Happy Monday, OnPolitics readers! We hope you had a restful weekend and that you're ready to go, because today felt like we were in The Godfather, and we're pretty sure it's only going to pick up from here.
| |  |  | | with Jessica Estepa | | Happy Monday, OnPolitics readers! We hope you had a restful weekend and that you're ready to go, because today felt like we were in The Godfather, and we're pretty sure it's only going to pick up from here. | | Let's get to it. | | A session with Sessions | | Attorney General Jeff Sessions is set to testify on Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. In an OPEN meeting. What will he talk about it? We don't know what he'll say exactly, but we have a few guesses about what senators will likely ask him about: that Russian ambassador everyone has met but no one can remember. The firing of James Comey. Whether there's bad blood between him and President Trump. Whether he really did offer to resign. | | Of course, he might not answer any of this, because he could invoke executive privilege. But what's the point of having attending a hearing for the American people to hear you if you don't say anything? | | The ban is still banned | | The latest on President Trump's travel ban: It's still a no-go. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that the proposal to restrict travel from six Muslim-majority countries discriminates based on nationality. The ruling was based on federal immigration law, which could signal where the Supreme Court lands when the court reviews the case. | | "The order does not tie these nationals in any way to terrorist organizations within the six designated countries," the three-judge panel said. "It does not identify these nationals as contributors to active conflict or as those responsible for insecure country conditions. It does not provide any link between an individual's nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness." | | And yes, this is the "watered-down" version of the ban that the president isn't a fan of. | | The case for a clause | | The attorney general in Maryland and Washington, D.C., filed suit on Monday over a topic that many have wondered about since Trump won the 2016 election: whether his businesses accepting payments from foreign governments and other government entities is in violation of the Emoluments Clause. The Democratic attorneys general say that by retaining ownership of his real-estate and branding empire means Trump is "deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic actors." | | "Never in the history of this country have we had a president with these kinds of extensive business entanglements or a president who refused to adequately distance themselves from their holdings," Racine told reporters at a new conference Monday afternoon. | | Elsewhere in politics | | | | | | FOLLOW US
Thank you for subscribing to On Politics.
© 2017 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC.
7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA 22102
Unsubscribe from On Politics
Why did I get this?
Update my subscription preferences | |
No comments:
Post a Comment