Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans in Congress rendered a vote of no confidence in President Trump's Russia policy on Thursday with passage of legislation to severely limit his ability to cut deals with Vladimir Putin.

The package sanctioning Iran, North Korea and Russia includes language requiring congressional approval to waive penalties on Moscow, a loss of negotiating flexibility for the president, a self-styled deal maker, that his administration furiously tried to kill.

Trump has coddled Putin since entering the presidential race two years ago despite Russia's meddling in the 2016 elections and other actions to undermine U.S. interests, and Republicans don't trust him to crack down on Moscow's belligerence.

"We do think there was interference in the elections, we do take that seriously we don't have much doubt about it and probably the Russian government needs to understand, on this issue, they're dealing with Congress as much as they're dealing with the president," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said.

The bill cleared Congress in overwhelming bipartisan fashion, passing in the House 419-3 and in the Senate 98-2 both veto-proof majorities. White House officials say Trump hasn't decided if he will sign the legislation or risk the indignation of seeing his veto overridden.

The package sanctions North Korea over its nuclear weapons program and Iran for its ballistic missile program and sponsorship of terrorism. But it's the tough measures on Russia, preventing Trump (or future presidents) from relaxing sanctions absent Congressional approval, that stand out.

Foreign policy analysts and individuals who served in past administrations say that it is highly unusual for Congress to hamstring a president's ability to conduct foreign policy. The trend over the past 25 years or so has been to show deference on these matters to the executive.

"It's unusual. The last time Congress overrode a presidential veto in a major foreign policy issue was Ronald Reagan in 1986 on South African sanctions," said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Wilson Center who has advised secretaries of state of both parties.

Congress' move to reassert its influence over foreign policy is the result of an atypical confluence of events.

Democrats supported the dtente with Russia pursued by former President Barack Obama, transforming into born-again hawks after Moscow meddled in the 2016 campaign to boost Trump. Putin viewed the Republican as a fellow nationalist less inclined to oppose Russia internationally.

Since Reagan, at least, Republicans have been defined in part by their hardline suspicion of Russia. They have accommodated Trump's unorthodox populism on issues like trade, but resisted his effort to soften the GOP policy on Russia.

That culminated with Thursday's vote that sent the sanctions package to the president's desk, as multiple investigations into Russian meddling in 2016 that could implicate Trump or his campaign continue in Congress and by Robert Mueller, the federal special counsel.

Some Republicans were careful about how they discussed that vote, not wanting to finger Trump as the motivating factor behind the legislation. But it was clear that their lack of trust in Trump to confront Putin and negotiate agreements favorable to the U.S. played a role.

"President Trump is the fourth president that I have served with," Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said. "They all at various times thought that they could work with Russians, and Putin has had an ability to sort of extract concessions and then never live up to his bargain."

Trump has courted Putin assiduously and declined to subject the authoritarian Russian regime to the bombastic jawboning he's directed at other U.S. adversaries like China and Iran, not to mention allies like South Korea and the countries in NATO.

His approach to Russia in particular is consistent with his recent predecessors: Obama and Bill Clinton, both Democrats, and George W. Bush, a Republican. All thought they could charm Putin and turn him into an ally of the West.

Instead, the strongman pocketed favorable agreements while continuing subversive activities to counter American influence and priorities. Trump's bilateral meeting with Putin this month in Germany did little to convince critics in Congress that Trump has changed his thinking.

Congressional Republicans, seeking to tamp down on suggestions that they're trying to box Trump in, blamed their vote for the sanctions legislation on Obama. Trump's predecessor launched a "Russian reset" in a bid to forge more cooperation with Moscow.

Putin responded over Obama's two terms by helping Iran develop a nuclear energy program, establishing a military presence in Syria and rescuing Bashar Assad's regime, invading Ukraine and saber rattling NATO countries on its western flank.

Obama ignored GOP demands that he confront the Kremlin, and Republicans said they wanted to claim more power to keep the heat on Putin, even if that means defying a commander in chief of their own party in the short term, to prevent a similar situation from unfolding in the future.

"We had a very, very bad experience with the last chief executive," Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, said. "We just want to ensure that whoever is president, we don't have to go through that again."

Read more:
Republicans render vote of no confidence in Trump's Russia policy - Washington Examiner

Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham head for the Senate Floor for a vote at the U.S. Capitol.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

As members of Congress met on Wednesday to engage in delicate negotiations over health care and sanctions against Russia, Trump dropped another political hot potato into their laps by abruptly tweeting his decision to bar transgender people from serving in the military.

Trumps sudden pronouncement thrusts to the forefront a largely overlooked debate among House Republicans over the funding of gender confirmation surgeries and hormone therapy for military personnel. Since June, Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler has been pushing to reverse an Obama-era policy mandating that the Pentagon pay for these medically prescribed procedures. In early July, she introduced an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would forbid such funding, though a coalition of Democrats and 24 GOP lawmakers narrowly defeated her proposal in the House.

Hartzlers justification was largely economic; she argued that surgeries are costly and leave troops unable to fulfill their duties for extended periods of recovery time. In reality, the cost of transgender troops medical care is negligible. Yet many GOP lawmakers bought into Hartzlers logic. While stopping short of endorsing a total ban on transgender service members, they nevertheless agreed that taxpayer funds shouldnt be used for gender-related operations. After the amendment failed, a group of House members approached the president with a plea to take action.

By imposing a full ban on transgender soldiers, however, Trump went far beyond the cessation of medical funding that many in the House GOP members backed. His tweets left many Republican legislators to oppose the policy or clarify their stance. (Democrats uniformly opposed both the funding ban and the full ban.) For example, Kansas Republican representatives Kevin Yoder and Lynn Jenkins, both of whom voted for Hartzlers amendment, released statements in support of allowing any able person to serve. Ken Buck, a GOP congressman from Colorado who also voted aye on the amendment, wrote in reaction to Trumps ban, America needs a military comprised of patriots willing to sacrifice for this country. Any American who is physically and emotionally qualified should be allowed to serve. Francis Rooney, Kevin Cramer, Mike Gallagher, and other House members who supported the amendment have all issued similar statements in support of allowing transgender troops to serve, or at least questioning the ban.

A number of GOP senators have also questioned or disapproved of the ban. A spokeswoman for Iowa Senator Joni Ernst was quick to make the defunding-vs.-ban distinction. She stated, Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity, but then added that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for operations. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said, I dont think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them. Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomeys office released a statement reading, in part, Senator Toomey believes that every person should be judged based on his or her merits. That is why, during his entire public career, he has supported measures to protect individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Its rare for so many GOP lawmakers to speak out against the president. For some Republicans, Trumps announcement may provide an opportunity to portray themselves as moderates on the debate. With Trump flanking them to the right with a total ban, their proposal to defund transgender surgeries may seem less discriminatory to voters. On the flipside, a member of congress who fails to back the ban may appear to be soft on social issues in the eyes of Trumps evangelical supporters.

Top Comment

"You, the American people, deserve to know what I'm about to do. With a heavy heart, I've decided to nuke..." 20 minutes pass. "...these nachos. More...

When the Obama administration first allowed transgender troops to serve openly in the military in June 2016, there was little backlash from Republicans. Scuttling surgery funding was a pet issue for Hartzler and a handful of others in the House; maneuvers to get the provision included in the annual defense policy bill largely played out behind the scenes with little media coverage. For many GOP lawmakers, Trumps decree puts a startling and unwelcome spotlight on an obscure debate, adding another headache to an already contentious congressional session. Indeed, reports suggest that Trump neglected to consult or even inform many in Congress of his decision. Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain seemed irked by Trumps cavalier move to abruptly announce the ban over Twitter. Graham told The Post and Courier, we need to have a hearing, not a tweet, while McCain said in a statement, The Presidents tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter.

While the administration may hope to use the ban as red meat for Trumps blue collar base during the midterms, the presidents shoot-from-the-hip approach to policy doesnt appear to be doing much to win over allies in Congress.

View original post here:
Trump's Transgender Troops Ban Is Backfiring Among Congressional Republicans - Slate Magazine (blog)

View Caption Hide Caption

WASHINGTON All 10 Georgia Republicans serving in the U.S. House, as well as one of the states centrist Democrats, backed a government spending bill on Thursday that would set aside $1.6 billion to build a wall on the southern border.

The lawmakers support helped send the $790 billion national security-focused spending measure to the Senate, where it is expected to be made over, if it can advance at all.Sanford Bishop of Albany was one of only five Democrats to cross party lines and support the legislation.

I voted in support of this legislation due to the needs of our veterans and service members, Bishop said.

The bill would fund military installations in Georgia and elsewhere, veterans health benefits and the maintenance of the countrys nuclear fleet for the budget year that begins on Oct. 1. It would also set aside $50 million for the Savannah port, as well as seed money for initial construction on President Donald Trumps signature border wall with Mexico.

Read more: Five Georgia companies signal interest in Trumps border wall project

Democrats had pushed for a standalone vote on the funding for the wall in an attempt to force Republicans into a tough vote, but GOP leaders blocked that request. Instead, Georgias Republicans flaunted their votes on the issue.

I have had the opportunity to see the dire situation at the Southwest border firsthand and I understand the threats coming through the border into our nation, said Buddy Carter, R-Pooler. This legislation provides the resources necessary to begin construction on a Southern border wall to protect Americans from the threats of illegal immigration.

The Senate is not expected to pass the legislation before it leaves for its August recess. Democrats there have vowed to filibuster any spending bills that fund Trumps border wall.

Heres how Georgias lawmakers voted:

YES

Republicans Buddy Carter, Drew Ferguson, Karen Handel, Rob Woodall, Austin Scott, Doug Collins, Jody Hice, Barry Loudermilk, Rick Allen, Tom Graves

Democrats Sanford Bishop

NO

Republicans None

Democrats Hank Johnson, John Lewis, David Scott

Previous

Stacey Abrams put her ex-boyfriend in prison.Literature-ly.

See the rest here:
Georgia Republicans okay money for Trump's border wall - Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)

Sen. John Cornyn counts Attorney General Jeff Sessions as one of his best friends in Washington, and their wives are even closer, making the couples regular double-date partners.

We occasionally get together to break bread, the Senate majority whip said Wednesday. One of those double dates came recently enough that Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Sessions could not avoid the elephant in the room: President Trumps public taunting of his attorney general, in a manner that suggests he wants Sessions to resign.

We didnt talk in any great detail about this, but obviously its in the news, Cornyn said, reiterating his strong support of Sessions remaining in office.

Cornyn is not alone in rallying to the defense of Sessions, who, despite sometimes having waged lonely battles as one of the chambers most staunch conservatives, still has many friends among Senate Republicans. Most have issued statements of support, and several are making private calls to reassure Sessions that they are behind him.

But the tension over Trumps treatment of Sessions goes beyond the senators defending a friend.

(Taylor Turner/The Washington Post)

Unlike any other controversial move that Trump has pondered in his six months as president, Senate Republicans are sending preemptive signals that firing the attorney general or pressuring him to resign would be a terrible move.

Some have warned high-level White House officials that it would look as though Trump were making the move solely to shut down an investigation of his campaign and the White House, now overseen by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, while also making clear that they agree with Sessionss decision to recuse himself from an investigation of the Trump campaigns connections to Russia.

Replacing Sessions would be difficult, and the idea of Trump making a recess appointment during the planned four-week break in August is foolhardy. Democrats can indefinitely stall a resolution to fully adjourn the Senate, having already forced minute-long periods during even shorter breaks to prevent Trump from having the authority to make temporary appointments while the Senate is away.

Democrats may have vehemently opposed Sessionss nomination, but they have no intention of allowing Trump to fire him and name a new attorney general with a recess appointment, and frankly, Republicans do not seem to want to give Trump that power either.

Trumps hard-line actions have an intellectual godfather: Jeff Sessions

Beyond concerns about the controversy that firing Sessions would bring, Senate Republicans say, Trumps behavior is unseemly toward someone they respect, given that Sessions went out on a limb for the first-time candidate, becoming the first senator to endorse Trumps candidacy.

I think Sessions deserves to be treated much more fairly. I mean, Jeff was there when no other senator was, said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the longest currently serving Republican in the Senate. Hatch spoke to Sessions last Thursday to declare his support, a message he conveyed to White House officials, and Hatch is trying to set up a call to Trump to deliver the same message.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made clear in a brief interview Wednesday that his backing of Sessions has gone up the chain of command. Asked if he told Trump of his support, McConnell smiled.

Ive conveyed that to the public and to others, he said.

The support for Sessions runs deep across the Republican Party. Former senator Jim DeMint (S.C.), a conservative renegade who often clashed with McConnell, praised the attorney general Wednesday during a visit to the Capitol.

One of the best guys I ever worked with, he said. I hope he and the president can work it out.

The question, however, is how Senate Republicans will respond if Trump does force their friend out of the Justice Department a move that might be followed by firing Mueller, setting off another crisis at least as big as the ouster of James B. Comey as FBI director in May.

Would there be any ramification beyond just expressing dismay?

That remains to be seen, but some are warning that the fallout would be devastating to the rest of Trumps agenda.

I think Jeff Sessions is doing a good job, and I think it would be incredibly disruptive and make it more difficult for the president to accomplish his agenda, Cornyn told CNN early Wednesday.

By lunchtime, Cornyn declined to say what the ramifications would be, instead focusing on the attorney generals decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Sessions had served as an adviser to the Trump campaign, a high-profile surrogate who would travel with him and often introduce him at rallies. He also got caught up in a controversy by not fully revealing during his confirmation process all of his contacts with Russian officials.

Jeff Sessions should have been a tough sell in the Senate, but hes too nice

That made it a by-the-book call to recuse, delegating the investigation to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who then appointed Mueller shortly after he was involved in the Comey firing which is now its own piece of the Mueller inquiry.

I cant imagine any future nominee would have decided the recusal issue any differently from Jeff Sessions, Cornyn said.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who was elected along with Sessions in 1996, became visibly angry when discussing Trumps treatment of his former colleague. Its very difficult, its disconcerting, its inexplicable, he said. I dont know why you have to tweet with regards to your feelings about people in your own Cabinet.

One fallout from Trumps treatment of Sessions could be to guarantee that no Senate Republican will again be willing to give up a seat to accept a job with Trump.

There are some well-qualified individuals, who otherwise would be inclined to serve, who might be discouraged from doing so given the rift that he has had with one of his most loyal supporters, said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate who became friends with Sessions as part of the 1996 class.

After Comey was fired, Sessions led the recruiting effort to get Cornyn the nomination to run the FBI. Their wives talked about the idea and Cornyn warmed to it, before other Republicans signaled that he would be too political a choice to run the independent investigative body.

Now, their double dates take on a different tone when they discuss working for Trump.

Hes doing fine, Cornyn said of Sessions. He did the right thing, and I think he has the confidence that he did the right thing.

Read more from Paul Kanes archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Visit link:
Senate Republicans have tolerated Trump's controversies. His treatment of Sessions is different. - Washington Post

Donald Trumps presidency has truly gone through the looking glass.

Were debating how much collusion with Russians to help win the 2016 presidential election is enough to justify prosecution or removal from office not whether the Trump team was interested (we know now that , at the very least, senior Trump campaign advisers attempted to accept help from Russia).In this bizarro world, the president of the United States takes to Twitter to claim his complete power to issue pardons including, he seems to believe, the power to pardon himself (it isfar from clearthat he could legally do this, but the fact that this is on the table is unprecedented and deeply disturbing).

Another possible constitutional crisis is on the horizon as Trumpmay be readying to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating possible crimes committed by Trump or members of his campaign and administration. Trump also is engaged in a bizarre effort to bully Attorney General Jeff Sessions out of his job,potentially as part of a plan to then remove Muellerfrom his position, an end game that would be reminiscent ofPresident Richard NixonsSaturdayNight Massacre.

What does the U.S. political party holding the most power say about this upside-down reality? Many observers wonder what could move Republicans in Congress to act in defense of The Constitution and American democracy. Surely theyll draw the line somewhere, right? The only reason they havent acted yet, we assume, is that in order to advance their legislative agenda on items like health care and tax cuts for the wealthy, Republicans are willing to hold their noses and put up with possible Russian collusion and suspicions that the Trump administration obstructed justice.

That may be too generous a reading. It presumes congressional Republicans understand that Trump threatens our constitutional system and they would, under the right conditions, rein him in (lets say, after key legislation is passed or if Trump fires Mueller).In other words, Republicans are willing to put up with a president they see as dangerous if it helps them achieve policy goals, but their support for Trump personally is grudging, at best.

There could be one other possibility: Trumps anti-democratic approach fits perfectly with a Republican party that often benefits from anti-democratic strategies.Consider:

1. Voter suppression: A central part of Republican electoral strategy is aimed at suppressing the voteof segments of the U.S. population likely to vote Democratic. This approach has been successful , involving tactics including targeting voter ID laws, reductions in early voting hours, disenfranchisement of more than six million adultswith felony convictions, androlling back the Voting Rights Act. The Brennan Center notes that so far in 2017 at least 99 bills aimed at making it harder to register to vote and/or to vote have beenintroduced in 31 states.Trumpscontroversial voting commissionis designed to support these efforts at the national level.

2. Gerrymandering: Republicans havedrawn congressional district linesto the extent that they can win an easy majority in the House of Representatives without actually winning a majority of the popular votes cast. In 2016, Republicans won 49.9% of the votes cast for House members nationwide while Democrats won 47.3%, but gerrymandering gave Republicans control of55.2% of House seats while Democrats ended up with just 44.8%. With district lines drawn as they are, it is quite possible that Democrats could win a majority of House votes cast nationwidewithout winning a majority of seats.

There may be good reasons to stop majorities from deciding every matter.For instance, in a constitutional democracy, a simple majority cannot take away the minoritys constitutional rights. But voter suppression and gerrymandering are not about protecting minority rights in any legitimate sense of the term: theyre about preventing people from fully participating in the democratic process.Republicans understand this, and have used these tools to their advantage.

How could this help us understand why Republicans may not be moved to take evidence of connections between the Trump team and Russia more seriously?Russian interference in the 2016 election was aimed at helping Trump win, which of course is a benefit to the Republican party in general.That certainly doesnt mean that congressional Republicans were involved in any possible collusion, but it does suggest that they would see no political reason to worry about Russian help.Indeed, when the Obama administration told some congressional leaders last year that intelligence showed Russia was interfering in the election to help Trump,Republicans refused to participate in an effort to warn the American public.

Whats worse is that Republicans clearly know Russia is no friend to the United States: witness thenearly unanimous votes in Congress making it harder for Trump to undo Russia sanctions. This is telling: Republicans understand that unless he is stopped, Trump is likely to give Putin what he wants. Yet so far they are taking no meaningful action to unravel the long thread of ties between the Trump team and Russia during the campaign.

None of this is to suggest that Democrats wouldnt gerrymander districts; given the opportunity, they do. If a hostile foreign country interfered in some future election to help the Democratic party, we dont know how Democrats would respond.

Thats not what were confronted with now.The Republican Party has benefited intentionally or not from Russian interference in an election. We have a Republican president who praises Vladimir Putin at every turn and has takenactions to advance Russias preferred policy agendawithout getting anything for the United States in return.

So if youre wondering why, when congressional Republicans see this but do not act, there may be a simple explanation.

ChrisEdelsonis an assistant professor of government in American Universitys School of Public Affairs. His latest book, Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security , was published in May 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press.

See the original post here:
Opinion: Trump's anti-democratic presidency helps Republicans stay in power - MarketWatch