Pelosi gets most out of 'magic minute' in record-setting speech for DACA

There is no such thing as a filibuster in the House of Representatives.

But there is a “magic minute."

The “magic minute” isn’t a rule. It’s a special privilege spanning longer than 60 seconds afforded to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and other top leaders to speak on the floor for as long as they wish.
A key difference between the House and Senate is the Senate features unlimited debate. That leads to actual filibusters which impair legislative action. Floor time in the House is controlled. It must be. After all, you’re dealing with 435 members compared to 100 in the Senate. So time is at a premium.
The House restricts debate on most bills to an hour. Leaders allocate more time for major bills. Time is often doled out in one-minute increments. So-called “special orders” speeches at the end of the day run longer, but aren’t focused around actual legislative debate.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., seized on the “magic minute” phenomenon at 10:04 a.m. ET Wednesday to rally support for a DACA agreement.
“I am going to go on as long as my leadership minute allows,” said Pelosi.
Pelosi’s “magic minute” wrinkled time and bent physics. It emerged as the super-duper, magnificent, unicorn, voodoo minute. It ballooned to a staggering eight hours and seven minutes.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi gave a speech Wednesday that spanned eight hours. She did not sit once and wore high heels the entire time.  (Fox News)

Pelosi held the floor all eight hours wearing black, stiletto heels. No sitting. Just talking. When Pelosi wrapped, she established a new record for the longest floor speech in House history. Pelosi bested House Speaker Champ Clark, D-MO, who set the old benchmark in 1909, two years before clasping the Speaker’s gavel. Clark spoke for five hours and 15 minutes.
But Clark was not shod in stilettos when he set his record.
Pelosi clutched a Kleenex for much of her speech. The heels were the least of her worries. Allergies proved to be an adversary.
“I thought I might be hungry. I thought I might be thirsty,” said Pelosi around at 5:34 p.m. “But I never thought I would get sniffles from the rug.”
It’s not unusual for House leaders to take advantage of the magic minute dispensation. Then-House Minority Leader and later Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, held forth for more than an hour in June, 2009 as the House prepared to vote on a climate bill known as “cap and trade.” Boehner’s oratory energized Republicans and infuriated Democrats. Former Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., even asked the House’s presiding officer, then-Rep. Ellen Tauscher D-Calif, why the Ohio Republican was permitted such protracted oration.
The stunt became known as the “Fili-Boehner.”
Pelosi - then serving as House Speaker - was poised to deliver her own closing argument on cap and trade to rebut Boehner. But Pelosi knew brevity was the soul of wit following Boehner.
“Just remember these four words of what this legislation means: Jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs. Let’s vote for jobs!”
And with that, Pelosi concluded.
Word of a budget deal leaked around the Capitol just as Pelosi began her speech Wednesday.
Around 10:30 a.m., the California Democrat sent out a statement, saluting the bipartisan budget pact forged by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ken., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to lift spending caps for the Pentagon and non-defense spending.
“The budget caps agreement includes many Democratic priorities,” declared Pelosi.
But there was a caveat. Pelosi noted the plan was bereft of a DACA accord.
“Without a commitment from Speaker Ryan comparable to the commitment from Leader McConnell, this package does not have my support.”

Rep. Champ Clark, D-MO, who set the old benchmark in 1909, two years before clasping the Speaker’s gavel.  (Fox News)

And so Pelosi made her case for Ryan to consider a DACA plan.
Pelosi’s marathon speech may have focused on DACA. But the speech was laced with internal leadership politics on both sides of the aisle.
Ryan would like to address DACA. But that could create turmoil for Ryan among conservatives who characterize a DACA fix as “amnesty.”
Younger House Democrats have pined for a leadership change. They believe time passed by Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-MD. They want to infuse the party with a younger generation of leaders. Pelosi turns 78 in March. Hoyer is currently 78. But Pelosi’s prolonged presentation put to rest any question about her fortitude and endurance.
“I don’t think anyone has ever questioned Leader Pelosi’s tenacity,” said 44-year-old Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, who challenged Pelosi to be the top House Democrat in late 2016. Rep. Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., has also pushed for younger blood.
“My issue with the leadership team has nothing to do with stamina,” said Rice.
Pelosi solidified her position among liberals in the House by advocating for DACA.
Just before 4 p.m., former Vice President Biden arrived to speak to House Democrats. Many thought Pelosi may wrap then.
“I have no intention of yielding back,” said Pelosi.
A few minutes later, Pelosi turned to her colleagues sitting behind her in solidarity.
“If you want to see Biden, you can,” said Pelosi.
“We want to see you!” replied Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
Still, some viewed Pelosi’s gambit as window dressing for DACA. After all, Pelosi was purportedly part of the talks with other top House and Senate leaders.
“I don't understand if you have four leaders agree to a bill why do you get to negotiate if you're not going to vote for the bill?” asked House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.
McCarthy’s view of the speech.
“I think it’s going to make her Wikipedia page. It’s her biggest accomplishment this year,” said McCarthy.
When she finished, Pelosi told reporters Schumer “got what he wanted” on the budget deal. But she was still pushing – publicly at least – for DACA.
Would Democrats support the plan?
“I have no idea where members are,” Pelosi replied.
If the bill is to pass to avoid a shutdown, scores of House Democrats must vote yes to fill the void created by Republican defectors. Some Democrats interpreted Pelosi’s speech as a lengthy campaign against the bill. That could jeopardize the legislation. That’s why some Democrats are nervous about another shutdown over DACA.
When she came off the floor, Pelosi told a group of reporters the time  flew by.
“When you’re out there talking, it seems shorter. When you’re listening, it seems longer,” said Pelosi.
“Yeah,” hollered one reporter who viewed Pelosi’s speech. “We know.”

Democratic AGs swarm Trump administration with lawsuits

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra are helping lead a slew of anti-Trump administration suits.

Nancy Pelosi. Chuck Schumer. The Russia probe. The "deep state." Of all the obstacles that could potentially thwart the Trump agenda, add to that tempest the flood of lawsuits now being plotted by blue-state attorneys general who have made no secret of their disdain for the administration’s policies. 

The Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA), a political fundraising group, touts the AGs as “the first line of defense” against Trump’s agenda.

“The Trump administration has trouble understanding the rule of law and that’s the reason Democratic attorneys general are filing lawsuits and winning them,” Sean Rankin, DAGA’s executive director, told Fox News.
To be sure, outspoken state prosecutors stalled many of the administration’s 2017 goals in court with a record number of lawsuits. And they’re doubling down in 2018.
In late January, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued the Trump administration over fracking rules. In early February, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced his intent to sue the Trump administration for reversing the Obama-era Waters of the United States regulation. Several East Coast states may soon band together to try to undermine the newly passed tax overhaul.
The lawsuits may only be energized by the election-year environment.
Attorney general races are playing out in 32 states in 2018, with 14 seats held by Democrats and 18 by Republicans. Rankin said DAGA is focused chiefly on winning races in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin.

'This is not about the rule of law or holding the line to stop the feds from preempting state laws, this is about power.'

“For the first time, I believe, general voters, as well as elected officials, understand this is an office of considerable importance and not just a down-ballot race,” Rankin said.
Amid the lawsuit flurry, the association reported it increased its 2017 fundraising haul by $2.4 million from the previous year -- growing its donor base from fewer than 500 in 2016 to more than 5,000 in 2017. Beyond raising money, DAGA facilitates weekly phone conferences with the nation’s 23 Democratic attorneys general to discuss lawsuits and strategies.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has sued the Trump administration over fracking rules.  (AP)

This is familiar territory. During the Obama administration, the GOP attorneys general routinely challenged policies on ObamaCare, immigration and the environment -- but filed far fewer lawsuits per year.
‘Nullification by other means’
The past year has been a bonanza of anti-Trump lawsuits. DAGA highlighted numerous cases in a year-end report. And while Democrats scored victories at the district court level, they had mixed results on appeal.

• Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson first sued over Trump’s travel ban on people entering the United States from terrorism hot spots in the Middle East. Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin sued to block another version of the travel ban.
• After the Trump administration rolled back the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) -- which shielded from deportation about 800,000 illegal immigrants brought to the country as minors -- 16 Democratic attorneys general challenged the move.
• Becerra of California, Maura Healy of Massachusetts, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Ferguson of Washington challenged the Department of Health and Human Services' rollback of the ObamaCare contraception mandate.
• Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Healy and Schneiderman sued the Education Department over a student loan policy. 
• Another 14 Democratic attorneys general sued the Environmental Protection Agency alleging it isn’t enforcing smog rules.

“We would expect Democrats in Congress and Democratic governors to be part of the resistance, but we should expect more from chief law enforcement officials in their states than to seek nullification by other means of federal law,” Curt Leavy, president of the Committee for Justice, a conservative legal group, told Fox News. “Parts of the judiciary itself and many AGs see themselves as part of the resistance.”
‘Sheer volume’
Throughout 2017, Democratic attorneys generals filed 35 multistate lawsuits against the Trump administration, according to tracking by Paul Nolette, a political science professor at Marquette University and author of “Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America.”
By contrast, Republican attorneys general brought 46 multistate legal challenges during all of former President Barack Obama’s two terms.
The “sheer volume” of Democratic lawsuits is “staggering,” said Scott Will, executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is a leading force in anti-Trump lawsuits.  (Office of the Attorney General)

“This is not about the rule of law or holding the line to stop the feds from preempting state laws; this is about power,” Will said in a statement. “Look, Republicans and Democrats had a history of banding together to prevent the federal government from preempting state laws, but those days are over and that is unfortunate.”

Democrats flip deep-red Missouri state House seat, signal problems for GOP

Democrat Mike Revis won the special election in Missouri on Tuesday, flipping a deep-red seat.  (Revis for Missouri Facebook)

Democrats flipped a Missouri House seat in Tuesday’s special election in a district that President Trump won by 28 points in 2016, signaling problems for the GOP ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.

Democrat Mike Revis won the election with nearly 52 percent of the vote while Republican David Linton received 48 percent. Tuesday’s election marks a 31-point swing to Democrats in the district compared to the 2016 presidential election.

“Representative-elect Mike Revis’s victory tonight will undoubtedly send another shockwave through the GOP as we continue to run the best candidates focused on addressing local issues and improving their neighbors’ quality of life,” Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Executive Director Jessica Post said in a statement.
“The DLCC continues to be impressed by our dedicated and talented slate of candidates, who have stepped up to run in these precedent-setting special elections."
Revis, a 27-year-old procurement manager, ran on a platform as a centrist Democrat with particular focus on education, access to health care and support for the labor community, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
State Rep. Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis, told the newspaper that Revis’ win was “enormous” and made possible only due to “a lot of grass-roots support and a hardworking, authentic moderate candidate from his community.”
The election result might signal the changing tide for the GOP that is heading into the midterm elections this year against a highly-mobilized Democratic opposition united against the president.
In December, embattled Republican Roy Moore lost a deep-red Senate seat in Alabama to Democrat Doug Jones, making him the first Democrat in a decade to win any statewide office in the state.
Last month, Democrat Patty Schachtner flipped a state Senate seat in Wisconsin that had been held by Republicans since the start of the century in a district that Trump carried by 17 points in the presidential election.
Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called the results a “wake up call” for the party.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said the party should take interest in why it lost the election. “Typically, we’ve held this seat, and we lost this seat last night. So, yeah, I think we should pay attention to it,” Ryan told reporters last month, The New York Times reported.
But as problems continue to mount for the Republicans, in three other special elections in Missouri on Tuesday, Republicans held their seats – continuing the GOP’s supermajority in the state House.

Some Muslim immigrants should be watched 'long-term,' draft DHS report says

An initial draft of a Department of Homeland Security report from last month called for authorities to carefully monitor large numbers of Sunni Muslim immigrants fitting a broad "at-risk" profile, saying it might be necessary to “continuously evaluate persons of interest” even after they are living in the United States.
The document, obtained exclusively by Foreign Policy magazine, analyzed 25 terrorist attacks in the U.S. from 2001 to 2017 to determine which kind of immigrants should be tracked on a “long-term basis."
Risk factors identified in the report, which focused specifically on Sunni Muslims, included being young, male and hailing from countries in South Asia, the Middle East or Africa.
The draft report, which was created for U.S. Customs and Border Protection acting commissioner Kevin McAleenan, caused consternation among current and former DHS officials, Foreign Policy reported.
Some told the magazine the results were misleading in part because the report focused only on Sunnis, rather than other religious groups.
“First, this report would steer policymakers to implement unfair and discriminatory surveillance of particular ethnic groups,” a DHS official told the magazine. “Second, the analysis, which is misleadingly packaged as a comprehensive analysis of post-9/11 terrorism, could lead policymakers to overlook significant national security threats.”

"This report would steer policymakers to implement unfair and discriminatory surveillance of particular ethnic groups."

- DHS official

In a strongly worded statement, CBP officials emphasized that the document was an initial draft and not a final intelligence assessment.
“The initial draft assessment … not only is still undergoing internal CBP review, but, at the time of its improper disclosure, did not reflect a large number of substantive comments and revisions that have since been made to subsequent versions of the document as a result of CBP’s internal and external review process,” a CBP spokesperson told Foreign Policy.
Last month, the DHS and DOJ released a report that revealed nearly three out of four individuals convicted on international terrorism charges in the U.S. were foreign-born.
President Trump reacted to that report by tweeting: "We have submitted to Congress a list of resources and reforms we need to keep America safe, including moving away from a random chain migration and lottery system, to one that is merit-based.”

Schiff apparently pranked by Russian radio hosts who promised 'naked Trump' photos

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee held an eight-minute phone conversation last year with Russian radio hosts posing as a Ukrainian politician who promised to provide compromising images of President Trump.

The conversation involving Rep. Adam Schiff, which took place on April 10 of last year, was first reported by The Atlantic last month. On Tuesday, the Daily Mail published purported audio of the call.

In the conversation, a caller identified himself as Andriy Parubiy, the speaker of Ukraine's parliament. In fact, "Parubiy" was two people, Vladimir "Vovan" Kuznetsov and Alexey "Lexus" Stolyarov, who have previously prank-called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
During this call, "Parubiy," claimed that Trump met Russian model and singer Olga Buzova while in Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, and that the two had had a brief affair.
"She got compromising materials on Trump after their short relations," the caller told Schiff.
"OK, and what's the nature" of the material? Schiff asked.
"Well, there were pictures of naked Trump," the caller said, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin was made aware of the "images" by Ksenia Sobchak -- a Russian journalist he described as "the goddaughter of Putin."
"Parubiy" assured Schiff that he could provide records of Sobchak and Buzova discussing the images. He also claimed that the former national security adviser Michael Flynn met with another Russian singer, Arkadiy Ukupnik, in a Brooklyn cafe to discuss keeping the supposed images under wraps.
"On that meeting, Ukupnik told Flynn that all those compromising materials will never be released if Trump will cancel all the Russian sanctions," the caller told Schiff, who responded that "obviously we would welcome the chance to get copies of those recordings."
A spokesman for Schiff told The Atlantic that the committee reported the call to "appropriate law enforcement and security personnel" and told them "of our belief that it was probably bogus."
Kuznetsov and Stolyarov were described by Atlantic writer Julia Ioffe as having ties to the Kremlin, having hosted shows on state-run TV channels and meeting with elected officials.
"We wanted to talk to someone who specifically works on intelligence and give him a completely insane version of events," Kuznetsov told The Atlantic of the call to Schiff. Stolyarov added that the pair had given Schiff "a bunch of disinformation" and described the call as "completely absurd."
The Atlantic reported that when Kuznetsov and Stolyarov called McConnell, he told them that new sanctions against Russia were unlikely. When they called McCain, he had "sounded like he didn’t know what to do — like, at all," according to Kuznetsov.
"This would never happen in Russia," Stolyarov told the magazine of the prank calls. "People wouldn’t be so trusting, especially if they are a member of parliament or a civil servant."
Kuznetsov added that the pair would like to target Hollywood stars, but they are "much harder to reach than American senators."

MSNBC Cartoons

MSNBC star Katy Tur blasted for 'condescending' take on GOP tax cut bonuses

Katy Tur has worked for NBC News since 2012.  (NBC)

MSNBC host Katy Tur was hit with backlash on Twitter Monday after she downplayed the value of $1,000 bonuses a pair of working-class Ohioans received from their employers as a result of the GOP tax cuts.

President Trump called the workers to the stage during a campaign-style event at a manufacturing plant outside Cincinnati in an effort to promote the success of the tax cuts.

"Gentleman at Ohio Trump event says he's going to save to start a family with his 1,000 dollar one time bonus," Tur tweeted after the first worker spoke. "Average cost to give birth to one child in Ohio is $5,836."
When a woman said she would use her bonus to help buy a home and pay for her children's college tuition, Tur was on the spot once again.
"In Hamilton Co, Ohio (where they are) avg home is $277,582," she tweeted. "Avg cost of private college nationally ~35,000. Public $19,000."
Some tweeters pointed out how a $1,000 bonus could be spent. Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner pointed out that the money "may actually go a long way to paying for live birth. Could also cover about 2 years of diapers."
Others, such as FoxNews.com opinion writer Stephen L. Miller, mocked Tur for appearing to parrot Democratic talking points while still others accused her of being out of touch.
Tur, who hosts the afternoon "MSNBC Live" and covered the Trump campaign for NBC News in 2016, attempted to defend her position when challenged by conservative radio host Steve Deace.
"The Trump tax law cuts taxes for the rich and corporations more than the middle class," she wrote. "Also individual tax cuts expire. Corporate tax cuts don't."
That set off a new round of criticism, with one Twitter user accusing her of "dishonest spin."
Tur did not revisit the issue in later tweets.

Canada's Trudeau corrects woman for using 'mankind' at town hall

Liberal Idiot

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corrected a woman on her language when she asked a question during a town hall Friday.

The unidentified woman asked Trudeau whether the Canadian government could ease regulations on volunteering with religious organizations, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

"So, that’s why we came here today to ask you, to also look into the policies that religious charitable organizations have in our legislation so that it can also be changed because maternal love is the love that’s going to change the future of mankind,” said the woman, who was reportedly affiliated with the World Mission Society Church of God.

Justin Trudeau correcting a girl for saying "mankind" because it's offensive is truly amazing pic.twitter.com/SDCcpSXhkB

— Ben McDonald (@Bmac0507) February 5, 2018

Trudeau immediately corrected her.
“We like to say ‘peoplekind,' not necessarily ‘mankind,' because it’s more inclusive,” he said.
The crowd clapped after Trudeau’s comments.
The Canadian government has cracked down on language inclusivity over the last week.
Canada’s Senate passed a bill Thursday to make the country’s national anthem gender neutral. The bill changes the second line of “O Canada” from “true patriot love, in all thy sons command” to “in all of us command.”

Intelligence Committee approves release of Dems’ rebuttal to FISA memo

The House Intelligence Committee on Monday approved the release of the Democratic rebuttal to the highly-publicized GOP memo that alleges government surveillance abuse during the 2016 campaign.

"We think this will help inform the public of the many distortions and inaccuracies in the majority memo," California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the panel, told reporters.

The vote was unanimous, he said.
Schiff said Democrats have given the DOJ and the FBI a copy of their counter-memo and have asked them to tell them what redactions should be made for national security reasons.
On Friday, Republicans on the Intelligence Committee released the memo from Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., which claimed the FBI and DOJ would not have sought surveillance warrants to spy on onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page without the infamous, Democrat-funded anti-Trump dossier.
The White House responded by saying the memo “raises serious concerns about the integrity of decisions made at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI to use the government’s most intrusive surveillance tools against American citizens.”
President Trump – as he did for the original GOP memo – has several days to consider whether he should block the release for national security reasons.
The Nunes memo has fueled accusations from Republicans of bias against Trump by top FBI and Justice Department officials.
Schiff said Monday said Democrats want to make sure the White House "does not redact our memo for political purposes."
Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, suggested Friday the president would be open to releasing the counter-memo.
“The administration stands ready to work with Congress to accommodate oversight requests consistent with applicable standards, including the need to protect intelligence sources and methods,” Sanders said of the Democratic memo.

"Hey, we caught ‘em. Oh its so fun. We’re like the great sleuth."

TRUMP: 'DID WE CATCH THEM IN THE ACT OR WHAT?'
Schiff -- referencing how Nunes has said the GOP memo was “phase one” of the process to release information on government surveillance abuses -- argued the Democratic memo is “phase two.”
Earlier Monday, during a speech in Ohio, the president celebrated the release of the GOP memo.
“Oh, but did we catch them in the act or what,” the president said. “You know what I’m talking [about]. Oh, did we catch them in the act!”
He added: “They are very embarrassed. They never thought that they were going to get caught. We caught ‘em. Hey, we caught ‘em. Oh its so fun. We’re like the great sleuth.”

Pelosi blames ‘incompetent’ Republicans for 5th stop-gap budget bill

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi faulted GOP "incompetence" as second government shutdown looms.  (AP)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday placed blame squarely on Republicans for being forced to pass yet another stop-gap funding bill amid Washington gridlock over immigration and border wall funding.

The fifth stop-gap, which will fund the government until March 23, has to be approved by Thursday in oder tom avert a shutdown.

“The reason Congress is facing a 5th stop-gap budget bill is because the Republican majority is incompetent,” Pelosi said in a statement. “And it is their incompetence that is placing in doubt how quickly our men and women in uniform can have the resources they need to keep our country safe.”
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told Fox News he expects the bill to pass with Republican votes only during the House vote tomorrow. Democrats have conveyed their displeasure with legislation—once again-- that doesn’t address former President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects young immigrants from deportation.
There is also talks within the Senate to increase spending “caps,” providing a boost to domestic and Pentagon programs. It would then be followed by a more detailed spending bill, which would be negotiated over an extended period of time.
"We are making real headway in our negotiations over spending caps and other important issues," said Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
The bill would be paired with a full-year, $659 billion Pentagon spending bill – an idea Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., quickly shot down, claiming it “would be barreling head first into a dead-end."
Last month, the government briefly shutdown after leaders on Capitol Hill failed to come to an agreement after weeks of finger pointing and casting blame across the aisle for many of the same reasons: DACA and border wall funding.
The two-year deal would increase caps on spending stemming from the failed 2011 budget deal, in which Republicans would seek roughly a $80 billion increase per year in defense spending, while offering Democrats about $60 billion in nondefense programs. However, details are kept close and subject to change.
In addition to hurricane aid funding, health care and money for President Trump’s border wall, the final cost would near $400 billion. The total cost of the 2018-19 budget years would mimic the deficit impact of last year’s tax measure over that period.
The Congressional Budget Office said Trump’s tax reform will account for about $700 billion in the red for 2018, before seeing any fresh increase from the legislation. And, with next year’s deficit already estimated to reach $975 billion, the potential agreement would represent the first $1 trillion-plus deficit since Obama’s first term.