Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and others are standing up for Attorney General Jeff Sessions after President Trump suggested he wants Sessions to resign. (The Washington Post)

For arguably the first time, Republicans are starting to draw red lines in an effort tosavePresident Trump from himself.

As Trump weighs firing one or both of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and special counsel Robert Mueller, a pair of GOP senators is promising measures to thwart or dissuade him.Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said Wednesday that his panel would not confirm a new attorney general to replace Sessions this year. Then Thursday morning, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said he would introduce legislation to protect Muellerand warned it could be the beginning of the end of Trump's presidency if he tried to fire the special counsel.

Both moves are unprecedented.For perhaps the first time, Senate Republicans with real sway are talking about concrete steps tocounteract Trump's impulses and prevent constitutional crises.

Republicans have spent plenty of time talking tough about Trump, mind you. Plenty of them said Trump's comments about women on that Access Hollywood tape were beyond the pale, and some even urged him to drop out of the presidential race. Many of these same members, such as Rep.Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), would later embrace Trump. (Chaffetz has since retired from Congress.)

Like Graham, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been among the most vocal Trump critics in the GOP, including givingabrutal speech denouncing Trump's worldviewin February in Munich. But even that speech didn't call out Trump by name, andMcCain has frustrated Trump's opponents by not backing up his words with actions, such as voting against Trump's agenda.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), too, has been called upon to occasionally denounce Trump. And sometimes he has obliged. But he has also assumed a nonconfrontational approach to dealing with the president, repeatedly brushing off his tweets including as recently as Thursday morning in favor of trying to work with Trump to get things done.

There have been some threats of legislation or actions by Republicans to stop Trump. In January, for instance, GOP senators led by McCain threatened a bill to prevent Trump from lifting sanctions against Russia. Similarly, Graham in March suggested he might call for a special committee to look into Trump's baseless allegation that President Barack Obama wiretapped him.

But this is the first time the stakes have been this high. And Grassley and Graham are going on-record withspecific actions and threats.

Look, politics is an inherently disingenuous business. Sometimes you say something with a little extra conviction to send a message, or you make threats that you're not 100 percent committed to backing up. Politicians also have to deal with the realities of alienating a president who has significant sway over whether they can pass their agenda. There is no doubt Republicans, after denouncing Trump repeatedly on the campaign trail and seeing him win anyway, have grown gun-shy. This is the moment he's gone too far and I can cut him off, they've thought so many times, only to be proven wrong in short order.

I'm not one of those people who thinks McCain can't denounce Trump one day and vote for his agenda the next. McCain is a conservative Republican, so he tends to support Republican legislation. He wants to replace Obamacare, so he voted to move forward with a debate on doing just that this week, despite his reservations about the process.

But at some point, Republicans who think Trump is truly flirting with a constitutional crisis will need to back up their tough rhetoric with actions. Grassley and Graham seem to be at least edging toward doing that perhaps recognizing the uniquely fraught options Trump is apparently considering.

We'll see how much follow-through there is. But at some point, the rubber must meet the road, or it just amounts to a bunch of talk.

Update: Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) is also speaking out now, telling Trump not to plan on a possible recess appointment to replace Sessions. "Forget about it," Sasse said. Sasse didn't appear to threaten specific action, though Republicans as a whole could thwart a recess appointment.

The rest is here:
Republicans are starting to draw red lines on Trump firing Sessions and Mueller - Washington Post

Nicholas Kamm | AFP | Getty Images

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks at his weekly press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on July 27, 2017.

The officials who issued the statement House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch have recently been meeting to strike a joint plan that the GOP wants to push through Congress this year.

When President Donald Trump won the White House and Republicans held on to both chambers of Congress in November, tax reform became a top priority for the united government, as the GOP sees it as a lever for spurring faster economic growth. The issue has so far simmered in the background as the GOP struggles to reach a deal to repeal Obamacare, another key campaign plank that has repeatedly stalled amid party divisions.

The border adjustment proposal was a key revenue-raising plank of the plan House Republicans unveiled last year. It taxes imports but lets exports go untaxed.

Retailers that get many of their inputs from overseas raised concerns about the proposal and said it would pass costs on to consumers. Numerous senators also knocked the provision, leading to doubts in recent months that it could become part of a joint tax proposal.

Many questions remain about what shape the plan will take. While the White House released a brief summary of its goals for tax reform earlier this year, it has released little about specific policy since.

In a statement responding to the GOP leaders, Finance Committee ranking member Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said, "Republicans are dripping tax ideas out like a leaky faucet with no specifics to back them up."

In its earlier outline, the Trump administration called for reducing income tax brackets from seven to three, with a top rate of 35 percent and lower rates of 25 percent and 10 percent. The proposal would chop the corporate tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent.

The White House said there will be a "one-time tax" on the trillions of dollars held by corporations overseas.

It would include various other provisions like the elimination of most deductions.

Questions have grown about how low Republicans can take business or individual rates while keeping the plan revenue neutral.

See the article here:
Republicans scrap border adjustment from tax reform plan - CNBC

Republicans in Congress rendered a vote of no confidence in President Trump's Russia policy on Thursday with passage of legislation to severely limit his ability to cut deals with Vladimir Putin.

The package sanctioning Iran, North Korea and Russia includes language requiring congressional approval to waive penalties on Moscow, a loss of negotiating flexibility for the president, a self-styled deal maker, that his administration furiously tried to kill.

Trump has coddled Putin since entering the presidential race two years ago despite Russia's meddling in the 2016 elections and other actions to undermine U.S. interests, and Republicans don't trust him to crack down on Moscow's belligerence.

"We do think there was interference in the elections, we do take that seriously we don't have much doubt about it and probably the Russian government needs to understand, on this issue, they're dealing with Congress as much as they're dealing with the president," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said.

The bill cleared Congress in overwhelming bipartisan fashion, passing in the House 419-3 and in the Senate 98-2 both veto-proof majorities. White House officials say Trump hasn't decided if he will sign the legislation or risk the indignation of seeing his veto overridden.

The package sanctions North Korea over its nuclear weapons program and Iran for its ballistic missile program and sponsorship of terrorism. But it's the tough measures on Russia, preventing Trump (or future presidents) from relaxing sanctions absent Congressional approval, that stand out.

Foreign policy analysts and individuals who served in past administrations say that it is highly unusual for Congress to hamstring a president's ability to conduct foreign policy. The trend over the past 25 years or so has been to show deference on these matters to the executive.

"It's unusual. The last time Congress overrode a presidential veto in a major foreign policy issue was Ronald Reagan in 1986 on South African sanctions," said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Wilson Center who has advised secretaries of state of both parties.

Congress' move to reassert its influence over foreign policy is the result of an atypical confluence of events.

Democrats supported the dtente with Russia pursued by former President Barack Obama, transforming into born-again hawks after Moscow meddled in the 2016 campaign to boost Trump. Putin viewed the Republican as a fellow nationalist less inclined to oppose Russia internationally.

Since Reagan, at least, Republicans have been defined in part by their hardline suspicion of Russia. They have accommodated Trump's unorthodox populism on issues like trade, but resisted his effort to soften the GOP policy on Russia.

That culminated with Thursday's vote that sent the sanctions package to the president's desk, as multiple investigations into Russian meddling in 2016 that could implicate Trump or his campaign continue in Congress and by Robert Mueller, the federal special counsel.

Some Republicans were careful about how they discussed that vote, not wanting to finger Trump as the motivating factor behind the legislation. But it was clear that their lack of trust in Trump to confront Putin and negotiate agreements favorable to the U.S. played a role.

"President Trump is the fourth president that I have served with," Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said. "They all at various times thought that they could work with Russians, and Putin has had an ability to sort of extract concessions and then never live up to his bargain."

Trump has courted Putin assiduously and declined to subject the authoritarian Russian regime to the bombastic jawboning he's directed at other U.S. adversaries like China and Iran, not to mention allies like South Korea and the countries in NATO.

His approach to Russia in particular is consistent with his recent predecessors: Obama and Bill Clinton, both Democrats, and George W. Bush, a Republican. All thought they could charm Putin and turn him into an ally of the West.

Instead, the strongman pocketed favorable agreements while continuing subversive activities to counter American influence and priorities. Trump's bilateral meeting with Putin this month in Germany did little to convince critics in Congress that Trump has changed his thinking.

Congressional Republicans, seeking to tamp down on suggestions that they're trying to box Trump in, blamed their vote for the sanctions legislation on Obama. Trump's predecessor launched a "Russian reset" in a bid to forge more cooperation with Moscow.

Putin responded over Obama's two terms by helping Iran develop a nuclear energy program, establishing a military presence in Syria and rescuing Bashar Assad's regime, invading Ukraine and saber rattling NATO countries on its western flank.

Obama ignored GOP demands that he confront the Kremlin, and Republicans said they wanted to claim more power to keep the heat on Putin, even if that means defying a commander in chief of their own party in the short term, to prevent a similar situation from unfolding in the future.

"We had a very, very bad experience with the last chief executive," Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, said. "We just want to ensure that whoever is president, we don't have to go through that again."

Read more:
Republicans render vote of no confidence in Trump's Russia policy - Washington Examiner

Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham head for the Senate Floor for a vote at the U.S. Capitol.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

As members of Congress met on Wednesday to engage in delicate negotiations over health care and sanctions against Russia, Trump dropped another political hot potato into their laps by abruptly tweeting his decision to bar transgender people from serving in the military.

Trumps sudden pronouncement thrusts to the forefront a largely overlooked debate among House Republicans over the funding of gender confirmation surgeries and hormone therapy for military personnel. Since June, Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler has been pushing to reverse an Obama-era policy mandating that the Pentagon pay for these medically prescribed procedures. In early July, she introduced an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would forbid such funding, though a coalition of Democrats and 24 GOP lawmakers narrowly defeated her proposal in the House.

Hartzlers justification was largely economic; she argued that surgeries are costly and leave troops unable to fulfill their duties for extended periods of recovery time. In reality, the cost of transgender troops medical care is negligible. Yet many GOP lawmakers bought into Hartzlers logic. While stopping short of endorsing a total ban on transgender service members, they nevertheless agreed that taxpayer funds shouldnt be used for gender-related operations. After the amendment failed, a group of House members approached the president with a plea to take action.

By imposing a full ban on transgender soldiers, however, Trump went far beyond the cessation of medical funding that many in the House GOP members backed. His tweets left many Republican legislators to oppose the policy or clarify their stance. (Democrats uniformly opposed both the funding ban and the full ban.) For example, Kansas Republican representatives Kevin Yoder and Lynn Jenkins, both of whom voted for Hartzlers amendment, released statements in support of allowing any able person to serve. Ken Buck, a GOP congressman from Colorado who also voted aye on the amendment, wrote in reaction to Trumps ban, America needs a military comprised of patriots willing to sacrifice for this country. Any American who is physically and emotionally qualified should be allowed to serve. Francis Rooney, Kevin Cramer, Mike Gallagher, and other House members who supported the amendment have all issued similar statements in support of allowing transgender troops to serve, or at least questioning the ban.

A number of GOP senators have also questioned or disapproved of the ban. A spokeswoman for Iowa Senator Joni Ernst was quick to make the defunding-vs.-ban distinction. She stated, Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity, but then added that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for operations. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said, I dont think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them. Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomeys office released a statement reading, in part, Senator Toomey believes that every person should be judged based on his or her merits. That is why, during his entire public career, he has supported measures to protect individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Its rare for so many GOP lawmakers to speak out against the president. For some Republicans, Trumps announcement may provide an opportunity to portray themselves as moderates on the debate. With Trump flanking them to the right with a total ban, their proposal to defund transgender surgeries may seem less discriminatory to voters. On the flipside, a member of congress who fails to back the ban may appear to be soft on social issues in the eyes of Trumps evangelical supporters.

Top Comment

"You, the American people, deserve to know what I'm about to do. With a heavy heart, I've decided to nuke..." 20 minutes pass. "...these nachos. More...

When the Obama administration first allowed transgender troops to serve openly in the military in June 2016, there was little backlash from Republicans. Scuttling surgery funding was a pet issue for Hartzler and a handful of others in the House; maneuvers to get the provision included in the annual defense policy bill largely played out behind the scenes with little media coverage. For many GOP lawmakers, Trumps decree puts a startling and unwelcome spotlight on an obscure debate, adding another headache to an already contentious congressional session. Indeed, reports suggest that Trump neglected to consult or even inform many in Congress of his decision. Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain seemed irked by Trumps cavalier move to abruptly announce the ban over Twitter. Graham told The Post and Courier, we need to have a hearing, not a tweet, while McCain said in a statement, The Presidents tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter.

While the administration may hope to use the ban as red meat for Trumps blue collar base during the midterms, the presidents shoot-from-the-hip approach to policy doesnt appear to be doing much to win over allies in Congress.

View original post here:
Trump's Transgender Troops Ban Is Backfiring Among Congressional Republicans - Slate Magazine (blog)

View Caption Hide Caption

WASHINGTON All 10 Georgia Republicans serving in the U.S. House, as well as one of the states centrist Democrats, backed a government spending bill on Thursday that would set aside $1.6 billion to build a wall on the southern border.

The lawmakers support helped send the $790 billion national security-focused spending measure to the Senate, where it is expected to be made over, if it can advance at all.Sanford Bishop of Albany was one of only five Democrats to cross party lines and support the legislation.

I voted in support of this legislation due to the needs of our veterans and service members, Bishop said.

The bill would fund military installations in Georgia and elsewhere, veterans health benefits and the maintenance of the countrys nuclear fleet for the budget year that begins on Oct. 1. It would also set aside $50 million for the Savannah port, as well as seed money for initial construction on President Donald Trumps signature border wall with Mexico.

Read more: Five Georgia companies signal interest in Trumps border wall project

Democrats had pushed for a standalone vote on the funding for the wall in an attempt to force Republicans into a tough vote, but GOP leaders blocked that request. Instead, Georgias Republicans flaunted their votes on the issue.

I have had the opportunity to see the dire situation at the Southwest border firsthand and I understand the threats coming through the border into our nation, said Buddy Carter, R-Pooler. This legislation provides the resources necessary to begin construction on a Southern border wall to protect Americans from the threats of illegal immigration.

The Senate is not expected to pass the legislation before it leaves for its August recess. Democrats there have vowed to filibuster any spending bills that fund Trumps border wall.

Heres how Georgias lawmakers voted:

YES

Republicans Buddy Carter, Drew Ferguson, Karen Handel, Rob Woodall, Austin Scott, Doug Collins, Jody Hice, Barry Loudermilk, Rick Allen, Tom Graves

Democrats Sanford Bishop

NO

Republicans None

Democrats Hank Johnson, John Lewis, David Scott

Previous

Stacey Abrams put her ex-boyfriend in prison.Literature-ly.

See the rest here:
Georgia Republicans okay money for Trump's border wall - Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)