CAPITOL HILL – There are important roll call votes on Capitol Hill -- but votes on articles of impeachment against President Trump would be monumental.
Think
about votes cast in 2009 and and 2010 for or against ObamaCare. A
failed effort to undo ObamaCare in 2017. Votes in 2008 to salvage the
economy with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Votes last
Congress on tax reform. Various votes to fund the government and hike
the debt ceiling. And, in the Senate, votes to confirm Supreme Court
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
News organizations and
political firms have traved major votes on the floors of the House and
Senate each year. Some of those votes may define a career. Look at the
nay vote cast by the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to end Republican
efforts to unwind ObamaCare. Separately, voters in Maine and Colorado
respectively took note of the votes by Republican Sens. Susan Collins
and Cory Gardner to confirm Kavanaugh last fall. That vote is sure to
resonate in the reelection bids for Collins and Gardner next year.
All
of those votes have been major, reverberating throughout a given
Congress – and even for decades to come. Despite multiple efforts to gut
ObamaCare, it has remained the law of the land. Still, “aye” ballots
for ObamaCare proved to help end the congressional careers of
many House and Senate Democrats. Republicans weaponized that vote
against those Democrats. Some paid with their political lives in 2010
and beyond. Lots of House Republicans lost the House for the same reason
last year because of their votes for the tax bill and for trying to
repeal ObamaCare.
We won’t know if the votes by Collins and
Gardner for Kavanaugh will sway the outcomes of their Senate contests
next year. But, barring illness, the 54-year-old Kavanaugh could serve
on the high court for decades. The decisions by Collins and Gardner to
confirm Kavanaugh are likely to echo in American jurisprudence for
years.
These are all high-profile roll call votes, as weighty as
can be. But, there is yet one more, hyper-elite classification of House
and Senate votes, more consequential than the rest. These are votes to
go to war and to impeach a president.
These momentous votes have
filtered through the decades. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., is still known
as the only House member to oppose the war resolution following Sept.
11, 2001. The late Rep. Jeannette Rankin, R-Mont., was the first woman
ever elected to Congress, but in addition to her trailblazing for women,
historians have recalled her votes opposing U.S. involvement in World
War I and World War II.
“I cannot vote for war,” said Rankin when
she opposed the U.S. declaring war against Germany in World War I.
Rankin’s words about war were emblazoned on the base of her statue in
the U.S. Capitol Visitor’s Center. It’s one of two statues from Montana
in the official congressional collection.
Other lawmakers voted
against the U.S. entering World War I. But, Rankin was the only member
of either body to vote “nay” after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Many
prominent members, including future Senate Minority Leader Everett
Dirksen, R-Ill., then a congressman, tried to persuade Rankin to vote
“aye” so the tally would be unanimous. But, Rankin resisted. Her
position was so unpopular that she abstained from voting on future war
declarations against Germany and Italy. Her political career ended soon
afterwards.
This brings us to present day.
The
House Judiciary Committee is likely to entertain three to five articles
of impeachment for Trump. The House would not simply throw a broad
resolution on the floor with members voting up or down to impeach. These
articles would be honed and massaged, narrow and concrete. Members
would focus on what they accused the president of doing, such as an
indictment. It’s then up to the Judiciary Committee to actually approve
the articles and send them to the House floor. The House must then vote
to adopt or reject those articles.
Without question, these votes
on articles of impeachment would be the most critical ballots cast in
the 116th Congress. They could be the cardinal votes many lawmakers
would make during their congressional tenures. That said, 55 House
members who voted on the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton in
1998 have remained in the House.
In 1974, the House Judiciary
Committee considered five articles of impeachment and approved three for
then-President Richard Nixon. Nixon resigned before the articles went
to the House floor. In 1998, the Judiciary Committee prepared four
articles of impeachment but the full House okayed only two of them.
Details
of the articles would paramount, so members of Congress from both
parties would want to evaluate the articles -- study them, ponder them,
and then, with a deep sigh, decide how to vote.
We always hear an
array of TV commercials from upstarts and political neophytes just
before each congressional election, boasting about how if you elect
them, they’ll head to Washington and have the courage “to take the tough
votes.”
Well, congratulations, members of the 116th Congress. You won the lottery.
Americans are likely to remember how all current 431 members of the House voted, yea or nay, on each article of impeachment.
Think
of the vulnerable, freshmen Democrats who helped propel their party to
the majority in 2018, representing districts Trump won in 2016. There
are 31 such Democrats. Look closely at how freshmen Democrats like Reps.
Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Anthony Brindisi of New York and Joe
Cunningham of South Carolina vote.
Republicans wouldn’t be out of
the woods yet, either. Consider the challenges of an impeachment vote
for swing-district Republicans including Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan,
John Katko of New York and Don Bacon of Nebraska.
Potential
articles of impeachment have centered on “bribery” -- specifically
mentioned in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution -- abuse of
power, contempt of Congress and obstruction of justice. All such
potential articles would be fissionable enough to incinerate many a
political career if a lawmaker were to vote the wrong way.
But, one potential article of impeachment would be practically thermonuclear: treason.
Again,
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution mentions “treason” as a
defined transgression worthy of impeachment. One could see how House
Democrats might try to make a case for treason with President Trump.
The
House essentially accused Sen. William Blount of Tennessee of treason
in the republic’s first impeachment in 1797. The House argued Blount
covertly worked with Britain to acquire territory in the south. The
House impeached Federal Judge West Hughes Humphreys in 1862 for
supporting the Confederacy. No other House impeachments have ever
wandered into treason as possible grounds for impeachment.
This
speaks to why the House may impeach President Trump on some articles and
not others. That’s why members are so curious to learn what the
articles may be and decide how to vote on each individual.
It’s just a simple question, right? Binary. Yea or nay? Members do this all day long.
But,
votes on the impeachment of Trump are likely to be the most momentous
of a lawmaker’s career. And, the decisions lawmakers make will pulsate
through the American experience like no other ballot they cast before.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., received $1.9 million from private legal work during her time as a law professor stretching back three decades, according to a release by her campaign.
The work, since 1986, included fees from large corporate clients, her campaign said in the release.
Some
of her clients included the attorneys for Rabobank, a Dutch financial
institution that became a creditor in the Enron bankruptcy; former
directors of Getty Oil, who were involved in Texaco’s bankruptcy; and
women whose allegations of harm from silicone breast implants produced
by Dow Corning were imperiled when the company filed for bankruptcy.
In
May, Warren released a list of 56 cases on which she worked as an
attorney going back to the 1980s, as The Associated Press reported; 15
pages of newly released data showed she was paid over $1.9 million on
nearly 40 of those cases in total.
The release Sunday came against the backdrop of an escalating feud between Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg
of South Bend, Indiana. The senator has condemned the closed-door
fundraisers that the mayor has attended, suggesting Buttigieg could be
making secret promises to top donors.
Buttigieg and his campaign
responded that Warren should release past tax returns that detail her
work for corporate clients. Warren previously had released 11 years of
tax returns.
“We must nominate a candidate who can create the most
robust possible contrast against Republicans on conflicts of interest
and corruption issues. … Elizabeth does not sell access to her time --
no closed door big dollar fundraisers, no bundling program, no perks or
promises to any wealthy donor,” said Warren Communications Director Kristen Orthman.
She
added: “Any candidate who refuses to provide basic details about his or
her own record and refuses to allow voters or the press to understand
who is buying access to their time and what they are getting in return
will be seen by voters as part of the same business-as-usual politics
that voters have consistently rejected.”
Warren’s campaign said
Sunday’s information provides more details on her business income that
her returns did not provide because they didn’t fully itemize earnings.
Also
Sunday, Warren said she believed Americans would be ready for a
presidential ticket with two women at the top, rejecting concerns from
some Democrats that a woman couldn’t beat Trump.
“Sure, why not?” she told The Associated Press in an interview ahead of a town hall campaign event in Charleston, South Carolina. “I think (voters) would support a lot of different combinations.”
Warren has said she’d consider picking California Sen. Kamala Harris as a running mate. She also told the AP she would be “open” to asking former Vice President Joe Biden to reprise his old job.
“Look,
it would be presumptuous of me to be talking about individuals, but I’m
open to getting this right because that’s what we want to do,” Warren
said. “We want to build a Democratic ticket and a stronger Democratic
Party that’s ready to get out there and compete at the national level,
at the state level, at the local level.”
Last week, Harris abruptly dropped out of the race for the presidential nomination,
prompting a debate about whether a party claiming it valued diversity
and inclusion was shortchanging candidates of color and women.
Other than Warren, the top tier of Democrats has been made up entirely of white men.
Warren argued that voters were worried less about identity politics than the messages that candidates were offering. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes blasted committee Chairman Adam Schiff
for what he called an “alarming” and “blatant disregard” for the rules
governing the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump, saying
Schiff transmitted his investigative findings to the Judiciary Committee
for the next phase in the proceedings without consulting him.
Fox News exclusively obtained the letter
Nunes, R-Calif., sent to Schiff, D-Calif., on Sunday night. In the
letter dated Friday, Nunes wrote that Schiff chose not to consult with
him so that he could meet a “bogus” deadline for impeaching the
president. The GOP congressman also accused the Democrat of having a
“vendetta” against the president.
“I write in objection to your
December 6, 2019 transfer of additional records and other materials
relating to the Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry to the House
Committee on the Judiciary,” Nunes wrote.
He went on to cite the
rules governing the impeachment inquiry, passed in the House in October,
which stated that “the chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the
chair of any other committee having custody of records or other
materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of
this resolution is authorized, in consultation with the ranking minority
member, to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the
Judiciary.”
“As the Ranking Member of the House
Intelligence Committee, I received no consultation prior to the transfer
of materials, in violation of H. Res. 660,” Nunes wrote. “Accordingly, I
expect that you immediately provide me a full accounting of documents
that were provided to the Committee on the Judiciary.”
“Your
consistent and blatant disregard for the rules is alarming,” Nunes
continued. “I can see no reason for you to continue to ignore these
rules, which the Democratic majority put in place, other than to meet a
bogus deadline of impeaching the President by Christmas.”
He
added: “I urge you to put an immediate end to your vendetta against the
President, stop your constant rule breaking, and begin treating this
Committee and its oversight responsibilities with the seriousness they
deserve.”
Last week, the Intelligence Committee voted to adopt and
issue a scathing report on its findings from its impeachment inquiry.
Democrats on the panel asserted that their inquiry “uncovered a
months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to
solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.”
In
their impeachment inquiry, the committee conducted extensive interviews
with witnesses connected to the Trump administration’s relationship
with Ukraine, after an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint
alleging that during a July 25 phone call, Trump tried to pressure
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice
President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as issues related to the
2016 presidential election.
The president’s request came after
millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which
Democrats and witnesses have claimed showed a “quid pro quo”
arrangement. Trump repeatedly has denied any wrongdoing.
The
Democrats’ report claimed that Trump withheld nearly $391 million in
military aid from Ukraine, conditioning its delivery as well as a White
House visit with Zelensky on a public announcement that Zelensky was
conducting the investigations. It also accused Trump of obstruction of
justice for instructing witnesses not to comply with congressional
subpoenas.
Nunes took issue with the issuance of the report to the
Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., without
consulting with him, as well as the transmission of additional
underlying investigative material, according to an aide familiar with
the matter. Also part of the committee’s report were Nunes’ phone
records, which Schiff subpoenaed and released in connection with the
impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, House Republicans issued their own
report earlier this week delivering a point-by-point rebuttal to
Democrats’ impeachment efforts.
“The evidence presented does not
prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’
witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any
high crime or misdemeanor,” Republicans said in their report released
Monday.
Nevertheless,
Nadler and Judiciary Committee Democrats, in consultation with
Intelligence Committee and Oversight Committee Democrats, and at the
direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have begun drafting
articles of impeachment, which are likely to encompass two major
themes: abuse of office and obstruction.
The Judiciary Committee is set to hold a hearing Monday, when counsels for the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees' Democrats and Republicans are to present evidence in the case.
The Justice Department's
internal watchdog is set to release a highly anticipated report Monday
that is expected to document misconduct -- including the deliberate
falsification of at least one key document -- during the investigation
into President Trump's 2016 campaign.
At the same time, the
report, as described by people familiar with its findings, is expected
to conclude there was an adequate basis for opening one of the most
politically sensitive investigations in FBI history. It began in secret
during Trump’s 2016 presidential run before then-Special Counsel Robert
Mueller ultimately took it over.
The report comes as Trump faces
an impeachment inquiry in Congress centered on his efforts to press
Ukraine to investigate a political rival, Democrat Joe Biden — a probe
the president also claimed has been politically biased. The House
Judiciary Committee is expected hold a hearing Monday on the inquiry's
findings.
The release of Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz's
review is unlikely to quell the partisan battles that have surrounded
the Russia investigation for years. It's also not the last word:
A separate internal investigation continues, overseen by Attorney
General Bill Barr and led by U.S. Attorney John Durham. That
investigation is criminal in nature, and Republicans may look to it to
uncover wrongdoing that the inspector general wasn’t examining.
Sources told Fox News in October that Durham's probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct
in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has
transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation -- and
Horowitz's report will shed light on why Durham has been leading a
criminal inquiry.
Horowitz has forwarded to Durham evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI's secretive surveillance of
former Trump adviser Carter Page in 2016 and 2017 -- enough to change
the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports
last month.
"I think we'll learn part of the story tomorrow," Page told the Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures."
"What I've learned from some of the leakers and one of the papers of
record: a top reporter there said there's a lot of exculpatory evidence
that's remaining classified, and there's been internal battles."
It is unclear how Barr, a strong defender of Trump, will respond to Horowitz's findings. He has told Congress that he believed "spying" on
the Trump campaign did occur and has raised public questions about
whether the counterintelligence investigation was done correctly.
The
inspector general's investigation began in early 2018, and has focused
in part on the FBI's surveillance of Page. The FBI applied in the fall
of 2016 for a warrant from the secretive Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court to monitor Page's communications, flatly telling the
court that Page was an "agent" of a foreign power.
Page
was never charged and has denied any wrongdoing. The ultimately
successful warrant application on Page relied in part on information
from British ex-spy Christopher Steele – whose anti-Trump views have
been well-documented – and cited Page's suspected Russia ties.
In its warrant application, the FBI inaccurately assured the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court
on numerous occasions that media sources independently corroborated
Steele's claims, and did not clearly state that Steele worked for a firm
hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC).
Much of the Steele dossier has been proven discredited or unsubstantiated, including the dossier's claims that the Trump campaign was paying hackers in the United States out of a nonexistent Russian
consulate in Miami, and that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen
traveled to Prague to conspire with Russians. Mueller also was unable to
substantiate the dossier's claims that Page had received a large
payment relating to the sale of a share of Rosneft, a Russian oil giant,
or that a lurid blackmail tape involving the president existed.
Sen.
Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which
is scheduled to hear testimony from Horowitz on Wednesday, said he
expected the report would be "damning" about the process of obtaining
the warrant.
"I'm looking for evidence of whether or not they
manipulated the facts to get the warrant," Graham, R-S.C., told "Sunday
Morning Futures." Fox News' Brooke Singman, Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
FILE
- In this Oct. 14, 2019, file photo, a worker loads imported goods on a
truck at a distribution company outside the container port in Qingdao
in east China's Shandong province. China's trade with the United States
sank again in November as negotiators worked on the first stage of a
possible deal to end a tariff war. (Chinatopix via AP, File)
BEIJING
(AP) — China’s trade with the United States sank again in November as
negotiators worked on the first stage of a possible deal to end a tariff
war.
Exports
to the United States fell 23% from a year earlier to $35.6 billion,
customs data showed Sunday. Imports of American goods were off 2.8% at
$11 billion, giving China a surplus with the United States of $24.6
billion.
Exports to some other countries including France rose, helping to offset the loss.
China’s
global exports were off 1.1% from a year earlier at $221.7 billion
despite weakening worldwide demand. Imports were up 0.3% at $183
billion, giving China a global surplus of $38.7 billion.
Hopes
for a settlement to the fight over Beijing’s technology ambitions and
trade surplus rose after President Donald Trump’s announcement of a
“Phase 1” agreement following talks in October. But there has been no
sign of agreement on details nearly two months later.
The dispute has disrupted global trade in goods from soybeans to medical equipment and threatens to depress economic growth.
Trump
put off a tariff increase in October but penalties already imposed by
both sides on billions of dollars of imports stayed in place. Another
U.S. increase is due on Sunday on $160 billion of Chinese goods. That
would extend penalties to almost everything Americans buy from China.
Chinese
spokespeople have expressed hope for a settlement “as soon as
possible,” but Trump spooked financial markets last week by saying he
might be willing to wait until after the U.S. presidential election late
next year.
Financial markets have repeatedly risen on optimism about the talks only to fall back when no progress is announced.
The
“Phase 1” agreement doesn’t cover contentious issues including U.S.
complaints that Beijing steals or pressures companies to hand over
technology. Economists warn tensions could rise again next year and the
bulk of tariff hikes are likely to stay in place for some time.
For
the first 11 months of 2019, China’s total global exports were off 0.3%
at $2.3 trillion despite the tariff war. Imports were down 4.5% at $1.8
trillion, adding to signs Chinese domestic demand is cooling.
China’s
exporters have been hurt by the U.S. tariff hikes but its overall
economy has been unexpectedly resilient. Growth in the world’s
second-largest economy slipped to 6% over a year earlier in the three
months ending in September, down from the previous quarter’s 6.2% but
still among the world’s strongest.
Weaker
Chinese demand has global repercussions, depressing demand for
industrial raw materials and components from other Asian economies and
oil, iron ore and other commodities from Brazil, Australia and other
suppliers.
The
Ministry of Finance announced Friday that China was waiving punitive
import duties on U.S. soybeans and pork, keeping a promise announced in
September.
A
sticking point is Beijing’s insistence that Washington roll back its
most recent penalties on Chinese goods as part of the “Phase 1” deal.
Beijing said last month the U.S. side agreed, but Trump dismissed that.
A Chinese spokesman repeated Thursday that Beijing expects such a move in a “Phase 1” agreement.
SEOUL,
South Korea (AP) — North Korea said Sunday that it carried out a “very
important test” at its long-range rocket launch site that it reportedly
rebuilt after having partially dismantled it at the start of
denuclearization talks with the United States last year.
The
announcement comes amid dimming prospects for a resumption of
negotiations, with the North threatening to seek “a new way” if it
fails to get major U.S. concessions by year’s end. North Korea has said
its resumption of nuclear and long-range missile tests depends on the
United States.
Saturday’s
test at the Sohae Satellite Launching Ground will have “an important
effect on changing the strategic position of (North Korea) once again in
the near future,” an unidentified spokesman from the North’s Academy of
National Defense Science said in a statement, carried by the country’s
official Korean Central News Agency.
North
Korea didn’t say what the test included. Kim Dong-yub, an analyst at
Seoul’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies, said that North Korea likely
tested for the first time a solid-fuel engine for an intercontinental
ballistic missile.
The
use of solid fuel increases a weapon’s mobility and reduces the amount
of launch preparation time. The long-range rockets that North Korea used
in either ICBM launches or satellite liftoffs in recent years all used
liquid propellants.
CNN
reported Friday that a new satellite image indicated North Korea may be
preparing to resume testing engines used to power satellite launchers
and intercontinental ballistic missiles at the site.
Seoul’s
Defense Ministry said in a brief statement later Sunday that South
Korea and the United States are closely monitoring activities at the
Sohae site and other key North Korean areas.
On
Saturday, President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in
discussed developments related to North Korea, and the two leaders
committed to continuing close communication, the White House said in a
statement. Moon’s office also released a similar statement, saying the
two leaders had a 30-minute phone conversation at Trump’s request.
The
North Korean test “is meant to improve military capabilities and to
shore up domestic pride and legitimacy,” said Leif-Eric Easley, a
professor at Ewha University in Seoul. “With the activity at Sohae,
Pyongyang is also trying to raise international concerns that it may
intensify provocations and walk away from denuclearization talks next
year.”
The
Sohae launching center in Tongchang-ri, a seaside region in western
North Korea, is where the North has carried out banned satellite
launches in recent years, resulting in worldwide condemnation and U.N.
sanctions over claims that they were disguised tests of long-range
missile technology.
North
Korea has said its satellite launches are part of its peaceful space
development program. But many outside experts say ballistic missiles and
rockets used in satellite launches share similar bodies, engines and
other technology. None of North Korea’s three intercontinental ballistic
missile tests in 2017 was conducted at the Sohae site, but observers
said the site was used to test engines for ICBMs.
After
his first summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore in
June last year, Trump said Kim told him that North Korea was “already
destroying a major missile engine testing site” in addition to
committing to “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula.
Satellite
imagery later showed the North dismantling a rocket engine-testing
stand and other facilities at the Sohae site. Last March, South Korea’s
spy agency and some U.S. experts said that North Korea was restoring
the facilities, raising doubts about whether it was committed to
denuclearization.
U.S.-North
Korea diplomacy has largely remained deadlocked since the second summit
between Trump and Kim in Vietnam in February due to disputes over how
much sanctions relief the North must get in return for dismantling its
key nuclear complex — a limited disarmament step.
North
Korea has since warned that the U.S. must abandon hostile policies and
come out with new acceptable proposals by the end of this year or it
would take an unspecified new path. In recent months, North Korea has
performed a slew of short-range missile and other weapons launches and
hinted at lifting its moratorium on nuclear and long-range missiles.
North
Korea said the results of Saturday’s test were submitted to the Central
Committee of the ruling Workers’ Party. The North said last week that
the Central Committee will hold a meeting in late December to discuss
unspecified “crucial issues” in line with “the changed situation at home
and abroad.”
At
the United Nations, a statement released by North Korea’s U.N.
ambassador, Kim Song, said Saturday that denuclearization had “already
gone out of the negotiation table.”
The
statement accused the Trump administration of persistently pursuing a
“hostile policy” toward the country “in its attempt to stifle it.” The
statement was a response to Wednesday’s condemnation by six European
countries of North Korea’s 13 ballistic missile launches since May.
The
North Korean diplomat accused the Europeans — France, Germany, Britain,
Belgium, Poland and Estonia — of playing “the role of pet dog of the
United States in recent months.”
“We
regard their behavior as nothing more than a despicable act of
intentionally flattering the United States,” the ambassador said.
___
Associated Press writer Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.
Conservative writer Ann Coulter took a shot Saturday night at three Senate Republicans who reportedly were the only remaining members of the GOP who hadn’t signed a Senate colleague’s resolution condemning the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump.
A story in The Hill on Friday had identified the trio as Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah -- lawmakers who’ve each opposed Trump from time to time from within the GOP tent.
Coulter offered her reaction to the story in a Twitter message.
“BREAKING:
The Hill newspaper names 3 GOP senators as possible votes to convict
Trump,” Coulter wrote. “Turns out they’re all legendarily feckless old
ladies: Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, & Mitt Romney.”
Within a few hours the tweet had gained more than 16,000 likes and 4,000 retweets.
“The RINO’s want Trump impeached? I’m shocked!!,” one Twitter user commented.
“Disappointed; but not surprised about Romney,” another wrote.
“I
have faith in Susan Collins after standing up for Brett Kavanaugh,”
another commenter wrote. “I have no faith in Lisa Murkowski or Mitt
Romney for this [if nothing] else [requires] integrity.”
The resolution defending President Trump was introduced Thursday by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and had been signed by every Senate Republican except the trio, Graham told The Hill on Friday.
U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, was on the receiving end Saturday
night of one of the latest Twitter barbs from conservative writer Ann
Coulter.
Graham’s resolution calls on House Democrats to allow
Trump to “confront his accusers” and to allow Republicans to issue
subpoenas to witnesses of their choosing, according to The Hill.
Neither
Murkowski, nor Collins, nor Romney has endorsed the impeachment inquiry
or the removal of Trump from the presidency, the story noted, adding
that all three have simply refrained from taking a position on the
matter so far.
Murkowski
said Thursday that she hadn’t read Graham’s resolution, while Romney
said he hadn’t read it but planned to do so, The Hill reported, adding
that it hadn’t heard back yet from Collins’ office.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has backed Graham’s resolution but hasn’t stated whether he will call for a Senate vote on the matter, The Hill reported.
Coulter,
meanwhile, has been a frequent critic of Trump as well. For example,
she has repeatedly chided the president over delays in getting
construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall underway, and last February
referred to the president's State of the Union address as “the lamest, sappiest, most intentionally tear-jerking SOTU ever.”
The president has often opted not to return fire -- but last March referred to Coulter as a "Wacky Nut Job,"
insisting he was "winning on the Border" despite having "an entire
Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain
Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight)."
President Trump addressed a crowd of more than 4,000 people at the Israeli American Council (IAC) National Summit in Florida on Saturday night, saying Israel and America have an "unbreakable bond."
Trump
delivered the keynote address at the summit, which took place in
Hollywood, Fla., and was welcomed by the crowd chanting "four more
years." The Israeli American Council is financially backed by one of
Trump's top supporters, billionaire Sheldon Adelson.
In the first
address by a sitting U.S. president at the IAC Summit, Trump
said America and Israel's relationship is "stronger now than ever
before."
"I have stood firmly and proudly with the state of
Israel," Trump said. He said he kept his promises and that Israel "never
had a greater friend in the White House than your president Donald
Trump."
The
president spoke about the latest move by his administration to
strengthen Israel's position and undermine Palestinian claims regarding
land sought for a future state. Last month, Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo announced that the U.S. government is easing its stance on
Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Pompeo essentially rejected
a 1978 State Department legal opinion holding that civilian settlements
in the occupied territories are “inconsistent with international law.”
He
also said the White House was reversing an Obama administration
directive that allowed the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution
declaring the settlements a “flagrant violation” of international law.
While
the announcement received praise from Israeli officials -- including
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it “historic” --
the international community, which overwhelmingly considers the
settlements illegal, did not take the news favorably.
In a
statement sent to Fox News, Federica Mogherini, vice president of the
European Union, said: “The European Union's position on Israeli
settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territory is clear and
remains unchanged: all settlement activity is illegal under
international law and it erodes the viability of the two-state solution
and the prospects for a lasting peace.”
Trump
already broke with his predecessors by deciding to recognize Jerusalem
as Israel’s capital, moving the U.S. Embassy to that city and supporting
Israeli sovereignty over the contested Golan Heights region. In
Hollywood on Saturday, Trump mentioned all those decisions.
He said recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a "great, great thing."
Trump
talked about Israeli security and said, "My administration made clear
Israel's absolute right to self-defense," as he referenced the latest
round of fighting between Gaza and Israel.
Last month, two days of
violence left at least 32 Palestinians dead. During the fighting,
the Israel Defense Forces said it was “raining rockets” across the
country, with Islamic Jihads firing one projectile every
seven minutes. Since then, a senior commander of the terror group was
killed by the Israeli military in a targeted airstrike.
Trump also told the crowd of Israeli Americans, “Today the ISIS caliphate has been 100 percent obliterated."
He noted that a few weeks ago, U.S. special forces killed the founder and leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Trump
held a rally in Sunrise, Fla., last week where he also mentioned his
unprecedented moves in strengthening U.S.- Israeli relations, which
included supporting Israeli sovereignty over the contested Golan Heights
region.
It’s a message the president seems to be pushing in his reelection campaign.
As
Trump addressed the crowd at the IAC Summit on Saturday night, Trump
also spoke about anti-Semitism and said his administration is committed
to curbing the problem.
He said "we must not ignore the vile poison" and said his administration is "using every single weapon at our disposal."
He
brought up former New York University (NYU) student Adela Cojab to the
stage. She said she experienced anti-Semitism on her college campus,
including witnessing a student who was a member of a pro-Palestinian
group on campus, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), burn an
Israeli flag.
Her lawyers filed charges of anti-Semitism and a hostile environment for Jewish students at New York University, and they were notified last month that the Department of Education had opened a full-scale investigation into their allegations.
The
complaint sent to the Department of Education said: “SJP is a radical
organization affiliated with terror groups, bent on adopting a policy of
anti-normalization of Jewish groups, and on isolating, demonizing and
ultimately destroying the Jewish state.”
Cojab, who was the
president of an Israel advocacy group at NYU and was a representative
for Jewish students in student government, graduated in May and filed
the complaint one month before.
NYU
spokesman John Beckman told Fox News Saturday that the university "has
not received any direct notice from the Department of Education
indicating that there is an OCR investigation."
"If there is, we
know that any allegations that the University has been anything less
than highly supportive of or deeply concerned about its Jewish community
are untrue and unfair, and ignore the real record," Beckman said,
continuing: "That those involved in disrupting the pro-Israel rave in
Washington Square Park in 2018 were referred to the University's student
conduct office; that NYU and its president rejected and criticized
attempts to ostracize pro-Israel groups; that the University has
publicly, repeatedly, and vigorously repudiated BDS proposals both at
NYU and elsewhere ... and ... that NYU is the only U.S. [university] to
have opened its own dedicated academic campus in Israel, has flatly
rejected any and all calls to close it, and continues to be committed to
it."
National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) did not
immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment. However, in a
statement sent to Fox News, NYU’s SJP chapter said: “NYU Students for
Justice in Palestine and NYU Jewish Voice for Peace believe Palestinian
liberation and Jewish liberation go hand in hand. We work tirelessly
against anti-racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. The fact that
around half of SJP is Jewish, along with our interfaith work where an
Israeli Jewish woman and a Palestinian Muslim woman crafted a BDS
resolution on human rights, is evidence of just that.”
On Saturday night, Cojab thanked President Trump for his work on anti-Semitism.
Trump also brought up U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Elan Carr to the stage.
Trump spoke at the 6th annual IAC Summit. Vice President Mike Pence was the keynote speaker at the conference the year before.
President
Trump's trip to Florida on Saturday also featured a separate address to
members of Florida's Republican Party at the Statesman's Dinner in
Aventura. The Florida GOP did not allow news media coverage of the
event.
The trip came hours after Trump celebrated Iran's decision
to free a Chinese-American scholar from Princeton University who had
been held since 2016. The U.S., in turn, released an Iranian scientist
in its custody.
"We are also working to free hostages unjustly
detained around the world including in Iran," Trump told the crowd on
Saturday night. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, was on the receiving end Saturday
night of one of the latest Twitter barbs from conservative writer Ann
Coulter.
CNN’s Scott Jennings once again took liberals to the cleaners on the Abrego Garcia case, the ‘Maryland man...
