Connect with us

Politics

Wilbur Ross grilled over role in adding citizenship question to 2020 census

Published

on

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

By Dartunorro Clark

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross faced tough questioning Thursday from Democrats on the House Oversight Committee about whether he lied to Congress about his decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

The committee’s chairman, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., asked whether Ross had been “truthful” in testifying to Congress three times last year about whether “he added the citizenship question only because of the Department of Justice requested it.”

“The key question we will ask Secretary Ross today is, what was he hiding from the Congress?” Cummings said. “What’s the real reason that the Trump Administration wanted to add this unconstitutional citizenship question?”

Ross said in his opening statement that before he decided to add the question, he learned that the Justice Department might want it included.

“I instructed staff to follow up with DOJ for a written statement confirming whether or not DOJ was going to ask for reinstatement of the question,” Ross said. “I wanted to make sure that we had enough time to adequately consider any formal request that DOJ might make.”

Ross’ highly anticipated appearance before the committee on Thursday comes just days after a second federal judge said he had violated federal law and the Constitution by hastily adding the question to the survey.

Democratic members repeatedly attempted to press Ross about when exactly he made the decision to add the question, which they insisted would result in an undercount and could thus affect the dispersal of billions in federal aid.

Republicans sharply criticized the Democrats, arguing that the census has asked the citizenship question on supplemental forms in the past and Ross did nothing wrong by adding it to the 2020 census.

Ross argued that, ultimately, the Justice Department made a formal request in December 2017 for the Census Bureau to reinstate the citizenship question on the census “for use in Voting Rights Act enforcement,” prompting the Census Bureau to initiate “a legal, policy, and programmatic review process to consider alternate means of meeting DOJ’s request.”

Ross testified before the House Ways and Means Committee last March that the question was added at his direction after he received the DOJ request. But documents released as a part of a multistate lawsuit against Ross showed that the secretary had inquired about adding the question much earlier.

Freshman Democratic Rep. Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tried to pin Ross down on his rationale. She pointed to memos, emails and phone calls that were revealed in the ongoing litigation that show Ross spoke with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and former Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach, who advised Trump’s transition team, about adding the question.

“Did you speak to Mr. Kobach about his decision on the citizenship question?” she asked.

Ross acknowledged that he did speak with Kobach but said he didn’t follow through with his suggestions.

She then suggested that Ross violated federal law by not advising Congress about his decision to add the question, asserting that the question is “materially different,” containing more detail than the one that was asked last time the census officially included the question, in 1950.

Ross, however, said that his agency had in fact “complied with all the regulations.”

Republicans excoriated Democrats, accusing them of politicizing the process and defended the decision to add the question to the census. They also attempted to adjourn the hearing, arguing that it could influence a decision by the Supreme Court, which plans to take up the issue next month.

“I mean, for the life of me, I do not know why the Democrats don’t want to know how many citizens are in the United States of America,” Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the ranking Republican, said. “But for some reason, they are focused on this question. Maybe it’s politics. It seems clear to me we are having the hearing today for that reason. The majority insists on politicizing the 2020 census.”

Mark Meadows, R-N.C., later added: “Many of the questions that you will receive today have nothing to do with accurately counting the number of people that are here in the United States of America. It has everything to do with politics. And everything to do with trying to make sure that one particular message comes across.”

Ross also assured Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., that the data collected about citizenship would not be used in immigration enforcement.

“The census question will not ask about legal status of the respondent,” he said. “It simply asks about the factual status, citizen or not, and some questions about where they came from. There’s nothing in the census data that can be used by enforcement authorities for immigration or for any other purpose.”

Republicans on the committee also raised concerns about the hearing being used in the upcoming Supreme Court case that will decide whether asking the question is unconstitutional.

“To think that this isn’t going to come up in oral arguments is actually folly,” Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., said. “What is not appropriate is weaponizing this congressional hearing to effectively create an end-run around the Supreme Court staying the deposition of Secretary Ross.”

Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., who chaired the congressional panel overseeing the 2010 census, grilled Ross over his past statements on who initiated the inquiry into the citizenship question.

Clay noted that in Ross’ three past appearances before Congress in 2017, he said the Justice Department initiated the request in December of that year. However, Clay pointed to a May 2017 email from Ross to aides in which the secretary said, “I am mystified why nothing have been done in response to my months old request that we include the citizenship question. We need to work with Justice to get them to request that citizenship be added back as a census question.”

Ross, however, explained that he was frustrated that he did not receive a definitive answer about whether or not department would “formally request” the question because he assumed the agency had plans about reinstating it. He continued to maintain the basis for his decision was the official memo released in March 2018 in which he said the DOJ requested the request be added because it was necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

Clay then blasted Ross, saying that his past statements were meant to mislead lawmakers and the public.

“Mr. Secretary, you lied to Congress, you misled the American people, and you are complicit in the Trump administration’s intent to suppress the growing political power of the non-white population,” Clay said. “You have already done great harm to the census in 2020, and you have zero credibility, and you should, in my opinion, resign.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., questioned Ross about an email that he sent in August 2017 in which he suggested that someone within the administration strongly opposed adding the question and said he wanted to speak with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions about adding it.

Ross said he did not recall the email or any other discussions with Sessions, adding that any conversation he had with the attorney general was confidential.

“You are just continuing to stonewall,” Wasserman Schultz said. “You don’t know the answer? Is that because you don’t remember the conversation? On the phone? You don’t remember sending your own email that’s before your very eyes?”

Ross later added, “Anybody who has followed recent events knows that Attorney General Sessions was not someone I or anyone else could bully into any decision. … The official document from the Department of Justice reflects their view.”

Jordan slammed Democrats for opposing adding the citizenship question to the standard census given that it has appeared on the supplemental American Community Survey, which asks more detailed questions to a smaller portion of the population.

“The only people opposing it are Democrats in Washington, D.C.,” he told Ross. “You’re just doing as best you can, and you have a formal directive from the Department of Justice saying put the question on the census.”

“Imagine that,” Jordan said. “You went above and beyond what, frankly, I think you had to do, but that’s how you did it.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, Cummings thanked Ross for appearing after weeks of haggling between the committee and the Commerce Department, but said he remained unconvinced about Ross’s sworn testimony.

“I’ve been thinking about how you were going to get around some of the issues that have been raised with regard to whether your testimony was consistent and whether this came from DOJ or this originated with you,” Cummings said. “I’ve listened, Mr. Secretary, and I tell you, I’m not totally convinced that this did not come directly from Mr. Bannon and it did not come from the very beginning.”

Cummings requested that Ross provide additional documents and written answers to questions that went unanswered during the hearing, or else.

“Now, if you don’t agree with this, you will basically be forcing us to consider a subpoena,” he said.

Source link

Politics

European elections: How to vote – Am I registered to vote in EU elections?

Published

on

THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 2019 begin tomorrow – but how do you know if you are registered to place a vote?

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Impeachment talk intensifies as Trump’s ex-White House counsel is a no-show at Judiciary

Published

on

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

SUBSCRIBE

 / Updated 

By Rebecca Shabad

WASHINGTON — The debate over whether to open an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump intensified among House Democrats on Tuesday as former White House counsel Don McGahn defied a congressional subpoena to provide testimony.

“There’s a growing understanding that the impeachment process is inevitable — when, not if,” House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., said to reporters as he entered a closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who has signed onto a resolution that calls for the House Judiciary Committee, to look into whether to launch impeachment proceedings, told NBC News’ Kasie Hunt on Tuesday, “I believe we have come to a time of impeachment.”

Asked at what point she thought Pelosi would agree, Ocasio-Cortez said public pressure would be the deciding factor. “I think it really depends on everyday Americans,” she said. “If you have a representative that is in a close seat and you think that we should be upholding the rule of law, I think it’s time to give your representative a call.”

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., a 12-term lawmaker, announced on Twitter Tuesday that she backs the initiation of an impeachment inquiry.

Calls for impeachment proceedings by some members of Democratic leadership have grown this week as the White House continues to block Democrats from testimony or documents they’ve subpoenaed.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Several Democrats on the Judiciary Committee pressed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Monday evening during a leadership meeting on Capitol Hill to move forward with an impeachment inquiry against Trump if McGahn failed to appear at the planned hearing, reviving a debate that has divided the caucus.

“I’m not there yet, but a couple more moves like the latest [with McGahn now showing up] is probably going to push me over the edge,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., told reporters after the closed-door meeting Tuesday morning.

“Every time someone refuses to testify, every time the president blocks another civilian … from testifying, he is putting his thumb in our faces and the Constitution, frankly. I think more and more people are saying, ‘You know, he’s pushing us to the edge,’” he added.

As some Democratic members call for more forceful action, Pelosi has scheduled a special closed-door caucus meeting for Wednesday morning to give an update on oversight and investigations, two Democratic leadership aides told NBC News on Tuesday.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., told reporters Tuesday that she expects the Wednesday meeting will focus on growing calls for impeachment.

“I think we’re going to have an important meeting tomorrow to discuss [it],” said Schakowsky, who described the caucus as “somewhat divided” over the issue and is unsure about an impeachment inquiry herself. “I believe that he has definitely committed impeachable offenses — the question is how do we follow up on all of the misdeeds that we’ve seen?”

Three members of the Judiciary Committee and leadership — Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, David Cicilline of Rhode Island and Joe Neguse of Colorado — lobbied Pelosi Monday to initiate impeachment proceedings.

“I do think this effort by the president and the White House to impede and undermine our ability to collect the evidence necessary to do our work is something that can’t be tolerated,” Cicilline told reporters Tuesday after the caucus meeting.

The decision about whether to pursue impeachment “will be a collective decision” among House Democratic leaders, Cicilline said, that will be reflected by the sentiment of the entire caucus and “ultimately decided by the speaker.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., continued to echo Pelosi’s cautious tone on impeachment. “I don’t think we’re there at this point in time,” he told reporters Tuesday.

Many of the Democrats pushing to maintain the current trajectory argued that a ruling by a federal judge Monday in favor of the House Oversight Committee’s bid to obtain Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm meant impeachment was not needed to continue investigations.

“I think we need to make sure that we do as much investigating as we can. And if that leads us to looking into impeachment, we’ll get there. But one step at a time,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who served as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, during the period when the Russians hacked into the committee.

“The court ruling yesterday was pretty telling in that we don’t need impeachment at all to be able to move forward with the investigations, and so I think that right now we have the legal, you know, legal aspects on our side, and we need to continue forward on that path,” said freshman Rep. Katie Hill, D-Calif., Tuesday.

“We don’t need impeachment,” Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., added Tuesday. “I say, invoke the penalties. Put them in contempt. You’ve got to put the heat on these boys. They don’t know anything but heat, we have the law on our side, we should apply the heat.”

But some impeachment advocates sounded emboldened. “I am convinced that there will be a vote on impeachment, and I am convinced that people are starting to conclude that it should be sooner rather than later,” Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who has previously introduced articles of impeachment against Trump, told reporters Tuesday.

Earlier Tuesday, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., held the planned hearing for McGahn with an empty witness chair.

“This conduct is not remotely acceptable,” the New York Democrat said then. “Mr. McGahn did not appear today because the president prevented it … “

“Our subpoenas are not optional,” Nadler continued. “Mr. McGahn has a legal obligation to be here for this scheduled appearance. If he does not immediately correct his mistake, this committee will have no choice but to enforce the subpoena against him.”

Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., the committee’s ranking member, called the empty chair hearing “theater” and said calling McGahn to testify was not about obtaining information or informing legislation, but “embarrassing and harassing the president.”

“Democrats are trying to make something out of nothing,” Collins said.

An attorney for McGahn, William Burck, had confirmed in a letter to Nadler Monday that his client would not appear for his scheduled hearing, citing both the Justice Department’s legal opinion that McGahn cannot be compelled by subpoena to testify and Trump’s “unambiguously” clear directive that McGahn defy Congress.

Alex Moe contributed.



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

European elections LIVE: Expats furious at postal votes mix-up

Published

on

BRITS living in France could miss out on their postal votes in tomorrow’s European elections because of a mix-up over their ballot papers.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending