Today's "Meet The Press" was preempted by the broadcast of the British Open. It's a 'free' day, a Sunday during which "Meet The Press" doesn't air, so it carte blanche on topics to discuss.
Certainly the trouble is deepening for the Trump Administration with regard to Russia because of its campaign activity. A last ditch effort by the Administration in hiring Anthony Scaramucci as the new White House Communications Director, ousting Sean Spicer, is an attempt to stem the onslaught.
As said before in this column, it's really all about the money when it comes to Mr. Trump's connection to Russia. If you follow the money, which Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team are doing, we'll find that the Trump Organization is heavily leveraged by Russian oligarchs with ties to the Kremlin. It seems reasonable to conclude that this may be one of the reasons Mr. Trump never released his tax returns. Now, doing business with Russian oligarchs offers a minefield of illegalities, but it isn't illegal. As president, it's a different story all together. From Attorney General Jeff Sessions lack of recollection of meetings with the Russian ambassador, about policy and the campaign no less, when asked by Congress to Jared Kushner's, senior advisor to the president, constant revisions of his disclosure forms for a security clearance - undisclosed money and contacts - to campaign manager, Paul Manafort, having to register as a foreign agent to Donald Jr. taking meetings with Russian officials to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, it all raises serious questions. And now that all of these people have been obviously less than forthcoming, the American people have more questions. They must be answered.
That the last two individuals on the above list have cut a deal with Congress not to testify in public this week, but instead in a closed-door sessions. Probably for the best because Congress needs real answers and frankly, we don't need the show of a public hearing, in which these two people decline to answer questions while Congresspeople pontificate.
That's just a microcosm of what's going on and that's enough for one to say, enough already.
Then there is the series of fall-downs on the part of the Republicans with regard to healthcare and their repeal and replace plan. First, the Senate couldn't pass the replacement bill because of grievances from moderates (going too far on cutting Medicaid) and conservatives (not fully repealing Obamacare) alike. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) floated the introduction of a straight repeal and that didn't fly either.
This you know, but here's why the Republicans got stuck.
At the beginning of the Senate process, which really wasn't a process as much as it was Mitch McConnell locking himself in a room and coming up with a healthcare bill, the Senate leader indicated that he didn't want the Administration involved in the process, a hands off approach. Why? Because Mr. McConnell knows that the president, who would usually be out on the stump shouting about the new healthcare bill, in this case doesn't know the first thing about healthcare, has no desire to learn it, and could inadvertently undercut the Senate plan by contradicting it on the stump. In other words, Mr. McConnell thinks the president is unreliable. The president, for his part, had no interest in discussing the details of healthcare and just sat back, with 'pen in hand,' which is not leadership.
In boxing out the president, though understandable, Mr. McConnell couldn't utilize that megaphone, and since the rest of the Senate wasn't involved in the process, thus not knowing what was in the bill, they couldn't champion it either. Thus, with no one to sell it to the American people and with no other information to go on with the exception of an unfavorable CBO, it had no chance.
With all that said, here are the takeaways as to why there is a glimpse of hope from these adverse circumstances (and the point of this column).
Because of the Republicans' legislative failure on healthcare, Mr. McConnell also said that the Congress should work to sure up the markets by doing some fixes on the Affordable Care Act. Everyone agrees that the ACA, aka Obamacare, that it needs fixes and the only way to make those fixes is in a bipartisan manner. Hmmm...
Interesting, there is a bill traveling rapidly through the Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support on toughening sanctions on Russia, which also includes the caveat that the sanctions can not be rolled back by the president without Congress's consent. This could present a very problematic situation for President Trump, who opposes the bill. He may veto a Russian sanctions bill that has widespread bipartisan support. Hmmm... again.
Is it possible that this rudderless, troubled and divisive administration is bringing Republicans and Democrats together on the major issues facing our country - healthcare and Russian cyber attacks?
If so, it's a win for the American people, a backward one, but a win nonetheless. We'll take it.
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Sunday, July 16, 2017
7.16.17: A Building Political Riptide for the Trump Administration
This is the week in which the tides have permanently turned on the Trump Administration and they're facing a head wind into rough seas the rest of the way. When trusted conservative voices en mass, exemplified on today's program, start calling out the administration, using the word 'lies,' then you know you have problems. And here is the American populace standing on the beach watching the mother of all riptides.
As always, if you're reading this column, we don't have to go into the particulars of the Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russian 'operatives' - you know it happened and you know now that he lied about the participants in the meeting. With that said, it's inexplicable, and not Trump-like, that Donald Trump Jr. would release the email chain, even if The New York Times was going to publish the exchange.
In today's interview, Chuck Todd asked Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) of the Senate Intelligence Committee about the difference between collusion and collaboration, to which Sen. Warner demurred and didn't want to go into nuanced definitions.
But speaking of those conservative voices, if you want an argument for collusion, refer to Mr. Krauthammer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bungled-collusion-is-still-collusion/2017/07/13/68c7f72a-67f3-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.9baf0fe1e13d
For Collaboration, see McClatchy DC Bureau: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html
In the second example, the McClatchey story notes that there is an investigation in the Trump campaign digital operation lead by the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and whether he had a hand in guiding a sophisticated Russian cyber campaign to target key congressional district with misinformation.
Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said that she doesn't know if there was collusion or cooperation, but that she does know that the Trump Administration are liars. Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union, explained that the meeting couldn't have happened in a void, from the Russia perspective. "The don't freelance," he said. A meeting like that had a structure and an approval process, he went on.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) really wanted no part of answering questions about Russia, though he has a seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, except to say that he thought it was incorrect to personalize [read: point directly at the Trump Administration] the target of the Senate committee's investigation; it's about Russia. As health care votes loom in the Senate, the deflections away from the president are rhetorically subtle. On the part of the president's legal team, not so much. Jay Sekulow made it clear, as he likes to say, that he doesn't represent Donald Trump Jr. or the Trump Campaign, only the president, Donald Trump. And you have to give him credit in as much as he does his job well, at least representing him during interviews, in walling off the president from all the revelations about Russian interactions with advisors and family members.
But what keeps coming to mind is how all throughout the campaign, Mr. Trump and his surrogates touted how close his family is about everything so it makes one wonder if the president did know about this meeting. Surely, someone in the FBI or in Mr. Mueller's office is looking into whether that is the case. In a way, Mr. Sekulow's job has been made easier now that Donald Trump Jr. is embroiled in a deep mess because it diminishes public scrutiny in the potential of the president's direct involvement. In other words, Junior is taking some of the heat for his father, and from that more familial perspective, you get why he did it.
All of this leads to the overarching theme of today's show, which was that there is a serious void in leadership of the United States, to an unacceptable level. Today's great panel stayed on this theme for our benefit. Tom Brokaw repeatedly mentioned the serious situation the U.S. with North Korea and how the administration is putting it off. He said that the Chinese leadership doesn't even know who to talk to on our side of the aisle about it.
Mr. Cardenas explained that the last five to six votes are the toughest and that the president hasn't given any speeches on healthcare in states and districts where senators are on the fence with regard to support for the legislation. He hasn't championed the legislation at all, in part because he's so preoccupied with the Russian investigation.
Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin also observed that President Trump said that he would be very upset if they (meaning the Senate) didn't pass a health care bill, but she noted that the 'they' includes the president. That it's actually a 'we,' but clearly the Mr. Trump doesn't understand that.
And it's that leadership role that's costing us all time, and the tide is rising.
Panel: Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
As always, if you're reading this column, we don't have to go into the particulars of the Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russian 'operatives' - you know it happened and you know now that he lied about the participants in the meeting. With that said, it's inexplicable, and not Trump-like, that Donald Trump Jr. would release the email chain, even if The New York Times was going to publish the exchange.
In today's interview, Chuck Todd asked Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) of the Senate Intelligence Committee about the difference between collusion and collaboration, to which Sen. Warner demurred and didn't want to go into nuanced definitions.
But speaking of those conservative voices, if you want an argument for collusion, refer to Mr. Krauthammer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bungled-collusion-is-still-collusion/2017/07/13/68c7f72a-67f3-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.9baf0fe1e13d
For Collaboration, see McClatchy DC Bureau: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html
In the second example, the McClatchey story notes that there is an investigation in the Trump campaign digital operation lead by the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and whether he had a hand in guiding a sophisticated Russian cyber campaign to target key congressional district with misinformation.
Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said that she doesn't know if there was collusion or cooperation, but that she does know that the Trump Administration are liars. Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union, explained that the meeting couldn't have happened in a void, from the Russia perspective. "The don't freelance," he said. A meeting like that had a structure and an approval process, he went on.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) really wanted no part of answering questions about Russia, though he has a seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, except to say that he thought it was incorrect to personalize [read: point directly at the Trump Administration] the target of the Senate committee's investigation; it's about Russia. As health care votes loom in the Senate, the deflections away from the president are rhetorically subtle. On the part of the president's legal team, not so much. Jay Sekulow made it clear, as he likes to say, that he doesn't represent Donald Trump Jr. or the Trump Campaign, only the president, Donald Trump. And you have to give him credit in as much as he does his job well, at least representing him during interviews, in walling off the president from all the revelations about Russian interactions with advisors and family members.
But what keeps coming to mind is how all throughout the campaign, Mr. Trump and his surrogates touted how close his family is about everything so it makes one wonder if the president did know about this meeting. Surely, someone in the FBI or in Mr. Mueller's office is looking into whether that is the case. In a way, Mr. Sekulow's job has been made easier now that Donald Trump Jr. is embroiled in a deep mess because it diminishes public scrutiny in the potential of the president's direct involvement. In other words, Junior is taking some of the heat for his father, and from that more familial perspective, you get why he did it.
All of this leads to the overarching theme of today's show, which was that there is a serious void in leadership of the United States, to an unacceptable level. Today's great panel stayed on this theme for our benefit. Tom Brokaw repeatedly mentioned the serious situation the U.S. with North Korea and how the administration is putting it off. He said that the Chinese leadership doesn't even know who to talk to on our side of the aisle about it.
Mr. Cardenas explained that the last five to six votes are the toughest and that the president hasn't given any speeches on healthcare in states and districts where senators are on the fence with regard to support for the legislation. He hasn't championed the legislation at all, in part because he's so preoccupied with the Russian investigation.
Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin also observed that President Trump said that he would be very upset if they (meaning the Senate) didn't pass a health care bill, but she noted that the 'they' includes the president. That it's actually a 'we,' but clearly the Mr. Trump doesn't understand that.
And it's that leadership role that's costing us all time, and the tide is rising.
Panel: Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
Sunday, July 09, 2017
7.9.17: The Trump Administration's Isolationism Going As Planned
The Executive Branch of government is the lead branch and where it goes the rest follow, and it's pretty clear that a big part of the Trump Administration's idea of America first is America solo. If the Administration wants to go it alone then everything is going as planned.
"It's an honor to be with you."
That statement that President Trump said to Russian President Vladimir Putin alone is sticking in the gut of everyone in Washington while fueling united criticism from pols Republican and Democratic alike. In the context of what has been determining by the U.S. intelligence community about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, fmr. CIA Director John Brennan called it a dishonorable statement in his interview. No one's calling him out on it.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the president's views on Russia are "undermining his entire presidency," and that he doesn't know anyone else in Washington who believes the Russians didn't meddle in the election. "I'm dumbfounded and disappointed," he said. Senator Graham explained that he agreed with the president's actions on several confrontational fronts from Afghanistan to North Korea, but called his stance on Russia a blind spot. Yes, indeed a blind spot; one brought into sharp focus by the in-over-his-head Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who explained that the U.S. president after speaking with the Russian president isn't going to relitigate the past. So basically, you attacked our democracy and denied it so we're all good now?
Also, something of note here: fmr. Director Brennan in response to an anonymous administration source being quoted that he felt like the [Obama] Administration choked, he flatly rebutted that statement explaining that he confronted his Russian counterpart. President Obama confronted Pution personally in September 2016, which Brennan said altered their behavior some.
As for the president, during his overseas trip while in Poland, he said that he wasn't sure if it was just Russia alone who meddled in the election, which projects that the president doesn't have confidence in his own intelligence agencies, but then again Mr. Trump doesn't seem to know the clear responsibilities and jurisdictions of each as evidence by his errant tweet about the CIA being authorized to operate domestically. They are not.
During the G20 meetings in Hamburg, Germany the big take away is how the other 19 countries involved isolated the United States on climate discussions, and by extension the economic opportunities that come out of those talks. On trade, the European Union cut a trade deal with Japan completely boxing out the United States. All this on top of the fact that the leaders of France and Germany among many other countries don't have the same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings for Russia that President Trump does.
Then the Trump Administration issues a statement of its intention to work with Russia on a joint cyber security plan. What? Senator Graham said it wasn't the dumbest idea he's ever heard, but it's pretty close. The column respectfully disagrees, that is the dumbest idea ever presented by an Administration.
Or there's Senator Marco Rubio's (R-FL) tweet:
On the home front, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has told the president and his staff to stay out of the way of the Senate's tax cut... uh, health care legislation. Just kidding as that is in all fairness yet to be seen though Republicans have signaled that tax reform would include a massive tax cut from the savings on the Medicaid rollback. But the president is out of the loop, out on limb fighting disputes of his own making. Whether it be with the press or his own intelligence services, he's alone in doing it. Americans know that picking petty fights with others isn't effective leadership, we know this. What we're not used to is looking away from the president, the presidency, because it not longer feels like the moral (leadership) center.
It's like the administration is constantly complaining about the criticism on how they're steering the ship, while at the same time not hearing everyone screaming back at them that the rudder's broken.
Weird.
When the president is isolated like this, the whole United States feels this, thus a further retreating to the corners, as it were.
Prime example: The two party chairs, Ronna McDaniel (RNC) and Tom Perez (DNC), appearing in their first joint interview. They just met and ended up talking over one another by the end of it (as Mr. Todd noted). Many would watch that interview and assess those individuals are part of the problem, but the problem is that if you cede one inch of ground on issue or statement, you'll feel the job ending scorn of your base. And because we know Mr. Perez better, he needs to be called here about saying that Republicans don't give **** about Democrats. Maybe true, but an individual in his position shouldn't say that. Also, when he likes a phrase, he definitely annoys you with it - We believe health care is right, not a privilege for a few - three times in three minutes. We're watching "Meet The Press" on a Sunday morning, we heard it the first time, we're not stupid, you don't have to repeat it, and we knew it before you said it.
Asking Democrats to participate in the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is like Democrats asking Republicans to raise taxes on the richest Americans to pre-Reagan era levels. It's unthinkable so to suggest that the opposing party would participate in such a thing is a little disingenuous at least.
As the panel gamely discussed, Senator McConnell threatened his caucus with having to possibly work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner to fix the Affordable Care Act to stabilize the markets if they all couldn't get on the same page in terms of voting for the bill, moderates and hardliners alike.
What a detestable thought that the parties would work together, but instead they retreat into their respective corners with the Administration ushering the way.
Panel: Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Kudos to Robert Costa for the slight disgusting you could hear in his voice when he referred to the Republican party becoming the grievance party and that the base probably doesn't care if the health care bill passes out not. Interpret as you will, but either way kudos still apply.
Solid Panel today, actually starting to think that the fact of the Trump presidency has tempered Rich Lowry's rhetorical arguments a bit.
"It's an honor to be with you."
That statement that President Trump said to Russian President Vladimir Putin alone is sticking in the gut of everyone in Washington while fueling united criticism from pols Republican and Democratic alike. In the context of what has been determining by the U.S. intelligence community about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, fmr. CIA Director John Brennan called it a dishonorable statement in his interview. No one's calling him out on it.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the president's views on Russia are "undermining his entire presidency," and that he doesn't know anyone else in Washington who believes the Russians didn't meddle in the election. "I'm dumbfounded and disappointed," he said. Senator Graham explained that he agreed with the president's actions on several confrontational fronts from Afghanistan to North Korea, but called his stance on Russia a blind spot. Yes, indeed a blind spot; one brought into sharp focus by the in-over-his-head Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who explained that the U.S. president after speaking with the Russian president isn't going to relitigate the past. So basically, you attacked our democracy and denied it so we're all good now?
Also, something of note here: fmr. Director Brennan in response to an anonymous administration source being quoted that he felt like the [Obama] Administration choked, he flatly rebutted that statement explaining that he confronted his Russian counterpart. President Obama confronted Pution personally in September 2016, which Brennan said altered their behavior some.
As for the president, during his overseas trip while in Poland, he said that he wasn't sure if it was just Russia alone who meddled in the election, which projects that the president doesn't have confidence in his own intelligence agencies, but then again Mr. Trump doesn't seem to know the clear responsibilities and jurisdictions of each as evidence by his errant tweet about the CIA being authorized to operate domestically. They are not.
During the G20 meetings in Hamburg, Germany the big take away is how the other 19 countries involved isolated the United States on climate discussions, and by extension the economic opportunities that come out of those talks. On trade, the European Union cut a trade deal with Japan completely boxing out the United States. All this on top of the fact that the leaders of France and Germany among many other countries don't have the same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings for Russia that President Trump does.
Then the Trump Administration issues a statement of its intention to work with Russia on a joint cyber security plan. What? Senator Graham said it wasn't the dumbest idea he's ever heard, but it's pretty close. The column respectfully disagrees, that is the dumbest idea ever presented by an Administration.
Or there's Senator Marco Rubio's (R-FL) tweet:
On the home front, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has told the president and his staff to stay out of the way of the Senate's tax cut... uh, health care legislation. Just kidding as that is in all fairness yet to be seen though Republicans have signaled that tax reform would include a massive tax cut from the savings on the Medicaid rollback. But the president is out of the loop, out on limb fighting disputes of his own making. Whether it be with the press or his own intelligence services, he's alone in doing it. Americans know that picking petty fights with others isn't effective leadership, we know this. What we're not used to is looking away from the president, the presidency, because it not longer feels like the moral (leadership) center.
It's like the administration is constantly complaining about the criticism on how they're steering the ship, while at the same time not hearing everyone screaming back at them that the rudder's broken.
Weird.
When the president is isolated like this, the whole United States feels this, thus a further retreating to the corners, as it were.
Prime example: The two party chairs, Ronna McDaniel (RNC) and Tom Perez (DNC), appearing in their first joint interview. They just met and ended up talking over one another by the end of it (as Mr. Todd noted). Many would watch that interview and assess those individuals are part of the problem, but the problem is that if you cede one inch of ground on issue or statement, you'll feel the job ending scorn of your base. And because we know Mr. Perez better, he needs to be called here about saying that Republicans don't give **** about Democrats. Maybe true, but an individual in his position shouldn't say that. Also, when he likes a phrase, he definitely annoys you with it - We believe health care is right, not a privilege for a few - three times in three minutes. We're watching "Meet The Press" on a Sunday morning, we heard it the first time, we're not stupid, you don't have to repeat it, and we knew it before you said it.
Asking Democrats to participate in the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is like Democrats asking Republicans to raise taxes on the richest Americans to pre-Reagan era levels. It's unthinkable so to suggest that the opposing party would participate in such a thing is a little disingenuous at least.
As the panel gamely discussed, Senator McConnell threatened his caucus with having to possibly work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner to fix the Affordable Care Act to stabilize the markets if they all couldn't get on the same page in terms of voting for the bill, moderates and hardliners alike.
What a detestable thought that the parties would work together, but instead they retreat into their respective corners with the Administration ushering the way.
Panel: Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Kudos to Robert Costa for the slight disgusting you could hear in his voice when he referred to the Republican party becoming the grievance party and that the base probably doesn't care if the health care bill passes out not. Interpret as you will, but either way kudos still apply.
Solid Panel today, actually starting to think that the fact of the Trump presidency has tempered Rich Lowry's rhetorical arguments a bit.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
6.25.17: Governing in 'Today,' Not 'Yesterday'
This column is written with the intent of keeping 'tribal tendencies' out of the way and to simply take the information presented and comment accordingly. Who ever has the best idea for the most number of Americans gets support from this blog. But make no mistake, I am not in the 38% of Americans that support Donald Trump.
However, I do agree with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) that $20 trillion in debt is not a good thing for America. There's a debt ticker on the page, as a matter of fact! (We're not quite to $20 trillion.) The senator's ideology on how we erase that debt is simply unrealistic and though healthcare plays a large part in the spending, it's not everything. If Congress really wanted to reduce spending and healthcare costs, both parties would have to take the hit. You reduce benefits for people over time and you keep the taxes exactly where they are. That's compromise, which really is politics.
The reality: not bloody likely.
There is no ignoring the fact pointed out by both perspectives, more conservative George Will and more liberal Helene Cooper, that the millions - majorities in many states that Republicans control - of Americans rely of Medicaid, and as Mr. Will also pointed the problem is that 'you're going to take something away from them.'
Whether you agree with Senator Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) starker description that 'people will die' because of the Republican healthcare bill or not, there is little doubt that the millions of people now on Medicaid will be affected. The reason people have Medicaid in the first place is because they don't make enough to afford private health insurance. This new healthcare bill drives people to the private market where there are enough price controls or where the coverage isn't enough for the amount you can afford, hence people/ families will be priced out.
Senator Sanders also said that he would like to have Medicare for all, which when the Affordable Care Act was first debated, it was called the public option, which didn't go anywhere because conservatives blocked it. The real reason why it was blocked was because the fear was that everyone would sign up for the public option and the private market would take an irreparable hit.
In terms of the process, it's easy to understand why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants to construct the bill in secret as to keep it as ideologically, as opposed to pragmatically, in tact as possible, which is to say reducing Medicaid and eventually eliminating it by eliminating government involvement in healthcare (how it's couched). As NBC's Haley Jackson noted, President Trump has been more hands-off the Senate bill and that's because it's how Mr. McConnell wants it - the president out of the way. There's no worry of Mr. Trump not signing the bill if presented to him. Democratic complaints about the process are a given, but there have been many complaints by Republicans as well who are going to have to take it on faith that their respective constituencies will like it.
Interestingly, Senator Johnson says he not a 'yes' yet because in his estimation the bill doesn't cut enough money, however, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) is not in favor of the bill because it cuts too much. The political reality for Senator Heller is that over 600,000 Nevadans out of a population of 2.8 million (20%) rely on Medicaid (source: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/by-state/by-state.html). For the record, over 1 million people in Wisconsin rely on Medicaid out of a state population of 5.7 million (17%). Looking at the math, you can decide for yourself. The other reality at work is that Mr. Heller is up for reelected in 2018 whereas Mr. Johnson just won another 6-year term in 2016, so he can afford to be more ideological about the bill. To be fair to Mr. Johnson, he's always been this ideological so Wisconsinites know for what they voted.
As Mark Leibovich of The New York Times noted, Republicans are damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one. When a conservative like George Will says that the bill in a massive tax cut for the wealthy, that should make everyone stop and give pause at such an acknowledgement. But as it was also explained, Republicans politicians don't seem to be governing in today, but yesterday.
Panel: Haley Jackson, NBC News; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; George Will, syndicated columnist
One More Thing...
Worst analogy of the day: Senator Johnson saying that insuring a preexisting condition is like insuring a crashed car. So if you're born with a birth defect that requires extra medical attention, a preexisting condition, you're just a crashed car and should be insured. Wow.
However, I do agree with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) that $20 trillion in debt is not a good thing for America. There's a debt ticker on the page, as a matter of fact! (We're not quite to $20 trillion.) The senator's ideology on how we erase that debt is simply unrealistic and though healthcare plays a large part in the spending, it's not everything. If Congress really wanted to reduce spending and healthcare costs, both parties would have to take the hit. You reduce benefits for people over time and you keep the taxes exactly where they are. That's compromise, which really is politics.
The reality: not bloody likely.
There is no ignoring the fact pointed out by both perspectives, more conservative George Will and more liberal Helene Cooper, that the millions - majorities in many states that Republicans control - of Americans rely of Medicaid, and as Mr. Will also pointed the problem is that 'you're going to take something away from them.'
Whether you agree with Senator Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) starker description that 'people will die' because of the Republican healthcare bill or not, there is little doubt that the millions of people now on Medicaid will be affected. The reason people have Medicaid in the first place is because they don't make enough to afford private health insurance. This new healthcare bill drives people to the private market where there are enough price controls or where the coverage isn't enough for the amount you can afford, hence people/ families will be priced out.
Senator Sanders also said that he would like to have Medicare for all, which when the Affordable Care Act was first debated, it was called the public option, which didn't go anywhere because conservatives blocked it. The real reason why it was blocked was because the fear was that everyone would sign up for the public option and the private market would take an irreparable hit.
In terms of the process, it's easy to understand why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants to construct the bill in secret as to keep it as ideologically, as opposed to pragmatically, in tact as possible, which is to say reducing Medicaid and eventually eliminating it by eliminating government involvement in healthcare (how it's couched). As NBC's Haley Jackson noted, President Trump has been more hands-off the Senate bill and that's because it's how Mr. McConnell wants it - the president out of the way. There's no worry of Mr. Trump not signing the bill if presented to him. Democratic complaints about the process are a given, but there have been many complaints by Republicans as well who are going to have to take it on faith that their respective constituencies will like it.
Interestingly, Senator Johnson says he not a 'yes' yet because in his estimation the bill doesn't cut enough money, however, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) is not in favor of the bill because it cuts too much. The political reality for Senator Heller is that over 600,000 Nevadans out of a population of 2.8 million (20%) rely on Medicaid (source: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/by-state/by-state.html). For the record, over 1 million people in Wisconsin rely on Medicaid out of a state population of 5.7 million (17%). Looking at the math, you can decide for yourself. The other reality at work is that Mr. Heller is up for reelected in 2018 whereas Mr. Johnson just won another 6-year term in 2016, so he can afford to be more ideological about the bill. To be fair to Mr. Johnson, he's always been this ideological so Wisconsinites know for what they voted.
As Mark Leibovich of The New York Times noted, Republicans are damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one. When a conservative like George Will says that the bill in a massive tax cut for the wealthy, that should make everyone stop and give pause at such an acknowledgement. But as it was also explained, Republicans politicians don't seem to be governing in today, but yesterday.
Panel: Haley Jackson, NBC News; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; George Will, syndicated columnist
One More Thing...
Worst analogy of the day: Senator Johnson saying that insuring a preexisting condition is like insuring a crashed car. So if you're born with a birth defect that requires extra medical attention, a preexisting condition, you're just a crashed car and should be insured. Wow.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
6.11.17: Another Weird Political Week That Was
"Meet The Press" is preempted today for the French Open, but I thought I'd comment on the weird political week that was.
If you're reading this then this column presumes that you're familiar enough with fmr. FBI Director Comey's testimony this week and most probably the president's counter statements as well.
Here's what stood out, to give you some perspective.
First, you have to ask the big question, which is was Mr. Comey's testimony enough to warrant impeachment of Mr. Trump? No, because obstruction can not be proven because Mr. Comey gave his impressions of what Mr. Trump meant in a 'he said-he said' setting, which can easily be refuted.
With that said, my first takeaway is that Mr. Comey's testimony showed what kind of sleazy player Donald Trump is. Ordering everyone out of the room to 'discuss' killing the investigation into Michael Flynn, the aforementioned one on one dinner with the 'loyalty ask,' and the fact that the president never once wanted to discuss national security or the effective Russian cyber attacks have had on our democracy. For this last point, refer to this Washington Post opinion by Karen J. Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/09/president-trump-cares-more-about-himself-than-his-country/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f7e51d6f0ab2
Suffice to say that Mr. Trump puts his own self interests before the interests of the American people so judge that for yourself considering his position as President of the United States. And between Mr. Comey and Mr. Trump who do I think is telling the truth and who is lying. Please, the track records speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Mr. Trump's statements or intentions, which is a sad for all of us.
The other troubling piece I took away was the revelations about the interactions between Mr. Comey and fmr. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. That meeting on the tarmac between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Clinton definitely wasn't as innocent as explained. Ms. Lynch had asked Mr. Comey to call the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails a 'matter' instead of an investigation. The only explanation I can think of for this is that there is the rule that the FBI should not inject itself into an election, like Mr. Comey had done so maybe terming it a 'matter' blunts that, but that's thin. Ms. Lynch and the Clintons seemed to have an 'agreement' that Ms. Lynch would be looking out for them. As torturous as these first months of the Trump Administration have been, Democrats need to move beyond the Clintons and this leaves little doubt that they should.
Speaking of Attorneys General, current AG Jeff Sessions needs to go, by firing or resignation he has to be out. He's either incompetent, senile, dishonest or most probably all three. Another undisclosed meeting with Russian officials? Really? Turns out that Mr. Sessions will be testifying before a Senate committee on Tuesday. He has a lot to answer for, and then he should step down. He's already been deemed the worst AG in American history, which is impressive given that he's only been on the job for 5 months.
With the Comey testimony, Mr. Trump despite what he's said, is not completely vindicated and if anything this investigation is now just getting started.
As I've said all along, it comes down to money with President Trump. He has no interest in the Russian hacking into our election because he wants to keep hidden the embarrassing fact that Russians make up a huge part of his financial dealings. Not that that would be illegal in and of itself but would definitive be seen as a completely unacceptable conflict of interest that wouldn't go over well with the American people. That's why we haven't seen his tax returns. Special Counsel Robert Mueller will change all that - stay tuned.
If you're reading this then this column presumes that you're familiar enough with fmr. FBI Director Comey's testimony this week and most probably the president's counter statements as well.
Here's what stood out, to give you some perspective.
First, you have to ask the big question, which is was Mr. Comey's testimony enough to warrant impeachment of Mr. Trump? No, because obstruction can not be proven because Mr. Comey gave his impressions of what Mr. Trump meant in a 'he said-he said' setting, which can easily be refuted.
With that said, my first takeaway is that Mr. Comey's testimony showed what kind of sleazy player Donald Trump is. Ordering everyone out of the room to 'discuss' killing the investigation into Michael Flynn, the aforementioned one on one dinner with the 'loyalty ask,' and the fact that the president never once wanted to discuss national security or the effective Russian cyber attacks have had on our democracy. For this last point, refer to this Washington Post opinion by Karen J. Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/09/president-trump-cares-more-about-himself-than-his-country/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f7e51d6f0ab2
Suffice to say that Mr. Trump puts his own self interests before the interests of the American people so judge that for yourself considering his position as President of the United States. And between Mr. Comey and Mr. Trump who do I think is telling the truth and who is lying. Please, the track records speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Mr. Trump's statements or intentions, which is a sad for all of us.
The other troubling piece I took away was the revelations about the interactions between Mr. Comey and fmr. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. That meeting on the tarmac between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Clinton definitely wasn't as innocent as explained. Ms. Lynch had asked Mr. Comey to call the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails a 'matter' instead of an investigation. The only explanation I can think of for this is that there is the rule that the FBI should not inject itself into an election, like Mr. Comey had done so maybe terming it a 'matter' blunts that, but that's thin. Ms. Lynch and the Clintons seemed to have an 'agreement' that Ms. Lynch would be looking out for them. As torturous as these first months of the Trump Administration have been, Democrats need to move beyond the Clintons and this leaves little doubt that they should.
Speaking of Attorneys General, current AG Jeff Sessions needs to go, by firing or resignation he has to be out. He's either incompetent, senile, dishonest or most probably all three. Another undisclosed meeting with Russian officials? Really? Turns out that Mr. Sessions will be testifying before a Senate committee on Tuesday. He has a lot to answer for, and then he should step down. He's already been deemed the worst AG in American history, which is impressive given that he's only been on the job for 5 months.
With the Comey testimony, Mr. Trump despite what he's said, is not completely vindicated and if anything this investigation is now just getting started.
As I've said all along, it comes down to money with President Trump. He has no interest in the Russian hacking into our election because he wants to keep hidden the embarrassing fact that Russians make up a huge part of his financial dealings. Not that that would be illegal in and of itself but would definitive be seen as a completely unacceptable conflict of interest that wouldn't go over well with the American people. That's why we haven't seen his tax returns. Special Counsel Robert Mueller will change all that - stay tuned.
6.4.17: The President's Behavior Toward London/ The Paris Agreement and Scott Pruitt Interview
NBC National Security Analyst Michael Leiter explained that because of demographic factors in the United States, we're less susceptible to attacks like that of Europe where an emigrant becomes radicalized and commits an act of terror. Geography also has something to do with it. But, people become more easily assimilated into American culture than they do in Europe.
When asked about British Prime Minister Theresa May's comment that "there has been too much tolerance of extremism," fmr. Secretary of State John Kerry gave the correct response emblematic of his last job by saying that the British has to make that determination about their own country. But also think of it as an answer from someone who understands facing a test of collective resolve in the midst of personal tragedy.
So why does our president have to politicize this terrorist attack. As the "leader of the free world" you could offer a show of strength, support and unity with Britain, but instead he sent a critical tweet, which was completely contextually incorrectly it must be added, that the London mayor said not to be alarmed by the attacks. This isn't what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said, but instead explained that there is going to be an escalation of police presence on the streets of London for the next few days and that people should not be alarmed by the increased police presence. Our president went political and petty.
He also politicized it further by mentioning his travel ban executive order, in yet another tweet. There is simply no way at this point to explain why our president's first inclination toward any kind of sympathy.
The Paris Agreement and the Scott Pruitt Interview
First, it must be said that Mr. Pruitt was not appointed the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect that agency. He's there to oversee the repeal of as many environmental regulations as possible and then slashing the staff and funding to the extent that it renders the department unable to enforce the regulations that are left.
Director Pruitt stated the at Paris Agreement was a bad deal for The United States, and that it put us at an economic disadvantage. Because we're ahead of everyone else in cutting emissions already, why should we cut more, which in turn slows down our economy? The way he put it is that the cost to the United States has been front-loaded. And because of the economic drag, American ingenuity and innovation was being hampered.
With regard to Paris, we must again first say here that President Trump didn't make his decision based on the environment, but one based on politics. It's the president's prerogative to make decisions based on what ever he wants, but you need to understand that first.
But on that point, if it was a political call, the president got it wrong. The provisions in the Paris Agreement are voluntary and each country sets its own goals, with self-enforcement. Exiting the agreement that was signed by 195 countries cedes U.S. leadership and influence in the world. It makes the U.S. an outlier in the world. Even if you believe in President Trump's mantra of "America First," withdrawing from such an agreement is isolationist, not putting America first.
In the case of Director Pruitt's thinking, it is now in fact that ingenuity and innovation is being hampered in the United States. Our need for more and more efficient energy is ever growing and in terms of global business, the clean energy sector is the fastest growing area in need of constant innovation. The point is that Director Pruitt's reasoning is simply short sighted. The United States has the opportunity to lead the world in energy technology, which will move forward with or without us, but instead Mr. Pruitt touted more jobs in the coal industry.
Also, by repealing regulations, Mr. Pruitt also puts one of our other most precious resources in jeopardy - clean water. By relaxing regulations on waste dumping, for example, puts water supplies at risk. Protecting our clean water sources is part of the president's stated duty to protect Americans, no?
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, Salem News Network; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Obama campaign manager; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
When asked about British Prime Minister Theresa May's comment that "there has been too much tolerance of extremism," fmr. Secretary of State John Kerry gave the correct response emblematic of his last job by saying that the British has to make that determination about their own country. But also think of it as an answer from someone who understands facing a test of collective resolve in the midst of personal tragedy.
So why does our president have to politicize this terrorist attack. As the "leader of the free world" you could offer a show of strength, support and unity with Britain, but instead he sent a critical tweet, which was completely contextually incorrectly it must be added, that the London mayor said not to be alarmed by the attacks. This isn't what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said, but instead explained that there is going to be an escalation of police presence on the streets of London for the next few days and that people should not be alarmed by the increased police presence. Our president went political and petty.
He also politicized it further by mentioning his travel ban executive order, in yet another tweet. There is simply no way at this point to explain why our president's first inclination toward any kind of sympathy.
The Paris Agreement and the Scott Pruitt Interview
First, it must be said that Mr. Pruitt was not appointed the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect that agency. He's there to oversee the repeal of as many environmental regulations as possible and then slashing the staff and funding to the extent that it renders the department unable to enforce the regulations that are left.
Director Pruitt stated the at Paris Agreement was a bad deal for The United States, and that it put us at an economic disadvantage. Because we're ahead of everyone else in cutting emissions already, why should we cut more, which in turn slows down our economy? The way he put it is that the cost to the United States has been front-loaded. And because of the economic drag, American ingenuity and innovation was being hampered.
With regard to Paris, we must again first say here that President Trump didn't make his decision based on the environment, but one based on politics. It's the president's prerogative to make decisions based on what ever he wants, but you need to understand that first.
But on that point, if it was a political call, the president got it wrong. The provisions in the Paris Agreement are voluntary and each country sets its own goals, with self-enforcement. Exiting the agreement that was signed by 195 countries cedes U.S. leadership and influence in the world. It makes the U.S. an outlier in the world. Even if you believe in President Trump's mantra of "America First," withdrawing from such an agreement is isolationist, not putting America first.
In the case of Director Pruitt's thinking, it is now in fact that ingenuity and innovation is being hampered in the United States. Our need for more and more efficient energy is ever growing and in terms of global business, the clean energy sector is the fastest growing area in need of constant innovation. The point is that Director Pruitt's reasoning is simply short sighted. The United States has the opportunity to lead the world in energy technology, which will move forward with or without us, but instead Mr. Pruitt touted more jobs in the coal industry.
Also, by repealing regulations, Mr. Pruitt also puts one of our other most precious resources in jeopardy - clean water. By relaxing regulations on waste dumping, for example, puts water supplies at risk. Protecting our clean water sources is part of the president's stated duty to protect Americans, no?
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, Salem News Network; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Obama campaign manager; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
Sunday, May 28, 2017
5.28.17: Republicans' Summer Agenda in Jeopardy/ Memorial Day Comment
There is smoke, lots of smoke but the only smoke we should be talking about today comes off the barbecue and while we thinking of all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Yet, here we are discussing the president's son-in-saw Jared Kushner and his suspicious communications with Russia.
Mr. Kushner, it was leaked to The Washington Post, is not a target of the Russia investigation but is "under scrutiny." Let's face it, if you're "under scrutiny" by the FBI then you're being investigated. And no matter the outcome, this is going to hang over the administration and this presidency until its resolved, nothing will get done. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) explained that no everything on the slate - health care, tax reform, a budget, debt ceiling - will get done. With the exception of preventing the United States from defaulting on its debt payments, it's difficult to see anything getting done. It was reassuring to hear Senator Corker say that the sanctions on Russia would continue as they should, but they should actually be harsher as a consequence of interfering with the past election.
The problem with completing any of the aforementioned policy agenda items is that Republicans who control all of Congress are fractured on how to proceed. The House passed a healthcare that will be completely rewritten in the Senate and be unacceptable to the hard right. Compromise within the Republican party itself seems difficult. Not to mention that any of the few times policy is discussed, there is never any mention of Democratic participation. And according to Senator John McCain (R-AZ), there is no plan in place for getting anything done.
The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel cited an example of Barack Obama representatives setting up a back channel is similar to what Jared Kushner was doing, and feels that all this is essentially much to do about nothing. However, when former Director of National Security James Clapper says that his "dashboard light was on" (without confirming anything) about the Trump transition team contacts that's troubling. There seems to be more there than just the meetings between Mr. Kushner and Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Summer is upon us and the heat gets to people; it can be a crazy time. Most of the problems the Trump Administration have faced are self-inflicted, but what happens if there is a real crisis? That would surely knock the administration and by extension the Congress further off its already shaky moorings.
Whatever the outcome all these Russia investigations, the damage the Trump Administration is already thoroughly done, with only itself to blame.
***
Memorial Day Comment
First and foremost, on this particular holiday this column would like to give a grateful shout-out to the soldiers and vets at the Intrepid Spirit Center at Ft. Belvoir in Virginia. Thank you for being the people you are.
One thing to know about this column is its strong sense of what America should be and how it should act and lead in the world. Because of that, our soldiers' sacrifices are never taken lightly and respect is seriously paid.
With that said, it's also important to keep in mind the allies/friends that help us when we put troops in harm's way. Since the establishment of NATO in 1948, every president - Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lindon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama - has confirmed the NATO commitment to Article 5, which states that if one member is attacked, we're all attacked. It has been invoked once by us, The United States, after 9/11.
President Donald Trump did not make this commitment; did not state this confirmation at the meeting of NATO nations in Brussels earlier this week. What does that say about our leadership in the world? It was a conspicuous decision by President Trump not to say so, and it was disgraceful.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Kimberley Strassell, The Wall Street Journal; Charlie Sykes, NBC News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report
Mr. Kushner, it was leaked to The Washington Post, is not a target of the Russia investigation but is "under scrutiny." Let's face it, if you're "under scrutiny" by the FBI then you're being investigated. And no matter the outcome, this is going to hang over the administration and this presidency until its resolved, nothing will get done. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) explained that no everything on the slate - health care, tax reform, a budget, debt ceiling - will get done. With the exception of preventing the United States from defaulting on its debt payments, it's difficult to see anything getting done. It was reassuring to hear Senator Corker say that the sanctions on Russia would continue as they should, but they should actually be harsher as a consequence of interfering with the past election.
The problem with completing any of the aforementioned policy agenda items is that Republicans who control all of Congress are fractured on how to proceed. The House passed a healthcare that will be completely rewritten in the Senate and be unacceptable to the hard right. Compromise within the Republican party itself seems difficult. Not to mention that any of the few times policy is discussed, there is never any mention of Democratic participation. And according to Senator John McCain (R-AZ), there is no plan in place for getting anything done.
The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel cited an example of Barack Obama representatives setting up a back channel is similar to what Jared Kushner was doing, and feels that all this is essentially much to do about nothing. However, when former Director of National Security James Clapper says that his "dashboard light was on" (without confirming anything) about the Trump transition team contacts that's troubling. There seems to be more there than just the meetings between Mr. Kushner and Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Summer is upon us and the heat gets to people; it can be a crazy time. Most of the problems the Trump Administration have faced are self-inflicted, but what happens if there is a real crisis? That would surely knock the administration and by extension the Congress further off its already shaky moorings.
Whatever the outcome all these Russia investigations, the damage the Trump Administration is already thoroughly done, with only itself to blame.
***
Memorial Day Comment
First and foremost, on this particular holiday this column would like to give a grateful shout-out to the soldiers and vets at the Intrepid Spirit Center at Ft. Belvoir in Virginia. Thank you for being the people you are.
One thing to know about this column is its strong sense of what America should be and how it should act and lead in the world. Because of that, our soldiers' sacrifices are never taken lightly and respect is seriously paid.
With that said, it's also important to keep in mind the allies/friends that help us when we put troops in harm's way. Since the establishment of NATO in 1948, every president - Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lindon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama - has confirmed the NATO commitment to Article 5, which states that if one member is attacked, we're all attacked. It has been invoked once by us, The United States, after 9/11.
President Donald Trump did not make this commitment; did not state this confirmation at the meeting of NATO nations in Brussels earlier this week. What does that say about our leadership in the world? It was a conspicuous decision by President Trump not to say so, and it was disgraceful.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Kimberley Strassell, The Wall Street Journal; Charlie Sykes, NBC News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report
Sunday, May 14, 2017
5.14.17: What's Thin And Then Not So Much... The Fall-Out of the President's Decisions
This week's firing of FBI Director James Comey is just another mess in an ever-growing line of messes for President Trump and his administration. Unlike other self-manufactured controversies, this one in particular could, and really should, be used as evidence of obstruction of justice. By the president's own admission to NBC's Lester Holt, Mr. Trump said that "this Russia thing" factored into his decision to fire Mr. Comey, who was leading the investigation into Russian involvement in our election and to the larger extent our democratic processes. Then there was the completely awkward ill-timed, frankly bizarre, meeting with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak where no U.S. media were allowed but Russian media was.
The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson commented that it was impossible to predict the timing of the things the president does, but I would content that it's not that difficult - just imagine the worst possible time in which to do something and that's when Mr. Trump will act.
But there is a big "if," which Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) outlined in his interview, which is that right now the investigation is a counter-intelligence investigation and not a criminal one, meaning that at this time appointing a special prosecutor would be premature. This argument treads thin due to the presidents statements, which included his mention of recordings of White House conversations with then-director Comey on January 27, 2017 at a private dinner between the two. What's not thin is the president's threat of "tapes." No "thinly-veiled," it was simply a threat. The president should take Senator Graham's advice to cease tweeting or commenting about the investigation.
Senator Schumer, for his part, is in wait-and-see mode for the president's choice to replace Mr. Comey as FBI director, which will then dictate the decision on whether there should be a united democratic call for a special prosecutor.
If you disagree with the charge of obstruction of justice, what is obvious is that the president is using all legal means, politically ugly or not, to impede the FBI investigation. As the BBC's Katty Kay pointed out - we haven't gotten the full, real story so conspiracy theories will reign. One is left only to speculate, but best guess from my perspective is that it has to do with his businesses being put under a legal microscope. Congress' investigation is more focused on Russia's interference with our election where the FBI seems more targeted at individuals within the Trump campaign, which could lead to an investigation of the president. It's all more personal in nature and that would seem to be more of a concern to Mr. Trump.
Paraphrasing Axios' founder Jim Vandehei, you can't be thinking small while trying to accomplish big things. It just won't work. That's where we all are with Donald Trump's presidency.
To directly quote Matthew Continetti of the conservative Washington Free Beacon, "He is the crisis." The boiling point comes when a larger enough portion of the Republican party disapprove and it's moving in that direction.
On the personal front, President is not helping himself certainly, but Secretary of State Rex Tillerson isn't helping the administration's credibility cause of U.S. foreign policy either. At the outset of this administration I had hope that Mr. Tillerson would be the pleasant surprise in an administration consisting of many political novices, but that hope ceased early on and today's interview confirmed any doubt that Mr. Tillerson simply doesn't have what it takes to represent the United States as its head diplomat.
Senator Graham said that he was 1,000 percent sure that Russia interfered in our election and Sec. Tillerson doesn't bring it up in his meetings with Putin on his Kremlin visit, saying it was "part of that broader landscape of conversation." With all due respect to the Secretary, what the hell does that mean? Another country meddling in the U.S. election is an attack on our democracy and indeed our sovereignty. Fine, it's part of broader conversations, but it's the first conversation.
Mr. Vandehei was a last minute addition to the panel to break the news that the Trump Administration is going to have a major shake up and names like Bannon, Priebus, Spicer, and McGahn are potential pink slip recipients. So much for Mr. Trump's hiring prowess and 'getting the best people.' No matter what side of the political aisle you favor or none at all, we would all agree that all this needs to be promptly resolved. In this instance Donald Trump is the only one who can fix all this, and indeed we need the full, real story because Americans' patience is running really thin with this unpredictable president and chaotic presidency.
Panel: Katty Kay, BBC News; Haley Jackson, NBC News; Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson commented that it was impossible to predict the timing of the things the president does, but I would content that it's not that difficult - just imagine the worst possible time in which to do something and that's when Mr. Trump will act.
But there is a big "if," which Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) outlined in his interview, which is that right now the investigation is a counter-intelligence investigation and not a criminal one, meaning that at this time appointing a special prosecutor would be premature. This argument treads thin due to the presidents statements, which included his mention of recordings of White House conversations with then-director Comey on January 27, 2017 at a private dinner between the two. What's not thin is the president's threat of "tapes." No "thinly-veiled," it was simply a threat. The president should take Senator Graham's advice to cease tweeting or commenting about the investigation.
Senator Schumer, for his part, is in wait-and-see mode for the president's choice to replace Mr. Comey as FBI director, which will then dictate the decision on whether there should be a united democratic call for a special prosecutor.
If you disagree with the charge of obstruction of justice, what is obvious is that the president is using all legal means, politically ugly or not, to impede the FBI investigation. As the BBC's Katty Kay pointed out - we haven't gotten the full, real story so conspiracy theories will reign. One is left only to speculate, but best guess from my perspective is that it has to do with his businesses being put under a legal microscope. Congress' investigation is more focused on Russia's interference with our election where the FBI seems more targeted at individuals within the Trump campaign, which could lead to an investigation of the president. It's all more personal in nature and that would seem to be more of a concern to Mr. Trump.
Paraphrasing Axios' founder Jim Vandehei, you can't be thinking small while trying to accomplish big things. It just won't work. That's where we all are with Donald Trump's presidency.
To directly quote Matthew Continetti of the conservative Washington Free Beacon, "He is the crisis." The boiling point comes when a larger enough portion of the Republican party disapprove and it's moving in that direction.
On the personal front, President is not helping himself certainly, but Secretary of State Rex Tillerson isn't helping the administration's credibility cause of U.S. foreign policy either. At the outset of this administration I had hope that Mr. Tillerson would be the pleasant surprise in an administration consisting of many political novices, but that hope ceased early on and today's interview confirmed any doubt that Mr. Tillerson simply doesn't have what it takes to represent the United States as its head diplomat.
Senator Graham said that he was 1,000 percent sure that Russia interfered in our election and Sec. Tillerson doesn't bring it up in his meetings with Putin on his Kremlin visit, saying it was "part of that broader landscape of conversation." With all due respect to the Secretary, what the hell does that mean? Another country meddling in the U.S. election is an attack on our democracy and indeed our sovereignty. Fine, it's part of broader conversations, but it's the first conversation.
Mr. Vandehei was a last minute addition to the panel to break the news that the Trump Administration is going to have a major shake up and names like Bannon, Priebus, Spicer, and McGahn are potential pink slip recipients. So much for Mr. Trump's hiring prowess and 'getting the best people.' No matter what side of the political aisle you favor or none at all, we would all agree that all this needs to be promptly resolved. In this instance Donald Trump is the only one who can fix all this, and indeed we need the full, real story because Americans' patience is running really thin with this unpredictable president and chaotic presidency.
Panel: Katty Kay, BBC News; Haley Jackson, NBC News; Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
Sunday, May 07, 2017
5.7.17: Healthcare and the Russia Question No One in Congress Answers
Andrea Mitchell in for Chuck Todd
Since the Republican-controlled House [read: Republicans only] passed their Healthcare Bill there have been a lot of people in the media making football analogies - today's "Spiking the Football, It's only the first quarter, this is a first down not a touchdown," et al. While apt, because the politics of it are certainly being playing like a game, the outcomes will most definitely not be.
The Rose Garden beer party the House Republicans had after the vote was asinine and juvenile, pure cynically political legislation prematurely and inappropriately celebrated by a group of men, who frankly were as diverse as a white bread American cheese sandwich, with mayo. Bad optics?
In that vane, bad optics and bad policy is the Senate committee consists of 13 white guys crafting their version of the bill. No women, pointed out by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) while also noting that women are over 50 percent of the population. They don't have a seat at the table?
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price neither talks about health nor sounds human. He answered every question with some form of we're going to give individuals, families and doctors more control and choice over the health care that they want to have. What he left out was that the insurance companies are taking back control of health care distribution and what they can charge. The Medicaid Expansion will be the responsibility of the individual states which will not be given enough funding to continue then eventually be cut altogether.
After scrolling 22 organizations across the screen, which included the AARP, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, and the March of Dimes, among others Secretary Price said all of those organizations "don't see that there is a better way." Really? Interpret as you will but that's a little suspect to me.
By the same token, however, the taunting the Democrats did singing, "Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey Goodbye" on the floor of the House was bush-league and also inappropriate, even if you get the 'why' of it. Most everyone would agree - that Republicans are repealing a major social program, something we've never done Yahoo's Matt Bai noted, and the political outlook for doing so will cost Republicans seats in Congress. But that's no excuse.
The take away is this: the Medicaid expansion will eventually be phased out by giving the responsibility to the individual states and people will lose coverage not being able to afford private insurance. The money that the federal government will save with go into a tax cut coming in the near future.
As for widely known as fact Russian meddling in the American election and other in Europe (appropriate today given France's election today), here's the question for Congress:
What's the recourse?
Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) called it "unfortunate." OK... (?)
What are the consequences for these actions, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States? I guess we have to wait until all the investigations are concluded to get those, timetable not-soon-enough. It's just beyond comprehension the passivity on the part of members of Congress when the speak on this topic. Odd. However, Senator Feinstein also pointed out that when the Obama Administration expelled 35 Russian government employees, the Kremlin didn't react, inferring the connection between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Between Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort all of whom are the focus of the FBI, there are some bad actors.
During the Republican Party convention in Cleveland, they changed the platform position on its support of Ukraine in terms of support and armaments to stand up to Russia. Paul Manafort is seen as the driving force behind that effort so we're he and Flynn working in coordination or independently?
And the twists just keep on coming...
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Rich Lowry, The National Review
Since the Republican-controlled House [read: Republicans only] passed their Healthcare Bill there have been a lot of people in the media making football analogies - today's "Spiking the Football, It's only the first quarter, this is a first down not a touchdown," et al. While apt, because the politics of it are certainly being playing like a game, the outcomes will most definitely not be.
The Rose Garden beer party the House Republicans had after the vote was asinine and juvenile, pure cynically political legislation prematurely and inappropriately celebrated by a group of men, who frankly were as diverse as a white bread American cheese sandwich, with mayo. Bad optics?
In that vane, bad optics and bad policy is the Senate committee consists of 13 white guys crafting their version of the bill. No women, pointed out by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) while also noting that women are over 50 percent of the population. They don't have a seat at the table?
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price neither talks about health nor sounds human. He answered every question with some form of we're going to give individuals, families and doctors more control and choice over the health care that they want to have. What he left out was that the insurance companies are taking back control of health care distribution and what they can charge. The Medicaid Expansion will be the responsibility of the individual states which will not be given enough funding to continue then eventually be cut altogether.
After scrolling 22 organizations across the screen, which included the AARP, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, and the March of Dimes, among others Secretary Price said all of those organizations "don't see that there is a better way." Really? Interpret as you will but that's a little suspect to me.
By the same token, however, the taunting the Democrats did singing, "Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey Goodbye" on the floor of the House was bush-league and also inappropriate, even if you get the 'why' of it. Most everyone would agree - that Republicans are repealing a major social program, something we've never done Yahoo's Matt Bai noted, and the political outlook for doing so will cost Republicans seats in Congress. But that's no excuse.
The take away is this: the Medicaid expansion will eventually be phased out by giving the responsibility to the individual states and people will lose coverage not being able to afford private insurance. The money that the federal government will save with go into a tax cut coming in the near future.
As for widely known as fact Russian meddling in the American election and other in Europe (appropriate today given France's election today), here's the question for Congress:
What's the recourse?
Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) called it "unfortunate." OK... (?)
What are the consequences for these actions, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States? I guess we have to wait until all the investigations are concluded to get those, timetable not-soon-enough. It's just beyond comprehension the passivity on the part of members of Congress when the speak on this topic. Odd. However, Senator Feinstein also pointed out that when the Obama Administration expelled 35 Russian government employees, the Kremlin didn't react, inferring the connection between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Between Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort all of whom are the focus of the FBI, there are some bad actors.
During the Republican Party convention in Cleveland, they changed the platform position on its support of Ukraine in terms of support and armaments to stand up to Russia. Paul Manafort is seen as the driving force behind that effort so we're he and Flynn working in coordination or independently?
And the twists just keep on coming...
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Rich Lowry, The National Review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)