Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON White House officials argued Wednesday that President Donald Trumps seemingly sudden decision to ban transgender people from serving in the militarycould hurt the political prospects of Democrats, ignoring the bipartisan opposition to Trumps announcement.

Soon after Trump announced his decision in a series of tweets, a White House official told Axios reporter Jonathan Swan that itforces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue, citing the re-election chances of potentially vulnerable Democratic senators in 2018.

Another White House official clarified to The Washington Post that politics was never an impetus for Trumps decision but said that it will be fun to watch some of them [Democrats] have to defend this.

As expected, many Democrats swiftly condemned Trumps announcement Wednesday morning. Yet several Republican lawmakers, including those with military experience, quickly expressed their opposition as well, demonstrating bipartisan interest in the issue.

Trumps decision seemed to be a move to appeal to the GOPs conservative base. Yet, many of the Republicans who swiftly spoke out against it have tended to support socially conservative policies.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, was one of the last to support overturning Dont Ask Dont Tell, which previously banned openly LGBTQ people from serving in the military. But in a statement Wednesday, he argued against Trumps ban, saying that anyone who is qualified to serve should be allowed to do so.

Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military regardless of their gender identity, McCain said. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so and should be treated as the patriots they are.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), an Iraq War veteran, expressed similar opposition.

Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity, she said in a statement.

Given both McCain and Ernsts military service, their statements appeared to push back on Trumps claim that allowing transgender people to serve would create disruption in the military, highlighting the opposition of prominent conservative veterans.The presidents assertion is one that many conservatives have used to argueagainst allowing all sorts of groups to serve, from women, to people of color, to LGBTQ people.

Im all about training standards. High, high standards for whoever joins the military,Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who served in the Marines, told HuffPost. But my initial reaction is, if you can can meet those standards, we shouldnt care who you are. So, meet the standards, and you should be able to join the military.

Upon hearing of Trumps tweets Wednesday morning, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said that current policy allows for a big tent for people who want to serve, adding that military service is voluntary.

You ought to treat everybody fairly, and you ought to give everybody a chance to serve, he told CNN.

In a statement, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said: I dont think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them.

Igor Bobic contributed reporting.

Continue reading here:
Republicans Break With Trump On Banning Transgender Soldiers - HuffPost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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