rollcall--2020-01-13--New Jersey’s Cory Booker ends his presidential campaign

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker ended his presidential campaign on Monday , saying he was out of money .
“ Our campaign has reached the point where we need more money to scale up and continue building a campaign that can win — money we don ’ t have , and money that is harder to raise because I won ’ t be on the next debate stage and because the urgent business of impeachment will rightly be keeping me in Washington , ” Booker said in a statement .
The former Newark mayor , who made a name for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ savvy politician , campaigned on love and unity but failed to qualify for recent debates and languished at the bottom of polls .
Booker was one of two African-American senators who ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 .
California Sen. Kamala Harris ended her bid in December .
With Booker ’ s departure , former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick is the only black candidate left in the race .
Booker made his political experience in Newark , his adopted hometown , a central theme throughout his campaign .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 and featured it in his paid advertising .
Despite mixed reviews of his tenure as the city ’ s mayor , Booker had quickly earned the backing of every Democrat from New Jersey in the House last year , including his previous opponents .
On the debate stage , Booker frequently talked about being the only candidate who chose to live in a low-income inner-city community .
His policy proposals — criminal justice reform , as well as a national gun licensing and a “ baby bonds ” program — reflected his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed that you can actually fight and win , but not stoop to the levels and tactics and dirty tricks of the opposition , ” Booker told CQ Roll Call in 2019 about his experience going up against the city ’ s political machine and how that prepared him to take on President Donald Trump .
Elected to the Senate in a 2013 special election , Booker is running for a second full term this year .
In 2018 , Democratic Gov .
Phil Murphy signed a law that allowed Booker to appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for president and lower office .
If the eventual Democratic nominee were to chose Booker as a running mate , Booker could still appear on both ballots .
Newark civil rights advocate Lawrence Hamm has filed with the Federal Election Commission to challenge Booker in the Democratic Senate primary in June .
The chair of the People ’ s Organization for Progress , Hamm is also the chairman of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ presidential campaign in New Jersey .
Doug Steinhardt , the state Republican chairman , issued a statement saying Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and out of control taxes ” was fueling the state ’ s affordability crisis .
“ If he expects to waltz back to New jersey into open arms , he is absolutely wrong , ” Steinhardt said .

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker ended his presidential campaign on Monday, saying he was out of money.
“Our campaign has reached the point where we need more money to scale up and continue building a campaign that can win — money we don’t have, and money that is harder to raise because I won’t be on the next debate stage and because the urgent business of impeachment will rightly be keeping me in Washington,” Booker said in a statement.
The former Newark mayor, who made a name for himself over the years as a social-media savvy politician, campaigned on love and unity but failed to qualify for recent debates and languished at the bottom of polls.
Booker was one of two African-American senators who ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020. California Sen. Kamala Harris ended her bid in December. With Booker’s departure, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is the only black candidate left in the race.
Booker made his political experience in Newark, his adopted hometown, a central theme throughout his campaign.


rollcall--2020-01-13--Michigan Republicans line up to keep Justin Amash’s seat in the party

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash may be making new friends in Washington , with some Democrats suggesting the Republican-turned-independent help prosecute President Donald Trump at his Senate impeachment trial .
But back in Michigan ’ s 3rd District , Republicans — including those who supported him or donated to him in the past — are competing to replace Amash to help the party regain a seat that has long been safely in its column .
Amash isn ’ t backing down .
Despite previously leaving the door open to a presidential bid , the five-term congressman confirmed to CQ Roll Call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning to run for reelection as an independent .
The potential for a three-way race that includes a longtime incumbent has excited some Democrats who see an opportunity if Republicans in the district divide their votes between Amash and the GOP nominee .
After Amash left the Republican Party last summer , the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee added the 3rd District to its list of targeted seats .
Former President Barack Obama narrowly won the district in 2008 .
But it ’ s since swung to Republicans , with Trump carrying it by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Democrats flipped similarly conservative areas in 2018 , but that could be harder with Trump on the ballot this year .
One thing Democrats and Republicans agree on about this race : Amash isn ’ t likely to survive .
Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates the race Leans Republican , reflecting a small chance that a Democrat prevails .
Elected to Congress in the 2010 tea party wave and as a co-founder of the hard-line conservative Freedom Caucus , Amash has long been a thorn in the side of GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bills .
Leadership hasn ’ t hesitated to punish him — after the 2012 elections , for example , the GOP Steering Committee voted to remove him from the Budget Committee — and national Republicans are ready to take him out .
Even before Amash left the GOP , he faced opposition .
In 2014 , businessman Brian Ellis challenged him in a primary with the backing of the state Chamber of Commerce .
Ellis ran ads referencing California Rep. Devin Nunes ’ accusation that Amash was “ al-Qaida ’ s best friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son of a Palestinian refugee father and Syrian immigrant mother .
Amash defeated Ellis by 15 points .
But the help he used to have from the anti-tax Club for Growth isn ’ t there anymore .
The low-tax , small-government advocacy group , which spent against Trump in the 2016 presidential primary , has now come around to the president ’ s side .
The club told CQ Roll Call it ’ s unlikely to get involved in any capacity in the 3rd District race this year .
“ Amash ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that he ’ s politicized his position with regard to impeachment , it cheapens his value , ” longtime Michigan-based GOP consultant Saul Anuzis said .
Amash won ’ t be getting any more money from the DeVos family either .
A group of disaffected GOP strategists has formed their own super PAC called Country Over Party to defend Amash .
But it ’ s unclear how much they ’ ll have to spend on the race or how resonant their message will be in a district where Republicans still support the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party support , Amash will be at a disadvantage on the general election ballot , where supporters of a straight Republican ticket can check one box to vote for the party ’ s entire slate of candidates .
History is not on Amash ’ s side either : Just four lawmakers have been elected to the House as independents since World War II .
A handful of Republicans are running in the Aug. 4 primary , but it ’ s mostly become a three-way race that will test the party ’ s appetite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a wealthy local family , a female state legislator or a self-proclaimed Trump loyalist .
Army veteran Peter Meijer is regarded as the front-runner in the race because of his last name — his family owns the ubiquitous Meijer grocery store chain — and the fortune that comes with that .
He loaned his campaign about a quarter of the $ 410,000 he raised in the third quarter .
“ He ’ s got a great story , and he ’ s got money to tell the story , ” said former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Peter doesn ’ t come across as some rich punk.
” Cox and other Republicans in the state also highlight state Rep. Lynn Afendoulis , who won a state House seat in 2018 to replace her cousin , who has the same last name .
Her family owns restaurants and dry cleaners in the district .
The only woman in the race , she hasn ’ t yet secured an endorsement from any of the major groups dedicated to electing GOP women but is on their radar .
“ Anytime there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowded field it gives her a couple points advantage , ” Anuzis said .
“ It ’ s probably helpful but not determinative.
” Afendoulis and Meijer are on the National Republican Congressional Committee ’ s list of “ On the Radar ” candidates .
Businessman Joel Langlois , who ’ s touting his ownership of an arena that has held events for Trump , has the endorsement of Trump ’ s 2016 Michigan director and has poured significant personal resources into his campaign .
Trump support has been a litmus test in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country since 2017 , and it ’ s already animating attacks in this district .
Langlois , whose slogan is “ Make Congress Great Again , ” has attacked Meijer for making a $ 250 contribution ahead of the 2016 election to a group he says opposed Trump .
( Meijer says he sent a check at the behest of a fellow veteran without fully vetting the group , but to those who are pushing that line of attack , he asks , “ What else you got ?
” ) Meijer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go after him for his support from With Honor , a pro-veterans PAC on whose board he formerly served .
With Honor supports Republican and Democratic candidates , including several of the Democrats who helped flipped the House in 2018 and voted to impeach the president .
But Langlois is facing questions about whether he actually voted in the general election in 2016 , when Trump won the state by less than 11,000 votes or three-tenths of 1 percent .
His consultant did not respond to multiple requests for comment .
“ All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have to persuade voters that they may not have been as strong supporters in the past but they are now and will be in the future , ” said Steve Mitchell , a Michigan-based consultant who worked for a GOP candidate who dropped out .
Trump loyalty alone may not be enough , however .
“ Not in that district , I don ’ t think as much , ” said retiring Michigan Rep. Paul Mitchell , who ’ s been critical of Trump despite representing the Michigan seat that Trump carried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no anti-Trumper , so you can ’ t say , ‘ I ’ m more Trump than anyone else , ’ ” Anuzis added .
Afendoulis said at a debate last year that she could disagree with the president “ and do it respectfully.
” Meijer , an Iraq vet who has written that he ’ s running to “ help Trump end our forever wars , ” has struck a similar tone .
“ I ’ m not running my campaign on who will work ‘ for ’ the president the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will work with the president the best , ” he said .

Graphic corrected, Jan. 24 | Michigan Rep. Justin Amash may be making new friends in Washington, with some Democrats suggesting the Republican-turned-independent help prosecute President Donald Trump at his Senate impeachment trial.
But back in Michigan’s 3rd District, Republicans — including those who supported him or donated to him in the past — are competing to replace Amash to help the party regain a seat that has long been safely in its column.
Amash isn’t backing down. Despite previously leaving the door open to a presidential bid, the five-term congressman confirmed to CQ Roll Call last week that he’s still planning to run for reelection as an independent.
The potential for a three-way race that includes a longtime incumbent has excited some Democrats who see an opportunity if Republicans in the district divide their votes between Amash and the GOP nominee. After Amash left the Republican Party last summer, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee added the 3rd District to its list of targeted seats.
Former President Barack Obama narrowly won the district in 2008. But it’s since swung to Republicans, with Trump carrying it by more than 9 points in 2016. House Democrats flipped similarly conservative areas in 2018, but that could be harder with Trump on the ballot this year.


rollcall--2020-01-13--Impeachment news roundup: Jan. 13

Impeachment news roundup: Jan. 13

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said no matter the outcome of the impeachment trial in the Senate , President Donald Trump is “ impeached for life.
” ( Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call ) As action on impeachment could move this week from the House to the Senate , Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday she had no second thoughts about her three-week delay in sending the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate .
“ No , no , no , ” Pelosi answered when asked on ABC ’ s “ This Week ” if she regretted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to force the Senate to call witnesses in its trial .
As she did last week , the speaker said the delay allowed new information to come forward , including former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s offer to testify in a Senate trial if subpoenaed .
And that it exposed that Republicans don ’ t plan to give Trump a fair trial in the Senate .
“ We wanted the public to see the need for witnesses , witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened , documentation which the president has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we review this , ” Pelosi told anchor George Stephanopoulos .
As for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s refusing to budge on his position that the Senate would hold its trial first before considering witnesses or that the Senate could vote to dismiss , Pelosi called that amounts to a “ coverup.
” “ Dismissing is a coverup .
If they want to go that route again , the senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not — they will have to be accountable for not having a fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is “ impeached for life ” regardless of “ any gamesmanship ” by McConnell , Pelosi said .
Trump advocated for dismissal in a tweet Sunday afternoon , saying a trial in the Senate would give credibility to “ the partisan Democratic Witch Hunt.
” Here is the latest on impeachment : Timing : The House is in session this afternoon , but won ’ t take up the articles until Tuesday after Pelosi meets with her caucus .
The speaker has said she will schedule a vote on naming impeachment managers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the resolution on impeachment managers is adopted , the articles will be formally sent to the Senate , involving pomp and a procession from the House .
The Senate will have to approve a resolution detailing a framework for the impeachment trial before it started .
The Senate will be in session six days a week starting at 1 p.m. , excluding Sundays , to conduct its trial unless senators vote to institute a different schedule .

As action on impeachment could move this week from the House to the Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday she had no second thoughts about her three-week delay in sending the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate.
“No, no, no,” Pelosi answered when asked on ABC’s “This Week” if she regretted holding the articles in an unsuccessful attempt to force the Senate to call witnesses in its trial.
As she did last week, the speaker said the delay allowed new information to come forward, including former national security adviser John Bolton’s offer to testify in a Senate trial if subpoenaed. And that it exposed that Republicans don’t plan to give Trump a fair trial in the Senate.
“We wanted the public to see the need for witnesses, witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened, documentation which the president has prevented from coming to the Congress as we review this,” Pelosi told anchor George Stephanopoulos.
As for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusing to budge on his position that the Senate would hold its trial first before considering witnesses or that the Senate could vote to dismiss, Pelosi called that amounts to a “coverup.”


rollcall--2020-01-13--Senate got its man in last impeachment trial

To see how a Senate trial would work under nonpartisan circustances Murphy suggests the 2010 case of Judge Thomas Porteous Jr. , center , in which Jonathan Turley , right , acted as lead defense counsel .
( Tom Williams/Roll Call file photo ) OPINION — Once upon a time , there was a Senate impeachment trial , where Rep. Adam Schiff was the lead House impeachment manager , courtly law professor Jonathan Turley made an impassioned argument against impeachment , multiple Senate witnesses testified , and the verdict was not only bipartisan , it was a unanimous decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened , and it wasn ’ t very long ago .
The year was 2010 , and the case was that of Thomas Porteous Jr. , a berry-faced and bulbous federal judge from Louisiana , who had the misfortune of being a man who looked as guilty as he probably was .
Porteous had been appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 , but by 2009 , he found himself squarely in the sights of House and Senate Democrats , many of whom had supported his appointment , after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and corruption in Porteous ’ court , including possible quid pro quos — sound familiar ?
With Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s announcement that the House will send articles of impeachment to the Senate imminently , it ’ s instructive to look at how a Senate trial would work outside of the partisan stew we ’ re all boiling in right now .
How should it work ?
What would it look like if the questions of managers , witnesses , process and propriety didn ’ t come down to overnight polling and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ?
One man at the center of the Porteous trial really was Jonathan Turley , who was also the sole witness for House Judiciary Republicans in December on a panel of legal experts evaluating whether President Donald Trump had committed impeachable offenses .
( Turley was a hard “ no.
” ) Back in 2010 , Turley acted as Porteous ’ lead defense counsel for the Senate trial after the House voted unanimously to impeach him .
Turley faced off against Schiff , who led the prosecution for the House impeachment managers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution , the managers against Porteous included Republicans like former Rep. Bob Goodlatte , along with other familiar Democratic faces , Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Hank Johnson .
What to watch for I reached out to Turley to ask him what lessons he took away from the Porteous experience that the rest of us could learn from going forward .
He had several worth your consideration , including an especially golden nugget for whomever Trump chooses to defend him in front of the Senate , if a full trial materializes .
“ For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ impeachment trials are curiosities bordering on the grotesque .
They look and sound like a trial but lack key elements.
” First and foremost , Turley pointed to the peculiar jury any defense is going to have to face .
“ You have a jury that you would strike for cause en masse , ” he said of the Senate .
“ This trial will be particularly odd in having 100 politicians sit in judgment on a question of using public office for personal advantage .
It is like having the Pirates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salvage law.
” Although the Senate doesn ’ t get high marks , Turley was a lot more impressed by Schiff , whom he called an “ able opposing counsel ” then and a “ skilled prosecutor ” today .
Unlike some of Schiff ’ s made-for-TV satire that he offered up during the House Intelligence hearings on Trump and Ukraine , the congressman showed up to his role as a Porteous impeachment manager to deliver a methodical , toast-dry takedown of the judge .
His approach worked .
After the Senate Impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses who shared firsthand accounts of the judge ’ s conduct ) , Schiff and Goodlatte made their case to the full Senate chamber .
They told senators that the facts were not in dispute , that even Porteous had admitted to taking money from lawyers with cases before him to fund his son ’ s wedding .
They told of other schemes , like taking a portion of the bonds paid by defendants to bondsmen whom Porteous had chosen , or of the judge asking lawyers who appeared before him for cash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5,000 .
Finally , the managers argued , Porteous had lied to the Senate in 1994 when he swore he knew of no reason he could not administer fair and thorough justice on the federal bench , even though he had failed to do so as a state judge .
Turley then took his turn in the well of the Senate .
Those people giving Porteous cash weren ’ t “ cronies.
” They were friends !
And the “ bribery ” he committed wasn ’ t bribery at all .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Porteous .
How could the Senate remove him for a crime that wasn ’ t a crime in the eyes of the DOJ ?
In the end , the Senate ’ s standard was not whether or not the judge had committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt .
It was whether he had “ misdemeaned ” himself and made it impossible to remain in his federal position of trust and authority .
Like the House , the Senate voted unanimously against Porteous and removed him from office .
But you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that .
“ Even in a real trial , ” he said , “ no lawyer can transcend the facts of a case .
You can not make a sow ’ s ear into a silk purse .
The most you can do is make a sow ’ s ear into keepsake for a jury.
” Among those voting to convict Porteous was Sen. Mitch McConnell , who will take the lead next week in setting the rules for the Trump impeachment , including on the questions of witnesses , procedures and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raw politics will or won ’ t play in the possible removal of President Donald J. Trump .

OPINION — Once upon a time, there was a Senate impeachment trial, where Rep. Adam Schiff was the lead House impeachment manager, courtly law professor Jonathan Turley made an impassioned argument against impeachment, multiple Senate witnesses testified, and the verdict was not only bipartisan, it was a unanimous decision. The most unbelievable part? It really happened, and it wasn’t very long ago.
The year was 2010, and the case was that of Thomas Porteous Jr., a berry-faced and bulbous federal judge from Louisiana, who had the misfortune of being a man who looked as guilty as he probably was. Porteous had been appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994, but by 2009, he found himself squarely in the sights of House and Senate Democrats, many of whom had supported his appointment, after a federal grand jury found evidence of bribery and corruption in Porteous’ court, including possible quid pro quos — sound familiar?
With Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that the House will send articles of impeachment to the Senate imminently, it’s instructive to look at how a Senate trial would work outside of the partisan stew we’re all boiling in right now. How should it work? What would it look like if the questions of managers, witnesses, process and propriety didn’t come down to overnight polling and a thumbs-up-or-down on “Fox & Friends”?
One man at the center of the Porteous trial really was Jonathan Turley, who was also the sole witness for House Judiciary Republicans in December on a panel of legal experts evaluating whether President Donald Trump had committed impeachable offenses. (Turley was a hard “no.”)
Back in 2010, Turley acted as Porteous’ lead defense counsel for the Senate trial after the House voted unanimously to impeach him. Turley faced off against Schiff, who led the prosecution for the House impeachment managers. But unlike the sure-to-be Democratic Trump prosecution, the managers against Porteous included Republicans like former Rep. Bob Goodlatte, along with other familiar Democratic faces, Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Hank Johnson.


rollcall--2020-01-14--Tough political tactics are not criminal, ‘Bridgegate’ defendants argue

Former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie campaigning in 2016 for the Republican presidential nomination in Derry , N.H. ( Meredith Dake-O'Connor/CQ Roll Call file photo ) As members of Congress prepared Tuesday for President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , former New Jersey public officials convened at the Supreme Court to argue lingering questions from “ Bridgegate , ” the last major public corruption scandal to disrupt a presidential election campaign .
As Chris Christie — the former New Jersey governor and unsuccessful 2016 Republican presidential candidate — looked on from the court chambers , lawyers representing two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument that would be familiar to anyone following the White House rebuttal to impeachment charges .
Call it the “ Get over it ” defense .
Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni were appealing prison sentences for their roles in rerouting traffic in Fort Lee , New Jersey , leading to the George Washington Bridge in 2013 .
The jury found they did that to create a traffic jam and punish the Fort Lee mayor for not endorsing Christie ’ s reelection for governor that year .
The incident was an example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued , but it did not break federal law .
Kelly and Baroni were charged with misusing public resources for political gain , which federal prosecutors called fraud .
Their lawyers argued that politicians do that kind of thing all the time .
“ This theory turns the integrity of every official action at every level of government into a potential federal fraud investigation , ” Kelly ’ s lawyer , Jacob Roth , told the court .
As the court heard the case , many of its central figures indeed appeared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former U.S. attorney for the district of New Jersey , spent part of Friday at the White House as Trump ’ s legal team and personal advocates planned their public relations response to the impeachment trial , Politico reported .
Others campaign elsewhere Bill Stepien , a top Christie campaign aide whose affair with Kelly played a central role in his administration ’ s personal defense , went on to work in Trump ’ s White House and is now helping to run his reelection campaign .
An internal review of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm hired by Christie ’ s administration in 2014 claimed that the “ cooling ” of Kelly ’ s relationship with Stepien might have contributed to her state of mind when she ordered the lane closures in an infamous email that began , “ Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.
” Another former Christie campaign aide who testified at the trial , Matthew Mowers , was responsible for appealing to local mayors for support and went on to help run Christie ’ s presidential bid in New Hampshire .
Mowers announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , against freshman Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas .
Baroni and Kelly , however , face prison time .
Baroni has served three months of his 18-month sentence .
He was released in July after he was allowed to join Kelly ’ s appeal of the case , which had already been accepted by the high court .
Kelly faces a 13-month sentence and has remained free on bail .
She has accused the Christie administration of using her as a scapegoat .
That history presented a dramatic backdrop when the two arrived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Christie and Kelly took the same train Monday night .
On Tuesday , Christie and his wife were seated just a few rows in front of Kelly in the courtroom .
“ I hope he has a harder time seeing me than I ’ m seeing him , ” Kelly said on the Supreme Court steps after the hearing .
The single mother of four was dressed all in black except for a bracelet made of colorful plastic beads .
Legal arguments by Kelly and Baroni focused on technical interpretations of federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court has increasingly narrowed in recent years .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse , a former U.S. attorney for the district of Rhode Island and a member of the Judiciary Committee , lamented that trend in an amicus brief filed with the court .
“ Now is no time to degrade the jury as the public ’ s agent against corrupting influence , ” the Rhode Island Democrat wrote .
“ Diminishing the jury ’ s power to check corruption , as corruption expands , is not a prescription for a healthy democracy.
” Roth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that public officials can be found guilty of federal fraud only if they divert resources for tangible personal gain .
Otherwise , he said , they could be reined in by state laws or punished at the ballot box .
In this case , Christie ’ s presidential ambitions were derailed .
“ The federal property fraud statute is concerned with cheating the government out of its property rights , ” he said .
“ And that ’ s just not what we have here .
What we have here is an abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Port Authority , the bi-state agency that controls the bridge .
His lawyer , Michael Levy , argued that there was never any policy at the agency that precluded him from ordering a traffic study and that he was not obligated to tell the truth about why he wanted it .
Prosecutors said a traffic study was cover for retaliation against the mayor .
“ There ’ s a clear difference between politics and crime.
” Levy said after the hearing .
“ In recent years , that distinction is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up this official or that official .
Our country and its political environment are worse for it .
We believe the Supreme Court chose to hear this case because it shares that view.
” Eric Feigen , a deputy solicitor general at the Department of Justice , argued that the defendants shouldn ’ t get a “ free pass ” because their motives were political or because Baroni happened to work for the Port Authority .
“ Their actions in this case were fraud in just the same way that it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Port Authority to impersonate Port Authority supervisors and order Port Authority employees to realign Port Authority lanes , ” he said .
The justices appeared sympathetic to Baroni and Kelly ’ s arguments .
“ Isn ’ t it often the case that somebody who has the authority to do something may lie about why the person is doing the thing because , if the real reason was exposed , there would be — it would cause a furor , people would be angry ?
” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show the person doesn ’ t have the authority to do it.
” The court is expected to issue an opinion before the end of the term , typically the last week of June .

As members of Congress prepared Tuesday for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, former New Jersey public officials convened at the Supreme Court to argue lingering questions from “Bridgegate,” the last major public corruption scandal to disrupt a presidential election campaign.
As Chris Christie — the former New Jersey governor and unsuccessful 2016 Republican presidential candidate — looked on from the court chambers, lawyers representing two of his former political allies presented an argument that would be familiar to anyone following the White House rebuttal to impeachment charges.
Call it the “Get over it” defense.
Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni were appealing prison sentences for their roles in rerouting traffic in Fort Lee, New Jersey, leading to the George Washington Bridge in 2013. The jury found they did that to create a traffic jam and punish the Fort Lee mayor for not endorsing Christie’s reelection for governor that year. The incident was an example of “bare-knuckle politics,” their lawyers argued, but it did not break federal law.
Kelly and Baroni were charged with misusing public resources for political gain, which federal prosecutors called fraud. Their lawyers argued that politicians do that kind of thing all the time.


rollcall--2020-01-14--Senate could vote to curb Trump war powers, but timing unclear

Sen. Tim Kaine has lined up the votes to adopt a resolution to restrict President Donald Trump ’ s ability to attack Iran , though a vote on the matter this week would fall short absent a procedural agreement with Republican leadership .
The Virginia Democrat announced Tuesday he received support from at least four GOP senators for using the 1973 War Powers Act to adopt a binding resolution ordering the Trump administration to immediately end all unauthorized military hostilities against Iran and its government .
Those senators are Rand Paul of Kentucky , Mike Lee of Utah , Susan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indiana .
“ We have been able to get some amendments that have earned the support first of Sens .
Lee and Paul but now the support also of Sens .
Young and Collins , and there are a number of other Republicans who are looking at it as well , ” Kaine said .
“ So now we have the 51 votes that we need for the version that ’ s the bipartisan version.
” Kaine was referring to the second of two Iran-related resolutions he introduced under the War Powers law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week , was modified from an earlier Democratic version introduced in the hours after the Jan. 3 drone strike killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport .
It was that killing , and the shifting justifications for it by the Trump administration , that Democrats and a few Republicans worry could still risk a slide toward a shooting war with Iran .
The changes Kaine made to make his resolution more acceptable to Republicans include deleting some language from the findings section .
The deleted language related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not need congressional authorization to initiate military action against Iran and other language criticizing aspects of the administration ’ s Iran policy .
The bipartisan version of the resolution would require the immediate cessation of attacks on Iran rather than give the administration 30 days , as the original version did , to wind down operations .
But a vote on Kaine ’ s bipartisan resolution may have to wait , as it will not be eligible until next week under the War Powers Act for an expedited floor vote .
War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so only 51 votes are needed for passage .
Once the House sends over impeachment articles to the Senate , as is expected Wednesday , all other legislative business would be placed on hold while senators participate in the impeachment trial of the president .
Trump was impeached in December over his efforts to withhold military aid to Ukraine to pressure the Kyiv government to open politically advantageous investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden .
A Senate Democratic staffer , who was not authorized to be named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be reached with Republican leadership to allow the bipartisan resolution to come up for a vote this week , particularly as it now has lined up the minimum necessary support .
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , has not indicated what he will do .
Though he is supportive of reasserting Congress ’ constitutional authority over war declaration matters , Young on Tuesday said he would not support a procedural vote to discharge from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the first Kaine resolution and then amend it on the floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of the resolution .
“ I have been working with Sen. Kaine to revise his resolution away from delivering a politically charged message to instead focus on the important substance that this issue demands , ” Young said in a statement .
“ Unfortunately , due to Senate parliamentarian procedures , those revisions will not be incorporated until after a partisan vote to discharge occurs .
… I will be opposing the motion to discharge and hope that we can continue working on this issue in a less politicized manner.
” Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kaine resolution .
“ Over the past decade , Congress has too often abdicated its constitutional responsibilities on authorizing the sustained use of military force , ” Collins said in a statement .
“ The Kaine resolution would continue to allow the President to respond to emergencies created by aggression from any hostile nation , including Iran , and to repel an imminent attack by Iran or its proxy forces .
It also does not alter the President ’ s inherent authority as Commander in Chief to defend our nation and U.S. forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the Legislative Branch may declare war or commit our armed forces to a sustained military conflict with Iran.
” In the House , votes on Iran-related measures are expected to be scheduled after lawmakers return from their weeklong Martin Luther King Jr. recess , Rep. Ro Khanna told reporters .
The California Democrat is sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds for any unauthorized military operations against Iran and has been promised a floor vote .
Rep. Barbara Lee , D-Calif. , has also secured a promise for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq , which the administration has partially relied on to justify its killing of Soleimani .
“ Certainly those two [ bills ] we ’ re going to consider soon , and then there may well be others , ” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland told reporters .

Sen. Tim Kaine has lined up the votes to adopt a resolution to restrict President Donald Trump’s ability to attack Iran, though a vote on the matter this week would fall short absent a procedural agreement with Republican leadership.
The Virginia Democrat announced Tuesday he received support from at least four GOP senators for using the 1973 War Powers Act to adopt a binding resolution ordering the Trump administration to immediately end all unauthorized military hostilities against Iran and its government. Those senators are Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana.
“We have been able to get some amendments that have earned the support first of Sens. Lee and Paul but now the support also of Sens. Young and Collins, and there are a number of other Republicans who are looking at it as well,” Kaine said. “So now we have the 51 votes that we need for the version that’s the bipartisan version.”
Kaine was referring to the second of two Iran-related resolutions he introduced under the War Powers law. That second bipartisan resolution, filed last week, was modified from an earlier Democratic version introduced in the hours after the Jan. 3 drone strike killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport.
[Impeachment trial security crackdown will limit Capitol press access]


rollcall--2020-01-14--USMCA bill tough vote for Democrats over lack of environmental protections

Sen. Jeff Merkley faced a difficult vote Tuesday as he joined colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to advance the bill that would implement President Donald Trump ’ s new trade deal .
The Oregon Democrat said the pact does not go far enough to protect the environment and address the urgency of climate change .
He lamented what he called problematic provisions , including “ special protections ” for fossil fuel companies .
But , he approved of its labor protections and voted in favor of advancing the deal .
As the bill that would make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through different Senate committees , Democrats appear to be grappling with a difficult choice : voting for a deal that falls short of the environmental protections they want , but perhaps offers the most concessions they could have extracted in a Republican-led trade pact .
On Tuesday , Democrats on the environment panel committee broke with environmental groups and joined with their GOP colleagues to vote 16-4 to advance the bill .
Sens .
Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , Kirsten Gillibrand , D-N.Y. , and Edward J. Markey , D-Mass.
, and Sheldon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deal forward .
“ Every major environmental organization is in opposition to this treaty and they have a list of reasons why , ” Merkley said after the vote .
“ We should have heard from them and considered their points of view.
” [ Senators look to clear legislative deck before impeachment trial ] The Sierra Club , League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council sent a letter in December to lawmakers urging them to reject the terms of the USMCA because it “ fails to meet the baseline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environmental community has consistently called for.
” The deal , which would replace the North American Free Trade Agreement , contains a number of environmental provisions and Democrats — even those who opposed it — said it ’ s a significant improvement over its predecessor .
“ There ’ s no doubt in my mind that the bill easily wins the record as most improved on environmental matters , but it wins the ‘ most improved ’ award off the baseline of terrible , horrible and no good , which has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic and Republican administrations alike , ” Whitehouse said Tuesday .
He also voted against the bill at the Finance Committee last week .
“ We ’ re now at a point where I don ’ t believe improvement is the measure ; you ’ re either reaching a measure that will protect us or you ’ re not , and if you ’ re not , then I can ’ t vote for it , ” he said , citing recent data showing historically high levels of Earth-warming carbon dioxide in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved the bill Tuesday with a voice vote , although Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , and Sen. Patrick J. Toomey , R-Pa. , asked to be recorded as “ no , ” and the Senate Finance Committee voted 25-3 to advance the bill last week .
Harris said she voted against the bill because “ the USMCA ’ s environmental provisions are insufficient — and by not addressing climate change , the USMCA fails to meet the crisis of this moment.
” Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso said the treaty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant win for American workers and families .
“ The United States already has strong environmental protections , ” the Wyoming Republican said .
“ The agreement does not change those protections or give Washington new authorities to regulate .
Instead , the agreement recognizes that our partners should have strong environmental records like we do.
“ For Democrats , it appeared voting to implement the treaty acknowledged they had to take what they could get from a Republican administration that continues to undo environmental regulations and has said climate change is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just been reported that our planet experienced its second-hottest year on record in 2019 .
Australia is on fire , the Arctic is melting and our seas are rising , ” Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member Thomas R. Carper , D-Del.
, said .
“ If we were only measuring the new NAFTA by what it does to address climate change , it doesn ’ t work ; plain and simple.
” Still , he said it was an improvement from NAFTA on climate issues , including treating environmental violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds important tools and resources that were negotiated by Democrats to strengthen the agreement , hold the Administration accountable to enforce NAFTA countries ’ environmental obligations , and help ensure that those who break the rules are actually held accountable , ” Carper said .
The movement forward on the trade deal comes as the temperatures shatter yearly records and have been linked to an increase in uncontrollable environmental disasters worldwide , such as the wildfires in Australia .
Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are a big factor and some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. trade deals to serve as a conduit for tougher environmental protections .
“ Despite this climate emergency , the USMCA trade deal fails to even mention climate change — the most important issue of our time , ” Markey said .
It includes “ explicit giveaways for the fossil fuel industry , making it cheaper to export dirty tar sands oil and continues giving the gas industry carte blanche to export American gas to Mexico.
” Other Senate committees are also expected to vote on the bill in coming days before a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passage .
The committees can not amend the bill under the fast track rules through which it is being considered and can only cast an up or down vote .
Markey said he commended the efforts of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , other Democratic ranking members and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka for fighting hard to “ make sure the horrible agreement negotiated by President Trump became much better , ” including provisions on labor standards .
But he said the deal is a “ profound ” environmental and climate failure .

Sen. Jeff Merkley faced a difficult vote Tuesday as he joined colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to advance the bill that would implement President Donald Trump’s new trade deal.
The Oregon Democrat said the pact does not go far enough to protect the environment and address the urgency of climate change. He lamented what he called problematic provisions, including “special protections” for fossil fuel companies. But, he approved of its labor protections and voted in favor of advancing the deal.
As the bill that would make the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement law makes its way through different Senate committees, Democrats appear to be grappling with a difficult choice: voting for a deal that falls short of the environmental protections they want, but perhaps offers the most concessions they could have extracted in a Republican-led trade pact.
On Tuesday, Democrats on the environment panel committee broke with environmental groups and joined with their GOP colleagues to vote 16-4 to advance the bill. Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., voted against moving the deal forward.
“Every major environmental organization is in opposition to this treaty and they have a list of reasons why,” Merkley said after the vote. “We should have heard from them and considered their points of view.”


rollcall--2020-01-14--Impeachment trial security crackdown will limit Capitol press access

The Senate sergeant-at-arms and Capitol Police are launching an unprecedented crackdown on the Capitol press corps for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , following a standoff between the Capitol ’ s chief security officials , Senate Rules Chairman Roy Blunt and the standing committees of correspondents .
Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael C. Stenger will enact a plan that intends to protect senators and the chamber , but it also suggests that credentialed reporters and photographers whom senators interact with on a daily basis are considered a threat .
Additional security screening and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are two issues that are drawing criticism from Capitol Hill media .
The Standing Committee of Correspondents , which represents journalists credentialed in the daily press galleries in the House and Senate , has come out forcefully against the planned restrictions that it says rejected every suggestion made by the correspondents “ without an explanation of how the restrictions contribute to safety rather than simply limit coverage of the trial.
” Standing gallery committees are panels made up of journalists elected by their colleagues ; they help oversee press operations and work to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceedings on Capitol Hill .
“ These potential restrictions fail to acknowledge what currently works on Capitol Hill , or the way the American public expects to be able to follow a vital news event about their government in the digital age , ” the Standing Committee of Correspondents said in a letter Tuesday .
When the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate , a procession full of pomp and circumstance , just one video camera and no still photographers will be allowed to document the historic moment .
No audio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving radio reporters empty-handed .
This restriction was not in place when the articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton were delivered to the secretary of the Senate in 1998 , a fact confirmed by CQ Roll Call file photos and coverage of the event .
During the trial , a single press pen will be set up on the second floor of the Senate , where lawmakers enter and exit the chamber .
Reporters will be confined to the pen , unable to move with senators .
No movement will be allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photographers will need to be escorted to and from the pen .
In the course of a day on Capitol Hill , many senators stop and talk or walk and talk as reporters gather around to catch the latest comment .
Others employ age-old avoidance tactics , including fake phone calls or staffers by their side firmly stating , “ We ’ re late , she can ’ t talk , ” or a similar excuse .
Journalists ’ time-honored practice of “ strolling ” with lawmakers — the walking , talking and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Capitol — is one that the new security apparatus will squelch during the trial .
Credentialed members of the media , who go through security screening to enter the Capitol each day , will be screened a second time to enter the Senate chamber to watch the trial proceedings .
Magnetometers will be set up in the Senate Daily Press Gallery , requiring reporters to enter the chamber one by one after being cleared by Capitol Police operating the machine .
This has the potential to cause delays and shape coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters can not enter and exit the chamber swiftly when news breaks or something important happens , it will likely become more convenient to simply watch the trial on television or the internet .
Even on a typical day , electronic devices are banned from the Senate chamber ’ s upper galleries where the press can watch proceedings .
That results in a predictable pattern where phone-less reporters quietly hustle out of the chamber doors when a vote is gaveled closed or a major speech concludes , rushing to their phones and laptops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their editors .
Magnetometers will severely curb this breaking news practice , likely sending reporters to their laptops to watch the historic trial , rather than taking it in firsthand .
The standing committees advocated a temporary exemption from the longstanding rule on electronics , to allow laptops or cell phones , but the status quo will prevail .
“ There is no additional safety or security brought by bringing such a device into reporter work space and gives the impression that it is being done mostly to protect Senators from the bright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are doing in one of the country ’ s most important moments , ” the Standing Committee of Correspondents wrote in a letter Tuesday to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer .
Blunt said that reporters will simply have to decide for themselves what works best for them under the prescribed rules .
“ You ’ ll have to decide where ’ s the best place to watch ; it ’ s like watching a football game , ” the Missouri Republican said .
“ Where ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The standing committees , press gallery staff , Capitol Police , sergeant-at-arms and Senate Rules Committee have been in negotiations for months about enhanced security for an eventual Senate trial .
In recent weeks , Capitol Police personnel have come to the Senate Daily Press Gallery with tape measures in preparation for the installation of magnetometers and possibly removing reporter workspaces to make room for lines of reporters cued up to enter the chamber one by one , long before a final decision was made .
Gallery staff worked to educate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magnetometers and limits on access to the chamber .
The Capitol Police staff showed limited understanding of the day-to-day operation of the press gallery in the weeks leading up to the Senate trial , according to observations from CQ Roll Call reporters present for these interactions .
Senate press gallery staff are employed by the sergeant-at-arms and tasked with facilitating press coverage of the chamber .
They will be forced into a tough situation during the trial , enforcing media restrictions that they advocated against due to concerns about press freedom and logistical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press will surpass those in place for the Clinton impeachment trial and even the highly charged confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh , when hundreds of protesters led to daily media crackdowns — even though none of the protesters were credentialed media .
James Ziglar , who served as Senate sergeant-at-arms during the Clinton impeachment trial , recalled security being a major issue for his team .
Despite the more relaxed pre-9/11 security posture , the previous summer a gunman had entered the Capitol and shot two Capitol Police officers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That helped prompt more than two decades of security hardening at the Capitol , which looks to accelerate in the coming days .
“ People are like water , they flow everywhere .
We had to double down on protecting offices and hallways that were not open to the public and that sort of thing , ” Ziglar told CQ Roll Call in an interview this week .
At that time , the standing committees met with Ziglar for more than five hours to negotiate access issues and restrictions for the Senate trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaints to work through with the sergeant-at-arms .
The Clinton impeachment brought a flood of reporters flocking to cover the news , many unaware of the existing rules and patterns of decorum .
Ziglar said the media were “ rambunctious ” during the trial .
“ There were people coming to the Hill with press credentials that had never been on the Hill , ” he said .
During the Kavanaugh proceedings , Capitol Police determined that even credentialed Capitol Hill reporters should be kept from interacting with senators .
A key thruway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate chamber and then-Majority Whip John Cornyn ’ s office were off-limits to press .
At the time , Capitol Police officers said the large media presence was causing a “ life safety issue ” for lawmakers , despite the hallway being closed to anyone besides lawmakers , staff and credentialed press — in other words , a dynamic that exists every day in the Capitol .
Blunt didn ’ t go as far as to call the restrictions an attempt to avoid the situations that emerged during the Kavanaugh deliberations , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a priority .
“ Allowing members to move in this important responsibility without having to fight their way on to an elevator or … on to the vehicles between the buildings .
I think that ’ s a legitimate concern , ” he said.Todd Ruger contributed to this report .
Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone .

The Senate sergeant-at-arms and Capitol Police are launching an unprecedented crackdown on the Capitol press corps for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, following a standoff between the Capitol’s chief security officials, Senate Rules Chairman Roy Blunt and the standing committees of correspondents.
Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael C. Stenger will enact a plan that intends to protect senators and the chamber, but it also suggests that credentialed reporters and photographers whom senators interact with on a daily basis are considered a threat.
Additional security screening and limited movement within the Capitol for reporters are two issues that are drawing criticism from Capitol Hill media.
The Standing Committee of Correspondents, which represents journalists credentialed in the daily press galleries in the House and Senate, has come out forcefully against the planned restrictions that it says rejected every suggestion made by the correspondents “without an explanation of how the restrictions contribute to safety rather than simply limit coverage of the trial.”
Standing gallery committees are panels made up of journalists elected by their colleagues; they help oversee press operations and work to ensure press access to public officials and proceedings on Capitol Hill.


rollcall--2020-01-14--Brett Kavanaugh brings pizza to the Supreme Court and it is not good

The crust is slightly burnt around the edges where the cheese bubbles .
The pepperonis are large , oily and plentiful , so no complaints there .
Brett Kavanaugh has already left his mark on the Supreme Court , and it is pizza .
“ When I arrived , I noticed the cafeteria did not serve pizza , ” the justice said in November .
“ I thought , ‘ What an outrage.
’ My legacy is secure .
It ’ s fine by me if I ’ m ever known as the ‘ pizza justice.
’ ” He may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative Federalist Society , but as the most junior member of the court , it is Kavanaugh ’ s very real duty to help oversee the cafeteria — an assignment Ruth Bader Ginsburg once called “ truly disheartening.
” The pizza he championed is now on the menu .
Is it good enough to define an entire legacy ?
Kavanaugh has been on the bench since October 2018 , following the most contentious confirmation battle since Clarence Thomas ’ in 1991 .
The hearings included an impassioned defense of teen drinking and allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied .
It ’ s hard to imagine a pizza topping that moment in Senate history .
But I wanted to taste for myself , so I headed to the Supreme Court cafeteria , a grim and ill-lit space open to the public , to try Kavanaugh ’ s za .
My visit coincided with oral arguments involving the New Jersey “ Bridgegate ” scandal .
But even that traffic jam paled in comparison to the one causing me to wait almost half an hour for mediocre pizza .
Since there were four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to wait 25 minutes for a thin crust personal pan pepperoni pizza .
There was no “ supreme ” option ... which , c ’ mon .
The small ovens are only capable of making one pie at a time , unlike the assembly line style of & pizza , the D.C. darling that opened a branch in a congressional office building last year .
If you ’ re looking for a flavor comparison , I ’ d rank it just below Pizza Hut and just above the average gas station offering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ container of mesclun greens that some people ( not me ) would call a salad .
And at $ 8 , it ’ s a decent price point .
There are faster and better options nearby : & pizza , We the Pizza , Sbarro .
If you ’ re at the Supreme Court cafeteria and there is no one in front of you in line ( can not stress that last point enough ) , then , by all means , give it a try .
Otherwise , go with the wings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it two stars ( out of five ) .
Serving on the cafeteria is a time-honored court tradition for junior justices , right up there with taking notes and answering the conference room door .
Elena Kagan gave us froyo .
Stephen Breyer gave us Starbucks .
Kavanaugh gave us this .
Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone .

The crust is slightly burnt around the edges where the cheese bubbles. The pepperonis are large, oily and plentiful, so no complaints there.
Brett Kavanaugh has already left his mark on the Supreme Court, and it is pizza.
“When I arrived, I noticed the cafeteria did not serve pizza,” the justice said in November. “I thought, ‘What an outrage.’ My legacy is secure. It’s fine by me if I’m ever known as the ‘pizza justice.’”
He may have been joking as he addressed the conservative Federalist Society, but as the most junior member of the court, it is Kavanaugh’s very real duty to help oversee the cafeteria — an assignment Ruth Bader Ginsburg once called “truly disheartening.”
The pizza he championed is now on the menu. Is it good enough to define an entire legacy?


rollcall--2020-01-14--House to vote on military force authorizations this month

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md.
, center , and other Democratic leaders have promised votes on war powers and authorizations before the end of the month .
( Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call ) House Democratic leaders committed to progressives Tuesday that the House will vote on legislation to prevent funds for unauthorized military force against Iran and to repeal the 2002 authorization of use of military force the week of Jan. 27 .
The bills , sponsored by California Reps. Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee , respectively , will get separate votes , according to Khanna and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the text of the measures will be the same as the language from amendments Khanna and Lee offered and the House passed last July to its version of the annual defense authorization bill .
The amendments were stripped out of the final version negotiated with the Senate .
“ There are different people who support each one and we want to make sure we ’ re preserving that so that nobody can say , ‘ Well you changed it on us , ’ ” Jayapal said .
There had been a possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the floor this week but the decision was made not to because of concerns they wouldn ’ t get attention with news outlets focused on the House transferring the articles of impeachment to the Senate and preparations in that chamber for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer made the commitment for a vote the week after the House returns from its Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Day recess during a meeting with Khanna , Lee and Progressive Caucus co-chair Mark Pocan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point that we should do it when it will get maximum attention not to be swallowed up by the focus on impeachment and that we should be sending a clear message and we need to be building a majority , so I ’ m very impressed with their leadership and commitment on the issue , ” Khanna said .
Jayapal was unable to attend the meeting because of a conflict with a committee markup but was briefed afterwards .
“ With impeachment it ’ s a little bit tough to put it on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we wanted was an ironclad commitment — not like a ‘ we ’ ll try to put it on ’ but an ironclad commitment that it would come on right after we get back — and that is what we got , ” Jayapal said .
Khanna said he ’ s begun reaching out to the 27 Republicans who voted for his defense authorization amendment last year and hopes they will support his bill since the language is the same .
“ They ’ ve already been on record voting for this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , have already expressed plans not to back the bill now because they feel Democrats are only bringing the measures forward now after Trump engaged in hostilities with Iran to score political points .
Of the 27 Republicans who voted for Khanna ’ s NDAA amendment , 14 also backed Lee ’ s amendment to repeal the 2002 AUMF .
Some Republicans have seemed more open to voting for Lee ’ s measure as a standalone bill than Khanna ’ s since it 's not specifically about Iran and less likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions in regards to Tehran .

House Democratic leaders committed to progressives Tuesday that the House will vote on legislation to prevent funds for unauthorized military force against Iran and to repeal the 2002 authorization of use of military force the week of Jan. 27.
The bills, sponsored by California Reps. Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee, respectively, will get separate votes, according to Khanna and Progressive Caucus co-chair Pramila Jayapal.
They said the text of the measures will be the same as the language from amendments Khanna and Lee offered and the House passed last July to its version of the annual defense authorization bill. The amendments were stripped out of the final version negotiated with the Senate.
“There are different people who support each one and we want to make sure we’re preserving that so that nobody can say, ‘Well you changed it on us,’” Jayapal said.
There had been a possibility that leadership would bring the bills to the floor this week but the decision was made not to because of concerns they wouldn’t get attention with news outlets focused on the House transferring the articles of impeachment to the Senate and preparations in that chamber for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.


rollcall--2020-01-14--Senators look to clear legislative decks before impeachment trial

The Senate appears set to try to clear the decks of pending legislative business before diving into the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
That could include delivering a big policy victory to the president on trade .
With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announcing that the trial will not get underway in earnest until next week , there should be just enough time to complete work on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement , as well as to have a debate on war authorities .
Under the likely impeachment timeline , assuming that the House votes to name trial managers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Senate has two or three days left to legislate before the Senate protocols for the trial take over .
Senate Rules and Administration Chairman Roy Blunt , R-Mo.
, told reporters that he expected some procedural maneuvering on Wednesday , with an appearance by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. coming on Thursday .
“ On Thursday , we would hear the articles of impeachment brought over by the managers .
And at that point , the president pro tem of the Senate will swear in the chief justice for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief justice would swear all of us in and , and we believe that ’ s sort of the end of this week , ” Blunt said .
Senators said there was no expectation that there would be enough time for getting into the actual trial before the end of the current week .
“ With the summoning of the president and the requirement that the House managers have to be able to present their trial briefs , there ’ s a timing for all of that , ” Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through that kind of schedule , it ’ s — unless the House were to deliver something like right now , I don ’ t see how you could really do that.
” A vote on an amended version of a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va. , that would seek to restrict the use of force against Iran without new congressional authorization could be on the floor as early as Wednesday .
Three members of the Senate Democratic caucus are participating in Tuesday night ’ s presidential debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three — Democratic Sens .
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts , along with independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont — are going to be critical votes for the possible passage of the Kaine-led resolution .
War powers measures are considered under expedited procedures that do not allow for filibusters , so they can pass with just a simple majority of senators in support without the 60-vote procedural hurdles that are so commonplace .
Committees are also seeking to wrap up consideration of the implementing legislation for the new trade pact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would replace NAFTA , and Majority Whip John Thune of South Dakota said earlier in the day there could be time to fit in floor debate on the trade agreement before the end of this week as well .
“ I think the Foreign Relations Committee has moved their hearing back from Thursday to Wednesday in hopes of having it ready for floor action by Thursday , ” Thune said .
“ If that happened , we could get USMCA done , kind of wedged in there between , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators and then starting the trial .
”

Senate Rules and Administration Chairman Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told reporters that he expected some procedural maneuvering on Wednesday, with an appearance by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. coming on Thursday.
“On Thursday, we would hear the articles of impeachment brought over by the managers. And at that point, the president pro tem of the Senate will swear in the chief justice for his unique responsibilities here. And then the chief justice would swear all of us in and, and we believe that’s sort of the end of this week,” Blunt said.
Senators said there was no expectation that there would be enough time for getting into the actual trial before the end of the current week.
“With the summoning of the president and the requirement that the House managers have to be able to present their trial briefs, there’s a timing for all of that,” Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski explained. “As I look through that kind of schedule, it’s — unless the House were to deliver something like right now, I don’t see how you could really do that.”
Iran debate possible
A vote on an amended version of a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would seek to restrict the use of force against Iran without new congressional authorization could be on the floor as early as Wednesday.


rollcall--2020-01-14--‘Documents don’t lie’ — the other fight over evidence at Trump impeachment trial

The high-profile fight over potentially dramatic witness testimony at an impeachment trial of President Donald Trump has overshadowed the Senate ’ s possible demand for a different type of revealing cache of new evidence — withheld documents .
Senate Democrats have pushed to include in the trial documents that the Trump administration refused to turn over during the House investigation .
But they need at least four Republicans to vote with all Democrats and independents for the Senate to subpoena witnesses or documents , and it 's not clear they have those votes .
The trial is expected to begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House vote to transmit the articles of impeachment .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House issued five subpoenas and made 71 requests and got none of the information .
Documents generally aren ’ t the most thrilling part of a trial and don ’ t produce nearly as many made-for-television moments as live witness testimony .
But , at times , what lawyers and investigators dig up in documents can make a case .
“ Often documents speak more loudly than witnesses , ” said Sen. Chris Coons , D-Del .
Sen. Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney general who has argued before the Supreme Court , said those unfilled requests from House Democrats include documents from numerous agencies , including the Defense , State and Energy departments .
“ And these documents tell a story .
Documents don ’ t lie , ” Blumenthal said .
“ Documents are some of the most persuasive evidence that can be produced , and here it can corroborate the powerful evidence we already have from witnesses.
” Blumenthal said he has been thinking ahead to issues that will come up during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , that Trump ’ s defense team could bring up as well as those that could be helpful to the House managers presenting the case for impeachment .
Blumenthal noted that there are emails , instant messages and one ambassador ’ s notes of conversations with Gordon Sondland , the ambassador to the European Union , that could further show how Trump handled the withholding of $ 391 million in military aid to Ukraine , which is at the center of the impeachment case .
“ We know these documents exist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know that there ’ ll be a smoking gun , but they ’ ll offer critical corroboration.
” Some moderates , such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine , are reportedly working to establish a group of Republicans who would vote that way .
But the majority of Senate Republicans are likely to oppose the effort .
Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , said he wouldn ’ t vote for the Senate to subpoena documents , in part because the House chose to send their case over quickly , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through court fights for witnesses and documents .
“ Until you can show me something else , then I ’ m not very interested , ” Graham said .
“ I am ready to base my vote on what they did.
” House Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer repeatedly has said he will call for votes during the trial on whether the Senate should subpoena three specific sets of documents , which he said would be “ narrowly drawn ” and limited “ to electronic communications , memoranda and related records of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Office of Management and Budget , and Department of State.
” “ Our understanding is that these records have already been collected by the White House counsel and counsel in the relevant agencies , so production in response to the Senate subpoenas should be neither burdensome nor time-consuming , ” Schumer said in a December letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
But McConnell has resisted such efforts .
And legal fights over public records requests from media and advocacy organizations show not only the potential information in the documents but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight disclosure of the records at an impeachment trial .
In one case brought by The New York Times , the Office of Management and Budget said it would not turn over any of the 40 pages of emails between a top White House aide and OMB official Michael Duffey .
Those emails discuss the holdup of military aid to Ukraine .
House Democrats argue that Trump abused the power of his office by withholding that congressionally approved aid in exchange for the Ukrainian president announcing an investigation into former Vice President Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 Democratic presidential nomination .
OMB told the Times that releasing emails that involve the president ’ s staff and internal policy deliberations falls under a public records law exemption and would “ inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.
” In another case , a federal judge ordered the Defense Department and OMB to turn over documents to the Center for Public Integrity about the Ukraine aid .
Many of those emails were partially or fully redacted by the Trump administration when turned over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email from Duffey to Elaine McCusker , the Pentagon comptroller .
But Just Security reported this month that , according to the unredacted email , Duffey told McCusker that Trump had directed the aid withheld .
“ Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold , ” Just Security reported that Duffey wrote in the email .
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt. , a former prosecutor , pointed to those recent revelations through news reporting and public records request lawsuits from media and advocacy organizations .
“ If they ’ re holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are , you wonder how much else they ’ ve held back , ” Leahy said .
“ And they were made before anybody was thinking about how do we protect ourselves from impeachment .
”

The high-profile fight over potentially dramatic witness testimony at an impeachment trial of President Donald Trump has overshadowed the Senate’s possible demand for a different type of revealing cache of new evidence — withheld documents.
Senate Democrats have pushed to include in the trial documents that the Trump administration refused to turn over during the House investigation. But they need at least four Republicans to vote with all Democrats and independents for the Senate to subpoena witnesses or documents, and it’s not clear they have those votes.
The trial is expected to begin next week, after Wednesday’s House vote to transmit the articles of impeachment.


rollcall--2020-01-14--Russia, China plan to adjust their tactics to hack, influence 2020 elections

Russia , China and other adversaries who see U.S. elections as a key target for cyberattacks and influence operations are evaluating defensive measures used against their previous attempts to adjust future tactics , a top intelligence official said Tuesday .
“ I don ’ t underestimate any of the adversaries that are looking at the U.S. elections , ” Shelby Pierson , election threats executive in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence , told CQ Roll Call in a brief interview after an election security event in Washington .
“ It ’ s undoubtedly part of their plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t. ” Russia is not the only adversary targeting U.S. elections , Pierson said earlier , speaking at an election security summit hosted by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission , the body that is funneling federal monies to states for election security .
“ It ’ s more diverse.
” China , Iran , North Korea , non-state “ hacktivists ” are among those that pose threats and have the capabilities and motives to target the United States , she said .
“ Threats going into 2020 are more sophisticated , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not likely to be limited to cyberattacks but will include malign influence operations targeting candidates , political parties , campaigns , states and county election infrastructure , she said .
Pierson ’ s office was created in the aftermath of the 2016 election when Russian intelligence services not only hacked the Democratic National Committee but also mounted social media influence campaigns to mislead American voters .
Her office works with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to alert them about threats and briefs state and local officials on potential impacts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections , the U.S. intelligence community , including the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command , have been granted expanded powers to hit back at adversaries .
Pierson said the agencies have had success with such pushback during the 2018 mid-term elections , and “ we would love to engage in operations that stops this activity ” before they reach the U.S. shores .
Asked about reports that hackers from Russian intelligence services had broken into Ukraine ’ s energy company Burisma , which is at the heart of the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined to confirm the news although she said the U.S. was tracking the reports .
The U.S. intelligence community is closely tracking the activities of Russia ’ s main intelligence directorate known by its initials as GRU , as well as other adversaries as Election Day approaches .
U.S. agencies have a three-step plan to deter Russia and other adversaries from undermining the upcoming and future elections , she told MSNBC in an interview on the sidelines of the conference .
U.S. intelligence agencies will : expose foreign government plans , calling that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American public about threats so they can be aware of the dangers ; and let adversaries know that their actions will not be tolerated , she said .
Pierson also told MSNBC that the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that voting machines equipped with modem-enabled tabulators used to send unofficial vote tallies online on Election Day are vulnerable to attacks .
Executives of the top three voting machine makers told Congress last week that many of their models were equipped with such a feature .

Russia, China and other adversaries who see U.S. elections as a key target for cyberattacks and influence operations are evaluating defensive measures used against their previous attempts to adjust future tactics, a top intelligence official said Tuesday.
“I don’t underestimate any of the adversaries that are looking at the U.S. elections,” Shelby Pierson, election threats executive in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told CQ Roll Call in a brief interview after an election security event in Washington. “It’s undoubtedly part of their plan to learn what works and what doesn’t.”
Russia is not the only adversary targeting U.S. elections, Pierson said earlier, speaking at an election security summit hosted by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the body that is funneling federal monies to states for election security. “It’s more diverse.” China, Iran, North Korea, non-state “hacktivists” are among those that pose threats and have the capabilities and motives to target the United States, she said.
“Threats going into 2020 are more sophisticated,” she said. Adversaries’ actions are not likely to be limited to cyberattacks but will include malign influence operations targeting candidates, political parties, campaigns, states and county election infrastructure, she said.
[Ukraine aid legal ruling could shake up impeachment trial]


rollcall--2020-01-14--We don’t have a Cardi B election race rating yet

She ’ s running , maybe .
Cardi B performs in New York in November .
( Johnny Nunez/WireImage ) It ’ s been a busy few weeks for Cardi B : She moved into a gigantic new house and she threatened to run for Congress .
“ I think I want to be a politician , ” the rapper tweeted over the weekend .
We asked CQ Roll Call elections analyst Nathan L. Gonzales to handicap a Cardi B race .
He , wisely , declined .
But he did share some thoughts about the “ Invasion of Privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Realistically , she ’ s got a better chance running statewide than in her new home district , ” Gonzales told Heard on the Hill .
Her sprawling mansion , which features a solarium and wine cellar , is reportedly in suburban Atlanta , in the district currently held by Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk .
“ There ’ s no reason to say she can ’ t win until we know when and where she ’ s running , ” Gonzales said .
While the artist is putting down roots in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bronx , a place she ’ s long called home .
And any bid for office would be “ a couple of years ” away , by her own account .
“ I do feel like if I go back to school and focus up I can be part of Congress , ” she tweeted Sunday .
“ I deadass have sooo much ideas that make sense.
” Other entertainers have made the leap to Congress , though many more have fallen short — think Clay Aiken of “ American Idol ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never really serious anyway , he said ) .
Gonzales put it this way : “ After 2016 , I ’ ve ruled out ruling things out .
”

It’s been a busy few weeks for Cardi B: She moved into a gigantic new house and she threatened to run for Congress.
“I think I want to be a politician,” the rapper tweeted over the weekend.
We asked CQ Roll Call elections analyst Nathan L. Gonzales to handicap a Cardi B race. He, wisely, declined. But he did share some thoughts about the “Invasion of Privacy” artist’s chances in Georgia.
“Realistically, she’s got a better chance running statewide than in her new home district,” Gonzales told Heard on the Hill.
Her sprawling mansion, which features a solarium and wine cellar, is reportedly in suburban Atlanta, in the district currently held by Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk.


rollcall--2020-01-15--Klobuchar doubts security explanation for impeachment trial press limits

The top Democrat on the Senate Rules and Administration Committee expressed vehement opposition to new press access restrictions planned for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was in Iowa on Tuesday to participate in a Democratic presidential debate ahead of the state ’ s first in the nation caucuses , but it was clear that she was keeping track of the decision-making about the Senate operations during the upcoming trial .
Klobuchar said she had discussed the matter with Rules and Administration Chairman Roy Blunt , R-Mo.
, but she said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is in charge .
“ No , I don ’ t support it , and I have been in contact with both sides on this issue , ” Klobuchar said of the plans unveiled Tuesday .
“ I ’ ve talked to Senator Blunt about this , that I thought we should have open access for the press .
They tried this one other time , when Senator [ Richard C. ] Shelby was heading up the Rules Committee , when they tried to restrict the press.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ big mistake , ” Klobuchar said of the new restrictions .
“ I wanted to actually open it more and allow laptops to be used in the press gallery in the chamber.
” The procedures announced Tuesday include additional security screenings for access to the chamber and severe restrictions on press movements near the Senate floor .
Senate rules have long prohibited the use of electronic devices in the chamber by members of the media , but reporters asked for permission to use laptop computers during the trial , a move that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corps to constantly be coming and going .
Klobuchar thanked CBS News reporter Ed O ’ Keefe , a veteran member of the congressional press corps , for recognizing her role as the top Democrat on the Rules panel , which has jurisdiction over a wide range of administrative and operational functions on the Senate side of the Capitol .
She also expressed doubts about explanations given by Senate officials involved in the new plans .
“ They claim it is security .
I really don ’ t think that ’ s true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profile votes and high profile subjects at hearings , and we have not restricted access in that way , ” Klobuchar said .
“ I have my own theories , of course , and they ’ re not good ones , ” she said .
“ It ’ s because they don ’ t want people to interview senators and be able to have them talk.
” “ They can tell the press they haven ’ t made a decision yet , that ’ s fine ... but you can ’ t cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I just disagree with this .
I ’ m the daughter of a reporter , a staunch believer in the First Amendment , and I think this is wrong , ” Klobuchar said .

The top Democrat on the Senate Rules and Administration Committee expressed vehement opposition to new press access restrictions planned for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was in Iowa on Tuesday to participate in a Democratic presidential debate ahead of the state’s first in the nation caucuses, but it was clear that she was keeping track of the decision-making about the Senate operations during the upcoming trial.
Klobuchar said she had discussed the matter with Rules and Administration Chairman Roy Blunt, R-Mo., but she said in a post-debate interview with CBS that ultimately Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is in charge.
“No, I don’t support it, and I have been in contact with both sides on this issue,” Klobuchar said of the plans unveiled Tuesday. “I’ve talked to Senator Blunt about this, that I thought we should have open access for the press. They tried this one other time, when Senator [Richard C.] Shelby was heading up the Rules Committee, when they tried to restrict the press.”
“I think this is a big mistake,” Klobuchar said of the new restrictions. “I wanted to actually open it more and allow laptops to be used in the press gallery in the chamber.”


rollcall--2020-01-15--Pelosi’s poor choices helped sink her impeachment gambit

Speaker Nancy Pelosi , House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and others spoke last month about the urgency of impeaching the president , but they were fine with holding the articles of impeachment for 28 days , Winston writes .
( Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call ) On Dec. 18 , House Democrats rushed to impeach President Donald Trump on charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power , with chief prosecutor Adam Schiff actually calling him a “ clear and present danger ” to the nation .
Speed was of the essence , they told us .
So critical , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the nation depended on it .
There wasn ’ t time to call people who Democrats now say are essential witnesses and to fight the president ’ s likely claim of executive privilege in court .
There wasn ’ t time to allow the president ’ s legal team to participate in the hearings or give Republican members the ability to call their own witnesses .
Democrats were in such a hurry , they said there wasn ’ t time to go to court and resolve the constitutional conflict between the executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they blamed the president , redefined a common executive-legislative branch conflict as criminal and created a new , precedent-free article of impeachment .
Schiff ’ s chief investigator on the Intelligence Committee , Daniel Goldman , told the Judiciary Committee , “ To the extent that other witnesses would be able to provide more context and detail about this scheme , their failure to testify is due solely to the fact that Trump obstructed the inquiry and refused to make them available.
” Or as Schiff himself put it , “ We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope in the courts , so we press ahead.
” It seems Schiff and Goldman have forgotten President Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder ’ s decision to refuse to hand over documents requested by Congress pertaining to the “ Fast and Furious ” scandal .
That claim to executive privilege seems to have been deemed acceptable or certainly nonimpeachable by the same crowd that now finds Trump such a threat to the security and stability of the nation that their “ solemn ” constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the country requires them to act and act quickly to move impeachment forward .
And so they did , voting to impeach the president and promptly heading home for the Christmas break that left the nation in the so-called peril of the Trump presidency for 28 days .
But while Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sat on the articles of impeachment for the past month , the world has , apparently , decided that the “ imminent ” threat another 11 months of Donald Trump in the Oval Office poses isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats would have you believe .
In fact , in contrast to the Democrats ’ overwrought warnings , the world continued to turn , the sun came up every morning , and more than a few positives have characterized the last 28 days .
On Dec. 19 , the long-awaited United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement passed the House by a vote of 385-41 after languishing on Pelosi ’ s desk for more than a year .
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka , hardly a Trump supporter , called its passage a “ huge win for working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 , pigs flew as a CNN Business analysis reported , “ As 2019 winds down , the economy is getting its best rating in almost 20 years .
Overall , 76 % of those polled rate the economy very or somewhat good , according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS .
That ’ s up nine points from last year and the highest percentage since February 2001.
” It closed on a rarely seen positive CNN report on Trump by saying , “ For markets , Trump ’ s impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the economy is clearly advantage-Trump.
” On Jan. 3 , a powerful U.S. military airstrike took out the world ’ s most dangerous terrorist , Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani , responsible for the deaths and maiming of hundreds , if not thousands , of American soldiers .
Democrats and media pundits were happy to applaud the end of a terrorist but just as quick to blame Trump for failing to inform Congress in advance and lacking a Middle East strategy they approved of .
Their solution , as the administration was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was a quick rewrite of the War Powers Act to try and tie Trump ’ s hands in dealing with Iran , though the rewrite had no teeth .
Really ?
Last Friday , the Bureau of Labor Statistics ’ monthly jobs report saw the unemployment rate remain at 3.5 percent , which marks 22 straight months of 4 percent unemployment or less and 11 straight months of 3.8 percent or lower unemployment , while record minority employment continues to hold .
Just for a point of context , Bill Clinton got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his presidency .
Also Tuesday , Pelosi , under pressure from her own party and without the trial rules , threw in the towel and announced a vote Wednesday to send the articles of impeachment on to the Senate .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can put a check in the win column on this one .
And Phase One of the newly completed China trade deal is expected to be signed Wednesday , with Beijing agreeing to increase U.S. imports by $ 200 billion over two years including significant increases in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last 28 days weren ’ t without challenges ; but for a nation whose national security , Democrats contend , is under constant threat from a “ clear and present danger ” named Trump , the past month belies their argument .
In her speech on the House floor before the impeachment vote , 28 days ago , Pelosi said , “ It ’ s tragic the president ’ s reckless actions make impeachment necessary .
He gave us no choice.
” Democrats have always had a choice .
They chose not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House over executive privilege in court where it belonged and , instead , redefined the argument as obstruction .
They chose to pass impeachment suddenly , only to later claim that without further witness testimony , the Senate trial would have no credibility .
Pelosi chose to demand that McConnell do the job she should have done .
It was a gamble she lost .

OPINION — What a difference 28 days makes.
On Dec. 18, House Democrats rushed to impeach President Donald Trump on charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, with chief prosecutor Adam Schiff actually calling him a “clear and present danger” to the nation. Speed was of the essence, they told us. So critical, in fact, that the very security of the nation depended on it.
There wasn’t time to call people who Democrats now say are essential witnesses and to fight the president’s likely claim of executive privilege in court. There wasn’t time to allow the president’s legal team to participate in the hearings or give Republican members the ability to call their own witnesses. Democrats were in such a hurry, they said there wasn’t time to go to court and resolve the constitutional conflict between the executive and legislative branches.
So instead, they blamed the president, redefined a common executive-legislative branch conflict as criminal and created a new, precedent-free article of impeachment.
Schiff’s chief investigator on the Intelligence Committee, Daniel Goldman, told the Judiciary Committee, “To the extent that other witnesses would be able to provide more context and detail about this scheme, their failure to testify is due solely to the fact that Trump obstructed the inquiry and refused to make them available.”