Yet if politics can sometimes make odd bedfellows, the Brexit Party is taking that principle to the extreme, running candidates from all over the political spectrum. The party has even recruited as candidates three former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and its successor groups, which defended deadly bombings by the Irish Republican Army in the 1980s and 1990s.
Mr. Farage has defended his heterodox candidate slate as the seed of a nonpartisan pro-democracy movement. Analysts are dubious, however, saying he is more likely looking for ways to lure disaffected pro-Brexit Labour voters and provide a counterbalance to his history in the anti-immigration, largely right-wing 2016 Leave campaign.
“It’s rational party competition,” said Alan Wager, a research associate at the U.K. in a Changing Europe, a research institute. “It’s wearing the clothing of idealism and optimism, but it’s not an optimistic or idealistic message really.”
John Malcolm, 75, a lifelong Conservative voter sitting beside his wife, seemed to speak for many in the crowd in Willenhall when he said he did not terribly much care whom the Brexit Party would send to Brussels.
“I wasn’t looking for someone to represent me in Europe,” he said. “I’m looking for this party to do extremely well to show what we think on this issue to the other parties.”
Voters have used the European elections for protest votes before, but the Brexit Party, born in the wreckage of Mrs. May’s deal, is unusually empty of formal policies. Its candidates rarely venture beyond its signature issue and populist themes, leaning on phrases like a “clean Brexit” but mostly dodging questions about what that means — what arrangements they would make for Britain’s borders, its airlines or its financial services industry, for example.
BEIJING/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – China must prepare for difficult times as the international situation is increasingly complex, President Xi Jinping said in comments carried by state media on Wednesday, as the U.S.-China trade war took a mounting toll on tech giant Huawei.
The world’s two largest economies have escalated tariff increases on each other’s imports after talks broke down to resolve their dispute, and the acrimony has intensified since Washington last week blacklisted Chinese telecom equipment company Huawei Technologies Co Ltd.
The listing, which curbs Huawei’s access to U.S.-made components, is a potentially devastating blow for the company that has rattled technology supply chains and investors, and saw several mobile carriers on Wednesday delay the launch of new Huawei smartphone handsets.
During a three-day trip this week to the southern province of Jiangxi, a cradle of China’s Communist revolution, Xi urged people to learn the lessons of the hardships of the past.
“Today, on the new Long March, we must overcome various major risks and challenges from home and abroad,” state news agency Xinhua paraphrased Xi as saying, referring to the 1934-36 trek of Communist Party members fleeing a civil war to a remote rural base, from where they re-grouped and eventually took power in 1949.
“Our country is still in a period of important strategic opportunities for development, but the international situation is increasingly complicated,” he said.
“We must be conscious of the long-term and complex nature of various unfavorable factors at home and abroad, and appropriately prepare for various difficult situations.”
The report did not elaborate on those difficulties, and did not directly mention the trade war or of the United States.
No further trade talks between top Chinese and U.S. negotiators have been scheduled since the last round ended on May 10, the same day President Donald Trump increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods and took steps to levy duties on all remaining Chinese imports.
Negotiations between the United States and China have stalled since early May, when Chinese officials sought major changes to the text of a proposed deal that the Trump administration says had been largely agreed.
However, Chinese Ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai, speaking to the Fox News Channel, said on Tuesday that Beijing was still open for talks.
Repercussions of the blacklisting mounted for Huawei, with some mobile operators, including the Ymobile unit of Japan’s Softbank Corp and rival KDDI Corp putting launch plans for Huawei’s new P30 Lite smartphone on hold.
Another big Chinese tech firm, video surveillance equipment maker Hikvision Digital Technology Co Ltd, could also face limits on its ability to buy U.S. technology, the New York Times reported, citing people familiar with the matter, sending the firm’s Shenzhen-listed shares down 5.54 percent.
RETALIATION
While China has not said whether or how it may retaliate to the measures against Huawei, state media have taken an increasingly strident and nationalistic tone.
U.S. firms said in a survey released on Wednesday they were facing retaliation in China over the trade war. The American Chamber of Commerce of China and its sister body in Shanghai, said members reported that they faced increased obstacles such as government inspections, slower customs clearances and slower approval for licensing and other applications.
It also said that 40.7% of respondents were considering or had relocated manufacturing facilities outside China. Of the almost 250 respondents to the survey, which was conducted after China and the United States both raised tariffs on each other’s imports this month, almost three-quarters said the impact of tariffs was hurting their competitiveness.
To cope, about one third said they were increasingly focusing their China operations on producing for Chinese customers and not for export, while one third said they were delaying and cancelling investment decisions.
Long considered a solid cornerstone in a relationship fraught with geopolitical frictions, the U.S. business community has in recent years advocated a harder line on what it sees as discriminatory Chinese trade policies.
The United States is seeking sweeping changes to trade and economic policies, including an end to forced technology transfers and theft of U.S. trade secrets. Washington also wants curbs on subsidies for Chinese state-owned enterprises and increased access for U.S. firms in Chinese markets.
China for years has blocked major U.S. tech firms, including Google and Facebook, from fully operating in its market. Those and other restrictions have fueled calls from within the U.S. business community for Washington to pursue more reciprocal policies.
Cui told Fox News Channel that U.S. restrictions on Huawei “are without any foundation and evidence” and could undermine the normal functioning of markets.
“Everybody knows Huawei is a privately owned company. It is just a normal Chinese private company,” Cui said. “So all the action taken against Huawei are politically motivated.”
Reporting by David Lawder and Stella Qiu; Additional reporting by Makini Brice and Eric Beech in Washington and Michael Martina and Ben Blanchard; writing by Tony Munroe; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore, Robert Birsel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The House Intelligence Committee pulled back on Wednesday from threats to enforce a subpoena against Attorney General William Barr after the Justice Department agreed to turn over materials relating to an investigation into Russian election interference.
The decision ended a standoff between the Democratic-led committee and the Justice Department for access to counterintelligence reports generated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller during his probe of President Donald Trump and his associates.
The dispute, one of many between the Republican administration and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, has come as Trump refuses to cooperate with numerous congressional probes into matters ranging from his personal finances and business dealings to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
“The Department of Justice has accepted our offer of a first step toward compliance with our subpoena, and this week will begin turning over to the Committee twelve categories of counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials as part of an initial rolling production,” U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, the committee chairman, said on Wednesday.
Schiff canceled a committee meeting to consider enforcement action on Wednesday.
Barr, the top U.S. law enforcement official and a Trump appointee, on May 2 snubbed the House intelligence committee, which voted to hold him in contempt of Congress for not handing over a full, unredacted Mueller report.
In a letter to Schiff on Tuesday, the Justice Department said it was willing to give Intelligence committee members and staff closed-door access to additional material if Schiff does not move forward with his threats to hold the department in contempt.
However, a request to the Justice Department from the Senate Intelligence committee for the same materials was still pending, a congressional source said.
The White House has accused Democrats of playing politics with the congressional probes.
Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Mark Hosenball; Editing by Bernadette Baum
TARZANA, LOS ANGELES (KABC) — A DUI suspect who led police on a dangerous high-speed chase through the San Fernando Valley in a stolen RV with two dogs on her lap has been identified.
The California Highway Patrol identified the suspect as Julie Ann Rainbird, 52, of Winnetka.
The chase started around 7 p.m. in the Santa Clarita area for failure to yield, according to the California Highway Patrol.
Authorities said the RV was stolen from Giant RV in Downey. The owner of the RV, a Granada Hills woman, said not only was her RV stolen, her identity information was stolen as well. That information was used to purchase a motorcycle in Simi Valley. The theft victim was notified of that purchase on April 30, which is when she reported the crime to Simi Valley police.
The recreational vehicle smashed into at least six other cars during the chase, shredding the side of the vehicle’s passenger side open.
In the middle of the chase, one of the dogs jumped out through the smashed front windshield and ran off as she continued driving.
The pursuit finally ended when the RV collided into a car in Tarzana and the woman jumped out and fled on foot. Officers quickly tackled her and took her into custody as she was trying to jump the fence of a home in the neighborhood.
The wild ending to the chase stunned neighbors of the quiet neighborhood.
“These streets are narrow,” said Tarzana resident Craig Friedman. “Sure, she was just evading police, but my God, you gotta stop. You know you’re gonna get caught.”
AIR7 HD was over the pursuit as the suspect struck a palm tree in a shopping center before continuing. The front end and passenger’s side of the RV had significant damage, with the windshield smashed in and the door missing.
At several points, the woman was driving up to 60 mph on surface streets. The driver also smashed into several vehicles, including a sedan in an intersection.
The man who was in that vehicle suffered six broken ribs and a punctured lung and was being treated at a local hospital.
Authorities were able to recover the first dog that jumped out of the vehicle. An animal control officer was able to loop the second dog, which appeared to be injured, at the scene. It was leaving bloody paw prints behind as it stayed by the woman’s side.
The dog was being checked by a veterinarian.
The driver crashed into a white Hyundai sedan in Tarzana and fled on foot with the second dog for a short time before being taken into custody around 7:30 p.m. near Tampa Avenue and Wells Street.
Two people inside the Hyundai were injured.
Rainbird also suffered unknown injuries and was treated by first responders at the scene. She is expected to face charges that include driving under the influence, felony evading and felony hit-and-run.
The Trump administration is considering blacklisting another major Chinese technology company in a move that would broaden a U.S. campaign to sever China’s access to American know-how and inflame a deepening trade conflict, according to an individual familiar with the debate.
Though no final decision has yet been reached, the administration is preparing to move against Hikvision, the world’s largest maker of video surveillance technology, the person said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The deliberations were first reported by the New York Times.
The disclosure comes less than a week after the administration barred U.S. companies from supplying Huawei Technologies, perhaps China’s most prominent manufacturer, without first obtaining a U.S. government license. The administration earlier this week relaxed the ban, saying it would grant temporary 90-day waivers for U.S. companies to help Huawei maintain its existing networks.
U.S. officials are said to be eyeing the same penalty for Hikvision, using a Commerce Department mechanism known as the “entity list.”
Citing national security considerations, Congress last year banned federal agencies from purchasing equipment made by Hikvision and four other Chinese technology companies: Huawei, ZTE, Hytera and Dahua.
The measure was triggered by “classified information the committee reviewed in the course of our regular oversight activities,” according to Claude Chafin, a spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee.
Hikvision supplies surveillance cameras that the Chinese government has deployed throughout the Muslim-majority Xinjiang region to combat what it describes as separatist terrorism.
Randall Schriver, assistant secretary of defense for Asia, said earlier this month that the Chinese government is detaining 3 million Muslim Uighurs in reeducation camps. The authorities in Beijing describe the facilities as vocational training centers.
In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador to the United States, denied reports of human rights abuses. “They are real training centers,” he said. “They are not camps. They have open gates. There’s no armed guards. People could go home over weekend.”
Hikvision last month reported earning about $1.65 billion on revenue of roughly $7.2 billion in 2018. In its annual shareholder letter, the company said it had faced numerous challenges last year but remained “upbeat about growth in the domestic and overseas markets in the years ahead.”
Hikvision said it had not received notice that the United States was preparing to take any actions from it, with a spokeswoman saying that the company has taken allegations about the use of its technology in Xinjiang very seriously.
The company had “engaged with the U.S. government” about these issues since October, said Vivian Zhou. Hikvision had hired American lawyer Pierre-Richard Prosper, who had served as ambassador at large for war crimes under President George W. Bush, to advise it on human rights compliance.
“Separately, Hikvision takes cybersecurity very seriously as a company and follows all applicable laws and regulations in the markets we operate,” the spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.
Last year, the company appointed a chief compliance officer to ensure human rights protection, data security and privacy protection, as well as social responsibility, she said.
Asked about the reports, a spokesman for Foreign Ministry did not address Hikvision directly but said the U.S. was “abusing its national power” by targeting individual Chinese companies. “We are against the U.S. trying to smear and oppress companies from other countries, including China,” Lu Kang told a regular press briefing.
The Trump administration’s intensifying campaign to limit China’s access to advanced U.S. technologies comes as a year-long trade conflict defies hopes of an early settlement.
Despite the president’s continued pursuit of a trade deal, the administration has been cracking down on China in other realms. The Justice Department in December indicted two hackers who allegedly worked with the Chinese Ministry of State Security, targeting companies holding advanced technologies with military applications.
The Commerce Department is drawing up new regulations to restrict U.S. exports of 14 advanced technologies, including robotics and quantum computing, in a move motivated by concern over China’s access to American innovations.
Some Trump administration officials want to disconnect American investors and companies from Chinese companies that help beef up the Chinese military, “Big Brother” surveillance networks or those that benefit from China’s alleged theft of U.S. trade secrets.
Last year, the Commerce Department banned state-backed ZTE from doing business with American suppliers after the company violated the terms of an earlier enforcement action.
But the president reversed the ban, which would have crippled ZTE, after a personal plea from Chinese President Xi Jinping.
The episode illustrates that any move to sever Chinese companies’ links to the United States might cause collateral damage to the U.S. economy. ZTE spends about $2.6 billion annually buying products from U.S. companies such as Qualcomm and Intel. Huawei also relies heavily on American suppliers.
Administration officials recognize that the greater the number and significance of Chinese companies affected by sanctions, the greater the pain for U.S. companies and their workers.
Ellen Nakashima in Washington and Anna Fifield in Beijing contributed to this report.
It’s noteworthy that May is giving members of parliament (MPs) a chance to decide whether they want to hold a second referendum — basically, some sort of public vote on Brexit — because this is something she’s staunchly resisted before. But the prime minister didn’t offer many specifics about the referendum, including whether she supported it, how it would be executed, or what the public would even be asked.
May’s other concession, on the customs union — where EU members trade without tariffs and minimal customs checks — offers a choice that will please neither the pro-Brexit camp in her Conservative Party or the opposition Labour Party. May proposed a vote on whether MPs want a temporary customs union membership after Brexit, or a plan for a “customs arrangement” that would allow the UK to trade with the EU, but still pursue its own independent trade policy.
So this push to win over Labour failed — and it also backfired among the hardcore Brexiteers who already despise May’s Brexit deal and won’t like it any better now. Many only voted for it on the third try because they thought it was the only way to get her out of office. Brexiteers largely oppose any sort of customs arrangement with the EU after Brexit, and most don’t want to attempt a second referendum.
To be clear, May is only giving MPs the opportunity to vote on these options, so they can (and may) be voted down. But it’s still infuriated Conservatives MPs who don’t want these options on the table at all. May hasn’t gained any new backers, and nearly two dozen who voted for her deal the last time around have said they won’t support her on this latest attempt, according to the Guardian.
One minister told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that May has managed to “take something bad and make it truly worse.”
One minister says May has achieved something – ‘how to take something bad and make it truly worse’ – another minister told me even before speech bill shouldn’t be tabled, more will make that point now
Of course, there were 10 points in May’s speech. Surely, you ask, there had to be something good in there? By way of an answer, I leave you with this analysis from the Guardian’s Peter Walker, which perfectly captures both the utter exasperation over Brexit and May’s impossible situation.
Walker notes that, in her speech, May repeated promises she already made before — including on workers’ and environmental rights. He points out May’s futile attempts to compromise. On the customs arrangement proposal, he writes: “who will like it? Potentially, no one.”
Put another way, May’s “serious offer” to MPs is pretty much doomed.
That’s tentatively scheduled for the first week in June. Conservatives who are eager to replace May will want her out as soon as possible — even though whoever takes over as the next prime minister will inherit the exact same Brexit mess.
Attorney General William Barr blasted federal judges who have issued more than 37 nationwide injunctions during the Trump administration, more than in the entirety of the 20th century.
In a Tuesday speech to the American Law Institute, Barr went after “improper use of nationwide injunctions against policies of all stripes” and said that the use of the injunctions to block policy gives district courts “unprecedented power.”
“One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen,” he said. “No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power.”
One example he cited was the legal battles over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which offers protections for individuals brought to the U.S. illegally as children, instituted under former President Barack Obama.
He went on to emphasize the magnitude and increase of the injunctions, pointing out that the use of the rulings has increased dramatically since President Trump was inaugurated and contrasted the prevalence of the orders with those under Trump’s Democratic predecessor.
“Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit,” Barr said.
He added that according to his department’s estimates, federal judges only issued 27 nationwide injunctions during the 20th century.
Now that Beto O’Rourke’s star has faded in the 2020 Democratic nomination contest, I wouldn’t bet on a comeback. In fact, I would be more surprised if the former congressman won a single state than if he dropped out of the race before Iowa.
The problem for O’Rourke is not just that he’s polling in the low single-digits per se. After all, there are a number of candidates bunched up in the single digits. If front-runner Joe Biden falters at some point, it will be a whole new race, and a number of the other candidates will have an opening to break through. I just don’t think that O’Rourke will be one of them.
The difficulty for O’Rourke is that his fundamentals are so weak. He holds no office, lost his most recent race, and he has nothing unique to offer. Ideologically, Biden has monopolized the center-left of the primary field, and the left flank is crowded by candidates who have a much stronger claim to make to those voters. There also aren’t any early primary states that are a natural fit for him.
The only thing that O’Rourke had going for him was the odd media love affair and the perception that he was young and exciting. But media turned on him shortly after he announced his run for office, and his glow seems to have faded among the general public. That’s a really big problem.
In many ways, O’Rourke is turning out to be the kind of candidate that skeptics thought Barack Obama was going to be back in 2008. That is, a young rising star who generates a lot of enthusiasm and then turns out to be a passing fad. As I wrote last December when buzz was growing for an O’Rourke 2020 campaign, the Obama comparisons were unwarranted given that Obama’s candidacy had a lot more going for it, even back in 2007.
When Obama entered the race in 2008, he generated adoring coverage from the media and excitement among a strong portion of the party that never faded. He had a sharp contrast to draw not only as the prospective first African American president, but also as the only major candidate who opposed the Iraq War before it was launched. Furthermore, Obama never experienced a similar polling crash to what O’Rourke is going through. Obama’s polling was steady throughout 2007, even during the many months he trailed Hillary Clinton, at about the 20s nationally. His support provided him a solid base from which to surge in Iowa in the fall of 2007 and then eventually take over the national lead the following February as he racked up primary wins.
Somebody like O’Rourke, who is running with a lack of accomplishments, has to be able to sustain and build the sense of excitement and enthusiasm. It’s one thing to stagnate in polls for awhile, and then shine at just the right moment, as Obama did. It’s another thing to have your time in the spotlight, have people lose interest and move on to other candidates, and then try to recapture the excitement. It’s especially hard to do with over 20 other candidates running.
Target shares jump 7% as e-commerce gains fuel earnings beat
Target’s e-commerce sales also surged 42%, as shoppers increasingly turned to its curbside pickup service for online orders, something Amazon can’t offer.
A group of mostly Democratic states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration on Tuesday, challenging a new federal rule that gives health-care providers, insurers and employers greater latitude to refuse to provide or pay for medical services that they say violate their religious or moral beliefs.
A lawsuit by a coalition of nearly two dozen states and cities, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleges that the rule illegally favors the personal views of health-care workers over the needs of patients — “at a dangerous price” of hobbling the ability of state-run health-care facilities to provide effective care.
A separate suit, brought by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, alleges that the rule “impedes access to basic care” and “encourages discrimination against vulnerable patients,” including women and LGBTQ individuals.
The suits, plus one brought earlier this month by the city of San Francisco, seek to block the rule, announced by President Trump early this month and published Tuesday in the Federal Register. It allows individuals and entities to refrain from delivering or paying for services such as abortion, sterilization or assisted suicide if they have a religious or moral objection to them. The 440-page rule also grants parents rights to refuse several specific types of care for their children.
The lawsuits are part of a spate of federal litigation challenging various ways the Trump administration has been rewriting health-care policies. So far, courts have issued temporary injunctions to block some of the policies while the disputes play out in court.
Injunctions by two courts last month halted new antiabortion restrictions on the use of money for family planning services under the Title X program. A federal judge in the District, meanwhile, has ruled against the administration’s approval of steps taken by Kentucky and Arkansas to require some poor residents on Medicaid to work or prepare for jobs to qualify for the benefits.
The “conscience protections,” as their advocates call them, are among actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services that appeal to Christian conservatives, a constituency that is part of Trump’s political base. The rule is due to take effect in late July.
The multistate lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that the rule puts at risk billions of dollars in federal funds if the states participating in the case do not comply.
The 80-page complaint says the rule also will harm teaching hospitals and other health-care facilities run by some of the states and cities, undermining their effectiveness and forcing them to hire extra staff in case some workers refuse care that patients need. The rule also risks “undermining longstanding efforts by those institutions to build trust with the patient communities they serve,” the suit says.
The suit further alleges that the rule violates several federal laws, including those governing Medicare and Medicaid, civil rights statutes, and a statute requiring hospitals to provide emergency care.
In addition to New York, the plaintiffs are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin, plus the cities of Chicago and New York; Cook County, Ill.; and the District.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., shot down repeated attempts by members of her own party to move forward on an impeachment inquiry against President Trump on Monday.
Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., insisted on impeachment during a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee meeting, but Pelosi was unmoved.
“This is not about politics, it’s about what’s best for the American people,” Pelosi said, a member at the meeting told Politico.
During a separate meeting in Pelosi’s office Monday, Democrats David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, and Joe Neguse of Colorado made another case to launch impeachment proceedings.
Pelosi, along with Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, again dismissed the suggestion, warning that talk of impeachment is getting in the way of advancing Democrats’ message.
If former White House counsel Don McGahn fails to adhere to a subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Cicilline said the House may have no other options. “I think if this pattern by the president continues, where he’s going to impede and prevent and undermine our ability to gather evidence to do our job, we’re going to be left with no choice,” Cicilline said.
The Trump administration has instructed McGahn to not appear before the panel to testify about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, setting up a second contempt vote in Congress.
“Just take today — we had an empty chair in front of us because Democrats have an empty agenda,” Gaetz said during an appearance on “The Story with Martha MacCallum.”
“They don’t have bills to bring forward to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, to deal with the crisis of illegal immigration on our border and so instead we have these show hearings where we stare at empty chair,” Gaetz said of the empty seat left by the president’s former legal counsel Don McGahn declining to testify after being subpoenaed.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called a special meeting of House Democrats for Wednesday morning, where the impeachment issue and other battles are expected to be discussed.
“I would hope that people all over the country would expect more of the Congress than this type of coordinated harassment,” Gaetz added.
Gaetz also commented on the news that former Obama-era Attorney General Loretta Lynch flatly accusing former FBI Director James Comey of mischaracterizing her statements by repeatedly alleging, under oath, that Lynch privately instructed him to call the Hillary Clinton email probe a “matter” instead of an “investigation.”
Lynch, who testified that Comey’s claim left her “quite surprised,” made the dramatic remarks at a joint closed-door session of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees last December. A transcript of her testimony was released on Monday by House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga.
So I think it’s indicative of the broader dynamic as we get closer and closer to the truth and the bias and the corrupt acts that led to this investigation, you are going to see Comey and lynch turn on one another. You are starting to see in the intelligence community Brennan and clapper disagreeing with Comey to the extent to which the dossier funded by Democrats was part of the intelligence community’s assessment.
Fox News’ Gregg Re and Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.
The rift demonstrates the near-impossible balance for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies as they try to keep focus on their legislative agenda.
Freshman Democrats who delivered the House majority are starting to split under impeachment pressure, as a number of those in competitive districts are now warming to the idea of launching proceedings against President Donald Trump.
As the administration continues to stonewall requests for documents — not just surrounding special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but oversight probes into other agencies and Trump’s finances — Democrats are growing frustrated. Some freshmen are questioning what recourse can be taken other than an impeachment inquiry — a tactic presented by a number of veteran Democratic leaders to strengthen their hand in court.
Story Continued Below
“We’re just getting closer and closer to a point where we have to do something,” said Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.), a freshman member of leadership who beat a GOP incumbent last fall. “Each of us is personally struggling because we see on so many levels … where he’s committed impeachable offenses.”
The shift by some creates a divide among the class of vulnerable members into two camps: those who see a moral and constitutional obligation to say Trump’s conduct is unfit for the presidency despite potential political risks, and those who believe impeaching Trump won’t result in his removal — and will only hurt Democrats like them.
Until recently, the majority of Democrats in competitive districts have stayed away from calling for impeachment or even commenting on current investigations. But the growing interest in impeachment among several key battleground members could be a sign that the Democratic caucus as a whole is inching toward taking more drastic action to rebuke Trump — over the objections of their leadership. Multiple vulnerable Democrats privately say that refusing to pursue impeachment could actually hurt their reelection chances by depressing enthusiasm among the party’s base.
The rift demonstrates the near-impossible balance for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies as they attempt to expose what they see as unprecedented misconduct by Trump, without distracting from an ambitious legislative agenda that delivered them the majority.
“The public wants us to do our job, which we are, but it also includes continuing our investigation and the more the Trump administration and the president defies Congress’s Constitutional law the more we’re seeing increasing demand for Congress to take action,” said Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.) who flipped a longtime Republican seat in Orange County in 2018, told POLITICO.
Days later, Rouda went further during an interview on MSNBC, saying he thinks Democrats should “draw a line in the sand.”
“Either honor the subpoenas and the request for documentation by this date, or we will move towards impeachment proceedings,” Rouda said Sunday.
And the administration’smove this week to block former White Housecounsel Don McGahn from testifying, coupled with the unproductive negotiations over Mueller’s public testimony, have pushed more frontline Democrats to consider an impeachment inquiry, which they argue wouldn’t necessarily lead to an actual vote on the floor.
New Jersey Democrat Tom Malinowski, who is a top Republican target in 2020, plans to decide whether he supports an impeachment inquiry in the coming days.
“I’m going to be cautious, but I think the administration’s actions are pushing us to a point where that may be the only option,” Malinowski said. “The hard question that we’ve been forced to confront is: How do we fulfill our constitutional and moral obligation at a time when Congress is broken by partisanship, and we know that the Senate will not remove him if he shoots a man on 5th Avenue. That’s what a lot of us have been struggling with.”
But while some of the party’s most vulnerable freshmen are warming to the idea,many of the caucus’ moderates, especially those in districts Trump carried in 2016, are privately gratefulfor Pelosi’s efforts to stamp out talk of impeachment.
Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.), who flipped a Staten Island-basedseat that went for Trump by nearly 10 points in 2016, expressed frustration with his fellow battleground-district freshman who are inching toward impeachment.
If Democrats go down that path, Rose said, “then they should warm to the idea of going back to the minority.”
“Right now we’re in this incredibly childish game of impeachment chicken, and everyone has to start acting like adults,” Rose added. “The president needs to listen to Congress. Congress needs to act responsibly — I believe that for the most part it is — and then let’s go back to actually doing the work of the American people that they sent us here to do.”
Several freshmen moderates say they’re anxious that it could drown out all talk of the caucus’s legislative agenda, particularly issues like health care and infrastructure.
“I think impeachment is probably the last decision that we would ever want to make,” said Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.). “If there really isn’t something significant enough there to impeach — which I don’t think there is at this point — then let’s move on and get the work of the people done.”
“The thing that I’m concerned about is that we constantly risk losing focus on the legislation that affirmatively helps people’s lives,” added Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who also acknowledged that the White House’s response is “not going in the right direction right now.”
Even Democrats from safe districts privately worry that mounting talk of impeachment will carry the same political costs today as it did two decades ago for Republicans. They point to1998, when Democrats defied history in Bill Clinton’s second midterm election and actually gained seats amid a fierce impeachment battle with congressional Republicans.
Pelosi and her top deputies have repeatedly said that the caucus’s decision on how to proceed on impeachment will not be based on the party’s chances in 2020. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer acknowledged to reporters Tuesday that the caucus does have to consider political factors.
“To say there’s no political calculus would not be honest for any of us in the Congress,” Hoyer (Md.) said. “The political calculus is, what is the reaction of the American people? What do the American people think we ought to be doing?”
The loudest calls for impeachment, so far, have been mostly confined to members of the House Judiciary Committee — few of whom are expected to face competitive elections back home.
One exception is Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who sits on the committee and is also among the caucus’s most vulnerable Democrats. McBath said she talks to her colleagues daily about the political pressures she faces at home on matters like impeachment.
“Specifically, for people like me that are in the kinds of districts that I’m in, impeachment is not something that a lot of people in my district want to talk about,” she said. “But at the same time, I’m tasked with being on this committee to make sure no one is above the law.”
Another Democrat on Judiciary, Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.), who is a GOP target, took a different tack, though shedodged questions about her support for launching an inquiry.
“[Trump is]acting as an authoritarian leader, which I have seen many times in Latin America, and it is very dangerous,” Mucarsel-Powell said. “I want the people living in South Florida, people living in my community, to understand what is written in that report, and we can’t do that unless we have these hearings.”
Heather Caygle and Kyle Cheney contributed reporting.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that most House Democrats aren’t demanding immediate impeachment but aim to show the country that President Donald Trump is hiding something big.
“The big issue that I think needs to be made to the American people is that this president is conducting one of the biggest cover-ups of any administration in the history of the United States,” Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters Tuesday. “He does not want to tell the American people the facts they need to know to make rational judgments, or that their representatives in Congress need to know to make rational legislative decisions. There are a lot of people who agree with me.”
Hoyer made the remarks shortly after the House Judiciary Committee gaveled in for a hearing at which former White House counsel Don McGahn refused to appear, prompting many pro-impeachment Democrats to clamor for action.
Hoyer said that most Democrats, however, are not calling for immediate impeachment but instead want the oversight committees to keep investigating Trump.
“The majority of Democrats continue to believe we need to continue to pursue the avenue we have been on in trying to elicit information and testimony, review the Mueller report, and and review other items,” Hoyer said. “And if the facts lead us to broader action, so be it.”
Hoyer said the ultimate decision to begin impeachment proceedings will be “a collective judgment” among the Democratic leaders and the caucus.
“I don’t think we’re there at this point in time,” Hoyer said.
The latest episode came this week when former White House counsel Don McGahn announced he would follow the White House’s urging and defy a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee to appear Tuesday before the panel.
For a number of Democrats who have been treading carefully into the impeachment debate, McGahn’s recalcitrance seemed to mark the end of their rope.
Democrats will hold a caucus meeting on Wednesday morning to discuss their oversight and investigations of the Trump administration, offering an opportunity for a longer discussion on impeachment.
“I think there’s a growing understanding that … the impeachment process is going to be inevitable. It’s just a question of when, not if,” Yarmuth added. “And if it happens this summer, that’s fine. If it goes into the fall or next year, I think that’s probably too late.”
Amash on Saturday became the first GOP lawmaker to say the president engaged in “impeachable conduct.” He later stood firm by those remarks amid a backlash from fellow Republicans.
It’s unclear just how many Democrats are eager to launch impeachment proceedings against the president, and Pelosi still has plenty of backing in the caucus she’s controlled since 2003.
“We need to show the American public that we have whatever evidence there is, and make a decision based on that,” Rep. Tony CardenasAntonio (Tony) CardenasMORE (D-Calif.) said going into Tuesday’s caucus meeting.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, is also not ready to launch impeachment — yet.
“I think we’re getting very, very close to that point,” Cleaver said. “I’m not there yet, but I think every time someone refuses to testify, every time the president blocks another civilian who’s not working for the federal government from testifying … then more and more people are saying, ‘You know, he’s pushing us to the edge.’ “
A crucial factor in the debate, Cleaver argued, is having Pelosi on board.
“The Speaker needs to be there,” he said. “You don’t elect a leader and then run off and leave her.”
“I am convinced that there will be a vote on impeachment, and I am convinced that people are starting to conclude that it should be sooner rather than later,” said Green, who has been threatening for months to force a vote. “My hope is that somebody else will [force the vote]; but if nobody else does, I will.”
Green then went to the House floor, where he called for Democratic leaders to launch impeachment proceedings immediately.
The Cook County sheriff’s office is questioning if a hospital violated state law by not immediately reporting that a woman who claimed to be the mother of a newborn had not given birth.
The woman, Clarisa Figueroa, and her daughter, Desiree, were later charged with strangling the baby’s mother, Marlen Ochoa-Lopez, and cutting the newborn from her womb.
At a bail hearing last week, prosecutors explained how the 46-year-old Figueroa was examined in a birthing center at Christ Medical Center on April 23 “but showed no signs consistent with a woman who had just delivered a baby.”
A technician at the Oak Lawn hospital cleaned blood from Figueroa’s arms, face and hands, prosecutors said, but it was unclear if anyone verified that she had actually given birth.
Figueroa was allegedly able to pass off the baby as her own for weeks.
It wasn’t until May 9 that a “mandated reporter” — someone required to report suspected neglect or abuse — notified the Department of Child and Family Services about the newborn, DCFS spokesman Jassen Strokosch said. The child was then taken into protective custody.
After a DNA test proved that the baby was actually that of Ochoa-Lopez’s husband, the agency let the 48-hour protective custody lapse, and the baby was turned over to his father, Strokosch said.
The sheriff’s office has asked DCFS why it was not notified sooner that Clarisa Figueroa claimed to have given birth but showed no signs of it.
On Monday, the sheriff’s office said it will investigate the hospital if it finds the medical center violated the Abuse and Neglected Children Reporting Act.
“We will consult with DCFS and if they determine the facts and circumstances of this tragedy were such that should have been reported by mandated reporters, we will ensure an investigation takes place,” sheriff’s office spokeswoman Cara Smith said in an email.
In a statement, DCFS said it “will provide any support needed to the family in this case and to those handling any investigations into this matter.”
There is currently no law or regulation to ensure a baby belongs to the person presenting the baby at a hospital.
Hospital regulation falls under the purview of The Illinois Department of Public Health and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Strokosch said.
A spokesman for Christ Medical Center said the hospital cannot comment due to patient privacy laws. The hospital is cooperating with local authorities, the spokesperson said.
Clarisa Figueroa and her daughter are being held without bail in the murder of 19-year-old Ochoa-Lopez and cutting the baby out of her womb. The newborn is on life support and not expected to survive.
A confidential Internal Revenue Service legal memo says tax returns must be given to Congress unless the president takes the rare step of asserting executive privilege, according to a copy of the memo obtained by The Washington Post.
The memo contradicts the Trump administration’s justification for denying lawmakers’ request for President Trump’s tax returns, exposing fissures in the executive branch.
Trump has refused to turn over his tax returns but has not invoked executive privilege. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has instead denied the returns by arguing there is no legislative purpose for demanding them.
But according to the IRS memo, which has not been previously reported, the disclosure of tax returns to the committee “is mandatory, requiring the Secretary to disclose returns, and return information, requested by the tax-writing Chairs.”
The 10-page document says the law “does not allow the Secretary to exercise discretion in disclosing the information provided the statutory conditions are met” and directly rejects the reason Mnuchin has cited for withholding the information.
“[T]he Secretary’s obligation to disclose return and return information would not be affected by the failure of a tax writing committee . . . to state a reason for the request,” it says. It adds that the “only basis the agency’s refusal to comply with a committee’s subpoena would be the invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege.”
The memo is the first sign of potential dissent within the administration over its approach to the tax returns issue. The IRS said the memo, titled “Congressional Access to Returns and Return Information,” was a draft document written by a lawyer in the Office of Chief Counsel and did not represent the agency’s “official position.” The memo is stamped “DRAFT,” it is not signed, and it does not reference Trump.
The agency says the memo was prepared in the fall. At the time, Democrats were making clear they probably would seek copies of Trump’s tax returns under a 1924 law that states that the treasury secretary “shall furnish” tax returns to Congress.
Precisely who wrote the memo and reviewed it could not be learned. The agency says IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig and current chief counsel Michael Desmond, who was confirmed by the Senate in February, were not familiar with it until a Post inquiry this week. The IRS says it was never forwarded to Treasury.
Executive privilege is generally defined as the president’s ability to deny requests for information about internal administration talks and deliberations.
On Friday, Mnuchin rejected a subpoena from the House Ways and Means Committee to turn over the tax returns, a move that probably will now lead to a court battle. Mnuchin has criticized the demands as harassment that could be directed against any political enemy, arguing Congress lacks a “legitimate legislative purpose” in seeking the documents.
Breaking with precedent, Trump has refused to provide tax returns, saying without evidence they are under audit.
Mnuchin and other senior staff members never reviewed the IRS memo, according to a Treasury spokesman. But the spokesman said it did not undermine the department’s argument that handing over the president’s tax returns would run afoul of the Constitution’s mandate that information given to Congress must pertain to legislative issues.
The spokesman said the secretary is following a legal analysis from the Justice Department that he “may not produce the requested private tax return information.” Both agencies have denied requests for copies of the Justice Department’s advice to Treasury.
Some legal experts said the memo provides further evidence that the Trump administration is using shaky legal foundations to withhold the tax returns.
“The memo is clear in its interpretation of the law that the IRS shall furnish this information,” said William Lowrance, who served for about two decades as an attorney in the IRS chief counsel’s office and reviewed the memo at the request of The Post.
Daniel Hemel, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School who also reviewed the memo for The Post, said the document suggests a split over Trump’s returns between career staffers at the IRS and political appointees at that agency and the Treasury Department.
“The memo writer’s interpretation is that the IRS has no wiggle room on this,” Hemel said. “Mnuchin is saying the House Ways and Means Committee has not asserted a legitimate legislative purpose. The memo says they don’t have to assert a legitimate legislative purpose — or any purpose at all.”
The administration has resisted a range of House inquiries, although a federal judge on Monday ruled the president’s accounting firm must turn over his financial records to Congress.
Treasury Department officials said there had been extensive discussions about the tax return issue, with one official saying the issue put the agency in a difficult spot because Trump has predetermined the outcome — and because Mnuchin is a Trump ally who was the finance chair of his 2016 campaign.
“The decision has been made,” this official said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “Now it’s up to us to try to justify it.”
Trump has told advisers he will battle the issue to the Supreme Court, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump recently has argued that the tax returns were an issue in the 2016 election but that because he won they should no longer be of concern.
Last week, Mnuchin told a Senate panel that Treasury Department lawyers held an early discussion about disclosing the tax returns long before Democrats officially demanded the documents in April. He did not reveal details of that deliberation or say what, if any, legal memos he had reviewed.
Some legal experts have held that the law is clear in giving Congress the power to compel the provision of the returns. But other former government lawyers, including two who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, have argued that the law is unconstitutional and could lead to widespread abuses of taxpayer privacy for political aims.
The IRS memo describes how and why Congress has the authority to access tax returns, explaining the origin of the provision and how it has been interpreted over the decades.
It highlights the special powers given to three committees for compelling the release of tax returns: the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Other congressional committees, the memo emphasizes, do not have the same authority.
When it comes to the Ways and Means Committee, the obligation to divulge the returns “would not be affected by the failure” to give a reason for the request. By contrast, other committees “must include a purpose for their request for returns and return information when seeking access,” the memo states.
“One potential basis” for refusing the returns, the memo states, would be if the administration invoked the doctrine of executive privilege.
But the IRS memo notes that executive privilege is most often invoked to protect information, such as opinions and recommendations, submitted as part of formulating policies and decisions. It even says the law “might be read to preclude a claim of executive privilege,” meaning the law could be interpreted as saying executive privilege cannot be invoked to deny a subpoena.
Earlier this month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service published a review of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code that found the code “evinces no substantive limitations” on the Ways and Means Committee’s authority to receive the tax returns.
But, the CRS report added, the committee’s authority “arguably is subject to the same legal limitations that generally attach to Congress’ use of other compulsory investigative tools,” including the need to serve some “legislative purpose” and not breach constitutional rights.
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"