-
Playlist
Playlist
-
Full Episodes
Full Episodes
The Rachel Maddow Show
Now playing
Wednesday, 08/30/17Watch the full episode of Wednesday night's The Rachel Maddow Show.
-
- Information
-
- Information
-
- Information
-
-
comments
Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS
Trump administration to get away with alleged intimidation tactics
About a month ago, the Alaska Dispatch News, the state's largest newspaper, published a striking report on just how far Donald Trump's White House was allegedly willing to go to lobby senators on health care. The ensuing controversy prompted an investigation, which apparently wrapped up this week.
To briefly recap, the Trump administration's Interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, reportedly called both of Alaska's Republican senators in July, explaining that Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) position on health care "had put Alaska's future with the administration in jeopardy." Murkowski's colleague, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) went on the record at the time, saying the call from Zinke heralded a "troubling message."
Sullivan added that the message from Trump's cabinet secretary "was pretty clear."
The prospect of the Trump administration threatening to penalize Alaska unless Murkowski went along with a regressive health care plan seemed plainly outrageous. The intimidation didn't work -- Alaska's senior senator opposed the far-right health care gambit anyway -- but reports of Zinke's alleged tactics prompted the Interior Department's inspector general to agree to take a closer look at what transpired.
At least, that was the idea. TPM reported yesterday on the outcome.
Unable to get either Alaska senator to spill the beans about allegations that a member of President Trump's cabinet threatened funding to their state in order to secure their votes on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a government watchdog is closing his investigation into the matter. [...]
In a letter on Wednesday to the two House Democrats who demanded the probe ... the Interior Department's inspector general said that "further investigation would be unproductive."
Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall wrote, "Both Senators Murkowski and Sullivan declined to be interviewed or to provide statements regarding the matter. The OIG does not believe that it could meaningfully investigate the matter further."
Thursday's Campaign Round-Up, 8.31.17
Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* During his speech about tax reform yesterday in Missouri, Donald Trump went after Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) in a way that raises some awkward legal questions.
* In Florida's U.S. Senate race, it's not yet clear if Gov. Rick Scott (R) will take on incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson (D), but if does, it would likely be a very close race. A Florida Atlantic University poll released this week found Nelson leading Scott by just two points, 42% to 40%.
* In an interview with the Washington Post, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he believes Medicare for All is a winning issue for Democrats, but he doesn't consider it a "litmus test" for candidates.
* On a related note, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), rumored to be a possible 2020 contender, announced yesterday that she will now sign on as a co-sponsor to Sanders' single-payer proposal.
* In a bit of a surprise, four Republican House candidates in competitive Minnesota districts declined this week to say they'd support Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House. It makes me wonder how common this will be among GOP contenders in 2018.
* In his official Senate campaign announcement, Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) said he wants to "make Pennsylvania and America great again." And while that wasn't exactly subtle about the congressman's political leanings, it's worth noting that Trump did win Pennsylvania last year -- the first Republican to do so in nearly three decades.
Why would Republicans try to cut FEMA's disaster relief fund?
Following a lengthy summer break, Congress will return to work on Tuesday with a daunting to-do list. Among the priorities lawmakers will have to tackle in September are a budget bill to prevent a government shutdown, a debt-ceiling increase, reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Some in the Republican majority are also hoping to squeeze in time for tax reform and maybe another crack at health care. We may even hear some discussion about infrastructure at some point.
But as the deadly crisis continues to unfold in southeastern Texas, Congress also has a responsibility to take up disaster relief. It's against this backdrop that the Associated Press published a striking detail about a pending Republican spending bill.
President Donald Trump is promising billions to help Texas rebuild from Hurricane Harvey, but his Republican allies in the House are looking at cutting almost $1 billion from disaster accounts to help finance the president's border wall.
The pending reduction to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief account is part of a spending bill that the House is scheduled to consider next week when Congress returns from its August recess. The $876 million cut, part of the 1,305-page measure's homeland security section, pays for roughly half the cost of Trump's down payment on a U.S.-Mexico border wall.
Reports like these may seem hard to believe, but the AP is correct. House Republicans, eager to find money for Donald Trump's border wall, proposed using funds from FEMA's disaster relief account. The AP's article went on to note that "the optics" surrounding the GOP proposal are "politically bad," which seems like a rather profound understatement.
But there's a little more to this.
Dems hope to block Trump businesses from receiving federal funds
The U.S. Secret Service is facing real financial difficulties, in part because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the protection of Donald Trump and his family. Complicating matters, the agency isn't just protecting the president, it's also paying properties the president owns and profits from.
It may seem like a small, anecdotal detail, but when the Secret Service spends $60,000 "on golf cart rentals alone this year to protect Trump at both Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster," it's a tough point to forget.
USA Today reported yesterday, however, that a prominent House Democrat has an idea to address this situation.
If Rep. Adam Schiff has his way, the Secret Service wouldn't be able to pay any businesses owned or operated by President Trump.
The California Democrat announced Wednesday his plans to introduce an amendment to an appropriations bill meant to fund the government for fiscal 2018. The amendment reads: "None of the funds made available by this Act to the United States Secret Service may be used to purchase, rent, or otherwise acquire goods or services, including hotel rooms, office space, or golf carts, from entities that are owned or operated by the President or the immediate family of the President."
In other words, Trump would be required to comp the Secret Service, whose agents are protecting him and his family.
"The immense honor and responsibility of serving as president of the United States should never be exploited for profit or personal gain," Schiff said. "That the Trump Organization is profiting off the Secret Service is an abuse of taxpayer money and an improper method of enrichment."
As it turns out, the California Democrat isn't the only one thinking along these lines.
Poll: U.S. majority believes Trump is 'tearing the country apart'
Following Donald Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio earlier this week, the Washington Post published an analysis that explained, in no uncertain terms, that the president "has chosen to be a divider, not a uniter, no matter how many words to the contrary he reads off a teleprompter or from a prepared script."
There's fresh evidence that a majority of Americans agree. A Fox News poll released last night included this interesting finding:
Do you think Donald Trump is drawing the country together or tearing the country apart?
Drawing the country together: 33%
Tearing the country apart: 56%
Looking at the crosstabs, the president's core supporters -- Republicans, conservatives, white evangelical Christians, and whites without college degrees -- still see Trump as a uniting force, but across every other constituency, Americans consider the president a source of division.
The same poll included this gem:
Trump's controversial Arpaio pardon faces new legal scrutiny
Donald Trump recently boasted that he enjoys "the complete power to pardon." And at first blush, that sounds about right: the Constitution says a sitting president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States."
It seems pretty straightforward. Many may have legitimate concerns about a president pardoning a disgraced former sheriff who abused his office, ignored a federal court order, and targeted people of color while acting as if he were above the law, but if the president's pardon power is effectively unlimited, it looks like there's no available recourse.
But what if those assumptions about presidential prerogative are overly simplistic? What if there's still plenty of scrutiny to do on Trump's Arpaio pardon?
Rachel noted earlier this week, for example, that there are ongoing questions about whether the president obstructed justice when he pressed the Justice Department on whether federal charges against Arpaio could be quashed before the case even went to trial. Trump's pardon doesn't make this question go away.
Yesterday, however, the story took another step forward. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, a conservative commentator, highlighted a letter from a group called Protect Democracy, which is combating Trump's violations of legal norms, to the public integrity section of the Justice Department's criminal division. The letter made the case that the Arpaio pardon is, at best, legally suspect.
While the Constitution's pardon power is broad, it is not unlimited. Like all provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, it is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Similarly, issuance of a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause is also suspect. Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals' constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct. And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction -- principally, contempt of court.
If you read the whole letter, Protect Democracy makes the compelling point that the presidential pardon power is considerable, but it's not limitless, and the Arpaio pardon deserves more scrutiny.
After Texas visit, White House struggles to defend Trump falsehood
Donald Trump made a brief visit to Texas on Tuesday, ostensibly to check in on the governmental response to Hurricane Harvey, though the president steered clear of devastated areas and the storm's many victims. It was therefore a bit jarring to see use Twitter yesterday morning to make a dubious assertion:
"After witnessing first hand the horror & devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey, my heart goes out even more so to the great people of Texas!"
The point of the message was obvious: one of the most important mistakes Trump made on Tuesday was his failure to recognize those who matter most. A Dallas Morning News reporter, on hand for Trump's brief visit, noted that the president made no mention of those killed, injured, or displaced by the storm. Yesterday's tweet was likely the president's way of showing compassion -- literally a day too late.
But that wasn't the only problem. If Trump was nowhere near the flooding, and didn't spend any time with the hurricane's victims, how exactly did he witness the horror and devastation "first hand"?
Last night, the White House tried to clear this up. It didn't go well.
Trump loses leverage as Russia scandal investigation intensifies
For Donald Trump, the Russia scandal has long been an existential threat to his presidency, but he's likely taken comfort in the idea that there's an escape hatch: if all else fails, Trump can abuse the powers of his office and simply start pardoning everyone.
Indeed, the president has reportedly sought information from aides on his power to issue pardons to White House aides, members of his family, and even himself.
Which makes last night's Politico report all the more important.
Special counsel Robert Mueller's team is working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on its investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions, according to several people familiar with the matter.
The cooperation is the latest indication that the federal probe into President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman is intensifying. It also could potentially provide Mueller with additional leverage to get Manafort to cooperate in the larger investigation into Trump's campaign, as Trump does not have pardon power over state crimes.
Politico's Josh Dawley talked to Rachel on the air last night, and explained that the special counsel and the New York attorney general's office have been in contact over much of the summer, sharing evidence.
And that's important because it closes a potential avenue. If Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman who insists he's done nothing wrong, believes a presidential pardon is his get-out-of-jail-free card, so he has no incentive to cooperate with investigators, Mueller's work with Schneiderman reapplies pressure.
Since a president can't pardon a defendant in a state case, the trump card, so to speak, has effectively been taken away.
Wednesday's Mini-Report, 8.30.17
Today's edition of quick hits:
* An ongoing crisis: "The devastating storm once known as Hurricane Harvey, already the biggest rainstorm in the history of the continental United States, made landfall again Wednesday morning, delivering another punishing wave of rain to Texas and Louisiana."
* What a fiasco: "A federal judge on Wednesday tore into President Trump's voter commission for reneging on a promise to fully disclose public documents before a July 19 meeting, ordering the government to meet new transparency requirements and eliciting an apology from administration lawyers."
* Quite a recovery: "John McCain will return to Washington next week, giving the Senate GOP its full contingent of 52 votes during what's sure to be a turbulent September, according to Republican aides."
* Another step backwards: "President Trump is shelving a proposal from the Obama administration requiring large employers to report salary data based on sex and race, which would have enabled the federal government to crack down on pay disparities between men and women."
* William Bradford has quite an online record: "President Donald Trump's appointee to a Department of Energy post says inflammatory comments that appeared to have been made by him online were the result of 'cyber attacks and Internet crimes' committed against him over the past several years by 'imposters in social media.'"
* The White House should look at this as a fresh opportunity to teach the president how to read a GDP report: "The United States economy kicked into higher gear last quarter, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday, revising its initial estimate for growth upward to 3 percent — the fastest pace in two years."
* The Justice Department has "indicted more than a dozen members of the Turkish president's security detail for a brawl between them and protesters during the leader's last visit to the US that a grand jury says was rooted in prejudice against the victims based on their ethnicity and political ties."
As the world watches, Trump diverges from his own cabinet
Over the weekend, in a moment that raised more than a few eyebrows, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made the case that Donald Trump "speaks for himself," not the country.
In the same interview, asked if he's separating himself from the president's reaction to Charlottesville, instead of saying, "No, of course not," the secretary of state replied, "I've made my own comments as to our vales as well in a speech I gave to the State Department this past week."
And as usual as it is to see a president and his administration's chief diplomat on different pages, Tillerson isn't the only cabinet member who's diverging from Trump. This morning, the president said via Twitter that diplomacy with North Korea "is not the answer" -- contradicting the secretary of state in the process -- which apparently isn't in line with his Pentagon chief's views.
When asked by reporters just hours later if the United States was out of diplomatic solutions with North Korea amid rising tensions after a series of missile tests by Pyongyang, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis replied: "No."
"We are never out of diplomatic solutions," Mattis said before a meeting with his South Korean counterpart at the Pentagon. "We continue to work together, and the minister and I share a responsibility to provide for the protection of our nations, our populations and our interests."
This wasn't a direct rebuke of Trump -- Mattis didn't reference the president specifically in his response -- but it was nevertheless jarring to see the president take one posture in the morning, only to see his secretary of defense take an entirely different posture a few hours later.
And this wasn't the first time a gap emerged between Trump and Mattis in recent months.
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.
