieties that Trump, the current frontrunner in the early field seeking the GOP presidential nomination, will get a boost from Bragg’s decision, as Republicans — even some of Trump’s 2024 rivals — race to defend the former president from what they consider a politically motivated witch hunt designed solely to damage his presidential prospects.
Shedding a no-holds-barred approach to Trump in the past, many Democrats have adopted a neutral tone in response to the indictment, keeping a distance from the judicial process to let the wheels of the courts grind away.
“No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former Speaker who was a target of the pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6, said in a brief and subdued statement. “Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.”
“In America we believe in the rule of law,” echoed Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), a fierce Trump critic. “We should wait to hear from the grand jury before jumping to conclusions.”
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), who was among the managers of Trump’s first impeachment, called it “a somber day for our nation.”
And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) adopted the same muted tone, characterizing it as “a serious moment” for the country.
“A jury of Donald Trump’s peers will now determine his legal fate,” Jeffries tweeted.
Trump’s GOP allies, meanwhile, have rallied in his defense, characterizing the indictment — the first against any president, sitting or former — as a blatant “weaponization” of government by Democrats to take down a political rival.
“It's Trump derangement,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said Thursday evening as he was leaving his Capitol Hill office. “It's an illness of hatred that just — it shouldn't be in American politics.”
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 — 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.
Bragg’s case revolves around a $130,000 hush payment made by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, to the adult actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election in return for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier — an affair Trump denies.
A Manhattan grand jury voted Thursday to indict Trump, who is expected to be arraigned in New York on Tuesday. The specific charges remain unknown, sealed until Trump’s appearance, but reports from CNN and NBC indicate he will face around 30 counts related to business fraud.
Not all of Trump’s critics cheered the arrival of the indictment this week.
Trump is also facing a series of separate criminal investigations into his conduct, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the discovery of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, his resort-residence in South Florida. And some Democrats have hoped that the Justice Department, which is investigating Trump on several fronts, would have moved more quickly on those other cases to lend more gravity to their underlying charge that Trump is unfit to serve as president for another term.
Those voices fear that Bragg’s case, by coming first, will only bolster the argument from Trump and his allies that Democrats are pursuing “frivolous” cases designed solely to damage Trump politically.
“After inciting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, pressuring local officials to overturn the 2020 election, receiving financial kickbacks from foreign powers, and numerous other crimes during his presidency, it’s embarrassing and infuriating that the first indictment against Trump is about ... Stormy Daniels,” Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement.
“The January 6th Select Committee and bold leaders like Jamie Raskin did their job,” he continued. “It’s time for Merrick Garland and the Justice Department to do theirs.”
Amid the emotional debate, some lawmakers are urging restraint by pointing out an obvious hole in the discussion: No one weighing in knows what charges await Trump next week.
“Just a reminder,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), “that there is no rule that you have to express your opinion before reading the indictment.”
