Iran mocks Pompeo’s offers to visit
‘Instead of making empty and disingenuous offers, @SecPompeo can accept any of the many requests from Iranian reporters to interview US officials,’ the Iranian foreign minister tweeted.
By NAHAL TOOSI
Iranians are widely considered among the most hospitable people in the Middle East, willing to invite random strangers to dine with them in their homes.
But Iran’s leaders aren’t quite ready to roll out the red carpet for Mike Pompeo.
The secretary of State in recent days has been urging Iran’s Islamist government to let him visit the country. He says he wants a chance to tell ordinary Iranians “the truth, unfiltered, unabridged” about the oppressive clerics who rule them.
The biting Iranian response came Wednesday.
“Instead of making empty and disingenuous offers, @SecPompeo can accept any of the many requests from Iranian reporters to interview US officials,” tweeted Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. “He has refused til now, as he knows he has to be accountable to rigourous [sic] questioning—the very same way I am by the US media.”
The barbed exchange is the latest variation of an information war both sides are waging amid a broader face-off that has escalated since President Donald Trump quit the Iran nuclear deal last year. The issue of visiting each other’s countries surfaced earlier this month, when Zarif came to New York for meetings at the United Nations.
“We aren’t afraid of [Zarif] coming to America where he enjoys the right to speak freely,” Pompeo wrote Sunday on Twitter. “Are the facts of [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s] regime so bad he cannot let me do the same thing in Tehran?”
Pompeo also tweeted out a video of him, in response to a question from Bloomberg TV, saying he’d “happily” go to Tehran — a visit that, if it were to happen, would be historic, given that the U.S. and Iran cut off diplomatic ties 40 years ago.
In response, Zarif questioned Pompeo’s motives, especially given U.S. efforts to squeeze Iran’s economy via sanctions. Zarif asserted that if Pompeo were to speak to Iranian reporters — presumably ones who work for the regime — he’d have to answer questions such as why he and Trump “employ #EconomicTerrorism against entire Iranian people.”
A State Department spokesman said Pompeo’s “intent was not to request an official visit but to point out that Iran’s totalitarian regime will always do everything possible to keep the truth from reaching the Iranian people,” even as Zarif visits the U.S. and “spreads Iranian propaganda.”
The spokesman was not immediately able to say whether Pompeo has in fact rejected Iranian media requests.
Such messaging spats are occurring alongside economic and military standoffs between the two countries that some observers fear are treading dangerously close to a full-blown armed conflict.
Pompeo is a key architect of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, which uses sanctions and other tools to crack down on a regime the U.S. blames for terrorism and other nefarious activities.
Pompeo backed Trump’s decision to quit the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which had lifted many sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. The secretary is also widely believed to desire regime change in Iran, though he has said he just wants to see the regime change its behavior.
While it’s true that the U.S. allows Zarif to enter American territory, it’s partly because of rules and norms governing international access to the United Nations, which is headquartered in New York City. When Iranian officials visit New York for U.N.-related events, they are nonetheless restricted in where they can go on American soil.
This past month, Pompeo actually imposed even more restrictions than usual on where Zarif could go in New York. Nonetheless, Zarif was able to meet journalists, think tank staffers and even Sen. Rand Paul. The isolationist-leaning Republican from Kentucky visited Zarif with the blessing of Trump, who has been seeking ways to bring Iran to the negotiating table.
Iran and the U.S. broke off diplomatic ties in the wake of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. The 2015 nuclear deal, negotiated under the Obama administration, broke many taboos when it came to U.S.-Iranian contact, but a Tehran visit from then-Secretary of State John Kerry was never truly in the cards.
Pompeo has long been an Iran hawk, including during his time as a Republican congressman from Kansas prior to joining the Trump administration. Even then, though, he angled for a chance to visit the Middle Eastern country.
In 2016, he and two other Republican lawmakers asked Iran to let them visit and monitor the country’s parliamentary elections that year. Pompeo argued there was no one better than he and his colleagues — three Americans skeptical of Iran’s system — to verify whether the election was legitimate.
“We’re the perfect people,” Pompeo told POLITICO at the time. “The Iranians should be demanding that we come.”
July 31, 2019
Staffers lobbied on Russian project
Ex-McConnell staffers lobbied on Russian-backed Kentucky project
Democrats are pushing the Trump administration to review the project, and they say McConnell indirectly helped facilitate it.
By NATASHA BERTRAND and THEODORIC MEYER
Two former top staffers to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have lobbied Congress and the Treasury Department on the development of a new Kentucky aluminum mill backed by the Russian aluminum giant Rusal, according to a new lobbying disclosure.
The disclosure comes as Democrats are pushing the Trump administration to review Rusal’s $200 million investment in the Kentucky project — concerned that the mill will supply the Defense Department — and as McConnell weathers criticism for helping block a congressional effort to stop the investment.
Indeed, the Russian firm was only able to make the investment after it won sanctions relief from penalties the Treasury Department initially imposed in April 2018 on Rusal and other companies owned by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and Kremlin ally accused of facilitating Moscow’s nefarious activities, such as seizing land in Ukraine, supplying arms for the Syrian regime and meddling in other countries’ elections.
Attention over the sanctions relief deal have specifically focused on McConnell, given his role in halting a bipartisan congressional effort to stop the penalties rollback. McConnell told reporters in May that his support for lifting the sanctions was “completely unrelated to anything that might happen in my home state.”
“A number of us supported the administration,” McConnell said. “That position ended up prevailing. I think the administration made a recommendation without political consideration. And that’s — that was how I voted — the reason I voted the way I did.”
It’s not clear whether the former staffers — Hunter Bates, a former McConnell chief of staff, and Brendan Dunn, who advised the Kentucky Republican on tax, trade and financial services matters before heading to K Street last year — directly lobbied McConnell’s office over the aluminum mill project. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the law and lobbying firm where Bates and Dunn work, and McConnell’s office declined to comment on whether they had done so.
In Washington, it’s common for congressional staffers to lobby their former colleagues.
Former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who’s now a lobbyist representing Rusal’s parent company, EN+, gave McConnell “a heads up” on the Rusal deal prior to its announcement, according to a disclosure filing first spotted by The New York Times.
The lobbying push by McConnell’s former staffers, one of whom left his office in November 2016 and the other who left a year ago, also comes as McConnell is being criticized for blocking election security bills in the wake of Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign. McConnell took to the Senate floor earlier this week to rebut accusations that he’s kowtowing to Russia, prompting the hashtag #MoscowMitch to begin trending on Twitter.
The lobbying disclosure, made last week, shows Bates, Dunn and three other Akin Gump lobbyists are working for Braidy Industries in the new Ashland, Ky., aluminum mill. Rusal holds a 40 percent stake in the project.
Democratic lawmakers have called for an investigation of the project by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency body that can recommend the cancellation of foreign financial arrangements with U.S. firms over national security concerns.
Democrats are pushing the Trump administration to review the project, and they say McConnell indirectly helped facilitate it.
By NATASHA BERTRAND and THEODORIC MEYER
Two former top staffers to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have lobbied Congress and the Treasury Department on the development of a new Kentucky aluminum mill backed by the Russian aluminum giant Rusal, according to a new lobbying disclosure.
The disclosure comes as Democrats are pushing the Trump administration to review Rusal’s $200 million investment in the Kentucky project — concerned that the mill will supply the Defense Department — and as McConnell weathers criticism for helping block a congressional effort to stop the investment.
Indeed, the Russian firm was only able to make the investment after it won sanctions relief from penalties the Treasury Department initially imposed in April 2018 on Rusal and other companies owned by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and Kremlin ally accused of facilitating Moscow’s nefarious activities, such as seizing land in Ukraine, supplying arms for the Syrian regime and meddling in other countries’ elections.
Attention over the sanctions relief deal have specifically focused on McConnell, given his role in halting a bipartisan congressional effort to stop the penalties rollback. McConnell told reporters in May that his support for lifting the sanctions was “completely unrelated to anything that might happen in my home state.”
“A number of us supported the administration,” McConnell said. “That position ended up prevailing. I think the administration made a recommendation without political consideration. And that’s — that was how I voted — the reason I voted the way I did.”
It’s not clear whether the former staffers — Hunter Bates, a former McConnell chief of staff, and Brendan Dunn, who advised the Kentucky Republican on tax, trade and financial services matters before heading to K Street last year — directly lobbied McConnell’s office over the aluminum mill project. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the law and lobbying firm where Bates and Dunn work, and McConnell’s office declined to comment on whether they had done so.
In Washington, it’s common for congressional staffers to lobby their former colleagues.
Former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who’s now a lobbyist representing Rusal’s parent company, EN+, gave McConnell “a heads up” on the Rusal deal prior to its announcement, according to a disclosure filing first spotted by The New York Times.
The lobbying push by McConnell’s former staffers, one of whom left his office in November 2016 and the other who left a year ago, also comes as McConnell is being criticized for blocking election security bills in the wake of Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign. McConnell took to the Senate floor earlier this week to rebut accusations that he’s kowtowing to Russia, prompting the hashtag #MoscowMitch to begin trending on Twitter.
The lobbying disclosure, made last week, shows Bates, Dunn and three other Akin Gump lobbyists are working for Braidy Industries in the new Ashland, Ky., aluminum mill. Rusal holds a 40 percent stake in the project.
Democratic lawmakers have called for an investigation of the project by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency body that can recommend the cancellation of foreign financial arrangements with U.S. firms over national security concerns.
Canada importation plan
Drug industry lashes Trump for Canada importation plan
By SARAH OWERMOHLE and ARTHUR ALLEN
The Trump administration jumped into a fight with drugmakers Wednesday by promising to allow importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and other countries, advancing an idea the pharmaceutical industry and many members of the president’s party have long opposed.
Trump’s health department Wednesday said it would open up two pathways to let states and companies test drug importing programs in the coming months, promising that modern drug distribution supply chains would allow federal drug regulators to guarantee the products’ safety.
It wasn't clear how widely — or quickly — importation would occur under the plan, but the administration is eager to tout the idea as part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to fight drug prices after recent setbacks to his agenda. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former pharmaceutical executive who until recently opposed importation, said the new plan could allow Americans to access safe and cheaper drugs in some cases.
But the pharmaceutical industry swiftly attacked the plan, citing Azar’s own words from just last year, when he called drug importation a “gimmick.”
"Rather than surrender the safety of Americans by importing failed polices from single-payer countries, we should work on solutions here at home that would lower patient out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter," said Stephen Ubl, CEO of Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, in a statement.
"There is simply no way to adopt an importation scheme that doesn't jeopardize the health and well-being of America's patients," added Jim Greenwood, president of the biotech-heavy organization BIO. "This is a misguided attempt to keep an ill-informed campaign promise."
The idea of drug importations has been brought up repeatedly since Congress imposed the current strict import limits in 1987. Any loosening of the rules was always stymied by safety concerns and industry opposition. A high-level 2004 report — co-authored by Azar, then HHS' senior lawyer — argued against the idea.
The announcement came a day after a Democratic presidential debate in which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a champion of drug importing, cited the high cost of insulin as a prime example of profiteering in the health care industry. House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), whom Trump has demonized in recent days, has led congressional investigations into the soaring price of insulin, a nearly century-old treatment.
However, the administration’s plan likely would not immediately allow for insulin imports. The first regulatory pathway HHS laid out is limited to certain drugs from Canada, said acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless. It would exclude controlled substances, IV drugs and biologics such as insulin and the popular anti-rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira.
In addition, FDA will provide manufacturers the opportunity to offer a lower price for imported versions of drugs they sell overseas. This might include medications like insulin for diabetes and drugs for rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disorders and cancer, HHS said. This second pathway, which will require FDA to write new guidance "in the coming months," would potentially be open to all products and countries, Sharpless said.
"FDA is laying out a framework, for the first time in its history, for drug imports that will save money," Azar said on a call with reporters. "We all know how unfair it is that other countries are paying lower prices for the same drugs, and we're taking action."
Republican health leaders in Congress offered measured support for the administration's plan. Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the upper chamber's health committee, welcomed it but said FDA must maintain its "gold standard for safety and effectiveness." Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, praised Trump's engagement on drug prices and said he "looked forward to continuing our work with HHS and FDA as we explore these paths to lower drug prices."
Some Senate Democrats pointed out that the administration has refused to support direct government negotiations with drugmakers — a top priority for them — while now advancing a plan to import medicines from a country that does.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said it would be a better idea to “give the federal government the same rights the Canadian government and the British and other governments have, which is to negotiate for drug prices.”
Azar opened up to the idea of importation after Trump pushed him to work with Florida officials on it earlier this year. Four states have passed legislation to import drugs in recent years, but states must receive HHS approval before the programs can move forward.
"What we’re saying today is, ‘We’re open, there is a pathway,'" Azar said, as long as importers can convince FDA they can protect safety and lower prices.
The Trump administration this month faced a couple of high-profile defeats in its push to lower drug costs. A federal judge threw out a rule that would have required drugmakers to disclose list prices in TV ads. Days later, the administration withdrew a rule that would have required insurers and companies managing drug benefits to provide any discounts directly to patients in most government health plans.
The White House, meanwhile, has been working with the Senate on a drug pricing package that would cap Medicare drug costs, but that’s been met with resistance from some Republican lawmakers and drugmakers.
The importation plan outlined Wednesday could face opposition from Canadian officials, who have warned the Trump administration they will oppose any U.S. plans to buy prescription drugs that could cause shortages or raise drug prices in Canada. Pharmacists there are already complaining about growing shortages.
Azar said he would leave the Canadian objection issue to drug importers to address. “It would be premature to speculate on the specific impact of these pathways on any country," an HHS spokesperson added.
Asked why a drug company would want to lower a price on a drug it can charge more for in the United States, Azar said "perverse incentives” such as rebates to prescription benefit managers had driven up list prices. Under the proposal, the drugs could be imported in a way that would give savings directly to consumers. The details, he added, “would be for [manufacturers] to figure out.”
By SARAH OWERMOHLE and ARTHUR ALLEN
The Trump administration jumped into a fight with drugmakers Wednesday by promising to allow importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and other countries, advancing an idea the pharmaceutical industry and many members of the president’s party have long opposed.
Trump’s health department Wednesday said it would open up two pathways to let states and companies test drug importing programs in the coming months, promising that modern drug distribution supply chains would allow federal drug regulators to guarantee the products’ safety.
It wasn't clear how widely — or quickly — importation would occur under the plan, but the administration is eager to tout the idea as part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to fight drug prices after recent setbacks to his agenda. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former pharmaceutical executive who until recently opposed importation, said the new plan could allow Americans to access safe and cheaper drugs in some cases.
But the pharmaceutical industry swiftly attacked the plan, citing Azar’s own words from just last year, when he called drug importation a “gimmick.”
"Rather than surrender the safety of Americans by importing failed polices from single-payer countries, we should work on solutions here at home that would lower patient out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter," said Stephen Ubl, CEO of Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, in a statement.
"There is simply no way to adopt an importation scheme that doesn't jeopardize the health and well-being of America's patients," added Jim Greenwood, president of the biotech-heavy organization BIO. "This is a misguided attempt to keep an ill-informed campaign promise."
The idea of drug importations has been brought up repeatedly since Congress imposed the current strict import limits in 1987. Any loosening of the rules was always stymied by safety concerns and industry opposition. A high-level 2004 report — co-authored by Azar, then HHS' senior lawyer — argued against the idea.
The announcement came a day after a Democratic presidential debate in which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a champion of drug importing, cited the high cost of insulin as a prime example of profiteering in the health care industry. House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), whom Trump has demonized in recent days, has led congressional investigations into the soaring price of insulin, a nearly century-old treatment.
However, the administration’s plan likely would not immediately allow for insulin imports. The first regulatory pathway HHS laid out is limited to certain drugs from Canada, said acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless. It would exclude controlled substances, IV drugs and biologics such as insulin and the popular anti-rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira.
In addition, FDA will provide manufacturers the opportunity to offer a lower price for imported versions of drugs they sell overseas. This might include medications like insulin for diabetes and drugs for rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disorders and cancer, HHS said. This second pathway, which will require FDA to write new guidance "in the coming months," would potentially be open to all products and countries, Sharpless said.
"FDA is laying out a framework, for the first time in its history, for drug imports that will save money," Azar said on a call with reporters. "We all know how unfair it is that other countries are paying lower prices for the same drugs, and we're taking action."
Republican health leaders in Congress offered measured support for the administration's plan. Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the upper chamber's health committee, welcomed it but said FDA must maintain its "gold standard for safety and effectiveness." Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, praised Trump's engagement on drug prices and said he "looked forward to continuing our work with HHS and FDA as we explore these paths to lower drug prices."
Some Senate Democrats pointed out that the administration has refused to support direct government negotiations with drugmakers — a top priority for them — while now advancing a plan to import medicines from a country that does.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said it would be a better idea to “give the federal government the same rights the Canadian government and the British and other governments have, which is to negotiate for drug prices.”
Azar opened up to the idea of importation after Trump pushed him to work with Florida officials on it earlier this year. Four states have passed legislation to import drugs in recent years, but states must receive HHS approval before the programs can move forward.
"What we’re saying today is, ‘We’re open, there is a pathway,'" Azar said, as long as importers can convince FDA they can protect safety and lower prices.
The Trump administration this month faced a couple of high-profile defeats in its push to lower drug costs. A federal judge threw out a rule that would have required drugmakers to disclose list prices in TV ads. Days later, the administration withdrew a rule that would have required insurers and companies managing drug benefits to provide any discounts directly to patients in most government health plans.
The White House, meanwhile, has been working with the Senate on a drug pricing package that would cap Medicare drug costs, but that’s been met with resistance from some Republican lawmakers and drugmakers.
The importation plan outlined Wednesday could face opposition from Canadian officials, who have warned the Trump administration they will oppose any U.S. plans to buy prescription drugs that could cause shortages or raise drug prices in Canada. Pharmacists there are already complaining about growing shortages.
Azar said he would leave the Canadian objection issue to drug importers to address. “It would be premature to speculate on the specific impact of these pathways on any country," an HHS spokesperson added.
Asked why a drug company would want to lower a price on a drug it can charge more for in the United States, Azar said "perverse incentives” such as rebates to prescription benefit managers had driven up list prices. Under the proposal, the drugs could be imported in a way that would give savings directly to consumers. The details, he added, “would be for [manufacturers] to figure out.”
Dangerous levels.....
Stock buybacks are reaching dangerous levels
By Matt Egan
The US-China trade war might be having a chilling effect on business investment, but it's not derailing the splurge in share buybacks.
S&P 500 companies are on track to buy back another $940 billion of stock in 2019, according to Goldman Sachs. That would easily surpass the record buyback boom set off last year by President Donald Trump's corporate tax cut.
But Corporate America's rush to pay out shareholders could be getting out of hand.
"Payout ratios are elevated, cash balances have declined and leverage has risen to a new all-time high," David Kostin, chief US equity strategist at Goldman Sachs, wrote in a recent note to clients.
In an alarming development, companies are now returning more cash to shareholders than they are generating in free cash flow. It's the first time that has happened in the post-crisis period, according to Goldman Sachs.
Nonfinancial S&P 500 returned a healthy 82% of free cash flow to shareholders via buybacks and dividends in 2017, the firm said. But that metric surged to 104% during the 12 months that ended in March.
Borrowing money could make sense right now given extremely low interest rates driven by easy money from global central banks. The Federal Reserve is widely expected to lower interest rates on Wednesday for the first time in nearly 11 years to boost growth and firm up soft inflation.
However, all of that borrowing could backfire if the economy stumbles or the Fed needs to reverse itself by quickly raising interest rates.
Apple alone is buying back $75 billion of stock
Wall Street loves buybacks because they lower the supply of shares and increase demand. By reducing the number of outstanding shares, each shareholder's holdings go up. Buybacks also inflate per-share earnings, even when underlying profits stay the same.
Major American companies including Apple, Wells Fargo (WFC) and DuPont (DD) have announced sizable buyback programs in recent months. Apple (AAPL) alone plans to repurchase another $75 billion of stock.
Procter & Gamble (PG) shares hit a record high on Tuesday after the maker of Bounty paper towels and Crest toothpaste announced plans to ramp up buybacks by up to 60% in the new fiscal year.
It's not like the consumer products behemoth was stingy last year though. P&G returned $12.5 billion to shareholders through buybacks and dividends, exceeding the $12.1 billion it brought in through adjusted free cash flow.
Cash is shrinking at the fastest pace since at least 1980
To fund these aggressive buybacks, Corporate America has been forced to draw down their cash balances.
Nonfinancial S&P 500 companies slashed their cash holdings by $272 billion over the past 12 months, according to Goldman Sachs. Although that still leaves them with a ton of cash, the 15% decline marks the largest since 1980, the firm said.
Here's another way to look at it: Goldman Sachs found that nonfinancial cash balances as a percentage of assets has declined from 12.7% in June 2017 to a nine-year low of 10.4% now.
Some of that cash is going towards job-creating business investment on items like factories and software. Another chunk is funding blockbuster mergers.
But Corporate America is setting aside its biggest spending increases for shareholder rewards, according to a recent Moody's Investors Service report. Net share buybacks (share repurchases minus stock issuance) at US nonfinancial companies covered by Moody's spiked 99% in 2018.
"The precipitous decline in cash balances has coincided with a sharp increase in corporate leverage," Kostin said.
He pointed out that net leverage, or the amount of debt relative to adjusted pre-tax earnings, for the median S&P 500 company climbed to an all-time high during the past 12 months.
"Unless earnings growth accelerates materially, companies will likely continue to fund spending by drawing down cash balances and increasing leverage," Kostin said.
Buyback backlash
Defenders of buybacks argue that excess cash should go back to shareholders rather than get wasted on inefficient projects. That capital could then be redeployed in the real economy, to fund startups and boost household spending.
"The money doesn't vanish, it gets reinvested in higher growth businesses that boost the economy and jobs. Is that bad?" former Goldman Sachs (GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein wrote on Twitter earlier this year.
However, the buyback boom has drawn the ire of Democrats and even some Republicans in Washington, especially since the stated reason for the 2017 tax law was to drive business investment -- not shareholder returns.
"Stock buybacks are not good for workers. End of story," Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat from Ohio, wrote in a recent essay.
Brown plans to unveil new legislation on Wednesday aimed at curbing stock buybacks and creating a "worker dividend."
By Matt Egan
The US-China trade war might be having a chilling effect on business investment, but it's not derailing the splurge in share buybacks.
S&P 500 companies are on track to buy back another $940 billion of stock in 2019, according to Goldman Sachs. That would easily surpass the record buyback boom set off last year by President Donald Trump's corporate tax cut.
But Corporate America's rush to pay out shareholders could be getting out of hand.
"Payout ratios are elevated, cash balances have declined and leverage has risen to a new all-time high," David Kostin, chief US equity strategist at Goldman Sachs, wrote in a recent note to clients.
In an alarming development, companies are now returning more cash to shareholders than they are generating in free cash flow. It's the first time that has happened in the post-crisis period, according to Goldman Sachs.
Nonfinancial S&P 500 returned a healthy 82% of free cash flow to shareholders via buybacks and dividends in 2017, the firm said. But that metric surged to 104% during the 12 months that ended in March.
Borrowing money could make sense right now given extremely low interest rates driven by easy money from global central banks. The Federal Reserve is widely expected to lower interest rates on Wednesday for the first time in nearly 11 years to boost growth and firm up soft inflation.
However, all of that borrowing could backfire if the economy stumbles or the Fed needs to reverse itself by quickly raising interest rates.
Apple alone is buying back $75 billion of stock
Wall Street loves buybacks because they lower the supply of shares and increase demand. By reducing the number of outstanding shares, each shareholder's holdings go up. Buybacks also inflate per-share earnings, even when underlying profits stay the same.
Major American companies including Apple, Wells Fargo (WFC) and DuPont (DD) have announced sizable buyback programs in recent months. Apple (AAPL) alone plans to repurchase another $75 billion of stock.
Procter & Gamble (PG) shares hit a record high on Tuesday after the maker of Bounty paper towels and Crest toothpaste announced plans to ramp up buybacks by up to 60% in the new fiscal year.
It's not like the consumer products behemoth was stingy last year though. P&G returned $12.5 billion to shareholders through buybacks and dividends, exceeding the $12.1 billion it brought in through adjusted free cash flow.
Cash is shrinking at the fastest pace since at least 1980
To fund these aggressive buybacks, Corporate America has been forced to draw down their cash balances.
Nonfinancial S&P 500 companies slashed their cash holdings by $272 billion over the past 12 months, according to Goldman Sachs. Although that still leaves them with a ton of cash, the 15% decline marks the largest since 1980, the firm said.
Here's another way to look at it: Goldman Sachs found that nonfinancial cash balances as a percentage of assets has declined from 12.7% in June 2017 to a nine-year low of 10.4% now.
Some of that cash is going towards job-creating business investment on items like factories and software. Another chunk is funding blockbuster mergers.
But Corporate America is setting aside its biggest spending increases for shareholder rewards, according to a recent Moody's Investors Service report. Net share buybacks (share repurchases minus stock issuance) at US nonfinancial companies covered by Moody's spiked 99% in 2018.
"The precipitous decline in cash balances has coincided with a sharp increase in corporate leverage," Kostin said.
He pointed out that net leverage, or the amount of debt relative to adjusted pre-tax earnings, for the median S&P 500 company climbed to an all-time high during the past 12 months.
"Unless earnings growth accelerates materially, companies will likely continue to fund spending by drawing down cash balances and increasing leverage," Kostin said.
Buyback backlash
Defenders of buybacks argue that excess cash should go back to shareholders rather than get wasted on inefficient projects. That capital could then be redeployed in the real economy, to fund startups and boost household spending.
"The money doesn't vanish, it gets reinvested in higher growth businesses that boost the economy and jobs. Is that bad?" former Goldman Sachs (GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein wrote on Twitter earlier this year.
However, the buyback boom has drawn the ire of Democrats and even some Republicans in Washington, especially since the stated reason for the 2017 tax law was to drive business investment -- not shareholder returns.
"Stock buybacks are not good for workers. End of story," Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat from Ohio, wrote in a recent essay.
Brown plans to unveil new legislation on Wednesday aimed at curbing stock buybacks and creating a "worker dividend."
Fed cutting rates, why?????
Wait, so, why is the Fed cutting rates, exactly?
By David Goldman
The economy is strong. Unemployment is historically low. Consumer confidence is high. So why, exactly, is the Federal Reserve expected to cut rates Wednesday?
One argument: By cutting rates, the Fed could grow the supply of money, which has been growing too slowly for the past few years. That, more than any tool at the Fed's disposal, will help keep the economy growing.
"Everyone is focused on interest rates, and that's the wrong thing to focus on," said Steve Hanke, an economics professor at Johns Hopkins and a director of the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute. "It's all about the growth in the money supply. That's what drives changes in nominal GDP."
The number of notes and coins in circulation plus bank accounts is growing at 4.8% per year. Although that's up from its low of 3.5% per year in October, "a bit more would probably do some good," Hanke argued.
He argues that the economy is not overheating, which gives the Fed wiggle room to loosen its grip on monetary policy ahead of "international storm clouds" on the horizon — which include uncertainty about trade, a potential no-deal Brexit and slowing growth in China.
Hanke said the US-China trade war and an increase in tariffs, in particular, could damage the global economy, backfiring on the United States.
"The US thinking on this thing is completely wrongheaded," Hanke said. "We have a president who is a businessman and most businessmen have no clue about international economics."
To counteract the slumping global economy, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has hinted that rate cuts are coming at the conclusion of the Fed's two-day policy-setting meeting Wednesday.
Cutting rates would weaken the dollar, potentially making US exports more attractive to foreign buyers. That's why the Trump administration has been advocating for devaluing the dollar.
But Hanke cautioned against any intervention on the part of the Trump administration.
"Unilateral interventions are useless unless they're well planned and well coordinated, otherwise you're just burning up foreign currencies," he warned.
Hanke will discuss the Fed and the economy on the next "Markets Now" live show, which streams live from the New York Stock Exchange every Wednesday at 12:45 pm ET. Hosted by CNN Business correspondents, the 15-minute program features incisive commentary from experts.
You can watch "Markets Now" at CNN.com/MarketsNow from your desk or on your phone or tablet. If you can't catch the show live, check out highlights online and through the Markets Now newsletter, delivered to your inbox every afternoon.
By David Goldman
The economy is strong. Unemployment is historically low. Consumer confidence is high. So why, exactly, is the Federal Reserve expected to cut rates Wednesday?
One argument: By cutting rates, the Fed could grow the supply of money, which has been growing too slowly for the past few years. That, more than any tool at the Fed's disposal, will help keep the economy growing.
"Everyone is focused on interest rates, and that's the wrong thing to focus on," said Steve Hanke, an economics professor at Johns Hopkins and a director of the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute. "It's all about the growth in the money supply. That's what drives changes in nominal GDP."
The number of notes and coins in circulation plus bank accounts is growing at 4.8% per year. Although that's up from its low of 3.5% per year in October, "a bit more would probably do some good," Hanke argued.
He argues that the economy is not overheating, which gives the Fed wiggle room to loosen its grip on monetary policy ahead of "international storm clouds" on the horizon — which include uncertainty about trade, a potential no-deal Brexit and slowing growth in China.
Hanke said the US-China trade war and an increase in tariffs, in particular, could damage the global economy, backfiring on the United States.
"The US thinking on this thing is completely wrongheaded," Hanke said. "We have a president who is a businessman and most businessmen have no clue about international economics."
To counteract the slumping global economy, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has hinted that rate cuts are coming at the conclusion of the Fed's two-day policy-setting meeting Wednesday.
Cutting rates would weaken the dollar, potentially making US exports more attractive to foreign buyers. That's why the Trump administration has been advocating for devaluing the dollar.
But Hanke cautioned against any intervention on the part of the Trump administration.
"Unilateral interventions are useless unless they're well planned and well coordinated, otherwise you're just burning up foreign currencies," he warned.
Hanke will discuss the Fed and the economy on the next "Markets Now" live show, which streams live from the New York Stock Exchange every Wednesday at 12:45 pm ET. Hosted by CNN Business correspondents, the 15-minute program features incisive commentary from experts.
You can watch "Markets Now" at CNN.com/MarketsNow from your desk or on your phone or tablet. If you can't catch the show live, check out highlights online and through the Markets Now newsletter, delivered to your inbox every afternoon.
Suspends account
Twitter suspends account hours after Trump retweeted it
By Donie O'Sullivan
In a move that will likely embolden President Donald Trump's claims that social media companies are biased against him and his supporters, Twitter suspended an account Tuesday evening that the President had retweeted just hours earlier.
Trump retweeted a post from an account operating under the name "Lynn Thomas" that accused Democrats of being "the true enemies of America." The account, which created in September 2018, described itself as a "Fierce Trump supporter" and declared: "I'm not a bot."
Just a few hours later, Twitter had suspended the account, confirming to CNN it had broken the platform's rules. The company did not say what rules the account had broken.
The Daily Beast first reported the suspension.
In an interview with C-SPAN set to air Tuesday night, Trump said he has "not much" regret when it comes to the tens of thousands of tweets he has sent, but he also acknowledged that it can be an issue when he retweets other accounts.
"The bigger problem are the retweets. You'll retweet something that sounds good, but it turned out to be from a player that's not the best player in the world, that sort of causes a problem," he said.
Explaining his use of Twitter, Trump called it an "incredible way of communicating," as well as a way to combat negative coverage.
Earlier this month, Trump invited a cadre of rightwing internet personalities to the White House for a "social media summit." There the President bemoaned Silicon Valley's purported bias against him and his supporters.
He claimed that Twitter was making it difficult for people to follow him on the platform, saying at the time,"People come up to me: 'Sir, we want to follow you; they don't let us on." He added later: "I have millions of people, so many people I wouldn't believe it, but I know that we've been blocked. People come up to me and they say, 'Sir, I can't get you. I can't follow you.'"
There is no evidence, as CNN has previously reported, that Twitter or other social media companies have made it difficult for people to follow Trump. And when Trump recently used racist language to attack four progressive Democratic congresswomen of color, a Twitter spokesperson told CNN that the President's tweets were not against its rules -- a conclusion apparently contradicted by Twitter's written policies.
By Donie O'Sullivan
In a move that will likely embolden President Donald Trump's claims that social media companies are biased against him and his supporters, Twitter suspended an account Tuesday evening that the President had retweeted just hours earlier.
Trump retweeted a post from an account operating under the name "Lynn Thomas" that accused Democrats of being "the true enemies of America." The account, which created in September 2018, described itself as a "Fierce Trump supporter" and declared: "I'm not a bot."
Just a few hours later, Twitter had suspended the account, confirming to CNN it had broken the platform's rules. The company did not say what rules the account had broken.
The Daily Beast first reported the suspension.
In an interview with C-SPAN set to air Tuesday night, Trump said he has "not much" regret when it comes to the tens of thousands of tweets he has sent, but he also acknowledged that it can be an issue when he retweets other accounts.
"The bigger problem are the retweets. You'll retweet something that sounds good, but it turned out to be from a player that's not the best player in the world, that sort of causes a problem," he said.
Explaining his use of Twitter, Trump called it an "incredible way of communicating," as well as a way to combat negative coverage.
Earlier this month, Trump invited a cadre of rightwing internet personalities to the White House for a "social media summit." There the President bemoaned Silicon Valley's purported bias against him and his supporters.
He claimed that Twitter was making it difficult for people to follow him on the platform, saying at the time,"People come up to me: 'Sir, we want to follow you; they don't let us on." He added later: "I have millions of people, so many people I wouldn't believe it, but I know that we've been blocked. People come up to me and they say, 'Sir, I can't get you. I can't follow you.'"
There is no evidence, as CNN has previously reported, that Twitter or other social media companies have made it difficult for people to follow Trump. And when Trump recently used racist language to attack four progressive Democratic congresswomen of color, a Twitter spokesperson told CNN that the President's tweets were not against its rules -- a conclusion apparently contradicted by Twitter's written policies.
7 takeaways
7 takeaways from the Democratic debate's first night
By Eric Bradner
A handful of low-polling moderates hoped to break through in a crowded Democratic field during Tuesday's debate by confronting the top-tier candidates on stage, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Warren and Sanders withstood the attacks -- and counterpunched much harder.
The two most progressive candidates in the 2020 Democratic field struck inspirational tones, with Warren urging Democrats to be "the party of big, structural change." And they won over the crowd as they debated with moderate critics who tried to question their electability and the feasibility of their ideas, but failed to knock either candidate on their heels even once.
In the process, they could have eased primary voters' fears that their policy proposals would make ripe targets for President Donald Trump and the GOP in a general election.
For their part, moderates pushed back as they tried to define themselves on health care and decriminalizing the border. Mostly, though, their highlighting of ideological differences within the party offered Warren and Sanders a tune-up for higher-stakes showdowns this fall against the Democratic front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Here are seven takeaways from Tuesday night, the first of the two nights of CNN's Democratic debate in Detroit:
1. Warren and Sanders swat away their critics
Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney's argument for pragmatism midway through the debate teed Warren up -- and she landed a haymaker.
"I don't understand why anybody goes to the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for," Warren said.
The crowd erupted. Before the debate ended, Delaney's Wikipedia page had been updated to say he'd died at Warren's hands in Detroit.
It wasn't the only time Warren took on Delaney. Early on, she called his attacks on "Medicare for All" proposals "Republican talking points."
Then there was Sanders' retort when Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan told him that "you don't know that" as he questioned the coverage Medicare for All would provide.
"I do know. I wrote the damn bill," Sanders shot back.
The visuals were memorable, too. Sanders at one point threw his hands up at Hickenlooper. Warren rubbed her hands at the thought of implementing her 2% wealth tax on Delaney's $65 million personal fortune.
Delaney, Ryan, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock all went at Sanders and Warren from the right. Delaney began the debate by comparing the two to failed Democratic nominees George McGovern (1972), Walter Mondale (1984) and Michael Dukakis (1988).
The problem facing the moderates is that their arguments largely consisted of dire warnings about the political consequences of moving too far left. They didn't offer Democratic voters an alternative vision for a post-Trump America.
It's why none of them landed real blows on Warren or Sanders all night. If anything, sparring with the low-polling quartet served to sharpen Warren and Sanders for the fights against stronger opponents ahead.
2. No daylight between Warren and Sanders
The top two-polling progressives in the Democratic field were positioned on stage next to each other Tuesday night. But they showed no appetite for a fight with each other.
Instead, Warren and Sanders largely stood together, beating back moderate critics all night.
The two are courting different voters right now, but eventually, one of the them will need to consolidate progressive support to win the Democratic nomination.
Still, Tuesday night showed that the time to turn against each other could be months away. Both are considered top-tier candidates who poll viably and are raising money effectively, and both appear to believe it's far too early to take such a risk.
3. 'Dark psychic force'
Author Marianne Williamson provided one of the night's most memorable moments when she addressed the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, with a stirring condemnation of environmental racism -- and other candidates' approach to talking about it.
"This is part of the dark underbelly of American society, the racism, the bigotry, and the entire conversation that we're having here tonight -- if you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this President is bringing up in this country, then I'm afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days," she said.
"We need to say it like it is," Williamson said. "It's bigger than Flint. It's all over this country. It's particularly people of color. It's particularly people who do not have the money to fight back, and if the Democrats don't start saying it, why would those people feel they're there for us? And if those people don't feel it, they won't vote for us and Donald Trump will win."
The answer was a reminder of how powerful the perspective of a political outsider can be in presidential races. Williamson is a low-polling long-shot, but generated buzz with her condemnation of "wonkiness" on racism.
4. Seeking a middle ground on health care
The debate began with a battle over health care dominated by Sanders and Warren defending Medicare for All against Delaney, Hickenlooper and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who cast it as politically fraught in a general election.
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg sought middle grounds -- and their answers on health care underscored where they are trying to fit into the Democratic field.
O'Rourke touted a plan called "Medicare for America." It would enroll uninsured Americans in Medicare, and allow those who are dissatisfied with their private insurance to opt into Medicare -- while retaining private insurance for those who wish to keep it.
"Our plan ensures everyone is enrolled in Medicare or can keep their employer-sponsored insurance," he said.
Buttigieg argued for a similar approach -- and said Democrats should stop worrying about being called socialists by Republicans over the health care policies they back.
"If it's true that if we embrace a far-left agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists," he said. "So let's just stand up for the right policy, go out there and defend it."
5. Arguments for reparations
Asked about racism, O'Rourke was the first Democrat on stage to argue for a step toward reparations.
"The very foundation of this country -- the wealth that we have built, the way we became the greatest country on the face of the planet -- was literally on the backs of those who were kidnapped and brought here by force," he said.
O'Rourke said he backs legislation by Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee that would create a commission to study reparations.
It was an effective moment for O'Rourke -- who, like Buttigieg, Williamson and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- didn't end up playing a part of the memorable clashes with other candidates, because they didn't fit into the progressives-vs.-moderates theme that Warren, Sanders and their critics established early on.
Williamson also had a moment as she defended her plan to offer $200 billion to $500 billion in reparations.
"We need to recognize when it comes to the economic gap between black and whites in America, it does come from a great injustice that has never been dealt with," she said.
6. Trying to make moments
Klobuchar struggled more to get into the action. She didn't attack Warren and Sanders the way others did, and there are reasons for her approach -- Klobuchar could end up a viable contender for the vice presidential nomination. But she did stake out moderate ground in her opening statement.
"You're going to hear a lot of promises up here, but I'm going will tell you this," she said. "Yes, I have bold ideas but they are grounded in reality. And, yes, I will make some simple promises. I can win this. I'm from the Midwest. And I have won every race, every place, every time."
Buttigieg's best moment came when he made the case for structural reform to the American political system -- the issue on which his proposals have been the furthest-reaching in the Democratic field.
"Of course we need to get money out of politics, but when I propose the actual structural democratic reforms that might make a difference -- end the electoral college, amend the Constitution if necessary to clear up Citizens United, have D.C. actually be a state, and depoliticize the Supreme Court with structural reform -- people look at me funny, as if this country was incapable of structural reform," Buttigieg said.
"This is a country that once changed its Constitution so you couldn't drink and changed it back because we changed our minds and you're telling me we can't reform our democracy in our time. We have to or we will be having the same argument 20 years from now."
7. Ideological split on decriminalizing the border
Mirroring the debate on health care, progressives and more moderate candidates split on the question of whether to decriminalize crossing the border illegally.
Warren said the current law "has given Donald Trump the tool to break families apart." Sanders also said he would decriminalize crossing the border.
But more moderate candidates said they would retain laws against crossing the border illegally.
"We can argue over the finer points of which parts should be handled by civil law and criminal law," Buttigieg said.
He later added: "If fraud is involved, that's suitable for the criminal statute. If not, it should be handled under civil law."
O'Rourke said he would waive green card fees, give so-called "Dreamers" -- undocumented immigrants who were brought into the US as children -- citizenship, ease the process of seeking asylum and aid struggling Central American countries.
"Then, I expect that people will come here, follow our laws, and we reserve the right to criminally prosecute them if they do not," he said.
Hickenlooper said: "I agree that we need to secure borders. There is no question about that. The frustration with what's going on in Washington is they are kicking the ball back and forth. Secure the borders and make sure whatever law we have doesn't allow children to be snatched from parents and put in cages."
By Eric Bradner
A handful of low-polling moderates hoped to break through in a crowded Democratic field during Tuesday's debate by confronting the top-tier candidates on stage, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Warren and Sanders withstood the attacks -- and counterpunched much harder.
The two most progressive candidates in the 2020 Democratic field struck inspirational tones, with Warren urging Democrats to be "the party of big, structural change." And they won over the crowd as they debated with moderate critics who tried to question their electability and the feasibility of their ideas, but failed to knock either candidate on their heels even once.
In the process, they could have eased primary voters' fears that their policy proposals would make ripe targets for President Donald Trump and the GOP in a general election.
For their part, moderates pushed back as they tried to define themselves on health care and decriminalizing the border. Mostly, though, their highlighting of ideological differences within the party offered Warren and Sanders a tune-up for higher-stakes showdowns this fall against the Democratic front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Here are seven takeaways from Tuesday night, the first of the two nights of CNN's Democratic debate in Detroit:
1. Warren and Sanders swat away their critics
Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney's argument for pragmatism midway through the debate teed Warren up -- and she landed a haymaker.
"I don't understand why anybody goes to the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for," Warren said.
The crowd erupted. Before the debate ended, Delaney's Wikipedia page had been updated to say he'd died at Warren's hands in Detroit.
It wasn't the only time Warren took on Delaney. Early on, she called his attacks on "Medicare for All" proposals "Republican talking points."
Then there was Sanders' retort when Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan told him that "you don't know that" as he questioned the coverage Medicare for All would provide.
"I do know. I wrote the damn bill," Sanders shot back.
The visuals were memorable, too. Sanders at one point threw his hands up at Hickenlooper. Warren rubbed her hands at the thought of implementing her 2% wealth tax on Delaney's $65 million personal fortune.
Delaney, Ryan, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock all went at Sanders and Warren from the right. Delaney began the debate by comparing the two to failed Democratic nominees George McGovern (1972), Walter Mondale (1984) and Michael Dukakis (1988).
The problem facing the moderates is that their arguments largely consisted of dire warnings about the political consequences of moving too far left. They didn't offer Democratic voters an alternative vision for a post-Trump America.
It's why none of them landed real blows on Warren or Sanders all night. If anything, sparring with the low-polling quartet served to sharpen Warren and Sanders for the fights against stronger opponents ahead.
2. No daylight between Warren and Sanders
The top two-polling progressives in the Democratic field were positioned on stage next to each other Tuesday night. But they showed no appetite for a fight with each other.
Instead, Warren and Sanders largely stood together, beating back moderate critics all night.
The two are courting different voters right now, but eventually, one of the them will need to consolidate progressive support to win the Democratic nomination.
Still, Tuesday night showed that the time to turn against each other could be months away. Both are considered top-tier candidates who poll viably and are raising money effectively, and both appear to believe it's far too early to take such a risk.
3. 'Dark psychic force'
Author Marianne Williamson provided one of the night's most memorable moments when she addressed the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, with a stirring condemnation of environmental racism -- and other candidates' approach to talking about it.
"This is part of the dark underbelly of American society, the racism, the bigotry, and the entire conversation that we're having here tonight -- if you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this President is bringing up in this country, then I'm afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days," she said.
"We need to say it like it is," Williamson said. "It's bigger than Flint. It's all over this country. It's particularly people of color. It's particularly people who do not have the money to fight back, and if the Democrats don't start saying it, why would those people feel they're there for us? And if those people don't feel it, they won't vote for us and Donald Trump will win."
The answer was a reminder of how powerful the perspective of a political outsider can be in presidential races. Williamson is a low-polling long-shot, but generated buzz with her condemnation of "wonkiness" on racism.
4. Seeking a middle ground on health care
The debate began with a battle over health care dominated by Sanders and Warren defending Medicare for All against Delaney, Hickenlooper and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who cast it as politically fraught in a general election.
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg sought middle grounds -- and their answers on health care underscored where they are trying to fit into the Democratic field.
O'Rourke touted a plan called "Medicare for America." It would enroll uninsured Americans in Medicare, and allow those who are dissatisfied with their private insurance to opt into Medicare -- while retaining private insurance for those who wish to keep it.
"Our plan ensures everyone is enrolled in Medicare or can keep their employer-sponsored insurance," he said.
Buttigieg argued for a similar approach -- and said Democrats should stop worrying about being called socialists by Republicans over the health care policies they back.
"If it's true that if we embrace a far-left agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists," he said. "So let's just stand up for the right policy, go out there and defend it."
5. Arguments for reparations
Asked about racism, O'Rourke was the first Democrat on stage to argue for a step toward reparations.
"The very foundation of this country -- the wealth that we have built, the way we became the greatest country on the face of the planet -- was literally on the backs of those who were kidnapped and brought here by force," he said.
O'Rourke said he backs legislation by Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee that would create a commission to study reparations.
It was an effective moment for O'Rourke -- who, like Buttigieg, Williamson and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- didn't end up playing a part of the memorable clashes with other candidates, because they didn't fit into the progressives-vs.-moderates theme that Warren, Sanders and their critics established early on.
Williamson also had a moment as she defended her plan to offer $200 billion to $500 billion in reparations.
"We need to recognize when it comes to the economic gap between black and whites in America, it does come from a great injustice that has never been dealt with," she said.
6. Trying to make moments
Klobuchar struggled more to get into the action. She didn't attack Warren and Sanders the way others did, and there are reasons for her approach -- Klobuchar could end up a viable contender for the vice presidential nomination. But she did stake out moderate ground in her opening statement.
"You're going to hear a lot of promises up here, but I'm going will tell you this," she said. "Yes, I have bold ideas but they are grounded in reality. And, yes, I will make some simple promises. I can win this. I'm from the Midwest. And I have won every race, every place, every time."
Buttigieg's best moment came when he made the case for structural reform to the American political system -- the issue on which his proposals have been the furthest-reaching in the Democratic field.
"Of course we need to get money out of politics, but when I propose the actual structural democratic reforms that might make a difference -- end the electoral college, amend the Constitution if necessary to clear up Citizens United, have D.C. actually be a state, and depoliticize the Supreme Court with structural reform -- people look at me funny, as if this country was incapable of structural reform," Buttigieg said.
"This is a country that once changed its Constitution so you couldn't drink and changed it back because we changed our minds and you're telling me we can't reform our democracy in our time. We have to or we will be having the same argument 20 years from now."
7. Ideological split on decriminalizing the border
Mirroring the debate on health care, progressives and more moderate candidates split on the question of whether to decriminalize crossing the border illegally.
Warren said the current law "has given Donald Trump the tool to break families apart." Sanders also said he would decriminalize crossing the border.
But more moderate candidates said they would retain laws against crossing the border illegally.
"We can argue over the finer points of which parts should be handled by civil law and criminal law," Buttigieg said.
He later added: "If fraud is involved, that's suitable for the criminal statute. If not, it should be handled under civil law."
O'Rourke said he would waive green card fees, give so-called "Dreamers" -- undocumented immigrants who were brought into the US as children -- citizenship, ease the process of seeking asylum and aid struggling Central American countries.
"Then, I expect that people will come here, follow our laws, and we reserve the right to criminally prosecute them if they do not," he said.
Hickenlooper said: "I agree that we need to secure borders. There is no question about that. The frustration with what's going on in Washington is they are kicking the ball back and forth. Secure the borders and make sure whatever law we have doesn't allow children to be snatched from parents and put in cages."
One take...
My Debate Non-Roundup
KEVIN DRUM
I don’t have even a post-debate roundup this time. As far as I’m concerned, CNN earned an F and all the candidates get an Incomplete.
I get that the cable nets have been dealt a bad hand with these huge debate stages full of people no one has ever heard of. But CNN took a bad hand and turned it into a farce with its constant and aggressive interruptions to keep everyone down to 15 seconds for anything other than an initial question. 15 seconds! Hell, the moderators couldn’t even ask their questions in 15 seconds. The whole thing felt more like a Roman spectacle than a debate among 21st century adults.
High point: Marianne Williamson talking about the “dark psychic force” of Donald Trump’s presidency. She almost won my vote with that.
Best prepared: Elizabeth Warren, who actually knew what the rules were and was prepared to provide very short, compact answers. Of course, as a frontrunner she could probably afford this more than the also-rans.
KEVIN DRUM
I don’t have even a post-debate roundup this time. As far as I’m concerned, CNN earned an F and all the candidates get an Incomplete.
I get that the cable nets have been dealt a bad hand with these huge debate stages full of people no one has ever heard of. But CNN took a bad hand and turned it into a farce with its constant and aggressive interruptions to keep everyone down to 15 seconds for anything other than an initial question. 15 seconds! Hell, the moderators couldn’t even ask their questions in 15 seconds. The whole thing felt more like a Roman spectacle than a debate among 21st century adults.
High point: Marianne Williamson talking about the “dark psychic force” of Donald Trump’s presidency. She almost won my vote with that.
Best prepared: Elizabeth Warren, who actually knew what the rules were and was prepared to provide very short, compact answers. Of course, as a frontrunner she could probably afford this more than the also-rans.
Pissed too...
Too Much F***ing Anger
KEVIN DRUM
Please excuse me while I get something off my chest. Maybe writing about it will help.
I’ve been really angry lately. The proximate cause has nothing to do with the world at large, but with the fact that I had to start up the dex again. Almost instantly it took hold in the usual way, compromising my sleep at night and making me tired and fatigued during the day. At least three or four days a week I end up in a daytime coma for 1-3 hours, and the rest of the time I feel crappy. This shortens my temper in the obvious way, but it also just pisses me off. There’s nothing rational about that, but there you go.
But that’s not the whole story. This is my fourth round of dex, and it hasn’t made me angry at the world before. So what else is going on?
Well, there’s Twitter, but I don’t know if that’s cause or effect. I normally don’t engage much on Twitter, but lately I’ve not only been doing it more often, but doing it stupidly. I’m angry, so I launch off a snarky/snotty tweet and then watch the whole conversation go downhill. Needless to say, I’m angrier at the end than I was at the beginning.
I could just hide my mentions and stop engaging, but that would be annoying to other people who find Twitter a good way to communicate with me. And that’s only a band-aid anyway.
Then there’s Trump, of course. Or, more accurately, the entire Republican Party. This is a little hard to describe since it’s hardly news that Trump is a boor and Republicans are the party of the rich and powerful. But during one of my recent Twitter squabbles, it all hit me a little harder than usual. The argument was about—well, that doesn’t matter. It was an essentially minor issue of fact that probably wasn’t going to change by much no matter which of us was right. And I realized just how much time liberals spend on this kind of thing—myself very much included. We call each other out constantly on the precise truth of some fact or policy position. Can Bernie really pay for his health care plan? Can we really blame the latest huge storm on climate change? Is middle-class income growth really stagnant or merely sluggish?
Meanwhile, the Republican Party and Fox News are peddling an entire alternate reality. Global warming is due to sunspots. Donald Trump isn’t a racist. Tax cuts for the wealthy are good for the economy. Benghazi was a deliberate setup. Undocumented immigrants are murderers and rapists. Social Security is going bankrupt. Voter fraud is rampant. China pays for tariffs.
They aren’t arguing about whether it’s unfair to say that Mexican immigrants commit 1.2 murders per 100,000 because it’s really 1.1 if you control for age and gender. They just follow whatever lead Trump provides and run ads with grieving white families and gritty mug shots of some dark-skinned assailant. Done.
I’m saying absolutely nothing original here. And I like the fact that liberals are sort of obsessed with keeping everyone honest even on fairly minor details. But there’s definitely something a little deck-chairish about it these days.
This is a mishmash, but the result is that it’s made me a little sloppy lately. Given everything going on around us, it’s hard to feel like it’s worthwhile sweating every detail and making sure I haven’t skipped a step or two. And then I get beat up about it—sometimes fairly, sometimes not—and I spend more time on the damn topic than I would have if I’d just done it right the first time. And I’m angry about that, and I’m angry that I/we are wasting our time on this kind of stuff while Republicans are gleefully gerrymandering, repressing votes, trying to destroy Obamacare, passing huge tax windfalls for the rich, cutting food stamps, demanding investigations of Robert Mueller, pissing off every ally America has, and just generally doubling down on their commitment to race baiting and winning the white vote.
I don’t know. I’m not sure this helped after all. Maybe I need to take up yoga.
KEVIN DRUM
Please excuse me while I get something off my chest. Maybe writing about it will help.
I’ve been really angry lately. The proximate cause has nothing to do with the world at large, but with the fact that I had to start up the dex again. Almost instantly it took hold in the usual way, compromising my sleep at night and making me tired and fatigued during the day. At least three or four days a week I end up in a daytime coma for 1-3 hours, and the rest of the time I feel crappy. This shortens my temper in the obvious way, but it also just pisses me off. There’s nothing rational about that, but there you go.
But that’s not the whole story. This is my fourth round of dex, and it hasn’t made me angry at the world before. So what else is going on?
Well, there’s Twitter, but I don’t know if that’s cause or effect. I normally don’t engage much on Twitter, but lately I’ve not only been doing it more often, but doing it stupidly. I’m angry, so I launch off a snarky/snotty tweet and then watch the whole conversation go downhill. Needless to say, I’m angrier at the end than I was at the beginning.
I could just hide my mentions and stop engaging, but that would be annoying to other people who find Twitter a good way to communicate with me. And that’s only a band-aid anyway.
Then there’s Trump, of course. Or, more accurately, the entire Republican Party. This is a little hard to describe since it’s hardly news that Trump is a boor and Republicans are the party of the rich and powerful. But during one of my recent Twitter squabbles, it all hit me a little harder than usual. The argument was about—well, that doesn’t matter. It was an essentially minor issue of fact that probably wasn’t going to change by much no matter which of us was right. And I realized just how much time liberals spend on this kind of thing—myself very much included. We call each other out constantly on the precise truth of some fact or policy position. Can Bernie really pay for his health care plan? Can we really blame the latest huge storm on climate change? Is middle-class income growth really stagnant or merely sluggish?
Meanwhile, the Republican Party and Fox News are peddling an entire alternate reality. Global warming is due to sunspots. Donald Trump isn’t a racist. Tax cuts for the wealthy are good for the economy. Benghazi was a deliberate setup. Undocumented immigrants are murderers and rapists. Social Security is going bankrupt. Voter fraud is rampant. China pays for tariffs.
They aren’t arguing about whether it’s unfair to say that Mexican immigrants commit 1.2 murders per 100,000 because it’s really 1.1 if you control for age and gender. They just follow whatever lead Trump provides and run ads with grieving white families and gritty mug shots of some dark-skinned assailant. Done.
I’m saying absolutely nothing original here. And I like the fact that liberals are sort of obsessed with keeping everyone honest even on fairly minor details. But there’s definitely something a little deck-chairish about it these days.
This is a mishmash, but the result is that it’s made me a little sloppy lately. Given everything going on around us, it’s hard to feel like it’s worthwhile sweating every detail and making sure I haven’t skipped a step or two. And then I get beat up about it—sometimes fairly, sometimes not—and I spend more time on the damn topic than I would have if I’d just done it right the first time. And I’m angry about that, and I’m angry that I/we are wasting our time on this kind of stuff while Republicans are gleefully gerrymandering, repressing votes, trying to destroy Obamacare, passing huge tax windfalls for the rich, cutting food stamps, demanding investigations of Robert Mueller, pissing off every ally America has, and just generally doubling down on their commitment to race baiting and winning the white vote.
I don’t know. I’m not sure this helped after all. Maybe I need to take up yoga.
Shutting Down
Rural Hospitals Are Shutting Down in States That Didn’t Expand Medicaid
Rejecting the Obamacare program has come with a cost.
ABIGAIL WEINBERG
Hospitals in rural areas are losing money and sometimes closing down, taking away jobs and limiting health care options for some of the nation’s poorest citizens, according to a study published earlier this week by the Pittsburg Morning Sun and GateHouse Media. And the decision to reject a key part of Obamacare by Republican politicians in red states is exacerbating the problem.
The hospital closure crisis is most pronounced in states that have declined Medicaid expansion, the policy in the Affordable Care Act that offers coverage for individuals whose income is at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty line. Of the 106 rural hospitals that have shut down since 2010, 77 were located in states that hadn’t expanded Medicaid, the study found.
Hospital closures can have devastating impacts on rural communities, Patti Davis, president of the Oklahoma Hospital Association, told GateHouse. “Health care professionals leave, pharmacies can’t stay open, nursing homes have to close and residents are forced to rely on ambulances to take them to the next closest facility in their most vulnerable hours,” Davis said.
As Mother Jones’ Becca Andrews pointed out last year, voters in some of the hardest hit areas heavily favored Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Andrews wrote:
Most closures have happened in places where people came out in droves to vote for Donald Trump—and yet his administration hasn’t done much to turn the tide. Legislation sponsored by Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) would expand funding and create more protections for rural hospitals. But the bill hasn’t gained much momentum: It has sat dormant in the House since 2015, though it was reintroduced last year. Meanwhile, in January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reduced the reimbursements for a program that allows rural hospitals to buy drugs at significant discounts. And Republicans have suggested turning Medicaid into a block grant—a fixed amount of money doled out to states. Critics argue this system would just lead to more funding cuts as politicians wrestle over who gets what, potentially leaving hospitals worse off than before.
To date, 14 states have refused to adopt Medicaid expansion, which the federal government pays 90 percent of the costs for, and another three states have not yet implemented it after approving the program. Hospitals in non-expansion states have suffered in part because the states that have resisted the program have higher rates of uninsured people, which means the hospitals there have to provide more uncompensated care, Andrews wrote. The GateHouse study points out that Medicaid expansion would not have prevented all rural hospital closures, but that it would significantly boost funding for medical facilities in some of America’s poorest communities.
The study highlighted Kansas as the state where hospitals have suffered the most, with 70 of its 109 rural hospitals losing money between 2011 and 2017. That crisis has prompted some Kansas Republicans to come around in favor of the program, but the state legislature punted deciding the issue until next year.
The new study also singles out Utah as a rare success story: the state’s rural and urban hospitals share revenue, so only 14 percent of its rural hospitals lost money in the same time period. Creating a statewide network of hospitals that support each other could be one way to mitigate the rural hospital crisis in other places. Utah voters also approved a ballot measure last fall to adopt Medicaid expansion, though that is still in limbo as Republican lawmakers in the state have tried to get an alternative plan approved by the Trump administration.
Rejecting the Obamacare program has come with a cost.
ABIGAIL WEINBERG
Hospitals in rural areas are losing money and sometimes closing down, taking away jobs and limiting health care options for some of the nation’s poorest citizens, according to a study published earlier this week by the Pittsburg Morning Sun and GateHouse Media. And the decision to reject a key part of Obamacare by Republican politicians in red states is exacerbating the problem.
The hospital closure crisis is most pronounced in states that have declined Medicaid expansion, the policy in the Affordable Care Act that offers coverage for individuals whose income is at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty line. Of the 106 rural hospitals that have shut down since 2010, 77 were located in states that hadn’t expanded Medicaid, the study found.
Hospital closures can have devastating impacts on rural communities, Patti Davis, president of the Oklahoma Hospital Association, told GateHouse. “Health care professionals leave, pharmacies can’t stay open, nursing homes have to close and residents are forced to rely on ambulances to take them to the next closest facility in their most vulnerable hours,” Davis said.
As Mother Jones’ Becca Andrews pointed out last year, voters in some of the hardest hit areas heavily favored Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Andrews wrote:
Most closures have happened in places where people came out in droves to vote for Donald Trump—and yet his administration hasn’t done much to turn the tide. Legislation sponsored by Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) would expand funding and create more protections for rural hospitals. But the bill hasn’t gained much momentum: It has sat dormant in the House since 2015, though it was reintroduced last year. Meanwhile, in January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reduced the reimbursements for a program that allows rural hospitals to buy drugs at significant discounts. And Republicans have suggested turning Medicaid into a block grant—a fixed amount of money doled out to states. Critics argue this system would just lead to more funding cuts as politicians wrestle over who gets what, potentially leaving hospitals worse off than before.
To date, 14 states have refused to adopt Medicaid expansion, which the federal government pays 90 percent of the costs for, and another three states have not yet implemented it after approving the program. Hospitals in non-expansion states have suffered in part because the states that have resisted the program have higher rates of uninsured people, which means the hospitals there have to provide more uncompensated care, Andrews wrote. The GateHouse study points out that Medicaid expansion would not have prevented all rural hospital closures, but that it would significantly boost funding for medical facilities in some of America’s poorest communities.
The study highlighted Kansas as the state where hospitals have suffered the most, with 70 of its 109 rural hospitals losing money between 2011 and 2017. That crisis has prompted some Kansas Republicans to come around in favor of the program, but the state legislature punted deciding the issue until next year.
The new study also singles out Utah as a rare success story: the state’s rural and urban hospitals share revenue, so only 14 percent of its rural hospitals lost money in the same time period. Creating a statewide network of hospitals that support each other could be one way to mitigate the rural hospital crisis in other places. Utah voters also approved a ballot measure last fall to adopt Medicaid expansion, though that is still in limbo as Republican lawmakers in the state have tried to get an alternative plan approved by the Trump administration.
Conspiracy Theorist
Trump Rewards Conspiracy Theorist With Key National Security Job
John Ratcliffe has fueled the right’s Deep State paranoia.
DAVID CORN
In what can hardly be considered a surprise, Donald Trump has selected as his number-one intelligence official an ardent Trump defender who has little experience in the intelligence field and who misrepresented his role in an important anti-terrorism case. But Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), who Trump has chosen to be the director of national intelligence, also will be at odds with the intelligence community. Ratcliffe has promoted the view that the FBI, in its investigation of the Trump-Russia scandal, has been a “terror,” and he has fueled the conspiracy theories of the paranoid right that claim a supposed Deep State cabal cooked up the Russia investigation in an effort to keep Trump out of the White House and thwart his presidency.
Ratcliffe has not gone full-Hannity in this regard; he doesn’t rail explicitly against the Deep State as he pushes the Trump line—no collusion and no obstruction of justice! But as a prominent member of the House intelligence committee and a former federal prosecutor, Ratcliffe, via tweets and appearances on Fox News, has tried to give credence to the alternative narrative that the real scandal is not the Russian attack on the 2016 election that was mounted to help Trump, but the FBI’s investigation of all this.
A review of Ratcliffe’s Twitter feed for the last year turned up no posts condemning the Russians, questioning the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia during the 2016 attack, or criticizing Trump’s refusal to fully acknowledge that Moscow intervened in the election. But there were loads of tweets focused on the favorite (and factually challenged) contention of the right that the intelligence community started the Russia investigation not because it was concerned the Kremlin was trying to subvert an American election but, rather, because it wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president.
For example, in August 2018, Ratcliffe retweeted a tweet promoting a Rudy Giuliani appearance on Fox News in which Trump’s lawyer and media mouthpiece claimed that former FBI director Jim Comey started the Trump-Russia investigation in 2016 in response to the so-called Steele dossier—the collection of memos containing unproven allegations about Trump and Russia that were written by former British intelligence official Christopher Steele for an opposition research company retained by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. And when Ratcliffe recently was a guest on the Fox Business show hosted by Maria Bartiromo, he referred to the Steele dossier as “how all of this started.”
This is the guts of the conspiracy theory hyped by Fox News and other conservative outfits: The Steele dossier, full of unconfirmed and salacious charges, triggered an FBI investigation that spied on Trump and sought to undermine his campaign and then his presidency. And it is bunk. The Trump-Russia investigation, as even the House intelligence committee acknowledged when it was under Republican control, was launched when the FBI learned that a Trump foreign policy adviser named George Papadopoulos had told an Australian diplomat that he had been informed by a contact with Russian ties that Moscow possessed thousands of Clinton emails and could weaponize them against Trump’s foe. Nevertheless, the conspiracy mongers of the right persist, pushing the Steele-started-it-all theory to distract from the Russian attack on the election and Trump’s role in the scandal.
In October, Ratcliffe even claimed the Papadopoulos connection could not account for the initiation of the investigation, stating that Papadopoulos had never visited Russia or met anyone associated with the Russian government.
Fact check: false. When Papdopoulos pleaded guilty to charges that he lied to federal investigators, he agreed to a statement of offense that detailed his interactions with Russian intermediaries, including an individual who had “connections to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs” (MFA). In emails to the Trump campaign, Papadopoulos referred to his contacts with “the Russians.” He told the campaign, according to this document, that the “Russian government ha[s] also relayed to me that they are interested in hosting Mr. Trump.” This statement pointed out that during the time Russia was attacking the 2016 election, Papadopoulos was reaching out to the Kremlin on behalf of the Trump campaign: “From mid-June through mid-August 2016, PAPADOPOULOS pursued an ‘off the record’ meeting between one or more Campaign representatives and ‘members of president putin’s office and the mfa.'”
So it’s not hard to see why the FBI might have been worried to learn that a Trump campaign official was seeking to establish a link between the campaign and Moscow while Vladimir Putin was waging a covert crusade to undermine a US election. Yet Ratcliffe has endorsed and promoted the notion that there is a “Spygate” scandal and that the FBI went rogue when it kicked off its Trump-Russia investigation. In February he retweeted a comment from Bartiromo—an enthusiastic booster of Spygate swill—that approvingly cited Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) asserting that the FBI and Justice Department had caused “terror” with the investigation. That’s a bold charge to level at the bureau, which is part of the intelligence community Ratcliffe will oversee if he is confirmed.
Ratcliffe has also joined the right-wing chorus that claims that one of the most pressing issues is the origins of a warrant sought and obtained by the FBI in October 2016 to mount surveillance on Carter Page, a somewhat pro-Putin foreign policy adviser for Trump who had met with Russian officials in Moscow in July of that year and who had left the Trump campaign in September. The warrant did cite the Steele dossier—which included unsubstantiated allegations that Page was a go-between for a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy—but it did not rely on theses memos and referenced other non-Steele information (including Page’s contacts years earlier with undercover Russian intelligence officers). Yet Ratcliffe, who has often been on Fox News hyping this controversy, and others on the right have made a federal case out of this one warrant, asserting it is evidence of an improper Obama administration effort to spy on Trump. Even if there were problems with the warrant and the use of the Steele memos for this application—and House Democrats have insisted there was no “abuse”—it’s absurd to portray this issue as a scandal that is somehow more pressing than the Russian attack. It’s a diversion.
Moreover, Ratcliffe has echoed all of Trump’s efforts to dismiss the Trump-Russia scandal and denigrate former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. He has bolstered Trump’s baseless claim that Mueller had a bias against Trump because the former FBI director asked Trump to be appointed to head the bureau again and was turned down. (When he recently testified before Congress, Mueller said he had not asked Trump for the position and had met with him only to talk about what Trump should look for in a FBI chief.) And Ratcliffe has claimed that Mueller placed on his investigative team two FBI officials—Peter Strzok and Lisa Page—whose text messages showed they despised Trump. Mueller, though, inherited both of them, and he bounced them from the probe when the texts came out.
The man who would be the nation’s top intelligence chief has also been one of the key proponents of the idea that Trump could not be guilty of obstruction of justice because Mueller in the end did not charge him or his crew with conspiring with the Russians. Yet many legal experts have challenged this argument. After all, a successful obstruction might prevent a prosecutor from being able to proceed with a criminal case.
Ultimately, Ratcliffe has adopted Trump’s framework: The only issue in the Russia scandal was whether there was direct collusion between Trump’s gang and Russia, as Moscow waged information warfare against the United States. But the scandal is much wider than that. Trump and his team, as Mueller’s final report noted, denied the attack was real, while encouraging it and seeking to benefit from it. Trump’s top campaign aides interacted with a Russian intermediary in an effort to be part of what they were told was a Russian plot to help Trump. (That’s the infamous Trump Tower meeting that occurred in June 2016.) Trump also brazenly lied about his Russian business dealings—which included contacts between his company and Putin’s office—while he was running for president. None of this is a concern for Ratcliffe.
The current director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, has regularly referred to Putin’s attack on the 2016 election and warned that Russia is likely to target the United States again. This appears to have irritated Trump, who has refused to come to terms with the previous assault because it has cast a taint on the election that landed him in the White House. With Ratcliffe, Trump will have a true comrade in charge of the nation’s intelligence apparatus—a man who has parroted both Trump’s claim that there was no Russia scandal and Trump’s alternative-reality fairy tale that he has been the victim of a Deep State plot.
Of course, it is the responsibility of the director of national intelligence to present the president the unvarnished truth, clear and fact-based intelligence that the commander in chief can use to reach informed decisions about vital national security matters. But clearly Trump would rather be handed information that reinforces his biases, impulses, and interests. With his demonstrable ability and willingness to bend the truth for Trump, Ratcliffe is the perfect man for that job.
John Ratcliffe has fueled the right’s Deep State paranoia.
DAVID CORN
In what can hardly be considered a surprise, Donald Trump has selected as his number-one intelligence official an ardent Trump defender who has little experience in the intelligence field and who misrepresented his role in an important anti-terrorism case. But Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), who Trump has chosen to be the director of national intelligence, also will be at odds with the intelligence community. Ratcliffe has promoted the view that the FBI, in its investigation of the Trump-Russia scandal, has been a “terror,” and he has fueled the conspiracy theories of the paranoid right that claim a supposed Deep State cabal cooked up the Russia investigation in an effort to keep Trump out of the White House and thwart his presidency.
Ratcliffe has not gone full-Hannity in this regard; he doesn’t rail explicitly against the Deep State as he pushes the Trump line—no collusion and no obstruction of justice! But as a prominent member of the House intelligence committee and a former federal prosecutor, Ratcliffe, via tweets and appearances on Fox News, has tried to give credence to the alternative narrative that the real scandal is not the Russian attack on the 2016 election that was mounted to help Trump, but the FBI’s investigation of all this.
A review of Ratcliffe’s Twitter feed for the last year turned up no posts condemning the Russians, questioning the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia during the 2016 attack, or criticizing Trump’s refusal to fully acknowledge that Moscow intervened in the election. But there were loads of tweets focused on the favorite (and factually challenged) contention of the right that the intelligence community started the Russia investigation not because it was concerned the Kremlin was trying to subvert an American election but, rather, because it wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president.
For example, in August 2018, Ratcliffe retweeted a tweet promoting a Rudy Giuliani appearance on Fox News in which Trump’s lawyer and media mouthpiece claimed that former FBI director Jim Comey started the Trump-Russia investigation in 2016 in response to the so-called Steele dossier—the collection of memos containing unproven allegations about Trump and Russia that were written by former British intelligence official Christopher Steele for an opposition research company retained by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. And when Ratcliffe recently was a guest on the Fox Business show hosted by Maria Bartiromo, he referred to the Steele dossier as “how all of this started.”
This is the guts of the conspiracy theory hyped by Fox News and other conservative outfits: The Steele dossier, full of unconfirmed and salacious charges, triggered an FBI investigation that spied on Trump and sought to undermine his campaign and then his presidency. And it is bunk. The Trump-Russia investigation, as even the House intelligence committee acknowledged when it was under Republican control, was launched when the FBI learned that a Trump foreign policy adviser named George Papadopoulos had told an Australian diplomat that he had been informed by a contact with Russian ties that Moscow possessed thousands of Clinton emails and could weaponize them against Trump’s foe. Nevertheless, the conspiracy mongers of the right persist, pushing the Steele-started-it-all theory to distract from the Russian attack on the election and Trump’s role in the scandal.
In October, Ratcliffe even claimed the Papadopoulos connection could not account for the initiation of the investigation, stating that Papadopoulos had never visited Russia or met anyone associated with the Russian government.
Fact check: false. When Papdopoulos pleaded guilty to charges that he lied to federal investigators, he agreed to a statement of offense that detailed his interactions with Russian intermediaries, including an individual who had “connections to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs” (MFA). In emails to the Trump campaign, Papadopoulos referred to his contacts with “the Russians.” He told the campaign, according to this document, that the “Russian government ha[s] also relayed to me that they are interested in hosting Mr. Trump.” This statement pointed out that during the time Russia was attacking the 2016 election, Papadopoulos was reaching out to the Kremlin on behalf of the Trump campaign: “From mid-June through mid-August 2016, PAPADOPOULOS pursued an ‘off the record’ meeting between one or more Campaign representatives and ‘members of president putin’s office and the mfa.'”
So it’s not hard to see why the FBI might have been worried to learn that a Trump campaign official was seeking to establish a link between the campaign and Moscow while Vladimir Putin was waging a covert crusade to undermine a US election. Yet Ratcliffe has endorsed and promoted the notion that there is a “Spygate” scandal and that the FBI went rogue when it kicked off its Trump-Russia investigation. In February he retweeted a comment from Bartiromo—an enthusiastic booster of Spygate swill—that approvingly cited Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) asserting that the FBI and Justice Department had caused “terror” with the investigation. That’s a bold charge to level at the bureau, which is part of the intelligence community Ratcliffe will oversee if he is confirmed.
Ratcliffe has also joined the right-wing chorus that claims that one of the most pressing issues is the origins of a warrant sought and obtained by the FBI in October 2016 to mount surveillance on Carter Page, a somewhat pro-Putin foreign policy adviser for Trump who had met with Russian officials in Moscow in July of that year and who had left the Trump campaign in September. The warrant did cite the Steele dossier—which included unsubstantiated allegations that Page was a go-between for a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy—but it did not rely on theses memos and referenced other non-Steele information (including Page’s contacts years earlier with undercover Russian intelligence officers). Yet Ratcliffe, who has often been on Fox News hyping this controversy, and others on the right have made a federal case out of this one warrant, asserting it is evidence of an improper Obama administration effort to spy on Trump. Even if there were problems with the warrant and the use of the Steele memos for this application—and House Democrats have insisted there was no “abuse”—it’s absurd to portray this issue as a scandal that is somehow more pressing than the Russian attack. It’s a diversion.
Moreover, Ratcliffe has echoed all of Trump’s efforts to dismiss the Trump-Russia scandal and denigrate former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. He has bolstered Trump’s baseless claim that Mueller had a bias against Trump because the former FBI director asked Trump to be appointed to head the bureau again and was turned down. (When he recently testified before Congress, Mueller said he had not asked Trump for the position and had met with him only to talk about what Trump should look for in a FBI chief.) And Ratcliffe has claimed that Mueller placed on his investigative team two FBI officials—Peter Strzok and Lisa Page—whose text messages showed they despised Trump. Mueller, though, inherited both of them, and he bounced them from the probe when the texts came out.
The man who would be the nation’s top intelligence chief has also been one of the key proponents of the idea that Trump could not be guilty of obstruction of justice because Mueller in the end did not charge him or his crew with conspiring with the Russians. Yet many legal experts have challenged this argument. After all, a successful obstruction might prevent a prosecutor from being able to proceed with a criminal case.
Ultimately, Ratcliffe has adopted Trump’s framework: The only issue in the Russia scandal was whether there was direct collusion between Trump’s gang and Russia, as Moscow waged information warfare against the United States. But the scandal is much wider than that. Trump and his team, as Mueller’s final report noted, denied the attack was real, while encouraging it and seeking to benefit from it. Trump’s top campaign aides interacted with a Russian intermediary in an effort to be part of what they were told was a Russian plot to help Trump. (That’s the infamous Trump Tower meeting that occurred in June 2016.) Trump also brazenly lied about his Russian business dealings—which included contacts between his company and Putin’s office—while he was running for president. None of this is a concern for Ratcliffe.
The current director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, has regularly referred to Putin’s attack on the 2016 election and warned that Russia is likely to target the United States again. This appears to have irritated Trump, who has refused to come to terms with the previous assault because it has cast a taint on the election that landed him in the White House. With Ratcliffe, Trump will have a true comrade in charge of the nation’s intelligence apparatus—a man who has parroted both Trump’s claim that there was no Russia scandal and Trump’s alternative-reality fairy tale that he has been the victim of a Deep State plot.
Of course, it is the responsibility of the director of national intelligence to present the president the unvarnished truth, clear and fact-based intelligence that the commander in chief can use to reach informed decisions about vital national security matters. But clearly Trump would rather be handed information that reinforces his biases, impulses, and interests. With his demonstrable ability and willingness to bend the truth for Trump, Ratcliffe is the perfect man for that job.
IC 1795: The Fishhead Nebula
To some, this nebula looks like the head of a fish. However, this colorful cosmic portrait really features glowing gas and obscuring dust clouds in IC 1795, a star forming region in the northern constellation Cassiopeia. The nebula's colors were created by adopting the Hubble color palette for mapping narrow emission from oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur atoms to blue, green and red colors, and further blending the data with images of the region recorded through broadband filters. Not far on the sky from the famous Double Star Cluster in Perseus, IC 1795 is itself located next to IC 1805, the Heart Nebula, as part of a complex of star forming regions that lie at the edge of a large molecular cloud. Located just over 6,000 light-years away, the larger star forming complex sprawls along the Perseus spiral arm of our Milky Way Galaxy. At that distance, this picture would span about 70 light-years across IC 1795.
Progressives in Dem debate...
Moderates go after progressives in Dem debate
Divisions on health care and immigration came to the fore.
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL
Tuesday night quickly turned into Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren versus the field as desperate, low-polling candidates sought to break out of the pack by targeting the top candidates on stage.
Sanders and Warren found themselves the targets of the more moderate candidates on stage, who were eager to contrast themselves and their visions for the country with the most progressive candidates running for president this cycle on issues ranging from health care to immigration.
Here’s a look at the key moments of the two-hour debate on CNN:
Sanders to Delaney: ‘You’re wrong’ on Medicare for All
Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney used his opening statement to bash Sanders' and Warren’s progressive policies, branding them as a surefire way to cost Democrats the general election in 2020.
“Folks, we have a choice,” Delaney said. “We can go down the road that Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren wanna take us with bad policies like Medicare for All, free everything and impossible promises that’ll turn off independent voters and get Trump reelected." He went on: "Or we can nominate someone with new ideas to create universal health care for every American, with choice.”
Given a chance to respond, Sanders said to Delaney, “You’re wrong.” Sanders said he believes health care is a right, not a privilege, that he will fight for.
“I’m right about this,” Delaney shot back, advocating for a universal health care system that gives everyone basic coverage for free but doesn’t take away private health insurance.
Warren added that Democrats aren’t trying to take away health care from Americans. “That’s what the Republicans are trying to do,” she said. “And we should stop using Republican talking points in order to talk with each other about how to best provide that health care.”
Dems battle over border policy
Warren and Sanders defended their positions on decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Warren said the current criminalization statute gives President Donald Trump the authority to separate children from their parents and detain people at the border.
“We need to continue to have border security, and we can do that. But what we can’t do is not live our values,” she said. “The point is not about criminalization. That has given Donald Trump the tool to break families apart.”
Sanders insisted that as president he would end Trump’s “demonization.”
“If a mother and a child walk thousands of miles on a dangerous path, in my view, they are not criminals,” he said. “They are people fleeing violence.”
He added that as president he would convene the entire hemisphere to discuss why people are willing to walk thousands of miles into the U.S. to flee their home countries.
Progressives versus moderates
The liberal and moderate candidates sparred over electability, arguing over which mold of candidate has the best chance of defeating Trump in November.
Democrats respond to Trump on race
Democrats were asked to respond to Trump's repeated attacks on minority lawmakers and community leaders, including a House committee chairman and four progressive congresswomen.
Buttigieg passes on age divide
CNN’s Don Lemon highlighted the age difference between Buttigieg, 37, and Sanders, 77. The two are the youngest and oldest candidates in the primary and stood beside each other on stage.
Buttigieg: “I don’t care how old you are. I care about your vision. But I do think it matters that we have a new generation of leaders stepping up around the world. I actually think it’s good that the prime minister of New Zealand’s gotten a lot of attention in Democratic debates. She’s masterful. She is younger than I would be when I take office. This is the kind of trend America might be leading instead of following, but only if it’s backed by the right vision. We can have great presidents at any age.”
Sanders: “Pete is right. It’s a question of vision. That’s what it is, whether you’re young, whether you’re old, whether you’re in between.”
Divisions on health care and immigration came to the fore.
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL
Tuesday night quickly turned into Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren versus the field as desperate, low-polling candidates sought to break out of the pack by targeting the top candidates on stage.
Sanders and Warren found themselves the targets of the more moderate candidates on stage, who were eager to contrast themselves and their visions for the country with the most progressive candidates running for president this cycle on issues ranging from health care to immigration.
Here’s a look at the key moments of the two-hour debate on CNN:
Sanders to Delaney: ‘You’re wrong’ on Medicare for All
Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney used his opening statement to bash Sanders' and Warren’s progressive policies, branding them as a surefire way to cost Democrats the general election in 2020.
“Folks, we have a choice,” Delaney said. “We can go down the road that Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren wanna take us with bad policies like Medicare for All, free everything and impossible promises that’ll turn off independent voters and get Trump reelected." He went on: "Or we can nominate someone with new ideas to create universal health care for every American, with choice.”
Given a chance to respond, Sanders said to Delaney, “You’re wrong.” Sanders said he believes health care is a right, not a privilege, that he will fight for.
“I’m right about this,” Delaney shot back, advocating for a universal health care system that gives everyone basic coverage for free but doesn’t take away private health insurance.
Warren added that Democrats aren’t trying to take away health care from Americans. “That’s what the Republicans are trying to do,” she said. “And we should stop using Republican talking points in order to talk with each other about how to best provide that health care.”
Dems battle over border policy
Warren and Sanders defended their positions on decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Warren said the current criminalization statute gives President Donald Trump the authority to separate children from their parents and detain people at the border.
“We need to continue to have border security, and we can do that. But what we can’t do is not live our values,” she said. “The point is not about criminalization. That has given Donald Trump the tool to break families apart.”
Sanders insisted that as president he would end Trump’s “demonization.”
“If a mother and a child walk thousands of miles on a dangerous path, in my view, they are not criminals,” he said. “They are people fleeing violence.”
He added that as president he would convene the entire hemisphere to discuss why people are willing to walk thousands of miles into the U.S. to flee their home countries.
Progressives versus moderates
The liberal and moderate candidates sparred over electability, arguing over which mold of candidate has the best chance of defeating Trump in November.
- Sanders: “Well, the truth is that every credible poll that I have seen has me beating Donald Trump, including the battleground states of Michigan, where I won the Democratic primary, Wisconsin, where I won the Demoratic primary, and Pennsylvania.”
- Hickenlooper: “I think if we’re gonna force Americans to make these radical changes, they’re not gonna go along. Throw your hands up! … You can’t just spring a plan on the world and expect it to succeed.”
- Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan: “I would just say Hillary Clinton was winning in the polls, too. To take a snapshot of the polls today and apply it 16 months from now, whenever it is, I don’t think is accurate.”
- Warren: “There is a lot at stake, and people are scared. But we can’t choose a candidate we don’t believe in just because we’re too scared to do anything else. … I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”
Democrats respond to Trump on race
Democrats were asked to respond to Trump's repeated attacks on minority lawmakers and community leaders, including a House committee chairman and four progressive congresswomen.
- O’Rourke: “We’ll call his racism out for what it is and also talk about its consequences. … The very foundation of this country, the wealth that we have built, the way we became the greatest country on the face of the planet was literally on the backs of those who were kidnapped and brought here by force. The legacy of slavery and segregation and Jim Crow and suppression is alive and well in every aspect of the economy and in the country.”
- Warren: “We need to call out white supremacy for what it is: domestic terrorism. And it poses a threat to the United States of America. We live in a country now where the president is advancing environmental racism, economic racism, criminal justice racism, health care racism. The way we do better is to fight back and show something better.”
- Buttigieg: “As an urban mayor serving a diverse community, the racial divide lives within me. I’m not saying that I became mayor and racism or crime or poverty ended on my watch. But in our city, we have come together repeatedly to tackle challenges… Systemic racism has touched every part of American life from housing to health to home ownership.”
Buttigieg passes on age divide
CNN’s Don Lemon highlighted the age difference between Buttigieg, 37, and Sanders, 77. The two are the youngest and oldest candidates in the primary and stood beside each other on stage.
Buttigieg: “I don’t care how old you are. I care about your vision. But I do think it matters that we have a new generation of leaders stepping up around the world. I actually think it’s good that the prime minister of New Zealand’s gotten a lot of attention in Democratic debates. She’s masterful. She is younger than I would be when I take office. This is the kind of trend America might be leading instead of following, but only if it’s backed by the right vision. We can have great presidents at any age.”
Sanders: “Pete is right. It’s a question of vision. That’s what it is, whether you’re young, whether you’re old, whether you’re in between.”
Won't seek reelection in 2020
GOP Rep. Mike Conaway won't seek reelection in 2020
By MELANIE ZANONA and JAKE SHERMAN
Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas will not seek reelection in 2020, according to multiple GOP sources, becoming the fifth Republican to announce their retirement over the past two weeks.
Conaway, a veteran lawmaker who represents a ruby red district, has a news conference scheduled for Wednesday in Midland, but did not specify a topic. Republican sources, however, are expecting him to say he’s retiring. His office declined to comment.
Conaway has served in Congress for 15 years, but stepped into the national spotlight in 2017 when he was tasked with leading the House Intelligence Committee’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The panel’s then-chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), had agreed to step aside from the investigation amid ethics charges against him.
Conaway, 71, is also the top Republican on the House Agriculture Committee and has served stints in the leadership of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s political arm. Conaway, an accountant, once used his accounting expertise to uncover an embezzlement scheme at the NRCC.
A longtime ally of George W. Bush, Conaway worked as chief financial officer of Bush Exploration, an oil and gas firm, in the 1980s. When Bush was governor of Texas, he appointed Conaway a state board of accountants.
Conaway’s congressional exit is just the latest in a string of GOP retirements, which come as Republicans are in the House minority for the first time in eight years. Other lawmakers who will not seek reelection include Rep. Paul Mitchell of Michigan, a member of GOP leadership; Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama, one of just 13 Republican women in the House; Rep. Pete Olson of Texas, whose competitive district in the Houston suburbs has already been moved to a “toss up” in 2020; and Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, who is contemplating a bid for governor.
By MELANIE ZANONA and JAKE SHERMAN
Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas will not seek reelection in 2020, according to multiple GOP sources, becoming the fifth Republican to announce their retirement over the past two weeks.
Conaway, a veteran lawmaker who represents a ruby red district, has a news conference scheduled for Wednesday in Midland, but did not specify a topic. Republican sources, however, are expecting him to say he’s retiring. His office declined to comment.
Conaway has served in Congress for 15 years, but stepped into the national spotlight in 2017 when he was tasked with leading the House Intelligence Committee’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The panel’s then-chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), had agreed to step aside from the investigation amid ethics charges against him.
Conaway, 71, is also the top Republican on the House Agriculture Committee and has served stints in the leadership of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s political arm. Conaway, an accountant, once used his accounting expertise to uncover an embezzlement scheme at the NRCC.
A longtime ally of George W. Bush, Conaway worked as chief financial officer of Bush Exploration, an oil and gas firm, in the 1980s. When Bush was governor of Texas, he appointed Conaway a state board of accountants.
Conaway’s congressional exit is just the latest in a string of GOP retirements, which come as Republicans are in the House minority for the first time in eight years. Other lawmakers who will not seek reelection include Rep. Paul Mitchell of Michigan, a member of GOP leadership; Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama, one of just 13 Republican women in the House; Rep. Pete Olson of Texas, whose competitive district in the Houston suburbs has already been moved to a “toss up” in 2020; and Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, who is contemplating a bid for governor.
New York tax returns
Attorneys fail to reach agreement in dispute over Trump's New York tax returns
By BRIAN FALER
Lawyers for President Donald Trump, House Democrats and New York state told a federal judge today that they have failed to resolve a dispute over the president’s state tax returns.
"Notwithstanding their best efforts, the parties are unable to reach agreement,” the three sides said in a joint court filing.
They had been ordered by District Judge Carl Nichols on Monday to figure out among themselves how to proceed in the case, in which Trump is demanding a temporary restraining order to prevent Democrats from taking advantage of a newly passed New York law designed to give them access to the president’s state tax filings.
Trump is challenging the underlying law, and is concerned that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) could obtain the records while the case is pending.
Nichols declined to rule on the matter Monday, saying that since Democrats have not yet asked for the documents, he cannot determine whether such a request would be lawful.
The judge appeared concerned both with stepping on Congress’ independence and also the possibility that Neal could obtain Trump’s New York filings before the case was decided. Nichols had ordered the three sides to report back to him by 6p.m. today.
In the joint statement, House Democrats’ lawyers urged Nichols to reject Trump’s request for a restraining order. They said issuing an injunction against Congress, at the president’s behest and before lawmakers had even done anything, would raise “glaring separation of powers concerns.”
“This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution wished to guard against,” they said.
Trump lawyer William Consovoy, meanwhile, asked the court to order Ways and Means to provide at least 14 days notice before it requests any returns so the president has a chance to fight it in court. Or, Consovoy said, the judge could order New York state to wait 14 days before fulfilling any request.
“That will allow these weighty issues to be adequately briefed, argued and decided,” he said.
New York argued Nichols does not have jurisdiction over the issue, and said the case ought to be transferred to the Southern District of New York. A lawyer for the state offered to hold off delivering any requested documents while the question of jurisdiction is addressed.
The state also said it would wait for one week after a court decides that issue before handing any filings over. That would give Trump “a reasonable opportunity to take whatever steps he deems necessary to protect his interests.”
Earlier this month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation authorizing state officials there to share Trump’s state filings with Neal upon his request.
The Massachusetts Democrat is separately suing the Treasury Department for the president’s federal returns under a 1924 law allowing the heads of Congress’ tax committees to examine anyone’s confidential tax information.
Neal has been lukewarm about the prospect of taking advantage of the New York law, to the chagrin of some liberals. Trump is concerned that Neal could change his mind at any time, and obtain his records without warning. Neal’s lawyers said Monday that he has not requested the filings.
By BRIAN FALER
Lawyers for President Donald Trump, House Democrats and New York state told a federal judge today that they have failed to resolve a dispute over the president’s state tax returns.
"Notwithstanding their best efforts, the parties are unable to reach agreement,” the three sides said in a joint court filing.
They had been ordered by District Judge Carl Nichols on Monday to figure out among themselves how to proceed in the case, in which Trump is demanding a temporary restraining order to prevent Democrats from taking advantage of a newly passed New York law designed to give them access to the president’s state tax filings.
Trump is challenging the underlying law, and is concerned that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) could obtain the records while the case is pending.
Nichols declined to rule on the matter Monday, saying that since Democrats have not yet asked for the documents, he cannot determine whether such a request would be lawful.
The judge appeared concerned both with stepping on Congress’ independence and also the possibility that Neal could obtain Trump’s New York filings before the case was decided. Nichols had ordered the three sides to report back to him by 6p.m. today.
In the joint statement, House Democrats’ lawyers urged Nichols to reject Trump’s request for a restraining order. They said issuing an injunction against Congress, at the president’s behest and before lawmakers had even done anything, would raise “glaring separation of powers concerns.”
“This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution wished to guard against,” they said.
Trump lawyer William Consovoy, meanwhile, asked the court to order Ways and Means to provide at least 14 days notice before it requests any returns so the president has a chance to fight it in court. Or, Consovoy said, the judge could order New York state to wait 14 days before fulfilling any request.
“That will allow these weighty issues to be adequately briefed, argued and decided,” he said.
New York argued Nichols does not have jurisdiction over the issue, and said the case ought to be transferred to the Southern District of New York. A lawyer for the state offered to hold off delivering any requested documents while the question of jurisdiction is addressed.
The state also said it would wait for one week after a court decides that issue before handing any filings over. That would give Trump “a reasonable opportunity to take whatever steps he deems necessary to protect his interests.”
Earlier this month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation authorizing state officials there to share Trump’s state filings with Neal upon his request.
The Massachusetts Democrat is separately suing the Treasury Department for the president’s federal returns under a 1924 law allowing the heads of Congress’ tax committees to examine anyone’s confidential tax information.
Neal has been lukewarm about the prospect of taking advantage of the New York law, to the chagrin of some liberals. Trump is concerned that Neal could change his mind at any time, and obtain his records without warning. Neal’s lawyers said Monday that he has not requested the filings.
Crank up pressure on budget vote
Fearing defections, Trump and McConnell crank up pressure on budget vote
The majority leader warned Republicans that they can't leave town until the budget deadlines and debt ceiling are addressed.
By BURGESS EVERETT, JOHN BRESNAHAN and SARAH FERRIS
Senate Republican leaders and President Donald Trump are working to whip up support for their bipartisan, $2.7 trillion budget deal, hoping to stave off embarrassing defections ahead of a vote that’s splitting the party.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Majority Whip John Thune are trying to win over undecided rank-and-file senators to avoid a replay of last week’s effort in the House, when roughly two-thirds of House Republicans opposed the deal, according to multiple senators and aides. Trump is “strategically” making calls to on-the-fence members, Thune said.
McConnell delivered a firm message to his caucus on Tuesday during lunch at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, warning them they cannot leave town until the budget and looming debt ceiling deadline has been addressed, according to three sources familiar with the meeting. McConnell also said the chamber will not recess without passing something.
McConnell and Thune’s goal is to get at least 27 of the caucus’ 53 members to support the deal, a majority of the Republican-controlled Senate that would combine with most of the Democratic Caucus to push the deal over the top. That Republican number may be aspirational given the party’s antipathy for new spending, but Thune said he was “hopeful” he could meet it.
“The goal is to win and I’m confident that when the time comes we’ll be there. But it’s a process, obviously, and we’ve got a lot of our members for whom this is a hard vote. But I think for a lot of reasons it makes sense and in the end we’ll have the critical mass to get it over the finish line,” Thune said in an interview. “We’re working it.”
GOP leaders believe that a significant bloc of Senate Democrats, including those running for president, will not support the deal. That would require even more GOP votes to handily pass the budget deal. The deal requires 60 votes to pass the Senate.
Asked about the level of support in his party, McConnell would say only that the budget deal “will have to pass this week.” The Senate is scheduled to leave for a month-long recess at the end of the week.
"It's the easiest thing in the world to vote no on something like this," said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who supports the agreement. "It's harder to do the responsible thing.”
But the no votes are piling up, joining a handful of Senate Republicans like Mitt Romney of Utah who came out last week against the massive budget deal would raise the debt ceiling for two years and set spending at $320 billion above previously set levels. Florida Sens. Marco Rubio and Sen. Rick Scott said Tuesday they will oppose the deal. Sen. Pat Toomey, a fiscal conservative from Pennsylvania, also has said he will oppose it, and Sens. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Mike Crapo of Idaho lean no, they said.
"While I voted in 2011 against the [budget caps agreement], the fact of the matter is we're getting ready to blow the caps and end them forever, which might be enough reason by itself" to vote no, said Tim Scott, who supported the 2018 bipartisan budget agreement.
“This thing may taste like pumpkin pie. But I’m not voting for it,” said Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.
"I will be a no on that deal," Toomey said. "One of my biggest concerns is the suspension of the debt ceiling without any kind of corresponding efforts of any kind to put us a sustainable fiscal path."
Sen. David Perdue spoke with Trump about rejecting a similar budget last year. But now Perdue is playing a different role, trying to round up support for the deal struck by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
“I’m disappointed it’s not 100 percent [support],” Perdue said in an interview, arguing that voting against the budget leads to billions in extra in spending. “Anybody who thinks that they’re spending less by voting no on this thing, just doesn't know … a no vote means you’re going to spend more.”
Then there are the 16 senators who signed on to Perdue's letter urging the Trump administration to cut a budget deal and avoid sequestration or a continuing resolution. While that group got what it wanted, it’s not exactly a beacon of support for the deal. Of those signees, Crapo leans no, James Lankford of Oklahoma and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee oppose the deal and Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina are undecided.
“On the one hand we've got to make sure we provide enough certainty, particularity around defense. On the other hand, we ought to start having a serious discussion around our debt,” Tillis said.
Ernst said she wants to speak to the president, suggesting he could help push the bill across the finish line. Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, the Senate’s Budget chairman, said cryptically: “I’m the chairman of the Budget Committee. I don’t talk about the budget unless I have an announcement to make.”
Besides suspending the debt limit through the next presidential election, the deal also permanently ends the threat of sequestration, the Obama-era budget austerity law that ultimately failed to constrict federal spending.
But many Republicans have grimaced at the idea of abolishing Congress’s stiff budget caps without another attempt to constrain the deficit, at a time when the federal government is set to borrow $1 trillion for the second year in a row. Less than a quarter of the new spending is paid for, and those offsets — which were just half of what White House officials had sought — are unlikely to ever take effect. Just 65 of 197 House Republicans supported the deal last week.
Senate Republican leaders and the White House are most worried about converting Tillis, Ernst and Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, according to multiple senators.
A source familiar with Cotton's thinking said he was likely going to oppose the deal but is not talking about his concerns publicly "out of deference" to Trump and GOP leaders.
The whipping efforts are working in some quarters. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said he is on board, as did Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.).
"I am concerned that we're making sure we're doing right by our military and our veterans," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is voting yes on the bill. "I am concerned we do not want to see either another government shutdown or issues with the debt limit."
Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said he didn’t know whether a majority of the Republicans would vote for the deal.
“As long as we win, it won’t be embarrassing. If they fail to pass that bill, it would be a huge setback for everybody. Mainly for the military. What do we do next? We’re staring at sequestration,” Shelby said.
Typically, the longer budget deals hang out in Congress, the more opposition they attract. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued the chamber should vote on Tuesday, unlikely given the stern objections among conservatives who can delay a quick vote on the bill.
“I believe we should do this today. It's the most important thing we can do. Secretary Mnuchin has said there is a danger to the debt defaulting,” Schumer said.
The majority leader warned Republicans that they can't leave town until the budget deadlines and debt ceiling are addressed.
By BURGESS EVERETT, JOHN BRESNAHAN and SARAH FERRIS
Senate Republican leaders and President Donald Trump are working to whip up support for their bipartisan, $2.7 trillion budget deal, hoping to stave off embarrassing defections ahead of a vote that’s splitting the party.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Majority Whip John Thune are trying to win over undecided rank-and-file senators to avoid a replay of last week’s effort in the House, when roughly two-thirds of House Republicans opposed the deal, according to multiple senators and aides. Trump is “strategically” making calls to on-the-fence members, Thune said.
McConnell delivered a firm message to his caucus on Tuesday during lunch at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, warning them they cannot leave town until the budget and looming debt ceiling deadline has been addressed, according to three sources familiar with the meeting. McConnell also said the chamber will not recess without passing something.
McConnell and Thune’s goal is to get at least 27 of the caucus’ 53 members to support the deal, a majority of the Republican-controlled Senate that would combine with most of the Democratic Caucus to push the deal over the top. That Republican number may be aspirational given the party’s antipathy for new spending, but Thune said he was “hopeful” he could meet it.
“The goal is to win and I’m confident that when the time comes we’ll be there. But it’s a process, obviously, and we’ve got a lot of our members for whom this is a hard vote. But I think for a lot of reasons it makes sense and in the end we’ll have the critical mass to get it over the finish line,” Thune said in an interview. “We’re working it.”
GOP leaders believe that a significant bloc of Senate Democrats, including those running for president, will not support the deal. That would require even more GOP votes to handily pass the budget deal. The deal requires 60 votes to pass the Senate.
Asked about the level of support in his party, McConnell would say only that the budget deal “will have to pass this week.” The Senate is scheduled to leave for a month-long recess at the end of the week.
"It's the easiest thing in the world to vote no on something like this," said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who supports the agreement. "It's harder to do the responsible thing.”
But the no votes are piling up, joining a handful of Senate Republicans like Mitt Romney of Utah who came out last week against the massive budget deal would raise the debt ceiling for two years and set spending at $320 billion above previously set levels. Florida Sens. Marco Rubio and Sen. Rick Scott said Tuesday they will oppose the deal. Sen. Pat Toomey, a fiscal conservative from Pennsylvania, also has said he will oppose it, and Sens. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Mike Crapo of Idaho lean no, they said.
"While I voted in 2011 against the [budget caps agreement], the fact of the matter is we're getting ready to blow the caps and end them forever, which might be enough reason by itself" to vote no, said Tim Scott, who supported the 2018 bipartisan budget agreement.
“This thing may taste like pumpkin pie. But I’m not voting for it,” said Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.
"I will be a no on that deal," Toomey said. "One of my biggest concerns is the suspension of the debt ceiling without any kind of corresponding efforts of any kind to put us a sustainable fiscal path."
Sen. David Perdue spoke with Trump about rejecting a similar budget last year. But now Perdue is playing a different role, trying to round up support for the deal struck by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
“I’m disappointed it’s not 100 percent [support],” Perdue said in an interview, arguing that voting against the budget leads to billions in extra in spending. “Anybody who thinks that they’re spending less by voting no on this thing, just doesn't know … a no vote means you’re going to spend more.”
Then there are the 16 senators who signed on to Perdue's letter urging the Trump administration to cut a budget deal and avoid sequestration or a continuing resolution. While that group got what it wanted, it’s not exactly a beacon of support for the deal. Of those signees, Crapo leans no, James Lankford of Oklahoma and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee oppose the deal and Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina are undecided.
“On the one hand we've got to make sure we provide enough certainty, particularity around defense. On the other hand, we ought to start having a serious discussion around our debt,” Tillis said.
Ernst said she wants to speak to the president, suggesting he could help push the bill across the finish line. Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, the Senate’s Budget chairman, said cryptically: “I’m the chairman of the Budget Committee. I don’t talk about the budget unless I have an announcement to make.”
Besides suspending the debt limit through the next presidential election, the deal also permanently ends the threat of sequestration, the Obama-era budget austerity law that ultimately failed to constrict federal spending.
But many Republicans have grimaced at the idea of abolishing Congress’s stiff budget caps without another attempt to constrain the deficit, at a time when the federal government is set to borrow $1 trillion for the second year in a row. Less than a quarter of the new spending is paid for, and those offsets — which were just half of what White House officials had sought — are unlikely to ever take effect. Just 65 of 197 House Republicans supported the deal last week.
Senate Republican leaders and the White House are most worried about converting Tillis, Ernst and Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, according to multiple senators.
A source familiar with Cotton's thinking said he was likely going to oppose the deal but is not talking about his concerns publicly "out of deference" to Trump and GOP leaders.
The whipping efforts are working in some quarters. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said he is on board, as did Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.).
"I am concerned that we're making sure we're doing right by our military and our veterans," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is voting yes on the bill. "I am concerned we do not want to see either another government shutdown or issues with the debt limit."
Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said he didn’t know whether a majority of the Republicans would vote for the deal.
“As long as we win, it won’t be embarrassing. If they fail to pass that bill, it would be a huge setback for everybody. Mainly for the military. What do we do next? We’re staring at sequestration,” Shelby said.
Typically, the longer budget deals hang out in Congress, the more opposition they attract. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued the chamber should vote on Tuesday, unlikely given the stern objections among conservatives who can delay a quick vote on the bill.
“I believe we should do this today. It's the most important thing we can do. Secretary Mnuchin has said there is a danger to the debt defaulting,” Schumer said.
Disappoint Iran hawks
Trump to disappoint Iran hawks with more nuclear waivers
The administration’s Iran policy is taking a softer tone despite a push from some GOP lawmakers to expand its maximum pressure campaign.
By ELIANA JOHNSON
After building up its maximum pressure campaign on Iran, the Trump administration is poised deliver a disappointment to hawks who want tougher action against Tehran.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is expected to reissue waivers this week allowing continued international work on nuclear projects inside Iran, according to two sources familiar with the deliberations. Some lawmakers have been pressing the administration to eliminate the waivers since Iran announced earlier this month that it had breached the limits on uranium enrichment set by the nuclear deal.
Ending the waivers would increase pressure on Tehran, which is already smarting from economic sanctions imposed by the administration, and advocates have argued it is a measure of the president’s commitment to the maximum pressure policy. But eliminating them would also further inflame tensions between the U.S. and Iran — as well as with European nations — and potentially risk a military confrontation between the two countries.
“The revocation of select civil nuclear cooperation waivers is an important measure of both the administration’s nuclear policy and its dedication to the max pressure campaign against Iran,” said Behnam ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “It makes little sense to reward Iran with all these waivers as it engages in activities that are clear violations of the JCPOA.”
The likely move when the next deadline hits on Thursday follows a heated debate among senior administration officials and lawmakers supportive of much of the administration’s foreign policy, with National Security Adviser John Bolton and his allies on the Hill arguing to end the waivers and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin the chief proponent of extending them for another round.
The president himself has vacillated on the issue. In one Oval Office meeting in recent weeks, Trump instructed senior administration officials to eliminate the waivers, according to a U.S. official with direct knowledge of the discussion. In a subsequent meeting, he backed Mnuchin, who argued for extending the waivers, over Pompeo.
The debate itself is reflective of the administration’s mixed signals about its policy toward Iran, which has often toggled between hardline rhetoric and diplomatic overtures. In recent weeks, for example, the president allowed his isolationist ally, Sen. Rand Paul, to meet with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he would be willing to travel to Tehran. At the same time, Trump sent a different and more foreboding message on Monday, tweeting, “Just remember, the Iranians never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!”
Pompeo, for his part, appears to be putting his faith in the administration’s ban on Iranian oil imports to effect change, telling the conservative talk radio host Ben Shapiro last week that the administration hopes that a precipitous decline in oil revenues will force Iran back to the negotiating table.
“Our hope is that Iran will just see that the cost is too high, that the Iranian people will tell their leadership that they have to change their behavior, and that the Iranian leadership will see that the risk to what they care about most, which is staying in power, is real, and they will come to the table,” Pompeo said.
A State Department spokesman said the department had nothing to announce at this time.
The nuclear waivers are one of the last remaining vestiges of the 2015 nuclear pact, which encouraged international cooperation to advance Iran’s civil nuclear program. They have allowed a number of nations to work on projects at nuclear facilities throughout Iran.
While proponents of the nuclear deal have argued that the international nuclear projects they facilitate allow for greater visibility into Iranian nuclear activities, critics have argued they have legitimized some of Iran’s illicit activities. They have harped on the work being done at the Fordow and Arak plants, pointing to documents in the Israeli-exposed Iran nuclear archive indicating that the Fordow plant was built specifically to make nuclear weapons and never had a civilian dimension. When Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s nuclear chief, announced that Iran surreptitiously imported a second set of parts for the Arak reactor, critics called on the administration to suspend the waiver for projects there as well.
The State Department announced in May that it would renew the waivers for 90 days — rather than for 180 days as it had done previously — saying in a statement that the projects they facilitate “constrain Iran's nuclear activities” and “help maintain the nuclear status quo in Iran.”
Earlier this month, a trio of hawkish Republican senators, Marco Rubio of Florida, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas, penned a letter urging the president to do away with the waivers in the wake of Iran’s announcement that it had blown past the uranium enrichment levels established by the deal.
“The Iranians have now changed the nuclear status quo and are trying to create a new normal of minor violations that will enable their creep toward a nuclear weapon. We urge you to end these waivers,” they wrote.
A group of 50 GOP House members led by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) echoed the three senators in a separate letter.
Yet even some who have pushed to end the waivers acknowledge that doing so poses a real risk of military escalation. “The administration fears that if it cancels the waivers and invokes snapback, it risks escalating the military confrontation,” said Michael Doran, who penned an essay in June arguing for ending the waivers, which was circulated widely in the administration.
But, Doran said, “The question is this: Is it better for the US to start a negotiation when Iran's nuclear program is legitimate in the eyes of international law and enjoying international partnerships with Europe, Russia and China? Or is it better to start when the program is illegitimate and has no partners? The latter is obviously preferable.”
The administration’s Iran policy is taking a softer tone despite a push from some GOP lawmakers to expand its maximum pressure campaign.
By ELIANA JOHNSON
After building up its maximum pressure campaign on Iran, the Trump administration is poised deliver a disappointment to hawks who want tougher action against Tehran.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is expected to reissue waivers this week allowing continued international work on nuclear projects inside Iran, according to two sources familiar with the deliberations. Some lawmakers have been pressing the administration to eliminate the waivers since Iran announced earlier this month that it had breached the limits on uranium enrichment set by the nuclear deal.
Ending the waivers would increase pressure on Tehran, which is already smarting from economic sanctions imposed by the administration, and advocates have argued it is a measure of the president’s commitment to the maximum pressure policy. But eliminating them would also further inflame tensions between the U.S. and Iran — as well as with European nations — and potentially risk a military confrontation between the two countries.
“The revocation of select civil nuclear cooperation waivers is an important measure of both the administration’s nuclear policy and its dedication to the max pressure campaign against Iran,” said Behnam ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “It makes little sense to reward Iran with all these waivers as it engages in activities that are clear violations of the JCPOA.”
The likely move when the next deadline hits on Thursday follows a heated debate among senior administration officials and lawmakers supportive of much of the administration’s foreign policy, with National Security Adviser John Bolton and his allies on the Hill arguing to end the waivers and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin the chief proponent of extending them for another round.
The president himself has vacillated on the issue. In one Oval Office meeting in recent weeks, Trump instructed senior administration officials to eliminate the waivers, according to a U.S. official with direct knowledge of the discussion. In a subsequent meeting, he backed Mnuchin, who argued for extending the waivers, over Pompeo.
The debate itself is reflective of the administration’s mixed signals about its policy toward Iran, which has often toggled between hardline rhetoric and diplomatic overtures. In recent weeks, for example, the president allowed his isolationist ally, Sen. Rand Paul, to meet with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he would be willing to travel to Tehran. At the same time, Trump sent a different and more foreboding message on Monday, tweeting, “Just remember, the Iranians never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!”
Pompeo, for his part, appears to be putting his faith in the administration’s ban on Iranian oil imports to effect change, telling the conservative talk radio host Ben Shapiro last week that the administration hopes that a precipitous decline in oil revenues will force Iran back to the negotiating table.
“Our hope is that Iran will just see that the cost is too high, that the Iranian people will tell their leadership that they have to change their behavior, and that the Iranian leadership will see that the risk to what they care about most, which is staying in power, is real, and they will come to the table,” Pompeo said.
A State Department spokesman said the department had nothing to announce at this time.
The nuclear waivers are one of the last remaining vestiges of the 2015 nuclear pact, which encouraged international cooperation to advance Iran’s civil nuclear program. They have allowed a number of nations to work on projects at nuclear facilities throughout Iran.
While proponents of the nuclear deal have argued that the international nuclear projects they facilitate allow for greater visibility into Iranian nuclear activities, critics have argued they have legitimized some of Iran’s illicit activities. They have harped on the work being done at the Fordow and Arak plants, pointing to documents in the Israeli-exposed Iran nuclear archive indicating that the Fordow plant was built specifically to make nuclear weapons and never had a civilian dimension. When Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s nuclear chief, announced that Iran surreptitiously imported a second set of parts for the Arak reactor, critics called on the administration to suspend the waiver for projects there as well.
The State Department announced in May that it would renew the waivers for 90 days — rather than for 180 days as it had done previously — saying in a statement that the projects they facilitate “constrain Iran's nuclear activities” and “help maintain the nuclear status quo in Iran.”
Earlier this month, a trio of hawkish Republican senators, Marco Rubio of Florida, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas, penned a letter urging the president to do away with the waivers in the wake of Iran’s announcement that it had blown past the uranium enrichment levels established by the deal.
“The Iranians have now changed the nuclear status quo and are trying to create a new normal of minor violations that will enable their creep toward a nuclear weapon. We urge you to end these waivers,” they wrote.
A group of 50 GOP House members led by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) echoed the three senators in a separate letter.
Yet even some who have pushed to end the waivers acknowledge that doing so poses a real risk of military escalation. “The administration fears that if it cancels the waivers and invokes snapback, it risks escalating the military confrontation,” said Michael Doran, who penned an essay in June arguing for ending the waivers, which was circulated widely in the administration.
But, Doran said, “The question is this: Is it better for the US to start a negotiation when Iran's nuclear program is legitimate in the eyes of international law and enjoying international partnerships with Europe, Russia and China? Or is it better to start when the program is illegitimate and has no partners? The latter is obviously preferable.”
Lawyer takes center stage
Top House lawyer takes center stage in legal battles against Trump
Doug Letter is fighting the president in federal court — and winning.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY
Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are the public faces of the House Democrats’ battles with Donald Trump, appearing on TV regularly to harangue the president for his resistance to their investigations.
But the job of fighting the president in federal court — and, lately, winning — has been left to a lesser-known figure: House general counsel Douglas Letter.
Letter, a Justice Department litigator from 1978 until his retirement from the department last year, spent decades defending administrations of both parties in court. But last year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked him to take on a new and unfamiliar role as the guardian of congressional power.
“I’ve got to tell you. If I were running a law firm, I’d hire him in a second,” House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said in a recent interview. “With lawyers, the key is to be able to argue your side thoroughly, but at the same time take apart the other side. He does both.”
What Letter may not have realized when he took the job was that he’d find himself, seven months later, in the vanguard of an unprecedented constitutional power struggle between House Democrats, who are weighing whether to impeach Trump, and a litigious president blocking congressional oversight in an unprecedented way.
The questions Letter is now litigating — whether Congress can access a president’s private financial records and tax returns, whether Trump can declare his confidants off-limits from congressional investigators, and whether Congress gets access to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s secret grand jury evidence as it considers impeachment — will reorient the boundaries of all three branches of government in unpredictable ways.
That’s because Trump, unlike his predecessors, has battled House leaders on as many fronts as they’re willing to engage.
“Back in the late '70s and '80s, in the aftermath of Watergate and regardless of whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat, there were some, but not nearly as many, instances in which executive branch officials and departments were willing to risk the political fallout from refusing to provide information being sought by House committees,” said Steven Ross, who served as House general counsel from 1983 to 1993.
Letter, through a Pelosi spokesman, declined requests for an interview.
Letter’s caseload is massive, and his office is fighting the president in court on several fronts. He has already secured two key victories against the president over Trump’s challenges to subpoenas seeking his financial records; Trump has appealed those decisions and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is expected to issue rulings in the coming months.
“In terms of oversight litigation, this is unprecedented to have as many cases and potential cases all coming up at the same time — which I think is just a feature of the fact that the number of active, aggressive oversight investigations being conducted by the House is itself probably unprecedented,” said Thomas Hungar, Letter’s predecessor who served in the role from 2016 to 2019.
Nadler, the Judiciary Committee chairman, recently suggested that the House general counsel’s office is under so much strain that it is unable to pursue additional litigation, including an expected lawsuit aimed at compelling former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify.
“If the House counsel weren’t so busy enforcing subpoenas — other subpoenas — we would’ve done that before,” Nadler said of the legal effort on "Fox News Sunday."
“The fact is that we have never seen a situation where the president, the White House, stonewalls Congress on subpoenas,” Nadler added.
The House passed a resolution in June that empowered committee chiefs to go to federal court to enforce their subpoenas; the resolution also gave Letter the ability to hire outside attorneys to handle the caseload.
Pelosi has leaned on Letter to maintain her stance against launching impeachment proceedings against Trump, repeatedly referencing cases against the president that Letter has already won in federal court.
“Whatever decision we made in that regard [impeachment] would have to be done with our strongest possible hand, and we still have some outstanding matters in the courts. It’s about the Congress, the Constitution and the courts, and we are fighting the president in the courts,” Pelosi said last week when asked about opening a formal impeachment inquiry after Mueller testified before two House committees.
Some pro-impeachment forces worry Pelosi’s heavy reliance on the courts is a stall tactic because some of the cases Letter is handling could take months or even years to reach a conclusion. But Pelosi’s posture makes Letter’s role in the oversight battles even more significant.
During various court hearings, Letter has acknowledged the potential for significant delays — but he has pinned the blame on Trump, who Letter said has “a total and basic and fundamental misunderstanding of the system that was set up by the Constitution.” He has also said — in oral arguments and filings — Trump believes Congress is a “nuisance.”
“This Congress is limited in time,” Letter recently told a federal judge who upheld a subpoena for Trump’s financial records, responding to Trump’s efforts to delay the case. “There’s obviously going to be appeals here. We just do not want there to be any lag in time.”
Letter has also overseen a significant shift of power inside the House since Democrats took the majority in January. Under his guidance, Democrats adopted a measure in June to preemptively grant the full authority of the House for any litigation initiated by a congressional committee — an effort meant to help speed court action as Democratic committee leaders run into Trump’s stonewalling efforts.
Then, earlier this month, the House quietly approved a resolution declaring that all Trump-related subpoenas issued by committee chiefs are also presumptively approved to have the support of the full House. The measure empowers lawmakers like Nadler and Schiff — who have unilateral subpoena authority — to compel documents and testimony with the full weight of the House behind them.
When that measure was filed, Letter alerted a federal appeals court of the development, an attempt to mollify a Trump-appointed judge’s concern that investigations of the president didn’t have support of the full House.
From 2012 to 2018, Letter served as the chief appellate lawyer for the Justice Department’s civil division. And throughout his four-decade tenure, he specialized in national security issues and the constitutional separation of powers. It was a role that makes Letter uniquely suited to advance the rights of the legislative branch, those who know him say.
“Over these past 40 plus years since Speaker [Tip] O’Neill picked Stan Brand to be the House’s very first general counsel, the office has developed a wealth of knowledge and experience in cases that are at the forefront of defining the constitutional authorities of the House and appropriate relationships between the branches,” Ross said.
Doug Letter is fighting the president in federal court — and winning.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY
Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are the public faces of the House Democrats’ battles with Donald Trump, appearing on TV regularly to harangue the president for his resistance to their investigations.
But the job of fighting the president in federal court — and, lately, winning — has been left to a lesser-known figure: House general counsel Douglas Letter.
Letter, a Justice Department litigator from 1978 until his retirement from the department last year, spent decades defending administrations of both parties in court. But last year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked him to take on a new and unfamiliar role as the guardian of congressional power.
“I’ve got to tell you. If I were running a law firm, I’d hire him in a second,” House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said in a recent interview. “With lawyers, the key is to be able to argue your side thoroughly, but at the same time take apart the other side. He does both.”
What Letter may not have realized when he took the job was that he’d find himself, seven months later, in the vanguard of an unprecedented constitutional power struggle between House Democrats, who are weighing whether to impeach Trump, and a litigious president blocking congressional oversight in an unprecedented way.
The questions Letter is now litigating — whether Congress can access a president’s private financial records and tax returns, whether Trump can declare his confidants off-limits from congressional investigators, and whether Congress gets access to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s secret grand jury evidence as it considers impeachment — will reorient the boundaries of all three branches of government in unpredictable ways.
That’s because Trump, unlike his predecessors, has battled House leaders on as many fronts as they’re willing to engage.
“Back in the late '70s and '80s, in the aftermath of Watergate and regardless of whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat, there were some, but not nearly as many, instances in which executive branch officials and departments were willing to risk the political fallout from refusing to provide information being sought by House committees,” said Steven Ross, who served as House general counsel from 1983 to 1993.
Letter, through a Pelosi spokesman, declined requests for an interview.
Letter’s caseload is massive, and his office is fighting the president in court on several fronts. He has already secured two key victories against the president over Trump’s challenges to subpoenas seeking his financial records; Trump has appealed those decisions and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is expected to issue rulings in the coming months.
“In terms of oversight litigation, this is unprecedented to have as many cases and potential cases all coming up at the same time — which I think is just a feature of the fact that the number of active, aggressive oversight investigations being conducted by the House is itself probably unprecedented,” said Thomas Hungar, Letter’s predecessor who served in the role from 2016 to 2019.
Nadler, the Judiciary Committee chairman, recently suggested that the House general counsel’s office is under so much strain that it is unable to pursue additional litigation, including an expected lawsuit aimed at compelling former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify.
“If the House counsel weren’t so busy enforcing subpoenas — other subpoenas — we would’ve done that before,” Nadler said of the legal effort on "Fox News Sunday."
“The fact is that we have never seen a situation where the president, the White House, stonewalls Congress on subpoenas,” Nadler added.
The House passed a resolution in June that empowered committee chiefs to go to federal court to enforce their subpoenas; the resolution also gave Letter the ability to hire outside attorneys to handle the caseload.
Pelosi has leaned on Letter to maintain her stance against launching impeachment proceedings against Trump, repeatedly referencing cases against the president that Letter has already won in federal court.
“Whatever decision we made in that regard [impeachment] would have to be done with our strongest possible hand, and we still have some outstanding matters in the courts. It’s about the Congress, the Constitution and the courts, and we are fighting the president in the courts,” Pelosi said last week when asked about opening a formal impeachment inquiry after Mueller testified before two House committees.
Some pro-impeachment forces worry Pelosi’s heavy reliance on the courts is a stall tactic because some of the cases Letter is handling could take months or even years to reach a conclusion. But Pelosi’s posture makes Letter’s role in the oversight battles even more significant.
During various court hearings, Letter has acknowledged the potential for significant delays — but he has pinned the blame on Trump, who Letter said has “a total and basic and fundamental misunderstanding of the system that was set up by the Constitution.” He has also said — in oral arguments and filings — Trump believes Congress is a “nuisance.”
“This Congress is limited in time,” Letter recently told a federal judge who upheld a subpoena for Trump’s financial records, responding to Trump’s efforts to delay the case. “There’s obviously going to be appeals here. We just do not want there to be any lag in time.”
Letter has also overseen a significant shift of power inside the House since Democrats took the majority in January. Under his guidance, Democrats adopted a measure in June to preemptively grant the full authority of the House for any litigation initiated by a congressional committee — an effort meant to help speed court action as Democratic committee leaders run into Trump’s stonewalling efforts.
Then, earlier this month, the House quietly approved a resolution declaring that all Trump-related subpoenas issued by committee chiefs are also presumptively approved to have the support of the full House. The measure empowers lawmakers like Nadler and Schiff — who have unilateral subpoena authority — to compel documents and testimony with the full weight of the House behind them.
When that measure was filed, Letter alerted a federal appeals court of the development, an attempt to mollify a Trump-appointed judge’s concern that investigations of the president didn’t have support of the full House.
From 2012 to 2018, Letter served as the chief appellate lawyer for the Justice Department’s civil division. And throughout his four-decade tenure, he specialized in national security issues and the constitutional separation of powers. It was a role that makes Letter uniquely suited to advance the rights of the legislative branch, those who know him say.
“Over these past 40 plus years since Speaker [Tip] O’Neill picked Stan Brand to be the House’s very first general counsel, the office has developed a wealth of knowledge and experience in cases that are at the forefront of defining the constitutional authorities of the House and appropriate relationships between the branches,” Ross said.
Center-left party...
It’s a center-left party after all
Sanders and Warren kept their voices but a parade of centrists finally found theirs.
By JOHN F. HARRIS
The assignment of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to the same debate stage in Detroit Tuesday night was random chance, but turned out to be a well-timed and clarifying event.
There was the possibility that the two heroes of the left would sharpen the differences between them in the competition over who is the fairest of them all. But very little of that came to pass.
Instead, the combined Warren-Sanders presence emboldened most other voices in the first round of a two-night debate to say they wouldn’t enter the derby over who is most ideologically pure. The real argument, they urged, should be over who is most credible general election adversary to Donald Trump and potential president in 2021.
It wasn’t exactly an invigorating evening. It was too long (closing in on 2 hours, 45 minutes) and too disorienting (candidates clamoring to be heard; moderators laboring with impatient “thank yous” to shut down answers that went over time) for that.
But in its discursive way it was illuminating: The debate showed a party arguing seriously about the inherent tension between boldness and realism, passion and prudence, on such topics as improving health care, immigration, taking on wealthy interests, and the best way broadly to energize average voters.
It was the relative absence of such arguments that made the first round of debates, last month in Miami, so striking. In those encounters, some challenges, like finite financial resources, or the political reality that large swaths of middle America that Democrats need to win Congress or the presidency have been hostile toward robust liberalism, seemed to be waved away by proclamation. Candidates who disagreed often muffled their views, and previous records, leaving the impression of an unconsidered swerve to the left on such issues as abandoning Obamacare and abolishing private health insurance, or decriminalizing illegal border crossings and giving government health care to undocumented immigrants.
In Detroit the dissenters found their voices, and even those who had previously staked out bold positions seemed to be injecting a bit of squish in their language.
At least a half-dozen of the first eight opening statements—Warren and Sanders were nine and ten—included explicit or implied rebukes of the leftward tilt of the party.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock said the first round of debates featured “wish-list economics” that suggests a party talking to itself rather than listening to voters. Former Rep. John Delaney said “bad policies like Medicare for all, free everything, and impossible promises…will turn off independent voters and get Trump re-elected.” Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said “not one of those 40 Democrats” who flipped formerly Republican House seats in 2018 support the more extreme positions of Sanders and Warren. Sen. Amy Klobuchar said she has “bold ideas but they are grounded in reality.”
Throughout the evening, Warren and Sanders did not shrink from the challenge. Instead, they seemed to work in tandem to advocate for a less cautious, defensive-minded brand of progressive activism.
Warren said Democrats “should stop using Republican talking points” in debating health care among themselves.
On the question of electability, Sanders boasted, “Well, the truth is that every credible poll that I have seen has me beating Donald Trump, including in the battleground states of Michigan, where [in 2016] I won the Democratic primary, Wisconsin, where I won the Democratic primary, and Pennsylvania.”
“I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas,” Sanders rasped.
Warren, at another point, added: “I don't understand why anybody goes through all the trouble of running for president of the United States to talk about what we can't do and shouldn't fight for.”
That was a vivid line, but there were others on the opposite side. The Green New Deal, which mixes environmental goals on climate change with a promise of guaranteed jobs for every American would be “a disaster,” said Hickenlooper, adding, “You might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump.”
One notable aspect of the evening, spurred in part by decision of CNN moderators, was that candidates who have previously been marginalized in the race, were often the main people waging the case on behalf of moderate policies and incremental goals. These included Delaney, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan. Candidates who once had touted as centrist beau ideals, including South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, did not command disproportionate shares of time or deliver many of the most evocative moments.
Buttigieg, who had previously endorsed decriminalizing illegal border crossings, seemed to downplay the significance of that stand.
“When I am president, illegally crossing the border will still be illegal,” he said. “We can argue over the finer points of which parts should be handled by civil law and criminal law but we have a crisis on our hands, not just a crisis of immigration but cruelty and incompetence that is creating a humanitarian disaster on our southern border.”
The most exotic voice on the stage, author Marianne Williamson, said she “normally is way over there with Bernie and Elizabeth” on ideological issues, but that on Medicare for All, “I do have concern about what the Republicans would say and that's not just a Republican talking point. I do have concern that it will be difficult. I have concern that it will make it harder to win, and I have a concern that it will make it harder to govern.”
One Democratic divide on display was not so much ideological as moralistic. Warren and Sanders both articulated deep disdain for what they regard as the ethical vacuum in corporate America. Sanders talked about “crooks on Wall Street” and “crooks” in the pharmaceutical industry. Warren said big companies use trade and health care policies to “suck more profit out for themselves and to leave the American people behind.”
This left a sharp, if implicit divide between those Democrats who don’t think business defaults to amoral or immoral. Both O’Rourke and Delaney talked about their entrepreneurial experiences starting companies.
A note of interpretive caution: If the Miami debates tended to create an exaggerated impression of the party’s leftward drift, people should be alert of viewing Detroit as an equally abrupt lurch to the center.
Even avowed centrists like Delaney talked about the need to recognize health care as a universal right, and supported raising taxes on the wealthy to support progressive change. Klobuchar, among others, assailed the NRA and argued that effective leaders can pass gun laws without abandoning red-state voters. Bullock talked of beating the influence of the Koch brothers’ political network.
The inescapable conclusion: Democrats are indeed a party becoming steadily more progressive and aggressive, even if they are zig-zagging a bit along the path.
Sanders and Warren kept their voices but a parade of centrists finally found theirs.
By JOHN F. HARRIS
The assignment of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to the same debate stage in Detroit Tuesday night was random chance, but turned out to be a well-timed and clarifying event.
There was the possibility that the two heroes of the left would sharpen the differences between them in the competition over who is the fairest of them all. But very little of that came to pass.
Instead, the combined Warren-Sanders presence emboldened most other voices in the first round of a two-night debate to say they wouldn’t enter the derby over who is most ideologically pure. The real argument, they urged, should be over who is most credible general election adversary to Donald Trump and potential president in 2021.
It wasn’t exactly an invigorating evening. It was too long (closing in on 2 hours, 45 minutes) and too disorienting (candidates clamoring to be heard; moderators laboring with impatient “thank yous” to shut down answers that went over time) for that.
But in its discursive way it was illuminating: The debate showed a party arguing seriously about the inherent tension between boldness and realism, passion and prudence, on such topics as improving health care, immigration, taking on wealthy interests, and the best way broadly to energize average voters.
It was the relative absence of such arguments that made the first round of debates, last month in Miami, so striking. In those encounters, some challenges, like finite financial resources, or the political reality that large swaths of middle America that Democrats need to win Congress or the presidency have been hostile toward robust liberalism, seemed to be waved away by proclamation. Candidates who disagreed often muffled their views, and previous records, leaving the impression of an unconsidered swerve to the left on such issues as abandoning Obamacare and abolishing private health insurance, or decriminalizing illegal border crossings and giving government health care to undocumented immigrants.
In Detroit the dissenters found their voices, and even those who had previously staked out bold positions seemed to be injecting a bit of squish in their language.
At least a half-dozen of the first eight opening statements—Warren and Sanders were nine and ten—included explicit or implied rebukes of the leftward tilt of the party.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock said the first round of debates featured “wish-list economics” that suggests a party talking to itself rather than listening to voters. Former Rep. John Delaney said “bad policies like Medicare for all, free everything, and impossible promises…will turn off independent voters and get Trump re-elected.” Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said “not one of those 40 Democrats” who flipped formerly Republican House seats in 2018 support the more extreme positions of Sanders and Warren. Sen. Amy Klobuchar said she has “bold ideas but they are grounded in reality.”
Throughout the evening, Warren and Sanders did not shrink from the challenge. Instead, they seemed to work in tandem to advocate for a less cautious, defensive-minded brand of progressive activism.
Warren said Democrats “should stop using Republican talking points” in debating health care among themselves.
On the question of electability, Sanders boasted, “Well, the truth is that every credible poll that I have seen has me beating Donald Trump, including in the battleground states of Michigan, where [in 2016] I won the Democratic primary, Wisconsin, where I won the Democratic primary, and Pennsylvania.”
“I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas,” Sanders rasped.
Warren, at another point, added: “I don't understand why anybody goes through all the trouble of running for president of the United States to talk about what we can't do and shouldn't fight for.”
That was a vivid line, but there were others on the opposite side. The Green New Deal, which mixes environmental goals on climate change with a promise of guaranteed jobs for every American would be “a disaster,” said Hickenlooper, adding, “You might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump.”
One notable aspect of the evening, spurred in part by decision of CNN moderators, was that candidates who have previously been marginalized in the race, were often the main people waging the case on behalf of moderate policies and incremental goals. These included Delaney, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan. Candidates who once had touted as centrist beau ideals, including South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, did not command disproportionate shares of time or deliver many of the most evocative moments.
Buttigieg, who had previously endorsed decriminalizing illegal border crossings, seemed to downplay the significance of that stand.
“When I am president, illegally crossing the border will still be illegal,” he said. “We can argue over the finer points of which parts should be handled by civil law and criminal law but we have a crisis on our hands, not just a crisis of immigration but cruelty and incompetence that is creating a humanitarian disaster on our southern border.”
The most exotic voice on the stage, author Marianne Williamson, said she “normally is way over there with Bernie and Elizabeth” on ideological issues, but that on Medicare for All, “I do have concern about what the Republicans would say and that's not just a Republican talking point. I do have concern that it will be difficult. I have concern that it will make it harder to win, and I have a concern that it will make it harder to govern.”
One Democratic divide on display was not so much ideological as moralistic. Warren and Sanders both articulated deep disdain for what they regard as the ethical vacuum in corporate America. Sanders talked about “crooks on Wall Street” and “crooks” in the pharmaceutical industry. Warren said big companies use trade and health care policies to “suck more profit out for themselves and to leave the American people behind.”
This left a sharp, if implicit divide between those Democrats who don’t think business defaults to amoral or immoral. Both O’Rourke and Delaney talked about their entrepreneurial experiences starting companies.
A note of interpretive caution: If the Miami debates tended to create an exaggerated impression of the party’s leftward drift, people should be alert of viewing Detroit as an equally abrupt lurch to the center.
Even avowed centrists like Delaney talked about the need to recognize health care as a universal right, and supported raising taxes on the wealthy to support progressive change. Klobuchar, among others, assailed the NRA and argued that effective leaders can pass gun laws without abandoning red-state voters. Bullock talked of beating the influence of the Koch brothers’ political network.
The inescapable conclusion: Democrats are indeed a party becoming steadily more progressive and aggressive, even if they are zig-zagging a bit along the path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)