1) A LOT of balls in the air today on Capitol Hill, as is per usual here in December.

The House is expected to vote on a short-term spending bill today to avoid a government shutdown this weekend. Remember, this was supposed to be the easy part of the puzzle.

2) There are dozens of unresolved issues. So the new deadline for government funding will be 11:59:59 pm on December 18.

It’s possible the Senate could take up the stopgap funding bill today. But unclear. That may have to wait until tomorrow.
3) The Senate could also vote today to align with the House and pass the final version of the defense bill. But that could wait until tomorrow or even next week.

A veto override fight is brewing on this with President Trump.
4) The House scored WELL above the two-thirds necessary to override Mr. Trump’s threatened veto. In fact, the vote total last night went well above what the House had to approve the initial version of the legislation in the summer.
5) Based on the Senate’s vote total on the original version (86 yeas), senators should have the necessary votes to sync with the House and override the President later this month.

Congress has never overriden one of President Trump’s eight vetoes.
6) The stars are now aligning that a successful veto override is all but inevitable.

The House and Senate must take separate votes to override the President. The earliest that could happen is next week. It depends on when/if the President actually vetoes the bill.
7) Under Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, President Trump has ten days (Sundays excluded) to sign or veto the bill once it is sent to him. The defense bill could become law if the President doesn’t sign it during that period.
8) It is notable that this legislation has emerged as something of a litmus test for Republicans and how willing they are to supporthe President in the waning days of his administration.
9) Also, Congressional Democratic leaders last night distanced themselves from the latest administration proposal for coronavirus relief. Meantime, a coalition of bipartisan senators continue to toil behind the scenes on their own package. But the sides are far from an agreement.

More from Chad Pergram

More from Politics

So let's see a show of hands: how many of you even knew Huber was digging into the Clinton Foundation? While he was assisting Horowitz in his digging into the FISC/Steele Dossier/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary campaign stuff?


I'm sure Huber is coming to DC *only* to discuss Clinton Foundation things with Meadows and his committee.

He for certain, like, won't be huddling with Horowitz or that new guy, Whitaker while he's in town. That would NEVER HAPPEN. [wink wink wink!] 😉

I just spent a year and a half telling you they will SHOW YOU what they are REALLY DOING when they are READY.

Not before.

No matter how much whining is done about it.

I'm exhausted but it's worth it.

Now you know why they're f**king TERRIFIED of Whitaker, the closer tapped by Trump to come in late for the hysterical fireworks that will ensue soon.

Look who's suddenly fund raising for his legal defen- er, I mean, ha ha - his reelection campaign!

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel was previously CEO of bioMerieux in France from 07-10.

Alain Merieux, who owns bioMerieux, was instrumental in the creation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology P4 Lab.

The same people who helped create the virus, also helped to create the vaccines...


Moderna partnered with French Pasteur Institute in 2015 to develop mRNA vaccine technology.

Pasteur Institute partnered with the Wuhan P4 Laboratory in 2017 along with the Merieux Foundation to study emerging viruses...
https://t.co/yFsHwrNYaK
https://t.co/9M5lydBKhM


Nobel prize winning scientist Luc Montagnier asserts that Sars-Cov-2 is man-made and originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Montagnier did extensive work with the Pasteur Institute in France which was partnered with the Wuhan P4.

Merieux Foundation & the Chinese government have worked together since 1965, and partnered to study emerging pathogens in Africa in 2015.

Their research included "PATHOGENS CARRIED BY BATS" that provoke respiratory diseases.

🚨🚨🚨
https://t.co/gVwpT0ssqI