Tag

Slider

Browsing

The promise of an onslaught of spending from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has loomed over Democratic primaries for months — but it hasn’t yet materialized.

Progressives critical of Israel, however, think they can exploit even the threat of AIPAC’s involvement in their races, in yet another sign of the schism among Democrats over the escalating Israel-Hamas war.

Their digital ads warn of the group’s influence and seek to energize small-dollar donors. Advocacy groups supporting them have formed an anti-AIPAC coalition to coordinate a defense against the expected influx of cash. Progressive incumbents have sought assistance from their leadership, demanding unified party support to block challenges.

It’s an effort to neutralize AIPAC, which has vowed to drop $100 million this cycle to support pro-Israel candidates, including ousting progressives, in part, for their support for Palestinians amid the war. And there are some signs it may be working. Days after Iran’s attack on Israel, the deep-pocketed lobby group still has yet to turn on the spigots in primaries against some prominent progressives, like Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), the first member of the liberal “Squad” to face a primary this year.

And in the few races AIPAC has jumped into, it has had a limited track record so far. That’s made the group a more effective foil, at least so far, than the heavyweight player many on the left had feared it would be in Democratic primaries.

AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, has spent around $6 million on advertising this year, according to ad tracker AdImpact. Most of that — around $4 million — was against David Min, a progressive running for outgoing California Democratic Rep. Katie Porter‘s seat. Min ended up winning a spot in the top-two primary system anyway, and the candidate UDP backed didn’t. Though it hasn’t directly spent in their races yet, AIPAC has still bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions for the primary challengers to Squad members Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.).

Much of progressives’ attacks have centered on the groups’ donors: Republican donors — including former Home Depot CEO Bernie Marcus and billionaire financier Paul Singer — are among its contributors. (Major Democratic donors also give to AIPAC.) Progressives also note that the group has endorsed candidates who voted against certifying the 2020 election.

“Hopefully where we’ve been successful is in letting people know that their money should be considered toxic in a primary. Because this is not genuinely Democratic money coming into a Democratic primary to elect a Democrat,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a leader of the Progressive Caucus’ political arm who’s been vocal in opposition to the group’s influence.

AIPAC pushes back on that characterization. AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann said in a statement that its PACs support “scores of pro-Israel progressives who understand it is entirely consistent with progressive values to support the Jewish state. We oppose extremist anti-Israel detractors who seek to undermine America’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Iranian terrorist proxies.”

The full scope of AIPAC’s and UDP’s spending is yet to be seen, given that most primary campaigns are not in full swing yet. But there’s one particularly notable gap right now: Lee’s race in Pennsylvania’s 12th District. Lee had been a top AIPAC target in 2022, when it spent millions of dollars against her — but now, less than a week out from the Pennsylvania primary, she hasn’t faced any outside spending from the group.

That hasn’t stopped Lee from railing against the group. The campaign has warned of AIPAC’s ability to flood the race with money, and she criticizes her primary opponent, Edgewood Borough Council Member Bhavini Patel, for her links to deep-pocketed GOP donors.

Lee said she spoke out against AIPAC throughout her campaign because “our voters have a right to know that when they see ads funded by the ‘United Democracy Project,’ it’s actually a right-wing lobby.”

Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for UDP, said the group is still monitoring 15 to 20 races on both sides of the aisle, “looking carefully at opportunities to prevent anti-Israel candidates from being elected to Congress.”

Lee has, however, attracted negative spending from Moderate PAC, a group funded primarily by GOP megadonor Jeff Yass that has poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting Patel. (At a debate earlier this month, Patel said she “denounces” Yass, who is linked to former President Donald Trump.)

Lee is leaning on that outside spending — both the actual money coming in from Moderate PAC and the anticipated cash from AIPAC — in advertising and fundraising appeals to broadly attack “Republican-funded super PACs.” Other progressives have similarly used the threat of AIPAC’s involvement on the campaign trail and in fundraising pleas. It’s been a particularly popular topic for fellow members of the Squad, which AIPAC spent millions unsuccessfully trying to block from Congress in the midterms.

“Dark money super PACs like AIPAC donated huge sums of money to amplify Ilhan’s opponent last cycle and are preparing to do so again to defeat our movement,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) wrote in a recent digital ad. “We need all of the support we can get to fight back and WIN.”

Omar, in a statement, told POLITICO: “No Democrat should be accepting money from a group that openly supports and funds over one hundred Republican insurrectionists.”

But Omar’s primary — which is months away — hasn’t seen any outside intervention from AIPAC, according to AdImpact. And she has raised hefty sums, raking in over $1.7 million last quarter.

UDP spent six figures against Omar in 2022, when she faced former Minneapolis City Council member Don Samuels, who’s also seeking a rematch this time. So far, the super PAC hasn’t placed any ad reservations in the race, nor has AIPAC endorsed her competitors.

Some of the other most outspoken critics of the Israeli government, like Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), aren’t even facing competitive primaries this cycle (despite some unsuccessful attempts to recruit challengers). But they too have leaned into the anti-AIPAC messaging. Tlaib has run multiple digital ads explicitly calling out the group for “spending millions against progressive women of color,” and Pressley had done so too.

“Every Democratic candidate running for any elected office should be condemning AIPAC spending,” said Usamah Andrabi, spokesperson for the progressive Justice Democrats.

In anticipation of the spending barrage, Reject AIPAC — a coalition of progressive groups including Justice Democrats, along with Jewish and Muslim advocacy groups — launched this cycle to counteract AIPAC’s opposition campaign. The coalition, which aims to defend the AIPAC-targeted candidates, last week put out a video echoing these criticisms of the group.

But while AIPAC and UDP have stayed out of some high-profile progressives’ races so far, the groups in recent weeks have waded into House primaries where the Israel-Hamas war hasn’t been anywhere near the center of attention.

United Democracy Project played in Illinois’ 7th District against gun violence prevention advocate Kina Collins, who unsuccessfully challenged longtime Democratic Rep. Danny Davis. The group spent around $500,000 on advertisements and mailers opposing her, according to campaign finance filings.

UDP entered Indiana’s 8th District earlier this month, a deep-red open seat, where the group is targeting former Republican Rep. John Hostettler. The group launched an ad slamming him for his previous votes against Israel.

The group has also reserved over $1 million in airtime in Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District to boost state Sen. Sarah Elfreth. She is running against a crowded field of candidates that includes former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who rose to prominence after the Jan. 6 insurrection. Dunn objected to the group entering the race, and started airing a TV ad saying: “You’d think after Jan. 6, we’d see change. But greedy corporations and corrupt politicians went back to rigging the system.”

Dunn had vowed to be a supporter of Israel and Jewish people in a position paper he previously provided to AIPAC. In the document, obtained by POLITICO, Dunn name-checked lawmakers who’d been strong Israel allies, like former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), as influencing his views.

Elfreth campaign manager Pat Murray said in a statement she was fighting to change the campaign finance system but would be “playing by the rules as they exist today, and we are not going to turn down help.”

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the Intelligence Committee following the 2001 terrorist attacks and opposed the Iraq invasion, has died. He was 87.

His family announced the death Tuesday in a statement posted on X by his daughter Gwen Graham.

Graham, who served three terms in the Senate, made an unsuccessful bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, emphasizing his opposition to the Iraq invasion.

But his bid was delayed by heart surgery in January 2003. Never able to gain enough traction with voters to catch up, he bowed out that October. He didn’t seek reelection in 2004 and was replaced by Republican Mel Martinez.

A man of many quirks, Graham perfected the “workdays” political gimmick of spending a day doing various jobs from horse stall mucker to FBI agent. He kept a meticulous diary, noting almost everyone he spoke with, everything he ate, the TV shows he watched and even his golf scores.

But he closed the notebooks to the media during his short-lived presidential bid.

Graham was among the earliest opponents of the Iraq war, saying it diverted America’s focus on the battle against terrorism centered in Afghanistan. He also criticized President George W. Bush for failing to have an occupation plan in Iraq after the U.S. military threw out Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Graham said Bush took the United States into the war by exaggerating claims of the danger presented by the Iraqi weapons of destruction that were never found. Saying Bush distorted intelligence data, Graham argued that was more serious than the sexual misconduct issues that led to President Clinton’s impeachment in the late 1990s.

It spurred Graham to launch his brief presidential bid.

“The quagmire in Iraq is a distraction that the Bush administration, and the Bush administration alone, has created,” Graham said in 2003.

As a politician, few were better. Florida voters hardly considered him the wealthy Harvard-educated attorney that he was.

Graham’s political career spanned five decades, beginning with his election to the Florida House of Representatives in 1966.

He won a state Senate seat in 1970, was elected governor in 1978 and was reelected in 1982. Four years later, he won the first of three terms in the U.S. Senate when he ousted incumbent Republican Paula Hawkins.

Graham remained widely popular with Florida voters, winning reelection by wide margins in 1992 and 1998 when he carried 63 of 67 counties.

Even when in Washington, Graham never took his eye off the state and the leadership in Tallahassee.

When Gov. Jeb Bush and the Republican-controlled Legislature eliminated the Board of Regents in 2001, Graham saw it as a move to politicize the state university system. He led a successful petition drive the next year for a state constitutional amendment that created the Board of Governors to assume the regents’ role.

Daniel Robert Graham was born Nov. 9, 1936, in Coral Gables where his father, Ernest “Cap” Graham, had moved from South Dakota and established a large dairy operation. Young Bob milked cows, built fences and scooped manure as a teenager. One of his half-brothers, Phillip Graham, was publisher of The Washington Post and Newsweek until he committed suicide in 1963, just a year after Bob Graham’s graduation from Harvard Law.

In 1966 he was elected to the Florida Legislature, where he focused largely on education and health care issues.

But Graham got off to a shaky start as Florida’s chief executive, and was dubbed “Gov. Jello” for some early indecisiveness. He shook that label through his handling of several serious crises.

As governor, he also signed numerous death warrants, founded the Save the Manatee Club with entertainer Jimmy Buffett and led efforts to establish several environmental programs.

Graham pushed through a bond program to buy beaches and barrier islands threatened by development and also started the Save Our Everglades program to protect the state’s water supply, wetlands and endangered species.

Graham also was known for his 408 “workdays,” including stints as a housewife, boxing ring announcer, flight attendant and arson investigator.

“This has been a very important part of my development as a public official, my learning at a very human level what the people of Florida expect, what they want, what their aspirations are and then trying to interpret that and make it policy that will improve their lives” said Graham in 2004 as he completed his final job as a Christmas gift wrapper.

After leaving public life in 2005, Graham spent much of his time at a public policy center named after him at the University of Florida and pushing the Legislature to require more civics classes in the state’s public schools.

Graham was one of five members selected for an independent commission by President Barack Obama in June 2010 to investigate a massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that threatened sea life and beaches along several southeastern Gulf states.

House lawmakers passed multiple pieces of legislation focused on penalizing Iran following its attack on Israel last weekend.

The measures passed include:

A resolution declaring the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’’ is “outrightly antisemitic and must be strongly condemned.”

The Holding Iranian Leaders Accountable Act, which would require a report on the financial holdings of senior Iranian officials.
The Iran Sanctions Accountability Act, aimed at preventing the evasion of sanctions against Iran.

The Strengthening Tools to Counter the Use of Human Shields Act, which would impose sanctions on entities that use civilians as human shields.

The Illicit Captagon Trafficking Suppression Act, which would impose sanctions on entities that produce or facilitate distribution of a synthetic stimulant named Captagon.

The No Technology for Terror Act, which would permanently bar the export of U.S.-made technology to Iran.

The No Paydays to Hostage Takers Act, which would bar U.S. admittance of sanctioned officials for United Nations meetings.

The Solidify Iran Sanctions Act, which would make permanent certain sanctions on Iran.
A resolution urging the European Union to “expeditiously” declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization

There is no indication yet that the Senate will act on any of the measures.

Senate leaders are trying to strike an agreement that would allow a few hours of debate before proceeding to a vote to potentially dismiss or table the impeachment trial against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Though it would not alter the outcome, such a pact would avoid a potential pileup of procedural motions from Senate Republicans who are demanding a prolonged trial. And it would give senators additional time to debate Mayorkas’ record, which Republicans could use to criticize Democrats for an upcoming disposal of a full trial.

The deal is not yet final — and leaders have some time before the Senate meets again on the issue. While the House delivered the articles to the Senate on Tuesday, senators will not be sworn in as jurors until Wednesday. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) declined to say how much debate time Senate Republicans could get as part of the deal, but said the hope is negotiations to that end wrap up by the end of Tuesday.

“It sounds like they are making positive progress on how to dispose of impeachment,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “There’s still some negotiations going on, but I think that’s good news.”

Still, any such deal would require unanimous consent in the Senate, meaning any one senator could scuttle it. Asked if he expects a Republican will object to the deal, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said “all options are on the table.” And he’s not alone in floating some tepid opposition to a potential agreement.

Shutting down the trial too quickly “would be a nuclear option on the part of the Democrats,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). “So I think that gives us the right to shut this place down.”

Of course, Republicans’ ideal situation would be a full trial with presentations from House impeachment managers and arguments for supporting evidence. Since any bipartisan agreement would fall far short of that due to Democratic opposition, some Senate Republicans are already voicing their concerns with any intermediate deal.

“I don’t think you can cure the fact that we’re not going to have a trial by saying: ‘But well, we talked about it for a while, so therefore that’s kind of a trial,’” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told reporters. Hawley added that to him, a trial has to include allowing managers to present evidence.

“The House should be able to take as long as they want to present the case, and then let them go defend,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who said a few hours of debate would not alleviate his concerns.

But the deal may be welcome news for other Senate Republicans, particularly those that might consider joining Democrats in tabling or dismissing the trial altogether. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, a Republican who has been critical of the impeachment, said Tuesday he wants to see the Senate consider the trial and debate it before shutting it down.

Asked about the potential deal, Romney said “if there is debate of a fulsome nature, that would be preferential.” Asked what amount of time for debate would be acceptable to him, Romney replied: “As the Supreme Court once said about a different topic, I’ll know it when I see it.”

While many senators expected Democratic leadership would quickly dispose of the trial through a motion to table or dismissal, which only require a simple majority to pass, a number of vulnerable Senate Democrats haven’t publicly committed to supporting those options. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) has been the most watched vote on the matter, as he insists he needs to review the articles before he makes a decision after previously saying he’d support a motion to dismiss.

When Tester sat down in the Senate chamber, he motioned to reporters in the gallery that he was indeed reading the copy of the impeachment articles that was on his desk, taking out his reading glasses and waving them around.

Most Republicans were at their seats as Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), an impeachment manager, read the articles aloud, though there were clear absences on the Democratic side. Romney and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a conservative who has repeatedly called for a longer trial, appeared to annotate their copies of the articles.

Senators will reconvene Wednesday afternoon and be sworn in as jurors — and that’s when parliamentary shenanigans could ensue. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly declined to publicly share his plans for the trial aside from wanting to deal with it “expeditiously.”

Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also circulated a letter, obtained by POLITICO, to senators on Tuesday afternoon that laid out staffing ground rules and Capitol access for both members and staffers. Perhaps most importantly, the leaders reminded senators that there’s no standing allowed during the proceedings, so “senators are requested to remain in their seats at all times.”

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Mike Johnson’s plan to put a package of separate foreign aid measures on this floor is running into a familiar hurdle — conservative backlash — and it remains unclear whether Democrats would step in to save his efforts.

The extent of the right-flank rebellion is still uncertain, as Republicans and Democrats alike stress they need to see the details of the complicated rule that would govern debate on a bill aiding Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan before making a final decision. However, it’s clear at this point Johnson would need Democratic support to even start debate on the floor.

“Right now, the rule doesn’t pass with Republicans,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.). “I walked out of there and I am usually pretty good at seeing the board. I don’t see the board right now.”

“The rule that was proposed last night at conference will fail,” said conservative Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), who declined to say if he would vote for it.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) became the most prominent GOP lawmaker to voice outright opposition to rule on the foreign aid package on Tuesday. Other conservatives are rumbling about voting against the measure, even as they haven’t committed yet.

Republican leaders counter that resistance from their own ranks is premature because they’re still working out the full details of the proposal. Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), for example, referred to a second rule for debate that “hasn’t even been written.”

Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) indicated no plans to pressure Republicans to vote for the rule on the floor, even as the GOP majority has lost a historic number of the usually party-line votes this Congress.

“We don’t whip rules,” he indicated. “It’s a team vote on the Republican side to advance our agenda.”

The fate of the foreign aid package comes even as a second Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), voiced support for Greene’s push to oust Johnson from the speakership — despite staunch opposition to her plan from much of the GOP conference.

Asked directly if they could pass a rule for debate on foreign aid along the outlines of what Johnson is proposing, new Rules Chair Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) replied candidly: “TBD.”

As skeptical as conservatives are of the foreign aid plan itself, some appear more open to supporting the rule. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said in an interview he was “listening” to supporters but that “it’s a little early yet” to know if he would vote to start debate. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said “I don’t believe that this is the right approach” on foreign aid.

One conservative who’s not threatening to tank the rule is Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the powerful Rules panel that’s responsible for setting up floor debate. Norman’s support in committee would at least let the rule get to the floor, though its future is perilous beyondthat.

“I am going to vote for the rule on the committee and I will probably vote for the [rule] on the floor,” Norman said Tuesday. “We have a right to vote on it — I don’t have that right to deny that. On final passage, the devil is in the details.”

If Democrats stepped in to save floor debate on foreign aid, it would be an extraordinary development. The minority party in the House, almost without exception, doesn’t step in to save the agenda of the party in power.

Democrats are staying mum for now, but are cracking open the door to doing so.

“We are in negotiations on exactly what is going to be in this bill from Republicans. Once we see that — once that is finalized — then we are going to move to the process discussion,” said Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.). “But it’s certainly on the table as a possibility.”

So what would it say if Democrats salvaged the foreign aid package?

“One of two things: It says either that we’ve got some people in our party that voted against the rule that are going to continue to push chaos, or leadership has brought a bill to the floor that’s fatally flawed,” Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) said.

Asked as to which one he thought was at play here, Graves merely smiled: “I’m going to let you choose.”

Nicholas Wu contributed.

The Senate will take its first vote on keeping a key surveillance power in place Thursday, setting up a tough negotiation with privacy hawks in order to avoid a Saturday lapse in the controversial spy authorities.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday he will move to set up a vote on the expiring Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for later this week, hoping to avoid a brief shutdown for the intelligence community program to collect information from foreign targets without a warrant.

“Democrats and Republicans have to work together to meet the April 19 deadline. If we don’t cooperate, FISA will expire. So we must be ready to cooperate,” Schumer said Tuesday morning.

The two-year FISA bill will need 60 votes to vault the first filibuster, and then Schumer and GOP leaders must work with senators like Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah to set up votes on amendments and debate time.

Some Democrats and Republicans alike want a vote on installing a warrant requirement for searching the program’s database for intelligence swept up on U.S. citizens. Paul says he also wants votes on amendments that would prohibit FISA from being used on Americans altogether, as well as bar the purchase of intelligence data without a warrant.

“We’re trying to make sure there’s a debate over whether or not Americans should be spied on by their own government,” Paul said Monday night. “We need more protections of Americans.”

A second House Republican told Mike Johnson on Tuesday that he will sign on to an attempt to end his speakership, according to two lawmakers in the room — meaning Johnson would almost certainly need Democratic votes to retain his gavel if his rivals move against him.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said during a closed-door GOP meeting that he would back Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene‘s (R-Ga.) effort amid rising conservative frustration with the speaker’s proposed foreign aid package. Massie is the first Republican to commit to supporting her. It’s still unclear when Greene plans to force the ouster vote, though she has vowed to do it eventually.

“You’re not going to be the speaker much longer,” Massie told Johnson, according to two lawmakers in the room.

On Monday evening, Johnson announced his plans to send four separate bills to the floor — on aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, plus a fourth with other miscellaneous provisions. That sparked pushback from Greene and some other conservatives, who have opposed attempts to send further cash to Ukraine. Given that resistance, Johnson would likely need Democratic support to bring those bills to the floor, which could further incite GOP hard-liners in any ouster vote.

Massie confirmed his plans to back Greene in a post on X during the conference meeting. He added that Johnson “should pre-announce his resignation (as Boehner did), so we can pick a new Speaker without ever being without a GOP Speaker.”

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) said Massie’s announcement was “not received very well” in the private GOP conference meeting. Majority Leader Steve Scalise said afterward that he still thinks they can avoid a vote to terminate Johnson’s speakership.

“Folks are very discouraged. … We are screwed,” said one Republican lawmaker, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Democrats aren’t yet committing to backing Johnson’s plan on foreign aid, saying they need to see the substance of the bills. And while a handful of lawmakers in the party said they would help Johnson keep his gavel if he put Ukraine aid on the House floor, it’s unclear if they’ll count his current plan as fulfilling his end of the bargain.

Democrats were told in their private conference meeting Tuesday that the money to Ukraine would still effectively be a grant, because the loan language Johnson is considering would make it difficult for Ukraine to ever pay back the money, according to one person in the room. Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed to structure any further aid to Ukraine as a loan, an idea some Republicans have embraced.

If Johnson’s foreign aid plan passes the House, its fate in the Senate is uncertain. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that he is “reserving judgment” on the package, and he and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have both repeatedly called on Johnson to pass their bipartisan foreign aid bill.

Anthony Adragna and Ursula Perano contributed to this report.

The Senate is set to begin an impeachment trial this week for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — the first of its kind in nearly 150 years — after weeks of delay.

Mayorkas became the second Cabinet secretary ever impeached last month, after the GOP-controlled House’s second try succeeded.

Republicans have channeled their outrage over the record number of border crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border into the effort to oust Mayorkas, alleging that he is refusing to enforce immigration laws. Democrats frame the fight as a policy disagreement between the GOP and the White House, hoping to end the proceedings quickly.

Here’s what to expect:

Dems need speed: Senate Democrats aren’t interested in a full trial, where House Republicans make their case for removing Mayorkas, and will try to keep it as short as possible.

“We’re going to try to resolve this issue as quickly as impossible. Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements,” Schumer said last week.

The Senate must summon Mayorkas to let him know the charges he faces and ask for a written answer. But he would not have to appear in the Senate at any point; don’t expect him to.

The process will be led by Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Unlike presidential impeachments, the chief justice of the supreme court is not involved.

Dem dismissal? Democrats hold the Senate majority. If they stand united, they could dismiss the trial outright or move to table the two articles of impeachment.

That would effectively end the House effort and free the upper chamber to pursue other business. No Democrats thus far have voiced support for impeaching Mayorkas.

Schumer has not been concrete about his plans, other than a desire to keep the process short.

Multiple GOP senators have lamented a trial as a waste of time, given the expected outcome in the Democratic-controlled chamber. But it’s not clear that sentiment would drive any to dismiss the charges from the outset.

Mitt Romney (R-Utah) was unclear last week at what point in the process he could voice his view: “Mayorkas has done a terrible job, but he’s following the direction of the President and has not met the constitutional test of a high criminal crime or misdemeanor.”

Reaching for referral: If Democrats are unable to unanimously dismiss or table the articles, they have the option of voting to create a trial committee that would investigate the charges against Mayorkas.

This would follow the precedent of several trials of federal judges in the last 100 years.

There aren’t hard and fast rules for the committee referral process. But in the past, the Senate has moved a resolution to authorize party leaders to appoint six senators and a chair, authorize the calling of witnesses and issue a final report.

Democrats would largely like to avoid this path as it would keep the GOP allegations against Mayorkas and the Biden administration alive heading into an election where border security is expected to be a major issue.

GOP seeks to stretch it out: Mike Lee (R-Utah) and some of his conservative GOP colleagues have pledged to try and force a full trial, or at least utilize procedural delay tactics to drag out out as long as possible.

They argue the Senate has a constitutional obligation to hear the arguments for and against impeachment from the House managers.

Lee is expected to make multiple points of order and possibly force votes. But if Democrats stand united, they can table all of Lee’s attempts.

Ursula Perano contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court is expected to grapple Tuesday in detail for the first time with the chaos and violence of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol when it hears arguments in a case that could upend hundreds of convictions — and potentially undermine some pending criminal charges against former President Donald Trump.

The case turns squarely on the actions pro-Trump rioters took that day — including ransacking the Capitol and bludgeoning police officers — and whether the felony obstruction charge the Justice Department has deployed against many of them is being used appropriately.

The high court’s ultimate ruling — expected by the end of June — could overturn hundreds of Jan. 6 felony convictions and hamper numerous pending prosecutions. A ruling against the Justice Department could even ripple into special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump, whom he charged with two charges of obstructing Congress’ business that day.

Until this week, the justices had not dealt publicly in any depth with the violence of Jan. 6 or who can be held legally responsible for it. The justices barely mentioned the riot when they heard arguments in February on efforts in some states to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot for stoking the Jan. 6 insurrection or when they resolved that legal fight in Trump’s favor.

They declined to consider Trump’s challenge to the Jan. 6 select congressional committee as it sought to obtain his White House records, and they rejected former Arizona state GOP Chair Kelli Ward’s bid to stop the select committee from obtaining her phone records. The justices also turned down Sen. Lindsey Graham’s bid to block a subpoena from Georgia investigators pursuing their own probe related to the 2020 election.

The current case, however, Fischer v. United States, was actually brought by a Jan. 6 defendant, Joseph Fischer, who says that 20-year old obstruction statute — passed in the wake of the Enron financial scandal — was not intended to cover the type of conduct that rioters engaged in on Jan. 6. Rather, Fischer argues, it was supposed to be limited to classic cases of evidence-tampering, like forging or shredding documents.

Federal prosecutors reject that claim, saying the text of the law itself was written broadly to cover any attempts to interfere with an “official proceeding” — such as the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress intended to certify the results of the 2020 election — so long as they can prove a defendant acted with a “corrupt intent.” About 350 rioters have been tagged with the charge, which carries a 20-year maximum sentence.

Most of the federal district court judges in Washington, who are handling the criminal cases related to the Capitol riot, have sided with prosecutors and concluded that the law does not require proof that a defendant intended to interfere with some sort of evidence.

However, in March 2022, one federal judge, Carl Nichols, agreed with defense lawyers’ narrower interpretation. In short order, Nichols — a Trump appointee — dismissed the same obstruction charge against at least three Jan. 6 defendants.

In April 2023, a federal appeals court panel consisting of two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee overturned Nichols’ ruling, although the appeals judges splintered on how to interpret another key provision in the obstruction statute. And a second appeals court panel taking a broader look at the law upheld the Justice Department’s view and ruled that there are several ways for prosecutors to support obstruction charges.

The justices’ views and commentary about Jan. 6 during Tuesday’s arguments could provide clues to how they will weigh the events of that day when they consider Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for his bid to subvert the 2020 election. Those oral arguments are set for April 25.

Several Jan. 6 defendants who were already imprisoned on obstruction charges have been tentatively released by judges concerned that the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling may result in shorter sentences than the ones the prisoners have already served.

It’s possible that the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Fischer case, however, will end up being limited for Trump, even if the court rules against the Justice Department.

Smith told the justices last week that he would still press on with his obstruction case against Trump for a simple reason: Trump, he says, violated the law even under the narrowest version that the justices might say applies. The prosecutor argues that the bid to assemble false slates of presidential electors — and have them deliver signed certificates claiming to be legitimate electors — is a classic example of falsifying evidence.

Speaker Mike Johnson told GOP lawmakers that he’ll try to pass four measures this week to send aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan — each in separate bills, according to multiple Republicans in the private Monday meeting.

A fourth proposed bill, which is still being finalized, would include a package of related measures, including a lend-lease deal for military aid, a ban on TikTok in the U.S. and provisions to sell off assets seized from Russian oligarchs.

It’s far from certain that Johnson would have the votes to bring the bills to the floor, given the procedural hurdles of Republicans’ narrow majority that have vexed the speaker for months. Johnson would need near-unanimous support from his own conference to bring the whole package of bills up for passage, a procedure known as a rules vote, plus prior approval from a Rules Committee stacked with conservatives who may resist based on Ukraine aid.

Earlier Monday, hardliners in the House Freedom Caucus released a statement saying they opposed using necessary cash for Israel to “ram through Ukraine aid.” And several members of the group declined on Monday night as they left the closed-door meeting to say if they would support bringing the bills to the floor at this point.

“The American people have made it as clear as they possibly could … that we better secure our border before we spend more money in Ukraine. They are getting ready to fly off the cliff,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said. Conservative Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), Bob Good (R-Va.) and Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) each also declined to say if they would vote to bring the package to the floor.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), another Freedom Caucus member, said that he “likes that it’s separate bills.” But pressed if that meant he would help bring the package to the floor, he demurred: “We haven’t even seen the bills, I mean good grief.”

If even a handful of conservatives oppose the rule vote, then Johnson would need Democratic support to move forward — and it’s incredibly rare for the minority party to assist on those rules votes. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to comment Monday on whether he expected his caucus would support the package: “We’re not going to come to any conclusion about process until we understand the substance.”

Other GOP members are already drawing red lines that Johnson is unlikely to meet because they would threaten to sink Ukraine aid in the Senate. For example, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Republicans should incorporate language that mandates the Senate vote on a House-passed, conservative-favored border security bill before it can take up a Ukraine aid package.

“I think the Senate should have to take a vote on our border security legislation before we are just giving a blank check,” Gaetz told reporters, adding that his idea got a positive reaction within the meeting.

Plus, Johnson has a looming threat to his speakership, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) vowing to force a vote to oust him. She said Monday that she hadn’t made a decision on when to triggering that process, but that she’s “firmly against the plan as it stands right now.” She called it “another wrong direction for Speaker Johnson.”

“He’s definitely not going to be speaker next Congress,” Greene said, adding it was “to be determined” if he would even finish out this term. No GOP lawmakers have explicitly said they would join Greene in voting to boot Johnson.

Republicans are still waiting to see when Greene will follow through with her threat to fire Johnson, who brushed off the chance that the foreign aid strategy will lead to his potential ouster.

“I don’t spend my time worrying about motions to vacate. We’re having to govern here, and we’re gonna do our job. I’m not sure how that shakes out,” he said.

The speaker also told members that there would be amendment votes included in the package, though it’s unclear what those would be. Notably absent from his proposal: any measures to address border security, which Republicans have demanded for months. Conservatives said they would push for amendment votes on border security policies as part of the House’s debate.

“There’ll be a possibility for amendments. But the question is how many — they’ll have to be germane,” said Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.). “But let’s face it, he had to make the play call. And I think he’s made a very good play call, given the totality of the circumstances where the world is right now.”

The speaker said he’s committed to abiding by a House rule that gives lawmakers a full 72 hours to review the legislation, once it’s finalized. That would likely push passage votes to Friday evening.

If the House passed more than one of the four bills, it’s unclear if they would be packaged together before heading to the Senate. While GOP lawmakers said the upper chamber would have to take separate votes on each piece of legislation, Johnson told reporters after the meeting that he hadn’t yet decided whether to send whatever bills pass over as a comprehensive package.

It’s unclear if Johnson has Senate support for his proposal, given the upper chamber’s leaders are continuing to insist on their own bipartisan version of foreign aid legislation that combines cash for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

“We’re discussing whether they would be merged together in one package that’s sent to the Senate, or if it goes over as individual measures. My personal preference is to do it individually, but we’ll let the body decide. We’ll have further discussion on that in the morning,” Johnson said.

Katherine Tully-McManus, Nicholas Wu and Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.