Mediaboss Marketing

The 2018 election season kicked off Tuesday with an upset in ruralWisconsin, where Democrats flipped a state Senate seat that had been held by Republicans since the start of the century.

With every precinct counted in the race for Wisconsins 10th Senate District, Democrat Patty Schachtner was the clear victor over RepublicanAdam Jarchow, a member of the state Assembly. Schachtner, a medical examiner in St. Croix County, won by9 points a massive swing in a district that former senator Sheila Harsdorf, a Republican, won in 2016 with 63.2 percent of the vote.

A change is coming!!! wrote Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Martha Laning after Schachtners victory became clear Tuesday night.

The result in the 10th, which Harsdorf won in 2000 and held easily for years, gave Wisconsin Democrats their first pickup on Republican turf since 2011. In 2010, the party lost control of the governors office and both houses of the legislature; the next year, Democrats rode a brief backlash to Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) and picked up two Senate seats in recall elections.

A Republican-friendly gerrymander wiped out those gains, and in 2014 and 2016, Republicans capitalized on Democrats rural fade and Donald Trumps coattails to grow their majorities.

The Post's polling team analyzed Virginia's 2017 gubernatorial race to see if a "Trump effect" was at play. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

But last year, after Harsdorf left for a job in Walkers administration, both parties saw the 10th District as potentially competitive. Americans for Prosperity spent $50,000 to boost Jarchow, while the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Greater Wisconsin Political Independent Expenditure Fund spent nearly as much on advertisements forSchachtner. U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), one of 10 Democrats up for reelection this year in states won by Trump, recorded a get-out-the-vote video for Schachtner.

The Democrats upset win was the 34th pickup for the party of the 2018 cycle. Republicans have flipped four seats from blue to red two in the Republican-trending Deep South, one in New Jersey and one in Massachusetts.

But on average, even in races that went against them, Democrats have improved on their margins from the 2016 rout. In other Tuesday elections,DemocratDennis Degenhardtwon 43 percent of the vote in Wisconsins 58th Assembly District; in 2016, Hillary Clinton won just 28 percent of the vote there, and no Democrat contested the seat. In Iowas 6th House District, Democrat Rita DeJong won 44 percent of the vote; in 2016, the partys nominee won just 35 percent. In South Carolinas 99th House District, Democrat Cindy Boatwright lost with 43 percent of the vote; the party had not run a candidate for the seat in this decade.

See the original post here:
Democrats flip state Senate seat in Wisconsin - The ...

The federal government barreled toward a partial shutdown Monday as the Democrats in Congress dug in their heels in a battle of political wills with President Trump and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill.

The Democrats are demanding relief from deportation for illegal immigrants who participated in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as part of a deal to keep the lights on in Washington. Its risky; the party in the White House tends to win shutdown fights, as Republicans learned in 2013 and previously.

But the Democrats are confident. They are convinced the uproar over Trumps denigration of immigrants from Haiti and certain African nations by referring to them as coming from shithole countries has given them the upper hand in the debate.

The politics, especially right now, is more about why the shutdown is happening and, if there is a shutdown, it can easily be attributed to the unreasonable demands of a racist president, Ed Espinoza, a Democratic strategist in Austin, Texas, said.

The shutdown of 2013 essentially happened because Republicans could not keep Ted Cruz in line, he added. If theres a shutdown in 2018, it will be because Republicans cannot keep Donald Trump in line.

Republicans in the past 25 years have twice used their congressional majorities to shut down the government as a means to win concessions from a Democratic president. Twice the Republicans failed and folded after causing severe political damage to their partys brand, once in late 1995 versus President Bill Clinton, once in late 2013 versus President Barack Obama.

Democrats, under pressure from their base to secure legalization for so-called Dreamers, adults brought to the U.S. illegally as children by their parents, appear ready to gamble that walking away from a spending deal will pay off. Trump his demanded billions for border security, including a physical wall across the southern border, an ask especially opposed by liberals.

Sen. Tom Cotton, a top Trump ally, is daring Democrats to take the plunge. In a Sunday post on Twitter, the Arkansas Republican said a Democratic shutdown would improve chances of GOP pick-ups in Senate races in states Trump won in 2016.

So Democrats are now threatening to shut down the government if they dont get amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. Lets see how that works out for them, especially in places like West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and Montana, he said.

Trump has added his own voice on Twitter. He is attempting to define the Democrats as inflexible and recalcitrant, putting politics over compromise.

In one of the presidents most recent posts, he went after Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., among his partys chief negotiators and who revealed that Trump used the term shithole in a private meeting in the White House.

Senator Dicky Durbin totally misrepresented what was said at the DACA meeting. Deals cant get made when there is no trust! Durbin blew DACA and is hurting our Military, Trump said.

Democrats dont have the votes to block a spending bill in the House. But in the Senate, where a 60-vote supermajority is required to approve appropriations, the Republicans are nine votes short, and thats if they are unanimous, which on fiscal issues is rare.

The issue is whether the voters will reward the Democrats if they use the power of the 49-seat Senate minority to block the majority party in Congress and the White House. In the past, when Republicans prosecuted a similar challenge, voters deemed them unreasonable.

I have yet to see a scenario in my entire life going back to [President Ronald] Reagan where a shutdown benefitted the Republicans politically, a GOP strategist said. Having said that, if it was ever clear that this is the doing of Democrats whose base wont let them work with the president, it is now.

If Republicans have a concern, it is that Trumps occasionally undisciplined, erratic communications style will allow the Democrats to dominate the debate. That, and the presidents low job approval ratings and a possible midterm backlash against the GOP, is keeping the Republicans on edge.

Republicans being Republicans, and with Trump's penchant for straying way off message, I can see them getting blamed as well, a Republican insider said. Voters don't understand the nuances of the whole 60-vote thing and it doesn't translate well into a short sound bite: If they are in charge of everything, they are responsible for it, right?

If Democratic insiders are worried, its about Trumps ability to amplify his message through conservative media.

Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House so the idea of blaming Democrats because Republicans cant get the job done is ridiculous, Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau said. That wont stop Trump from making that case forcefully, and I suspect his base and allies in the conservative media will help to amplify the charge regardless of its veracity.

Read the original here:
Democrats confident they can win government shutdown fight

Democrats are going on the offensive on Russia.

The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday ramped up pressure on the Trump administration to slap new sanctions on Russia, releasing a massive report written without GOP involvement that details President Vladimir Putins alleged electoral meddling around the world.

Story Continued Below

That came one day after another senior Democratic senator abruptly released the transcript of an interview with a key player in the investigation looking into any ties between President Donald Trump and Russia's interference.

And across the Capitol, a half-dozen House Democrats banded together to push Republicans for a more comprehensive response to Russian disruption of the 2016 election, warning that Moscow will again meddle with the democratic process.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Democrats, frustrated by conservative attempts to undercut the investigation into Trumps ties to Moscow and growing convinced that Republicans arent taking electoral security seriously, are increasingly tired of waiting on their colleagues in the majority to act and are taking their concerns public.

We must counter Russias well-established election interference playbook, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a floor speech billed as puncturing partisan efforts to deflect attention and distract from critical inquiries into Moscows attempts to upend the 2016 election.

Russia will hack. Russia will bully. Russia will propagandize, he said.

Sen. Ben Cardins staff on the Foreign Relations Committee extensively detailed that alleged behavior by Putins network in the report Wednesday, which does not address special counsel Robert Muellers probe but repeatedly slams Trump for a laggard response that it says puts U.S. security at risk.

President Trump is squandering an opportunity to lead Americas allies and partners to build a collective defense against the Kremlins global assault on democratic institutions and values, the report states. But it is not too late.

Among the report's two dozen-plus recommendations is a call for the Trump administration to implement a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill. Lawmakers in both parties raised alarms after the administration missed an October deadline to designate potential targets for new sanctions, and belated compliance came only after a nudge from Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

The next critical deadline is Jan. 29, the earliest date that companies could face penalties for engaging in "significant transactions" with targets in the Russian defense or intelligence sectors. The sanctions bill also asks the Treasury Department to give Congress a series of reports by the end of this month, including one on Russian oligarchs who could face future sanctions and their connections to Putin, and another on the effect of expanding sanctions to Moscow's sovereign debt.

One Democratic aide on the Foreign Relations Committee said the minority would be "waiting and seeing" how the administration treats the required Russian oligarch list as a test of its commitment to sanctions implementation.

"If theres, like, two names on it, then theyre probably not taking it very seriously," the aide told reporters.

Other Democratic proposals to safeguard against future electoral disruption by Putin include placing FBI investigators in embassies and disclosing intelligence about the Russian leaders personal corruption and wealth stored abroad.

Democratic staffers on the Foreign Relations panel were optimistic that the report would win some Republican buy-in after its Wednesday release, much as the package of Russia sanctions drew widespread GOP support even as Trump continued to publicly deny that Moscow intervened in the 2016 election.

A lot of Republicans have been publicly critical of how Trump has handled the Russia issue specifically, one aide told reporters.

Corker said Tuesday that he would "look at the whole" Russia report, adding that he and Cardin (D-Md.) "have a very good relationship. He knew it was probably not something that Id want to be a part of, but he made me aware of it."

A spokeswoman for Corker, a lead author of last year's Russia sanctions legislation, said in a statement that Corker "appreciates the fact that Senator Cardin previously notified him" of the Democratic report, which he received a copy of late Monday. "While we will review the report in its entirety, including the recommendations, no further full committee activity is planned at this time.

Republicans say they are working on election security ahead of the midterms, and the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee are expected to provide recommendations on the matter before the primary season begins.Eight House Republicans and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) already have signed on to legislation that would codify one recommendation in the Cardin report, which proposes that social media companies require disclosure of the funding sources behind political ads on their platforms to prevent Russian attempts at manipulation. Still, the prospects for movement on that measure appear grim at present given the scant number of GOP backers.

If Republicans did get on board with Cardin's report, that would mark a stark contrast with the partisan conflagration that erupted Tuesday on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Top Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California released the transcript of the panel's August interview with Glenn Simpson, whose company was behind an explosive dossier tying Trump to the Kremlin. A spokesman for the Judiciary panel's chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (D-Iowa), slammed Feinstein's decision to unilaterally release the document, but she seemed unconcerned Tuesday.

"The only way to set the record straight is to make the transcript public," she said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said the Senate Judiciary Committee's Russia investigation, "to be very blunt, has been painfully slow."

"If there is no price, it will be done with impunity again," he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressed skepticism that Republican leaders would heed her call to ramp up the pace of investigative and oversight work against Russian meddling as the 2018 midterms approach.

"On a score of what to what?" she quipped to reporters.

"I have no doubt that if the Democrats were in power, we would have taken action to protect our electoral system," Pelosi said. "I have no doubt if the Democrats were in power, the Republicans would be urging that action, but thats not what theyre doing."

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the rest here:
Democrats punch back on Russia - POLITICO

Leading congressional Democrats have spent the last year relentlessly accusing Donald Trump of being controlled by or treasonously loyal to a hostile foreign power. Over the last several months, they have added to those disloyalty charges a new set of alleged crimes: abusing the powers of the executive branch including the Justice Department and FBI to vindictively punish political opponents while corruptly protecting the serious crimes of his allies, including his own family members and possibly himself.

The inescapable conclusion from all of this, they have relentlessly insisted, is that Trump is a lawless authoritarian of the type the U.S. has not seen in the Oval Office for decades, if ever: a leader who has no regard for constitutional values or legal limits and thus, poses a grave, unique, and existential threat to the institutions of American democracy. Reflecting the severity of these fears, the anti-Trump opposition movementthat has coalesced within Democratic Party politics has appropriated aslogan expressed inthe hashtag form of contemporary online activism that was historically used by those who unite, at allcosts, to defeat domestic tyranny: #Resistance.

One would hope, and expect, that those who genuinely view Trump as a menace of this magnitude and view themselves as #Resistance fighters would do everythingwithintheir ability to impose as many limits and safeguards as possible on the powers he is able to wield. If resistance means anything, at a minimum itshould entail a refusal to trust a dangerous authoritarian to wield vast power with little checks or oversight.

Yesterday in Washington, congressional Democrats were presented with acritical opportunity to do exactly that. Aproposed new amendment was scheduled to be voted onin the House of Representatives that would haveimposed meaningful limits and new safeguards on Trumps ability to exercise one of the most dangerous, invasive, and historically abused presidential powers: spying on the communications of American citizens without warrants.Yesterdays amendment was designed to limit the powers first enacted during the Bush years to legalize the Bush/Cheney domestic warrantless eavesdropping program. The Intercepts Alex Emmons on Wednesday detailed the history and substance of the various bills pending in the House.

Although the Trump White House and a majority of House Republicans (including House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes) favored extension (and even an expansion) of the current lawsspying powers and opposed any real reforms,a substantialminority of GOP lawmakershave long opposed warrantless surveillance of Americansand thus, announced their intention to support new safeguards. Indeed, the primary sponsor and advocate of the amendment to provide new domestic spying safeguards was the conservative Republican from Michigan, Justin Amash, who, in the wake of the 2013 Edward Snowden revelations, workedin close partnership with liberal DemocraticRep. John Conyers to try to rein in some of these domestic spying powers.

Despite opposition from GOP House leadership and the Trump White House, Amash was able to secure the commitment of dozens of House Republicans to support his amendments to limit the ability ofTrumps FBI to spy on Americans without warrants. The key provision of his amendment would have required that the FBI first obtain a warrant beforebeing permitted to search and read through the communications of Americans collected by the National Security Agency.

To secure enactment of these safeguards, Amash needed support from a majority of House Democrats. That meant that House Democrats held the power in their hands to decide whether Trump the president they have been vocally vilifying as a lawless tyrant threatening American democracy would be subjected to serious limits and safeguards on how his FBI could spy on the conversations of American citizens.

Debate on the bill and the amendments began on the House floor yesterday afternoon, and it became quickly apparent that leading Democrats intended to side with Trumpand against those within their own party who favored imposing safeguards on the Trump administrations ability to engage in domestic surveillance. The mostbizarre aspect of this spectacle was that the Democrats whomost aggressively defended Trumps version of the surveillance bill the Democrats most eager to preserve Trumps spying powersas virtually limitless were the very same Democratic House members who have become media stars this year by flamboyantly denouncing Trump as a treasonous, lawless despot in front of every television camera they could find.

Leading the charge against reforms of the FBIs domestic spying powers was Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee who, in countless TV appearances, has strongly insinuated, if not outright stated, that Trump is controlled by and loyal to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Indeed, just this weekend, in an interview with CNNs Jake Tapper, Schiff accused Trump of corruptly abusing the powers of the DOJ and FBI in order to vindictively punish Hilary Clinton and other political enemies. Referring to Trumps various corrupt acts, Schiff pronounced: We ought to be thinking in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, beyond these three years what damage may be done to the institutions of our democracy.

Yet just two days later, there was the very same Adam Schiff, on the House floor,dismissing the need forreal safeguards on the ability of Trumps FBI to spy on Americans. In demanding rejection ofthe warrant requirement safeguard, Schiff channeled Dick Cheney and the Trump White House in warning that any warrant requirements would constitute a crippling requirement in national security and terrorism cases.

Standing with Schiff in opposing these safeguards was his fellow California Democrat Eric Swalwell, who has devoted his entire congressional term almost exclusively to accusing Trump of being a puppet of the Kremlin, in the process becoming a media darling among the MSNBC set and online #Resistance movement. Yet after spending a full year warning that Trumps real loyalty was to Moscow rather than America, Swalwell echoed Schiff in demanding that no warrant safeguards were needed on the spying power of Trumps FBI.

If one were to invoke the standard mentality and tactics of Schiff andSwalwell namely, impugning the patriotism and loyalty of anyone questioning their Trump/Russiaaccusations one could seriously question their own patriotism in handing these vast, virtually unlimited spying powers to a president whom they say they believe is a corrupt agent of a foreign power.

Joining the pro-surveillance coalition led by Trump, Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, Schiff, and Swalwell was the Houses liberal icon and senior Democrat, Nancy Pelosi.The San Francisco Democrat alsostood on the House floor and offered a vigorous defense of the Trump-endorsed bill that would extend to Trumps FBI the power to spy on Americans without warrants, in the process denouncing the minimal warrant safeguardsfavored by many in her own party. Pelosis speech earned praise from GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan: I want to thank [Pelosi] for coming up and speaking against the Amash amendment, and in favor of the underlying bipartisan [bill].

In one sense, Pelosis pro-surveillance stance is not surprising.Back in the summer of 2013, as the Snowden revelations of mass domestic surveillance sparked a global debate about privacy and abuse of spying powers, an extraordinary bipartisan alliance formed in Congress to impose serious limits on the NSAs power to spy on Americans without warrants. Back then,a bill that would haveimposed real limits and safeguards on the NSA, one jointly sponsored by Conyers and Amash, unexpectedly picked up large numbers of supporters from both parties despite opposition from both parties congressional leadership to the point where it looked like it was unstoppably headed for passage.

Official Washington and its national security community began to panic over what looked to be the first rollback of government national security power since the 9/11 attack. Fortunately for the NSA, CIA, and FBI, they found a crucial ally to kill the bill: Nancy Pelosi. Behind the scenes, she had pressured and coerced enough House Democrats to oppose the reform bill, ensuring its narrow defeat. The Conyers/Amash bill which would have severely limited domestic mass surveillance was defeated by the razor-thin margin of 217-205. Foreign Policy magazine correctly identified the key author of its defeat, the person who singlehandedly saved NSA mass surveillance in the U.S.:

For anyone who believes in the basic value of individual privacy and the dangers of mass surveillance, Pelosi deserved all the criticism she received back then for singlehandedly saving the NSAs mass surveillance powers from reform. But at least then, her partisan defenders had a justification they could invoke: At the time, the NSA was under the command of Barack Obama, a president they believed could be trusted to administer these powers responsibly and lawfully.

Now, four years later, Pelosi has reprised her role as keyprotecter of domestic warrantless eavesdropping but this time with the benevolent, magnanimous, noble Democratic president long gone, and with those agencies instead under the leadership of a president who Pelosi and her supporters have long been maligning as an enemy of democracy, a criminal, a despot, and a racist cretin.For anyone (including Pelosi, Schiff, andSwalwell) who genuinely believes anything theyve been saying about Trump over the last year, what conceivable justification can be offered now for Pelosi and her key allies blocking reasonable safeguards and limits on Trumps warrantless domestic spying powers?

Thatleading House Democrats (their minority leader and top Intelligence Committee member)united with Trumpto support this bill and oppose reform amendments,was sufficient to causeenoughDemocrats toside with Trump and ensure passage of the bill. The Trump-favored bill ended up passing by a vote of 256-164.

As the American Civil Liberties Unionput it bluntlyabout the bill supported by Pelosi and Schiff: The House just passed a bill to give the Trump administration greater authority to spy on Americans, immigrants, journalists, dissidents, and everyone else. The privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundationechoed that sentiment: The House just approved the disastrous NSA surveillance extension bill that will allow for continued, unconstitutional surveillance that hurts the American people and violates our Fourth Amendment rights.

While Trump, as president, is the head of the executive branch, the official with the greatest control over the FBI they just empowered is his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. In other words, Pelosi, Schiff, and their allies just voted to vest great, unchecked power in an official the Democrats have (with good reason) long denounced as corrupt and deeply racist. As Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (who has vowed with Rand Paul to filibuster the bill when it reaches the Senate) put it yesterday: This Section 702bill would give AG Jeff Sessions unchecked power to use this information against Americans. This bill prevents his decisions from EVER being challenged in court.

But more significantly, the Amash amendment containing the proposed reforms (including a warrant requirement) was defeated by a much smaller margin: 233-183. While 125 Democratic House members were joined by 58 GOP members in voting forthese reforms, 55 Democrats led byPelosi and Schiff joined with the GOP majority to reject them, ensuring defeat of Amashs amendment by a mere 26 votes.

This means that Trumps bill to ensure his FBIs ongoing power to spy on the communications of Americans without warrants was saved by Pelosi, Schiff, andSwalwell abandoning the large majority of their own Democratic caucus, and instead joining with Ryan and the GOP majority to ensure defeat of all meaningful reforms. Here are the 55 Democrats who not only voted in favor of the Trump-endorsed spying bill, but who also voted against thereform amendment to require a warrant. Beyond Pelosi, Schiff, and Swalwell, it includes the second most-senior Democrat Steny Hoyer and former Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

One can, of course, reasonably debate the proper balance between privacy, civil liberties, and national security. Questions of how much power to vest law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the name of terrorism are not always simple ones. But if there is any principle that ought to command support across party and ideological lines, its the one long embedded in the Constitution: We do not want our government spying on us unless it can first obtain a warrant to do so the principle that was trampled on yesterday by the unholy alliance of Trump, the GOP congressional leadership, Nancy Pelosi, and Adam Schiff.

Indeed, several of Pelosis own caucus members made all of these pointswith usuallyexplicit rhetoric. Here, for instance, wasRep. Ted Lieu of California who like Schiff andSwalwell has become a media and #Resistance star this year for his unflinching denunciations of Trump as a corrupt Kremlin tool but who, unlike his California colleagues, cast the only vote rationally reconcilable with his yearlong crusade to impose limits on Trumps spying powers.

View post:
The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless ...

When Democrats talk about President Donald Trump and Russia, they usually unload on the White House with both barrels.

But that changed last week, when lawmakerssome of whom have been the most critical of Trump and his Kremlin-friendly actionsoffered effusive praise for his administration after it issued new Russia-related sanctions in close consultation with Congress.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), a possible 2020 presidential contender, told The Daily Beast that the new designations were a good sign and a good step in the right direction.

The overall effort caught many lawmakers by surprise, after months of accusing the administration of stonewalling them over similar sanctions that the White House opposed from the start.

Thats because, despite its stated goal to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations, the administration last week sanctioned five Russian and Chechen individuals under the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 law that punishes alleged human rights abusers by freezing their assets and banning them from seeking visas. The sanctions targeted Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic and an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, over allegations of corruption and extrajudicial killings. The move drew a rebuke from the Kremlin, which called the U.S. actions illegal and unfriendly and said it further degrades the strained U.S.-Russia relationship.

Putin has condemned the Magnitsky Act and the resulting sanctions since it was passed, and he retaliated for the effort by banning Americans from adopting Russian children. The issue gained an international spotlight recently when it was revealed that Donald Trump Jr., the presidents son, met last year at Trump Tower with Russians alleged to have Kremlin ties. The younger Trump initially said the meeting centered around the Russian adoption issue, but it was later revealed that he took the meeting after he was promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Throughout Trumps first year in office, lawmakers have noticed a determination on the part of some administration officials to get tougher on Russia in light of its destabilizing actions in eastern Europe and its efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election. But Trump himself, they have argued, is preventing a whole-of-government approach to counter Russian aggression. From his tiptoeing around the issue of Russias election meddling to his slow-walking of a sweeping new Russia sanctions law he was forced to sign in August, his posturing has often conflicted with that of his top officials, who have confronted Russia more directly.

In many ways, the Trump administration is on autopilot on Russia policy despite the commander-in-chief. In addition to the Magnitsky sanctions, the administration has taken steps in recent days aimed at countering Russian aggression. Last week, top officials approved a lethal defensive weapons sale to Ukraine, where the military is fighting Russian-backed separatists. The White House also unveiled its National Security Strategy, in which it names Russia as a revisionist power and suggests the country is an adversary that aims to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests.

These developments run counter to the views expressed by Trump himself throughout his nascent political career. Trump has praised Putin and suggested that he took the Russian leader at his word when he told Trump that Russia had not meddled in the 2016 U.S. electiononly to walk it back later, affirming that he trusts the U.S. intelligence communitys January assessment on the matter.

Lawmakers have noticed a determination on the part of some administration officials to get tougher on Russia. But Trump himself is preventing an approach to counter Russian aggression.

Yuri Chaika, Russias prosecutor general, has worked for years to undermine the Magnitsky Act and is believed to have spearheaded some of Russias meddling efforts in the American election as a way to fight back against the 2012 law. But U.S. sanctions have now hit Chaika personally.

On Friday, the U.S. took further actions under the Global Magnitsky Act, which former President Barack Obama signed into law last December as an extension of the original Magnitsky Act to include human rights abusers worldwidenot just in Russia. But the Trump administration, acting under the Global Magnitsky law for the first time since it was signed, levied sanctions at least against one Russian: Chaikas son, Artem. The State Department alleges that he has leveraged his fathers position and ability to award his subordinates to unfairly win state-owned assets and contracts and put pressure on business competitors.

Last weeks swift and decisive actions left Trumps critics on Capitol Hill stunned. The same administration that was slow-walking new Russia sanctions enacted in August did an about-face by working closely with Congress on the Magnitsky sanctions. The praise heaped upon Trump and his administration has come from unlikely sources: Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

I want to give the administration credit. The process on both Russia-specific and Global Magnitskywe, throughout the process, were engaged with, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told The Daily Beast. I knew how the reviews were being conducted. We had very close relationships. It was treated with the highest degree of priority among the administration. And they acted correctly.

That was not the case for the August sanctions, known as the Countering Americas Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Cardin and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, were left in the dark for weeks when they tried to inquire about why the State Department blew past an Oct. 1 deadline to issue guidance on the sanctions. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) feared it was another example of the administration showing its blind spot when it comes to Russia. But as Congress prepared to leave town for the holidays, Trumps critics had nothing but kind words for the administration on its latest Russia-related actions.

I think its important to recognize positive progress whenever it happens, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told The Daily Beast. Even though I disagree with the administration broadly on what I view as their failure to make human rights a higher priority and to take more decisive action on the sanctions powers that Congresson a very strong bipartisan basisgave them, I do think its an important step forward that the Trump administration has designated under the Magnitsky Act. I hope that will be followed by stronger steps.

The CAATSA sanctionswhich Trump reluctantly signed into law after his administration tried to weaken the sanctions in the face of overwhelming congressional opposition in both chamberswere enacted in retaliation for Russias incursions into eastern Europe and its meddling in the 2016 election, something that Trump often dismisses as an excuse for Hillary Clintons election loss.

Im trying to be as positive as I can about what steps there are by the administration that I think do push back on Russias illegal and unconscionable invasion of and occupation in Crimea and continued meddling in the affairs of Ukraine in the east, and the designation that have happened under the Magnitsky Act, Coons added.

But Coons and his colleagues were unable to explain the differences in how the administration approached the Magnitsky sanctions and the CAATSA sanctions. While there was a slight delay on the Magnitsky actions, the Foreign Relations Committee did not make a fuss over it because administration officials were in constant contact over what they said were technical delays due to legal issues. The committees requests for information about the CAATSA delay were mostly unexplained, according to Sean Bartlett, a spokesman for Cardin, while the administration was more forthcoming about the [Magnitsky] delays, keeping us apprised of progress or issues that came up.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) was willing to look past the belated CAATSA measures due to the laws complexity. Corker told The Daily Beast last week that unlike CAATSAunder which the State Department and Treasury Department must take into consideration U.S. companies that might be caught up in the sanctionsthe Magnitsky format is laid outall youve got to do is name [the individuals] and its done.

The State Department has chalked up its delay on the CAATSA sanctions to much of what Corker explained. But the department has signalled that it also wants to avoid the side effects that result when lawmakers such as Cardin and McCainwho co-authored the Global Magnitsky Actgo public with concerns that theyre being stonewalled by top administration officials.

We are committed to engaging with Congress on their priorities. We welcome and appreciate the information provided by Congress and will continue to consider credible, specific information provided by these key partners, a State Department spokesperson told The Daily Beast. We encourage recommendations to be submitted privately to avoid unintended negative consequences.

That was likely a reference to both McCains and Cardins public threats against the administration after the Oct. 1 delay. McCain, from his powerful perch atop the Armed Services Committee, told The Daily Beast he would continue to block Trumps nominees to key positions, while Cardin suggested holding up defense appropriations bills until the executive branch complies with the law. The House Foreign Affairs Committee also joined the fray, with Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the panels top Democrat, writing to Trump over the baffling and unacceptable delay which sends a terrible message about American leadership on the global stage.

Read this article:
Democrats Are Actually Praising Team Trump for Taking on Russia