Mobile Nav Open
Open Search
Close Search

Related Issues

See All Issues

Related Issues

See All Issues

Sen. Coons and Rep. Chu Condemn Expansion of Trump’s Muslim Ban

Washington, DC — Today, the Trump Administration announced an expansion of the existing Muslim Ban to include six new countries: Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. Of these countries, Sudan and Kyrgyzstan are majority-Muslim, Eritrea and Tanzania are about half Muslim, Nigeria has the world’s 5th largest Muslim population and Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar are currently experiencing a genocide, which this ban will make it harder to escape. The ban only restricts people who want to come to live in the United States permanently through family based immigration or the diversity lottery. Nonimmigrant visas for visitors, business, and people seeking medical treatment are unaffected. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and Rep. Judy Chu (CA-27), who introduced the NO BAN Act (H.R. 2214/S.1123)  in the House and Senate to repeal these bans, issued the following statements: 
 
“President Trump’s decision to expand his discriminatory Muslim ban not only abandons U.S. values and tears families apart, it is a grave foreign policy mistake. Targeting people from countries where pluralism is just taking root makes it more difficult to promote democratic values, encourage economic development, and attract talented people from all over the world,” said Sen. Coons. “We must pass the NO BAN Act to end this senseless policy and ensure our foreign policy and immigration policies are built on our values, not on fear.”

“Three years after the start of the first Muslim Ban, we see and hear the impact every day in the stories of loved ones and families unable to see each other simply because of their religion,” said Rep. Chu. “Now, doubling down on a failed policy, Donald Trump is exposing the truth about his war on immigrants by deliberately separating even more families. By specifically targeting permanent visas, which are used by families, and not impacting short-term visitor visas, this ban shows it was never about security, and always about keeping Muslims and people of color from having the same chance at the American Dream that everyone else has. If it were true that the Ban was because of an inability to vet applicants, as the Administration claimed, then they would not have allowed short-term visas either. But this ban is looking to do what the first ban is already doing: keep families apart. And of course, we know that America has the ability to safely vet visa applicants because we have been doing so for years. That is why we need to pass the NO BAN Act immediately. This bill will repeal the President’s Muslim Ban and change the law so that any future ban must be based on evidence. I’m encouraged by Speaker Pelosi’s announcement that we will vote on this bill soon and I look forward to finally limiting the President’s authority to enact such cruel policies.”
 
 

Sens. Coons, Klobuchar ask the President’s lawyers which witnesses they would call with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s actions

WASHINGTON – Tonight, during the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked the House Managers and Counsel for the President which witnesses the President’s Counsel would expect to call as their own witnesses with firsthand knowledge if Mr. Bolton or others are called by House Managers.
 
“Why don’t they want the head of OMB in? Why don’t they want their own people in? Because their own people will incriminate the President,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the House Managers. “But there’s no shortage of relevant, probative witnesses, they just don’t want you to hear what they have to say.”
 
Video and audio available here.
 
Full transcript below:
Question from Sens. Coons and Klobuchar: Mr. Sekulow said earlier that the President’s Counsel would expect to call their own witnesses in this trial if Mr. Bolton or others are called by the House Managers. Can you tell the Senate if any of those witnesses would have firsthand knowledge of the charges against the President and his actions?
 
House Manager, Rep. Adam Schiff: There certainly are witnesses that the President could call with firsthand information. I don’t know that they’re the witnesses that they have described so far. Their position is, apparently, if you’re the chairman of a committee doing an investigation, that makes you a relevant witness. It doesn’t. Or you’ve all become witnesses in your own investigations. They want to call Joe Biden as a witness. Joe Biden can’t tell us why military aid was withheld from Ukraine while it was fighting a war; Joe Biden can’t tell us why President Zelensky couldn’t get in the door of the White House while the Russian foreign minister could. He’s not in a position to answer those questions. He can’t tell us whether this rises to an impeachable abuse of power, although he probably has opinions on the subject. But are there witnesses they could call? Absolutely. They have said Mick Mulvaney issued a statement saying “The President never said what I said he had said earlier.” Well, if that’s the case, then why don’t they call Mick Mulvaney? He should be on their witness list. If Secretary Pompeo has evidence that there was a policy basis to withhold the aid, and it was discussed, well then why don’t they call him? That’s a relevant fact witness. They don’t want to allow the Chief Justice to decide issues of materiality because they know what they’re trying to do involves witnesses that don’t shed light on the charges against the President. They do satisfy the appetite of their client. But they don’t have probative value to the issues here. So, yes, there are witnesses. Now, the reason they’re not on the President’s witness list is because, if they were truthful under oath, they would incriminate the President. Otherwise, they would be begging to have Mick Mulvaney come testify. Otherwise they would be begging to have the head of OMB, who helped administer the freeze on behalf of the President. Let’s bring him in, he’ll tell you! It was completely innocent. It was all about burden sharing. So why don’t they want the head of OMB in? Why don’t they want their own people in? Because their own people will incriminate the President. But there’s no shortage of relevant, probative witnesses, they just don’t want you to hear what they have to say.
 
Jay Sekulow, President Trump’s Counsel: Besides the fact that Mr. Schumer said, and it’s on page 675 of the transcript, that “we can call any witnesses we want,” Mr. Schiff just said we can call their witnesses. That’s what he said. We can call their witnesses. Because under their theory, if we wanted to talk to the whistleblower, even in a secure setting, to find out if he in fact may have worked for the Vice President, or may have worked on Ukraine, or may have been in communication with the staff, that’s irrelevant. We can’t talk to Joe Biden or Hunter Biden, because that’s irrelevant. Except the conversation that is the subject matter of this inquiry – the phone call, transcript, that you selectively utilize – has a reference to Hunter Biden. The conversation with Burisma, they raised it for about a half a day, saying there was nothing there. Well, let me find out through cross examination. But I just think the irony of this before we go to dinner that we could call anyone we want except the witnesses we want, but we can call their witnesses that they want. Remember we said the fruit of the poisonous tree? It’s still the fruit of the poisonous tree. Doesn’t get better with age, as I said. But this idea, that this is going to be a fair process – call the witnesses they want, don’t call the witnesses you want, because they’re irrelevant. Maybe irrelevant to them. They are not irrelevant to the President. And they’re not irrelevant to our case.
 

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons: “When President Trump issued an order to freeze and withhold aid from Ukraine, he didn’t call anyone named Biden”

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, last night joined MSNBC’s Brian Williams to discuss the Senate impeachment trial.

“When President Trump issued an order to freeze and withhold aid from Ukraine, he didn’t call anyone named Biden. There was no one named Biden working for him in the White House. He discussed it with Mick Mulvaney and with John Bolton. And there are two other folks that we’ve been trying to get in front of the Senate who work also in the White House who carried these orders out. We don’t have the documents, and we don’t have the witnesses,” said Senator Coons.

Video and audio available here.

Excerpts from the interview below:

Q: How many Republicans are yes votes, do you think?

Sen. Coons: Well, the question that’s right in front of us now that we’ll be working through and debating is how many might vote for witnesses, how many might say we want a real and a fair trial, and in particular we’d like to hear from John Bolton. I think that is between three and five at this moment. But frankly there is a bit of exhaustion setting in because of the ten-hour day we just had, the 90 questions that we ground through. It has put a sharp focus on areas that are unresolved. And where having an eyewitness, someone who was literally in the room where it happened, come forward and answer the question, ‘Did President Trump actually order withholding this vitally needed aid to Ukraine in order to leverage it for his own political benefit?’ If we could have an answer to that from John Bolton, I think that would go a long way towards helping the American people and the members of the Senate feel that this was an actual fair trial. 

Q: Of course, then you had a guy with a D after his name, Senator Manchin from your caucus, say this morning, started off the news cycle that he wouldn’t mind hearing from Hunter Biden. So the big question has been at the end of the day will Republicans, especially those in the moderate sort, actually want to take that vote?

Sen. Coons: I doubt they would because frankly he’s not relevant. What we’ve seen over and over today is ways in which the steadily building pressure for testimony by John Bolton or documents like the notes of Ambassador Taylor would actually answer the question what happened in the White House and what did the President do. When President Trump issued an order to freeze and withhold aid from Ukraine, he didn’t call anyone named Biden. There was no one named Biden working for him in the White House. He discussed it with Mick Mulvaney and with John Bolton. And there are two other folks that we’ve been trying to get in front of the Senate who work also in the White House who carried these orders out. We don’t have the documents, and we don’t have the witnesses. I’m not sure why my colleague and friend Senator Manchin would think it would be constructive or relevant to go outside and bring in outside concerns which frankly Republicans tried pretty hard on the floor of the Senate to bring up over and over today. But no matter how many times they bring up the name Biden that doesn’t make that directly relevant to the issues that are in front of us. What’s most relevant is getting to the bottom of what the President did and didn’t do. And frankly, Brian, a very striking development just in the last day was that the former Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, publicly said I believe John Bolton. That suggests that he was in the room as Chief of Staff for similar incidents where he saw President Trump order things or make decisions about things that should trouble the American people and make us in the Senate here want to hear from relevant witnesses.

###

 

President’s counsel: “the idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake”

WASHINGTON – Last night, during the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked the Counsel for the President whether President Trump believes that foreign involvement in American elections is illegal.  
 
Chief Justice Roberts read Senator Coons question aloud, saying: “The question from Senator Coons to the President’s counsel is this: The President’s brief states ‘Congress has forbidden foreigners’ involvement in American elections’ however, in June 2019 President Trump said that if Russia or China offered information on his opponent ‘there’s nothing wrong with listening’ and he might not alert the FBI because ‘Give me a break, life doesn’t work that way’. Does President Trump agree with your statement that foreigners’ involvement in American elections is illegal?” 
Patrick Philbin, a member of the President’s legal defense team, said: “Mr. Chief Justice, Senator thank you for the question. I think Congress has specified specific ways in which foreigners cannot be involved in elections. Foreigners can’t vote in elections, there are restrictions on foreign contributions to campaigns, things like that. When the whistle-blower originally made a complaint about this July 25th call, and that was reviewed by the Inspector General for the intelligence community, he framed that whistle-blower’s complaint and wrote a cover letter framing it in terms of those laws. And he said, there might be an issue here related to soliciting foreign contribution to the campaign, a thing of value, foreign campaign interference.  That was specifically reviewed by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice concluded that there was no such violation here. So that is not something that is involved in this case. 
 
President Trump’s, the interview with ABC that you cited, does not involve something that is a foreign campaign contribution, something that is addressed by the laws passed by Congress.  He was referring to the possibility that information could come from a source. And I think he pointed out in that interview that he might contact the FBI, he might listen to something. But, mere information is not something that would violate the campaign finance laws, and if there is credible information, credible information of wrongdoing by someone who is running for a public office, it’s not campaign interference for credible information about wrongdoing to be brought to light if it’s credible information. So, I think that the idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake. That’s a non-sequitur. Information that is credible that potentially shows wrongdoing by someone who happens to be running for office, if it’s credible information, is relevant information for the voters to know about for people to be able to decide on who is the best candidate for an office. Thank you.”
 
Read Senator Coons’ response to Philbin’s answer here.
 
Additional context:
“The President’s brief states, ‘Congress has forbidden foreigners’ involvement in American elections.’ However, in June 2019, President Trump said that if Russia or China offered information on his opponent, ‘[t]here’s nothing wrong with listening,’ and he might not alert the FBI because: ‘Give me a break. Life doesn’t work that way.’ Does President Trump agree with your statement that foreigners’ involvement in American elections is illegal?” Coons asked. 
 
Senator Coons’ question quotes the President’s counsel’s brief from page 100, which cites the statute prohibiting solicitation of anything of value from a foreign national, directly or indirectly, in connection with an election (52 U.S.C. § 30121). As the President’s counsel is present in the Senate impeachment trial to represent the President, his answer to this question will have important implications for future elections and whether we should expect the President to seek or accept foreign help. 
 
On several occasions, President Trump has encouraged foreign interference in American elections:
In July 2016, President Trump, in response to a question about reports that Russia was behind the theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee, said, “Russia if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
 
In June 2019, President Trump said that if Russia or China offered information on his opponent, ‘[t]here’s nothing wrong with listening,” and that, “if somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ – oh, I think I’d want to hear it.” President Trump also stated that he might not alert the FBI because: “Give me a break.”
 
In July 2019, President Trump demanded, over the phone, that Ukrainian President Zelensky “do us a favor” by opening an investigation into President Trump’s leading political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden.   
 
Russia is preparing to attack our 2020 elections, which has been confirmed by several members of President Trump’s own administration:
In January 2019, then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee: “We assess that foreign actors will view the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests,” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate intelligence committee. “We expect them to refine their capabilities and add new tactics as they learn from each other’s experiences and efforts.”
 
In July 2019, FBI Director Chris Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “The Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections,” adding that “until they stop they haven’t been deterred enough.”
 
In July 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Congress: Russia is “doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.”
 
###

At impeachment trial, Sen. Coons asks the President’s Counsel if President Trump agrees that foreign involvement in American elections is illegal

WASHINGTON – During the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked the Counsel for the President whether President Trump believes that foreign involvement in American elections is illegal.

“The President’s brief states, ‘Congress has forbidden foreigners’ involvement in American elections.’ However, in June 2019, President Trump said that if Russia or China offered information on his opponent, ‘[t]here’s nothing wrong with listening,’ and he might not alert the FBI because: ‘Give me a break. Life doesn’t work that way.’ Does President Trump agree with your statement that foreigners’ involvement in American elections is illegal?” Coons asked.

Senator Coons’ question quotes the President’s counsel’s brief from page 100, which cites the statute prohibiting solicitation of anything of value from a foreign national, directly or indirectly, in connection with an election (52 U.S.C. § 30121). As the President’s counsel is present in the Senate impeachment trial to represent the President, his answer to this question will have important implications for future elections and whether we should expect the President to seek or accept foreign help. 

On several occasions, President Trump has encouraged foreign interference in American elections:

In July 2016, President Trump, in response to a question about reports that Russia was behind the theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee, said, “Russia if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from Hillary Clinton’s private email server.  

In June 2019, President Trump said that if Russia or China offered information on his opponent, ‘[t]here’s nothing wrong with listening,” and that, “if somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ – oh, I think I’d want to hear it.” President Trump also stated that he might not alert the FBI because: “Give me a break.”

In July 2019, President Trump demanded, over the phone, that Ukrainian President Zelensky “do us a favor” by opening an investigation into President Trump’s leading political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden.  

Russia is preparing to attack our 2020 elections, which has been confirmed by several members of President Trump’s own administration:

In January 2019, then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee: “We assess that foreign actors will view the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests,” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate intelligence committee. “We expect them to refine their capabilities and add new tactics as they learn from each other’s experiences and efforts.”

In July 2019, FBI Director Chris Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “The Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections,” adding that “until they stop they haven’t been deterred enough.”

In July 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Congress: Russia is “doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.”

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons on MSNBC: “Why would we…trade a relevant witness for an irrelevant witness in the middle of a quid-pro-quo trial?”

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow last night after the second day of President Trump’s defense team’s arguments.
 
Video and audio available here
  
Lawrence O’Donnell asked Senator Coons whether there has been “any discussion among the Democrats of participating in any kind of deal that would bring in both John Bolton and Hunter Biden as witnesses?”
 
Senator Coons responded: “No. In fact, I’ll give Sheldon Whitehouse credit for saying in the cloakroom, ‘why on earth would we engage in that kind of a crazy quid-pro-quo where we trade a relevant witness for an irrelevant witness in the middle of a quid-pro-quo trial?’ To the extent there was any discussion of it, it was just a uniform passion about rejecting that as any kind of a reasonable path forward. Look, as Adam Schiff reminded all of us near the end of his argument in chief, the facts of this case, the truth will eventually come out. FOIA cases will eventually produce a lot of the emails and texts, and we now know that Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript, there was more released tonight, a story saying that Bolton told Barr that he was very concerned that President Trump was doing favors and cutting corners for authoritarians. I think it has really caused concern among my Republican colleagues that this Bolton manuscript is going to be public sooner rather than later, and that they may look terrible in the eyes of history if they have just voted unanimously to acquit the president and to refuse to even ask for more documents or more witnesses. As I’ve said before, the key difference between a trial and a cover-up is that trials have witnesses and evidence and cover-ups don’t.”
 
###

On anniversary of Trump’s Muslim ban, Coons, Chu, faith and civil rights leaders call for passage of NO BAN Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Three years after President Trump’s Muslim ban first separated thousands of families, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) and U.S. Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-Calif.) today brought together Members of Congress, faith and civil rights leaders, and individuals directly impacted by the ban to call for passage of the NO BAN Act, legislation that would end the President’s Muslim ban and prevent another baseless, discriminatory ban from happening again. Coons and Chu were joined by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and U.S. Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), André Carson (D-Ind.), and Don Beyer (D-Va.).
 
For photos, please click here.
For video, please click here.
 
“Today we mark the somber anniversary of a policy that does not make us safer and does not align with our values as a nation,” said Senator Coons. “Thousands of American families continue to be separated today because of President Trump’s Muslim ban, and it is up to us to right this wrong. Congress must pass the NO BAN Act to reverse the President’s shameful policy and send a message that in this country, we will not tolerate discrimination based on religion and nationality. Speaker Pelosi’s announcement today that the House will advance this bill is a critical step forward.”
 
“The Muslim Ban has been a disaster from the very start. It has nothing to do with security and everything to do with Stephen Miller and Donald Trump’s white nationalist agenda,” said Congresswoman Chu. “The United States has a demonstrated ability to safely vet family members of US citizens, which is why the Supreme Court required the administration to issue visa waivers. However, just about 10% of those requested waivers have been granted, evidence that this policy is not about security, but about keeping families apart. That is why we must pass our bill – the NO BAN Act – to end this cruel policy. And I am thrilled that, after building support of 214 cosponsors, this bill is scheduled for markup and a floor vote in the House soon!”
 
“Three years ago today, within a week of becoming President, President Trump put his ugly campaign rhetoric into action and issued the first version of the Muslim travel ban,” said Senator Durbin. “Congress must step in to address this injustice and uphold our foundational principles of religious freedom and tolerance. It’s time to pass the NO BAN Act to repeal the Muslim travel ban and prevent the President from implementing similarly broad, discriminatory travel restrictions and suspensions in the future.”
 
“My dad came here in 1935 from Germany to escape persecution. He knew virtually no one and he had not much more than the shirt on his back. America opened its arms to him, as we must do to asylum-seekers and refugees in the great tradition of this country,” Senator Blumenthal said. “The NO BAN Act gives us the opportunity to say to this administration ‘You must stop this unwise, unconstitutional, un-American policy of racial discrimination.’ Any kind of immigration policy must be based on fact – not prejudice and bigotry.”
 
“The Muslim ban is sadly only one part of the Trump Administration’s virulent and cruel anti-immigrant agenda. In addition to the Muslim ban, there was the separation of children at the border, the detention of families with no end in sight, and many more harmful policies. Every day, Stephen Miller and others in the Trump Administration find new ways to hurt immigrants in our country. We must stand together in opposing these discriminatory policies,” Senator Hirono said.
 
“Exactly three years ago, Trump achieved his stated campaign goal of banning a group of people. Since the ban first went into effect, it has deferred dreams, separated families, and deprived people of lifesaving health care and blocked access to education,” said Congresswoman Omar. “Trump doesn’t just want a border wall. He’s creating an invisible wall keeping out people around the world based solely on their religion. That is why we will keep fighting until we finally are able to repeal this Muslim ban and put this hateful policy in the dustbin of history where it belongs.”
 
“Three years after President Trump instituted the Muslim Ban, the harmful effects of this policy are clearer than ever. Yet, our country isn’t any safer, and he continues to dig his heels into his exercise in bigotry. That’s why Congress must take action against it by passing the NO BAN Act. We won’t let this Administration needlessly shut America’s door to people in need,” said Congressman Carson.
 
“We cannot continue to let ignorance and hatred dictate our immigration policies, and expanding Trump’s Muslim Ban would make it worse,” said Congressman Beyer. “This ban has enormous effects on families and businesses, and many people have been badly hurt by them. That is what happens when you have white nationalists writing your immigration policies. I stand here today as I stood at Dulles airport three years ago to oppose Trump’s bigoted Muslim Ban and to push for the NO BAN Act consideration in the House.”
 
“Three years after the Trump Administration issued its first Muslim Ban, families remain separated from loved ones, American businesses and research institutions are still denied workers and students, and our nation’s doors continue to be closed to vulnerable people seeking safety from violence-ravaged countries. Each iteration of the Muslim Ban sends a terrible message to Muslims that our foundational value of freedom of religious does not apply to them,” said Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). “I am thrilled that we will be marking up the NO BAN Act in the House Judiciary Committee. Passing the NO BAN Act will send an important message to Muslims here and abroad: America believes in religious liberty and our doors are open to immigrants and vulnerable refugees regardless of faith.”
 
The Members were joined by Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates; Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center; Rabbi Jason Kimelman-Block, director of Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Sheila Katz, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women; Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and senior vice president for policy and advocacy; as well as three individuals directly impacted by the ban: Mana Kharrazi, an Iranian American who has been separated from her family because of the Muslim ban; Eric Naing, a Burmese American who stands to be separated from his family under an expanded ban; and Danah Harbi, an American citizen whose Syrian fiancé is banned from entering the United States.
 
The National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act repeals the three versions of President Trump’s Muslim ban, strengthens the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, and restores the separation of powers by limiting overly broad executive authority to issue future travel bans. The legislation is supported by nearly 250 members of Congress; more than 400 civil rights, faith, national security, and community organizations; more than 50 immigration law professors; 19 state attorneys general; and several private companies.
 
A summary is available here.

Senator Coons’ statement on NYT report, Bolton book

WILMINGTON, Del. – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees, released the following statement in response to a New York Times report that President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has written in his forthcoming book that President Trump froze military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure Ukraine’s President Zelensky to announce an investigation into the Bidens and into whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 American presidential election.
 
“If the reported description of Ambassador Bolton’s upcoming book is accurate, this account provides firsthand, relevant evidence that President Trump committed the abuse of power for which he was impeached by the House.
 
“This report further underlines why my Republican colleagues should be working across the aisle to ensure we hear relevant testimony and receive documents from Ambassador Bolton, along with Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, and Michael Duffey, who should testify before the Senate.
 
“Congressman Schiff wisely cautioned all Senators just last week that – eventually – the full truth about the President’s actions will come out. It’s our duty to ensure the truth comes out before the ongoing impeachment trial concludes.”
 
###

Carper, Coons, Blunt Rochester announce $7.8M to aid Delaware homeless assistance programs

DOVER, Del. – Today, U.S. Senators Tom Carper and Chris Coons and U.S. Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester (all D-Del.) announced $7.8 million in grant awards from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to organizations in Delaware. The Continuum of Care, or CoC, competitively awarded grants will benefit 27 programs and groups that assist Delaware’s homeless population. 

The HUD CoC grant funding is designed to support the commitment of ending homelessness; provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers, and state and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families while minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused by homelessness; promote access to and effect utilization of mainstream programs by displaced individuals and families; and optimize self-sufficiency among folk experiencing homelessness.

“This funding will go a long way to helping the organizations on the front lines that work to lift Delawareans out of homelessness,” said Senator Carper. “But we must not rest here. It is crucial that we continue looking at the root causes of homelessness and poverty so that our neighbors can make permanent transitions to safe, affordable housing.”

“I have a deep appreciation for the work of homelessness service providers and the impact of federal investments in homelessness programs after having worked as a staff advocate for the Coalition for the Homeless,” said Senator Coons. “The 7.8 million in Continuum of Care grants awarded to 27 projects in Delaware will go towards providing temporary and permanent housing options and supportive services for homeless individuals and families, including unaccompanied youth and veterans. This funding is critical to supporting our most vulnerable neighbors.”

“Safe affordable housing should be available to all Delawareans,” said Representative Blunt Rochester. “Whether it is permanent, temporary, or transitional, we must strategically coordinate our efforts to reduce homelessness and provide needed services to those who are most vulnerable. I am grateful to HUD for providing this $7.8 million Continuum of Care grant to help protect our most vulnerable citizens.”

“In support of some of the most vulnerable residents of our state, we are grateful to the congressional delegation and to HUD for the Continuum of Care grants,” said Delaware Department of Health and Social Services Secretary Dr. Kara Odom Walker, a practicing family physician. “The community partners who receive these grants provide critical support to Delawareans who are homeless until we can transition them into permanent places to live. And on cold nights like the ones we’ve just experienced, we see just how important it is for everyone to have a safe and warm place to go.”

According to HUD’s 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, on a single night last year, roughly 568,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the country. Between 2018 and 2019, Delaware was the state with the most significant percentage decline (20%) in the number of homeless individuals.

A Continuum of Care is an organized group that is responsible for coordinating a full range of homelessness services in a geographic area, which may cover a city, county, metropolitan area, or an entire state. Housing Alliance Delaware is the CoC lead agency in Delaware.

To view a list of award recipients by state, click here. 

###

 

 

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons: “This is a trial. A trial where those documents and those witnesses have never been made available.”

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined CNN New Day this morning to discuss the first day of the Senate impeachment trial.
 
“So, I’ll put it this way. In virtual lockstep throughout the entire night, the Republican majority said we don’t want to see the documents that are critical to understanding what President Trump did. Whether he did or did not do the things he’s charged with. And we don’t want to hear from critical witnesses that President Trump has blocked from testifying. It was a pretty striking, pretty grim, frankly, and very long night,” said Senator Coons. 
 
“This isn’t opening arguments. This is a trial. A trial where those documents and those witnesses have never been made available. So as a lawyer myself, how are you supposed to make opening arguments when critical witnesses and central documents have been blocked by the President?” said Senator Coons.
 
Video and audio available here.  
 
Excerpts from the interview:
Q: Democrats went 0 for 13 yesterday, I believe it was? Didn’t win on a single vote. What do you think you got out of that first day?
Sen. Coons: Well, yesterday was a 12-hour day in which the entire Senate sat and fought over what the rules will be that will govern this impeachment trial and whether we’re going to get access to any of the documents or witnesses that would be essential to make this a fair trial. Strikingly, on every vote, except one, every single Republican, except one, voted to keep the rules that Mitch McConnell moved forward. And it was only on one minor vote that one Republican voted against the majority. So, I’ll put it this way. In virtual lockstep throughout the entire night, the Republican majority said we don’t want to see the documents that are critical to understanding what President Trump did. Whether he did or did not do the things he’s charged with. And we don’t want to hear from critical witnesses that President Trump has blocked from testifying. It was a pretty striking, pretty grim, frankly, and very long night. But I think it was important that we got on the record for history and for the American people who are watching that the Republican majority here is just not interested in seeing the relevant documents or hearing from a few key witnesses.
 
Q: Do you see — it doesn’t sound like you do — what chances are there that you will have four Republicans voting with Democrats to hear from witnesses?
Sen. Coons: That’s hard to tell. I certainly wasn’t encouraged by last night. And there was some mistake in reporting in another news outlet that suggested somehow, I was part of a group that was trying to cut some deal where Ambassador Bolton, former national security adviser, would testify in exchange for the Vice President, Joe Biden, the former Vice President, testifying. I’m not involved in a conversation like that. That would mean trading a relevant witness who should be testifying for a witness who has nothing to do with the charges against the President. In a trial, what is admitted in front of the jury is relevant documents and relevant witness testimony. John Bolton was in the room. He was in the meetings, he was on the email thread. He knows whether the president did or didn’t do the things he’s accused of. And if President Trump hopes to be exonerated here in the Senate as he keeps saying, he should make a case, like the presidents who have been impeached before him. President Clinton, even President Nixon. He should encourage his top advisers to cooperate and to testify if he hopes to clear his name.
 
###