Never have I more wanted to preface a tweet with "knock on wood," but Trump has indicated to congressional leaders that he will sign the covid/omnibus bill into law, averting a potential long shutdown. W/ @seungminkim@JStein_WaPo@ToluseOwashingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020…
Long Trump statement ("demanding many rescissions"; "Congress has promised"; "I will never give up my fight") amounts to total and complete surrender.
By signing, he has eliminated all leverage he had to actually do any of these things. Everything else is puffery: Dems are holding the $2K checks vote, which most Rs oppose; Congress has been promising to "review" 230 for yrs; Senate "process" will be quickly blocked by Ds, etc.
Re: rescissions -- Trump offered a $15 billion rescissions package in 2018 when political conditions were a lot more favorable than they are now. It took almost two months and ended with two Republican senators telling him to shove it. washingtonpost.com/business/econo…
Trump: "The Senate will start the process for a vote that increases checks to $2,000, repeals Section 230, and starts an investigation into voter fraud."
McConnell: Thanks for signing the bill!
>@SpeakerPelosi says Trump needs to "immediately call on Congressional Republicans to end their obstruction" -- which is true, because Dems are bringing up the $2K checks bill under suspension of the rules -- i.e., needs 2/3rds (a lot of R votes) to pass.
At least one House R is going to vote for the standalone $2K checks -- Problem Solvers co-chair @RepTomReed: "It is only fair that we act decisively now..."
Ahem on rescissions...
The last act of @NitaLowey's storied appropriations career is telling @realDonaldTrump to take a long walk off a short pier:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Seeing some armchair parliamentarians out there that Democrats could "clay pigeon" the GOP combo bill and divide the question to get a standalone vote on $2K checks. Sorry to break it to everyone, but that's not gonna happen. 1/
For one: there's just no time to get into a regular-order legislative process on either of these bills. Any votes that get set up will have to be done under a unanimous consent agreement to get done before the Congress ends on Sunday. No such motion would be in order. 2/
For another: You can't "clay pigeon" bills, only amendments. See Riddick's, p.1,503: "applies to amendments and motions but not to the original text of the bill, which, except by unanimous consent or suspension of the rules, must be acted on as a single question in one vote." 3/
Confirmed: @SenateCloakroom described S.5085 in wrap-up memo tonight as a measure that would "Increase the additional 2020 recovery rebates and repeal section 230."
Per two aides familiar, the bill also includes language establishing a commission to study and report on election fraud. Details TK.
FOLLOW HERE through the day: Fate of $2,000 stimulus checks proposal, backed by Trump, is in McConnell’s hands washingtonpost.com/powerpost/stim…
Appointment @cspan viewing at noon: McConnell remarks, Schumer UC request on House bill; plus Sanders & Markey ready to block NDAA action to get checks vote.
McConnell now speaking, starting with NDAA. He is guaranteeing an override: "Soon this important legislation will be passed into law." c-span.org/congress/?cham…
Update on this: @LeaderHoyer told Dems today House will pass $2K checks by rule tonight if they can't pass on suspension. But I am sensing a lot of optimism that won't be necessary.
Translation: They'll vote again using majority threshold instead of 2/3ds. But it will take a lot more time and an extra procedural vote.
But 2/3ds possible -- one thing to watch: GOP absences. Most Rs aren't using proxy voting and every nonvoting member shrinks the denominator.
FLASH: House passes $2,000 stimulus checks on bipartisan 275-134 vote; now to the Senate where action is uncertain. washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/…
Poor @RobWittman had to go up and down the worst stretch of I-95 on Christmas Eve for 45 seconds of floor action.
@daveweigel@RobWittman So here's what happened: there actually was no objection on the floor per se. Hoyer asked for UC, chair @RepDebDingell said under the rules she can't entertain a UC request, Hoyer asked her to clarify to point out @GOPLeader was objecting, and that was that.
Wittman did the same thing on the other side. In the end, the big winner was @realDonaldTrump who had his entire NDAA veto message read aloud to a larger than usual @cspan audience.