Headlines. Later, we are joining joined by Terry Madonna of Franklin Marshall to talk about pennsylvanias role as a battleground state this election year. We have an obligation under the constitution, should we choose to take it vantage of it, with a president of the same party as the senate to advance a nomination. Republicans say we do not care about anything. Senate, thehe institution. Just move forward. Everything americans value hangs in the balance. The looming battle over President Trumps Upcoming Supreme Court nominee dominates capitol hill come out with Senate Democrats warning they will retaliate if they win control the chamber and the white house on election day. We will talk with democrats only on this wednesday, september 3. What is the best strategy for your party on filling Supreme Court vacancy . Eastern,ve in the central part of the country, 202 7488000. Mountain pacific, 202 7488001. You can also join us by texting with your first name, city, and state at 202 7488003
Changed since 2016, whats motivating voters this year and look at trends that could give us clues on how people might vote in each state in november. Today, we turn our attention to the keystone state of pennsylvania, and Franklin Marshall College Professor joins us from harrisburg, this morning. So, lets just begin with what happened in pennsylvania in 2016. Well, in 2016, thencandidate donald j. Trump carried the state of pennsylvania by 44,000 votes. And essentially he won the state because of the turnout and the high proportion of votes that he got in central pennsylvania and also in the south western part of our state in the old mining and mill towns. I call it small town in rural pennsylvania and up in the North Eastern part of our state, largely because he developed what has generally been referred to as the rust belt strategy, where he campaigned in parts of pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin and michigan, making the argument that the Obama Administration had done bad trade deals. N
Journal looks at key battleground states with political reporters and analysts on the ground. Focusing on key battleground states, with reporters on the ground, what has changed, what policy issues are motivating this year. And clues about how people might vote in each state in november. Today we turn our attention to the keystone state of pennsylvania, and Franklin Marshall College Professor and poster Terry Madonna joins us from harrisburg this morning. Lets begin with what happened in pennsylvania in 2016. 2016, then candidate donald j. Trump carried the state of pennsylvania by 44,000 votes. He won the state because of the turnout and the high proportion of votes that he got in central pennsylvania, and also in the southwestern part of our state, in the old mining and mill towns. I call it small towns and rural pennsylvania, and in the northeastern part of our state, largely because he developed what has generally been referred to as the rustbelt strategy, ofre he campaigned in par
Since the last oral argument in this case the committee referred to the house of representatives, the house of representatives approved two articles of impeachment. Neither of those articles arise out of the events investigated by the special counsel nor the events described in the report of the special counsel land we are here today facing a different claim by the committee, for some political reasons pages 13 to 17 of the supplements a brief their argument is they need the grand jury information to prove in a senate trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the house, the president s culpability for those high crimes and misdemeanors. There are a couple problems with that. The first is that is not what the court found in this case. The court knows we have significant concerns, we dont think she applied to test at all but put that aside. What the District Court found was the house of representatives was acting preliminary to a Senate Impeachment trial on misconduct in the Muell
Hard work. The bipartisan support youve received is well deserved and i share the sentiments. The release of this report is an important step to answer the questions that have festered for far too long. The scope is narrow and many important questions remain unanswered. Much attention has been paid to the reports conclusion that the crossfire hurricane investigation did have adequate predicate. But that inaccuracies and omissions in the fisa application and renewals call into question the integrity of that process. Yesterdays order by the presiding judge is a dramatic rebuke and underscores how serious a fisa warrant abuse is. I would argue that based on what the report reveals about early knowledge within the fbi, we should be asking more fundamental questions. At what point should the investigation into the possible collusion between russia and the Trump Campaign had been shut down. Although the ig concluded the investigation was properly initiating, consensual monitoring of Trump Ca