Mediaboss Marketing

In testimony this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, BillPriestap, the assistant director of the FBIs counterintelligence division, issued a dire warning. The United States, Priestap told lawmakers, is under relentless assault by hostile state actors and their proxies and our economy, our national security and our way of life are being actively threatened by state actors and their proxies today and every day.

Todays hearing was about enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a federal statute thatrequiresagents of foreign actors to disclose, via public filings, their relationship with the foreign actor and the financial relationship between them. Its like a lobbying disclosure form for people who are advocating on behalf of foreign individuals or entities. Although Priestap has previously warned the Senate Intelligence Committeeabout Russias capabilities for interfering in future elections, todays testimony was about far more extensive efforts by foreign actors to undermine every facet of public life including upcoming elections.

The danger isnt limited to spies cloak-and-dagger activities. Foreign powers, Priestap said, use people from across their governments and from all walks of life in pursuit of their desire to gain strategic advantage over the United States in whatever ways they can, he said. Too few people, he went on, understand the scope and scale of the counterintelligence threat, which is growing, both in volume and complexity.

Despite the urgency of Priestaps admonition about foreign adversaries, Republican members of the Judiciary Committeehad another enemy they wanted to discuss: Hillary Clinton.

In their statements and questioningof Priestap and two other witnesses,Michael Horowitz, the Justice Departments inspector general, and Adam Hickey, the deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Departments National Security Division, Republicans showed just how much theywant to continue litigating whether Clinton posed a more dangerous national security risk than Donald Trump. Rather than address the ongoing threat to our democracy and how to combat it, Republicans dwelled on whether Democrats and the dreaded media are engaging in overblown charges related to the investigations of possible collusion by the Trump campaign with Russian actors.

Utah Republican Orrin G. Hatch used his time to deliver a soliloquyon this topic. Hatch first insisted that there are few things I take more seriously than the allegations of foreign interference in the 2016 election. But he then went on to charge thatmany of these allegations have been truly outrageous and politically motivated.

If we are going to get to the bottom of this, Hatch said, we need to investigate the whole story. That means looking at more than just foreign influence over the Trump campaign. It includes looking at serious allegations of foreign influence over the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee as well.

This effort to claim well, both sides did it so we must investigate both is not based in fact or evidence. It is a ludicrous deflection from the seriousnessof the threat facing the country, including clear evidence Russia intends to sabotageour next election and the fact that the president, and the party as a whole, has shown littleinterest in addressing it.

As the January 2017 declassified assessment of the CIA, FBI and NSA concluded, Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump and aspired to help President-elect Trumps election chances when possible. In that report, the agencies concluded that Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. Similarly,former FBI director James Comey has describedRussia as the greatest threat of any nation on Earth to our democratic process right now, and in the future.

Yet Hatch didnt have much to say about this threat, maintainingthat there are still questions over whether foreign actors wanted to help Clinton, not Trump. We must ensure that these investigations serve as an opportunity to protect our institutions, not merely as an excuse to attack our political opponents, he said. Yet he was using the very occasion to realize the partisan goal of deflecting attention from the Republican president. Indeed, in so doing, Hatch undermined his own claim to be taking the investigations seriously.

With these deflections, these GOP lawmakers subverted the entire purpose of the hearing. The hearing was intended to shed light on how FARA disclosures can help the governmentcombat the threat going forward.For example, had former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort timely filed his FARA disclosure that he was acting on behalf of a pro-Russia Ukrainian political party, rather than retroactively filing it just last month, the counterintelligence community and the public might have known more about that relationship. That was not a topic any of the Republican lawmakers pursued with the witnesses.

Meanwhile, two Republicans seemed intent on making Clinton the focus of the FARA issue. Both Committee chair Charles Grassley of Iowa and John Kennedy of Louisiana dredged up communications from Clinton friend Sidney Blumenthal to Clinton while she was Secretary of State which, they suggested, would have required a FARA disclosure on Blumenthals part.

The Blumenthaldistraction, though, is a tiny drop in the larger bucket of the crucial need for FARA disclosures. When foreign agents evade FARAs disclosure requirements, Priestap told lawmakers, we are more susceptible to being unduly influenced by foreign actors pursuing hostile governments goals on economic, technological, military, diplomatic, and intelligence fronts. This is not about Clinton, or even just about Trump. This is about a critical transparency mechanism whose enforcement is one key to combating foreign interference in our democracy.

As Priestap acknowledged during questioning, there is no doubt that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The issue at hand was how to prevent such nefarious intrusions in the future.Its incumbent upon Congress, in its oversight role, to ensure that FARA is enforced, as just one tool in the battle against foreign interference. At this hearing, however, the Republican Party seemed more intent on continuing itsquest to defeat Hillary Clinton, again and again.

See the article here:
Will Republicans ever get serious about Russian sabotage of the next election? - Washington Post

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-Ky.) announced the passage of the vote to proceed to debate on the GOP's health-care bill on July 25 as "the first step" toward repealing Obamacare. (The Washington Post)

When House Republicans tried to pass an Obamacare replacement plan back in March, it failed thanks to the resistance of the far-right House Freedom Caucus. Two months later, Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) made a different bet: If you satisfy the right, enough moderates will cave to pull the bill across the finish line. That gamble paid off, with the measure passing 217-213. Now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is making a similar wager on Senate Republicans spinelessness. Unfortunately, so far it seems to be working, with McConnell pulling together 50 votes to move forward on repealing Obamacare.

During McConnells doomed initial push for an Obamacare replacement, the GOP leader was trappedbetween skeptics on both ends of the caucus. The right, includingSens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Mike Lee (Utah), wanted to rip up Obamacare root and branch. The moderates, including Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Dean Heller (Nev.), opposed steep cuts to Medicaid and opioid addiction treatment.

With the resurrection of Obamacare replacement, GOP leaders had to decide what the latest version of the bill would look like. Because they opted to forgo a Congressional Budget Office score, this version would need 60 votes. Since that would be impossible to reach, this version would bemore of a symbolic gesture. But itwould set the terms for the intra-party debate the rest of the week as GOP leaders hashed out a final iterationbehind closed doors. On Saturday, conservatives got a commitment to include Cruz and Lees amendment to allow insurance companies to sell plans that dont comply with Obamacares mandate. (That would send the exchanges into a death spiral, but never you mind.) Paul also gotwhat he wanted: a vote on a clean repeal of Obamacare.

What did the moderates get for their votes to proceed? A Portman amendment to the billrestoringa small portion of the Medicaid cutsto go with previously added andsimilarly pitiful funding to treat opioid addicts. Both were token gestures, yet Portman voted yes. A month ago, Heller said he would not vote forthe billbecause of its steep Medicaid cuts. The cuts remained largely intact, yet Heller voted yes. A week ago, Capito said she would vote for the bill only if there was a replacement plan that addresses my concerns. No one knows whether there will be such a plan, yet Capito voted yes. (Heller, Capito and their defenders will say that its just a procedural vote to begin debate, not on the bill itself. But Heller and Capito both specifically said they would vote no on that motion.)

Worse, simply by voting for the motion to proceed, the moderates have undercut their influence. McConnells new strategy heavily depends on the fallback option of skinny repeal a bare-bones repeal of the mandate and a few other features of Obamacare. The bill would then go to a House-Senate conference committee, where it would be completely rewritten, and then it would go back to the Senate for an up-or-down vote. Make no mistake: The House Freedom Caucus and Senate conservatives will have far more influence over that committee than moderates in either chamber. And then the moderates would be told to vote for a bill that they didnt like and barely influenced, for the good of the party.

Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.), a GOP stalwart, was rightly ridiculed on Monday for saying, Ill vote for anything. But at least he was being honest. Again and again, weve seen GOP moderates go through the motions of being deeply concerned about an Obamacare alternative or a controversial nominee or the latest development in the Russia scandal then vote with the party anyway as though nothing has happened. Soonthey will be faced with a finalbill, one that willriphealth insurance away from millions. The question is whether they will cave yet again. Those that choose cowardice may hope that voters wont judge them, but history will not be so kind.

See more here:
McConnell's wager on Republicans' spinelessness appears to be paying off - Washington Post

The Log Cabin Republicans on Wednesday condemned President Trump's decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military "in any capacity."

"This smacks of politics, pure and simple," Gregory Angelo, the group's president, said in a statement. "The United States military already includes transgender individuals who protect our freedom day in and day out. Excommunicating transgender soldiers only weakens our readiness; it doesn't strengthen it."

That statement was released just a day after the Trump administration was welcoming the group's support for the new administration.

In three tweets posted Wednesday morning, Trump announced that the military would no longer "accept or allow" transgender people to serve "in any capacity." The Pentagon deferred questions about Trump's announcement to the White House.

Not long after the president published his tweets, Democratic and some Republican lawmakers criticized Trump's new transgender ban.

Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee said they plan to "fight this decision, just like we fought Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, whose son is transgender, also came out against Trump's decision.

"No American, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, should be prohibited from honor + privilege of serving our nation #LGBT," she tweeted.

The Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of Republicans that advocates equal rights for LGBT individuals in the United States, warned Trump's ban harmed transgender people already serving.

"The president's statement this morning does a disservice to transgender military personnel and reintroduces the same hurtful stereotypes conjured when openly gay men and women were barred from service during the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell' era," Angelo said. "As an organization that led the charge against that hateful policy, Log Cabin Republicans remains equally committed to standing up for transgender military personnel who put their lives on the line to keep us free."

Trump's new policy effectively reversed the Obama administration's decision to allow transgender people already in the military to serve openly, which was implemented last year.

Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter also directed the service chiefs to draft a new policy to allow transgender recruitment by July 1. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis announced June 30 implementation of those new policies would be delayed six months.

Read the original post:
Log Cabin Republicans: Trump's transgender military ban 'smacks of politics' - Washington Examiner

Even as they advanced the health care effort with the help of an inspirational appearance from a gravely ill Senator John McCain, Senate Republicans expressed strong support for Mr. Sessions after the president persisted in his tough attacks on his own cabinet officer. They seemed to be making clear that Mr. Trump would not face a friendly reception in the Senate should he dump Mr. Sessions and seek confirmation of a replacement.

I think the attorney general is doing a fine job, and I think he made the right decision to recuse himself from the Russia matter, said Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader.

He was just one in the chorus of Republicans declaring that they had their former colleagues back.

While some may argue that he should not have recused himself from the Russia investigation, Attorney General Sessions demonstrated good judgment by doing so and removed all appearances of a potential conflict, said Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee, which would consider any potential successor to Mr. Sessions. The attorney generals recusal was ultimately made in the best interests of the Department of Justice and the country.

Senator Richard C. Shelby, who for years served alongside Mr. Sessions as his Republican colleague from Alabama, rallied to his defense on Twitter.

Jeff Sessions is a man of integrity, loyalty, and extraordinary character, Mr. Shelby said.

Privately, Senate Republicans were aghast at Mr. Trumps harsh treatment of the attorney general, saying they had never seen a similar Washington spectacle. They professed rising alarm that Mr. Trump would fire Mr. Sessions and seek the dismissal of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, decisions that several Republicans said they would consider disastrous. The offensive on behalf of Mr. Sessions seemed like an orchestrated effort to deter the president from shaking up the Justice Department.

Republicans also made clear that with Mr. Trump in the White House and their party in full control of Congress, they could not afford to miss the opportunity to undo the health care law. Given the years they have spent railing against it, they have more invested in the outcome than does the president.

We have a duty to act, Mr. McConnell said as his solemn colleagues waited at their desks to vote on opening debate on repeal legislation. The president is ready with his pen.

Confronting one of the most serious leadership challenges of his career, Mr. McConnell used all the tools at his disposal special benefits for some states, appeals to party loyalty, plain old arm-twisting to win the vote by the narrowest margin possible.

With Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie and cries of shame, shame ringing in the chamber and the hallway from a prolonged protest, 50 Republican senators voted to roll the dice and move forward on an unusual debate whose final end was impossible to predict. But it was a victory for Mr. McConnell to even get this far after the effort to repeal the health law appeared dead multiple times and his legislative skills were being called into question.

He was aided by Mr. McCain, who flew to the capital just days after being diagnosed with brain cancer. Mr. McCain spoke eloquently of the importance of the Senate, its recent failures and his desire to see the institution return to its more traditional give-and-take between the parties. Yet he cast a decisive vote to move ahead with a legislative health care process that has been archly partisan, conducted by Republicans behind closed doors with no input from Democrats and a limited amount from the Republican rank and file.

Why dont we try the old way of legislating in the Senate, the way our rules and customs encourage us to act? he asked. If this process ends in failure, which seems likely, then lets return to regular order.

But there is little that is regular about Washington these days as Republicans struggle to govern while keeping a wary eye on their partner in the White House.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on July 26, 2017, on Page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump and Congressional G.O.P.: Its Complicated.

More:
Trump and Congressional Republicans: It's Complicated - New York Times

Updated on July 25 at 10:08 p.m. Eastern

Senate Republicans have voted to begin debate on legislation to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, clearing a key procedural hurdle even as it remains unclear whatif anylegislation the party might ultimately pass.

The vote was as narrow as it gets: With two Republicans out of their slim majority of 52 opposing Majority Leader Mitch McConnells motion to proceed on Tuesday afternoon, Vice President Mike Pence broke a 50-50 tie to formally launch deliberations that had taken place almost entirely in private for two months. The vote was briefly delayed as Senate officials removed protesters shouting Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill! from the balcony of the chamber.

As recently as 24 hours before the vote, Senate aides were predicting it would fail, delivering yet another blow to the GOPs hopes of at least partially repealing and replacing Obamacare after seven years of campaign promises. But the return of Senator John McCain of Arizona after a brain-cancer diagnosis and McConnells success in wooing his fellow Kentucky hardliner, Senator Rand Paul, gave the motion some late momentum. In a dramatic moment, McCain entered the chamber long after most Republicans had voted to cast a crucial vote to begin debate. But even with McCains support, McConnell still had to persuade Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has criticized his handling of the issue, to vote with the party. After a lengthy one-on-one discussion with the majority leader, Johnson cast the 50th vote after McCain had entered the chamber to a round of bipartisan applause.

Mitch McConnell's Latest Obamacare Gambit: 'Skinny Repeal'

All 48 Democrats protested the move by initially abstaining from the vote before they all voted no. Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were the only two Republicans to oppose the motion.

In a statement, Trump hailed Senate Republicans for taking a giant step to end the Obamacare nightmare. And during a press conference soon after, he suggested that the initial procedural vote would prove to be more difficult than the ones that followed. But McConnell and his fellow Senate leaders knew the opposite was likely true.

This is just the beginning. Were not out here to spike the football, McConnell said after the vote. Senator John Thune of South Dakota added: Obviously we have our work cut out for us.

Indeed, it was McCain who threw McConnells plan into more jeopardy just minutes after he cast a decisive vote in favor of debating the bill. In a speech on the Senate floor, the Arizonan sharply criticized both the underlying proposal and the secretive, partisan process McConnell used to write it. I will not vote for this bill as it is today, McCain said with a characteristic jab of his finger. Its a shell of a bill right now. He said the proposal must include changes demanded by Arizonas governor, Doug Ducey, in order to win his vote.

Then McCain turned to the process, not naming McConnell but implicitly indicting his handling of health care. We try to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them that it's better than nothing. That it's better than nothing? McCain said. Asking us to swallow our doubts and force it passed a unified opposition. I don't think that's going to work in the end, and probably shouldn't. He predicted the effort would likely end in failure, in which case he said Republicans should work with Democrats through the normal committee process.

Though this vote does not commit senators to supporting final passage, Democrats have vowed to attack Republicans merely for advancing the process of repealing the ACA and replacing it with a law that the Congressional Budget Office predicts could result in tens of millions of people losing insurance. A handful of Republican holdouts bowed under intense pressure from McConnell and President Trump to at least allow a floor debate on health-care legislation, despite not even knowing which bill would come up for a vote. They included Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, who voted with party leaders despite ripping McConnells replacement plan a few weeks ago and indicating he would vote to block it from coming to the floor. Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia also voted in favor after earlier saying that she would not support a motion to proceed if she did not back the underlying replacement bill.

"Obamacare isnt the answer, but doing nothing to try to solve the problems it has created isnt the answer either, Heller said in a statement. If the final product isnt improved for the state of Nevada, then I will not vote for it; if it is improved, I will support it.

That Republican leaders struggled so mightily just to bring legislation up for debate underscores how precarious their effort to repeal and replace Obamacare has become. Despite the successful procedural vote on Tuesday, there is no obvious path for any of the GOPs various proposals to pass out of the Senate in the coming days. Republicans who voted yes to begin debate warned that they still planned to oppose final passage if the amended legislation was not to their liking. The Senate will now move to an amendment process, but if none of the ensuing proposals can get 50 Republican votes, the party will be stuck again.

In a blow to McConnell, nine Republicans voted against his replacement bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, after it came up as the first substitute amendment on Tuesday night. The proposal had faced procedural hurdles and needed 60 votes to pass because two of its provisions had not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. That eliminated any doubt about the outcome of the vote, but the breadth of the GOP opposition was surprising. Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Tom Cotton of Arkansas all voted against it after giving little previous hint of their opposition. Less surprising no votes came from Collins, Paul, Murkowski, Heller, and Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas. Curiously, McCain voted in favor of the amendment just hours after insisting he would oppose it without significant changes.

On Wednesday, the Senate plan to vote on an amendment that revives a bill the GOP-led Congress passed in 2015 that repeals much of Obamacare but replaces none of it. Then-President Barack Obama vetoed it at the time, but several Republican moderates are opposed to voting for a repeal bill with no replacement ready. It is not expected to pass.

If both of those proposals fail this week, McConnell told Paul he might bring up a more limited repeal that only gets rid of Obamacares insurance mandates and some of its taxes. That would be a significant scaling back of the partys ambition, but the goal would be to set up a conference committee for more negotiations with the House. But its unclear if even that skinny repeal option could get the 50 votes needed.

After 20 hours of debate over the next two days, the Senate will begin a marathon amendment process known as a vote-a-rama in which senators from either party can propose changes that abide by the rules. McConnells goal is to finish the billpass or failby the end of the week. But even he would not predict success.

Its really impossible to predict in a reconciliation process what amendments will be offered and what amendments will succeed, he told reporters. Its wide open.

Read more:
Senate Republicans Clear Key Health-Care Hurdle - The Atlantic