rollcall--2020-01-21--Impeachment comes with its own rules — or lack thereof — on standard of proof

House impeachment managers Rep. Adam B. Schiff , D-Calif. , followed by Reps. Jerrold Nadler , D-N.Y. , Zoe Lofgren , D-Calif. , Hakeem Jeffries , D-N.Y. , Jason Crow , D-Colo. , Val B. Demings , D-Fla. , and Sylvia R. Garcia , D-Texas , are seen in Statuary Hall before addressing the media on the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on Tuesday , January 21 , 2020 .
( Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call ) What is the standard of proof senators will apply to the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump ?
It depends on whom you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructions on the impeachment framework .
It does not outline a “ standard of proof.
” Some legal experts have argued that the seven Democratic House managers must prove “ beyond a reasonable doubt ” that the president abused his office and obstructed justice , as in a criminal trial .
Others contend they must merely present a “ preponderance of evidence ” to support their impeachment articles , as in many civil cases .
[ ‘ Documents don ’ t lie ’ — the other fight over evidence at Trump impeachment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the standard of proof seldom make a difference in any kind of trial , with numerous jury behavior studies showing jurors assess evidence the same way regardless of their instructions .
“ My intuition is that this is likely to be even more true with regard to politicians , ” said Louis Michael Seidman , the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University Law Center .
“ Either you think that Trump should be impeached or you don ’ t .
In the real world , people just don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of proof , ” Seidman said .
That doesn ’ t mean Congress has ignored the subject in the past .
In the 1986 impeachment trial of federal District Court Judge Harry E. Claiborne , senators debated for hours before voting down , 75-17 , a motion by Claiborne ’ s defense team to designate “ beyond a reasonable doubt ” as the standard .
Claiborne was removed from office .
The question of standard of proof has been revived at subsequent impeachment trials .
In 1991 , District Court Judge Alcee L. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Florida , was impeached and removed for his involvement in a bribery scheme .
The case united some of the most liberal and conservative senators in Hastings ’ defense , with former Utah GOP Sen. Orrin G. Hatch , an advocate for the “ beyond a reasonable doubt ” standard in the Claiborne trial , joining forces with the likes of then-Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware over doubts about the circumstantial nature of the evidence .
Trump has sought to cast doubt on testimony from “ 2nd and 3rd hand witnesses ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into his alleged abuse of power scheme involving Ukraine and that underpins the impeachment articles .
His House GOP allies echoed his protests about insufficient evidence as one of their central arguments against the impeachment process .
The White House blocked firsthand witnesses such as acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying .
Over the decades , impeachment defendants and their counsels have argued for the stricter “ beyond a reasonable doubt ” standard because of parallels between some impeachment language in the Constitution and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of the words “ try ” and “ convicted.
” But the punishment for the individual convicted in an impeachment trial is far less severe than punishment in criminal cases , proponents of a less burdensome standard have countered .
A criminal court can strip a defendant of his life , liberty and property .
An impeachment conviction only involves removal from office and prohibition from holding public office .
In the case of presidential impeachments , senators must also consider that a conviction , in essence , overturns the will of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from everyone to the Founding Fathers to Trump impeachment proponents like House Judiciary Chairman and impeachment manager Jerrold Nadler .
The gravity of this consequence is a double-edged sword for the debate over how strictly senators should interpret the standard of proof in an impeachment trial , constitutional law scholar Charles Black wrote in his “ Impeachment : A Handbook , ” first published in 1974 and updated since .
“ The adoption of a lenient standard of proof could mean that this ... frustration of popular will could occur even though substantial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other hand , the high ‘ criminal ’ standard of proof could mean , in practice , that a man could remain president whom every member of the Senate believed guilty of corruption , just because guilt was not shown ‘ beyond a reasonable doubt.
’ Neither result is good ; law is often like that , ” Black writes .
Black recommended senators seek an “ overwhelming preponderance of the evidence ” to convict a president , a standard that falls somewhere between the onerous “ beyond a reasonable doubt ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately demurred , saying that each senator “ must find his own standard in his own conscience , as advised by reflection .
”

What is the standard of proof senators will apply to the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump? It depends on whom you ask.
The Constitution provides only bare-bones instructions on the impeachment framework. It does not outline a “standard of proof.”
Some legal experts have argued that the seven Democratic House managers must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the president abused his office and obstructed justice, as in a criminal trial. Others contend they must merely present a “preponderance of evidence” to support their impeachment articles, as in many civil cases.
[‘Documents don’t lie’ — the other fight over evidence at Trump impeachment trial]
The reality is such concerns over the standard of proof seldom make a difference in any kind of trial, with numerous jury behavior studies showing jurors assess evidence the same way regardless of their instructions.


rollcall--2020-01-21--Senators bend the rules by wearing Apple Watches to Trump trial

Utah Sen. Mike Lee , left , dons his Apple Watch as he talks to Texas Sen. John Cornyn before a Nov. 6 Judiciary Committee hearing .
( Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call file photo ) Correction 7:03 p.m. | The rules of decorum state that senators can ’ t use phones or electronic devices in the chamber during President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , but what about Apple Watches ?
At least seven senators had them strapped on their wrists in the chamber at the start of the trial Tuesday , despite guidelines from Senate leadership that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the provided storage .
Republican Sens .
Mike Lee of Utah , John Thune of South Dakota , Jerry Moran of Kansas , James Lankford of Oklahoma , John Cornyn of Texas and Tim Scott of South Carolina all are wearing them on the floor .
Also spotted with the smartwatch : an aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
So , too , is Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington .
Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner owns an Apple Watch , but it could not be confirmed if he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Apple Watch can have cellular capabilities , which means wearers can leave their phones behind and “ call from the trail , text from the surf , or stream music from the slopes , ” the company says .
Or , possibly , call or text from the Senate floor as well .
The Supreme Court — the standard bearer for banning electronics from the courtroom — does not allow Apple Watches inside the courtroom .
Among other features of the latest version of the Apple Watch , it “ motivates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — all things that the senators are not supposed to do during the trial .

Correction 7:03 p.m. | The rules of decorum state that senators can’t use phones or electronic devices in the chamber during President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, but what about Apple Watches?
At least seven senators had them strapped on their wrists in the chamber at the start of the trial Tuesday, despite guidelines from Senate leadership that all electronics should be left in the cloakroom in the provided storage.
Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, John Thune of South Dakota, Jerry Moran of Kansas, James Lankford of Oklahoma, John Cornyn of Texas and Tim Scott of South Carolina all are wearing them on the floor. Also spotted with the smartwatch: an aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
So, too, is Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington. Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner owns an Apple Watch, but it could not be confirmed if he had it on the floor.
Newer versions of the Apple Watch can have cellular capabilities, which means wearers can leave their phones behind and “call from the trail, text from the surf, or stream music from the slopes,” the company says.


rollcall--2020-01-21--Supreme Court denies request for expedited appeal of challenge to 2010 health care law

An expedited hearing on the 2010 health care law could have led to a ruling before the election .
( Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo ) The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will not hear an expedited appeal of a legal challenge to the 2010 health care law this term , which could have led to a decision this summer on whether to overturn the entire law during the heat of the campaign season .
At least five justices declined a request from several Democratic state officials and the House to fast-track an appeal of the case , Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court judge will reconsider how much of the 2010 health care law should fall after Congress eliminated the law 's tax penalty on most Americans who did not have health care coverage .
The Supreme Court could agree to hear the case as soon as its next term , which begins in October , but a decision is not likely before the November elections .
The 5th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that the law 's requirement to get insurance coverage , known as the individual mandate , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tax penalty on people did not get coverage .
But the three-judge panel remanded questions about the rest of the law back to a district court judge , who ruled that the entire law should fall .
The argument by conservative state officials who brought the lawsuit was that the tax penalty was such an integral part of the law that other components could not operate without it .
A coalition of Republican state attorneys general and the Department of Justice had urged the justices to deny the request for expedited consideration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold off on hearing the case as it works its way through the courts could lessen the lawsuit ’ s political potency ahead of the 2020 presidential election .
Polls show that health care is a top issue for voters .
President Donald Trump has said he supports protections for pre-existing conditions , one of the most popular parts of the health law .
But his administration has taken steps to weaken those protections , in addition to supporting the lawsuit that calls for the entire law to fall .
House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those protections , which guarantee that people can not be denied or charged more for health insurance because of a prior illness .
The health care debate in the Democratic presidential primary has so far focused on the differences between establishing a single-payer plan or a public option , but all of the Democratic candidates support a continuation of the pre-existing condition protections and the rest of the 2010 law .

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will not hear an expedited appeal of a legal challenge to the 2010 health care law this term, which could have led to a decision this summer on whether to overturn the entire law during the heat of the campaign season.
At least five justices declined a request from several Democratic state officials and the House to fast-track an appeal of the case, Texas v. Azar. Instead, a lower court judge will reconsider how much of the 2010 health care law should fall after Congress eliminated the law’s tax penalty on most Americans who did not have health care coverage. The Supreme Court could agree to hear the case as soon as its next term, which begins in October, but a decision is not likely before the November elections.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that the law’s requirement to get insurance coverage, known as the individual mandate, could not stand without bringing in revenue from the tax penalty on people did not get coverage. But the three-judge panel remanded questions about the rest of the law back to a district court judge, who ruled that the entire law should fall. The argument by conservative state officials who brought the lawsuit was that the tax penalty was such an integral part of the law that other components could not operate without it.
A coalition of Republican state attorneys general and the Department of Justice had urged the justices to deny the request for expedited consideration.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hold off on hearing the case as it works its way through the courts could lessen the lawsuit’s political potency ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Polls show that health care is a top issue for voters.


rollcall--2020-01-21--Iran, North Korea and Crypto

Iran, North Korea and Crypto

Looking toward the North Korean side of the Joint Security Area within the DMZ from Panmunjom , South Korea .
@ @ @ @ @ Roll Call ) Fintech Beat gives an inside view from former intelligence officials on how @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration and Iran and North Korea can impact financial technology , and how @ @ @ @ @ in nefarious ways .
• Can - and should - an algorithm be ethical when @ @ @ @ @ ?
• Fintech Beat sits down with the former chief of the Federal Reserve ’ @ @ @ @ @ breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone .

Fintech Beat gives an inside view from former intelligence officials on how sanctions and political gyrations between the Trump administration and Iran and North Korea can impact financial technology, and how these regimes can use cryptocurrencies in nefarious ways.
Show Notes:


rollcall--2020-01-21--Impeachment news roundup: Jan. 21

Impeachment news roundup: Jan. 21

House impeachment managers address the media in the Capitol on the Senate trial of President Donald Trump on Tuesday .
( Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call ) The Senate voted along party lines , 53-47 , to block three motions from Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer to subpoena testimony from cabinet officials , State Department and White House documents , and communications regarding Ukraine .
The amendments were offered to the impeachment rules resolution and were the first of at least four attempts by the New York Democrat to alter the rules proposal , during the first day of the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fourth amendment , to subpoena former Office of Management and Budget director and Trump ’ s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , was introduced at about 7:30 p.m .
The information was not provided to House investigators during its impeachment investigation .
Some Democrats hoped moderate GOP senators would join them in voting to get evidence that was not disclosed to the House during its impeachment investigation .
Sen. Susan Collins said in a statement she will vote to table any attempts to subpoena documents or witnesses in the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present their cases and senators ask questions .
At that point , senators “ will be able to make an informed judgment about what is in dispute , what is important , and what remains relevant to the underlying issues.
” “ As I said last week , while I need to hear the case argued and the questions answered , I anticipate that I would conclude that having additional information would be helpful , ” the Maine Republican said .
“ It is likely that I would support a motion to subpoena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as I did in 1999.
” Following input from senators , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday made two changes to his resolution setting the rules for the trial .
The updated resolution will allow for the House managers and the president ’ s lawyers to make arguments for up to 24 hours over three days , rather than the two session days in the draft released Monday night .
It also would provide for the automatic introduction of the House records into evidence , according to a senior Democratic aide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules , a vote would need to take place to admit the House records .
Schumer told reporters during a break that the changes McConnell made to his trial rules came after the public pressured Republican senators .
`` I 'm very glad they moved to three days instead of two so we wo n't be hearing arguments at two in morning , '' he said .
`` It 's good they admitted evidence , but the real test will be witnesses and documents .
Will our Republican senators put pressure on McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and documents produced , either now or after the arguments are made ? ''
Schumer said Trump 's counsel has not made a single argument about why there should n't be witnesses or documents .
`` That speaks volumes , '' he said .
Here is the latest on impeachment : Lankford OK : Sen. James Lankford said he didn ’ t have an issue with the press restrictions imposed specifically for the impeachment trial .
“ Our press folks have talked to lots of press .
I talked to lots of press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with press later on this afternoon , ” Lankford said .
“ But just in the access points around the different hearing time , yeah , that ’ s a little different just because of the magnitude of the number of people that are here , ” Lankford said .
Lankford said the trial has been as “ expected so far ” and added that “ today ’ s the first day , we ’ re just walking through rules—that ’ s really all we have.
” Advisers take questions : Reps. Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans helping to advise Trump ’ s impeachment defense team , made themselves available to the press off the Senate floor to provide live Republican commentary on the proceedings Tuesday since senators are confined to their seats while the impeachment trial is in session .
“ I figure since the senators don ’ t have their devices and can ’ t talk other than 15-minute breaks , you ’ ll take the ‘ B ’ Team , ” Meadows told reporters .
When notified that some senators have been wearing Apple Watches in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laughed .
“ I don ’ t think that ’ s a gray area .
I think that ’ s breaking the rules , ” Meadows said .
The North Carolina Republican said that while he wants an expedited trial so Congress can focus on addressing policy issues , he and other Republicans could tolerate McConnell ’ s last-minute update to the impeachment trial rules resolution stretching time for opening arguments over an extra day .
“ Having 24 hours to debate oral arguments over a three day period versus a two day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s fundamentally going to change the verdict and what we ’ ll see , ” Meadows said .
Senate scenes : Sen. Mark Warner appeared to be falling asleep as he rested his head on his hand around 1:50 p.m. , only to be stirred by Schiff playing a video of Trump ’ s remarks .
A few minutes past 2 p.m. Democratic staff passed out legislative text to senators on their side of the aisle — presumably the updated McConnell resolution .
Most senators did not take notes as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceptions , including Sens .
Collins , Lisa Murkowski , Cory Gardner , John Thune , Rob Portman and Chuck Grassley .
Collins , in particular , appeared to be taking copious notes , moving through multiple pages on her legal pad .
At about 2 p.m. , a staffer brought Grassley a black binder and something in a plastic sandwich size bag , the latter of which he put in his open desk drawer .
Senate pages roamed through the aisles filling senators ’ empty water glasses .
Among those needing refills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ted Cruz , Josh Hawley and Bill Cassidy .
Rule rage : McConnell ’ s proposed rules angered Democrats , who said the majority leader wasn ’ t following his pledge to follow the precedent set in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton and amounted to a “ cover-up.
” “ Everything in these rules is rigged .
...
They are so afraid , so afraid of the facts coming out that they want things to be presented at two , three in the morning , ” House Intelligence Chairman Adam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team of House impeachment managers , told reporters Tuesday .
“ Give me a break .
“ This is not a process for a fair trial .
This is the process for a rigged trial , ” Schiff said .
“ This is the process if you do not want the American people to see the evidence.
” The two provisions being changed were among the key concerns raised by Democrats , as well as some Republicans .
Republican Sen. Susan Collins viewed the tweaked resolution as “ a significant improvement , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Collins and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in two days and the admission of the House transcript in the record .
Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible , ” Clark said .
White House counsel Pat Cipollone opened the trial by urging senators to adopt McConnell ’ s proposed resolution , saying it allows for a “ fair process.
” “ We are in favor of this , ” Cipollone said .
“ The only conclusion will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing wrong.
” But Schiff shot back , laying out the argument he has been making for months that Trump abused his power by pressuring the Ukrainian government for his own political gain .
“ Let me be very blunt .
Right now a great many , perhaps even most Americans , do not believe there will be a fair trial , ” Schiff said .
“ They don ’ t believe the Senate will be impartial .
They believe that the result is pre-cooked .
The president will be acquitted , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not — but because the senators will vote by party and he has the votes.
” Cipollone called out the presidential candidates on the Democratic side of the Senate chamber during his closing remarks in support of the rules resolution .
`` Talk about the framer 's worst nightmare ; it 's a partisan impeachment that they 've delivered to your doorstep in an election year .
Some of you are upset because you should be in Iowa right now . ''
Amendment threat : Schumer said earlier Tuesday that he would offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from witnesses and see more documents .
And to put Republicans on record .
“ Right off the bat , Republican senators will face a choice about getting the facts or joining Leader McConnell and President Trump in trying to cover them up.
” “ The McConnell rule seems to be designed by President Trump for President Trump , ” Schumer said with Sens .
Richard J. Durbin , Patty Murray and Debbie Stabenow alongside him .
Schumer said his first amendment would be for the Senate to subpoena White House documents that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly $ 400 million in military aid to Ukraine before ultimately releasing it in September .
Schumer argued that those documents could be as important in revealing the reasons for the Trump administration ’ s actions as testimony from congressional Democrats ’ desired impeachment witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton and Director of the Office of Management and Budget and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney .
“ [ McConnell ’ s resolution ] asks the Senate to sprint through the trial as fast as possible and makes getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer said .
“ Leader McConnell wants the process rushed with as little evidence as possible in the dark of night.
” But McConnell said he would table any amendment to the rules that would demand witnesses .
He said that later in the trial , after hearing from House managers and the White House defense team , the Senate could decide whether to hear from additional witnesses .
Schumer speaking after McConnell , voiced his opposition to increased media restrictions for the trial , saying they could cause some journalists to miss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , Schumer told reporters that he was not privy to the decision to restrict media access around the Senate side of the Capitol and said he would prefer for the media to be able to interact with senators like a “ normal day ” when the Senate is in session .
“ Some may not want what happens here to be public , ” he said in an apparent shot at McConnell .
The House ’ s case : The House managers presenting the articles of impeachment against Trump in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect the integrity of future elections .
The president ’ s legal team raised eyebrows on Monday when it asserted that he could not be impeached and removed from office for an abuse of his executive power that fell short of a crime .
In a reply memo Tuesday , the House managers said the White House ’ s assertion is “ wrong ” and sets a “ dangerous ” precedent for future cases where a president might leverage his executive powers to influence elections .
“ That argument would mean that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s recitation of the facts is correct — which it is — the House lacks authority to remove a President who sells out our democracy and national security in exchange for a personal political favor .
The Framers of our Constitution took pains to ensure that such egregious abuses of power would be impeachable , ” the managers wrote in their reply to Trump ’ s lawyers .
At stake in the impeachment trial is not holding a president accountable for past actions , but protecting future elections , the managers argued .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment late last year , even on the eve of an election year , because Trump ’ s alleged abuse of power was intended to sway the results of the 2020 election in his favor , the managers wrote .
“ The Framers also knew that periodic democratic elections can not serve as an effective check on a President who seeks to manipulate those elections , ” they argued .
“ Completely absurd ” : White House spokesman Hogan Gidley dismissed as a “ political stunt ” Democrats ’ challenge to White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attorney in the impeachment case because he might have firsthand information about Trump ’ s dealings with Ukraine .
“ The idea that the counsel to the President has to turn over protected documents and confidential information is ludicrous , and to imply he can ’ t represent the president of the United States in an impeachment proceeding is completely absurd , ” Gidley said .
He said that if anyone should be disqualified , it ’ s lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam B. Schiff , “ who has been caught lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t exist , made up a totally phony phone conversation about Ukraine that never happened , and lied that his staff didn ’ t have contact with the whistleblower.
” Amendment update : Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris said no final decisions were made during Democrats ’ luncheon about how many amendments they would offer to McConnell ’ s rules resolution .
She suggested the concerns raised through amendments would be more about obtaining evidence than the schedule of the trial .
“ I think most of the people around here hopefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so I ’ m not concerned about the schedule as much as I am whether this is going to be a fair trial , ” Harris said .
“ We need to have access to witnesses with direct information and evidence about the president ’ s conduct.
” The former presidential candidate said she would oppose any effort to close the Senate for deliberations , saying the American people have a right to know what ’ s happening .
So that ’ s a no ?
: Sen. Susan Collins , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she would consider voting to hear new evidence and witnesses after both sides present their case , shook her head when asked if she had any concerns about McConnell ’ s resolution but did not provide a verbal response .
Rerun : Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said that additional witnesses and evidence should be put to a vote after both sides present their case .
“ I for one think that that should have been a discussion [ the House ] had before they ever wrapped up the investigation and sent it here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When asked about emerging evidence like the allegations from Lev Parnas , an associate of Trump ’ s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani , he said he expects to see a “ Kavanaugh-like ” reveal of additional evidence that people will argue to include in the record over the next few weeks , referring to confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
“ I have seen that movie and I hope it ends the same way as this one , ” Tillis said .
Irrelevant yet accurate : Romney , another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more witnesses and considering more evidence , responded to Trump calling him a “ pompous ass , ” over his position , telling reporters , “ That may be as accurate as it is irrelevant , ” to the trial .
Romney said he is not concerned about the potential late nights of arguments and activity on impeachment and does not share concerns about the American public not seeing key exchanges .
“ You guys are going to cover it , whether it ’ s at 2 a.m. or whether it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going to be on the air , people are going to see it , ” he told reporters .
He compared the late-night sessions to work on the Salt Late City Olympics , of which he was president and CEO of the organizing committee .
“ When I was broadcasting the Olympics , you know , there was a time delay and people got to see it , ” Romney said .
Alternate channel : Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy , who has pledged to do a full readout of the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media each day , said he ’ s also open to doing pen and pad sessions with reporters .
“ Yes , I ’ m open to a variety of ways to keep in touch with all of you .
I ’ m going to be trying to communicate directly with my constituents and the press via social media , ” Murphy said Tuesday .
“ I want this to be a transparent process .
I want people to be able to see what ’ s going on .
The press is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on : Democratic Sen. Chris Coons had a bold response to questions about the possibility of former Vice President Joe Biden being called to testify during the Trump impeachment trial .
“ If you want to give Joe Biden an opportunity to sit in the well of the Senate and answer the question : Do you think the president acted appropriately ?
Go right ahead , ” Coons said .
“ I can ’ t imagine a person more comfortable in the well of the Senate than a man who spent 36 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I can ’ t imagine a current candidate for president more familiar with and comfortable with the details of how the previous administration worked tirelessly to fight corruption in Ukraine , and the current administration has failed to , than my predecessor , ” said the Delaware Democrat , who won a special election in 2010 to take over Biden ’ s seat .
Coons said he has never been in Washington two weeks straight , but he told his wife this morning that he would be gone for that time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state close enough to see his family while the Senate is in session .
Coons called the lack of phones on the Senate floor during the trial “ a needed digital cleanse.
” “ Many of my junior staff were concerned and alarmed , ‘ How will you make it ?
’ ” Coons said .
“ I reminded them that I made it through all of law school without a cell phone , without an iPad .
We may actually be able to focus more.
” Fair trial : House impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican senators to reject the proposed rules because that process would harm their ability to present their case fairly .
They compared supporting McConnell ’ s trial resolution to helping Trump commit obstruction of Congress , the behavior described in the second article of impeachment .
“ It will not prove the president innocent , it will merely prove the Senate guilty of working with the president to obstruct the truth from coming out , ” Schiff said at a news conference .
And House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler , also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican senators is whether they “ want to be complicit in the cover up of the president ?
” “ Any senator who votes to deny a witness , who votes deny evidence , is voting to cover up the president ’ s crimes and subversion of the Constitution , ” Nadler said .
“ There 's no other way about it.
” Schiff said the proposed rules were like a judge entering a courtroom and telling the jury that he has been talking to the defendant , and that he won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or enter documents .
The judge also would only let the prosecution read from previous documents , but even those won ’ t necessarily be allowed as evidence in the trial .
“ That makes it impossible to have a fair trial , not just difficult , but impossible to have a trial , ” Schiff said .
“ And I think for senators who take their oath seriously — and I hope and pray that they do — this is not the fair trial that the American people want , this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people deserve.
” Dark of night : Speaker Nancy Pelosi also described McConnell ’ s rules as a “ cover-up.
” “ Leader McConnell ’ s plan for a dark of night impeachment trial confirms what the American people have seen since Day One : the Senate GOP Leader has chosen a cover-up for the President , rather than honor his oath to the Constitution , ” Pelosi said in a statement Tuesday morning .
“ No jury would be asked to operate on McConnell ’ s absurdly compressed schedule , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it is intending to truly weigh the damning evidence of the President ’ s attacks on our Constitution , ” she said .
Schumer also accused McConnell of writing the rules to ensure that the trial is conducted and finished “ under the dark of night , ” pointing out in an interview with CNN that with sessions starting at 1 p.m. beginning Wednesday and factoring in breaks that each could go to 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. the following day .
McConnell ’ s rules “ propose a trial that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and done in the dark of night , ” Schumer said .
Majority wants more evidence : While public opinion over removing the president remains divided , the majority of Americans want at least the opportunity to see more evidence presented in the Senate impeachment trial .
The majority of Americans — 57 percent — support House managers being able to introduce new evidence in the trial , according to a Monmouth University poll released Tuesday .
And more than three in four Americans said Trump and administration officials “ should be invited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear is less popular , though .
Just 51 percent supported compelling administration officials who refused to appear before the House inquiry to appear before the Senate .
“ Public opinion on allowing new evidence and compelling witness testimony in the Senate trial breaks sharply along partisan lines .
But it is interesting that solid majorities in every partisan group would like to see Trump and members of his administration at least asked to appear , ” Patrick Murray , director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute , said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jan. 16-20 .
The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points .
Trump ’ s take : Trump , asked Tuesday afternoon at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland , about whether he would support a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment , repeated a familiar line .
“ That whole thing is a hoax , ” he told reporters traveling with him .

The Senate voted 53-47 along party lines to approve Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s rules for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, after a long night of debate that stretched to nearly 2 a.m. Wednesday morning.
Senators almost entirely along party lines to block every motion Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer put forward Tuesday in an attempt to subpoena testimony from Cabinet officials, State Department and White House documents, and communications regarding Ukraine.
The amendments were offered to the impeachment rules resolution and were the first of several attempts by the New York Democrat to alter the rules proposal during the first day of the impeachment trial. After Schumer offered his fourth amendment at about 9:30 p.m., McConnell offered a consent agreement to stack the amendment votes so they could be dispatched quickly.
Schumer, however, would not agree to the amendment votes but did offer to continue the proceeding Wednesday morning.
“We will not back off on getting votes on all these amendments,” Schumer said.


rollcall--2020-01-22--Congress saw more bills introduced in 2019 than it has in 40 years, but few passed

The 116th Congress is on track to enact a lower percentage of bills than any in modern times .
( Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo ) It would stand to reason that representatives and senators , dissuaded by the gridlock in Congress , would hesitate to introduce legislation .
After all , only 105 laws were enacted during 2019 , a poor showing by historical standards .
But that ’ s not what happened last year .
In fact , lawmakers are on a pace to introduce more bills and joint resolutions than they have since the 1970s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced .
In 2019 , they introduced 8,820 bills and joint resolutions , 23 percent more than they did in 2017 , the first year of the prior Congress .
[ Divided government will pose an obstacle to lawmaking in 2019 ] About 2 in 3 of the measures introduced in 2019 were in the House , an indication perhaps of a pent-up desire among Democrats now in the majority to put forward ideas that the previous GOP majority had bottled up .
Outside congressional experts also highlighted the fact that there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make their marks .
Freshman representatives and senators introduced just under 1,000 bills and joint resolutions , about 11 percent of the total .
Of course , the 98 freshmen in this Congress ( nine senators and 89 representatives ) make up almost one-fifth of the total number of lawmakers .
In 2017 , freshmen introduced 434 measures , or about 6 percent of the total that year .
Still , the total of 105 laws enacted is among the lowest in this millennium , exceeding only the 72 new laws of 2013 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large number of bills introduced , this Congress is on track to enact a lower percentage of bills than any in modern times .
Robert Browning , Purdue University professor of communication and political science and C-SPAN Archives executive director , noted that divided government and the Senate focusing on confirming judicial and executive branch nominees are two reasons why so many bills have been stymied .
“ You don ’ t see the senators doing much , ” he adds .

It would stand to reason that representatives and senators, dissuaded by the gridlock in Congress, would hesitate to introduce legislation. After all, only 105 laws were enacted during 2019, a poor showing by historical standards.
But that’s not what happened last year. In fact, lawmakers are on a pace to introduce more bills and joint resolutions than they have since the 1970s, when Congresses routinely saw 20,000 or more introduced.
In 2019, they introduced 8,820 bills and joint resolutions, 23 percent more than they did in 2017, the first year of the prior Congress.
[Divided government will pose an obstacle to lawmaking in 2019]
About 2 in 3 of the measures introduced in 2019 were in the House, an indication perhaps of a pent-up desire among Democrats now in the majority to put forward ideas that the previous GOP majority had bottled up. Outside congressional experts also highlighted the fact that there was a large cadre of freshmen eager to make their marks.


rollcall--2020-01-22--Picture Mitch McConnell as a knight riding an elephant

This election-themed chess set is no joke , as Heard on the Hill discovered when we gave it a try .
( Graham MacGillivray/CQ Roll Call ) Maybe you ’ ve been up late at night watching MSNBC or the NFL Network , and through your bleary eyes have noticed an ad for a chess set featuring Mike Pence as a queen and Nancy Pelosi as a knight riding a donkey .
Turns out it ’ s not some waking nightmare , but instead an ad for the 2020 Battle for the White House Chess Set , an off-kilter idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world AmberVision glasses and the PedEgg , which is basically a cheese grater for rough feet .
“ I was looking for a way to bring politically divided families together through rational discussion over a fun family game , ” says the man who came up with the idea , AJ Khubani , the CEO and founder of BulbHead , a New Jersey-based company .
In the ad an announcer exclaims , “ Each piece painstakingly designed for impeccable detail that is truly stunning.
” Those pieces are made of plastic with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump as king and other luminaries like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy as knights riding elephants ; George W. Bush and Barack Obama as rooks ; and Supreme Court Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor as bishops .
It totals nearly $ 50 when all costs are calculated ( fancier versions will set you back more ) .
The set includes a certificate of authenticity because , as Khubani notes , “ limited edition products , especially those created around a historic event , can gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company has sold 11,400 sets so far .
Khubani has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats and Republicans alike over the years , according to Federal Election Commission data , including Donald Trump in 2016 and the Senate campaigns of Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California .
In 2017 he donated $ 19,600 to the National Republican Congressional Committee .
He says he is an independent .
One final oddity : The Democratic king and queen are represented by empty podiums — customers can order the pieces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominees are selected .
Khubani acknowledges there might be a gender issue similar to Pence ’ s if one of the nominees is a woman .
“ We may have a problem … if , say , Elizabeth Warren were the presidential nominee , ” he says .
There might be one other problem .
Joe Biden is already one of the rooks .

Maybe you’ve been up late at night watching MSNBC or the NFL Network, and through your bleary eyes have noticed an ad for a chess set featuring Mike Pence as a queen and Nancy Pelosi as a knight riding a donkey.
Turns out it’s not some waking nightmare, but instead an ad for the 2020 Battle for the White House Chess Set, an off-kilter idea from the same man who brought the world AmberVision glasses and the PedEgg, which is basically a cheese grater for rough feet.
“I was looking for a way to bring politically divided families together through rational discussion over a fun family game,” says the man who came up with the idea, AJ Khubani, the CEO and founder of BulbHead, a New Jersey-based company.
In the ad an announcer exclaims, “Each piece painstakingly designed for impeccable detail that is truly stunning.” Those pieces are made of plastic with a “pewter finish” and include Donald Trump as king and other luminaries like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy as knights riding elephants; George W. Bush and Barack Obama as rooks; and Supreme Court Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor as bishops. It totals nearly $50 when all costs are calculated (fancier versions will set you back more).
The set includes a certificate of authenticity because, as Khubani notes, “limited edition products, especially those created around a historic event, can gain value over time.” He says the company has sold 11,400 sets so far.


rollcall--2020-01-22--When it comes to Trump’s future, ‘the people’ would rather do it themselves

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats should be concerned by polls that show more Americans support letting voters decide the president ’ s fate and not a one-sided impeachment process , Winston writes .
( Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call file photo ) OPINION — Abraham Lincoln closed the Gettysburg Address on a hopeful note , promising a “ new birth of freedom ” so that “ government of the people , by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.
” Today , as the Democrats push their partisan impeachment forward in the Senate chamber , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beleaguered president in the midst of the Civil War are worth remembering .
It ’ s worth remembering that a government of the people must , by definition , be formed by the people .
Impeachment , as the framers saw it , was a constitutional necessity to protect the country from presidential corruption , but it was also meant to be a rare avenue for Congress to embark on and in only the most dire of circumstances because impeachment is , de facto , the overturning of a national election .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an alternative to impeachment , and it ’ s called an election .
Thomas Jefferson said , “ Should things go wrong at any time , the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights.
” It ’ s a truth Democrats have decided to ignore in their loathing of this president and rush to placate their angry base .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to excuse the Democrats ’ decision to move forward without the bipartisan support she had insisted was essential to a successful impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open the debate on impeachment , she said , “ Today we are here to defend democracy for the people.
” A month after the vote , Pelosi said in a statement that the House “ upheld its Constitutional duty to defend democracy For The People.
” When naming the House impeachment managers , she claimed Democrats were defending the Constitution as they sought “ the truth for the American people.
” “ As we make that history , we will be making progress for the American people , ” Pelosi said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” tone of earlier statements .
But is the Democrats ’ one-sided impeachment really driven by their concern “ for the people ” when the people see them literally celebrating impeachment with gold signing pens on silver trays and partisan parades through the Capitol halls ?
The harsh and personal tone of their complaints against President Donald Trump belies their claims of seriousness and reluctance .
At the core , do Democrats even understand what people really want ?
Over the past two months , there has been plenty of polling on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and want him removed from office .
The numbers have moved modestly up and down , pro and con , depending on the week , the sample and how the question was asked .
Despite months of impeachment efforts in the House , polls now show Democrats have failed spectacularly to persuade half the country of the rightness and necessity of this impeachment .
The latest RealClearPolitics polling average on the question put support for impeachment and Trump ’ s removal at 47.3 percent , with 47.5 percent taking the opposite position .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest number for removal has been 51 percent , and the highest for not removing was also 51 percent .
Having failed to convince a significant majority of voters on the validity of their impeachment effort , Democrats begin Senate proceedings this week in a difficult position , if their goal is to find the two-thirds majority needed to convict the president .
But the problem Democrats face may be worse than the standard polling questions seem to suggest .
The Oct. 31-Nov.2 Winning the Issues survey looked into the issue of impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most polls , people are given only two options : favor or oppose impeachment , with some surveys including “ removal from office.
” Winning the Issues gave them an option that we hoped would give us some insight into how people value their right to vote and what impact impeachment would have on that vote .
We asked people which statement came closest to their views : “ Voters — not Congress — should decide whether President Trump should be removed or reelected in next year ’ s election.
” “ Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from office.
” Our findings in early November didn ’ t represent good news for Democrats — by a 49 percent to 39 percent margin , respondents supported letting the voters decide .
But our latest Dec. 28-30 survey ought to give Democrats serious pause .
By a larger margin than we saw last fall , voters believed the election should decide Trump ’ s future — 55 percent to 35 percent .
Despite high viewership of the House impeachment hearings and Democrats ’ almost total control of the political narrative , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe they should be the ones to decide , not partisan politicians .
This inherent belief in the validity of the ballot over a political impeachment process crossed many key voter groups .
Most important , the survey found independents , the “ majority makers , ” favored letting voters decide by a huge 23-point margin , 53 percent to 30 percent .
Here ’ s how a few other groups broke down .
• Voters with less than a 4-year college degree : 58 percent to 31 percent Suburban women , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall , favored letting voters decide 51 percent to 35 percent , something that should concern Democratic leaders .
People who had an unfavorable view of both parties , about 20 percent of the country , were the most disposed to letting voters decide , 60 percent to 28 percent .
These numbers don ’ t mean the electorate ’ s concerns over the impeachment allegations have disappeared .
But with the election just over nine months away , Democrats ’ argument for it is steadily losing standing with voters at exactly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort will only be successful if they win the argument that continuing the Trump presidency is so detrimental to the country that people are willing to give up their vote .
During Watergate , “ the people ” eventually came to that conclusion .
In the Clinton impeachment , they did not .
Nancy Pelosi and her impeachment caucus have spent months wrapping themselves in the Constitution and portraying themselves as protectors of democracy always “ for the people.
” Unless something dramatic happens during the Senate trial to change their minds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left the decision to them .

OPINION — Abraham Lincoln closed the Gettysburg Address on a hopeful note, promising a “new birth of freedom” so that “government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
Today, as the Democrats push their partisan impeachment forward in the Senate chamber, the sentiments expressed so eloquently by a beleaguered president in the midst of the Civil War are worth remembering. It’s worth remembering that a government of the people must, by definition, be formed by the people.
Impeachment, as the framers saw it, was a constitutional necessity to protect the country from presidential corruption, but it was also meant to be a rare avenue for Congress to embark on and in only the most dire of circumstances because impeachment is, de facto, the overturning of a national election.
These same Founding Fathers also understood that there is an alternative to impeachment, and it’s called an election. Thomas Jefferson said, “Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights.” It’s a truth Democrats have decided to ignore in their loathing of this president and rush to placate their angry base.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to excuse the Democrats’ decision to move forward without the bipartisan support she had insisted was essential to a successful impeachment.


rollcall--2020-01-22--Abortion policy activism heats up for Roe v. Wade anniversary

Both sides of the abortion rights debate are doubling down on grassroots efforts to energize voters who share their beliefs about abortion .
( Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo ) Groups pushing for the advancement of abortion rights and those looking to limit the procedure have an ambitious agenda starting this week , foreshadowing a year that could be critical for advocates on both sides of the debate .
In two months , the Supreme Court will hear its first major abortion case since 2016 , and both sides are revving up for a major presidential election .
States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reproductive health bills as their legislatures come back into session .
A flurry of legislation timed around the Jan. 22 anniversary of the landmark 1973 abortion rights case Roe v. Wade and the largest annual anti-abortion rally , known as the March for Life , is typical in most years .
But with a split Congress and impeachment proceedings pending in the Republican-controlled Senate , this year ’ s activity will focus more on motivating supporters to prepare for upcoming fights over state policies , court cases and elections .
Kristan Hawkins , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America group , envisions renewed energy beginning this week , stemming in part from the 2020 campaign season .
“ There ’ s a general feeling that most people would agree that this is going to be a pivotal year when we talk about abortion in our country , ” she said .
More than 100,000 abortion opponents are expected to rally for the March for Life on Jan. 24 , with a 3,000-person conference scheduled the following day aimed at training abortion opponents to mobilize .
In recent years , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March for Life .
Top administration officials are expected to make an appearance this year as well .
Last year , the march was timed for the week of a Senate procedural vote to codify a ban on taxpayer-funded abortion , the announcement of a newly formed Senate Pro-Life Caucus and a letter from President Donald Trump to Speaker Nancy Pelosi promising to veto any abortion rights legislation .
Anti-abortion advocates want to see movement on their key policy priority : legislation that they argue would protect an infant who survives an attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March for Life , expects the call to action this year to be related to a House discharge petition to require a vote on this bill .
Missouri Rep. Ann Wagner , who sponsored the House version , is slated to speak at the march , as are other GOP lawmakers and Louisiana Democratic state Sen. Katrina Jackson , who wrote the law that the Supreme Court will hear in March .
Another priority , according to Hawkins , is targeting Planned Parenthood funding .
“ I know several people who have reached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk about debarment of Planned Parenthood , ” she said .
The Department of Health and Human Services is able to temporarily block federal funds to an organization in cases of fraud or other illegal activity .
Legislative and legal action on both abortion bans and the expansion of abortion rights is also expected to heat up .
In 2019 , seven states passed near-total abortion bans , none of which is in effect because of litigation .
The ACLU said two of those cases , Mississippi and Missouri , could see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of months .
“ The million-dollar question is whether the Supreme Court will step in to review one of these cases , ” said Jennifer Dalven , director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project .
“ It ’ s too late for that to happen this term .
So the earliest we ’ d really be looking at is 2021 , and it ’ s unclear whether the Supreme Court has the appetite to jump into that question right away.
” Jessica Arons , senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees state policy changes as an often-overlooked issue .
“ While a high-stakes showdown will be playing out at the Supreme Court , we should not take our eyes off of what is happening in the states , ” she told reporters last week .
“ Already , bills that would ban abortion from the earliest days of pregnancy , like those passed in Georgia and Alabama last year , have been introduced in 10 states , with more likely to be filed in the coming days.
” This year , “ there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least five more abortion bans could be enacted , ” Arons said .
Arons and other abortion rights supporters are also watching court cases besides the Supreme Court case in March , which will determine whether a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital can go into effect .
The ACLU is watching at least two other types of cases that could make their way to the high court next year .
One type is cases targeting a method of abortion known as dilation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arkansas and Ohio were blocked by lower courts but have been appealed .
The other type challenges restrictions that would ban abortions based on a reason , such as a fetal anomaly .
In March , the full 6th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on an Ohio law .
Both sides are doubling down on grassroots efforts to energize voters who share their beliefs about abortion .
A majority of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade to be overturned , according to a poll released Wednesday by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of Democrats and 70 percent of independents do not want the decision to be reversed , while 57 percent of Republicans do want it overturned .
However , only 6 percent of Democrats and 7 percent of Republicans consider reproductive health to be their top campaign issue , the poll found .
Abortion may get more attention this year , though , in states like Colorado , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana and Michigan , which might have ballot initiatives this cycle that could roll back abortion rights .
Progressive groups are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the success of enacting state legislation in places like New York last year .
For instance , Planned Parenthood , the ACLU and others are backing a Massachusetts bill that would allow access to abortion later in pregnancy and loosen parental consent restrictions for minors .
Last week , Planned Parenthood announced a new voter program , We Decide 2020 , that provides voter information about candidates ’ reproductive health stances .
The new program launched with a five-figure digital buy in battleground states .
Planned Parenthood previously announced plans to spend $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our country is at a crossroads , but now it ’ s time for us to reclaim our power , ” said Jenny Lawson , executive director for Planned Parenthood Votes .
“ In 2020 , we ’ re fighting back and electing reproductive champions up and down the ballot — because our futures depend on it.
” On the other side of the debate , Susan B. Anthony List , which opposes abortion , announced Friday that it would dramatically expand its grassroots efforts .
Volunteers were already talking to voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also will be targeting Iowa , Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania , Texas and Wisconsin .
They ’ ve also increased their budget to $ 52 million this cycle .
Mallory Quigley , national spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony List and Women Speak Out PAC ’ s independent expenditure campaign , said they will also target traditional Democratic voter groups .
“ Our focused , battle-tested voter outreach method will ensure we reach the voters who can provide President Trump and pro-life Senate candidates the winning margin , ” she said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president tweets out , ” Hawkins said .
“ You may not agree with every policy he has , or any other politician , but you always know when we vote , we think about what is the most pressing issue .
… You have to vote for the candidate that ’ s going to do the most to limit abortion .
”

Groups pushing for the advancement of abortion rights and those looking to limit the procedure have an ambitious agenda starting this week, foreshadowing a year that could be critical for advocates on both sides of the debate.
In two months, the Supreme Court will hear its first major abortion case since 2016, and both sides are revving up for a major presidential election. States are also eyeing a number of new reproductive health bills as their legislatures come back into session.
[Lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reexamine abortion decisions]
A flurry of legislation timed around the Jan. 22 anniversary of the landmark 1973 abortion rights case Roe v. Wade and the largest annual anti-abortion rally, known as the March for Life, is typical in most years. But with a split Congress and impeachment proceedings pending in the Republican-controlled Senate, this year’s activity will focus more on motivating supporters to prepare for upcoming fights over state policies, court cases and elections.
Kristan Hawkins, president of the anti-abortion Students for Life of America group, envisions renewed energy beginning this week, stemming in part from the 2020 campaign season.


rollcall--2020-01-22--Potential ballot confusion complicates California special election for Katie Hill’s seat

An unusual message will soon hit mailboxes and social media feeds in former Democratic Rep. Katie Hill ’ s Southern California district : “ For once in your life , vote twice !
” The tagline will be featured in mailers and a digital media campaign from Assemblywoman Christy Smith , a Democrat running in the special election to replace Hill in the 25th District .
The message underscores concerns that voters may be confused by multiple elections for the same office on the same day , March 3 .
There will be two votes : a special election to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term ; and a regular primary for nominees for the next full term , which starts next January .
The two elections are happening on the same day as other California primaries , including the presidential primary .
For the special election primary , a candidate who gets an outright majority will head to Washington .
But if no one gets a majority , the top two vote-getters , regardless of party , would advance to a May 12 runoff .
That ’ s what campaign operatives in both parties expect will happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Voters can begin to mail in ballots on Feb. 3 , so candidates not only have to compete with the presidential race for attention , they have to educate voters about the unusual elections in a short period of time .
Democratic activists and some candidates are mostly concerned about confusion over two elections for the same district .
But there is also worry about a new digital voting system that prompts voters to click through multiple screens to view all of the candidates .
“ If you thought the butterfly ballot was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know there ’ s a second page of candidates , that ’ s a potential disaster , ” said Democrat Cenk Uygur , host of “ The Young Turks ” talk show , who is running in both the special and regular elections .
Smith said in a phone interview that it has been difficult to capture voters ’ attention .
“ We ’ re kind of behind the scenes , ” she said .
That won ’ t get easier in coming weeks , when candidates in the 25th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expensive Los Angeles media market as presidential candidates seeking California ’ s mother lode of delegates saturate the airwaves .
Uygur , who is leveraging his national profile in the race , said he was also concerned about voter confusion , but “ I don ’ t know what we ’ re going to do about it.
” Members of the Indivisible group for Simi Valley and Porter Ranch , which has endorsed Smith , have been writing postcards to voters , reminding them to vote twice in the 25th District , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group ’ s leaders .
Brand is concerned voters will select candidates in one election but not the other .
“ If that happens , that ’ s a mess , ” she said .
Two sources familiar with the race said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is expected to help with field organizing , focusing specifically on voter education about the complex election .
The DCCC has had a presence in the district since March 2019 and will ramp that up ahead of the special election , one party strategist said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how best to explain , in both English and Spanish , that voters must make a choice in both elections .
Though not guaranteed by California ’ s top-two primary system , operatives in both parties expect one Democrat and one Republican to advance to the May runoff .
DCCC officials said last week they were not concerned the upcoming six-week battle could result in Republicans taking both spots .
Former Republican Rep. Steve Knight , whom Hill unseated by 9 points in 2018 , could have the name recognition that gives him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Knight has the backing of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , but the Los Angeles County GOP endorsed Navy veteran Mike Garcia .
Garcia was already running against Hill when she announced her resignation in October amid allegations of improper relationships with staffers .
Knight jumped in after that , and his late entry and 2018 loss have stoked some resentment among Republicans .
It ’ s unclear , however , if that will be enough to keep him from making the May runoff .
The Democrat who advances is expected to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t flipped a House seat in California since 1998 .
Hillary Clinton carried the district by 7 points in 2016 , and the highest share of voters there , nearly 38 percent , are registered Democrats .
Thirty-one percent are registered Republicans , while 25 percent are not registered with any party .
Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates the race Solid Democratic .
Smith , a centrist whose Assembly district covers 60 percent of the House seat , has the backing of national groups , several members of the California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indivisible groups .
“ She knows all of the problems that are happening in our district that need fixing , ” said Brand , the Indivisible leader .
“ All the other candidates are from outside our district , and they just want to get into Congress because they think they know better.
” Smith has stressed her roots in the community and said her first TV ad will focus on health care .
Citing union members who want to keep the benefits they ’ ve negotiated , Smith supports adding a public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2010 health care law rather than creating a single-payer system .
Uygur , her chief Democratic opponent , lives outside the district in West Los Angeles .
He said he is looking to move into the 25th District after the school year .
Uygur acknowledged that some criticism of his decision to run in a district where he doesn ’ t live is out of genuine concern about whether he cares about the community .
But he said he has proved he does care by campaigning in the district , and continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ verges on xenophobia.
” Uygur supports “ Medicare for All , ” or a single-payer health care system .
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , who authored the Medicare for All bill in the Senate , initially endorsed Uygur in the race .
But the presidential hopeful retracted the endorsement after pushback over Uygur ’ s past controversial comments .
Several videos of Uygur have surfaced from his “ Young Turks ” show in which he speaks crudely about women ’ s appearances and criticizes orthodox Muslims and Jews .
Asked if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Uygur said , “ I ’ m not going to get into every single video .
OK , by the way , I ’ ve got 12,000 hours of video online .
… [ The ] overwhelming majority is massively progressive.
” A central theme of Uygur ’ s campaign is money in politics , and he has criticized Smith for receiving campaign donations , mainly to her Assembly campaign , from various industries .
Smith has not rejected corporate PAC donations , breaking with the majority of House Democrats who flipped seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a campaign finance overhaul and would sign on to HR 1 , a sweeping revision crafted by House Democrats last year .
But she said , “ I am determined to fight within the system as it is set up to make sure that we hold this seat.
” Both Smith and Uygur reported similar fundraising numbers for the last quarter of 2019 .
Smith raised $ 840,000 to Uygur ’ s $ 796,000 .
Uygur said his campaign is “ people-powered , ” touting roughly 2,200 volunteers from California and across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of volunteers are from the district itself .
So far , Democrats supporting Smith don ’ t view Uygur as a threat , suggesting he is not well-known in the district .
Uygur , though , told HuffPost the Democratic contest is “ Hillary vs. Bernie 2.0 , ” likening the race to the hotly contested 2016 presidential primary .
Clinton carried the district in the 2016 primary by 4 points , with nearly 52 percent of the vote , but Uygur said , “ I ’ m not overly worried about that @ @

An unusual message will soon hit mailboxes and social media feeds in former Democratic Rep. Katie Hill’s Southern California district: “For once in your life, vote twice!”
The tagline will be featured in mailers and a digital media campaign from Assemblywoman Christy Smith, a Democrat running in the special election to replace Hill in the 25th District. The message underscores concerns that voters may be confused by multiple elections for the same office on the same day, March 3.
There will be two votes: a special election to fill the remainder of Hill’s term; and a regular primary for nominees for the next full term, which starts next January. The two elections are happening on the same day as other California primaries, including the presidential primary.
For the special election primary, a candidate who gets an outright majority will head to Washington. But if no one gets a majority, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to a May 12 runoff. That’s what campaign operatives in both parties expect will happen, since 13 candidates are running.
Voters can begin to mail in ballots on Feb. 3, so candidates not only have to compete with the presidential race for attention, they have to educate voters about the unusual elections in a short period of time.


rollcall--2020-01-22--It’s still difficult to see Trump losing Iowa in November

A Pizza Ranch restaurant with a pro-Trump sign in Winterset , Iowa , in January 2016 .
Donald Trump went on to win Iowa in the general election , beating Hillary Clinton by more than 9 points .
( Al Drago/CQ Roll Call file photo ) ANALYSIS — Iowa gave Barack Obama a resounding 9.5-point victory over John McCain in 2008 .
Four years later , Obama ’ s margin shrunk to 5.8 points against Mitt Romney .
But in 2016 , something odd happened .
Donald Trump carried Iowa by 9.4 points — a dramatic change in the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the same winning margin as Obama ’ s eight years earlier .
Iowa had gone Republican before , of course .
It voted narrowly for George W. Bush in 2004 , and it backed Ronald Reagan twice , in 1980 and 1984 .
But Michael Dukakis carried it comfortably in 1988 , and Al Gore ’ s narrow victory in 2000 seemed to suggest Iowa was shifting ever so slightly toward the Democrats .
That is what made 2016 so noteworthy .
Did Trump ’ s solid victory say something about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes and no .
As reporter Paige Godden and the folks at Iowa Starting Line note , a stunning 31 Iowa counties voted twice for Obama but flipped to Trump in 2016 .
Their statewide map shows the bulk of the shifts occurring in eastern Iowa ( and particularly northeast Iowa ) , areas of traditional Democratic strength .
While much of western Iowa has more in common with Nebraska and South Dakota ( including its Republican bent ) , northeast Iowa has more in common with Minnesota and Wisconsin , and eastern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in eastern and northeast Iowa in 2016 probably reflects the shift seen elsewhere among working-class voters who were once reliably Democratic but responded enthusiastically to Trump ’ s message .
According to a 2017 analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research , Iowa ranked third in the nation with blue-collar jobs as a share of total nonfarm employment in each state .
( The group defined blue-collar jobs as those in goods-producing sectors — manufacturing , construction , mining and logging . )
Given that , maybe Iowa ’ s dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is more to the story .
And it suggests that the state ’ s swing was not quite as dramatic as it first looked .
Trump drew almost 801,000 votes in Iowa , more than 20,000 fewer votes than Obama did in 2008 ( 823,000 votes ) or in 2012 ( 829,000 votes ) .
Trump ’ s showing , in percentage terms , was right in line with those presidential nominees who carried Iowa in the previous five contests .
He drew 51.2 percent , while Obama drew 52 percent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent in 2008 ( against McCain ) .
George W. Bush drew 49.9 percent in 2004 ( against John Kerry ) and Gore drew 48.5 percent in 2000 against Bush .
In 1996 , Bill Clinton drew 50.3 percent in Iowa against Bob Dole .
So while Trump ’ s margin of victory was large ( 9.4 points ) , especially for a once-hypercompetitive state , the percentage of the vote that he received ( 51.2 percent ) was not particularly noteworthy .
How could that be ?
As in a handful of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( see my July 19 , 2019 , column about Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ) , Trump ’ s margin of victory was more a reflection of Hillary Clinton ’ s weak performance than his own strength .
Clinton drew just 41.7 percent of the vote in Iowa , a showing far worse than those by other recent losing candidates , including Romney ( 46.2 percent ) , McCain ( 44.4 percent ) , Kerry ( 49.2 percent ) and George W. Bush ( 48.2 percent ) .
The only recent losing nominees to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Clinton were Dole ( 39.9 percent in 1996 ) and George H.W .
Bush ( 37.3 percent in 1992 ) , both of whom lost a substantial number of votes to independent Ross Perot .
Is this good news for Democrats , putting Iowa back in play in 2020 ?
Hillary Clinton ’ s showing in Iowa reflected a unique weakness , and Democrats have a chance to nominate someone who doesn ’ t have her baggage , which would improve their prospects in the state .
But Trump ’ s margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring out voters who stayed home in 2016 and also win back some former Democrats who backed Trump three years ago .
That ’ s quite a challenge .
So far , there is little reason to believe that more than a trickle of 2016 Trump voters are ready to defect ( or , more correctly , return to the Democratic Party ) , and that , plus the state ’ s rural Republican voters throughout the state , make it difficult to see Iowa supporting the Democratic nominee in November .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much closer race in Iowa if the Democrats nominate someone who can turn out new voters , rally the party base and appeal to swing voters upset with Trump ’ s language and governing style .
Trump ’ s margin in Iowa is likely to shrink in November to the mid- or even low-single digits .
That means he is still likely to carry the state ( barring new developments ) , but it also means that Iowa is worth keeping an eye on , if only as a test case as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party ’ s nominee .

ANALYSIS — Iowa gave Barack Obama a resounding 9.5-point victory over John McCain in 2008. Four years later, Obama’s margin shrunk to 5.8 points against Mitt Romney. But in 2016, something odd happened.
Donald Trump carried Iowa by 9.4 points — a dramatic change in the state’s recent voting behavior and close to the same winning margin as Obama’s eight years earlier.
Iowa had gone Republican before, of course. It voted narrowly for George W. Bush in 2004, and it backed Ronald Reagan twice, in 1980 and 1984.
But Michael Dukakis carried it comfortably in 1988, and Al Gore’s narrow victory in 2000 seemed to suggest Iowa was shifting ever so slightly toward the Democrats. That is what made 2016 so noteworthy.


rollcall--2020-01-22--Capitol Ink | Case Law

Capitol Ink | Case Law

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone .

The Source for news on Capitol Hill since 1955
CQ Roll Call is a part of FiscalNote, the leading technology innovator at the intersection of global business and government. Copyright 2023 CQ Roll Call. All rights reserved.


rollcall--2020-01-22--Senate approves Trump trial rules, lining up a series of late nights

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , arrives for the start of the impeachment trial on Tuesday .
( Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call ) The Senate voted to approve Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s rules to govern the impeachment trial , which , despite last-minute changes Tuesday , earned no support from Democrats .
Senators adopted the updated resolution , 53-47 , shortly before 2 a.m. Wednesday morning .
The resolution will now give House impeachment managers and Trump ’ s defense team 24 hours to make their arguments over three days , instead of the two days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle to sit in silence at Trump trial ] Democrats complained that the original two-day timeline would have deprived the public from viewing much of the proceedings , as they would start in the afternoon and stretch past midnight .
“ If Leader McConnell is so confident the president did nothing wrong , why don ’ t they want the case to be presented in broad daylight ?
” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , asked Tuesday .
The change means the trial days , which start at 1 p.m. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and could extend the trial by two days .
The tweak to the rules and scheduling is far from satisfying for Senate Democrats and House impeachment managers , who have been clamoring to hear from witnesses and to subpoena documents .
To that end , Schumer offered a series of amendments — all rejected on roll call votes , mostly along party lines — that would have instructed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to subpoena acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney , former National Security Adviser John Bolton and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House , State Department , Defense Department and Office of Management and Budget documents pertaining to the impeachment charges .
[ Impeachment comes with its own rules — or lack thereof — on standard of proof ] “ We know these documents exist , ” House manager Rep. Jason Crow , D-Colo. , said of the budget documents .
“ And we know the only reason we do not have them is because the president directed OMB not to produce them.
” Crow argued that the documents would show that Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stall the transfer of nearly $ 400 million in aid to Ukraine , which would bolster the House ’ s case that Trump withheld those funds for his political gain .
During one of the Senate ’ s recesses , Schumer told reporters that Trump ’ s defense team had not made any arguments as to why the Senate shouldn ’ t be able to call witnesses or subpoena documents .
McConnell ’ s underlying resolution , though , allows the Senate to revisit the question of hearing from witnesses or subpoenaing documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s defense team and House managers and after the questioning period that allows senators to submit written queries for the House managers and Trump ’ s counsel .
After Democrats made it clear they were going to force votes on amendments to the rule resolution to ensure subpoenas for documents and witnesses , senators seemed to settle in for a long night .
At about 9:45 p.m. , Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse crossed the aisle to the Republican side and sat in Kansas Republican Jerry Moran ’ s seat , next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The two exchanged jokes , patted each other on the shoulder , and continued to make each other laugh for a minute or two .
Whitehouse continued his trip to the Republican side of the chamber with chats with Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Ben Sasse of Nebraska before returning to his seat .
The usually stone-faced McConnell chewed some type of candy or food at about 9:50 p.m. , while listening to Crow argue about the next amendment by describing how the House managers have plenty of time to debate these amendments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attorney criticized Democrats for forcing votes and debates on the same basic issue of when to vote on subpoenas at about 10:10 p.m. , a smile crept across McConnell ’ s face that broke into a brief chuckle .

The Senate voted to approve Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s rules to govern the impeachment trial, which, despite last-minute changes Tuesday, earned no support from Democrats.
Senators adopted the updated resolution, 53-47, shortly before 2 a.m. Wednesday morning. The resolution will now give House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team 24 hours to make their arguments over three days, instead of the two days initially proposed by McConnell.
[Senators struggle to sit in silence at Trump trial]
Democrats complained that the original two-day timeline would have deprived the public from viewing much of the proceedings, as they would start in the afternoon and stretch past midnight.
“If Leader McConnell is so confident the president did nothing wrong, why don’t they want the case to be presented in broad daylight?” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked Tuesday.


rollcall--2020-01-23--EPA expected to finalize clean water rollback amid science challenges

President Donald Trump showed a hat that says `` Make Counties Great Again '' before signing an Executive Order in February 2017 to roll-back of environmental regulations put in place by the Obama administration .
( Photo by Aude Guerrucci-Pool/Getty Images ) The Trump administration is expected Thursday to finalize a rule that would significantly reduce the federal government ’ s role in regulating waterways , fulfilling a campaign promise to farmers and energy interests and handing a win to conservatives who have pushed for changes to the Clean Water Act regulations .
The rule , which redefines what constitutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” would revise decades-old standards for regulating waterways , a move environmentalists warn could lead to pollution of water that wildlife and people depend on , especially in low-income areas and communities of color .
Several current and former EPA and Army Corps of Engineers employees and scientific advisers oppose the move , charging that political appointees blocked the use of scientific information in writing the rule .
The rule would almost certainly be challenged by environmental groups and be rescinded if a Democrat wins the presidential election in November .
The Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clean water rules , and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , a front-runner in that race , has promised to `` restore the Obama-era water rule that protected our lakes , rivers , and streams , and the drinking water they provide . ''
Thursday ’ s decision builds on the Trump administration ’ s efforts to limit the federal government ’ s role in environmental protections .
The administration last year finalized a separate rule repealing the 2015 Clean Water Rule , commonly called WOTUS , that greatly expanded federal oversight of waterways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to clarify decades of confusion over what constituted federally regulated waterways .
Industry proponents such as Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso , R-Wyo.
, and Sen. Joni Ernst , R-Iowa , along with conservative state leaders opposed the rule from the beginning , saying it would hamper economic activity in areas near water sources and that it was an overextension of federal authority over states .
`` The Trump administration will set commonsense limits on state versus federal jurisdiction over the waterways and make it easier for states , local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Charles E. Grassley , R-Iowa , said this week .
Republican lawmakers repeatedly tried to use the annual appropriations bills to withhold funds from the EPA to enforce WOTUS regulations .
As proposed , the latest rule would remove several categories of waterways and wetlands from federal jurisdiction and would limit the government ’ s oversight to large bodies of water .
Betsy Southerland , who worked in different roles at the EPA for three decades , including as director of science and technology in the Office of Water , said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socially unjust .
“ EPA ’ s final rule limiting federal water quality protections to a very small set of waters and wetlands will result in the impairment of drinking water , fisheries , and flood control for communities throughout the U.S. , ” Southerland , who retired from the EPA in 2017 , told CQ Roll Call in an email .
“ This rule transfers the costs of pollution control and wetland protection from miners , oil and gas producers , and land developers who will no longer be regulated to downstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect themselves.
” Her comments echo those of a group of current and former EPA and Army Corps of Engineers employees who have complained that the writing of the new rule was “ controlled solely by political appointees ” at the EPA headquarters who dismissed scientific input , directed expert staff to “ refrain from submitting comments that could be part of the formal administrative record , ” and publicly mischaracterized scientific content .
In the complaint dated Jan. 19 , the 44 employees under the organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility demanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General ensure that agency experts are allowed to provide “ meaningful ” contributions in the rulemaking and that the political appointees implicated are “ disciplined for violating the Scientific Integrity Policy and undergo remedial training ” on the topic .
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler , Assistant Administrator David Ross , General Counsel Matt Leopold , Principal Deputy General Counsel David Fotoui , Senior Science Adviser Owen McDonough and other top officials in the EPA ’ s Office of Water violated the agency ’ s Scientific Integrity Policy , the complaint charges , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research and its experts from contributing to the new definition of waters of the United States .
“ The environmental and public health implications of these scientific integrity violations can not be overemphasized , but another casualty is the public ’ s confidence in EPA science , ” PEER science policy director Kyla Bennett , a scientist and former EPA attorney , said in a news release announcing the complaint .
In anticipation of the rule , Madeleine Foote , deputy legislative director at the League of Conservation Voters , called the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water safeguards ” that would “ turn our streams into dumping grounds for big polluters and destroy ” millions of acres of wetlands .
“ This gutting of vital Clean Water Act protections takes us backwards on the progress we ’ ve made in cleaning up our waterways and puts the health of our families at risk for the sole benefit of Trump ’ s corporate friends , ” Foote said .
The latest actions come four days after Trump said he had directed the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw a separate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed in 2016 by the Obama administration .
The Water Supply Rule , which the Army Corps said was meant to clarify its policies governing the use of its reservoir projects for domestic , municipal and industrial water supply , was never completed .
The agency in September paused work on it for six months to further consult with states and local communities that had complained about it .
`` In coordination with the administration and the intent to have a lighter federal touch , the Corps is withdrawing the proposed water supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistant secretary of the Army for civil works , said Monday .

The Trump administration on Thursday finalized a rule that significantly reduces the federal government’s role in regulating waterways, fulfilling a campaign promise to farmers and energy interests and handing a win to conservatives who have pushed for changes to the Clean Water Act regulations.
The rule, which redefines what constitutes “waters of the United States,” revises decades-old standards for regulating waterways, a move environmentalists warn will lead to pollution of water that wildlife and people depend on, especially in low-income areas and communities of color. Several current and former EPA and Army Corps of Engineers employees and scientific advisers oppose the move, charging that political appointees blocked the use of scientific information in writing the rule.
The rule is certain to be challenged by environmental groups and be rescinded if a Democrat wins the presidential election in November. The Democratic presidential candidates have promised to write stricter clean water rules, and one of them, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has said she would “restore the Obama-era water rule that protected our lakes, rivers, and streams, and the drinking water they provide.”
Thursday’s decision builds on the Trump administration’s efforts to limit the federal government’s role in environmental protections. The administration last year finalized a separate rule repealing the 2015 Clean Water Rule, commonly called WOTUS, that greatly expanded federal oversight of waterways. That Obama administration rule was written to clarify decades of confusion over what constituted federally regulated waterways.
State authority
Industry proponents such as Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, along with conservative state leaders opposed the previous rule from the beginning, saying it would hamper economic activity in areas near water sources and that it was an overextension of federal authority over states.


rollcall--2020-01-23--Impeachment news roundup: Jan. 23

Impeachment news roundup: Jan. 23

Jay Sekulow , President Donald Trump ’ s personal attorney , speaks to the media during a break in the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday .
( Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call ) Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer , in what has become a regular morning pretrial news conference , said Thursday the House managers in their first day of arguments the day before laid out the facts in “ precise and devastating detail.
” The managers also anticipated the counterarguments the president ’ s lawyers will make , “ knocking those arguments down before they got there , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It has been only one day but House managers are setting the bar very high for the president ’ s counsel , ” Schumer said , noting he doubts Trump ’ s team will reach it .
Schumer said Republicans ’ rebuttal that they heard nothing new “ rings hollow , ” because those same Republicans voted nine times on Tuesday to reject efforts to introduce new evidence .
“ If they want something new , there ’ s plenty of it , ” he said .
Here is the latest on impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment managers are about a third of the way through presenting their case against President Donald Trump and will continue today in the second of their allotted three days .
Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said Wednesday he expects to begin the president ’ s case on Saturday and will take “ a day or two ” after that to finish its presentation .
7:55 a.m. | Trump ’ s take : The president reacted to the proceedings Thursday morning , quote-tweeting Fox News ’ coverage and taking issue Democrats want to call more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t allow Republicans “ lawyers , or not one witness ” in its impeachment inquiry before declaring it the “ Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history !
” House Democrats did allow Republicans to call witnesses in the Intelligence and Judiciary hearings .
[ View from the gallery : Senators seek comfort and novelty during Trump trial ] 7:45 a.m. | Schiff-Nadler tensions : House Intelligence Chairman Adam B. Schiff , the lead House impeachment manager , made clear he was answering questions from reporters on Wednesday when one was raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Trump ’ s lawyers , which drew an admonishment from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr .
Differences — and at times tensions — between the two Democrats , who lead the committees that investigated Trump ’ s dealings with Ukraine , have been on display since September when Speaker Nancy Pelosi picked Schiff over Nadler to lead the impeachment inquiry and later as lead impeachment manager .
7:20 a.m. | Attaboy : Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of Trump ’ s staunchest defenders , congratulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat ’ s hand and saying , “ Good job .
You ’ re very well spoken.
” The tone was a different one than Graham has taken in criticizing Schiff on Twitter .
Explaining one of his absences to reporters as a bathroom break , Graham joked , “ If there ’ s a bladder contest , I ’ m entering Schiff.
” 7:10 a.m. | First day reviews : Schiff made clear that the House ’ s presentation was going to be a comprehensive airing of the evidence it had gathered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger audience outside the Senate .
“ We will go into extensive detail about what happened and when and how we know that it happened , ” he said .
“ We do not assume that everyone in the Senate was able to watch all of the House testimony … let alone that the American people were able to do so.
” Republicans said they didn ’ t hear anything new in what Schiff and Democrats presented but Democrats raved about his performance .
Delaware Sen. Chris Coons said Schiff ’ s closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he showed a “ mastery ” of the material .

File updated 7:45 p.m.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, one of the Democrats running for president, said in response to a question about the possibility of a court battle about executive privilege claims by the Trump White House that the Senate should do what’s needed, even if it prolongs the chamber’s impeachment trial.
“We have to have a fair trial. That’s what the Constitution requires,” Warren told CQ Roll Call. “And if the president of the United States can throw up roadblocks, including roadblocks that may have no basis in law, and as a result, the Senate just backs off and says ‘well I guess that’s hard so we’re going to pack our bags and go home,’ then the whole notion of how impeachment works as a check on the president is completely lost.”
If a longer trial in the Senate was required to get all the information from the appropriate witnesses, “then so be it,” Warren said. “There’s no exception for someone needs to get home on the weekend.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal dismissed the idea that there could be a long battle in federal court over potential testimony of former national security adviser John Bolton.