Chaos in Congress

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, he was referring to Matt Gaetz.

[N.E. Brigand]

Interesting statistics for Congressional nerds here, dating back to 1995:



That's a tally of the number of times a bill supported by the Speaker of the House was prevented from moving to the floor for a full vote. This means that some members of the Speaker's own party voted against the bill advancing. This is generally understood to be an embarrassment for the Speaker. As you can see, it's happened seven times during the 2023-2024 Congress. The last time prior to that was 2002. The most recent case was today, when, at Donald Trump's urging, a score of Republicans blocked the advancement of the reauthorization of the FISA bill.

And since the list is there, I'll note that the longest-serving Speaker listed there is Nancy Pelosi, who, at 7 years 364 days edges out Dennis Hastert by five days. However, four earlier Speakers -- three Democrats and one Democratic-Republican (a party that ceased to exist in the 1820s) -- served even longer than Pelosi, with the list headed by Sam Rayburn who was Speaker for 17 years between 1940 and 1961. Hastert nonetheless remains the Republican who served longest as Speaker. Also he was a child molester.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

More fun to come? Or will the Democrats save Johnson.

[N.E. Brigand]

Last week, Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters that he would be transmitting the articles this week, but CNN now reports it will be next week. So that means at least 61 days after the House voted toi impeach, and more than twice as long as then-Speaker Pelosi held the articles for President Donald Trump's first impeachment.

Finally, today, April 16, some 63 days after the House of Representatives voted (214-213) to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, the House transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

[N.E. Brigand]

Sen. Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey facing a twice-superseded indictment on corruption charges, gave a speech in the Senate today complaining about that.

"Senator Menendez, Charged in Bribery Scheme, May Blame His Wife" (New York Times).

[N.E. Brigand]

Sen. Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey facing a twice-superseded indictment on corruption charges, gave a speech in the Senate today complaining about that.

"Senator Menendez, Charged in Bribery Scheme, May Blame His Wife" (New York Times).

Dave Weigel: "The Henny Youngman Strategy, you rarely see this anymore".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Last week, Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters that he would be transmitting the articles this week, but CNN now reports it will be next week. So that means at least 61 days after the House voted toi impeach, and more than twice as long as then-Speaker Pelosi held the articles for President Donald Trump's first impeachment.

Finally, today, April 16, some 63 days after the House of Representatives voted (214-213) to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, the House transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

And today, April 17, the Senate voted to dismiss the impeachment with no trial, on a straight 51-49 party-line vote.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... b0b1284ccb

[N.E. Brigand]

I spent so much time writing this that I figured I'd be scooped!

Finally, today, April 16, some 63 days after the House of Representatives voted (214-213) to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, the House transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

And today, April 17, the Senate voted to dismiss the impeachment with no trial, on a straight 51-49 party-line vote.

Yep, just one day after the House transmitted February's articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the trial is over. It took just a few hours.

There were two impeachment articles:

The first accuses him of “willfully and systemically” refusing to comply with federal immigration laws leading to “millions” entering the U.S. illegally. The second article says Mayorkas “breached the public trust” by making false statements to Congress and knowingly obstructing congressional oversight of the Homeland Security Department.

Republicans had hoped the trial would last a week or more. Democrats made it clear that, because it was obvious Mayorkas would not be convicted, that wanted to wrap it up quickly. After all, several Republicans, like Mitt Romney of Utah and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, had already said that Mayorkas wouldn't be convicted. Negotiations between Republicans and Democrats last night would have allowed Republicans some more time to have their say before shutting it down. Per the negotiations, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, today would have asked for the Senate to unanimously pass a resolution to structure the trial as follows:

-- A period of debate among senators
-- Votes on trial resolutions
-- Votes on GOP points of order
-- Votes on motions to dismiss the articles

But Republican Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri, representing a group of hardline Republicans, said he would object to that motion and demanded that there be nothing short of a full trial. By doing that, Schmitt and his allies "precluded Republicans from putting Democrats in a tough spot with substantive votes ... Republicans had planned to force Democrats to take tough votes, like on the constitutionality of not holding a trial."

Because Schmitt objected to that very framework, Sen. Schumer "immediately moved to question the constitutionality of the articles of impeachment. And that meant Republican senators could only force votes on procedural questions like adjourning or going into closed session." Schumer later said Republicans "denied our fair and reasonable offer and didn't seem to know what to do," but some Republicans knew what was coming. Around noon, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told reporters, "I'm not changing my dinner plans."

What Schumer did today was very much like what Sen. Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, tried in January 2021 at the start of the Senate trial for Donald Trump's second impeachment. At that time, Paul made a point of order that an impeachment trial would violate the Constitution because only a sitting officer can be impeached and tried.* That motion failed 45-55.

But today, Schumer, who knows how to count votes, made a motion that an impeachment trial would violate the Constitution because Mayorkas's conduct as described in the House's articles of impeachment "does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under Article 2, Section 4 of the United States Constitution [and is] therefore unconstitutional under the precedents and practices of the Senate." He did this separately for each of the two impeachment articles. Republicans attempted several procedural moves to stave off a vote: they tried and failed twice to move the proceedings to a closed session, they tried and failed to postpone the trial for two weeks, they tried and failed to postpone the trial for six weeks, and they tried and failed to postpone the trial for six months. But both of Schumer's motions to find the articles unconstitutional passed on party lines, with all 48 Democrats and 3 Independents voting yes:

First Article -- 51-48 (Sen. Lisa Murkowksi, Republican of Alaska, voted "present")
Second Article -- 51-49

And then the Senate voted 51-49 to adjourn the trial.

Republicans now are complaining about precedents being set. Never mind that, as noted above, most of them (including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, one of today's loudest complainers) tried this same move three years ago. And if the precedent is that flimsy articles of impeachment against Cabinet members don't get a full trial, well: it's been 148 years any Cabinet member was impeached, so let's check back on this in 2172.

*There's another interesting connection between today's impeachment, Donald Trump's second impeachment, and the last impeachment of a Cabinet member: "When the House impeached William Belknap in 1876, he had resigned as War Secretary just hours earlier. So when the Senate tried the case, Belknap" -- like Donald Trump in 2021 -- "was a private citizen." Belknap was engaged in a kickback scheme. A majority of senators voted to convict him, but not the two-thirds needed.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

House GOP erupts into name-calling and fresh threats to Johnson over effort to pass aid

This is the level we have descended to:

GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden entered the 20-minute heated floor conversation as it was ongoing and dared his right-wing colleagues to move on the motion to oust Johnson, even calling Gaetz “tubby.”

[N.E. Brigand]

Yes, he was referring to Matt Gaetz.

Did someone say Matt Gaetz?



(Edited to note that V got there two minutes before me!)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's interesting how often we home in on the same details.

[N.E. Brigand]

Republican Congressman Jake LaTurner of Kansas, aged 36 and currently in his second term, announced today that he will not run for reelection this year.

[N.E. Brigand]

House GOP erupts into name-calling and fresh threats to Johnson over effort to pass aid

This is the level we have descended to:

GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden entered the 20-minute heated floor conversation as it was ongoing and dared his right-wing colleagues to move on the motion to oust Johnson, even calling Gaetz “tubby.”

Rep. Van Orden had more to say about Rep. Gaetz (and others) today.

So did Rep. Tony Gonzalez, Republican of Texas, who said today that Gaetz "paid minors to have sex with him at drug parties."

[N.E. Brigand]

Rep. Donald Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, has died at the age of 65 after being hospitalized following a heart attack earlier this month.

[N.E. Brigand]

Reuters reports that ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, would rather shut down the platform than sell it to a company not based in China as required (in the next nine months) by a bill that passed both houses of Congress (with a strong bipartisan majority) earlier this week and was signed into law yesterday. (An earlier version of this bill was discussed here in this thread.) That actually would probably be the best outcome, but it also strengthens opponents' arguments that TikTok isn't just some regular company just trying to go about its business. (In the meantime, ByteDance plans to challenge the law in court.)

Based on this video from an American woman who's upset by the law, I'd say that propaganda on TikTok may be working. She claims that "Americans are becoming radicalized by America" because "Israelis live off our tax dollars and enjoy free healthcare" at the same time that "we don't have money for infrastructure" and "we don't have money to pay off student loan debt" and "we don't have money for education" which certainly reveal an incredible ignorance of history and society. U.S. aid to Israel by no means makes a difference as to whether or not Israelis have health care. The U.S. passed a huge infrastructure bill in 2021. Student debt forgiveness has been slowed not by lack of funding but by a judicial ruling grounded in the objection of some Americans to that concept. Education funding shortfall are a function of people who don't want to pay for it. And insufficient funding for government programs though unfortunate does not represent any recent shift in American society (as she implies). Beyond all that: the solutions to most of these issues are being offered by Democrats and rejected by Republicans. Her real problem is with the right, but apparently she's not learning that basic fact from TikTok.

[RoseMorninStar]

Your comments remind me of this article I read.
An Honest Assessment of Rural White Resentment Is Long Overdue
"We say very clearly that rural America is hurting. But we refuse to justify attitudes that some scholars try to underplay."

[N.E. Brigand]

Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, is the host of a podcast which airs three times a week on the nation's largest radio syndicator iHeartMedia. Senate rules make it pretty difficult for a senator to have an outside job. Cruz has gotten around this by "volunteering" his podcasting work and having iHeart pay his PAC. Thus far that's resulted in $630,000 in payments, about a third of what his PAC has raised. This is likely a violation campaign finance law. (And he's up for reelection this year.)