Congress
Senate Banking will not vote on crypto bill this week
Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott is abandoning a push to hold a committee vote on a major cryptocurrency bill this week, punting the issue to next year.
A spokesperson for the South Carolina Republican said in a statement Monday that the panel “is continuing to negotiate and looks forward to a markup in early 2026.”
“Chairman Scott and the Senate Banking Committee have made strong progress with Democratic counterparts on bipartisan digital asset market structure legislation,” said the spokesperson, Jeff Naft. “From the outset, Chairman Scott has been clear that this effort should be bipartisan. He has consistently and patiently engaged in good-faith discussions to produce a strong bipartisan product that provides clarity for the digital asset industry and also makes America the crypto capital of the world.”
The move comes following a frantic week of negotiations between top Banking Committee Republicans and a group of Senate Democrats who are working to strike a deal on the legislation. Democrats have pushed for more time for the talks to play out.
Scott’s decision to punt was previously reported by Punchbowl News.
Congress
Brian Fitzpatrick joins House Democrats’ health care discharge petition
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania said Wednesday he is the first Republican to join a Democratic effort to force a House vote on a straight three-year extension of the enhanced Obamacare tax credits that will expire Dec. 31.
The move comes after House GOP leaders rejected attempts by Fitzpatrick and other Republican moderates to seek a floor vote on extending the subsidies used by more than 20 million Americans. Fitzpatrick said in a late-night House Rules Committee meeting Tuesday that “the only thing worse than a clean extension … would be expiration, and I would make that decision.”
The discharge petition filed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries currently has 214 signatures, all from Democrats. Three other Republicans besides Fitzpatrick would need to sign to push it forward. Several are considering joining Fitzpatrick and signing the petition this morning, according to two people granted anonymity to describe private discussions.
Under House rules, no vote could happen until next month — after the subsidies expire — even if the petition is completed Wednesday.
“We have worked for months to craft a two-party solution to address these expiring healthcare credits,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement Wednesday. “Our only request was a Floor vote on this compromise, so that the American People’s voice could be heard on this issue. That request was rejected. … Unfortunately, it is House leadership themselves that have forced this outcome.”
Congress
Capitol agenda: Jack Smith jumps into a Judiciary minefield
Jack Smith wants to make his case against Donald Trump to Congress — but he’s walking into a political and legal minefield.
The Biden-era special counsel who brought the first and only federal criminal charges ever leveled against a former president is set to testify Wednesday morning to members of House Judiciary.
The stakes are high.
Republicans are looking to portray Smith as a tool of a weaponized Justice Department — an allegation Republicans have brandished amid recent revelations Smith obtained phone records of at least eight GOP senators as part of his probe into Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.
“What they did all along, everything was wrong … a lot of things that were just not normal course of investigation or prosecution,” Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told Blue Light News. “If he comes in and doesn’t answer questions, that’s going to be a problem.”
Judiciary Republican Troy Nehls of Texas, when asked about his ideal outcome for Smith’s deposition, didn’t hold back.
“Jack Smith should be in jail — if not prison,” he said. “He’s a crook … and he needs to be held accountable for all his games that he played.”
Democrats, meanwhile, are eager for more information about the investigations Smith had to abandon after Trump won reelection in 2024, bowing to the fact that sitting presidents cannot face federal charges while in office. Smith was investigating Trump for election subversion attempts and mishandling classified documents.
“We want to hear exactly what he found, and what he did,” said Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top House Judiciary Democrat.
Peter Koski, a former top DOJ official and a member of Smith’s legal team, said in a statement his client is “looking forward to answering the committee’s questions, sharing the legal basis for his investigative steps, and discussing the evidence of President Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his unlawful possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.”
But Smith is bound by complex secrecy rules that limit what he is able to share with lawmakers.
Raskin maintains Smith’s task Wednesday is simple: “He just needs to come and tell the truth.”
What else we’re watching:
— Decision day for health care: The House will vote Wednesday on the GOP health care package without an Affordable Care Act subsidy extension — and without any of the amendments moderates were seeking. Members are set to vote on the rule Wednesday morning, with the final vote on the bill expected Wednesday afternoon (assuming the rule is adopted).
The Problem Solvers will also huddle with rank-and-file senators Wednesday to discuss a framework that includes an ACA extension and other health policy items for January.
— Carr in the hot seat: FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s appearance before Senate Commerce Wednesday will be a telling moment for Republicans as GOP committee members balance concerns over free speech with their reluctance to criticize the administration.
Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told reporters Tuesday he plans to use the FCC oversight hearing to explore free speech concerns, though it’s unclear how far most Republicans on the committee will go in relitigating Carr’s threats against TV show host Jimmy Kimmel earlier this year.
Kyle Cheney, Meredith Lee Hill, Mia McCarthy and John Hendel contributed to this report.
Congress
Jack Smith wants to tell Congress about his Trump investigations. That comes with risks.
Jack Smith wants to make his case against Donald Trump to Congress — but he’s walking into a political and legal minefield.
The Biden-era special counsel who brought the first and only federal criminal charges ever leveled against a former president is set to testify behind closed doors Wednesday to the House Judiciary Committee.
To do so, he must navigate Byzantine secrecy laws and rules that limit what he can disclose to lawmakers. All the while, Republicans are looking to trip him up and incriminate him, to portray him as a tool of a weaponized Justice Department — an allegation they’ve brandished amid recent revelations that Smith obtained phone records of at least eight GOP senators as part of his probe into Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.
“What they did all along, everything was wrong … a lot of things that were just not normal course of investigation or prosecution,” House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan said in an interview. “If he comes in and doesn’t answer questions, that’s going to be a problem.”
At the same time, Democrats are eager for further details about the investigations Smith had to abandon after Trump won reelection in 2024, bowing to the reality that sitting presidents cannot face federal charges while in office. Smith was investigating Trump for election subversion attempts and mishandling classified documents.
“We want to hear exactly what he found, and what he did,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. “He just needs to come and tell the truth.”
It’s all forcing Smith into a delicate, high-stakes dance with members of both parties. Democrats want to exploit any opportunity to discredit Trump, but Republicans are hoping to back Smith into a corner and portray him as a politically motivated activist.
“Jack Smith should be in jail — if not prison,” said Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee, when asked about his ideal outcome for Smith’s deposition. “He’s a crook. Jack Smith is a crook, and he needs to be held accountable for all his games that he played.”
Peter Koski, the former deputy chief of the DOJ Public Integrity Section and a member of Smith’s legal team at Covington & Burling, said in a statement Tuesday his client is “looking forward to answering the committee’s questions, sharing the legal basis for his investigative steps, and discussing the evidence of President Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his unlawful possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.”
Ultimately, though, there are restrictions for what Smith can and cannot tell members. He remains bound by grand jury rules that bar prosecutors from disclosing evidence that was never made public, at least without the permission of a court.
And in his capacity as a former Justice Department employee, he’s also limited in what he can share about his prosecutorial work. DOJ has provided an authorization letter to facilitate Smith’s testimony, according to a person granted anonymity to share details of private correspondence; however, the scope of the waiver is not clear.
A federal judge in Florida has also maintained an 11-month prohibition on the release of any details of Smith’s final report in the classified documents probe — a restriction Trump has urged her to maintain indefinitely — further narrowing what Smith is legally permitted to share about that investigation.
Complicating matters further is that Trump has called repeatedly for Smith’s prosecution, fueling the GOP appetite for incriminating Smith. That’s forcing Smith to weigh potential risks of criminal accusations against his desire to share information about his work with lawmakers.
Jordan has already sent out a criminal referral for Thomas Windom, a top Smith deputy, after the former senior assistant special counsel repeatedly declined to answer questions during his September deposition before investigators with the Judiciary Committee.
“They are trying to get him on the fast road to one of their ridiculous prosecutions,” Raskin said, of Smith.
House Judiciary Democrats are simultaneously pressing for the public release of Smith’s report detailing the results of his investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents.
Earlier this month, committee Democrats filed an amicus brief to a federal court in Florida urging Judge Aileen Cannon to allow its release, citing the ongoing panel’s investigations and the need to balance out what is currently a “one-sided public record.”
“Neither the Committee nor the public can meaningfully evaluate Mr. Smith’s conduct, or assess the Committee’s accusations, without access to the report that memorializes what the Special Counsel actually did and why,” stated the amicus brief, submitted by the Democrats’ lawyers.
Cannon, a Trump appointee who once ruled Smith was put into the special counsel role unconstitutionally, has so far maintained that the report will not be released. This decision could further complicate Smith’s testimony before Congressional investigators, adding limitations to what he can share.
“Every other special counsel committee report has been released, and I believe every other special counsel or independent counsel has appeared before Congress publicly,” Raskin said, “so our Republican colleagues seem to fear the strength of Jack Smith’s advocacy and presentation.”
Jordan said he intends to ask Smith about the classified documents case, including the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in 2022. He also wants Smith to answer for DOJ’s efforts to obtain phone data from former Speaker Kevin McCarthy as part of his probe.
Smith preferred that all this take place in a public setting, with his legal team pressing Congressional Republicans hard to let the testimony proceed in an open hearing. Jordan declined that request. The GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee, in contrast, has expressed an openness to facilitating such a hearing as it pursues its own Smith investigation, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he believed the House deposition will lay the groundwork for the Senate’s questioning.
“Before you interview somebody, before you hold a hearing — you need information, otherwise they run circles around you. You get nothing fruitful out of them,” said Johnson, who is co-leading the Senate’s probe into Smith’s investigations in his role as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Johnson said he expected Jordan would eventually produce a transcript of Smith’s House deposition. “Those would be the documents we’ll use when we interview him,” he said.
-
Politics10 months agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics10 months agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics10 months agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics8 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?



