Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans on Tuesday stifled a Democratic attempt to force the Justice Department to produce records related to its investigation of whether DonaldTrump and his campaign had secret ties to Russia. Apowerful GOP committee chairman said, however, that he would urge federal authoritiesto continue their probe.

The party-line House Judiciary Committee vote concerned a resolution of inquiry, an obscure legislative maneuver that allows Congress to demand documents from the executive branch. Under House rules, such a resolution must be debated in committee or be sent directly to the House floor.

[Democrat moves to force House debate on Trumps alleged business conflicts and Russia ties]

The resolution was among the steps that members of the Democratic minority in the House have taken topressure the GOP to toughen its oversight of President Trump and his administration. Itasked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to provide records that pertain to any criminal or counterintelligence investigation into Trump, his White House team or certain campaign associates; any investment made by a foreign power or agent thereof in Trumps businesses; Trumps plans to distance himself from his business empire; and any Trump-related examination of federal conflict of interest laws or the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who filed the resolution, toldhis colleagues that the panels lawmakers should notbury our heads in the sand.

The security and integrity of our nation are at stake, he said. It is unfortunate that we must resort to a resolution of inquiry to learn the truth about these serious issues. However, the House has so far abdicated its constitutional responsibility to provide meaningful oversight into the Trump administration, and it is time that we do our duty. . . . The public deserves to know the truth about the president, and we must not stop until we get these answers.

Rep. BobGoodlatte (R-Va.), the Judiciary Committee chairman,called the resolution unnecessary, premature and not the best way for this committee or the House to conduct oversight. Instead, he said,he plans to send a letter requesting that Sessions proceed with investigations into any criminal conduct regarding these matters acknowledging, at the same time, that his own requests for a Justice Department briefing on the Russia allegations had gone unanswered.

This resolution is about politics, not information, Goodlatte said, pointing to a Nadler news release boasting that the resolution would force a GOP vote on Trump. Our oversight efforts can and should be better than that, Goodlatte said.

Also opposing the resolution was Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the former chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee who had gained headlines in recent days by calling on Sessions to step aside and allow an independent prosecutor to handle theRussia probe. Sessions, a former senator, was an early endorser of and key adviser to Trumps campaign, and he has close ties to seniorWhite House aides.

But Issa said Goodlattes plan to send a letter to Sessions was fitting and appropriate as a first step, noting his own history while Oversight Committee chairman of being a prolific sender of letters. Virtually without fail, my investigations started with letters, he said. So I, with utmost of respect for my colleagues, would ask that we use the system first.

Nadler reminded Issa that he filed his resolution only after three letters Democrats had sent toRepublicans went unanswered.

Issaassured him he would persist: I have a long history of limited patience. . . . I am, if nothing else, tenacious.

The debate took place over the course of several hours Tuesday evening, not long beforeTrump was set to arrive on Capitol Hill to address a joint meeting of Congress for the first time, and it was attended by a capacity crowd of liberal activists who were gaveled quiet on several occasions after cheering Democrats remarks.

The final vote was 18 to 16 along party lines to report the resolution unfavorably, meaning it will not be taken up on the House floor. Besides rejecting the underlying resolution, Republicans also voted down amendments that would have expanded it to include documents on White House contacts with the FBI and on Justice Department deliberations on Sessionss possible recusal.

Theresolution of inquiry stands to becomea tool that Democrats, with little leverage as the minority party, will use to highlight issues with the Trump administration.Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced another such resolution Monday to force Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price to releaserecords concerning the administrations plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Tuesdays Judiciary Committee vote came a day after Democrats attempted to bring a resolution to the House floor calling on Trump to release his tax returns to Congress and the public, whichhe has long refused to do, citing an ongoing Internal Revenue Service audit.

The attempt was turned back on a procedural vote that followed party lines. Two Republicans, Reps. Walter B. Jones Jr. of North Carolina and Mark Sanford of South Carolina, declined to join their GOP colleagues and voted present.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said afterward that by turning back the sense of Congress resolution that they had made themselves accomplices to hiding President Trumps tax returns from the American people.

The American people deserve the truth about Russias personal, political and financial grip on President Trump, she said. If theres nothing there, then what are Republicans afraid of?

Originally posted here:
Republicans vote down attempt to advance debate on Trump-Russia allegations - Washington Post

WASHINGTON Democrats have long claimed the bulk of black voters and the issues important to them.

But some Republicans who recognize their party can't survive without expanding their base are seizing on what they think could be a winning cause: historically black colleges and universities.

U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the Senate's only black Republican, on Tuesday helped facilitate a day-long conference at the Library of Congress with more than 90 presidents of HBCUs from across the country.

With Scott, and U.S. Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., as the official co-hosts, the conference pulled together a starring cast of prominent congressional Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

Representatives from Boeing, Michelin and Northrop Grumman discussed efforts to recruit from HBCUs. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos delivered a keynote address at lunch.

Simultaneously, President Donald Trump on Tuesday rolled out an executive order to create a new White House initiative on HBCUs, which would establish a new presidential advisory board, among other things.

The HBCU "fly-in" on Capitol Hill was the first event of its kind, even beyond the eight years of the Barack Obama presidency.

"Frankly, the attention we received in the last 45 or so days exceeds not just this past administration, but the past three or four administrations," Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, told reporters. "We are on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today. Black colleges."

There are 107 HBCUs in the United States, eight of which are in South Carolina. They partially rely on the federal government for funding through grants, financial aid and appropriations.

HBCU leaders say they have lost billions of dollars over the past years during Obama's tenure and before that. A major focus on Tuesday was on funding and whether Congress would appropriate the necessary dollars to revitalize resource-starved institutions.

Scott and Walker said the gathering was the first step in forging new relationships and that tangible legislative solutions were still to come. They couldn't promise anything in regard to specific funding levels.

A lack of commitment to properly funding HBCUs has riled some critics who view Republican interest in black education policy warily and as disingenuous and self-serving. Some Democrats have also slammed DeVos and the GOP for being out of touch. They targeted DeVos for a statement calling African-Americans "pioneers in school choice" when black students were being turned away from white schools.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California called it a "mind boggling ignorance of history and the enduring effects of institutional racism."

On Tuesday, Scott acknowledged that DeVos could have been more articulate.

"Is there a better way to word things? Yes," he said. "Clarity in your statements is always important."

He also acknowledged accusations of GOP pandering to HBCU presidents and African-Americans with weary recognition.

"I try to remind some of my friends that being a Republican is tough; being a black Republican is praise-the-lord tough," Scott said.

"(Republicans) have the responsibility and opportunity right now, leading both the House and Senate," Walker added. "We would not want to one day look back and regret the fact that we hadnt done all that we can do."

Missing from the program Tuesday was U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn. The third ranking House Democrat and most senior black lawmaker in Congress has made helping HBCUs one of his legacy issues, particularly his alma mater, South Carolina State University.

Clyburn said he didn't feel threatened that Republicans are starting to stake a claim in traditional Democratic policy territory.

"They're welcome," he said of the GOP.

Emma Dumain is The Post and Courier's Washington correspondent. Reach her at 843-834-0419 and follow her @emma_dumain.

Read the original here:
Sen. Tim Scott helps Republicans lead on HBCUs - Charleston Post Courier

WASHINGTON House Republicans on Tuesday defeated a resolution that would have asked the Department of Justice to reveal what it has uncovered about President Donald Trumps contacts with Russia and his conflicts of interest with other foreign governments.

Eighteen Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee opposed a resolution offered by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) that would have required Attorney General Jeff Sessions to hand over information related to investigations into the president, his campaign aides, the White House and Trumps businesses.

The vote came about after Nadler and other Judiciary Committee Democrats made several unsuccessful appeals to Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) requesting he hold hearings on Trumps Russian ties and other foreign conflicts. Goodlatte opposed the resolution, calling it overbroad and premature.

Nadlers resolution is one way Democrats are pressuring Republicans over the presidents business conflicts and his campaigns possible ties to hacking by Russian intelligence services against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Against all precedent in the modern era, Trump has retained ownership of his multi-billion dollar business empire. He is enriched by every payment to his hotels, resorts, golf courses and other enterprises. Foreign governments have paid his hotels to host parties and rent rooms, and to lease space in his commercial properties. Trump has promised to hand over hotel profits related to foreign entities, but hasnt provided details. The president also refuses to release his tax returns, leaving the public in the dark about his financial investments, his investors and his debts.

News reports have said Trump campaign aides were in contact with Russian intelligence officials during the presidential race.Seventeen intelligence agencies reported that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta to influence the vote for Trump. Trumps first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign after it was revealed that he lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

The resolution would have provided Congress with information to chart its own investigations, Nadler said before the defeat. All this does is ask that the information in possession of the Justice Department be turned over to the House so that we can both preserve it, and decide what course of action to pursue, Nadler said.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) urged Republicans to support Democratsin dispensing of the odorous smell that is not allowing us to run this government on behalf of the American people.

Nadler introduced the measure as a resolution of inquiry, a special legislative technique that requires a vote on the floor of the House if it is not voted on in committee within 14 business days. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) decided to send the resolution to committee so that fewer members of his caucus would have to vote on it.

The hearing was attended by an often raucous crowd of liberal activists spilling into the hallway, often erupting into applause.

Goodlatte gaveled down the outbursts, and ordered one person ejected for yelling out.

Republicans dismissed the resolution as politics.

What we are witnessing is President Trumps detractors are going through the stages of grief, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said.

Fervent Trump supporter Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) declared all of the accusations about Russian hacking and potential foreign influence in the Trump administration to be rumors and innuendo. He dismissed reports of hacking carried out by Russia because they came from the Obama intelligence community.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) did not support the resolution, but said committee members should send bipartisan letters asking for information related to the Russian hacking allegations. He added: If [Russia has] attempted to distort our democracy, we need to know it.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, compared Republican rejection of the resolution to 1974, when 10 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted against all three articles of impeachment against then-President Richard Nixon.

Looking back, it seems obvious to us that these members misjudged the moment, Conyers said. For political and personal reasons, they refused to engage with mounting evidence that the president had violated both the law and his oath of office.

He added, I think about those 10 names from the summer of 1974, and I wonder how history will judge us today.

Mike McAuliff contributed reporting.

Read the original here:
Republicans Reject Disclosing Findings On Trump's Business Conflicts, Russia Ties - Huffington Post

Republicans belong to the party of personal responsibility. Republicans belong to the party of limited government. Republicans belong to the party that respects constitutional rights. Republicans belong to the party that works for affordable insurance rates. Republicans belong to the party that just says no to trial lawyers.

But it appears there is a nefarious plan under way in Tallahassee to infiltrate the Republican Party and subvert those bedrock principles. How else to explain HB 19, which last week passed a House subcommittee on a mostly party-line vote?

If this bill becomes law, a woman who has an abortion would have up to 10 years to sue her doctor if she suffers physical or psychological harm and feels the doctor did not adequately inform her of such hazards before performing the procedure.

This is a vast expansion of the existing four-year limit to sue under medical malpractice limit.

The bill's sponsor is Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach. All nine representatives who voted for the bill are Republicans. Two Republicans crossed party lines to join five Democrats voting against the bill.

The intent of this bill is obvious. Supporters want to make it harder for doctors to provide safe, legal abortions, which are a constitutional right in America. To make providing safe, legal abortions harder, opponents are conspiring to increase the cost of malpractice insurance and subject doctors who perform abortions to more lawsuits.

To accomplish that goal, they are willing to shift personal responsibility for decision-making about abortions to the doctor and away from the woman who decides to have an abortion. If she decides, many years after the abortion, that she regrets her decision, she would be encouraged, under this law, to belatedly find fault with her doctor.

I have no doubt there are women who regret their decision to have an abortion. But there is no evidence this is an epidemic that needs to be addressed by this legislation or, in fact, would be effectively addressed by this legislation. If Republicans in the Florida Legislature are going to get into the business of letting people blame others for decisions they come to regret, then why stop with doctors?

I would imagine many women, before deciding to have an abortion or not to have an abortion consult with a range of people. They might talk to friends, relatives, financial advisers, psychologists or astrologers. Why not open all of them up to 10 years of lawsuits? Because Republicans believe in personal responsibility. Usually.

It's obvious what's going on here. Republicans pushing this bill and other abortion restrictions think no woman ever should have an abortion. I trust that if Rep. Grall or another of this measure's supporters were consulted by a woman considering having an abortion, their advice would be, "Don't!"

As advice, that's fine, particularly in cases where a friend has sought an opinion. And if they wanted to cite the potential for regret as an important element of their argument, that would be appropriate.

But the strategy is not just to provide advice. The strategy is to stop women from getting abortions. Further, the goal is to stop women these lawmakers haven't even met from having abortions. So they have no idea whether the decision they are attempting to force on these women by denying the option of a safe, legal abortion is the appropriate decision. Sure, women can regret having an abortion. But they also can regret not having an abortion.

What if the woman can't afford another child? What if a woman can't cope with another child? What if the woman would have to quit her job? What if she would have to drop out of college? What if, for any number of reasons, having a child would make a marriage untenable?

If this measure becomes law, it will do more than offer optional advice. It will, by discouraging doctors and clinics from offering safe, legal abortions, take options away from women. To pass it, Republicans would have to ignore a whole list of principles. To justify doing so, they might argue that abortion is life-and-death. Well, health care also is life-and-death. That hasn't stopped the GOP citing its dedication to small government and less spending from vowing to end Obamacare. If protecting life is the most basic principle, Republicans should apply it to health care as well.

Contact Jac Wilder VerSteeg at jwvcolumn@gmail.com.

Read the original post:
When issue is abortion, Republicans drop principles | Opinion - Sun Sentinel

As President Donald Trump prepares to give his first national address Tuesday night, a divided Republican Congress looks to the White House for guidance on what the party should do about health care.

After Rep. Mark Walker, a key House Republican, announced his opposition to leaked draft legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act Monday, other lawmakers have followed suit, coming out strongly against the current plan. Opponents say there's enough opposition to the proposed bill to prevent its passage with just Republican votes.

Asked if he could support the draft bill in its current form, Rep. Mark Meadows, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of about 40 tea-party minded members, said, "I cannot."

Why? "I can give you three of four different reasons," Meadows said.

When Rep. Dave Brat, R-Virginia, was asked if he could support it, he said, "No. No, no, no, no."

There is little in the draft bill that these conservative members find appealing.

"We didn't tell the voters we were going to repeal Obamacare but keep the Medicaid expansion. We didn't tell the voters we were going to repeal Obamacare and then keep some tax increases. We didn't tell the voters we were going to repeal Obamacare and start a whole new entitlement," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and former chair of the Freedom Caucus, said. "Real simple: we should do what we said."

Even some senators are expressing concern, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who has advocated that his own health care proposal be the one considered for passage.

The 105-page draft proposal dated February 10 was leaked last week and obtained by NBC News after circulating among health care lobbyists. While changes are possible, it is believed to be a legitimate effort at health care reform.

According to Meadows, there are "a lot more than 22" GOP members of the House who are opposed to the draft legislation, signaling that House leadership won't have the votes to pass it in its current form.

The flood of Republican opposition to the bill as written underscores the challenges House Republicans face in dismantling the Affordable Care Act and passing a replacement.

Related: GOP Draft Health Care Bill Cuts Medicaid, Insurance Subsidies

Members of the party are divided on what a replacement should look like and how much it should cost. Republican leaders, meanwhile, have promised not to "pull the rug" out from under people who are covered by current law after facing scores of angry voters at town halls across the country, and Trump promised repeatedly on the campaign trail not to cut entitlements like Medicaid. The party must square all that with conservatives who are wary of government spending for health care.

House Speaker Paul Ryan implied that conservatives are moving the goal posts.

"The Price Plan was considered the conservative gold standard at the time last year," Ryan said of the previous plan proposed by former Rep. Tom Price, now Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. "Many conservatives co-sponsored that plan. That plan looks a lot like what we're working on right now."

At their weekly meeting of Republican House members Tuesday morning, members said there was little time left for questions on health care. Some Republicans have claimed that House leadership is not collaborating with rank-and-file on the process of crafting the bill.

"They've asked for everybody's input," Meadows said. "Obviously the final result of where we are today is not something that I support and I'm not alone in that analysis."

But leadership aides said that House Republican Whip Steve Scalise holds listening sessions with members, and that Thursday's planning meeting featuring Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wisc., will focus on health care.

House leadership noted that the bill is a draft and that changes have already been made.

However, AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman to House Speaker Paul Ryan, said that the draft proposal contains the main elements, including tax credits for people purchasing health insurance based on age.

Ryan insisted that Republicans will get on board in the end.

"I feel at the end of the day, when we get everything done and right, we're going to be unified on this," Ryan said.

The draft bill phases out the current Medicaid expansion and would implement grants for states to provide Medicaid based on population, instead of on a person's income.

It gets rid of the subsidies for health insurance based on income and replaces it with tax cuts based on age. The proposal also creates state-based high risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions or are expensive to insure, and it greatly expands the use of Health Savings Accounts.

Additionally, as Republicans struggle to figure out a way to pay for their ACA replacement, the proposed bill calls for a tax on the most expensive employer-based health insurance plans, which is an expanded version of the so-called Cadillac tax on the most expensive employer based plans.

Republican governors have offered input, especially those who come from states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

Gov. Brian Sandoval, R-Nevada, expressed concern with the Republican plan to provide Medicaid funding to states based on per capita. Following a meeting with the nation's governors, he said he wants to see the funding formula to ensure that he's able to provide Medicaid for the people who need it without an extra burden placed on the state budget.

As for Trump, he has been mum on the details of a replacement plan. Members are looking to him to provide some guidance in his speech tonight.

"I hope (Trump) doesn't buy on to this plan because he will be ill-served," said Brat of the draft plan. "Coming in as a Republican president is a net tax increase and a federal new entitlement program. That's your first big move? And then you gotta do tax reform after that? Good luck."

See the rest here:
Republicans Divided on Health Care Look to Trump for Guidance - NBCNews.com