A MONSTER petition demanding Britain adopts a no-deal Brexit and simply walks away from the EU without paying the crippling £39billion divorce bill has secured a debate in Parliament hours before Theresa May’s meaningful vote after it scooped more than 300,000 signatures.
Over 60 House members — including half the Democrats on Judiciary — favor starting Trump impeachment inquiry
Here are the 66 members of the House of Representatives who favor starting an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. There are 65 Democrats — including 13 of the 24 Democrats who serve on the House Judiciary Committee — and one Republican.
- Alma Adams, N.C.
- Nanette Barragán, Calif.
- Don Beyer, Va.
- Earl Blumenauer, Ore.
- Suzanne Bonamici, Ore.
- Brendan Boyle, Penn.
- G.K. Butterfield, N.C.
- Joaquin Castro, Texas
- David Cicilline, R.I. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Yvette Clarke, N.Y.
- Steve Cohen, Tenn. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Danny K. Davis, Ill.
- Madeleine Dean, Penn. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Diana DeGette, Colo.
- Val Demings, Fla. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Mark DeSaulnier, Calif.
- Lloyd Doggett, Texas
- Veronica Escobar, Texas (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Adriano Espaillat, N.Y.
- Dwight Evans, Penn.
- Marcia Fudge, Ohio
- Jesús García, Ill.
- Mary Gay Scanlon, Penn. (Vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Al Green, Texas
- Raul Grijalva, Ariz. (Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee)
- Jared Huffman, Calif.
- Pramila Jayapal, Wash. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Robin Kelly, Ill.
- Barbara Lee, Calif.
- Andy Levin, Mich.
- Ted Lieu, Calif. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Alan Lowenthal, Calif.
- Tom Malinowski, N.J.
- Carolyn Maloney, N.Y.
- Betty McCollum, Minn.
- Jim McGovern, Mass. (Chairman of the House Rules Committee)
- Gwen Moore, Wis.
- Seth Moulton, Mass.
- Grace Napolitano, Calif.
- Joe Neguse, Colo. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, N.Y.
- Ilhan Omar, Minn.
- Bill Pascrell, N.J.
- Chellie Pingree, Me.
- Mark Pocan, Wis.
- Ayanna Pressley, Mass.
- Mike Quigley, Ill.
- Jamie Raskin, Md. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Kathleen Rice, N.Y.
- Cedric Richmond, La. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Bobby Rush, Ill.
- Tim Ryan, Ohio
- Brad Sherman, Calif.
- Jackie Speier, Calif.
- Greg Stanton, Arizona (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)
- Bennie Thompson, Miss. (Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee)
- Rashida Tlaib, Mich.
- Paul Tonko, N.Y.
- Norma Torres, Calif.
- Juan Vargas, Calif.
- Filemon Vela, Texas
- Maxine Waters, Calif. (Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee)
- John Yarmuth, Ky. (Chairman of the House Budget Committee)
- Eric Swalwell, Calif. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee, member of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 2020 presidential candidate)
- Dan Kildee, Mich. (chief deputy whip of House Democratic caucus)
Justin Amash, Mich.
CORRECTION (May 30, 2019, 1:25 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this article misstated the position of Rep. Harley Rouda, D-Calif., on beginning an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Rouda has said he supports an impeachment inquiry only if Trump does not comply with congressional subpoenas, not before.
Dartunorro Clark contributed.
Tory ballot vote: What time is second ballot on the Tory leadership today? Who will go?
VOTING commences once again today as Tory MPs undergo a second round at the polls to decide their next leader. What time is the second ballot for the Tory leadership race and who will be kicked off?
Supreme Court declines to change double jeopardy rule in a case with Manafort implications
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declined on Monday to change the longstanding rule that says putting someone on trial more than once for the same crime does not violate the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy — a case that drew attention because of its possible implications for President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
The 7-2 ruling was a defeat for an Alabama man, Terance Gamble, convicted of robbery in 2008 and pulled over seven years later for a traffic violation. When police found a handgun in his car, he was prosecuted under Alabama’s law barring felons from possessing firearms. The local U.S. attorney then charged Gamble with violating a similar federal law. Because of the added federal conviction, his prison sentence was extended by nearly three years.
The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same offense. But for more than 160 years, the Supreme Court has ruled that being prosecuted once by a state and again in federal court, or the other way around, for the same crime doesn’t violate the protection against double jeopardy because the states and the federal government are “separate sovereigns.”
The case attracted more than the usual attention because of the prospect that Trump may pardon Manafort, who was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for violating federal fraud laws. A presidential pardon could free him from federal prison, but it would not protect him from being prosecuted on similar state charges, which were filed by New York. Overturning the rule allowing separate prosecutions for the same offenses would have worked in Manafort’s favor.
Gamble’s lawyer, Louis Chaiten of Cleveland, said the nation’s founders understood the protection against double jeopardy to ban any second prosecution for the same offense. Under English common law, the roots of American law, there was no “separate sovereigns” exception. A person could not be put on trial in England if already tried for the same offense in another country.
Chaiten also argued that the states and the federal government are not truly independent anyway and are instead part of a complete national system. He quoted Alexander Hamilton, who described them as “kindred systems, part of one whole.”
And Chaiten said Congress has made the problem worse by dramatically expanding the number and scope of federal laws in recent years, creating more duplication with state laws — something never envisioned in earlier court decisions that allowed double prosecutions.
But the Trump administration said the longstanding double jeopardy rule allows states and the federal government to pursue distinct interests without interfering with each other. Changing the current understanding by barring subsequent prosecutions would allow foreign court actions to preclude U.S. trials for crimes against Americans, the government said.
Civil liberties groups also said the rule has allowed the federal government to pursue notorious civil rights violations that states were unwilling or unable to pursue.
Gamble’s argument appealed to some of the court’s liberals and conservatives. Two years ago, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas joined liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in saying that the court’s past double jeopardy rulings were due for a “fresh examination.”
World7 days ago
Kazakhstan election incites violent protest in Nur-Sultan, Almaty
World6 days ago
My skateboard career is the bravest thing I’ve done
Politics1 week ago
ICE doesn’t know how many veterans it has deported
Latest News1 week ago
Border patrol agent saves woman and son from thousand of bees | US News
World1 week ago
Raytheon and United Technologies agree to all-stock merger of equals
Politics1 week ago
Economy added just 75,000 jobs in May, amid trade tensions and global economic slowdown
Latest News1 week ago
Amish children killed after truck hits horse-drawn buggy | US News
World1 week ago
Trump Mexico tariff threat still looms over businesses