Mediaboss Marketing

The unpredictable investigation into Russian meddling in last year's presidential election, now reportedly reaching into President Trump's White House, could land like a political nuclear bomb on the Republican Party in 2018.

That's what worries Republicans in Congress now. They had initially expressed relief about the Justice Department's appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the inquiry, believing that it might free them, and voters, to focus on their ambitious legislative agenda.

"There are all kinds of unintended consequences that could occur here, some of them of which are related to timing, some of them of which are related to serendipity," Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said. "There is always a danger that it will go off the rails."

Mueller's appointment was widely praised by Democrats and Republicans.

But both sides of the aisle remember how past investigations led by special counsels ended up implicating individuals not assumed to be targets, or uncovering wrongdoing not assumed to be the in the scope of the probe when it first began.

President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was discovered as part of an investigation into his and wife Hillary Clinton's finances. Scooter Libby, aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, was the only official prosecuted in the investigation into who uncovered the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, even though State Department official Richard Armitage was the leaker.

The Whitewater probe lasted four years; the Plame inquiry took two. That's why Republicans also fret about timing. The Russia investigation could finish just before the midterm elections, or in the run up to 2020, a major problem for the GOP if it doesn't fully exonerate Trump and his associates.

"The concern of people like us, is that this investigation will drag on and pop on us in October of 2018, and totally screw us," said a Republican strategist, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly.

"I just don't like the idea that this could be strung out, strung out, strung out, strung out. I think it becomes a really big distraction," added Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., a key Trump ally on Capitol Hill.

Republicans have been at the mercy of a chaotic, undisciplined White House for the past two weeks.

First, Trump's abrupt firing of James Comey and suggestions that he dismissed the FBI director because he was unhappy with the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 contest and potential collusion by the Trump campaign.

Then, came revelations that the president might have previously pressured Comey to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser. Later there was news that Trump shared classified intelligence with Russian officials during an Oval Office meeting.

Finally, there was a report that Trump told the Russians during that same meeting that firing Comey relieved the pressure he was facing on the Russia probe.

It's all House and Senate Republicans have been asked about, not to mention questions related to what they intend to do about it. That's why, once Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller, so many of them were legitimately enthusiastic.

To a degree, they still are. Now, Republicans hope, they can get attention for work they're doing to address voters' priorities like job creation, as opposed to every fresh Trump Twitter post.

"I'm focused more on working on the bread and butter issues," said Rep. Barbara Comstock of Virginia, a top Democratic target in 2018. "This will enable us to go back to our work."

Trump has adamantly denied doing anything improper or illegal, complaining that he's the victim of a political witch-hunt. The Mueller-investigation might determine as much.

Yet the issue has taken a political toll, especially Trump's habit of calling attention to it through provocative counterattacks.

The president's job approval numbers have been driven even lower, and now sit below 40 percent in the Real Clear Politics average. Even Rasmussen, which usually shows much higher ratings for Trump, showed him at 44 percent.

If the atmosphere doesn't change, congressional Republicans could have a real reason to worry about 2018. The first test of that is coming up in competitive special House elections in Montana (on Thursday) and Georgia (on June 20.)

As of Friday, the Democrats led the average of polls testing the generic congressional ballot by 7 percentage points.

Republicans remain skeptical that the appointment of a special counsel will sufficiently push the matter of Trump and Russia aside to insulate them from political fallout. That's partly because probes in House and Senate committees are continuing.

"We've got multiple committees and subcommittees trying to get a piece of this investigation," Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said. "I'm sure there are going to be a lot of people wanting to talk about what the president just said, or some rabbit trail, but we've got to stay focused."

View post:
Republicans worry Mueller investigation could upend midterm elections - Washington Examiner

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) spoke positively about the Justice Department's special counsel appointment on May 18, and confirmed that the bipartisan congressional investigations will continue. (Reuters)

Back in December 2015, the U.S. presidential election was just heating up and a bearded Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) was laying out his vision as thenew speaker of the House. There were a lot of things on Ryan's wish list, but by far the thing he wanted most was a Republican president.

We are not going to solve all the countrys problems next year, Ryan said. We need a new president. Its just that simple.

It's since proved to be anything but simple.

The Washington Post reported Friday that the FBI's investigation into possible coordination between President Trump and Russia has found its way into the White House. A senior White House adviser close to the president is under scrutinyby the FBI.

Oh, the irony for Ryan.

After a whole lot of heartache that was the 2016 campaign, Ryan got his wish: The electoral college handed a wintoa Republican president who was behind in the polls, and voters let Republicans keep their majorities in Congress.

Trump maybe wasn't Ryan's dream partner, but at least he checked two of Ryan's most important boxes: He was president, and he was a Republican.

Since then, things haven't been smooth. Well, yeah, it's always nice to have less drama, Ryantold reporters Thursday. But the benefits of having a Republican who will sign into law a rollback of Obamacare and tax-reform legislation Ryan's been dreaming of since he was in college far outweigh the headaches of a president stumbling and tweeting into near-daily controversies.

Now, the situation has drastically changed. And so could Ryan and every other Republican's calculations about whether standing by the Republican president they so badly wanted is worth it.

After a week of stunning news about Trump's behavior with Russian diplomats and his own FBI director, this is perhaps the most stunning.

The Post's Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky reportthat the FBI's focus on a senior Trump adviser is the result of months of secret investigations that will soon become more public, with a grand jury and subpoenas. The FBI is investigating whether and to what extent Trump associates worked with Russia to hack into Democrats' emails during the presidential election. And investigatorsclearly feel they have a strong enough case to devote some of their resourcesto looking into the highest ranks of the White House. That's a big deal.

The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign has identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest. (The Washington Post)

And it meansfor the second day this week, the Trump administration has completely undermined everything Republicans havebeen saying to date about this Russia investigation.

Yes, both Congress and the FBI are looking into whether Trump associates helped Russia help Trump win the election. Yes, it was always a possibility this could go to the top. I think Putin pays... Trump, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said to Ryan and other GOP colleagues last year, a month before Republicans officially nominated Trump. (McCarthy says that was a joke, and no investigation has concluded whether or if Trump's campaign worked with Russia.)

But throughout this whole ordeal, Republican leaders in Congress have brushed aside calls for a more independent investigation. Implicit in their messaging: It's not that serious.

Now, things are looking serious. We have a special counsel, former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, with wide latitude to investigate whatever he wants under the umbrella of Trump associates and Russia. And the FBI's probe, which is climbing higher and higher in the Trump administration, could break out in the open.

For Republicans in Congress, this is all terrible news. Every escalation into Trump-Russia investigationsmakes it that much more difficult for them to a)keep their credibility intact for insisting none of this was necessary and b) stand by the president they so badly wanted.

When Republicans' new House speaker wished on that December day for aRepublican president, it's fair to say this is notwhat he was wishing for.

View original post here:
Republicans' nightmare is starting to come true - Washington Post

House Speaker Paul Ryan on May 10 in New Albany, Ohio. Ryan said last-minute changes to the American Health Care Act were narrow and insignificant.

Ty Wright/Getty Images

As the House was voting on the American Health Care Act on May 4, some Democratic members shouted WHERES THE SCORE? at their colleagues across the aisle. They were voting on a major piece of legislation without fully knowing its ramifications, since the Congressional Budget Office had yet to score its final version. Republicans choice to plow ahead anyway has earned them grief in interviews, at town halls, and even from some of their Republican colleagues in the Senate.

Jim Newell is a Slate staff writer.

House Republicans response to the public and their Senate peers was: Dont worry. The final, unscored amendments didnt really matter.

This is kind of a bogus attack from the left, House Speaker Paul Ryan said on ABCs This Week three days after the bill passed. He pointed out that the CBO had twice scored the AHCA and that the final amendmentintroduced by Rep. Fred Upton, which plugged another $8 billion into the billwas a mere three pages long. It takes you 30 seconds to read. The most recent CBO score, he said, showed that the bill was perfectly in compliance with the Senate budget rules, and the Upton amendment would not dramatically alter that score.

It was narrow changes to the bill, he said.

These were the talking points: The AHCA had been scored twice already, and the pesky three-page amendment tossed in at the end wouldnt make much of a difference. Ryan wasnt the only person to whom this talking point had been disseminated. Virginia Rep. Dave Brat, whose town hall I attended shortly after the bills passage, kept referring to the two-page amendment that would have an insignificant impact on the first CBO score. (The Upton amendment runs just a few lines onto a third page.)

Two problems with this spin: First, the Upton wasnt the only major amendment without a CBO score. The MacArthur amendment, which would allow states to opt out of certain Affordable Care Act regulations, also hadnt been scored.

And the idea that these amendments were narrow or insignificant, just because they were short in length, is belied by the enormous impact they had on the vote count. All but one of the conservative Freedom Caucus members voted for the AHCA after the MacArthur amendment was added; the Upton amendment gave leaders just enough moderate votes to bring the bill to the floor. Those 11 total pages delivered 30 or 40 fairly stubborn votes for a politically toxic bill.

But the best representation of how misleading this spin about the insignificance of a final CBO score was? House leaders, as Bloomberg first reported Thursday, wont even formally transmit the AHCA to the Senate until they see the final CBO score, because these teensy little amendments could force the House to change the bill and vote on it again. (Though the Senate claims to be writing its own health care bill, it still needs to use the House bill as the legislative vehicle for whatever those senators come up with.)

There are two ways that the CBO score, expected early next week, could force the House to change the bill. One would be traceable to that totally insignificant MacArthur amendment, another to those measly few pages of the Upton amendment.

The MacArthur amendment allows states to opt out of two critical regulations enacted under the ACA: community rating by health status, which requires insurers to charge the same prices to customers regardless of their medical history, and the requirement that qualifying health plans sold on the individual market cover a set of 10 essential health benefits. Its going to be difficult for the CBO to score the effects of these waivers, since itll have to use some educated guesswork to determine how many (and which) states might apply for them.

As I wrote in March, though, one of the side effects of eliminating these waivers would be increased government spending. If certain regulations are eliminated, insurers could offer bare-bones plans that induce healthier people to use the refundable tax credits the AHCA offers them. (Thats a generous explanation. My colleague Jordan Weissmann has noted how such deregulation pared with refundable tax credits is the recipe for the proliferation of a scam industry on taxpayers dime.) If the CBO projects millions more using the tax credits for skimpy insurance, it could blow through the AHCAs deficit reduction and make it a long-term deficit increaser, which isnt allowed under reconciliation rules. Should the CBO make that determination, the Senate wouldnt be able to act on the bill.

The bill doesnt just have to be a long-term deficit reducer overall. Each committee of jurisdiction involved in writing the reconciliation billthe finance and health policy committees in the House and Senatehas to save at least $1 billion in its contribution to the legislation. So even if the finance portion of the AHCA was to save tens of billions of dollars, the health portion would still have to find its own $1 billion in savings.

The CBO could show that the health committees contribution falls short. Voxs Dylan Scott spoke to a budget expert at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget who estimated that provisions under the health committees jurisdiction could cost $6 billion. The Upton amendment, ostensibly under the health committees jurisdiction, added $8 billion in spending to the bill.

Republican aides arent sweating the problems too much. A Senate GOP aide described the holdup on the transfer to me as S.O.P. [standard operating procedure] on reconciliation bills that are coming from the House to the Senate.

There are lots of ways to fix issues that come up before the Senate considers the legislation, the aide added, but again, we wont know exactly what they are until the CBO score comes out. But again, not worried.

Top Comment

AHCA The Sequel - Saving Ryan's Privates! More...

The issue here is not that the House couldnt fix problems that arise from the CBO score. Its that its a little embarrassing that problems would arise from the CBO score, after leaders had insisted that the late amendments were but narrow, insignificant changes. (They just magically got 40 of their colleagues to vote for it, thats all.) The MacArthur amendment, especially, makes such significant changes to public policy that it could eat up the previous versions comfortable cushion of savings. Its a big enough deal that leaders are holding onto the bill until they see the CBO score. But it wasnt deemed important enough for citizens to see the score before their representatives voted on it.

If the House did have to rework the legislation and call it up for a second vote, it would put the vulnerable Republicans who had to be dragged kicking and screaming the first time in an even worse position. If they didnt vote for it a second time, Democrats would still blast them for having voted for a bill separating 24 million people from their health care before knowing all of its dastardly effects. If they did vote for the second version, theyd be blasted for voting for a world-historically toxic bill twice. A revote may be only a narrow, worst-case scenario. That its a possibility at all is lesson enough in waiting for all of the information to come in. Well see if Senate Republicans heed that lesson when its their turn to vote.

More:
House Republicans May Have to Vote on Trumpcare Again - Slate Magazine

On Friday, there was a feeling of dj vu around the Minnesota Capitol.

After repeated delays in negotiations, the GOP leaders of the state Legislature decided to move ahead with a two-year, $46 billion state budget plan without final sign-off from DFL Gov. Mark Dayton. The Republicans said it was necessary in order to move the budget bills through the cumbersome legislative process before a constitutional deadline to adjourn session at midnight on Monday.

Its the second batch of budget bills Republicans have sent to Dayton this month without an agreement; the first round saw all the budget bills vetoed by the governor. Its also a repeat of 2015, when legislative leaders sent the governor budget bills without a final agreement. Its exactly where we were two years ago, Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt said. We have decided to set joint budget targets that we think represent real compromise with the governor. We have moved our positions pretty significantly.

The move assures a messy finish to the 2017 legislative session, with a hurried weekend of budget work ahead and potential vetoes forthcoming from the governor. During an appearance on Twin Cities PBS Almanac show on Friday night, Dayton did not promise to veto all of the budget bills sent his way, but he said he was disappointed Republicans went ahead without him on the budget after he left meetings this afternoon to attend a funeral.

This is divided government, and they are already saying, We are going to have the budget the way we want it, Dayton said.

GOP leaders have released new budget targets that include a $660 million tax cut proposal, which is lower than the more than $1 billion tax cut they originally wanted but more than what Dayton had proposed. They also want to spend about $467 million more on education over the next two years; $200 million on higher education; and $164 million for courts and public safety. The targets also include more than $250 million in reductions to health and human services spending.

Progress was slow on a budget deal between the two sides all week. On Wednesday, Dayton offered a halfway proposal to split the surplus. But the two sides disagreed about what actually constituted the halfway point of the surplus, throwing a wrench into the negotiations. Even after a secret meeting at the governors residence Thursday evening and hushed meetings throughout the day Friday, Republican leaders and the governor still werent able to reach a global agreement.

So Republicans decided to move forward without Dayton. The Legislature has a job to do and it takes a few days, Daudt said. Weve reached that point where we have to start that process.

In 2015, the last time legislators sent Dayton a plan without his sign-off, the governor ultimately vetoed three of the budget bills, leading to a one-day special session that was nearly derailed over disagreements about spending on the environment. Republicans said they dont want that to happen this year, and plan to meet with Dayton over the weekend with the goal of drafting agreements he can sign. They have left $86 million unspent in their targets to accommodate ongoing negotiations.

This does not mean we are walking away from the table with the governor, Daudt said. In fact, its the opposite. We hope to engage with the governor over the course of the next three days and get agreement on all of these bills.

But Dayton was still concerned, not just about the numbers but about hundreds of policy measures that were tucked into the last round of budget bills Republicans sent him.

I'm not going to swallow it, Dayton said of those proposals, which include measures to block local governments from setting their own wage and labor laws; a delay on implementing waterway-buffer rules, one of Daytons signature initiatives; and changes to the makeup of the Metropolitan Council, the metro-area regional planning agency.

The way we resolved the shutdown in 2011: we took all of the policy out of the budget bills, Dayton said Friday.

Republicans said they will reduce the number of policy measures in the bill, but added that there is always some policy in budget bills. Every bill always has policy, said Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka. As far as the ones that are more volatile we will communicate with him.

If legislators dont finish their work by midnight on Monday, Dayton can immediately call them back to a special session, or they can negotiate terms over the following days and weeks. But an agreement must be struck by June 30, the final day of the fiscal year, or state government heads into automatic shutdown.

Dayton has said an important part of his legacy is in adopting a fiscally responsible two-year budget, one that doesnt leave ballooning expenses in future budgeting years. During his first session in office, in 2011, lawmakers faced a $6 billion budget deficit.

If we have any kind of economic downturn we are right in the same boat, he said, and avoiding a similar situation is a very important part of what I want to leave for my successor.

Go here to see the original:
With no deal in sight, legislative Republicans decide to move budget bills without Dayton's sign-off - MinnPost

A boy listens to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during a campaign rally in the Lakawanna College Student Union November 7, 2016 in Scranton, Pennsylvania. (Chip Somodevilla--Getty Images)Chip SomodevillaGetty Images

Nearly a quarter of young people who identified as Republicans in 2015 now lean towards Democrats, according to a new study.

Overall, most people who identify with a certain party tend to maintain their political affiliation. But according to a Pew Research study about party loyalty, young Republicans are far more likely to switch parties than older Republicans or Democrats of any age. The researchers found that only about half of surveyed Republicans under 30 stayed steadfastly loyal to their party from 2015 on: 21% left the party but returned by March 2017, and 23% defected to the Democrats. That was significantly higher than the number of young Democrats who defected to the Republican side (9%) or the number of older Democrats who defected (14%.)

Overall, both Republicans and Democrats have only about a 10% defection rate. But between 2015 and 2017, the data suggests that Trump has been the main reason for defection in both directions. Among Republicans who have defected from the party, 57% said they strongly disapprove of Trump, among Democrats who have defected from their party, 32% strongly approve of Trump.

Overall, people who are less politically engaged are more likely to switch sides, and Democrats had a slight edge among those voters: 15% of less engaged Republicans became Democrats, while 12% of less engaged Democrats became Republicans.

The research was conducted by the American Trends Panel at the Pew Research Center, in a survey of 5,154 adults over two years.

See the rest here:
Nearly a Quarter of GOP Millennials Have Defected from the Party of Trump, Study Says - TIME