Up First from NPR - The View From Iran, House Foreign Aid Bills, Supreme Court's Jan. 6 Case

Episode Date: April 16, 2024

Iran is calling its air strikes on Israel a huge success, even though nearly all their missiles and drones were shot down. It looks like House Speaker Mike Johnson could finally bring foreign aid for Ukraine and Israel up for a vote — well...make that four votes. And the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments today in a January 6th case that asks the question: How does one specific federal law define the obstruction of a congressional proceeding?Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Mark Katkov, Dana Farrington, Lisa Thomson and Ben Adler. It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Ben Abrams and Nina Kravinsky. We get engineering support from Phil Edfors, and our technical director is Zac Coleman.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Iran is calling its airstrikes on Israel a huge success, even though nearly all their missiles and drones were shot down. World leaders, including President Biden, want Israel to show restraint to this direct attack on Israeli territory. I'm E. Martinez, that's Michelle Martin, and this is Up First from NPR News. It looks like House Speaker Mike Johnson could finally bring foreign aid for Ukraine and Israel up for a vote. Well, make that four votes. He says the U.S. must respond to terrorists and tyrants. They're watching to see if America will stand up for its allies and our own interests around the globe, and we will. Why is the speaker proposing four bills instead of one?

And a January 6th case goes to the Supreme Court. It's about a law used to charge hundreds of defendants who invaded the Capitol, as well as Donald Trump. Stay with us. We'll give you the news you need to start your day. Now, our change will honor 100 years of the Royal Canadian Air Force and their dedicated service to communities at home and abroad. From the skies to our change, this $2 commemorative circulation coin marks their storied past and promising future.

Find the limited edition Royal Canadian Air Force $2 coin today. World leaders are calling on Israel to show restraint after Iran's unprecedented but largely ineffective airstrikes over the weekend. They are wary of these attacks spiraling into a broader regional conflict. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby emphasized that Iran intended to cause, quote, significant destruction and casualties. Iranian leaders launched so many missiles and other munitions because they knew that many were going to be defeated. But the aim was to get as many of them through Israel's defenses as possible. And Israel's military chief of staff says a response will be coming, but didn't say when or how.

NPR's Peter Kenyon is following developments from Istanbul. Good morning, Peter. Hello. So, Peter, Israel and the United States have made a point of letting the world know that their forces, along with some others, shot down 99% of Iran's missiles and drones. So what are the Iranians saying about this? Well, perhaps a bit surprisingly, given the failure of the Iranian attack to cause really significant damage, officials in Tehran from the president on down have been lavish with their praise for the operation. They're calling it a huge success. President Ebrahim Raisi said the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, had taught a lesson to the Zionist entity. That's how Iran sometimes

refers to Israel. And Erna, the state news agency, quoted an Iranian lawmaker, Mujtaba Zanuri, as saying the IRGC's punitive operation was a victory and a cause of pride for the people as it humiliated the Israeli regime. Okay, so we're calling this unprecedented because this was a direct attack on Israeli territory. Why did Iran feel it had to respond in such a dramatic manner? Well, Iran has long been committed to responding to any attacks against it, but usually it does so through its proxies in the region. After this airstrike on its consulate building in Damascus, which Iran blames on Israel, Tehran condemned what it called a major violation of international law.

Iran also may have recalled the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad in 2020, perhaps seeing a need for a show of strength to try and deter future strikes. Now, Iranian officials weren't alone in protesting the Damascus strike. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres strongly condemned the attack. He called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and added that neither the region nor the world can afford another war. So let me go back to that strike. Has Israel taken credit for it? And how has Israel justified it? Well, Israel said the strike took out a key IRGC

general who had played an important role in getting weapons to Iran's proxy militia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has been exchanging fire with Israel in the north. So that was their explanation. So the U.S. and other countries are urging Israel not to respond. They're also looking at sanctions on Iran, which is already under a sanctions regime. So, Peter, do we have any sense of how effective further sanctions would actually be? Well, good question. Western countries have been levying sanctions on Iran for many years now. They do cause economic pain among ordinary Iranians, primarily. Whether they changed Tehran's behavior is another question. And before we let you go, Peter, how are other countries viewing Iran after

the attack? Well, Iran finds itself diplomatically isolated, even among countries that are not necessarily friendly with Israel. Russia does still support Tehran. That's very important to Iran. Moscow has a veto at the UN Security Council, for one thing. And China has generally followed Russia's lead when it comes to Iran. But in the region, many of Iran's neighbors have no love for the Islamic Republic or its proxy militias, Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen. Now, Jordan, for instance, helped shoot down some of the Iranian drones and missiles Iran fired at Israel Sunday. Saudi Arabia is another important U.S. ally. And we should note that Hamas was badly hurt by the Israeli attack in the Gaza Strip. So that reduces Iran's ability to cause damage.

That is and appears Peter Kenyon in Istanbul. Peter, thank you. Thanks, Michelle. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., House Speaker Mike Johnson is signaling that he is ready to move forward with aid for Israel and Ukraine. Divisions, though, among House Republicans have stalled the foreign aid package for months, even though it's already passed the Senate. But following Iran's attack on Israel over the weekend, there's increased pressure on Congress to act. So here to tell us more about all this is NPR congressional correspondent Deirdre Walsh. Deirdre, good morning to you.

Good morning, Michelle. So how is the speaker hoping to finally get this foreign aid package through the House? Well, he's not allowing a vote on the Senate package. Instead, he came up with a way to get around his own party's internal politics. Instead of one vote on that $95 billion package, the speaker's breaking it up into four separate pieces, aid to Israel, aid to Ukraine, security assistance for Taiwan, and another piece that wasn't in the Senate package, a national security bill that is going to include several proposals, including a bill the House

already passed to force the sale of TikTok or face a ban in the U.S. The Speaker said addressing all of these issues was a priority for him. We have terrorists and tyrants and terrible leaders around the world like Putin and Xi and in Iran. And they're watching to see if America will stand up for its allies and in our own interest around the globe. And we will. So why do it this way? Well, Johnson is trying to thread the needle. House Republicans are really united on approving additional aid for Israel. But on the issue of Ukraine, they're really split down the middle. Conservatives strongly oppose

any more money for Ukraine. The speaker argued splitting these issues up allows each member to vote on each topic separately and vote their conscience. Does he still face the threat of losing his job if he moves forward with these four bills, however they're packaged, just as the former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was removed with just a handful of votes from conservatives. He does. That threat is still out there from Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's one of the biggest opponents for approving any more aid for Ukraine. She's already introduced a resolution to oust the Speaker over this issue and others. She hasn't said whether she's going to force that vote. The Speaker really downplayed that factor last night, said he's not thinking about it. The bills are expected to be released later today, and the Speaker said he's

aiming to have a House vote on these measures potentially by Friday night. Does this mean that the Ukraine aid, which is, I guess, the truly controversial part of all this, might actually pass after all these months? You know, it's unclear if this strategy is going to work. The Speaker has a really narrow majority. I guess the truly controversial part of all this might actually pass after all these months. You know, it's unclear if this strategy is going to work. The speaker has a really narrow majority. He admitted last night that Ukraine is the most controversial piece of this. He also said they're structuring the assistance to Ukraine as a loan as opposed to straight aid in the Senate bill.

That's something that former President Trump has pushed. There's also a risk to doing it this way. It's unclear if it passes, if it will move as one package or as individual pieces to the Senate. And there's some changes to what the Senate approved back in February. So if it gets through the House, the Senate is going to have to vote again on it. Okay, so before we let you go, the attacks on Israel over the weekend kind of scrambled the House schedule, but there is still another issue on the House's to-do list, sending articles of impeachment against the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate. What can you tell us about that? What's the plan there?

Well, the 11 House impeachment managers are going to deliver the articles to the Senate this afternoon. That starts the process for a trial in the Senate. All 100 senators will be sworn in as jurors on Wednesday. But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is expected to move to dismiss or table these charges against Mayorkas. He just needs a simple majority to do that. He's expected to get that. That vote is also expected to happen on Wednesday. That effectively would end the trial. That is NPR's Deirdre Wall. Deirdre, thank you. Thanks, Michelle. The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments today in a January 6 case that asked the question, how does one specific federal law define the obstruction of a congressional proceeding? That law has been used to prosecute hundreds of defendants charged with invading the Capitol that day. And the outcome of this case could also affect Donald Trump

because the same law is also being used to charge him. Let's bring on NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. Nina, we're now three years into the prosecutions of January 6th defendants. More than 800 people have pleaded guilty so far. Nearly 200 more have been convicted on some or all charges. So how and why is this case at the Supreme Court now? Well, because 353 of those people were charged with, among other things, obstructing or attempting to obstruct or impede a congressional proceeding,

namely here the counting of electoral ballots for president. All but one of the judges in the District of Columbia where these cases are litigated upheld the use of the charge, but one judge dismissed it in the case of Joseph Fisher, a former police officer arrested for his actions inside the Capitol. The judge in Fisher's case ruled that the statute was meant to apply to the destruction of documents and records, not events like the invasion of the Capitol on January 6th. So what did Fisher do? The government says that on the cell phone video he took of himself,

Fisher can be heard yelling, charge, right before he's seen in a scrum with police. And there are incriminating texts in which Fisher wrote things like, take Democratic Congress to the gallows, can't vote if they can't breathe, lol. But none of that A is actually at issue in the arguments today. The question today is whether the statute that Fisher was charged with violating was meant to apply only to the destruction of documents and records and other evidence needed in a congressional proceeding, or whether

the statute was meant to have a much broader reach covering any attempt to obstruct a congressional proceeding, including the counting of electoral votes. So what exactly are Fisher's lawyers arguing? They say that when Congress enacted the statute after the 2001 Enron scandal. Its limited purpose was to make clear that shredding or altering documents or records is a crime, no more. They note that this is the most serious charge against Fisher, with a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and that it allows prosecutors to use it as leverage in plea negotiations. That said, typically first offenders have been sentenced to between one and four years under the statute. Okay, prosecutors, what do they say?

They contend that while the first section of the statute does apply to the destruction of documentary evidence, the second part of the statute makes it a crime to, quote, otherwise obstruct or impede any official congressional proceeding or attempt to do so. All right. So I take it then that for prosecutors, an adverse decision could have some pretty serious repercussions. It would halt ongoing cases under the statute. All those already sentenced would have to be resentenced, with many defendants facing far less in the way of penalties. In fact, pending a Supreme Court decision in this case, some lower court judges have conditionally ordered early release from prison for some January 6th defendants. All right, that's NPR Legal Affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. Nina, thanks.

Thank you, Ray. And that's Up First for Tuesday, April 16th. I'm Michelle Martin. And I'm A. Martinez. Have you considered listening to Consider This from NPR? Iran's first ever direct military attack on Israeli soil could also mean the start of a wider conflict in the Middle East. How might Israel, the U.S., and other countries respond? Find out. Listen to Consider This. Today's episode of Up First was edited by Mark Katkoff, Dana Farrington, Lisa Thompson, and Ben Adler. It was produced by Ziad Budge,

Ben Abrams, and Nina Kravinsky. We get engineering support from Phil Edfors and our technical director is Zach Coleman. Start your day here with us tomorrow.