H4a news Clips [May 1, 2015] Summary of Today’s news


Iran bill a mess after Cotton, Rubio try to force votes [Burgess Everett, POLITICO, April 30, 2015]



Download 0.59 Mb.
Page9/11
Date19.10.2016
Size0.59 Mb.
#3936
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11
Iran bill a mess after Cotton, Rubio try to force votes [Burgess Everett, POLITICO, April 30, 2015]
Sens. Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio used a hardball procedural tactic on Thursday to force contentious votes on a bill allowing congressional review of a nuclear deal with Iran, a move that jeopardizes the measure’s future.
Sens. Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio used a hardball procedural tactic on Thursday to force contentious votes on a bill allowing congressional review of a nuclear deal with Iran, a move that jeopardizes the measure’s future.
After being blocked by Democrats for several days, Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rubio (R-Fla.) used a parliamentary procedure to try to compel votes on amendments that would make Iran relinquish its nuclear facilities before getting economic sanctions relief and require that Iran recognize Israel’s statehood as a condition of any nuclear deal.
The move blindsided Democrats who had been working with Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) to pass the bipartisan bill. Afterwards, Corker offered a grim assessment of the amendment process. Still, the bill is likely to pass eventually, albeit with few alterations requested by the GOP.
“We have been working very constructively with the other side of the aisle to bring up both very controversial amendments and amendments that will make the bill much stronger,” Corker told reporters. “With the actions that just occurred on the floor that may have changed the dynamic significantly.”
Senators in both parties said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would likely have to move to cut off debate on the bill after Democrats sent clear intentions to GOP leadership that they would no longer play nice on voting on GOP amendments.
“My sense is, today, that Mitch will move toward filing cloture (to end debate) on Monday,” Corker said in an interview later.
“I think the best road ahead is to file cloture,” said former Foreign Relations ranking member Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who wrote much of the bill with Corker. “For the Republican leadership, the question is: ‘Do you want a bill or not?’”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who frequently used procedural tactics to shut down uncertain amendment processes when he was in power and infuriated Republicans by doing so, said McConnell “hasn’t asked me for any advice and I’m not giving any.” He refused to say if Thursday’s events validated his approach as majority leader.
Cotton and Rubio’s maneuver, made under the guidance of top conservative policy aides, blew up a tentative agreement to vote on several other amendments on Thursday, likely including one from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that would require Congress affirmatively vote for any nuclear deal with Iran. But that series was unlikely to include Cotton and Rubio’s proposals and a frustrated Cotton instead forced the chamber to consider their proposals.
“We have been consistently blocked from bringing up these amendments for a vote. It’s fine if you want to vote no,” Cotton said as Cardin and Corker looked on. “But we need to vote. We need to vote now.”
A frustrated Cardin, unable to block the maneuver, said the strategy from the conservative duo is going to “make it much more difficult for us to be able to proceed.” Corker moved to defend Cardin as well from the charges that senators were trying to avoid tough votes.
“My friend from Maryland was willing to have more poison pill votes,” Corker said. “But I sense that the context of this may have just changed.”
Cotton responded: “I would say these are not poison pills. These are vitamin pills.”
After the row, the Senate moved off the Iran bill and onto a veto override of a disapproval resolution for the president’s labor policies, giving McConnell and bill supporters some breathing room to try and get the measure back on track. Sources in both parties offered varying assessments, with some doubting there would be any more amendment votes and others predicting the snag is only temporary.
McConnell told senators at a party lunch that there won’t be any more votes until Monday, according to an attendee.
McConnell and his deputies have taken a hands-off approach and delegated much of the floor management to Corker and Cardin, but a number of GOP lawmakers, including presidential contenders like Rubio, have battled for votes on provisions that could unravel the coalition backing the bill if they were adopted.
Even though sources said Cruz was in line to get a vote on his proposal until Cotton and Rubio made their move on the floor, the Texas Republican blamed Democrats for the fiasco.
“Democrats are blocking amendments because the Democrats don’t want to vote on a requirement that Iran recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and they’re also blocking my amendment,” Cruz told reporters. “It is unfortunate to see Democrats putting partisan politics above national security, above standing with Israel.”
In addition to Rubio, Cotton and Cruz’s proposals, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is still demanding an amendment that would require a majority of Congress to approve a deal with Iran — even though he’s one of only two senators to already receive a vote on an amendment this week.
Johnson’s offering was defeated Monday, 39-57, but he remains unhappy that his GOP colleagues are being blocked from further votes. On Thursday morning, Johnson came to the floor and battled with Cardin and Corker, calling their legislation that would allow Congress to offer a resolution of approval or disapproval of lifting any legislative sanctions on Iran “convoluted.”
On Thursday, Cardin blocked Johnson’s attempts to force a vote on his proposal to require a majority vote in Congress for any nuclear deal with Iran and scolded Republicans for trying to force votes on their dozens of amendments, a sharp contrast to the Democratic minority’s zero amendment submissions. Cardin’s move appeared to motivate Cotton and Rubio to take matters into their own hands and evade Cardin’s efforts to block their votes.
“These should be easy votes. If you want to vote ‘no’ vote ‘no.’ If you want to vote ‘no’ and say it’s designed to protect a compromise, do that. But we should be voting,” Cotton said.
McConnell and other GOP leaders had promised to open up the floor to amendments when they took power this year. So they’re loathe to place any limitations on offerings from senators, all of which come from Republicans.
“Not a single Democratic amendment. We think it’s time to move this bill to the United States House of Representatives,” Cardin said. “There’s a lot of frustration in the Democratic Caucus right now … as to why this bill hasn’t passed.”
When Corker said that he was trying to allow a vote on Cruz’s similar amendment, which could require a supermajority in the Senate to approve of an Iran deal, Johnson refused to acquiesce and said he will not let up on his push for another vote.
“I’m urging this body to allow a vote on my amendment to clarify what this bill and what it is not,” Johnson said. “Let’s start voting on [our amendments]. Eventually we’ll tire. Eventually we’ll convey to the American public what this bill is and what it is not.”
The spats on Thursday followed floor drama late Wednesday, when Rubio’s attempts to force a vote on his amendment requiring Iran to recognize Israel were blocked by Cardin.
“Come here and explain to the world why you are voting against a deal that requires Israel to have a right to exist,” Rubio fumed. “Don’t tell me that we can’t even vote on it, because then what you’re saying is, you want to be protected from taking a position on it. You don’t want to take a position that you think is tough. And that I find to be unacceptable.”
On Wednesday evening, the Senate killed a proposal from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that would require that President Barack Obama certify that Iran is not sponsoring terrorism against Americans. That amendment drew the support of all of McConnell’s leadership team and was opposed by just eight Republicans — including three GOP Foreign Relations Committee members, far fewer than Democrats had hoped.
Between that and Johnson’s defeated treaty amendment, the Senate has processed just two of more than 60 Republican amendments this week. That may require Corker, Cardin and leaders in both parties to construct a large “vote-a-rama” that allows votes on a large number of the amendments submitted, though hopes for that on Thursday appeared to be dashed by the parliamentary warfare on the floor.
Still, McConnell made clear on Thursday morning that he supports the underlying architecture of Cardin and Corker’s proposal, which passed the Foreign Relations Committee by a whopping 19-0 margin. Though the bill would require opponents of an Iran deal to muster a veto-proof majority if they want to reject the lifting of legislative sanctions on Tehran, McConnell said he believes it is strong enough to merit passage, given that it allows Congress to express disagreement with a deal it doesn’t like.
“The American people deserve a say. They deserve a say through their members of Congress,” McConnell said. “A failed resolution of approval permitted under this bill would send an unmistakable signal about congressional opposition to lifting sanctions.”
Marco Rubio and Grover Norquist once differed on taxes [Alex Leary, Tampa Bay Times, April 30, 2015]
Overall, Rubio has a strong record on opposing taxes. But he did support increasing property taxes for schools.
Marco Rubio laid it down this week on Instagram. “I will oppose and veto ANY and ALL efforts to increase taxes.”
The declaration followed his re-upping of Grover Norquist’s tax “Pledge,” which Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform celebrated in a news release. Rubio had signed it twice before, as a state legislator and U.S. Senate candidate.
Rubio, now running for president, is firm on the tax issue but not absolute.
Take this example in which Rubio, who’s signed the pledge, looks more anti-pledge than Jeb Bush, who refuses to sign the pledge. Grover makes a cameo.
In 2006, then state Rep. Rubio voted for a bill that aimed to increase by $2 the daily “surcharge” on rental cars. It would have asked voters to approve the hike, so Rubio and others who supported it could argue they weren’t raising taxes.
But that’s how Gov. Bush saw it, and Norquist as well.
“This rental car tax idea is just the newest attempt in a series of efforts by Florida’s local transit agencies and a number of counties to win legislative approval for revenue-raisers,” Norquist wrote in a letter to lawmakers. “After successive efforts to get approval for an additional tax on car owners have failed, the latest effort focuses on an idea that some think will be an easy sell: making tourists foot the bill.”
Americans for Tax Reform even ran a TV ad against the idea and Norquist met with Bush. In June 2006, Bush vetoed the bill.
“These taxes will be paid disparately by tourists visiting Florida, consequently creating taxation without representation on a large scale,” the governor wrote in his veto message. “Philosophically, I cannot support this."
This week we reached out to Americans for Tax Reform for comment. A spokesman did not respond.
Overall Rubio has a strong record on opposing taxes. But he did support increasing property taxes for schools. PolitiFact Florida explains.
First Read: Why the Primary Calendar Could be King in the 2016 GOP Race [NBC, April 30, 3015]
Three changes to the primary calendar and how they will affect the GOP race.
Why the primary calendar could be king in 2016 GOP race
Here's one reason why we're excited to cover the 2016 presidential race: We have absolutely no idea who is going to win the Republican presidential nomination. Jeb Bush? Scott Walker? Marco Rubio? Someone else? And because it's THAT wide open with no true frontrunner, the 2016 primary calendar could very well be king. As we discovered on the Democratic side in 2008, the campaign that best maximizes the calendar, map, and delegate hauls will probably be the nominee. Already, one likely move -- Nevada becoming a primary contest instead of a caucus, which hurts Rand Paul -- would have consequences. And here are three other primary calendar storylines to watch, with the important caveat that the calendar isn't going to be finalized until later this year:
The March 1 "SEC Primary": After Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, this will be the next important calendar date. And there are two schools of thought about these contests: 1) Either one candidate dominates and emerges as the frontrunner, or 2) Because their delegate hauls are proportional, it's possible that the top contenders evenly divide up the delegates -- and thus no one wins, and we all move to the next contests. Worth noting: While this March 1 date earned the moniker "SEC Primary" due to the all the Southern states expected to participate, right now Frontloading HQ shows the states to be Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Vermont. So it's really the SEC/Big 12/ACC Primary.
The March 15 "winner-take-all" contests: March 15 is the first window where states can award delegates on a winner-take-all basis. The March 15 states could be Florida (Bush vs. Rubio!), Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and maybe even Wisconsin. This matters because if Bush and Rubio do duke it out in the expensive Sunshine State, another candidate (say Walker) could decide to concentrate on the other states like Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin and emerge as the big delegate winner on March 15. (But a caveat to keep in mind: "Winner-take-all" doesn't always mean what it sounds like, with some states choosing to dole out delegates by congressional district rather than on a statewide basis.)
The shortened nominating calendar: After the party's 2012 loss, the Republican National Committee decided to shorten its nominating calendar. The logic: The long-ish slog between Mitt Romney and underfunded Rick Santorum didn't do the party any good, especially when facing an incumbent Democratic president. But the unintended consequence of a shortened nominating calendar is that about 70% of the delegates might not be decided until May. And with no incentives for candidates to drop out (because of well-financed Super PACs supporting them or with a convention in July), it's possible that no one candidate has a majority of delegates by May or even later. Does that mean a contested convention, with no candidate able to snag enough support to nail down the nomination? Maybe not, but it could mean behind-the-scenes agreements and forced alliances between campaigns as they limp to the finish line, or it could mean the ultimate winner has to pick a running mate who otherwise wouldn't be their first choice.
Chris Christie Bridgegate Probe: Questions Raised About Prosecutor's Independence From New Jersey Governor [David Sirota & Andrew Perez, International Business Times, April 30, 2015]
If Christie himself is not implicated, the Republican governor may be able to escape the cloud of the Bridgegate scandal. Yet some current and former New Jersey officials have raised concerns about the independence of those who are conducting the probe.
For nearly 16 months, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has had to swat away allegations from critics -- or chuckle at teasing from voters -- about Bridgegate. Questions about the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge in September 2013, apparently by Christie allies out to punish the administration's political enemies, have hung over his attempts to rev up a presidential campaign.
The investigation, led by U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman, appears to be nearing its conclusion. At least one key figure -- David Wildstein, a Christie appointee to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- reportedly will plead guilty soon for his role in creating a weeklong traffic nightmare at the Fort Lee, New Jersey, entrance to the bridge that leads to Manhattan. If Christie himself is not implicated, the Republican governor may be able to escape the cloud of that scandal. Yet some current and former New Jersey officials have raised concerns about the independence of those who are conducting the probe.
Fishman, the federal prosecutor leading the Bridgegate investigation, is in a unique position. New Jersey is one of just five states without an elected attorney general, and its current AG is not confirmed by the state Senate and therefore does not have traditional constitutional protections against political influence. So Fishman -- an appointee of President Barack Obama -- is the state’s only top law enforcement official with a measure of political insulation from Christie.
That’s not the only complication. Fishman is tasked with looking into the administration of a governor who happens to be his predecessor in the U.S. attorney job -- and Fishman is working with an office teeming with holdover Christie appointees. Documents obtained by International Business Times show that Christie hired almost 40 percent of Fishman’s current staff. A full 50 percent of those in Fishman’s office worked for Christie while the Republican was heading the New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office. That includes the head of the office’s criminal division, who is reportedly investigating the so-called Bridgegate affair.
As governor, Christie has hired a slew of officials with their own deep ties to the U.S. attorney’s office. And then there’s the apparent attempt by Fishman’s office to preemptively rule out any suggestion that another New Jersey probe may be looking at Christie.
'An Upstanding Guy'
Fishman’s colleagues and former federal prosecutors interviewed by IBTimes express confidence that he is conducting an impartial review in the Bridgegate case, despite the complicating factors.
“I think he’s one of the smartest attorneys I’ve ever come across,” said Paul Josephson, a partner at Duane Morris and a former a top legal adviser to former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, a Democrat. “And I think he’s an upstanding guy and takes his responsibilities very seriously.”
Fishman’s spokesman, Matthew Reilly, told IBTimes that “Mr. Fishman is completely satisfied that everyone working on this investigation is doing so with complete impartiality and integrity, consistent with his expectations and those that the Department of Justice demands.”
Those assurances, though, have not tamped down concerns about Christie’s close ties to the prosecutor who is investigating his administration. Christie’s office directed questions about his administration’s ties to Fishman’s office to the prosecutor’s staff.
Last April, Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer released journal entries showing she had hesitated to bring allegations of Christie administration wrongdoing to Fishman’s office because “Christie has friends throughout [the U.S.] attorney's office.” (Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Fishman’s investigation into Zimmer’s accusations “has gone quiet.”) Former Hunterdon County Prosecutor Ben Barlyn expressed similar worries in a letter sent to Fishman in December. Barlyn’s case -- which appears to be at an exploratory stage -- involves allegations that the Christie administration quashed local indictments against the governor's political allies.
“I had the same concerns that Dawn Zimmer did -- that the office is conflicted,” Barlyn told IBTimes.
Unlike in a previous case involving New Jersey U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat who endorsed Fishman's appointment, Fishman has not recused himself to let the Justice Department in Washington run the investigation of his predecessor, Christie. That decision is controversial.
“When I was U.S. attorney, if someone asked me to head up an investigation against the U.S. attorney that I succeeded, depending on how close -- I’d be really surprised looking back if I would have done that and not recused myself, only because of appearance,” said former South Carolina U.S. Attorney Bart Daniel, who led a series of major public corruption prosecutions in 1990. “You can’t even have the appearance of impropriety.”
The U.S. attorney’s manual says that U.S. attorneys, or assistant U.S. attorneys, must recuse themselves when "a conflict of interest exists or there is an appearance of a conflict of interest or loss of impartiality."
Overlapping Relationships
Barlyn's case illustrates the overlapping relationships -- and potential conflicts -- at work in New Jersey when such recusals do not occur.
In April 2014, Barlyn first contacted Fishman’s office in connection with allegations, echoed by other former employees in the county prosecutor’s office, that the Christie administration had wrongfully quashed grand jury indictments in 2010 against the governor’s supporters, including ex-Hunterdon County Sheriff Deborah Trout and Undersheriff Mike Russo. Barlyn said he was fired after raising objections.
In June 2014, Barlyn was notified that Thomas Mahoney, a Christie holdover in Fishman’s office, was selected to serve as his point of contact. After six months passed with no word from Mahoney, Barlyn discovered that Mahoney was listed as a potential witness for Trout and her allies at the center of his case, in their wrongful prosecution lawsuit against Hunterdon County.
“When I discovered it, I felt compelled to alert the U.S. attorney’s office that the person they had asked me to contact regarding my serious allegations happened to be a witness evidently for Sheriff Trout,” Barlyn said.
In December, Barlyn informed Fishman of this finding, noting that the New Jersey U.S. attorney's office “has evinced no interest at all in pursuing this matter." Barlyn sent a copy of that letter to the Justice Department in Washington to alert it of possible conflicts.
“I got the response back a few weeks later saying Fishman's office would set up an interview and meet with me,” Barlyn said.
IBTimes reported on the meeting between investigators and Barlyn in February.
Asked why Barlyn was instructed to direct his communications to Mahoney, when Mahoney was a Christie holdover listed as a possible witness for Trout, Reilly -- the spokesman for Fishman’s office -- told IBTimes there was nothing unusual about the situation.
“Mr. Mahoney is the supervisory investigator for our office. As such, he is often the office’s initial point of contact for people who bring complaints or allegations to the attention of our office,” Reilly said in a statement. Mahoney “has no relationship with the former sheriff of Hunterdon County,” he added.
Russo, one of the Christie supporters in the Hunterdon County probe, told IBTimes he didn’t know that Mahoney was listed as a potential witness in his civil case. But Russo said it may stem from the fact that in 2008 he met with Mahoney -- at then-U.S. Attorney Christie’s office -- in an effort to halt the Hunterdon investigation. Russo said Mahoney was "empathetic" and "offered to write something up" to New Jersey state law enforcement agencies, which came under Christie’s control when he was elected governor a year later.
Those agencies subsequently took over the Hunterdon County prosecutor's office and threw out a grand jury's indictments against Russo and Trout. Russo called Barlyn “a fraud.”
'We Talk To People All The Time'
After Barlyn raised concerns about independence and threatened to go to the Justice Department's Public Integrity unit in December, Fishman sent two federal investigators to meet with him. But Fishman’s office was quick to defend the governor, issuing a statement seeming to preemptively rule out that Christie himself was being looked at in connection with the quashed indictments in Hunterdon County.
“Any characterization that we are investigating the governor about this is just not true,” Fishman’s office told MSNBC after his staffers met with Barlyn. “[W]e talk to people all the time. It doesn’t mean we’re investigating anybody.”
ABC News subsequently reported that “sources familiar with the investigation” confirmed there is an investigation “examining the conduct of other current and former members of Christie's gubernatorial administration.”
Former U.S. attorneys interviewed by IBTimes questioned the attempt by Fishman’s office to parse or downplay the language used to describe the probe.
“If [law enforcement] is talking with somebody, it’s an investigation,” said former U.S. Attorney Kent Alexander, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. “If someone is going to speak with somebody, by definition, I always think of that as an investigation.”
Attempting to rule out Christie from the probe, he added, is “unusual” because “you are speaking for all of law enforcement and you are really foreclosing the possibility of going after them later.”
Michael McKay, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush who served as the U.S. attorney in Washington state, agreed, saying it is “imprudent” to preemptively rule someone out of a probe.
“An investigation is like a long piece of string and you pick up the end of the string and you start to follow it. You don’t know where it’s going to lead you,” McKay said.
The pronouncement from Fishman’s office that Christie isn’t under investigation, and a leak to NBC News from “federal officials” asserting that the federal Bridgegate investigation had not uncovered any evidence against Christie, Barlyn said, have led him to question “whether the U.S. attorney’s office in New Jersey would be inhibited from aggressively investigating my case.“
Christie Appointees Involved
Mahoney, who is also reportedly involved in the Bridgegate probe, may not be the only Christie holdover still involved in inquiries related to his former boss. Tom Eicher, who now leads Fishman’s criminal division, was appointed to the U.S. attorney’s office by Christie in 2003. Eicher does not appear to have recused himself from the investigation into the man who gave him his job: A Main Justicereport last year said that Eicher is one of several top staffers whom Fishman was consulting before making decisions in the Bridgegate case.
Reilly, Fishman’s spokesman, said the Main Justice report, about which staffers are working on the Bridgegate investigation, was “wrong,” but did not directly dispute any elements of the report or its assertion that some Christie holdovers are working on the Bridgegate investigation.
“We generally do not discuss who is working on specific investigations or matters. The ultimate decision on who is assigned and what resources are allocated is made by the U.S. attorney,” Reilly said. He reiterated that Fishman has full confidence that his staff is investigating with “impartiality and integrity.”


Download 0.59 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
full range
south side
presidential election
special committee
actual impact
former secretary