Mediaboss Marketing

I remember a lot of outrage about two things when I first ran for office: Obamacare and the bank bailouts. Unfortunately, the Senate healthcare bill combines the worst of those two this time, we're bailing out the big insurance companies.

Why? Partly because of the crony capitalism that pervades the culture in the swamps of Washington.

In other words, is there somehow a right to healthcare that includes a taxpayer obligation to maintain insurance industry profits, which hit a record $15 billion last year?

One would hope not.

But the one certainty of the Senate GOP health plan is that it guarantees a profit for Big Insurance. The same Big Insurance that takes in about $15 billion in profit annually.

Am I the only one in the Senate that finds this brand of crony capitalism unseemly?

We aren't talking about whether or not we take care of the poor or disabled who can't afford their healthcare. We already do that in Medicaid and a host of other direct government programs.

I can have an honest debate with socialists about whether one can have a right that confers an obligation on another individual, but I really can't even admit any intellectual honesty to those in Congress who now argue that the federal government has a responsibility to confer profit to a profitable industry.

The current Senate GOP healthcare bill creates a giant insurance bailout superfund of nearly $200 billion.

Big Insurance whines that they lose money in the individual market, while carefully leaving out the fact that they make enormous profits in group insurance markets that comprise about 90 percent of the private insurance marketplace.

As a believer in free markets and capitalism, I favor no federal government intervention in the insurance marketplace. But if Senate Republicans now accept a prominent role for government in the insurance marketplace, maybe Big Insurance should just be told, "Hey, the insurance stabilization fund' is going to be financed by your $15 billion in profits." Government could simply forbid them from selling group insurance unless they agree to subsidize the individual market.

Now, I don't favor such a mandate. But if I were forced to choose between asking the taxpayer to fork over $200 billion to subsidize Big Insurance or mandating that insurance companies subsidize those with pre-existing conditions, I'd choose taking the money out of their profit, without question.

Once upon a time, there was a classically-liberal intelligentsia in our country who understood what natural rights are.

The economist Walter Williams puts it this way:

In the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

As we forgot about what natural liberty means, so have we forgotten what made America great in the first place freedom.

I am disappointed that my colleagues have insufficient confidence in the freedom of the healthcare marketplace, and I am greatly disappointed they've decided there now exists a federal right of insurance companies to have their $15 billion annual profit subsidized by taxpayers.

I really can't describe my level of disappointment. Crony capitalism is enshrined as a "right" by the new GOP Obamacare bill, while that bill does little to nothing to repeal Obamacare or fix our ailing healthcare sector.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is the junior U.S. Senator from Kentucky. You can follow him on Twitter: @RandPaul

Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.

Go here to read the rest:
Rand Paul: Crony capitalism isn't a right, so why does Senate healthcare bill give insurance companies the right to ... - Washington Examiner

Libertarians must cast off their niche-party shackles and embrace more moderate stances to compete in the political arena.

The plight of third-party presidential bids in recent United States history have been, to put it in blunt terms, a series of major disappointments. The current Democratic-Republican two-party alignment has been extremely resilient to challenges from any alternative perspectives. Many of the ideological shifts in the American electorate have caused not a new political party to emerge, but rather strategic shifting of the two-party oligopoly to accommodate these new ideals.

Libertarians should observe the current shifting of the Democratic and Republican parties with concern, perhaps even fright. The days of the Reagan coalition, where conservative leaders like William F. Buckley gave a voice at the table (though not a full endorsement) to libertarian thinkers like FA Hayek and Milton Friedman, is long over. Modern right-wing politics now shares no more in common with the ideals of classical liberalism than does the progressive wing. From the neoconservative interventionism of George W. Bush, to the anti-market, anti-civil rights populist-nationalist Trump presidency, any tentative alliance between Republicans and libertarians that may have existed is now dead and buried.

Should libertarians consider a shift to the left? The outlook there is getting more and more concerning as well. An avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, came within inches of earning the Democratic nomination in 2016. On the horizon, far-left Elizabeth Warren has her crosshairs aimed at the 2020 election. If either of these two candidates grabs the agenda of the Democratic Party away from the more reasonable Clinton-era members, it will represent a major underlying shift in the economic philosophy of the party. No longer will government intervention be deemed a necessary step to correct for perceived market failures or inequities. These far-left ideologues believe, rather, that the government actually does a better job in managing goods and services than does a private market.

Advocates of free markets and personal liberty face a potential political future in which the only two established political choices are between a pseudo-authoritarian and pseudo-socialist party. Neither could be further from the ideals of this countrys founders, save a true shift to pure fascism or communism. What should the only remaining US political party with access to the ballot on all 50 states do? The only strategic answer that makes sense is to flank from the center.

While Gary Johnsons failed 2016 presidential bid was a disappointment given his polling numbers earlier in the campaign season, a quick look at the voters who supported the Libertarian ticket explains a great deal about where the support was coming from. The ANES 2016 survey reveals that voters who went for Johnson identified politically as more moderate than Trump or Clinton supporters. They take more centrist stances on trade, the environment, and many other partisan issues. The 4 million+ people who were drawn to the Johnson-Weld candidacy were not libertarian ideologues, driven by the writings of Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. Rather, they were primarily moderates; dissatisfied with both Clinton and Trumps candidacies and voting in protest of the two major parties. In a time of increasing political polarization, a possible revolt of moderate voters ostracized by the far-left and far-right seems very possibly on the horizon. This opportunity for vote gathering cannot and should not be ignored by the only other US party with the resources and organization to achieve electoral success.

If the Libertarian Party wants to gain relevance and bargaining power in 2020 and perhaps beyond, participants and party members must drop some of more unpopular and radical party positions. Arguments for legalizing all drugs (not just marijuana), a complete elimination of minimum wage laws and regulations, and the complete abolition of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are without a doubt well-principled, and in keeping with an ideal libertarian vision of society, but they are not yet supported by enough of the population to be realistic campaign promises. For too long, ideological purity has superseded more pragmatic, measured goals for the Libertarian Party. They have been acting as a niche party, and this needs to change.

I propose that a center-libertarian party one that espouses the ideas of moderately limited government, social progress, and globalization is the best chance true libertarians have in order to push back against the radicalization of the Democratic and Republican parties. By positioning as the reasoned middle-ground, the party can work to advance some ideological interests that are largely popular (free trade, LGBT rights, lower taxes, reasoned budget cuts, school choice, and a restrained foreign policy to name a few) while offering a solid option to so many moderate voters within the US that while perhaps not true card-holding libertarians are concerned about either the growing authoritarian tendencies of the Republican party or the rapid expansion of economic interventionism and massive budget deficits offered by the left-Democrats.

Many of my libertarian friends will no doubt argue that what I am asking for is a step too far. For too long, I have heard, libertarians have had to choose between the lesser of two evils. A centrist party with only a classical liberal bent would be a return in their eyes to choosing a distant compromise over their preferred ideal ends. But this kind of thinking ignores reality and the pragmatic constraints of an electoral system, and the nature of strategic political bargaining. There are simply not yet enough true believers in minarchist policy for a presidential ticket espousing elimination of nearly 85% of government services to be electable. As political entrepreneurs, the libertarians must act pragmatically: not only is a centrist platform preferable to the options currently tabled by the Republicans and Democrats, but it is where many of the undecided or ostracized voters are likely to lie in 2020.

If libertarians continue to exist on fighting from the fringe of politics, there will be no opportunity to pose any political threat to the rise in statism that we see in the current political climate. The Libertarian Party and its donors must seize this opportunity, and work towards electoral success. The war against tyranny must be fought from the middle, not from the fringe. If we cannot make the adjustments and decisions necessary to compete electorally in a system already so stacked against third party challengers, then we too are equally culpable in the horrifying direction that the American political parties are heading.

* Colin French is a PhD student of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He has taught economics, history, and politics at both the secondary and post-secondary levels.

Like Loading...

Link:
A Case for Centrism - Being Libertarian - Being Libertarian

For libertarians in modern day politics, there has been more commotion regarding the proper stance on borders than ever before. This confusion has focused on the debate between whether we should be proponents of open or closed borders, and depending on who you ask, you get completely conflicting answers.

Why this topic causes so much confusion among libertarians is a complete mystery, as the debate regarding the proper stance on borders has been self-evident for almost 50 years now. So self-evident in fact, that Murray Rothbard barely even addressed it in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, spending less than a handful of its few hundred pages discussing it. Why it has been so prominent lately though can be attributed to a few things.

Lets start with the overall increase in skepticism shown towards immigration, as it will certainly be brought up as a criticism later.

Nationalism has always been something promoted by the state, with an irrational fear of foreigners likewise trailing close behind. Immigration, however, has always been and still is an overall net benefit to an economy. For starters, immigrants do not steal peoples jobs, because unless you own the company, you do not own your job. Instead, they fill in the gaps left by most natives. In America, immigrants tend to be either exceedingly high or low skilled, complementing the majority of American workers who fall somewhere in the middle. Not only are immigrants less likely to commit crimes than natives, but research also shows that in America, immigrants are assimilating better than ever before. And although we can agree that we have a massively overblown welfare state, immigrants as a whole pay more in then they receive.

Part of the reason this illogical cynicism has been exacerbated in libertarian circles is due to the influx of both Democrats and Republicans abandoning their respective party, choosing to identify as libertarian with no real knowledge of its specifics.

These individuals, ranging from members of the alt-right all the way to full-blown communists, have caused the focus of the issue to be distorted. The open and closed borders distinction serves only to confuse most people through their subjective definitions, misleading many into arguing over inconsequential details. They have in essence academized libertarianism unnecessarily, much like what modern progressives have done with inequality and racism. Thus, taking a settled debate and adding excessive details, oftentimes complicating it to the point of arriving at the opposite answers.

Ironically, Rothbard predicted this would happen, and in For a New Liberty no less. In it, he refers to these groups through the borrowed Marxist terms of left-wing sectarians and right-wing opportunists, and wrote the following:

The critics of libertarian extremist principles are the analog of the Marxian right-wing opportunists. The major problem with the opportunists is that by confining themselves strictly to gradual and practical programs, programs that stand a good chance of immediate adoption, they are in grave danger of completely losing sight of the ultimate objective, the libertarian goal. He who confines himself to calling for a two percent reduction in taxes helps to bury the ultimate goal of abolition of taxation altogether. By concentrating on the immediate means, he helps liquidate the ultimate goal, and therefore the point of being libertarian in the first place. if libertarians refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will? The answer is no one.

With that in mind, we can better understand the libertarian stance on borders, which is the complete abolition of state-owned property, followed by a strict adherence to private property rights. There is no adaptation of government involvement in any issue surrounding libertarianism, and borders are no different. Every issue brought up by the sectarians and opportunists to muddy the waters does not hold water themselves. Claiming the need for government to close borders to combat a problem brought on by the state requires the abandonment of the libertarian foundation. Wed no sooner advocate for the government to nationalize our health industry to solve the current insurance death spiral, brought about through a previous intrusion of government.

Likewise, the idea of handing the state more power to solve a state-sponsored problem is antithetical to libertarianism. It disregards both the truth that government cannot perform even the most menial tasks as efficiently as the market can, as well as the key argument that any authority the state is granted is never willingly given back. Instead, we should combat the states expansion and advocate its dissolution, specifically the policies aggravating the problems at hand, as aggressively as possible at each turn. For example, we may agree that the state is currently subsidizing immigration to the detriment of its citizens well-being, however, giving more authority to the state to solve this matter for reasons of pragmatism only further incentivizes the state to cause crises in other sectors so that it may usurp more authority in its resolution.

But, even the great Murray Rothbard fought vigorously with himself over this, going back and forth later in life. If this tells us nothing else, it means that until such a time where it is the individual property owners choice, the border debate is done a gross injustice when reduced to the polarizing false dichotomy of open or closed.

What solutions can we advocate in the meantime then?

Rather than fall prey to the circular logic of initial state expansion as a means of reaching the goal of abolition, we should spend our time calling out the problems the state is guilty of promoting and educating those we can of the discernable solutions the market provides. With regard to borders, this means calling for the immediate end to all the things currently being provided at the federal level possessing negative incentives. These include subsidized and preferential immigration policies, tax-funded border walls, and above all else, the welfare-warfare state. Similarly, the focus should also be put on decentralization, until the point where the authority resides in each private property owner, as mentioned earlier. We can fight to accomplish these things simultaneously.

Now, to some that are too entrenched in the debate to digest this truth, this may sound contradictory. But we must be vigilant not to allow the aforementioned opportunists to usher in more state power, so that they may wield it for their own ends. We can think of this in simpler terms through another analogy borrowed from Rothbard. We all believe in freedom of speech, yet we know from his teachings that this does not include the ability to yell fire in a theater, or disrupt a service in a private hall. While we want these rights upheld, surely, we would not advocate for the state to establish a Ministry of Speech to achieve that end, as we know it would end up being a complete contradiction of its intended purpose. Likewise, we want private property rights, however, advocating that the state undertakes its implementation through monopolistic tactics should be seen as clearly self-defeating at this point.

The recent election process, however, has shown us that people are yearning for a change from the traditional solutions put forth by government. If we could reunite behind this foundational principle instead of tearing one another down through petty infighting, theres no doubt we could crush any misconception or delusion the left or right throws at us, while simultaneously influencing an untold number of people toward our cause as they witness the veracity of our arguments when put up against the current status quo.

Featured image: http://www.tapwires.com

This post was written by Thomas J. Eckert.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Thomas J. Eckert is college grad with an interest in politics. He studies economics and history and writes in his spare time on political and economic current events.

Like Loading...

Read more here:
Today's Libertarians Got the Border Debate Wrong The Lowdown on Liberty - Being Libertarian (satire)

House Republicans are battling one another over how much work theyve done in President Trumps first six-plus months in office.

GOP leaders say the media isnt paying enough attention to a litany of significant bills that have already been passed by the House.

At a GOP leadership press conference on Wednesday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) touted a chart showing a spike in bills passed by the House since Trump took office.

Conservatives argue that the chart shows how sensitive their leadership is to the truth: that theyve been slow to enact promises to bring about major reform to Washington.

If I see another chart that shows how many bills weve passed in the first seven months, I think Im gonna scream, said conservative Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

The favorite bad habit of this GOP conference is to conflate activity with progress. They are not the same.

Two hours after the press conference with McCarthy, members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus held an event of their own to argue the Houseneeds to cancel the August recess in order to get more work done.

Play the two press conferences: The one that the leadership had earlier in the day, and the one we had. And ask the American people, Who do you believe? said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a Freedom Caucus founding member.

My guess is theyll probably say, Oh, those Freedom Caucus guys, I kinda think theyre on the right track.

McCarthy noted that the House has passed nearly 300 bills so far this year, which surpassed the average of 176 at this point in a new presidency since the George H.W. Bush administration. The vast majority of those bills have not been taken up by the Senate, however.

In June, Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanRepublicans should apply lessons of healthcare debacle to tax reform War authorization push hits snag in House Are we getting things done? Congressional Republicans disagree MORE (R-Wis.) wrote an op-ed in the conservative Independent Journal Review imploring people to ignore the cable news bickering because this Congress is getting things done.

The truth is, even while carrying out our oversight responsibilities, weve been delivering on our promises to the American people. We are passing important legislation. We are doing our job, Ryan wrote. You just may not have heard about it.

The House has passed legislation to reform the Department of Veterans Affairs, unwind the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities and combat human trafficking. Congress has also sent bills to Trump's desk to eliminate 14 Obama-era regulations.

Ryan suggested that people may have missed that the House passed legislation to undo the Dodd-Frank law because it fell on the day of fired FBI Director James Comeys bombshell congressional testimony which he referred to as only a big Senate hearing.

While the focus in Washington was on a big Senate hearing earlier this month, the House passed this legislation that reins in Obamas costly Dodd-Frank regulation, Ryan wrote.

In May, the House also approved legislation to fund the government through the fiscal year preventing a government shutdown and showing that Republicans can keep Washington functioning, he argued.

And most importantly, he said, the House approved its version of ObamaCare repeal.

The Senate is struggling to move its own bill, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellCBO won't have Monday score for Senate healthcare bill After delay, Senate Republicans struggle not to let healthcare stall Health Secretary Price: More people will be covered under GOP bill than are currently covered MORE (R-Ky.) late Saturday delaying a vote while Sen. John McCainJohn McCainFormer National Economic Council director slams attacks on CBO CBO won't have Monday score for Senate healthcare bill After delay, Senate Republicans struggle not to let healthcare stall MORE (R-Ariz.) recovers from surgery. If theypass that bill, Trump could be on the verge of a major legislative win.

If they dont, congressional Republicans would be in real danger of hitting the 200-day mark of Trump's presidency next month without a single major legislative accomplishment.

I dont care how many charts you have up there. Were not going to convince the American people that were being productive until we actually have President Trump signing things into law that he campaigned on, said Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), underlining the importance of the healthcare push.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), another Freedom Caucus member, praised the work on measures that have passed the House. But he acknowledged that fulfilling the biggest campaign promises were the most important to prove Republicans can govern.

We actually have cleared some underbrush, and weve done it with the VA reforms, weve done it with some of the regulatory reforms, weve done it even with the Dodd-Frank repeal, Biggs said. But the real agenda is what the American people connect with. And what theyre connecting with are costs of health insurance or ObamaCare repeal, the tax reform.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), whos served in the House for the last 14 years, said Republicans need to keep perspective in an institution where change is designed to move slowly. He thinks GOP leadership is right to highlight what the party has been able to accomplish.

Most progress in government is incremental and cumulative, Cole said. Every now and then, you gotta take credit for what youve done and not always make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Conservatives upped the pressure on GOP leaders to cancel the annual August recess after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced hed keep senators in Washington for an extra two weeks. House GOP leaders, meanwhile, arent inclined to keep the chamber in session next month unless the Senate has sent over its healthcare bill.

Demands that lawmakers cancel a recess have typically come from the minority party trying to embarrass the majority party leadership.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), for example, forced a roll call vote in 2012 on a resolution establishing that years August recess. More than 100 Republicans caught off guard by the move were put on record in favor of leaving for the monthlong break.

And in 2008, after then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had adjourned the chamber for the August break, Republicans gave speeches on the House floor accusing Democrats of inaction on energy legislation to respond to rising gas prices.

But the most conservative members of the House GOP conference have made names for themselves by always pushing leadership to be more aggressive.

I would challenge anyone to go to any of our districts and ask the question to either Sue or John on Main Street: Do you think that Congress is being productive? Meadows asked.

And if that comes back at higher than 30 percent I mean, and thats really pushing it I will make a public apology to all my colleagues for asking for us to stay in in August.

--This report was updated at 8:50 a.m.

Here is the original post:
Are we getting things done? Congressional Republicans disagree - The Hill

The two leaders sought to play down sharp differences over trade, immigration and climate change, and, in the end, forged an unlikely friendship. Above, the presidents with their wives, Brigitte, left, and Melania.

Back in the U.S., the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity formed by Mr. Trump to investigate possible election fraud will hold its first meeting this week, without the extensive personal information on voters it requested from states.

____

3. On Capitol Hill, the Senate majority leader announced Saturday night that he will delay votes on a bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, because Senator John McCain, above, is recovering from surgery.

Without Mr. McCain, Republicans would not have the votes they need to take up or pass the bill this week. Two crucial Republican senators have said they remain unswayed by the newly revised health care proposal.

A key change would allow insurance companies to provide the kind of bare-bones plans some deride as junk insurance. The bill also provides $45 billion for opioid addiction treatment.

Our magazine writer traveled to a small town in New Hampshire, where one police officer has been tasked with trying to curb the rash of opioid overdoses.

____

4. China cremated its most prominent political prisoner and only Nobel Peace laureate, Liu Xiaobo, and dropped his ashes into the sea, ensuring that there would be no grave to serve as a magnet for pro-democracy protesters.

Long jailed, Mr. Liu developed liver cancer and died last week under guard at a government hospital, a pointed reminder that human rights issues have receded in Western diplomacy with China.

In 1989, Mr. Liu kept vigil on Tiananmen Square to protect protesters from encroaching soldiers and in 2008 initiated a pro-democracy petition, earning the enmity of the Communist leaders.

____

5. A gruesome murder case is still unfolding outside of Philadelphia, where the bodies of four missing young men were unearthed at a remote farm.

Cosmo DiNardo, above who has been described by prosecutors, his own lawyers and the police as mentally ill confessed and named a cousin as an accomplice. Officials say drug deals were involved.

Heres what we know so far.

____

6. In a medical milestone, a gene-altering leukemia therapy was unanimously recommended by an F.D.A. panel, putting it on track to be the first gene therapy to reach the market.

Emily Whitehead, 12, above, is the first child ever given the altered cells. Now cancer free, she helped lobby the panel for approval.

In other health news, a study found that phthalates chemicals banned from many products as potentially harmful to children exist in high concentrations in the processed cheese powder in boxed mac and cheese products.

____

7. Turning to climate, Antarcticas landscape has dramatically changed. A massive chunk of floating ice that weighs more than a trillion metric tons broke away.

News organizations trying to help audiences understand the scope of the development compared the size of the iceberg to Luxembourg, Qatar and, in our case, Delaware.

____

8. Now to the borderlands of the United States and Mexico. To the people who live there, the edges of these two countries are where language, culture, family and business overlap.

We take you there in this three-part video series.

____

9. The prime minister of Iraq, Haider al-Abadi, declared victory over the Islamic State in Mosul, but the scale of the humanitarian crisis there is only beginning to emerge.

Our correspondent traveled to the battered city to show what ISIS left behind from three years of rule like a sword, a ruined church and a childs backpack filled with explosives.

____

10. Lets escape briefly to a place where visuals and poetry merge into a singular experience. We asked six photographers to use works by six rising American poets for inspiration.

The photographers approached the assignment in unexpected ways, and each offered insight into his or her process and interpretation.

Damon Winter, immersed in a poem that spoke to grief, took the photograph above in Ithaca, N.Y.

____

11. In London, Garbie Muguruza, above, beat Venus Williams in two sets, becoming the first Spanish woman to take the Wimbledon singles title since 1994.

And Roger Federer won his record eighth Wimbledon title by defeating Marin Cilic in straight sets The victory, his first at Wimbledon since 2012, made him the oldest man to win at the All England Club in the Open era, which began in 1968.

Across the pond, the U.S. Womens Open golf tournament is in its final round at the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey. On Friday, when President Trump attended, some activists protested the choice of locale, but most of the players welcomed his presence.

____

12. For Game of Thrones fans, winter is finally here. Before Season 7 kicks off tonight (9 p.m. Eastern, HBO), lets review what you need to remember. And our in-house G.O.T. obsessives are ready to email you a weekly newsletter with exclusive interviews and explainers. Sign up here.

Also, if youre using your friends ex-boyfriends parents password to watch Game of Thrones or any TV show, youre not alone. Good news: Our examination of the legalities suggests the practice is probably O.K.

____

13. Finally, we leave you with a bit of armchair travel to the lonely landscape of the North Dakota Badlands, where dinosaurs and rhinoceroses once roamed.

Travelers join paleontologists to help excavate cinematic favorites like triceratops and Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Our writer said she left a dig dusty, blistered, sunburned, scraped and exhausted, but also uplifted by a greater appreciation of our fleeting place in history, our smallness on this earth and how much there is left to discover about the places we think we know.

Have a great week.

Photographs may appear out of order for some readers. Viewing this version of the briefing should help.

Your Weekend Briefing is published Sundays at 6 a.m. Eastern.

And dont miss Your Morning Briefing, weekdays at 6 a.m. Eastern, and Your Evening Briefing, weeknights at 6 p.m. Eastern.

Want to look back? Heres Fridays Evening Briefing.

What did you like? What do you want to see here? Let us know at briefing@nytimes.com.

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump Jr., Macron, Senate Republicans: Your Weekend ... - New York Times