December 12, 2024

Thursday, December 12, 2024. Annette’s News Roundup.

There is a name for what Christopher Wray did yesterday.

Anticipatory Obedience.

Don’t be guilty of it.

Don’t do it.

FBI Chief Christopher Wray, who was appointed in 2017 by Donald Trump to serve a 10-year term, announced yesterday he would resign in January ahead of Trump’s inauguration.

The 10 year term Wray was serving is part of a post-Watergate reform intended to make FBI directors less beholden to the whims of presidents. Trump already announced his intention to fire Wray and replace him with crazy Kash Patel.

Going forward, whenever you think of Christopher Wray, remember Trump’s reaction.

Then remember Timothy Snyder’s warning.

Wray’s resignation is a blight in our history.

The good news is many Americans are calling this out.

How often must we repeat “Do not obey in advance”? Christopher Wray’s assertion in his exit announcement that the FBI will remain devoted to the Constitution and keeping Americans safe is sheer mockery of the reality of Trump’s hostile takeover. Has Wray never heard of Kash Patel?

— Steven Beschloss (@stevenbeschloss.bsky.social) 2024-12-11T20:16:11.953Z

I can name many people standing up to Trump. They inevitably are taking far greater risks than the billionaire owner of the Washington Post, certain cable news hosts, or Christopher Wray. Sadly, every day we are learning who has courage and who will obey. https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/now-is-the-time-for-courage/

— Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) 2024-12-11T23:28:44.753Z

---

Resistance that may bring Trump down.

Mitch McConnell is actively attacking Trump and MAGA.

Let us see how far this goes.👇

Then there are the American people.👇

---

Americans are showing anger.

Luigi Mangione seems really to have struck a chord.

---

New Leadership in the Congress.

Jamie Raskin will lead the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, and yes, AOC will lead our team on the House Oversight Committee.

The ultimate marker of Dems’ generational shift: AOC’s Oversight ascension.

Ocasio-Cortez has earned the support of the majority of the panel’s Democrats, based on interviews with a dozen members.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is poised to become the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, punctuating a huge generational shift in the party’s power centers amid a sudden overthrow of senior leaders.

Ocasio-Cortez, 35, and Rep. Gerry Connolly, 74, have been canvassing the entire Democratic Caucus as they compete for the ranking position on Oversight next year — making calls, meeting with influential blocs in the party and laying out their vision for the high-profile panel. But according to interviews with a dozen members and staffers, Ocasio-Cortez has earned the support of the majority of Democrats on the panel, though it’s the Steering and Policy Committee and the full caucus who ultimately decide. The Oversight panel is stacked with younger, more progressive members who tend to align more with her than Connolly.

Separately, two top Democrats on other House panels have withdrawn to make room for younger leaders, and 79-year-old Rep. David Scott of Georgia is on the verge of being pushed aside from a top spot on House Agriculture.

It’s an unexpected climb for the New York progressive, a former bartender who first rose to power six years ago as an outsider willing to topple the party’s old guard — in that case former Rep. Joseph Crowley.

Her latest move is a sign that she’s staking her political future on ascending in the House, at least for now. She has declined to mount primary challenges against the two sitting senators in her state, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer. She’s shored up her relationships with the new generation of House leaders, after a rocky start with the previous iteration, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She pays her dues to the caucus’ campaign arm and donates to colleagues in battleground districts. And she stumped on the campaign trail as a surrogate for Vice President Kamala Harris, much to the chagrin of some liberals.

“She’s a very effective messenger, and that’s kind of the conclusion people have drawn from this election — that we haven’t had effective messengers,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), a senior member of the caucus.

The leadership play by Ocasio-Cortez has broader implications for her party. Democrats driving the shift say they want new leadership that can fight the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump. Her sudden rise illustrates that has become a priority consideration, trumping the party’s past concerns about younger members waiting their turn and deferring to leadership.

Ocasio-Cortez and her allies take pains to note she hasn’t given up on her progressive bona fides or her penchant for challenging Democratic leaders, notably breaking from top Democrats and Biden over the war in Gaza during the presidential campaign.

Connolly, a more senior member of the panel who has been laying the groundwork for a bid for years, isn’t totally out yet. He can count on the support of senior Democrats like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, though a person close to the Californian noted that she has nothing but respect and admiration for Ocasio-Cortez and never discouraged anyone from running.

While Ocasio-Cortez had an at-times testy relationship at the beginning of her congressional tenure with Pelosi — and had taken part in a sit-in at her office even before being sworn into Congress — she’s developed a warmer, though still-developing relationship with the newest generation of House Democratic leadership.

“We always talk about winning coalitions, but that’s really what [she’s doing]. Like we’re looking at 2026, we have stuff that we want to get done. We’re not going to get it done unless we have the seats in the House,” said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), a progressive who is close with the New York congresswoman.

And Ocasio-Cortez earlier this year neutralized a long-running criticism from other Democrats about the Squad — that they didn’t pay their dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee despite raking in huge sums in grassroots donations themselves — when she sent a check for the first time. She’s since sent in $260,000 to the DCCC, according to the most recent caucus report obtained by POLITICO, and raised or gave $54,000 to at-risk lawmakers. Connolly chipped in $190,000 to the DCCC, according to the report, and has raised and given $190,000 to purple-district members.

Connolly is also facing down some health challenges as he faces off against Ocasio-Cortez. The longtime congressman said in November he was diagnosed with esophagus cancer and is in treatment.

“Gerry has had some health issues, but he has been a very faithful member and is very outspoken on many issues,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio). “She, obviously, is a rising talent, and she has the right to use this occasion to express her concerns, so it’ll be interesting to see what materializes when they make their presentations.”

Most current Democrats on the Oversight Committee, which is stacked with some of the most liberal, outspoken members of the caucus, are expected to back Ocasio-Cortez, according to the dozen members and staffers, though she’ll need to be approved by the Steering and Policy Committee and the full caucus. She was appointed the vice ranking member this Congress by Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, her mentor and close ally on the panel, and has won plaudits from other Democrats for her tough questioning of witnesses and skilled use of social media.

Some of those who are supporting Connolly openly chalked it up to seniority.

“I have known Gerry a long time. He’s served on that committee for 16 years,” said Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.). “He’s excellent at what he does.”

“Gerry asked me a couple weeks back, so I committed to him long before Alex got in the race,” Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) said.

When asked why Connolly would be the best person for the job, Mfume responded: “Did I say he was the best person? You said that.” (Politico).

---

The good Democrats can do before Trump is inaugurated.

Express your support for the President to use his veto to limit Trump’s power.

Contact the White House. Use this link.

Biden threatens to veto bill that would have given Trump new judicial appointments.

Donald Trump is eager to appoint dozens of new judges once he becomes president. Joe Biden has other plans.

The president threatened to veto a bill to expand the number of federal judges because he doesn’t want to give the president-elect new appointment opportunities, one of the outgoing president’s closest allies said in an interview.

The move dooms legislation spearheaded by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who had spent months pushing for the creation of 63 new judgeships.

“I understand that the president’s view is that to pass it this late in the session and hand the next president 22 judges to confirm is something he doesn’t support,” Coons told POLITICO.

Coons called the decision a “regrettable outcome,” blaming partisan politics for bogging down a once-bipartisan effort.

He added that Biden told him his only objection to the bill was its timing.

“If we could change the date by four years, I know — he told me — if we could change the date, he’d sign it tomorrow,” Coons said of their conversation.

Coons, who co-authored the legislation with Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), had written the bill in hopes of easing the burden on courts across the country. They had pressed the House to take it up prior to the election, before lawmakers knew the election’s outcome. It would have created 63 new vacancies over the next decade, including 11 in 2025 and another 11 in 2027.

The Senate passed the judgeship bill unanimously over the summer.

But the timing in the House slipped past Nov. 5, prompting a Democratic push to oppose the bill before it comes up for a vote this week. Democratic leadership is urging caucus members to vote against legislation, according to three people familiar with the effort.

Even if Democrats are universally opposed, Republicans may be able to pass the bill on their own, which would force Biden to follow through on this threat.

Biden pledged to veto it in part because “the House refused to take it up until after the election.”

“The bill would create new judgeships in states where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies,” the White House said in its statement of administration policy. “Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now.”

While Coons said he understood why Biden opposed the bill, he vowed to try to revive the initiative next year regardless of the broader concerns over Trump’s influence on the judiciary.

“I know federal judges who are working under crushing workloads,” he said. “I think it is every bit as urgent today as it was before that we meet the need for an expanded federal judiciary and I regret the fact that it’s ended up getting wrapped around some more partisan concerns.” (Politico)

One more thing. If you want to vent, give Manchin and Sinema a call and tell them what you think of them. Use this link.

Mike Johnson needs Dems to pass a stopgap spending bill. Here's what they want.

Given his thin margins in the House and conservatives who tend to always oppose short-term funding fixes, he will almost certainly need to get House Democrats on board.

Lawmakers only have nine working days left to figure out government funding before the shutdown deadline, and Speaker Mike Johnson will almost certainly need House Democratic votes to pass it.

Congress is likely to pass a stopgap government funding measure before Dec. 20, likely to fund the government until March of next year at its current levels. But considering Johnson’s razor-thin margin and a notable conservative faction of his conference that doesn’t generally support stopgap spending bills, known as continuing resolutions, House Democrats will likely be the ones to get the legislation over the finish line.

Typically, punting a funding deadline into a new year when Republicans will control every lever of power would make Democrats shudder. But they’re not putting up much of a fight this time around.

While leadership negotiations are ongoing at this point, Democrats have made clear that they have one main demand for the stopgap: a robust supplemental package to address disaster aid. They also want to ensure that there are no cuts or partisan riders included in the stopgap measure.

The White House requested nearly $100 billion to aid in recovery from several natural disasters across the country, including hurricanes Helene and Milton, the Maui wildfires and tornadoes in the Midwest.

To be clear: Democrats are not going to provoke a shutdown over the supplemental package and prevent Congress from going home for the holidays. If the continuing resolution is “clean,” as lawmakers put it, they’re going to work to keep the government open.

But they are trying to negotiate for as much funding as they can to get to the number requested by the White House, making clear it’s a priority that the funds reach the states impacted the most by natural disasters. Expect some last-minute dustups if this number comes in too low.

And Republican appropriators have hinted that the supplemental funding total could be much less than what the White House requested. When asked for details on where negotiations stood on Monday, appropriators on both sides said they weren’t willing to share the topline number — a signal of potential trouble ahead.

Some news: Two key pieces of legislation — the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which funds the bulk of the nation’s work training programs, and the Older Americans Act, which funds a range of services for seniors — could ride on the continuing resolution. Both have sign off from the top four committee leaders, a person familiar with the negotiations told POLITICO.

Either way, don’t expect text until the weekend: As we reported on Friday, the soft deadline for releasing bill text is typically the Sunday prior to the shutdown cliff — Dec. 15 in this case.

And a reminder: The less time lawmakers have to review legislation, the greater its chances of passing the chambers quickly. (Politico)

---