Connect with us

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

By Jonathan Allen

WASHINGTON — It didn’t take long for newly empowered House Democrats to lose control of their message on the possible impeachment of President Donald Trump: less than a day.

A day which began with the spotlight on the incoming Democratic majority ended with it focused on how those members remain splintered over the merits, the politics and the timing of attempting to remove the commander in chief from his job.

The views range from freshman Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s colorful promise on Thursday that Democrats “are gonna impeach the motherf—er” to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s careful formulation in a “Today” show interview hours earlier that “we shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason.”

That gap is powered by the competing desires of many Democratic voters to see the president driven from office and the varying degrees to which their elected representatives see that as a worthy, plausible and timely goal.

“There are people who believe the evidence is there and there are people who don’t really care if the evidence is there,” Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said, adding that he’s in a third camp that thinks the House should not act capriciously with “one of the most awesome powers” in the Constitution and is “not unmindful” that the Republican-led Senate would not vote to convict Trump anytime soon.

The discussion has put Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in an uncomfortable spot — caught between the urgent demands of the Democratic base, the risk of a backlash if they are seen to be politicizing a solemn process, the reality that it would take at least 20 Republican votes in the Senate to convict Trump and the deliberate nature of the impeachment process.

That tension could be seen in Pelosi’s response to Tlaib’s remarks.

“I do think that we want to be unified and bring people together,” Pelosi told MSNBC’s Joy Reid in an interview Friday morning. “Impeachment is a very divisive approach to take and we shouldn’t take it … without the facts.”

But rather than reprimand her junior colleague for the substance or tone of the remarks, Pelosi said the desire to impeach Trump is “legitimate” and that the profane name the Michigan lawmaker used for Trump is “nothing worse than the president has said.”

Pelosi, like most Democrats who spoke to NBC News Thursday, said they would not have used the same language as Tlaib.

Trump himself was harshly critical of Tlaib — saying in a Rose Garden press conference that she had “dishonored” both her family and “the United States of America” — but dismissed the significance of the threat.

“We even talked about this today” at the White House as he met with congressional leaders. “I said, ‘why don’t you use this for impeachment?’ And Nancy said, ‘we’re not looking to impeach you.’ I said ‘that’s good, Nancy, that’s good.’ But you don’t impeach people when they’re doing a good job.”

Other Republicans were quick to jump on Tlaib’s comments and present them as representative of a Democratic Party trying to score political points rather than make policy.

“I thought it was vulgar,” Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the chairwoman of the Republican Conference, told NBC News, adding that the charge to impeach Trump is “pretty indicative of the level of seriousness we’re seeing” on issues like the fight over Trump’s border wall. Democrats are engaging in “real partisanship and game-playing,” she said.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., warned that it will be difficult for Republicans to work with Democrats on policy matters if Democrats are focused on ousting Trump.

“How do you work with anybody if this is what they really have planned?” McCarthy said. “Where are their priorities?”

That’s a problem senior Democrats are wrestling with in real-time, as many of their constituents — and some of their colleagues — are demanding action on impeachment sooner than later.

Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., said he wouldn’t condemn Tlaib for expressing what she’s hearing from voters in her district every day.

“There are many in the country who want an expedited process,” he said. But, “any reasonable person should conclude that waiting for the Mueller probe to conclude is the best course of action.”

The debate won’t stay centered on Capitol Hill — it will soon be a hot topic out on the trail for the growing field of contenders for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, no matter what their take on the issue.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., who is considering a presidential run, said Democrats will remove Trump from office “whether it’s at the ballot box or by Congress” and that it will be a race to see which comes first.

“I think we should give him a fairer investigation than he deserves,” Swalwell said. “If this was Donald Trump justice, Donald Trump would be impeached already.”

But he said “the last thing” he wants to do is make Trump a political martyr.

For Himes, there’s a similar, but perhaps deeper, fear.

“I worry that there could be very, very clear evidence of impeachable offenses and the Congress is unable to act,” he said. If Trump walked down Fifth Avenue and killed someone, he said, “most Republican senators would not vote to convict.”

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

What are the Iowa caucuses?

Published

on

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

By Audrey Holmes and Farnoush Amiri

What is a caucus?

A caucus is a meeting of voters held to pick the state’s delegates to the party’s national presidential convention. Currently, 13 states and two U.S. territories use some form of the caucus system.

What are the Iowa caucuses?

The Iowa caucuses, which are set to take place in February 2020, kick off the presidential primary season, and are therefore often the most notable. Caucuses will be held in each of Iowa’s 1,681 precincts.

Leading up to the caucuses, aspiring candidates typically spend months in the state, making dozens of visits — if not more — to win over voters with up-close-and-personal campaigning.

In 1972, the Democratic Party held its first Iowa caucus as a way to make the election process more inclusive for voters. The first Republican Iowa caucus followed in 1976.

Caucuses take place at any easily accessible public location, including schools, fire stations, city halls and churches. Some have occurred in places as unique as nature centers, bars and even a gun shop.

How do caucuses work for Democrats?

Supporters make an argument for their candidate. After listening to each case, caucus attendees go to different parts of the room depending on which candidate they are supporting — for example, Bernie Sanders voters go to one corner and Hillary Clinton supporters go to another.

After the groups are formed, the caucus chair adds up how many supporters are in each candidate’s group. To be viable, a candidate typically needs to earn the support of at least 15 percent of all the followers in the room (although some viability levels are higher in more rural precincts.) If a candidate is not viable, their supporters must “re-caucus” and fall in with another candidate.

Once all the remaining candidates are deemed to be viable, the number of supporters of each candidate is tallied. Delegates and alternates are selected to attend the county convention, during which the delegates for the district convention are chosen, and then finally, the state convention. The number of delegates given to each viable candidate is proportional to the support that the candidate received, and the number of delegates each precinct receives depends on how many votes were cast in that precinct in the previous caucus.

This is how Democratic caucuses have worked in the past, but new rules are being put in place that could change the process somewhat.

How do caucuses work for Republicans?

Representatives for each presidential candidate state their cases. After this point, the GOP caucuses are distinct from the Democratic ones. Caucusgoers vote for their candidate on a paper ballot, or by a show of hands if the caucus is small enough. Republican caucuses do not have a 15 percent minimum threshold, unlike Democratic caucuses. The votes are tallied and recorded, and delegates are awarded based on the results.

Why are the Iowa caucuses so important?

The main reason Iowa is vital to the national election process is because it is the first test of presidential hopefuls’ strength and viability. Those who don’t perform well in Iowa are unlikely to make it to the White House.

“Everybody wants to be the one who gets all the attention first,” said Tim Hagle, a political science professor at the University of Iowa and author of “Riding the Caucus Rollercoaster: The Ups and Downs in the Republican Race to Win the 2012 Iowa Caucuses.”

Only one person has lost the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the last 40 years and went on to become president — Bill Clinton, in 1992.

Have the Iowa caucuses faced criticism?

Yes. Critics tend to point toward the largely white demographics of the state, arguing that voters in Iowa are not representative of the rest of the country.

“Basically, we’re too rural, too white, too old,” Hagle said.

Notable Iowa caucus results

1976

One of the most renowned candidates in Iowa caucus history is Jimmy Carter. During the 1976 Democratic caucuses, Carter was a relatively unknown Georgia governor running for president. The night ended in a surprise with Carter receiving more votes than any other candidate. He used that energy to solidify an unlikely victory in New Hampshire shortly after that, ultimately paving his road to the White House. Carter’s win created the perception that a win in Iowa is a big step toward the Oval Office.

Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University, saw Carter as the key factor that elevated the Iowa caucuses’ national importance. “It didn’t really become important until an unknown governor by the name of Jimmy Carter from Georgia saw what was happening,” he said. “Then, the Iowa caucuses began to really take off.”

1988 and 1996

Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., is the only candidate other than an incumbent president to win the Iowa caucuses twice, in 1988 and 1996. Dole went on to win the GOP presidential nomination in 1996 but lost the general election to then-incumbent Clinton.

2008

The caucuses that ultimately led to the election of the first African-American president in U.S. history, Barack Obama, also saw a record-breaking turnout for the Democrats, with almost 240,000 Iowans showing up to vote. This included younger voters as well as independents, which led to crowd control issues in schools and firehouses across the state. Obama’s victory also helped solidify the narrative that it pays to win in Iowa.

2012

Preliminary results showed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as the winner of the Iowa Republican caucuses as of Jan. 3, 2012. But more than two weeks later, the tally was changed to show former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was actually the victor, edging Romney by 34 votes. The win didn’t help Santorum secure the GOP nomination, but the hiccup showed that the important process had a history of problems with tabulating results.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump’s shutdown proposal would drastically toughen asylum, DACA, TPS rules

Published

on

By Suzanne Gamboa

AUSTIN, Texas — Central American children who crossed the border illegally could not ask for asylum. Application fees for protection for deportation would increase. More than $5.7 billion for available for the border wall.

President Donald Trump has described his proposal for ending the government shutdown as a trade of a three-year extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA program, for the $5.7 billion he’s been demanding for the border wall he wants to build.

But details in the bill that the Senate will vote on Thursday have immigration advocates and Democrats calling the offer partisan, malevolent and “feigned” attempt at compromise.

“It’s a sham,” Ur Jaddou, director of America’s Voice DHS Watch program, told NBC News Wednesday. “It’s shocking to see they would call this a serious compromise. They didn’t even try.”

The proposal got the White House’s endorsement Wednesday morning. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the proposal is was not intended to end the shutdown.

“The president’s proposal is one-sided, harshly partisan and was made in bad faith,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Tuesday.

Drastic changes to asylum, DACA and TPS

In a statement, the administration touted the millions the bill provides for immigration enforcement and border security, including medical support and housing, anti-drug canines, 2,750 more border agents and money for new immigration judges.

But it did not address other parts of the legislation that are drawing loud criticism, including provisions that could drastically change the U.S. asylum system.

Children from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador who arrive at the border and request asylum would be sent back home without exception.

U.S. law and international treaties require border officials to grant interviews with asylum officers when people who arrive at the border request asylum or claim a credible fear of being returned to their home country. If they pass the interview, they are allowed to remain while their claim goes through the asylum process.

According to Department of Homeland Security data, 38,189 children ages 17 and under from those countries arrived at the border or were apprehended in fiscal year 2018, up from 31,754 in fiscal year 2017.

But just as troublesome to advocates and Democrats are the wholesale changes the administration wants to make to DACA and TPS, under the guise of extending those programs that shield immigrants from deportation and allow them to work.

An analysis by the Cato Institute found that the proposed legislation would require immigrants who have DACA and are in good standing to reapply rather than simply renew their status. The DACA program allows young immigrant adults and teens who were brought to the U.S. as children to study and work without fear of deportation; currently recipients renew their status every two years.

Under the plan, when they reapply, they would have to meet a higher burden to prove their eligibility.

The proposal would exclude from eligibility for DACA anyone not in the program now and require those who are not students to have an income that is at least 125 percent of poverty level.



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Democratic mayor Pete Buttigieg running for president; would be first openly gay nominee

Published

on

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

 / Updated 

By Associated Press

SOUTH BEND, Ind. — Democrat Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is forming an exploratory committee for a 2020 presidential bid, according to a video and email announcement.

“The reality is there’s no going back, and there’s no such thing as ‘again’ in the real world. We can’t look for greatness in the past,” Buttigieg says in a video that includes before-and-after footage of South Bend, a Rust Belt city once described as “dying.”

“Right now our country needs a fresh start,” he says.

If he were to win the Democratic nomination, Buttigieg would be the first openly gay presidential nominee from a major political party.

Buttigieg has touted his work to improve his city of 100,000 residents as he’s prepared for an improbable jump from local politics to a presidential campaign. He’s also said Democrats could benefit from a new generation of leaders as they try to unseat President Donald Trump in 2020.

He’s expected to travel to Iowa next week to meet with voters in the nation’s first caucus state, followed by stops in New Hampshire.

Buttigieg is a Rhodes scholar who was first elected mayor of his hometown in 2011 at age 29 — making him the youngest mayor of a U.S. city with at least 100,000 residents. A lieutenant in the Navy Reserve, he served a tour in Afghanistan in 2014.

Buttigieg raised his national profile with an unsuccessful 2017 run for Democratic National Committee chairman, saying the party needed a new start. He withdrew from the race before a vote when it became clear he didn’t have the support to win.

Buttigieg has spent time in Iowa and other battleground states in recent years as he tried to build financial support and name recognition. He cracks that those who do know his name still aren’t sure how to pronounce it. Most of the time he goes by “Mayor Pete.”

Amid his campaign for a second term, Buttigieg came out as gay in a column in the local newspaper. He went on to win re-election with 80 percent of the vote. In 2018 — three years to the day after the column ran — he married his husband, middle school teacher Chasten Glezman.

Buttigieg announced in December that he wouldn’t seek a third term as mayor, stoking speculation he would join a field of roughly two dozen candidates who may seek the Democratic nomination for president — most of them better-known and with experience in higher office, and all of them older.

“I belong to a generation that is stepping forward right now,” he says in the video released Wednesday. “We’re the generation that lived through school shootings, that served in the wars after 9/11, and we’re the generation that stands to be the first to make less than our parents unless we do something different. We can’t just polish off a system so broken. It is a season for boldness and a focus on the future.”

Buttigieg is releasing a book in February about his life and his tenure leading South Bend.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending