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

THREAD:
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.

We'll start with the complaint in a minute.

But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.

They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.

It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.

Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop


(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)

You May Also Like

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.