Connect with us

Political

DACA reinstatement throws lawmakers for that loop

Published

on

201903295760.jpg

Lawmakers from the two of you insisted Wednesday potentially they are still racing to reach a deal on Dreamers – despite a court ruling night before temporarily reinstating the immigration program that President Donald Trump is attempting to close down.

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Trump\’s effort to totally banned the Obama-era initiative known Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – a ruling that, on paper, will allow can provide homeowners already obtained DACA permits prior to now to resume them. This program allows undocumented immigrants who were taken to the continent as children to have work permits and near you.

Story Continued Below

Democrats and immigration advocates worry the Trump administration has decided to appeal deciding and prevail. Meanwhile, Republicans dispute the findings on the judge, San Francisco-based U.S. District Court judge William Alsup, and believe the White House will win an appeal.

\”It doesn\’t affect the requirement for us to do something,\” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). \”I don\’t believe it relieves the anxiety of the DACA recipients that something is gonna happen. It just just adds additional uncertainty, I do think, on the mix. So we\’re plowing ahead like we discussed yesterday for the White House.\”

Cornyn is one of four top lawmakers – though others include Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) – who\’re seeking to discuss with administration officials later Wednesday to sketch out next steps while on an immigration offer Congress.

Key Senate Democrats also stressed that Congress still should press to get a Dreamers deal.

\”Let me be clear: The ruling the other day by no means diminishes the urgency of resolving the DACA issue,\” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday morning. \”The greatest to be sure the legal status for Dreamers would be to pass DACA protections into law and do it now.\”

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) sounded less positive that the ruling wouldn\’t ease pressure on Congress, which will requires a deadline to act.

\”I hope it doesn\’t\” limit the urgency on Congress, Flake said of the ruling. \”But We are worried.\”

The substance with the judge\’s ruling – which included Alsup\’s assessment that Trump\’s shift to wind down DACA was intended to strengthen the White House\’s bargaining position on immigration – could embolden Democrats to consider a harder line against accepting various conservative demands during an immigration deal.

Democrats have already begun to raise alarms about the mere contours connected with an agreement, that would include not only a permanent protection for Dreamers but border security provisions and changes to family-based immigration laws along with the diversity visa lottery.

In a meeting with POLITICO late Tuesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, occasion House Democratic leader, contended: \”Why would anyone want to negotiate an undesirable deal to have DACA given that it\’s become clear the court says the Trump administration could possibly have aimed to repeal the course within a unlawful way?"

\”I hope it can be a moderating relation to the other side, the Republican side, upon a few demands,\” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said. \”But at the end of the day, I believe that to be able to an agreement, a proposal implies there\’s negotiations by either side.\”

Spokespeople with the Justice Department plus the White House said they disagreed using the ruling, though neither said said directly whether or not the administration would appeal Alsup\’s decision.

But White House legislative director Marc Short said Wednesday on NPR that this ruling doesn\’t relieve the urgency for Congress to realize an immigration deal.

\”If we allow this drag out, raise the risk is usually that the Supreme Court would say yeah we\’re overturning your decision and immediately DACA ends,\” Short said on NPR. \”And so it\’s safer to offer some chance to get a legislative fix instead of risking status for anyone individuals.\”

Political

Black caucus chairman pushes to censure Trump over ‘shithole’ remark

Published

on

By

201903295728.jpg

Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Cedric Richmond on Thursday introduced a solution to censure President Donald Trump over what he contends would be the president\’s racist rhetoric referring to El Salvador, Haiti and African nations as \”shithole countries.\”

The resolution – who has much more than 130 co-sponsors, including House Democratic leaders – calls over the House to publicly state its support for any nations Trump disparaged, censure and condemn the president for his statements, and demand he retract his comments and apologize.

Story Continued Below

At a news conference announcing the resolution alongside House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) as well as other Democrats, Richmond (D-La.) said Trump\’s controversial comments \”should have not been made\” and \”were factually inaccurate.\”

Richmond conceded, however, the resolution isn\’t \”privileged,\” meaning House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) might need to say yes to carry it in order with the chamber to keep a vote. It\’s almost certain Ryan will not likely do this.

\”If he doesn\’t, we then will be at other ways to just make a vote on there,\” Richmond told reporters. \”But the facts from the matter is definitely the speaker should bring it up. In the event that he doesn\’t, establishing is enabling and recurring to allow obama to perpetuate this hateful rhetoric, as well as at certain point – whether you agree or disagree – I believe this is the speaker\’s obligation to safeguard the dignity of the property.\”

If Ryan will not allow a vote, Richmond said he among others would hunt for “creative” strategies to force one.

Like most Republican leaders, Ryan hasn\’t said much for the president\’s reported comments, though he did acknowledge the other day that they are \”very unfortunate\” and \”unhelpful.\” For Richmond, however, that wasn\’t enough.

\”It\’s unfortunate when I miss my bus. Or it\’s unfortunate in the event the airlines lose my luggage,\” he was quoted saying. \”But when the president of america decides to Africa, Haiti and El Salvador which he used, which isn\’t unfortunate. That is wrong. That\’s disgusting. That is definitely hurtful. There are a variety of words because of it, but unfortunate\’s undertake and don\’t.\”

Continue Reading

Political

Ryan's 2017 fundraising haul: $44 million

Published

on

By

201903295730.jpg

House Speaker Paul Ryan raised more than $44 million in 2017, an off-year record to get a House leader – a financial haul Republicans hope will shore up vulnerable GOP members in what\’s shaping up to often be a tough midterm cycle for Republicans.

In a final quarter, Ryan raised $4.8 million, his political operation will announce Thursday – down from $6.7 million during the third quarter.

Story Continued Below

The infusion of greenbacks is a follower of Republicans passed a tax reform law last December, which GOP members said would drive support among voters and donors. But also in 2018, Republicans must defend its 24-seat majority spanning a broad battlefield, while President Donald Trump\’s approval ratings stay in the bottom 40s and Democrats hold a broad bring success the generic ballot. Nearly 24 retirements, including California Reps. Ed Royce and Darrell Issa latest research by, will force Republicans to invest more heavily to protect these open seats.

In 2017, Ryan transferred $32 million to the National Republican Campaign Committee, which announced a unique record-breaking off-year total with $85 million raised in the last year. Ryan also transferred $1.7 million on to GOP members, as well as hosting 49 fundraisers for members.

"This eye-popping number is usually a testament to Speaker Ryan, House Republicans, as well as the agenda them to led your strugle on in 2017," said Kevin Seifert, executive director of Team Ryan, the speaker\’s fundraising committee.

Continue Reading

Political

Bannon won't testify again on Russia Thursday

Published

on

By

201903295733.jpg

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon declined House Russia investigators\’ request to go back for a second interview Thursday, telling lawmakers through his lawyer their own obtain him to go back just 2 days after his first appearance was "unreasonable."

"The Committee\’s subpoena provides require Mr. Bannon\’s appearance for that second deposition [Thursday] at 2pm. That may be plainly insufficient time for me to undertake precisely what the Committee has asked," Bannon\’s attorney William Burck wrote within a Wednesday letter to store intelligence committee leaders obtained by POLITICO.

Story Continued Below

Instead, Burck told committee leaders that the former senior aide to President Donald Trump would return after reaching an accommodation when using the White House to make sure his testimony doesn\’t violate executive privilege.

On Tuesday, Bannon-citing instructions from your Trump administration-refused to reply Republican and Democrats\’ questions on his amount of the White House, the post-election transition team and in some cases about his conversations with the president after he was fired from his post in August. His stonewalling infuriated persons in both parties, who subpoenaed him immediately. But despite the subpoena, Bannon declined to reply to their questions.

Burck\’s letter told the committee\’s top Russia investigators, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), that Bannon remains ready to answer the committee\’s questions-but after striking an understanding together with the White House while on an acceptable scope of questioning.

"There isn\’t any conceivable solution to talk to the White House Mr. Bannon\’s time using the transition and also the White House, obtain their thoughts about the knowledge he previously provide, communicate those views back to the Committee, relay the Committee\’s views time for the White House, and then negotiate or facilitate a binding agreement amongst the Committee along with the White House from the time allotted by the Committee\’s subpoena," Burck wrote.

Committee members at the moment are weighing calling hold Bannon in contempt of Congress for avoiding their questions. They\’ve noted that White House lawyers haven\’t formally invoked executive privilege-they just have suggested that Bannon\’s testimony might implicate it.

White House officials have argued that it is customary for Congress to coordinate the scope of the questions with current and former officials to stop violating privileged information.

But GOP and Democratic lawmakers have questioned this argument, suggesting they see no reasonable interpretation of executive privilege that might preclude Bannon from discussing his time over the transition team, that is before Trump was president.

Burck indicated that the committee didn\’t have use of White House and transition documents that has to be relevant precursors to the questions for Bannon and suggested lawmakers and Bannon would require time for them to produce them and review them before Bannon\’s next interview.

"There are lots of lawyers over the Committee plus the Staff, and i also could well be surprised as long as they believed it becomes anything in addition to unprofessional even unethical should be expected to depose a witness that has did not have possibility for review relevant documents," he said.

Burck also indicated a potential disconnect between committee staff and lawmakers. He revealed that he had informed the employees of the committee, chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the White House "may not permit Mr. Bannon to discuss his in time the transition and the White House unless an accommodation was agreed between your Committee plus the White House."

"Staff raised no objection to the telltale restrictions in any of such conversations," he said. "The main objection came yesterday within the Members who appear not to have been informed by Staff about our prior conversations."

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Betrose.com