Immigration torments GOP as feel-good retreat kicks off
House and Senate Republicans are miles apart on a fix for Dreamers — a problem that threatens the party's entire 2018 agenda.
By RACHAEL BADE and BURGESS EVERETT
Congressional Republicans arrived here Wednesday for their annual retreat dogged by internal divisions over immigration — and seemingly intent on avoiding the issue altogether.
The schedule for the three-day gathering at a luxury 11,000 acre-resort in the Appalachians does not include a single session on immigration. This despite a deadline barely a month away to extend protections to hundreds of thousands of young immigrants facing deportation — and the logjam that dilemma has caused for Republican priorities like boosting defense spending.
Instead, Republicans — rattled by a deadly collision between a truck and an Amtrak train carrying lawmakers to the retreat — are set to hold sessions to congratulate themselves for tax reform, talk about infrastructure, and learn how to make care packages for troops.
Leadership’s unwillingness to confront the internal divide over immigration comes as Republicans are turning on each other in a battle for the soul of their party. The Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program expires March 5, though a recent court action has softened that deadline. President Donald Trump decided last fall to terminate the program, and the Senate is preparing to take up an immigration debate in February.
But the party is all over the place on how, or even whether, to act to shield the beneficiaries.
The internal tensions threaten to overshadow the entire year in Congress and color the midterm elections, with control of both chambers on the line. If Republicans can't get past immigration, it's possible they won't be able to address spending, infrastructure or other priorities that are already seen as reaches in an election year. The standoff over immigration is at the heart of the ongoing fight over government spending, too — the latest deadline to prevent another shutdown is now only a week away.
“That’s a pretty big schism, between the House and the Senate,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 3 GOP leader. “And so I just think that we need to be really aware, if we want to get a result, what the limitations are in both bodies."
It's hard to see where an immigration compromise might lie.
The White House proposed giving 1.8 million Dreamers a pathway to citizenship in exchange for a border wall with Mexico and several conservative immigration policy changes. But while Senate Republicans believe the plan tacks too far to the right, saying its steep cuts to legal immigration will never win over Democrats, many immigration hawks in the House have dismissed Trump’s pitch as “amnesty.”
“I don’t think [Americans] want amnesty or anything that looks like amnesty encouraging people to come here illegally,” said Freedom Caucus conservative Scott Perry (R-Pa.). “[T]he White House proposal is not what they think they signed up for. It’s not what I signed up for.”
Trump further divided Congress with his remarks on immigration in his State of the Union speech. Though some Republicans praised him for offering a pathway to citizenship and a concrete plan to fund the border, Democrats were alarmed by his "demonization of Latino immigrants," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).
In the House, conservatives are pushing Speaker Paul Ryan’s team to essentially ignore the White House proposal, which they find too moderate. Instead, they want a vote on a more conservative bill authored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
But that bill is a “nonstarter” in the Senate, said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
GOP leaders are arguing internally that the Goodlatte measure goes well beyond the president’s proposal, with its controversial requirements that all companies verify the legal status of their employees. They argue the bill would never pass the Senate’s 60-vote threshold — let alone win the united support of a House GOP conference that’s split over its merits.
But immigration hawks say Ryan should move the Goodlatte bill to the floor anyway. Freedom Caucus members made leaders promise to try to whip the needed 218 votes on the immigration bill in order to win conservative votes on the deal to fund the government. Now, they feel leadership hasn’t done enough to advocate for the measure and are threatening to vote against a bill extending government funding that expires next week.
“I’m for the Goodlatte plan,” said Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), a Freedom Caucus member.
As for the Senate’s dismissal of the legislation, he jabbed: “If you look at Senate tactics and outcome on health care, how did it go? The Senate’s all grandstanding. [Sen.] Lindsey Graham and whoever, waving a plan every other day: ‘Come over here with the shiny object!’ … Then, they face-plant.”
A bipartisan group of senators is meeting regularly on immigration, even as talks have stalled among a group of congressional whips also working on finding common ground. Senators say the only way to get an immigration deal is for their chamber to take the lead — to win a big bipartisan majority for a plan and then pressure the House and Trump to get on board.
“If the president gets behind what the Senate does, then that means a lot of" House Republicans will fall in line, Flake said. “The House isn’t going to get out in front of the president. We’ve known that. The Senate’s going to have to move ahead and then see what the House does.”
But Republicans in both chambers are wary of that view. In 2013, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill with 68 votes, only to watch the House ignore it.
Thune predicted the bipartisan plan being kicked around in the Senate would be too moderate to pass muster in the other chamber. “That’s not a bill that passes the House.”
House Republicans agree that a Senate "gang" won't dictate what they do. Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said the House should pass the Goodlatte bill and leave the Senate to figure out what to do.
“Is there a bill [Senate Democratic Whip] Dick Durbin is going to like that Jim Jordan, Dave Brat, Mark Meadows are going to like? That’s the dilemma,” said Jordan (R-Ohio), a Freedom Caucus founder. “But I know what the American people want: They didn’t vote for a Durbin bill [on the 2016 ballot]; they voted for a Goodlatte bill.”
But senators pride themselves on coming together in times of crisis to solve problems. And after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed to take up an immigration bill in February, the group of senators holed up in Sen. Susan Collins' office each afternoon are pledging to put the upper chamber in the driver’s seat.
They are skeptical that the House will ever send them something that Senate Democrats can accept, and they believe they can score an endorsement from the president if they can rack up a legislative victory by a overwhelming margin.
“The best way that we can deal with that is if we can get a bill that has 65 or 70 votes and the president supports it. I think that’s our best chance for House support,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).
Yet despite optimism from Alexander, Collins (R-Maine) and other members of the burgeoning gang, some senators are skeptical that anything related to immigration can pass the Senate, period.
“I’ve heard a lot of talk. And I’ve seen a lot of people talking to cameras,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). But “I don’t think there’s 60 votes there, for anything.”
February 01, 2018
Well of course...
Trump incorrectly calls his SOTU address most watched in history
By LOUIS NELSON
President Donald Trump incorrectly claimed Thursday that the State of the Union address he delivered earlier this week was the most watched in history, even though his own 2017 address to Congress got higher television ratings.
“Thank you for all of the nice compliments and reviews on the State of the Union speech. 45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “@FoxNews beat every other Network, for the first time ever, with 11.7 million people tuning in. Delivered from the heart!”
The president did not make clear the source of his statistic, although the 45.6 million figure matched the one put out by Nielsen, which monitors television data. The White House did not immediately return an email seeking further information about the president’s tweet.
Despite Trump’s claim that his Tuesday State of the Union had been the most watched ever, it actually had slightly fewer viewers than his 2017 address to a joint session of Congress, which Nielsen said was watched by nearly 47.8 million people.
Trump’s State of the Union did improve upon the most recent numbers of his predecessor, Barack Obama, whose final State of the Union address in 2016 was watched by 31.3 million people. But Obama’s early speeches before Congress significantly outdrew Trump’s: his first address to a joint session of Congress, in 2009, drew 52.3 million viewers and his first State of the Union address, in 2010, attracted 48 million.
Former President George W. Bush also delivered State of the Union addresses that attracted more viewers than Trump’s. Bush’s 2003 speech, which took place weeks before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, drew 62 million viewers, while his 2002 speech, months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, attracted 51.7 million.
Former President Bill Clinton’s 1993 joint address to Congress, meanwhile, drew 66.9 million viewers.
By LOUIS NELSON
President Donald Trump incorrectly claimed Thursday that the State of the Union address he delivered earlier this week was the most watched in history, even though his own 2017 address to Congress got higher television ratings.
“Thank you for all of the nice compliments and reviews on the State of the Union speech. 45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “@FoxNews beat every other Network, for the first time ever, with 11.7 million people tuning in. Delivered from the heart!”
The president did not make clear the source of his statistic, although the 45.6 million figure matched the one put out by Nielsen, which monitors television data. The White House did not immediately return an email seeking further information about the president’s tweet.
Despite Trump’s claim that his Tuesday State of the Union had been the most watched ever, it actually had slightly fewer viewers than his 2017 address to a joint session of Congress, which Nielsen said was watched by nearly 47.8 million people.
Trump’s State of the Union did improve upon the most recent numbers of his predecessor, Barack Obama, whose final State of the Union address in 2016 was watched by 31.3 million people. But Obama’s early speeches before Congress significantly outdrew Trump’s: his first address to a joint session of Congress, in 2009, drew 52.3 million viewers and his first State of the Union address, in 2010, attracted 48 million.
Former President George W. Bush also delivered State of the Union addresses that attracted more viewers than Trump’s. Bush’s 2003 speech, which took place weeks before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, drew 62 million viewers, while his 2002 speech, months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, attracted 51.7 million.
Former President Bill Clinton’s 1993 joint address to Congress, meanwhile, drew 66.9 million viewers.
Shuts down interview
Mika Brzezinski shuts down interview with Michael Wolff over Haley comments
By LOUIS NELSON
MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski abruptly ended an interview with author Michael Wolff Thursday morning after Wolff denied that he had accused U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley of having an affair with President Donald Trump.
Wolff, the author of the incendiary but error-specked book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” was on set with Brzezinski on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Thursday for a conversation that initially focused on the ongoing Russia investigation.
The conversation quickly turned to remarks Wolff made last week on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” where he said he claimed to know that Trump was having an affair but could not responsibly say with whom. Instead, Wolff pointed viewers to a passage located somewhere at “the end of the book” that would single-out Trump’s mistress.
Readers quickly identified a passage in which Wolff wrote Haley “had become a particular focus of Trump’s attention, and he of hers” and another in which he wrote “that [Haley], with requisite submission, could be his heir apparent.” Haley, in an interview with POLITICO, called Wolff’s insinuation “disgusting” and “highly offensive.”
But Wolff insisted, much to the agitation of Brzezinski and others on the “Morning Joe” set, that he had not made any suggestion about Haley.
“I found it puzzling that she would deny something she was not accused of,” he said. “I didn't infer anything about Nikki Haley. What I inferred was that the president is – is that many of the people around the president believe he is still involved with various women.”
After some back and forth, Brzezinski suggested to Wolff that he “might be having a fun time playing a little game dancing around this, but you're slurring a woman. It's disgraceful.” Wolff once again insisted he had not made any insinuation about Haley, to which Brzezinski replied, “come on. Are you kidding? You're on the set of ‘Morning Joe.’ We don't B.S. here.”
Wolff then asked Brzezinski to read to him the remarks he had made in which he supposedly had accused Haley of having an affair with the president. The demand, which Brzezinski refused, was apparently the last straw.
“If you don’t get it, if you don’t get what we’re talking about, I’m sorry. This is awkward. You’re here on the set with us, but we're done,” she said. “Michael Wolff, thank you. We're going to go to break now. Bye, everyone. We'll be right back.”
Wolff turned to Twitter to get the last word over Brzezinski, writing “my bad, the President is right about Mika,” a reference to Trump’s repeated criticisms of the “Morning Joe” host.
“To be invited on a show with the purpose of being thrown off...is the new television… In other words, I had to say what Mika wanted me to say, or else...the hook!” Wolff wrote in a series of posts about his quick ouster from the show. “The last time I was on Morning Joe off camera Joe and Mika eager to gossip about who Trump might be sleeping with… It really would be hard to gossip more eagerly off camera than Mika and Joe gossip.”
By LOUIS NELSON
MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski abruptly ended an interview with author Michael Wolff Thursday morning after Wolff denied that he had accused U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley of having an affair with President Donald Trump.
Wolff, the author of the incendiary but error-specked book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” was on set with Brzezinski on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Thursday for a conversation that initially focused on the ongoing Russia investigation.
The conversation quickly turned to remarks Wolff made last week on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” where he said he claimed to know that Trump was having an affair but could not responsibly say with whom. Instead, Wolff pointed viewers to a passage located somewhere at “the end of the book” that would single-out Trump’s mistress.
Readers quickly identified a passage in which Wolff wrote Haley “had become a particular focus of Trump’s attention, and he of hers” and another in which he wrote “that [Haley], with requisite submission, could be his heir apparent.” Haley, in an interview with POLITICO, called Wolff’s insinuation “disgusting” and “highly offensive.”
But Wolff insisted, much to the agitation of Brzezinski and others on the “Morning Joe” set, that he had not made any suggestion about Haley.
“I found it puzzling that she would deny something she was not accused of,” he said. “I didn't infer anything about Nikki Haley. What I inferred was that the president is – is that many of the people around the president believe he is still involved with various women.”
After some back and forth, Brzezinski suggested to Wolff that he “might be having a fun time playing a little game dancing around this, but you're slurring a woman. It's disgraceful.” Wolff once again insisted he had not made any insinuation about Haley, to which Brzezinski replied, “come on. Are you kidding? You're on the set of ‘Morning Joe.’ We don't B.S. here.”
Wolff then asked Brzezinski to read to him the remarks he had made in which he supposedly had accused Haley of having an affair with the president. The demand, which Brzezinski refused, was apparently the last straw.
“If you don’t get it, if you don’t get what we’re talking about, I’m sorry. This is awkward. You’re here on the set with us, but we're done,” she said. “Michael Wolff, thank you. We're going to go to break now. Bye, everyone. We'll be right back.”
Wolff turned to Twitter to get the last word over Brzezinski, writing “my bad, the President is right about Mika,” a reference to Trump’s repeated criticisms of the “Morning Joe” host.
“To be invited on a show with the purpose of being thrown off...is the new television… In other words, I had to say what Mika wanted me to say, or else...the hook!” Wolff wrote in a series of posts about his quick ouster from the show. “The last time I was on Morning Joe off camera Joe and Mika eager to gossip about who Trump might be sleeping with… It really would be hard to gossip more eagerly off camera than Mika and Joe gossip.”
How stupid...
Why the CDC director had to resign
Brenda Fitzgerald's departure quickly followed the arrival of HHS Secretary Alex Azar.
By ADAM CANCRYN and JENNIFER HABERKORN
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar had planned to send a clear message to Congress and his new boss in the White House that he would not tolerate ethically questionable behavior.
That opportunity came faster than expected after POLITICO reported Tuesday that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had traded in tobacco stocks while she led the agency.
Less than 48 hours after being sworn in, Azar accepted the resignation of CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald amid questions about her judgment and conflicts of interest.
Fitzgerald’s purchase of shares in tobacco, drug and food companies while serving as the nation’s top public health official and her inability to divest other holdings kept her from working on key health issues and were exactly the kind of distractions Azar vowed to eliminate.
“Alex has a really low tolerance for drama,” a person familiar with Azar’s thinking said. “He wants the president to look at HHS and say, ‘This is my workhorse. This is the place where I’m getting stuff done.’”
After a meeting with the CDC’s senior leadership early Wednesday, Fitzgerald submitted her resignation, according to a source familiar with the matter. An HHS spokesman said Azar accepted it, but it is unclear whether he demanded it. Rank-and-file staffers didn’t know about the decision until after HHS issued a news release later in the morning.
Sources inside HHS and the CDC say there were several reasons to believe Azar couldn’t stand for any more public relations problems in his agency. Fitzgerald’s lingering problem with an ethics recusal — she wouldn’t do work on cancer detection or some aspects of the opioid crisis — posed enough of a problem for the CDC.
“We have like the worst flu epidemic ever, and she’s not out there,” a source close to the department said of her inability to testify. “That’s mind-boggling at a very basic level.”
But the report that she had bought tobacco stock after she started at the CDC appeared to be the last straw.
In recent weeks, Azar specifically told associates that he'd take a hard line on any ethical problems in the department, and pledged to lawmakers and the White House that his agency would be far more businesslike in advancing the GOP’s health priorities than it was during Price’s era.
Azar’s background as a former HHS general counsel meant he was intimately familiar with the agency’s ethics rules. He was HHS' top lawyer for four years during the George W. Bush administration, and cultivated a reputation for a strict adherence to the rules.
HHS — which makes decisions that could routinely drive the financial interests of drugmakers, among others — has some of the toughest stock-ownership prohibitions in government, according to accountability experts.
Fitzgerald told The Wall Street Journal later Wednesday that she felt her investment issues detracted from the agency’s work. She said she didn’t know about the tobacco stock purchase, which she said had been handled by a financial counselor.
The public health world has a particularly strong ethic against the use of tobacco. The CDC Foundation, an independent nonprofit created by Congress to support the CDC’s public health work, has a policy against accepting any dollars from the industry.
Fitzgerald had faced earlier controversy over a state partnership with Coca-Cola while she was a senior public health official in Georgia, a move that critics didn’t like but were willing to overlook given the company’s Atlanta headquarters.
“But no one in public health argues you should be engaged with the tobacco industry,” one public health expert said.
Sources familiar with Azar's plans say he had long anticipated spending his first days at HHS ridding the department of the ethical and organization problems that tarred the tenure of his predecessor, Tom Price. Price resigned in September after scrutiny of his charter jet flights, and before that had faced criticism over his own stock trades.
Lawmakers voiced their frustration to POLITICO about Fitzgerald's inability to testify to Congress as Azar met one-on-one with them ahead of his confirmation.
“It is unacceptable that the person responsible for leading our nation’s public health efforts has, for months, been unable to fully engage in the critical work she was appointed to do," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Senior Republicans on the HELP Committee said after a hearing earlier this month that they wanted Fitzgerald to eliminate her conflicts of interest so that she could testify after she canceled an appearance for the second time. Murray criticized her conflicts during the hearing in which another CDC official testified in Fitzgerald’s place.
Inside the CDC, there was speculation that Fitzgerald’s existing financial conflicts — if she was unable to resolve them — would frustrate the no-nonsense Azar. A former Georgia public health official who was close with Price, Fitzgerald had already lost influence within the department after his ouster. The purchase of Japan Tobacco stocks proved to be too much.
“It was intolerable," said a Republican staffer.
HHS’ legislative affairs shop, meanwhile, is already under fire from Capitol Hill on multiple fronts. Within hours of Azar’s swearing in, House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy, a fellow Republican, sent a scathing letter to the new secretary, outlining all the ways in which HHS has not complied with document and oversight inquiries.
Gowdy said the legislative affairs operation has fallen “into a state of permanent disrepair” and warned that he may move to “compulsory” measures if the department doesn’t adequately respond.
The CDC needs to maintain a strong relationship with Capitol Hill. The agency, which gets a portion of its funding from Obamacare’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, is constantly threatened with funding cuts.
Because of its link to the divisive health law, the agency is more vulnerable than other health agencies, like the National Institutes of Health or the FDA.
The agency is already at a disadvantage because it is run out of Atlanta — one of the few federal agencies not based in Washington, where leaders can make a quick run to the White House or Capitol Hill.
“There was already strong concern due to her recusal issues, and then when news broke about her tobacco purchases, the dam of frustration broke,” a senior GOP aide on Capitol Hill said.
Azar has prioritized mending relations with lawmakers and had planned to roll out changes within the department over the next several weeks. The early efforts are expected to focus on shoring up HHS’ legislative and public affairs operations.
Among Azar’s first moves at HHS was to task his chief of staff, Peter Urbanowicz, and deputy chief of staff Brian Harrison with a top-to-bottom evaluation to identify problem areas, people familiar with the situation said.
Multiple people familiar with Azar’s thinking have characterized his view of the department as a turnaround job, pointing to Urbanowicz’s private-sector experience directing the restructurings of troubled health care organizations.
“Peter is the kind of person that can really help make the trains run on time,” Federation of American Hospitals President Chip Kahn said.
Brenda Fitzgerald's departure quickly followed the arrival of HHS Secretary Alex Azar.
By ADAM CANCRYN and JENNIFER HABERKORN
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar had planned to send a clear message to Congress and his new boss in the White House that he would not tolerate ethically questionable behavior.
That opportunity came faster than expected after POLITICO reported Tuesday that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had traded in tobacco stocks while she led the agency.
Less than 48 hours after being sworn in, Azar accepted the resignation of CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald amid questions about her judgment and conflicts of interest.
Fitzgerald’s purchase of shares in tobacco, drug and food companies while serving as the nation’s top public health official and her inability to divest other holdings kept her from working on key health issues and were exactly the kind of distractions Azar vowed to eliminate.
“Alex has a really low tolerance for drama,” a person familiar with Azar’s thinking said. “He wants the president to look at HHS and say, ‘This is my workhorse. This is the place where I’m getting stuff done.’”
After a meeting with the CDC’s senior leadership early Wednesday, Fitzgerald submitted her resignation, according to a source familiar with the matter. An HHS spokesman said Azar accepted it, but it is unclear whether he demanded it. Rank-and-file staffers didn’t know about the decision until after HHS issued a news release later in the morning.
Sources inside HHS and the CDC say there were several reasons to believe Azar couldn’t stand for any more public relations problems in his agency. Fitzgerald’s lingering problem with an ethics recusal — she wouldn’t do work on cancer detection or some aspects of the opioid crisis — posed enough of a problem for the CDC.
“We have like the worst flu epidemic ever, and she’s not out there,” a source close to the department said of her inability to testify. “That’s mind-boggling at a very basic level.”
But the report that she had bought tobacco stock after she started at the CDC appeared to be the last straw.
In recent weeks, Azar specifically told associates that he'd take a hard line on any ethical problems in the department, and pledged to lawmakers and the White House that his agency would be far more businesslike in advancing the GOP’s health priorities than it was during Price’s era.
Azar’s background as a former HHS general counsel meant he was intimately familiar with the agency’s ethics rules. He was HHS' top lawyer for four years during the George W. Bush administration, and cultivated a reputation for a strict adherence to the rules.
HHS — which makes decisions that could routinely drive the financial interests of drugmakers, among others — has some of the toughest stock-ownership prohibitions in government, according to accountability experts.
Fitzgerald told The Wall Street Journal later Wednesday that she felt her investment issues detracted from the agency’s work. She said she didn’t know about the tobacco stock purchase, which she said had been handled by a financial counselor.
The public health world has a particularly strong ethic against the use of tobacco. The CDC Foundation, an independent nonprofit created by Congress to support the CDC’s public health work, has a policy against accepting any dollars from the industry.
Fitzgerald had faced earlier controversy over a state partnership with Coca-Cola while she was a senior public health official in Georgia, a move that critics didn’t like but were willing to overlook given the company’s Atlanta headquarters.
“But no one in public health argues you should be engaged with the tobacco industry,” one public health expert said.
Sources familiar with Azar's plans say he had long anticipated spending his first days at HHS ridding the department of the ethical and organization problems that tarred the tenure of his predecessor, Tom Price. Price resigned in September after scrutiny of his charter jet flights, and before that had faced criticism over his own stock trades.
Lawmakers voiced their frustration to POLITICO about Fitzgerald's inability to testify to Congress as Azar met one-on-one with them ahead of his confirmation.
“It is unacceptable that the person responsible for leading our nation’s public health efforts has, for months, been unable to fully engage in the critical work she was appointed to do," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Senior Republicans on the HELP Committee said after a hearing earlier this month that they wanted Fitzgerald to eliminate her conflicts of interest so that she could testify after she canceled an appearance for the second time. Murray criticized her conflicts during the hearing in which another CDC official testified in Fitzgerald’s place.
Inside the CDC, there was speculation that Fitzgerald’s existing financial conflicts — if she was unable to resolve them — would frustrate the no-nonsense Azar. A former Georgia public health official who was close with Price, Fitzgerald had already lost influence within the department after his ouster. The purchase of Japan Tobacco stocks proved to be too much.
“It was intolerable," said a Republican staffer.
HHS’ legislative affairs shop, meanwhile, is already under fire from Capitol Hill on multiple fronts. Within hours of Azar’s swearing in, House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy, a fellow Republican, sent a scathing letter to the new secretary, outlining all the ways in which HHS has not complied with document and oversight inquiries.
Gowdy said the legislative affairs operation has fallen “into a state of permanent disrepair” and warned that he may move to “compulsory” measures if the department doesn’t adequately respond.
The CDC needs to maintain a strong relationship with Capitol Hill. The agency, which gets a portion of its funding from Obamacare’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, is constantly threatened with funding cuts.
Because of its link to the divisive health law, the agency is more vulnerable than other health agencies, like the National Institutes of Health or the FDA.
The agency is already at a disadvantage because it is run out of Atlanta — one of the few federal agencies not based in Washington, where leaders can make a quick run to the White House or Capitol Hill.
“There was already strong concern due to her recusal issues, and then when news broke about her tobacco purchases, the dam of frustration broke,” a senior GOP aide on Capitol Hill said.
Azar has prioritized mending relations with lawmakers and had planned to roll out changes within the department over the next several weeks. The early efforts are expected to focus on shoring up HHS’ legislative and public affairs operations.
Among Azar’s first moves at HHS was to task his chief of staff, Peter Urbanowicz, and deputy chief of staff Brian Harrison with a top-to-bottom evaluation to identify problem areas, people familiar with the situation said.
Multiple people familiar with Azar’s thinking have characterized his view of the department as a turnaround job, pointing to Urbanowicz’s private-sector experience directing the restructurings of troubled health care organizations.
“Peter is the kind of person that can really help make the trains run on time,” Federation of American Hospitals President Chip Kahn said.
Finally had it...
Gowdy finally had it with Washington
The influential chairman of the House Oversight Committee is sick of politics and won't seek reelection.
By RACHAEL BADE
Trey Gowdy is done with politics.
The House Oversight Committee Chairman for years has joked privately about quitting Congress and returning home to South Carolina. On Wednesday, he finally pulled the plug — likely for good.
A rising star that many Republicans once considered a dark-horse for speaker of the House, Gowdy announced Wednesday he would not seek reelection or any political office and would instead return to the justice system. Sources close to him say he wants to return home, practice law and maybe teach and write a book with his friend Sen. Tim Scott.
"Whatever skills I may have are better utilized in a courtroom than in Congress, and I enjoy our justice system more than our political system," the South Carolina Republican said.
And in a sign of Gowdy’s desire to step back from public life, he recently turned down a golden opportunity to become a federal judge.
White House counsel Don McGahn in recent weeks broached Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, about filling a slot on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — a newly vacated judgeship that Gowdy has eyed before, according to sources close to Gowdy. His fellow Palmetto State Republicans, Scott and Sen. Lindsey Graham, also urged him to accept the post.
But Gowdy, who's long complained about the increasingly toxic nature of politics, turned down the position, the sources said.
“There is more civility in a death penalty case than there is in some congressional hearings,” Gowdy, who has won seven death penalty cases, recently told POLITICO.
Gowdy will become the eighth current chairman to depart Congress, but his decision is an extra blow to Speaker Paul Ryan, who often seeks Gowdy’s counsel on legal matters. Most recently, Gowdy has advised the Wisconsin Republican on how to navigate the increasingly partisan Russia investigation into President Donald Trump — and how to balance the GOP conference’s demand for scalps at the FBI.
But to anyone who knew the 53-year-old former House Benghazi Committee Chairman, the retirement is hardly a surprise. Gowdy rarely participated in House GOP events, rarely attending the weekly GOP conference, for example. He often talked privately about resenting the increasingly partisan atmosphere. And he loved to say that he wished he was home watching cheesy Hallmark movies with his wife.
Gowdy rose to prominence in 2013 for his fierce interrogation of IRS officials accused of targeting tea party groups for extra scrutiny — scoring headlines when he argued that Lois Lerner, the official at the center of the controversy, had “waived her right” when she boldly proclaimed her innocence before the House Oversight panel but then asserted her Fifth Amendment right.
The House ultimately held Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about how conservative nonprofits applying for tax-exempt status were treated under the Obama administration.
Former Speaker John Boehner later appointed Gowdy to lead the House Benghazi Committee, a select panel charged with investigating the deaths of four Americans, including former U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.
Gowdy was pummeled from the left and the right for his investigation: Democrats blasted him for overseeing a partisan “witch-hunt” against then-presidential candidate Hilary Clinton and conservatives — including his once-good friend Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — snarled that he’d let Clinton off the hook.
Trump also knocked Gowdy for refusing to hold Clinton’s feet to the fire, calling him the “Benghazi loser." Gowdy, however, said his investigation wasn’t going to make assumptions he couldn’t prove.
When Trump won the presidential election in 2016, Gowdy expected a call from the White House about the attorney general post. He was disappointed when he never even got an interview, sources close to him said. While the two never had a close relationship — and to this day, Gowdy says he’s never had a conversation with the president — he figured his legal acumen would make him a worthy candidate.
Earlier this year, Republicans voted for Gowdy to lead the House Oversight Committee. Since then, his panel has overseen part of the Russia controversy, though most of his work on the matter has been focused in the House Intelligence Committee, a panel on which he is also a member.
Gowdy has found himself butting heads in recent months with Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and other pro-Trump Republicans who have hinted at corruption at the FBI. He’s expressed concerns about anti-Trump texts by some FBI officials, and he has said on TV that Congress has a duty to oversee the agency. But behind the scenes he’s had to rein in some of his conservative colleagues who want to undercut the entirety of the Justice Department, which he views as essential to American life.
Gowdy's exit is likely to open up a contentious race for the Oversight gavel. Jordan has long eyed the post, but the Freedom Caucus founder has been at odds with leadership for years and would have an uphill battle in winning the post from a committee of Ryan loyalists.
National Republicans said they expect a crowded primary to replace Gowdy in his Republican-leaning seat based in Greenville. Several names have already been floated as potential replacements, including state Rep. Dan Hamilton, state Rep. Garry Smith and Karen Floyd, a businesswoman and former South Carolina GOP party chairwoman.
Minutes after Gowdy’s announcement, Spartanburg County Republican Chairman and talk radio host Josh Kimbrell posted on Facebook that he was “exploring a run” to “keep the 4th District on the national stage in the conservative fight.”
The influential chairman of the House Oversight Committee is sick of politics and won't seek reelection.
By RACHAEL BADE
Trey Gowdy is done with politics.
The House Oversight Committee Chairman for years has joked privately about quitting Congress and returning home to South Carolina. On Wednesday, he finally pulled the plug — likely for good.
A rising star that many Republicans once considered a dark-horse for speaker of the House, Gowdy announced Wednesday he would not seek reelection or any political office and would instead return to the justice system. Sources close to him say he wants to return home, practice law and maybe teach and write a book with his friend Sen. Tim Scott.
"Whatever skills I may have are better utilized in a courtroom than in Congress, and I enjoy our justice system more than our political system," the South Carolina Republican said.
And in a sign of Gowdy’s desire to step back from public life, he recently turned down a golden opportunity to become a federal judge.
White House counsel Don McGahn in recent weeks broached Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, about filling a slot on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — a newly vacated judgeship that Gowdy has eyed before, according to sources close to Gowdy. His fellow Palmetto State Republicans, Scott and Sen. Lindsey Graham, also urged him to accept the post.
But Gowdy, who's long complained about the increasingly toxic nature of politics, turned down the position, the sources said.
“There is more civility in a death penalty case than there is in some congressional hearings,” Gowdy, who has won seven death penalty cases, recently told POLITICO.
Gowdy will become the eighth current chairman to depart Congress, but his decision is an extra blow to Speaker Paul Ryan, who often seeks Gowdy’s counsel on legal matters. Most recently, Gowdy has advised the Wisconsin Republican on how to navigate the increasingly partisan Russia investigation into President Donald Trump — and how to balance the GOP conference’s demand for scalps at the FBI.
But to anyone who knew the 53-year-old former House Benghazi Committee Chairman, the retirement is hardly a surprise. Gowdy rarely participated in House GOP events, rarely attending the weekly GOP conference, for example. He often talked privately about resenting the increasingly partisan atmosphere. And he loved to say that he wished he was home watching cheesy Hallmark movies with his wife.
Gowdy rose to prominence in 2013 for his fierce interrogation of IRS officials accused of targeting tea party groups for extra scrutiny — scoring headlines when he argued that Lois Lerner, the official at the center of the controversy, had “waived her right” when she boldly proclaimed her innocence before the House Oversight panel but then asserted her Fifth Amendment right.
The House ultimately held Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about how conservative nonprofits applying for tax-exempt status were treated under the Obama administration.
Former Speaker John Boehner later appointed Gowdy to lead the House Benghazi Committee, a select panel charged with investigating the deaths of four Americans, including former U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.
Gowdy was pummeled from the left and the right for his investigation: Democrats blasted him for overseeing a partisan “witch-hunt” against then-presidential candidate Hilary Clinton and conservatives — including his once-good friend Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — snarled that he’d let Clinton off the hook.
Trump also knocked Gowdy for refusing to hold Clinton’s feet to the fire, calling him the “Benghazi loser." Gowdy, however, said his investigation wasn’t going to make assumptions he couldn’t prove.
When Trump won the presidential election in 2016, Gowdy expected a call from the White House about the attorney general post. He was disappointed when he never even got an interview, sources close to him said. While the two never had a close relationship — and to this day, Gowdy says he’s never had a conversation with the president — he figured his legal acumen would make him a worthy candidate.
Earlier this year, Republicans voted for Gowdy to lead the House Oversight Committee. Since then, his panel has overseen part of the Russia controversy, though most of his work on the matter has been focused in the House Intelligence Committee, a panel on which he is also a member.
Gowdy has found himself butting heads in recent months with Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and other pro-Trump Republicans who have hinted at corruption at the FBI. He’s expressed concerns about anti-Trump texts by some FBI officials, and he has said on TV that Congress has a duty to oversee the agency. But behind the scenes he’s had to rein in some of his conservative colleagues who want to undercut the entirety of the Justice Department, which he views as essential to American life.
Gowdy's exit is likely to open up a contentious race for the Oversight gavel. Jordan has long eyed the post, but the Freedom Caucus founder has been at odds with leadership for years and would have an uphill battle in winning the post from a committee of Ryan loyalists.
National Republicans said they expect a crowded primary to replace Gowdy in his Republican-leaning seat based in Greenville. Several names have already been floated as potential replacements, including state Rep. Dan Hamilton, state Rep. Garry Smith and Karen Floyd, a businesswoman and former South Carolina GOP party chairwoman.
Minutes after Gowdy’s announcement, Spartanburg County Republican Chairman and talk radio host Josh Kimbrell posted on Facebook that he was “exploring a run” to “keep the 4th District on the national stage in the conservative fight.”
New shutdown threat
GOP faces new shutdown threat from within
Rank-and-file Republicans are frustrated with the prospect of having to pass yet another short-term government funding bill.
By SARAH FERRIS and SEUNG MIN KIM
Congress is a week away from another government shutdown. And if it happens this time, the blame may lie with Republicans, who are struggling to keep their lawmakers in line.
Republicans have considered a stopgap funding bill that could run one month or possibly deeper into March, according to multiple sources. Discussions have been fluid, however, as House and Senate Republicans gather this week in West Virginia for their annual retreat. The House could vote as soon as Tuesday, two days before funding runs dry.
But many rank-and-file GOP lawmakers who reluctantly backed the last temporary funding bill, including conservatives and defense hawks, are balking at yet another patch.
With Congress now staring down its fifth short-term spending bill since September, frustration is spreading across the House Republican Conference, particularly as negotiations have stalled over raising stiff budget caps and providing relief to so-called Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows is threatening to withhold votes for another funding bill without more concessions on immigration. The North Carolina Republican told reporters this week that members of his hard-line caucus couldn’t vote for the bill until Speaker Paul Ryan makes good on his promise to push a more conservative immigration plan.
“It’s not up to me to get out of it. It’s the speaker’s job to get out of it,” Meadows said Tuesday about the lack of support for the stopgap.
Even if the funding bill clears the House, it would land in a Senate chamber that has made hardly any progress on a fix to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a conflict that fueled the government shutdown earlier this month.
“It’s all about DACA,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).
A group of the No. 2 leaders from each chamber — Cornyn, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) — are getting nowhere in their immigration discussions.
Meanwhile, a coalition of Senate dealmakers is trying to craft a bare-bones framework that can help launch a floor debate. But they’re downplaying their effort as a Plan B more than anything else.
Immigration also remains a key sticking point in the House. Freedom Caucus leaders are accusing GOP leaders of backing away from their promise to help sell a controversial bill from Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) — a bill that would struggle to pass the lower chamber, let alone the more moderate Senate.
But the frustrations among lawmakers go beyond Dreamers and border security.
Defense hawks are also refusing to commit to another stopgap without a long-term spending agreement. They complain that the Pentagon has now spent more than one-third of the fiscal year under temporary funding, risking harm to service members.
Several Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee are pushing GOP leaders to attach a full year of defense spending to the next “continuing resolution.” After this month’s politically painful shutdown, they believe Democrats wouldn’t dare vote against it.
“One of the arguments we heard from Senate Democratic leadership last week against the CR was: ‘It hurts the military.’ OK, it doesn’t if you do the defense appropriations bill,” Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) said in an interview Tuesday.
“I don’t think you want to hold up defense spending, particularly if you’re a red-state senator,” Byrne said, noting the pressure on his own senator, Alabama Democrat Doug Jones.
Spending talks have also faltered in recent days.
Negotiators have largely agreed to boost the Pentagon’s budget by about $80 billion each year, as part of a two-year deal. But an agreement on domestic spending levels has eluded them, sources say.
House Democrats say they’ll remain unified in opposition to all stopgap bills until both sets of negotiations — spending caps and immigration — are resolved. That tactic has drawn fire from Republicans, who blame the spending deal holdup on immigration.
“It is really not a good situation for the efficient operation of government programs and for our military in particular that we’re this far into the fiscal year and still lack funding,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a key appropriator. “So that is a major concern. But it seems like resolving the immigration issue is going to be necessary in order to resolve the budget issue.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday dismissed complaints from Republicans that immigration is blocking a budget deal.
“The Dreamers are part of the negotiation. But they’re not holding that up,” Pelosi said.
With House Democrats unified in opposition, GOP leaders can afford to lose only a handful of votes on the next spending bill.
Ryan and his deputies have largely avoided floor drama on recent government funding votes, but they’ve been forced into several rounds of last-minute negotiations with Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee leaders to win over key votes.
And Republicans in both chambers say they’re out of patience for more stopgap spending bills to buy time for an ever-elusive spending deal.
“We’ve been told that they were close for a month now,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said Tuesday. “I think coming up with an amount of money is not very difficult, if they ever actually decide to separate this from the DACA issue.”
Ryan repeated that message to GOP lawmakers at a closed-door meeting Tuesday, where he again said negotiators were closing in on a deal — only to be greeted with frustration by his members.
“We’ve had enough background discussions with the Democrats, it shouldn’t be that hard to cut a caps deal,” Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) vented after that meeting.
Rank-and-file Republicans are frustrated with the prospect of having to pass yet another short-term government funding bill.
By SARAH FERRIS and SEUNG MIN KIM
Congress is a week away from another government shutdown. And if it happens this time, the blame may lie with Republicans, who are struggling to keep their lawmakers in line.
Republicans have considered a stopgap funding bill that could run one month or possibly deeper into March, according to multiple sources. Discussions have been fluid, however, as House and Senate Republicans gather this week in West Virginia for their annual retreat. The House could vote as soon as Tuesday, two days before funding runs dry.
But many rank-and-file GOP lawmakers who reluctantly backed the last temporary funding bill, including conservatives and defense hawks, are balking at yet another patch.
With Congress now staring down its fifth short-term spending bill since September, frustration is spreading across the House Republican Conference, particularly as negotiations have stalled over raising stiff budget caps and providing relief to so-called Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows is threatening to withhold votes for another funding bill without more concessions on immigration. The North Carolina Republican told reporters this week that members of his hard-line caucus couldn’t vote for the bill until Speaker Paul Ryan makes good on his promise to push a more conservative immigration plan.
“It’s not up to me to get out of it. It’s the speaker’s job to get out of it,” Meadows said Tuesday about the lack of support for the stopgap.
Even if the funding bill clears the House, it would land in a Senate chamber that has made hardly any progress on a fix to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a conflict that fueled the government shutdown earlier this month.
“It’s all about DACA,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).
A group of the No. 2 leaders from each chamber — Cornyn, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) — are getting nowhere in their immigration discussions.
Meanwhile, a coalition of Senate dealmakers is trying to craft a bare-bones framework that can help launch a floor debate. But they’re downplaying their effort as a Plan B more than anything else.
Immigration also remains a key sticking point in the House. Freedom Caucus leaders are accusing GOP leaders of backing away from their promise to help sell a controversial bill from Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) — a bill that would struggle to pass the lower chamber, let alone the more moderate Senate.
But the frustrations among lawmakers go beyond Dreamers and border security.
Defense hawks are also refusing to commit to another stopgap without a long-term spending agreement. They complain that the Pentagon has now spent more than one-third of the fiscal year under temporary funding, risking harm to service members.
Several Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee are pushing GOP leaders to attach a full year of defense spending to the next “continuing resolution.” After this month’s politically painful shutdown, they believe Democrats wouldn’t dare vote against it.
“One of the arguments we heard from Senate Democratic leadership last week against the CR was: ‘It hurts the military.’ OK, it doesn’t if you do the defense appropriations bill,” Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) said in an interview Tuesday.
“I don’t think you want to hold up defense spending, particularly if you’re a red-state senator,” Byrne said, noting the pressure on his own senator, Alabama Democrat Doug Jones.
Spending talks have also faltered in recent days.
Negotiators have largely agreed to boost the Pentagon’s budget by about $80 billion each year, as part of a two-year deal. But an agreement on domestic spending levels has eluded them, sources say.
House Democrats say they’ll remain unified in opposition to all stopgap bills until both sets of negotiations — spending caps and immigration — are resolved. That tactic has drawn fire from Republicans, who blame the spending deal holdup on immigration.
“It is really not a good situation for the efficient operation of government programs and for our military in particular that we’re this far into the fiscal year and still lack funding,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a key appropriator. “So that is a major concern. But it seems like resolving the immigration issue is going to be necessary in order to resolve the budget issue.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday dismissed complaints from Republicans that immigration is blocking a budget deal.
“The Dreamers are part of the negotiation. But they’re not holding that up,” Pelosi said.
With House Democrats unified in opposition, GOP leaders can afford to lose only a handful of votes on the next spending bill.
Ryan and his deputies have largely avoided floor drama on recent government funding votes, but they’ve been forced into several rounds of last-minute negotiations with Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee leaders to win over key votes.
And Republicans in both chambers say they’re out of patience for more stopgap spending bills to buy time for an ever-elusive spending deal.
“We’ve been told that they were close for a month now,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said Tuesday. “I think coming up with an amount of money is not very difficult, if they ever actually decide to separate this from the DACA issue.”
Ryan repeated that message to GOP lawmakers at a closed-door meeting Tuesday, where he again said negotiators were closing in on a deal — only to be greeted with frustration by his members.
“We’ve had enough background discussions with the Democrats, it shouldn’t be that hard to cut a caps deal,” Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) vented after that meeting.
Accuses GOP of secret changes
Schiff accuses GOP of secret changes to memo before sending it to Trump
By ELANA SCHOR
The House intelligence committee's top Democrat charged Republicans late Wednesday with sending the White House "an altered version" of a classified memo alleging misconduct by the FBI in its probe of a former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) made the accusation against Republicans on the intelligence panel as Trump is said to be weighing a release of the politically incendiary memo as soon as Thursday. But the GOP quickly pushed back, accusing the minority of "complaining about minor edits" and asserting that Democrats sought two of the changes at issue.
Schiff called on Republicans to "immediately withdraw the document that it sent to the White House" so that the intelligence panel can hold another vote on releasing the edited version.
In a letter to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff said that Democrats were only made aware of the changes to the memo on Wednesday night and "belatedly afforded" the chance to compare the two versions.
"While the majority's changes do not correct the profound distortions and inaccuracies in your document, they are nonetheless substantive," Schiff wrote to Nunes. He did not elaborate further on the nature of the changes.
Jack Langer, spokesman for the intelligence committee GOP, responded that the panel's "vote to release the memo was absolutely procedurally sound, and in accordance with House and Committee rules."
"In its increasingly strange attempt to thwart publication of the memo, the Committee minority is now complaining about minor edits to the memo, including grammatical fixes and two edits requested by the FBI and by the minority themselves," Langer said via email.
The memo that Republicans on the House intelligence panel voted earlier this week to release contains information sensitive enough to prompt a rare public statement earlier Wednesday from the FBI, which registered "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”
The memo is believed to make the case that the FBI overstepped the bounds of the foreign intelligence surveillance program known as FISA in the course of monitoring Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide with ties to Russia.
The earliest chance for the intelligence panel to meet once again and vote on releasing the changed version of the memo is Monday, Schiff wrote in his letter to Nunes, describing the previously undisclosed change as "deeply troubling."
Langer, the GOP spokesman, added that any implication that the vote to release the document would have to be retaken "is a bizarre distraction from the abuses detailed in the memo, which the public will hopefully soon be able to read for themselves."
A senior Democratic official familiar with the dispute, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the changes were "not cosmetic" but rather "try to water down some of the Majority's assertions."
"It is clear that the Majority is no longer fully comfortable with what it has represented to House members," the official said.
Democrats have long charged that the memo, which Senate intelligence committee members were initially not able to view, is part of a broader Republican campaign to undercut the Department of Justice's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election — including possible collusion with Trump allies.
“It’s clear that Chairman Nunes will seemingly stop at nothing to undermine the rule of law and interfere with the Russia probe," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement on the Schiff letter.
Schumer called on Ryan (R-Wis.) to "put an end to this charade once and for all."
Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong responded: "We hope Senator Schumer would agree that potential FISA abuses on American citizens are extremely troubling and should be reviewed."
By ELANA SCHOR
The House intelligence committee's top Democrat charged Republicans late Wednesday with sending the White House "an altered version" of a classified memo alleging misconduct by the FBI in its probe of a former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) made the accusation against Republicans on the intelligence panel as Trump is said to be weighing a release of the politically incendiary memo as soon as Thursday. But the GOP quickly pushed back, accusing the minority of "complaining about minor edits" and asserting that Democrats sought two of the changes at issue.
Schiff called on Republicans to "immediately withdraw the document that it sent to the White House" so that the intelligence panel can hold another vote on releasing the edited version.
In a letter to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff said that Democrats were only made aware of the changes to the memo on Wednesday night and "belatedly afforded" the chance to compare the two versions.
"While the majority's changes do not correct the profound distortions and inaccuracies in your document, they are nonetheless substantive," Schiff wrote to Nunes. He did not elaborate further on the nature of the changes.
Jack Langer, spokesman for the intelligence committee GOP, responded that the panel's "vote to release the memo was absolutely procedurally sound, and in accordance with House and Committee rules."
"In its increasingly strange attempt to thwart publication of the memo, the Committee minority is now complaining about minor edits to the memo, including grammatical fixes and two edits requested by the FBI and by the minority themselves," Langer said via email.
The memo that Republicans on the House intelligence panel voted earlier this week to release contains information sensitive enough to prompt a rare public statement earlier Wednesday from the FBI, which registered "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”
The memo is believed to make the case that the FBI overstepped the bounds of the foreign intelligence surveillance program known as FISA in the course of monitoring Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide with ties to Russia.
The earliest chance for the intelligence panel to meet once again and vote on releasing the changed version of the memo is Monday, Schiff wrote in his letter to Nunes, describing the previously undisclosed change as "deeply troubling."
Langer, the GOP spokesman, added that any implication that the vote to release the document would have to be retaken "is a bizarre distraction from the abuses detailed in the memo, which the public will hopefully soon be able to read for themselves."
A senior Democratic official familiar with the dispute, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the changes were "not cosmetic" but rather "try to water down some of the Majority's assertions."
"It is clear that the Majority is no longer fully comfortable with what it has represented to House members," the official said.
Democrats have long charged that the memo, which Senate intelligence committee members were initially not able to view, is part of a broader Republican campaign to undercut the Department of Justice's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election — including possible collusion with Trump allies.
“It’s clear that Chairman Nunes will seemingly stop at nothing to undermine the rule of law and interfere with the Russia probe," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement on the Schiff letter.
Schumer called on Ryan (R-Wis.) to "put an end to this charade once and for all."
Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong responded: "We hope Senator Schumer would agree that potential FISA abuses on American citizens are extremely troubling and should be reviewed."
Clash over Russia memo
FBI, White House clash over Russia memo
Former FBI agents said they saw the bureau's statement as a shot across the bow of Trump and other Republicans who have repeatedly cast it as politically biased.
By KYLE CHENEY and JOSH GERSTEIN
President Donald Trump called FBI Director Christopher Wray “a fierce guardian of the law and model of integrity” when he named him to the post last year after firing his predecessor.
But on Wednesday, Wray’s FBI sought to protect itself from the administration, firing a warning shot at Trump and his Republican allies about a classified GOP memo criticizing the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia.
In a highly unusual public statement, the FBI said it had “grave concerns” about the accuracy of the document, which House Republicans voted on Monday to release and which Trump told a lawmaker in remarks caught on a microphone after Tuesday’s State of the Union he was “100 percent” in favor of making public.
“[T]he FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it,” the bureau said. “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”
The statement marked a dramatic escalation in the simmering conflict between Wray and the president who appointed him, after Trump knocked down reports the FBI director had once threatened to quit rather than fire his deputy. Republicans have also criticized the FBI after text messages emerged between two officials who were critical of Trump.
Former FBI agents said they saw the Wednesday statement as a shot across the bow of Trump and other Republicans who have repeatedly cast the bureau as politically biased.
“I think they’re trying to make a statement for the future that we don’t want this to become a routine part of our politics that the Republicans are going to put out stuff that will hurt Democrats that’s classified, and the Democrats will respond,” said former FBI assistant director Tom Fuentes. “We don’t want this to become the rule of thumb in Washington.”
The memo at issue was the product of House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) efforts to determine whether investigators relied on a disputed private dossier — which alleges illicit ties between the president and the Russian government and was crafted with funding by Democrats — to obtain a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign aide.
People who have seen the memo say it alleges senior FBI officials abused a sensitive spying program, known as FISA, to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, who the FBI has long eyed for suspect ties to the Kremlin.
“It’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign,” Nunes shot back at the FBI in a statement Wednesday. He claimed the FBI was guilty of its own “material omissions” in presentations to Congress, though he did not say what they were.
Democrats, however, say the GOP memo is misleading and misrepresents the underlying intelligence. They say Trump’s allies are trying to divert focus from the Russia investigations — and hamper efforts by special counsel Robert Mueller. Democrats on the House intelligence committee have offered a second memo as a rebuttal, but committee Republicans objected to releasing it until the House has a chance to review it further.
“It’s clear the goal is to undermine the special counsel’s investigation,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “If transparency were the objective, Republicans would support releasing the Democratic memo simultaneously, but instead they’re blocking it.”
Wray viewed the Republican memo Sunday before the committee voted to release it, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the intelligence committee’s top Democrat, said Wray told him the session didn’t alleviate his concerns about the material presented in the memo.
An official familiar with talks inside the administration said Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein both raised concerns earlier this week to Kelly about releasing the memo in its unredacted form.
The FBI’s complaint Wednesday does not suggest the release of the memo would compromise its sources and methods of intelligence gathering. But allies of the bureau and Democrats say it would be difficult for the FBI to set the record straight about any inaccurate claims because any information that could be used in its defense would remain classified.
In a puzzling move, spokespeople for the Justice Department declined to say whether agency leaders agreed or disagreed with the statement from the FBI, which is part of the Justice Department.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) took to the Washington Post op-ed page on Wednesday, accusing Republicans of “a violent break from the committee’s nonpartisan tradition” that shatters the post-Watergate understanding that the intelligence committee’s cooperation with congressional overseers would be insulated from politics.
“As a result, they will be far more reluctant to share their secrets with us in the future,” he wrote. “Moreover, sources of information that the agencies rely upon may dry up, since they can no longer count on secrecy when the political winds are blowing.”
In fact, it would not be the first time politicians and the FBI director found themselves at loggerheads. In the mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton and FBI Director Louis Freeh clashed, with some of the friction playing out in public. Freeh complained that the Clinton White House had “victimized” the FBI by requesting background-check files on appointees of the previous administration. Clinton and Freeh also issued contradictory statements about FBI briefings on an alleged Chinese effort to influence the U.S. election.
Clinton also bristled at Freeh’s recommendation of an independent counsel to investigate fundraising from within the White House by Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Attorney General Janet Reno turned down Freeh’s request.
Still, Democrats and FBI allies speculated whether the precedent set by the House intelligence committee voting to release its FISA memo could lead future Congresses to abuse the ability to release classified intelligence.
“This little-known rule under which Nunes wants to release his 4-page memo containing classified information - what does he think Dems are going to do with that precedent in one year if they take the House?” wondered former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara.
And Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a string of tweets that if the memo is released, he would seek the disclosure of “a long list of less sensitive, but still classified, information that the American people deserve to see.”
Meanwhile, Republicans who have clamored for the release of the memo are now awaiting a signal from the White House about when and whether they can discuss its contents.
It’s unclear what happens next. That’s because in their drive to unveil the document quickly, Republicans turned to a never-used set of House rules that leave a lot of key questions unanswered.
Under the rules, the House intelligence committee can vote to reveal classified information if members determine “the public interest would be served” — which they did Monday. That triggered a five-day period for Trump to review the material, during which time he could object to its release.
There are points of confusion, however. For example: Does Trump have to issue some formal statement, or does a tweet count?
“My guess is the president will make some sort of statement,” said Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), a senior Republican on the House intelligence committee. “This is the first time we’ve done this, so no precedent on how this actually works.”
It’s also unclear if, should Trump issue some statement of approval, the memo could be released right away. Conaway said he thought Nunes would enter the memo into the Congressional Record, making its publication formal. That could only happen when the House is in session, meaning next Monday at the earliest — although it’s possible Trump could declassify it himself and have it published sooner.
Former FBI agents said they saw the bureau's statement as a shot across the bow of Trump and other Republicans who have repeatedly cast it as politically biased.
By KYLE CHENEY and JOSH GERSTEIN
President Donald Trump called FBI Director Christopher Wray “a fierce guardian of the law and model of integrity” when he named him to the post last year after firing his predecessor.
But on Wednesday, Wray’s FBI sought to protect itself from the administration, firing a warning shot at Trump and his Republican allies about a classified GOP memo criticizing the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia.
In a highly unusual public statement, the FBI said it had “grave concerns” about the accuracy of the document, which House Republicans voted on Monday to release and which Trump told a lawmaker in remarks caught on a microphone after Tuesday’s State of the Union he was “100 percent” in favor of making public.
“[T]he FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it,” the bureau said. “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”
The statement marked a dramatic escalation in the simmering conflict between Wray and the president who appointed him, after Trump knocked down reports the FBI director had once threatened to quit rather than fire his deputy. Republicans have also criticized the FBI after text messages emerged between two officials who were critical of Trump.
Former FBI agents said they saw the Wednesday statement as a shot across the bow of Trump and other Republicans who have repeatedly cast the bureau as politically biased.
“I think they’re trying to make a statement for the future that we don’t want this to become a routine part of our politics that the Republicans are going to put out stuff that will hurt Democrats that’s classified, and the Democrats will respond,” said former FBI assistant director Tom Fuentes. “We don’t want this to become the rule of thumb in Washington.”
The memo at issue was the product of House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) efforts to determine whether investigators relied on a disputed private dossier — which alleges illicit ties between the president and the Russian government and was crafted with funding by Democrats — to obtain a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign aide.
People who have seen the memo say it alleges senior FBI officials abused a sensitive spying program, known as FISA, to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, who the FBI has long eyed for suspect ties to the Kremlin.
“It’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign,” Nunes shot back at the FBI in a statement Wednesday. He claimed the FBI was guilty of its own “material omissions” in presentations to Congress, though he did not say what they were.
Democrats, however, say the GOP memo is misleading and misrepresents the underlying intelligence. They say Trump’s allies are trying to divert focus from the Russia investigations — and hamper efforts by special counsel Robert Mueller. Democrats on the House intelligence committee have offered a second memo as a rebuttal, but committee Republicans objected to releasing it until the House has a chance to review it further.
“It’s clear the goal is to undermine the special counsel’s investigation,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “If transparency were the objective, Republicans would support releasing the Democratic memo simultaneously, but instead they’re blocking it.”
Wray viewed the Republican memo Sunday before the committee voted to release it, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the intelligence committee’s top Democrat, said Wray told him the session didn’t alleviate his concerns about the material presented in the memo.
An official familiar with talks inside the administration said Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein both raised concerns earlier this week to Kelly about releasing the memo in its unredacted form.
The FBI’s complaint Wednesday does not suggest the release of the memo would compromise its sources and methods of intelligence gathering. But allies of the bureau and Democrats say it would be difficult for the FBI to set the record straight about any inaccurate claims because any information that could be used in its defense would remain classified.
In a puzzling move, spokespeople for the Justice Department declined to say whether agency leaders agreed or disagreed with the statement from the FBI, which is part of the Justice Department.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) took to the Washington Post op-ed page on Wednesday, accusing Republicans of “a violent break from the committee’s nonpartisan tradition” that shatters the post-Watergate understanding that the intelligence committee’s cooperation with congressional overseers would be insulated from politics.
“As a result, they will be far more reluctant to share their secrets with us in the future,” he wrote. “Moreover, sources of information that the agencies rely upon may dry up, since they can no longer count on secrecy when the political winds are blowing.”
In fact, it would not be the first time politicians and the FBI director found themselves at loggerheads. In the mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton and FBI Director Louis Freeh clashed, with some of the friction playing out in public. Freeh complained that the Clinton White House had “victimized” the FBI by requesting background-check files on appointees of the previous administration. Clinton and Freeh also issued contradictory statements about FBI briefings on an alleged Chinese effort to influence the U.S. election.
Clinton also bristled at Freeh’s recommendation of an independent counsel to investigate fundraising from within the White House by Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Attorney General Janet Reno turned down Freeh’s request.
Still, Democrats and FBI allies speculated whether the precedent set by the House intelligence committee voting to release its FISA memo could lead future Congresses to abuse the ability to release classified intelligence.
“This little-known rule under which Nunes wants to release his 4-page memo containing classified information - what does he think Dems are going to do with that precedent in one year if they take the House?” wondered former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara.
And Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a string of tweets that if the memo is released, he would seek the disclosure of “a long list of less sensitive, but still classified, information that the American people deserve to see.”
Meanwhile, Republicans who have clamored for the release of the memo are now awaiting a signal from the White House about when and whether they can discuss its contents.
It’s unclear what happens next. That’s because in their drive to unveil the document quickly, Republicans turned to a never-used set of House rules that leave a lot of key questions unanswered.
Under the rules, the House intelligence committee can vote to reveal classified information if members determine “the public interest would be served” — which they did Monday. That triggered a five-day period for Trump to review the material, during which time he could object to its release.
There are points of confusion, however. For example: Does Trump have to issue some formal statement, or does a tweet count?
“My guess is the president will make some sort of statement,” said Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), a senior Republican on the House intelligence committee. “This is the first time we’ve done this, so no precedent on how this actually works.”
It’s also unclear if, should Trump issue some statement of approval, the memo could be released right away. Conaway said he thought Nunes would enter the memo into the Congressional Record, making its publication formal. That could only happen when the House is in session, meaning next Monday at the earliest — although it’s possible Trump could declassify it himself and have it published sooner.
Obstructing justice....
Trump’s Saturday Night Massacre Is Happening Right Before Our Eyes
The aim of the campaign against the Mueller investigation and the FBI is clear: Obstructing justice.
By NORMAN EISEN, CAROLINE FREDRICKSON and NOAH BOOKBINDER
The FBI issued an extraordinary statement on Wednesday, pushing back on the release of a partisan congressional memo alleging the bureau used improper evidence to obtain legal permission to surveil a Trump campaign adviser. We’ve never seen anything like it. “[T]he FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it,” the bureau said. “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”
The memo, written by Congressman Devin Nunes and barreling toward public circulation at the president’s discretion, has already created a firestorm, and it is not even out yet. Nunes fired back at the FBI hours later, claiming, “It’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counterintelligence investigation during an American political campaign.”
Let’s be clear about what’s happening here: This memo is the latest escalation in an eight-month effort to tarnish the Russia investigation that might be the most significant smear campaign against the executive branch since Joe McCarthy—only here, the effort is being led by the head of that branch himself. As the New York Times reported, the Nunes memo seems like a dagger aimed by President Trump at Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is supervising the Russia probe for the Justice Department.
Republican huzzahs over Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment were still echoing when the opening salvo of this shocking campaign was launched: the claim that Mueller had disqualifying “conflicts.” Never mind that the Justice Department cleared Mueller of conflicts before he was appointed. Or that ethical standards do not remotely support disqualification over issues like Mueller’s professional acquaintance with James Comey, his employment at a firm that represented Trump associates, or even a long-ago dispute over the amount of fees Mueller owed at a Trump golf course. These meritless conflicts claims have continued to resurface like a game of whack-a-mole, popping up elsewhere after they are knocked down.
The next smear targeted the members of Mueller’s team. President Trump and his supporters loudly complained of political bias because some of Mueller’s lawyers have donated to Democrats. But Mueller is prohibited from asking his hires about their political contributions; applicable laws and regulations bar him from considering such matters in making employment decisions. Moreover, Mueller himself was a registered Republican the last time anyone checked and was appointed by another: Rosenstein.
When that assault didn’t stick, then came the allegation that the investigation had improperly obtained emails from Trump transition email accounts. The initial flurry of attention—including mention by the president himself—soon faded when the General Services Administration said the transition had been told its emails would not be protected, and experts nearly unanimously dismissed any impropriety. Indeed, the claims turned out to be so weak that President Trump’s transition legal team didn’t even press them in court, instead settling for a complaining letter to Congress. When faced with resounding pushback, the reply was to slink away—but not before filling the airwaves with days of unfounded insinuations.
That was when the president and his supporters upped the ante. For a time, there was a focus on sensational claims about the conduct of two DOJ employees as evidence of anti-Trump bias. One was Peter Strzok, an FBI specialist in Russia matters who sent negative texts about Trump to a colleague. The other is Bruce Ohr, a career attorney at DOJ who was never assigned to Mueller’s team and whose wife worked for Fusion GPS—the firm behind the dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele (more on that in a second). Here too, the facts proved inconvenient: It turned out Mueller axed Strzok from the investigation when the texts came to light, and Ohr was reassigned after DOJ learned that he had failed to disclose contacts with individuals at the firm. (Then there is today’s news that Strzok co-authored the pre-election FBI letter that many believe sunk the Clinton campaign—hardly proof of pro-Clinton bias.) The fact that Strzok and Ohr were reassigned and are now the subjects of internal DOJ investigations is a sign that the system is working, not that it is broken.
Nevertheless, the escalation continued even after the reassignments. The Trump spotlight turned to the Steele dossier, commissioned by an opposition research firm funded first by Republican opponents of Trump and then by representatives of the Clinton campaign. We haven’t read the Nunes memo, but Republicans have been whispering for weeks that the dossier served as the basis for the FBI’s Russia investigation and therefore tarnishes it.
Once again, the facts get in the way. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, who hired Steele, testified to Congress that the FBI believed the dossier to be credible “because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump Organization.” News reports indicate that the FBI had many other leads when it launched the investigation. These included a tip from Australian intelligence and the hacking and publishing of emails from the Democratic National Committee.
That brings us at last to Representative Nunes. His contribution to all of this is a memo that claims the FBI improperly obtained authorization to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Democrats on the committee unanimously opposed its release, asserting its claims of wrongdoing are unfounded and out of context and its release endangers our national security. Indeed, Trump’s own Justice Department objected to its release as “extraordinarily reckless,” and his handpicked FBI director reportedly trudged to the White House to voice his firm objections—before his bureau’s formal objections were made public on Wednesday. Just like the other smears that preceded it, this latest one completely lacks credibility.
All this has built steadily toward a crisis for American democracy—a Saturday Night Massacre in slow motion. Press reports suggest the president may be contemplating using the memo to dismiss Rosenstein. That matters: If the president were to use his powers to insert someone lacking independence, that person could throttle the special counsel.
That move would, however, risk deepening the president’s obstruction of justice liability, and that of those around him who are involved in the decision. After all, firing Comey on dubious grounds with the alleged intent to hamper the Russia investigation led to an obstruction investigation. Cashiering Rosenstein would offer a matching bookend. That is particularly so in light of another startling report today: that the president sought details about the Russia investigation from Rosenstein, then asked him, “Are you on my team?” This echoes Trump’s demand for loyalty from Comey that helped kick off the obstruction investigation.
Rosenstein’s failure to provide sufficient answers has put his head on the chopping block, with the president reportedly preparing to use the memo as a pretext. This targeting of the deputy attorney general also makes clear the larger motivations of the smear campaign. It is plainly obstructive of the Russia investigation. From Trump on down, the hope seems to be that the best defense will prove to be a good offense. This is exactly the playbook Trump used to run when he was a slick up-and-coming Manhattan developer taking advice from the late Roy Cohn: attack, attack attack. But this is the presidency, and Trump has failed to learn the lesson of Cohn’s previous client and patron, Joe McCarthy. It’s not going to go the way he thinks.
The aim of the campaign against the Mueller investigation and the FBI is clear: Obstructing justice.
By NORMAN EISEN, CAROLINE FREDRICKSON and NOAH BOOKBINDER
The FBI issued an extraordinary statement on Wednesday, pushing back on the release of a partisan congressional memo alleging the bureau used improper evidence to obtain legal permission to surveil a Trump campaign adviser. We’ve never seen anything like it. “[T]he FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it,” the bureau said. “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”
The memo, written by Congressman Devin Nunes and barreling toward public circulation at the president’s discretion, has already created a firestorm, and it is not even out yet. Nunes fired back at the FBI hours later, claiming, “It’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counterintelligence investigation during an American political campaign.”
Let’s be clear about what’s happening here: This memo is the latest escalation in an eight-month effort to tarnish the Russia investigation that might be the most significant smear campaign against the executive branch since Joe McCarthy—only here, the effort is being led by the head of that branch himself. As the New York Times reported, the Nunes memo seems like a dagger aimed by President Trump at Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is supervising the Russia probe for the Justice Department.
Republican huzzahs over Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment were still echoing when the opening salvo of this shocking campaign was launched: the claim that Mueller had disqualifying “conflicts.” Never mind that the Justice Department cleared Mueller of conflicts before he was appointed. Or that ethical standards do not remotely support disqualification over issues like Mueller’s professional acquaintance with James Comey, his employment at a firm that represented Trump associates, or even a long-ago dispute over the amount of fees Mueller owed at a Trump golf course. These meritless conflicts claims have continued to resurface like a game of whack-a-mole, popping up elsewhere after they are knocked down.
The next smear targeted the members of Mueller’s team. President Trump and his supporters loudly complained of political bias because some of Mueller’s lawyers have donated to Democrats. But Mueller is prohibited from asking his hires about their political contributions; applicable laws and regulations bar him from considering such matters in making employment decisions. Moreover, Mueller himself was a registered Republican the last time anyone checked and was appointed by another: Rosenstein.
When that assault didn’t stick, then came the allegation that the investigation had improperly obtained emails from Trump transition email accounts. The initial flurry of attention—including mention by the president himself—soon faded when the General Services Administration said the transition had been told its emails would not be protected, and experts nearly unanimously dismissed any impropriety. Indeed, the claims turned out to be so weak that President Trump’s transition legal team didn’t even press them in court, instead settling for a complaining letter to Congress. When faced with resounding pushback, the reply was to slink away—but not before filling the airwaves with days of unfounded insinuations.
That was when the president and his supporters upped the ante. For a time, there was a focus on sensational claims about the conduct of two DOJ employees as evidence of anti-Trump bias. One was Peter Strzok, an FBI specialist in Russia matters who sent negative texts about Trump to a colleague. The other is Bruce Ohr, a career attorney at DOJ who was never assigned to Mueller’s team and whose wife worked for Fusion GPS—the firm behind the dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele (more on that in a second). Here too, the facts proved inconvenient: It turned out Mueller axed Strzok from the investigation when the texts came to light, and Ohr was reassigned after DOJ learned that he had failed to disclose contacts with individuals at the firm. (Then there is today’s news that Strzok co-authored the pre-election FBI letter that many believe sunk the Clinton campaign—hardly proof of pro-Clinton bias.) The fact that Strzok and Ohr were reassigned and are now the subjects of internal DOJ investigations is a sign that the system is working, not that it is broken.
Nevertheless, the escalation continued even after the reassignments. The Trump spotlight turned to the Steele dossier, commissioned by an opposition research firm funded first by Republican opponents of Trump and then by representatives of the Clinton campaign. We haven’t read the Nunes memo, but Republicans have been whispering for weeks that the dossier served as the basis for the FBI’s Russia investigation and therefore tarnishes it.
Once again, the facts get in the way. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, who hired Steele, testified to Congress that the FBI believed the dossier to be credible “because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump Organization.” News reports indicate that the FBI had many other leads when it launched the investigation. These included a tip from Australian intelligence and the hacking and publishing of emails from the Democratic National Committee.
That brings us at last to Representative Nunes. His contribution to all of this is a memo that claims the FBI improperly obtained authorization to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Democrats on the committee unanimously opposed its release, asserting its claims of wrongdoing are unfounded and out of context and its release endangers our national security. Indeed, Trump’s own Justice Department objected to its release as “extraordinarily reckless,” and his handpicked FBI director reportedly trudged to the White House to voice his firm objections—before his bureau’s formal objections were made public on Wednesday. Just like the other smears that preceded it, this latest one completely lacks credibility.
All this has built steadily toward a crisis for American democracy—a Saturday Night Massacre in slow motion. Press reports suggest the president may be contemplating using the memo to dismiss Rosenstein. That matters: If the president were to use his powers to insert someone lacking independence, that person could throttle the special counsel.
That move would, however, risk deepening the president’s obstruction of justice liability, and that of those around him who are involved in the decision. After all, firing Comey on dubious grounds with the alleged intent to hamper the Russia investigation led to an obstruction investigation. Cashiering Rosenstein would offer a matching bookend. That is particularly so in light of another startling report today: that the president sought details about the Russia investigation from Rosenstein, then asked him, “Are you on my team?” This echoes Trump’s demand for loyalty from Comey that helped kick off the obstruction investigation.
Rosenstein’s failure to provide sufficient answers has put his head on the chopping block, with the president reportedly preparing to use the memo as a pretext. This targeting of the deputy attorney general also makes clear the larger motivations of the smear campaign. It is plainly obstructive of the Russia investigation. From Trump on down, the hope seems to be that the best defense will prove to be a good offense. This is exactly the playbook Trump used to run when he was a slick up-and-coming Manhattan developer taking advice from the late Roy Cohn: attack, attack attack. But this is the presidency, and Trump has failed to learn the lesson of Cohn’s previous client and patron, Joe McCarthy. It’s not going to go the way he thinks.
The "White" campaign strategy
Behind Pence’s plan to rescue the Republican majority in 2018
In an exclusive interview, the vice president said the GOP could expand its majorities in Congress with his team’s campaign strategy.
By JAKE SHERMAN and ANNA PALMER
Vice President Mike Pence is launching one of the most aggressive campaign strategies in recent White House history: he will hopscotch the country over the next three months, making nearly three dozen stops that could raise tens of millions of dollars for House and Senate Republicans, all while promoting the party's legislative accomplishments.
If done right, Pence said in an exclusive interview with POLITICO backstage before his speech to the House and Senate GOP here Wednesday night, Republicans could expand their majority in both chambers.
“Elections are about choices,” he said in the interview in which he discussed his midterm outlook in detail for the first time. “If we frame that choice, I think we’re going to re-elect majorities in the House and the Senate and I actually think we’re going to, when all the dust settles after 2018, I think we’re going to have more Republicans in Congress in Washington, D.C., than where we started.”
The vice president’s team has devised a unique ancillary strategy to support his cross-country campaigning: partnering with America First Policies — a Trump-backed public-policy non-profit group designed to boost the president's agenda — to hold public events designed specifically to discuss legislative achievements like the tax bill.
The goal is to have the group set up events to help voters understand what the White House sees as the upside of the Republicans’ legislative agenda. A senior administration official said Pence's message at the events will provide a “blueprint for how to be successful in midterms.”
In the interview, Pence vowed to take sharp aim at congressional Democrats in red states who oppose the president’s agenda. On Wednesday, he used a public event here to remind West Virginia voters that “Joe voted no” on tax cuts — a shot at Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
“As we travel around the country, whether it be a political event or an official event we’re going to make sure ... the American people know that the agenda that we’re advancing is a result of partners on Capitol Hill and we’re going to thank the people that are helping us, and we’re going to make sure people know ... what the other side looks like,” Pence said.
Pence said he would campaign against Sen. Joe Donnelly, an Indiana Democrat he served with in the House.
“I expect we’re going to spend a fair amount of time in the states that the president carried very strongly — Indiana being one of them, West Virginia here being another, places like Montana, elsewhere around the country, we think represent a real opportunity for us,” Pence said.
Pence’s plan, extraordinary for a vice president, has its roots in a congressional summit at Camp David.
In early January, congressional Republicans leaders projected the risk of political peril to White House staff at the presidential retreat. Pence’s team asked top GOP campaign operatives to compile a political road map to help them keep their congressional majorities.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was blunt: this year could be historically bad for Republicans. But, he noted, the GOP had time to turn it around. Pence and President Donald Trump made a decision: it was time for them to activate. Pence’s team asked the National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee where the vice president could be helpful.
Soon after, Pence invited Cory Gardner, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Steve Stivers, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, along with their top aides to the Naval Observatory, where the vice president’s team handed them a piece of paper detailing the strategy.
The double-barreled approach — reported here for the first time — includes stops around the country over the next 10 weeks. This weekend he’ll head to Pittsburgh for an event for Rick Saccone, a Republican running in a tight special election. It includes a Feb. 16 stop in San Antonio for Rep. Will Hurd, the lawmaker who represents the Texas-Mexico border. On Feb. 21, he’ll be in Naples, Florida, for an NRCC event.
In March alone, Pence plans to be in the Detroit area for the NRCC; Kentucky for Rep. Andy Barr; Missouri for Josh Hawley’s Senate bid; Ohio for Rep. Steve Stivers, the chairman of the NRCC; New York for the NRCC, Minnesota, Iowa and Pennsylvania. In April, he heads to North Carolina for Rep. Mark Walker, Omaha for Rep. Don Bacon, Nevada for Dean Heller and Indiana for the NRSC.
Of course, this might not matter. The House battlefield is now, by Democrats’ estimate, somewhere close to 80 seats deep. Trump’s approval ratings are flagging. And it’s an open question whether voters will reap the economic benefits from the tax bill that Republicans hope.
Republican leaders say privately they want Pence — not Trump — on the road for the GOP in an election year with perilous political winds.
House Republicans, meanwhile, will see the most up-to-date political forecast Thursday here at the tony Greenbrier Resort, when Stivers presents the NRCC’s most recent findings to the GOP.
Pence — a former House Republican Conference chair, who remains close to members in both chambers — likens the dim forecast for his party to the bad predictions that Trump would get romped in 2016.
“I know that conventional wisdom says that the first midterm election for the party in the White House is challenging — but you know what President Trump thinks of conventional wisdom,” Pence said.
“I was in that campaign in 2016,” Pence added. “I’ll never forget how many times we were treated to the latest polling that showed that the race was all but decided. But I never believed it. And I’ve got the same feeling right now.”
In an exclusive interview, the vice president said the GOP could expand its majorities in Congress with his team’s campaign strategy.
By JAKE SHERMAN and ANNA PALMER
Vice President Mike Pence is launching one of the most aggressive campaign strategies in recent White House history: he will hopscotch the country over the next three months, making nearly three dozen stops that could raise tens of millions of dollars for House and Senate Republicans, all while promoting the party's legislative accomplishments.
If done right, Pence said in an exclusive interview with POLITICO backstage before his speech to the House and Senate GOP here Wednesday night, Republicans could expand their majority in both chambers.
“Elections are about choices,” he said in the interview in which he discussed his midterm outlook in detail for the first time. “If we frame that choice, I think we’re going to re-elect majorities in the House and the Senate and I actually think we’re going to, when all the dust settles after 2018, I think we’re going to have more Republicans in Congress in Washington, D.C., than where we started.”
The vice president’s team has devised a unique ancillary strategy to support his cross-country campaigning: partnering with America First Policies — a Trump-backed public-policy non-profit group designed to boost the president's agenda — to hold public events designed specifically to discuss legislative achievements like the tax bill.
The goal is to have the group set up events to help voters understand what the White House sees as the upside of the Republicans’ legislative agenda. A senior administration official said Pence's message at the events will provide a “blueprint for how to be successful in midterms.”
In the interview, Pence vowed to take sharp aim at congressional Democrats in red states who oppose the president’s agenda. On Wednesday, he used a public event here to remind West Virginia voters that “Joe voted no” on tax cuts — a shot at Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
“As we travel around the country, whether it be a political event or an official event we’re going to make sure ... the American people know that the agenda that we’re advancing is a result of partners on Capitol Hill and we’re going to thank the people that are helping us, and we’re going to make sure people know ... what the other side looks like,” Pence said.
Pence said he would campaign against Sen. Joe Donnelly, an Indiana Democrat he served with in the House.
“I expect we’re going to spend a fair amount of time in the states that the president carried very strongly — Indiana being one of them, West Virginia here being another, places like Montana, elsewhere around the country, we think represent a real opportunity for us,” Pence said.
Pence’s plan, extraordinary for a vice president, has its roots in a congressional summit at Camp David.
In early January, congressional Republicans leaders projected the risk of political peril to White House staff at the presidential retreat. Pence’s team asked top GOP campaign operatives to compile a political road map to help them keep their congressional majorities.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was blunt: this year could be historically bad for Republicans. But, he noted, the GOP had time to turn it around. Pence and President Donald Trump made a decision: it was time for them to activate. Pence’s team asked the National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee where the vice president could be helpful.
Soon after, Pence invited Cory Gardner, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Steve Stivers, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, along with their top aides to the Naval Observatory, where the vice president’s team handed them a piece of paper detailing the strategy.
The double-barreled approach — reported here for the first time — includes stops around the country over the next 10 weeks. This weekend he’ll head to Pittsburgh for an event for Rick Saccone, a Republican running in a tight special election. It includes a Feb. 16 stop in San Antonio for Rep. Will Hurd, the lawmaker who represents the Texas-Mexico border. On Feb. 21, he’ll be in Naples, Florida, for an NRCC event.
In March alone, Pence plans to be in the Detroit area for the NRCC; Kentucky for Rep. Andy Barr; Missouri for Josh Hawley’s Senate bid; Ohio for Rep. Steve Stivers, the chairman of the NRCC; New York for the NRCC, Minnesota, Iowa and Pennsylvania. In April, he heads to North Carolina for Rep. Mark Walker, Omaha for Rep. Don Bacon, Nevada for Dean Heller and Indiana for the NRSC.
Of course, this might not matter. The House battlefield is now, by Democrats’ estimate, somewhere close to 80 seats deep. Trump’s approval ratings are flagging. And it’s an open question whether voters will reap the economic benefits from the tax bill that Republicans hope.
Republican leaders say privately they want Pence — not Trump — on the road for the GOP in an election year with perilous political winds.
House Republicans, meanwhile, will see the most up-to-date political forecast Thursday here at the tony Greenbrier Resort, when Stivers presents the NRCC’s most recent findings to the GOP.
Pence — a former House Republican Conference chair, who remains close to members in both chambers — likens the dim forecast for his party to the bad predictions that Trump would get romped in 2016.
“I know that conventional wisdom says that the first midterm election for the party in the White House is challenging — but you know what President Trump thinks of conventional wisdom,” Pence said.
“I was in that campaign in 2016,” Pence added. “I’ll never forget how many times we were treated to the latest polling that showed that the race was all but decided. But I never believed it. And I’ve got the same feeling right now.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)