The News Caravan

Tag: dismiss

  • Lawmakers dismiss possibility of debt limit off-ramp

    Lawmakers dismiss possibility of debt limit off-ramp

    [ad_1]

    john thune 44975

    Some Republicans — particularly House conservatives — see that as a win for Democrats and Biden, who have been pushing to lift to the debt ceiling with no strings attached as the GOP calls for significant cuts to federal spending in exchange. So they’re not looking to open that particular escape hatch, at least not yet.

    “No,” said Senate GOP Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “I just think that this needs to get done and delay, delay, delay doesn’t solve anything.”

    “I can tell you a short-term extension and clean debt ceiling is not going to pass Congress,” echoed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). “That is a solution that the White House has fever dreams of, but it’s not going to pass Congress. Nor should it.”

    Plus, Republicans feel they have the upper hand in negotiations with the White House after Speaker Kevin McCarthy successfully passed his debt ceiling package last week, which would lift the nation’s borrowing cap by $1.5 trillion or through March 2024, whichever comes first, while slashing $130 billion in government funding.

    A short-term extension is a “bad idea in part because House Republicans have already passed a debt ceiling deal,” said Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio). “I think if there was no deal out there and we had no real solution on the table, it would be a different story. But we do have an offer on the table.”

    Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said a clean debt ceiling increase of “any duration” is a “no-go,” even if it means negotiating with the White House on spending.

    “Republicans have to break a long-standing habit of thinking that giving in to reckless Democrats gradually constitutes victory,” he said.

    Democrats, meanwhile, aren’t willing to negotiate on the debt — and several more months bought by a temporary extension could mean they’re conceding to do just that. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer roundly rejected the idea of a temporary debt hike this week, saying Congress should pursue a two-year extension through the 2024 election.

    Many lawmakers are waiting to see what happens when congressional leaders meet with Biden on Tuesday, hoping for some signs of movement in a debt stalemate that has dragged on for months.

    Not everyone is opposed to the idea of a stopgap bill, admitting it might ultimately become the only path to avoid default. While lawmakers technically have just under a month to negotiate, the reality of the congressional calendar means lawmakers will have even less time to strike a deal. There are only about eight legislative days left in May that the House and Senate are simultaneously in session, and both chambers will need time to pass the legislation.

    “I could be supportive of that, but the question is, whether House Republicans would be supportive of that,” said Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), when asked whether he would back a short-term lift of the debt ceiling if it meant serious negotiations with Democrats on government funding in the coming months.

    If Republicans and the White House can’t work it out in the next couple weeks, “then the idea of giving us the time is a good idea,” Crapo said.

    When asked whether there’s a chance the debt stalemate ends with a temporary extension in the coming weeks, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said, “for sure,” though he stressed that’s not his preferred outcome. Both sides should be able to reach a deal, he said.

    Adding to the complications of a temporary hike: it would likely coincide with government funding talks slated to happen over the summer, with a shutdown deadline on Sept. 30.

    There’s plenty of precedent that suggests Congress and the White House could successfully hammer out a debt ceiling deal alongside government funding. In 2019, then-President Donald Trump deployed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to negotiate with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, resulting in a two-year budget deal that also waived the debt ceiling through July 2021.

    And some Republicans aren’t feeling particularly urgent, doubting that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s early June deadline is anything more than a political ploy. Some GOP members think the real deadline would hit sometime over the summer.

    “Nobody believes her. I don’t believe her,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “I’m not saying she’s a liar. I’m just saying that Janet Yellen is no longer an economist and a professor, she’s a politician. And I don’t believe June 1 is anything other than a date that she either set or was told to set through a political lens.”

    Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a top appropriator who’s a member of Senate Republican leadership, said she expects more clarity on how the standoff might pan out after the White House meeting on Tuesday.

    “We’ll have to see,” she said. “I think that the president has finally come to the table and is going to be talking with the four leaders.”

    Capito said she would prefer that the impasse is resolved in the coming weeks, “but I don’t want to default, nobody else wants to either.”

    Olivia Beavers, Jordain Carney, Daniella Diaz and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #Lawmakers #dismiss #possibility #debt #limit #offramp
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Trump’s lawyer expects to make motion to dismiss charges

    Trump’s lawyer expects to make motion to dismiss charges

    [ad_1]

    trump 39875

    The move to dismiss the charges against Donald Trump (pictured) won’t come until after his arraignment Tuesday, Joe Tacopina said. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo

    Joe Tacopina, one of former President Donald Trump’s lawyers, said Sunday that he eventually expects to move to dismiss the charges against the former president.

    “I very much anticipate a motion to dismiss coming because there’s no law that fits this,” Tacopina told Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    Trump was indicted Thursday by a Manhattan grand jury in a case related to hush money his lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The exact charges against the former president have yet to be unveiled.

    [ad_2]
    #Trumps #lawyer #expects #motion #dismiss #charges
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Watch Video: ‘Catch of the century’ takes by Steve Smith to dismiss Hardik Pandya & India bowled out for 117 runs in Ongoing 2nd ODI – Kashmir News

    [ad_1]

    Watch Video: ‘Catch of the century’ takes by Steve Smith to dismiss Hardik Pandya & India bowled out for 117 runs in Ongoing 2nd ODI – Kashmir News

    [ad_2]
    #Watch #Video #Catch #century #takes #Steve #Smith #dismiss #Hardik #Pandya #India #bowled #runs #Ongoing #2nd #ODI #Kashmir #News

    ( With inputs from : kashmirnews.in )

  • Judge denies Navarro effort to dismiss contempt case for defying Jan. 6 committee

    Judge denies Navarro effort to dismiss contempt case for defying Jan. 6 committee

    [ad_1]

    “Defendant has failed to come forward with any evidence to support the claimed assertion of privilege. And, because the claimed assertion of executive privilege is unproven, Defendant cannot avoid prosecution for contempt,” Mehta wrote in the 39-page ruling.

    It’s a significant decision in an area with little precedent: what current and former presidents must do to assert executive privilege. Mehta acknowledged that there’s not much to guide how courts should determine when a proper assertion has been made. But he said limited court rulings on the subject suggest there must be at least some formal evidence it occurred.

    Mehta noted that two other Trump aides whom the House sought to hold in contempt — Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino — produced letters from Trump ordering them to assert executive privilege on his behalf. The Justice Department declined to prosecute the men, and Mehta indicated that the absence of a similar letter from Trump to Navarro led to a reasonable conclusion that Trump had not asserted executive privilege over his testimony.

    Mehta’s ruling means that Navarro’s trial on two charges of contempt of Congress is likely to commence later this month. He faces a maximum sentence of a year in prison on each charge — one for refusing to testify and the other for refusing to provide documents — if convicted.

    The select committee had hoped to interview Navarro about his coordination with former Trump adviser Bannon and efforts to strategize with members of Congress seeking to challenge the 2020 election results on Jan. 6, 2021, during the counting of Electoral College ballots. The committee recommended that Navarro be held in contempt in April 2022, and the full House quickly followed suit. The Justice Department charged him in June.

    Mehta’s ruling also gutted a series of defenses Navarro had hoped to raise at his trial, including that he had a “good-faith belief” that he was immune from the committee’s subpoena. Mehta also agreed to prohibit Navarro from arguing that the select committee’s subpoena was invalid because the panel didn’t have a full complement of 13 members or a ranking Republican member appointed by GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy.

    Although he declined to say whether the committee was operating improperly, Mehta noted that Supreme Court precedent required Navarro to first raise his rules complaint with Congress itself. Because he didn’t do that, he effectively waived that argument. Navarro had argued that raising his complaints to Congress would have been “futile” because the House would have simply rejected them. But Mehta said the rules were clear.

    “Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has recognized a futility exception. … And, given the rationale of the rule, it is doubtful that higher courts would recognize one,” Mehta wrote.

    The ruling essentially puts Navarro on a track similar to his close ally Bannon, who was tried and convicted of contempt of Congress in July. Bannon, like Navarro, had hoped to argue that he believed he was immune from testifying and that longstanding Justice Department precedents precluded Congress from subpoenaing advisers to former presidents. But in that case, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols relied on a decades-old appeals court ruling — United States v. Licavoli — to reject Bannon’s proposed defenses, ruling that prosecutors simply needed to show that Bannon deliberately refused to appear before Congress.

    Mehta cited the case, as well, in tossing most of Navarro’s defenses.

    “Defendant apparently believes the law applies differently to him,” he wrote of Navarro. “Because he is a former aide to the President of the United States, he contends, a more stringent state-of-mind standard applies, meaning that the government must be held to a higher burden of proof to convict him as opposed to the average person.”

    [ad_2]
    #Judge #denies #Navarro #effort #dismiss #contempt #case #defying #Jan #committee
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )