dailysignal--2020-12-15--The Rich History of Jewish Prayer on the Floor of Congress

Between policy debates and competing political agendas , Congress is not exactly known for being a place of peace , except when members pause for a moment of prayer before each session .
Today , Howard Mortman , director for communications at C-SPAN and the author of the book “ When Rabbis Bless Congress : The Great American Story of Jewish Prayers on Capitol Hill , ” joins the show to discuss the rich tradition and history of prayer—specifically , the prayer of rabbis—on the floor of Congress .
We also cover these stories : • The Wisconsin Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , which contested 20,000 ballots cast in the state .
• An intensive care unit nurse in New York became one of the first people to receive the coronavirus vaccine .
• New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city should be prepared for another COVID-19 lockdown .
“ The Daily Signal Podcast ” is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , and Stitcher .
All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like what you hear , please leave a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ email protected ] Virginia Allen : I am joined by Howard Mortman , director of communications at C-SPAN , and author of the book “ When Rabbis Bless Congress : The Great American Story of Jewish Prayer on Capitol Hill.
” Mr. Mortman , welcome to the show .
Howard Mortman : Thank you .
I appreciate your interest .
Thank you very much .
Allen : Prayer in Congress .
Now , that is not something that ’ s talked about too often , but you have a really unique window @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the many facets of Congress .
So , as a director of communications for C-SPAN , how much time do you spend watching or on the floor of Congress each week ?
Mortman : Yeah , that ’ s a great question because that is my job .
I ’ m the communications director , which means I work with the media and I have to be familiar with everything we cover at C-SPAN .
And we cover a lot of Congress .
We cover the floor of the House and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of that , I ’ m not in Congress itself .
In other words , I ’ m not in the press gallery .
We have a producer for that .
But my job is to watch what ’ s happening on the floor constantly .
So I ’ m always aware of what ’ s going on in the House and the Senate .
Allen : Wow .
I mean , that ’ s such a unique position and one that very , very few Americans have to literally be constantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the floor of Congress day in and day out .
So your book “ When Rabbis Bless Congress : The Great American Story of Jewish Prayer on Capitol Hill , ” with all of your knowledge of Congress and everything that you have seen , why was prayer , and even more specifically the prayer of rabbis , the thing which has so impacted you to the point that you said , “ I need to write a book about this ” ?
Mortman : That ’ s a great question .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ big picture , as a result of me spending so much time watching Congress , you see a lot .
You see fights and debates and acrimony and anger , but you see something that ’ s really unique in the political process .
And that ’ s the beginning of each session of the House and each session of the Senate begins with a prayer .
And as a watcher of Congress , it always just struck me just looking at that and saying , “ This looks like nothing else that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s quiet .
You ’ re really addressing the prayer , you ’ re addressing God , basically .
And it ’ s the first thing Congress does every day .
Even before they have a Pledge of Allegiance , they have a prayer .
And the prayer ’ s offered typically by the House chaplain or the Senate chaplain .
So just as a curiosity , as a novelty almost , the whole concept of opening each session in prayer , just kind of struck me as something , “ This looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my job , I ’ ve watched a lot of Congress .
I ’ m always intrigued by the whole concept of prayer .
Here ’ s when the story gets a little narrower .
… So again , in Congress , there is an official House chaplain and there ’ s an official Senate chaplain .
Both are taxpayer-funded positions .
They have staff .
There are occasions when the House chaplain or the guest chaplain aren ’ t there and they have a fill-in chaplain , basically .
And they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaplain .
And so that ’ s like a sub-level of this opening session prayer are the guest chaplains , the fill-ins on every so often on vacation .
Now , one level below that , on occasion , much rarer , but it does happen , there are rabbis .
And the reason that I ’ m interested in the rabbis is I ’ m Jewish .
So I kind of perk up on the odd occasion that there was a rabbi who was filling in as a guest chaplain , filling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s basically where my story begins .
Allen : We are talking with Howard Mortman , author of the book “ When Rabbis Bless Congress : The Great American Story of Jewish Prayers on Capitol Hill.
” So on average , you say that combined between the House and the Senate , there are about 170 times a year when there is prayer on the floor .
So how and when did this tradition begin , rabbis , pastors , other faith leaders praying aloud on the floor of Congress ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ love that question because the tradition of prayer goes back to the very beginning .
I mean , the very beginning of Congress , the first thing they did was appoint a chaplain and prayer began in the Continental Congress .
Benjamin Franklin was an advocate .
So this custom , this tradition goes back to the very beginning of America ’ s legislative branch .
And even before they completed the Bill of Rights , there was already a prayer opening Congress .
… What looms over this whole story is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates of this practice .
There are people who don ’ t like prayer opening Congress .
[ In ] response to that , first of all , it is protected by several Supreme Court cases that Congress can open .
And it all goes back to the very beginning .
But more important for my purposes , I don ’ t care about that .
This is not a church-state study .
It ’ s not a church-state book or argument .
Since we ’ re talking about the very beginning of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprised when I started writing this and start [ ed ] doing research how little there had been written about this tradition in general of prayer in Congress , how little , looking at this from an historical perspective , there was .
Again , there might ’ ve been the odd arguments for and against the practice , but no one really dived in and looked at , in my case , who these rabbis are and what they said .
So fortunately , even though 100 , and as you mentioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress opens and prayer , of those , maybe seven times a year there ’ s a rabbi who does it .
But there was enough for me going back over 160 years to complete a study of this and really catalog all the rabbis .
Allen : Well , and it is such a beautiful book , and you ’ ve done such an amazing job doing just that , cataloging all of these events , these beautiful , beautiful prayers .
You wrote in the book that as of February of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to open congressional sessions .
And I know that you talk about many of those rabbis in the book .
Are there specific instances of prayers , whether that you researched or that you have personally seen , that really impacted you and that stand out in your mind as being really special ?
Mortman : Yeah .
You know what ?
What I love , the prayers that I really enjoy reading are those that really reflect their times .
The broad sweep of history .
Many of these prayers that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of have to include the non-rabbis in this view of history , because a lot of the prayers that are offered every day encompass in some way what is going on in the world around them .
But limiting just to the rabbis part , who were the essence of my study , it ’ s messages around big moments in American history , such as the Vietnam War .
And you see rabbis who are offering prayers and messages on behalf of the troops overseas .
After 9/11 , after terrorism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about greatness of America .
The theme of immigration .
So many of these rabbis who are in this study are from other countries , and they come to America as part of the great immigration of the Jewish immigration , and come here and talk about how great America is and how “ thank you to America ” for welcoming in their families and the immigrants .
So to really answer your question , the ones that struck me the most just from a historical perspective are , believe it or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Holocaust and moved to America and became rabbis and ended up praying in Congress .
… There were even a couple survivors of Auschwitz , the famous death camp the Nazis had , and some of these rabbis came to America , went to rabbinical school , became rabbis here , and ended up praying in the literal center of American democracy .
And it struck me what a nice victory over Hitler in a way of being able to really assert American democracy and part of that Jewish experience .
Allen : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And when it comes to actually selecting who are these rabbis that pray , who are the reverends , the pastors , who gets to choose ?
Mortman : Great question , because that really is at the core of how everything happens , how a guest chaplain is selected .
For the most part , and there will be exceptions , but for the most part , the man or the woman of cloth , the clergyman or the clergywomen , is sponsored by his or her local representative .
It could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , in the Senate .
It ’ s the senator from that person ’ s state who sponsors the rabbi or the clergyman or the reverend , the minister , to pray .
It is a big honor for the clergy members to pray .
It ’ s also a big honor for this sponsoring member to be associated .
They are not donors , but they are big members of the community , esteemed members of the community who typically get associated with a member .
So it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s interesting is they give , after a member of Congress typically sponsors a guest chaplain , that member gives us [ a ] one-minute remark floor speech after they sponsor .
And that goes into the Congressional Record .
So it ’ s part of the honor of sponsoring someone .
Now , in this great age of social media , typically the clergy member will appear with their sponsor and take a picture and they tweet it or put it on Facebook , or share video of them afterward of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big component of that , of just the member being able to show their constituents that he or she has sponsored that day ’ s guest chaplain .
Allen : That ’ s an interesting facet because , obviously , that was not in existence here even just 20 years ago .
So certainly something that has , I suppose , changed a bit and of course impacted every area of culture , but even just something , yeah , like prayer on the Hill .
We are talking with Howard Mortman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rabbis Bless Congress : The Great American Story of Jewish Prayers on Capitol Hill.
” You wrote the book to really tell , in part , the broader story of Jewish history in America .
So how did you incorporate that history into the book ?
Mortman : Yeah , so , the two big buckets for me is the Jewish history and the congressional history .
On the Jewish history , I ’ m not a rabbi .
I think I flunked out of religious school , so I ’ m the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But for me , I am a history junkie .
I ’ m a politics junkie .
Working the C-SPAN feeds that .
So being Jewish , having just basic knowledge of this , has really been meaningful for me to fill in so many blanks in my own education , learning about the sweep of American Jewish history .
And again , writing this book and doing this research has been both an incredibly rewarding , meaningful , and fun experience , but also at the same time , daunting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ever done this before , so I ’ d better get it right .
So it just involves a lot of triple-checking , making sure I have the names right and I ’ m not saying things that are just wrong in the Jewish tradition .
I don ’ t go out any limbs and say whether these prayers are right or wrong , but just more of just recording them and grouping them and try to make a story out of them .
At the same time , even though it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not want this to be a Jewish book to the exclusion of non-Jews .
I want people who want to learn about this incredible tradition in Congress to come away with a deeper understanding of this practice .
So I don ’ t want this to be seen as it ’ s just a Jewish book about rabbis .
It ’ s a book about Congress and a tradition that has not been much reported on or even written about .
So I hope Congress junkies and Congress lovers will embrace this project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s such a unique approach .
I mean , like you say , so little research has been done on this topic , so it ’ s so special to have it now kind of all in one place and this new window into an aspect of Congress that has not been broadly written about .
As you were doing your research for the book , was there anything that you uncovered that was just a real wow moment or that has really impacted you personally ?
Mortman : Yeah .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a moment , I want to share just a really neat personal story about this .
So there are two parts to the research .
There ’ s the video component , and that means rabbis who gave prayers in Congress during the C-SPAN era , which means that ’ s when television coverage of the House began , 1979 , and in the Senate , 1986 .
So there are prayers that were on national TV through C-SPAN starting in ’ 79 .
And then the other half of the prayers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that TV era and live only in the Congressional Record .
So I had to go through both the video of C-SPAN as well as the Congressional Record to really track down those prayers .
Now , part of that , for prayers that live on video , that were on TV , I put those on YouTube .
So all the rabbi prayers that were given on television , I have the video for , and I have a mechanical of just putting them on YouTube as part of the research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I got a note out of the blue from a family of a rabbi who has since died , but his name was Rabbi Maurice Lyons .
And Rabbi Maurice Lyons of St. Louis gave the prayer of the Senate back in 1994 .
And as part of my mechanical process , I put that prayer on YouTube .
It was a nice three-minute prayer .
And a couple months ago , the family of the now since deceased Rabbi Maurice Lyons was Googling around for the anniversary of his death .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called a yahrzeit .
And so they were trying to find any mentions of Rabbi Maurice Lyons , and they stumbled over the YouTube that I had posted .
The family sent me a letter that when the grandson said , “ My God , we found this video of our grandfather .
We didn ’ t know he gave a prayer.
” And I think he said , “ We ’ d never even heard his voice.
” And he sent a note to me saying , “ This is incredible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blessing over Congress.
” And the Rabbi Maurice Lyons actually speaks Hebrew in the prayer .
And I wrote back to him , “ This is even more incredible just to hear this kind of a personal connection with your family and what I ’ ve been doing as part of my research.
” So that was , for me , just to connect with this family , which probably would have never even known about this prayer or even seen video , it was just a very personal connection between that family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like two months ago and it just really struck me as , wow , just a beautiful moment for both of us as part of that .
Allen : That ’ s so powerful .
I mean , just incredible to think of that personal impact for that family and how special that is for them to have that to look back on for generations to come .
What a beautiful aspect to this project that you ’ ve taken on .
Mortman : It really came alive .
I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a professional .
I ’ m not a professional historian .
I love history , but I didn ’ t study it as in terms of a research project , but it ’ s those moments .
And there ’ s a couple of other examples like that of just of descendants of rabbis or other grandchildren who say , “ Hey , am I in the book or was my father in the book ?
” And those are really special moments when something as this precious as giving a prayer in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people themselves .
Allen : Yeah .
I mean , it brings a whole new meaning and dimension to a topic that not many people have thought much about .
So that ’ s just absolutely incredible .
Personally , I am such a believer that prayer is powerful and that when we think about America and the things that have shaped our nation , I truly , strongly believe that prayer is at the center of that narrative .
But I do just find it really interesting that while prayer has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our nation , that it has so soundly remained in Congress .
How has prayer managed to be kept as this really sacred tradition in Congress when we ’ ve seen it removed from other spaces ?
Mortman : Yeah .
That ’ s a really , really solid question because prayer in Congress has withstood Supreme Court challenges , and not just prayer in Congress , but prayer in opening city council meetings , prayer in state legislative sessions .
Prayer goes on in the legislative bodies , I believe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are prayers that open each convention , political convention .
The Republican and Democratic convention have prayers that are open .
The inauguration .
I don ’ t know … , because of COVID , for the upcoming one in January , but prior inaugurations have had prayers as part of it .
So there have been , from the beginning , folks who oppose the practice on church-state grounds , but it is very much enshrined and it ’ s protected in numerous cases .
Now , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no chaplain in the executive branch .
There ’ s no chaplain of the White House .
The Supreme Court doesn ’ t have a Chaplet , even though they do invoke God in their opening of each session .
This is very much a legislative phenomenon .
One little quirk about this is there are no prayers that opened the Knesset in Israel .
So if you were a rabbi in Israel and you want to pray in the legislative body , you have to come to America to do that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I didn ’ t realize that .
That ’ s so fascinating .
Well , this is just incredible that you have taken the time to really comb through history , generations and generations , and put this beautiful book together .
We certainly encourage all of our listeners to get a copy .
You can find it on Amazon , at your local bookstore .
It ’ s “ When Rabbis Bless Congress : The Great American Story of Jewish Prayers on Capitol Hill.
” It ’ ll make a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a copy .
And Mr. Mortman , we really thank you for your time today .
Mortman : I appreciate this so much .
Thank you for the opportunity .

Between policy debates and competing political agendas, Congress is not exactly known for being a place of peace, except when members pause for a moment of prayer before each session.
Today, Howard Mortman, director for communications at C-SPAN and the author of the book “When Rabbis Bless Congress: The Great American Story of Jewish Prayers on Capitol Hill,” joins the show to discuss the rich tradition and history of prayer—specifically, the prayer of rabbis—on the floor of Congress.
We also cover these stories:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects a case filed by the Trump campaign, which contested 20,000 ballots cast in the state.
An intensive care unit nurse in New York became one of the first people to receive the coronavirus vaccine.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city should be prepared for another COVID-19 lockdown.
“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also write us at letters@dailysignal.com.
Virginia Allen: I am joined by Howard Mortman, director of communications at C-SPAN, and author of the book “When Rabbis Bless Congress: The Great American Story of Jewish Prayer on Capitol Hill.” Mr. Mortman, welcome to the show.
Howard Mortman: Thank you. I appreciate your interest. Thank you very much.
Allen: Prayer in Congress. Now, that is not something that’s talked about too often, but you have a really unique window into, really, all of Congress, the many facets of Congress. So, as a director of communications for C-SPAN, how much time do you spend watching or on the floor of Congress each week?
Mortman: Yeah, that’s a great question because that is my job. I’m the communications director, which means I work with the media and I have to be familiar with everything we cover at C-SPAN. And we cover a lot of Congress. We cover the floor of the House and the Senate and hearings.
So as a result of that, I’m not in Congress itself. In other words, I’m not in the press gallery. We have a producer for that. But my job is to watch what’s happening on the floor constantly. So I’m always aware of what’s going on in the House and the Senate.
Allen: Wow. I mean, that’s such a unique position and one that very, very few Americans have to literally be constantly just very aware of what is happening on the floor of Congress day in and day out.
So your book “When Rabbis Bless Congress: The Great American Story of Jewish Prayer on Capitol Hill,” with all of your knowledge of Congress and everything that you have seen, why was prayer, and even more specifically the prayer of rabbis, the thing which has so impacted you to the point that you said, “I need to write a book about this”?
Mortman: That’s a great question. So I love that question. The big picture, as a result of me spending so much time watching Congress, you see a lot. You see fights and debates and acrimony and anger, but you see something that’s really unique in the political process. And that’s the beginning of each session of the House and each session of the Senate begins with a prayer.
And as a watcher of Congress, it always just struck me just looking at that and saying, “This looks like nothing else that happens during the day.” It’s quiet. You’re really addressing the prayer, you’re addressing God, basically. And it’s the first thing Congress does every day. Even before they have a Pledge of Allegiance, they have a prayer.
And the prayer’s offered typically by the House chaplain or the Senate chaplain. So just as a curiosity, as a novelty almost, the whole concept of opening each session in prayer, just kind of struck me as something, “This looks like nothing else.”
So as part of my job, I’ve watched a lot of Congress. I’m always intrigued by the whole concept of prayer. Here’s when the story gets a little narrower. …
So again, in Congress, there is an official House chaplain and there’s an official Senate chaplain. Both are taxpayer-funded positions. They have staff. There are occasions when the House chaplain or the guest chaplain aren’t there and they have a fill-in chaplain, basically. And they have what’s called a guest chaplain. And so that’s like a sub-level of this opening session prayer are the guest chaplains, the fill-ins on every so often on vacation.
Now, one level below that, on occasion, much rarer, but it does happen, there are rabbis. And the reason that I’m interested in the rabbis is I’m Jewish. So I kind of perk up on the odd occasion that there was a rabbi who was filling in as a guest chaplain, filling in for the regular chaplain. And that’s basically where my story begins.
Allen: We are talking with Howard Mortman, author of the book “When Rabbis Bless Congress: The Great American Story of Jewish Prayers on Capitol Hill.”
So on average, you say that combined between the House and the Senate, there are about 170 times a year when there is prayer on the floor. So how and when did this tradition begin, rabbis, pastors, other faith leaders praying aloud on the floor of Congress?
Mortman: You know what? I love that question because the tradition of prayer goes back to the very beginning. I mean, the very beginning of Congress, the first thing they did was appoint a chaplain and prayer began in the Continental Congress. Benjamin Franklin was an advocate.
So this custom, this tradition goes back to the very beginning of America’s legislative branch. And even before they completed the Bill of Rights, there was already a prayer opening Congress.
… What looms over this whole story is the whole church-state issue. And there are advocates of this practice. There are people who don’t like prayer opening Congress. [In] response to that, first of all, it is protected by several Supreme Court cases that Congress can open. And it all goes back to the very beginning.
But more important for my purposes, I don’t care about that. This is not a church-state study. It’s not a church-state book or argument. Since we’re talking about the very beginning of Congress in this tradition, I was surprised when I started writing this and start[ed] doing research how little there had been written about this tradition in general of prayer in Congress, how little, looking at this from an historical perspective, there was.
Again, there might’ve been the odd arguments for and against the practice, but no one really dived in and looked at, in my case, who these rabbis are and what they said.
So fortunately, even though 100, and as you mentioned correctly, roughly 170 times a year Congress opens and prayer, of those, maybe seven times a year there’s a rabbi who does it. But there was enough for me going back over 160 years to complete a study of this and really catalog all the rabbis.
Allen: Well, and it is such a beautiful book, and you’ve done such an amazing job doing just that, cataloging all of these events, these beautiful, beautiful prayers.
You wrote in the book that as of February of this year, 441 rabbis have prayed to open congressional sessions. And I know that you talk about many of those rabbis in the book.
Are there specific instances of prayers, whether that you researched or that you have personally seen, that really impacted you and that stand out in your mind as being really special?
Mortman: Yeah. You know what? What I love, the prayers that I really enjoy reading are those that really reflect their times. The broad sweep of history. Many of these prayers that are given by rabbis, and I kind of have to include the non-rabbis in this view of history, because a lot of the prayers that are offered every day encompass in some way what is going on in the world around them.
But limiting just to the rabbis part, who were the essence of my study, it’s messages around big moments in American history, such as the Vietnam War. And you see rabbis who are offering prayers and messages on behalf of the troops overseas. After 9/11, after terrorism, you see a lot of stronger language about greatness of America. The theme of immigration.
So many of these rabbis who are in this study are from other countries, and they come to America as part of the great immigration of the Jewish immigration, and come here and talk about how great America is and how “thank you to America” for welcoming in their families and the immigrants.
So to really answer your question, the ones that struck me the most just from a historical perspective are, believe it or not, there were rabbis who survived the Holocaust and moved to America and became rabbis and ended up praying in Congress. …
There were even a couple survivors of Auschwitz, the famous death camp the Nazis had, and some of these rabbis came to America, went to rabbinical school, became rabbis here, and ended up praying in the literal center of American democracy. And it struck me what a nice victory over Hitler in a way of being able to really assert American democracy and part of that Jewish experience.
Allen: That is so, so powerful. And when it comes to actually selecting who are these rabbis that pray, who are the reverends, the pastors, who gets to choose?
Mortman: Great question, because that really is at the core of how everything happens, how a guest chaplain is selected.
For the most part, and there will be exceptions, but for the most part, the man or the woman of cloth, the clergyman or the clergywomen, is sponsored by his or her local representative. It could be the member of Congress in the House, in the Senate. It’s the senator from that person’s state who sponsors the rabbi or the clergyman or the reverend, the minister, to pray.
It is a big honor for the clergy members to pray. It’s also a big honor for this sponsoring member to be associated. They are not donors, but they are big members of the community, esteemed members of the community who typically get associated with a member. So it’s a big honor all around.
And what’s interesting is they give, after a member of Congress typically sponsors a guest chaplain, that member gives us [a] one-minute remark floor speech after they sponsor. And that goes into the Congressional Record. So it’s part of the honor of sponsoring someone.
Now, in this great age of social media, typically the clergy member will appear with their sponsor and take a picture and they tweet it or put it on Facebook, or share video of them afterward of the prayer. So social media becomes a big component of that, of just the member being able to show their constituents that he or she has sponsored that day’s guest chaplain.
Allen: That’s an interesting facet because, obviously, that was not in existence here even just 20 years ago. So certainly something that has, I suppose, changed a bit and of course impacted every area of culture, but even just something, yeah, like prayer on the Hill.
We are talking with Howard Mortman, author of the book “When Rabbis Bless Congress: The Great American Story of Jewish Prayers on Capitol Hill.” You wrote the book to really tell, in part, the broader story of Jewish history in America. So how did you incorporate that history into the book?
Mortman: Yeah, so, the two big buckets for me is the Jewish history and the congressional history. On the Jewish history, I’m not a rabbi. I think I flunked out of religious school, so I’m the least qualified to be talking about prayer. But for me, I am a history junkie. I’m a politics junkie. Working the C-SPAN feeds that.
So being Jewish, having just basic knowledge of this, has really been meaningful for me to fill in so many blanks in my own education, learning about the sweep of American Jewish history.
And again, writing this book and doing this research has been both an incredibly rewarding, meaningful, and fun experience, but also at the same time, daunting and a bit scary because no one’s ever done this before, so I’d better get it right.
So it just involves a lot of triple-checking, making sure I have the names right and I’m not saying things that are just wrong in the Jewish tradition. I don’t go out any limbs and say whether these prayers are right or wrong, but just more of just recording them and grouping them and try to make a story out of them.
At the same time, even though it’s about rabbis, I did not want this to be a Jewish book to the exclusion of non-Jews. I want people who want to learn about this incredible tradition in Congress to come away with a deeper understanding of this practice.
So I don’t want this to be seen as it’s just a Jewish book about rabbis. It’s a book about Congress and a tradition that has not been much reported on or even written about. So I hope Congress junkies and Congress lovers will embrace this project as well.
Allen: Well, it’s such a unique approach. I mean, like you say, so little research has been done on this topic, so it’s so special to have it now kind of all in one place and this new window into an aspect of Congress that has not been broadly written about.
As you were doing your research for the book, was there anything that you uncovered that was just a real wow moment or that has really impacted you personally?
Mortman: Yeah. Thank you for that. If we have a moment, I want to share just a really neat personal story about this.
So there are two parts to the research. There’s the video component, and that means rabbis who gave prayers in Congress during the C-SPAN era, which means that’s when television coverage of the House began, 1979, and in the Senate, 1986.
So there are prayers that were on national TV through C-SPAN starting in ’79. And then the other half of the prayers, roughly, are those that predate that TV era and live only in the Congressional Record. So I had to go through both the video of C-SPAN as well as the Congressional Record to really track down those prayers.
Now, part of that, for prayers that live on video, that were on TV, I put those on YouTube. So all the rabbi prayers that were given on television, I have the video for, and I have a mechanical of just putting them on YouTube as part of the research.
Now, about two months ago, I got a note out of the blue from a family of a rabbi who has since died, but his name was Rabbi Maurice Lyons. And Rabbi Maurice Lyons of St. Louis gave the prayer of the Senate back in 1994. And as part of my mechanical process, I put that prayer on YouTube. It was a nice three-minute prayer.
And a couple months ago, the family of the now since deceased Rabbi Maurice Lyons was Googling around for the anniversary of his death. In the Jewish tradition, the anniversary is called a yahrzeit. And so they were trying to find any mentions of Rabbi Maurice Lyons, and they stumbled over the YouTube that I had posted.
The family sent me a letter that when the grandson said, “My God, we found this video of our grandfather. We didn’t know he gave a prayer.” And I think he said, “We’d never even heard his voice.” And he sent a note to me saying, “This is incredible to get this YouTube of him giving a blessing over Congress.” And the Rabbi Maurice Lyons actually speaks Hebrew in the prayer.
And I wrote back to him, “This is even more incredible just to hear this kind of a personal connection with your family and what I’ve been doing as part of my research.”
So that was, for me, just to connect with this family, which probably would have never even known about this prayer or even seen video, it was just a very personal connection between that family and my work. And this was like two months ago and it just really struck me as, wow, just a beautiful moment for both of us as part of that.
Allen: That’s so powerful. I mean, just incredible to think of that personal impact for that family and how special that is for them to have that to look back on for generations to come. What a beautiful aspect to this project that you’ve taken on.
Mortman: It really came alive. I’m not an academic. I’m not a professional. I’m not a professional historian. I love history, but I didn’t study it as in terms of a research project, but it’s those moments.
And there’s a couple of other examples like that of just of descendants of rabbis or other grandchildren who say, “Hey, am I in the book or was my father in the book?” And those are really special moments when something as this precious as giving a prayer in Congress really connects with the family or the people themselves.
Allen: Yeah. I mean, it brings a whole new meaning and dimension to a topic that not many people have thought much about. So that’s just absolutely incredible.
Personally, I am such a believer that prayer is powerful and that when we think about America and the things that have shaped our nation, I truly, strongly believe that prayer is at the center of that narrative.
But I do just find it really interesting that while prayer has been removed from so many other places in our nation, that it has so soundly remained in Congress. How has prayer managed to be kept as this really sacred tradition in Congress when we’ve seen it removed from other spaces?
Mortman: Yeah. That’s a really, really solid question because prayer in Congress has withstood Supreme Court challenges, and not just prayer in Congress, but prayer in opening city council meetings, prayer in state legislative sessions. Prayer goes on in the legislative bodies, I believe, of almost every one of the states.
There are prayers that open each convention, political convention. The Republican and Democratic convention have prayers that are open. The inauguration. I don’t know … , because of COVID, for the upcoming one in January, but prior inaugurations have had prayers as part of it.
So there have been, from the beginning, folks who oppose the practice on church-state grounds, but it is very much enshrined and it’s protected in numerous cases.
Now, we’re talking about Congress here. There is no chaplain in the executive branch. There’s no chaplain of the White House. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a Chaplet, even though they do invoke God in their opening of each session. This is very much a legislative phenomenon.
One little quirk about this is there are no prayers that opened the Knesset in Israel. So if you were a rabbi in Israel and you want to pray in the legislative body, you have to come to America to do that.
Allen: That’s really interesting. I didn’t realize that. That’s so fascinating. Well, this is just incredible that you have taken the time to really comb through history, generations and generations, and put this beautiful book together. We certainly encourage all of our listeners to get a copy.
You can find it on Amazon, at your local bookstore. It’s “When Rabbis Bless Congress: The Great American Story of Jewish Prayers on Capitol Hill.” It’ll make a great Christmas gift. So be sure to get a copy. And Mr. Mortman, we really thank you for your time today.
Mortman: I appreciate this so much. Thank you for the opportunity.


dailysignal--2020-12-15--The Media’s Hunter Biden Failure

The Media’s Hunter Biden Failure

It isn ’ t that the alleged exploits , profits , and questionable business deals involving Hunter Biden and his father , Joe Biden , were not known for most of this election year .
Much of mainstream media either ignored it or put it down as right-wing extremism .
Until now .
We ’ ve recently learned that the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office in Delaware is investigating Hunter Biden ’ s tax affairs , and has been doing so since 2018 .
According to The Associated Press , a person familiar with the matter said , “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s taxes has been examining some of his Chinese business dealings , among other financial transactions.
” Hunter Biden disclosed news of the investigation himself last week .
He said in a statement , ” … I take this matter very seriously , but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately , including with the benefit of professional tax advisers.
” Why is this investigation just now coming to light ?
Where has the media been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Barr , mocked by historian Neil J .
Young as President Donald Trump ’ s “ real personal lawyer , ” reportedly sat on the news of the Biden investigation .
As The Wall Street Journal reported last week , “ [ Barr ] has known about a disparate set of investigations involving Hunter Biden ’ s business and financial dealings since at least this spring , a person familiar with the matter said , and worked to avoid their public disclosure during the heated election campaign.
” Why wait until after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history to now reveal all ?
Would the outcome of the election been any different if the media and Barr had come forward sooner ?
The Media Research Center , a conservative watchdog group , conducted a small survey ( 1,750 voters ) in seven swing states .
It found 1 in 6 who voted for Joe Biden would have changed their vote had they known about stories the national media didn ’ t cover .
Media Research Center concluded if that figure had been applied nationally , it would have changed 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have handily won the election .
The greatest power the media have is ignoring stories and depriving the public of information they have a right to receive so they can make informed decisions .
This was perfectly revealed in a statement about the New York Post story when NPR ’ s managing editor , Terence Samuel , said : We don ’ t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories , and we don ’ t want to waste the listeners ’ and readers ’ time on stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite frankly , that ’ s where we ended up , this was … a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way .
But now the media is reporting on the Biden tax investigation .
After the election .
After voters made their choice with half the information necessary to do so competently .
And they wonder why trust in the media has been declining for years , as have their TV ratings and , sadly , newspaper subscriptions .
We are now getting revisionist reporting from the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collusion ” in the 2016 election , impeachment , and the Mueller report , among other “ stories ” designed to damage the president and separate his supporters from him , which didn ’ t work , as his rallies have shown .
It ’ s no wonder Trump ’ s base agrees with him that the election was “ stolen.
” It isn ’ t just about the number of ballots cast , it ’ s about censorship and suppression .
But the investigation into Hunter Biden ’ s tax records should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their failure to pursue them sooner .
( C ) 2020 Tribune Content Agency , LLC .

It isn’t that the alleged exploits, profits, and questionable business deals involving Hunter Biden and his father, Joe Biden, were not known for most of this election year. Much of mainstream media either ignored it or put it down as right-wing extremism.
Until now.
We’ve recently learned that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware is investigating Hunter Biden’s tax affairs, and has been doing so since 2018.
According to The Associated Press, a person familiar with the matter said, “The Justice Department’s investigation scrutinizing Hunter Biden’s taxes has been examining some of his Chinese business dealings, among other financial transactions.”
Hunter Biden disclosed news of the investigation himself last week. He said in a statement, ” … I take this matter very seriously, but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisers.”
Why is this investigation just now coming to light? Where has the media been all this time?
Even Attorney General William Barr, mocked by historian Neil J. Young as President Donald Trump’s “real personal lawyer,” reportedly sat on the news of the Biden investigation.
As The Wall Street Journal reported last week, “[Barr] has known about a disparate set of investigations involving Hunter Biden’s business and financial dealings since at least this spring, a person familiar with the matter said, and worked to avoid their public disclosure during the heated election campaign.”
Why wait until after the most important presidential election in U.S. history to now reveal all? Would the outcome of the election been any different if the media and Barr had come forward sooner?
The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, conducted a small survey (1,750 voters) in seven swing states. It found 1 in 6 who voted for Joe Biden would have changed their vote had they known about stories the national media didn’t cover. Media Research Center concluded if that figure had been applied nationally, it would have changed 17% of the vote and Trump would have handily won the election.
The greatest power the media have is ignoring stories and depriving the public of information they have a right to receive so they can make informed decisions.
This was perfectly revealed in a statement about the New York Post story when NPR’s managing editor, Terence Samuel, said:
We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions. And quite frankly, that’s where we ended up, this was … a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way.
But now the media is reporting on the Biden tax investigation. After the election. After voters made their choice with half the information necessary to do so competently. And they wonder why trust in the media has been declining for years, as have their TV ratings and, sadly, newspaper subscriptions.
We are now getting revisionist reporting from the same media outlets that relentlessly pursued Russian “collusion” in the 2016 election, impeachment, and the Mueller report, among other “stories” designed to damage the president and separate his supporters from him, which didn’t work, as his rallies have shown.
It’s no wonder Trump’s base agrees with him that the election was “stolen.” It isn’t just about the number of ballots cast, it’s about censorship and suppression.
But the investigation into Hunter Biden’s tax records should continue and the media should be reminded of their failure to pursue them sooner.
(C)2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-12-15--3 Things to Know as 2020 Election Challenge Moves to Congress

After their party ’ s presidential nominee lost in the Electoral College , some House members lined up to object to and challenge the results during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes .
House Democrats made 11 objections .
In each case , then-outgoing Vice President Joe Biden—presiding over the session in his role as Senate president—asked if the objection had a Senate sponsor .
Then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , said she didn ’ t encourage the objection , but would “ support ” the objections from her caucus .
Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator join the challenge against certifying the results .
With no senators backing the objections , members of Congress counted the votes , and Biden said , “ It ’ s over , ” gaveling the official end of the 2016 election with a victory , giving it to President Donald Trump .
Fast-forward nearly four years to Monday , and the Electoral College voted to make Biden president , an apparent victory over Trump in the 2020 election .
However , a joint session of Congress still will have to certify the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last long-shot challenge for the Trump campaign .
Still , Trump hasn ’ t conceded the election .
Rep. Mo Brooks , R-Ala. , pledged to make objections in counting the battleground states of Pennsylvania , Georgia , Arizona , Wisconsin , and Nevada .
Objections from House members—as happened in 2016—have become almost routine when Republican presidents were elected , as was the case with George W. Bush after the 2000 and 2004 elections .
But in 2021 , the tables will turn , and there likely will be some other differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What Could Be Different This Time ?
It appears likely that Brooks will have at least two Senate sponsors , as required by law for the objection to be debated .
Republican Sens .
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky indicated they were open to sponsoring the challenges .
By the time Congress votes on the certification , the number of House and Senate Republicans ready to challenge the Electoral College count could expand .
More than 100 House Republicans joined the Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court declined to hear on Friday .
Brooks tweeted : “ No question it ’ s an uphill climb to do what is necessary to protect the sanctity of America ’ s election system .
But we never know who will win these political fights until we fight them .
I ’ m going to fight !
” Notably , 2016 didn ’ t set any new precedents .
Past disputes were brought during the counting .
What will be different this year is the loser of the Electoral College vote hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postelection is frequently compared with the 2000 election dispute .
Then-Vice President Al Gore , a Democrat , conceded the 2000 election to Bush after the Supreme Court ruled against his campaign ’ s efforts to win Florida .
The Electoral College voted for Bush .
However , more than a dozen House Democrats made 20 separate objections during the joint session on Jan. 6 , 2001 .
Gore , as vice president , presided over the session , each time asking for a Senate sponsor and each time receiving none .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the winner .
2 .
How Does It Work ?
Now that the electors have voted to give Biden 306 electoral votes to Trump ’ s 232 votes , the states have until Dec. 23 to submit their electors ’ votes to Congress .
Congress is scheduled to convene to count the votes in a joint session Jan. 6 .
As Biden did four years ago , Vice President Mike Pence , in his role as Senate president , in January will preside over the counting .
The objections procedure is based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An objection must be declared in writing by a House member and signed by at least one senator for any particular state as an attempt to prevent certification .
As was the case in past years , an objection requires sponsorship from both chambers .
If an objection is filed with support from at least one member from each chamber , then the proceedings would stop and both the House and the Senate would be required to debate the objection for two hours .
A Republican-controlled Senate and a Democrat-controlled House would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While this seems highly unlikely now , it does potentially buy time for the Trump campaign legal team to produce more evidence of alleged election fraud , whether that ’ s actual voter fraud or whether a jurisdiction obeyed the law regarding election administration .
The Trump campaign has made challenges on both fronts .
If the House and Senate agree to toss out enough electoral votes to reduce Biden ’ s tally below the 270-vote threshold needed to win , the presidential election could then potentially be thrown to the House of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , presuming the current Electoral College vote holds , Pence would play a role similar to that of then-Vice Presidents Dan Quayle in 1993 and Walter Mondale in 1981 , by certifying the defeat of his own ticket .
Pence would declare the winner of the election after the counting concludes .
3 .
Have Senators Ever Signed on Before ?
Although objection from House members is routine , Senate sponsorship is not .
Since the law was passed in 1887 , only twice has a senator joined a House member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 1968 , Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey and independent candidate George Wallace , a rare third-party candidate to win some electoral votes .
In 1969 , then-Rep. James O ’ Hara , D-Mich. , and then-Sen. Edmund S. Muskie , D-Maine , who had been Humphrey ’ s vice presidential running mate , objected in writing to counting the vote of an elector from North Carolina , who had voted for Wallace even though Nixon had won the state .
Both the House and Senate debated the objection and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate voted 58 to 33 against the objection and the House voted 228 to 170 against it .
At the time , the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats .
When the joint session resumed , the challenged electoral vote was counted for Wallace , who won a total of 46 electoral votes after carrying five states .
North Carolina did not have a law preventing so-called faithless electors .
The Supreme Court in June upheld the constitutionality of states imposing penalties on faithless electors .
During a joint session of Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , D-Ohio , and then-Sen. Barbara Boxer , D-Calif. , objected in writing to the Ohio electoral votes .
Both chambers withdrew from the joint session to consider the objection .
The House and Senate , in separate votes , each rejected the objection .
The Senate voted 74-1 against the challenge , while the House voted 267-31 against it .
At the time , Republicans controlled both the House and Senate .

After their party’s presidential nominee lost in the Electoral College, some House members lined up to object to and challenge the results during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes.
House Democrats made 11 objections. In each case, then-outgoing Vice President Joe Biden—presiding over the session in his role as Senate president—asked if the objection had a Senate sponsor.
Then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she didn’t encourage the objection, but would “support” the objections from her caucus. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., demanded a senator join the challenge against certifying the results.
With no senators backing the objections, members of Congress counted the votes, and Biden said, “It’s over,” gaveling the official end of the 2016 election with a victory, giving it to President Donald Trump.
Fast-forward nearly four years to Monday, and the Electoral College voted to make Biden president, an apparent victory over Trump in the 2020 election. However, a joint session of Congress still will have to certify the votes, in what will be the last long-shot challenge for the Trump campaign. Still, Trump hasn’t conceded the election.
It’s official, folks. Tune in as I deliver remarks on today’s electoral college vote certification and the strength and resilience of our democracy. https://t.co/Qp2c92mYUV — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) December 15, 2020
Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., pledged to make objections in counting the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada.
Objections from House members—as happened in 2016—have become almost routine when Republican presidents were elected, as was the case with George W. Bush after the 2000 and 2004 elections. But in 2021, the tables will turn, and there likely will be some other differences beyond just party affiliation.
1. What Could Be Different This Time?
It appears likely that Brooks will have at least two Senate sponsors, as required by law for the objection to be debated.
Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky indicated they were open to sponsoring the challenges.
LEADERSHIP? Who will be first US Senator to join @RepMoBrooks in objecting to Electoral College votes from compromised elections? Call and ask your Senators what their position is on the compromised elections in PA, MI, GA, WI, AZ, NV. 202-224-3121. @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/gvZWc7U80S — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) December 14, 2020
By the time Congress votes on the certification, the number of House and Senate Republicans ready to challenge the Electoral College count could expand. More than 100 House Republicans joined the Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, which the Supreme Court declined to hear on Friday.
Brooks tweeted: “No question it’s an uphill climb to do what is necessary to protect the sanctity of America’s election system. But we never know who will win these political fights until we fight them. I’m going to fight!”
No question it's an uphill climb to do what is necessary to protect the sanctity of America’s election system. But, we never know who will win these political fights until we fight them. I’m going to fight! Watch my interview on @FoxNews! pic.twitter.com/6ZYlXTsLAq — Mo Brooks (@RepMoBrooks) December 6, 2020
Notably, 2016 didn’t set any new precedents. Past disputes were brought during the counting. What will be different this year is the loser of the Electoral College vote hasn’t conceded the election.
“Why did the Swing States stop counting in the middle of the night?” @MariaBartiromo Because they waited to find out how many ballots they had to produce in order to steal the Rigged Election. They were so far behind that they needed time, & a fake “water main break”, to recover! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 14, 2020
The 2020 postelection is frequently compared with the 2000 election dispute.
Then-Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat, conceded the 2000 election to Bush after the Supreme Court ruled against his campaign’s efforts to win Florida. The Electoral College voted for Bush.
However, more than a dozen House Democrats made 20 separate objections during the joint session on Jan. 6, 2001. Gore, as vice president, presided over the session, each time asking for a Senate sponsor and each time receiving none. He gaveled out the session and certified Bush as the winner.
2. How Does It Work?
Now that the electors have voted to give Biden 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232 votes, the states have until Dec. 23 to submit their electors’ votes to Congress. Congress is scheduled to convene to count the votes in a joint session Jan. 6.
As Biden did four years ago, Vice President Mike Pence, in his role as Senate president, in January will preside over the counting.
The objections procedure is based on a law passed in 1887. An objection must be declared in writing by a House member and signed by at least one senator for any particular state as an attempt to prevent certification. As was the case in past years, an objection requires sponsorship from both chambers.
If an objection is filed with support from at least one member from each chamber, then the proceedings would stop and both the House and the Senate would be required to debate the objection for two hours. A Republican-controlled Senate and a Democrat-controlled House would have to agree on disregarding a state.
While this seems highly unlikely now, it does potentially buy time for the Trump campaign legal team to produce more evidence of alleged election fraud, whether that’s actual voter fraud or whether a jurisdiction obeyed the law regarding election administration. The Trump campaign has made challenges on both fronts.
If the House and Senate agree to toss out enough electoral votes to reduce Biden’s tally below the 270-vote threshold needed to win, the presidential election could then potentially be thrown to the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824.
However, presuming the current Electoral College vote holds, Pence would play a role similar to that of then-Vice Presidents Dan Quayle in 1993 and Walter Mondale in 1981, by certifying the defeat of his own ticket. Pence would declare the winner of the election after the counting concludes.
3. Have Senators Ever Signed on Before?
Although objection from House members is routine, Senate sponsorship is not. Since the law was passed in 1887, only twice has a senator joined a House member, according to the Congressional Research Service.
In 1968, Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey and independent candidate George Wallace, a rare third-party candidate to win some electoral votes.
In 1969, then-Rep. James O’Hara, D-Mich., and then-Sen. Edmund S. Muskie, D-Maine, who had been Humphrey’s vice presidential running mate, objected in writing to counting the vote of an elector from North Carolina, who had voted for Wallace even though Nixon had won the state.
Both the House and Senate debated the objection and voted separately to reject it. The Senate voted 58 to 33 against the objection and the House voted 228 to 170 against it. At the time, the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats.
When the joint session resumed, the challenged electoral vote was counted for Wallace, who won a total of 46 electoral votes after carrying five states.
North Carolina did not have a law preventing so-called faithless electors. The Supreme Court in June upheld the constitutionality of states imposing penalties on faithless electors.
In 2005, Democrats alleged voting irregularities in Ohio.
During a joint session of Congress that year, then-Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, and then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., objected in writing to the Ohio electoral votes.
Both chambers withdrew from the joint session to consider the objection. The House and Senate, in separate votes, each rejected the objection. The Senate voted 74-1 against the challenge, while the House voted 267-31 against it. At the time, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate.


dailysignal--2020-12-15--McConnell Calls Biden ‘President-Elect,’ Hails Harris as First Female Veep

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday congratulated “ President-elect Joe Biden ” in a Senate floor speech , asserting , “ the Electoral College has spoken.
” McConnell , R-Ky. delivered his remarks one day after the Electoral College voted 306 to 232 to declare Biden , D-Del.
, the official winner of the presidential election .
However , President Donald Trump hasn ’ t conceded the race , and continues to allege vote fraud and other irregularities in closely contested states .
McConnell also recognized Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , as the vice president-elect .
The Kentucky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a push to challenge the Electoral College outcome in Congress , led by Rep. Mo Brooks , R-Ala. , will be an even steeper climb .
“ Americans voted in this year ’ s general election .
The legal and constitutional processes have continued to play out since then , ” McConnell said , in a reference to a string of lawsuits the Trump campaign filed alleging fraud in Arizona , Georgia , Michigan , Nevada , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
“ Yesterday , electors met in all 50 states .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country has officially a president-elect and a vice president-elect.
” McConnell said he had hoped Trump would be reelected .
“ Many millions of us had hoped the presidential election would yield a different result , ” he said .
“ But our system of government has processes to determine who will be sworn in on Jan. 20 .
The Electoral College has spoken.
” The Republican praised Biden , a former Senate colleague .
“ So , today , I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden .
The president-elect is no stranger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devoted himself to public service for many years , ” McConnell said , adding : I also want to congratulate the vice president-elect , our colleague from California , Sen. Harris .
Beyond our differences , all Americans can take pride that our nation has a female vice president-elect for the very first time .
I look forward to finishing out the next 36 days strong with President Trump .
Our nation needs us to add another bipartisan chapter to this record of achievement .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday congratulated “President-elect Joe Biden” in a Senate floor speech, asserting, “the Electoral College has spoken.”
McConnell, R-Ky., delivered his remarks one day after the Electoral College voted 306 to 232 to declare Biden the official winner of the presidential election. However, President Donald Trump hasn’t conceded the race, and continues to allege voter fraud and other irregularities in closely contested states.
.@senatemajldr: "So, as of this this morning, our country has officially a President-elect and a Vice President-elect… The Electoral College has spoken. So, today I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden." pic.twitter.com/4S7Xv7otsH — CSPAN (@cspan) December 15, 2020
McConnell also recognized Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as the vice president-elect.
The Kentucky Republican’s remarks also suggested that a push to challenge the Electoral College outcome in Congress, led by Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., will be an even steeper climb.
“Americans voted in this year’s general election. The legal and constitutional processes have continued to play out since then,” McConnell said, in a reference to a string of lawsuits the Trump campaign filed alleging fraud in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. “Yesterday, electors met in all 50 states. So, as of this morning, our country has officially a president-elect and a vice president-elect.”
McConnell said he had hoped Trump would be reelected.
“Many millions of us had hoped the presidential election would yield a different result,” he said. “But our system of government has processes to determine who will be sworn in on Jan. 20. The Electoral College has spoken.”
The Republican praised Biden, a former Senate colleague. “So, today, I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden. The president-elect is no stranger to the Senate. He’s devoted himself to public service for many years,” McConnell said, adding:


dailysignal--2020-12-16--The House Voted a Year Ago to Impeach Trump. Here’s What You Need to Know About That.

Dec. 18 will mark one year since the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump .
Looking back , what happened “ behind the scenes ” of the impeachment proceedings ?
Fred Lucas , the chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and author of “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump , ” joins “ The Daily Signal Podcast ” to discuss it .
We also cover these stories : • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell referred to former Vice President Joe Biden as “ president-elect ” for the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court voted to protect religious groups on Tuesday in a lawsuit brought by faith-based organizations in New Jersey and Colorado that sought relief from coronavirus restrictions .
• After review of Federal Election Commission records , Fox News reported that Facebook and Twitter executives donated tens of thousands of dollars to Biden ’ s campaign , many of them giving the legal maximum of $ 2,800 .
“ The Daily Signal Podcast ” is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , and Stitcher .
All of our podcasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you like what you hear , please leave a review .
You also can leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [ email protected ] .
Rachel del Guidice : I ’ m joined today on “ The Daily Signal Podcast ” by one of my colleagues at The Daily Signal , Fred Lucas .
He ’ s the chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal .
Fred , it ’ s great to be with you on “ The Daily Signal Podcast.
” Fred Lucas : Thanks for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s great to have you with us , Fred .
So , Dec. 18 marks the one-year anniversary since the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump .
And you wrote a book about the impeachment process and all the proceedings called “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.
” Can you start off , Fred , by just telling us about the book ?
Lucas : It really began , basically , the day after President Trump was elected in November 2016 .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him as soon as possible without the benefit of an election , which we just had .
But it moves on to tell the story , basically , how the Russia emoluments , other things just sort of collapsed .
And so this phone call with Ukraine sort of managed to do two things .
It sort of managed to set up a template for impeachment , but also protect [ former Vice President ] Joe Biden ’ s candidacy .
Del Guidice : Can you talk a little bit about , first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone call , and I want you to address that , but you had mentioned that before any of this happened , basically the push to impeach Trump started right after the President Trump took the oath of office .
So can you talk about that ?
And then what led into how the Ukraine phone call was basically , as you put it , the template used to impeach the president ?
Lucas : Yeah .
Sure .
So one of the big things right after his election is , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” that [ Sen. ] Elizabeth Warren sponsored a bill , and a lot of her Democratic colleagues actually signed onto it , that essentially said Trump must divest of all of his business assets or it would be a high crime or misdemeanor .
… She was trying to set an impeachment trap .
He either does this or he will meet the legal qualification for being impeached .
That law did not pass , but that ’ s something that Democrats did push for .
Once he took office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic and foreign emoluments , that he had to get rid of all his investments and so forth .
That pretty well faded and they concentrated on the Russia investigation .
They pounded away at that .
Got a special counsel .
[ Robert ] Mueller came up empty on that in the end .
And that was frustrating for a lot of Democrats .
They thought that maybe they could try to cling to that and say that Trump obstructed the investigation somehow .
But then this phone call almost threw them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a perfect call , as Trump characterized it , but it also was not really a high crime or misdemeanor , but this was something that Democrats were able to cling to .
They were able to frame it as a national security issue .
And they were able to claim that he was somehow going after the Bidens in a way that was inappropriate .
Which , largely , if you actually look at some of the coverage that was out there , there were stories in The Washington Post and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , Politico about Hunter Biden and his Burisma deal .
There was a Washington Post story too , actually , just a couple of days before the July 25 , 2019 , phone call .
Considering that we know Trump consumes a lot of media it ’ s almost hard to imagine that in the process of talking to the Ukrainian president , he wouldn ’ t bring up the Hunter Biden issue .
So this was turned into some sort of crime and Democrats at one point , they tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t really figure out whether the Ukrainian president was bribing Trump or Trump was bribing [ Ukrainian President Volodymyr ] Zelenskyy .
Extortion didn ’ t really go anywhere .
So they finally settled on two charges , abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , neither of which are actual statutory crimes .
I say in the book “ Abuse of Power ” that probably makes this the weakest presidential impeachment in American history .
Del Guidice : In the book , Fred , you talk about how California Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence , ] pushed Jerry Nadler , [ chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , ] out of the key spot to lead the impeachment .
What did this accomplish ?
Lucas : It has traditionally been the Judiciary Committee that handles impeachment , at least going back to the Nixon impeachment hearings .
[ Former President Richard ] Nixon , of course , resigned before he was impeached , but the Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment .
Judiciary handled the Clinton impeachment .
So it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , Schiff really wanted a piece of this action and he became more close to [ House Speaker ] Nancy Pelosi .
This was according to the sources I interviewed for the book “ Abuse of Power.
” And Nancy Pelosi was also not happy with how Nadler handled some of the investigative hearings , particularly the hearing with Mueller .
She felt like he was just rolled in that .
Also , Corey Lewandowski , there was a hearing there , and basically that was strike two , was enough for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nadler and mostly minimize his role in any impeachment .
The Intelligence Committee came and essentially commandeered the impeachment process .
They ruled out all the witnesses .
They referred a report then to the Judiciary Committee .
Basically , had a couple of days of hearings from a few lawyers , but no one directly involved in the matter .
That was a very minimal role , almost a token role .
They were throwing Jerry Nadler a bone .
But once it moved into the Senate trial , Pelosi named Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers .
Nadler wasn ’ t even really a co-captain .
He was just a one member among others .
And we saw this play out quite comical … at one point in which Nadler rushed to the microphone to answer a question during the Senate trial , as Schiff kept saying , “ Jerry , Jerry , Jerry , ” trying to get him back to the table .
So , I mean , yeah , there ’ s clearly a rivalry between those two .
Del Guidice : Something else you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very briefly at the beginning of our conversation is that the size of the Russia collusion narrative and some of the other narratives for impeachment , another reason for impeachment , as you briefly talked about , happened to coincide with the key political interests protecting Joe Biden ’ s candidacy .
Can you talk more about this , Fred , and how this came into play ?
Lucas : Sure .
It was Joe Biden and , as I mentioned , there was some coverage already of Hunter Biden ’ s relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working there for this energy company in Ukraine , having had no experience in energy , no real experience in foreign affairs .
However , this was something that he was making quite a bit of money and cashing in on his father ’ s name here .
And it also ties back to this issue where , up to a certain point , some mainstream media outlets were covering the fact that Joe Biden , what he had said about firing the prosecutor or the Ukraine would not get a certain amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The prosecutor was , at the time , of course , looking into Burisma and Hunter Biden .
This reflected poorly on Joe Biden .
So it was rather convenient that they were able to shift this narrative completely , turn it around from a Biden scandal to a Trump scandal .
Del Guidice : Another key player in the impeachment proceedings was former FBI Director James Comey , who was leading the supposed Russia collusion investigation .
What is your perspective , Fred , of Comey and how did things change for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 , 2017 ?
Lucas : Well , that was something for a while Democrats were pushing to try to impeach Trump for that .
That was one of the many , many rationales .
I mentioned emoluments in Russia along the way .
There were multiple rationales throughout this .
At one point , [ they ] wanted to impeach him for firing James Comey , claiming that he was obstructing an investigation .
At another point , they wanted him to impeach him over the various issue on Stormy Daniels even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ captured any level of public support .
I wouldn ’ t say that the Ukraine issue really carried that much public support .
The Democrats worked with focus groups to try to develop what would be the best way to promote the impeachment to the public .
And they had a hard time even getting this across to mostly Democratic focus groups at the time .
Del Guidice : Well , we all know that Trump was not impeached by the Senate .
What did or did not all those impeachment hearings and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I will tell you , Trump apparently looks as if he lost the election .
I think that had a lot more to do with COVID and other issues than anything to do with the impeachment .
The impeachment , I think the goal there was to do maximum damage to him going into 2020 .
But if you look at how this worked out , and how it shook out , Trump ’ s approval rating shot up to almost that elusive 50 % during the impeachment .
The public sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really approve of a House impeachment .
And if you look , even though Trump lost , apparently , I should say , the House Democrats that voted to impeach him did not do well at all this year .
Joe Biden had almost no coattails .
We saw a massive number of Democrats lose House seats .
And a lot of those were Democrats who ran in red and purple districts claiming that they were going to Washington to get things done .
And they didn ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that promise later on , and when these Democrats running in moderate districts said , “ We ’ re not going to support the new deal or defunding police , ” well , those voters said , “ Well , you said you weren ’ t going to impeach Trump either.
” And those Democrats lost their seats .
So , I think it ’ s hard to say that Democrats were winners in this whole process .
Del Guidice : Looking back , Fred , now that this is a year behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Republicans specifically handled the whole impeachment saga ?
Lucas : Republicans pretty well stuck together .
Even if you look at the House vote , very partisan , but you did have four Democrats [ that ] broke on at least one impeachment charge and voted against that .
Republicans , then once it made it to the Senate , well , [ Sen. ] Mitt Romney did break with the Republicans , but there [ was ] a lot of built-up personal animosity between Trump and Mitt Romney going back a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most part , [ Senate Majority Leader ] Mitch McConnell gave a speech on the Senate floor , right before the Senate vote , in which he talked about , this was sort of an attack on institutions from the left .
And I think a lot of people might ’ ve seen it that way because this was really , however you want to look at the Clinton impeachment , a lot of people kind of roll their eyes about that because it had to do with his personal affair , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or actual two crimes , perjury and obstruction of justice , going all the way back to the first presidential impeachment , Andrew Johnson .
A lot of historians have been dismissive of that .
However , that was even about a duly enacted law that violated … the Tenure of Office Act .
Now , that law was later ruled unconstitutional by the courts .
But at the time it was in effect .
And the House Republicans impeached him over it .
And , of course Richard Nixon , that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes in that .
This is really the first and only impeachment of a president [ that ] did not involve any allegation of an actual crime but these pretty vague statements that are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
And those are two things that could apply to almost any president .
That ’ s the real danger going forward , when you pose a danger [ to ] the constitutional government , when you have these types of very vague charges that could be applied by any Congress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president going forward because you ’ ve lowered the bar so much .
Del Guidice : Well , Fred , what should Democrats and Republicans learn from this whole impeachment saga going into this next year and , just in general , when it comes to politics , given that so much happened in this effort to impeach Donald Trump ?
Lucas : One point I make repeatedly throughout the book “ Abuse of Power ” : Congressional oversight is entirely a credible thing .
You should have the legislative branch closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the course of that , you ’ ll have some , probably , firebrands on either side constantly calling for impeachment .
But impeachment is something that really needs to be a last resort .
… I actually even outline the parameters of an impeachment in the book “ Abuse of Power , ” which it should really be when a president demonstrably committed a crime or a series of crimes or in lieu of actual crime , it should be something that is somehow a threat to the country .
And clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not meet any of those things Del Guidice : Fred , as we wrap up , are there any other topics or points you ’ d like to touch on as we ’ re just weeks away from 2021 ?
Lucas : Well , yeah .
Yeah .
I mean , I guess I ’ d maybe even follow up on that saying going into the next administration that Congress should be very , even aggressive , I think , in terms of congressional oversight of the president and executive branch , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get into the area of impeachment .
And I think it has become almost , in some ways , too easy because they realize there ’ s not going to be a removal of a president .
So impeachment is sort of seen as a super censor of sorts , but that could just lead to a lot of problems , super polarization , and things will never get done under that sentence .

Dec. 18 will mark one year since the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump.
Looking back, what happened “behind the scenes” of the impeachment proceedings? Fred Lucas, the chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and author of “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss it.
We also cover these stories:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell referred to former Vice President Joe Biden as “president-elect” for the first time on Tuesday.
The Supreme Court voted to protect religious groups on Tuesday in a lawsuit brought by faith-based organizations in New Jersey and Colorado that sought relief from coronavirus restrictions.
After review of Federal Election Commission records, Fox News reported that Facebook and Twitter executives donated tens of thousands of dollars to Biden’s campaign, many of them giving the legal maximum of $2,800.
“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also can leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com.
Rachel del Guidice: I’m joined today on “The Daily Signal Podcast” by one of my colleagues at The Daily Signal, Fred Lucas. He’s the chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal. Fred, it’s great to be with you on “The Daily Signal Podcast.”
Fred Lucas: Thanks for having me on.
Del Guidice: It’s great to have you with us, Fred. So, Dec. 18 marks the one-year anniversary since the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump. And you wrote a book about the impeachment process and all the proceedings called “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Can you start off, Fred, by just telling us about the book?
Lucas: It really began, basically, the day after President Trump was elected in November 2016. There was this movement to get rid of him as soon as possible without the benefit of an election, which we just had. But it moves on to tell the story, basically, how the Russia emoluments, other things just sort of collapsed.
And so this phone call with Ukraine sort of managed to do two things. It sort of managed to set up a template for impeachment, but also protect [former Vice President] Joe Biden’s candidacy.
Del Guidice: Can you talk a little bit about, first, before we get to the Ukraine phone call, and I want you to address that, but you had mentioned that before any of this happened, basically the push to impeach Trump started right after the President Trump took the oath of office.
So can you talk about that? And then what led into how the Ukraine phone call was basically, as you put it, the template used to impeach the president?
Lucas: Yeah. Sure. So one of the big things right after his election is, it’s explained in “Abuse of Power,” that [Sen.] Elizabeth Warren sponsored a bill, and a lot of her Democratic colleagues actually signed onto it, that essentially said Trump must divest of all of his business assets or it would be a high crime or misdemeanor. …
She was trying to set an impeachment trap. He either does this or he will meet the legal qualification for being impeached. That law did not pass, but that’s something that Democrats did push for.
Once he took office, they began pushing for emoluments, both domestic and foreign emoluments, that he had to get rid of all his investments and so forth. That pretty well faded and they concentrated on the Russia investigation. They pounded away at that. Got a special counsel. [Robert] Mueller came up empty on that in the end.
And that was frustrating for a lot of Democrats. They thought that maybe they could try to cling to that and say that Trump obstructed the investigation somehow. But then this phone call almost threw them a bone.
It probably wasn’t a perfect call, as Trump characterized it, but it also was not really a high crime or misdemeanor, but this was something that Democrats were able to cling to. They were able to frame it as a national security issue. And they were able to claim that he was somehow going after the Bidens in a way that was inappropriate.
Which, largely, if you actually look at some of the coverage that was out there, there were stories in The Washington Post and The New Yorker and The New York Times, Politico about Hunter Biden and his Burisma deal. There was a Washington Post story too, actually, just a couple of days before the July 25, 2019, phone call.
Considering that we know Trump consumes a lot of media it’s almost hard to imagine that in the process of talking to the Ukrainian president, he wouldn’t bring up the Hunter Biden issue.
So this was turned into some sort of crime and Democrats at one point, they tried to say it was bribery, but they couldn’t really figure out whether the Ukrainian president was bribing Trump or Trump was bribing [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy.
Extortion didn’t really go anywhere. So they finally settled on two charges, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, neither of which are actual statutory crimes. I say in the book “Abuse of Power” that probably makes this the weakest presidential impeachment in American history.
Del Guidice: In the book, Fred, you talk about how California Democrat Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,] pushed Jerry Nadler, [chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,] out of the key spot to lead the impeachment. What did this accomplish?
Lucas: It has traditionally been the Judiciary Committee that handles impeachment, at least going back to the Nixon impeachment hearings. [Former President Richard] Nixon, of course, resigned before he was impeached, but the Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment.
Judiciary handled the Clinton impeachment. So it was assumed that Nadler would handle this. However, Schiff really wanted a piece of this action and he became more close to [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi. This was according to the sources I interviewed for the book “Abuse of Power.”
And Nancy Pelosi was also not happy with how Nadler handled some of the investigative hearings, particularly the hearing with Mueller. She felt like he was just rolled in that. Also, Corey Lewandowski, there was a hearing there, and basically that was strike two, was enough for Pelosi to want to get rid of Nadler and mostly minimize his role in any impeachment.
The Intelligence Committee came and essentially commandeered the impeachment process. They ruled out all the witnesses. They referred a report then to the Judiciary Committee. Basically, had a couple of days of hearings from a few lawyers, but no one directly involved in the matter. That was a very minimal role, almost a token role. They were throwing Jerry Nadler a bone.
But once it moved into the Senate trial, Pelosi named Schiff as basically the leader of the impeachment managers. Nadler wasn’t even really a co-captain. He was just a one member among others.
And we saw this play out quite comical … at one point in which Nadler rushed to the microphone to answer a question during the Senate trial, as Schiff kept saying, “Jerry, Jerry, Jerry,” trying to get him back to the table. So, I mean, yeah, there’s clearly a rivalry between those two.
Del Guidice: Something else you raised in the book that you mentioned very briefly at the beginning of our conversation is that the size of the Russia collusion narrative and some of the other narratives for impeachment, another reason for impeachment, as you briefly talked about, happened to coincide with the key political interests protecting Joe Biden’s candidacy. Can you talk more about this, Fred, and how this came into play?
Lucas: Sure. It was Joe Biden and, as I mentioned, there was some coverage already of Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma, how he’s working there for this energy company in Ukraine, having had no experience in energy, no real experience in foreign affairs. However, this was something that he was making quite a bit of money and cashing in on his father’s name here.
And it also ties back to this issue where, up to a certain point, some mainstream media outlets were covering the fact that Joe Biden, what he had said about firing the prosecutor or the Ukraine would not get a certain amount of aid from the Obama administration.
The prosecutor was, at the time, of course, looking into Burisma and Hunter Biden. This reflected poorly on Joe Biden. So it was rather convenient that they were able to shift this narrative completely, turn it around from a Biden scandal to a Trump scandal.
Del Guidice: Another key player in the impeachment proceedings was former FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the supposed Russia collusion investigation. What is your perspective, Fred, of Comey and how did things change for impeachment when Trump fired him on May 9, 2017?
Lucas: Well, that was something for a while Democrats were pushing to try to impeach Trump for that. That was one of the many, many rationales. I mentioned emoluments in Russia along the way. There were multiple rationales throughout this.
At one point, [they] wanted to impeach him for firing James Comey, claiming that he was obstructing an investigation. At another point, they wanted him to impeach him over the various issue on Stormy Daniels even. And then none of those really captured any level of public support.
I wouldn’t say that the Ukraine issue really carried that much public support. The Democrats worked with focus groups to try to develop what would be the best way to promote the impeachment to the public. And they had a hard time even getting this across to mostly Democratic focus groups at the time.
Del Guidice: Well, we all know that Trump was not impeached by the Senate. What did or did not all those impeachment hearings and efforts accomplish?
Lucas: Well, I will tell you, Trump apparently looks as if he lost the election. I think that had a lot more to do with COVID and other issues than anything to do with the impeachment.
The impeachment, I think the goal there was to do maximum damage to him going into 2020. But if you look at how this worked out, and how it shook out, Trump’s approval rating shot up to almost that elusive 50% during the impeachment. The public sort of sided with him during that. Didn’t really approve of a House impeachment.
And if you look, even though Trump lost, apparently, I should say, the House Democrats that voted to impeach him did not do well at all this year.
Joe Biden had almost no coattails. We saw a massive number of Democrats lose House seats. And a lot of those were Democrats who ran in red and purple districts claiming that they were going to Washington to get things done. And they didn’t want to impeach Trump.
People sort of remember that promise later on, and when these Democrats running in moderate districts said, “We’re not going to support the new deal or defunding police,” well, those voters said, “Well, you said you weren’t going to impeach Trump either.” And those Democrats lost their seats. So, I think it’s hard to say that Democrats were winners in this whole process.
Del Guidice: Looking back, Fred, now that this is a year behind us, what is your perspective on how Republicans specifically handled the whole impeachment saga?
Lucas: Republicans pretty well stuck together. Even if you look at the House vote, very partisan, but you did have four Democrats [that] broke on at least one impeachment charge and voted against that.
Republicans, then once it made it to the Senate, well, [Sen.] Mitt Romney did break with the Republicans, but there [was] a lot of built-up personal animosity between Trump and Mitt Romney going back a way.
So I think for the most part, [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell gave a speech on the Senate floor, right before the Senate vote, in which he talked about, this was sort of an attack on institutions from the left.
And I think a lot of people might’ve seen it that way because this was really, however you want to look at the Clinton impeachment, a lot of people kind of roll their eyes about that because it had to do with his personal affair, but ultimately it was about an actual crime or actual two crimes, perjury and obstruction of justice, going all the way back to the first presidential impeachment, Andrew Johnson.
A lot of historians have been dismissive of that. However, that was even about a duly enacted law that violated … the Tenure of Office Act. Now, that law was later ruled unconstitutional by the courts. But at the time it was in effect. And the House Republicans impeached him over it. And, of course Richard Nixon, that was almost an impeachment. There were clear crimes in that.
This is really the first and only impeachment of a president [that] did not involve any allegation of an actual crime but these pretty vague statements that are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. And those are two things that could apply to almost any president.
That’s the real danger going forward, when you pose a danger [to] the constitutional government, when you have these types of very vague charges that could be applied by any Congress, any house of the opposite party of the president going forward because you’ve lowered the bar so much.
Del Guidice: Well, Fred, what should Democrats and Republicans learn from this whole impeachment saga going into this next year and, just in general, when it comes to politics, given that so much happened in this effort to impeach Donald Trump?
Lucas: One point I make repeatedly throughout the book “Abuse of Power”: Congressional oversight is entirely a credible thing. You should have the legislative branch closely watching the executive branch. And through the course of that, you’ll have some, probably, firebrands on either side constantly calling for impeachment.
But impeachment is something that really needs to be a last resort. … I actually even outline the parameters of an impeachment in the book “Abuse of Power,” which it should really be when a president demonstrably committed a crime or a series of crimes or in lieu of actual crime, it should be something that is somehow a threat to the country. And clearly this phone call with Zelenskyy, that did not meet any of those things
Del Guidice: Fred, as we wrap up, are there any other topics or points you’d like to touch on as we’re just weeks away from 2021?
Lucas: Well, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess I’d maybe even follow up on that saying going into the next administration that Congress should be very, even aggressive, I think, in terms of congressional oversight of the president and executive branch, but it should tread carefully when you get into the area of impeachment.
And I think it has become almost, in some ways, too easy because they realize there’s not going to be a removal of a president. So impeachment is sort of seen as a super censor of sorts, but that could just lead to a lot of problems, super polarization, and things will never get done under that sentence.