CLOSE

Attorney General William Barr has confirmed Robert Mueller has delivered his report upon completing his investigation into Russia meddling in 2016.
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Wednesday he intends to release classified documents the FBI used to launch a probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election as he and his allies call for a deeper look into the origins of that investigation.

In a 45-minute interview on Fox News in which Trump attacked his critics and touted a summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe that found “no collusion” with Russia, Trump said his attorneys initially advised him not to release the documents used to secure a wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

“I do, I have plans to declassify and release,” Trump told Fox. “I have plans to absolutely release.”

Trump, who had previously ordered the release of the documents before reversing course, also used the interview to criticize opponents and tout what he described as progress on his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

► Trump added his name to a chorus of Republicans calling for the resignation of Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and an outspoken Trump critic. Schiff, who has continued to question the president’s actions during the 2016 campaign, faced similar calls from Trump aides earlier in the week.

“He should be forced out of office,” Trump told Fox. “He is a disgrace to our country.”

Schiff, D-Calif., has shrugged off the criticism. “I’m more than used to attacks from my GOP colleagues and I would expect nothing less,” he told CNN earlier this week.

► The president demurred on a question about whether he would consider pardoning some of his former associates caught up in the Russia investigation, including former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to investigators about meetings with Russians during the presidential transition.

He cooperated with Mueller under a plea agreement and still awaits sentencing.

“I don’t want to talk about pardons now, but I can say it’s so sad on so many levels,” Trump said.

► Trump said he was planning to go to California in two weeks and “have a news conference there” to discuss the progress of his border wall. Trump has frequently claimed progress is being made on the wall, though he also acknowledged the work is focused on repairing and replacing existing barriers, not adding additional barriers to parts of the border that now have none.

“We will have hundreds of miles built fairly quickly,” Trump said.

► Trump said he was wary of criticizing Democratic presidential candidates and policies so early in the 2020 election cycle. On Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., however, Trump said, “I hit her too hard, too early and now it looks like she’s finished.”

Trump has been taking a victory lap since Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report released on Sunday said he had not conspired with Russia. That summary also said Mueller did not exonerate Trump on questions about whether his actions constituted obstruction of justice.

The full Mueller report could be delivered to Congress in several weeks.

“I was the most innocent human being,” Trump told Fox. 

In returning to the issue of classified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act documents, Trump and other Republicans have noted FBI agents relied in part on a dossier created by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele to obtain a wiretap on Page. 

Republicans have blasted that disclosure, noting that Steele had been hired by a research firm working for Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Swaths of the records were released last year and showed that the FBI also relied on other evidence. Those documents also show that the FBI disclosed to the court that agents believed Steele was probing for information that would be damaging to Trump.  

Vast portions of those documents, however, were redacted because the FBI said they remain classified, including details about why the FBI believed Page was participating in Russia’s election meddling. Page was never charged with a crime in the case.

 

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/27/donald-trump-release-classified-docs-tied-start-russia-probe/3295161002/

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – China has made unprecedented proposals in talks with the United States on a range of issues including forced technology transfer as the two sides work to overcome remaining obstacles to a deal to end their protracted trade war, U.S. officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

U.S. President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese imports last year in a move to force China to change the way it does business with the rest of the world and to pry open more of China’s economy to U.S. companies.

Among Trump’s demands are for Beijing to end practices that Washington alleges result in the systematic theft of U.S. intellectual property and the forced transfer of American technology to Chinese companies.

China put proposals on the table in the talks that went further than in the past, including on technology transfer, said one of four senior U.S. administration officials who spoke to Reuters.

Negotiators have made progress on the details of the written agreements that have been hashed out to address U.S. concerns, he said.

“If you looked at the texts a month ago compared to today, we have moved forward in all areas. We aren’t yet where we want to be,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“They’re talking about forced technology transfer in a way that they’ve never wanted to talk about before – both in terms of scope and specifics,” he said, referring to Chinese negotiators. He declined to give further detail.

Reuters reported previously that the two sides were working on written agreements in six areas: forced technology transfer and cyber theft, intellectual property rights, services, currency, agriculture and non-tariff barriers to trade.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin arrive in Beijing on Thursday for a new round of talks with Chinese officials to work on a deal that would end a months-long trade war that has cost both sides billions of dollars and hurt global economic growth.

The in-person talks, which will be followed by a round in Washington next week, are the first face-to-face meetings the two sides have held in weeks after missing an initial end-of-March goal for a summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to sign a pact.

Talks would continue as long as progress is being made on the core issues, the official said.

“It could go to May, June, no one knows. It could happen in April, we don’t know,” another administration official said.

The two sides still have differences over intellectual property and how to enforce a deal, he said.

‘SOME TARIFFS WILL STAY’

China wants the United States to lift its tariffs as part of a deal. Washington, which is cognizant that the tariffs give it leverage to ensure Beijing follows through on any commitments it makes, is wary of lifting them right away.

Trump said last week the United States may leave tariffs on Chinese goods for a “substantial period” to ensure compliance.

“Some tariffs will stay,” the second official said. “There’s going to be some give on that, but we’re not going to get rid of all the tariffs. We can’t.”

The topic will be addressed in upcoming talks.

“Obviously that is an issue that we need to resolve … and will be an important part of a final deal,” the first official said. He said there was some agreement on enforcement on what he termed the “backend” once a deal was in place: a structure in which both sides could raise grievances and implement tariffs if there were violations to the agreement.

Since July 2018, the United States has imposed duties on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports, including $50 billion in technology and industrial goods at 25 percent and $200 billion in other products including furniture and construction materials, at 10 percent.

China has hit back with tariffs on about $110 billion worth of U.S. goods, including soybeans and other commodities.

The first official said the focus of talks had shifted from Chinese purchases of U.S. goods to the trickier structural issues, which he said Trump wanted as part of a “great” deal.

Bipartisan support at home for his tough stance on China as well as from the business community have emboldened Trump as he pushes for a deal that addresses long-standing complaints on trade, the source said.

Some officials have expressed concern that Trump would accept a deal involving big-ticket Chinese purchases of U.S. goods and falling short on structural issues.

“Who would he be pleasing by .. selling out?” the source said.

He expressed optimism that a deal would be reached.

Slideshow (6 Images)

“I’m still confident, but it takes time,” he said.

“Until any deal is finalized, it can always go either way. And the president has made clear, both in word and in action, that he’s going to walk away from deals if they’re not good deals.”

Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Peter Cooney, Simon Webb & Shri Navaratnam

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trade-exclusive/exclusive-china-makes-unprecedented-proposals-on-tech-transfer-trade-challenges-remain-us-officials-idUSKCN1R905P

MPs have been voting on eight different options for the next steps in the Brexit process, including leaving without a deal, revoking Britain’s departure from the European Union, or seeking a customs union.

None of the proposals earned a majority of parliamentary support.

To find out how your MP voted on each of the options, use the look-up below.

Please upgrade your browser to view this interactive

How did my MP vote on 27 March?

Enter a postcode, or the name or constituency of your MP

Click here if you cannot see the look-up. Data from Commons Votes Services.

Ken Clarke’s customs union proposal came closest to securing a majority, losing by eight votes – 272 to 264.

Margaret Beckett’s proposal for a second referendum to validate any withdrawal agreement received the most votes, 268, but 295 MPs voted against it.

Labour’s alternative plan was the only other option to get more than 200 votes.

The full list of how MPs voted is below, in order of the option with the most support. Conservative backbenchers were given a free vote, but cabinet ministers were told to abstain.

Labour MPs were asked to back proposals put forward by the party leadership.

How did your MP vote on previous Brexit debates?

Please upgrade your browser

Your guide to Brexit jargon

Use the list below or select a button

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47726787


Republican senators and GOP aides said that if President Donald Trump wants them to move forward with big changes, he needs to propose them himself. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Congress

The last time the party tried to get rid of Obamacare, it cost them control of the House and several state capitols.

President Donald Trump says the GOP is now the “party of health care.” But Republicans have no real plan to deliver on that.

Trump’s unexpected demand that Republicans take another crack at replacing Obamacare came on the heels of his Justice Department backing a lawsuit intended to gut the entire law. The last time the party tried to get rid of Obamacare, it cost them control of the House and several state capitols.

Story Continued Below

Those lessons aren’t lost on Republicans. They know the more they talk about repealing Obamacare, the more likely it is that the battle over the health law and the popular protections for people with pre-existing conditions drags into the 2020 elections, damaging vulnerable Republicans. They’d rather slow-walk the issue while sticking to health care topics that have appeal on both sides of the aisle.

“We’re going to be involved in health but most of it is going to be very, very bipartisan, unlike the issue you’re bringing up, which would not be very bipartisan,” said Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the leader of the Senate Finance Committee.

That could include addressing “surprise” medical bills that hit insured people who end up with an out-of-network doctor even when they’ve chosen an in-network hospital, as well as more steps to address high drug costs and opioids.

His counterpart on the Health, Education, Labor and Education Committee, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) was singing a similar tune on Wednesday, telling reporters: “We’re working in a bipartisan way.” Alexander has recently turned his focus to health care costs, rather than repeal.

Indeed, Republican senators and GOP aides said not to expect a sweeping new Republican plan in the months ahead, and said that aside from the narrower policy pushes, party leadership will focus on their longstanding message that Obamacare has “failed” and that Democrats’ “Medicare for All proposals pose a threat to the current system. Democrats control the House now, and the GOP’s vision of replacing Obamacare with block grants or other conservative proposals —ideas they couldn’t enact even when they controlled both chambers — appear now to be a pipe dream.

And if Trump wants them to move forward with larger changes, they said, the president needs to propose them himself.

“The president makes very clear that he understands the importance of health care and that he wants the Republican Party to be the party of health care,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), whose opposition to repeal efforts in 2017 was critical in stopping the effort. “In order to do that, he has to have a detailed plan that is going to be an improvement over the ACA.”

Even the lawmakers closest to Trump, including Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), acknowledged to reporters that Republicans, still recovering from the toxic fallout from failed repeal attempts in 2017, would be better off tackling more manageable goals like drug pricing reform going into 2020.

“I’ve been through the wars and I have a Ph.D. in health care policy now that was never on my bucket list,” Meadows said. “It’s very difficult to find anything that brings everybody together. But I do think there’s real consensus that could be found on prescription drug prices — in fact, if there’s a sweet spot to be found, it’s that.”

Most Republicans don’t want to openly defy Trump, but many are privately complaining about the president ordering them back in the Obamacare minefield.

“We need a plan, and right now we don’t have one,” said one frustrated Republican senator, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “I’m not going to just throw this to the whims of our creativity.”

Other lawmakers have tried and failed in the past few days to steer Trump away from the idea, telling him the anti-ACA push is bad for his own reelection campaign.

“[Trump] knows that he made a mistake, but he’s dug in now,” said a person close to the president.

The Trump administration sent lawmakers scrambling this week when the Justice Department abruptly announced that it is backing a lawsuit led by Texas seeking to throw out Obamacare entirely, reversing a far narrower legal strategy.

That case is now pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it may well end up before the Supreme Court. Trump told Congress he wants a plan at the ready to replace Obamacare if the court voids the law — but Republicans generally expect the legal battle to last another year or so, giving them some breathing room. Grassley, for instance, played down the need for quick action on an Obamacare replacement, saying, “We won’t know for months, and it could go well into next year” what the courts do. The Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare twice, and even many conservative legal experts predict this assault on the law will ultimately fail.

The administration’s move in the court case came just after Trump declared vindication in the Mueller investigation — an odd bit of timing that changed the subject from triumphant “exoneration” to pre-existing conditions, an issue that has been a consistent winner for the Democrats, particularly in the House races in November.

As a second Republican senator put it: “Why would the president do this after the release of the Mueller report?”

“Covering pre-existing conditions was always the political knockout blow,” GOP strategist Rick Wilson told POLITICO. “No matter how much Republicans think people hate Obamacare, they’re much more likely to fear the impact of their dad getting denied cancer treatment because he had an illness once before. Trump’s move now allows Democrats to campaign on a message of ‘We’re the ones who will keep you from being thrown to the wolves.’”

Lawmakers and aides said the White House decision puts much more pressure on Senate Republicans, who remain in the majority, to craft legislation in response to Trump’s demands. Discussions have begun between the President’s team and Senate leadership, but have yielded no breakthroughs, leaving Republicans arguing over whether they should revive one of the bills they failed to pass in 2017 or cut their losses, ignore Trump, and move on.

“We’ve got a new slate. The slates been wiped clean,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). “When the slate’s been wiped clean that leaves two things: Go back and do again what you’ve already done that didn’t work or find something that does.”

Other Republicans suggested they focus on strategies to stop the lawsuit itself in its tracks.

“You could probably moot the case if you deleted the individual mandate from the law, since that’s what it all hinges on,” said Rep. Greg Walden, who led House efforts in 2017 to get rid of Obamacare. “So that might be a possibility going forward.”

Democrats, meanwhile, could not be more thrilled by the Trump administration shining a spotlight on what they see a massive GOP liability, and moved swiftly to capitalize on the opportunity.

On Tuesday, they drew a stark contrast between the parties by unveiling a package of bills to shore up the Affordable Care Act and make insurance subsidies available to more middle-class consumers. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Democrats will try to force a vote on defunding the DOJ’s efforts on the case.

Democrats are confident the public is on their side. A national poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that opposition to Obamacare was in February at its lowest point since the law’s implementation. And a Washington Post poll in January found that 62 percent of Americans surveyed — and three-quarters of independents — have a negative view of President Trump’s health care agenda.

Both the president and GOP lawmakers are well aware of this political peril on health policy, but disagree sharply on how to address it. Trump told Republicans on Tuesday that they have to come up with “a plan that is far better than Obamacare” in order to neutralize the Democratic attacks that in part cost the GOP its House majority last year.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) agreed with the pressing need for Republicans to craft an identity that’s more than being the enemies of Obamacare.

“We’re going to have a 2020 election, and one of the issues will be health care,” he said. “We know what we don’t like, but we owe it to the public to say what we do like.”

Other lawmakers insisted that the onus is on Trump to set that agenda and said they’re waiting for more information from the White House.

But Meadows, who spoke to Trump on Wednesday morning, said the president provided no further guidance on crafting a health care bill other than insisting that they protect people with pre-existing conditions and lower drug costs.

“He sees those two areas as the things that most people are concerned about,” Meadows said. “He told me this morning, ‘We’re going to fix it.’”

Adam Cancryn and John Bresnahan contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/republicans-trump-health-care-1241142

President Trump has complained in recent days that Puerto Rico has been granted too much federal disaster relief. But his administration has yet to deliver much of the money that Congress directed toward the U.S. territory following historic hurricane damage.

Trump told Senate Republicans during a Tuesday lunch meeting that while he is resigned to $600 million in supplemental nutritional assistance flowing to Puerto Rico despite his opposition, he thinks the territory received too much help.

“He thinks the amount they’ve gotten is way out of proportion with the amount that Texas and Florida and others have gotten,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., one of the senators present. Rubio noted that Puerto Rico faced unique problems in that it had a pre-existing debt crisis and was hit by two hurricanes in quick succession.

The funding immediately in question is $600 million in low-income food assistance rolled into a relief package aimed at more recent natural disasters in the mainland U.S. But the administration has held up billions already provided by Congress to the flailing territory. Much of the money flows through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But most of it has yet to actually be delivered to Puerto Rico.

The department’s explanations for dragging its feet on the aid have shifted.

In a January interview, HUD spokesperson Brian Sullivan denied that Puerto Rico had submitted the action plan necessary to disburse billions in relief funds. When Sullivan was provided a copy of that plan, published online in November 2018, he instead blamed the partial government shutdown for the delay in sending out the money, which the government had already appropriated.

“Still, the staff isn’t here to review it properly,” said Sullivan. “How do you, without appropriations, do the necessary due diligence?”

Still, Sullivan acknowledged “inconsistency” with the department’s written guidance prior to the shutdown. In that guidance, the department said it would approve grant plans submitted by Puerto Rico and other areas eligible for disaster relief within 45 days, unless the department objected to how those funds would be used. Puerto Rico’s plan was submitted Nov. 18, but HUD did not approve its plan as that guidance suggested it would.

Instead, on Jan. 14, nearly 60 days after Puerto Rico submitted that plan, HUD waived the guidance and established “an alternative requirement” for its own review of plans, further extending the timeline. To date, Puerto Rico has received 7.5 percent of the $20 billion in community development block grants owed to it by HUD, despite the fact that HUD announced the approval of more funds at the beginning of March.

On Wednesday, Sullivan said that HUD had yet to present Puerto Rico’s government with a grant contract that would allow an additional $8.2 billion in recovery grants to flow to the island, despite the fact that the department announced approval for those funds on March 1. Sullivan said that the agency was working with the Office of Management and Budget to finalize language around the grant.

Pam Patenaude, HUD’s deputy secretary and a longtime housing policy veteran who supervised the department’s recovery efforts, resigned suddenly in December, citing personal reasons. According to the Washington Post, Patenaude objected to a directive from the White House to redirect funding from Puerto Rico to other areas of the country, which would violate the law Congress passed to distribute those funds and Congress’s constitutional authority to appropriate funds.

“I didn’t push back. I advocated for Puerto Rico and assured the White House that Puerto Rico had sufficient financial controls in place and had put together a thoughtful housing and economic development recovery plan,” Patenaude told the Post.

The $600 million in food stamps for Puerto Rico has strong support in the Senate. Only 10 senators — all Republicans — opposed advancing the overall package, which is primarily aimed at disaster assistance for states that experienced natural disasters in the past several months, such as California, Alabama, and Hawaii.

According to Rubio, Trump set the stage for the administration to oppose Medicaid funding for the territory, similar to that which states receive. That funding is expected to run out by March 2020.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/trump-administration-yet-to-deliver-much-of-the-disaster-funds-it-owes-puerto-rico

President Trump is breathing a huge sigh of relief now that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report has finally drawn to a close and failed to produce any evidence of Russian collusion. But now Trump needs to capitalize on the moment by strategically lifting sanctions and trying to normalize relations with Russia, lest he risks falling under the influence of establishment, pro-war influences here at home.

To maintain his hold on power, Vladimir Putin is willing to take his nation, even the world, to the brink of nuclear war. He’s already said he “wouldn’t want a world without Russia.” It would be wise for the U.S. to learn from its past mistakes and avoid its failed policy of foreign intervention and democracy-building in Russia. Trump simply needs to call a truce and make Russia a non-event.

Even before the Mueller report was released, it had been clear that Trump is no Russian pawn — he struck Syria (a close Russian ally) after former President Barack Obama refused to, and has only amped up the sanctions against Russia. These sanctions, implemented by Trump and the presidents before him, haven’t achieved their goal of regime change or a “nicer” Putin. Instead, they’ve just solidified Putin’s political position by giving the Russian people a scapegoat to blame for all their problems (the West).

Trump is a successful businessman, so he knows the persuasive role of carrots and sticks. He has demonstrated it with both North Korea and China. But if he wants to de-escalate tensions with Russia, the nation with the most nukes, he must offer its people a taste of Western economic opportunity and freedom. The more than 60 rounds of U.S. sanctions on Russian companies and individuals, and the Russian countersanctions, have severely limited trade, while visa requirements have limited travel to the West. Lifting these restrictions on Western goods and travel would allow Russian people, especially those with money and sway in Russian politics, to realize the benefits of friendship with America.

Putin fears losing the support of his people, especially his inner circle, far more than he fears the economic ramifications of the sanctions America imposes. More sanctions, as many in Congress have called for, would only further play into his hand. But strategic sanctions relief, resulting in growing respect for the West among Russians, could force Putin to seek better relations.

An improved Russia relationship would push the nation to also partner with the U.S. on foreign policy issues, and significantly decrease our spending on proxy wars like those in Syria and Ukraine waged against Russian-backed militias. Finally, we could cut back on our trillion-dollar defense budget. Right now, frankly, the U.S. has far more to fear from $22 trillion of debt than from the self-preserving dictator Putin.

Many in the Pentagon benefit greatly from our spending toward preparing for total war with Russia and China. They’re part of the same military-industrial (and now intelligence) complex that sought to pressure Trump into escalating tensions with the Russians by perpetuating the now-disproven collusion scandal. They argue Putin attempted to influence the U.S. election (as may have the Ukrainians, whom the U.S. still supports unwaveringly), and that Putin is a despot with a dismal human rights record. That part is true — but so was Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, and countless others like them. When the U.S. helped eliminate their regimes, we faced the consequences of instability, terrorism, and even more human rights abuses. Putin has the world’s largest arsenal of nukes. If we back him into a corner, should we gamble on his hesitancy to use them?

Trying to force regime change isn’t the answer, either. Russia is a motley state of different ethnicities held together by the unrelenting grasp of its dictator. If released, it would likely fall apart into many republics, some of which (like Chechnya) have a history of terrorism, while others have long been eyed by China, another powerful U.S. adversary that could neatly step in to fill Russia’s void.

We stand to gain little from regime change in Russia, but much to gain economically from normalizing relations. Detente with Russia could open up countless closed-off markets (like Belarus and Kazakhstan) to Western goods, and help to resolve other costly conflicts like North Korea and Syria. Now that President Trump has been vindicated from accusations of collusion, he can return to the negotiating table with Putin — using his trademark entrepreneurialism and a renewed resolve for peace.

Adam Barsouk is a medical student, cancer researcher, and Young Voices contributor.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/without-mueller-report-cloud-trump-should-normalize-relations-with-russia

MPs have been voting on eight different options for the next steps in the Brexit process, including leaving without a deal, revoking Britain’s departure from the European Union, or seeking a customs union.

None of the proposals earned a majority of parliamentary support.

To find out how your MP voted on each of the options, use the look-up below.

Please upgrade your browser to view this interactive

How did my MP vote on 27 March?

Enter a postcode, or the name or constituency of your MP

Click here if you cannot see the look-up. Data from Commons Votes Services.

Ken Clarke’s customs union proposal came closest to securing a majority, losing by eight votes – 272 to 264.

Margaret Beckett’s proposal for a second referendum to validate any withdrawal agreement received the most votes, 268, but 295 MPs voted against it.

Labour’s alternative plan was the only other option to get more than 200 votes.

The full list of how MPs voted is below, in order of the option with the most support. Conservative backbenchers were given a free vote, but cabinet ministers were told to abstain.

Labour MPs were asked to back proposals put forward by the party leadership.

How did your MP vote on previous Brexit debates?

Please upgrade your browser

Your guide to Brexit jargon

Use the list below or select a button

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47726787

Mick Mulvaney is trying to achieve as acting White House chief of staff what he never could as a conservative firebrand in Congress.

Mulvaney this week helped persuade President Trump to get behind a legal effort aimed at striking down the Affordable Care Act over the objections of some in the administration and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.

His pitch came during scheduled “policy time” with Trump on Monday and spanned several meetings throughout the day. It was met with resistance from some on the president’s legal team and his Justice Department, as well as with skepticism from Vice President Pence, who favors overturning President Barack Obama’s namesake health-care law but only if Republicans are ready with an alternative, according to White House officials familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private talks.

But Trump — fresh off a victory lap following the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation — agreed with Mulvaney and was eager to forge ahead into dismantling his predecessor’s health law.

“The Republican Party will soon be known as the party of health care,” the president enthused while walking into a lunch of Republican senators Tuesday. He seemed to try to justify his administration’s unexpected decision, telling reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday that “if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare.”

Mulvaney and his allies have told Trump that joining a lawsuit to overturn the ACA will help him fulfill a campaign promise and could help lead to his reelection, but congressional Republicans worry he’s sent the president on a suicide mission. While Republicans are united in their opposition to Obama’s signature health-care law, they remain divided on how to replace it, and Democrats are eager to exploit this tension while making health care a centerpiece of the 2020 campaign.

The behind-the-scenes role played by Mulvaney — who in Congress was a member of the hard-right Freedom Caucus and earned a reputation for frustrating Republican leadership — highlights the way he has operated as a top aide to Trump, first as budget director and now as acting chief of staff.

If Trump is well-known within the White House for having little interest in both policy and nuance, Mulvaney seems to specialize in it. But the acting chief of staff has also sought to frame his long-held views in a way that won’t undermine the president. This has allowed Mulvaney to use his proximity to power to directly shape major White House policy proposals that echo his priorities during a congressional career spent more in shouting from the sidelines than in rooms where deals were made.

He used his budget office perch to craft spending plans that drastically reduced funding for programs such as education, environmental protection and housing. Earlier this year, following a partial government shutdown he supported, it was Mulvaney who helped aggressively engineer the controversial emergency declaration plan to fund large sections of a border wall without congressional approval — and dubbed it “D-Day,” White House officials said. It was a move that deeply frustrated many Senate Republicans, but Mulvaney told the president that senators wouldn’t override him. And now he has pushed Trump into a health-care fight many in the party are eager to avoid. 

“The greatest political liability one can accrue is advocating for the disruption in coverage for Americans who are currently pleased with their own health care,” said Josh Holmes, a former senior adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “What’s happened in the last six months is the Democrats have taken the health-care issues and have walked to the precipice of the cliff and are ready to drop off. The only thing that’s saving them is a Republican grabbing them by the collar and jumping off instead.”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who chairs the Freedom Caucus and is close with Mulvaney, said the acting chief is taking the right approach. “The 2020 elections will be more about domestic policy than they will be about foreign policy,” Meadows said. “It’s Mick Mulvaney’s sweet spot.”

In a new court filing Monday night, the Justice Department argued that the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, should be thrown out in its entirety. The filing was made with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, where an appeal is pending in a case brought by Republican state attorneys general challenging the law’s constitutionality. A federal judge in Texas ruled in December that the entire law is invalid, in an opinion that went considerably further than the administration’s position at the time.

Before Monday’s filing, the Justice Department argued that there were grounds only to strike down the law’s consumer protections, including those for people with preexisting health conditions, but that the rest should be kept intact. Now the administration wants the whole law thrown out.

Politico first reported Mulvaney’s role in pushing Trump to support invalidating Obamacare. 

Mulvaney is proving to be a far different chief of staff than his predecessors. Reince Priebus, who first held the job, spent much of his time careening around the West Wing — trying to manage his presidential charge and the West Wing’s feuding factions. John Kelly, Trump’s second chief of staff, was a strict gatekeeper who worked to limit the president’s inner circle.

“What would surprise people is that the Freedom Caucus member who went to OMB and is now chief of staff is willing to evaluate things without making his opinions be a part of any calculation,” Meadows said. “The other [thing] is Mick Mulvaney has probably the second most powerful position in Washington, D.C., and yet he allows other people access to the president and doesn’t feel challenged by that.” 

Mulvaney has adopted a more relaxed approach, despite having held three different posts in the administration — at one point, he was acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — and at times holding two roles simultaneously. 

White House officials say Mulvaney is generally well-liked within the West Wing, allowing robust debate and empowering various advisers and officials. He helped foster his personal relationship with Trump over golf — and was on the course with the president as recently as Sunday, where the topic of health care also came up. 

“Mick’s approach is hands-off but not hands-free,” said White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. “He is involved in every policy discussion, presidential decision-making exercise, and he and his team make sure the president is fully briefed.”

Mulvaney aides have deliberately worked to keep his profile low, arguing that Trump often sours on advisers when he reads stories that say they are controlling, shaping or trying to influence him. Mulvaney declined to be interviewed for this article. 

He asks the president detailed questions about his daily calendar, knowing that Trump does not like to be over-scheduled and likes to have free time, and adheres to what Trump wants. He has also taken it upon himself to try to serve as Trump’s inside-the-Beltway fixer, familiarizing himself with as many rules and laws as possible to help his boss avoid stumbling blocks.

Earlier this month, when Trump unleashed 52 frenzied tweets in just 34 hours, Mulvaney was on vacation in Las Vegas. He has told other White House aides that he only worries about Trump’s tweets if they threaten a legislative priority — such as alienating a needed vote — or if they announce policy or personnel.

Mulvaney has also described a steep learning curve on foreign policy, and told others how surreal it was to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the Hanoi summit last month.

His health-care maneuvering was met with dismay from many in his party. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), for instance, has urged Trump to hold off on pushing for the courts to overturn Obamacare, a private pitch first reported by Axios. A Republican strategist in frequent touch with the White House said some in the administration were frustrated with Mulvaney for his “ham-handed move,” describing Mulvaney as abiding by “Freedom Caucus and club for dopes rules.”

Mulvaney has been aligned with a broad coalition of conservative groups that have worked with the Republican attorneys general who brought the ACA lawsuit and have urged that the president adopt a harder legal line, according to a former member of Trump’s domestic policy transition team and steering committee member of the Conservative Action Project. Others, including Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Attorney General William P. Barr, have been more aligned with McConnell, who has feared that any wholesale rejection of the 2010 health-care law would exert pressure on Congress to reopen debate about how to replace the ACA, according to the individual, who spoke about internal conversations on the condition of anonymity.

“Alex and, I think, Barr, have the more reserved positions,” the individual said. “The president netted out with the harder-line approach.”

Trump himself has not articulated his plan for health care, and urged members of Congress to write one. In his meeting Tuesday on Capitol Hill, he explained to senators that health care was the party’s main vulnerability because they had “owned” the economy and the border, officials with knowledge of the meeting said. He told them he decided in the motorcade ride over that his new slogan would link Republicans to being the party of health care.

Mulvaney’s defenders say that on health care, he is simply helping Trump achieve his policy objectives. When the Texas ruling was first announced, for instance, Trump tweeted that the decision was “great news for America!” 

Mulvaney’s budgets as OMB director have also prioritized the president’s goals over some of those Mulvaney himself advocated for as a fiery and conservative lawmaker. His fiscal plans have jacked up spending for military programs, a priority for Trump, and stopped short of imposing major structural changes to Medicare because Trump ordered it. Trump, however, grew angry last year when he learned Mulvaney was behind a budget request for the wall that only requested $1.6 billion.

If Mulvaney, who wears a boot on his right foot for an Achilles heel injury, struggled to transition from a conservative mischief maker who enjoyed needling his party’s leadership to a deputy in the Trump administration, he has shown few outward signs. In a closed-door speech to donors last year, Mulvaney argued that Republicans should support Trump even if they find his style distasteful, according to a recording of the event obtained by The Washington Post. 

He cited the administration’s handling of religious freedom cases and said there were many more examples.

Still, he added, “It’s not sexy.”

Alice Crites and Amy Goldstein contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-chief-of-staff-mulvaney-pushes-health-care-fight-trump-wants-republicans-fear/2019/03/27/c52a07de-50bc-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.html

“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

(CNN)Are you now $750 million richer?

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/us/powerball-drawing-750-million-numbers/index.html

President Trump, in an exclusive wide-ranging interview Wednesday night with Fox News’ “Hannity,” vowed to release the full and unredacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants and related documents used by the FBI to probe his campaign, saying he wants to “get to the bottom” of how the long-running Russia collusion narrative began.

Trump told anchor Sean Hannity that his lawyers previously had advised him not to take that dramatic step out of fear that it could be considered obstruction of justice.

“I do, I have plans to declassify and release. I have plans to absolutely release,” Trump said. “I have some very talented people working for me, lawyers, and they really didn’t want me to do it early on. … A lot of people wanted me to do it a long time ago. I’m glad I didn’t do it. We got a great result without having to do it, but we will. One of the reasons that my lawyers didn’t want me to do it, is they said, if I do it, they’ll call it a form of obstruction.”

Trump added: “Frankly, thought it would be better if we held it to the end. But at the right time, we will be absolutely releasing.”

Trump also accused FBI officials of committing “treason” — slamming former FBI Director James Comey as a “terrible guy,” former CIA Director John Brennan as potentially mentally ill, and Democrat House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff as a criminal.

Redacted versions of FISA documents already released have revealed that the FBI extensively relied on documents produced by Christopher Steele, an anti-Trump British ex-spy working for a firm funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, to surveil Trump aide Carter Page. At least one senior DOJ official had apparent concerns Steele was unreliable, according to text messages exclusively obtained last week by Fox News.

The leaked dossier, and related FBI surveillance, kickstarted a media frenzy on alleged Russia-Trump collusion that ended with a whimper on Sunday, when it was revealed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe concluded finding no evidence of such a conspiracy, despite several offers by Russians to help the Trump campaign. Page was never charged with wrongdoing.

FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE: NEWLY REVEALED TEXTS SHOW DOJ OFFICIALS CLASHING WITH FBI OVER ‘BIAS’ OF KEY WARRANT SOURCE

Citing a high-level source, Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul late Wednesday tweeted that anti-Trump ex-CIA Director John Brennan had internally pushed the dossier. Fox News has not independently verified Paul’s source.

“I think Brennan’s a sick person, really I do,” Trump said, sharply criticizing Brennan’s “horrible” claims in recent weeks that Trump had committed treason himself. “I think there’s something wrong with him.”

FILE – In this May 23, 2017, file photo, former CIA Director John Brennan testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, before the House Intelligence Committee Russia Investigation Task Force. President Donald Trump is revoking the security clearance of former Obama administration CIA director Brennan (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)
(Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

Brennan was one of the loudest and most virulent voices to trumpet the Russian collusion theory over the past two years, asserting falsely just weeks ago that Mueller was likely planning to indict members of the Trump administration’s family in a scene reminiscent of the “ides of March” and the assassination of Julius Caesar. He since implied he had “bad information.”

“When I said there could be somebody spying on my campaign, it went wild out there,” Trump told Hannity. “They couldn’t believe I could say such a thing. As it turned out, that was small potatoes compared to what went on. … Millions and millions [spent] on the phony dossier, and then they used the dossier to start things. It was a fraud, paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.”

Just hours earlier Wednesday, Trump made clear he was enthusiastic about the idea of appointing a second special counsel to review the origins of the Russia investigation when it came up during a meeting Tuesday with Republican senators, a source familiar with the discussions told Fox News.

RAND PAUL BOMBSHELL: HIGH-LEVEL SOURCE SAYS BRENNAN PUSHED DISCREDITED ANTI-TRUMP STEELE DOSSIER

In an apparent shot at former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump also told Hannity “this all would not have happened” if Attorney General William Barr had been with his administration from the beginning.

Trump also noted that ratings for several networks that aggressively pushed the Russia narrative have “fallen off” dramatically. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s audience of 2.5 million on Monday was 19 percent below her average this year, and it went down further to 2.3 million on Tuesday, according to the Nielsen company.

“If you wrote this as a novel, nobody would buy it; it would be a failure, because it would be too unbelievable,” Trump said. “We’re getting to the bottom of it. This can never, ever happen to a president again. That was a disgrace and an embarrassment to our country. … Hopefully they won’t get away with it.

“We’ll have to see how it all started, but I’m going to leave that to other people, including the attorney general and others, to make that determination,” Trump continued. “Fifty years, 100 years from now — if someone tries the same thing, they have to know the penalty will be very very great if and when they get caught.”

Trump also lashed out at Schiff, D-Calif., who has pushed strongly for investigations into possible Trump-Russia links. “Schiff is a bad guy, he knew he was lying — he’s not a dummy. For a year and a half he would just leak and call up CNN and others. You know, I watch him, so sanctimonious … He knew it was a lie, and he’d get in the back room with his friends in the Democrat Party, and they would laugh like hell. In one way, you could say it’s a crime what he did — he was making statements he knew were false. He’s a disgrace to our country.”

The president insisted the U.S. should have a “great relationship” with Russia and China, but that the “fake news” and “nonsense” distorted his intentions into something more sinister.

FILE – In this March 22, 2018 photo, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., then ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, exits a secure area to speak to reporters, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Trump also criticized Comey, whom he’d fired in 2017, as a “terrible guy.” He insisted he did not fire him to obstruct justice, telling Hannity he knew that firing Comey would only increase scrutiny on the White House.

“It was treason, it was really treason,” Trump said, referring to texts between former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page that discussed an “insurance policy” in the event of Trump’s election.

“You had dirty cops, you had people who are bad FBI folks … At the top, they were not clean, to put it mildly.” He said later, “We can never allow these treasonous acts to happen to another president.”

“I do, I have plans to declassify and release.”

— President Trump

Separately, Trump also said he hopes Democrats continue pushing the Green New Deal, which flamed out in a test vote on Tuesday, as most Democrats voted “present” instead of going on record supporting the sweeping transformation of the entire U.S. economy.

Trump’s interview came as multiple GOP lawmakers have claimed the president may have somewhat undercut perhaps the best week of his presidency by backing the complete overturn of ObamaCare.

On Monday, the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to affirm last year’s ruling by a Texas federal judge stating that the Affordable Care Act was no longer constitutional because the 2017 tax reform legislation eliminated the health care law’s penalty for not having health insurance.

Multiple congressional Republicans told Fox News they were bothered by the timing of the Trump administration’s intervention in the matter, which came on the heels of the Mueller report findings, the House sustaining the president’s veto of a bill to halt the national emergency for the border wall and a Senate vote that shined a spotlight on what conservatives described as problems with the Green New Deal, championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

Trump, despite the pushback, vowed that Republicans would soon be the “party of great health care.”

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-vows-to-release-fisa-docs-now-that-mueller-probe-is-concluded-slams-treasonous-fbi

It’s been three days since Attorney General William Barr sent Congress a four-page summary of the “principal conclusions” of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Trump-Russia investigation. That’s not a long time, but it has been long enough for a passionate debate to arise between partisans who have not seen the report, played out for a public that has not seen the report, either. Uninformed arguments are everywhere.

The Mueller report should have been prepared from the very beginning with public release in mind, and then made public the moment its completion was announced.

Without the report, it is impossible for anyone to make an informed argument about anything. Yes, Barr quoted two brief bits from the Mueller report that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” and “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” Those are clear statements that Mueller does not allege that President Trump or his circle conspired or coordinated with Russia or that conspiracy or coordination took place at all. That alone should be enough to put an end to two years of ugly and unfounded accusations directed at the president.

But it’s not enough to really understand what Mueller found and how he interpreted the evidence. Still, it’s more than Barr provided on the question of obstruction of justice. Barr wrote that the Mueller report “sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” Barr included a fragment of a sentence from the report that said, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

You can guarantee that when the report is finally made public, there will be those who argue that it offers dead solid proof that Trump obstructed justice and those who argue that it offers dead solid proof that he did not obstruct justice. The point is, no one can have an informed argument as long as the report remains finished but unreleased.

[Related: Dem congressman contradicts Mueller report, says he has personally seen evidence of Russian collusion]

Laws and regulations regarding special investigative reports have changed over the years. The last report that matched the Mueller investigation in both importance and intensity of public interest was independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on the Lewinsky matter, which served as the basis for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998. That report was prepared under the old independent counsel law, which has since expired and been replaced by the Justice Department’s special counsel guidelines that have been in place during the Mueller investigation.

Although there are many differences between the cases, Mueller faces one major obstacle that Starr faced, and that is how to handle grand jury information included in the report. The law forbids public release of such information. It also forbids release of grand jury information to Congress.

But there is perfectly legitimate way around the law, and that is to seek a court order authorizing release of the material. That is what Starr did when he sent the Lewinsky report, which included grand jury information, to Congress. Starr received court approval and sent the report. That is what Mueller could have done, only this time releasing the report to the public instead of to Congress. A few days ago, former Whitewater prosecutor Sol Wisenberg outlined the path Mueller could take to ensure quick release of the report:

It would have been a good idea, but that is not what happened.

Perhaps Mueller tried to do that, in secret, and ran into some sort of problem. We don’t know. All we know is that the report’s completion was announced, the four-page Barr summary was released, and that’s it. Now, the Justice Department says some sort of cleared for public consumption version of the report will be released in “weeks, not months.”

Just for comparison: Starr delivered his report to Congress on Wednesday, Sept. 9. On Friday the 11th, the House voted to release the 445-page to the public. Within hours, millions were reading it on the internet. Even during the two days when the report was not public, press reports were filled with descriptions of it from members of Congress. And then the public could make its own decision.

That is what should have happened with Mueller.

Now, it is true that Mueller faced one problem Starr did not, and that is that the Trump-Russia investigation, unlike the Lewinsky affair, involved a significant amount of classified information. It can’t just be published in a report. What to do about that? First, Mueller could have written the report to minimize the amount of classified material included. Second, he could have made minimal redactions to cover those parts and quickly released the report. Third, on the probability that some of the classified material was needlessly classified, he could have sought to declassify those parts. (President Trump might well have been happy to cooperate and declassify other Trump-Russia documents, like the full Carter Page FISA warrant applications, in the process.)

Also, it’s likely that much, if not most, of the classified material in the Mueller report would be in the sections dealing with Mueller’s indictment of Russians and Russian businesses for their campaign disinformation campaign and hacking and distribution of Democratic emails. That part of Mueller’s investigation is almost universally accepted and has thus caused the least public debate and controversy. Mueller could redact parts of that with little, if any, protest.

In any event, today the Mueller report sits at the Justice Department, where it will apparently be worked on for weeks before it will be released. And there is no guarantee that it will be released at all. Perhaps Barr will write a more extensive summary of the report and release that. The only thing that is certain is that the public is not being well served by keeping the report under wraps.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-release-the-mueller-report-now

On Wednesday, the leader of the House of Commons, Andrea Leadsom, a Conservative lawmaker, told the BBC there was a “real possibility” that Mrs. May’s plan could return for a vote as soon as Thursday.

Still, a third effort to pass it would be a very tall order. Mrs. May would need to win the support of about 70 lawmakers who have already voted against it twice.

If she managed that, she would almost certainly have quashed Parliament’s rebellion and ensured that at least some form of Brexit would take place relatively soon.

Wednesday’s votes were never expected to yield a firm result. There is a better chance of that happening on Monday, when Parliament is expected to vote again on the most popular options from Wednesday’s voting.

If that happens, lawmakers will then seek to forge a proposal that a majority can at least live with, and answer critics who complain that while Parliament knows what it doesn’t like, it has been incapable of saying what it does.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/world/europe/theresa-may-resignation.html

“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

Renton, Washington (CNN)Boeing unveiled an overhaul Wednesday to a software system and the pilot training of its signature 737 MAX plane, marking its most direct attempt to fix an element of the plane’s original design that investigators believe led to two recent crashes.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/economy/boeing-software-fix-737-max/index.html


    Even some of the fiercest Trump supporters among the Republican Party fear the fallout of the president’s proposals to overhaul health care. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

    Congress

    The last time the party tried to get rid of Obamacare, it cost them control of the House and several state capitols.

    President Donald Trump says the GOP is now the “party of health care.” But Republicans have no real plan to deliver on that.

    Trump’s unexpected demand that Republicans take another crack at replacing Obamacare came on the heels of his Justice Department backing a lawsuit intended to gut the entire law. The last time the party tried to get rid of Obamacare, it cost them control of the House and several state capitols.

    Story Continued Below

    Those lessons aren’t lost on Republicans. They know the more they talk about repealing Obamacare, the more likely it is that the battle over the health law and the popular protections for people with pre-existing conditions drags right into the 2020 elections, damaging vulnerable Republicans. They’d rather slow-walk the issue while sticking to health care topics that have appeal on both sides of the aisle.

    “We’re going to be involved in health but most of it is going to be very, very bipartisan, unlike the issue you’re bringing up, which would not be very bipartisan,” said Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the leader of the Senate Finance Committee.

    That could include addressing “surprise” medical bills that hit insured people who end up with an out-of-network doctor even when they’ve chosen an in-network hospital, as well as more steps to address high drug costs and opioids.

    His counterpart on the Health, Education, Labor and Education Committee, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) was singing a similar tune on Wednesday, telling reporters: “We’re working in a bipartisan way.” Alexander has recently turned his focus to health care costs, rather than repeal.

    Indeed, Republican senators and GOP aides said not to expect a sweeping new Republican plan in the months ahead, and said that aside from the narrower policy pushes, party leadership will focus on their longstanding message that Obamacare has “failed” and that Democrats’ Medicare-for-All proposals pose a threat to the current system. Democrats control the House now, and the GOP’s vision of replacing Obamacare with block grants or other conservative proposals – ideas they couldn’t enact even when they controlled both chambers — appear now to be a pipe dream.

    And if Trump wants them to move forward with larger changes, they said, the president needs to propose them himself.

    “The president makes very clear that he understands the importance of health care and that he wants the Republican Party to be the party of health care,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), whose opposition to repeal efforts in 2017 was critical in stopping the effort. “In order to do that, he has to have a detailed plan that is going to be an improvement over the ACA.”

    Even the lawmakers closest to Trump, including Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), acknowledged to reporters that Republicans, still recovering from the toxic fallout from failed repeal attempts in 2017, would be better off tackling more manageable goals like drug pricing reform going into 2020.

    “I’ve been through the wars and I have a Ph. D in health care policy now that was never on my bucket list,” Meadows said. “It’s very difficult to find anything that brings everybody together. But I do think there’s real consensus that could be found on prescription drug prices — in fact, if there’s a sweet spot to be found, it’s that.”

    Most Republicans don’t want to openly defy Trump, but many are privately complaining about the president ordering them back in the Obamacare minefield.

    “We need a plan and right now we don’t have one,” said one frustrated Republican senator, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “I’m not going to just throw this to the whims of our creativity.”

    Other lawmakers have tried and failed in the last few days to steer Trump away from the idea, telling him the anti-ACA push is bad for his own reelection campaign.

    “[Trump] knows that he made a mistake, but he’s dug in now,” said person close to the president.

    The Trump administration sent lawmakers scrambling this week when the Justice Department abruptly announced that they’re back a lawsuit led by Texas seeking to throw out all of Obamacare, reversing a far narrower legal strategy.

    That case is now pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it may well end up before the Supreme Court. Trump told Congress he wants a plan at the ready to replace Obamacare if the court voids the law — but Republicans generally expect the legal battle to last another year or so, giving them some breathing room. Grassley, for instance, played down the need for quick action on an Obamacare replacement, saying “we won’t know for months, and it could go well into next year” what the courts do. The Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare twice before, and even many conservative legal experts predict this assault on the law will ultimately fail.

    The administration’s move in the court case came just after Trump declared vindication in the Mueller investigation — an odd bit of timing that changed the subject from triumphant “exoneration” to pre-existing conditions, an issue that has been a consistent winner for the Democrats, particularly in the House races in November.

    As a second Republican senator put it: ““Why would the president do this after the release of the Mueller report?”

    “Covering preexisting conditions was always the political knockout blow,” GOP strategist Rick Wilson told POLITICO. “No matter how much Republicans think people hate Obamacare, they’re much more likely to fear the impact of their dad getting denied cancer treatment because he had an illness once before. Trump’s move now allows Democrats to campaign on a message of ‘We’re the ones who will keep you from being thrown to the wolves.'”

    Lawmakers and aides said the White House’s decision puts much more pressure on Senate Republicans, who remain in the majority, to craft legislation in response to Trump’s demands. Discussions have begun between the President’s team and Senate leadership, but have yielded no breakthroughs, leaving Republicans arguing over whether they should revive one of the bills they failed to pass in 2017 or cut their losses, ignore Trump, and move on.

    “We’ve got a new slate. The slates been wiped clean,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). “When the slate’s been wiped clean that leaves two things: Go back and do again what you’ve already done that didn’t work or find something that does.”

    Other Republicans suggested they focus on strategies to stop the lawsuit itself in its tracks.

    “You could probably moot the case if you deleted the individual mandate from the law, since that’s what it all hinges on,” said Rep. Greg Walden, who led House efforts in 2017 to get rid of Obamacare. “So that might be a possibility going forward.”

    Democrats, meanwhile, could not be more thrilled by the Trump administration shining a spotlight on what they see a massive GOP liability, and moved swiftly to capitalize on the opportunity.

    On Tuesday, they draw a stark contrast between the parties by unveiling a package of bills to shore up the Affordable Care Act and make insurance subsidies available to more middle class consumers. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Democrats will try to force a vote on defunding the DOJ’s efforts on the case.

    Democrats are confident the public is on their side. A national poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that opposition to Obamacare was in February at its lowest point since the law’s implementation. And a Washington Post poll in January found that 62 percent of Americans surveyed – and three-quarters of independents – have a negative view of President Trump’s health care agenda.

    Both the president and GOP lawmakers are well aware of this political peril on health policy, but disagree sharply on how to address it. Trump told Republicans Tuesday that they have to come up with ” a plan that is far better than Obamacare” in order to neutralize the Democratic attacks that in part cost the GOP its House majority last year.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) agreed with the pressing need for Republicans need to craft an identity that’s not just enemies of Obamacare.

    “We’re going to have a 2020 election and one of the issues will be health care,” he said. “We know what we don’t like, but we owe it to the public to say what we do like.”

    Other lawmakers insisted that the onus is on Trump to set that agenda and said they’re waiting for more information from the White House.

    But Meadows, who spoke to Trump on Wednesday morning, said the president provided no further guidance on crafting a health care bill other than insisting that they protect people with preexisting conditions and lower drug costs.

    “He sees those two areas as the things that most people are concerned about,” Meadows said. “He told me this morning, ‘We’re going to fix it.’”

    Adam Cancryn and John Bresnahan contributed reporting.

    Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/republicans-trump-health-care-1241142

    Four people including a metro bus driver were shot in Seattle Wednesday afternoon, and one person has been detained, police said.

    Officers were on the scene with multiple victims in the Lake City neighborhood on the city’s north side, according to Twitter posts by the Seattle Police Department.

    Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best told the Seattle Times that four people were shot and that one of them was killed.

    King County Metro said on Twitter that at 4:05 p.m. a bus operator on Metro Route 75 hit their emergency alarm and reported that they were injured by a gunshot. Preliminary information was that none of the 12 passengers on board were injured, the agency said.

    The bus driver was hit in the torso, but able to walk to a gurney to be taken to a hospital by paramedics, said Kenneth Price, president of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587.

    Price says it’s unclear whether the driver was targeted.

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/us/police-4-people-shot-1-detained-in-seattle-shooting

    Barbara Bush didn’t vote for Donald Trump, but two weeks after he won the presidential election, she sent his wife Melania a warm letter welcoming her to “the First Ladies very exclusive club.”

    An upcoming biography about Bush reveals details of the note she penned to Melania Trump as the incoming first lady faced intense speculation about when she would move her family to Washington from New York — or whether she planned to move from their New York penthouse at all.

    Bush, who died last April 17, urged Trump to do whatever was best for her and her son, Barron.

    “Dear Mrs. Trump, The world thought I was writing this note to Bill Clinton. I am glad that I am not,” Bush wrote. “I wanted to welcome you to the First Ladies very exclusive club. My children were older and therefore I did not have the problems you do. Whatever you decide to do is your business and yours alone.”

    Bush also offered the same advice she gave Hillary Clinton in 1992 as her family prepared to move into the White House with their only child.




    “Living in the White House is a joy and their only job is to make you happy,” Bush wrote. “If you decide to stay in NYC that will be fine also. When you come to the White House let your son bring a friend. That is my unasked for advice. God Bless you.”

    Bush’s heartfelt letter stood in contrast to how much she disliked Donald Trump, an aversion that went back decades, according to her biography, “The Matriarch: Barbara Bush and the Making of an American Dynasty,” written by USA TODAY’s Washington bureau chief, Susan Page.

    Bush considered Trump “greedy, selfish and ugly,” according to her diaries from the 1990s, which she made available for the book.

    Bush would later blame Trump for what she called the heart attack she suffered in June 2016. She formally suffered from congestive heart failure but said that year’s presidential campaign and Trump’s constant ridicule of her son, Jeb Bush, had caused her to have a heart attack.

    After the election, Bush kept a Trump “countdown clock” by her bedside table. Given to her as a joke by a friend, the red, white, and blue digital clock displayed how many days, hours, minutes and seconds remained in Trump’s term.

    In her biography, Bush revealed that she had actually drafted a very different letter she expected to mail after the 2016 presidential election.

    Bush had written a humorous congratulatory letter to Bill Clinton, the husband of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and had planned to welcome him to “the First Ladies Club.” In her letter, she joked: “We can’t wait to initiate you.”

    Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/03/27/barbara-bush-wrote-letter-to-melania-trump-after-election-new-biography-reveals/23701237/

    When Theresa May became prime minister, she had grand designs. Her premiership wouldn’t just be about taking Britain out of the European Union, it would be about fighting “the burning injustice” within the country.

    But on Wednesday night, broken by Brexit like her predecessor, May effectively conceded that she won’t be able to do anything more to battle injustice, empower women, and build a more equal society.

    May told lawmakers from her Conservative Party that she will move out of 10 Downing Street as soon as Brexit is delivered, leaving the messy business of building a future relationship with Europe to another leader. That paves the way for what will likely be a fierce succession battle in the Conservative Party.

    It is a sour moment for May, who for nearly three years has ploughed an often solitary path to get a Brexit agreement with the EU. Following two hefty defeats for her deal, she’s offered her premiership in return for getting the necessary support for her plan.

    What she had anticipated as a moment of triumph — actually delivering Brexit — has morphed into some kind of humiliation.

    Like David Cameron before her, she will leave Downing Street earlier than planned, a victim of the same deep divisions in her party over Europe.

    Hers has been a hapless task. She campaigned to keep Britain inside the EU in the 2016 referendum — albeit quietly — and then took over from Cameron with the mandate to take Britain out.

    May set her course early on in the Brexit negotiations when she decided not to seek cross-party cooperation for the type of Brexit she would pursue. She instead spelled out a series of “red lines” that she vowed never to cross that narrowed her options in the tough negotiations with the EU over the divorce.

    She decided Britain would leave the European single market, come out of the customs union with Europe, and sever many economic ties that have increasingly bound Britain to continental Europe for decades.

    Her single-minded pursuit of these goals did eventually lead to a complex agreement, but when the details were made public, many in Parliament — and many of the most prominent Brexiteers in her own party — rebelled. She was soon stung by a series of high-profile resignations, including her foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, and her Brexit secretary, David Davis.

    The pro-Brexit wing of the party said the plan would leave Britain subject to EU rules after it leaves. Pro-EU Conservatives criticized May for ruling out a so-called softer Brexit in which Britain remains in the EU’s single market and customs union, perhaps averting a Brexit-fueled economic contraction which the Bank of England has warned could see the British economy shrinking 8 percent in a matter of months.

    As the months of negotiations dragged on, she effectively lost the “hard Brexit” faction in her own party, without presenting a “soft Brexit” that would satisfy the Labour Party voters she would need to get the plan approved by Parliament.

    The result: stagnation, humiliation, and an early exit.

    It’s been a jarring end after a promising start. When May came to power in July, 2016, she came through the middle after more prominent figures, including Johnson and then Justice Secretary Michael Gove, fell out acrimoniously.

    Any idea that she had a political Midas touch evaporated quickly when she made a fateful decision to call a general election for June, 2017, three years before one was required.

    It is revealing that she seemed to make this momentous choice on her own, without much input from her staff, while rambling in the Wales countryside with her husband, Philip, during a break from her duties.

    The result was calamitous. May fared so poorly during the campaign that her party lost its majority in Parliament, gravely weakening her authority, and leading directly to the predicament she faces today, when she can only get her plan approved if she gets at least some support from other parties.

    A more flexible politician might have decided at that time that a minority position in Parliament would require reaching out to others for something as divisive as a Brexit deal, but May opted to go it alone.

    May, 62, is a steely, determined politician who admitted Wednesday night that she doesn’t do well in bars or with gossip. Her approach to setback has been to push back and push on, repeating the same talking points — “Brexit means Brexit”, for example — almost to the point of self-parody..

    Few doubt her fortitude and commitment to an idea of public service instilled in her upbringing as the daughter of an Anglican vicar. Her career has not been tainted by tales of personal greed or corruption, and she has earned praise for soldiering on in an extremely demanding position despite suffering from type 1 diabetes.

    It was by all accounts an emotional moment when she told fellow party members Wednesday night she would step down early, despite her clear, stated preference to remain in office.

    George Freeman, a former adviser, said she had “tears not far from her eyes” as she admitted she had fallen short.

    He said May admitted making “many mistakes” and said she was “only human.” Freeman said that behind closed doors May said, “I beg you, colleagues, vote for the withdrawal agreement and I will go.”

    The crowded room fell silent at that point.

    “She is falling on her sword, putting country before party and career, and is asking them to do the same. You could hear a pin drop in that room,” Freeman said.

    ___

    Follow AP’s full coverage of Brexit at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/world/brexit-claims-another-political-victim-in-uks-theresa-may

    Mr. Trump has played up that he has kept his promises, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Grogan argued, and as a candidate, they said, he campaigned on repealing the health law. His base of voters would love it. Besides, they argued, Democrats have been campaigning successfully on health care, and Republicans should try to take it over themselves. This could force the issue.

    Among those with concerns was Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, who shared that it was opposed by the new attorney general, William P. Barr. Vice President Mike Pence was concerned about the political ramifications of moving ahead without a strategy or a plan to handle the suddenly uninsured if the suit succeeds.

    That meeting was followed by a smaller one, where Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Cipollone were among those voicing different opinions. But Mr. Trump had been sold, and on Monday night, the Justice Department issued a statement saying it supports the Texas judge’s decision.

    On Wednesday, Mr. Trump doubled down on his support for the Texas suit while talking to reporters in the Oval Office.

    “If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare,” he said.

    Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/us/politics/trump-aca.html

    “);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

    WASHINGTON (CNN)Though President Donald Trump has claimed “complete and total exoneration” based on Attorney General William Barr’s summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, the American public disagrees, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

      Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/politics/cnn-poll-mueller-reaction-exoneration/index.html

      CHARLOTTESVILLE — An avowed neo-Nazi who killed one woman and injured 35 others when he plowed his car into a group of counterprotesters at an infamous white supremacist rally here pleaded guilty to hate crimes in federal court Wednesday.

      James Alex Fields Jr., 25, of Ohio, was convicted on 29 of 30 counts as part of a deal with prosecutors, who agreed they would not seek the death penalty in a case that has come to symbolize the violent resurgence of white supremacy across the country.

      Late last year, Fields convicted in state court and sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder and other counts for killing Heather D. Heyer, 32, and injuring dozens at the chaotic Unite the Right rally on Aug. 12, 2017.

      Pleading guilty to hate crimes marks a dramatic shift for Fields, whose attorneys argued during his trial in state court that he sped toward the crowd out of fear for his safety and confusion. They said he immediately regretted his actions.

      Fields entered the courtroom at the U.S. District courthouse in a gray and white striped jumpsuit and handcuffs, but spoke little during the hearing. He stood for most of the time.

      Attorney General William Barr, who approved the plea deal, issued a statement after the hearing. The charges included one count of a hate crime act that resulted in the death of Heyer and 28 counts of hate crime acts that caused injury and involved an attempt to kill other people in the crowd. Each of the 29 counts carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

      “In the aftermath of the mass murder in New Zealand earlier this month, we are reminded that a diverse and pluralistic community such as ours can have zero tolerance for violence on the basis of race, religion, or association with people of other races and religions, Barr said in the statement. “Prosecuting hate crimes is a priority for me as Attorney General.”

      The violence in 2017 and President Trump’s comments afterward that there were “very fine people” on both sides of the Charlottesville rally sparked intense criticism and a fresh focus on the renewed forces of ethno-nationalism.

      The events began on Aug. 11 when far-right groups mounted a torchlight march through the University of Virginia campus shouting “Jews will not replace us!” Fields was already on his way to Charlottesville, arriving the next day to protest the planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue with hundreds of others from the far right.

      The event generated national media attention after rallygoers carrying Nazi flags and shouting racial epithets clashed violently with counterprotesters. Police eventually dispersed the groups.

      A short-time later, Fields was seen driving his gray Dodge Charger up to a group of counterprotesters on a narrow street. He slowly backed up and then accelerated down a hill directly into the group.

      Harrowing video, which was played at Fields’ trial, shows protesters tumbling and screaming as the muscle car slams into the group. Fields then reverses at a high rate of speed, hitting and dragging others. Someone repeatedly says: “Oh god, Oh god.”

      Heyer was killed, while others were seriously wounded. One woman who limped to the stand at Fields’ state trial testified she had five surgeries and was expecting a sixth. Another described a broken pelvis and a third how he pushed his fiance out of the way before he was hit by Fields’ car.

      Fields, who a mental health expert testified suffered psychiatric issues from childhood and worked as a security guard, did not deny running into the crowd, but his attorneys argued that he acted to protect himself.

      But prosecutors forcefully countered that argument and the jury at the six-day trial ultimately rejected it.

      Jurors were shown a deleted Instagram post by Fields shared three months before that crash that featured a car running into a group of people. A caption read: “You Have the Right to Protest, But I’m Late for Work.”

      A state prosecutor also showed a blown-up image of Fields in his car to counter the idea that he was scared when he acted.

      “This is not the face of someone who is scared,” said Senior-Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Nina-Alice Antony. “This is the face of anger, of hatred. It’s the face of malice.”

      After Fields was convicted on 10 counts, Susan Bro, Heyer’s mother said she was still having trouble grappling with the loss of her daughter.

      “So many emotions, so many reactions, it’s really still hard to process,” she said, adding: “So we move forward. We still have social justice work to do. . . . The things Heather died for, I’m not seeing a lot of progress in the last year and a half.”

      This is a developing story.

      Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/neo-nazi-sympathizer-pleads-guilty-to-federal-hate-crimes-for-plowing-car-into-crowd-of-protesters-at-unite-the-right-rally-in-charlottesville/2019/03/27/2b947c32-50ab-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.html

      SAN ANTONIO, Texas — U.S. Border Patrol agents on the Southwest border took more people into custody Monday than in any day in the past 10 years, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

      Federal law enforcement agents made more than 3,700 apprehensions across California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas on Monday.

      A senior Border Patrol official told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday 1,100 of those apprehensions took place in Eagle Pass, Texas, which is part of the Del Rio Sector.

      CBP Chief Operating Officer John Sanders told attendees of the Border Security Expo this week a major reason for the recent surge in border apprehensions is due to large numbers of people illegally crossing together, rather than a handful at a time.

      In fiscal 2017, CBP documented two groups of 100 people or more. The number of group apprehensions jumped to 13 in 2018 and have spiked to 93 just in the first six months of fiscal 2019.

      Sanders said CBP is on track to have taken 100,000 people into custody at the U.S.-Mexico border the month of March. More than one-third of that number is expected to be children.

      Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/border-patrol-apprehended-more-people-monday-than-any-day-in-the-last-10-years