Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON House Republicans on Tuesday defeated a resolution that would have asked the Department of Justice to reveal what it has uncovered about President Donald Trumps contacts with Russia and his conflicts of interest with other foreign governments.

Eighteen Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee opposed a resolution offered by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) that would have required Attorney General Jeff Sessions to hand over information related to investigations into the president, his campaign aides, the White House and Trumps businesses.

The vote came about after Nadler and other Judiciary Committee Democrats made several unsuccessful appeals to Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) requesting he hold hearings on Trumps Russian ties and other foreign conflicts. Goodlatte opposed the resolution, calling it overbroad and premature.

Nadlers resolution is one way Democrats are pressuring Republicans over the presidents business conflicts and his campaigns possible ties to hacking by Russian intelligence services against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Against all precedent in the modern era, Trump has retained ownership of his multi-billion dollar business empire. He is enriched by every payment to his hotels, resorts, golf courses and other enterprises. Foreign governments have paid his hotels to host parties and rent rooms, and to lease space in his commercial properties. Trump has promised to hand over hotel profits related to foreign entities, but hasnt provided details. The president also refuses to release his tax returns, leaving the public in the dark about his financial investments, his investors and his debts.

News reports have said Trump campaign aides were in contact with Russian intelligence officials during the presidential race.Seventeen intelligence agencies reported that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta to influence the vote for Trump. Trumps first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign after it was revealed that he lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

The resolution would have provided Congress with information to chart its own investigations, Nadler said before the defeat. All this does is ask that the information in possession of the Justice Department be turned over to the House so that we can both preserve it, and decide what course of action to pursue, Nadler said.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) urged Republicans to support Democratsin dispensing of the odorous smell that is not allowing us to run this government on behalf of the American people.

Nadler introduced the measure as a resolution of inquiry, a special legislative technique that requires a vote on the floor of the House if it is not voted on in committee within 14 business days. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) decided to send the resolution to committee so that fewer members of his caucus would have to vote on it.

The hearing was attended by an often raucous crowd of liberal activists spilling into the hallway, often erupting into applause.

Goodlatte gaveled down the outbursts, and ordered one person ejected for yelling out.

Republicans dismissed the resolution as politics.

What we are witnessing is President Trumps detractors are going through the stages of grief, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said.

Fervent Trump supporter Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) declared all of the accusations about Russian hacking and potential foreign influence in the Trump administration to be rumors and innuendo. He dismissed reports of hacking carried out by Russia because they came from the Obama intelligence community.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) did not support the resolution, but said committee members should send bipartisan letters asking for information related to the Russian hacking allegations. He added: If [Russia has] attempted to distort our democracy, we need to know it.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, compared Republican rejection of the resolution to 1974, when 10 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted against all three articles of impeachment against then-President Richard Nixon.

Looking back, it seems obvious to us that these members misjudged the moment, Conyers said. For political and personal reasons, they refused to engage with mounting evidence that the president had violated both the law and his oath of office.

He added, I think about those 10 names from the summer of 1974, and I wonder how history will judge us today.

Mike McAuliff contributed reporting.

Read the original here:
Republicans Reject Disclosing Findings On Trump's Business Conflicts, Russia Ties - Huffington Post

Republicans belong to the party of personal responsibility. Republicans belong to the party of limited government. Republicans belong to the party that respects constitutional rights. Republicans belong to the party that works for affordable insurance rates. Republicans belong to the party that just says no to trial lawyers.

But it appears there is a nefarious plan under way in Tallahassee to infiltrate the Republican Party and subvert those bedrock principles. How else to explain HB 19, which last week passed a House subcommittee on a mostly party-line vote?

If this bill becomes law, a woman who has an abortion would have up to 10 years to sue her doctor if she suffers physical or psychological harm and feels the doctor did not adequately inform her of such hazards before performing the procedure.

This is a vast expansion of the existing four-year limit to sue under medical malpractice limit.

The bill's sponsor is Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach. All nine representatives who voted for the bill are Republicans. Two Republicans crossed party lines to join five Democrats voting against the bill.

The intent of this bill is obvious. Supporters want to make it harder for doctors to provide safe, legal abortions, which are a constitutional right in America. To make providing safe, legal abortions harder, opponents are conspiring to increase the cost of malpractice insurance and subject doctors who perform abortions to more lawsuits.

To accomplish that goal, they are willing to shift personal responsibility for decision-making about abortions to the doctor and away from the woman who decides to have an abortion. If she decides, many years after the abortion, that she regrets her decision, she would be encouraged, under this law, to belatedly find fault with her doctor.

I have no doubt there are women who regret their decision to have an abortion. But there is no evidence this is an epidemic that needs to be addressed by this legislation or, in fact, would be effectively addressed by this legislation. If Republicans in the Florida Legislature are going to get into the business of letting people blame others for decisions they come to regret, then why stop with doctors?

I would imagine many women, before deciding to have an abortion or not to have an abortion consult with a range of people. They might talk to friends, relatives, financial advisers, psychologists or astrologers. Why not open all of them up to 10 years of lawsuits? Because Republicans believe in personal responsibility. Usually.

It's obvious what's going on here. Republicans pushing this bill and other abortion restrictions think no woman ever should have an abortion. I trust that if Rep. Grall or another of this measure's supporters were consulted by a woman considering having an abortion, their advice would be, "Don't!"

As advice, that's fine, particularly in cases where a friend has sought an opinion. And if they wanted to cite the potential for regret as an important element of their argument, that would be appropriate.

But the strategy is not just to provide advice. The strategy is to stop women from getting abortions. Further, the goal is to stop women these lawmakers haven't even met from having abortions. So they have no idea whether the decision they are attempting to force on these women by denying the option of a safe, legal abortion is the appropriate decision. Sure, women can regret having an abortion. But they also can regret not having an abortion.

What if the woman can't afford another child? What if a woman can't cope with another child? What if the woman would have to quit her job? What if she would have to drop out of college? What if, for any number of reasons, having a child would make a marriage untenable?

If this measure becomes law, it will do more than offer optional advice. It will, by discouraging doctors and clinics from offering safe, legal abortions, take options away from women. To pass it, Republicans would have to ignore a whole list of principles. To justify doing so, they might argue that abortion is life-and-death. Well, health care also is life-and-death. That hasn't stopped the GOP citing its dedication to small government and less spending from vowing to end Obamacare. If protecting life is the most basic principle, Republicans should apply it to health care as well.

Contact Jac Wilder VerSteeg at jwvcolumn@gmail.com.

Read the original post:
When issue is abortion, Republicans drop principles | Opinion - Sun Sentinel

As President Donald Trump prepares to give his first national address Tuesday night, a divided Republican Congress looks to the White House for guidance on what the party should do about health care.

After Rep. Mark Walker, a key House Republican, announced his opposition to leaked draft legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act Monday, other lawmakers have followed suit, coming out strongly against the current plan. Opponents say there's enough opposition to the proposed bill to prevent its passage with just Republican votes.

Asked if he could support the draft bill in its current form, Rep. Mark Meadows, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of about 40 tea-party minded members, said, "I cannot."

Why? "I can give you three of four different reasons," Meadows said.

When Rep. Dave Brat, R-Virginia, was asked if he could support it, he said, "No. No, no, no, no."

There is little in the draft bill that these conservative members find appealing.

"We didn't tell the voters we were going to repeal Obamacare but keep the Medicaid expansion. We didn't tell the voters we were going to repeal Obamacare and then keep some tax increases. We didn't tell the voters we were going to repeal Obamacare and start a whole new entitlement," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and former chair of the Freedom Caucus, said. "Real simple: we should do what we said."

Even some senators are expressing concern, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who has advocated that his own health care proposal be the one considered for passage.

The 105-page draft proposal dated February 10 was leaked last week and obtained by NBC News after circulating among health care lobbyists. While changes are possible, it is believed to be a legitimate effort at health care reform.

According to Meadows, there are "a lot more than 22" GOP members of the House who are opposed to the draft legislation, signaling that House leadership won't have the votes to pass it in its current form.

The flood of Republican opposition to the bill as written underscores the challenges House Republicans face in dismantling the Affordable Care Act and passing a replacement.

Related: GOP Draft Health Care Bill Cuts Medicaid, Insurance Subsidies

Members of the party are divided on what a replacement should look like and how much it should cost. Republican leaders, meanwhile, have promised not to "pull the rug" out from under people who are covered by current law after facing scores of angry voters at town halls across the country, and Trump promised repeatedly on the campaign trail not to cut entitlements like Medicaid. The party must square all that with conservatives who are wary of government spending for health care.

House Speaker Paul Ryan implied that conservatives are moving the goal posts.

"The Price Plan was considered the conservative gold standard at the time last year," Ryan said of the previous plan proposed by former Rep. Tom Price, now Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. "Many conservatives co-sponsored that plan. That plan looks a lot like what we're working on right now."

At their weekly meeting of Republican House members Tuesday morning, members said there was little time left for questions on health care. Some Republicans have claimed that House leadership is not collaborating with rank-and-file on the process of crafting the bill.

"They've asked for everybody's input," Meadows said. "Obviously the final result of where we are today is not something that I support and I'm not alone in that analysis."

But leadership aides said that House Republican Whip Steve Scalise holds listening sessions with members, and that Thursday's planning meeting featuring Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wisc., will focus on health care.

House leadership noted that the bill is a draft and that changes have already been made.

However, AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman to House Speaker Paul Ryan, said that the draft proposal contains the main elements, including tax credits for people purchasing health insurance based on age.

Ryan insisted that Republicans will get on board in the end.

"I feel at the end of the day, when we get everything done and right, we're going to be unified on this," Ryan said.

The draft bill phases out the current Medicaid expansion and would implement grants for states to provide Medicaid based on population, instead of on a person's income.

It gets rid of the subsidies for health insurance based on income and replaces it with tax cuts based on age. The proposal also creates state-based high risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions or are expensive to insure, and it greatly expands the use of Health Savings Accounts.

Additionally, as Republicans struggle to figure out a way to pay for their ACA replacement, the proposed bill calls for a tax on the most expensive employer-based health insurance plans, which is an expanded version of the so-called Cadillac tax on the most expensive employer based plans.

Republican governors have offered input, especially those who come from states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

Gov. Brian Sandoval, R-Nevada, expressed concern with the Republican plan to provide Medicaid funding to states based on per capita. Following a meeting with the nation's governors, he said he wants to see the funding formula to ensure that he's able to provide Medicaid for the people who need it without an extra burden placed on the state budget.

As for Trump, he has been mum on the details of a replacement plan. Members are looking to him to provide some guidance in his speech tonight.

"I hope (Trump) doesn't buy on to this plan because he will be ill-served," said Brat of the draft plan. "Coming in as a Republican president is a net tax increase and a federal new entitlement program. That's your first big move? And then you gotta do tax reform after that? Good luck."

See the rest here:
Republicans Divided on Health Care Look to Trump for Guidance - NBCNews.com

Former president George W. Bush is promoting his new book, a collection of his paintings of military men and women, the proceeds of which will go to help veterans groups. That alone highlights one dramatic contrast between Bush and President Trump the former has actually done good works for others. Bushs recent remarks on the Today show caught the attention of political watchers. Only in the era of Trump could Bush seem to be criticizing Trump when he says, I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy. We need an independent media to hold people like me to account.

In the wake of CPAC, the GOP can no longer claim to be the party of Ronald Reagan. But neither can it claim to reflect values embodied by Bush 43, and that is a horrible thing for the party and the country.

For starters, Bush actually understood and subscribed to the Founders view that power should be limited.Power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive and its important for the media to call to account people who abuse power, whether it be here or elsewhere, he said.

Moreover, in the wake of 9/11, his determination not to demonize Muslims generally stands in stark contrast to Trumps xenophobia and anti-Muslim rhetoric. I think its very important for all of us to recognize one of our great strengths is for people to be able to worship the way they want to or to not worship at all. A bedrock of our freedom is the right to worship freely, he told Matt Lauer. And if that wasnt clear enough, in response to a question on the Muslim travel ban, he said, I am for an immigration policy thats welcoming and upholds the law.

That of course reminds us that a conservative, law-and-order president was pro-immigration reform and pro-legal immigration specifically because he was/is a conservative (who believes in free markets, understands what makes the economy grow) and in favor of law and order (which necessitates we end the underground economy, make certain they pay taxes, etc.).

Speaking to People magazine, Bush was clear about his views on race and his fellow Americans more generally. I dont like the racism and I dont like the name-calling and I dont like the people feeling alienated, he said. The story continued: The couple list some of the centers work that stands in contrast to Trumps isolationism: immigration ceremonies, womens reproductive-health programs in Africa, and leadership training for Muslim women that the Bush Center brings to Texas from the Middle East. And of course in office Bush routinely defended human rights, religious freedom and the U.S. role in setting an example for the rest of the world. It would not have occurred to him to claim the United States. was being taken advantage of by our allies or shouldnt provide humanitarian and other forms of aid for other countries.

We shouldnt damn Bush 43 with faint praise by saying he is more humble, compassionate, empathetic, generous and civil than Trump, but it also bears remembering that in his defense of democratic norms, U.S. world leadership, nondiscrimination. legal immigration and anti-poverty initiatives his policy views were more rational and mindful of American values than are those of the current Oval Office resident. Moreover, the GOP under Bush, whatever its faults and shortcomings, was surely preferable to the Party of Trump.

Continued here:
Republicans should miss George W. Bush - Washington Post (blog)

Back in Washington, however, members aren't expected to get much relief. Not only do they have a daunting to-do list, President Donald Trump's joint congressional address Tuesday is sure to color their efforts, if not disrupt their work entirely.

Senators return to their arduous task of confirming Trump's Cabinet, as Democrats remain committed to using everything in their procedural toolkit to slow progress.

Nonetheless, Republicans are expected to confirm Wilbur Ross as commerce secretary, as well as move forward on a trio of other nominations -- Ryan Zinke at the Interior Department, Ben Carson at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Rick Perry's at the Energy Department.

Republicans need 50 senators to support their repeal package (they can pass it with Vice President Mike Pence as a tie breaker), but that means they can only afford to lose two lawmakers.

Last week, Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski told her state legislature in an address that she wouldn't support a plan that repealed Medicaid expansion available through Obamacare nor would she support defunding Planned Parenthood as part of repeal. That could be problematic if the final version of Obamacare repeal looks anything like a leaked draft released last week.

Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks conceded last week in a local radio interview that the town halls were so powerful they might stop repeal in its tracks.

The town hall pressure came in the form of organized chants of "do your job" or even "ACA," as well as more thoughtful, but challenging questions from individual voters.

One such constituent asked Tennessee Republican Rep. Diane Black a detailed policy question before citing her Christian faith as her reason for supporting Obamacare.

"The healthy people pull up the sick people right?" the woman said. "As a Christian, my whole philosophy in life is pull up the less fortunate. The individual mandate, that's what it does."

At a town hall in Kentucky, a woman confronted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell about the high numbers of people on food stamps in Kentucky, the lack of coal jobs and the lack of health insurance.

"If you can answer any of that, I'll sit down and shut up like Elizabeth Warren," the woman said, referencing McConnell's recent use of Senate procedure to stop the Massachusetts Democrat from speaking on the Senate floor.

Overshadowing everything, however, is still Trump.

After a rocky start, Trump is expected to focus his joint congressional address on policy goals, including health care and tax and regulatory reforms, as well as increased military spending. But even though Republicans finally have an ally in the White House to enact their party's agenda, Trump has proven he can be as much a hindrance as a help.

"In many respects, this administration is in disarray, and they've got a lot of work to do," Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain told an audience in Munich last week.

Trump's tone and the content of his Tuesday night speech will ultimately set Republicans' agenda for the near future, and could dictate whether they will be forced to answer new concerns from constituents or focus on their own long-standing wish list.

Trump's propensity to get distracted by personal grievances and his administration's sloppy roll out of its immigration executive order -- now stalled in the courts -- have put Hill Republicans on defense rather than offense.

And right before the recess, senators were briefed by FBI Director James Comey on the ongoing investigation into possible Trump's campaign ties to Russia.

Democrats, meanwhile, remain committed to playing defense on the Affordable Care Act and further investigating Trump's ties to Russia. In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argued that Trump's former campaign ally and now Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to recuse himself from overseeing any investigation into Trump's campaign's ties to Russia.

Pelosi also argued that Republicans "don''t have the votes" to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act despite their rhetoric.

"They don't have a replacement. What they have put forth and outlined will cost more to consumers. It will cover fewer people. It will give tax breaks to the wealthiest people," Pelosi said on ABC.

See original here:
Republicans set to move on their agenda after a rough week off - CNN