Senators to preview proposals on improving election systems
With the 2018 primary season already underway, leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee are launching an effort to protect U.S. elections from a repeat episode of foreign interference. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the panel, will preview some of the committee’s recommendations for improving the nation’s election infrastructure at a news conference Tuesday. On Wednesday, the committee will hold a hearing examining attempted hacks on state elections systems in 2016 and the federal and state response to those efforts. The committee has prepared a larger report on the issue, one of what could be several reports to come out of the committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Burr and Warner have said this report is the most urgent because of the threat that it could happen again in 2018. It’s unclear when the full report will be released, but it is expected to include recommendations for elections officials around the country and also proposals for legislation to help ward off the hacking. Overall, experts say far too little has been done to shore up vulnerabilities in 10,000 U.S. voting jurisdictions that mostly run on obsolete and imperfectly secured technology. Russian agents targeted election systems in 21 states ahead of the 2016 general election, the Homeland Security Department has said, and separately launched a social media blitz aimed at inflaming social tensions and sowing confusion. Top U.S. intelligence officials have said they’ve seen indications Russian agents are preparing a new round of election subterfuge this year. There’s no evidence that any hack in the November 2016 election affected election results, but the attempts scared state election officials who sought answers about how their systems had been potentially compromised. DHS took nearly a year to inform the affected states of hacking attempts, blaming it in part on a lack of security clearances. Lawmakers in both parties have pressed the department on why it took so long. Warner has said he thinks the process to prevent such hacking needs to be more robust, especially since President Donald Trump has not addressed the matter as an urgent problem. “We’ve got bipartisan agreement we have to do something on this,” Warner said earlier this year. At the hearing Wednesday, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and current Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen will both testify. The Senate intelligence panel has put off making any assessments about whether Trump’s 2016 campaign in any way coordinated with Russia. Though that is one part of the panel’s investigation, Burr and Warner have decided to focus on less controversial issues where all members agree. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Donald Trump returning to Iowa, where he may find remorseful independent voters
Iowa independents who helped Donald Trump win the presidency see last year’s tough-talking candidate as a thin-skinned chief executive and wish he’d show more grace. Unaffiliated voters make up the largest percentage of the electorate in the Midwest state that backed Trump in 2016, after lifting Democrat Barack Obama to the White House in party caucuses and two straight elections. Ahead of Trump’s visit to Iowa Wednesday, several independents who voted for Trump expressed frustration with the president. It’s not just his famous tweetstorms. It’s what they represent: a president distracted by investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and a court battle over his executive order barring refugees from majority-Muslim countries at the expense of tangible health care legislation and new tax policy. “He’s so sidetracked,” said Chris Hungerford, a 47-year-old home-business owner from Marshalltown. “He gets off track on things he should just let go.” And when he does spout off, he appears to lack constraint, said Scott Scherer, a 48-year-old chiropractor from Guttenberg, in northeast Iowa. “Engage your brain before you engage your mouth,” Scherer advised, especially on matters pertaining to investigations. “Shut up. Just shut up, and let the investigation run its course.” Scherer said he would vote again for Trump, but pauses a long time before declining to answer when asked if he approves of the job the president is doing. Cody Marsh isn’t sure about voting for Trump a second time. The 32-year-old power-line technician from Tabor, in western Iowa, says, “It’s 50-50.” “People don’t take him seriously,” he said. Unaffiliated, or “no party” voters as they are known in Iowa, make up 36 percent of the electorate, compared with 33 percent who register Republican and 31 percent registered Democrat. Self-identified independents in Iowa voted for Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton by a 13-percentage-point margin last year, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks They helped him capture 51.8 percent of the overall vote against Clinton. Nationally, exit polls showed independents tilted toward Trump over Clinton by about a 4-percentage-point margin in November, but an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that about two-thirds of them disapprove of how he’s handling his job as president. In North Carolina, Republican pollster Paul Shumaker says he has seen internal polling that has warning signs for his state, where Trump prevailed last year. Independent voters are becoming frustrated with Trump, especially for failing so far to deliver on long-promised household economic issues such as health care, said Shumaker, an adviser to Republican Sen. Richard Burr. Inaction on health care and any notable decline in the economy will hurt Trump’s ability to improve his numbers with independents, with broad implications for the midterm elections next year, Shumaker said. At stake in 2018 will be majority control of the House. A favorable map and more Democrats up for re-election make the GOP more likely to add to its numbers in the Senate. “How the president and members of Congress move forward and address the kitchen-table issues facing the American voters will determine the outcome of the 2018 elections,” he said. In Iowa Wednesday, Trump will be rallying his Republican base in Cedar Rapids. Earlier this month, Vice President Mike Pence attended Republican Sen. Joni Ernst‘s annual fundraiser, where he talked about job growth and low unemployment since the start of the year, although economists see much of it as a continuation of Obama policies. Trump has only been in office five months. It’s a message the Republican establishment is clinging to, especially those looking ahead to 2018. Gov. Kim Reynolds, installed last month to succeed new U.S. Ambassador to China Terry Branstad, said last week of Iowa voters: “I think they are confident that President Trump and this administration are doing the job that they said that they would do, going out there and making America great again.” But Trump has to worry about people like Richard Sternberg, a 68-year-old retired high school guidance counselor from Roland, in central Iowa, who voted for Trump. But is Sternberg satisfied? “Not completely.” He is bothered by Trump’s proposed cut to vocational education, an economic lift for some in rural areas. “We, especially in Iowa, need those two-year technically trained people,” Sternberg said. More broadly, Trump needs to act more “presidential,” he said. “Trump speaks before he thinks,” Sternberg said. “He doesn’t seem to realize what the president says in the form of direct communication or Twitter carries great weight and can be misconstrued if not carefully crafted.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump thrusts U.S. presidency into perilous area
With his shocking dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, Donald Trump is propelling the presidency into rarely traversed territory. His surprise announcement Tuesday flouts decades of presidential deference to the nation’s top law enforcement agency and its independence. It earns Trump the dubious distinction of being the first president since Richard Nixon to fire the official overseeing an investigation involving the commander in chief. And it cements a clear pattern of a man willing to challenge — in dramatic fashion — the institutions created to hold the president accountable. “That’s why this is unprecedented,” said Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian. “He’s showed signs of not having a great deal of respect for the system by which this investigation has been operating.” Sen. Richard Burr, the North Carolina Republican who is overseeing one of the congressional investigations into Russia’s election interference, said: “I am troubled by the timing and reasoning of Comey’s termination.” Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said he’d spent hours trying to find “an acceptable rationale” for Trump’s decision. “I just can’t do it,” he said. Trump attained his White House goal after a decades-long career in business during which he was accountable to few people other than himself. Thus, he has chafed at the constitutionally mandated constraints on the presidency. Within days of taking the oath of office, he suddenly fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates — a career Justice Department official — after she refused to defend the White House’s controversial travel and immigration ban. When the federal courts blocked that measure as well, Trump aggressively castigated individual judges as political actors and challenged the court’s role in curbing a president’s policies. No matter which president originally appoints them — Comey was tapped by Barack Obama in 2013 — almost all FBI directors are allowed to serve out their full 10-year terms under successor commanders in chief. Bill Clinton is the only other president to fire an FBI chief, amid questions about the director’s use of FBI aircraft for personal purposes. The Trump White House cited Comey’s handling of last year’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices as the cause for the firing, and, to be sure, Comey left himself vulnerable. He was widely criticized for heavy-handed and high-profile decisions in the case, particularly when he sent a letter to Congress 10 days before the election saying the bureau was looking at new information related to the inquiry. He said at the time that the new information related to emails found on a laptop belonging to the husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, the disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner. At the time, Trump praised Comey for having “guts” and doing “the right thing,” statements that complicate his assertion that now, seven months later, Comey’s decisions warranted firing. Trump’s announcement came as Comey was again facing criticism, this time for telling congressional lawmakers that Abedin had forwarded “hundreds or thousands” of emails to the laptop. On Tuesday, hours before Trump fired Comey, the FBI told lawmakers that the director was wrong, and Abedin had forwarded only a “small number” of emails. Although Democrats blame Comey for Clinton’s loss, they are unlikely to accept Trump’s explanation for the firing. The president has repeatedly dismissed Comey’s Russia investigation — as well as the congressional inquiries — as a “hoax.” He’s also insisted that he is not personally under investigation — asserting Tuesday that Comey told him three times that he was not a target — though the FBI has stated unequivocally that the president’s campaign and his associates are facing scrutiny. “This is Nixonian,” said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. Jimmy Gurule, a former assistant attorney general who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, said Trump’s decision “threatens our democracy and undermines the integrity of the FBI investigation.” Gurule is now a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. Nixon’s decision had a ripple effect throughout his administration, with the attorney general and deputy attorney general resigning rather than carry out the president’s orders. There was no such response from Trump’s White House aides and other top administration officials. “We haven’t had a voice from within the Trump administration denounce this yet,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University. “I think at this moment the question is, will leading Republicans step out of the box and become profiles of courage?” In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s announcement, many Republicans appeared more inclined to back his decision, citing their own concerns with Comey’s stewardship of the FBI following months of controversy. None of the Republicans who did raise concerns were rushing to draw comparisons to Nixon, the only president to resign from office. Yet they, too, appeared troubled by Trump’s decision and wary of the prospect of White House interference in an investigation involving the president. Comey’s “removal at this particular time will raise questions,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. It is essential, he said, that ongoing investigations are full “and free of political interference until their completion.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Jared Kushner, taking new White House role, faces rare scrutiny
Jared Kushner has been a power player able to avoid much of the harsh scrutiny that comes with working in the White House. But this week he’s found that even the president’s son-in-law takes his turn in the spotlight. In a matter of days, Kushner, a senior Trump adviser, drew headlines for leaving Washington for a ski vacation while a signature campaign promise fell apart. The White House then confirmed he had volunteered to be interviewed before the Senate intelligence committee about meetings with Russian officials. At the same time, the White House announced he’ll helm a new task force that some in the West Wing have suggested carries little real influence. Kushner became the fourth Trump associate to get entangled in the Russia probe. North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the chairman of the intelligence committee, said Tuesday that Kushner would likely be under oath and would submit to a “private interview” about arranging meetings with the Russian ambassador and other officials. The news came as the White House announced Kushner would lead a new White House Office of American Innovation, a task force billed as a powerful assignment for Kushner. But the task force’s true power in the White House remained unclear, according to a half-dozen West Wing officials and Kushner associates who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official White House line is that the group would have sweeping authority to modernize government, acting as strategic consultants who can draw from experiences in the private sector — and sometimes receive input from the president himself — to fulfill campaign promises like battling opioid addiction and transforming health care for veterans. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday that it would “apply the president’s ahead-of-schedule-and-under-budget mentality” to the government. But others inside and outside the White House cast doubt on the task force’s significance and reach, suggesting it was a lower priority for the administration and pointing out that similar measures have been tried by previous presidents with middling success. The assignment revived lingering questions about whether Kushner had opted to focus his time on a project that would put him at some distance from some Trump’s more conservative and controversial policy overhauls. The announcement came just days after Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, were photographed on the ski slopes of Aspen, Colorado, as the GOP health care deal began to unravel amid protests from conservative Republicans that it did not go far enough in replacing President Barack Obama‘s Affordable Care Act. Kushner rushed back to Washington on Friday but it was too late to save the bill, which was scuttled hours later by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Two people close to Kushner vehemently denied the president was upset at his son-in-law for being absent, saying Trump had given the trip his blessing. And a senior White House official insisted the timing of the task force announcement was planned weeks in advance. Kushner, who has been at his father-in-law’s right hand since the campaign, has long been viewed as a first-among-equals among the disparate power centers competing for the president’s ear. Kushner, who routinely avoids interviews, draws power from his ability to access Trump at all hours, including the White House residence often off-limits to staffers. His portfolio is robust: He has been deeply involved with presidential staffing and has played the role of shadow diplomat, advising on relations with the Middle East, Canada and Mexico. Though Kushner and Ivanka Trump have been spotted with some frequency on the Washington social circuit, the president’s son-in-law is routinely in the office early and leaves late, other than on Fridays when he observes the Sabbath. While those close to Trump flatly state that Kushner, by virtue of marriage, is untouchable, this is a rare moment when he has been the center of the sort of political storm that has routinely swept up the likes of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, chief of staff Reince Priebus and senior counselor Kellyanne Conway. It points to a White House whose power matrix is constantly in flux. Kushner has been closely allied with senior counselor Dina Powell and National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs executive and a registered Democrat. That group has, at times, been at odds with conservatives led by Bannon, who to this point has been the driving force behind the White House’s policy shop. When Kushner officially joined the administration in January as a senior adviser, it was suggested that the real estate heir would draw upon the private sector to streamline and modernize government. His task force has been meeting since shortly after the inauguration and started talking to CEOs from various sectors about ways to make changes to entrenched federal programs. “Jared is a visionary with an endless appetite for strategic, inventive solutions that will improve quality of life for all Americans,” said Hope Hicks, Trump’s longtime spokeswoman. A list supplied by the White House of some of those who have met with Kushner reads like a who’s who of the American business world, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Tim Cook of Apple and Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase. Kushner usually does more listening than talking in the meetings, largely avoiding ideological arguments while asking questions about efficiency and best practices, according to a person who has attended a gathering but is not authorized to discuss private conversations. But the Trump team is hardly the first seeking to improve how the government operates. The Reagan administration tasked the Grace Commission in 1982 with uncovering wasteful spending and practices, while the Clinton administration sought its own reinvention of government in 1993 with what was initially called the National Performance Review. Previous commissions have not produced overwhelming results in changing the stubborn bureaucracy, casting some doubt on what Kushner’s team can accomplish. Philip Joyce, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland, said the domestic spending cuts in Trump’s budget blueprint suggest that this new committee would most likely focus more
More Republicans say AG Jeff Sessions should recuse himself
The Latest on Attorney General Jeff Sessions‘ talks with the Soviet ambassador (all times local): 11:25 a.m. attorneyAttorney The top House Democrat says Attorney General Jeff Sessions lied under oath when he told the Senate Judiciary that he had no contacts with the Russian government and says he should resign. Nancy Pelosi says, “Perjury is a crime.” In the meantime, Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida joined a growing chorus of Republicans calling upon Sessions to recuse himself from any investigation on contacts between the Russians and President Donald Trump‘s campaign last year. Graham says, “Somebody other than Jeff needs to do it.” Graham also tells reporters he is meeting Thursday with FBI Director James Comey and will demand to know whether there is an investigation into the Russia contacts. ___ 10:58 a.m. A growing number of Republicans want Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian meddling in the election and ties to the Trump campaign. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman says in a statement that Sessions is a former colleague and a friend, “but I think it would be best for him and for the country to recuse himself from the DOJ Russia probe.” Portman joins congressmen Jason Chaffetz, Darrell Issa and Tom Cole in calling for Sessions to recuse himself, Other Senate Republicans are rallying around Sessions, saying they trust him and that it’s up to Sessions whether to recuse himself. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. He says, “I trust Jeff Sessions to make that decision.” ___ 10:33 a.m. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren joins other Democrats in calling for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign. She says there should be an independent special prosecutor named to oversee an investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. election. Warren has clashed repeatedly with President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans. The Massachusetts senator reacted in a series of tweets to reports that Sessions talked twice with Russia’s ambassador during the presidential campaign, conversations that seem to contradict sworn statements Sessions gave to Congress during his confirmation hearings. The White House says Sessions met with the diplomat in his capacity as a then-U.S. senator, not a Trump campaign adviser. ___ 10:25 a.m. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer is calling on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign. Several Republicans and Democrats have called for Sessions to recuse himself from an investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election following the revelation he talked twice with Russia’s ambassador to the United States during the presidential campaign. The conversations seem to contradict sworn statements Sessions gave to Congress during his confirmation hearings. Schumer says a special prosecutor is needed to investigate the allegations of Russian interference and also look into whether the investigation has already been compromised by Sessions. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has accused Sessions of “lying under oath” and demanded that he resign. ___ 10:25 a.m. Another congressional Republican says Attorney General Jeff Sessions should recuse himself from any investigation into Russia meddling in the election and links to the Trump campaign. In a statement, congressman Darrell Issa of California joined House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz in calling on Sessions to recuse himself now. Issa says, “We need a clear-eyed view of what the Russians actually did so that all Americans can have faith in our institutions.” It is members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who typically meet with foreign ambassadors, not Armed Services Committee lawmakers whose responsibility is oversight of the military and the Pentagon. Congressional contact with Russian officials was limited after the invasion of Crimea and due to Moscow’s close relationship with Syria, a pariah for much of the West. ___ 9:15 a.m. A Republican committee chairman says Attorney General Jeff Sessions should recuse himself from an investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. Utah’s Jason Chaffetz chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He tells MSNBC that Sessions “is going to need to recuse himself at this point.” The Justice Department has confirmed Sessions talked twice with Russia’s ambassador to the United States during the presidential campaign, a seeming contradiction to sworn statements he gave to Congress. Chaffetz told MSNBC that Sessions “should further clarify.” Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri called on Sessions to resign, and Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said he should recuse himself. ___ 8:30 a.m. A Democratic senator says Attorney General Jeff Sessions should step aside from any role in the Justice Department’s investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia. Minnesota’s Al Franken tells MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Sessions’ statements about his contacts with Moscow have been “contradictory.” At Session’s confirmation hearing in January, Franken asked the then-Alabama senator what he would do if there was evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign had been in touch with the Russian government during the 2016 White House race. Sessions replied he was “unaware of those activities.” But the Justice Department has confirmed that Sessions had two conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. Franken is calling for an “independent prosecutor” to investigate any links the Trump campaign may have had with the Russian government and says Sessions must “come forward with the truth.” ___ 8:15 a.m. A Kremlin spokesman says all the attention given to Jeff Sessions’ meetings with Russia’s U.S. ambassador during the U.S. presidential campaign last year could affect improved ties between the countries. Sessions — who’s now President Donald Trump’s attorney general — was a senator and policy adviser to Trump’s campaign at the time of the meetings with Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. Dmitry Peskov is the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Peskov tells reporters that he didn’t know about the meetings. But he says it’s normal for Russian diplomats to meet with U.S. lawmakers. The White House says Sessions met with the diplomat in his capacity as a senator, rather than as a Trump campaign adviser. Peskov is characterizing reaction to the news of the meetings as “an
George W. Bush on Donald Trump and Russia: ‘We all need answers’
Former President George W. Bush said Monday “we all need answers” on the extent of contact between President Donald Trump‘s team and the Russian government, and didn’t rule out the idea that a special prosecutor could be necessary to lead an investigation. The Republican also defended the media’s role in keeping world leaders in check, noting that “power can be addictive,” and warned against immigration policies that could alienate Muslims. “I am for an immigration policy that’s welcoming and upholds the law,” Bush told NBC’s “Today” show. Bush’s comments came after a prominent Republican in Congress, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, called for a special prosecutor to investigate whether Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and was in touch with Trump’s top advisers during the campaign. Bush said he would trust Senate Intelligence panel Chairman Richard Burr to decide if a special prosecutor is necessary. But, Bush added, “I think we all need answers … I’m not sure the right avenue to take. I am sure, though, that that question needs to be answered.” The former president, who is promoting a book of his paintings of wounded veterans, also took issue with Trump’s characterization of the media as an “enemy of the people.” Bush said the U.S. won’t be able to convince authoritarian governments, including Russia, to open up their governments to media scrutiny if U.S. leaders try to discredit their own press. “We need an independent media to hold people like me to account,” Bush said. “Power can be very addictive, and it can be corrosive. And it’s important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power, whether it be here or elsewhere.” On the issue of immigration and Trump’s recent attempt to ban travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations, Bush warned that if the U.S. freezes out other countries and turns inward, that would only make it more difficult to fight the Islamic State group and other foreign extremists. “I think it’s very hard to fight the war on terrorism if we’re in retreat,” he said. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
For GOP, a dimmed zeal for investigations in Donald Trump era
The Republicans’ ardor for investigations and oversight, on display throughout the Obama administration, has cooled off considerably with Donald Trump in the White House. Each day seems to bring a new headache or near-crisis from Trump, the latest being the departure of his national security adviser under questionable circumstances involving Russia. Yet if there is a line too far, at which point Republicans will feel duty-bound to call for an independent investigation of their president or his administration, Trump hasn’t crossed it yet. Democrats are clamoring for a full-scale probe of the resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, including demanding to know what Trump knew, and when, about Flynn’s pre-inauguration conversations with a Russian ambassador about U.S. sanctions. White House press secretary Sean Spicer disclosed that Trump was told in late January that Flynn had misled Vice President Mike Pence about those conversations. Rather than go along with Democrats’ call for an independent outside investigation, Senate Republicans insisted Tuesday that the Intelligence Committee could look at the circumstances as part of an existing probe into Russia’s interference in the presidential election. “The Intelligence Committee is already looking at Russian involvement in our election and they have broad jurisdiction over the intel community writ large and they can look at whatever they choose to,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., adding that “it’s highly likely they’d want to take a look at this episode as well.” The intelligence panel’s chairman, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, told reporters that “aggressive” oversight would continue “privately. We don’t do that in public.” House Republicans were even less interested, with some shrugging off Democrats’ calls for an investigation entirely. Rep. Devin Nunes of California, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said that the “real crime” is how Flynn’s phone conversations were leaked, echoing a complaint Trump himself made over Twitter. “I think the situation has taken care of itself” in light of Flynn’s resignation, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told reporters. That’s a far different stance toward potential wrongdoing by the executive branch than Chaffetz took last year, when House Republicans issued more than 70 letters and subpoenas aimed at investigating Democrat Hillary Clinton over a period of less than three months after the FBI announced criminal charges weren’t warranted related to her use of a private email server as secretary of state. Chaffetz did turn his attention to a different Trump administration matter later Tuesday, sending a letter to the White House seeking information about Trump’s discussion of a North Korea missile launch while dining al fresco with the Japanese prime minister at a resort in Florida. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., went so far as to counsel publicly against spending too much time investigating the White House, saying that doing so could only be counterproductive at a moment when the GOP faces a daunting legislative agenda on Capitol Hill. “I just don’t think it’s useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party,” Paul said in an appearance on Fox News Radio’s “Kilmeade and Friends.” ”We’ll never even get started with doing the things we need to do like repealing Obamacare if we’re spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense.” The relatively hands-off stance of the GOP toward the Trump White House angers Democrats, who are powerless to do much except fume from the minority in both chambers of Congress. “Do you hear the silence? This is the sound of House Republicans conducting no oversight of President Trump. Zero,” Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, complained at a news conference Tuesday. “That is what it sounds like when they abdicate their duty under the Constitution. We’ve been asking for months for basic oversight.” The GOP’s lack of enthusiasm about investigating the Trump White House comes as Capitol Hill Republicans struggle to come to terms with a new administration that has been engulfed in upheaval after upheaval. Republicans are trying to focus on their agenda despite the distractions. And for now, they appear to have concluded, going easy on Trump is the best way to achieve their goals, including confirming a Supreme Court justice and passing a new health care law and other legislation they want the president to sign. “We know full well that there are issues that are going to come up on a daily basis that we’re going to get asked about and have to respond to,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Senate Republican, “but we’re interested in repealing and replacing Obamacare, reforming the tax code, reducing the regulatory burden on businesses, confirming a Supreme Court justice, getting these Cabinet nominees through — that’s what our agenda is right now.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
GOP candidates divided over renewing USA Patriot Act
Republican senators eyeing the presidency split over the renewal of the USA Patriot Act surveillance law, with civil libertarians at odds with traditional defense hawks who back tough spying powers in the fight against terrorism. The political divide will be on stark display this month as Congress debates reauthorization of the post-Sept. 11 law ahead of a June 1 deadline. The broader question of privacy rights has gained attention since a former National Security Agency systems administrator, Edward Snowden, disclosed in 2013 that the NSA had been collecting and storing data on nearly every American’s phone calls for years. On one side, Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina want Congress to permanently reauthorize parts of the law, giving the NSA much of its surveillance authority. If there were another attack, “the first question out of everyone’s mouth is going to be, `why didn’t we know about it?’” Rubio said this week in a speech on the Senate floor. “And the answer better not be, `because this Congress failed to authorize a program that might have helped us know about it.’” The rise of Islamic State militants, the continued threat from al-Qaida and the ongoing civil war in Syria have pushed national security to the forefront in the 2016 race for the GOP nomination, with some candidates determined to show their toughness. On NSA surveillance, however, Americans are wary of government intrusion. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky say the law infringes on citizens’ privacy. “They want nothing more than to keep the national security spy state growing until it tracks, traces and catalogues virtually every detail about every aspect of our lives,” Paul said in a campaign email to his supporters. “Once government bureaucrats know every aspect of our lives – what we watch, what we buy, what we eat, where we worship – it won’t be long until they try to run them `for our own good.’” Under the law, the NSA collects information on the number called and the date and time of the call, then stores it in a database that it queries using phone numbers associated with terrorists overseas. Officials say they don’t use the information for any other purpose, and that the legal powers that enable the program are essential to the hunt for terrorists. Opponents say the seizure and search of telephone company records violates Americans’ expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Adding a wrinkle to the debate was Thursday’s federal appeals court ruling that the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records is illegal. The court all but pleaded for Congress to sharpen the boundaries between security and privacy rights. The House is slated to vote next week on a bill to reauthorize the law while also ending the government’s dragnet collection of records, and Cruz has endorsed the measure, saying it “strikes the right balance between privacy rights and national security interests.” But Senate leaders, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, have spoken forcefully for a competing measure to reauthorize the law as-is. Across Congress, the political divisions cut along complex lines. Libertarian-leaning Republicans like Cruz and Paul are aligned with many liberal Democrats, insisting that a secret intelligence agency should not be storing the records of every American phone call. But other Democrats and Republicans say the program is needed now more than ever given the Islamic State group’s determination to inspire terrorist attacks on American soil. Graham, the only one of the four who has not formally announced his candidacy, is siding with Rubio in favor of the NSA’s spy powers but competing with him for support among defense hawks. “I’m open-minded to doing reforms,” Graham told reporters Thursday. “I just don’t want to diminish the capacity of the program to prevent another 9/11. I believe if the program were in operation before 9/11, we probably would have prevented 9/11.” Sen. John McCain, the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee, previewed one likely argument. He cited the incident in Texas last Sunday in which two gunmen were shot dead while trying to attack a provocative event that featured cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad. In the aftermath, authorities described an alarming trend involving potential homegrown extremists with access to social media and possible exposure to Islamic State group propaganda. “We must do everything in our power to stop these attacks before they happen,” McCain, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, said. FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that although the bureau had opened a new investigation into one of the gunmen, Elton Simpson, agents had no reason to believe he was going to attack the event. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Obama’s trade agenda draws GOP support in U.S. House
Legislation to strengthen President Barack Obama‘s hand for a new round of trade deals advanced Thursday in the U.S. House of Representatives courtesy of Republicans and over the protests of Democrats, a political role reversal that portends a bruising struggle over passage later this spring. The vote was 25-13 in the House Ways and Means Committee as pro-business Republicans outpolled labor-aligned Democrats. It was the second straight day the GOP-controlled Congress voted handed Obama a victory on trade. The Senate Finance Committee approved a nearly identical bill Thursday night that would allow lawmakers to vote yes or no without making changes in trade deals, like the one now taking shape among Pacific Rim trading partners. “They’re waiting for this to put their best offers on the table,” Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House committee chairman, said of negotiating partners that include Japan, Singapore, Chile and Peru. The president put in a plug for the legislation while speaking dismissively of its critics. “When people say this trade deal is bad for working families, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” Obama told activists and donors with Organizing for Action, a group with roots in his presidential campaigns. Democrats said the legislation didn’t go far enough to assure labor standards and environmental protections strong enough to avoid placing American companies at a disadvantage, and said failure to prohibit currency manipulation abroad would cost U.S. workers their jobs. “Currency manipulation has caused more job loss than anything else connected to trade,” said Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel. But the Democrats’ attempt to substitute their own legislation — weakening Obama’s powers — was ruled out of order by Republicans on grounds that it exceeded the committee’s jurisdiction. As a result, no vote was taken on it. It would have set up a congressional committee with authority to decide if any trade deal had met negotiating objectives, taking the power away from Obama. Unlike the White House-backed measure, it would only have applied to the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, and not to other possible deals over the next six years. In addition to trade talks involving countries bordering the Pacific, the administration is involved in negotiations toward a TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union and a Trade in Services Agreement with dozens of countries. Trade legislation is a perennial political irritant for Democrats, never more than now, given the post-recession political fault lines that have developed on the issue of income disparity. Democratic U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the party’s leader in the House, declined to say whether she supports the legislation. At a news conference, she said: “At the end of the day, you weigh the equities. Is this better than the status quo? How much better? Or is it a wasted opportunity? And right now, I’m disappointed.” She suggested that if the White House and Republicans fail to produce a majority for the measure, it would increase Democratic leverage to seek changes. Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination this week in New Hampshire, similarly declined to state a position. Some Democrats have been far less reluctant, though. Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a persistent critic of large corporations, has engaged in something of a long-range debate with Obama over the subject in recent days. The House legislation is nearly identical to a bill that cleared the Senate Finance Committee on a bipartisan 20-6 vote. Seven of that panel’s 13 Democrats supported the bill. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina was the only Republican to oppose it. In the House committee, all Republicans joined with Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Ron Kind of Wisconsin in supporting the bill. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
