Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” on Thursday, ending a monthslong political fight and delivering a significant win for the White House. Despite Democrats issuing an eleventh-hour call to action and two Republicans breaking ranks, the $3.4 trillion tax and spending package passed in a 218-214 vote largely along party lines.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 887-page bill will add around $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years and pull health insurance from nearly 12 million U.S. residents.

Among its key elements are tax cuts, particularly for wealthy individuals and corporations. The bill will make tax breaks first imposed under Trump in 2017 permanent as well as increase the deduction limit for state and local taxes.

Continue reading HERE

Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/07/03/big-beautiful-bill-house-vote-passes-trump/

The post Trump Scores Win in Passing His ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The US House pushed ahead on Friday with a $95bn foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and humanitarian support after Democrats came to the rescue of Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker.

A coalition of lawmakers helped the legislation clear a procedural hurdle to reach final votes this weekend, as Friday morning’s vote followed a rare move late on Thursday for a House committee that normally votes along party lines.

The dramatic action took place on Capitol Hill on Thursday night in order to save the Ukraine aid legislation from rightwing rebels.

On Friday morning Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, warned that if US aid was further delayed for Ukraine “there is a real risk it will arrive too late” to help the grinding resistance to Russia’s invasion.

Then the House voted on the procedure agreed the night before, again producing a seldom-seen outcome in the typically hyper-partisan chamber, with Democrats helping Johnson’s plan advance by 316 votes to 94.

Continue reading HERE

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/19/house-democrats-mike-johnson-foreign-aid

The post US House pushes ahead with $95bn foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelming approved (420-9) legislation last September to provide $1 billion in funds, but the legislation has since stalled in the Senate.

A dozen major Jewish organizations spanning the religious and political spectrum are urging the U.S. Senate to quickly approve funding for the replenishment of Israel’s Iron Dome air-defense system.

The House of Representatives overwhelming approved (420-9) legislation last September to provide $1 billion in funds, but the legislation has since stalled in the Senate.

The letter, which was spearheaded by the American Jewish Congress and Jewish Council for Public Affairs, calls on Senate leaders Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to move the measure forward.

“As American Jewish organizations dedicated to maintaining strong support for Israel’s security, we implore you to not allow any more needless delays in passing this legislation. Every day that goes by without this funding is one more day of danger and insecurity for the Israeli people,” the groups said.

Other groups include Agudath Israel of America, Ameinu, B’nai B’rith International, Hadassah, Israel Policy Forum, Jewish Women International, Rabbinical Assembly (Conservative Movement), Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Union for Reform Judaism and Zionist Organization of America.

The Jewish groups said they are “deeply troubled” by maneuvers to delay the consideration of H.R. 5323 by the full Senate, which “weakens our entire nation’s commitment to our Israeli ally’s security.”

Israel’s Iron Dome system came under heavy use during the May 2021 conflict with Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip when more than 4,000 rockets were fired on Israel. The Iron Dome intercepted nearly 90 percent of them. The system, which the United States helped to develop, can cost as much as $80,000 per use.PP

“Rebuilding the supply of interceptor missiles takes time, due to the relatively slow manufacturing process, with cost being an inhibitor. On the other hand, terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and PIJ [Palestian Islamic Jihad] use less sophisticated rockets that are manufactured quickly, at a much lower cost, but that are no less deadly,” said the group.

In September, funding for Iron Dome became a point of controversy in the House when it was removed by a larger spending bill over objections by progressive Democrats.

Nevertheless, Democratic leaders in the House quickly introduced a standalone measure that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. However, the bill was blocked from being passed in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who stated that he would not vote for the funding unless its cost was not offset by cuts elsewhere, specifically suggesting reappropriating foreign aid the administration intends to provide to humanitarian groups in Afghanistan.

“We as American Jews believe that Israel has no better friend or partner than the United States, and we are proud to be supporting a defense system that protects all of Israel’s citizens, regardless of their religious background or ethnicity,” the organizations said, adding that U.S. President Joe Biden has signaled that he is ready to immediately sign the legislation.

“We therefore urge you to ignore the unfortunate gamesmanship that is taking place right now in the Senate and to press forward in bringing the House-passed legislation to the floor for a vote.”

Source: https://worldisraelnews.com/senate-urged-to-take-immediate-action-to-replenish-iron-dome/

The post US Senate holding up Iron Dome funding for Israel, urged to release funds first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted to lift the federal debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion early Wednesday and will send the bill to President Biden’s desk for final approval.

The House voted 221-209 in favor of the increase after the Senate voted to avoid a U.S. default. The votes followed months of discord on Capitol Hill. The Senate vote was also along party lines, 50-49.

Lawmakers expect the increase, which raises the debt ceiling to roughly $31.5 trillion, to last beyond the upcoming midterm elections and into 2023. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said lawmakers had until Wednesday to raise the debt ceiling or risk a potential default on U.S. obligations.

Earlier, Republicans agreed to a one-time exception to the filibuster, allowing the Democrats to pass the debt hike by a simple majority vote rather than meeting the 60-vote threshold.

“This is about paying debt accumulated by both parties, so I’m pleased Republicans and Democrats came together,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, said on the floor ahead of the vote.

The House is expected to sync up with the Senate in a vote on raising the debt limit that could occur as soon as Tuesday. From there, the bill will proceed to President Biden’s desk for final approval.

The Senate vote followed weeks of contentious negotiations between Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Many Republicans say Democrats should raise the debt ceiling without their help, arguing any increase will facilitate increased spending on social and climate programs the country can’t afford.

“Later today, every Senate Democrat is going to vote on party lines to raise our nation’s debt limit by trillions of dollars,” McConnell said ahead of the vote. “If they jam through another reckless taxing and spending spree, this massive debt increase will just be the beginning.”

The one-time exception to filibuster rules allowed Democrats to avoid raising the debt ceiling through the budget reconciliation process. Schumer said that process would be too risky and complicated.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE https://www.foxbusiness.com/apps-products

McConnell faced some Republican pushback over the agreement, with GOP critics accusing the minority leader of caving to political pressure.

Fox News’ Edmund DeMarche and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/senate-votes-raise-debt-ceiling-2-5t?test=38861ea43380e1402f1c90f21546ad4b

The post House votes to raise debt ceiling, sends bill to Biden’s desk first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Confused by what people are saying about H.R. 1, the hotly contested voting and elections bill?

We can’t blame you. The 791-page Democratic-backed bill — which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a mostly party-line vote and awaits action in the Senate — is complex and wide-ranging. It combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance, and ethics related to federal elections.

It has also been hit by a torrent of false and exaggerated claims from politicians and social media users, such as that H.R. 1 lets non-citizens and minors vote and provides lawmakers a second salary. Some go as far as to claim that it would “permanently destroy voting in America.” (It wouldn’t.)

Over the past few weeks we’ve checked about 20 statements related to H.R. 1. A few of them are accurate, but most of them exaggerate or otherwise misrepresent aspects of the bill. Here’s a rundown of what we found.

If H.R. 1 is passed, “absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter’s identity.” — Facebook posts

This is False.

A few states already do send ballots to all registered voters, but their process would not be changed by the bill. In every other state, registered voters would typically have to request a mail ballot to receive one. The bill would require all states to make it easier for voters to do that.

The bill would require states to send mail ballot applications to all registered voters before federal elections, but sending an application is not the same thing as sending an actual ballot, and these would go to registered voters only, whose identity and eligibility to vote are known.

H.R. 1 has provisions “banning voter ID” requirements. — Facebook posts

This is partially accurate.

The legislation doesn’t expressly ban voter ID requirements, but it does call for a workaround for voters that already exists in some states.

The bill says that if a state requires voters to show an ID to cast a ballot, it must also allow them to instead present election officials a sworn written statement attesting to their identity and their eligibility to vote.

“This alternative can be important for those few eligible voters that might have difficulty meeting restrictive identification requirements,” David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told PolitiFact.

H.R. 1 “allows minors to vote.” — Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C.

This is False.

The bill would allow people who are 16 to preregister to vote when they turn 18. That’s not the same thing as allowing them to cast a vote.

Under H.R. 1, a person can still vote if they are 16, in the U.S. illegally, have no ID and have not registered to vote. — Facebook posts

This is Mostly False.

It is wrong on the first two points. It would allow 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote, but not to cast ballots. And only eligible citizens can vote, as is the case today.

The statement leaves out important context on the other two points: The bill would allow a voter without ID to present a sworn statement instead, and it would allow same-day registration. Many states already have these provisions.

Meanwhile, the claim ignores the security provisions and eligibility checks in the bill.

H.R. 1 would mean “that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.” — Former Vice President Mike Pence​

This rates False.

The bill does not permit voting by noncitizens in U.S. elections, whether they’re in the country legally or not. Pence was referring to a provision that would require automatic voter registration for people using services at government agencies. But that section says government agencies would pass along a person’s information for voter registration only if they are citizens. People would still be attesting that they are eligible to vote, with penalties for lying, and it would still be up to election officials to verify eligibility.

Says H.R. 1 gives immigrants illegally in the country the right to vote. — Instagram posts

We covered this. This is False.

H.R. 1 keeps in place federal and state criminal laws that prohibit noncitizens from voting or registering to vote.

H.R. 1 “would force states to restore the voting rights of convicted felons — including violent felons convicted of murder or rape.” — U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif.

This is Half True.

The proposed legislation would restore voting rights for all people convicted of a crime once they’ve been released from incarceration. The vast majority of states, including California, already restore voting rights for people convicted of a felony, either automatically upon their release or after a period of time.

H.R. 1 “would allow the Boston bomber to have a right to vote.” — Charlie Kirk

This is False.

The proposed legislation would restore federal voting rights for felons only once they’ve completed their sentence and been released from incarceration. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the convicted bomber, is serving a life sentence in prison.

In Massachusetts, voting rights for felons are already restored when they’re released; H.R. 1 would not affect Tsarnaev’s eligibility.

H.R. 1 “automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.” — Former President Donald Trump

This is Mostly False.

H.R. 1 includes an automatic voter registration provision under which government agencies, including those that provide public assistance, would pass along to election officials information about people who are eligible to vote.

But Trump’s statement creates a misleading impression that people on welfare will have a special path to voter registration, regardless of eligibility. The legislation says that government offices that help people with other services, such as veterans or gun owners, would also get the same assistance in registering to vote. Under the bill, applicants could opt out, and election officials will still review applications for eligibility requirements before moving them to the voter rolls.

H.R. 1 “prohibits attempts to clean voter rolls” — Facebook posts

This is incorrect.

Nationwide, election officials regularly remove voters from the rolls who are ineligible, in part with help from a national consortium that shares information with states about voters who moved, died or have duplicate registrations. But some ineligible voters have remained on the rolls, and in other cases election officials have wrongly purged otherwise valid voters.

The bill attempts to standardize the process of maintaining accurate lists. The legislation calls for “standards governing the comparison of data for voter registration list maintenance purposes” and that standards must be public and applied in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner.

The legislation also states that no person, other than a state or local election official, shall submit a formal challenge to an individual’s eligibility to vote unless that challenge is supported by personal knowledge.

H.R. 1 would “prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.” — Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.

We rated this False.

No section of the bill prevents an election official from removing an ineligible person on the voting rolls. One section of H.R. 1 details rules that states must follow for removing ineligible voters, including a requirement that they notify the registrants.

H.R. 1 requires “internet-only registration with electronic signature.” — Facebook posts

This is incorrect.

The bill does not mandate internet-only registration, but it does promote the option. The bill would require each state to offer an online application for voter registration. The majority of states already offer online voter registration, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

For signatures, the legislation states that an individual who has a signature on file with a state agency, such as the motor vehicle office, could consent to transfer that electronic signature. Otherwise, the person would submit an electronic copy of their handwritten signature.

H.R. 1 bans “voter registration requirement of full” Social Security Number. — Facebook posts

This needs context.

The bill calls for amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require only the last four digits of an individual’s Social Security Number to register to vote. Most states’ voter registration forms do this already.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires new registrants to provide either their drivers license number or the last four digits of their Social Security Number, to confirm their identity. If a registrant offers neither, they are required to offer another form of identification when voting for the first time, said Becker of the Center for Election Innovation & Research.

H.R. 1 allows “nationwide same-day registration.” — Facebook posts

This is accurate.

Some states already offer same-day voter registration, which allows eligible individuals to cast a ballot on the same day they register. The bill would require all states to allow it. A registered voter could also modify their registration and vote on the same day.

H.R. 1 “gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees” to take over the redistricting process. — Turning Point the USA

This is Mostly False.

H.R. 1 would overhaul how congressional redistricting works in the states that do not already have independent redistricting commissions. States currently without one would have to appoint a 15-member panel composed of equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The law also says, broadly, that lines should not be drawn for partisan gain and that communities, if possible, should not be divided.

However, the bill says states, not the federal government, would choose the commissioners and equip them for the task.

H.R. 1 “legalized limitless ballot harvesting” —Facebook post

This is misleading.

“Ballot harvesting” generally refers to someone collecting absentee ballots on behalf of others and then submitting them. Many states already allow individuals to collect ballots on behalf of others, although some impose certain restrictions.

The bill says that states “shall permit a voter to designate any person” to return their sealed absentee ballot, as long as the person doesn’t get paid based on the number of ballots returned. It would prevent states from putting a limit on how many ballots any person could return on behalf of others.

H.R. 1 “would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots.” —Pence

This is False.

Several states currently conduct elections almost entirely by mail, sending ballots automatically to every registered voter. But H.R. 1 would not force every state to conduct elections this way.

Rather, the bill would ease the process of voting by mail for those who want to use it, by lifting rules that require an excuse to vote absentee. It would not require anyone to stop voting in person, either early or  on Election Day.

H.R. 1 will allow members of Congress to draw a second salary “worth an estimated $600,000 per year!”— Act for America

This is False.

Nothing in the legislation would allow members of Congress to earn a second salary. There is a provision that allows non-incumbent candidates to use campaign funds to pay for expenses such as child care so that they are able to run for office.

H.R. 1 does not change an existing policy that allows candidates to draw a salary of up to $174,000 from campaign funds. That policy doesn’t apply to those who are already in Congress.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes H.R. 1 on grounds that “it threatens our freedom of speech.” — Ronna McDaniel

This is Half True.

The ACLU opposed the 2019 version of H.R. 1, saying multiple campaign finance provisions would limit free speech. When Democrats unveiled the bill again in January, ACLU said it still held many of its earlier concerns and called some sections “onerous and dangerous.” But the ACLU has stopped short of opposing the bill in 2021.

“There are 43 states that have now passed voter suppression laws.” — Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.

This is False.

Clyburn’s office acknowledged that he misspoke in making this justification for H.R. 1. In reality, bills to restrict voting procedures have been proposed in 43 states, according to one public tally at the time. That’s not the same thing as such laws being passed in 43 states.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/apr/05/claims-about-hr-1-keep-pouring-here-are-all-our-fa/

The post Claims about HR 1 keep pouring in. Here are all of our fact-checks in one place first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The House easily passed a temporary government-wide funding bill Tuesday evening in a bipartisan effort to keep the government funded through the beginning of December.

The House voted 359-57 to approve the stop gap measure that will keep the government open through December 11. 56 Republicans and Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich. voted against the measure, while Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., voted present.

Agreement on the bill came after considerable behind-the-scenes battling over proposed add-ons. The final agreement gives the administration continued immediate authority to dole out Agriculture Department subsidies in the run-up to Election Day. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., retreated from an initial draft that sparked a furor with Republicans and farm-state Democrats.

Instead, in talks Tuesday, Pelosi restored a farm aid funding patch sought by the administration, which has sparked the ire of Democrats who said it plays political favorites as it gives out bailout money to farmers and ranchers.

MNUCHIN, PELOSI HAVE ‘INFORMAL AGREEMENT’ TO GO FORWARD WITH GOVERNMENT FUNDING PACKAGE, SOURCE SAYS

In return, Pelosi won COVID-related food aid for the poor, including a higher food benefit for families whose children are unable to receive free or reduced lunches because schools are closed over the coronavirus. Another add-on would permit states to remove hurdles to food stamps and nutrition aid to low-income mothers that are more difficult to clear during the pandemic.

The deal permitted the measure to speed through the House after a swift debate that should ensure smooth sailing in the GOP-held Senate before next Wednesday’s deadline. There’s no appetite on either side for a government shutdown.

The measure is the bare minimum accomplishment for Capitol Hill’s powerful Appropriations committees, who pride themselves on their deal-making abilities despite gridlock in other corners of Congress. It came after bipartisan negotiations on a huge COVID-19 relief package imploded and appear unlikely to be rekindled — especially since the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has upended U.S. politics.

“We need to keep the government open but we also need additional COVID relief for the American people,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

GOP-LED SENATE EYEING NEW ‘TARGETED’ COVID BILL 

The legislation — called a continuing resolution, or CR, in Washington-speak — would keep every federal agency running at current funding levels through Dec. 11, which will keep the government afloat past an election that could reshuffle Washington’s balance of power.

The measure also extends many programs whose funding or authorizations lapse on Sept. 30, including the federal flood insurance program, highway and transit programs, and a long set of extensions of various health programs, such as a provision to prevent Medicaid cuts to hospitals that serve many poor people.

It also finances the possible transition to a new administration if Joe Biden wins the White House and would stave off an unwelcome COVID-caused increase in Medicare Part B premiums for outpatient doctor visits.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The underlying stopgap measure deals with the 30% of the federal government’s day-to-day budget that goes to Cabinet agency operations funded by Congress each year. The annual appropriations process broke down in the Senate this year and it’s unclear but probably unlikely that the $1.3 trillion in agency spending bills will be enacted this year, even in a post-election lame duck session, especially if Biden is elected to replace Trump.

In the past, both Democrats and Republicans have sought to use government funding deadlines and must-past temporary funding bills as leverage to try to win concessions elsewhere on Washington’s agenda. Such efforts invariably fail.

Republicans in 2013 used it in a failed attempt to prevent implementation of the so-called Obamacare health law, and Senate Democrats returned the favor in 2018 in a futile effort to force debate on permitting immigrants brought into the country illegally as children to remain in the U.S.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-approves-spending-bill-in-effort-to-avoid-government-shutdown-during-pandemic

The post House approves spending bill in effort to avoid government shutdown during pandemic first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Former White House counsel Don McGahn. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.

House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” Letter wrote.

It’s the first impeachment-related filing by the House since lawmakers voted, mostly along party lines, to impeach Trump over allegations stemming from efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals. It comes just hours after the Justice Department argued that the impeachment votes undercut lawmakers’ ongoing court case demanding testimony from McGahn, who was special counsel Robert Mueller’s central witness.

In a brief filed early Monday morning, DOJ lawyers acknowledge that the House’s approval of two articles of impeachment — focused on Trump’s alleged effort to withhold aid from Ukraine and his blockade of the House inquiry — do not render moot the legal fight over McGahn.

However, the Justice Department attorneys said the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to move forward with impeachment means there’s no longer urgency to resolve the House’s case. That bolsters the Trump administration’s argument that the courts should simply butt out of the legal showdown, the DOJ filing says.

“The reasons for refraining are even more compelling now that what the Committee asserted — whether rightly or wrongly — as the primary justification for its decision to sue no longer exists,” the DOJ lawyers wrote, without elaborating on that claim.

A second Justice Department brief in a related case — the Judiciary Committee’s demand for Mueller’s grand jury evidence — suggests without basis that the Judiciary Committee’s decision to advance articles of impeachment on the Ukraine scandal have effectively ruled out any effort to impeach the president based on Mueller’s evidence, therefore rendering the matter moot.

It’s unclear why the Justice Department argues that the committee has conceded that the Mueller impeachment investigation is over when House lawyers and lawmakers have described it as ongoing and active.

House lawyers indicated in advance of last week’s committee and floor votes that the panel planned to push on with its impeachment-related investigations. Democratic lawmakers who led the House impeachment inquiry have long contended that their efforts to gather more evidence would continue and that the timing of the impeachment vote reflected the urgency of the matter, not the conclusion of the effort to obtain witnesses and documents.

Letter’s new filing emphasizes the fact that nothing precludes the House from impeaching Trump again if it unearths new evidence, though no member of Democratic leadership has suggested such a course, particularly with a looming Senate trial and the presidential primary season imminent.

Letter also notes that McGahn’s testimony could become crucial evidence in the upcoming Senate trial.

“McGahn’s testimony is critical both to a Senate trial and to the Committee’s ongoing impeachment investigations to determine whether additional Presidential misconduct warrants further action by the Committee,” he argued. Letter added that McGahn’s testimony is important aside from these matters, as the House considers legislation that might arise from the details of Trump’s conduct.

The filings landed Monday amid an ongoing struggle between Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over whether a Senate trial — whose contours remain unsettled — will include testimony from witnesses who never appeared before any House panel. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, in particular, has requested testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.

Justice Department attorneys argued in their new submission that the coming Senate trial is yet another reason for the judicial branch to stand aside.

“If this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” the DOJ legal team wrote. “The now very real possibility of this Court appearing to weigh in on an article of impeachment at a time when political tensions are at their highest levels — before, during, or after a Senate trial regarding the removal of a President — puts in stark relief why this sort of interbranch dispute is not one that has ‘traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.’”

“This Court should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction,” the Justice Department lawyers added.

The DOJ filing was one of several submissions expected Monday in response to requests the appeals court issued about an hour after the impeachment votes last week, seeking clarification of the impact of the votes on the McGahn case and a parallel legal fight for access to grand jury secrets in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.

Both of those cases are expected to be heard on Jan. 3 by partially overlapping three-judge panels. The Justice Department, which brought the cases to the appeals court, is not urging any delay of those arguments. However, the DOJ lawyers said the court shouldn’t rush to get out a decision in the McGahn case — potentially leaving a ruling until after the expected impeachment trial is complete.

The post House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Watch the Impeachment Trial videos

Day One – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 1

Day Two – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 2

Day Three – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 3

Day Four – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 4

Day Five – Complete video
Fox Business: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 5

Day Six – Complete video
C-Span2: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 6

Day Seven – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 7

Day Eight – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 8

Day Nine – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 9

Day Ten – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 10

Day Eleven – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 11

Day Twelve – Complete video
Fox News: Senate impeachment trial of President Trump – Day 12

Final Day of US Senate Trial – Final vote
Final Senate Vote on Impeachment – 5 February 2020

Source: https://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/

The post Watch the US Senate Impeachment Trial Videos first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Democrats Delete God first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

TRUMP SENATE IMPEACHMENT LIVE BLOG: LAWMAKERS DEBATE GROUND RULES

Sen. Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor immediately before the proceedings began to rail against the rules proposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to govern the trial, calling them a “national disgrace” and an attempt to conduct a trial at 2 a.m.

“The McConnell resolution will result in a rushed trial, with little evidence in the dark of night,” Schumer said.

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL RULES SEEM WRITTEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE, NOT THE SENATE, SCHUMER SAYS

But McConnell pledged a “fair impeachment trial” and said he’ll move to table or kill various motions that he thinks alters the framework.

“No one should dictate process to United States senators,” McConnell said.

Before the trial resumed, House aides were spotted wheeling over impeachment documents to the Senate side and the House managers held court complaining about a “rigged” trial. Meanwhile, Trump was meeting with world leaders at an economic forum in Davos and avoided the impeachment spectacle unfolding in Washington that will determine whether he stays in office.

Before the substance of the case could begin in earnest, Chief Justice John Roberts was administering the oath of office to Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who was absent last week attending to a family medical issue. With all 100 senators sworn in, then the thorny issues of the rules take center stage.

McConnell says he has the votes to pass a resolution that governs the time each side will get for the impeachment trial, while leaving the controversial issue of witnesses for consideration after the first phase of arguments.

Schumer blasted the rules for relegating the impeachment debate into the dead of night and he’s proposed amendments to fix the “flaws.” Democrats, which control only 47 seats, need the help of four Republicans to get changes, as well as new documents and witnesses.

Unlike in the Clinton impeachment in which the resolution passed 100-0, Democrats have fumed over McConnell’s plan for putting obstacles in the path of submitting evidence and getting witnesses, for including a “kill switch” to allow for a motion for dismissal, and for forcing the opening statements to take place in the dead of night.

Like the Clinton impeachment trial, the resolution would give each side 24 hours to present their opening cases. But unlike two decades ago, the rules call for the arguments for each side to be completed over two days. With the trial set to start each day at 1 p.m., that will mean the arguments well be past many Americans’ bedtimes.

“The process was good enough for President Clinton, and basic fairness dictates, it’s good enough for President Trump as well,” McConnell said Tuesday. “The country is watching to see if we can rise to the occasion.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

It’s only the third such impeachment in U.S. history. The case centers on Trump asking the newly elected president of Ukraine for investigations into his political opponents with a White House meeting and millions in security assistance hanging in the balance. The articles of impeachment allege Trump abused the power of his office for personal gain in the 2020 election and then obstructed Congress by blocking witnesses and documents.

But the White House argues there was no crime and the process of the investigation was so partisan and flawed that the articles are “constitutionally invalid.”

Fox News’ Chad Pergram and Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

Watch the Senate trial live:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewWy_lWkLm0&feature=emb_logo

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-trial-begins-with-bitter-dispute-over-rules

The post Trump impeachment trial begins with bitter dispute over rules first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.