Intelligence Committee Democrats hell bent on destroying Trump presidency

Schiff blasts Nunes' 'dead of night excursion' for documents

The House Intelligence Committee is supposed to be more bipartisan than other House committees and a place where members conduct serious oversight of America’s intelligence agencies. Its members are expected to put politics aside to oversee sensitive intelligence programs that are crucial to protecting our nation’s national security.
That’s not what we saw in Monday’s rare open Intelligence Committee hearing.  Democratic members spent every minute of the hearing to smear the president before the cameras. By doing so, they made a mockery of bipartisan intelligence oversight.
Republican Intelligence Committee members were taken off guard by hyper-partisan behavior of their Democratic colleagues. At the hearing there were some useful exchanges between Republican members and Comey on the seriousness of recent leaks of intelligence as well as the unmasking and illegal disclosure of General Michael Flynn’s name from NSA reports.  Unfortunately, these discussions were overshadowed by the Democrats who were much more aggressive in pushing their Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.
Congressional Republicans must learn from this episode that the Democratic Party is so obsessed with destroying President Trump that their Democratic colleagues cannot be trusted to engage in good faith deliberations or hearings on anything that they can use to hurt Trump.  Sadly, this includes national security.
This means there should be no more open hearings on issues like Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Additional open hearings that the Senate and House Intelligence Committees have scheduled on this issue should be made closed hearings.
Republicans seemed to have gotten the message on this. Friday, an open House Intelligence Committee hearing scheduled for next week on the Russia/election hearing scheduled was cancelled. It will be replaced with a closed hearing.
If open congressional hearings on the Russia/election or similar issues are held, Republican members must be much more aggressive in pursuing leaks of classified information and the abuse of U.S intelligence by the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign. Committee chairmen should run such hearings with iron gavels and give Democratic members zero leeway to turn them into political circuses.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes proved that he knows what he’s up against in the aftermath of Monday’s intelligence committee hearing by the way he handled new information suggesting that the Obama administration did surveil the Trump campaign.
Nunes was given intelligence, apparently under the table from U.S. intelligence officers, which indicates the names of Trump campaign aides were “demasked” in intelligence reports that had nothing to do with Russia or any alleged wrongdoing by the Trump campaign.
This is a big deal because the names of American citizens incidentally collected by U.S. intelligence agencies are blacked out and are not supposed to be revealed unless there is a compelling national security reason.
Nunes has been condemned by Intelligence Committee Democrats and the news media by the way he disclosed this information since he presented it to the press without informing his Democratic colleagues in advance. Nunes also informed the White House about this information before he briefed the committee and is refusing to tell Democratic committee members the name or names of his sources.
Maybe Nunes should not have brought this information to the White House before he briefed committee members.  (He apologized to them for this.)
My view is that Nunes took the right approach. He knows it is pointless to work with committee Democrats on this issue and if he had brought this intelligence to them before his press conference, they would have quickly leaked this information to the press to discredit it.
Nunes also is absolutely right in not revealing the name or names of his sources since there is a good chance committee Democrats would try to out these sources or get their managers to retaliate against them. I saw this happen when I worked for the CIA.
This story looks like it will soon get even more interesting. Fox News’ James Rosen reported Thursday that the committee may soon receive – possibly today -- intelligence that “is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump.”
Nunes was smart to double down on his effort to fight back against Democratic politicization of intelligence oversight when he said at a press conference Friday that he was cancelling an open hearing next week on the Russia election hearing and had turned it into a closed hearing.
In addition, Nunes said he has recalled FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Rogers to testify to this hearing.
I assume Nunes’ new information, the FBI’s refusal to fully cooperate with the committee’s investigation and Comey’s failure to fully answer questions about intelligence leaks are why Nunes is recalling Comey and Rogers.
Predictably, Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee complained bitterly in a follow-up press conference Friday that Nunes cancelled the open hearing and questioned why Comey and Rogers were being recalled.
It was the height of gall for Schiff to complain that Nunes’ actions indicate he is not interested in an independent and objective investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election after Schiff and his Democratic colleagues proved at Monday’s hearing that they are only interested in using this investigation to destroy the Trump presidency.
Nunes realizes this and decided to fight back.  Until congressional Democrats start putting the good of the country above their hatred of President Trump, Republican congressional leaders must employ similar tactics to do the work of the American people and safeguard our national security.
Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC national security think tank. He held U.S. government national security positions for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Fleitz also served as Chief of Staff to John R. Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz specializes in the Iranian nuclear program, terrorism, and intelligence issues. He is the author of "Peacekeeping Fiascos of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions and U.S. Interests" (Praeger, May 30, 2002).

Trump administration approves Keystone XL pipeline

WASHINGTON –  The Trump administration has issued a presidential permit to pipeline builder TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer tweeted that President Donald Trump would discuss the pipeline later Friday morning.
The State Department says that it determined that building Keystone serves the U.S. national interest. That's the opposite conclusion to the one the State Department reached during the Obama administration.
The State Department says it considered foreign policy and energy security in making the determination.
The permit was signed by Tom Shannon, a career diplomat serving as undersecretary of state for political affairs. That's because Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recused himself due to his previous work running Exxon Mobil.
Keystone will carry tar sands oil from Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Freedom Caucus drives dagger into heart of young Trump presidency

Trump pulls the plug on the GOP plan to repeal ObamaCare

It is hard to overestimate the damage the Freedom Caucus has done to the fledgling presidency of Donald Trump, and to the country. By blocking the American Health Care Act of 2017, the conservative group has guaranteed that Americans will struggle forward under the burden of Obamacare. In the next few months insurers will announce their premium hikes for the coming year; chances are, given the continuing withdrawal of major companies from the marketplaces and the ongoing failure of the bill to attract enough young and healthy participants, the new rates will not be pretty. Last year premiums went up 25%; it’s likely the increases will be higher this year.
Republicans will own those higher rates. Their failure to repeal the financial underpinnings of Obamacare and start replacing that failing program with an approach that encourages competition and that embodies numerous other common sense reforms will mean that families hit by ever-higher costs will blame the GOP. Voters elected Donald Trump and a GOP Congress to get this job done – the number one promise of every Republican campaign since 2010.
Now the Republican Party inherits the Sisyphean task of managing Obamacare’s inevitable decline. They are no longer critics; they are now the producers of the show. It is unlikely that House Speaker Paul Ryan or Trump will have the political will and patience to return to the drawing board and attempt to craft a brand new bill. They have made other commitments to voters, and so Obamacare, as a defeated Paul Ryan admitted after withdrawing the AHCA, is the law of the land. Live with it.
Of course, the damage is not limited to healthcare reform. The undermining of the House leadership is profound and clouds prospects of tax reform, infrastructure spending and other important jobs to be done. If Ryan cannot be counted on to herd the cats on healthcare, how do we know he can round up votes on tax reform?
It is the young Trump presidency, however, that takes the biggest hit here. Trump was elected because people across the political spectrum thought he could fix some of our problems. He was the businessman who could import common sense to Washington, and the deal maker who could bring people together. He made big promises; a country tired of stalemate and disappointment believed that he could bring back jobs, reduce our debt, build the wall, find a better healthcare solution.
His credibility and credentials now lie in tatters. All that optimism that has stoked the stock market and boosted investment plans – all that may fade.
Who is to blame? House Speaker Paul Ryan will be dragged through the mud for failing to win enough votes. He will also be criticized for concocting an arguably complicated and overly cerebral approach to the mission at hand. The AHCA was only part of the solution; Ryan vowed to press forward with more changes – like allowing insurers to compete across state lines, expanded health savings accounts and Medicaid reforms – in future legislation. It was a complex three-step approach; framing a sales pitch was all but impossible.
He was hemmed in by the strictures of reconciliation, through which Obamacare was to be dismantled but even so, it was a hard story to tell. Once the CBO published their score, showing that 24 million would lose coverage by 2026, Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues were off to the races, souring the country on Ryan’s bill. Few noted that subsequent measures would make the numbers significantly more appealing. Negative polling encouraged those keen to defeat it, and defeat it they did.
Nancy Pelosi mocked Trump for bringing the bill to the floor before he had the votes; that won’t sit well with a president who likes winning. So far, he is blaming Democrats, but he will doubtless find others – including perhaps the Speaker – to chastise for the loss. That will be unfortunate. As an outsider, President Trump has to rely on some seasoned hands to move bills through Congress; notwithstanding this recent defeat, Vice President Pence, chief of staff Reince Priebus and Paul Ryan are an excellent and necessary team. Relying on executive orders, as Obama did, produces unsustainable measures easily overturned by the courts.
Outraged Republicans should save most of their ire for the Freedom Caucus. The group of 30-odd conservatives are patting themselves on the backs this evening; joining their celebration are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Hillary Clinton declared the failure a victory, while disgusted Republicans across the country wonder how it went so wrong.
Caucus leader Mark Meadows, who hails from western North Carolina, may find himself under scrutiny. People may wonder why the American Society of Anesthesiologists was one of the top five funders of Meadows’ campaign and why health professionals were among the top five industries donating to his reelection in 2016. Medical groups typically like Obamacare, which provides healthcare services to an expanded population. Did they count on Meadows undermining Obamacare repeal? Did they know that thanks to his efforts, Obamacare would carry on?
Meadows could well find himself with a primary challenger in 2018 who promises to support Donald Trump. After all, Trump carried North Carolina, and especially the western regions.
And Meadows may not be alone. The National Republican Congressional Committee has been hauling in record amounts of money these past few months – money that can go to fielding candidates that support the White House. The Chair of the NRCC is Ohio’s Steve Stivers, who was a yes vote for the AHCA. His predecessor at the NRCC was Oregon Representative Greg Walden, who campaigned all-out for the AHCA. It’ unlikely either Stivers or Walden will champion the reelection of Meadows or his colleagues.
The Trump White House is apparently going to move on to the other items on the agenda. The country will watch to see if the administration can bring tax reform about. With Democrats obstructing every move, nothing will be easy. But with Democrats and the Freedom Caucus standing in the way of the Trump agenda, nearly everything becomes impossible.

Schumer plans for 'nuclear' showdown with McConnell

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday that Judge Neil Gorsuch did little to win over Democrats and predicted that Republicans will not get the votes needed to avoid a filibuster
Schumer was among five senators to declare their opposition to Gorsuch Thursday, even before the Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination had ended.
Schumer said he would lead a filibuster against Gorsuch, criticizing him as a judge who “almost instinctively favors the powerful over the weak.” Schumer said the 49-year-old Coloradan would not serve as a check on Trump or be a mainstream justice.
“There’s been an almost seismic shift in the caucus [against Gorsuch],” he told Politico. “He did not win anybody over with his testimony.”
The vote is expected in early April. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not indicated whether he will employ the option.
Democrats may have some momentum after the Republican-backed ObamaCare replacement died before a vote on Friday.
Senate Democrats vowed Thursday to impede Gorsuch’s path to the Supreme Court, setting up a political showdown with implications for future openings on the high court.
Still irate that Republicans blocked President Obama’s nominee, Democrats consider Gorsuch a threat to a wide range of civil rights and think he was too evasive during 20 hours of questioning. Whatever the objections, Republicans who control the Senate are expected to ensure that President Donald Trump’s pick reaches the bench, perhaps before the middle of April.
A Supreme Court seat has been open for more than 13 months, since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Scalia, Gorsuch has a mainly conservative record in more than 10 years as a federal appellate judge.
Shortly before Schumer’s announcement, Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, who faces re-election next year in a state Trump won, also announced his opposition. Casey said he had “serious concerns about Judge Gorsuch’s rigid and restrictive judicial philosophy, manifest in a number of opinions he has written on the 10th Circuit.”
Democratic Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware and Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, also said they would vote against Trump’s nominee, among at least 11 senators who say they will oppose Gorsuch in the face of pressure from liberals to resist all things Trump, including his nominees.

Bad ObamaCare Cartoons

Senate leader demands to know why accused rapist was allowed to enter US illegally

A leading U.S. senator is demanding to know why a teenager from Central America accused of raping and sodomizing a 14-year-old girl in a Maryland high school was allowed to enter and remain in the U.S. since crossing the border illegally months ago.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said Henry E. Sanchez-Milian, 18, of Guatemala, was detained by Border Patrol in Rio Grande Valley, Texas, last August after entering the U.S. illegally. The immigration status of another suspect in the rape, Jose O. Montano, 17, from El Salvador, was unclear. ICE reported Sanchez was ordered to appear before an immigration judge, but the hearing had not been scheduled. The agency would not release any information about Montano, citing his age.
“On March 16, 2017, a tragic event occurred in Montgomery County, Maryland. According to news reports, a 14-year old student was dragged into a high school restroom and raped by two teenage boys,” Johnson wrote in a March 22 letter to Thomas Homan, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). “At a hearing March 22, Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, testified if Border Patrol had properly done its job, neither Sanchez-Milian or Montano would have been present in this country to commit this heinous act.”
Johnson wants to know if the teens arrived in the U.S. under the President Obama’s Unaccompanied Minor Program, which allowed thousands of unaccompanied children fleeing violence in their country to cross the border illegally from Central America and remain in the United States. He also wanted to know more about Montano, and whether he also was picked up by Border Patrol.
Johnson’s inquiry followed testimony from Judd, who said: “Had we done our job, that 14-year-old girl would have never been raped. Period. Had we held those individuals in custody, or that one individual in custody pending a determination that this person should be allowed to remain in this country, that rape would not have happened. We failed the citizens of this great nation by not securing the border.”
County charging documents allege that Montano and Sanchez-Milian forced their female classmate into a boy’s bathroom near the school gym last Thursday at 9 a.m., where they allegedly raped and sodomized her and forced her to perform oral sex.
After school officials reported the incident, detectives from the Montgomery County Police Department Special Victims Investigations Division arrested Montano and Sanchez-Milian. A forensic team recovered blood and male fluids from the bathroom, court records show.
Both boys, who are enrolled as freshman because of their weak English language skills, were charged with first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sexual offense and will be tried as adults.
The judge who oversaw their bond hearing refused to release them on bail, because the students are “dangerous and flight risks.”
The case has sent shockwaves through the state, to Congress and to the White House.

"We failed the citizens of this great nation by not securing the border.”
- Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)

White House spokesman Sean Spicer commented on the case Tuesday in a press briefing: "The reason the president has made it such a priority to crack down on illegal immigration is because of cases like this."
ICE has since lodged an immigration detainer against Sanchez-Milian, so ICE can take custody of him when he is released, but it is unclear whether local law enforcement will comply.
Officials in Montgomery County have been pushing to make the area a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, and four days after the girl’s rape the House passed a measure that would essentially make the entire state a safe haven for illegal aliens, criminal or otherwise.
“It is longstanding county policy that county police do not enforce federal immigration law. Neither will they inquire about immigration status when individuals are stopped nor target individuals based on their ethnicity, race or religious beliefs,” said the Charles Immigrant Resource Center in a guide for immigrants who recently moved to Montgomery. “The county’s law enforcement leaders are also committed to our values, and they will continue working to build trust in our community.”
Montgomery County, where the alleged rape took place, is on a list released this week by ICE of “jurisdictions that have enacted policies which limit cooperation with ICE.”
Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan noted in a statement to the media this week about the case: “When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect the public safety and carry out its mission.”
Montgomery County is not the worst, “but it’s pretty bad,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.
“When Northern Virginia cracked down around 2005 from 2011, many illegals moved to Montgomery County, where they knew they would be treated more leniently,” Vaughan said.
Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who opposes the sanctuary legislation, said he is “outraged by the brutal and violent rape of a 14-year-old girl in a Rockville public school” and called on Montgomery County “to immediately and fully cooperate with all federal authorities during the investigation.”
“The public has a right to know how something this tragic and unacceptable was allowed to transpire in a public school,” Hogan said.

Rep. Nunes: 'I had a duty and obligation' to tell Trump of surveillance int

The chairman of the House intelligence committee told Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday night that "I felt like I had a duty and obligation to tell" President Trump that members of the intelligence community "incidentally collected" communications from Trump's transition team.
POTENTIAL 'SMOKING GUN' SHOWING OBAMA ADMINISTRATION MAY HAVE SPIED ON TRUMP TEAM, SOURCE SAYS
"As you know [Trump]’s been taking a lot of heat in the news media," Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told host Sean Hannity, "and I think to some degree there are some things that he should look at to see whether in fact he thinks the collection was proper or not."
Nunes was criticized by the committee's ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for making the information public without first telling them. Another of the committee's Democrats, Jackie Speier of California, told reporters Nunes had apologized to them earlier Thursday.
TRUMP TEAM COMMUNICATIONS CAPTURED BY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE, NUNES SAYS
Nunes told Hannity that the committee expected to get further information about the intercepted messages Friday. He reiterated that the reports he saw "had nothing to do with Russia ... but it was important enough that I thought the president of the United States should know what is being said about him and his transition team."
The chairman also said the lack of an FBI investigation into who leaked details of phone calls between then-national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to Washington was "quite concerning."
"We need to make sure that these leaks are being tracked down," Nunes said, "and it’s part of our investigation ... to make sure that we do try to find who was at least knowledgeable of the information that eventually got leaked."

What you need to know before the House votes on GOP bill to replace ObamaCare

What you need to know before the House votes on GOP plan to replace ObamaCare
The White House and Republican Leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives announced they will not hold the vote on the American Health Care Act on Thursday night as planned, after they struggled to muster the necessary support.
Here’s what you need to know:
What House Republicans Need

• The party breakdown in the House is 237 Republicans to 193 Democrats, meaning Republicans need 216 votes
• Only 21 Republicans can vote ‘no’ for the bill to pass with no Democratic support
• House Speaker Paul Ryan told Fox News Wednesday that Democrats opposed almost every piece of the bill, and said “I don’t think the people who created ObamaCare are going to be working with us to get rid of Obamacare.”
• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the bill a "moral monstrosity"

White House

• President Trump welcomed members of the House Freedom Caucus, the conservative bloc of House Republicans, to the White House on Thursday in an effort to sway members
• Yesterday, more than 25 House Freedom Caucus members were leaning toward voting against the bill
• Ryan called the president a “fantastic closer” who had whipped 10 member votes in favor of the legislation
• But after the meeting, House Freedom Caucus members said they had not yet struck a deal
• In the daily White House press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that President Trump and members of the House Freedom Caucus have agreed that healthcare costs need to be lower
• White House said they continue to see the number of healthcare bill supports rise and “that’s a very positive sign”

House set to vote on ObamaCare replacement bill after Trump ultimatum

White House officials said late Thursday President Trump wants the House to vote Friday on the legislation to begin dismantling ObamaCare, and if it fails, he is “done with health care,” and ready to move on to tax reform, a source told Fox News.
"My understanding is he’s going to get it," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on "The O'Reilly Factor."
"We’re hoping to make this the last anniversary that any American has to suffer under ObamaCare by instilling a patient-centric health care system in place, and the president has made that case to members throughout the spectrum of the Republican conference, and tomorrow, it’s time to vote," he added.
After a few procedural moves, the House will likely vote on the bill sometime in the mid-to-late afternoon. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., thinks it will wrap up by 4:30 or 5 p.m. ET (WATCH FOX NEWS CHANNEL FOR COMPLETE COVERAGE). If the bill passes, it will be a monumental achievement for Speaker Ryan and Trump. But if the bill stumbles, recriminations will abound.
Republican leaders Thursday canceled a vote after leadership's attempts to lobby enough votes apparently failed -- a major setback for Ryan and Trump.
"For seven and a half years we've been promising the American people that we will repeal and replace this broken law because it's collapsing and failing families," House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters after meeting with Republican leaders. "Tomorrow we're proceeding."
Trump and Republican leaders had spent much of the day scrambling to get both moderates and conservatives on board with the increasingly unpopular legislation.
"We have not gotten enough of our members to get to yes at this point under what we have now," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told reporters.
Ryan postponed his press conference twice as he worked with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy R-Calif., Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., and Chief Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., to get enough votes to get the American Healthcare Act through the House on the seventh anniversary of ObamaCare's passage.
The House Rules Committee is expected to prep the health care bill starting at 7am ET Friday.
When asked about the timing of the vote McCarthy told Fox News the House should be "done in the afternoon" but said Democrats could delay things.
Meanwhile, Trump met inside the Cabinet room with the Freedom caucus to try and rally conservatives to the cause. He also tweeted, urging supporters to call their representatives to back the bill.
A senior administration official told Fox News after the meeting with Trump and the conservative group that there was a deal in the works, but that it was not yet finalized. A source from the Freedom Caucus later said there wasn't yet a deal.
"I would say progress is being made, and that progress should be applauded with the efforts by the White House to deliver on a campaign promise, and to lower premiums for every American from coast to coast and in between," Meadows said. He also called Trump's involvement "unparalleled in the history of our country."
When asked if this was a loss for the president, Meadows said: "Absolutely not."
Earlier in the day, Spicer had expressed confidence that the White House was would be voted on and would pass.
"It’s going to pass. That’s it," he said at his daily press briefing.
Spicer also noted that Trump had been making calls past 11 p.m. Wednesday night to try and bring members on board.
Sources later told Fox News that the White House was anticipating a vote after midnight, but that was before the vote was canceled.
House Republicans were due to meet about the around 7 p.m. ET, but there appeared no clear path to pass the bill.
In appealing to conservatives with concessions that include limiting requirements that plans offer benefits including maternity and substance abuse care, Republican leaders risk scaring off moderates. A plan to cut funding to Planned Parenthood also risked spooking centrist Republicans.
Meanwhile, Democrats blasted what they saw as Republicans’ amateurish maneuvering. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said it was a "rookie's error" to bring the legislation to a vote so early, and urged fellow Democrats to oppose the legislation.
“While Republicans scramble to make TrumpCare even more destructive, our Caucus must continue to be fully engaged today in exposing its disastrous consequences for the American people,” she told colleagues in a letter Thursday.
The AHCA would stop ObamaCare’s tax penalties against Americans who choose not to buy coverage, as well as cutting the federal-state Medicaid program for low earners. It would also give tax credits to help people pay medical bills, while allowing insurers to charge older Americans more. It would also repeal tax increases on high-earners and health companies.

Obamacare Cartoons

Smugness watch: Some liberals say it's okay to hate Trump voters

There is, in some precincts on the left, an earnest attempt to understand Trump voters, those strange creatures that are standing by their man, and figure out how the Democrats might win them back.
During the campaign I talked about Donald Democrats and how the billionaire’s appeal to working-class folks might help him win the election, as he did in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The Dems used to be the party of the working class, but Trump made a connection that the party of global trade deals and climate change failed to forge.
“Democrats often sound patronizing when speaking of Trump voters…It’s hard to win over voters whom you’re insulting,” New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wrote last month.
But now there’s a counterargument emerging about Trump voters, which can be summarized thusly: Screw ’em.
This mad-as-hell view has been galvanized by reports that many Trump voters may lose their health insurance if the House version of ObamaCare repeal passes. The liberal gloaters say it serves them right.
From this perspective, those voters are too dumb to vote in their own economic self-interest and they’re probably gone for good. So it’s better to energize the Bernie Sanders base than to struggle to understand why many blue-collar Americans feel alienated from the Obama/Clinton party.
Frank Rich, the former Times columnist now with New York magazine, makes this argument in ridiculing what he calls Hillbilly Chic.
He questions whether “pandering” to Trump voters is “another counterproductive detour into liberal guilt, self-flagellation, and political correctness.” Rather than feeling everyone’s pain, “might the time have at last come for Democrats to weaponize their anger instead of swallowing it?”
Rich admits that “the party is a wreck,” with no power and most of its leaders “of Social Security age.” But he sees Trump voters as basically synonymous with the GOP:
“That makes it all the more a fool’s errand for Democrats to fudge or abandon their own values to cater to the white-identity politics of the hard-core, often self-sabotaging Trump voters who helped drive the country into a ditch on Election Day. If we are free to loathe Trump, we are free to loathe his most loyal voters, who have put the rest of us at risk.”
Sounds like Frank is weaponizing his own anger.
I just don’t get the loathing, unless you subscribe to the view that anyone who supports Trump is by definition odious. If the Democrats write off everyone who backed Trump, even if it was because they didn’t trust Hillary, aren’t they making it harder to put together an electoral majority of liberals and minorities?
Salon takes a different tack with a critical piece titled “The Smug Style in American Politics.” (There are photos of Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann, though they have nothing to do with the article.)
The story by Conor Lynch says the Democratic view is of “large numbers of American people voting against their apparent interests because of their ignorance and cultural backwardness.
“After decades of watching millions of Americans vote for right-wing charlatans who advocated economic policies that serve the wealthy and screw everyone else, some liberals have basically given up on appealing to these perceived yokels, who seem to care more about criminalizing abortion and hoarding guns than obtaining health are and decent wages. They are dumb, credulous and often intolerant; so why should we — progressive, rational, forward-thinking liberals — sympathize or try to reason with them? Let them lose their health care; maybe they’ll learn something this time around (though we all know they won’t).”
Lynch concludes that both parties have failed these voters and that “cheering as people lose their health insurance may not be the best way to go about this.”
Ya think?
We live in a divided country. And when Barack Obama won in 2008, some of those who opposed him tried to marginalize him and vowed to “take our country back.”
Do some in Obama’s party want to do the same thing now? Blame not just the Republican president but the 60 million people who put him in the White House? Isn’t that a big, well, smug?
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

Immigration: As LA rebuffs Trump's order, others embrace it

Los Angeles mayor expands protection for immigrants

Los Angeles went a step further than the rest of the country Tuesday in shielding illegal immigrants from immigration officials: It passed a directive forbidding firefighters and airport police from cooperating with federal immigration agents.
The directive was yet another attempt by the city to rebuff the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. The Los Angeles Police Department already prohibits police from even asking a suspect’s legal status – even with probable cause.
It follows a wave of similar measures across the country by cities and states that are vowing to not only resist the president’s tough immigration measures – but outright defy it.
DHS NAMES LOCAL JAILS THAT WON'T HOLD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
“In Los Angeles, we don't separate people from their families because it's inhumane,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Tuesday. “In Los Angeles, we don't demonize our hardworking neighbors just because they speak another language or come from another country. That's un-American.”
There are about 300 jurisdictions that don't cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to turn over illegal immigrants.
President Trump has threatened to withhold federal funds from these so-called sanctuary cities. The administration has refused to tell Fox News if, when or how they plan to do so.
But while states like New York and California are pushing to defy the president’s immigration policies, others are embracing them.
WHITE HOUSE BLAMES MD. SCHOOL RAPE ON LAX BORDER, SANCTUARY POLICIES
Several states are attempting to leverage the power of the purse to force more liberal cities to cooperate with ICE. Lawmakers in Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Texas introduced bills to penalize sanctuary cities. On Tuesday, Mississippi became the first state to approve such a bill. The governor has vowed to sign it.
By contrast, lawmakers in California are close to passing legislation that would prohibit police or jails from even talking to ICE, a move critics say is a clear violation of federal law.
That proposal is opposed by several sheriffs who oversee jails, including LA Sheriff Jim McDonnell.
"We look to be able to strike that balance between public safety and trust," said McDonnell, who oversees the nation's largest jail.
"We do a better job because we work together than we otherwise would; counter-terrorism is a great example."
McDonnell is one of the few politicians opposing the bill because it would prohibit jail officials from even identifying violent criminal aliens for deportation.
"We can allow ICE access to those individuals. That's a system that by and large works very well for us at this point and one of the main reasons I look at Senate Bill 54 as something that is unnecessary."
McDonnell also told the Los Angeles Times that the proposal before state lawmakers would hurt immigrants – not help them. He told the Times that if immigration officials cannot go to the jails to pick up illegal immigrants then they will fan out through the streets to find them.
“They are going to have no choice but to go into the communities and arrest not only the individual they are seeking but also people who are with that person, or other people in the area who are undocumented,” McDonnell told the Times. “That is something none of us want.”

ObamaCare replacement bill in jeopardy after conservatives, moderates fail to reach deal

House Republicans' ObamaCare replacement plan was in peril early Thursday after lengthy leadership and committee meetings failed to produce an agreement that would shore up support among conservative members.
"We have not cut the deal yet," said House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. The committee spent 13 hours in session Wednesday without setting up a formal rule governing debate on the health care bill, which had been expected to be voted on by the full House Thursday.
Sessions said he suspected that House Republicans would try to agree on a path forward for the bill when they meet in conference Thursday morning.
The Rules Committee, usually tightly controlled by GOP leadership, had been expected to let the chamber vote on revisions that top Republicans concocted to win votes. These include adding federal aid for older people and protecting upstate New York counties -- but not Democratic-run New York City -- from repaying the state billions of dollars for Medicaid costs.
Instead, the meeting broke up without any of the amendments being voted on.
While the committee was in session, House Speaker Paul Ryan was meeting with moderate Republicans from Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maine and New York as well as members of leadership. One of those moderates, Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., issued a statement Wednesday saying he would oppose the bill.
"I believe this bill, in its current form, will lead to the loss of coverage and make insurance unaffordable for too many Americans, particularly for low-to-moderate income and older individuals," Dent said before calling for House Republicans to "step back from this vote and arbitrary deadline to focus on getting health care reform done right to ensure that American families have access to affordable health care."
However, another Pennsylvania Republican, Lou Barletta, said he had switched from "no" to "yes" after Trump endorsed his bill to use Social Security numbers to hinder people from fraudulently collecting tax credits. Barletta, an outspoken foe of illegal immigration, said he had been promised a vote next month on the measure by Ryan.
The talks had focused on language to placate conservatives demanding repeal of ObamaCare's requirements that insurers pay for so-called "essential health benefits" — specified services like maternity care, prescription drugs and substance abuse treatment.
Earlier Wednesday evening, the leader of the House Freedom Caucus sounded a note of optimism after President Donald Trump huddled at the White House with 18 lawmakers, a mix of supporters and opponents.
"Tonight is an encouraging night," said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who for days has said he has the votes to kill the measure. "But I don't want to be so optimistic as to say the deal is done."
The Republican legislation would halt Obama's tax penalties against people who don't buy coverage and cut the federal-state Medicaid program for low earners, which the statute expanded. It would provide tax credits to help people pay medical bills, though generally skimpier than the aid Obama's statute provides. It also would allow insurers to charge older Americans more and repeal tax boosts the law imposed on high-income people and health industry companies.
In a count by The Associated Press, at least 26 Republicans said they opposed the bill and others were leaning that way, enough to narrowly defeat the measure. The number was in constant flux amid eleventh-hour lobbying by the White House and GOP leaders.
Including vacancies and expected absentees, the bill would be defeated if 23 Republicans join all Democrats in voting "no."
In a show of support for the opponents, the conservative Koch network promised Wednesday night to spend millions of dollars to defeat the health care overhaul, the influential network's most aggressive move against the bill.
Moderates were daunted by projections of 24 million Americans dropping their health coverage in a decade and higher out-of-pocket costs for many low-income and older people, as predicted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
In addition to Trump's powow at the White House, Vice President Mike Pence saw around two dozen lawmakers. Participants in the Pence meeting said there were no visible signs of weakened opposition and described one tense moment. Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, said White House chief strategist Steve Bannon told them: "We've got to do this. I know you don't like it, but you have to vote for this."
Weber said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, bristled.
"When somebody tells me I have to do something, odds are really good that I will do exactly the opposite," Barton said, according to Weber.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said that talk of deleting the insurance coverage requirements had converted him into a supporter. But before the late talks, others were skeptical.
"We're being asked to sign a blank check," said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., who's been an opponent. "In the past, that hasn't worked out so well."
Some Republicans were showing irritation at their party's holdouts, all but accusing them of damaging the GOP.
"At some point we have to cowboy up and prove we can govern," said Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. "Otherwise we're just going to be the `no' party and some people are OK with that, it appears."

London attack: UK police arrest 7 in massive pre-dawn raids

British police said Thursday that six homes were raided and seven arrests were made in connection to the terror attack that left five dead, including the attacker and a police officer.
Armed police carried out the raid in the central city of Birmingham, about 130 miles north of London. Police said they believed the attacker acted alone and was “inspired by international terrorism.” The identity of the attacker has not been released.
UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon added that the assumption is the attack was related to “Islamic terrorism in some form.”
The chaos unfolded on the Westminster Bridge near the Parliament building when an SUV mowed down pedestrians on the bridge. London metro police counterterrorism Chief Mark Rowley said that 29 people were hospitalized and seven were in critical condition.
British Prime Minister Theresa May called the attack a “sick and depraved” act, but did not elevate the terror threat level, which was already at severe.
Three civilians were among those killed. Rowley identified the officer as Keith Palmer, 45, who had served as an officer for 15 years.
Rowley said Wednesday it was still “too early” to release the name of the attacker, but added that officials "think we know who the attacker is and are working to establish who his associates are."
Armed and unarmed patrols have been stepped up as a precaution across the country, he said.

Rep. Maxine Waters Cartoons

Rep. Maxine Waters veiled threat to Trump: 'Get ready for impeachment'

Some Democrats are calling for President Trump's impeachment

A California Democrat seems to think that President Trump shouldn't get too comfortable in the White House, and is repeating her claim that impeachment is a very real possibility.
"Get ready for impeachment," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., wrote on Twitter early Tuesday. Waters didn't add any kind of context as to what may have inspired the declaration, or whether she was referring to President Trump, specifically.
But the impeachment of President Trump is an idea she's brought up plenty of times before.
Waters was asked over the weekend about a March 16 tweet in which she included a picture of what she called "Trump's Kremlin Klan." When pressed on whether her constituents still care "about this Trump-Russia connection," Waters told MSNBC's Joy Reid that the presidency could unravel over this issue alone.
DEMS ALREADY CRANKING UP TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TALK
"I think in the final analysis they are going to have to move away from [President Trump]," Waters said of right-wing conservatives. "And we will see that [President Trump] will be in a position where he will meet the criteria for high crimes and misdemeanors, and I maintain that’s where impeachment comes in.”
Some have noted that Waters' latest tweet also comes less than 24 hours after the directors of both the FBI and the National Security Agency confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that they have seen no evidence to support President Trump's claim that President Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower.
In February, Waters suggested that the president was "leading himself to impeachment" over what she called his "unconstitutional" executive order on immigration. At the time, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer responded by suggesting that it's comments like that one that make "you realize that [lawmakers] really missed the message that voters sent this November."
The issue of impeachment even came up during Tuesday's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Judge Gorsuch whether he believed President Trump could be impeached if he starts "waterboarding people." The president has suggested that he would leave the issue of waterboarding up to his generals, but that the practice "absolutely" works.
While he said he wouldn't speculate on the issue, Judge Gorsuch pointed out that "the impeachment power belongs to this body." He added that "no man is above the law."
The House has the sole power to impeach an official, and the Senate is the sole court for impeachment trials. An impeachment is a charge, not a conviction.
According to the House of Representatives website, "the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency."
MAXINE WATERS ON TRUMP'S CABINET: THEY'RE A 'BUNCH OF SCUMBAGS'
Impeachment proceedings have been initiated by the House more than 60 times, but less than one-third have led to full impeachments. Outside of the 15 federal judges impeached by the House, just two presidents (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), a cabinet secretary and a U.S. senator have also been impeached.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Conservatives rebuff Trump, say they have votes to derail health bill

President Trump flashed the thumbs-up Tuesday on Capitol Hill, where he pressured House Republicans to pass an ObamaCare replacement bill -- but despite White House optimism about a deal coming together, conservative members later said they’re still voting no and could derail the chamber vote set for Thursday.
“It’s not a personal decision. It’s a policy decision,” North Carolina GOP Rep. Mark Meadows, leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told Fox News. “We have a difference of opinion.”
Meadows said 21 of the influential caucus’ 30-plus members still intend to vote against the bill, crafted by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and his leadership team.
Trump repeatedly has tried since the bill was introduced several weeks ago to win over Meadows -- from inviting him to the White House and his Mar-a-Lago Florida resort last weekend to calling him out Tuesday in a closed-door meeting.
“Oh Mark, I'm going to come after you,” Trump told Meadows to laughter, according to several reports.
The White House and Meadows later downplayed the comment, with the congressman saying he and the president have a good relationship and that he also got a visit Tuesday from Vice President Mike Pence.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the president was just having some “fun” with Meadows, an early supporter in Trump’s 2016 White House race.
Still, those who attended the roughly 40-minute, closed-door meeting thought Trump was dead serious when he said many House Republicans got elected on a vow to repeal and replace ObamaCare and they could lose re-election in 2018 if they don’t fulfill the promise.
Trump’s blunt warning signaled his and Ryan’s escalating efforts to get the requisite 218 votes to pass the legislation in the GOP-led chamber, then send it to the GOP-led Senate.
Late Monday, Ryan and his team announced changes to their bill, the American Health Care Act, to shore up support from the GOP's rank-and-file, including moderates, and with voters who now rely on ObamaCare.
The change, in a 43-page manager's amendment, would pave the way for the Senate, if it chooses, to make the bill's tax credits more generous for people ages 50 to 65, so they could better afford the insurance. The bill reportedly sets aside $85 billion over 10 years for that purpose.
The measure also would curb Medicaid growth and allow states to impose work requirements on some recipients.
Ryan said Monday the amendment was the result of an "inclusive approach" involving the White House and congressional Republicans.
But even if the bill clears the House, it faces problems in the Senate.
Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, a Trump supporter, said he cannot support the House bill, despite the proposed changes.
He said they “do little to address the core problem of ObamaCare: rising premiums and deductibles, which are making insurance unaffordable for too many Arkansans.”
President Obama’s signature health care law has provided insurance for at least 11 million Americans but has struggled to survive as customers face rising premium costs and fewer policy options.
Still, the replacement plan has no Democratic support.
Meadows indicated Monday that his group will not oppose or support the bill collectively, so members can vote on their own.
However, Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, a founding Freedom Caucus member, said Tuesday that the group’s opposition remains “very strong.” And he sounded pessimistic about Republican leaders’ down-the-road promises on tax relief and insurance deregulation.
“This bill doesn't do what we told the American people we were going to do,” he said.
Meadows brushed aside concerns about losing in a GOP primary next year.
“I serve at the will of 750,000 people in western North Carolina. I’m going to be a no even if it sends me home,” he said. “I don’t know of too many people who can challenge me on the right.”
Despite giving the thumbs-up before the Capitol Hill meeting, Trump appeared to leave with just cautious optimism, saying negotiations continue and “I think we'll get the vote Thursday."
The president will apparently continue to meet with House Republicans until the vote deadline, which includes talking with the moderate Tuesday Group and attending a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner.
New Jersey GOP Rep. Tom MacArthur a Tuesday Group member who supports the bill, said after the White House meeting that most of the 12 other members also seem to be supportive but still have concerns. 

Unscathed: Gorsuch aces his hearing, 'doesn't give a whit about politics'

Neil Gorsuch is an impressive witness, a judge out of central casting who says all the right things, with great earnestness, about judicial independence.
Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee smoothly insisted that he would have no problem ruling against the president who appointed him and has respect for court precedent—including Roe v. Wade, which he noted has been “reaffirmed.”
The Democrats tried to rough him up at yesterday’s confirmation hearing, in part by bringing up his role in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, but it was mainly polite sparring that left Gorsuch with few scratches.
“Goodness no, Senator,” he told Dianne Feinstein when asked, based on a note he wrote in a case about torture techniques, if he believed an administration could ignore the law.
And when Feinstein asked whether he would always favor big corporations over the little guy, Gorsuch insisted “from the bottom of my heart that I’m a fair judge.” And he told Orrin Hatch that “a good judge doesn’t give a whit about politics.”
Gorsuch also stressed that he has dissented equally from judges named by Republicans and Democrats.
I’ve watched a zillion confirmation hearings. Whatever you think of his record, Gorsuch put on a clinic in how to testify without losing your cool. He said “gosh” and “golly” and then quoted Hamilton and Socrates.
To be sure, Trump picked Gorsuch because he has a solidly conservative record. The hearings are a kabuki dance in which both liberals and conservatives duck specifics while promising to be impartial on the high court.
And Gorsuch probably would have had smooth sailing if Democrats weren’t still furious at Mitch McConnell and company for refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing last year—a move that Democrat Pat Leahy called “shameful” at the hearing.
Leahy turned up the temperature, saying it appeared that Trump “outsourced your nomination” to “far-right special interest groups.” But Gorsuch deflected his repeated attempts to get him to take a stand on a religious test and surveillance, drawing a laugh when he said “I admire the various ways” the senator kept trying to draw him into pending cases.
An emotional moment came when Dick Durbin confronted Gorsuch over an allegation that he asked his law students if they knew a woman who had taken maternity benefits and left the country. Gorsuch said passionately that he was discussing the ethics of employers asking female applicants if they plan to get pregnant, and is disturbed that many female students say in a show of hands that it’s happened to them.
The initial press headlines reflected how Gorsuch framed the day.
New York Times: “Gorsuch Vows Independence; Offered Trump ‘No Promises’”
Washington Post: “Gorsuch:  ‘No Such Thing as a Republican Judge or a Democratic Judge’”
Having covered Gorsuch’s mother Anne when she ran Ronald Reagan’s EPA, a rocky tenure in which she was charged with contempt of Congress, it is fascinating to watch how easily he deals with Congress.
I also covered the hearings for Antonin Scalia, whose seat Gorsuch would take. He was approved 98 to 0—an outcome impossible to imagine in today’s hyperpartisan climate. But Neil Gorsuch helped himself yesterday.

Gorsuch appears to survive barrage from Democrats, readies for third day of confirmation hearings

Senate Democrats on Tuesday pressed Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch on his opinion on past High Court rulings that could help identify his ideological approach to the bench, but he appeared to have emerged from the hours of testimony relatively unscathed.
Gorsuch appeared intent on following the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.
He avoided any serious blunders despite a flurry of questions ranging from his opinion on Roe v. Wade and his opinion on the District of Columbia v. Heller-- the 2008 ruling that allowed handguns to be kept inside homes for self-defense.
“If I were to start telling you which are my favorite precedents or which are my least favorite precedents or if I view a precedent in that fashion, I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants that I’ve already made up my mind about their cases,” he said.

After 9 hrs of chairing Judic Comm SCOTUS hrg I handed the gavel to Sen Tillis Thx senator for taking over so I can run at 4 in the morning

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) March 22, 2017

The Roe v. Wade line of questioning was of particular interest. Trump said during the campaign that he would nominate judges that would overturn the decision. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Gorsuch whether Trump had asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade. The nominee answered no, and said that if Trump had, “I would have walked out the door.”
GREGG JARRETT: SORRY DEMS, JUDGE GORSUCH IS UN-BORKABLE 
Gorsuch has not ruled directly on the right to an abortion, and was pressed on the topic by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the committee’s top Democrat. He said that legalized abortion is “precedent” and “worthy of treatment as precedent like any other.”
On the major gun rights case known in short-hand as “Heller,” he also said that it’s the “law of the land.”
“I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party, other than based on what the law and the facts of a particular case require,” Gorsuch said. “There’s no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge, we just have judges in this country.”
Gorsuch was also asked if he would have an issue ruling against Trump, if the law called for it. Gorsuch said he would not. He went on to repeat earlier comments he reportedly said in private about Trump’s attack on judges.
“When anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity or motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening and demoralizing.” He was asked if that statement applied to the president and he said, “Anyone is anyone.”
The New York Times summed up the Republican line of questioning: “Republicans largely used their questioning to help insulate Judge Gorsuch from expected criticism, offering 30-minute safe harbors.”
Democrats see Gorsuch, a George W. Bush appointee in the 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, as a judge who will interpret the law in a similar fashion of the man he may replace: Antonin Scalia.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes to confirm Gorsuch before a two-week break that begins on April 10. The committee expects to vote on April 3. Grassley told reporters that the nomination would immediately go to the floor.
Gorsuch’s nomination to the High Court appears to be very likely. He will benefit from a Republican-controlled Senate. He needs 60 total votes. Republicans hold 52 seats. Ten Democrats represent states that voted for President Trump in November. And, Republicans can “go nuclear” and change the rule to confirm Gorsuch to a simple majority.
Perhaps one of the more tense interactions of the day, was between Gorsuch and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.
Franken asked Gorsuch how he could rule in favor of a company that fired a truck driver who abandoned his trailer on the side of an interstate on a -14 degree night. Alphonse Maddin, the driver, noticed that his trailer’s brakes were frozen and his heater did not work.
Maddin unhitched his trailer and drove off to wait somewhere warm. Gorsuch wrote that the company gave him the legal option to wait with his trailer.
“I had a career in identifying absurdity,” Franken, a former member of “Saturday Night Live,” said. “I know it when I see it, and it makes me question your judgement.”

Liberal Austin Cartoons