A Republican Backup Plan for Keeping the Government Open
24:44 Share

Hey there, Ryan Reynolds here. It's a new year and you know what that means. No, not the diet. Resolutions.

A way for us all to try and do a little bit better than we did last year. And my resolution, unlike big wireless, is to not be a raging a**hole and raise the price of wireless on you every chance I get. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 upfront payment required, equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three-month plan only. Taxes and fees extra. Speeds lower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited. See mintmobile.com for details. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

Will there or won't there be a government shutdown after Donald Trump blows up the House Republican plan to keep the government funded and after that same House GOP fails to pass his preferred alternative?

Plus, a Georgia State Appeals Court disqualifies Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis from continuing to oversee her criminal litigation against Donald Trump. Welcome to Potomac Watch, a Wall Street Journal podcast. I am your host today, Kim Strassel, here with my amazing colleagues, Mene Ukeburuwa and Alicia Finley. Let's start with the mess in the house. And I want to be clear, we are taping this in the afternoon on Friday and things are moving fast.

But let's try to sum up where they stood last time I checked in on Washington. House Speaker Mike Johnson was nearing to closing out this Congress with a fairly ugly bill that would have continued to fund the government through March 14th, but also, and in order to get all the votes necessary, including Democratic votes, had been loaded up with disaster dollars, farm dollars, an ethanol mandate, health care provisions, China restrictions.

Donald Trump threw a bit of a fit over its size, but also over the fact that it lacked a debt ceiling increase, something that nobody had really even been talking about.

So last night, Johnson put a slimmed down bill on the floor plus a debt ceiling provision. It failed miserably. 38 Republicans voted against the bill, as did all but three Democrats. Republicans have been meeting all morning, all day. Let's listen to Mike Johnson talking about the state of events. We have.

a unified Republican conference. There is a unanimous agreement in the room that we need to move forward. I will not telegraph to you the specific details of that yet because I've got a couple of things I've got to wrap up in a few moments upstairs, but I expect that we will be proceeding forward. We will not have a government shutdown and we will meet our obligations for our farmers who need aid.

for the disaster victims all over the country and for making sure that military and essential services and everyone who relies upon the federal government for a paycheck is paid over the holidays. So to be clear, if a bill is not passed sometime in the coming hours, the federal government will shut down at midnight. But hey, we are hearing a little bit in Washington about some alternative plans and ideas. Republicans are debating

Yeah, I would say that it's possible, but not necessarily likely that the House and Senate are going to be able to pass something according to Speaker Johnson's new plan.

What he seems to be floating based on the reporting is the idea of splitting up the package into separate bills. So what they originally were aiming to do a couple of days ago was have one big package, which started in theory as a clean continuing resolution, but then had a few other provisions attached.

like $100 billion for disaster aid. So this is to aid the recovery to places that were impacted by hurricanes recently. And FEMA, of course, ran out of the money to be able to finance that recovery. They also wanted to add an additional $10 billion for farmers who have had a rough go and want to be able to make up for that. So it's very common for the federal government to provide regular assistance.

to farmers. And then they added a whole bunch of other provisions that particularly the fiscally conservative members of the House Republican Conference couldn't go for. And that deal fell apart when it was condemned by Elon Musk first and foremost, but also by President Trump and J.D. Vance.

They now want to split up some of those core provisions into separate bills. So the idea is that there's a much broader consensus just for keeping government funded and running. And even a lot of conservative members might be willing to go for that. And then there will be up and down votes on the disaster and farm aid. I think that those might have a good amount of popular support, too. But a lot of people really resented being forced to vote on all of it in one giant must pass package.

And so I do think that they're going to get more support for this new approach, but not necessarily majority support. And we won't know probably until it actually comes to the floor. One more idea that I've also heard floating out there is to put out the slimmed down package of

So that slimmed down package had stripped out, for instance, some of the health care stuff and this ethanol mandate for E15, but also pull out the debt ceiling portion, which was something that had annoyed a lot of those conservative Democrats.

Republicans who didn't want to go down that path unless there were spending cuts attached to it. So that's another idea that I am hearing. Alicia, it's interesting. Donald Trump, I think, adding into all of this is saying, well, you know, if we need a shutdown, we'll just have a shutdown. Let's have it now. Let's have it happen during the Biden time still in office. And Democrats will

own that. That's not necessarily the view across town. Let's listen to dueling views on who would get the blame for this from both Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, but also Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in the Senate. The Democrats just voted to shut down the government.

even though we had a clean CR because they didn't want to give the president negotiating leverage during his first term or during the first year of his new term and number two because they would rather shut down the government and fight for global censorship. They've asked for a shutdown. If Republicans do not work with Democrats in a bipartisan way very soon, the government will shut down at midnight.

It's time to go back to the original agreement we had just a few days ago. It's time the House votes on our bipartisan CR. It's the quickest,

simplest and easiest way we can make sure the government stays open while delivering critical emergency aid to the American people. You know, Alicia, it's one thing for Donald Trump to say, well, Biden's in office, so he'll own this. I'm not quite so sure that's where the blame would fall if this happens. You do have Republicans who look to have had a deal and now are changing course. Where do you see the politics of this falling if we end up going into shutdown tonight?

Well, I think the Republicans are going to get blamed, and that's why Democrats are very happy that this all is happening, because the Republicans control the House. Yes, they have a very narrow majority, but this bill has got support in the Senate. You know, Biden would no doubt have

have signed it if the House Republicans passed it. And there was a deal. And then Elon Musk and Donald Trump threw a wrench into the negotiations or the deal by claiming, well, you must raise the debt ceiling and that this bill is around 1500 pages is way too big. You need a slimmed down version and must without any of the dormants like the pharmacy benefit managers regulations, some export controls with China and other policy provisions.

The problem is you need Democratic votes to pass this bill, in part because Republicans don't have a very narrow majority and they do not want to go along with another big spending blowout. So as a result, Republicans are kind of dependent on Democratic votes to get this through. Nonetheless...

Republicans are the ones who are kind of holding this up in part and they don't want to upset Donald Trump. And he is now threatening primary challenges against some of them. So I think the public, even though this is happening under Biden's watch, I think the public is fairly smart. I think they understand that this was not instigated by Democrats in this case and whatever the

your views of the spending in Congress and the debt, that this probably was not the best vehicle to try to push for reforms. And the Republicans will have a much stronger hand in the new year when Donald Trump is president. They have larger majorities, at least in the Senate, and then they'll have the whip hand to at least do some of the spending cuts that Elon Musk supposedly wants. Okay, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, more on the CR mess in Washington.

Welcome back. I'm Kim Strassel here with Alicia Finley and Mene Ukebarua. I find it curious that the president-elect and Elon Musk and J.D. Vance are expending so much political capital now, given what you said about how much better of a position that they will be.

be in come January.

And I would note that one of the reasons Republicans are stuck with this kind of ugly-looking bill is House Freedom Caucus members routinely refuse to vote for continuing resolutions on principle. They say they won't do it because they're angry that the regular appropriations process didn't work. I get it. By the way, that's largely Chuck Schumer's fault for not doing Senate appropriations. But

There was always that. And it meant that Mike Johnson had to go to Democrats to get some help if he had any prayer or shot of getting even his initial bill over the line. But then you had Donald Trump wander into this and he seemed to think it almost felt as though, well, he'd throw his weight around and these guys would just back him no matter what he said. He'd just sort of push him into doing it.

And the thing about those House Freedom Caucus members is, you know, they're often portrayed in the media as being Trump acolytes, and obviously they are supporters of him. But when you look at it, I think what they like is his willingness to kind of break China. But they're very ideological, and their biggest priority is spending restraint. And that's never been

something Donald Trump has cared about a big deal. I mean, funny aspect of this bill, this bill was slimmed down in terms of some of its regulatory provisions, but it actually ended up being even a bigger dollar amount by the time he got done with it. I guess the question is, and as Alicia mentioned, this got nasty. Donald Trump actually went online and said he was going to primary Chip Roy, who is one of the ringleaders of the House Freedom Caucus. I wonder

where you see this. Is this a little bit of a preview of what is to come in the next year? I mean, there's been so much euphoria among Republicans, but this seems to be more of some of the real splits that could really get in the way of Republicans doing something they want to do next year. Yeah, I think it's completely fascinating to see the position of the Freedom Caucus right now with regard to funding the government. I think that if you look at these issues on the merits of

They do have a strong argument when it comes to the debt ceiling proposal that President Trump parachuted in with a couple of days ago in the sense that, of course, President Trump would rather have Congress increase the debt ceiling now during President Biden's presidency and not have to own it himself.

But they know that if they wait until next year, they'll have the possibility of offsetting that debt ceiling increase with spending cuts, which is going to be impossible for them to do while President Biden is still in the White House and while Democrats control the Senate. And so they know that that kind of provision, increasing the debt ceiling, is one of the opportunities they have to be able to rein in spending and want to hold out for that rather than being marched towards bankruptcy.

a near-term increase. On the CR, I think you see a different picture in the sense that, again, because President Biden and the Democrats are in power today and government needs to be funded within the next few hours, they should be willing to vote for a relatively clean continuing resolution merely to continue the current funding levels

understand that they don't have the leverage to be able to cut government beyond that right now. And they're only making life hard for Mike Johnson and for themselves politically by holding out against that. But I do think that on the overarching question of how they're going to relate to Trump on a whole bunch of the other priorities that Republicans have, like passing a tax bill, passing a border and energy bill and things like that.

It does show that they're not going to merely be in lockstep with the orders that are coming down from the White House. They do believe that their constituents specifically want them to rein in spending, that they'll be held accountable for that, and they're going to try to use whatever leverage they have to actually affect the direction of policy. So there's much more disagreement among Republicans in Washington than I think it appeared to be.

between Election Day and this week. Yeah, it strikes me as a real warning to the incoming Trump administration and Republican leaders that with the narrow majorities they have, those focused on spending reductions really do mean what they say and intend to try to see something come along in that way. What I'm looking for, I'll be really curious to see, is I kind of wonder if this Johnson plan to split up the bills wasn't designed in part to give some of these guys an off-ramp,

maybe get right with Trump again. Maybe they'll vote against the disaster aid and farm aid, but go along with the continuing resolution to try to make nice. We'll see. Strikes me as that was done and maybe to allow some of them to get back on in Trump's good graces. We're going to take one more break. When we come back, Fannie Willis, the prosecutor in Georgia, is disqualified from continuing the Trump case.

Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker. Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast. From the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Welcome back. I'm Kim Strassel, and you are here with Potomac Watch. We're going to change gears here. Fannie Willis, a prosecutor in Georgia,

one of the prime movers in the lawfare campaign against Donald Trump. She indicted him and numerous of his associates with racketeering charges and other alleged crimes, blaming them for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. She has now been barred from her

own case. Alicia, remind us what happened here. So what happened here is that she had actually hired a paramour, Nathan Wade, to lead the prosecution in the Trump case. Now, obviously, this presents some conflicts of interest and raised questions of propriety. And the lower judge said that, yes, this is a problem, but did not disqualify her from the case.

Now, what happened here is that an appeals court overruled the trial court judge and said, yeah, she actually probably should have accused herself. But because she hasn't and the lower court judge didn't force her to step aside, now they're saying, well, we are...

And so this actually puts a damper on the case and further taints it. The better course at this point would just be to drop it entirely. Jack Smith, the special counsel, is winding down the prosecution of Donald Trump for the documents case and a similar case, not a RICO case, but also a case involving January 6th. A judge would probably rule that any kind of case against Trump could

go forward anyways, as long as he's a sitting president based on some legal presence at the high court. So it's really perplexing that Ms. Willis has actually continued to push this, and now she just looks even worse as a result of this appellate court ruling. Yes, this has been a real mess of a case. Remember all that live TV coverage of the discussion that was done in front of the judge of

I'm assuming that Willis could

appeal this decision and still try to fight this? Although, I guess, wouldn't that take a bunch of time, too? Yes, Willis can appeal the decision to the Georgia Supreme Court, which theoretically could choose to reverse this appellate court decision and then put her back in charge. But there's no doubt that it would drag it on even further than it already has, which will look much more absurd, I think, once Trump is the sitting president and they're trying to continue with these proceedings. If

She doesn't appeal successfully. Then you have a Georgia board which could still decide that they want to continue the case under another prosecutor. So essentially, they could pick another prosecutor to be able to take it up. It's questionable whether they would do that. I think that they've seen all of the chaos unfold that the entire country has and understands that it is going to be very tough to continue.

continue to drag it forward. So they might choose merely to terminate it rather than reassign it. But either way, we're going to see this thing continue on in some fashion. And I think the public is probably divided between completely tuning it out and thinking it's an outrage to see all this chaos unfolding, targeting who's about to be the sitting president of the United States with a somewhat slim shot legal case. And Alicia,

Let's just assume that regardless of whether she won or lost on appeal or whether someone else came in to take over this case and decided to also continue pursuing it, I mean, isn't it the reality that there are some

other huge outstanding problems with this case and that my understanding is that it hasn't even really been run through a fine-tooth comb to reevaluate it in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on immunity, for instance, which obviously got in the way of some special counsel Jack Smith's

prosecution of Donald Trump. But wouldn't there or shouldn't there, in theory, be some charges that she brought against Donald Trump that wouldn't apply anymore, given that ruling? Right. So the Trump v. U.S. ruling was this summer and

involved whether Donald Trump enjoys presumed immunity or absolute immunity as president from prosecution for certain official or unofficial actions. And the Supreme Court ruled that he enjoys absolute immunity for official actions that are core to his constitutional duties as president and presumed immunity for those that are related to his duties.

Now, basically, this hasn't been vetted. As you said, Fannie Wills hasn't gone back and the DA hasn't considered whether some of these charges should be dropped because they were actually concerned his official acts as president that were core to his duties, such as directing his AG and some of the conversations with Mike Pence afterwards.

at the time. Again, there's also the separate issue whether you can continue to prosecute a sitting president. Now, the Supreme Court actually hasn't ruled on that, but Justice Leo Gorsuch in a case that actually involved Trump's tax returns in the first presidential term did raise questions regarding the separations of powers and such and federalism. If you could have local DAs prosecute a sitting president, I mean, how that would exactly work and how it would interfere with his

executive duties? Would he be having to sit at trial, you know, while there's perhaps there's war going on and how would that distract him and such? So I think that that is also a separate issue and another reason to just shut down this prosecution. Yeah.

I think that's really interesting because in some ways, by the way, this is the most live wire that all those out there encouraging this prosecution have. And that's not saying much. Special Counsel Jack Smith is shutting down his federal cases against Donald Trump in the New York case brought by Alvin Robertson.

brag, obviously. They got those convictions, but the judge is debating whether or not to simply end those as well, essentially put them aside because obviously he can't be sentenced now while he is serving as president. But, Manet, what would you say that this in sum, when you step back,

says about the Democratic's strategy of lawfare, which let's not forget for the past two years has been one of their main objectives and principal campaign strategy against Donald Trump. Right. I think it's been clear for a long time that their lawfare strategy didn't have the political effect that they were seeking.

Of course, they pulled off one half of it in the sense that they did reamplify Trump among the Republican Party base and help him to secure the nomination. But what was supposed to be the second part of it, tainting him in a way that would make him unacceptable to the general electorate, failed disastrously. And here he is about to take office again. But I do think that it's interesting to...

see that even just on the legal and procedural merits of this case, they've been a complete disaster. They've been racked with delays as their filings just didn't meet the usual standards of scrutiny for a well-ordered case.

They have obviously been put off by these considerations of presidential immunity that they didn't do the legwork to prepare themselves for before bringing the charges. And it just seems as if it's a really clear sign that these were rushed because they wanted to get them in before the election. The timing was entirely political and they weren't particularly focused on, you know,

dotting their I's and crossing their T's because they were so determined to push towards a preconceived narrative or preconceived conclusion of Trump's guilt that they didn't actually prepare well and do the sort of difficult grunt work that usually would go into bringing a high-profile case of this kind. Thank you, Manet, and thank you, Alicia. We also want to thank our listeners. We are here every weekday. If you like the show, please hit the subscribe button, and you can write to us at pwpodcast at wsj.com.