Mediaboss Marketing

THE MORNING PLUM:

The furor over President Trumps new immigration ban continues to grow, as Trump has now fired the acting attorney general for saying she questioned its legality and would not defend it in court. Faced with an international outpouring of opposition including rising consternation among congressional Republicans the measures chief architect, Steve Bannon, has responded with a crescendo of bluster and defiance, blaming the controversyon out-of-touch media elites, which probably endears Bannon to Trump, who shows no public signs of budging.

Yet new reporting indicates that other members of Trumps team may be going wobbly about the ban, and that Republicans are coming to view the current situation as untenable. Axios reports this morning:

Republican sources tell us that the Department of Homeland Security may issue implementation guidance that would allow for softening, and even policy changes, to President Trumps travel restrictions on migrants. The White House insists that any further guidance wouldnt constitute a walk-back.

But the internal conversation, led by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, reflects the widespread view among top Republicans that the current chaotic situation beset with blame-casting, backstabbing and unintended consequences is untenable.

The important larger context here is that Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, has already made his dissatisfaction known about this executive order leading to internal conflict with Bannon over it. Kelly was reportedly not briefed on the executive order until Trump was basically in the process of signing it. And DHSprivately concludedthat the ban did not legally apply to green card holders but was overruled by Bannon, who insisted that it did, because, well, because he said so. The White House subsequently reversed course on this point.

Trump administration officials defended the president's executive order temporarily banning entry to the U.S. from seven mostly Muslim countries, but lawmakers from both parties expressed strong concern or objection. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Now it appears that people at DHS or Republicans who are allied with them are letting it be known that the agency may put some kind of checks or limits on the policy, via implementation guidance.The executive order would temporarily ban refugees and migrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, and those challenging the order in court argue that, based on Trumps own campaign rhetoric about his desired Muslim ban, the intent of it is to replicate such a ban and discriminate against Muslims via legally permissible means.

[Trumps firing of the acting attorney general sets a dangerous precedent]

Its hard to know what any DHS effort to soften this via implementation guidance might look like. But one possibility is that DHS could employ the discretion to make exceptions to the executive order in individual cases.

If they wanted to, DHS could in fact soften this to a certain degree, immigration attorney David Leopold says. They could say that the executive order gives us the ability to decide on a case-by-case basis that its in the national interest to let in some refugees or legal immigrants from these countries.

Of course, its also possible thatsuch a softening could be cosmetic. DHS could say that they are applying exceptions, to create the impression that theyre being humanitarian, while in fact enforcing a complete ban, just as Trump wants, Leopold says.

Whatever ends up happening, the core point here is that some senior members of Trumps administration and some congressional Republicans want to be seen distancing themselves from the substance and intent of this immigration ban, even though it is viewed by Bannon, the keeper of the eternal flame of Trumpism, as central to Trumps appeal to his voters. Bannon likes to argue that a massive silent majority of ordinary Americans is rooting for Trumpism he has now declared that the current turmoil shows that a new political order is being born before our eyes. According to Bannon, only out-of-touch coastal elites do not get what is happening.Putting aside the contempt this betrays for all the ordinary Americans who are horrified by this first iteration of Trumpism and are resisting it in various ways, the battle over the meaning of the political reaction to it will have important long term implications.

Thats because there are still plenty of other fights ahead over immigration that will determine how far Trumpism gets in the real world. There is the possibility that Trump could extend this executive order or even expand it to include other countries. It is still not entirely clear what Trump has in mind for the hundreds of thousands of people brought here illegally as children. The degree to which Trump will expand deportations among millions of other undocumented immigrants remains to be seen. The revival of a registry for visitors from select countries remains a possibility. It is not hard to imagine that Trump might be tempted to ratchet some or all of these things up to 11 if there is a major terrorist attack.

[Will backlash to Trumps travel ban paralyze the executive branch?]

Thus, the massive blowback greeting the current measure and the fact that some Trump administration insiders and more reasonable Republicans are coming to see being associated with it as substantively, morally and politically untenable will hopefully serve as an early warning of sorts. It might make them more reluctant to stand idly by as Bannon and his allies try to convert more of Trumpisms cruelest and ugliest impulses into reality.

****************************************************************

* WHY ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSED TO ENFORCE BAN: Monday night, acting attorney general Sally Yates was fired by Trump after she announced she would not defend his refugee ban in court. The Times explains her decision:

Ms. Yates believed that the department had to consider the intent of the order, which she said appeared designed to single out people based on religion. Mr. Trump had campaigned on a promise to single out Muslims for immigration restrictions. Rudolph W. Giuliani said in an interview that Mr. Trump wanted a Muslim ban but needed the right way to do it legally. Mr. Trump said in a later interview that Christian refugees would be given priority for entry visas to the United States.

Indeed. And Trump himself has even discussed his Muslim ban and this sort of limitation on entry from Mideast countries as in effect the same proposal. The intent is obvious.

* FIRING OF YATES SETS UP BIGGER FIGHT OVER SESSIONS: Bloomberg reports that Trumps decision to fire Yates gives Democrats a new line of questioningto press on Jeff Sessions before hes confirmed as Attorney General:

Senate Republicans likely can clear Sessionswith a final vote as early as Friday, if they turn quickly to address his confirmation. But Democrats say they want more time to question him, particularly over whether hed have the independence to stand up to Trump if he disagreed with the president. Democrats say thats whatYates did, and it cost her her job.

No doubt Senate Republicans will gladly give Dems more time to question the prospective chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. on a matter as important as whether hell be independent of Trump.

* TOP NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS KEPT IN DARK ABOUT BAN: The Associated Press reports:

At least three top national security officials Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Rex Tillerson, who is awaiting confirmation to lead the State Department have told associates they were not aware of details of the directive until around the time Trump signed it. Leading intelligence officials were also left largely in the dark, according to U.S. officials.

But Steve Bannon knew about it indeed, he had a heavy hand in writing it and apparently, thats all that matters.

* TRUMPS NONSTOP LIES STIR ALARM OVERSEAS: Mark Landler reports that foreign leaders and diplomats are watching Trumps endless lying and wondering how that might impact international relations:

From defense treaties to trade pacts, foreign leaders are struggling to gauge whether they can depend on the United States to honor its commitments. They are sizing up a fickle president whose erroneous remarks on small issues cast doubt on what he might say on the big ones the future of NATO, say, or the Iran nuclear deal that involve war and peace.

Trump is being unpredictable and disruptive. Its a brilliant, tremendous strategy, believe me.

* BIGOTRY INFUSES THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE: David Brooks ties Trumps executive order on refugees to his wall on the Mexican border:

Its becoming increasingly clear that the aroma of bigotry infuses the whole operation, and anybody who aligns too closely will end up sharing in the stench. The administration could have simply tightened up the refugee review process and capped the refugee intake at 50,000, but instead went out of its way to insult Islam. The administration could have simply tightened up immigration procedures, but Trump went out of his way to pick a fight with all of Mexico.

It does sometimes seem as if creating the impression of a U.S. fight with Islam or Mexico is a feature, not a bug, of Trumps policies.

* AND TRUMP KEEPS DISSEMBLING ABOUT EXEC ORDER: Trump and the White House keep saying that only 109 people were impacted by the ban. Glenn Kessler sets the record straight:

The 109 number is old, and rather dubious. For instance, it does not reflect how many people were prevented from even boarding a plane.The real number is about 90,000. According to State Department statistics, thats how many people received either nonimmigrant or immigrant visas from the seven affected countries in fiscal year 2015.

The pointy-headed elite media fact-checkers just dont get this. Alternative facts cannot be fact-checked by definition.

Read the original here:
There are new signs Republicans are going wobbly on the 'Muslim ban' - Washington Post (blog)

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said they couldn't commit to voting for President Trump's education secretary pick Betsy DeVos on the Senate floor Tuesday. (Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions)

Two Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said Tuesday they are not yet committed to voting for Michigan billionaire Betsy DeVos for U.S. education secretary on the Senate floor. They became the first Republicans to say so.

It was the first time that any Republican senators said they might not vote for President Trumps nominee, who is the most polarizing education secretary nominee in the departments history.

Collins and Murkowski made the comments during a meeting of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The committees members are scheduled to vote shortly on Trumps nomination of DeVos, whose supporters praise her for being a longtime advocate of school choice who has helped low-income students find alternatives to failing public schools. Her critics say her education advocacy is aimed at privatizing the countrys public education system. They point out that she has called public schools a dead end, a remark she made in 2015.

[Six astonishing things Betsy DeVos said and refused to say at her confirmation hearing]

Collins, often seen as more moderate than other Republicans on Capitol Hill, said she would vote for DeVos in the committee so that the nomination would be sent to floor of the Senate so all senators can vote.

Actually, the nomination would have been sent to the floor for a full vote by the chairman of the committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) even if the committee voted against DeVos. But Collins said she felt that any president has a right to have all senators consider nominations.

Democrats say they have 48 votes against DeVos on the floor but need 51 and they have been looking for Republican votes against DeVos since her Jan. 17 hearing, where she displayed little understand of some key education issues.

Collins said she was keeping her options open in regard to DeVos for the full Senate vote.

Now let me make clear that I know that Mrs. DeVos cares deeply about children. I recognize that she has devoted much time and resources to try and improve the education of at-risk children in cities whose public schools have failed them. And I commend her for that service.

Like all of us, Mrs. DeVos is the product of her experience. She appears to view education through the lens of her experience in promoting alternatives to public education in Detroit and other cities where she has no doubt done valuable work.

Nevertheless her concentration on charter schools an vouchers raises the question of whether or not she fully appreciates that the secretary of educations primary focus must be on helping states and communities, parents, teachers, school board members and administrators strengthen our public schools

That is why I wrote to Mrs. Devos seeking her assurances in writing that she would not support any federal legislation mandating that states adopt vouchers nor will she condition federal funding on the presence of voucher programs in the states. She has provided that commitment

There remain other questions about Mrs. Devoss knowledge of certain education laws. While it is unrealistic and unfair toe expect a nominee to know all of the details of such programs, I was surprised and concerned about Mrs. Devos apparent lack of familiarity with the landmark 1975 law, IDEA, that guarantees a free and appropriate education for children with special needs. Therefore, I will continue to evaluate this nomination before it comes to the floor, even as I vote today to advance it so that all of our colleagues have the opportunity to assess this nominee.

Murkowski expressed concern about DeVoss emphasis on school choice, which is difficult if not impossible to implement in rural areas which dominate Alaska. She said thousands of Alaskans have visited her offices, called and sent messages expressing concern about DeVos and that she was not certain how she would vote on the Senate floor. But Murkowski, like Collins, said she would vote to approve the nomination in the committee.

[What Trump said when he signed nomination papers for Betsy DeVos, his education nominee]

She said:

I will show the same respect, the same deference to President Trumps nominee as I did President Obamas. And I will vote to report Mrs. DeVoss nomination to the full Senate.

But do know that she has not yet earned my full support.

Link:
Two Republican senators says they aren't committed to voting for Betsy DeVos on Senate floor - Washington Post

New York Times

Republicans' Paths to Unraveling the Dodd-Frank Act New York Times At the same time, congressional Republicans opened their own front against the Dodd-Frank Act, the law that overhauled financial regulation after the 2008 financial crisis. And with Mr. Trump in the White House, Republicans who previously challenged ... Trump Vows to Dismantle Dodd-Frank 'Disaster'New York Times all 39 news articles »

See original here:
Republicans' Paths to Unraveling the Dodd-Frank Act - New York Times

To begin with: This was not the Saturday Night Massacre.

Donald Trump fired a holdover acting attorney general, who would have been gone soon anyway once Trump's nominated choice is confirmed and sworn in, because she would not support a Trump policy in court. Richard Nixon, in October 1973, ordered his own attorney general to fire a special prosecutor who was investigating the president,his White House, and campaign staff; the attorney general resigned rather than fire the prosecutor, and then Nixon firedthe next-in-line, after which the third-in-line was sworn in as the new acting attorney general and carried out the president's orders.

What Trump did was orders of magnitude less of a shocking assault on constitutional government. This was a highly unusual situation -- usually, holdovers from the previous administration don't actively undermine the new administration (in large part because there are rarely similar situations) and Trump was well within his rights to act.

Nevertheless.

Along with everything else, it's not wrong at all to say that Trump's actions, including this one, continue to add to an atmosphere of chaos and an air of disregard for what Trump talked about all through the campaign: Law and order. Firing acting Attorney General Sally Yates can be justified. Doing it at night, and issuing an unprofessional statement accusing her of having "betrayed the Department of Justice" did not reassure anyone that the new president respects the constitution.

"Everything else" includes, just on Monday, the White House press secretary trashing State Department officials who signed on to a dissent memo; the news that House Judiciary Committee staff helped draft the refugee/visa/travel executive action while keeping it secret from their boss and signing non-disclosure agreements; and a report that Steve Bannon is stifling national security dissent and proper record-keepingwithin the White House. And probably two or three things I've forgotten.

Meanwhile, factionalism within the White House and more broadly among the executive branch (at least the few positions that have been filled so far)so far is at fever pitch, with leaked stories to match, so more coals are constantly being added to the fire. The president himself seems to have no control over his White House at all.

I recommend against anyone guessing how public opinion plays out on any of this. We'll know soon enough. Some are saying that the Yates confrontation, and the refugee/travel issue in general, is exactly what Bannon wants. But that doesn't mean he'll get the reaction he expects. All we know for now is that no president has ever been this unpopular this early in his term, and it's not close.

What is supposed to happen in these situations, when the White House is flailing, is for senior members of the party to step in and make sure the president gets his act together. That's what happened after the Iran-Contra affair, when Senator Howard Baker was brought in as Ronald Reagan'schief of staff. It's basically what happened after Bill Clinton's poorly organized first year and a half, when Leon Panetta took on the same job. That pressure doesn't always have to be applied publicly; after all, it's in the interest of all Republicans to have a functional administration. Or if it's public, it's indirect, with names (Mitch Daniels? Rob Portman?) suddenly starting to be mentioned by loyal partisans.

Republicans have plenty of leverage here. If necessary, U.S. senators could threaten to stop confirming Trump's cabinet; Republican members of both housesof Congress could threaten to hold hearings on any number of Trump scandals. They could even threaten to force him to turn over his tax returns.

And all they would be asking for -- should be asking for -- is for Trump to allow a real manager who knows how the government works to step in and help him, and to get rid of some of the people who are harming his presidency.

Sure, they risk the possibility that the Tweeter-in-Chief will lash out at them. And it's certainly possible that Trump can't be made to see how badly he needs help.

But there's no reason to think this gets better by itself. A whole lot of Republicans in Congress (and Republican governors and more) absolutely know that.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Nizza at mnizza3@bloomberg.net

View post:
Republicans Must Save This Presidency. Now. - Bloomberg

House Republicans representing areas along the Mexican border are leery of President Trumps plan to build a wall through their districts.

Three Republican lawmakers say undertaking such a massive project will fall short of alleviating the issues surrounding border security.

Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), who represents the largest region along the Mexican border of any member of Congress, actively opposes the wall, a cornerstone of Trumps campaign.

Their lack of enthusiasm means there isnt a single border-area lawmaker who vocally supports the construction of a wall in their district.

There are six deep-blue districts along the Mexican border from California to Texas all represented in the House by Democrats unified against Trumps wall plan and home to voters who dont want a wall in their backyards.

Voters in the regions along the border which have significant Hispanic populations predominantly favored Democratic nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonMorgan Freeman on Trump: 'It feels like we are jumping off a cliff' Dont doubt Trump when it comes to the VA Border-district Republicans skeptical about Trumps wall MORE over Trump last November.

Representing border districts are Democratic Reps. Juan Vargas (Calif.), Ral Grijalva (Ariz.), Beto ORourke (Texas), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Vicente Gonzlez (Texas) and Filemon Vela (Texas).

Pearces southern New Mexico district was the only one along the border that Trump won on Nov. 8.

Hurd and McSally, on the other hand, face a tricky balancing act in Trumps presidency after both of their swing districts narrowly went to Clinton.

After Trump signed an executive order last week taking steps toward building the wall, Hurd issued a statement breaking with his fellow Republicans to make clear he wasnt on board.

Hurd noted that it would be impossible to build a physical wall in many parts of the more than 800 miles of the border in his district.

Building a wall is the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border, he said.

Each section of the border faces unique geographical, cultural, and technological challenges that would be best addressed with a flexible, sector-by-sector approach that empowers the agents on the ground with the resources they need. A wall may be an effective tool in densely populated areas, but a variety of tools are needed between Brownsville, Texas, and San Diego, California.

Neither McSally nor Pearce went as far as Hurd, but both indicated that a one-size-fits-all strategy of a wall along the entire Mexican border doesnt seem feasible.

McSally described Trumps executive order, which also calls for hiring 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, as a strong start in the right direction.

But McSally, who chairs a House Homeland Security subcommittee on border security, was less effusive about the executive orders directions for building the wall.

When it comes to barriers, they are important where appropriate, but only part of the equation. What we need is a comprehensive strategy to grow situational awareness, build operational control and dismantle the cartels and their networks, she said.

And Pearce, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, signaled that he doesnt think a wall alone would prevent illegal immigration.

Building a wall or increasing the number of Border Patrol agents alone will not fix the faults with our border security, he said. We must enforce the laws we have and create a new strategy that will reform the way we patrol and protect the border.

Pearce told the Albuquerque Journal after the November elections that the wall wouldnt turn out to be the solution Trump and his supporters believe it to be.

It can be cheated, Pearce said at the time. We communicated that we thought its not going to work because we see people going under it, around it and over it.

But other Republicans are eager to get the project started.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), an immigration hawk whose district is more than 1,000 miles away from the border, even has a scale model of the proposed structure that he showed off in a photo with new Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly.

GOP leaders are making clear they want to make progress on one of Trumps key campaign promises within the first year of his administration. Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanGOP chairman defends staff who helped draft Trump travel order The Hill's 12:30 Report Pelosi aide apologizes after accusing Ryan of cursing reporters MORE (R-Wis.) said after the joint House-Senate GOP retreat last week that he expects Congress to take up an emergency funding package to provide American taxpayer funding for the walls construction.

Estimates for its cost range from $10 billion to $20 billion. Trump pledged on the campaign trail that Mexico would pay for it, though Republicans havent laid out definitive plans for how to offset the walls cost or who will end up with the bill.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer floated the idea of a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico last week, later clarifying that such a move is just one option the White House is considering.

Mexican leaders have said repeatedly they wont pay for the wall, and the disagreement led Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto to cancel a meeting with Trump originally set for this week.

Read more from the original source:
Border-district Republicans skeptical about Trump's wall - The Hill