Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.
For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories.
For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!
Friday, 26 July 2019, Day 918:
Raising Prospect of Impeaching Trump, House Seeks Mueller’s Grand Jury Secrets, The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage, Friday, 26 July 2019: “The House Judiciary Committee on Friday asked a federal judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, using the court filing to declare that lawmakers have already in effect launched an impeachment investigation of President Trump. In a legal maneuver that carries significant political overtones, the committee told a judge that it needs access to the grand jury evidence collected by Mr. Mueller as special counsel — such as witness testimony — because it is ‘investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment’ against the president. ‘Because Department of Justice policies will not allow prosecution of a sitting president, the United States House of Representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can now hold President Trump accountable for these actions,’ the filing told the judge, Beryl A. Howell, who supervised Mr. Mueller’s grand jury. Referring to the part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to impeach and remove a president, the filing continued: ‘To do so, the House must have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise all its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.’ [Read the Judiciary Committee’s application.] With the filing, the committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, was attempting to sidestep the debate raging inside the Democratic Party over whether the full House should hold a vote to formally declare that it is opening an impeachment inquiry. By declaring that his committee was in effect conducting such an inquiry, he was heading off a politically difficult vote in the committee or the full house to pursue impeachment.” See also, House Judiciary Committee asks a federal judge to enforce congressional subpoenas seeking grand jury information related to Mueller’s investigation, a step toward possible impeachment, The Washington Post, John Wagner, Kayla Epstein, and Rachael Bade, Friday, 26 July 2019: “The House Judiciary Committee on Friday asked a federal judge to enforce congressional subpoenas seeking grand jury information related to the special counsel’s investigation, taking steps in the direction of possible impeachment of President Trump. Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told reporters the legal request signaled that the panel is pursuing an impeachment investigation, although neither the committee nor the full House has formally voted for launching proceedings.” See also, Judiciary Committee asks a federal judge to share Mueller’s secret grand jury evidence, Politico, Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein, Friday, 26 July 2019: “The House Judiciary Committee has formally asked a federal judge to release former special counsel Robert Mueller’s most closely guarded evidence: the material he gathered using a secretive grand jury. The petition, submitted Friday to Beryl Howell, the chief judge of Washington, D.C.’s federal district court, asks that the material be provided to Congress, though it does not directly seek the public release of the grand jury evidence.” See also, List: The 101 House Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry into Trump, CNN, Friday, 26 July 2019. See also, House Speaker Nancy Peolosi: I’m not slow-walking impeachment inquiry. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler: It’s ‘in effect’ anyway. NBC News, Rebecca Shabad, Alex Moe, and Leigh Ann Caldwell, Friday, 26 July 2019: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday that a decision on whether the House pursues the impeachment of President Donald Trump will be made in a ‘timely fashion’ and denied the idea that she is trying to ‘run out the clock’ on the issue. Her comments came shortly before House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said at a separate press conference that his panel has already ‘in effect’ been conducting an impeachment inquiry of the president — and said in a court filing that ‘articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the Committee’s investigation, although no final determination has been made.'”
Supreme Court Lets Trump Proceed on Wall Along the Mexican Border, The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 26 July 2019: “The Supreme Court on Friday gave President Trump a victory in his fight for a wall along the Mexican border by allowing the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction. In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned an appellate decision and said that the administration could tap the money while litigation over the matter proceeds. But that will most likely take many months or longer, allowing Mr. Trump to move ahead before the case returns to the Supreme Court after further proceedings in the appeals court. While the order was only one paragraph long and unsigned, the Supreme Court said the groups challenging the administration did not appear to have a legal right to do so. That was an indication that the court’s conservative majority was likely to side with the administration in the end. The court’s four more liberal justices dissented. One of them, Stephen G. Breyer, wrote that he would have allowed the administration to pursue preparatory work but not construction, which he said would be hard to undo if the administration ultimately lost the case.” See also, Supreme Court says Trump can proceed with plan to spend military funds for border wall construction, The Washington Post, Robert Barnes, Friday, 26 July 2019: “A split Supreme Court said Friday night that the Trump administration could proceed with its plan to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to build part of the president’s wall project along the southern border. The court’s conservatives set aside a lower-court ruling for the Sierra Club and a coalition of border communities that said reallocating Defense Department money would violate federal law. Friday’s unsigned ruling came in response to an emergency filing from the administration during the court’s summer recess. The majority said the government ‘made a sufficient showing at this stage’ that private groups may not be the proper plaintiffs to challenge the transfer of money. The court’s action is a stay of the injunction issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on a 2-to-1 vote, and the litigation continues. The administration wants to finalize contracts for the work before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.”
After Tariff Threat, Trump Says Guatemala Has Agreed to New Asylum Rules, The New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, and Elisabeth Malkin, Friday, 26 July 2019: “President Trump on Friday again sought to block migrants from Central America from seeking asylum, announcing an agreement with Guatemala to require people who travel through that country to seek refuge from persecution there instead of in the United States. American officials said the deal could go into effect within weeks, though critics vowed to challenge it in court, saying that Guatemala is itself one of the most dangerous countries in the world — hardly a refuge for those fleeing gangs and government violence.” See also, Trump says he has agreement with Guatemala to help stem flow of migrants at the border, The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim, Kevin Sieff, and Abigail Hauslohner, Friday, 26 July 2019: “President Trump on Friday said he has struck a deal that would designate Guatemala as a safe third country for people seeking asylum in the United States — a plan that is facing significant legal hurdles in the Central American country as the Trump administration continues to struggle with the high number of migrants arriving at the southern U.S. border. The White House did not immediately release details of the agreement, and it is unclear how it would be implemented considering Guatemala’s constitutional court has ruled any safe third country agreement would require legislative approval and the proposal has been widely criticized there.” See also, Trump Says the US and Guatemala Have Signed a ‘Safe Third Country’ Agreement to Restrict Asylum-Seekers, BuzzFeed News, Adolfo Flores and Hamed Aleaziz, Friday, 26 July 2019.
Continue reading Week 132, Friday, 26 July – Thursday, 1 August 2019 (Days 918-924)
