Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

The latest Republican defense of Trump is built on a massive lie – Washington Post (blog)

When questioned June 8 about President Trump's interactions with Former FBI director James B. Comey, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said President Trump is "new to government" and "probably wasn't steeped in the long running protocols." (Reuters)

THE MORNING PLUM:

Now that James B. Comeys testimony to Congress has painted a picture of President Trumps contempt for the rule of law thats far more forceful and persuasive in its dramatic details than Republicans ever bargained for, the new and emerging GOP defense is that Trump is a political and procedural naif. He merely needs tolearn the rules. This line of obfuscation requires pretending that many of the events of the past six months never happened.

But this spin from Republicans has a significance that runs deeper than merely revealing the absurd lengths to which theyll go to protect Trump from political and legal harm. More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trumps abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences.

The Posts Mike DeBonishas a good piece laying out this strategy. It takes various forms. Paul Ryan casts Trumps interactions with Comey as a mere matter of inexperience.The presidents new at this, Ryan says, adding that Trump probably wasnt steeped in the long-running protocols that under our system establish law enforcements independence from the White House. Others ground the argument in Trumps business past or affection for the theatrics of disruption. Hes used to being the CEO, insists one House Republican. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)adds that Trump is merely being crude, rude and a bull in a china shop.

[Comeys testimony changed everything and not in Trumps favor]

But Republicans making this argument are dishonestly feigning naivete about much of what weve seenfrom Trump since the beginning of his presidency. The problem with the idea that Trump merely needs to learn the rules is that we have a large pile of evidence showing that Trump is deeply convinced that the rules should not apply to him.

Post Opinion columnists Ruth Marcus and Jennifer Rubin deconstruct the legal and moral quagmire President Trump faces following fired FBI director James B. Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8. (Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)

For starters, there is a massive clue in Comeys written testimony that shows this to be the case. In Comeys recounting of Trumps requests of him,Comey also relates his own effort to explain to Trump why his requests were improper. After Trumpdemanded loyalty during their private Jan. 27 dinner, Comey recounts that he then explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. Comey added that he explained that blurring those boundaries undermines public trust. After that, Trump nonetheless repeated: I need loyalty. And then, on Feb. 14, Trump asked Comey to let his former national security adviser Michael Flynn go, a request Comey interpreted as a direction or order.

Comeys previous effort to explain the rules to Trump went entirely ignored twice. And when Comey testified yesterday, he said explicitly that he took notes because he was concerned Trump might lie about their interactions, because of the nature of the person. Every Republican who continues to pretend Trumps interactions with Comey are merely a matter of Trumps inexperience, theatrical inclinations or business mind-set knowsthese basic facts. They all know perfectly well that Comeys suspicions that Trump would deliberately mislead the American people about them had ample basis, and, indeed, are now being borne out.

Beyond this, as Brian Beutler points out, this faux naivete about Trump on the part of Republicans requires forgetting that he is surrounded by experienced officials who are ostensibly there to keep the White House within basic boundaries. Instead, they are willfully carrying out Trumps relentless trampling of them.

This touchingly innocent GOP naivete also requires forgetting all the ways that Trump has flouted the rules and shown total contempt for our institutions and democratic processes, norms and constraints on multiple other fronts for months. All these Republicans have witnessed the White Houses repeated attacks on the news media, which have strayed deep into an effort to undermine the fundamental institutional role of the press as a check on lawmakers excesses or corruption. They know Trumps attacks on the courts have shaded into an effort to undermine their very legitimacy at a time when they are constraining Trumps power to impose an immigration ban, which a senior Trump adviser explicitly described as a test run to demonstrate that his power will not be questioned.

All these Republicans know that Trumps business arrangement and refusal to release his tax returns are shredding basic norms of transparency (in fact, many Republicans criticized the latter during the GOP presidential primaries, remember?) that presidential candidates in both parties held themselves to for decades. They have witnessed Trumps serial use of important diplomatic business to promote Mar-a-Lago, at an increased cost to taxpayers. All these things are about more than just concealing conflicts or enriching himself and his family. They are functions of Trumps autocratic and authoritarian tendencies he does these things to demonstrate that he can.

Republicans, of course, have done little to nothing to check all of these abuses. But this amounts to more than mere abdication of oversight. It represents a refusal to acknowledge what all of these things add up to a picture of a lawless president who does not believe that rules, norms or constraints should apply to him. In this context, the spin that Trump will behave once he learns the rules represents a much broader and deeper abdication of responsibility to admit to, and grapple with, the authoritarian reality in our midst. Even worse, it confirms that their complicity with these abuses will continue. With Trump likely to descend further, to unforeseen depths, we have only begun to grasp the stakes of this enabling exercise, and have no idea where the bottom lies, in the minds of Republicans, or indeed, if there is any bottom at all.

* DUMB GOP TALKING POINT ON TRUMP IS DEBUNKED: Republicans keep saying Comey testified that Trump only said he hoped Comey would drop the probe into Michael Flynn, as if this shows it was not a directive. Charlie Savage punctures this talking point by citing several casesin which a prosecution was brought for obstruction based on such a vague formulation.

As one former prosecutor tells Savage:We have examples all the time in criminal law of people saying things only slightly subtly, where everyone understands what is meant Nice pair of legs you got there; shame if something happened to them. Indeed, Comey testified that he took Trumps hope as direction.

* RNC GOES ON THE ATTACK AGAINST COMEY: The Washington Examiner reports that the Republican National Committee is launching attacks on Comey, a shift in the committees mission its now acting as Trumps defender against accusations of legal wrongdoing:

Its unusual in the recent history of the Republican Partys national campaign organization to defend a president or other top leaders in personal feuds and against threats emanating from beyond the traditional political and legislative arenas. Yet the RNC has slowly shifted in the direction of functioning as an arm of Trumps personal attack machine.

Something tells us the RNC will be increasingly busy in this new and less-than-savory role in the coming weeks and months.

* A BIG BLOW TO THE SENATE REPEAL BILL? The Hill reports that the Senate parliamentarian now says a key provision in the Senate repeal-and-replace bill may not be passable under reconciliation by simple majority:

The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has flagged language that would bar people from using new refundable tax credits for private insurance plans that cover abortion If Republicans are forced to strip the so-called Hyde language from the legislation, which essentially bars federal funds from being used to pay for abortions unless to save the life of a mother or in cases of rape and incest, it may doom the bill Unless a workaround can be found, conservative senators and groups that advocate against abortion rights are likely to oppose the legislation.

The thing is that in the dark underground maze otherwise known as Senate rules, magical and surprising things tend to happen.

* IS OSSOFF IN THE LEAD? A new Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll finds that Democrat Jon Ossoff has taken a seven-point lead among likely voters, 51 percent to 44 percent, over Republican Karen Handel in the special House election in the Atlanta suburbs. Note this:

Hes capturing about 13 percent of Republican voters and 50 percent of independents a crucial voting bloc that typically leans right in Georgia. It shows almost no cross-over on the flip side; only 3 percent of Democrats say theyre backing Handel.

One wonders whether thats the Trump Effect. Still, view these numbers with care; other polls have shown a much tighter race, and this district went for Republican Tom Price in 2016 by 23 points.

* WHAT COMEY DIDNT SAY IS ALSO IMPORTANT: Eugene Robinson makes a good point: What Comey didnt say yesterday is at least as important as what he did say:

Topics he scrupulously avoided may give a hint of where the investigation is headed. He declined, for example, to answer a question in open session about Vnesheconombank (VEB), a Russian government-owned development bank linked to President Vladimir Putin. Trumps adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met last year with VEB executives. Comey was also reticent about his interactions with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was his boss and who had to recuse himself from Russia-related investigations.

Kushner is now a focus of the FBI investigation. Meanwhile, Comey subsequently told senators in a closed-door briefing that Sessions may have had an additional undisclosed meeting with the Russian ambassador that Comey didnt want to discuss in open session.

* THE WORST IS YET TO COME: Paul Krugman notes that the Comey testimony starkly revealed Trumps contempt for the rule of law and runs through all of the damage Trumps unfitness for office is doing on many other fronts:

Everything suggests that Trump is neither up to the job of being president nor willing to step aside and let others do the work right The American presidency is, in many ways, sort of an elected monarchy, in which a temperamentally and intellectually unqualified leader can do immense damage. Thats whats happening now. And were barely one-tenth of the way through Trumps first term. The worst, almost surely, is yet to come.

Happy Friday!

* AND THE TRUMP TWEET OF THE DAY, TOTALLY-IN-THE-CLEAR EDITION: Good morning, Mr. President. Thinking about the Russia probe again at this early hour, are we?

Yeah, except you werent vindicated at all. Nonetheless, were going to see lots of headlines that trumpet Trumps claim of vindication, without informing readers this is total nonsense.

View post:
The latest Republican defense of Trump is built on a massive lie - Washington Post (blog)

Just a handful of California cities still have a majority of Republican voters – Sacramento Bee

Just a handful of California cities still have a majority of Republican voters
Sacramento Bee
Good luck finding a California city these days where most voters are Republicans. Fifteen years ago, Republicans comprised more than half of the voters in 66 of California's 482 cities. Today, they are a majority in just 14 cities, according to the ...

Read more:
Just a handful of California cities still have a majority of Republican voters - Sacramento Bee

Former congressman calls out fellow Republicans for defending Trump – CNN

"If Hillary Clinton had won and Comey had re-opened an investigation into her email server and she didn't like the way it was going and she fired him, I'm quite certain my party would be rightly howling," Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina representative, told CNN's Erin Burnett Friday on "OutFront." "When the shoe's on this foot, it's like, 'Oh, well, he's new at it.'"

The former politician, who lost his re-election bid in 2010, also called out House Speaker Paul Ryan for his defense of Trump.

"@SpeakerRyan you know this isn't true," Inglis tweeted, linking to an article titled "Ryan denies GOP would try to impeach Dem accused of same actions as Trump."

Inglis argued Ryan, who he called a friend, is apologizing for Trump too much.

Inglis, who voted for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, said "the substance" of the investigation into the Trump administration is "way more serious."

"In the case of Bill Clinton, we were dealing with sex in the White House with an intern and then a cover up," Inglis said. "That's quite different substance than a hostile country affecting or attempting to affect the outcome of our presidential election."

He said Clinton also "never fired the FBI director when he didn't like the way an investigation was going."

The investigation into Russia's probe in the 2016 election and the Trump administration's potential ties to Russia is more similar to President Richard Nixon's situation, Inglis said. He cited the "Saturday Night Massacre," during which Nixon tried to "get rid of the people that were pursuing the investigation" into Watergate.

"It didn't work out for Nixon, and I really think Donald Trump might have learned that it's probably not a good idea," Inglis said. "Because there are an awful lot of FBI agents now that want to make sure they get to the bottom of this."

Still, he said "it's too early to tell" whether Trump could be impeached.

"What the House has to do is look at these facts and ... not hold back with any explanations or minimizing it or explaining it away," he said. "But rather say, 'Now listen here: This is a serious matter. Somebody here might have participated in a hostile country's attack on the heart of our republic, and we're going to get to the bottom of it. And if it leads to the President, or to his family, or to anybody in his campaign, so be it.'"

Read more here:
Former congressman calls out fellow Republicans for defending Trump - CNN

Congressional Republicans send letters to Trump and administration urging Cuba remain open – ABC News

Two groups of pro-Cuba engagement House and Senate Republicans each sent letters to President Donald Trump and members of his administration, respectively, asking for Cuba to remain open in the wake of reports the administration is leaning toward reversing its policy on the island nation.

The National Security Council met Friday to finalize their policy and recommendations for the Principals Committee and then provide those recommendations to the president on Cuba, according to multiple sources briefed on the matter. ABC News has confirmed that Trump will likely announce policy changes in Miami next Friday.

In the letter from the House group, seven Republicans write to Trump that "Reversing course would incentivize Cuba to once again become dependent on countries like Russia and China. Allowing this to happen could have disastrous results for the security of the United States."

The representatives also argue that reversing the re-normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba would "threaten" the efforts to combat human trafficking, illicit drug trade, cybercrime and fraud identification.

The Republican congressmen that signed the letter include Reps. Tom Emmer of Minnesota, Rick Crawford of Arkansas, Ted Poe of Texas, Darin LaHood of Illinois, Roger Marshall of Kansas, James Comer of Kentucky and Jack Bergman of Michigan.

The Senate letter, written by Sens. John Boozman, R-Arkansas; Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming; and Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster cites the growth in Cuban entrepreneurs, expanded opportunity for U.S. businesses and the national security benefit of preventing the island nation from becoming "a client state of nations that view US interests as counter to their own."

"We strongly urge you to weigh carefully any rollback of policies that would endanger these benefits," the letter reads.

A U.S. official said that a rollout is likely next week, but cautioned that the details are still being finalized and the date could be pushed back.

President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro initiated the process in 2014 of opening Cuba, overturning decades of diplomatic hostility, economic and business restrictions, and constraints on travel.

Read this article:
Congressional Republicans send letters to Trump and administration urging Cuba remain open - ABC News

How Many Republicans Does It Take to Keep the Lights On? – Vanity Fair

Not super worried about the whole issue.

By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

It may surprise you to learn that, since January 20, 2017, Republicans have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Nearly five months into the Trump presidency, the G.O.P. has scored hardly any legislative wins. Obamacare is still kicking. No one who works on Capitol Hill has seen any details of Donald Trumps tax plan beyond the one-page outline the White House released last month. Infrastructure Week was overshadowed by Comeyghazi. Perhaps asking Republicans legislators to actually legislate was expecting too much. After all, theyve been out of practice for much of the last eight years. So, lets lower the bar: can Republicans stop the government from shutting down without any drama? Amazingly, the answer to that, too, appears to be no.

Despite the seemingly straightforward business of raising the debt ceiling, the G.O.P.-controlled House and Senate are struggling to keep the lights on. The trouble began during the Obama years, when the Republican Party turned the otherwise simple task into a perennially terrifying, market-roiling experience wherein the lawmakers periodically held the republic hostage in order to win policy concessions like budget cuts. Now, with a Republican president in the White House, its happening again.

In May, when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin urged Congress to get moving on raising the borrowing limit, insisting that time was of the essence, the House Freedom Caucus responded by saying, We demand that any increase of the debt ceiling be paired with policy that addresses Washingtons unsustainable spending by cutting where necessary, capping where able, and working to balance in the near future. Not helping Mnuchins case was White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, who explained last week that he would like to see things like spending cuts tied to any agreement to raise the debt ceiling. Amazingly, per the The New York Times, there are a number of House Republicans who believe that inaction on the debt ceiling would not result in a government default, as treasury secretaries from both parties have consistently warned.

The divisions within the G.O.P., of course, mean that Republicans will need help from Democrats, who are not exactly in a giving mood at the moment. I dont have any intention of supporting lifting the debt ceiling to enable the Republicans to give another tax break to the wealthy in our country, to further exacerbate the challenge that is created when they have their trickle-down economics, Nancy Pelosi said last week. Chiming in on Tuesday, Chuck Schumer added, Its going to be a lot harder to get the debt ceiling raised if our Republican colleagues insist on raising the deficit dramatically by huge tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. Republicans might have a better shot at overcoming such obstacles if they provided a united front, or perhaps decided to drop the hostage-taking schtick altogether. Recent news suggests wed be so lucky.

More here:
How Many Republicans Does It Take to Keep the Lights On? - Vanity Fair