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 91)

Trump’s Immigration Measures, Far From New, Follow Europe’s Example

President Trump’s approach to migration might seem unusual, but it follows a model pioneered by the European Union and Australia — though they may not have pursued it with Mr. Trump’s bombast.

Like Mr. Trump’s policies, defined by child-filled detention camps and his extraordinary move to ban nearly all asylum claims at the southern border, this model relies on two strategies to keep migrants and refugees from reaching the border at all:

1) Make the journey so daunting that they will not even attempt it.

2) Enlist poorer countries to detain or expel those who do anyway.

That approach, which Europe and Australia have taken to extremes beyond many of Mr. Trump’s policies, was meant to curb record migrant arrivals and the white backlash to them that was upending Western politics. Those arrivals have since declined, and populist revolts cooled.

But the lessons of Europe and Australia’s experience may not be so straightforward.

Strategies to deter or block migrants, research has found, may temporarily reduce arrivals. Over the long term, however, they may simply push migrants to try even more dangerous routes. They may also end up requiring governments to take ever more extreme measures to shut down each new round of arrivals.

“The costs are becoming higher and higher and higher, and there’s no real proof that it works,” said Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, a Danish scholar who is co-author of an authoritative study on deterrence in immigration.

Those costs include concessions to countries tasked with keeping migrants away — Turkey, Sudan and Libya for Europe; a network of island nations for Australia. Mr. Trump is now pushing Mexico and Guatemala to do the same.

They extend beyond money. Europe is subjugating an ever-growing share of its foreign policy and trade agendas to the appeasement of Turkey and Libya’s authoritarian leaders. Australia’s immigration policies increasingly deter even high-skilled workers.

Mr. Gammeltoft-Hansen said he had seen the same pattern play out in Europe for years: The bloc escalates harsh policies to deter migrants. It works for a while. Refugees find new tactics. And then the cycle would repeat.

“Very few states can say that the strategies they’re pursuing are overall effective,” he said, and for one simple reason: “Because you haven’t fixed the underlying problem.”

The European Union has not so much ended the migrant crisis as relocated it. It has diverted hundreds of thousands of people to poorer countries that have proven neither able nor willing to bear that burden indefinitely — creating the conditions for more crises.

Europe dressed up its policies in the language of regional stability and human rights, as has Australia. Now that Mr. Trump is using overt hostility to immigration and appeals to racial resentment to explain the same approach, it may make the costs and trade-offs of those policies more difficult to ignore.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_156685743_761ac238-81cb-4fcc-a9c5-ade34b678f75-articleLarge Trump’s Immigration Measures, Far From New, Follow Europe’s Example United States Trump, Donald J Refugees and Displaced Persons Politics and Government Middle East and Africa Migrant Crisis Latin America Immigration and Emigration Europe Australia Asylum, Right of

Passengers ride across the Suchiate river marking the Guatemala-Mexico border.CreditLuis Antonio Rojas for The New York Times

The immigration strategy increasingly common across Western governments — and the reasons many experts consider it far less effective than it appears on the surface — can be seen in the story of two migrant boats that departed Libya’s coast for Europe earlier this year.

The first boat capsized early in its journey across the Mediterranean, killing all but three of the 120 passengers. Under the central premise of European immigration policy, that should have deterred more migrants from attempting to cross.

European policymakers didn’t set out to capsize boats. Their goal was to make the journey so dangerous — by curtailing search-and-rescue missions, restricting aid groups, even closing their ports to emergency rescue vessels — that migrants would be dissuaded from setting out in the first place.

And yet just one week later, another boat set out from Libya’s coast, its passengers undeterred.

This was not unusual.

A 2016 study found that physical barriers to migration in Europe and the United States had not prevented crossings. Instead, it said, they had produced “an increase in the number of deaths” by pushing migration into “ever more dangerous paths.”

The second boat was intercepted by Libya’s coast guard, as part of a European Union deal granting its government sweeping concessions. The 144 on board, including children and pregnant women, were returned to Libya and locked in warehouses so squalid that they, too — in theory, anyway — should have scared people off from trying the sea crossing.

“No amount of preparation can actually prepare you for standing inside the detention center and seeing the sea of faces huddled in a dark room,” said Sam Turner, the head of mission for Doctors Without Borders in Libya. “It’s really harrowing.”

Detainees told Mr. Turner that the conditions had come as no surprise, and it seems clear they were no deterrent. Fewer than 1 percent of the half-million-plus refugees and migrants in Libya are held in such centers. Among the rest, Mr. Turner has found, the warehouses are seen as a reason to try all the harder to cross.

“We are a bit naïve in this,” Mr. Turner said. “Policies supposed to act as deterrence factors are actually acting as push factors.”

An offshore migrant detention center used by Australia on Los Negros Island, Manus Province, Papua New Guinea.CreditAshley Gilbertson for The New York Times

These arrangements, which come at terrible cost to migrants, allow rich countries to skirt domestic and international laws requiring them to grant certain rights to any refugees who reach their borders. And they allow rich countries to push the human costs of their policies out of sight.

While the Trump administration’s detention centers have provoked major controversies in the United States, the camps created under European and Australian policies have met with far less backlash.

If Mr. Trump’s experience is anything like Europe’s, he may find that persuading Mexico or Guatemala to detain refugees on the United States’ behalf will drastically worsen conditions for refugees, but alleviate much of the backlash from Americans.

Mr. Gammeltoft-Hansen, however, said he had seen many such deals come and go. They rarely survived long. Host countries lost interest as refugee camps overflowed and aid dried up, or lost the ability to uphold their end of the deal when they encountered political crises of their own.

More often, migrant flows just shifted to a new route.

It was a cycle.

The European Union would scramble to cut a new deal. Each would cost European governments more than the last, to overcome skepticism from poor countries that had seen the ever-mounting risks of becoming Europe’s refugee camp. And, each time, the number of people accumulating in intermediary countries would grow.

The buildup meant that even a single dam break in the system could cause a sudden rush in arrivals. The 2015 migrant crisis, for example, was partly the result of a single short-lived break in Libya, one of Europe’s most reliable bulwarks against migrants until its government collapsed.

Since then, pushing the burdens of migration onto poorer countries has grown only more common.

“The biggest thing that I think is changing is the ability of governments to essentially put the responsibility of refugee hosting on the less powerful,” said Stephanie Schwartz, a migration scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s become really brazen.”

Migrants rescued by a German-flagged rescue ship aboard a patrol boat as they are brought into Malta.CreditMatthew Mirabelli/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

As policies to deter migration escalate, each new measure temporarily slows arrivals without changing the fundamental calculus made by anyone considering setting out for a new country.

Mr. Turner, the Doctors Without Borders aid worker, noted that as risky as the journey may be, many refugees already face grave dangers and hardships at home that drive them to flee in the first place. Even the risk of death — a chance of one in 20 for a Mediterranean crossing, some data suggests — is not always enough to overcome the forces that drive someone to seek asylum.

A quirk of European immigration misled many Westerners into believing that deterrence works, Mr. Gammeltoft-Hansen said.

For years, European countries have imposed harsh measures to scare would-be migrants into settling in another European country. These did not reduce overall arrivals to Europe, Mr. Gammeltoft-Hansen said. It merely moved them around.

But it has led Western governments to chip away at the global rights and practices governing modern immigration.

Mr. Trump is unusual only in that he is openly and deliberately driving to upend that system. It is impossible to say for sure whether this could set off a backlash against such policies — or grant more governments license to do the same.

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

At Rally, President Accuses Liberal Critics of Seeking the Nation’s ‘Destruction’

Westlake Legal Group merlin_158087397_635b6c8d-00d8-4744-86c5-ae09f7374052-facebookJumbo At Rally, President Accuses Liberal Critics of Seeking the Nation’s ‘Destruction’ United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J tlaib, rashida Republican Party Pressley, Ayanna Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 Omar, Ilhan Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria Greenville (NC)

GREENVILLE, N.C. — President Trump road-tested his attacks on four Democratic congresswomen on Wednesday, casting them as avatars of anti-American radicalism and reiterating his call for them to leave the country, in a preview of a slash-and-burn re-election strategy that depicts Mr. Trump as a bulwark against a “dangerous, militant hard left.”

“These left-wing ideologues see our nation as a force for evil,” Mr. Trump told a packed arena. To roaring applause, he railed against what he called “hate-filled extremists who are constantly trying to tear our country down.”

“They don’t love our country,” he said. “I think, in some cases, they hate our country. You know what? If they don’t love it, tell them to leave it.”

In recent days, similar comments by Mr. Trump have been met with repugnance across the country. But the capacity crowd in an arena at East Carolina University seemed to savor them. After Mr. Trump reeled off several controversial comments made by one of the four congresswomen, Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, including ones that he depicted as sympathetic to Al Qaeda, the crowd started up a rousing chant of “Send her back! Send her back!”

It was the latest sign that the president’s plan for winning a second term in office involves playing to racial and nationalist themes that shock the consciences of many Americans, but which seem to delight his most ardent supporters.

Mr. Trump doubled down with relish on his previous calls for the congresswomen — Ms. Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts — to “go back” to their countries of origin, even though all but one were born in the United States and all four are citizens. It left no doubt that he was undaunted by furious condemnations of his remarks as racist, including a Tuesday vote by the House.

As his raucous audience booed repeatedly at his mentions of the women, the atmosphere had echoes of a pro-wrestling match at which the crowd thrills in its collective disdain for the villain of the moment.

Wednesday night’s event was billed as a “Keep America Great” rally — a boastful variant of Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

“Big Rally tonight in Greenville, North Carolina,” the president tweeted early Wednesday, saying he would play up economic growth and the booming stock market in a state that has narrowly tilted right in the past two presidential contests.

Many Republicans, including some of Mr. Trump’s advisers, wish he would stick to those themes, saying they think that he is overshadowing an economic success story by engaging in name-calling and divisive cultural clashes. Some feel that his relentless focus on immigration and other nationalist themes before last November’s midterm elections alienated suburban swing voters and helped enable Democrats to win the House.

But while the president did devote time to the nation’s recent economic growth, and took credit for data showing that China’s gross domestic product is growing at its slowest rate in 27 years, he was most animated when attacking his Democratic rivals, particularly Ms. Omar, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Pressley, who are collectively known as “the squad.”

Mr. Trump denounced Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for branding federal migrant detention centers along the southwestern border “concentration camps,” saying she had, in effect, called border agents Nazis. And he recalled the way Ms. Tlaib had used what he called a “vicious” expletive when she vowed in January that Mr. Trump would be impeached.

“That’s not somebody that loves our country,” the president said.

Mr. Trump also ridiculed the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, like mocking the name of Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., and saying that former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had “choked” in the last Democratic primary debate after Senator Kamala Harris of California challenged him on the issue of busing.

Depicting the 2020 Democrats as a hapless and left-wing lot, Mr. Trump delivered what may have been his core pitch: “Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. A vote for any Democrat in 2020 is a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American Dream — frankly, the destruction of our country.”

Mr. Trump also boasted about an afternoon vote in the House on a resolution to impeach him that had been introduced by Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas. The measure, opposed by House Democratic leaders wary of a potential backlash, failed 332 to 95.

“We just received an overwhelming vote against impeachment, and that is the end of it,” Mr. Trump said after his arrival to the rally. “Let the Democrats now go back to work.” The vote did not preclude the possibility of future impeachment action.

Mr. Trump first announced the rally shortly after House Democrats set Wednesday as the date for the former special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to testify about his report on Russian election interference. That was widely seen as an effort by the president to counterprogram that testimony, which has since been delayed.

During his speech on Wednesday, he only briefly mentioned the investigation, denouncing it as “a hoax,” and never mentioned Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Trump carried North Carolina in 2016 with 49.8 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 46.2 percent. The state also voted Republican, for Mitt Romney, in 2012, after Barack Obama won it narrowly in 2008.

In his remarks before leaving Washington, the president responded to a question about Ms. Omar, who has faced scrutiny for filing tax records with her first husband while legally married to her second.

An investigation of public records and state documents by The Minnesota Star Tribune last month could not substantiate a claim circulated online — and which Ms. Omar has denied — that her first husband was her brother, whom she allegedly married for immigration benefits.

Mr. Trump accepted the opportunity to weigh in on the subject.

“There’s a lot of talk about the fact that she was married to her brother,” the president said, stating as fact something that is unproved. “I know nothing about it,” he said, adding that “I’m sure that somebody would be looking at that.”

Ms. Omar, for one, stood firm in the face of the vitriol the president and his supporters had directed at her.

Shortly after Mr. Trump’s rally ended, she retweeted a comment by Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama, saying that the crowd’s chant of “Send her back!” was “one of the most chilling and horrifying things I’ve ever seen in politics.”

Above that statement, she quoted the poet Maya Angelou, writing in part: “You may kill me with your hatefulness, But still, like air, I’ll rise.”

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

At North Carolina Rally, Trump Bets on Divisive Attacks as Way to Bolster Re-election Bid

Westlake Legal Group merlin_158087397_635b6c8d-00d8-4744-86c5-ae09f7374052-facebookJumbo At North Carolina Rally, Trump Bets on Divisive Attacks as Way to Bolster Re-election Bid United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J tlaib, rashida Republican Party Pressley, Ayanna Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 Omar, Ilhan Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria Greenville (NC)

GREENVILLE, N.C. — President Trump road-tested his attacks on four Democratic congresswomen on Wednesday, casting them as avatars of anti-American radicalism and reiterating his call for them to leave the country, in a preview of a slash-and-burn re-election strategy that depicts Mr. Trump as a bulwark against a “dangerous, militant hard left.”

“These left-wing ideologues see our nation as a force for evil,” Mr. Trump told a packed arena here.

To roaring applause, the president lit into what he called “hate-filled extremists who are constantly trying to tear our country down.”

“They don’t love our country,” he said. “I think, in some cases, they hate our country. You know what? If they don’t love it, tell them to leave it.”

In recent days, similar comments by Mr. Trump have been met with repugnance across the country. But the capacity crowd here in an arena at East Carolina University seemed to savor them.

It was the latest sign that the president hopes to win a second term in office by playing to racial and nationalist themes that shock the consciences of many Americans, but seem only to delight his most ardent supporters.

Mr. Trump doubled down with relish on his previous calls for the four congresswomen — Representatives Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts — to “go back” to their countries of origin, even though all but one were born in the United States and all four are citizens. It left no doubt that he was undaunted by furious condemnations of his remarks as racist, including a Tuesday vote by the House.

After Mr. Trump reeled off several controversial comments made by Ms. Omar, including ones that he depicted as sympathetic to Al Qaeda, the crowd started up a rousing chant of “Send her back!”

Wednesday night’s event was billed as a “Keep America Great” rally — a boastful variant of Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

“Big Rally tonight in Greenville, North Carolina,” the president tweeted early Wednesday, saying he would play up economic growth and the booming stock market in a state that has narrowly tilted right in the past two presidential contests.

Many Republicans, including some of Mr. Trump’s advisers, wish he would stick to those themes, saying they think that he is overshadowing an economic success story by engaging in name-calling and divisive cultural clashes.

But while the president did devote time to the recent positive economic growth, and took credit for data showing that China’s gross domestic product is growing at its slowest rate in 27 years, he was most animated when attacking his Democratic rivals, particularly Ms. Omar, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Pressley, who are collectively known as “the squad.”

Mr. Trump denounced Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for branding federal migrant detention centers along the southwestern border “concentration camps,” saying she had, in effect, called border agents Nazis. And he recalled the way Ms. Tlaib had used what he called a “vicious” expletive when she vowed in January that Mr. Trump would be impeached.

“That’s not somebody that loves our country,” the president said.

Mr. Trump also ridiculed the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, like mocking the name of Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., and saying that former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had “choked” in the last Democratic primary debate after Senator Kamala Harris of California challenged him on the issue of busing.

Depicting the 2020 Democrats as a hapless and left-wing lot, Mr. Trump delivered what may have been his core pitch: “Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. A vote for any Democrat in 2020 is a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American Dream — frankly, the destruction of our country.”

Mr. Trump also boasted about an afternoon vote in the House on a resolution to impeach him that had been introduced by Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas. The measure, opposed by House Democratic leaders wary of a potential backlash, failed 332 to 95.

“We just received an overwhelming vote against impeachment, and that is the end of it,” Mr. Trump said after his arrival to the rally. “Let the Democrats now go back to work.” The vote did not preclude the possibility of future impeachment action.

Mr. Trump first announced the rally shortly after House Democrats set Wednesday as the date for the former special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to testify about his report on Russian election interference. That was widely seen as an effort by the president to counterprogram that testimony, which has since been delayed.

During his speech on Wednesday, he only briefly mentioned the investigation, denouncing it as “a hoax,” and never mentioned Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Trump carried North Carolina in 2016 with 49.8 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 46.2 percent. The state also voted Republican, for Mitt Romney, in 2012, after Barack Obama won it narrowly in 2008.

In his remarks before leaving Washington, the president responded to a question about Ms. Omar, who has faced scrutiny for filing tax records with her first husband, her brother, while legally married to her second.

An investigation of public records and state documents by The Minnesota Star Tribune last month could not conclude whether Ms. Omar had married her brother for immigration benefits, a rumor that has run rampant in the conservative blogosphere. Ms. Omar has denied that claim. Mr. Trump accepted the opportunity to weigh in on the subject.

“There’s a lot of talk about the fact that she was married to her brother,” the president said. “I know nothing about it,” he said, adding that “I’m sure that somebody would be looking at that.”

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

House Holds Barr and Ross in Contempt Over Census Dispute

Westlake Legal Group 16dc-contempt-facebookJumbo House Holds Barr and Ross in Contempt Over Census Dispute United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Ross, Wilbur L Jr Redistricting and Reapportionment Mueller, Robert S III House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Citizenship and Naturalization Barr, William P

WASHINGTON — The House voted Wednesday evening to hold Attorney General William P. Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in criminal contempt of Congress for their refusal to turn over key documents related to the Trump administration’s attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

The citations for two cabinet officials, approved 230 to 198, will breathe new life into a dispute that has touched all three branches of government over why Trump administration officials pushed to ask census respondents if they were American citizens and what that question’s effect would be.

Democrats investigating the issue believe that the documents and testimony being shielded would confirm that the administration’s long-stated rationale for collecting the data — to better enforce the Voting Rights Act — was merely a cover for a politically motivated attempt to eliminate noncitizens from population statistics used to allocate political representation, diminishing Democratic power.

The Supreme Court hinted at that theory last month in a ruling about the citizenship question, when it rejected the administration’s stated reason for adding it as “contrived.” And in an unusual twist, President Trump himself all but confirmed those suspicions this month when he said of the citizenship question, “You need it for Congress, for districting.” Last week, he announced his government would give up the effort in light of the court’s decision.

Democrats said Wednesday that their investigation would continue regardless, in an effort to vindicate Congress’s oversight authority and potentially neuter future attempts to discourage participation by noncitizens in the census.

“It is bigger than the census. It is about protecting the integrity of the Congress of the United States of America,” Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the Oversight and Reform Committee chairman, said as he whipped up support on the House floor. “We need to understand how and why the Trump administration tried to add a question based on pretext so that we can consider reforms to ensure that this never happens again.”

The Commerce Department, the Justice Department and the White House all swiftly issued statements condemning the vote as a bad-faith smear that ignored administration officials efforts to cooperate. Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, called the action a “ridiculous and yet another lawless attempt to harass the president and his administration.” She added, “their shameful and cynical politics know no bounds.”

Wednesday’s contempt vote formally authorized the oversight panel to take Mr. Barr and Mr. Ross to federal court to seek judicial enforcement of subpoenas for the material in question. A lawsuit is expected in the coming weeks, and the administration has maintained it is on firm legal footing in its position.

It also leveled a stinging personal rebuke to Mr. Barr and Mr. Ross by formally referring them to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. There is no real risk the department will pursue the case — Mr. Barr is the head of the Justice Department — but only once before has Congress held in contempt a sitting member of a presidential cabinet: Eric H. Holder Jr., President Barack Obama’s first attorney general.

The Justice and Commerce Departments maintain that in this case they have sought to fully cooperate within legal bounds with the oversight committee’s requests. Democrats, they argue, are more interested in a political clash that can attract attention from the news media and embarrass the administration than they are in actual fact-finding and prematurely abandoned the negotiating table.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Ross dispatched a last-minute letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California on Wednesday urging her to call off the vote. The materials the committee had demanded, they said, would require violation of legal privileges and executive privilege.

“The key remaining issue is how the departments and the committee will address the material that is protected by privileges that have been repeatedly affirmed by the courts,” they wrote. “There is no information to hide; there are institutional integrities to preserve.”

Republicans have backed them up at each step, arguing Democrats are abusing oversight powers to contest a reasonable policy goal. But Democrats easily defeated their efforts to kill the contempt citations and replace them with a bill requiring the inclusion of a citizenship question by law.

“Why are they doing this? Why are they doing this? All because they don’t want a simple question on the census,” said Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top ranking Republican on the oversight panel. “This resolution is ridiculous, and we should vote it down.”

It is not unusual for Congresses and White Houses of opposing parties to face off over oversight demands, haggling over documents and witnesses. But there is scant precedent for the volume and intensity of the disputes between this Democratic House and Mr. Trump, whose administration has taken a dim view of Congress’s authority to compel executive branch cooperation.

The House Judiciary Committee, for instance, has been locked in a dispute with the Justice Department and White House over access to evidence underlying Robert S. Mueller III’s report on Russian election interference and access to key government officials who served as witnesses to the former special counsel. It may soon spawn additional contempt votes and court action.

And an effort by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to obtain Mr. Trump’s personal and business tax returns has already been redirected to federal court after the Treasury Department refused to comply with requests and subpoenas.

Wednesday would be the first time the House actually voted to hold a government official in contempt in one of the fights. The Judiciary Committee recommended that the House do so with Mr. Barr in the dispute over Mr. Mueller’s evidence. But the two sides struck a last-minute deal to avoid a formal contempt vote and the House merely voted to authorize court action to enforce the subpoena.

The only other direct precedent for Tuesday’s vote was in 2012, when Republicans then in control of the House held Mr. Holder in contempt in connection with requests for information about the botched Fast and Furious gun trafficking investigation. Republicans ended up suing the Obama administration in the case and ultimately prevailed, but the case took years to wind its way thought the courts and could have gone on longer if the Obama administration had continued to appeal.

The outcome in the census case could take just as long, potentially outlasting Mr. Trump’s term unless the two sides reach an agreement.

The Democrats specifically say the two cabinet secretaries “obstructed and delayed” an oversight committee investigation that began in January. Mr. Ross provided sworn testimony to the committee in March 2018 in which he said he had decided to add the question “solely” based on a December 2017 request from the Justice Department asking for data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But documents revealed in court and evidence collected by the committee in interviews and document requests indicated that the decision may have been more complicated. The possibility of adding a citizenship question, long a dream of Republicans active in redistricting fights, was pitched to the Trump campaign, the evidence showed, and was discussed by White House officials in early 2017. Mr. Ross himself sought to add a citizenship question before the Justice Department request and personally sought its assistance in September 2017.

When Mr. Cummings issued subpoenas for documents related to departmental decision making, neither the Justice Department nor the Commerce Department fully complied, he said, producing records that were heavily blacked out or already public.

The United States used to include a citizenship question on all census forms, but since 1950, it has appeared only on a longer, more detailed questionnaire sent at random to a small number of households and not on the forms that most residents receive.

The debate over the citizenship question is not an academic one. Government experts have estimated that asking respondents their citizenship status would scare many immigrants from responding to the census, which counts all people living in the United States, not just citizens. It could ultimately result in an undercount of about 6.5 million people, they say.

States rely on raw population data, rather than eligible voters, to draw House districts and to determine access to federal social welfare programs. Democrats were fearful that a significant undercount could reduce their representation and affect how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending were distributed.

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

House Votes to Block Arms Sales to Gulf Nations, Setting Up Trump’s Third Veto

Westlake Legal Group 17dc-saudi--facebookJumbo House Votes to Block Arms Sales to Gulf Nations, Setting Up Trump’s Third Veto Yemen War and Emergency Powers (US) Vetoes (US) United States Politics and Government United States International Relations United Arab Emirates Trump, Donald J Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman (1985- ) Law and Legislation Human Rights and Human Rights Violations House of Representatives Arms Trade

WASHINGTON — The House gave final passage on Wednesday to a series of measures that would block the sale of billions of dollars of arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, sending to President Trump a fresh rebuke of his administration’s efforts to circumvent Congress to help Persian Gulf allies prosecute a disastrous war in Yemen.

A scattering of Republicans and the House’s lone independent, Justin Amash of Michigan, joined Democrats in three back-to-back votes, submitting for the record their stewing anger at Mr. Trump’s resolute support of Saudi Arabia and his use of emergency powers to sidestep Congress, this time with a declaration of an emergency over Iran.

“If the administration wants to sell these weapons, they should follow the law — not misuse it — and come to Congress,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel, the New York Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Iran emergency, he continued, was “phony” and devised “to trample on this body’s constitutional duties.”

It is the second time in recent months that Congress has passed bipartisan legislation condemning the administration’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. Lawmakers in both parties have been incensed that the president has done nothing to punish the kingdom for the grisly killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and Virginia-based Washington Post columnist, even after the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing.

In April, lawmakers voted to end American military involvement in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen by invoking the rarely used War Powers Act of 1973, only to see Mr. Trump veto the resolution.

No other foreign policy issue has created as large a rift between the president and Congress, and the vote to block the arms sales deepens the divide. But the outrage on Capitol Hill has limits, particularly in the president’s own party. The measures approved on Wednesday, and already passed by the Senate, are likely to meet the same fate as the resolution to end military support to the war in Yemen: death by veto. Republicans are unlikely to provide enough votes to override what would be Mr. Trump’s third veto of his presidency.

The White House announced the munitions sales in May, invoking an emergency provision in the Arms Export Control Act to allow American companies to sell $8.1 billion worth of munitions in 22 pending transfers. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are waging an air war in Yemen that has come under sharp criticism from Congress and human rights organizations. A State Department official, R. Clarke Cooper, testified before the Senate last week that the munitions had yet to be delivered, nearly 50 days after the emergency had been declared.

Members of Congress from both parties had been holding up arms sales from American companies to Persian Gulf nations and trying to end United States military support for the Saudi-led coalition that is fighting the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which has resulted in what the United Nations calls the world’s worst man-made humanitarian disaster. But by declaring an emergency over Iran, a move that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pushed hard for, the administration was able to blow through lawmakers’ holds and the 30-day review period Congress normally receives to examine a sale.

Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, urged his colleagues to vote down the resolutions even though he had previously described the use of emergency authority “unfortunate” and argued that not all 22 sales necessitated emergency certifications.

“The decision to move forward with these arms sales is part of a larger effort to deter Iran,” Mr. McCaul said. “A key part of that effort is to empower greater burden sharing by enhancing the defense capabilities of our allies. These sales provide more options for deterring Iran that do not all depend on U.S. intervention.”

Lawmakers have never successfully blocked an arms sale, but presidents historically have worked with Congress to make concessions after legislators voice opposition. Administrations have also seldom used the emergency provision in the Arms Export Control Act.

When President Ronald Reagan notified Congress in 1984 of the administration’s intent to sell Saudi Arabia the stinger missile system, citing Iraqi attacks on Iranian oil facilities and Iranian attacks on Kuwaiti and Saudi ships, the legislative opposition was so swift that Mr. Reagan withdrew the sales from consideration. Two years later, when his administration announced its intent to make the sale a second time, Congress moved to block it, spurring a veto.

With the threat of Mr. Trump’s vetoes looming large — and apparently little appetite to override them — some lawmakers have been casting about for an alternative the president might accept.

This month, Senator Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican and Trump loyalist who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, introduced legislation that would seek to reset the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia. It would also punish members of the royal family, denying visas to those in the Saudi government up to the minister level until the administration can certify that the country has made progress on broad human rights issues.

That legislation is expected to be considered by the committee next week. But underscoring how divided lawmakers are on how to respond, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is one of the president’s closest congressional allies, and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the panel, will most likely push to amend the legislation to match their harsher legislation that would place sanctions on the crown prince and suspend arms sales to the country.

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

House Votes to Kill Trump Impeachment Resolution

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday killed an attempt to impeach President Trump for statements that the chamber condemned this week as racist, turning aside an accusation that he had brought “ridicule, disgrace and disrepute” to his office.

But 95 Democrats signaled their support for impeachment, while 137 opposed it — a dramatic split signaling trouble ahead for a divided party.

The 332-95 vote to table the impeachment article drafted by Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas, constituted the first action by the House since Democrats took control in January on a measure to impeach Mr. Trump, a significant move that Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and other party leaders have toiled to avoid. By agreeing to table the article, Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats put off — at least for now — a prolonged and divisive debate over whether Mr. Trump’s conduct warrants his expulsion.

But the measure highlighted the rifts among Democrats about how to deal with Mr. Trump, between progressives who want to challenge him more aggressively and moderates desperate to quash talk of impeachment and stick to a poll-tested agenda that includes improving health coverage and raising wages for working people.

Ms. Pelosi has been caught in the middle as she tries to maintain some semblance of control over the party’s agenda as Mr. Trump dictates the terms of the debate. Those dynamics have already dominated the House’s business this week. For two days, Democrats feuded with the president over nativist posts on Twitter about four freshman Democratic congresswomen of color, culminating in a nasty floor fight on Tuesday that left progressives energized but moderates fretting over wasted precious time.

“You have to give him credit: He’s a great distractor,” Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, said of Mr. Trump on Wednesday. She waved off questions about whether the Democrats’ policy priorities were being eclipsed by the president’s antics, saying, “We’re not having him set our agenda; we’re setting our own agenda.”

Mr. Green’s resolution makes no mention of Robert S. Mueller III’s report or other instances of possible abuses of power by the president that are being studied by the House Judiciary Committee as possible grounds for impeachment. Instead, it contains a single article that refers to the vote on Tuesday to condemn Mr. Trump’s tweets as racist, and concludes: “Donald John Trump has, by his statements, brought the high office of the president of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace, and disrepute, has sown seeds of discord among the people of the United States, has demonstrated that he is unfit to be president, and has betrayed his trust as president of the United States to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, and has committed a high misdemeanor in office.”

Ms. Pelosi said that she had no quarrel with Mr. Green, but that the House was already taking sufficient steps to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his conduct.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_157759251_949fed4e-96c0-4ba4-95ed-d8ebc62b11f4-articleLarge House Votes to Kill Trump Impeachment Resolution United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J impeachment House of Representatives Green, Al Ethics and Official Misconduct

Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas, submitted an article of impeachment against President Trump.CreditAnna Moneymaker/The New York Times

“We have six committees that are working on following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the rest that the president may have engaged in,” she said. “That is the serious path that we are on.”

Even supporters of opening an impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump conceded that Wednesday’s vote would likely have little effect on their own efforts.

“At some point, we have to be more focused on success than noise, and I just think this will feel a lot more like noise,” said Representative Dan Kildee, Democrat of Michigan and an impeachment supporter.

Speaking with reporters on Wednesday morning, Mr. Green acknowledged differences with Democratic leaders but framed his decision to force the impeachment vote as strictly a matter of conscience. After listening to what he called Mr. Trump’s racist attacks on four Democratic congresswomen, he said he felt he could not wait to act.

“I will do this even if I am the only person involved in the process because there are some times on some issues when it is better than to stand alone than not stand at all,” he said.

He added: “We cannot wait. As we wait, we risk having the blood of somebody on our hands, and it could be a member of Congress.”

Mr. Green had advice for moderate Democrats worried about how a vote on any resolution referring to impeachment would affect their re-election prospects.

“If you voted yesterday to condemn the president, you voted yesterday for that resolution. The people who are going to vote against you are already going to vote against you,” he said. “Deciding today that you are not going to impeach will not exonerate you.”

Mr. Green, who first drafted articles of impeachment after Mr. Trump’s comments about the clash between white supremacists and protesters in Charlottesville, Va., has twice before forced similar votes. But in both cases, Republicans controlled the chamber and voted overwhelmingly to table his resolutions.

“It’s time for us to deal with his bigotry,” Mr. Green said on Wednesday. “This president has demonstrated that he’s willing to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and we have seen what can happen to people when bigotry is allowed to have a free rein. We all ought to go on record. We all ought to let the world know where we stand when we have a bigot in the White House.”

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

With Name-Calling and Twitter Battles, House Republican Campaign Arm Copies Trump’s Playbook

Westlake Legal Group 17dc-nrcc-facebookJumbo With Name-Calling and Twitter Battles, House Republican Campaign Arm Copies Trump’s Playbook Trump, Donald J Republican Party National Republican Congressional Committee Names, Personal Elections, House of Representatives

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is portrayed as wearing clown makeup. Democratic congressional candidates — including an Air Force combat veteran — are labeled “socialist losers” or anti-Semites. Others have been singled out as Lyin’ Lucy McBath, Fake Nurse Lauren Underwood, Little Max Rose and China Dan McCready.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, with the blessing of House Republican leaders, has adopted a no-holds-barred strategy to win back the House majority next year, borrowing heavily from President Trump’s playbook in deploying such taunts and name-calling. After losing 40 seats and the House majority in November, Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the committee’s new chairman, and Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, decided that their messaging needed to be “ruthless.”

The offensive hinges largely on the relatively facile notion that by tagging all House Democrats as socialists, anti-Semites or far-left extremists, they will be able to alienate swing-state voters. On Tuesday night, after the House voted to condemn as racist President Trump’s attacks on four congresswoman, the campaign arm’s communications team deluged reporters’ inboxes with message after message calling vulnerable Democratic lawmakers “deranged.”

Their tactics have discomforted some Republicans and highlighted the struggle in the party over how much to lean into the tenor of politics forged by their leader.

“To devolve into childish name-calling usually doesn’t win the argument. I think we can do better,” said Tom Rooney, a former five-term Republican representative from Florida. “Maybe this is what the donors to the N.R.C.C. want to hear nowadays. Maybe name-calling raises money, and that’s what we’ve become.”

For the communications arm of the committee, that has translated into circulating photographs depicting Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, as a clown and barraging reporters with statements reminding them of the nicknames with which they refer to Democratic lawmakers and candidates. Some are just referred to as “socialist losers”; others have been given their own bespoke tags.

Ms. Underwood, Democrat of Illinois, is “Fake Nurse Lauren.” (Ms. Underwood, who earned a bachelor’s degree in nursing from the University of Michigan and worked as a research nurse, never worked specifically with patients.) Representative Collin C. Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota, is “Cranky Collin.”

Ms. McBath, who represents Georgia’s Sixth District, has become a particular target for the committee. During the campaign, she said she briefly moved to Tennessee to help her husband work through family issues, then switched her residency back to Georgia. Claiming that she is not a resident of Georgia, the committee sent a gift basket to the Tennessee home of her husband. Fox News, obtaining a copy of the signature, wrote an article featuring a comment from the House Republican campaign arm that reiterated that Ms. McBath is a resident of Tennessee. But a close look at the signature showed that her mother-in-law — “M McBath” — signed for the package — a fact mocked by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Committee officials show no sign of tempering their attacks.

“We make no apologies for aggressively calling out the anti-Semitic racists in the socialist Democratic Party totally consumed by their hatred of President Trump and America,” Chris Pack, the communications director of the campaign arm, said in a statement.

Mr. McCarthy, too, stood firm behind the strategy. He praised Mr. Emmer’s “strong tactical sense and impressive work ethic” in a statement.

“As a conference, we are united behind his vision to campaign on offense — and expand the map by outworking, out-recruiting and exposing the corrupt, inept new Democrat Socialist Party,” Mr. McCarthy said.

Republican campaign operatives backing the strategy argued that aggressive tactics were necessary to rouse the interests of sleepy and shrunken local press corps. Adopting the mantra that “all news is good news,” the committee appears to believe that even if reporters choose instead to write about its bare-knuckled tactics, they are at least reiterating the nicknames and points that House Republicans hope will reach voters.

“If that’s what it takes to get a story,” said Mike Shields, who joined the National Republican Congressional Committee as director of its independent expenditure program in 2009 and helped Republicans win a 63-seat gain. “There needs to be a shift in mind-set to be in the majority. It’s better than getting no coverage at all.”

But the unrestrained use of nicknames also has provoked public outcry. After the committee issued a statement in early June mocking the stature of Mr. Rose, a moderate Democrat from New York, who stands at 5 feet 6 inches, even some Republicans came to his defense.

“Instead of working on bipartisan issues, Little Max Rose is content passing socialist bills” for “giggles,” Michael McAdams, a spokesman for the committee, wrote in an official release that used an epithet before giggles. “Playtime is over, Max.”

Members already displeased with what they felt were needlessly aggressive personal attacks felt the committee had crossed a line by taunting a veteran: Mr. Rose served in the Army for almost five years and was wounded in Afghanistan, earning a Purple Heart. Representative Mike Gallagher, Republican of Wisconsin, called it a “stupid tactic and a counterproductive tag.”

“I hope the lesson the N.R.C.C. draws from that is to not do it again,” Mr. Gallagher said.

Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois and another veteran, told Politico: “The president’s got his own unique style. I don’t think we need to mimic it.”

When Mr. Rooney saw the statement on Twitter, reposted by a Fox News reporter, he publicly expressed his disappointment with Mr. Emmer, calling out the committee chairman and commenting, “This isn’t you.” Mr. Pack, the chief spokesman for the committee, chimed in, “No, that’s Max Rose.”

Mr. Rooney shot back: “That’s not what I’m referring to. Maybe there’s a better conservative argument to counter his support of this legislation than calling him ‘little.’ At least that would be my advice to my 13-year-old.”

The exchange is only one of the Twitter scrapes that has spilled into public view. While committee messaging is, by nature, meant to attract the attention of the news media — especially among local outlets in battleground districts — party insiders have worried they have not attracted the right kind of attention.

When Jill Burcum, an editorial writer for The Minneapolis Star Tribune and a Pulitzer Prize finalist, took issue with the committee’s depiction of Mr. Schiff as a clown, Mr. Pack responded on Twitter. Using the same motley photo, he reiterated that Mr. Schiff was a “socialist clown” and added, “Don’t let your apparent bias blind you from that fact.”

When the committee called a little-known Air Force combat veteran who is running for Ohio’s First Congressional District a “socialist loser,” it struck a nerve: A columnist for The Cincinnati Enquirer panned the attack on the veteran, Nikki Foster, who flew missions over Iraq and Afghanistan, as “G.O.P. desperation.”

“In doing so, the congressional Republicans’ fund-raising arm brought attention to a candidate no one knew about. Why even go there?” the columnist, Jason Williams, wrote.

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

The Republicans Who Voted to Condemn Trump’s Remarks (and Other Things to Know)

Westlake Legal Group 16DC-VOTETAKEAWAYS-facebookJumbo The Republicans Who Voted to Condemn Trump’s Remarks (and Other Things to Know) United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Republican Party House of Representatives discrimination

WASHINGTON — The House, in a stunning rebuke of a sitting president, voted on Tuesday to “strongly condemn” President Trump’s suggestion that four freshman Democratic women of color “go home” — a Twitter broadside described in a Democratic resolution as “racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans.”

The extraordinary vote came after an afternoon of vitriolic debate that erupted into a floor fight over remarks by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which were “taken down” — ruled out of order by her No. 2 Democrat, Representative Steny H. Hoyer.

Here are six takeaways:

Only four Republicans — Representatives Will Hurd of Texas, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Fred Upton of Michigan, Susan W. Brooks of Indiana — broke with their party to vote against Mr. Trump. They were joined by Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a Trump critic who recently abandoned the Republican Party to become an independent. Each had his or her reasons.

Mr. Hurd, a former C.I.A. agent and the only black Republican in the House, barely hung onto his seat. Mr. Fitzpatrick squeaked past his Democratic opponent last year and often votes with Democrats. (He has also signed a congressional pledge to civility.) Mr. Upton, a centrist and House veteran who also advocates civility, is retiring, and thus not beholden to Mr. Trump.

“If we’re going to bring civility back to the center of our politics, we must speak out against inflammatory rhetoric from anyone in any party anytime it happens,” Mr. Upton wrote Tuesday on Twitter.

Ms. Brooks is retiring, too. She is one of the few Republicans to criticize Mr. Trump’s “go home” remarks, which she said were “inappropriate and do not reflect American values.”

Mr. Amash, though, is in a class by himself. He was the only Republican to say Mr. Trump’s conduct reached the threshold of impeachment — until, that is, he left the party. Now he is the lone independent in the House.

Official rebukes of the president by Congress are exceedingly rare — and difficult to track because the language of House and Senate resolutions varies.

Beyond the two presidents who were impeached — Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, neither of whom was removed from office — there have been only four congressional votes to approve resolutions aimed at censuring or condemning a president, according to a 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service. The most recent involved President William Howard Taft, who was accused in 1912 of trying to influence a disputed Senate election. But the resolution that stated he “ought to be severely condemned” was eventually watered down, and that phrase was struck from the final version. Three years earlier, in 1909, the House voted to reprimand President Theodore Roosevelt, who had aroused lawmakers’ ire with remarks in his annual message to Congress.

The decision to take down Ms. Pelosi’s words was historic, as well. However, a vote to strike her comments from the record failed along party lines. The last speaker who had his words taken down is believed to be Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democrat from Massachusetts. (A 1990 analysis of such episodes by the Congressional Research Service does not appear to have been updated.) That happened in 1984, when Representative Newt Gingrich, the firebrand Georgia Republican (and future speaker), baited Mr. O’Neill into attacking him.

Before the fracas over Mr. Trump’s tweets, the four Democratic congresswomen — Representatives Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts — were on the outs with Ms. Pelosi. (It should be noted that three of the four, who are known collectively as the Squad, were born in this country.)

After they crossed Ms. Pelosi by voting against a border aid package, she put the Squad in its place, telling the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that despite “their public whatever and their Twitter world,” they “didn’t have any following” where it mattered: on the House floor. “They’re four people,” Ms. Pelosi said, “and that’s how many votes they got.”

That created a predictable furor, prompting a spate of “Democrats in disarray” coverage about liberals who defended the women, and centrists defending Ms. Pelosi. But Mr. Trump’s Twitter attacks have united Democrats against a common enemy: the president.

Tuesday’s debate gave liberal Democrats, who are itching to move ahead with impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump, an opportunity to blow off some steam. Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who oversees the House Progressive Caucus and was born in India, was particularly animated. “Yes, I am a proud naturalized citizen born in India, a proud patriot,” she thundered on the House floor. “It’s not the first time I’ve heard, ‘go back to your country,’ but it’s the first time I heard it from the White House!”

But the condemnation resolution is unlikely to serve as a substitute for impeachment. As soon as the vote was over, the Democrats’ leading advocate of impeachment — Representative Al Green of Texas — took to the House floor to call, once again, for Mr. Trump to be impeached.

One reason Ms. Pelosi does not want to push ahead with impeachment proceedings is that doing so could jeopardize the so-called majority makers — centrist Democrats who are running for re-election in districts carried by Mr. Trump in 2016. While Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the condemnation resolution, it will be worth watching how the vote goes over in these Democrats’ home districts.

Even before Tuesday’s vote, the House Republicans’ campaign arm was preparing news releases calling those centrist Democrats “deranged,” which they later blasted into reporter’s email inboxes.

For all of the hellfire and brimstone surrounding it, the resolution itself is symbolic. Then again, in politics, symbolism matters. When the history of the 116th Congress is written, Democrats will be recorded as having condemned a United States president for the first time in more than 100 years.

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

Here Are the Republicans Who Voted to Condemn as Racist Trump’s Remarks (and Other Things to Know)

Westlake Legal Group 16DC-VOTETAKEAWAYS-facebookJumbo Here Are the Republicans Who Voted to Condemn as Racist Trump’s Remarks (and Other Things to Know) United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Republican Party House of Representatives discrimination

WASHINGTON — The House, in a stunning rebuke of a sitting president, voted on Tuesday to “strongly condemn” President Trump’s suggestion that four freshman Democratic women of color “go home” — a Twitter broadside described in a Democratic resolution as “racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans.”

The extraordinary vote came after an afternoon of vitriolic debate that erupted into a floor fight over remarks by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which were “taken down” — ruled out of order by her No. 2 Democrat, Representative Steny H. Hoyer.

Here are six takeaways:

Only four Republicans — Representatives Will Hurd of Texas, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Fred Upton of Michigan, Susan W. Brooks of Indiana — broke with their party to vote against Mr. Trump. They were joined by Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a Trump critic who recently abandoned the Republican Party to become an independent. Each had his or her reasons.

Mr. Hurd, a former C.I.A. agent and the only black Republican in the House, barely hung onto his seat. Mr. Fitzpatrick squeaked past his Democratic opponent last year and often votes with Democrats. (He has also signed a congressional pledge to civility.) Mr. Upton, a centrist and House veteran who also advocates civility, is retiring, and thus not beholden to Mr. Trump.

“If we’re going to bring civility back to the center of our politics, we must speak out against inflammatory rhetoric from anyone in any party anytime it happens,” Mr. Upton wrote Tuesday on Twitter.

Ms. Brooks is retiring, too. She is one of the few Republicans to criticize Mr. Trump’s “go home” remarks, which she said were “inappropriate and do not reflect American values.”

Mr. Amash, though, is in a class by himself. He was the only Republican to say Mr. Trump’s conduct reached the threshold of impeachment — until, that is, he left the party. Now he is the lone independent in the House.

Official rebukes of the president by Congress are exceedingly rare — and difficult to track because the language of House and Senate resolutions varies.

Beyond the two presidents who were impeached — Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, neither of whom was removed from office — there have been only four congressional votes to approve resolutions aimed at censuring or condemning a president, according to a 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service. The most recent involved President William Howard Taft, who was accused in 1912 of trying to influence a disputed Senate election. But the resolution that stated he “ought to be severely condemned” was eventually watered down, and that phrase was struck from the final version. Three years earlier, in 1909, the House voted to reprimand President Theodore Roosevelt, who had aroused lawmakers’ ire with remarks in his annual message to Congress.

The decision to take down Ms. Pelosi’s words was historic, as well. However, a vote to strike her comments from the record failed along party lines. The last speaker who had his words taken down is believed to be Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democrat from Massachusetts. (A 1990 analysis of such episodes by the Congressional Research Service does not appear to have been updated.) That happened in 1984, when Representative Newt Gingrich, the firebrand Georgia Republican (and future speaker), baited Mr. O’Neill into attacking him.

Before the fracas over Mr. Trump’s tweets, the four Democratic congresswomen — Representatives Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts — were on the outs with Ms. Pelosi. (It should be noted that three of the four, who are known collectively as the Squad, were born in this country.)

After they crossed Ms. Pelosi by voting against a border aid package, she put the Squad in its place, telling the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that despite “their public whatever and their Twitter world,” they “didn’t have any following” where it mattered: on the House floor. “They’re four people,” Ms. Pelosi said, “and that’s how many votes they got.”

That created a predictable furor, prompting a spate of “Democrats in disarray” coverage about liberals who defended the women, and centrists defending Ms. Pelosi. But Mr. Trump’s Twitter attacks have united Democrats against a common enemy: the president.

Tuesday’s debate gave liberal Democrats, who are itching to move ahead with impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump, an opportunity to blow off some steam. Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who oversees the House Progressive Caucus and was born in India, was particularly animated. “Yes, I am a proud naturalized citizen born in India, a proud patriot,” she thundered on the House floor. “It’s not the first time I’ve heard, ‘go back to your country,’ but it’s the first time I heard it from the White House!”

But the condemnation resolution is unlikely to serve as a substitute for impeachment. As soon as the vote was over, the Democrats’ leading advocate of impeachment — Representative Al Green of Texas — took to the House floor to call, once again, for Mr. Trump to be impeached.

One reason Ms. Pelosi does not want to push ahead with impeachment proceedings is that doing so could jeopardize the so-called majority makers — centrist Democrats who are running for re-election in districts carried by Mr. Trump in 2016. While Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the condemnation resolution, it will be worth watching how the vote goes over in these Democrats’ home districts.

Even before Tuesday’s vote, the House Republicans’ campaign arm was preparing news releases calling those centrist Democrats “deranged,” which they later blasted into reporter’s email inboxes.

For all of the hellfire and brimstone surrounding it, the resolution itself is symbolic. Then again, in politics, symbolism matters. When the history of the 116th Congress is written, Democrats will be recorded as having condemned a United States president for the first time in more than 100 years.

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

Trump Sets the 2020 Tone: Like 2016, Only This Time ‘the Squad’ Is Here

WASHINGTON — With three days of attacks on four liberal, minority freshman congresswomen, President Trump and the Republicans have sent the clearest signal yet that their approach to 2020 will be a racially divisive reprise of the strategy that helped Mr. Trump narrowly capture the White House in 2016.

It is the kind of fight that the president relishes. He has told aides, in fact, that he is pleased with the Democratic reaction to his attacks, boasting that he is “marrying” the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party to the four congresswomen known as “the Squad.”

His efforts to stoke similar cultural and racial resentments during the 2018 midterm elections with fears of marauding immigrant caravans backfired as his party lost control of the House. But he is undeterred heading into his re-election campaign, betting that he can cast the entire Democratic Party as radical and un-American.

“He’s framing the election as a clash of civilizations,” said Charlie Sykes, a conservative writer who is critical of Mr. Trump. The argument Mr. Trump is making is both strategic and cynical, he said. “They’re coming for you. They hate you. They despise America. They are not you.”

“And if you look at the Electoral College map,” Mr. Sykes added, “the places that will play are the places Donald Trump will need to win the election.”

While the Democrats were voting Tuesday to condemn the president’s attacks against the four women as racist, Trump campaign officials, by contrast, were trying to cast Monday as a landmark day for the Democratic Party — the day that the progressive “Squad” became the de facto leaders of their party.

The four freshman, female members of Congress — Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — hold no formal leadership positions in their party, and none have been on the national political stage for much longer than a year. Yet Republicans, led by Mr. Trump and buttressed by his allies in the conservative media, have spent months seizing on and distorting their more inflammatory statements.

Aides to Mr. Trump’s campaign conceded that the president’s tweets about the four women on Sunday were not helpful, were difficult to defend and caught them off guard. They would have preferred he had not tweeted that the four women, all racial and ethnic minorities, should “go back” to their own countries.

But they said that his instincts were what guided his campaign in 2016, when his attacks on immigrants resonated with alienated white voters in key states. They believe there is political value in having “the Squad” as the new face of their political opponents when Mr. Trump is tracing a path to re-election that runs through Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, where the four women are unpopular.

Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign manager, has been telling people that it is very hard to persuade voters in the current hyperpartisan political landscape.

Mr. Trump’s re-election strategy, instead, is to solidify his base and increase turnout. A major component of that is to portray his opponents as not merely disliking him and his policies, but also disliking America itself.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_158003625_3029d1dd-70d2-4f4f-b4ed-58bbf91dd188-articleLarge Trump Sets the 2020 Tone: Like 2016, Only This Time ‘the Squad’ Is Here United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J tlaib, rashida Race and Ethnicity Pressley, Ayanna Presidential Election of 2020 Omar, Ilhan Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria Minorities

During a news conference on Monday, Representatives Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounced Mr. Trump’s comments.CreditAnna Moneymaker/The New York Times

The strategy is reminiscent of how President Richard M. Nixon and the Republican Party tried to frame their fight with Democrats during the 1972 elections around questions of patriotism and loyalty. Nixon supporters took to using the slogan “America: Love It or Leave It” to cast the Democrats and the growing opposition to the Vietnam War as anti-American — not merely anti-Nixon or anti-Republican.

Pat Buchanan, the populist, conservative former presidential candidate who served as an aide to Nixon, said that by elevating the four, Mr. Trump is trying to set the terms of his re-election fight.

“Rather than let Democrats in the primaries choose his adversary, Trump is seeking to make the selection himself,” Mr. Buchanan said. And if the election is seen as a choice between Democrats like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Ms. Omar, Mr. Buchanan added, “Trump wins.”

Mr. Buchanan said he envisioned a scenario in which the battle for the Democratic nomination becomes, in part, a referendum on these four women. “The Democratic candidates will be forced to choose in the coming debates as to whether to back the four,” he said, “or put distance between themselves and the four.”

Only four Republicans and one independent broke and voted with the Democrats to condemn the president’s language in the House vote Tuesday, a stark reminder of just how far the party has come from the period when its leaders believed their political future depended on being a big tent, welcoming to Latino and African-American voters.

Instead, a range of party leaders were pushing messages of patriotism. Some attempted to sidestep the racial implications, while others seemed less concerned about the potential blowback.

“Forget these four,” said Kellyanne Conway, the counselor to the president, in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday. “They represent a dark underbelly of people in this country,” she added. “We are sick and tired of people denigrating that American flag, the American military, veterans and America.”

Others were jumping on the bandwagon, but seeking to reframe and soften the message. Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the third-ranking House Republican, effectively offered Mr. Trump a tutorial in how to go on the offensive without inviting a backlash.

“Our opposition to our socialist colleagues has absolutely nothing to do with their gender, with their religion or with their race,” Ms. Cheney told reporters Tuesday. “It has to do with the content of their policies.”

The election is still more than 15 months away, and eventually the Democrats will have a standard-bearer to define the party in opposition to Mr. Trump. Still, some Democrats worry that criticism of the four congresswomen will resonate with a segment of their voters and independents, who may prove just as uneasy with the policies, and some of the rhetoric, of “the Squad” as they are with Mr. Trump’s own bombast.

The Democrats who fared the best in the midterms were those who played down Mr. Trump while highlighting issues like protecting the health insurance of people with pre-existing conditions. And many of the strategists who are rallying behind former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. believe the party can’t count on increasing turnout among young people and minorities, and needs to lure back voters it lost to Mr. Trump.

In research published in a journal in February, Carlos Algara and Isaac Hale found that among white voters, high levels of racial resentment — measured by asking people whether they agree with statements such as “I am angry that racism exists” — were a better indicator of how someone would vote than party affiliation or ideological beliefs.

Trump campaign officials have expressed confidence in the state of the race. Mr. Trump’s favorability rating is about 46 percent.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

They found that there was still a sizable number of white Democrats who harbor relatively high levels of racial resentment, and that is helping Republicans across the board.

Mr. Algara, a political scientist at the University of California, Davis, said that a forthcoming analysis of the 2018 midterm elections found that even without Mr. Trump on the ballot, white Democrats with high levels of racial resentment were likely to vote for Republican candidates.

“The president and the Republican National Committee know that if you prime racial resentment attitudes among Democrats, you’re more likely to win their votes,” he said. “It’s a very effective strategy.”

But many Democrats believe that Mr. Trump has repelled so many voters who gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016 that he is only digging himself into a deeper hole. “He’s risking everything on a strategy of recreating his exact 2016 coalition, but things have changed,” said Nick Gourevitch, a pollster with the Global Strategy Group, a Democratic firm.

There are Trump supporters who agree that the president’s rhetoric could backfire, and wish he hadn’t gone down this road.

“I think a more successful strategy would be to focus on the growth in the economy and policies and go after moderates and independents,” Anthony Scaramucci, who briefly served as White House communications director, said on CNN on Tuesday.

He added that he found the comments reprehensible and was surprised that more Republicans were not speaking out. He said he found that “astonishing.”

And some Republicans believe that the president is squandering an opportunity to capitalize on what had been a smoldering fight between Ms. Pelosi and the first-term lawmakers and was simply uniting the party.

“It got in the way of a nice little meltdown the Democrats were enjoying and totally unified them,” said David Kochel, an Iowa-based Republican strategist. “I’m just concerned that he took the focus off a really interesting food fight between Pelosi and the Squad.”

On Michael Savage’s radio program on Monday, a caller named Susan dialed in to defend the president’s actions. “He’s said worse things than that, and he’s not a racist,” she said.

Mr. Savage, who was one of the earliest hosts in conservative radio to endorse Mr. Trump but has been more skeptical of late, questioned his caller’s blind faith and also expressed concern that the entire episode was unifying the Democrats.

“I’m starting to get very worried about the true believers out there,” Mr. Savage said, adding that he thought the president needed to stop being so impulsive.

“I think he needs to stop tweeting at 3 in the morning when he’s having a low-blood-sugar attack. He has set our entire cause back.”

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