Top Republican predicts Flynn guilty plea will be thrown out, citing FBI 'misconduct'

A day before fired FBI Director James Comey is set to again testify behind closed doors with House Republicans, a party leader is predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's case against ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn will soon be thrown out of court.
California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that the FBI had "tricked" Flynn into not having a lawyer and had improperly "post-dated" documents to "morph" them into critical evidence against him. He promised Comey would face tough questioning about the episode.
"Tomorrow is going to be a very different day for Comey, particularly in light of what we've learned -- the misconduct during the Flynn investigation was all about, thanks to a judge that demanded to understand what had happened," Issa told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's order last week that led Mueller to turn over key documents in the case.
He continued: "I would not be surprised a bit if the conviction of Flynn is overturned, because of the Justice Department and FBI's misconduct -- and that in fact, we go potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, with new protections -- when the FBI and the Department of Justice lies to someone and tricks them into making statements, and then charges them with a lie they entrapped them in. ... This kind of conduct we haven't seen in a long time."
In explosive court documents filed last week by Flynn's legal team, it was revealed that FBI agents in his case deliberately did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, and decided not to "confront" him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
A memo written by then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe stated that he called Flynn and “explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only. ... I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice."
The court documents also showed that the FBI's interview report documenting Flynn's statements -- known as an "FD-302" -- was dated August 22, 2017, nearly seven months after the actual Flynn interview took place in the White House. Additionally, the 302 that Mueller filed apparently describes an interview conducted by federal authorities on July 19, 2017 not with Flynn, but with Peter Strzok, the agent who led the Flynn interview and said he did not feel Flynn was lying at the time.
Strzok was fired from the Russia probe in late July 2017 -- just days after he apparently gave the interview that formed the basis for the 302 -- for his apparent anti-Trump bias. No audio recording or other transcription of Flynn's comments to the FBI has been produced, and none appears to exist.
It was not clear from Mueller's heavily redacted Friday filing whether a written 302 report of Flynn's interview, which FBI policy dictates should have been written soon after the interview was conducted, ever existed. Mueller was required to turn over all Flynn-related memoranda and documents to the court.
ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT'S PHONE WIPED AFTER MUELLER FIRES HIM FOR BIAS -- RECORDS OFFICER CAN'T RECALL IF PHONE HAD TEXTS
Additional documents released by the Mueller team on Friday in response to Judge Sullivan's order reveal that the decision to interview Flynn about his contacts with the Russian ambassador was controversial within the Justice Department. One FBI document said then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates “was not happy” when Comey informed her that the FBI planned to talk to Flynn.
The report also said several unnamed people back at FBI headquarters “later argued about the FBI’s decision to interview Flynn.” On Jan. 23, 2017 -- just one day before the Flynn interview -- The Washington Post, citing FBI sources, reported that the FBI had wiretapped Flynn's conversations with Russian officials and cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Former FBI Director James Comey, with his attorney, David Kelley, right, speaking to reporters after a day of testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Dec. 7. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Comey admitted last week that he personally directed two FBI agents to break normal protocol by interviewing Flynn at the White House because he felt the FBI could get "away with" it, early on in the Trump administration, which he characterized as disorganized.
Judge Sullivan technically has the authority to void Flynn's guilty plea and dismiss the case against him if he unearths government misconduct, or finds that the plea would constitute a miscarriage of justice that the court should not accept.
Sullivan -- who overturned the 2008 conviction of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens after government misconduct came to light -- could take that drastic step if he finds that the FBI withheld exculpatory witness reports from the Flynn team, lacks evidentiary basis for its charge, or improperly coerced Flynn into not bringing a lawyer to his fateful January 2017 interview.
GREGG JARRETT: MICHAEL FLYNN IS INNOCENT
Speaking to "Fox News Sunday" earlier in the day, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said Flynn had been "railroaded" and "framed" -- and even though Giuliani acknowledged Flynn had lied to Vice President Pence about his communications with Russia, he said the FBI's conduct was still reprehensible.
"What they did to General Flynn should result in discipline," Giuliani charged. "They’re the ones who are violating the law."
HOW FLYNN WAS PUSHED NOT TO HAVE A LAWYER
In a tweet Sunday, Comey showed no signs of backing down, forcefully condemning President Trump as a "liar" for criticizing federal authorities' raid on his former attorney Michael Cohen.
"Remember, Michael Cohen only became a 'Rat' after the FBI did something which was absolutely unthinkable & unheard of until the Witch Hunt was illegally started," Trump wrote on Twitter early Sunday. "They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE! Why didn’t they break into the DNC to get the Server, or Crooked’s office?"
In April, federal agents raided Cohen's home, office and hotel room as part of their investigation into bank fraud and campaign finance charges he later admitted he had committed. At the time, Trump characterized the move as an "attack on our country" and remarked that "attorney-client privilege is dead."
But later Sunday, Comey emphasized that agents had acted pursuant to a lawful search warrant, and that attorneys are not immune from searches -- especially when they are suspected of engaging in wrongdoing on behalf of clients.
FBI COMPLETELY MISSES JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEADLINE TO EXPLAIN MYSTERIOUS RAID ON CLINTON WHISTLEBLOWER
"This is from the President of our country, lying about the lawful execution of a search warrant issued by a federal judge," Comey wrote on Twitter. "Shame on Republicans who don’t speak up at this moment — for the FBI, the rule of law, and the truth."
Any communications with attorneys in furtherance of a new crime are not usually protected by any privilege. A special master was appointed in the case by a federal court judge to ensure that Trump's privileged communications were separated from non-privileged ones.
Cohen, who as Trump's attorney also had the ability to compromise Trump's attorney-client privilege by disclosing their communications himself, was sentenced this week to 36 months in prison.
The former Trump loyalist had earlier claimed in court that he had committed a campaign finance violation "at the direction" of Trump -- although top legal experts and a former Federal Election Commission chairman have said that obtaining a criminal conviction for such alleged violations is often extremely difficult.
Comey testified earlier this month behind closed doors with House Republicans probing his oversight of the Hillary Clinton email probes and the early days of the Russia investigation. He is expected back on Monday for more testimony.
After he was questioned by House Republicans the first time on Dec. 7, Comey derided the GOP -- which will lose the majority in the House in January, and with it their subpoena power -- as hopeless partisans.
"Today wasn’t a search for truth, but a desperate attempt to find anything that can be used to attack the institutions of justice investigating this president," Comey said. "They came up empty today, but will try again. In the long run, it'll make no difference because facts are stubborn things."
COMEY ADMITS FBI AGENTS BROKE PROTOCOL, GOT 'AWAY WITH' FLYNN INTERVIEW WITHOUT INVOLVING LAWYERS
A key focus of questioning from lawmakers was Comey's decision to draft the 2016 statement recommending against filing criminal charges in the Clinton email probe before the former secretary of state was even interviewed, as well as the alleged political bias demonstrated in a slew of text messages and leaks by top FBI officials.

"What they did to General Flynn should result in discipline."
— Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani

But a Justice Department lawyer prevented Comey -- who had briefly sued to avoid testifying behind closed doors, before dropping that effort -- from answering all of the Republicans' questions, according to lawmakers at the hearing.
A 235-page transcript of Comey's remarks and the questions posed to him was later released, pursuant to an agreement between Comey and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
It showed that Comey claimed “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” in response to dozens of questions concerning key details about his time as FBI chief.
Asked if he recalled who drafted the FBI’s “initiation document” for the July 2016 Russia investigation, Comey said, “I do not.” He again claimed not to know when asked about the involvement in that initiation of Strzok, whose anti-Trump texts later got him removed from the special counsel’s probe.
When asked if the FBI had any evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server, Comey gave a lengthy answer referring to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as to why he couldn’t answer.
“Did we have evidence in July of (2016) that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server?” Comey asked rhetorically. “I don't think that the FBI and special counsel want me answering questions that may relate to their investigation of Russian interference during 2016. And I worry that that would cross that line.”
When pressed further by Gowdy about what “factual predicate” the bureau had to launch a counterintelligence investigation, Comey again claimed that answering that question would be a “slope” that would ask him to reveal what the FBI “did or didn’t know about Russia activity” as it related to the 2016 election.
“You can't tell us, or you won't tell us?” Gowdy asks.
“Probably a combination of both ... To the extent I recall facts developed during our investigation of Russian interference and the potential connection of Americans, I think that's a question that the FBI doesn't want me answering. So it's both a can't and a won't,” Comey replied.
MORE DETAILS: COMEY ROUND-ONE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED
The former FBI director went on to say that anything related to Mueller’s investigation, to his understanding, would be “off limits" as it is an ongoing investigation.
Comey was also fuzzy on the eventual Democratic funding of the research that went into the controversial and unverified anti-Trump dossier.
Asked when he learned that the firm behind the dossier, Fusion GPS, was hired by law firm Perkins Coie – and when he learned that law firm was hired by the Democratic National Committee – Comey said, “I never learned that” while director.
Comey also claimed not to know key details surrounding the involvement of Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the dossier.
Asked when Steele was “terminated” as an FBI source, Comey said he didn’t know.
Asked about Steele’s subsequent contact with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, Comey said, “I don’t know anything about that.”

Dems, White House refuse to budge over border wall as Friday shutdown looms

The Trump administration Sunday reaffirmed the president's insistence that he would allow a partial shutdown of the federal government if Congress does not provide $5 billion to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, with senior adviser Stephen Miller calling it a "fundamental issue."
"At stake is the question of whether or not the United States remains a sovereign country," Miller told CBS News' "Face The Nation." "The Democrat Party has a simple choice. They can either choose to fight for America's working class or to promote illegal immigration. You can't do both."

Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump, talks to reporters at the White House, Aug. 2, 2017. (Getty Images)

"At stake is the question of whether or not the United States remains a sovereign country. The Democrat Party has a simple choice. They can either choose to fight for America's working class or to promote illegal immigration. You can't do both."
— Stephen Miller, senior adviser to President Trump

When asked if the administration was willing to allow parts of the government to cease operation at midnight Friday if the wall is not funded, Miller answered: "If it comes to it, absolutely."
On NBC News' "Meet The Press," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., insisted that President Trump "is not going to get the wall in any form."
"President Trump should understand, there are not the votes for the wall in the House or the Senate," Schumer said. "Even the House, which is a majority Republican, they don't have the votes for his $5 billion wall plan ... And we should not let a temper tantrum, threats, push us in the direction of doing something that everybody, even our Republican colleagues, know is wrong."
Trump said last week he would be "proud" to have a shutdown to get Congress to approve a $5 billion down payment to fulfill his campaign promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Still, the president doesn't have the votes from the Republican-controlled Congress to support funding for the wall at that level.
Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have proposed no more than $1.6 billion for border fencing upgrades and other security measures -- but not a wall -- as outlined in a bipartisan Senate bill. Democrats also offered to keep funding at its current level, $1.3 billion.
"[Republicans] should join us in one of these two proposals, which would get more than enough votes passed and avoid a shutdown," Schumer said. "Then, if the president wants to debate the wall next year, he can. I don't think he'll get it. But he shouldn't use innocent workers as hostage for his temper tantrum to sort of throw a bone to his base."
Both parties in Congress have suggested that Trump would need to make the next move to resolve the impasse. The House is taking an extended weekend break, returning Wednesday night. The Senate returns Monday after a three-day absence.
Trump neither accepted nor rejected the Democrats' proposal as of Friday, according to the Democrats, telling them he would take a look. Trump would need Democratic votes either now or in the new year, for passage.
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told "Face The Nation" that Republicans remained hopeful they could come up with a proposal that would be acceptable to Trump and pass both chambers. He suggested that could take the form of a stopgap bill extending funding until January or a longer-term bill including money for border security.
"There are a lot of things you need to do with border security," he said. "One is a physical barrier but also the technology, the manpower, the enforcement, all of those things, and our current laws are in some ways an incentive for people to come to this country illegally, and they go through great risk and possibly great harm."
Appearing on ABC News' "This Week," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, urged senators to revisit a bill she helped push earlier this year that would provide $2.5 billion for border security, including physical barriers as well as technology and border patrol agents.
"There's absolutely no excuse to shut down government on this issue or any other issue," said Collins, who added of her proposal: "I hope it would be good enough for the president ... There's a compromise and people will come to the table in good faith on both sides. We have to prevent a government shutdown."

Voter ID Cartoons

North Carolina GOP vows to override Dem governor’s veto of voter ID bill

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed voter ID legislation that more than 55 percent of the state’s voters had approved in a referendum. (Chris Seward/The News & Observer via AP)

Republican leaders in North Carolina’s GOP-dominated General Assembly vowed late Friday to override Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a state voter identification bill.
Earlier Friday, Cooper said no to the legislation, which more than 55 percent of the state’s voters had approved in a recent referendum.
The referendum called for the state’s constitution to add an amendment requiring in-person voter photo ID.
“Requiring photo IDs for in-person voting is a solution in search of a problem,” Cooper said in a statement.
But state Republicans saw the governor’s action as a rejection of the will of state residents.
“We are disappointed that Gov. Cooper chose to ignore the will of the people and reject a commonsense election integrity measure that is common in most states, but the North Carolina House will override his veto as soon as possible,” state House Speaker Tim Moore said in a statement.

"We are disappointed that Gov. Cooper chose to ignore the will of the people and reject a commonsense election integrity measure that is common in most states."
— North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore

“Despite the governor's personal feelings on voter ID, the fact remains that the constitutional amendment passed with a broad mandate from North Carolinians," GOP Senate leader Phil Berger added, calling Cooper's arguments a “tired rehash of unconvincing talking points rejected by the voters.”
Republicans hold veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate in North Carolina, so an override would succeed if GOP lawmakers remain united on the issue. Votes could occur next week. GOP lawmakers are acting now because, come January, they will no longer have supermajorities because of Democratic gains made on Election Day.
The bill would expand the number of qualifying forms of ID and exceptions compared to legislation blocked earlier this decade. Republicans say the changes will ensure that everyone lawfully registered to vote can cast a ballot.
Permitted IDs would include traditional driver's licenses and military identification, student IDs from colleges and universities, and employee ID cards for state and local governments. Those IDs must meet certain security thresholds.
There also would be a new, free, photo voter identification card produced by county election boards. People having trouble obtaining an ID could fill out forms at the polling site, and their ballots likely would be counted too.
Democratic legislators acknowledge that voter ID rules are necessary because of the referendum, but they say the details are being rushed, are complex and will prevent some minorities and poor people from voting.
Cooper’s veto came at the urging of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause NC, Equality NC and the Washington-based Campus Vote Project of the Fair Elections Center, the News & Observer of Raleigh reported.
The governor suggested that the integrity of absentee ballots was a greater concern for the state.
"Instead, the real election problem is votes harvested illegally through absentee ballots, which this proposal fails to fix," he said, referencing an investigation of alleged absentee ballot fraud in the state's 9th Congressional District in November's election.
He added that the bill's fundamental flaw was a "sinister and cynical" attempt to suppress the voting rights of minorities, the poor, and the elderly.
Federal judges struck down a 2013 state law that included photo ID and other voting restrictions, ruling they were approved with intentional racial discrimination in mind. Republicans strongly disagreed and put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to give them more legal and popular standing to require voter ID.

Hillary Clinton writes letter consoling girl, 8, who ran for class president against boy -- and lost

Please just shut up and go away.

Hillary Clinton surprised an 8-year-old girl with a letter earlier this month after the elementary school student lost an election for class president to a boy by a single vote.
Martha Kennedy Morales, a third-grader at a private Quaker school in College Park, Md., decided to run for the top office as part of a lesson on government in which elections for class president and Congress were held, the Washington Post reported. Morales told the paper she lost to a “popular” fourth-grade boy and was affirmed as vice president.
“As I know too well, it’s not easy when you stand up and put yourself in contention for a role that’s only been sought by boys,” Clinton wrote in a consoling letter obtained by the Post.

“As I know too well, it’s not easy when you stand up and put yourself in contention for a role that’s only been sought by boys.”
— Hillary Clinton

Clinton went on to praise the student by relating her own experience losing to now-President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. The Democratic nominee won the popular vote by a few million but lost in the Electoral College.
TOP HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS IN NH DON'T BUY THE IDEA OF ANOTHER WHITE HOUSE RUN
“The most important thing is that you fought for what you believed in, and that is always worth it,” Clinton wrote.
Morales is now working on writing the former secretary of state a thank-you note, according to the Post.

Trump blasts shuttering Weekly Standard as ‘pathetic and dishonest,’ rips editor Kristol

President Trump's Saturday tweet suggsted that he was not a fan of the Weekly Standard or editor-at-large William Kristol.

Many conservatives may have been saddened by Friday’s news that the Weekly Standard, a publication that has existed for 23 years, will be ceasing operations this month. But don’t count President Trump among them.
In a Twitter message Saturday, Trump blasted the magazine as “pathetic and dishonest,” and slammed its editor-at-large, William Kristol, as a “failed prognosticator.”
THE WEEKLY STANDARD ANNOUNCES IT WILL FOLD AFTER 23 YEARS
Kristol had written in July: “Donald Trump is in many ways a bad president — bad for the country, bad for conservatism, bad for the Republican party. His sway over party and policy should be limited as much as is feasible and his dominance of our politics not extended any longer than necessary.”
“May it rest in peace!” the president wrote of the magazine Kristol co-founded.
Kristol appeared concerned that the president's Twitter message wasn't sent to him directly.
Parent company Clarity Media’s CEO Ryan McKibben told staffers Friday morning that the magazine would print its final issue Monday.
McKibben said the publication “has been hampered by many of the same challenges that countless other magazines and newspapers across the country have been wrestling with,” and ultimately it needed to make the tough decision to close.
Others reported that McKibben and associates at Clarity preferred to shutter the Standard rather than sell it, in order to bolster a weekly launched by the Washington Examiner, which, like the Standard, is owned by Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz.

‘Text tax’ vote canceled by California utilities panel after FCC ruling

The California Public Utilities Commission has withdrawn from its January meeting agenda a scheduled vote on imposing a tax on text messaging.
The move came after the Federal Communications Commission in Washington declared text messaging to be an “information service,” not a telecommunications service, and thus not subject to a surcharge under California law.
“Prior to this FCC ruling,” the CPUC wrote in a statement posted on Twitter, “text messaging was not a classified service under federal law.
CALIFORNIA MULLS TAX ON TEXT MESSAGING, MAY LEAD TO SHOWDOWN WITH FEDERAL REGULATORS
“In light of the FCC’s action,” the statement added, “assigned Commissioner Carla J. Peterman has withdrawn from the CPUC’s Jan. 10, 2019 Voting Meeting agenda the draft decision in Docket R.17-06-023, which proposed to clarify that text messaging service should be subject to the [state of California’s[ statutory surcharge requirement.”
The CPUC’s plan was to use the proposed tax on text messages to help subsidize telecommunications service for the state’s rural areas, as well as for its low-income and disabled residents.
A report from the commission laid out why it viewed the tax was needed. It specifically cited declining telecommunications industry revenues during the past six years -- a drop of nearly $5 million.
TEXT MESSAGES MIGHT BE NEXT TO FACE CALIFORNIA TAX, REPORTS SAY
"This is unsustainable over time," the report states.
It was not clear from the CPUC’s statement whether the panel had an alternative plan for funding those initiatives.
Jim Patterson, a Republican former mayor of Fresno who now represents the state’s 23rd District as a state assemblyman, was among those hailing the CPUC’s decision to cancel the vote.
“You can bet I’ll keep a watchful eye on them for future shenanigans,” Patterson wrote on Twitter. “For now…consider the Text Tax cancelled.”
Previously, Patterson had characterized the text tax plan as “an outrageous attempt at a money grab from California families.”
The CPUC had claimed that revenues for its subsidy programs have been falling as consumers switch from traditional landline telecom services to text messaging, FOX 11 of Los Angeles reported.

 (Blls) It's no wonder a lot of Californians are moving to Texas and bringing their stupid liberal politics with them. They screwed up their state and now they want to screw up Texas!

ObamaCare 2018 Cartoons

Justice Dept. asks Supreme Court to allow transgender military ban

( Blls) People in America are sick and tired of a few small groups like this claiming they're speaking for the majority of us when they're not, ENOUGH.

The Trump administration is seeking aid from the Supreme Court to take the next step in imposing a ban on transgender people in the military.
In court filings Thursday, the Justice Department’s solicitor general — Noel Francisco — requested a hold against the lower courts, which are currently preventing the administration from enforcing the policy.
If approved, the hold will allow a temporary block of military recruitment of transgender individuals pending the outcome of the ongoing legal battle.
The move comes just weeks after the administration asked the Supreme Court to fast-track its review of the order, pushing the issue past the appeals court.
Many critics have chimed in against the ban since the president first announced it on Twitter last year, claiming the president is taking an anti-LGBTQ stance. However, the White House is adamant the decision is based off security concerns and is claiming the previous policy poses a risk to overall military effectiveness.
“The president’s expressed concerns since this Obama policy came into effect, but he’s also voiced that this is a very expensive and disruptive policy and based on consultation that he’s had with his national security team, came to the conclusion that it erodes military readiness and unit cohesion and made the decision based on that,” stated Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

Francisco is claiming this current legal battle is part of a “growing trend” by activist judges. He cited the numerous injunctions placed on the administration by the courts blocking policies involving national security, defense, and immigration.

Despite federal judge’s ruling, Obamacare exchanges are open for business, CMS official says

A spokesperson from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services told Fox News early Saturday that open enrollment for Affordable Care Act’s health insurance will continue despite the federal judge's ruling that the law is unconstitutional and must be "invalidated in whole.”
U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, a federal judge in Texas appointed by President George W. Bush, ruled that last year's tax cut bill knocked the constitutional foundation from under Obamacare by eliminating a penalty for not having coverage. The rest of the law cannot be separated from that provision and is therefore invalid, he wrote.
The decision came on the evening before the Dec. 15 deadline for Americans.
The spokesperson from CMS told Fox that the judge’s decision, which was applauded by President Trump, is still working its way through the courts and is not the final word on the matter.
"There is no impact to current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan," the spokesperson said.
Congress is unlikely to act while the case remains in the courts. Numerous high-ranking Republican lawmakers have said they did not intend to also strike down popular provisions such as protection for people with pre-existing medical conditions when they repealed the ACA's fines for people who can afford coverage but remain uninsured.
Xavier Becerra, the California attorney general, vowed to appeal the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.
"Today’s ruling is an assault on 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the A.C.A.’s consumer protections for health care, on America’s faithful progress toward affordable health care for all Americans," Becerra said in a statement, obtained by The New York Times.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who is expected to become House speaker in January, vowed to fight what she called an "absurd ruling."
Trump tweeted his support for the ruling, saying, "Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster!" He continued, "Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions."
About 20 million people have gained health insurance coverage since the ACA passed in 2010 without a single Republican vote. Currently, about 10 million have subsidized private insurance through the health law's insurance markets, while an estimated 12 million low-income people are covered through its Medicaid expansion.
The White House said late Friday that it expects the ruling to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The five justices who upheld the health law in 2012 in the first major case -- Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberals -- are all still serving.