Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS
Senators still don't know what health care bill they're voting on
Last week, when Senate Republican leaders announced plans to begin a series of health care votes today, their schedule immediately became the subject of ridicule. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) knew he wanted the legislative fight to begin in earnest on the chamber floor, but just days ahead of the showdown, no one -- including McConnell and his members -- had any idea what they'd be voting on.
As of today, with just hours remaining before the floor process gets under way, that mockery has led to genuine and widespread bafflement. As Dylan Scott explained, senators still don't know.
Senate leaders are bent on holding a vote. But after the plan was drafted in secret, it now needs substantial revisions under the Senate budget rules. And yet the White House and GOP leadership insist on forcing members to vote on Tuesday.
It is an unprecedentedly opaque process to try to pass legislation that overhauls an industry worth more than $3 trillion, which would undercut a law that has extended health coverage to more than 20 million middle-class and low-income Americans in the past seven years.... [As] the vote approaches, there is no final text, no Congressional Budget Office score.
The scale of this absurdity has no precedent in the American tradition. The Huffington Post, noting that the United States Senate used to describe itself as "the world’s greatest deliberative body," explained quite accurately that the institution "gives more care and consideration to bills renaming post offices than it has to legislation with staggering consequences for the health care system."
Making matters worse, some members not only don't know what they'll be voting on; they also don't care. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), asked about not know the specifics of his own party's plan, said yesterday, "It doesn't concern me. As I said, I'll vote for anything"
An inspiring approach to modern governing in a global superpower, to be sure.
Abandoning subtlety, Trump lashes out at AG Jeff Sessions
Last week, Donald Trump complained bitterly about Attorney General Jeff Sessions, condemning the Alabama Republican's decision to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation into the Trump-Russia scandal. The president's argument wasn't subtle: Trump wanted Sessions to help shield the White House, and he's outraged that the A.G. isn't helping cover up the controversy.
Almost immediately, there was a question about whether Sessions, lacking the confidence of the president who appointed him, would have to resign, but the attorney general vowed to remain at his post.
That, in turn, has apparently led to a new strategy: Trump will attack Sessions publicly, in the hopes that the attorney general will get the hint and quit.
President Donald Trump blasted Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Twitter early Tuesday as having a "very weak position" when it comes to investigating Hillary Clinton and intelligence leakers.
His tweetstorm began with claims that Ukraine had tried to "sabotage" his campaign in favor of his Democratic rival. He appeared to allude to a Politico report in January that said a Ukrainian-American operative working for the Democratic National Committee had gone to the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington for help to uncover any ties between Trump, campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.
"So where is the investigation A.G.," Trump tweeted.
As Rachel noted on last night's show, this comes against the backdrop of a new Washington Post report, which said the president and his advisers "are privately discussing the possibility of replacing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and some confidants are floating prospects who could take his place were he to resign or be fired, according to people familiar with the talks."
It's hard to overstate how extraordinary these developments are.
Even the Boy Scouts aren't exempt from Trump's boorishness
Donald Trump recently said his bizarre antics and behavior may not be "presidential," per se, but he believes they're "modern-day presidential." In practice, evidently, that means putting on a partisan political show for a group of children.
President Trump looked out Monday evening at the sea of Boy Scouts who were gathered in a remote field, far away from the travails of the capital, and declared that he would not talk about politics.
"Who the hell wants to speak about politics when I'm in front of the Boy Scouts?" he asked.
As it turns out, Donald Trump wants to speak about politics when he's in front of the Boy Scouts.
The rules of the Boy Scouts appear to discourage participation in partisan political events, but Trump just couldn't seem to help himself. He spent his time yesterday lashing out at journalists, pollsters, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Affordable Care Act.
Trump celebrated the 2016 electoral-college map, promised the restoration of "Merry Christmas," and threatened to fire his HHS secretary if the Republican health care plan didn't pass Congress.
If it sounds like I'm describing a Trump campaign rally, it's because, in effect, I am. From Trump's perspective, that's precisely what his appearance was supposed to be.
Daniel Dale highlighted the 17 "most jaw-dropping moments" from the president's appearance, which included a meandering five-minute story about developer William Levitt:
Monday's Mini-Report, 7.24.17
Today's edition of quick hits:
* Jared Kushner "spent about two hours Monday answering questions from Senate investigators about his contacts with Russian officials, insisting he had not colluded with foreign agents before or after the 2016 presidential campaign."
* Afghanistan: "An errant U.S. airstrike confirmed by the Pentagon killed 12 Afghan National Police officers and wounded two others, Helmand provincial police chief Abdul Ghafar Safi said Saturday."
* A disappointing ruling: "A federal judge on Monday allowed President Trump's voting commission to go forward with seeking voter data from 50 states and the District, ruling that the White House advisory panel is exempt from federal privacy review requirements whatever additional risk it might pose to Americans' information."
* Poland: "Andrzej Duda was a relatively obscure member of the right-wing Law and Justice party when the leader of the party and the most powerful man in the country plucked him from the chorus line to become its candidate for president in 2015. For most of the party’s first 20 months in power, he was a reliable proponent for the governing party’s nationalist initiatives."
* I guess the chat with Trump at the White House is off? "Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte hit back on Friday at U.S. lawmakers opposed to the prospect of his visiting the White House, saying he would never go to the United States, which he called a 'lousy' country."
House Republican has unfortunate words for 'some female senators'
Sometimes, a quote is so misguided, it's hard to know where to start.
A Texas Republican congressman says it's "absolutely repugnant" that the GOP-led Senate hasn't acted on repealing the health care law and he singled out "some female senators from the Northeast."
In a radio interview with "1440 Keys," Rep. Blake Farenthold said the Senate has failed to show the courage to dismantle the health care law. The Senate is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to move ahead on legislation.
According to the Associated Press' report, Farenthold added, in apparent reference to Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Shelley Moore Capito, "If it was a guy from south Texas, I might ask him to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style."
In other words, Farenthold is so upset about the state of the health care debate, he can imagine a duel with members of his own party who see the issue differently.
Oh my.
GOP senators still unsure which health care bill they hope to pass
There was an interesting moment on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday when host Chris Wallace asked Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) a good question: "As the number three Republican in the Senate, do you know what you're going to be voting on next week?"
The South Dakota Republican responded by talking a bit about Senate procedure, before complaining about the Affordable Care Act, so the host tried again, asking what GOP leaders intend to bring forward as their party's health care bill. Thune responded:
"I think ultimately that's a judgment that [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell will make at some point this week before the vote, depending on how these discussions go."
Let that sink in for a moment. Republican leaders will decide "at some point this week" what health care legislation senators will vote on this week. As of yesterday, GOP senators had no idea what bill it might be, and as of this morning, there's still broad uncertainty.
The first vote, kicking off the process, is scheduled for tomorrow.
This isn't how legislating in the United States is supposed to work on any issue, but it's especially indefensible when dealing with life-or-death policymaking.
Monday's Campaign Round-Up, 7.22.17
Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* In an unusually classless display, Kelli Ward, who lost to John McCain in a primary last year, has called on the longtime senator to resign his seat in light of his illness. She also wants Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) to appoint her to fill the vacancy.
* Congressional Democratic leaders are rolling out their new "Better Deal" economic agenda today, with some events on Capitol Hill, and new op-eds in the New York Times and the Washington Post.
* Gallup found that Donald Trump's support is still above 50% in 17 states. He's also below 40% in the same number of states.
* There was reportedly a staff shake-up at the Republican National Committee late last week that led to, among other things, Katie Walsh returning to the RNC. Walsh, a longtime colleague of White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, had worked at the White House for about three months, before joining a pro-Trump group called America First Policies. Walsh has, in other words, had three jobs in four months.
* Bolstering rumors that Scott Pruitt, Trump's far-right EPA administrator, is planning to run for office in his home state of Oklahoma, the New York Times found that he made 10 trips to the state over three months this year, "largely at taxpayer expense."
* In Maine, Gov. Paul LePage (R) has already said he doesn't intend to run against Sen. Angus King (I) next year, but he said he's been unimpressed with the top GOP candidate, state Sen. Eric Brakey. "I'm going to watch what Eric Brakey's doing and if he doesn't start resonating pretty quick, there's a possibility I might change my mind," LePage said on Thursday.
Kellyanne Conway makes her case against Bob Mueller
Kellyanne Conway spoke with CNN's Brian Stelter yesterday, and while they covered a fair amount of ground, I was struck by this exchange on speculation that Donald Trump may look for ways to get rid of Special Counsel Bob Mueller:
STELTER: [M]any people are afraid if this president fires Robert Mueller, we will be in a constitutional crisis. Why doesn't the president just want Mueller to prove that Trump is right, that Russia was a hoax? Why doesn't he want Mueller to go ahead and confirm that for him?
CONWAY: Well, isn't Mr. Mueller and his band of Democratic donors doing that? Are they trying to do that?
In context, it wasn't altogether clear what point Conway was trying to make. It sounded as if Conway was looking for a way to use the phrase "Mr. Mueller and his band of Democratic donors" and so she just forced the phrase into the conversation.
Regardless, there have been multiple reports of late about Trump World looking for ways to undermine and discredit Mueller's ongoing investigation, and Conway was effectively sharing what she'd come up with: some people on the special counsel's team have contributed to Democratic candidates for public office.
Conway made a similar pitch to Fox News late last week, and on Twitter last month.
It is, by any fair measure, a tough sell. This investigation is, after all, being led by Mueller, a lifelong Republican. Unless Conway and her colleagues are prepared to argue that Trump can only be investigated by an entire team made up exclusively of other Republicans, Mueller working with some attorneys who've supported Democratic candidates isn't exactly scandalous.
But even putting that aside, if Democratic donations are inherent grounds for suspicion according to Team Trump, Conway has reason to be paranoid while walking through the West Wing.
Trump still wants a federal investigation into Hillary Clinton
Since taking office six months ago, Donald Trump has periodically called for assorted investigations, though in nearly every instance, the president seemed to more or less blurt out the idea without any real thought or planning.
Trump has, for example, said he wants Barack Obama investigated for "wiretapping" Trump Tower during the election. The president also demanded an investigation into "voter fraud" in the 2016 presidential election. Trump, at one point, even said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) should be investigated for his claims about his military service.
This morning, the president added to his list in rather dramatic fashion. Trump tweeted:
"So why aren't the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?"
Note, since becoming president, every investigation Trump has called for has been ... how do I put this gently ... quite bonkers.
Indeed, while we've all become quite accustomed to Trump saying deeply strange things, especially via social media, this morning's missive was quite a bit worse than his usual fare.
White House offers a mixed message on new Russia sanctions
In mid-June, a bipartisan Senate majority easily approved new legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia, as part of the U.S. response to Russia's election attack, Donald Trump's refusal to accept the evidence notwithstanding. The final vote was 97 to 2.
In the days and weeks that followed, the White House has launched an aggressive push to derail the bill -- or at least water it down considerably -- before it can pass the House. Those efforts have apparently failed. The New York Times reported over the weekend:
Congressional leaders have reached an agreement on sweeping sanctions legislation to punish Russia for its election meddling and aggression toward its neighbors, they said Saturday, defying the White House's argument that President Trump needs flexibility to adjust the sanctions to fit his diplomatic initiatives with Moscow.
The new legislation would sharply limit the president's ability to suspend or terminate the sanctions -- a remarkable handcuffing by a Republican-led Congress six months into Mr. Trump's tenure.
With broad backing, the bill is expected to pass both chambers. But it's at this point where things will get even more interesting.
Trump's communications director has a secret source: Trump
The New York Times reported yesterday that when Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin recently met in Germany, the American president was impressed by an argument from his Russian counterpart: "Moscow's cyberoperators are so good at covert computer-network operations that if they had dipped into the Democratic National Committee's systems, they would not have been caught."
In a rather literal sense, the White House has adopted Putin's talking points. Here, for example, was Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's new communications director, echoing the line on CNN yesterday:
"You know, somebody said to me yesterday -- I won't tell you who -- that if the Russians actually hacked this situation and spilled out those emails, you would have never seen it. You would have never had any evidence of them, meaning that they're super confident in their deception skills and hacking."
Moments later, Scaramucci conceded his source -- the one whom he didn't want to identify just seconds earlier -- was Donald Trump himself, who'd called him a day earlier.
Even for this White House, this was exceedingly strange. As part of a defense against the Russia scandal, the president's communications director echoed Vladimir Putin's talking points, citing a secret source, who happened to be the president, who directly reminded him of Putin's talking points.
Making matters quite a bit worse, all of this was intended to undermine confidence in the findings of American intelligence agencies, which the president still chooses not to believe. Indeed, the White House's broader point seems to be that Russia's espionage operations are so skillful and clever, American intelligence professionals couldn't possibly be expected to keep up.
One might expect to hear something like this from the Kremlin, not the White House.
Pages
About The Rachel Maddow Show
Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life - as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise.
