web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Trump, Donald J" (Page 89)

U.S. Military Unsuccessfully Targeted Second Iranian Official

Westlake Legal Group merlin_159559578_bfffc40b-fd76-47a6-9d8d-bd3eb97b649e-facebookJumbo U.S. Military Unsuccessfully Targeted Second Iranian Official Trump, Donald J Suleimani, Qassim Quds Force Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Defense Department Defense and Military Forces

WASHINGTON — The American military unsuccessfully tried to kill a senior Iranian in Yemen on the same day a drone strike took out Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, one of Iran’s most important commanders, according to American officials.

The disclosure of a second mission indicated that the Trump administration was attempting to target a larger set of Iranian military and paramilitary leaders than was previously known.

The unsuccessful airstrike in Yemen was aimed at Abdul Reza Shahlai, an official with Iran’s Quds Force, a potent paramilitary organization. He was known as a key financier for Iran’s proxy wars.

President Trump approved the strike against Mr. Shahlai at the same time as he authorized the strike against General Suleimani, although it is unclear if the American attack in Yemen occurred at precisely the same time.

Mr. Shahlai and General Suleimani were two of several officials the Trump administration considered striking in an effort to halt Iranian attacks on American embassies and to deter Iran from ramping up aggression in the region.

The Yemen strike was first reported Friday by the Washington Post.

The mission to kill Mr. Shahlai shows that the Trump administration was seeking to hit multiple officials from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which includes the Quds Force. Both organizations direct Iran’s proxy forces in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

The successful strike in Iraq and the unsuccessful attack in Yemen were meant to knock the Guards Corps back on its heels, and some senior military and intelligence officials believed a drastic strike against the group would effectively damage Iran’s ability to direct its proxy forces.

But other officials, including intelligence officials, believed strikes against senior commanders were risky, and might have the effect of inciting the broader conflict the Trump administration said it was trying to avoid.

Members of Congress have also raised questions about intelligence the administration has used to justify the strikes on General Suleimani.

The Pentagon declined to confirm the strike. But Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich, a Pentagon spokeswoman, noted that Yemen “is long understood as a safe space for terrorists and other adversaries to the United States.”

The United States had offered a $15 million reward for information about Mr. Shahlai. The announcement of the reward accused him of having a long history of involvement in attacks on American allies, including a failed 2011 plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

Mr. Shahlai was based in Yemen, where Iran is supporting the Houthi rebels, who are fighting forces backed by Saudi Arabia.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pompeo Imposes Sanctions on Iran, Sticking to Assertion That U.S. Faced Imminent Threat

Westlake Legal Group 10dc-attacks-sub2-facebookJumbo Pompeo Imposes Sanctions on Iran, Sticking to Assertion That U.S. Faced Imminent Threat United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Trump, Donald J Iran Embargoes and Sanctions Defense and Military Forces

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration slapped another round of sanctions on Iran on Friday and, brushing aside demands from Democrats for evidence, elaborated on its assertions that the decision to kill a top Iranian commander was justified by an imminent threat to United States embassies and other American interests.

“We had specific information on an imminent threat,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told a news conference at the White House. “And those threats included attacks on U.S. Embassies. Period, full stop.”

Mr. Pompeo stopped short of repeating what President Trump said a day earlier about a specific plot against the American Embassy in Baghdad, but dismissed criticism, including from members of Congress, that the administration had failed to share any intelligence that backs up its case for the killing early Friday of Maj Gen. Qassim Suleimani in an airstrike.

“I don’t know exactly which minute,” Mr. Pompeo said. “We don’t know exactly which day it would have been executed, but it was very clear, Qassim Suleimani himself was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against American interests and those attacks were imminent.”

Mr. Pompeo said information about the threat had been shared with members of Congress, contradicting some members of both parties who said they had received few specifics. Lawmakers from both parties described the briefings as historical lectures as opposed to the typical presentation about classified matters. One lawmaker said the information was “something you could go on Wikipedia and get. It was that basic.”

Asked how he defined an imminent threat, Mr. Pompeo replied: “This was going to happen. And American lives were at risk. And we would have been culpably negligent, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff said, we would have been culpably negligent had we not recommended to the president he take this action on Qassim Suleimani.”

Mr. Pompeo spoke about the threats after he and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced the latest round of economic sanctions on Iran. The sanctions were the first substantive response by the United States since Iran launched missiles this week at American forces in Iraq.

Iran is already under crippling sanctions from the United States and the latest round was narrowly targeted at industries including steel, construction, textiles and mining. They also apply to eight senior Iranian officials who were involved in a recent ballistic missile attack on bases where American troops were stationed.

The damage to Iran from the additional measures will be negligible, said Peter Harrell, a sanctions expert at the Center for a New American Security. “When it comes to putting materially more economic pressure on Iran, the Trump administration is something of a victim of its own success — and I think we are reaching the end of the road for what ‘maximum pressure’ can achieve when it comes to Iran’s economy,” Mr. Harrell said.

One area of Iran’s economy where the sanctions could have an impact is deterring investment from nations like China and Russia, said Ryan Fayhee, a sanctions expert at the law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed.

Mr. Fayhee said the latest round of penalties appeared intended to tamp down the situation with Iran. And the Trump administration does not have a lot of other options for how to respond unless it publicly discloses the justifications for killing General Suleimani, he said.

“This attempt to de-escalate could avoid the need to build domestic and international support for further military action — that would only come with a public disclosure the underlying factual support for strike targeting Suleimani,” said Mr. Fayhee, who previously worked on sanctions issues at the Justice Department’s national security division.

Mr. Fayhee said the administration could also ask the United Nations to pursue sanctions, but doing so would require the United States to publicly share intelligence that justified the strike.

In December, the Trump administration slapped new sanctions on the largest shipping company in Iran and a major airline. The United States believes both companies had roles in transporting material to ballistic missiles and nuclear programs. And in June, the Trump administration imposed sanctions meant to prevent top Iranian officials from using the international banking system — a retaliatory move in response to Tehran’s attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

The newest round of sanctions was the latest move in the weekslong clashes between Washington and Tehran that started in late December when Iran attacked an Iraqi compound, killing an American civilian contractor.

The United States responded by striking Iranian-backed militia in Iraq, which drew outrage from pro-Iranians who then stormed the American Embassy compound in Baghdad, chanting “Death to America.”

Three days later, an American airstrike near the Baghdad airport took out Iran’s most powerful commander. Less than a week later, Iran responded by attacking two bases in Iraq where American troops were stationed. No Americans were killed.

Michael D. Shear, Zach Montague and Alan Rappeport contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pelosi Alerts House to Be Ready to Send Impeachment Articles Next Week

Westlake Legal Group 10dc-impeach-facebookJumbo Pelosi Alerts House to Be Ready to Send Impeachment Articles Next Week Ukraine Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi alerted lawmakers on Friday that she would move next week to transmit articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate and prompt a historic trial over charges that the president abused his office and obstructed Congress.

In a letter to colleagues Friday morning, the speaker moved to end a weekslong impasse over the impeachment process that had left the president’s fate in limbo. She did not announce the members of the team she will ask to manage the case, but said the House should be ready to vote to appoint them sometime next week.

“I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate,” Ms. Pelosi wrote after lawmakers departed the Capitol for the weekend. “I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further.”

Once the House votes and the articles are transmitted, the Senate’s proceeding, only the third impeachment trial of a sitting president in American history, will begin promptly — as soon as Wednesday based on Ms. Pelosi’s timeline.

“In an impeachment trial, every senator takes an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws,’ Ms. Pelosi wrote. “Every senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the president or the Constitution.”

The Democratic-led House impeached Mr. Trump on Dec. 18 in a largely party-line vote charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with a scheme to pressure Ukraine to publicly investigate his domestic political rivals.

Since then, the speaker has elected not to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate in an unusual attempt to pressure the Republican-led chamber to guarantee it would compel additional witnesses and documents Mr. Trump shielded during the House’s inquiry. A trial with no new evidence, Democrats have argued, would fundamentally abet that president’s cover-up.

But Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said this week that he had secured the votes he needs to begin a trial on his own terms, without any commitment to Democrats to call witnesses or admitting new evidence. Mr. McConnell has repeatedly condemned the House’s case as rushed and woefully inadequate, without addressing the behavior it alleges by Mr. Trump, and has made clear he would like to bring about a speedy acquittal.

For weeks now, Mr. McConnell “has been engaged in tactics of delay in presenting transparency, disregard for the American people’s interest for a fair trial and dismissal of the facts,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in her letter.

In recent days, Ms. Pelosi found herself beating back questions about her strategy amid growing pressure from Republicans and some Democrats eager for the proceeding to move forward. But as recently as Thursday, she told reporters that she would keep her own counsel and refused to share details about when she would act beyond saying it would be “soon.”

She had asked once more for Mr. McConnell to share the precise rules for a Senate trial so she could select her prosecutorial team. He declined, and the speaker decided on Friday to move ahead anyway without a concession.

Despite winning no commitment from Mr. McConnell, Democrats argue that the strategy did have payoffs. During the intervening three weeks between the House vote and Ms. Pelosi’s announcement, relevant new documents that Mr. Trump suppressed have come to light, suggesting that there is additional evidence to support the charges the House brought. And this week, a pivotal witness who declined to cooperate in the House impeachment inquiry, the former national security adviser John R. Bolton, said he would be willing to testify at the trial if senators subpoenaed him.

Still, Ms. Pelosi had come under mounting pressure to move the case along. Republicans spent weeks accusing her of hypocrisy for waiting to prosecute Mr. Trump after months of insisting that he posed an urgent threat to the integrity of the 2020 election that must be addressed with a speedy impeachment vote. Democrats privately worried that argument could gain traction with the general public, undermining months of hard work in the House.

Though presidential impeachment precedent is scant — the House has only charged two past presidents, Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson — Ms. Pelosi’s move was unusual.

The House impeached Mr. Trump after months of investigation and testimony from officials in his own administration who described a scheme to pressure Ukraine to publicly investigate the president’s political rivals. The Democratic inquiry concluded that Mr. Trump withheld about $400 million in vital military aid for Ukraine and a White House meeting with its leader to try to exert leverage over Ukraine’s president to publicize the investigations, effectively asking a foreign power to help his 2020 re-election campaign.

The pressure campaign resulted in a charge of abuse of power. The House also charged Mr. Trump with obstructing Congress, based on his blanket blockade against testimony by administration officials and refusal to turn over documents requested by the House impeachment investigators.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How the Public Feels About Trump’s Iran Strategy

Westlake Legal Group 10pollwatch-sub-facebookJumbo How the Public Feels About Trump’s Iran Strategy United States International Relations United States Defense and Military Forces Trump, Donald J Targeted Killings Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 Polls and Public Opinion Obama, Barack Iran Defense and Military Forces Biden, Joseph R Jr

Welcome to Poll Watch, our weekly look at polling data and survey research on the candidates, voters and issues that will shape the 2020 election.

As a presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump pledged that he would maintain the United States’ leverage abroad by committing to an approach of “unpredictability.”

As president, he has been nothing if not unpredictable.

Never was this more clear than last week, when Mr. Trump ordered the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the powerful Iranian commander and one of that country’s most important figures. The move left even many of the president’s own advisers stunned, escalated tensions between the two countries and seemed to raise the possibility of outright war — though a broader conflict appears to have been averted for the time being.

No major polls on the topic have been conducted since General Suleimani’s killing, but a look at the public opinion data that’s available suggests that Americans are eager to avoid further conflict in the Middle East. And even before the most recent confrontation, Mr. Trump’s appreciation for entropy had done little to reassure them.

A University of Maryland poll in September found that, by a 35-point margin, Americans thought the odds of the United States going to war with Iran had gone up in the three years since Mr. Trump’s election. Americans across party lines did not think a war with Iran would be warranted, according to the poll.

In a Gallup poll last summer, 65 percent of Americans said they were concerned that the United States might be too hasty in using military force to confront Iran. By a gaping 60-point margin, respondents were more likely to say they would prefer the United States take a diplomatic approach to discouraging Iranian nuclearization, rather than a military one.

“The public is and has long said that diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace,” Jocelyn Kiley, an analyst at Pew Research Center, said in an interview. “That really hasn’t fundamentally changed over the past 25 years or so.” In a September Pew survey, close to three quarters of Americans said diplomacy is generally a surer way to guarantee peace than displaying military strength.

While he has expressed support for extricating American troops from the Middle East — vowing to stop endless wars — Mr. Trump has made it clear that he prefers to use military might, rather than cooperation with traditional allies, to gain the upper hand. “By removing Suleimani,” he declared in a speech at the White House on Wednesday, “we have sent a powerful message to terrorists: If you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our people.”

In those remarks, Mr. Trump urged America’s allies to step away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that former President Barack Obama brokered in 2015 to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. Mr. Trump abandoned the agreement in 2018, although it was broadly popular: A CNN poll then found that 63 percent of Americans said the United States should stick with the pact, while just 29 percent wanted to abandon it — results that align with the public’s overall preference for diplomacy.

The president’s own party was the outlier: A slim majority of Republicans wanted to quit the deal — which is closely associated with Mr. Obama’s legacy.

All of the leading Democratic presidential candidates have said they would seek to restore it.

Whatever their feelings on diplomacy, most Americans share a generalized anxiety about Mr. Trump’s approach to steering the country. A Pew poll this summer found that 56 percent of respondents were skeptical about his ability to handle the situation with Iran, and roughly the same amount said they were not confident in his overall ability to use military force wisely.

The public’s aversion to a possible war with Iran cannot be separated from the country’s growing fatigue over the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Roughly three in five respondents to a Pew poll last spring said that the wars in both of those countries had not been worth fighting.

“When it comes to the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, we saw majority support at the outset, and a decline in support over time,” Ms. Kiley said.

The administration has offered nonspecific and conflicting rationales for Mr. Trump’s decision to kill General Suleimani, but in his remarks on Wednesday he linked it to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal, and also accused Iran’s leaders of sponsoring terrorism. He argued that the strike on General Suleimani was warranted in order to protect America from future attacks.

Polls suggest these could be winning arguments.

Pew data collected in 2018 show that a wide majority of Americans — 72 percent — think that protecting the country from terrorism should be a top foreign-policy priority, and about two-thirds said the same thing about preventing the development of major warheads abroad.

And while Americans generally favor diplomacy over force, three in five registered voters nationwide said in a Fox News poll this summer that they would support taking military action if it was needed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

U.S. Added 145,000 Jobs in December; Unemployment at 3.5%

Westlake Legal Group 10jobs1-facebookJumbo U.S. Added 145,000 Jobs in December; Unemployment at 3.5% Wages and Salaries United States Politics and Government United States Economy Unemployment Trump, Donald J Presidential Election of 2020 Labor and Jobs International Trade and World Market Factories and Manufacturing

■ 145,000 jobs were added in December. Analysts had expected a gain of about 160,000.

■ The unemployment rate was 3.5 percent.

■ Average hourly earnings rose by 0.1 percent. The year-over-year gain is now 2.9 percent.

Here’s what you need to know:

Hiring for the final month of 2019 capped a year of steady but slowing gains in employment, the latest evidence that the American labor market has not yet run out of breath.

Sluggish growth and uncertainty abroad, combined with a maturing labor market at home, contributed to slimmer payroll gains last year, said Gregory Daco, the chief United States economist at Oxford Economics.

But cooling job creation is to be expected in the 11th year of an economic expansion, and as the government’s report, released Friday, showed, the slowdown has been gradual.

The Labor Department’s preliminary estimate of December’s performance does not alter last year’s overall employment picture.

“I think 2019 was a year of consolidation,” Mr. Daco said. “We had relatively strong and steady job growth over the year despite a number of headwinds including a trade war with China, weaker global activity and heightened policy uncertainty.”

Such uncertainty — which nudges businesses to be more cautious in hiring and investment — is far from clearing.

There has been progress on the trade front — the United States and China have reached the first phase of an agreement that officials are expected to sign next week. But two-thirds of Chinese imports — worth $360 billion — are still subject to tariffs. And President Trump has said he would impose more tariffs on imports from Europe this month.

More unexpectedly, global markets were briefly rattled in recent days by fears of a broader violent clash between the United States and Iran after the president’s decision to kill a top Iranian general. Iran struck American air bases in Iraq in retaliation this week, but the attack is said to have resulted in no casualties and tensions have eased.

The labor market, by contrast, has provided some calm. Despite the occasional swoop in payroll gains, the official unemployment rate has remained at half-century lows. Americans who had been outside the work force have decided to join in, and average monthly job gains still handily outpace population growth.

“I didn’t see much wrong with the labor market in 2019,” said Rubeela Farooqi, chief United States economist at High Frequency Economics.

Roughly two million jobs were created last year, but that total can mask wide differences based on location, skills and industry.

Many retail jobs have disappeared, for example, while health care, transportation and logistics, and professional and business services have flourished.

Construction, mining and manufacturing, industries that tend to be more affected by the global economy, have also noticeably slumped.

Even so, there are pockets in these goods-producing sectors that are doing well, like those related to electrical vehicles and charging docks, said Julia Pollak, a labor economist for the employment site ZipRecruiter.

“Manufacturing is not dead but its location will shift,” she said, noting new plants do not necessarily replace closed ones.

There has been little sign that this weakness has spread to the much larger service sector.

Ms. Pollak pointed to other patterns: “The highest job growth and wage growth have been in nine states.”

Among the top four, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado, the expansion has been driven by the technology industry. Those states have benefited in part because they have lower housing costs than Silicon Valley, Ms. Pollak said.

Their less congested roads and airspace are also a draw, especially for companies that are building and testing technologies like drones and driverless cars, she added.

Even companies based in California — still a powerhouse of job creation — are locating their customer service and call centers in these nearby states.

On the West Coast, Washington is also notching strong gains, Ms. Pollak said, while in the South, Florida, Alabama and South Carolina have managed to combine job and wage gains.

“Yes, I do plan on hiring,” said Robert Herman, who owns a mobile pet grooming franchise in Charleston, S.C., where the jobless rate was 1.8 percent in November. “We’re doing great.”

Business is good for Robert Herman, owner of Aussie Pet Mobile South Carolina, who intends to hire more people.Credit…Cameron Pollack for The New York Times Nicole DeSanto drying Kobe in an Aussie Pet Mobile van. Ms. DeSanto has worked as a groomer for the company for just over a year.Credit…Cameron Pollack for The New York Times

This year, he said he planned to add a fifth van to his fleet of moving dog and cat salons and hire two more employees. Between commission and tips, he said his workers earned an average of $20 to $25 an hour.

The labor squeeze has helped workers at the lowest end of the pay scale, pushing wage increases above the overall average. Minimum wage increases in 21 states and 26 cities and counties that either went into effect this month or are scheduled for later this year could help to further pull up paychecks at the bottom.

Yet, in 2019, spiritless wage growth has been one of the more disappointing story lines.

“We saw an acceleration of wage growth in 2018, but then it stalled out in 2019,” said Nick Bunker, an economist at the job site Indeed. “Average wage growth was fairly tepid.”

Year-over-year wage gains in 2019 have so far failed to match the 3.4 percent peak reached in February.

The slowdown is puzzling considering that the jobless rate has been below 4 percent for nearly two years. Employers routinely lament their inability to find workers at the wages they are offering. Finding qualified workers was the top complaint for small-business owners in December, according to a monthly survey by the National Federation of Independent Business.

Consumer confidence continues to float at high levels, but businesses have kept wages low because many owners say they fear that higher prices would chase away customers.

The proportion of the population that is working is below pre-recession levels, but the flow of more Americans into the job market may also be damping wages. About three-fourths of new hires were not even looking for work the previous month.

“It’s been slowing over the last several months,” Elise Gould, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research organization in Washington, said of wage growth.

“We haven’t really seen any changes in the labor market that would explain that,” she said. “Lots of businesses are showing profits, but we’re not seeing the kind of capital investments that we’d thought we’d see.”

The Labor Department also reported this week a dip in the number of new people filing for unemployment, a figure that remains at historically low levels. Nonetheless, “over all, the job cuts that we saw in 2019 were fairly high, higher than you would expect,” said Andy Challenger, a vice president at Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm that tracks layoff announcements.

Industrial goods and automobile manufacturers were the hardest hit, in part because of the trade war. “As rosy as the numbers look from a high level, there’s still pain out there, jobs cuts that are happening, industries that are struggling and people losing their jobs,” Mr. Challenger said.

Because the company’s survey tracks layoff announcements — as opposed to jobs that have been eliminated — he said that it was “a bit more forward-looking” than the Labor Department’s figures. Plans can change, he noted, but the results “point to sentiments, if they think they’re going to cut.”

The department’s monthly report is based on two surveys, one of employers and the other of households. Economists there are continually updating their results, and Friday’s report takes account of some very minor adjustments.

Much more substantial revisions are scheduled to be released next month, when the government publishes its annual update of payrolls gains. Preliminary data released over the summer indicated that job growth through last spring was weaker by about 500,000 jobs than initial estimates. That will change some year-to-year comparisons.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pelosi Is Prepared to Send Impeachment Articles to Senate, Just Not Yet

Westlake Legal Group 09dc-impeach1-sub-facebookJumbo Pelosi Is Prepared to Send Impeachment Articles to Senate, Just Not Yet United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Republican Party Pelosi, Nancy McConnell, Mitch impeachment House of Representatives Democratic Party

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi quietly laid the groundwork on Thursday to send impeachment articles against President Trump to the Senate, indicating that the House would “soon” end a weekslong impasse and vote to bring the charges to trial.

Though the speaker offered no specific timetable for her decision, lawmakers and aides said the House could move toward a vote next week before lawmakers decamp for a weeklong recess. They braced for an announcement from Ms. Pelosi about her plans as soon as Friday, as senators made final preparations for what would be the third presidential impeachment trial in American history.

But on Thursday, even as pressure continued from Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, and from some Democrats to quickly send the charges, Ms. Pelosi would not reveal her plans.

“I will send them over when I’m ready,” Ms. Pelosi said at her weekly news conference on Thursday morning, “and that will probably be soon.”

The speaker reiterated a call for Mr. McConnell to detail the rules for a Senate trial so she could choose a team of lawmakers best suited to prosecute the articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“I keep giving you the same answer,” she told reporters who questioned her about when she would act. “As I said right from the start, we need to see that the arena in which we’re sending our managers. Is that too much to ask?”

By Thursday evening, Mr. McConnell effectively said that it was.

“No, we’re not going to do that,” he told reporters as he left the Capitol. Earlier, he warned his members to be prepared to plunge in the coming days into the unknown of a proceeding that could tie up the Senate for weeks.

And in a bid to signal to Ms. Pelosi that her time was running out, Mr. McConnell signed on to a resolution introduced by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, that would alter Senate rules to allow the impeachment charges to be dismissed without a trial if they are not delivered within 25 days of House approval.

The statements from the two leaders suggested that a bitter confrontation between Democrats and Republicans over the shape of the coming trial, while not exactly abating, may soon move off center stage.

The Democratic-led House impeached Mr. Trump in the days before Christmas. But the speaker elected not to immediately send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, in a bid to pressure the Republican-led chamber into allowing additional witnesses and documents Mr. Trump blocked during the House’s three-month inquiry.

Without them, Democrats have argued, the trial will be fundamentally tainted and effectively continue a cover-up they say Mr. Trump has directed from the start.

“Witnesses, facts, truth — that’s what they’re afraid of,” Ms. Pelosi said of Senate Republicans.

Ms. Pelosi’s comments came in the face of a spate of calls to deliver the charges from lawmakers in both parties. Earlier Thursday morning, before Ms. Pelosi spoke to reporters, a senior Democrat from Washington became the first House chairman to publicly urge the speaker to move on, only to backtrack.

“I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial,” Representative Adam Smith, who leads the House Armed Services Committee, said on CNN.

But in a sign of Ms. Pelosi’s firm hold on her caucus, Mr. Smith soon walked backed the comments in a post on Twitter, saying that he “misspoke.” He deferred to Ms. Pelosi if she believed that continuing to withhold the articles would “help force a fair trial in the Senate.”

A handful of Democratic senators who had previously made similar statements likewise amended their remarks on Thursday to defer to the speaker.

Unmoved, Mr. McConnell said this week that he had secured the votes necessary to begin a trial on his own terms, without an agreement on hearing from witnesses or admitting new evidence. Mr. McConnell has said he will work in concert with Mr. Trump’s legal team to bring about a speedy acquittal in the Senate, after a House impeachment proceeding he has condemned as unfair and based on a shoddy case.

In remarks of his own on Thursday, Mr. McConnell compared the speaker’s approach to “junior-varsity political hostage situations.”

“This is what they have done,” he said before Ms. Pelosi spoke. “They have initiated one of the most grave and most unsettling processes in our Constitution and then refused to allow a resolution.”

At the White House, Mr. Trump appeared eager for the proceeding to get underway. He posted to Twitter to accuse Ms. Pelosi of balking because she had no case against him, saying that the articles “show no crimes and are a joke and a scam!”

Speaking at an environmental event a short time later, Mr. Trump said he would leave it to the Senate to determine whether to call witnesses at the trial, but proceeded to offer his own wish list at odds with that of Democrats.

“I’d like to hear the whistle-blower,” Mr. Trump said. “I’d like to hear Shifty Schiff. I’d like to hear Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.”

The targets were familiar ones. The whistle-blower is an anonymous C.I.A. employee whose complaint about Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine prompted the House impeachment inquiry. Representative Adam B. Schiff of California led that inquiry as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and is likely to lead the chamber’s prosecutorial team at trial.

And it was the Bidens who got Mr. Trump into impeachment jeopardy in the first place when he pressed Ukraine’s leader to investigate the former vice president and his son, along with other Democrats. The House’s investigation found that Mr. Trump ultimately used nearly $400 million in security assistance and a White House meeting as leverage to push Ukraine to publicly announce those targets of scrutiny.

Taking her turn in what has become a daily rhetorical fight with Mr. McConnell, Ms. Pelosi accused the Republican leader of trying to cover up the facts of the case in a rush to acquit Mr. Trump.

She rejected his insistence that the Senate would proceed just as it did in 1999, when it tried President Bill Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Then, the speaker noted, all 100 senators agreed to procedures to start the trial. This time, Mr. McConnell is muscling ahead without an agreement with Democrats who want a guarantee that the trial will include witnesses and new evidence.

Democrats have asked to hear from several of Mr. Trump’s top aides whom he succeeded in blocking from House investigators, including the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser.

Still, Ms. Pelosi said on Thursday that her holdout had now merely come down to hearing in detail what Mr. McConnell had planned for the rules. His aides have suggested that the speaker need only look at those adopted by the Senate in the Clinton trial.

“All we want to know is what are the rules,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It doesn’t mean we have to agree to the rules or we have to like the rules. We just want to know what they are.”

Aides said Ms. Pelosi had yet to complete her team of prosecutors, called managers. Mr. Schiff and Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman, will almost certainly lead it. But Ms. Pelosi is also looking to build a racially and geographically diverse team best equipped to move senators.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

What to Expect From the December Jobs Report

Westlake Legal Group 10jobs1-facebookJumbo What to Expect From the December Jobs Report Wages and Salaries United States Politics and Government United States Economy Unemployment Trump, Donald J Presidential Election of 2020 Labor and Jobs International Trade and World Market Factories and Manufacturing

The Labor Department will release hiring and unemployment figures for December at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time. Here’s what to watch for:

  • The unemployment rate is expected to be unchanged at 3.5 percent.

  • Average hourly earnings are predicted to rise by 0.3 percent, after moving up 0.2 percent in November. That would bring the year-over-year increase to 3 percent.

Analysts are paying particularly close attention to Friday’s release, and not just because it will begin to close the books on 2019.

Figures from the previous two months were clouded somewhat by a six-week strike by 49,000 General Motors workers. And although the report won’t alter last year’s overall employment picture, December’s reading will help explain whether November’s unusually exuberant gains were a one-off or the start of a trend.

“The big story of 2019 was the slowdown from 2018” in payroll growth, said Nick Bunker, an economist at the jobs site Indeed. “I just want to see whether we’re going to head into 2020 with a bit more momentum.”

The government reported this week that the number of new people filing for unemployment benefits dipped, a figure that remains at historically low levels. Nonetheless, Andy Challenger, vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm that tracks layoff announcements, said that “overall the job cuts we saw in 2019 were fairly high, higher than you would expect.”

Industrial goods and automobile manufacturers were among the hardest hit.

A weakening manufacturing sector was a persistent concern throughout last year. “Uncertainty around trade has been a serious complication,” Mr. Challenger said. “It’s hard for these manufacturers to make decisions around long-term planning when they don’t know what their cost structure is going to be. And there’s still changes to come.”

There has been progress on the trade front — the United States and China have reached the first phase of an agreement that officials are scheduled to sign next week. But two-thirds of Chinese imports worth $360 billion are still subject to tariffs. And President Trump has said he will impose more tariffs, on imports from Europe, this month.

“It will be interesting to see how manufacturing ended the year,” a sector that is particularly important to President Trump and his voter base, said Rubeela Farooqi, chief United States economist for High Frequency Economics. “Especially in an election year, the trajectory is going to be important.”

The labor squeeze has helped workers at the lowest end of the pay scale, pushing wage increases above the overall average. Nonetheless, spiritless wage growth has been one of the more disappointing story lines of 2019.

“We saw an acceleration of wage growth in 2018, but then it stalled out in 2019,” Mr. Bunker of Indeed said. “Average wage growth was fairly tepid.”

Average year-over-year raises in 2019 have so far failed to match the 3.4 percent peak reached in February.

The slowdown is puzzling considering that the jobless rate has been below 4 percent for nearly two years. Employers routinely lament their inability to find workers at the wages they are offering. Finding qualified workers was the top complaint for small-business owners in December, according to a monthly survey from the National Federation of Independent Business.

Robert Herman owns a mobile pet grooming franchise in Charleston, S.C., where the jobless rate was 1.8 percent in November. This year Mr. Herman said he planned to add a fifth van to his fleet of moving dog and cat salons and hire two more employees. Between commission and tips, he said his workers average $20 to $25 an hour.

The low overall unemployment rate may be overstating the strength of the labor market, said Elise Gould, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, pointing to slow wage growth.

This year, minimum wage increases could help to further pull up paychecks at the bottom. Raises either went into effect this month or are scheduled for later in the year in 21 states and 26 cities and counties.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

What to Expect From the December Jobs Report

Westlake Legal Group 10jobs1-facebookJumbo What to Expect From the December Jobs Report Wages and Salaries United States Politics and Government United States Economy Unemployment Trump, Donald J Presidential Election of 2020 Labor and Jobs International Trade and World Market Factories and Manufacturing

The Labor Department will release hiring and unemployment figures for December at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time. Here’s what to watch for:

  • The unemployment rate is expected to be unchanged at 3.5 percent.

  • Average hourly earnings are predicted to rise by 0.3 percent, after moving up 0.2 percent in November. That would bring the year-over-year increase to 3 percent.

Analysts are paying particularly close attention to Friday’s release, and not just because it will begin to close the books on 2019.

Figures from the previous two months were clouded somewhat by a six-week strike by 49,000 General Motors workers. And although the report won’t alter last year’s overall employment picture, December’s reading will help explain whether November’s unusually exuberant gains were a one-off or the start of a trend.

“The big story of 2019 was the slowdown from 2018” in payroll growth, said Nick Bunker, an economist at the jobs site Indeed. “I just want to see whether we’re going to head into 2020 with a bit more momentum.”

The government reported this week that the number of new people filing for unemployment benefits dipped, a figure that remains at historically low levels. Nonetheless, Andy Challenger, vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm that tracks layoff announcements, said that “overall the job cuts we saw in 2019 were fairly high, higher than you would expect.”

Industrial goods and automobile manufacturers were among the hardest hit.

A weakening manufacturing sector was a persistent concern throughout last year. “Uncertainty around trade has been a serious complication,” Mr. Challenger said. “It’s hard for these manufacturers to make decisions around long-term planning when they don’t know what their cost structure is going to be. And there’s still changes to come.”

There has been progress on the trade front — the United States and China have reached the first phase of an agreement that officials are scheduled to sign next week. But two-thirds of Chinese imports worth $360 billion are still subject to tariffs. And President Trump has said he will impose more tariffs, on imports from Europe, this month.

“It will be interesting to see how manufacturing ended the year,” a sector that is particularly important to President Trump and his voter base, said Rubeela Farooqi, chief United States economist for High Frequency Economics. “Especially in an election year, the trajectory is going to be important.”

The labor squeeze has helped workers at the lowest end of the pay scale, pushing wage increases above the overall average. Nonetheless, spiritless wage growth has been one of the more disappointing story lines of 2019.

“We saw an acceleration of wage growth in 2018, but then it stalled out in 2019,” Mr. Bunker of Indeed said. “Average wage growth was fairly tepid.”

Average year-over-year raises in 2019 have so far failed to match the 3.4 percent peak reached in February.

The slowdown is puzzling considering that the jobless rate has been below 4 percent for nearly two years. Employers routinely lament their inability to find workers at the wages they are offering. Finding qualified workers was the top complaint for small-business owners in December, according to a monthly survey from the National Federation of Independent Business.

Robert Herman owns a mobile pet grooming franchise in Charleston, S.C., where the jobless rate was 1.8 percent in November. This year Mr. Herman said he planned to add a fifth van to his fleet of moving dog and cat salons and hire two more employees. Between commission and tips, he said his workers average $20 to $25 an hour.

The low overall unemployment rate may be overstating the strength of the labor market, said Elise Gould, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, pointing to slow wage growth.

This year, minimum wage increases could help to further pull up paychecks at the bottom. Raises either went into effect this month or are scheduled for later in the year in 21 states and 26 cities and counties.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

House Votes to Restrain Trump’s Iran War Powers

Westlake Legal Group 09powers-promo-sub-facebookJumbo-v3 House Votes to Restrain Trump’s Iran War Powers War Powers Act (1973) War and Emergency Powers (US) Vetoes (US) United States Politics and Government United States Defense and Military Forces Trump, Donald J Slotkin, Elissa Law and Legislation Kaine, Timothy M Constitution (US)

WASHINGTON — A sharply divided House voted on Thursday to force President Trump to come to Congress for authorization before taking further military action against Iran, in a sharp response to his ratcheting up of hostilities with Tehran without the explicit approval of the legislative branch.

The vote was 224 to 194, almost entirely along party lines, to curtail Mr. Trump’s war-making power. It came as Democrats insisted that the president must involve Congress in any escalation against Iran, and Republicans — following Mr. Trump’s lead — accused Democrats of coddling the enemy in questioning the commander in chief at a dangerous moment.

The action was yet another constitutional challenge of the president by the Democratic-led House after its historic vote in December to impeach Mr. Trump, and as the Senate was preparing for a trial on whether to remove him. The debate over the president’s war powers raged a week after he ordered a strike against Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s top security commander, a major provocation taken without informing Congress that has had a cascade of consequences.

Amid the heightened tensions with Iran, Democrats vowed to impose another check on the president, voicing grave concerns that without legislative action, Mr. Trump would careen toward war.

“If our loved ones are going to be sent to fight in any protracted war, the president owes the American public a conversation,” said Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, a former C.I.A. and Pentagon analyst specializing in Shiite militias and the sponsor of the legislation. The measure, she added, “allows us to start that debate as our founders intended.”

In moving forward legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution, lawmakers reignited a bitter dispute that was as much about Mr. Trump’s volatile style of policymaking as it was about how to balance congressional prerogatives against a president’s power to wage war. That the deliberations unfolded during an election year and centered on an impeached president made them all the more extraordinary.

The measure itself was largely symbolic, without the force of law and unlikely to tie Mr. Trump’s hands even if the Senate endorsed it. The Senate could separately move as soon as next week to take up a similar resolution sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia.

But the debate it brought to the House floor was the latest in which lawmakers, citing their obligations as a coequal branch of government, voiced deep skepticism about a potentially devastating military conflict. It echoed the searing disputes over United States involvement in Vietnam and in the run-up to the Iraq war, when Congress — then as now dubious about intelligence cited as grounds for military action — hotly contested the scope of presidential war powers.

Early Thursday, as yet another censure from the House loomed, Mr. Trump lashed out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi, accusing her of “defending a monster” by questioning his decision to authorize the strike that killed General Suleimani. He urged House Republicans on Twitter to vote down “Crazy Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution.”

In a striking display of loyalty, Republicans equated support for the measure with emboldening America’s enemies, and embraced an argument that top administration officials have made privately to lawmakers in recent days, that questioning the president’s authorization to confront Iran militarily is dangerous and unpatriotic.

Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 Republican, singled out Ms. Pelosi for calling the strike a “needless provocation” earlier in the week.

“What is a provocation,” Ms. Cheney said, “is the introduction of this resolution, which sows doubt about America’s resolve and makes war more likely.”

The criticism was similar to one Mr. Trump made earlier in the day at the White House, when he charged that in raising concerns about his actions, Democrats were effectively siding with General Suleimani.

“Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats wanted to defend him,” the president said, although neither the speaker nor any Democrat has done so. “I think that’s a very bad thing for this country.”

His comments came not long after Ms. Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill that General Suleimani was “a terrible person,” even as she insisted the war powers debate was vital.

“It’s not about how bad they are,” she said of the Iranians, “it’s about how good we are, protecting the people in a way that prevents war and does not have us producing, again and again, generations of veterans who are suffering because of it.”

The acrimony on the House floor on Thursday highlighted the deep mistrust between the executive and legislative branches that has only deepened after the spate of military escalations this week.

In recent days, Democratic lawmakers, joined by two Republican senators, have accused the president and his top military officials of dismissing Congress’s role as a coequal branch of government. Lawmakers were furious at the White House’s failure to confer with Congress before the strike, as well as a classified document the administration sent to lawmakers notifying them of the move. Their ire was only raised on Wednesday by a pair of briefings with Mr. Trump’s national security team.

In one of the briefings, Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah said, administration officials, openly contemptuous of lawmakers, were unwilling to engage in a genuine discussion about a possible military escalation in the Middle East. The message the officials sent, Mr. Lee said, was, “Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. If you do, you will be emboldening Iran.”

The resolution passed on Thursday would not constrain Mr. Trump’s constitutional ability to mobilize forces to act in the face of an imminent threat. That language has become particularly fraught in recent weeks, as administration officials have insisted that the president approved the strike that killed General Suleimani to guard against a looming attack. They have also argued that the action was covered under an authorization of military force passed by Congress in 2002 to approve invading Iraq.

Republican argued that Mr. Trump acted well within his authority.

“If we’re going to be serious about keeping this country safe, absolutely there’s a role for Congress to play,” said Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican. “But you’ve got to support the efforts of your commander in chief to carry out his constitutional duty, which he has to keep this country safe.”

But with the administration refusing to detail what exactly that threat was, Democratic lawmakers, as well as Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, and Mr. Lee, have grown increasingly skeptical of the justification behind the strike.

Mr. Trump offered a fresh rationale on Thursday, claiming without offering evidence that the Iranians were “looking to blow up our embassy” in Baghdad.

Normally, legislation enacted by House Democrats that the Trump administration opposes never gets a vote in the Senate because the Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, refuses to bring it up for a vote. But the War Powers Resolution takes away that option by saying that if one chamber passes such a measure, the other must vote on it within 18 days.

Still, the House measure could amount to little more than a statement of principle, without the force of law.

House Democrats opted to use a concurrent resolution — the type that is considered to be enacted once both chambers approve it, and is never presented to the president for his signature — rather than a joint resolution, which Mr. Trump could veto.

“This is a statement of the Congress of the United States, and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that to have legal effect, an action of Congress must be presented to the president for his signature or veto. But Ms. Pelosi insisted on Thursday, without elaborating, that the House measure would have legal teeth.

Only three Republicans — Representatives Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney, both of Florida, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — along with the House’s lone independent, Representative Justin Amash, joined Democrats in supporting the measure. Eight Democrats, the majority of them freshmen from conservative-leaning districts, broke ranks to oppose it.

“Today’s War Powers Resolution is a nonbinding resolution that simply restates existing law and sends the message that war is imminent,” Representative Max Rose, Democrat of New York, said in a statement explaining his opposition. “I refuse to play politics with questions of war and peace.”

Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution in 1973 over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto during the Vietnam War, when Americans were deeply torn over a conflict in which they found themselves deeply entrenched. The law was meant to empower Congress to pass legislation that directs a president to terminate military action unless lawmakers have explicitly voted to authorize it.

Since then, it has been broadly understood that Congress must use joint resolutions to try to terminate a war, essentially meaning that it takes the votes of two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers — the amount needed to override a veto, which is politically far more difficult to achieve.

But lawmakers have historically declined to even try to use the War Powers Resolution to bring a halt to unauthorized military conflicts abroad. As the nation plunged into war in the Middle East during the administration of President George W. Bush, even amid skepticism about the intelligence that launched the United States into the conflicts, Congress approved new, wide-ranging authorizations of military force.

“I fought in a war started by a president with false and trumped up intelligence,” said Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts and a former Marine who served in Iraq. “We cannot let this president do the same.”

In the Republican-controlled Senate, Mr. Kaine’s resolution faces an uphill climb, but the administration briefing delivered to senators Wednesday so enraged Mr. Lee and Mr. Paul that they said they would support it. The resolution would also mandate that Mr. Trump terminate military action against Iran unless Congress voted to authorize it.

The support of the two libertarian-leaning senators, who have long clamored for Congress to rein in presidential war powers, means that Democrats, who control 47 votes, are in striking distance of the majority needed to pass it.

Two other Republicans, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana, said they were considering voting for Mr. Kaine’s resolution. But his version is a joint resolution that Mr. Trump could veto.

Because the measures put forward by Mr. Kaine and the House are different, it is possible that Congress will have to vote on both versions.

Last year, in a rare invocation of the law, the Senate and the House both passed a joint resolution to force Mr. Trump to end support for Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen’s civil war. But Mr. Trump vetoed it, and an override vote in the Senate failed 53 to 45.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

House to Vote to Restrain Trump’s Iran War Powers

Westlake Legal Group 09dc-cong-facebookJumbo House to Vote to Restrain Trump’s Iran War Powers War Powers Act (1973) War and Emergency Powers (US) Vetoes (US) United States Politics and Government United States Defense and Military Forces Trump, Donald J Slotkin, Elissa Law and Legislation Kaine, Timothy M Constitution (US)

WASHINGTON — The House will vote on Thursday to force President Trump to come to Congress for authorization before taking further military action against Iran, reigniting a fierce and longstanding debate over the role of the legislative branch in waging war.

The debate comes as Democrats — joined by two Republican senators — have raised grave questions about Mr. Trump’s rationale and justification for ordering the drone strike last week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani and voiced concerns that the administration is not consulting with them about its strategy for confronting Iran.

Lawmakers were rankled by the White House’s failure to confer with Congress before the strike, and dissatisfied with the classified notification the administration sent to Capitol Hill afterward. And they left their first briefings on the matter on Wednesday, by Mr. Trump’s national security team, irate.

“I believe more than ever the Congress needs to act to protect the constitutional provisions about war and peace,” Representative Gerald E. Connolly, Democrat of Virginia, told reporters. “I believe there was no rationale that could pass a graduate school thesis test.”

The administration briefing so enraged Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, that he said he would support a Senate measure similar to the resolution to be voted on in the House on Thursday. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said he would also support the measure, which would mandate that Mr. Trump wind down military action against Iran within 30 days unless Congress voted to authorize it. Both are libertarian-leaning senators who have long clamored for Congress to rein in presidential war powers.

Still, the House measure — sponsored by Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan and a former C.I.A. and Pentagon analyst specializing in Shia militias — could amount to little more than a statement of principle, without the force of law.

House Democrats opted to use a concurrent resolution — the type that is considered to be enacted once both chambers approve it, and is never presented to the president for his signature — rather than a joint resolution, which Mr. Trump could veto.

“This is a statement of the Congress of the United States, and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not,” Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference on Thursday.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that to have legal effect, an action of Congress must be presented to the president for signature or veto. But Ms. Pelosi insisted on Thursday, without elaborating, that the House measure would have legal teeth.

Most Republicans, who are often reluctant to criticize the president, especially on matters of national security, have stood in lock step with Mr. Trump and his administration, rejecting suggestions that Congress must reassert its war powers in light of the recent hostilities with Iran. They contend that Mr. Trump showed restraint and was well within his authority to respond to an imminent threat.

Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, spurned the resolution on Thursday as toothless.

“This is the type of resolution that we use to invite the Soapbox Derby to the Capitol,” he said.

Mr. Trump took to Twitter before the vote to oppose the measure.

“Hope that all House Republicans will vote against Crazy Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution,” he wrote.

John R. Bolton, the hawkish former White House national security adviser, also weighed in on Twitter, siding with his former boss and calling for the repeal of the War Powers Resolution, the 1973 law that empowers Congress to pass legislation directing a president to terminate military operations unless lawmakers have explicitly voted to authorize them.

The law “is unconstitutional,” Mr. Bolton wrote. “It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Constitution allocated foreign affairs authority between the President and Congress.”

Congress enacted the war powers law over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto. But lawmakers have never succeeded in using it to curb a military operation, in part because it appeared to be severely weakened by the 1983 Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar legislative veto mechanism in an unrelated immigration law.

Since then, it has been broadly understood that Congress must use joint resolutions to try to terminate a war, essentially meaning that it takes the votes of two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers — the amount needed to override a veto, which is politically far more difficult to achieve. Last year, for example, the Senate and the House both passed a joint resolution to force Mr. Trump to end support for Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen’s civil war. But Mr. Trump vetoed it, and an override vote in the Senate failed 53 to 45.

The Senate could move as soon as next week to take up a similar resolution on Iran sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia. That measure faces an uphill climb in the Republican-controlled Senate, but the support of Mr. Lee and Mr. Paul means that Democrats, who control 47 votes, are within striking distance of the majority needed to pass it.

Two other Republicans, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana, said they were considering voting for Mr. Kaine’s resolution. But his version is a joint resolution that Mr. Trump could veto.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com