Dear Republicans: To end Senate Democrats' obstruction, make them talk, make them work, make them vote

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks to the media on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, May 17, 2016.  (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Speaker Newt Gingrich was fond of saying “The Democrats are our adversaries.  The Senate is our enemy.”  The Senate has long been a frustration to the impatient warriors for change.  Its rules and culture are intentionally designed to be slow and deliberative, in contrast to the quick-moving partisan House.
Today, Republicans have control over all the levers of power.  The White House, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the state legislatures, and the governors -- they are all dominated by Republicans.  The conservative grassroots is rightfully expecting big things after years of promises.  And big things are happening.  The Trump administration is moving rapidly on a deregulatory agenda to use the administrative powers to advance conservative principles. The states are leading change in a wide range of areas -- right to work, fiscal responsibility, education freedom, and health care, to name a few.  And finally, nearly every week, the House of Representatives passes legislation with conservative reforms.
Conspicuously absent is the United States Senate.  Other than tax reform and judicial confirmations, the Senate has accomplished very little this year, and restless conservatives are eager for improvement.
In fact, as recently as last week, Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., led a group of fifteen Republican senators in sending a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., imploring him to let the Senate work. Outside conservative groups are making the same request.
If senators want to avoid a last minute, $1.3 trillion spending bill in December, fight back against Democratic obstruction and achieve conservative policy victories, they need to double down – before their month-long August break.
Even President Trump has echoed this request, calling on Congress to stay in town until they pass legislation to fund the government.

The second thing is to make them work. The Senate currently works an average of 2.5 days a week. Holding the Senate in town on Fridays and weekends would advance the Trump agenda while preventing the Democrats from going home to campaign for re-election

How can Republicans in the Senate force action in the face of Democrat obstruction? Three simple things: Make Democrats SPEAK. Make them WORK. Make them VOTE.
The first and most obvious, is to make them speak.  When most Americans think about a filibuster, we are reminded of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  Yet today, what do we see when we turn on CSPAN to watch a so-called filibuster? 
Most often, you will see nothing happening, and there will be a note on the TV screen saying, “the Senate is conducting a quorum call.”  But the clerk is not reading the names.  This is because the Senate Majority Leader has instructed the clerk to read the names slowly as a delay mechanism. 
In effect, it is not the Democrats who are filibustering; it is the clerk!  One easy change would be to instruct the clerk to actually read the names at a normal pace. Once the roll is called and a quorum is produced (this usually takes 15 minutes), the Democrats would either be forced to do an actual filibuster, or the Senate would immediately vote on the pending bill or nomination.
The second thing is to make them work.  The Senate currently works an average of 2.5 days a week.  Yes, 2.5 days.  They come in on Monday night, vote on an inconsequential nomination, and then they leave town after lunch on Thursday.  Not only is this resulting in an anemic pace of legislative achievement, it is helping the Democrats win re-election. 
Twenty-six Senate Democrats and only five Republicans are seeking re-election this year. Seven of those Democrats are in Republican-leaning states and two more are in toss-up states. With the exception of Dean Heller of Nevada and the seat currently held by Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is not seeking reelection, all the Republican senators seeking re-election are in relatively safe seats.
In other words, it is the Democrats who want to go home and campaign.  Holding the Senate in town on Fridays and weekends would advance the Trump agenda while preventing the Democrats from going home to campaign for re-election. Before the Virginia elections last fall, the Senate recessed on Thursday, November 2 at lunchtime, allowing Virginia’s senators to barnstorm the state all weekend, while Trump nominees languished without any votes.
Third, deploy the Two Speech Rule. Senate Rule 19 restricts senators to two speeches on any bill. Far from being nuclear, this rule is as old as the Senate. Indeed in Jefferson’s Manual. By keeping senators in town, making them talk, and restricting them to their allotted two speeches, you would force the Democrats to actually work. Eventually they would tire, filibusters would end, and votes would commence.
Finally, trust the American people. Notwithstanding the media noise and the inside the beltway blather, the American people have common sense. They see through the games.  To demonstrate this we need look no further than the latest government funding fight.  The Democrat plan was to close the government hoping to force Republicans to swallow an amnesty bill.  The geniuses inside the beltway claim that Republicans always take the blame for every shutdown, even when the Democrats are the obvious cause. But this is because usually, the Republicans cave. 
This time, Republicans stuck to their guns.  And the public saw through the cynical game the Democrats were playing, Sen. Schumer got smart and reversed course. They didn’t need 60 votes, or even 51.  The bill passed unanimously, with consent. It didn’t even need a vote.
Message to the Republican senators: Work hard, trust your principles, use the weapons at your disposal, and trust the American people, and victory will be yours. 
Adam Brandon is the president of FreedomWorks.
Jim DeMint is a former U.S. Senator from South Carolina and currently Chairman of the Conservative Partnership Institute.

House Republicans to call for second special counsel to investigate alleged FISA abuse, Hillary Clinton probe

A group of congressional Republicans plans to introduce a resolution Tuesday calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate alleged misconduct at the FBI and Justice Department.
The resolution is backed by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus as well as two of the group's co-founders -- Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla.
Fox News has learned the 12-page resolution will ask a second special counsel to probe matters related to three topics: The ending of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal email server, the progress of the Trump-Russia investigation from its origins through the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, and abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the warrant application process.
The resolution is expected to say that a second special counsel would have greater autonomy to investigate those issues than the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General. Last week, Inspector General Michael Horowitz told lawmakers that he had completed his draft report on the Clinton investigation and submitted it to the DOJ and the FBI.
In March, Horowitz said he would also look into allegations that FBI and Justice Department officials abused their surveillance powers by using information compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, and paid for by Democrats to justify monitoring Carter Page, a former campaign adviser to Trump.
At the time, Horowitz said his office would look at those claims as well as communications between Steele and DOJ and FBI officials.
Over the weekend, the Justice Department announced it had asked the watchdog to expand that investigation by examining whether any improper politically motivated surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016 took place.

In messaging shift, Democrats are now the ones promising to 'drain the swamp'

Democrats are now employing a familiar rallying cry that helped define President Trump's presidential campaign, a combative messaging shift ahead of what analysts say will be a bruising midterm election season.
Expect to hear Democrats urging voters to "drain the swamp" this time around, observers say, because their internal polling has shown that the electorate is increasingly concerned about weeding out corruption in Washington a year and a half after Trump's win.
"President Trump has embraced the most egregious establishment Republican norms and appointed the most conflict-of-interest-ridden Cabinet in my lifetime,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, told reporters Monday.
He added: “The swamp has never been more foul, or more fetid, than under this president.”
The move is a shift for Democrats, who last summer emphasized their positive plans to improve the economy, instead of taking shots at Trump and supposed cronyism in the White House, The Hill reported.
Last year's "Better Deal" program is out, replaced by a new "Better Deal for Our Democracy" slogan that's meant to emphasize the party's pledge to reduce the influence of lobbyists and implement stricter campaign finance laws.
And Democrats are widely expected to focus not just on the ongoing probe into key members of President Trump's campaign staff, but also on the alleged misdeeds of top administration officials, including EPA chief Scott Pruit, former HHS secretary Tom Price, and HUD head Ben Carson.
“Instead of delivering on his promise to ‘drain the swamp,’ President Trump has become the swamp,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, said Monday. “We want Republicans and their corrupt, big donor-driven agenda to get out of the way. It has given the American people a raw deal.”
The new messaging is something of a return to form for Pelosi, who famously vowed in 2006 to "drain the swamp" just prior to becoming the first female speaker of the House in history. The midterm elections that year ended more than a decade of GOP control of the House. Democrats aren't the only ones accusing President Trump of abandoning his campaign pledge. Earlier this month, Fox News' Neil Cavuto acknowledged that some media coverage of the White House has been unfair, but excoriated Trump for contributing to the problem.
“Let me be clear, Mr. President,” Cavuto said. “How can you drain the swamp if you’re the one who keeps muddying the waters?
"You didn’t know about the $130,000 payment to a porn star, until you did,” he added. “Said you knew nothing about how your former lawyer handled this, until you acknowledged today that you were the guy behind the retainer payment that took care of this. You insist that money from the campaign or campaign contributions played no role in this transaction. Of that you’re sure. The thing is, not even 24 hours ago, sir, you couldn’t recall any of this.”

Seattle Sanctuary City Cartoons

Smug Seattle to mom and pop landlords: Criminals are welcome! Your rights not so much

My landlord is a dying breed. He’s a middle-class guy who owns and rents out the tiny house we live in, built in the 1950s on the other side of the lake from Seattle. That house is his retirement plan.

When he comes to repair the stuff our kids break, he always asks about the latest with Seattle’s housing regulations. He asks because I’m an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest group that has sued Seattle over several of its housing ordinances. He’s terrified the misguided policies infecting Seattle’s housing market will spread across the lake. If that happens, my landlord would likely sell, as many Seattle landlords are doing now.

A few months ago, he fixed the toilet seat lid—which I broke this time—and stayed for a plate of spaghetti. We talked about two of Seattle’s recent housing laws we’re challenging in court: the first-in-time rule and the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.
First-in-time, the only ordinance of its kind in the country, required landlords to offer tenancy to the first applicant who meets rental criteria—credit history and such. We defeated that law in court in April. The Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, on the other hand, forbids landlords from checking criminal background or considering prior criminal convictions when selecting tenants.
Each of these laws by itself curtails landlords’ rights to their own property and raises serious safety and financial risks. But in tandem, the two rules make the risks of renting out property utterly intolerable for the average mom-and-pop landlord.
Two of my clients, MariLyn and Chong Yim, are raising their young family in one unit of a triplex they own. They have close relationships with their tenants/neighbors and share the yard.

Confidence in one’s good intentions is not a license to sacrifice property owners’ constitutional rights to make their own decisions about whom they share their property with.

Let’s say MariLyn meets the first person to apply for a vacant unit in her triplex. The applicant checks out on paper, but she’s disturbed to see his skin is littered with swastikas and prison tattoos.
Under the first-in-time rule, she would have had to offer him the unit. Happily, she can use her own judgment now to say no to someone who makes her feel unsafe, thanks to our court victory last year. But still, under the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, she can’t check someone’s criminal history to hunt for less obvious red flags. So far as she knows, she could be blindly renting the unit next door to her family to someone with a past murder conviction.
MariLyn, her family, and her other tenants simply become collateral damage in Seattle’s blind, self-congratulatory march to social justice. I understand why my landlord frets while he eats spaghetti at our dinner table.
The results of these laws are easy to predict. Small-time landlords like the Yims will respond in one of two ways: they’ll either try to filter out bad eggs by jacking up rent and toughening rental criteria, or they’ll just sell. Neither are desirable outcomes, but it already appears that many landlords are taking the second option. They simply can’t stomach trying to do business in such a toxic legal environment.
The great irony is this: the only entities capable of surviving as landlords in Seattle’s regulatory climate will be the large corporate residential leasing companies. They alone can endure in these mandates because they have the capital reserves and the sophistication to navigate the perils of renting out property in Seattle. If the Yims wind up with a bad tenant, they may well be years in the hole trying to recover. A housing and property management company, however, can spread the risk across a larger number of rental units. This is the bitter harvest of laws passed by the same city council that rails against big money in politics, that touts small business, and that decries corporate greed.
Mom-and-pop landlords are a boon to a community. They tend to offer lower rents. They can be more understanding when the rent check is late or your kid tears the towel rack from the bathroom wall. And they might sit down to dinner with you. But Seattle—if it has its way—will usher in more corporate property managers whose token personal touch might stretch as far as a bowlful of joyless candies at the reception desk.
Certainly, city leaders regard their attempt to help the marginalized as virtuous. And we should all want to help ex-offenders move on from their troubled pasts. And sure, rental practices should be fair and non-discriminatory. But confidence in one’s good intentions is not a license to sacrifice property owners’ constitutional rights to make their own decisions about whom they share their property with.
Pacific Legal Foundation’s lawsuits might yet save Seattle’s housing market from its false friends. But if Seattle continues on this trajectory, the city’s many tenants will be handing over a larger rent check, and they won’t be eating spaghetti with mom and pop.

Montana Border Patrol agent admits questioning US citizens for 'speaking Spanish in the store'

A Border Patrol agent in Montana appeared to admit on video that he wanted to question two women simply because they were speaking Spanish in a predominately English-speaking area.  

Two women making an early-morning gas station run in northern Montana on Wednesday were apparently questioned at length by a Border Patrol officer simply because they were speaking Spanish.
Ana Suda, 37, who said she was picking up eggs and milk with a friend, began recording the encounter and asked the officer why he had requested their identification in the parking lot.

"It's the fact that it has to do with you guys speaking Spanish in the store, in a state where it's predominantly English-speaking," the officer, who identified himself in the video as “Agent O’Neal,” told the women.
There are no indications in the video that the officer had detained the women, or that the encounter was involuntary. According to Suda, the episode lasted more than thirty minutes.
While the Border Patrol can ordinarily only conduct stops away from the border upon suspicion of a crime, officers are free to have voluntary interactions with individuals, so long as they reasonably understand they are free to go at any time.
Both women are reportedly U.S. citizens, and Suda told The Washington Post she is planning to contact the ACLU in contemplation of a lawsuit against the Border Patrol.
The agency said it will review the incident, which unfolded in Havre, Mont., near the border with Canada, The Post reported.
"I was so embarrassed ... being outside in the gas station, and everybody's looking at you like you're doing something wrong," Suda told The Post. "I don't think speaking Spanish is something criminal, you know? My friend, she started crying. She didn't stop crying in the truck. And I told her, we are not doing anything wrong."

DOJ asks watchdog to look into possible 'impropriety' after Trump demands probe on alleged campaign 'infiltration'

The Justice Department asked its watchdog to look into any alleged "impropriety or political motivation" in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, the DOJ said Sunday night -- hours after President Trump ordered a review looking into whether federal agents infiltrated or surveilled his campaign for political purposes.
"I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes -- and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!" the president tweeted.
"The Department has asked the Inspector General to expand the ongoing review of the (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election. As always, the Inspector General will consult with the appropriate U.S. Attorney if there is any evidence of potential criminal conduct," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores told Fox News.
She also released a response from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein: "If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action."
Trump, late last week, began accusing the Justice Department of trying to frame him by planting a spy in his campaign -- an allegation his own lawyer said might not be true.
Promoting a theory that is circulating, Trump quoted Fox Business anchor David Asman and tweeted Friday: "Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn't commit."
But Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani cast some doubt on that.
On whether there was an "informant" in the 2016 presidential campaign, Giuliani told CNN, "I don't know for sure, nor does the president, if there really was one," though he said they have long been told there was "some kind of infiltration."
Earlier this month, the National Review raised the question of a possible FBI spy in Trump's campaign. The article cites work by California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, an ardent Trump supporter and head of the House Intelligence Committee, who has demanded information on an FBI source in the Russia investigation.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee as its vice chairman, objected Friday to such demands, emphasizing "the critical importance of protecting sources and methods."
"It would be at best irresponsible, and at worst potentially illegal, for members of Congress to use their positions to learn the identity of an FBI source for the purpose of undermining the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in our election," Warner wrote in a statement. "Anyone who is entrusted with our nation's highest secrets should act with the gravity and seriousness of purpose that knowledge deserves."
The New York Times reported separately this past week that at least one government informant met several times with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, both former foreign policy advisers for Trump's Republican campaign.
The Times reported Friday that the informant talked to Page and Papadopoulos because they had suspicious contacts linked to Russia. The newspaper attributed the information to current and former FBI officials.
Also Friday, Giuliani said special counsel Robert Mueller has narrowed his possible interview subject areas from five to two as negotiations continue over whether the president will sit down and answer questions in the Russia investigation.
Mueller is investigating possible coordination between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign.
A number of Trump outside advisers -- including former chief strategist Stephen Bannon -- have stepped up their attacks on the Department of Justice, calling for it to release more documents to the White House while saying a confidential source has worked against Trump.

New scrutiny on Tony Podesta as Trump directly asked why he hasn't been charged

Tony Podesta, the older brother of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and co-founder of the onetime lobbying powerhouse the Podesta Group, was thrust back into the political spotlight after President Donald Trump pointedly questioned why he had not been "charged and arrested."
Trump focused on Podesta in one of a series of tweets Sunday attacking Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
In October, reports emerged that Mueller was investigating the Podesta Group over its lobbying work on behalf of a nonprofit group called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). According to the special counsel's indictment of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and associate Rick Gates, the Brussels-based ECMU functioned as a "mouthpiece" for Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's pro-Russian president between 2010 and 2014.
The indictment went on to allege that Manafort and Gates enlisted the Podesta Group and one other firm to lobby on behalf of the ECMU -- the "nominal client," in the words of the indictment -- so that Manafort and Gates could continue their work on Yanukovych's behalf without making the required legal disclosures to the Justice Department.
The indictment alleged that the Podesta Group was not paid directly by the ECMU, but rather through offshore bank accounts controlled by Manafort and Gates. It also claimed that Gates gave the Podesta Group false talking points in order to cover his and Manafort's tracks about their work for Yanukovych and ECMU.
Manafort is facing charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent and false statements related to his political work in Ukraine and loans he took out to purchase U.S. properties. Gates has pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges and making false statements and is cooperating with Mueller's investigation.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the ECMU paid the Podesta Group $1.02 million over 2012 and 2013 for its work.
Tony Podesta's name is not mentioned in the indictments of Manafort and Gates and it is not clear what, if anything, he knew about their work for the ECMU and Yanukovych. However, former Podesta Group staffers told ABC News they were skeptical about their prospective client.
"There was a lot of suspicion that it was a front for bad stuff," one ex-staffer said. Another said workers were concerned Podesta was bringing in "clients you wouldn’t want to touch with a 100-foot pole."
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Podesta was doing $5 million in overseas business by 2015, double what it had been four years earlier. According to the paper, some of those clients included the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and South Sudan.
That time frame coincided with Podesta's divorce from his second wife, Heather. The Journal reported he gave up "nearly $5 million in retirement savings" and agreed to pay his ex-wife $200,000 quarterly over five years.
The same day that Manafort and Gates' indictment went public, Oct. 30, Tony Podesta announced that he would step away from the firm. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Podesta Group's lobbying income had plummeted from a high of $29.3 million in 2010 at the height of the Obama presidency. In 2017, the firm took in $18.4 million, its lowest income since 2008, as clients who hired Podesta in anticipation of a Hillary Clinton presidency melted away.
As the Journal reported, the firm's longtime bank had cut ties in the summer of 2016 over its involvement with an American subsidiary of a sanctioned Russian bank. The same week as the Manafort and Gates indictment, the Podesta Group missed a deadline set by its new banker to pony up $655,000 and its line of credit was cut. During that week, Podesta reportedly shot down an idea to use his art collection -- valued in the millions of dollars -- as collateral for a loan.
The Podesta Group ceased operations in November of last year. Most of its employees joined a new firm, Cogent Strategies, headed up by Podesta's last CEO, Kimberley Fritts.
ABC News reported Sunday that six former employees were interviewed by federal investigators in connection with the Mueller investigation. The Journal reported at the time of those interviews that Podesta offered to have the firm pay their legal fees. Three former associates told ABC Newa they had not been reimbursed.