Trump threatens to veto defense bill and Republicans ignore him

1
Despite President Donald Trump's threat to veto an annual must-pass military funding bill unless Congress abolishes legal protections for social media companies, Republicans proceeded unfazed on Wednesday and ignored the commander in chief's warning in order to strike a deal with Democrats.

Trump wrote in a Tuesday night tweet that he would "VETO" the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which Congress has approved for the past 59 years with overwhelming bipartisan support, if lawmakers didn't nix Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that provides big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter with liability shields against content on their platforms.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said he informed Trump they were moving forward—without the president's demand. "Section 230 has nothing to do with the military," Inhofe told reporters at the Capitol. "I agree with his sentiment, we ought to do away with Section 230. But you can't do it in this bill. That's not a pertinent bill." Asked what the president's response was, Inhofe said: "We just had an honest disagreement, very friendly."

Just hours after Trump's warning, the House and Senate reached an agreement on dueling versions of the NDAA Wednesday afternoon. The bipartisan legislation not only omits language about Section 230, but also includes a provision that previously prompted Trump to issue a separate veto threat: renaming military bases and other military assets which bear a Confederate name, an amendment spearheaded by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Renaming the 10 military bases named after Confederate Army officers threatened to ensnarl the more than $700 billion piece of legislation in partisan debate, as some Republicans said the matter should be addressed separately. But a deal was struck to include the provision, ending uncertainty over how lawmakers would resolve the issue. At the same time, many Republicans stated their distaste for Trump's most recent threat to veto the crucial defense bill over big tech reform, a topic that is entirely unrelated to national security—despite the president's claims otherwise.

"I would hope he wouldn't follow through with that. I think what he's suggesting is how strongly he feels about section 230 and the need to reform it, and there's a lot of us that feel very strongly about it" Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told Newsweek. "Personally, I would not want to see that as being a reason for not signing the NDAA. I think that would be a mistake." White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that Trump is "serious" about his veto. Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.) said the mere suggestion from Trump "disgusted" him.

The push to rename military bases with Confederate names gained steam this summer amid a national reckoning on racial injustice reform. The two chambers plan to pass the unified bill by the end of next week before likely leaving town for Christmas. If they muster enough support, Congress could force Trump's hands by delivering the NDAA with a veto-proof majority. The legislation has almost always been approved with enough votes to prevent a veto.

Still, some Republicans sided with Trump trying to push the issue of Section 230, which conservatives and GOP lawmakers have long asserted gives big tech companies the ability to unfairly censor their voices. "I support him using all the leverage he can," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump confidant. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), one of Congress' fiercest critics of big tech corporations, said he supports Trump's move "100 percent" and that his demand is "absolutely reasonable."

"We don't legislate that much anymore, in case you haven't noticed," Hawley said with a laugh. "There's not a whole lot of legislation this body does, so if there's something that's going to move, I think it's absolutely appropriate."
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-veto-thr ... ts-1551871

If he vetoes it there would probably be enough votes in both chambers to over ride his veto, it happened before with Russia sanctions.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Trump threatens to veto defense bill and Republicans ignore him

4
The House overwhelmingly passed annual defense policy legislation Tuesday in the face of a veto threat from President Donald Trump. Members easily approved the annual National Defense Authorization Act in a blowout 335 to 78 vote. The total far exceeds the two-thirds majority needed to overturn Trump, who is threatening to nix the $741 billion bill because it doesn't include a repeal of legal liability protections for social media companies.

The bill now heads to the Senate, which is expected to soon vote and send the measure to Trump’s desk.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer predicted the chamber can muster the votes to override a veto. But his counterpart, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, said he won't help enact the bill over Trump's objections. "I would not vote to override a veto," McCarthy told reporters.
In addition to renaming bases and limiting troop withdrawals from Europe and Afghanistan, the bill also boosts numerous Pentagon weapons accounts.

The final bill authorizes the purchase of 93 new Lockheed Martin-built F-35 fighters, 14 more than the Defense Department requested. It also greenlights $23.4 billion for the Navy's shipbuilding account, $3.5 billion more than the service requested, to build nine new warships. Lawmakers included a second Virginia-class attack submarine after the Trump administration initially requested funding for just one boat.

The compromise bill also authorizes a 3 percent troop pay raise. The bill also sets aside $2.2 billion for a new Pacific Deterrence Initiative to boost the U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific region and deter China. It also creates a Senate-confirmed national cyber director post, as recommended by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, despite opposition from the White House.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/0 ... eto-443707


A bi-partisan amendment in the defense authorization blocked Trump from withdrawing US troops from Germany.
Utah Sen. Mitt Romney not only criticized President Donald Trump long and loudly for planning to remove thousands of troops from Germany, he has apparently successfully helped to block it. A House-Senate conference working out differences on the annual defense bill included a provision pushed by Romney and allies to block any significant troop removal.

“Congress made the right decision,” he said in a statement. “At a time when we should be focused on linking arms with our allies to address threats from Russia and China, a withdrawal of our troops would be a grave error with harmful and lasting consequences,” he said. “This provision signals support for our friend Germany and reflects a commitment to our mutual relationship, which is vital to our national security interests and our ability to deter foreign aggression.”

Romney was joined by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Chris Coons, D-Del.; Tim Kaine, D-Va.; and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. in introducing and pushing the amendment. Germany is a hub for U.S. operations in the Middle East and Africa.

Romney slammed the proposal for a large troop withdrawal from there since Trump made it. The move came after Trump had branded Germany “delinquent” for failing to meet a NATO goal set in 2014 for members to halt budget cuts and move toward spending at least 2% of gross national product on defense by 2024. And the president asserted that the Germans had long shortchanged the United States on trade and defense, declaring that “until they pay” more for their own defense, he will reduce U.S. troops.

Romney said then, “It is a gift to Russia coming at a time when we just have learned of its support for the Taliban and reports of bounties on killing American troops. The move may temporarily play well in domestic politics, but its consequences will be lasting and harmful to American interests.”

Overall, the United States has about 47,000 troops and civilian personnel in Germany, spread out across a number of bases, headquarters and smaller installations. Most of the 35,000 active-duty forces are in a handful of larger Army and Air Force bases including Ramstein Air Base, a hub in the region. There also are 2,600 National Guard and Reserve forces in Germany, and almost 12,000 civilians working for the services or for the Defense Department.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/20 ... ey-allies/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Trump threatens to veto defense bill and Republicans ignore him

7
highdesert wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:03 pm
lurker wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:50 pm this is just donald assuring he has access to a nice dacha should things go badly here. may i suggest the ipatiev house in Yekaterinburg?
Where the Russian royal family were murdered, now the Cathedral of the Blood. It might give Donnie nightmares. :)
There is one in St. Petersburg, where Tsar Alexander II, the Tsar-Liberator, was assassinated when a bomb was thrown into his carriage.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

Re: Trump threatens to veto defense bill and Republicans ignore him

8
The payoff. Just remember Russian state media only says and prints what Putin allows them to say or print.
Russian media suggests the Kremlin grant asylum to Trump so he can’t be prosecuted in America

On Wednesday, The Daily Beast reported that several Russian state media programs have toyed with the idea of outgoing President Donald Trump being given asylum by Moscow — so that it wouldn’t be possible for U.S. officials to prosecute him.

On the Russian talk show 60 Minutes, for example, “Experts in the studio enthusiastically discussed the likelihood of Trump being charged with a bevy of offenses from tax evasion to fraud and sexual assault. They concurred that Trump’s presidential pardon would not help him in state cases, unlike the recently advanced constitutional amendment in Russia that secured lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution for the country’s former presidents.”

Meanwhile, “The rabidly anti-American military expert and member of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Public Council, Igor Korotchenko … compared ‘poor Trump’s’ anticipated legal troubles to the Stalinist repressions of 1937,” and “State-controlled RIA Novosti opined that the looming threat of criminal prosecutions is the Democratic Party’s way of ‘spitting at Trump on his way out,'” while “Staunch Kremlin propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov’s Sunday show Weekly News argued that for Trump, pardoning himself is a matter of survival.”

Take advantage of our limited time offer. Go ad-free for just $2 a week. Support independent journalism.
Some Russian figures have even openly given Trump suggestions for how to abuse his office on the way out the door.

“Notorious politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who previously suggested that Putin should milk Trump like a cow before he is forced to leave office, enumerated actions he hoped Trump would undertake prior to his departure: recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea, leave NATO, withdraw U.S. troops from every place they’re stationed worldwide, arrest disloyal U.S. state governors, refuse to recognize the outcome of the elections, force all states to conduct mandatory recounts, and induce Attorney General Bill Barr to pursue any actions that would benefit Trump,” said the report.

The president’s closeness with Russia has been a defining controversy of his presidency, having been the basis of the FBI investigation later taken up by special counsel Robert Mueller. There was never sufficient evidence found to charge Trump or his campaign with a criminal conspiracy with Russia, although several instances were documented of Trump officials being eager to accept Russian assistance.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/russia ... n-america/
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Re: Trump threatens to veto defense bill and Republicans ignore him

12
The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Friday to approve a sweeping defense bill with a veto-proof majority, a major rebuke to President Donald Trump who has urged Republican opposition and threatened to veto the legislation. The vote was 84 to 13.

Trump's position on the bill has sharply divided GOP lawmakers, forcing them to choose between loyalty to the President and legislation that sets defense policy for the country. In the end, however, the President's opposition was not enough to stall passage of the legislation through Congress. The Senate vote comes after the House of Representatives also passed the bill with a veto-proof majority earlier this week. Now it will be up to Trump to decide how to respond.

The $740 billion bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act includes pay raises for America's soldiers, modernizations for equipment and provisions to require more scrutiny before troops are withdrawn from Germany or Afghanistan, but that hasn't stopped Trump's threats against it.
The conservative House Freedom Caucus announced ahead of the vote in the House that its members will side with Trump in his opposition to the legislation and was pressuring other GOP members to side with Trump as well.

Multiple House lawmakers, including the top Democrat and Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, however, have said they will cut their holiday short if necessary for Congress to return to Washington to override a veto if necessary.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/politics ... index.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Trump threatens to veto defense bill and Republicans ignore him

15
highdesert wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:34 pm
Romney said then, “It is a gift to Russia coming at a time when we just have learned of its support for the Taliban and reports of bounties on killing American troops. The move may temporarily play well in domestic politics, but its consequences will be lasting and harmful to American interests.”
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/20 ... ey-allies/
Turns out this claim about bounties, promoted months prior by the NYT, was not necessarily supported by the intelligence community. Here is the NYT piece on it from June:
Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says

Here is what The Daily Beast, which also has put out bogus stories, published about it this week:
U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops
According to the officials on Thursday’s call, the reporting about the alleged “bounties” came from “detainee reporting”–raising the specter that someone told their U.S.-aligned Afghan jailers what they thought was necessary to get out of a cage. Specifically, the official cited “information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government” as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment.

Without additional corroboration, such reporting is notoriously unreliable. Detainee reporting from a man known as Ibn Shaikh al-Libi, extracted from torture, infamously and bogusly fueled a Bush administration claim, used to invade Iraq, about Saddam Hussein training al Qaeda to make poison gas.

The senior Biden official added on Thursday that the “difficult operating environment in Afghanistan” complicated U.S. efforts to confirm what amounts to a rumor.
Bottom line is not one of the three organizations with hands on the story have healthy relationships with the truth.

Re: Trump threatens to veto defense bill and Republicans ignore him

16
Yup heard that yesterday. Biden didn't include the "bounties" in yesterdays Russia sanctions because the intelligence wasn't there. TFG and his administration didn't correct it and both parties were mislead. Newspapers use multiple sources and even with that they get some things wrong, which is why they post retractions.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron