Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Sunday shrugged off criticism of President Biden's son Hunter Biden attending a state dinner at the White House last week just after pleading guilty to tax crimes.
"You know, I think as the president explained, that's his son. That's a separate thing," Klobuchar said on NBC's "Meet the Press," when asked if she thinks it was appropriate for Hunter Biden to be at the state dinner, which Attorney General Merrick Garland also attended.
The president's son was in attendance at the dinner held during the official state visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week. Court documents last week also revealed Hunter, who has been under investigation for tax matters for several years, will plead guilty to tax crimes in a plea deal with prosecutors, and reached a diversion agreement relating to unlawful possession of a weapon.
"And I would like to say about that, that decision was made by an independent prosecutor, who is a Trump appointed U.S. attorney, who had 10 years of experience, well-respected. [The] Philadelphia Inquirer reported that he was a registered Republican. He looked at the facts and evidence and made that decision," Klobuchar said of the legal development.
"And by the way, if that's what the Republicans want to run on, in the coming election, good luck," Klobuchar said.
Asked whether she wished the "perception" were different, Klobuchar said, "You always wish there are different perceptions."
Republicans have bashed the deal as too lenient on the president's son, with many attacking the Justice Department. Garland, who was also at the state dinner, has denied allegations of political interference in the Justice Department’s investigation into Hunter Biden.
If the Republican Party was even remotely normal, Senate Republicans would be counting down the hours until Election Day 2024, when they would almost assuredly win the two seats they need to retake control of the upper chamber.
Instead, they are biting their tongues and ducking for cover as they face incoming hits from every corner of the Republican Party.
The latest debacle keeping Senate Republicans up at night is the House GOP’s push to impeach President Joe Biden over, well, they're not exactly sure what … but they may or may not bother to find out.
After House Republicans voted Thursday to refer an impeachment resolution over border security to the committees of jurisdiction, Senate Republicans started to review their life choices.
"I don't know what they're basing the president's impeachment on. We'll see what they do. I can't imagine going down that road," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia told Axios.
Capito even added the most obvious yet damning observation: "This seems like an extremely partisan exercise."
Senate Minority Leader John Thune would prefer his caucus’s attention and energy be directed toward pretty much anything else. “I’d rather focus on the policy agenda, the vision for the future and go on and win elections," the South Dakotan—and Mitch McConnell’s #2—explained to Axios.
Sounds smart. But does anyone have any clue at all what the GOP "vision for the future" is— other than rounding up all of Donald Trump's perceived enemies, locking them up, and contemplating whether to throw away the key or worse?
The Senate Republican chairing the effort to retake the chamber, Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, also chimed in, saying he hadn't "seen evidence that would rise to an impeachable offense," before conceding that’s what trials are for.
Sure—assuming House Republicans bother to conduct an investigation. That little hiccup appears to have occurred to Sen. Thom Tillis of South Carolina.
"Impeachment is a serious process. It takes time. It takes evidence," he noted. Now, there's one to grow on.
As former Harry Reid aide Jim Manley tweeted about the House GOP's impeachment scheme: "As a so-called democratic strategist—thank you."
But House Republican plans for impeachment (not to mention a potential government shutdown, abortion ban push, or effort to yank aid to Ukraine) aren't the only things keeping Senate Republicans awake at night.
They're a tad uncomfortable with the fact that the party's current 2024 front-runner and possible nominee stole state secrets, refused to return them, and then obstructed justice during a federal probe of the matter.
Several weeks ago, On June 13, Minority Leader McConnell was asked during a press gaggle whether he would still support Trump as nominee if he were convicted. He dodged.
"I am just simply not going to comment on the candidates," McConnell responded. "I'm simply going to stay out of it." He has said anything on the matter since.
Finally, when looking toward 2024, so-called candidate quality is still a sticking point for Senate Republicans. Though they have had some wins on candidate recruitment to date, they have also suffered some missed opportunities. Further, many of their candidates—even the good ones—will be haunted by their extreme anti-abortion views on the campaign trail.
Voters across the battleground tilt heavily pro-choice and largely believe Republicans will try to ban abortion if they gain control of Washington/Congress. Driving these strong views is a fundamental belief that women should make their own decisions, not politicians.
Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher, Senate Republicans top pick to challenge Democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin, announced earlier this month that he’ll be taking a pass on a run. The Badger State’s GOP primary promises to be a mess, but former Milwaukee County sheriff and conspiracy theory enthusiast David Clarke has looked dominant in polling.
In response to Gallagher's June 9 news, Clarke, who's eyeing a bid, tweeted of his rivals, "None of them energizes or excites the base voter like I do."
He's not wrong—and that is some very bad news for Senate Republicans hoping to put Baldwin's seat in play.
Republicans also have extreme hurdles in other top-tier target states, such as Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. As Daily Kos previously reported, even their best candidates hold downright radical positions on abortion:
Senate Republicans’ top choice in Montana, businessman Tim Sheehy, who has accused Democrats of being "bent on murdering our unborn children";
Another Senate GOP darling, Pennsylvania hedge fund CEO David McCormick, doesn't support exceptions for rape and incest, and only approves of "very rare" exceptions for the life of the mother;
In Ohio, MAGA diehard Bernie Moreno, who's earned the endorsement of freshman Sen. J.D. Vance, is "100% pro-life with no exceptions," according to HuffPost. During his failed Senate bid last year, Moreno tweeted, “Conservative Republicans should never back down from their belief that life begins at conception and that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby";
and then there’s West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, who McConnell has convinced to run for the seat of Sen. Joe Manchin. He signed a near-total abortion ban into law last year.
Whether it's Trump, House Republicans, or abortion—the issue that turned the midterms upside down in 2022—Senate Republicans face an uphill battle to recruit and present candidates with broad appeal in a party that thrives on alienating a solid majority of the country.
Joining us on "The Downballot" this week is North Carolina Rep. Wiley Nickel, the first member of Congress to appear on the show! Nickel gives us the blow-by-blow of his unlikely victory that saw him flip an extremely competitive seat from red to blue last year, including how he adjusted when a new map gave him a very different district, and why highlighting the extremism of his MAGA-flavored opponent was key to his success. A true election nerd, Nickel tells us which precincts he was tracking on election night that let him know he was going to win—and which fellow House freshman is the one you want to rock out with at a concert.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said an effort to impeach President Biden that lacks due process would be “dead on arrival” in the Senate.
Graham said during a Friday appearance on “The Hill” on NewsNation that Republicans argued that Democrats did not give former President Trump the right to due process during the impeachment proceedings against him in 2019 and 2021, and he does not believe anyone should be impeached without a hearing being held.
Graham noted that the impeachment against former President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s went through a process that allowed him to defend himself.
“But what’s being done in the House to go straight to the floor with articles of impeachment — we criticized the Democrats for not giving Trump any due process. I think this is dead on arrival,” he said.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) introduced a privileged motion in the House this week to force a vote on impeaching Biden over his handling of federal immigration policy and the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. But the motion caught many of her own colleagues by surprise and did not have support from several notable GOP members in the House and Senate, including Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
Senate Republicans raised questions about the effort, and some said they considered it to be frivolous and not meeting the level required for impeachment. The motion was ultimately referred to the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, avoiding the vote for now.
McCarthy said Boebert’s motion is “one of the most serious things you can do as a member of Congress” and an investigative process needs to occur first to move forward.
“Throwing something on the floor actually harms the investigation that we’re doing right now,” he said.
Republicans have been pushing to impeach various members of the Biden administration, including Biden, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has introduced articles against all of them as well as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves.
Some Republicans warned after Boebert's effort failed that the attempt will give Democrats the ability to paint the GOP as extreme, with one Republican strategist calling Boebert’s effort “frankly stupid.”
Graham said impeaching any president without “some process in place” is “irresponsible.”
“It’s important that we follow the process, and if you believe that President Biden has done something this impeachable, take it through the committee, give him a chance to respond, and we’ll see what happens,” he said.
(NewsNation) — Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley (R) said he was "surprised" to learn how many unidentified aerial phenomena the U.S. government has come across, amid calls from lawmakers for investigations into a whistleblower's claims of a secret UFO program.
"The number of these is apparently huge, huge. And that is something that the government has, the best I can say about it, downplayed, if not kept from the public, for a long, long time," said Hawley.
While he acknowledged that he can't assess the truth of David Grusch's allegations, Hawley pointed to government reports that indicated there were UAP sightings that remain "unaccounted for."
"I don't have any basis to evaluate them but do some of the details that he's alleging, do they sound plausible? Yeah, sure. They sound plausible, based on what I've seen this government do in other instances," Hawley said.
Hawley said his remarks concerned the government's response to the Chinese spy balloon spotted over the U.S. back in January.
"What we learned from the Chinese spy balloon incident is that one part of the government actively concealed it from other parts of the government," Hawley explained. "Because that's what they do all the time."
A House oversight committee has vowed to hold open hearings to address the whistleblower's allegations.
David Grusch, an Air Force veteran and former member of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, alleged the U.S. government has recovered non-human craft for decades. He recently filed a whistleblower complaint, stating he gave what he referred to as classified “proof” to Congress and the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
Hawley said he felt that Grusch's claims track with what he alleges to have heard in briefings.
"He's saying that the government knows more about this than they have previously let on. That doesn't really surprise me. Because it looks to me like the government has been tracking these UAPs for a long time now, and has not been saying much about it," said Hawley.
Not all lawmakers are convinced, however.
"If we'd really found this stuff, there's no way you could keep it from coming out. … My gut belief is if there's a physical piece of a spacecraft or an intact spaceship, we would've known about it by now," said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Hawley doesn't buy that argument, saying the government is good at keeping secrets when it wants something to stay hidden.
Unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), formerly referred to as UFOs, in theory, could include alien spacecraft, but the two aren't synonymous.
The Defense Department's All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) considers a UAP "anything in space, in the air, on land, in the sea or under the sea that can't be identified and might pose a threat to U.S. military installations or operations."
In a statement to NewsNation, the Pentagon said, to date, that “AARO has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently.”
However, Grusch is claiming very few people are aware of the alleged secret UAP program, saying even those at the Pentagon who respond to UAP reports are in the dark.
“I have plenty of senior, former intelligence officers that came to me, many of which I knew almost my whole career, that confided in me that they were part of a program," Grusch claimed. "They provided me documents and other proof, that there was in fact a program that the UAP Task Force was not read into.”
Senate Republicans are looking for a way to get around the caps on defense spending set by the debt limit deal that President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) negotiated last month, putting them on a collision course with House Republicans.
Republican defense hawks on the Senate Appropriations Committee vented their frustration with the allocations for the Defense Department set by Senate Democrats and House Republicans, which represents an increase of more than 3 percent over current spending levels.
“If you’re looking at China’s navy and you think now’s the time to shrink our Navy, you sure as hell shouldn’t be in the Navy. We go from 298 ships under this budget deal to eventually 291. ... You sunk the Navy. The Congress has sunk eight ships. How many fighter squadrons have we parked because of this deal?” fumed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) at a committee hearing Thursday morning.
“GDP to defense spending is going to be at a historic low under this deal,” he said, arguing that the defense spending cap will also hurt Ukraine in its war against Russia. “There’s not a penny in this deal to help them keep fighting. Do you really want to be judged in history as having, at a moment of consequence to defeat Putin, to pull all the money for Ukraine?”
Graham suggested Thursday afternoon that Senate Republicans may attempt to renegotiate the defense spending cap set by the debt limit law later this year.
“There will be conversation among senators and hopefully the House to increase our spending to deter China. Reducing the size of the U.S. Navy doesn’t deter China,” he said.
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the top-ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said she was concerned that "the new debt limit law caps regular defense funding in fiscal year 2024 at the inadequate level requested by the president" and that it "fails to meet the security challenges facing our nation.”
House Republicans have proposed $826 billion for the annual defense appropriations bill, while Senate Democrats have proposed $823 billion for the defense spending bill, keeping in line with the spending caps McCarthy negotiated with Biden.
Those numbers don’t include defense spending spread across other departments, including the Department of Energy, which oversees the nation’s nuclear arsenal; the Department of Homeland Security; and money allocated for military construction and veterans affairs.
Graham and Collins are hoping to increase defense spending levels later in the year — possibly by passing a supplemental defense spending bill that includes money for Ukraine — but McCarthy has already poured cold water on the deal.
“I’m not going to prejudge what some of them [in the Senate] do, but if they think they’re writing a supplemental because they want to go around an agreement we just made, it’s not going anywhere,” he told Punchbowl News earlier this month.
Adding fuel to the fire, House Republicans have proposed cutting an additional $119 billion from discretionary spending by setting spending targets for the annual spending bills that cumulatively fall well below the caps that Biden and McCarthy agreed to for those programs — $886 billion for defense and $703.7 for nondefense programs.
House Republicans are proposing finding those additional savings by cutting from nondefense discretionary spending programs, which will likely put pressure on the Department of Homeland Security.
Meeting the House Republican targets for nondefense programs could entail spending cuts ranging between 15 percent to 30 percent for the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
Such a showdown over spending levels heightens the chances of Senate Democrats and House Republicans failing to agree, and then not passing the regular spending bills, which means they would have to resort to a stopgap spending measure. If they fail to pass all 12 appropriations bills by Dec. 31, that would trigger an across-the-board, 1-percent rescission for all defense and nondefense discretionary spending.
Senate Republicans warn the 1-percent spending sequester would hit defense programs harder than nondefense programs.
Graham and Collins also spoke out Thursday against the spending allocations Senate Democrats set for homeland security.
Homeland Security Department funding is under pressure because of the spending cap Biden and McCarthy agreed to as part of the debt limit deal.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said the debt limit deal squeezed federal funding priorities across the board.
“We were given a top-line [spending number] that was extremely challenging and difficult,” she said. “I would dare say no one on this committee, certainly Sen. Collins or I, would have negotiated that agreement. We were not in the room but we have been given that order.”
Graham said that under the spending caps agreed to last month, the Homeland Security Department would not have enough money to stem the flow of fentanyl and other drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border.
“If you’ve looked at the border and you feel like we can spend less on homeland security, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive. This place is falling apart. and fentanyl is killing Americans. We need more, not less, to address that,” he said.
Graham suggested that the consequences of the spending caps would be severe if kept in place over the long-term.
“We’re in a tough spot. I like the idea we’re not going to be perpetually bound by this,” he said.
Collins raised similar concerns.
“Due to the inadequacy of funding for Homeland Security and the need for additional defense funding, unfortunately I cannot support the 302(b) allocations,” Collins said of the money proposed for the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon.
“Our crisis at the southern border continues. We are on pace for another 2.2 million encounters with migrants this fiscal year,” she added. “Despite this ongoing calamity, the proposed 302(b) allocation would actually reduce funding for the Department of Homeland Security, limiting our ability to have sufficient personnel and technology at the southern border.”
Graham and Collins made their comments in reaction to the $56.9 billion in budget authority that Senate Democrats proposed for the annual Homeland Security appropriations bill.
The Republican-controlled House Appropriations panel has approved $63.9 billion in budget authority for homeland security appropriations.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, told colleagues at the hearing Thursday morning that he agrees with Graham and Collins that the defense funding levels set forth by the Senate and House are “inadequate.”
“Am I happy with the defense number? No. I think it’s inadequate, quite frankly,” he said.
He later told The Hill that he found it ironic that Republicans, who usually like to bill themselves as fiscal hawks, are the ones now looking to get around the spending caps.
“I just felt like we had flipped positions today. Democrats were able to take the conservative [debt limit] number, and Republicans wanted the more liberal number,” he said.
The chance that Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) will lift his hold on military promotions over the Pentagon's abortion policy anytime soon has dimmed drastically as Senate Republicans struggle to make a deal with him to end the months-long saga.
The Senate Armed Services Committee this week failed to advance a bill that would have overturned the Pentagon's policy that covers some expenses for service members who must travel for an abortion. That, coupled with a bitter back-and-forth between Tuberville and the Biden administration and lack of progress in talks with Republicans, means the holds are set to enter their fifth month with no end in sight.
"Either side could make a move and right now neither side seems to think that these nominations are important enough to override the position that they find themselves in," Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told The Hill. "So we're at a stalemate."
As of this week, Tuberville is holding up 250 promotions for general and flag officers that are normally approved on the Senate floor via unanimous consent, and the anger among Democrats has not dissipated. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) on Tuesday made the 10th attempt by Senate Democrats to advance the military promotions, only to be blocked by the Alabama Republican.
President Biden and the Pentagon also heaped more pressure on Tuberville this week. The president referred to the “former football coach from Alabama” during a fundraiser in Los Gatos, Calif., earlier this week, calling his hold “bizarre.”
“I don’t remember it happening before,” Biden said. “I know I don’t look like I’ve been around, but I’ve been around a long time.”
The Pentagon also slammed at Tuberville earlier this week; Sabrina Singh, the Department of Defense’s deputy press secretary, criticized him for setting a “dangerous precedent” with his actions.
Tuberville remains unmoved.
He told The Hill earlier this week that there has not been internal pressure from Republicans to release his holds and that he has not heard directly from anyone in the administration or the Democratic side in recent weeks, outside of public missives.
“We’ve probably gone backwards on that. Everyone’s gotten a closed mouth on this whole deal,” Tuberville told The Hill.
But what it would take to move him off of his hold remains unclear to many.
Tuberville told reporters that three things could get him to lift the hold on military promotions: A reversal of Pentagon policy, a successful vote to codify the policy or a failed vote to do so, with the latter two options coming both via a bill proposed by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). Tuberville’s staff clarified his comments, saying that a failed vote would not do the trick unless the Department of Defense dropped the policy ahead of a hypothetical vote on the Shaheen bill.
None of the three options are likely, and no one has been willing to budge, meaning stalemate will likely go on for the foreseeable future.
“It seems like everyone’s confused,” one Senate GOP aide said of the Tuberville situation. “I don’t know how we get to a solution here. I’m not sure there’s anyone on this planet that can talk him off of this. Plenty have tried.”
Multiple Senate Republicans in recent weeks have talked to Tuberville about just that, but all have been stymied. Sen Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) brought up an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would rescind the Pentagon’s abortion policy that was put into place late last year, but it was blocked during the markup on the bill this week.
On top of that, Tuberville had indicated already that a committee level vote on the item would not move him off of his hold, even though he voted for it.
“I’m not going for a committee vote,” Tuberville said.
Even those supportive of his push have tried to find a resolution. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told The Hill that he has talked with the Alabama Republican about the situation and was hopeful something could be done to rectify things via the annual defense authorization bill.
“I don’t disagree with Sen. Tuberville’s point. But … there needs to be a means to accomplish that,” Cornyn said. “I believe in counting the votes, as opposed to depending on my optimism, and I’m not sure they’re there yet. I’m not sure they’re not there, but I think that’s the way to go.”
Others, however, indicated they are tired of discussing the prolonged back-and-forth.
“I’ve answered a lot of questions about [this],” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), an Armed Services Committee member, said when asked if she’s sensed any movement on the holds. Fischer initially said that she was not supportive of Tuberville’s tactics before telling reporters that she supports his efforts.
Lawmakers are starting to ask whether they could move certain nominees one by one, burning floor time. The situation will be especially acute next month as five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Chairman Mark Milley, will start to be replaced.
Senate Democrats indicated this week that they are not prepared to do that and are leaning on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has said he does not back Tuberville’s hold, and other Senate GOP members to pressure their colleague from Alabama.
“I don’t know what we’ll do if we have to explore other options,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said. “Right now, the most feasible and readily available and timely way to solve it is for him to back down and for his colleagues to persuade him that’s the wise course.”
The Senate voted largely along party lines Thursday to reject a Republican-sponsored resolution that would have overturned a Biden administration rule effectively banning the use of stabilizing braces on pistols — devices that have been used in several mass shootings.
Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.), two centrist Democrats facing tough reelection races next year in red states, voted against the resolution. They both have a history of supporting gun-owners' rights.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said repealing the rule effectively banning pistol braces would have made it “easier to conceal an assault-style pistol, something that’s been used in mass shooting after mass shooting.”
“Shame on them,” he said of Republicans who pushed to overturn the regulation.
“If you’ve ever seen a gunman fire what looks like a machine gun with one hand, that’s what pistol braces allow you to do,” he said.
The White House noted in a statement of administration policy that gunmen have used brace devices in mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and Boulder, Colo.
The resolution, which Republicans moved under the Congressional Review Act, would have nullified the rule finalized in January by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stating that any stabilizing brace attached to a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches would be regulated as a “short-barreled rifle” under the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Congress passed legislation in the 1980s to impose a 10-year prison sentencing enhancement for using a short-barreled rifle in any violent or drug trafficking crime.
Under the new Biden administration rule, gun owners who have a pistol with a stabilizing brace can either add a longer barrel to the firearm, remove the brace, turn the firearm in to a local ATF office or register it as a short-barreled rifle with federal authorities.
“Short-barreled rifles are more concealable than long guns, yet more dangerous and accurate at a distance than traditional pistols. For these reasons, they are particularly lethal, which is why Congress has deemed them to be dangerous and unusual weapons subject to strict regulation since 1934,” the Office of Management and Budget said in a June 12 statement of policy.
The White House budget office said earlier this month that Biden would veto the measure.
“For almost 90 years, short-barreled rifles have been controlled under the National Firearms Act, along with machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Why? Because they combine the accuracy of a rifle with the concealability of a handgun. It’s a deadly combination,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said before the vote.
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), the House sponsor of the resolution, called the ATF rule “unconstitutional” and an example of “executive overreach.”
The House passed the resolution earlier this month by a largely partisan vote of 219 to 210.
Two Democrats voted for it and two Republicans voted against it.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said attorneys for former President Trump in the classified and sensitive documents case will have a “bad Christmas” following a recent filing that hints prosecutors have additional evidence beyond what was previously known.
A court filing from Wednesday states that special counsel Jack Smith has begun providing the evidence he plans to use to Trump, including multiple interviews of the former president, which seems to indicate the government has recordings of Trump discussing the documents he held at Mar-a-Lago beyond what is mentioned in the indictment.
Whitehouse told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell in an interview Wednesday that the filing tells him Smith has a strong case and feels comfortable turning over the evidence early in the process.
“It tells me that there’s gonna be bad Christmas for the Trump lawyers as they open the different files of evidence and find out how awful the evidence is against their client,” he said.
“And it tells me that they want to get Trump’s attention early, by getting his lawyers the evidence that they need to be able to go to their client and say, ‘Hey, you are in real trouble here,’” Whitehouse continued.
Judge Aileen Cannon has set a preliminary trial date for the case Aug. 14, but Trump’s team will likely delay the trial past then through pre-trial motions.
Trump was indicted on 37 federal charges earlier this month in relation to his handling of the documents that were taken from the White House to Mar-a-Lago after his presidency, including 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act. He has also been charged with obstructing the investigation into his retention of the documents.
The indictment alleges that Trump had documents containing military secrets and information on U.S. nuclear programs, pushed his attorneys to help cover up that he had the documents, and showed sensitive documents to people who were not authorized to see them at least twice.
Trump has maintained that he did not commit any wrongdoing in the case and the charges are politically motivated.
Smith defended the integrity of the Justice Department and FBI after the indictment was unsealed and emphasized the “scope” and “gravity” of the charges outlined in the indictment.
Senate Republicans are questioning the push by House conservatives to impeach President Biden and other administration officials, arguing the moves are a waste of time and futile efforts that likely lack an impeachable offense.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) surprised even her own GOP colleagues Tuesday when she filed a privileged motion that would force a vote on a resolution to impeach Biden.
Conservatives have also been pushing to impeach figures, including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said she is converting the articles of impeachment she has filed against top officials into privileged resolutions to use “when I feel it’s necessary.”
The moves, however, are making many Senate Republicans uneasy.
“I know people are angry. I’m angry at the Biden administration for their policies at the border and a whole host of other things, but I think we also need to look at what’s achievable,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “And with a Democratic majority in the Senate, I don’t think that’s achievable.”
The move by the Colorado Republican came out of left field to many, though Boebert told reporters she informed House GOP leadership she would be making the privileged motion.
The decision to move ahead also caught senators off guard, even those more conservative than others. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) exclaimed, “Really?” when asked about movement on Boebert’s articles of impeachment.
The resolution includes two articles related to Biden’s handling of matters along the U.S.-Mexico border — one for dereliction of duty and one for abuse of power. Some Senate GOP members argued Boebert’s latest maneuver is frivolous.
“I’ve got a pretty high bar for impeachment,” Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) said, noting that he said as much in his pair of votes against convicting former President Trump. “I fear that snap impeachments will become the norm, and they mustn’t.”
Some even laughed at the idea of impeaching Biden.
Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah), the lone Senate Republican who voted to convict former President Trump in both of his trials, told The Hill that conservatives are spinning their wheels.
“Yeah,” Romney said when asked if he considers this a waste of time. “If someone commits a high crime or misdemeanor, of course. If they don’t, it’s a waste of time.”
The impeachment chatter is the latest maneuver by House conservatives that has alarmed their colleagues across the Capitol. A revolt by hard-line conservatives that ground House floor business to a halt earlier this month left Senate Republicans worried about what would happen when must-pass bills arrive. And House Republicans wrote their spending bills at levels below those agreed to in last month’s debt ceiling deal — setting up a fight with the Senate, which is following the agreed-upon caps.
But Boebert’s latest move also angered her House colleagues. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) went so far as to urge his House GOP conference to rally against Boebert’s resolution before it hits the floor later this week.
House Republicans want to keep attention focused on the Hunter Biden plea deal announced this week. And while some members may be in favor of impeaching some top officials — including Biden — they say Boebert’s is premature and could undermine existing congressional investigations and future impeachment efforts.
“I don’t think it’s the right thing to do,” McCarthy later told reporters.
“This is one of the most serious things you can do as a member of Congress. I think you’ve got to go through the process. You’ve got to have the investigation,” McCarthy continued. “And throwing something on the floor actually harms the investigation that we’re doing right now.”
House Democrats are expected to make a motion to table the resolution, putting up a blockade against the vote entirely. The motion to table resolution is expected to succeed.
Despite the wide opposition to Boebert’s effort, there has been some appetite for Biden’s removal among some Senate conservatives. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) called on the president to resign and ran ads on it earlier this year, though not because of his border policies.
However, Senate Republicans are warning their colleagues across the Capitol complex that if they do plow forward with any sort of impeachment against Biden or others, they better be ready to back it up and show there’s an impeachable offense involved.
“The Democrats played politics with impeachment. Republicans shouldn’t do that,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a friend and ally of McCarthy stemming from his time in the House. “If it’s something that’s impeachable, that’s fine. But there needs to be a process to it.”
While early impeachment pushes are likely to fail, some efforts by conservative members have garnered widespread support among Republicans. House Republicans on Wednesday passed a censure resolution against Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) that was brought up by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla) over his handling of investigations into Trump.
And Senate Republicans on Wednesday reiterated their confidence in McCarthy despite the ongoing back-and-forth with conservatives.
“I think he’s got a handful of people who’re going to do what they’re going to do. I don’t know that he’s got a lot of control over any of that,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters.
“The House is the House. They’ve got their own way of doing things. I guess they’ll deal with them one way or another,” Thune said. “The best way to change the direction of the country is to win elections, and to win elections, you have to put forward a vision for the future of this country and talk in a positive way about the things that you want to do and draw contrasts with the administration.”
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) says Senate Democrats don’t have any jurisdiction over the Supreme Court’s ethics and should “stay out” of the court’s business, after ProPublica reported conservative Justice Samuel Alito accepted a luxury fishing vacation from wealthy benefactors.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the chairman of a key Judiciary subcommittee, said in response to the report that they will mark up Supreme Court ethics legislation.
But McConnell sent a strong signal Wednesday that any Supreme Court ethics reform bill is not likely to get enough Republican support to overcome a filibuster.
“Look, the Supreme Court, in my view, can’t be dictated to by Congress. I think the chief justice will address these issues. Congress should stay out of it, because we don’t, I think, have the jurisdiction to tell the Supreme Court how to handle the issue,” he said.
McConnell said he has “full confidence” in Chief Justice John Roberts to address any ethical issues facing the court.
“I have total confidence in Chief Justice John Roberts to in effect look out for the court as well as its reputation,” he said.
The Senate GOP leader made his comments after ProPublica reported that Alito did not publicly disclose a 2008 trip he took to a luxury fishing lodge in Alaska, and that he flew there aboard a private plane owned by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer.
Alito then did not recuse himself in 2014, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Singer’s hedge fund in a legal battle that resulted in the fund receiving a $2.4 billion payout.
Alito explained in a Wall Street Journal op-ed responding to ProPublica’s reporting that he was not required to report the trip nor recuse himself from the court case.
Senate Democrats warned Wednesday that they will take matters into their own hands if Roberts doesn’t announce new ethics guidelines for the high court soon.
“The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. But for too long that has been the case with the United States Supreme Court. That needs to change. That’s why when the Senate returns after the July 4th recess, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up Supreme Court ethics legislation,” Durbin and Whitehouse said in a joint statement.
“We hope that before that time, Chief Justice Roberts will take the lead and bring Supreme Court ethics in line with all other federal judges. But if the Court won’t act, then Congress must,” they said.
Whitehouse is the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights.
Other Republicans joined McConnell in pushing back against Democratic calls to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation.
“They’ve been after everybody from Clarence Thomas to anybody they can get their teeth into to try to undermine the credibility of the court. I think all of us need to be concerned about the public confidence in the courts, but this is not something that the Congress has any authority over. This is something the court itself needs to come to grips with,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.