Senate Fails to Override Trump Veto of Yemen Bill

The U.S. Senate on Thursday failed to override President Donald Trump's veto of a bill demanding the U.S. stop supporting the Saudi coalition fighting in Yemen.

The vote was 53 to 45 in favor, but it fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass in the 100-member Senate.

Both the House and Senate passed the bill earlier this year despite Trump's promise to veto.

The bill marked the first time in history that Congress invoked the 1973 War Powers Act, which says a president cannot involve U.S. forces in a foreign conflict without lawmakers' consent.

The U.S. supplies intelligence and other support to the Saudi-led coalition trying to push Iranian-backed Houthi rebels out of Yemen.

Opponents of the bill said the act did not apply because the U.S. forces were not involved in combat in Yemen.

But its Senate supporters — including sponsors Republican Mike Lee of Utah and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont — said the U.S. has been helping a foreign power bomb innocent civilians.

Saudi airstrikes targeting the Houthis have hit civilian neighborhoods in Yemen, killing thousands. A U.S.-supplied missile fired by the Saudis struck a school bus near Sanaa last year, killing 40 children.

Along with the bloodshed in Yemen, many lawmakers are upset at Trump's tepid reaction to the killing of U.S.-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

He was killed inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in October, allegedly at the behest of the Saudi crown prince because of his criticism of the royal family. Khashoggi's body has not been found.

The Trump administration has pointed out that Saudi Arabia is a valuable and essential U.S. ally in the Middle East and an enemy of Iran.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Senate Fails to Override Trump Veto of Yemen Bill : http://bit.ly/2JdGyht

Trump, House Democrats Escalate Power Struggle

Trump's 2nd Pick for US Central Bank Board Withdraws from Consideration

No. 2 House GOP Leader Says $2T Infrastructure Cost Too High

The No. 2 House Republican leader is suggesting that Congress won't agree to the full $2 trillion price tag that the White House and congressional leaders have discussed for a compromise infrastructure deal.

Rep. Steve Scalise told reporters Thursday that the price tag will be "a lot lower" than the $2 trillion Democrats say President Donald Trump supports. He said raising taxes to pay for public works improvements is "a non-starter" for Republicans.

He says he's not seen any mutually agreeable suggestions for financing the work "that would come anywhere close to $2 trillion," which he called "a lofty goal."

Both sides reported progress at a Tuesday meeting at which Trump discussed infrastructure with congressional leaders. They plan to meet again in three weeks to discuss financing.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More No. 2 House GOP Leader Says $2T Infrastructure Cost Too High : http://bit.ly/2GZJGMr

Hearing Set in Trump Fight Over Bank Subpoenas

NEW YORK — 

Congress has agreed to postpone a deadline for two banks to respond to subpoenas for Donald Trump’s financial records after the president filed a lawsuit this week seeking to block them from responding.

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos on Wednesday set a hearing on Trump’s lawsuit for May 22 in New York City. In the meantime, lawyers for Congressional Democrats agreed to allow the banks to delay their response to the subpoena until after Ramos rules.

Trump wants Deutsche Bank and Capital One barred from responding to subpoenas issued last month by two House committees that are demanding records as part of investigations into the Republican’s private business dealings.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said at the time that the subpoenas were part of an investigation “into allegations of potential foreign influence on the U.S. political process.”

He has said he wants to know whether Russians used laundered money for transactions with the Trump Organization. Trump’s businesses have benefited from Russian investment over the years.

In their lawsuit, Trump, his family and his company contend that the subpoenas are unlawful and unenforceable.

Deutsche Bank has lent Trump’s real estate company millions of dollars over the years.

The bank has said it remains “committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Hearing Set in Trump Fight Over Bank Subpoenas : http://bit.ly/2vz1eIJ

Trump’s Sanctions Wage Economic War

WASHINGTON — 

President Donald Trump is increasingly reliant upon economic sanctions to achieve his foreign policy goals, despite a repeated emphasis that the use of military force remains a viable option. However, these coercive measures, analysts say, have not produced their intended results, and at times have put the United States at odds with allies.

Venezuela

In the case of Venezuela, the Trump sanctions that include the seizure of Venezuela’s oil assets in the United States, along with joining more than 50 other countries in recognizing Juan Guaido, the head of the National Assembly, as the interim president, have energized the opposition. Despite the economic pain caused by the sanctions, the massive protests in the country, and reports of growing mid-level military support for the opposition, socialist leader Nicolas Maduro has continued to hold on to power through increasing political repression.

Short of using military force that could entangle the United States in a protracted civil war, there are few other measures the Trump administration can take to force democratic change in Venezuela.

“Because the costs are limited to us. It also means the benefits will likely be limited. We could accept more costs and achieve more benefits if we were for example, to invade these countries, change their governments, force them to adopt policies we want,” said Richard Weitz, a political-military analysis at Hudson Institute in Washington, DC.

Iran

Trump has more aggressively imposed unilateral sanctions than past presidents against countries like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba and North Korea, and in threatening to target more third party countries that violate U.S. restrictions.

“He's following the thesis that, you know, began to be articulated in the Congress and in the 90s, which is you should force other countries to make a choice. They can do business with us, or they can do business with Iran, or Cuba, North Korea,” said William Reinsch, an international business analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

After withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal, negotiated by the previous administration of President Barack Obama, Trump's security team recently warned third party countries, including allies South Korea and Japan, of impending sanctions if they continue to buy Iranian oil.

The unilateral sanctions have worked to some degree to force reluctant allies to go along with increasing economic pressure on the Iranian Islamic Republic to end its nuclear ambitions and support of armed militant groups in the Middle East.

“They've reassured allies in the Middle East that we're taking a strong stand in Iran, they have caused European countries to disengage from the Iranian economy, even as their governments, although they are clearly opposed to his policies, they haven't taken strong measures to confront the U.S. on that,” said Weitz.

Cuba

Trump on Wednesday threatened an economic embargo of Cuba for allegedly supporting Maduro in Venezuela with 20,000 troops. The United States also recently announced it would enforce sanctions against Cuba permitting U.S. businesses that had property seized by the communist government of Fidel Castro 60 years ago, to sue international companies, some in Europe and Canada, that have since taken over these buildings.

These restrictions on Cuba and Iran not only potentially target allies that violate U.S. policy, they could also hurt American businesses by excluding them from these markets.

“The worst case for American companies is if they're out, and the German, French, British competitors are in, because then they're losing market share, and they're losing market share long term, because they're not going to get that back when the political situation changes,” said Reinsch.

North Korea

On North Korea the Trump administration led efforts for increased United Nations sanctions in 2017 that ban most of that country’s exports, along with unilateral sanctions on companies in China and Russia for supporting the North’s weapons program. These restrictions likely contributed to Pyongyang suspending ballistic missile and nuclear tests and agreeing to engage in denuclearization talks. However, the talks remain deadlocked over Washington’s demand for Pyongyang’s near complete disarmament prior to sanctions relief.

While sanctions can impose increased economic costs on an adversary country, analysts are skeptical they can force sweeping change, and say that over time these measures can become less effective as targeted countries step up evasion efforts.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Trump’s Sanctions Wage Economic War : http://bit.ly/2Lhz0wT

Nadler: Attorney General Barr's 'Moment of Accountability' Coming

Colorado Sen. Bennet Launches Democratic Presidential Bid

DENVER — 

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado jumped into the packed Democratic presidential primary on Thursday, announcing a 2020 campaign that had been stalled while he was treated for prostate cancer.

Bennet, a former head of Denver Public Schools who has carved out a reputation as a policy-oriented moderate, made his announcement on CBS' "CBS This Morning."

The son of a former ambassador to India and a Yale law school graduate who worked in the Clinton administration, Bennet worked for Republican billionaire Phil Anschutz when he moved to Colorado in the late 1990s. But when he re-entered public life, he did so as a Democrat, serving as chief of staff to then-Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. Hickenlooper went on to become Colorado governor and now is also competing for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The presence of two moderate Coloradans who started their political careers in Denver City Hall reflects how crowded the Democratic presidential field has become.

Bennet's understated style and distaste for the sound bites required in a political campaign have usually led to speculation that he'd seek a Cabinet position rather than try to become the next president. But he began moving to assemble a presidential bid late last year and planned an announcement in April. He had to pause after being diagnosed with prostate cancer this spring.

Bennet, 54, told Colorado journalist Mike Littwin that he'd resume the campaign if he was treated successfully but that he wanted to make a point by disclosing his medical condition.

"I don't want to be hysterical, but if it was left in me undetected, it could kill me," Bennet said. "It won't because I have insurance and decent medical care. The idea that the richest country in the world hasn't figured out how to have universal health care is beyond embarrassing. It's devastating."

Bennet has been a vocal opponent in the Democratic Party of the push for single-payer health care championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, another 2020 presidential candidate.

Instead, Bennet proposes letting consumers buy into Medicare through insurance exchanges, arguing that that will be a more efficient and realistic path to universal coverage.

Likewise, he has pushed back against arguments by some other presidential hopefuls that Democrats should respond to Republican tactics by expanding the size of the Supreme Court, saying the party needs to avoid the same scorched-earth tactics that, he says, its main rival employs.

Despite his professorial reputation, Bennet has shown an ability to be a tough campaigner. Appointed in 2009, Bennet won his first election in 2010 by pounding his Republican rival for opposing abortion rights and comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, eking out a narrow win in an otherwise disastrous year for Bennet's party.

Four years later, Bennet chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a position that put him in contact with a network of national donors who also can help fund a presidential campaign.

Bennet gained internet fame this year when he blasted Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas for backing a bill to pay Coast Guard members during the partial government shutdown but not reopen the government.

Bennet said Cruz once led a 16-day government shutdown in a failed bid to derail funding for the Affordable Care Act at a time when Colorado was experiencing catastrophic flooding, delaying relief efforts.

"When the senator from Texas shut this government down in 2013, my state was flooded," Bennet shouted. "People were killed. People's houses were destroyed. Their small businesses were destroyed, forever."

Bennet accused Cruz of crying "crocodile tears" this time around.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Colorado Sen. Bennet Launches Democratic Presidential Bid : http://bit.ly/2IXPJDh

Poll Finds Hunger for Change to US System of Government

Biden's Rise in 2020 Race Catches Trump's Eye, Unnerves His Allies

Trump’s Sanctions Wage Economic War

President Donald Trump is increasingly reliant upon economic sanctions to achieve his foreign policy goals, even as he also asserts that the use of military force is a viable option. However, as VOA’s Brian Padden reports, in three key countries subjected to sanctions Trump's approach so far hasn't produced the intended results and at times has put the U.S. at odds with allies.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Trump’s Sanctions Wage Economic War : http://bit.ly/2LiX2Yq

Lawmakers to See Empty Chair, not AG Barr, at House Hearing

WASHINGTON — 

Attorney General William Barr plans to skip a House Judiciary hearing Thursday on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report , escalating an already acrimonious battle between Democrats and the Justice Department.

Barr’s decision — he cites a disagreement over the questioning — came the day the department missed a committee deadline to provide the panel with a full, unredacted version of Mueller’s Russia report and its underlying evidence. Those moves are likely to prompt a vote on holding Barr in contempt and possibly the issuance of subpoenas, bringing House Democrats and the Trump administration closer to a prolonged battle in court.

Even though Barr informed the panel he isn’t coming, Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will still convene the hearing, raising the prospect of an empty witness chair.

“I hope and expect the attorney general will think overnight and will be there as well,” Nadler said.

As Barr refused to testify, Democrats sought to speak to Mueller himself. Nadler said the panel hoped the special counsel would appear before the committee on May 15 and the panel was “firming up the date.”

The attorney general’s cancellation meant he would avoid another round of sharp questioning after testifying Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee . Democrats on the panel charged that Barr was protecting President Donald Trump after he assessed Mueller’s report on his own and declared there wasn’t enough evidence that Trump had committed obstruction of justice. Mueller didn’t charge Trump with obstruction, but wrote that he couldn’t exonerate him, either.

The standoff with Justice Department is one of several fights House Democrats are waging with the Trump administration. Trump has vowed to fight “all of the subpoenas” as multiple committees have sought to speak with administration officials or obtain documents relevant to his policies and finances. Democrats have signaled they won’t back down and will take the steps necessary — including in court — to get the White House to comply.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she’s not interested in impeachment, for the moment. But she told The Associated Press on Wednesday that “the threat of impeachment is always there.”

Nadler, D-N.Y., and the Justice Department traded barbs shortly after Barr informed lawmakers of his decision on the hearing, with Nadler saying the attorney general is “trying to blackmail the committee” by setting his own terms. Barr had objected to the format of the hearing after Democrats decided to let staff attorneys conduct a round of questioning after lawmakers were done.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said the staff questioning is “unprecedented and unnecessary.”

Also weighing in on the matter of who would ask questions was Trump. “They want to treat him differently than they have anybody else,” the president told Fox Business Network’s Trish Regan on Wednesday night, adding, “You elect people that are supposed to be able to do their own talking.” Trump said he heard that Barr had performed “incredibly well” before the Senate panel.

It’s unclear whether Barr will eventually negotiate an appearance with the House panel. Nadler said he would not issue a subpoena for Barr’s appearance on Thursday but would first focus on getting the full Mueller report, likely including a vote holding Barr in contempt of Congress.

While a contempt vote would make a strong statement, it is unlikely to force the Justice Department to hand over the report. A vote of the full House on contempt would send a criminal referral to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — a Justice Department official who is likely to defend the administration’s interests. But even if the U.S. attorney declines to prosecute, Democrats could pursue other avenues in court.

In a letter sent to the committee late Wednesday, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd laid out a list of reasons that the department won’t provide the full Mueller report or all the underlying evidence. Boyd said the special counsel’s investigative files include “millions of pages of classified and unclassified documents, bearing upon more than two dozen criminal cases and investigations, many of which are ongoing.” Boyd also reiterated that the department would not disclose secret grand jury material, another battle that could end up in court if Nadler decides to fight it.

The Justice Department has already made a less-redacted version of the report available for a small number of lawmakers, including Nadler and Pelosi, but Democrats have so far declined to read it, saying they want the entire report released to a wider audience.

Republicans objected to Nadler’s demands and say the staff questioning is unnecessary. They argue that Democrats are trying to have impeachment hearings without going through the official process of impeachment.

“Chairman Nadler sabotaged his own hearing,” Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., said after Barr canceled. “That’s sad. Because now Republicans and Democrats are not going to be able to question Bill Barr.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Lawmakers to See Empty Chair, not AG Barr, at House Hearing : http://bit.ly/2PII9x4

Trump Administration Warns Military Action in Venezuela 'Possible'

Despite massive protests in Venezuela May 1, the country's disputed leader, Nicolas Maduro, refuses to relinquish power. The United States and other countries that have recognized opposition leader Juan Guaido as Venezuela's interim president have called on Maduro to step down. But his allies, Cuba and Russia, stand behind him. VOA's Zlatica Hoke reports.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Trump Administration Warns Military Action in Venezuela 'Possible' : http://bit.ly/2JaNsnU

Democrats Grill Barr Over Handling of Mueller Report

U.S. Attorney General William Barr made his first congressional appearance Wednesday since releasing special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia report, and he faced blistering criticism from Democrats over his handling of the document. As VOA's Michael Bowman reports, Barr defended his portrayal of Mueller's conclusions after a letter surfaced in which the special counsel objected to Barr's depiction of the exhaustive report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Democrats Grill Barr Over Handling of Mueller Report : http://bit.ly/2WgCK2x

Several Congressional Panels Investigating Trump

Barr’s Testimony, Mueller’s Letter: Key Takeaways

Budget Office: Caveats to Government-Run Health System

WASHINGTON — 

Congressional budget experts said Wednesday that moving to a government-run health care system like “Medicare for All” could be complicated and potentially disruptive for Americans.

The report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was a high-level look at the pros and cons of changing the current mix of public and private health care financing to a system paid for entirely by the government. It did not include cost estimates of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation or its House counterpart, but raised dozens of issues lawmakers would confront.

“The transition toward a single-payer system could be complicated, challenging and potentially disruptive,” the report said. “Policymakers would need to consider how quickly people with private insurance would switch their coverage to a new public plan, what would happen to workers in the health insurance industry if private insurance was banned or its role was limited, and how quickly provider payment rates under the single-payer system would be phased in from current levels.”

One unintended consequence could be increased wait times and reduced access to care if there are not enough medical providers to meet an expected increased demand for services as some 29 million currently uninsured people get coverage and as deductibles and copayments are reduced or eliminated for everyone else.

“An expansion of insurance coverage under a single-payer system would increase the demand for care and put pressure on the available supply of care,” the report said.

Sanders, I-Vt., pushed back, telling reporters that what’s really disruptive is that millions of Americans remain uninsured while others can’t afford high co-pays and drug prices. “That is disruptive,” said Sanders. “What is not disruptive is expanding Medicare, which is a very popular and cost-effective program to guarantee health care for every man, woman and child.”

The Democratic presidential candidate’s single-payer proposal is coloring the nomination fight and is likely to be a significant theme in the 2020 elections. President Donald Trump derides it as “socialism.”

Employers now cover more than 160 million people, roughly half the U.S. population. Medicare covers seniors and disabled people. Medicaid covers low-income people and many nursing home residents. Other government programs serve children or military veterans.

Proponents of Medicare for All say the complexity of the U.S. system wastes billions in administrative costs and enables hospitals and drugmakers to charge much higher prices than providers get in other economically advanced countries. Critics acknowledge the U.S. has a serious cost problem, but they point out that patients don’t usually have to wait for treatment and that new drugs are generally available much more rapidly than in other countries.

While a government-run system could improve the overall health profile of the U.S., pressure on providers to curb costs could reduce the quality of care by “by causing providers to supply less care to patients covered by the public plan.”

Other potentially difficult choices flagged in the report included:

- Coverage for people living in the country without legal permission, which CBO called “a key design issue.” Sanders’ bill and its House counterpart would cover all U.S. residents, leaving it to a future administration to define that term.

- Payment for long-term care services, which CBO said could substantially increase government costs. Sanders and House counterparts would cover long-term care.

- Use of a government-set “global budget” to control cost, a strategy CBO said is “barely used” in the U.S. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid rely on other approaches.

Private payments from employers and individuals currently cover close to half of the nation’s annual $3.5 trillion health care bill. A government-run system would entail new taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes, or consumption taxes, said CBO. Or lawmakers could borrow, adding to the overhang of national debt.

Several independent studies of Sanders’ plan have estimated it would dramatically increase government spending, from $25 trillion to $35 trillion or more over 10 years. But supporters say the expense could be much lower if expected savings are factored in.

Single-payer health care doesn’t have a path to advance in Congress for now.

It has zero chances in the Republican-led Senate. In the Democratic-controlled House, key committees that would put such legislation together have not scheduled hearings. They’re instead crafting bills to lower prescription drug costs and stabilize and expand coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The CBO report was prepared for the House Budget Committee, which is expected to hold hearings but does not write health care legislation.

Within the health care industry, groups including hospitals, insurers, drugmakers and doctors have formed a coalition to battle a government-run system. Major employers are likely allies.

Polls show that Americans are open to single-payer, but it’s far from a clamor. Support is concentrated mostly among Democrats.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Budget Office: Caveats to Government-Run Health System : http://bit.ly/2ZOCjyT

Attorney General Barr Will Not Testify Before House on Thursday

Attorney General William Barr will not testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday evening.

Barr testified for hours before a Senate committee Wednesday about his no-obstruction decision and his oversight of the end of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

But hours later, the Justice Department said Barr would not appear before the House panel to answer questions about his handling of the release of Mueller's report. In the days before his planned testimony, Barr had balked at who would be questioning him Thursday during the Judiciary Committee hearing.

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York had planned to give the 41 committee members five minutes each to ask Barr questions and then another 30 minutes for both Democratic and Republican lawyers for the committee to make more inquiries of Barr.

Barr agreed to be questioned by the House lawmakers, but rejected further questioning by the lawyers.

'Very clear'

Nadler said Barr has no choice.

"We've been very clear. Barr has to come. He has to testify. It's none of the business of a witness to try to dictate to a congressional committee what the procedures for questioning him are," Nadler said Monday.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement Wednesday that Nadler's plan to have committee staff question Barr was "inappropriate," adding that the attorney general remained "happy to engage directly with members on their questions" about the Mueller report.

Nadler said the committee would take "whatever action we have to take" if Barr skipped the hearing.

"He is terrified at having to face a skilled attorney," Nadler said Wednesday, according to the French news agency AFP. He said Barr had also failed to provide to the committee a copy of the unredacted report.

Mueller cited 11 instances of possible obstruction of the investigation by President Donald Trump, saying that "while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

With Mueller not reaching a decision on the obstruction question, Barr said he concluded no criminal charges against Trump were warranted.

Democrats said they wanted to question Barr about how he reached his no-obstruction decision.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read More Attorney General Barr Will Not Testify Before House on Thursday : http://bit.ly/2GOWLXO

Budget Office Offers Caveats on Government-run Health System

Ex-White House Security Clearance Official Meets US Lawmakers

AG Barr Defends Handling of Mueller Report

Democrats Face Setbacks in Recruiting Top Senate Candidates

AG Barr to Face Senate Panel Over Mueller Report