Mediaboss Marketing

To the editor: Thank goodness for the open and honest words of Robin Abcarian. Her column on Vice President Mike Pences refusal to dine alone with a woman and the possible discriminatory effects of his behavior should be mandatory reading for all. (Mike Pence won't dine alone with a woman who's not his wife. Is that sexist? April 5)

How can we say that woman are allowed equal opportunity when we have men in the highest positions of our country who belittle our very existence? Wasnt it bad enough when President Trump used disgusting terms to describe how he treats women?

In addition to his dining restriction, Pence will not go without his wife to an event where alcohol is served. Does he imagine that women want to throw themselves at his feet pleading for attention?

I fear for the future of women during this administration.

Judith Braun, Woodland Hills

..

To the editor: In the 1950s, I attended college as an accounting major. In those days, accounting, especially auditing, was considered a male profession.

I knew that finding a job would be difficult, so I applied for a civil service position in the federal government. I passed the written test with the top score and moved on to the interview.

There, I was told that regardless of my stellar test score, a woman could not be hired onto the accounting staff, especially one who wants to go into auditing. The wives of the male staff members would object to me going on a field audit and sharing meals with men.

Thanks to the views of wives like Pences, I did not get the job.

Donna Handy, Santa Barbara

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Read the original post:
Does Mike Pence think women want to throw themselves at him when he's not with his wife? - Los Angeles Times

Millennials and others of a certain age have not lived in a time when fidelity was universally valued and mostly supported by culture -- though sometimes hypocritically -- and its opposite was roundly condemned. There was even a time when a divorced person could not expect to become president, though plenty of married presidents managed to conduct clandestine affairs, often with the indulgence of the media.

How far we have come (or gone) as a country and culture was evidenced by the re-election of Bill Clinton, even after reports of his alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones were made public.

This isnt about that. Its about Vice President Mike Pence and his recently rediscovered standard of refusing to dine alone with a woman not his wife, or showing up without her at a place where alcohol is served.

This is sometimes called the Billy Graham Rule, after the famed evangelist. It isnt about prudishness, as some have claimed in their criticism of Pence, it is about preserving ones reputation and avoiding the appearance of evil, as evangelicals like Graham and Pence would put it.

Advertisement

Some years ago, Rev. Graham spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. There was a reception before his speech in the bar area. One of the guests asked Graham if he could have his picture taken with him, and Graham turned to me to ask if I would hold his soft drink while the picture was taken.

I later asked him why he did this. He said it was because some people who saw the photo could conclude that he was drinking an alcoholic beverage, a no-no among Southern Baptists, though some seem to have modified their position in recent years.

Graham once told me about his own policy of never being with a woman without his wife present, or having a woman pick him up at an airport when he traveled, unless she was with her husband. It is a standard I employ, not because Graham and I (and Pence) find it hard to resist temptations of the flesh, but because it is the best protection against all sorts of negative things that could happen, or someone reading something into a picture that has the potential of damaging ones reputation.

Pences comment was printed in a recent Washington Post profile, but he first made it in 2002 when he was a freshman in Congress at the height of the Gary Condit sex scandal, in which Condit was accused of being involved with the disappearance and murder of his intern Chandra Levy, with whom he was having an affair. Pence doesnt tell others how to live their lives. He just set a standard for his marriage. His spokesman, Marc Lotter, tells me clearly it is working.

Some feminists have written that Pences policy somehow harms women from making progress in the workplace. Recent newspaper columns by former female congressional staff members refute that claim.

Ive been in Pences office. Many women work there, including his deputy chief of staff, his national security adviser, his director of intergovernmental affairs and their top deputies.

So whats the problem? I think it is that the Pence lifestyle, for wont of a better word, stands as a rebuke to those who have chosen different ways of behaving, in or out of marriage. Deep down inside most of us know right from wrong, otherwise Judge Judy would not be so much fun to watch as she dispenses truths your grandmother probably agreed with and tried to teach you.

After all the criticism about President Trumps past with women, one might think the critics would welcome a wholesome example like the Pences. But in Washington, some people like having it both ways.

Cal Thomas, Americas most-syndicated columnist, is the author of 10 books.

View original post here:
Cal Thomas: The Mike Pence-Billy Graham rule - The Saratogian

One of Vice President Mike Pences Secret Service guards was apparently caught with a prostitute according to ABC and CNN. Josh King has the story (@abridgetoland). Buzz60

Pence departs after a meeting with House Republicans on health care legislation on Capitol Hill on April 4, 2017.(Photo: Aaron P. Bernstein, Getty Images)

A U.S. Secret Service agent who guards Vice President Mike Pence has been suspended after allegedly consorting with a prostitute at a Maryland hotel, CNN and ABC report.

The agency did not immediately respond to an e-mail sent to its press operation Wednesday night.

Both news organizations credited law enforcement sources.

The incident unfolded late last week when the manager of a hotel in Montgomery County, Md., became suspicious about activity in one of the guest rooms and called police, CNN reported. Police saw the agent leave the hotel and stopped him, according to ABC.

Police arrested the agent for solicitation, and the agent then reported his arrest to the agency, CNN reported.

The agent was off-duty at the time of the incident, both news organizations reported.

"The Secret Service takes allegations of criminal activity very seriously," the agency said in a statement to ABC. "This matter is being investigated by our Office of Professional Responsibility to determine the facts."

The agent turned over his weapon, lost all security clearance and lost access to Secret Service facilities, the New York Daily News reported, citing an agency spokesperson.

In 2012, Secret Service agents assigned to President Obama's detail allegedly took 20 prostitutes back to their rooms in Colombia. Eight agents wound up being fired.

The initial purpose of the agency founded in 1865 was to prevent the production of counterfeit money. Today, the agency's mission is to protect the nation's leaders and to protect the financial and critical infrastructure of the country.

READ MORE:

U.S. reveals accusations against Secret Service - USATODAY.com

Laptop of Secret Service employee stolen in Brooklyn

Secret Service detains man near White House

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2oKMXnN

Read the original here:
Reports: Secret Service agent on Pence detail consorted with prostitute - USA TODAY

This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," April 5, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, "THE FIRST 100 DAYS" HOST: Breaking news in Washington tonight. The president changes his tone as he takes on serious challenges on the world stage. With this changing guard at the White House, what does the staff moves really mean and how will they together tackle a brutal chemical weapons attack by a leader that the prior administration vowed would be gone by now, as North Korea brazenly fires off another banned missile test, the president gets ready to challenge the Chinese President this weekend on why he has done nothing to stop them. And at home, new questions about the legality of unmasking for American officials. President Trump today, stood side-by-side in the Rose Garden as he welcomed the King of Jordan and made this promise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I have to just say that the world is a mess. I inherited a mess. Whether it's the Middle East, whether it's North Korea, whether at so many other things, whether it's in our country, horrible trade deals -- I inherited a mess. We're going to fix it. We're going to fix it. OK.

MACCALLUM: I'm Martha MacCallum. Welcome to a jam-packed day 76 of the first 100. Later tonight, I will discuss what could be a massive policy shift on Syria and the latest in the efforts to bring former top Obama official, Susan Rice, in front of a Congressional Committee for questioning. As Senators Tom Cotton and Senator John McCain joined me.

But first, earlier today, I sat down with Vice President Mike Pence, where we spoke about the attack in Syria, whether the U.S. is prepared to go it alone on North Korea, the National Security Council shakeup that happened today and the recently resurrected health care bill.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Mr. Vice President, thank you very much for taking time with us today.

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: We appreciate it. There's a lot to talk about so I want to dive right in. I know that you've been very busy trying to get a second round of this health care bill, up and running, speaking with people on Capitol Hill. And the latest word is that the talks aren't going that well. That the moderates are unhappy that you've brought the conservatives a little bit more on board, the Club for Growth, and they like the way that this bill looks right now. Is that an accurate reflection? Is it falling apart?

PENCE: Well, first let me say, Republicans are united in our commitment to keep the promise we made to the American people years ago, to repeal and replace ObamaCare. And President Trump and I couldn't be more grateful with the determination that the men and women serving in the Congress under the Republican banner are bringing to this effort. But, clearly, few weeks back, Congress wasn't quite ready to take the first step to begin the end of ObamaCare, but conversations have continued since then. I think -- I think we've made good progress, and I've seen good faith on all sides.

MACCALLUM: There has been some talk about having something put together by Friday. It doesn't sound like you're there.

PENCE: Well, we'll see. Actually, we don't want to put any timeline on it, but I can tell you that there are good faith discussions underway. And the president and I are encouraged. Not that it will get done in any particular period of time but that it's going to get done.

MACCALLUM: You've put yourself on a line with this, and said "I'm going to lead the charge on this," and many believe that's why you were, in some ways, brought on to the ticket that you were the person with congressional experience, that you are the man who can do that. Do you feel any concern about that responsibility?

PENCE: It's the greatest honor in my life to serve as vice president for President Donald Trump in whatever way I can be helpful in advancing the president's agenda. Either on Capitol Hill or around the country, or occasionally around the world, it's my great privilege to do it.

MACCALLUM: So, let me ask you about the leadership in the White House. This morning, it was announced that Steve Bannon would no longer be on the principals committee for the National Security Council, and that's being called a "shake-up". What's going on with that?

PENCE: Well, with H.R. McMaster as our National Security Advisor, I think the president's action adding the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, adding the Director of National Intelligence, and moving a couple of our senior personnel off the National Security Council, just simply represents a very routine evolution of the National Security team around the president.

MACCALLUM: So, it's not a demotion for Steve Bannon.

PENCE: Well, not for Steve, not for Tom. These are very highly valued members of this administration. They're going to continue to play important policy roles. But I think with H.R. McMaster's addition as our National Security Advisor, a man of extraordinary background in military, this is just a natural evolution to ensure the National Security Council is organized in a way that best serves the president in resolving and making those difficult decisions.

MACCALLUM: One of the issues that keeps hanging around is this Russia's story, and it doesn't look like it's going to go away anytime soon. One of the most recent developments is Susan Rice being named as the person who unmasked names of the Trump administration. She said she was just doing her job. Do you believe that?

PENCE: Well, I think the American people have a right to know what was going on. And we have every confidence that the intelligence committees in the house and the senate will get to the bottom of all of these allegations. Our focus is on the agenda, it's on moving this country forward.

MACCALLUM: You think she should testify?

PENCE: I think that's a decision for members of Congress, but I would say that the American people have a right to know if there was surveillance of any private citizen in this country, and the identity of those citizens who has revealed, people I have a right to know why. And the fact that it involved our campaign and our transition, I think is -- should be deeply troubling to anyone who cherishes civil liberties in this country.

MACCALLUM: So, you believe there was a political motivation? Do you think there was reverse monitoring as that has been suggested?

PENCE: Martha, I would hesitate to speculate because these issues are so serious. But, we think it is -- it is within the jurisdiction and the purview of the intelligence committees in the house and the senate to get to the bottom of this.

MACCALLUM: All right. I want to turn your attention overseas because we have all seen the horrific pictures of what happened in Syria. A chemical attack that took the lives of families, of children, who does the administration believe was responsible for that attack?

PENCE: All evidence points to the Assad regime in Syria. And I know the president and I, and our entire administration, condemn this chemical attack in Syria in the strongest possible terms, it cannot be tolerated. Yesterday, President Trump joined leaders around the world condemning this heinous attack. And will continue to do so.

MACCALLUM: But the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, recently said that Syria -- the Syrian people will determine their own future. And that removing Assad is not necessarily the top priority, in terms of foreign policy anymore. Some believe that this chemical attack was in response to that.

PENCE: Well, first, let's remember how we got here. Back in 2012, President Obama said that if Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, that that would cross a red line and there would be consequences. There were none. We were told that there was an agreement by the Russians and the Syrians to destroy their chemical weapons, and that the threat to civilians from a chemical attack had been eliminated. It wasn't. And yesterday's horrific attack, which grieves my heart, not just as an office holder but as a dad. I can't -- no American can look at those images and not be heartsick. It is a reflection of the failure of the last administration to both confront the mindless violence of the Assad regime, and also whole Russia and Syria, to account for the promises that they've made to destroy chemical weapons.

MACCALLUM: People would agree with you on that. But then, they would say "Now, we're in a new administration --

PENCE: Yes, we are.

MACCALLUM: -- and President Trump during the campaign said that safe zones had to be set up in Syria." Is it time to renew the call for Assad to be ousted and to establish those safe zones for these people?

PENCE: I think you saw Ambassador Haley at the United Nations today expressed the very strong position of the United States of America. We are hopeful that there may well be action in the United Nations Security Council. But let me be clear, all options are on the table.

MACCALLUM: Do you hold the Russians responsible as well?

PENCE: Russians are in a close-working alliance with the Assad regime in Syria. And the time has come for them to keep the word that they made, to see to the elimination of chemical weapons so that they no longer threaten the people in their country.

MACCALLUM: In terms of North Korea, the President of China is about to arrive in the United States, and they are saber-rattling again with another missile launch. It's being said now by experts in the field, General Jack Keane and others that we need to go after the underground nuclear sites there, the areas where these missiles are launched from, that the military option may be the only one left. Do you agree?

PENCE: But let me say, I know that President Trump is very much looking forward to welcoming President Xi to the Southern White House this weekend. I think they are looking forward to a productive discussion on our economic relationship. But our expectation is that North Korea will also be a part of that conversation. And as the president said this weekend, if China won't deal with North Korea, we will.

MACCALLUM: But I think the tone of this meeting in Florida will be when -- we know the president wants to change trade practices, he spoken out about that for decades. And you've got this expansionism that China is exhibiting and their reluctance for years and years to crack down on North Korea. That makes as a pretty tough meeting, doesn't it?

PENCE: Well, the president has described it as maybe a difficult meeting. But our expectation is that both of those leaders are going to have an opportunity to get to know one another, have an opportunity to sit down. What they're going to find in President Trump is a strong leader, who's going to put America first, and he's going to be willing to talk about the hard things. The fact that we lose $500 billion a year and a trade deficit to China, that we've seen manufacturing leaving this country and going to China, the fact that we see China constructing bases in the South China Sea far beyond and well into international waters and other areas, I'm sure will all be topics.

MACCALLUM: So, on THE FIRST 100 DAYS, we often ask our guests what grade they would give the administration for the week. So now that you're about three quarters of the way through that first 100 days, what grade do you give the administration so far?

PENCE: I give us a very solid A because you look at the fundamentals, you look at the fact that the latest job report, more than -- more than three quarters of a million jobs created since the beginning of this year. President's been keeping his promise to roll back the avalanche of regulations that was stifling jobs and growth in this economy, has taken decisive action to end illegal immigration, and as Secretary Kelly testified today, we seen a dramatic reduction of illegal immigration at our borders. We see America standing tall in the world again, companies are reinvesting in America and creating those good-paying jobs, and what the American people see every single day is a president who is keeping his word to the American people.

MACCALLUM: Vice President Pence, thank you very much. Good to see you today.

PENCE: Good to see you, Martha.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: So, my thanks to the vice president for sitting down with us earlier. We're going to bring you some bonus clips from the interview coming up later in the show, but first still ahead on a very busy day, 76 in Washington, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton is here with his unique take on the Susan Rice question, on whether he believes that she will testify before his committee.

Plus Senator John McCain is here with his reaction to the language that we heard in the Rose Garden this afternoon, as President Trump signals a shift on the Syria policy, after that horrific chemical attack in the country.

And House Intel Committee member, Eric Swalwell, is here. He claims that the investigation of Susan Rice would be just another distraction. We will ask him why, straight ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIFORNIA: Well, Wolf, I'll just say this, we have agreed on our witness list. I'm excited that that's showing the American people we're going forward. And if they want to put a hurt a lot like bringing Susan Rice in, that's fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, Republican lawmakers continue to call for investigations into potential unmasking of Trump transition team members. All at the request of President Obama's top security official, Susan Rice. Experts from across the intel community are now urging Americans to think twice before they take Rice's brush-off of this at face value. A two- decade CIA veteran, Fred Fleitz, cautions this, quote, "Rice's denials don't add up. It is hard to fathom how the demasking of multiple Trump campaign and transition officials was not politically motivated."

Joining me now, Congressman Eric Swalwell, he sits on the House Intel Committee, and says that Rice's appearance in front of any panel would represent an unnecessary hurdle, he said earlier. Congressman, welcome. Good to have you today.

SWALWELL: Yes, thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: Why would it be an unnecessary hurdle?

SWALWELL: Because there's no evidence that there was any wrongdoing. But if the Republicans think that this has to be on the witness list, we'll clear that hurdle and we'll make it to the finish line, and we're determined to do that.

MACCALLUM: So, you're saying that you don't believe that there are, sort of, two sides to this investigation? That there is the side of the unmasking issue and whether or not there was an effort by the prior administration to observe or surveil the incoming administration to damage them? And the other side of it, which is whether or not there was any collusion between Trump team folks and the Russians?

SWALWELL: What I believe is Russia attacked our democracy.

MACCALLUM: So you don't believe there are two investigations to do?

SWALWELL: Not with unmasking. I don't think there's any evidence yet, and actually, you know, the attack doesn't --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Someone says there's no evidence on the other side.

SWALWELL: Oh, there's a lot of evidence. I mean, I'm just on the unclassified side. We've seen, you know, Roger Stone talking with Guccifer 2.0, who receives his information from Russia. Carter Page going to Russia years after years, recruited by Russia, and a month after, it was revealed that Russia was attacking us. But here, this seems to be a pattern of obstruction.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But investigators who've looked into this (INAUDIBLE) have said that so far, there is no evidence that there was collusion between the Trump team and the Russians. No evidence, so far, and I think everyone agrees that that is an ongoing investigation and as it should be. But I don't know how you can say that there's no evidence on the other side of the equation, and accept that that's true in terms of the Trump side of it.

SWALWELL: But it's your only evidence that Donald Trump said it. Because he also said that Russia didn't interfere in our election. That was proved wrong. He said that President Obama wiretapped him. That was proved wrong. So, I think he has a credibility problem on Russia, which is unfortunate. We need him to be credible because North Korea is firing ballistic missiles and Syria is unraveling.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But why -- Congressman, why you don't have curiosity to find out why there would be unmasking of American officials. Shouldn't this concern you and any American citizen, just to understand? And if there's nothing there, there's nothing there. But why not bring her in and ask the questions?

SWALWELL: Because we don't have time to have curiosity on what Donald Trump makes up. And actually, Martha, what's interesting, he's the only person in the world who has the ability to actually show us the documents. So if the evidence is there he'd show us.

MACCALLUM: It's been separately verified by a number of sources that the unmasking goes back to Susan Rice. Now, there is a division in the intel community of whether or not that's normal, or whether or not that's very unusual. So I guess, I just don't understand. If the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn't you want to know if someone had unmasked your name, whether or not they did it illegally, or whether they had good reason to do so?

SWALWELL: The shoe was on the foot of the Trump team right now. They're under an investigation and this seems to be another tactic to avoid, you know, finding the truth.

MACCALLUM: That seems very partisan, Congressman.

SWALWELL: No, you know, I think, people at home and Republicans and Democrats, they say this country is worth defending, and they see a president who continues to want to obstruct. And I'll just say this --

MACCALLUM: So, the privacy of American citizens isn't worth defending?

SWALWELL: So, Susan Rice, if she sees that foreigner A is talking to foreigner B about U.S. person C, she can request to see who that is and it only goes to her eyes. But I think --

MACCALLUM: That's right. The question is was the reason for requesting it, political in nature, was there a compelling national security issue that compelled that? And I don't understand, you and your position, not at least being curious enough to want to know the answer to those questions.

SWALWELL: I do. But the president won't show me and we have asked to be able to go over and see those documents. He, actually, is the only person (INAUDIBLE) --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Keep pushing. Maybe you'll get them.

SWALWELL: Oh, I am.

MACCALLUM: OK.

SWALWELL: And I hope he does because -- we will -- we'll clear this hurdle and this isn't going away, and people want us to get to the bottom of it.

MACCALLUM: I wish you'd have an open investigation of anybody who could potentially pertain to any of this. But I thank you for coming in and we'll be watching. Thank you, Congressman. Good to see you tonight.

SWALWELL: You, too.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, President Trump tends to light up Twitter at night, as you know. But last night, the fireworks came from our own political analyst, Brit Hume, jousting with Ben Rhodes, the former top foreign policy advisor to President Obama, at issue -- the media's near blackout of the Susan Rice revelations.

So, what does he think of all this today? Brit Hume joins us now. Brit, good evening to you. Good to see you tonight.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS CHANNEL SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You know, we've read with great interest, your back and forth with Ben Rhodes, and we have some of those that we'll put up on the screen because it goes -- it goes right to the topic that I was just discussing with Congressman Swalwell. And it starts by, you know, "This is amazing. The story is clearly news," you say, "and refusing to report it is not the behavior of a news organization." That came off of Don Lemon's at CNN saying that they were just not going to cover this at all. And Ben Rhodes comes back, "Bullying people into covering routine work of any senior security official as news is a clear effort to distract from questions about Trump and Obama." And you say, "Bullying? Please. If this was so routine, why did Rice falsely claim on PBS that she knew nothing about it?" That's the set up. I mean, it's an interesting question. It's the one that the Congressman and I were just talking about, the lack of curiosity.

HUME: Well, it's certainly been a lack of curiosity in the part of a lot of news media. I noticed that it finally made news on a couple of mainstream outlets today because members of Congress were calling for Susan Rice to be called to testify. But the revelation that she was involved in unmasking requests had not previously been news to them. So, this is one of the reasons why Fox News was formed, to cover the stories that others will not. And the result of this, Martha, I think it's unmistakable. Your previous guest is grumbling about it, notwithstanding is that these Congressional investigations, and possibly, the FBI investigation as well, will now proceed along two tracks, simultaneously. One of them will be to determine whether there's any collusion between the Trump team and the Russians in an effort to get him elected, and the other will be whether the intelligence involving Trump campaign officials and associates was improperly gathered, perhaps, improperly unmasked, and then possibly improperly distributed.

Those seem to me to be both relevant questions. I think it's pretty well acknowledged now that that's the case, although, Democrats seem so afraid that this hope that they have, that Trump can be brought down by being found of collusion with the Russians, that -- they're so afraid that that investigation will go off track. You heard the congressman say "We don't have time for that." Of course, we have time for that. There's always time to do an investigation, and it appears were going to do one and it's going to proceed on two tracks.

MACCALLUM: Yes. You know, Brit, given your time spent in this town and the presidencies that you have watched, what is your gut tell you about this investigation? About how long it's going to hang around and about how serious it may be on both of those tracks that you mention?

HUME: Martha, once you get into these Congressional investigations and you have, you know, you have staff preparation, and you have questioning in advance of witnesses, and then you have public hearings, and sometimes they go on for days, we're looking at this being with us for the foreseeable future. This is going to be with us a while. And this is proceeding very much along the lines of many Congressional investigations that I've covered in the past, where one party has its list of witnesses it wants to call, to elicit the facts that it wants to see brought out.

And the other party is moving in a different direction, trying to get the witnesses it once called, to elicit the facts it wants to see brought out. And out of that, sort of, competitive and even adversarial process, the public often finds out quite a lot. That's how these things work. We have an adversarial system in Congress. We have two competing parties. They conduct these investigations. They are rarely nonpartisan, sometimes they are bipartisan, but normally, they're fairly partisan, and that's not a bad way to get into facts. That's what happened at Watergate. That's what happened in (INAUDIBLE) country. That's what happened in innumerable other investigations and that seems to be where we're headed now. It's going to take a while.

MACCALLUM: Brit, thank you. Good to see you tonight.

HUME: You bet, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Still ahead, Senator John McCain joins me to discuss the devastating chemical attacks in Syria, and his reaction to what seemed today to be a policy shift on this from President Trump. So, we'll ask John McCain about that coming up.

But up next, as more and more members of Congress call for investigations into Susan Rice, Senate Intel Committee member, Tom Cotton, joins me up on the roof of this building to discuss what the chances are of that. Plus, what did he mean by this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM COTTON, R-ARKANSAS: Susan Rice is the Typhoid Mary of the Obama administration foreign policy. Every time something went wrong, she seemed to turn up in the middle of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Go here to read the rest:
VP Mike Pence talks health care reform, surveillance claims and Syria - Fox News

WASHINGTON-- The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers plan to continue their uphill effort to exhume the House GOPs health care bill, but remain adrift and divided over how to reshape it to attract enough votes to muscle it through the chamber.

White House officials and leading legislators aimed to resume talks Wednesday. Late Tuesday, they failed in a two-hour Capitol basement office meeting to shake hands on a White House proposal to let states seek federal waivers to drop coverage mandates that President Barack Obamas health care law slapped on the insurance industry.

Vice President Mike Pence, a former member of Congress, attended the meeting between the conservative Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee and the more moderate Tuesday Group. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney also attended.

All of us want an agreement, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told reporters after two dozen lawmakers from both ends of the GOP spectrum huddled with Pence and the other officials. Meadows added, Theres a whole lot of things that we have to work out.

Meadows leads the conservative House Freedom Caucus, whose roughly three dozen members have largely opposed the GOP legislation for not going far enough to abrogate Obamas Affordable Care Act, and their opposition helped to thwart the measure in the House in late March.

The groups plans to meet again on Wednesday.

The White House offers got an uneven reception earlier Tuesday from GOP moderates and conservatives, leaving prospects shaky that the party could salvage one of its leading legislative priorities. There was no evidence that the proposals won over any of the GOP opponents who humiliated President Donald Trump and House leaders on March 24, forcing them to cancel a planned vote on a Republican health care bill that was destined to lose.

We want to make sure that when we go, we have the votes to pass this bill, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told reporters. He said talks were in the conceptual stage.

Later Tuesday, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., his partys chief vote counter, said discussions were not where there is consensus on health care and indicated a vote this week was unlikely. Congress leaves town in days for a two-week recess, when lawmakers could face antagonistic grilling from voters at town hall meetings and the entire GOP drive might lose momentum.

Under the White House proposal, states could apply for a federal waiver from a provision in Obamas law that obliges insurers to cover essential health benefits, including mental health, maternity and substance abuse services. The current version of the GOP legislation would erase that coverage requirement but let states reimpose it themselves, language that is opposed by many of the partys moderates.

In addition, the White House would let states seek an exemption to the laws provision banning insurers from charging higher premiums for seriously ill people. Conservatives have argued that such restrictions inflate consumer costs.

Conservative Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., said he remained a no votes, saying states should be allowed to opt out of Obamas insurance requirements without seeking federal permission on bended knee.

Moderate Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., also remained an opponent, citing the GOP bills cuts in care offered low-income people under Medicaid and the higher out-of-pocket costs it would impose on many poorer and older consumers.

Some members of the Freedom Caucus were showing signs of accepting less than many originally wanted. Meadows said talks were boiling down to curbing several of Obamas coverage requirements - a sharp contrast to the full repeal of the statute that many initially demanded.

It perhaps is as much of a repeal as we can get done, Meadows told reporters.

A poll by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation flashed a warning for the White House, showing that 3 in 4 Americans want the Trump administration to make Obamas law work.

About 2 in 3 said they were glad the House GOP bill didnt pass last month. But people split evenly between wanting to keep or repeal Obamas statute.

The underlying House Republican bill would repeal much of Obamas 2010 law. It would erase its tax fines for consumers who dont buy policies, federal aid to help many afford coverage and Medicaid expansion for additional poor people.

Instead, opponents of the current measure say they want tax subsidies for health care to less generous than under Obamas program for many lower wage-earners and people in their 50s and 60s. They also would cut the Medicaid program and tax increases on higher earners would be eliminated. Consumers who let coverage lapse would face 30 percent premium hikes.

Read the original here:
House Republicans are still split on health care after meeting with Mike Pence - CBS News