Month: May 2017

Don’t get complacent

by digby

Via Matt Fuller at Huffington Post:

It’s important that everyone realizes that the Senate isn’t necessarily going to save the ACA. The worst outcome is a very real possibility:After the House passed its health care bill last week, Senators looked apt to take that dramatically conservative plan, stick it in a filing cabinet, and start over with a more moderate bill ― one that may never be able to pass the House on the way back.

But Democrats may overestimate the level of disagreement between the two chambers. And if the last two months have proved anything, it’s that we’re underestimating the ability of Republicans to accept a flawed bill in the name of winning.

We may also be surprised by what House conservatives could accept from the Senate.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) has already been working with Senate Republicans on what changes House conservatives could live with, knowing that the Senate bill will probably undo some cuts to Medicaid and perhaps a key amendment that brought conservatives onboard in the first place.

“If it’s moving to the left, we just need to make sure we’re not losing too many conservative votes,” Meadows told HuffPost on Friday. “Obviously it’s going to get more relaxed as it relates to the Medicaid expansion.”

One massive change that House conservatives could accept, perhaps even welcome, is to ditch a dominant feature of the House replacement: the advance refundable tax credits.

Instead, conservatives may just take some changes to the Obamacare subsidies.

“The fundamental question is going to come down to the tax credit subsidy in place, or do they drop back to an Obamacare modified subsidy,” Meadows said.

All along, conservatives have insisted that the tax credits might be another entitlement program. But they were willing to accept that feature of the replacement because it could save money and was one of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s favorite health reform ideas. There was also a rider associated with the tax credits that prohibited those funds from going to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion.

That abortion provision looks apt to be removed in the Senate as a consequence of Republicans using a reconciliation bill. (The so-called Byrd rule subjects provisions without a real budgetary impact to a 60-vote threshold.) That could be a real problem for Republicans. A number of conservatives have told HuffPost they don’t see how a bill without a Hyde amendment rider ― which prohibits taxpayer funds from going toward abortions ― could get through the House.

Certainly, if conservatives want to hold the line on that issue, and if moderates remain opposed to what comes back from the Senate, there is a real chance Obamacare could be saved by conservatives who are unwilling to bend on abortion.

“It was made such a predicate,” Meadows said of the abortion rider and Republicans supporting the tax credits. “It’s not just the Freedom Caucus.”

The Senate looks like it will write a bill using the tax credits, potentially offering more assistance for seniors who could see their premiums skyrocket under the House bill, and potentially scaling back some of the tax credits for younger people.

“I’ve had discussions with Sen. [John] Thune [R-S.D.] on an idea to address tax credits for those in their 50s and 60s and the working poor, and he’s had some very thoughtful, meaningful ideas on how to address that that would certainly be accepted by conservatives, if that’s the direction the Senate decides to go,” Meadows said.
[…]

Suffice it to say, on those wonkier but still significant points, the Senate has some leeway to make major changes. But if conservatives are going to draw a line on abortion, that could be a real problem ― the question is whether they would really derail a repeal and replacement of Obamacare over that issue.

I just have a sneaking suspicion that old Mitch will find a way to get that abortion stuff in there. The only thing that will stop it is if Mitch wants to tank this bill altogether because he knows he’ll lose the Senate next year. That’s certainly a possibility. But I wouldn’t underestimate McConnell’s ability to thread this needle if he wants to.

Oh, and the White House has placed the whole thing in his hands. It’s hard to imagine he didn’t give them some assurance that he could deliver a win to President Trump.

.

The NY Times’ David Leonhardt gets it right

by digby

David Leonhardt makes an important point about the US media in his piece today. With all the grief we give the Times it’s important to note when one of their major writers publishes something like this:

The hacked emails from Emmanuel Macron’s French campaign appear to be spectacularly mundane, according to people who have read them. They include briefings on issues, personal exchanges and discussions of the weather. No doubt they also include some embarrassing thoughts, but so far they are notably lacking in scandal.

Does this description remind you of anything?

Ah, yes. Last year, Russian agents stole thousands of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and published them via WikiLeaks. The dominant feature of the emails was their ordinariness.

They contained no evidence of lawbreaking, major hypocrisy or tawdry scandal. Even the worst revelation — a Democratic official and CNN contributor fed a town hall question to the campaign in advance — qualified as small beer. Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign engaged in much more consequential debate skulduggery. The Clinton emails were instead full of staff members jockeying for position, agonizing over strategy, complaining about their bosses and offering advice to those same bosses.

Imagine for a moment that your inbox, or your boss’s, was released to the world. I’ll guess that it would not be free of embarrassment.

Despite the mundane quality of the Clinton emails, the media covered them as a profound revelation. The tone often suggested a big investigative scoop. But this was no scoop. It was material stolen by a hostile foreign government, posted for all to see, and it was only occasionally revealing. It deserved some coverage, but far less.

I say this as someone who likes journalism so much that I’ve never had another full-time job. I also say it with reverence for the many journalists doing good, hard work that, as Thomas Jefferson explained, is vital to democracy. With a president who lies all the time, often about the media, journalism becomes all the more important. And because it’s so important, those of us practicing it need to be open to reflection and criticism.

The overhyped coverage of the hacked emails was the media’s worst mistake in 2016 — one sure to be repeated if not properly understood. Television was the biggest offender, but print media was hardly blameless. The sensationalism exacerbated a second problem with the coverage: the obsession with Clinton’s private email server.

I disagree with people who say that the server was a nonstory. Clinton violated government policy and was not fully honest. The F.B.I. conducted an investigation, whatever you think of it. All of that adds up to a real news story.

The question is scale. Last fall, Gallup asked Americans what they were hearing about the candidates. The answers about Donald Trump were all over the place: immigration, his speeches and his criticism of Barack Obama, among other things. When people described what they were hearing about Clinton, by contrast, one subject towered over every other: email.

That’s a pretty harsh indictment of the coverage (and Gallup’s research was done well before James Comey wrote his infamous letter). It is a sign that Clinton’s private server and the hacked emails crowded out everything else, including her plans for reducing inequality, addressing climate change and conducting a more hawkish foreign policy than Obama. It’s a sign that the media failed to distinguish a subject that sounded important — secret emails! — from subjects that were in reality more important.

Last weekend, France’s mainstream media showed how to exercise better judgment.

Late Friday, two days before the election, hackers released the Macron campaign emails. French media laws are stricter than American laws, and government officials argued against publication of the hacked information. But only the campaigns themselves were legally barred from making statements during the final weekend. Publications could have reported on the substance of the emails.

They largely did not. “It was a manipulation attempt — people trying to manipulate our voting process,” Gilles van Kote, deputy chief editor of Le Monde, told me.

Read on. The French view is much more mature than the sophomoric approach the US media has always taken when it comes to gleefully reporting every juicy piece of gossip the right feeds them about certain politicians the press has decided need a good hazing. In two recent cases, 2000 and 2016, they ended up putting this country on the road to perdition with their obsessive, immature group think. It’s a very, very big problem and until we come to grips with it, we’re going to be in serious danger. Our media is complicit in the creeping fascism we’re currently experiencing.

.

Yet another white supremacist in Trump’s inner circle

by digby

I wrote about the ultra rich weirdo father-daughter GOP donors Robert and Rebekkah Mercer for Salon a few times during the campaign. They are farther right and much more eccentric than the Kochs which may make them less formidable in some ways but far more unpredictable.

I didn’t know they were racists but I guess it’s not surprising:

Hedge fund mogul Robert Mercer, one of the biggest financial backers of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, was sued by a former employee who claims he was fired for calling Mercer racist and publicly criticizing his support of Trump.

The complaint by David Magerman, a research scientist who worked at Renaissance Technologies LLC for two decades, alleges he was wrongfully fired April 29 after his relationship with Mercer and his family became toxic. For example, Magerman alleges that Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah Mercer, a member of Trump’s transition team, called him “pond scum” at a celebrity poker tournament.

The confrontation “just shows the hostility that the Mercers had toward Mr. Magerman because he dared to challenge their political views,” his lawyer, H. Robert Fiebach, said in a phone call on Monday.

Mercer, a major investor in Trump-friendly Breitbart News, advised the president to hire two of the Mercer family’s longtime political advisers, Stephen Bannon and Kellyanne Conway. Mercer’s politics have “tainted” the hedge fund, while internal policies that prohibit “politely” speaking out against the company in public are “unfair and untenable,” Magerman said in the complaint, filed May 5 in federal court in Philadelphia.

A spokesman for Renaissance had no immediate comment. Mercer emerged as one of the most influential Republican donors in the 2016 election, giving at least $2 million to Make America Number 1, a political action committee that began backing Trump in July. Rebekah Mercer was named to Trump’s transition team in November.

The dispute started on Jan. 16 when Magerman called Mercer and asked to have a conversation about his support of Trump, according to the complaint. During the chat, Mercer said the U.S. had started going in the wrong direction “after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s,” according to the complaint. Mercer also said that black Americans “were doing fine” in the late 1950s and are the “only racist people remaining in the U.S.,” according to the complaint.

“Magerman was stunned by these comments and pushed back,” according to the complaint. Reminded of the racial segregation that existed at the time, Mercer allegedly responded by saying those issues weren’t important.

After the phone call, Magerman complained about Mercer’s comments to Co-Chief Executive Officer Peter Brown, who “expressed disbelief” and urged the two men to speak again, according to the complaint. Magerman agreed and called Mercer back on Feb. 5.

“I hear you’re going around saying I’m a white supremacist,” Mercer said, according to the complaint. During the call, Mercer “scoffed” at the idea that segregation was degrading and destructive, Magerman said.

This guy is a real tinfoil hatter so this is par for the course. It sounds very believable. And yes, disgusting.

.

The 18 day gap

by digby

I wrote about the Yates testimony for Salon this morning:

Forty-five years ago next month a White House conversation took place that will be remembered by history as the one containing the infamous “18-minute gap.” That was the day after the Watergate break-in, when 18 and a half minutes of a recorded conversation between former President Richard Nixon and his top lieutenant H.R. Haldeman were mysteriously erased from a tape. It was apparently the first time they discussed the event and quite likely when they began to plan the ensuing coverup.

Many events pertaining to that crime were revealed over the course of the following two years, the story unfolding in fits and starts, but that remains one of the most memorable and mysterious of the details that finally led to the resignation of Nixon in August 1974.

Watergate history buffs undoubtedly heard the echoes of that famous occasion on Monday, when they heard the news media’s repeated references to an “18-day gap” related to testimony by former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. That’s the length of time it took between the day Yates informed the White House that its national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had possibly been compromised by the Russian government and the day President Donald Trump finally fired him from his post.

Sally Yates speaks — and the strange tale of Michael Flynn begins to unwind a little

Share Video

Oscar snubs: Meryl Streep robs another great actor, and other injustices from 2017 nominations

The story is pretty straightforward. Yates met with White House counsel Don McGahn on Jan. 26 and 27 and had one follow-up phone call to inform the administration of the Department of Justice’s concerns about Flynn. The Washington Post reported in February that McGahn then “immediately” briefed Trump on the matter. Nonetheless, Flynn participated in an hourlong phone call with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin on Jan. 28, for which the official readout was brief and uninformative.

Yates was fired two days later, on Jan. 30, ostensibly for her statement that she did not intend to enforce Trump’s hastily thrown together travel ban. Flynn, however, remained at his post for two more weeks, attending high-level meetings and listening in on calls with other foreign leaders. He was only let go after The Washington Post published a story that Flynn had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the transition period before Trump assumed office and allowed Vice President Pence to lie to the American people about it. The fact that Trump knew about this and also allowed Pence to continue to lie about it has never been adequately explained. As far as I know, he hasn’t even been asked about it.

Yates’ appearance on Monday didn’t break any big news as she was unable to reveal any classified details in public. But it did clarify what motivated the Justice Department officials to take the steps they took. They were concerned because Flynn was lying and the Russians knew he was lying, so he had opened himself up to blackmail. As Yates pithily put it in her testimony:

To state the obvious, you don’t want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians.

She is right. But that would assume that the only person who had been compromised was the national security adviser. Sen. Al Franken had some thoughts in that regard:

Is it possible that the reason that he didn’t fire him then was that, well, if I fire him for talking to the Russians about sanctions, what about all the other people on my team who coordinated? . . . That may be why it took him 18 days — until it came public — to get rid of Mike Flynn, who was a danger to this republic.

We have learned since Flynn’s ouster that Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner also had meetings with the Russian ambassador and Russian bankers. And we know there is an ongoing multiagency counterintelligence investigation of possible collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, involving other Trump advisers and campaign staff. Franken could be right.

It’s impossible to know what was in Trump’s head so it also could be that he just liked Flynn and didn’t understand why this information was important. But Yates’ testimony hinted at something more about those contacts that are classified. She told the committee that she told McGahn that Flynn’s “underlying contact was problematic in and of itself,” which implies that it wasn’t just the fact that he did it and lied about it. The suggestion is that Flynn said or did something in those contacts that would have been compromising.

In Trump’s overwrought Feb. 16 press conference, when he announced the firing of Flynn, the president said, “When I looked at the information, I said, I don’t think he did anything wrong. If anything, he did something right.” He went on to explain that it was Flynn’s giving incorrect information to Pence that was the problem. Clearly, Trump saw no problem with Flynn’s “underlying contact,” which would seem to be relevant to the larger investigation about possible coordination.

The Republicans on the committee behaved like the worst partisan hacks, for the most part refusing to even address the subject of the hearing and instead grilling Yates on the Muslim ban and ranting about “unmasking” procedures and leaks to the press, obviously following the White House line. Sen. Ted Cruz even asked Yates about Hillary Clinton’s emails. Most of the Republicans on the committee didn’t even bother to stay for the whole hearing.

Yates’ answers about the Muslim ban were devastating to their cause and the rest of the yammering about leaks sounds particularly hollow when you consider the timeline I just outlined above. It’s quite clear that if nobody had leaked the information on Flynn to The Washington Post, an obviously unbalanced and possibly compromised man would still be the president’s national security adviser.

Meanwhile, Trump behaved the way he normally does in tight situations. He attempted to smear Yates as the leaker in one of his notorious early-morning tweets. It was later deleted, probably after someone mustered the courage to tell him that he was threatening a witness, something he probably learned from his days in the gambling business in Atlantic City.

Meanwhile, according to Axios, Trump has told his people to stop feeding negative stories about Flynn to the media. The official explanation is that Trump believes that Flynn is a good man, that the Russia story is “fake news” and whatever went wrong was Obama’s fault. But one cannot help but wonder if Trump’s lawyers might have reminded him that Flynn is shopping for an immunity deal and treating him disrespectfully might just loosen his tongue about things the president might not want him to say. Trump probably learned about that sort of thing from certain Atlantic City business associates, too.

The King of Versailles

Isn’t this entirely predictable? General McMaster is heralded as a mature and experienced foreign policy and national security adviser so naturally Trump doesn’t like him:

For the Washington establishment, President Donald Trump’s decision to make General H.R. McMaster his national security adviser in February was a masterstroke. Here is a well-respected defense intellectual, praised by both parties, lending a steady hand to a chaotic White House. The grown-ups are back.

But inside the White House, the McMaster pick has not gone over well with the one man who matters most. White House officials tell me Trump himself has clashed with McMaster in front of his staff.

On policy, the faction of the White House loyal to senior strategist Steve Bannon is convinced McMaster is trying to trick the president into the kind of nation building that Trump campaigned against. Meanwhile the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, is blocking McMaster on a key appointment.

McMaster’s allies and adversaries inside the White House tell me that Trump is disillusioned with him. This professional military officer has failed to read the president — by not giving him a chance to ask questions during briefings, at times even lecturing Trump.

Presented with the evidence of this buyer’s remorse, the White House on Sunday evening issued a statement from Trump: “I couldn’t be happier with H.R. He’s doing a terrific job.”

Other White House officials however tell me this is not the sentiment the president has expressed recently in private. Trump was livid, according to three White House officials, after reading in the Wall Street Journal that McMaster had called his South Korean counterpart to assure him that the president’s threat to make that country pay for a new missile defense system was not official policy. These officials say Trump screamed at McMaster on a phone call, accusing him of undercutting efforts to get South Korea to pay its fair share.

This was not an isolated incident. Trump has complained in front of McMaster in intelligence briefings about “the general undermining my policy,” according to two White House officials. The president has given McMaster less face time. McMaster’s requests to brief the president before some press interviews have been declined. Over the weekend, McMaster did not accompany Trump to meet with Australia’s prime minister; the outgoing deputy national security adviser, K.T. McFarland, attended instead.

Even McMaster’s critics acknowledge that he has professionalized the national security policy process and is a formidable strategist in his own right. Trump credits McMaster with coming up with the plan to strike a Syrian air base last month, which won bipartisan support in Washington.

At the same time, White House officials tell me that in recent weeks, Trump has privately expressed regret for choosing McMaster. Last Monday, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who was a finalist for McMaster’s job, met with Trump to discuss a range of issues with the National Security Council. White House officials tell me the two discussed the prospect of Bolton coming in as McMaster’s deputy, but eventually agreed it was not a good fit.

The roots of the McMaster-Trump tensions begin in February, when the general was hired after his first meeting with the president. McMaster replaced another general, Michael Flynn. Both Vice President Mike Pence and Priebus supported getting rid of Flynn, after they alleged he misled his colleagues about conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Trump himself has defended Flynn publicly. The two shared a bond from the campaign trail, where they often discussed sports and movies during long evenings on the road. For a president who puts so much value in personal relationships and loyalty, Flynn’s departure was a blow.

In this sense, McMaster came into the job with one strike against him. He has accumulated more. The first conflict between McMaster and Trump was about the major speech the president delivered at the end of February to a joint session of Congress. McMaster pleaded with the president not to use phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.” He sent memos throughout the government complaining about a draft of that speech that included the phrase. But the phrase remained. When Trump delivered the speech, he echoed his campaign rhetoric by emphasizing each word: “Radical.” “Islamic.” “Terrorism.”

Then Trump’s inner circle began clashing with McMaster over personnel. This began with Ezra Cohen Watnick, who remains the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council. McMaster initially sided with the CIA and wanted to remove this Flynn appointee from his position, but eventually McMaster changed his mind under pressure from Bannon and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

That dispute was followed by a bigger one. Bannon and Trump, according to White House officials, pressed McMaster to fire a list of Obama holdovers at the National Security Council who were suspected of leaking to the press. The list of names was compiled by Derek Harvey, a former Defense Intelligence Agency colonel who was initially hired by Flynn. McMaster balked. He refused to fire anyone on the list and asserted that he had the authority to fire and hire National Security Council staff. He also argued that many of these appointees would be ending their rotation at the White House soon enough.

And finally, the White House chief of staff himself blocked McMaster this month from hiring Brigadier General Ricky Waddell as his deputy, complaining that McMaster failed to seek approval for that pick. McMaster had asked his inherited deputy to leave by May 10; she is now expected to stay on for the time being.

For now the White House is saying the president and his national security adviser are in sync. Trump said in his statement to me that he couldn’t be happier with the general. Of course, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway assured the public in February that Trump had full confidence in McMaster’s predecessor. Only a few hours later, he was forced to resign.

I have never seen this level of palace intrigue in a presidency. I doubt the court of Louis XIV was as gossipy and back-stabbing.

This seems to have been leaked by the McMaster team and the timing was no accident — on the day of the hearings about Trump’s bff Michael Flynn. If they dump McMaster now, it will look vedy bad.

Trump clearly prefers the weirdos and and the freaks, particularly in national security which is just terrifying. Let’s hope Javanka can keep a lid on his worst instincts. When they aren’t skiing in Aspen.

.

.

Sally lays it down
by Tom Sullivan

The guts of yesterday’s Yates-Clapper testimony from the Washington Post:

Former acting attorney general Sally Yates testified Monday that she expected White House officials to “take action’’ on her January warning that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by Russia, offering her first public statements about the national security concerns that rocked the early days of the Trump administration.

Yates’s testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee capped months of debate over her role in the ouster of Flynn, a retired general who stayed on at the White House for 18 days after Yates’s warning.

“[T]o state the obvious, you don’t want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians,” Yates testified. One preliminary conclusion to draw from the testimony is Trump didn’t care.

The transcript is here.

There is plenty of other coverage of the Senate’s hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 elections, as well as of the standard-issue GOP buffoonery we have come to expect. (Do watch former acting attorney general Sally Yates dismantle Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.) But a few moments went by in the testimony yesterday by Yates and former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper that have received little attention.

It suffices to say, Republican senators on the panel were less interested in Russian interference in U.S. elections than in changing the subject. Much of their time was spent firing pointed questions at Sally Yates for defying President Trump’s travel ban because she (and subsequent court decisions) determined it to be unlawful. As Yates herself and Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy reminded them, during her confirmation hearings she had promised Republicans she would do defy the president if a similar situation arose under then-President Obama.

Another subject of at least Russia-related focus was the subject of U.S. persons’ communications being incidentally captured by U.S. intelligence services because they were communicating with foreign targets. The names of non-targeted U.S. persons are typically redacted. Republicans wanted to know if anyone had requested unmasking of members of the 2016 presidential campaigns.

Republican chair, Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.) started off the “lightning round” by trying to find out who leaked Flynn information to the Washington Post. He wanted to know who had the authority to unmask sensitive intercepts:

GRAHAM: OK. Now about surveillance, this is very important, an American citizen cannot be surveilled in the United States for colluding with a foreign government unless you have a warrant. Is that a true statement of the law?

YATES: That’s right.

GRAHAM: Is it fair to say that incidental collection occurs, even in the united States?

YATES: That’s correct as well, yes.

GRAHAM: OK. So there’s two situations that we would have found out what General Flynn said to the Russian bastard. If there was a FISA warrant focused on him, was there?

YATES: You asking?

GRAHAM: Yes, either one of you.

YATES: Again I think you know I’m not going to answer whether there was a FISA warrant. Nor am I even going to talk about whether General Flynn was talking to the Russians.

GRAHAM: OK.

CLAPPER: Oh I have to obviously going to go along with …

GRAHAM [YATES WaPo transcript is wrong here]: Well if he wasn’t talking to the Russians, we’ve had a hearing for no good reason. So clearly he’s talking to the Russians and we know about it. So if there is no FISA warrant, and I’m going to find out about this by the way. The other way that we knew what he was talking about, the Russia (inaudible) was incidentally surveilled. So those were the two options. Do we know who unmasked the conversation between the Russian ambassador and General Flynn? Was there unmasking in this situation?

CLAPPER: Are you looking at me?

GRAHAM: Yes sir.

CLAPPER: I don’t know.

GRAHAM: Do you Ms. Yates?

YATES: I can’t speak to this specific situation. But can I try to clarify one point on this unmasking thing?

GRAHAM: Very quickly.

YATES: OK I’ll try to do it quickly. As a consumer of intelligence I would — for example, I would receive intelligence reports from various agencies.

GRAHAM: I get that, no.

YATES: Now often times the names are already unmasked by the intelligence agencies …

GRAHAM: The bottom line here is I want to know how it got to the Washington Post. Somebody had to have access to the information and they gave it to the Washington Post, is that a fair statement?

YATES: That’s right. That’s what it looks like to me.

GRAHAM: Is that right General Clapper?

CLAPPER: Yes.

GRAHAM: And it was — neither one of you did it?

YATES: That’s right.

CLAPPER: That’s right.

GRAHAM: How many people can request unmasking of American citizen in our government, General Clapper, how many?

CLAPPER: I don’t have an exact number. It’s I think fairly limited, because it’s a — normally fairly high level officials.

GRAHAM: How did you know that General Flynn was talking to the Russian’s who told you?

YATES: And I can’t reveal that in an open setting. But what I was trying to say was, is that often times we receive intelligence reports where the name of the American citizen is already unmasked, and it’s unmasked by the intel agency because, not based on anybody’s request, but because the name of that citizen is essential.

GRAHAM: Is that the situation here?

YATES: I can’t — Senator, I cannot…

(CROSSTALK)

GRAHAM: Thank you. My four minutes is up. Thank you both. But I want to know the answer to these questions.

The GOP is looking for an a) “fairly high level officials” from the Obama White House they can accuse of poking around for dirt in the intercepted communications of members of the Republican presidential campaign or transition team, who then b) leaked the incriminating information on Flynn to the press. Graham wants the records of who requested unmasking. What Yates implies (twice) is that nobody unmasked Flynn’s name. The transcripts arrived that way from the intelligence services who thought it essential to pass on. Which suggests the leak might have come from further upstream. And which has little to do with Russian election meddling, the ostensible reason for the hearing.

The elephant in the room is named Jared Kushner. His name (and Trump’s sons names) went unmentioned, but not unnoticed by Sen. Al Franken. He wondered why Trump took no action on Flynn until the Washington Post revealed his contacts with the Russians. It was a lengthy series of rhetorical questions not aimed at eliciting an answer:

FRANKEN: This is — General Flynn after that, for 18 days stayed there and was in one classified thing after another. There are policies that deal with who gets clearance, security clearance and not.

The executive order 12968 outlines the rules for security clearances and says that when there is a credible allegation that raises concern about someone’s fitness to access classified information, that person’s clearance should be suspended, pending investigations, is that right?

The executive order also states that clearance holders must always demonstrate, quote, “trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion and sound judgment, as well as freedom from allegiances and potential for coercion.” Is that right?

And yet, the White House Council did not understand why the Department of Justice was concerned.

YATES: Well, to be fair to Mr. McGahn, I think the issue that he raised, he wasn’t clear on was why we cared that Michael Flynn had lied to the vice president and others, why that was a matter of …

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: I think that’s clear.

YATES: Within DOJ jurisdiction.

FRANKEN: I think that’s so clear, I can’t…

YATES: Yes.

FRANKEN: And the president had told — President Obama had told the incoming president-elect two days after the election, don’t hire this guy.

YATES: I don’t know anything about that.

FRANKEN: Well, that’s what we’ve heard.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANKEN: And we have McGahn doesn’t understand what’s wrong with this? And then we have Spicer, the press secretary, saying the president was told about this. The president was told about this in late January, according to the press secretary.

So now he’s got a guy who has been, the former president said, don’t hire this guy. He’s clearly compromised. He’s lied to the vice president. And he keeps him on, and he lets him be in all these classified phone — lets him talk with Putin. President of the United States and the national security adviser sit in the oval office and discuss this with Putin.

Is it possible that the reason that he didn’t fire him then was that, well, if I fire him for talking to the Russians about sanctions, and if I fire — what about all the other people on my team, who coordinated? I mean, isn’t it possible that the reason — because you ask yourself, why wouldn’t you fire a guy who did this? And all I can think of is that he would say, well, we’ve got all these other people in the administration who have had contacts. We have all these other people in the administration who coordinated, who are talking. Maybe that. I’m just trying to — we’re trying to put a puzzle together here, everybody.

And maybe, just maybe, he didn’t get rid of a guy who lied to the vice president, who got paid by the Russians, who went on Russia Today, because there are other people in his administration who met secretly with the Russians and didn’t reveal it until later, until they were caught. That may be why it took him 18 days, until it became public, to get rid of Mike Flynn, who is a danger to this republic.

Care to comment? (LAUGHTER)

YATES: I don’t think I’m going to touch that, senator. Thank you.

If only Marty Feldman had stuck his head inside the door, blurted out “Kushner!” and somewhere nearby we heard horses rear.

Michelle Goldberg observes how much time was not spent by Republicans on the Russian election meddling. Clapper thought that’s what he was there to talk about:

Under questioning by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Clapper attempted to focus matters: “I understand how critical leaks are and unmasking and all these ancillary issues. But to me, the transcendent issue here is the Russian interference in our election process. And what that means to the erosion of the fundamental fabric of our democracy. And that to me is a huge deal.” But as this hearing once again made clear, it is not a huge deal to most Republicans in Congress.

Trump last night changed his Twitter banner to declare — again — that Clapper had cleared him of any collusion with the Russians. What Clapper revealed yesterday was that he was in no position to know if there was evidence or not. CNN:

Throughout the Russia probes, the Trump White House has pointed to testimony earlier this year from Clapper that he had seen no evidence in the January intelligence report of collusion between the President’s campaign and Russia. That was before FBI Director James Comey publicly revealed that the FBI was, in fact, investigating that question.

Clapper said Comey’s March 20 testimony was the first he heard of the FBI investigation. He later said that his original assessment was that there was no evidence he had seen worth including in the intelligence assessment — but Yates later said that she could not answer the question because she did not want to reveal any classified information.

The implication from both officials’ testimonies was that there may, indeed, be evidence of collusion — this after months of the White House arguing that Clapper was clear there is no evidence.

Max Boot at Foreign Policy:

None of Trump’s evasions or counteraccusations can change the fact that a grave crime was committed against our democracy, and that we need to get the full story if only to prevent the Russians from doing it again. Republicans may disagree, but imagine how they would feel if the situation were reversed and President Hillary Clinton were accused of conniving with a hostile foreign power? They would be demanding answers. If they have a shred of intellectual integrity or sheer patriotism, they should do the same now even when the allegations concern a member of their own party.

Don’t hold your breath.

How do you tell a “good hombre” from a “bad hombre”?

by digby

So 60 Minutes features a story about an undocumented worker who has been in the country for years, worked hard, followed the law, started a business, raised a family — and was deported anyway. His wife, an American, voted for Donald Trump. And she now has regrets, saying that she’s sorry she didn’t listen more closely to what he was saying.

MOMENT OF THE WEEK: A family in crisis rethinks the president they chose https://t.co/ckSp8AQgcI pic.twitter.com/bUObRVtPeK

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) May 7, 2017

Her Trump voting neighbors are upset too:

“It just feels wrong,” Kimberly Glowacki, a resident of the same town, told “60 Minutes.”

Michelle Craig, who voted for President Trump, said she did so because Trump promised to deport dangerous criminals.
“This is not the person he said he would deport,” she said. “The community is better for having someone like” Beristain in it.

Beristain was the longtime cook and new owner of a restaurant in town, “Eddie’s Steak Shed,” that employs about 20 people, “60 Minutes” noted. He had no criminal record. He entered the U.S. in 1998 illegally but had been issued a temporary work permit, Social Security number and drivers license under the Obama administration.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told “60 Minutes” in a statement that Beristain was deported for having a “final order of removal” against him. He had obtained a temporary deferral of the order three years ago, “60 Minutes” said, and had checked in once a year with the government.

The incident highlights the change in immigration policy between Obama and Trump. According to ICE, arrests of undocumented immigrants with no criminal record have more than doubled since Trump signed an executive order prioritizing deportations.

Some of Trump’s supporters in Granger are now disappointed.

“I voted for him because he said he was going to get rid of the bad hombres. Roberto is a good hombre,” town resident Dave Keck told “60 Minutes.”

“I mean, he showed up here with just the shirt on his back and he’s a restaurant owner 20 years later … and he worked his butt off to get there,” added resident Matt Leliaert.

“The only bad thing he’s done is stayed in the United States because he loves this country,” Helen Beristain said of her husband. “That’s his only crime.”

They didn’t listen to their exciting TV star candidate.Here’s what he was saying:

Donald Trump would reverse President Obama’s executive orders on immigration and deport all undocumented immigrants from the U.S. as president, he said in an exclusive interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd.

“We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go,” he said in the interview, which aired in full on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.

Pressed on what he’d do if the immigrants in question had nowhere to return to, Trump reiterated: “They have to go.”

“We will work with them. They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country, or we don’t have a country,” he said.

Speaking on Trump’s gilded private plane as it idled on a runway in Des Moines, Iowa, the real-estate mogul and Republican presidential front runner offered the first outlines of the immigration policy proposals he’d implement from the Oval Office.

Trump said, to begin, “we have to” rescind Obama’s executive order offering those brought to the U.S. illegally as children — known as DREAMers — protection from deportation, as well as Obama’s unilateral move to delay deportation for their families as well.

“We have to make a whole new set of standards” for those immigrating to the U.S.

The Trump campaign released a full policy paper on immigration online Sunday. Among other things, it reiterates the idea that Mexico should pay for a border wall, and “until they do” the United States will:

“Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.”

The paper also says a President Trump would triple the number of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers and defund so-called “sanctuary” cities that don’t cooperate with federal immigration round-ups.

He did say it. And he said that he’s send the kids too. I don’t know what people were hearing if they didn’t hear that. I guess it was “lock her up” and “crooked Hillary.”

.

Disappointed Fashy Gopers

by digby

Yesterday was such a sad day for wingnuts. They had such high hopes:

I’m not sure about King, but Rohrabacher is vulnerable to losing his seat.

,

Yet another coincidence I’m sure

by digby

And I’m sure Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz are up in arms:

A much-criticized visa program that allows foreigners to win fast-track immigration in return for investing $500,000 in U.S. properties was extended in a bill signed by President Trump just one day before a sister of senior White House adviser Jared Kushner pitched the program to Chinese investors.

Trump, who advocates for restrictive immigration policies, extended the EB-5 investor program without long-promised changes as part of a massive federal spending bill. The program has offered wealthy foreigners a way around complicated U.S. immigration rules, allowing them to live in the United States and seek permanent residency in return for substantial investments.

The Washington Post reported Saturday that Nicole Kushner Meyer delivered a sales presentation in Beijing at which she urged Chinese citizens to invest in a New Jersey project being managed by the Kushner family’s real estate company. Meyer’s relationship to her brother was mentioned as part of the presentation.

On Sunday, the Kushner Companies, of which Meyer is a principal, said in an email to The Post that it “apologizes if that mention of her brother was in any way interpreted as an attempt to lure investors. That was not Ms. Meyer’s intention.”

The firm stressed that Jared Kushner “stepped away from the company in January and has nothing to do with this project,” which it said would provide $180 million in tax revenue over 30 years.

The official White House Nazi is safe

by digby

When the White House backed off its efforts to dump Sebastian Gorka on another federal agency, the controversial counterterrorism advisor had the president himself to thank, The Daily Beast has learned.

After news emerged last week that the Trump administration was setting the stage to move the British-born national security aide out of the White House, President Donald Trump and his chief strategist Stephen Bannon “personally intervened” to put a halt to Gorka’s White House eviction, two senior administration sources said.

Last Friday, The Daily Beast broke the news that the Trump administration had been actively exploring options to remove Gorka from the West Wing, where he serves as “deputy assistant” to the president, and place him at another federal agency. News of Gorka’s looming departure from the White House came amid security clearance issues and a mounting controversy over his involvement with a far-right Hungarian group notorious for its collaboration with the Nazi regime during the World War II. Gorka also holds fringe, clash-of-civilization views that many have criticized as anti-Muslim and extreme.

Senior administration sources described the situation to The Daily Beast last week as “a pain in the ass,” and said that Gorka—“biding his time” on the federal payroll—had virtually zero substantive duties at the White House or role in its decision-making or national-security policy decisions.

However, Gorka owes his continued presence in the White House to President Trump himself, who views him as a robust communicator of the administration’s anti-terrorism, anti-ISIS policies, particularly on conservative radio and TV interviews.

Gorka and Bannon are close. They worked together at Breitbart News—the far-right Trump-boosting outlet that Bannon once ran as a “dictator,” according to former employees—where Gorka served as national security editor even as he was also a paid consultant for the Trump campaign.

Apparently Kushner thinks he’s a “clown” and wants him out. But Trump likes him so he’s staying put.

Gorka is a legit fascist. He has the uniform and everything.

It’s telling that Trump feels a special affinity for a Nazi, so special he is protecting him even against his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner.

.