Now That Trump Has Declared A National Emergency, Here Is What Happens Next

Now that President Trump has officially declared his plans to declare a national emergency to authorize an additional $7 billion for his promised border wall, political observers will be waiting to see what Democrats and Republicans in Congress do next to try and block the funding. Democrats in both the House and the Senate unanimously oppose the national emergency measure, and what's probably more surprising, a number of Senate Republicans have also expressed concerns with the plan.

So, what - if anything - can be done to stop this executive action by the president?

The New York Times has offered a brief guide to what will likely happen next, considering that several House Democrats (including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) have already declared their plans to try and stop the president.

The upshot is that Congressional Democrats have two avenues that they can pursue: One in Congress, and one in the courts.

• • *

Can Congress stop Trump from declaring an emergency? (short answer: maybe so, but they would need the support of enough Senate Republicans to give them a supermajority in both chambers)

No, Congress does not have the power to stop the president from declaring a national emergency. But when lawmakers granted the president emergency powers in the first place, they built a check into the law.

Under the National Emergencies Act, the House and the Senate can take up what is called a joint resolution of termination to end the emergency status if they believe the president is acting irresponsibly or the threat has dissipated. Representative Joaquin Castro, Democrat of Texas and the head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said late Thursday that he was ready to introduce such a resolution if Mr. Trump followed through. With a comfortable majority in the chamber, Democrats will most likely pass it or a similarly worded resolution.

“I will fully support the enactment of a joint resolution to terminate the president’s emergency declaration, in accordance with the process described in the National Emergencies Act, and intend to pursue all other available legal options,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

To keep a president’s party from bottling such a measure up, the law says that if one chamber passes such a resolution, the other one must bring it up for a vote within 18 days. Though Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, they would need only a handful of Republicans to join them to pass the resolution there and send it to Mr. Trump’s desk. It is easy to imagine a half-dozen or more Republican senators joining Democrats out of concern for the precedent that Mr. Trump’s declaration will set.

What would Trump do next?

As with any other bill that comes to the president’s desk, Mr. Trump can veto a joint congressional resolution terminating the national emergency, as long as it has not passed with supermajorities in both the House and the Senate.

Congress did not originally intend to give the president this recourse when it enacted the law during the post-Watergate reform era that has governed how and when presidents may invoke emergency-power statutes.

But the Supreme Court struck down what it calls legislative vetoes in 1983, ruling that for a congressional act to take legal effect, it must be presented to the president for signature or veto. Because it takes two-thirds of both chambers to override a veto, the ruling made it substantially harder for Congress to stop a president’s declaration.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/now-trump-has-declared-national-emergency-here-what-happens-next

Mitch McConnell Told Trump No ‘Land Mines’ in Spending Bill, a ‘Win’ over Pelosi

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reportedly gave President Donald Trump false information about legislation to prevent a second partial government shutdown, claiming the bill possesses no “hidden provisions” or “landmines.”

The Kentucky Republican also is said to have told the president that signing the bill into law would be a “win” over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has long opposed any funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, having called the proposal “immoral.”

The New York Times reports:

A balky president was concerned that signing the measure could impose restraints on his ability to tap other funds and was urged by his chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to tell Republican leaders to instead pass a short-term bill to keep the government open while reopening negotiations, according to a Republican briefed on the situation.

Such a move would have unraveled the delicate bipartisan balance favored by Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, who wanted to move beyond the wall fight. In a telephone conversation on Thursday, Mr. Trump asked Mr. McConnell whether the spending measure included any hidden provisions or “land mines,” and the senator reassured him it did not, according to a person familiar with the call.

Similarly, Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary, and White House lawyers told him that he could still move money around, and Ms. Nielsen said that the spending package was actually better than a short-term measure. Mr. McConnell argued that it was a win over Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Money in the bill for border barriers, about $1.4 billion, is far below the $5.7 billion President Trump insisted he needed and would finance just a quarter of the 200-plus miles he wanted. The White House said he would sign the legislation but act unilaterally to get more, prompting condemnations from Democrats and threats of lawsuits from states and others who might lose federal money or said the president was abusing his authority.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed in a statement that the president will sign the funding bill and take executive action to build the wall. “President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action – including a national emergency – to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border. The President is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country,” Sanders said.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/15/report-mitch-mcconnell-told-trump-no-land-mines-in-spending-bill-a-win-over-pelosi/

There are no independent countries in the world, Putin says

Europe can’t oppose the US deployment of missiles, even if it is contrary to their interests, because no country can be truly independent these days, Vladimir Putin believes.

The Russian president thinks “the modern world is the world of interdependency” and there are no truly independent countries these days.

“Do you think European countries want missiles in Europe? Nobody wants it. But they keep silent. Where is their sovereignty?” Putin asked during his visit in Sochi.

The EU Parliament, he said, makes more decisions on behalf of the member countries than “the Supreme Soviet of USSR on behalf of constituent republics” back in the days.

There are no fully independent states in the world.

On Thursday leaders from Russia, Turkey and Iran gathered in the Black Sea city of Sochi to discuss ways of ending Syria’s crisis. The talks were held amid hostile talk emerging from a meeting of the US and its allies in Warsaw, where they talked about their take on the Middle East.

During the meeting in Sochi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani expressed doubts over Washington’s plan to remove troops stationed with Kurdish forces in northern Syria. But Putin seemed to be the most optimistic that the move would actually happen soon.

After the summit on Syria ended, Putin stayed on in Sochi to hold talks with Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko.

https://www.rt.com/news/451561-putin-independent-states-world/

Tulsi Gabbard presents bill to stop Trump from pulling out of INF treaty

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill to congress which would prevent President Donald Trump from withdrawing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) treaty.

https://www.rt.com/usa/451577-tulsi-gabbard-stop-inf-pullout-trump/

>>5191243

Ginsburg Meets With Supreme Court Justices In Friday Conference

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/ginsburg-meets-supreme-court-justices-friday-conference

Portland City Council votes to leave Joint Terrorism Task Force, cites sanctuary status and investigation of Antifa

The Portland, Oregon, City Council voted to pull out of the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force on Wednesday, after rejoining the partnership four years ago. Commissioners voiced their distrust of the agency and of President Donald Trump in arguing for the withdrawal, which will end the cooperation between local police and federal law enforcement.

What are the details?

Oregon Public Broadcasting reported that the 3-2 decision came after a push led by new Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty, who won election in November on a pledge to protect the city's sanctuary status.

"For a whole year, I talked about this on the campaign trail, and everywhere I went, people were concerned about whether or not their data was collected and used in a way that was against Oregon state law," Hardesty said. "We are here today because I am about keeping promises."

Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Chloe Eudaly joined Hardesty in voting for the withdrawal.

"The current president has made clear his animosity toward Muslims, immigrants and people of color," Fritz reasoned to the council. "I found it hard to trust the JTTF under President [Barack] Obama. It's impossible now."

According to the Willamette Week, opponents of the partnership also voiced concern over the FBI's investigations of left-leaning activist groups like Antifa, and argued that cooperation with the feds hadn't been effective enough in stopping terrorist attacks in Portland or elsewhere.

"The city of Boston's participation in the JTTF did not prevent the Boston Marathon bombing," Fritz noted.

Eudaly told KOIN-TV ahead of the vote that she was concerned about the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's participation in the partnership.

Mayor Ted Wheeler and Commissioner Nick Fish voted against the withdrawal, saying that working with the FBI gives local law enforcement a heads up on potential threats.

Portland Police Chief Danielle Outlaw agreed, issuing a statement voicing her support for continuing participation in the JTTF and warned that pulling out would mean "we may be walled off from the day-to-day information from other agencies that is vital to protecting our community."

Portland has had an on-again, off-again relationship with JTTF, according to the Oregonian. The city first joined in 1997, left in 2005, rejoined in a limited capacity in 2011 and restored its full participation in 2015. It now has 90 days to leave the task force again.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/portland-leaves-joint-terrorism-task-force

Furor over Omar puts spotlight on AIPAC

This week’s controversial tweets by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), one of the first two Muslim women to serve in Congress, has put the spotlight on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

AIPAC, founded in 1963 with a mission of promoting the U.S.-Israeli relationship, has long been seen as a significant player in Washington.

The group also has won support from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for years, with many political figures, including presidents and presidential candidates from both parties, flocking to its annual conference, which always attracts some of the biggest names in politics and foreign policy from the United States and Israel.

But it has been long a target for criticism from the left wing of the Democratic Party, where support for a foreign policy that would offer more support for the Palestinian cause has been building as the Democratic caucus grows larger and more diverse.

The Omar controversy started Sunday when she commented on a tweet by journalist Glenn Greenwald, a loud critic of AIPAC’s influence on American foreign policy and politics. Greenwald had tweeted out a story about House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) promising “action” against Omar for critical views on Israel.

“It's all about the Benjamins baby,” Omar tweeted.

In a subsequent tweet, Omar directly called out AIPAC, suggesting it was the lobbying group responsible for U.S. support of Israel.

Democratic leaders just a day later were lambasting Omar over her tweets, accusing her of employing anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish people and money.

“Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share,” a joint statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other House Democratic leaders stated. “But Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

Omar did apologize for the remarks, but she stuck to her criticism of AIPAC.

“I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry,” she said. “It’s gone on too long, and we must be willing to address it.”

Following Omar’s initial tweet on Sunday, AIPAC issued an official statement expressing its pride in working to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/430054-furor-over-omar-puts-spotlight-on-aipac

>>5191339

FFS it's clearly BS but in light of your post I thought you'd be interested. Until any of us see video proof with interaction with others I'll like most here will consider her dead

>>5191362

>>5191200 There are no independent countries in the world, Putin says

Baker Putin saying this is notable

>>5191365

>>5191426

Never makes notables

>>5191450

the hill article is an hour old

Top US general disagrees with Trump over Syria troop pullout

The US commander who has been leading the war against ISIS told CNN Friday that he disagreed with Donald Trump's decision in December to pull troops out of Syria and warned that the terror group was far from defeated, in a stark difference of opinion with the President.

Joseph Votel, the top American general in the Middle East, also said that the US-backed forces on the ground in Syria were not ready to handle the threat of ISIS on their own.

"It would not have been my military advice at that particular time … I would not have made that suggestion, frankly," Votel said of the troop withdrawal announcement. "(The caliphate) still has leaders, still has fighters, it still has facilitators, it still has resources, so our continued military pressure is necessary to continue to go after that network."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics/joseph-votel-troops-syria-intl/index.html

Full retard

>>5191539

their fucking insane