Recently Added Videos

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.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/nancy-pelosi-repeatedly-confronted-about-impeachment

When it comes to whether or not Democrats will bring impeachment charges against President Trump, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., believes it’s just another sign of the party’s empty agenda.

“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.

ANGRY DEM SAYS TRUMP ‘RAPING THE COUNTRY,’ AS IMPEACHMENT PUSH NEARS CRITICAL MASS

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.”

HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN NADLER: TRUMP IS MAKING IT ‘MORE DIFFICULT’ NOT TO CONSIDER IMPEACHMENT 

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.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

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.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gaetz-trump-democrats-empty-impeachment


“We’re just getting closer and closer to a point where we have to do something,” said freshman Rep. Katie Hill. | Zach Gibson/Getty Images

congress

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’s move this week to block former White House counsel 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 grateful for Pelosi’s efforts to stamp out talk of impeachment.

Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.), who flipped a Staten Island-based seat 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 to 1998, 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 she dodged 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.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/21/battlegrounds-democrats-impeachment-1338084

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.

[Related: Democrats ramp up calls for impeachment, but Pelosi pumps the brakes]

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.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/hoyer-trump-conducting-largest-cover-up-in-history-of-the-united-states

The chorus of House Democrats calling to launch impeachment proceedings against President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Hill’s Morning Report – White House, Congress: Urgency of now around budget GOP presses Trump to make a deal on spending Democrats wary of handing Trump a win on infrastructure MORE is growing louder amid heightened White House stonewalling in the face of numerous probes into the administration.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy Patricia D’Alesandro PelosiThe Hill’s Morning Report – White House, Congress: Urgency of now around budget GOP presses Trump to make a deal on spending Democrats wary of handing Trump a win on infrastructure MORE (D-Calif.) has, for years, sought to dampen talk of impeachment, fearing the backlash from a public that’s not yet on board with ousting the president. And her message has resonated widely within a Democratic Caucus that’s overwhelmingly supported her more cautious investigative approach.

But those same probes have been dogged by the administration’s refusal to turn over documents and allow witnesses to testify before committees, particularly in relation to special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE‘s sweeping report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

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.

Rep. David CicillineDavid Nicola CicillineThe Hill’s Morning Report – White House, Congress: Urgency of now around budget Top House Dem calls to launch impeachment inquiry if McGahn skips testimony FCC Republicans give green light to T-Mobile-Sprint merger MORE (D-R.I.), the head of the Democrats’ messaging arm, broke from Pelosi’s no-impeachment strategy Monday night in calling for the launch of an impeachment inquiry into Trump if McGahn did not testify Tuesday — and McGahn did, in fact, skip the hearing. And as scores of Democratic lawmakers filtered out of a closed-door caucus meeting in the Capitol basement Tuesday morning, many said the time has come to launch formal proceedings to oust Trump.

“Nobody gets elected to Congress, nobody runs for Congress, with the idea that, ‘I want to go there and start an impeachment.’ But I think that’s what it’s come to,” said Rep. Joaquin CastroJoaquin Castro Dems brush off unemployment rate, say Hispanics will reject Trump in 2020 Lawmakers renew push to create American Latino Smithsonian museum Joaquin Castro won’t run for Senate in Texas MORE (D-Texas), a member of the Intelligence Committee. “Obviously, all of us respect [Pelosi’s] perspective and her opinion. But I think, individually, each of us have a perspective of our own. And I think it’s time to start [impeachment].”

Others echoed that message, with some calling impeachment proceedings “inevitable.”

“I think it’s time, I do,” said Rep. John YarmuthJohn Allen YarmuthBudget chairs pick former Bush official to head CBO Dem leaders feel squeeze on Trump strategy Dems say NYT report on Trump’s business losses boosts need to see president’s tax returns MORE (D-Ky.), who is chairman of the Budget Committee and a de-facto member of Pelosi’s leadership team. “I think the sheer disregard for provisions of the Constitution [providing] checks and balances is enough reason to begin the inquiry — formally.

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.”

Democratic leaders are also facing new pressure to consider impeachment now that Rep. Justin AmashJustin AmashThe Hill’s Morning Report – White House, Congress: Urgency of now around budget Buzz grows Rep. Amash will challenge Trump as a Libertarian House Freedom Caucus votes to condemn Amash’s impeachment comments MORE (R-Mich.) has repeatedly said in recent days that Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice.

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.

At a leadership meeting Monday night, her top lieutenants — House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerSenators say they’ve reached deal on Puerto Rico aid 5 things to watch as Trump, Dems clash over investigations GOP lawmaker: Trump has engaged in multiple actions that ‘meet the threshold for impeachment’ MORE (D-Md.) and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) — both joined her side when Cicilline spoke up in support of launching an impeachment inquiry. And many rank-and-file members also support her more cautious approach.

“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.”

Yet others seem more than ready to do so.

Rep. Al GreenAlexander (Al) N. GreenTop House Dem calls to launch impeachment inquiry if McGahn skips testimony Tlaib blasts arrests of pro-impeachment protesters on Capitol Hill The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Pass USMCA Coalition – Deadline approaches for 2020 Dems MORE (D-Texas), who’s emerged as the face of the impeachment push in the House, said he’s been encouraged by Cicilline’s new support for the effort, and predicted the issue will soon come to the floor.

“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.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/house/444745-dem-clamor-for-impeachment-swells-as-mcgahn-refuses-testimony

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.


Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn. | Google Maps

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.

Source Article from https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/5/20/18633516/cook-county-sheriff-christ-medical-hospitals-death-marlen-ochoa-lopez

May 21 at 6:46 PM

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.

Damian Paletta contributed to this report. 

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/confidential-draft-irs-memo-says-tax-returns-must-be-given-to-congress-unless-president-invokes-executive-privilege/2019/05/21/8ed41834-7b1c-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html

CLOSE

Top Trump administration officials are briefing members of Congress on Iran after weeks of escalating tensions in the Persian Gulf that have raised alarms on Capitol Hill over a possible military confrontation with the Islamic Republic. (May 21)
AP, AP

WASHINGTON – Top Trump administration officials told lawmakers Tuesday that U.S. military deployments in the Middle East were purely defensive and not aimed at provoking a war with Iran, amid growing concerns in Congress about a possible military conflict. 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan briefed members of the House and Senate behind closed doors, detailing what they called “credible intelligence” that suggests a possible Iranian attack on American military forces in the region. 

Shanahan said the Trump administration’s decision to deploy B-52 bombers and other military resources to the Persian Gulf had succeeded in preventing a possible strike on U.S. interests. 

“We have deterred attacks based on our posturing of assets – deterred attacks against American forces,” he told reporters after the congressional briefings.

“Our biggest focus at this point is to prevent Iranian miscalculation,” Shanahan added. “We do not want the situation to escalate. This is about deterrence, not about war.”

But lawmakers were divided, mostly along partisan lines, about the nature of the threat from Iran and whether the Trump administration’s response was making the situation better or worse. 

Some Democrats raised alarms Tuesday that the Trump administration was cherry-picking intelligence information to justify a military conflict with Iran.  

“We’re concerned that information is being used for the purposes of accomplishing an objective, rather than for the purposes of making a decision,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told USA TODAY after he and other House Democrats met privately with former CIA Director John Brennan and former Ambassador Wendy Sherman, both of whom served in Obama administration.

“Let’s hope that the administration is not rationalizing a move towards war,” Hoyer added.

Trump says he doesn’t want war. Is John Bolton driving the US into a conflict?

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the president and his advisers are sending mixed messages on the seriousness of the threat from Iran. He noted that while Pompeo and others have talked about “credible” intelligence about an Iranian attack on U.S. military personnel, President Donald Trump suggested on Monday there was no imminent threat.

“We have no indication that anything’s happened or will happen, but if it does, it will be met, obviously with great force,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for a campaign rally in Pennsylvania Monday evening. 

“It’s hard to know what the administration is portraying at this point,” Schiff told reporters after the meeting with Brennan and Sherman. He said he’s deeply worried that the administration’s lack of “any clear thought, plan (or) strategy has just multiplied the risks” of conflict.

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat and former CIA analyst who studied Iranian proxy groups, said the Trump administration’s incoherent strategy risked the possibility of an inadvertent conflict.

“The president vacillates between saying that he cares only about the nuclear file and increasingly threatening on Twitter to essentially wipe Iran off the map,” Slotkin said. “If I and you cannot understand U.S. strategy, then you can bet the Iranians don’t understand it. And if neither side can determine what actions are offensive versus defensive, it sets us on a course to misunderstanding each other and a slide towards war.”

Trump vowed to “end” Iran Monday after a Katyusha rocket landed in Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone less than a mile from the U.S. Embassy. The rocket did not cause any injures; officials believe it was fired from east Baghdad, an area controlled by Iran-backed Shiite militias.

Trump says war would lead to ‘end’ of Iran

Skoltin said Iran has been a malign actor in the region for decades and any recent intelligence needed to be taken into that broader context.

“I spent some years in Baghdad during much more volatile times, when 40 or 50 rockets a day we’re coming into the green zone,” she said. “It has to be looked at in context and not just cherry picked” to suggest a new or escalating threat.

Republicans said the Trump administration’s actions have been prudent and the threat from Iran was direct and worrisome. 

“The intelligence was pretty clear. It was new and escalating,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “They’re the ones who fired a rocket in the green zone near our embassy,” he said.

McCaul did not cite specific evidence to back that up. But he argued the Trump administration’s moves were “purely defensive.”

He and other Republicans dismissed suggestions that the U.S. military deployments and the sharp rhetoric from Trump and his advisers could lead to a miscalculation or miscommunication that results in war with Iran. 

But Democrats said they feared just that. They note that since Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, there are no formal channels of communication with the regime. That Obama-era deal was aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“There’s a huge risk of Iran miscalculating, striking in a way that gets a response they didn’t anticipate,” said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “There’s a risk for miscalculation on both sides. That remains my biggest concern.”

He said Pompeo and other officials told lawmakers there were some “back channels” to talk to the Iranians if needed. But Democrats were not reassured. 

“This is blind escalation with the hope that the Iranians will come to the table in the end or the hope that the Iranians will rise up and topple the regime,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He said the threats from Iran were a predictable response to the Trump administration’s efforts to squeeze Iran with severe economic sanctions and to isolate the regime diplomatically by withdrawing from the nuclear deal and pressing other parties to that agreement to abandon it.

The Trump administration should have known the Iranians would consider attacking American assets in the region, Murphy said, arguing that was “entirely predictable given the steps we’ve taken.” 

The U.S. show of military force hasn’t done anything to change Iranian behavior, he said. 

“The Iranians are no closer to talking than ever before. They do not seem to be backing down from a standing point of military provocation,” Murphy said.

GOP lawmaker on Iran threat: Directive was to ‘kill and kidnap American soldiers’

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/05/21/iran-threat-military-deployments-not-intended-provoke-war-trump/3749101002/

In February, President Donald Trump called for California to return $3.5 billion in federal funds for the high-speed rail line planned between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The Department of Transportation followed by announcing its intention to cancel $929 million in grant funds awarded previously but not yet paid out.

Trump’s call for the return of money followed California Gov. Gavin Newsom at his first state of the state address on Feb. 12 announcing a reeling in of the state’s high-speed rail project, saying the current plan “would cost too much and take too long.” He added, “There simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to LA.”

According to the lawsuit, the FRA’s action “to abruptly terminate” a 2010 agreement rather than work with the California High-Speed Rail Authority is “a sharp departure from ordinary agency practice.” In announcing its termination of the agreement last week, the FRA said California’s rail authority “repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the FY10 agreement.”

In addition, the lawsuit charges that the federal government’s decision to ax the grant agreement “was precipitated by President Trump’s overt hostility to California, its challenge to his border wall initiatives, and what he called the ‘green disaster’ high-speed rail project.”

Construction is underway on the first leg of the bullet train, a 119-mile section in the state’s Central Valley. More than $6 billion has already been spent on the California high-speed rail project.

“The Trump administration’s action is illegal and a direct assault on California, our green infrastructure, and the thousands of Central Valley workers who are building this project,” Newsom said last Thursday after the FRA terminated the nearly $1 billion grant.

In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A, authorizing nearly $10 billion in bond money for the construction of the high-speed rail system. Since the vote, though, the project been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

The DOT declined to comment. The White House declined comment.

Separately, California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra late Tuesday announced the state sued the Trump administration over the so-called “conscience” rule, which allows health workers to refuse medical treatment to people, even in emergencies. It marks the state attorney general’s 51st lawsuit against the administration.

WATCH: Why the U.S. continues to fail with high-speed rail

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/21/ca-sues-feds-for-decision-to-pull-funds-from-high-speed-rail-project.html

Several key House Democrats are itching to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants aren’t on board yet.

It’s no longer just a small group of progressive members calling for an impeachment inquiry; numerous members of the important House Judiciary Committee say Congress should launch one. The tipping point for multiple Judiciary members came after former White House counsel Don McGahn declined to testify in front of their committee on Tuesday.

“We simply cannot allow the executive branch to decide what Congress will receive in terms of witnesses and documents as we do our oversight work,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), one of the Judiciary Committee members pushing for the inquiry. “If we allow the executive branch to do that, they can effectively extinguish congressional oversight.”

A potential impeachment inquiry is now about much more than the Russia investigation or the Mueller report. It’s based on Democrats’ deep concern about the Trump administration obstructing congressional investigations at every turn. Democrats believe the Trump White House must be held accountable for continuing to flout the US Constitution and act above the law.

“I think we have to,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee. “I think we’re at an inflection point. We’re no longer just dealing with a president who obstructed the Mueller inquiry. He’s now obstructing Congress at every turn, including telling witnesses who no longer work for the government that they cannot speak about public documents.”

Even though more House Judiciary members are calling for an impeachment inquiry, the committee chair, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), hasn’t yet publicly gotten on board. And there’s a larger divide among the Democratic caucus. Other members, including those in leadership, are hesitant.

“I think the majority of Democrats continue to believe we need to continue to pursue the avenue that we’ve been on, trying to elicit information, testimony … if the facts lead us to broader action, so be it,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters Tuesday.

Even Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry say it’s different from articles of impeachment

Even Democrats calling for the new inquiry are careful to frame it as just an inquiry — not a rush to pass articles of impeachment. They believe it would help Congress gather more facts, using the law around impeachment to compel Trump to comply with subpoena requests after the president issued a blanket denial.

“The American people need to see the evidence, and then they can decide. That’s why it’s an inquiry, not actual articles of impeachment,” Scanlon told Vox. She likened the current situation to the Watergate hearings, which she said helped inform the American public about the threat then-President Richard Nixon’s actions posed to democracy.

As the Trump administration has denied all their subpoena requests for documents and witnesses, Democrats are grappling to figure out how to give their requests teeth. An impeachment inquiry could be another way to strengthen their legal argument, as Pelosi pointed out last week.

Speaking at her weekly press conference last Thursday, Pelosi noted the White House’s legal argument to oppose congressional subpoenas is that Democrats have no legislative purpose for seeking information on Trump, including his tax returns, financial records from the accounting firm Mazars, and the full Mueller report.

Even Pelosi — who is not an impeachment inquiry supporter — countered that impeachment proceedings could be a legal justification for seeking the information.

“When they are saying unless you have a legislative purpose, you cannot ask any questions [and] you cannot investigate — one of the purposes the Constitution spells out for investigation is impeachment,” Pelosi told reporters. “So you can say, and the courts would respect if you said, ‘We need this information to carry out our oversight responsibilities, and among them is impeachment.’”

Pelosi stressed that this doesn’t mean House Democrats are planning to go down the path of impeachment, “but it means if you had the information, you might.”

Now she is dealing with growing calls in her caucus for Democrats to do just that.

Democrats are still divided on an impeachment inquiry

The push this week started on Monday night, when members of the Judiciary Committee took their frustrations to House leadership — angry they were running out of options to get the administration to comply with their investigations. Pelosi will hold a meeting with all House members on Wednesday morning to update them on oversight and investigations.

But she and other members of the leadership team aren’t on board with an impeachment inquiry yet. They believe Democrats should continue pressing on investigations, and pointed to a win Democrats had Monday night in court, when federal Judge Amit Mehta upheld a House Oversight Committee subpoena for Trump’s financial records.

Other Democrats believe Congress should pursue inherent contempt: jailing or fining administration officials who don’t comply with their subpoenas.

“We don’t need impeachment,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), a high-ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “The authority and powers of the Article 1 branch are very clear; they’re laid out. And the penalties are laid out as well. So I say invoke the penalties, you gotta put the heat on these boys. We have the law on our side.”

Scanlon said she understands the reticence among leadership and the caucus. She herself is at an interesting nexus; she’s a first-term Democrat who flipped a longtime conservative Pennsylvania district blue in 2018 after it was redistricted, so she understands the concerns of more moderate members.

But she said the administration’s conduct has gone too far.

“This is not something that anyone wants to do, but we have an administration that’s out of control and I just feel we no longer have a choice,” she told Vox.

Impeachment is a political exercise, and Democrats are afraid of that

On the question of whether to impeach Trump, Democrats could be damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Because Congress is split between a Democratic House and a Republican Senate, Democrats are nervous that impeachment will be perceived as a political fight, especially if they rush into it.

As Vox’s Ezra Klein pointed out, “The founders could have made the impeachment process legal or automatic. Instead, they made it political and discretionary.”

Even though Trump’s 42 percent public approval rating is extremely low, Pelosi and the majority of her caucus only want to move toward impeachment if there’s something so bad that Republicans can also get on board. Right now, impeachment is still an extremely partisan issue, with Republicans rallying to protect Trump and crying foul at every Democratic attempt to subpoena the president.

Democrats remember when Republicans who impeached President Bill Clinton in the 1990s reaped the political consequences in the 1998 midterms, when they lost seats in the House and made few gains in the Senate. Historians later concluded that backlash against Republicans for Clinton’s impeachment resulted in the GOP’s weak showing in the midterms.

That history isn’t lost on Democrats, especially as they stare down a pivotal presidential election in 2020. Pelosi and leadership believe the risk of inflaming the electorate could be too great, and they want to proceed carefully.

Others are frustrated with what they see as Democrats are being too careful.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2019/5/21/18634091/impeachment-inquiry-trump-pelosi

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson faced harsh criticism from Democrats on Tuesday, as he fielded questions at a Capitol Hill hearing on a proposed rule change that would strip public housing assistance for illegal immigrants.

Some of the most intense grilling came from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who claimed that Carson’s plan “would bring nothing but despair to thousands of American families.”

NEWT GINGRICH: HUD CHIEF BEN CARSON PROTECTS POOR AMERICANS AND ENFORCES THE LAW  – WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM?

“Quite frankly, I find it despicable,” Maloney said of the plan, which would eliminate government aid for families with members who are in the U.S. illegally, even if other family members, such as children, are citizens or legal residents. A HUD study found roughly 25,000 households are in this situation, including approximately 55,000 children with legal status.

“Your plan to create vacancies by making 55,000 American children homeless is among the most damaging proposals I have ever seen,” Maloney said during the House Financial Services Committee hearing. “Where will they live?” she asked, wondering if Carson would have them stay in cages on the border.

Carson was quick to defend and explain the proposal, which he said addressed Maloney’s concern.

“If you read the rule carefully,” he said, “you will see that it provides a six-month deferral on request, if they have not found another place to live.” Carson said that deferral can then be renewed twice, “for a total of 18 months, which is plenty of time for Congress to engage in comprehensive immigration reform so that this becomes a moot point.”

Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., also commented on the proposal during her opening statement, calling it “cruel,” and “inconsistent with HUD’s mission.”

The proposal notes that existing law prohibits the government from providing housing assistance to those in the country illegally, and allows Carson to strip assistance from anyone receiving it improperly.

The current system lets families of mixed immigration status receive a prorated amount of assistance for those who are citizens or legal residents. Carson said that while these families receive assistance, there are other families — where every member is in the country legally — who have to spend years on a wait list to get help. He noted that this includes “hundreds of thousands of children,” not to mention disabled people and the elderly.

“If in fact you want to explain to the American citizens who have been on the wait list for several years in your district in New York why we should continue to support families who are not here legally, I would be happy to join you in helping explain that to them,” Carson told Maloney.

DEAL REACHED FOR BEN CARSON, HUD TO HELP FIX NYC’S NOTORIOUS PUBLIC HOUSING SYSTEM

According to the HUD analysis, most of the families who would be affected reside in New York, California and Texas.

The proposed rule change, which was published on the Federal Register on May 10 and is now open to public comment, would require verification of immigration status for anyone under the age of 62.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/carson-clashes-with-dems-over-proposal-to-block-illegal-immigrants-from-public-housing

(CNN)Inside a Chicago-area hospital, a baby fights for his life. The infant is in intensive care and listed in grave condition after he was cut from his mother’s womb in an attack on her last month. But this little one has a fighting spirit, and a picture has emerged of him with his father.

    ‘);$vidEndSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–active’);}};CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;var configObj = {thumb: ‘none’,video: ‘us/2019/05/18/chicago-pregnant-woman-murdered-casarez-pkg-vpx.cnn’,width: ‘100%’,height: ‘100%’,section: ‘domestic’,profile: ‘expansion’,network: ‘cnn’,markupId: ‘body-text_11’,theoplayer: {allowNativeFullscreen: true},adsection: ‘const-article-inpage’,frameWidth: ‘100%’,frameHeight: ‘100%’,posterImageOverride: {“mini”:{“width”:220,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190517113701-pregnant-teen-death-suspects-mugshots-split-small-169.jpg”,”height”:124},”xsmall”:{“width”:300,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190517113701-pregnant-teen-death-suspects-mugshots-split-medium-plus-169.jpg”,”height”:173},”small”:{“width”:460,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”http://www.noticiasdodia.onlinenewsbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/190517113701-pregnant-teen-death-suspects-mugshots-split-large-169.jpg”,”height”:259},”medium”:{“width”:780,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190517113701-pregnant-teen-death-suspects-mugshots-split-exlarge-169.jpg”,”height”:438},”large”:{“width”:1100,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190517113701-pregnant-teen-death-suspects-mugshots-split-super-169.jpg”,”height”:619},”full16x9″:{“width”:460,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190517113701-pregnant-teen-death-suspects-mugshots-split-full-169.jpg”,”height”:259},”mini1x1″:{“width”:100,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190517113701-pregnant-teen-death-suspects-mugshots-split-small-11.jpg”,”height”:100}}},autoStartVideo = false,isVideoReplayClicked = false,callbackObj,containerEl,currentVideoCollection = [],currentVideoCollectionId = ”,isLivePlayer = false,mediaMetadataCallbacks,mobilePinnedView = null,moveToNextTimeout,mutePlayerEnabled = false,nextVideoId = ”,nextVideoUrl = ”,turnOnFlashMessaging = false,videoPinner,videoEndSlateImpl;if (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === false) {autoStartVideo = false;if (autoStartVideo === true) {if (turnOnFlashMessaging === true) {autoStartVideo = false;containerEl = jQuery(document.getElementById(configObj.markupId));CNN.VideoPlayer.showFlashSlate(containerEl);} else {CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = true;}}}configObj.autostart = CNN.Features.enableAutoplayBlock ? false : autoStartVideo;CNN.VideoPlayer.setPlayerProperties(configObj.markupId, autoStartVideo, isLivePlayer, isVideoReplayClicked, mutePlayerEnabled);CNN.VideoPlayer.setFirstVideoInCollection(currentVideoCollection, configObj.markupId);videoEndSlateImpl = new CNN.VideoEndSlate(‘body-text_11’);function findNextVideo(currentVideoId) {var i,vidObj;if (currentVideoId && jQuery.isArray(currentVideoCollection) && currentVideoCollection.length > 0) {for (i = 0; i 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.showEndSlateForContainer();if (mobilePinnedView) {mobilePinnedView.disable();}}}}callbackObj = {onPlayerReady: function (containerId) {var playerInstance,containerClassId = ‘#’ + containerId;CNN.VideoPlayer.handleInitialExpandableVideoState(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, CNN.pageVis.isDocumentVisible());if (CNN.Features.enableMobileWebFloatingPlayer &&Modernizr &&(Modernizr.phone || Modernizr.mobile || Modernizr.tablet) &&CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibraryName(containerId) === ‘fave’ &&jQuery(containerClassId).parents(‘.js-pg-rail-tall__head’).length > 0 &&CNN.contentModel.pageType === ‘article’) {playerInstance = FAVE.player.getInstance(containerId);mobilePinnedView = new CNN.MobilePinnedView({element: jQuery(containerClassId),enabled: false,transition: CNN.MobileWebFloatingPlayer.transition,onPin: function () {playerInstance.hideUI();},onUnpin: function () {playerInstance.showUI();},onPlayerClick: function () {if (mobilePinnedView) {playerInstance.enterFullscreen();playerInstance.showUI();}},onDismiss: function() {CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer.disable();playerInstance.pause();}});/* Storing pinned view on CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer So that all players can see the single pinned player */CNN.Videx = CNN.Videx || {};CNN.Videx.mobile = CNN.Videx.mobile || {};CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer = mobilePinnedView;}if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (jQuery(containerClassId).parents(‘.js-pg-rail-tall__head’).length) {videoPinner = new CNN.VideoPinner(containerClassId);videoPinner.init();} else {CNN.VideoPlayer.hideThumbnail(containerId);}}},onContentEntryLoad: function(containerId, playerId, contentid, isQueue) {CNN.VideoPlayer.showSpinner(containerId);},onContentPause: function (containerId, playerId, videoId, paused) {if (mobilePinnedView) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleMobilePinnedPlayerStates(containerId, paused);}},onContentMetadata: function (containerId, playerId, metadata, contentId, duration, width, height) {var endSlateLen = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find(‘.js-video__end-slate’).eq(0).length;CNN.VideoSourceUtils.updateSource(containerId, metadata);if (endSlateLen > 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.fetchAndShowRecommendedVideos(metadata);}},onAdPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, token, mode, id, duration, blockId, adType) {/* Dismissing the pinnedPlayer if another video players plays an Ad */CNN.VideoPlayer.dismissMobilePinnedPlayer(containerId);clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onAdPause: function (containerId, playerId, token, mode, id, duration, blockId, adType, instance, isAdPause) {if (mobilePinnedView) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleMobilePinnedPlayerStates(containerId, isAdPause);}},onTrackingFullscreen: function (containerId, PlayerId, dataObj) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleFullscreenChange(containerId, dataObj);if (mobilePinnedView &&typeof dataObj === ‘object’ &&FAVE.Utils.os === ‘iOS’ && !dataObj.fullscreen) {jQuery(document).scrollTop(mobilePinnedView.getScrollPosition());playerInstance.hideUI();}},onContentPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, event) {var playerInstance,prevVideoId;if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘restoreEpicAds’);}clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onContentReplayRequest: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);var $endSlate = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find(‘.js-video__end-slate’).eq(0);if ($endSlate.length > 0) {$endSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–active’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’);}}}},onContentBegin: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (mobilePinnedView) {mobilePinnedView.enable();}/* Dismissing the pinnedPlayer if another video players plays a video. */CNN.VideoPlayer.dismissMobilePinnedPlayer(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.mutePlayer(containerId);if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘removeEpicAds’);}CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoSourceUtils.clearSource(containerId);jQuery(document).triggerVideoContentStarted();},onContentComplete: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘restoreFreewheel’);}navigateToNextVideo(contentId, containerId);},onContentEnd: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(false);}}},onCVPVisibilityChange: function (containerId, cvpId, visible) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, visible);}};if (typeof configObj.context !== ‘string’ || configObj.context.length 0) {configObj.adsection = window.ssid;}CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibrary(configObj, callbackObj, isLivePlayer);});CNN.INJECTOR.scriptComplete(‘videodemanddust’);

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/us/chicago-marlen-ochoa-lopez-baby-picture-trnd/index.html

    For some Democratic voters, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg ticks all the boxes for the kind of progressive who could unite our divided nation: He’s young, educated, gay, and a former member of the military, and has experience in both the private and public sector.

    He also speaks openly about his Christian faith. While noting his commitment to the separation of church and state, Buttigieg has said progressives and Democrats “need to not be afraid to invoke arguments that are convincing on why Christian faith is going to point you in a progressive direction.”

    Having a progressive presidential candidate place their faith so squarely at the fore offers many liberal and Democrat-voting Christians the opportunity to more openly embrace their beliefs and progressive politics. It saves them from the embarrassment that such a significant number of white Christians voted for Donald Trump’s presidency. It also allows them to use their faith to highlight the hypocrisy of the religious right.

    Buttigieg invoked these ideas in a Washington Post interview:

    I do think it’s strange, though, knowing that no matter where you are politically, the gospel is so much about inclusion and decency and humility and care for the least among us, that a wealthy, powerful, chest-thumping, self-oriented, philandering figure like this can have any credibility at all among religious people.

    The early attention Buttigieg has garnered has pundits and analysts wondering if we’re witnessing a rise in the “religious left,” a religiously motivated political bloc analogous to the religious right.

    Does Buttigieg’s candidacy signal that progressive Christians are forming a political coalition capable of wielding power like their conservative counterparts? If so, it’d be the reversal of a two-decade-long trend.

    A recent Gallup poll documenting the overall decline in US church membership over the past 20 years reveals that membership among Democrats dropped sharply from 71 percent to 48 percent, while among Republicans it only declined from 77 percent to 69 percent. Perhaps a candidate like Buttigieg could reinvigorate Christian Democrats. As a Baptist pastor who considers myself a religious leftist, I’m fascinated by this possibility. But I have my doubts.

    In fact, thus far in Buttigieg’s campaign, I’m having a hard time determining what actually constitute his religious beliefs, in much the same way that I struggle to understand his stances on issues like health care, student debt, or income inequality. On both, he provides just enough by way of vague platitudes to find something to agree with, but few details on what he actually wants to implement.

    Last week, Buttigieg finally unveiled a more fully fleshed-out issues page with a slate of policy recommendations that help clarify his views. Some, like a Medicare buy-in as a way toward universal coverage, are concrete suggestions, but much of it remains frustratingly hazy. One policy description simply states “confront student debt.”

    Similarly, regarding religion, he told the Post, “I think there’s an opportunity hopefully for religion to be not so much used as a cudgel but invoked as a way of calling us to higher values.” He also said that “the gospel is so much about inclusion and decency and humility and care for the least among us.” What Buttigieg often says about his religious convictions certainly sounds true, but it also leaves a good deal to the imagination as to what those convictions look like when translated into action. I definitely have a hard time imagining them exciting left-leaning Christians or pulling others from the right to a more progressive political agenda.

    What worries me is the way Buttigieg’s brand of Christian leftism plays into the hands of the religious right. For decades, their pastors, theologians, and politicians have preached and organized around a theology that connects the everyday, moral struggles of millions of believers with a larger political struggle — one that proclaims that God wants to transform and save not only their souls but the soul of a nation.

    The language of spiritual and moral strife animates the religious right

    I recently attended a local Southern Baptist megachurch worship service one Sunday morning. Knowing the overwhelming support for Trump among white evangelicals, those on the outside might expect patriotism and right-wing political propaganda to saturate the morning’s sermon.

    Instead, I was surprised at how so much of the messaging dealt with personal and moral struggle and emotions like anger, guilt, desire, jealousy, worry, and sadness. The pastor handled these not merely as slight personal defects, but as the real ways that people experience suffering and destruction in their lives. He wanted people to think about how to live as a better person, partner, friend, and worker and told them that God gave them the power to do it. He used a language of moral striving and struggle that I rarely hear in more theologically and politically liberal churches.

    The pastor I heard that morning was J.D. Greear, the recently elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention, their youngest in 40 years. Knowing that so many white evangelicals voted for Trump, I looked up what he had to say prior to the 2016 election.

    In two blog posts, Greear carefully avoids explicit partisanship, instead claiming Christians have a moral duty to vote and that particular issues ought to inform who they vote for: abortion, religious liberty, individual responsibility, and recognition of marriage as between a man and a woman, to name a few. While he says neither party has a lock on these policy positions, he makes specific mention of ways Democrats have sought to undermine many of them; his criticism of Donald Trump rests primarily on his character. I didn’t have a hard time seeing which critique white evangelicals prioritized when they voted in 2016.

    One need not agree with their particular moral framework or vision (I certainly do not) to appreciate the force of their message: one of individuals and the larger nation striving for moral redemption. That’s a compelling narrative that often goes unnoticed by Christians of the left. It’s not a holy war battle but a collective struggle to be better according to a particular moral framework.

    Buttigieg is correct when he says religion gives us higher ideal values that we might attain, but he seems to have no grasp that the acquisition of values entails struggle against the forces, institutions, and people that threaten to impede their acquisition. The religious right understands this. His lack of clarity around policy leaves Christians with little understanding of how a political movement matters to the transformation of their lives. It’s this language of struggle for power, both individual and collective, that anything worthy of the “religious left” moniker will have to adopt if it’s to gain a foothold in people’s lives.

    Progressive Christians have taken a stand before

    Several articles about Buttigieg’s religious left bona fides have made mention of his affinity to the “Social Gospel,” with Temple University professor David Maslin making the connection explicit by claiming Buttigieg is bringing values from this early-20th-century movement into the early 21st. The Social Gospel was a theological viewpoint that developed during the Gilded Age — amid the drastic inequality of the early 1900s, ministers had to find a way to speak to the working people of their congregation.

    In his book Union Made, historian Heath Carter tells the story of the Social Gospel’s development in Chicago at the height of the conflicts between working people and their capitalist bosses. With both sides regularly clashing, Chicago ministers found themselves in a difficult spot: how to walk the delicate balance between the owners and captains of industry that financed their churches, and the working people they hoped to reach. Each group wanted to know what side the ministers stood on.

    Many ministers sided with the owners, resulting in the loss of workers in their pews. Those workers did not, however, leave the religion for good, but instead joined other churches where they could work out the ways that their faith empowered collective movement against their bosses. Theologians at the time, like the Baptist minister Walter Rauschenbusch, then gave a theological understanding to the ongoing struggles of these working Christians against the Gilded Age robber barons. That perspective became known as the Social Gospel.

    In his now-classic text Christianity and the Social Crisis, Rauschenbusch identifies the roots of the crisis as the clash between two distinct social strata, a working class and an owning class. Inequality between those two classes poses an imminent threat to democracy and equality. The wealthy class attempts to use their unequal power to shape legislation to further their own interests; the working class can only struggle together to overcome them. He writes, “These are two distinct classes, and no rhetoric can make them equal.” For Rauschenbusch and others in the Social Gospel movement, the problem of inequality animates a struggle, informed by their faith, for equality.

    Which side are you on?

    Buttigieg seems to recognize this incompatibility between the antagonisms of capitalism and a more cooperative spirit of Christianity. In an interview with Vox’s Zack Beauchamp, he said, “there’s tension between capitalism and democracy, and negotiating that tension is probably the biggest challenge for America right now.”

    However, unlike the Chicago workers and Rauchenbusch, Buttigieg’s religion compels him only to identify a tension, not an incompatibility, and to say that a healthy capitalism remains possible so long as it’s one that operates within the rule of law. For Buttigieg, the antagonisms of class need to be not overcome through struggle, but contained and managed by sound leadership.

    Buttigieg has said that his Christian faith encourages a “skepticism of the wealthy and the powerful and the established.” But one might rightly suspect the strength of his commitment to that skepticism. Based on a recent Vox report, it wasn’t nearly strong enough to keep him from bouncing around to a number of fundraisers hosted by wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. It wasn’t strong enough to prevent him from ushering in gentrification in South Bend in the name of “revitalization.”

    Buttigieg’s invocation of his faith might enliven a small number of progressive Christians in the party, but his politics remains standard fare for Democratic politicians courting the whims of the wealthy while attempting to appeal to the masses’ religious values. His political religious vision elides struggle and, in turn, victory.

    When I look at my congregation, I see families struggling not just with their devotion to God but devotion to paying their bills. I see older people on the brink of economic collapse because of rising health care costs. I see teachers going on strike to earn a raise. They each, in their own ways, live as victims of a capitalist system.

    They don’t want to talk about values so much as they want to know that their religion has something to say about the struggle for health care, housing, a good wage, and a little more control over their lives. More often than not, they know what class they are a part of and who benefits from their misery, and they can tell which side a politician falls on no matter what their religious rhetoric says.

    In 1910, during the clashes between working people and their bosses, Rev. Austin Hunter made this observation about the decline in church attendance: “The reason why workingmen are not found in larger numbers in the church is not due to the coldness of the church, nor to the dress parade, but primarily to the fact that the church has more often been on the side of capital than upon the side of labor.” Roughly a century later, with inequality higher than it’s been since Hunter’s words, his statement feels particularly pertinent for Christians, pastors, and politicians.

    If there is to be a religious left, it will not be founded by answering the question, “Are you skeptical of the rich?” But: “Which side are you on?”

    John Thornton Jr. is a Baptist pastor living in Durham, North Carolina.


    First Person is Vox’s home for compelling, provocative narrative essays. Do you have a story to share? Read our submission guidelines, and pitch us at firstperson@vox.com.

    Source Article from https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/5/21/18633090/2020-buttigieg-mayor-pete-policies-religious

    May 21 at 2:39 PM

    British Prime Minister Theresa May urged British lawmakers on Tuesday to back her “new” Brexit deal, which would include a binding vote by Parliament on whether to hold a second Brexit referendum.

    In a speech in London, May said lawmakers will have “one last chance” to deliver Brexit in a vote early next month.

    But, more accurately, it probably will be May’s last chance. She has signaled that she will step down if her thrice-rejected divorce deal fails again in the House of Commons, as it is widely expected to do.

    In a sign that the British public has already moved on, many of the questions May fielded during Tuesday’s news conference had to do with when she will resign and what might happen after that.

    Parliament is scheduled to vote again on the Brexit deal she negotiated with the European Union during the first week of June — which, coincidentally, is when President Trump will be making a state visit to Britain.

    “What I’m doing today is setting out what I believe is a new Brexit deal that can command a majority in the House of Commons,” she said.

    Offering a binding vote on a second referendum, as well as on whether Britain should remain in a temporary customs union with the E.U., represents a shift in strategy for May. She said she recognized “the genuine and sincere strength of feeling” on the referendum issue. But she also reiterated her long-held views that a second referendum was not her preferred way out of the Brexit impasse. Extending the Brexit debate, she said, “risked opening the door to a nightmare future of permanently polarized politics.”

    May hopes that with those additional voting opportunities and some tweaks to her deal — including pledges on environmental protections and workers’ rights — she can win support from enough lawmakers to get it over the line. But early indicators were not looking good.

    Some Conservative lawmakers who’d previously backed May said they would now oppose her. The Scottish National Party and ChangeUK said they would not back her. Nigel Dodds, the deputy leader of Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist Party, which props up May’s Conservatives, said the proposal had “fundamental flaws.”

    The opposition Labour Party has been internally divided on whether to push for a second referendum, with leader Jeremy Corbyn reluctant to embrace the idea.

    In a speech that was at times reflective, May said that she never thought delivering Brexit would be “simple or straightforward,” but that it had “proved even harder than I anticipated.” She said she had given it her all, even offering to “give up the job I love earlier than I would like.” 

    In a question-and-answer session that followed her speech, May was asked several times about her departure and whom she’d like to replace her. She didn’t offer fresh details, but she has previously promised to outline the timetable of her departure if she loses the next Brexit vote.

    The unofficial race to replace her is underway. On Tuesday, Jacob Rees-Mogg, an influential Brexiteer, pledged support to former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, who is leading in polls.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/theresa-may-offers-parliament-a-vote-on-a-second-brexit-referendum/2019/05/21/223942b8-7bde-11e9-b1f3-b233fe5811ef_story.html

    CLOSE

    Tough, new abortion laws in Alabama and several other states face legal battles in court… and that’s the point. We explain how they take aim at Roe v. Wade.
    Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

    U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves on Tuesday asked pointed questions about Mississippi’s law that bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, at approximately six weeks of pregnancy. 

    In 2018, Reeves was the judge who struck down a 15-week abortion ban.

    “Doesn’t it boil down to six is less than 15?” Reeves asked, adding that the new law “smacks of defiance to this court.”

    In his prior decision, Reeves wrote that “Mississippi’s law violates Supreme Court precedent, and in doing so it disregards the 14th Amendment guarantee of autonomy for women desiring to control their own reproductive health.”

    Gov. Phil Bryant signed the bill into law in March and it’s set to take effect July 1 if it’s not blocked. The bill makes no exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest. 

    “So a child who is raped at 10 or 11 years old, that child does not open their mouth, doesn’t tell their parents, the rapist may be in their home, nobody discovers until it’s too late — that is a fetal heartbeat has been detected — that child must bring the fetus to term under this statute, if the fetal heartbeat can be detected,” Reeves said.

    The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the legal challenge on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO), the state’s last remaining abortion clinic, which does not perform abortions after 16 weeks.

    Hillary Schneller, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Mississippi’s heartbeat law is “blatantly unconstitutional” and likely won’t survive a federal court challenge.

    “It’s critical to remind people that none of these bans have taken effect and we don’t expect any of them to take effect,” Schneller told USA TODAY. “Every person deserves access to abortion no matter what state they live in.”

    Opponents say the six-week bans, or heartbeat bills, are similar to total abortion bans because many women don’t know they are pregnant at six weeks.

    Three other states — Georgia, Ohio and Kentucky — have enacted heartbeat bills this year. A Kentucky judge temporarily blocked the state’s bill in March saying the American Civil Liberties Union’s claim that it was unconstitutional would likely succeed in court. 

    The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit last week challenging Ohio’s law, seeking an order to stop it from taking effect July 10. The ACLU has said it plans to challenge Georgia’s heartbeat bill before it takes effect in January. 

    Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said Georgia’s law is likely to also get struck down. 

    “While there is some question whether the Supreme Court would overturn (Roe v. Wade),” Dalven said. “The federal district courts have no power to disregard the (unconstitutionality of abortion bans) even if they don’t like it.”

    At least 17 states nationwide are considering or have passed laws this year that restrict abortion rights. 

    MAP: Where is abortion legal? Everywhere. But …

    Last week, Alabama enacted the most extreme abortion ban the country has seen since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The law only allows abortion if the mother or fetus’ lives are in danger and mandates prison time for doctors who perform the procedure. 

    Emboldened by a new conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican lawmakers say they are passing anti-abortion bills in an attempt to get Roe v. Wade overturned.

    The Center for Reproductive Rights has 26 active lawsuits challenging anti-abortion bills across the country. Schneller said the Center and partnering organizations vow to challenge any law that strips women of their rights to an abortion. 

    Contributing: Sarah Fowler, Mississippi Clarion-Ledger

    Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/05/21/mississippi-abortion-law-fetal-heartbeat-bill-six-weeks-district-judge-roe-v-wade/3740436002/

    The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee vowed Tuesday to go to court if necessary to seek former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s testimony, after he defied a subpoena and skipped a committee hearing at President Trump’s direction.

    The move infuriated Democrats and touched off what could be another high-profile battle over holding a Trump official in contempt of Congress.

    “Let me be clear, this committee will hear Mr. McGahn’s testimony, even if we have to go to court to secure it,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y, said at the beginning of the hearing which McGahn did not attend.

    MCGAHN CONFIRMS HE WILL SKIP HOUSE HEARING, AS DOJ ASSERTS ‘IMMUNITY’ 

    Accusing Trump of witness intimidation, Nadler added, “When this committee issues a subpoena, even to a senior presidential adviser, the witness must show up. Our subpoenas are not optional.”

    While he did not specifically mention contempt, Nadler told CNN on Monday night that lawmakers would pursue that route.

    A day earlier, the president directed McGahn to not appear for the committee hearing, citing a Justice Department opinion that he cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties.

    “In short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today,” Nadler said. “This conduct is not remotely acceptable.”

    But Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member on the committee, responded to Nadler’s remarks by accusing Democrats of political theatrics, saying they are “trying desperately to make something out of nothing.”

    “I cannot emphasize this enough — the chairman’s track record demonstrates he does not actually want information,” Collins said. “He wants the fight, but not the truth.”

    Earlier this month, House Democrats opted to question an empty chair — alongside a prop chicken — when Attorney General Bill Barr failed to appear citing Democrats’ unusual demands.

    In a statement released Monday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders blasted Democrats for continuing to pursue Trump investigations, saying they want a “wasteful and unnecessary do-over” in the wake of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe — and describing the subpoena for McGahn as part of that.

    The related DOJ memo said McGahn, like other senior advisers to a president, has “immunity” from being compelled to testify about his official duties.

    “This immunity applies to the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, Mr. McGahn is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President,” the memo said.

    The committee announced the hearing last week, but it was initially unclear whether McGahn would appear due to the ongoing battle between congressional Democrats and the White House over his testimony.

    The committee, led by Nadler, subpoenaed McGahn on April 22, days after the release of Mueller’s report, which featured McGahn prominently in its section related to the obstruction of justice inquiry. This included a claim that McGahn disobeyed Trump’s call to have him seek Mueller’s removal.

    The report also revealed that when the media reported on the president’s request, the president directed White House officials “to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed.” He did not.

    The House committee’s subpoena, coming amid a fight over access to the unredacted Mueller report, called for McGahn to appear before the panel to testify and provide documents related to the Mueller investigation.

    The battle over McGahn’s testimony is just one front in the clash between the White House and congressional Democrats.

    Earlier this month, the committee voted to hold Barr in contempt for defying a subpoena for Mueller’s full and unredacted report, as well as underlying evidence and documents used in the investigation.

    Trump, prior to the vote, asserted executive privilege over the materials in a bid to protect them from being turned over to the committee. The full House has yet to take a final vote on whether to hold Barr in contempt of Congress.

    Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-fume-after-mcgahn-skips-house-hearing-our-subpoenas-are-not-optional

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could soon be left with no choice but to embrace calls from some within her party to impeach President Trump, one senior Democrat told Fox News.

    The Senior House Democrat — speaking on the condition of anonymity — said, despite Pelosi’s repeated attempt to quell talk of impeaching the president, “isn’t going to be able to hold off on impeachment much longer.”

    “It is coming to a head,” the Democrat told Fox News, before predicting the mounting pressure from inside her own ranks could force Pelosi to change her position “within the next two weeks.”

    The Democrat argued that “the vast majority of us are for impeachment.” Fox News was told there was a hearty debate in the Democratic Steering Committee today about impeachment.

    CALL FOR TRUMP IMPEACHMENT DRAWS EQUAL PARTS PRAISE AND DISDAIN

    Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., who runs the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, an arm of the Democratic leadership, is now calling for impeachment.

    Cicilline told Fox News there is a “tremendous level of frustration” behind the growing impeachment efforts, adding that he believes Trump is “behaving as though he is above the law and he is not.”

    However, he would not be drawn on criticizing Pelosi’s effort to avoid impeachment, saying instead: “Our Speaker is our Speaker, elected by our colleagues and we have a Caucus where we share our views… I think the Speaker is very responsive to the caucus and she’ll make judgments based on where the caucus is .”

    Cicilline said Monday it is time for impeachment inquiries to be opened if former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a no-show to Tuesday’s scheduled congressional hearing.

    LIBERAL BILLIONAIRE TOM STEYER SCOLDS DEMS FOR NOT IMPEACHING TRUMP IN SCATHING AD

    The Rhode Island Democrat appeared on MSNBC and offered his reaction that the White House is instructing McGahn to refuse to comply with a subpoena to appear on Capitol Hill and the assurance from the Department of Justice that McGahn has “immunity” which does not legally require him to testify before Congress, something Cicilline believed was “legally incorrect.”

    “Let me be clear; if Don McGahn doesn’t testify, it is time to open an impeachment inquiry,” Cicilline said. “The president has engaged in an ongoing effort to impede our ability to find the truth, to collect evidence, to do our work, and this is preventing us really from ultimately finding the facts and doing our work in terms of oversight.

    McGahn has confirmed he will skip the House hearing after President Trump directed him to do so earlier on Monday.

    This declaration from Cicilline was welcomed by his freshman colleague, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich, who has been vocal with her calls to impeach President Trump.

    PELOSI: TRUMP ‘IS GOADING US TO IMPEACH HIM’

    Liberal billionaire activist Tom Steyer also ramped up pressure on House Democrats to impeach President Trump, releasing a scathing ad slamming the party for balking at the idea.

    Steyer has been a leading advocate for beginning the impeachment proceedings against Trump, spending tens of millions on TV ads and other measures to rally the support for the drastic course of action.

    But the latest ad, titled “Nothing Happened,” appears to be the most unambiguous attack on Democratic lawmakers for failing to impeach the president, assailing the party for being passive.

    Democratic leadership has balked at the idea of impeaching Trump, with Pelosi dismissing the efforts by certain Democrats.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “I’m not for impeachment,” Pelosi told the Washington Post last month. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

    A number of 2020 presidential hopefuls are also in support of such proceedings, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif.

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-trump-democrats