October 21st, 2019 Chris Wallace: Top Republican Puts Chances Of Trump’s Removal At 20 Percent

While speaking with Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace said that a "well-connected" Republican source in Washington had put the chances of enough Republicans voting to remove Donald Trump at 20 percent. The revelation calls into question the conventional wisdom that Republicans will vote to protect Trump in a Senate trial.

During the interview, Wallace cited Senate Majority Leader McConnell’s op-ed in the Washington Post calling President Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds in Syria “a grave mistake” and last week’s House vote rebuking the president in which 129 Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against Trump’s Syria policy. Wallace then said that he had “talked to a very well-connected Republican in Washington, someone whose name you would know well, who says that if the House votes to impeach and it gets to a trial in the Senate, there's now a 20 percent chance enough Republicans would vote with Democrats to impeach the president.”

When asked to respond, Mulvaney said, "That’s just absurd. The comment about the 20 percent is just a person who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about."

Mulvaney added that the president recognized that it was “not politically popular in this town to make the decision that he made to move the troops out of Syria. He ran on it. He told people he would do it if he won and he’s doing it now.”

When Wallace asked if there was concern that the president was losing support in Congress, Mulvaney responded, “The president is extraordinarily popular back home, more popular in the swing districts now that impeachment has started.”

Wallace did not say which Republican had given him the estimate, but Republican elected officials seem more likely to criticize the president in the wake of Trump’s Syria decision and the subsequent Turkish invasion of Kurdish territory. In addition to Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and others have spoken out against President Trump’s policy of retreat.

To remove Trump from office, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate. If all 45 Democrats vote to convict in the Senate trial, it would take at least 22 Republican votes, more than 40 percent of the Republican caucus, to remove Mr. Trump. While that seems like long odds, if the president’s behavior continues to become more worrisome to his own party, the chances of removal could continue to increase.

If Republicans continue to desert the president, it also increases the chances that Mr. Trump will be pressured to resign and leave office under his own terms rather than submit to a Senate trial with its possible humiliating result. Two other presidents have been impeached, but, if convicted by the Senate, Donald Trump would be the first and only president to have been forcibly removed from office.

Recent Gallup polling shows that 52 percent of Americans support Trump’s impeachment and removal from office. In 1998, only 32 percent agreed that Bill Clinton should be impeached and removed. The share of Americans who though Richard Nixon should be impeached and removed was 38 percent in 1974 before he resigned.

In the same interview, Wallace also confronted Mulvaney about his claim and subsequent walk-back that the Trump Administration withheld aid from Ukraine as part of a three-part quid pro quo. Mulvaney first denied making the statement, saying, “That’s what people are saying that I said, but I didn’t say that.”

When confronted with the tape of his words, Mulvaney insisted, “I never said there was a quid pro quo, because there isn’t.”

Originally published on the Resurgent

Mulvaney Admits Quid Pro Quo For Ukraine Aid

Remember the scandal before the abandonment of the Kurds to Turkey’s tender mercies? The one in which Trump Administration officials spent weeks denying that there was a quid pro quo Donald Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden? You can hardly be blamed if the Ukraine scandal seems like ancient history, but Mick Mulvaney just blew the Ukraine denials out of the water.

At a press conference today, White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney was asked why Ukraine aid funding was held up over the summer. Mulvaney gave a long, rambling answer (you can see his full answer here) that began by sticking to the party line that President Trump was concerned about Ukrainian corruption. But then Mulvaney dropped a bombshell.

“Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server?” Mulvaney asked rhetorically. “Absolutely! No question about that. But that’s it and that’s why we held up the money.”

“So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason he wanted to withhold funding to Ukraine,” a reporter prodded.

“The look back to what happened in 2016 was certainly part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation,” Mulvaney confirmed, adding, “And that was absolutely appropriate.”

The aid “ultimately, then, flowed,” Mulvaney continued.

“By the way, there was a report that we were worried that, if we didn’t pay out the money, that it would be illegal, it would be unlawful,” Mulvaney continued. “That is one of those things that has a little shred of truth in it that makes it look a lot worse than it really is.”

“We were concerned over at OMB about an impoundment,” Mulvaney explained. “The Budget Control Act of 1974 says that if Congress appropriates money, you have to spend it…. We knew that money had to go out the door by the end of September or we had to have a really, really good reason not to do it, and that was the legality.”

“Let’s be clear: what you just described is a quid pro quo,” another reporter said, returning to the main issue. “It is [that] funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democrat server happened as well.”

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney answered. “We were holding up money at the same time for the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration.”

Referring to congressional testimony in which a witness said that he was “upset about the political influence in foreign policy,” Mulvaney shot back, “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences and foreign policy is going to change from the Obama Administration to the Trump Administration.”

Mulvaney blamed the uproar over the phone call on “a group of mostly career bureaucrats who are saying, ‘I don’t like President Trump’s politics so I’m going to participate in this witch hunt.”

Mr. Mulvaney apparently doesn’t see the difference between advocating for policy changes and pushing foreign governments to investigate domestic political opponents. In essence, Mr. Mulvaney just copped to doing the same thing that Republicans have spent the last three years accusing the Obama Administration of doing.

Other members of the Trump Administration do not seem to take the possibility of withholding aid appropriated by Congress as cavalierly as Mr. Mulvaney. In a statement, the Justice Department said, “If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation of any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us.”

Jay Sekulow, part of President Trump’s legal team, told CNN, “The legal team was not involved in the acting chief of staff’s press briefing.”

After his brash statements, which will undoubtedly add fuel to the drive to impeach the president, Mr. Mulvaney’s own future may be in doubt as well. President Trump may have to fire the acting chief of staff to distance himself from Mulvaney’s comments.

With friends such as Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom have now undercut the president’s defense with incriminating statements on camera, Donald Trump hardly needs any enemies.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans Not Happy With Border Deal But Have Few Options

Congressional negotiators announced a tentative agreement in the talks to fund the government to prevent another shutdown last night. The agreement reportedly reduces the amount of funding for President Trump’s pet wall project, which leaves open the possibility that the president will refuse to sign off on the agreement. Immigration hardliners have already begun to attack the deal.

The agreement reportedly includes no money for a wall, but $1.375 billion for enhancements such as steel slats for existing barriers and funding for 55 miles of new barriers, per NBC News. The new fencing would be subject to geographical restrictions on its placement. Republicans would also get $1.7 billion for other border security projects such as new technology for ports of entry, additional customs officers, humanitarian aid, and funding for more than 40,000 new beds in immigrant detention facilities. Democrats reportedly gave up their demand for a cap on the number of beds that can be used for detaining illegal immigrants.

Sean Hannity immediately attacked the agreement, calling it a “garbage compromise.”

“By the way, on this new so-called compromise,” Hannity said. “I’m getting details. $1.3 billion? That’s not even a wall, a barrier… We will get back into this tomorrow. Any Republican that supports this garbage compromise, you will have to explain—look at this crowd, look at the country.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, tweeted that Congress had created “a bad deal on immigration.”
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1095169524972900353

Few other prominent Republicans have spoken out publicly on the deal so far.

Word of the deal came just as President Trump was about to take the stage at a rally in El Paso. The president said that he was aware of the deal but not the details.

"I could have stayed out there and listened or I could have come out there to the people of El Paso in Texas. I chose you," Trump said. "Maybe progress has been made, maybe not."

President Trump has not commented publicly on the deal, but the $1.3 billion currently being offered by Democrats is less than the $1.6 billion that was on the table in December prior to the shutdown. Just over a year ago, in January 2018, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had offered $25 billion for the wall. That was before the blue wave in the midterm elections gave Democrats control of the House of Representatives.

If the president sticks to his previous position, he may well reject the current offer and force another government shutdown. It isn’t clear how another shutdown would allow Republicans to increase funding for the wall. Democrats held firm for 35 days beginning in December. President Trump relented and reopened the government when his approval began to fall precipitously in January.

Another possible option is for the president to accept the deal and then proceed with his idea of using executive actions to fund the wall. CNN political analyst Eliana Johnson tweeted this morning that the White House is seriously considering this strategy.

https://twitter.com/elianayjohnson/status/1095301116647096320

Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said on “Meet the Press” Sunday that the president can shift money from various accounts into a fund to pay for the wall. Moving money from these accounts would not require congressional approval or a declaration of emergency, Mulvaney said.

“There are certain sums of money that are available to the president, to any president,” Mulvaney said. “So, you comb through the law at the president's request ... And there's pots of money where presidents, all presidents, have access to without a national emergency.”

If President Trump and Republicans reject the current compromise deal, it isn’t clear what the path forward would be. Executive actions to fund the wall, whether with or without an emergency declaration, would almost certainly face legal challenges that could delay construction until after President Trump’s term is over.

With Nancy Pelosi now in charge of the House of Representatives and public opinion divided on the wall, it is unlikely that Congress will be willing to allocate more funds. If he truly wanted a wall, the president’s best opportunity was last year, but that chance is gone forever. Republicans are now forced to choose between a bad deal or no deal at all.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Two Acting Directors Fight For Control of CFPB

Chaos is breaking loose at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as two Acting Directors engage in a battle for control of the agency. The Acting Director chosen by the agency’s former head has now filed suit against the Trump Administration to block the president’s pick to lead the agency.

The drama began on Friday when Richard Cordray, director of the CFPB under Barack Obama, resigned his position. As he departed, Cordray named Leandra English, the CFPB’s chief of staff, to become the deputy director of the agency. As deputy director, English would become the acting director on Cordray’s departure. Shortly after Cordray stepped down, President Trump nominated Mick Mulvaney, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, to take the reins of the CFPB.

Then things got weird.

Leandra English refused to step aside and accept President Trump’s nomination of Mulvaney. Sunday night, English filed suit against the Trump Administration to block Mulvaney’s appointment. The Hill reports that the CFPB head counsel is expected to resist English’s suit. This puts English in the somewhat unique position of fighting the agency that she purportedly heads in court.

English’s suit claims that Trump’s appointment of Mulvaney is a violation of the Dodd-Frank Act that established the CFPB. The Trump Administration cites the Vacancies Reform Act in the appointment of Mulvaney, which English argues is superseded by the language of Dodd-Frank.

Noah Feldman at the Chicago Tribune explains that the CFPB, like the Federal Reserve, is an independent agency in which the director is insulated from presidential control and can only be fired for cause. Therefore, if Cordray is allowed to appoint his own acting successor, English would also be protected from termination by Trump. The White House Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that President Trump had the legal authority to appoint a different acting director if the appointee had already been confirmed by the Senate, as Mulvaney had.

Ultimately the issue is whether the CFPB is under presidential control at all. In 2016, a federal court ruled that the CFPB power structure created by the Democrats was unconstitutional and left the agency director unaccountable to Congress or the president. The ruling is now under review by the full DC circuit court.  Fifteen state attorneys general have filed briefs urging the court to require checks on the agency in accordance with the constitutional separation of powers.

Currently, the two acting directors are battling for the loyalty of the agency’s employees. The Washington Post reports that English emailed employees, saying, “I hope that everyone had a great Thanksgiving. With Thanksgiving in mind, I wanted to take a moment to share my gratitude to all of you for your service.”

Mulvaney responded with his own email instructing agency employees to “Please disregard any instructions you receive from Ms. English in her presumed capacity as acting director” and report any other communications from English to the agency counsel.

Mulvaney also included an enticement. “I apologize for this being the very first thing you hear from me,” he said in the email. “However, under the circumstances I suppose it is necessary. If you’re at 1700 G Street today, please stop by the fourth floor to say hello and grab a doughnut.” A subsequent tweet by Mulvaney’s spokesman showed several doughnut boxes with only one half of a chocolate-glazed remaining. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Federal Hiring Freeze Ends But Restructuring Continues

It was good while it lasted.

President Trump is ending the federal hiring freeze that he put into place in January as one of his first acts as president. The freeze excluded military personnel and key posts in the Departments of Defense, State and the Veteran’s Administration.

Under the exemptions, the Department of Labor estimates that the federal government hired about 4,000 people in January and 2,000 in February. These include staffers to help reduce the backlog of claims at the VA, which recently topped 100,000.

The upside is that even though federal agencies can resume hiring, it will be at a slower pace. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said that some positions would be permanently unfilled. The elimination of the freeze “does not mean that the agencies will be free to hire willy-nilly,” he told the NBC. “What we're doing tomorrow [Wednesday] is replacing the across-the-board hiring freeze that we put into place on Day One in office and replacing it with a smarter plan, a more strategic plan, a more surgical plan.”

Mulvaney said that federal agencies will be required to submit plans to make themselves leaner and more cost-effective. Even agencies that are slated to receive increased funding under the proposed Trump budget will be required to eliminate redundant and inefficient activities and positions.

“The government reorg is probably the biggest story nobody is talking about,” Mulvaney told the Wall Street Journal. “We’re trying to do something that’s never been done.”

The Trump Administration had ordered agencies to start from scratch in their planning. Mulvaney admits that many of the proposed changes will need congressional approval and said that he was confident that a bipartisan agreement could be reached on improving the government. Under Senate rules, at least eight Democrats need to vote for cloture before the Senate can vote on proposed bills.

“We're not trying to ram it down their throats,” he said.

“This is a big part of draining the swamp,” Mulvaney said. “What you’re talking about doing is restructuring Washington, D.C. and that is how you drain the swamp… This is a centerpiece of his campaign and a centerpiece of his administration.”

Originally published on the Resurgent

A battle over spending is shaping up between President Trump and congressional Republicans. Many of Trump’s campaign promises involved spending large amounts of tax money on items from the military to infrastructure. Now budget hawks in Congress are gearing up to try to prevent the deficit from exploding over the next four years.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the tensions surfaced in the confirmation hearing of Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina congressman who has been nominated by Mr. Trump to head the White House Office of Management and Budget. Mulvaney faced sharp questions from two different camps in the GOP. On one side were defense hawks who were concerned about Rep. Mulvaney’s past votes to cut military spending. On the other were those at odds with Mr. Trump’s campaign promise not to cut Social Security or Medicare.

While the Trump Administration has indicated that it plans some cuts in government spending, the elephant in the room is that programs like the National Endowment for the Arts and the Center for Public Broadcasting aren’t what’s busting the federal budget. Even foreign aid only represents about one percent of federal spending.

Let’s face it, America. We have an entitlement problem.

Entitlements make up about half of the federal budget. The largest entitlement of all is a program that many don’t even think of as an entitlement. Social Security accounts for 24 percent of the federal budget and is the largest single budget item. Health spending in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Obamacare subsidies account for another 25 percent. Defense spending is a distant third at 16 percent. Entitlement spending is expected to rise even further as Baby Boomers age and leave the workforce.

“I’m not looking to pick a fight with the president of the United States, but if his goal is to put the country on a fiscally sound course, he’s going to have to address entitlement reform,” Rep. Tom Cole (R., Okla.) told the Journal. “Anybody who is going to balance the budget on discretionary spending [cuts] is on a fool’s errand.”

A fight that is likely to come before entitlement reform is Mr. Trump’s plan for an infrastructure stimulus. Rep. Mulvaney and many Republicans were critical of the infrastructure spending plan before the election, but a separate Journal article noted that Democrats were embracing the $1 trillion proposal.

“We’re challenging him to join us even if his Republican colleagues in the House and Senate aren’t for it,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. This raises the possibility that President Trump could form a bipartisan alliance with congressional Democrats to enact his spending proposals as well as block conservative attempts at entitlement reform.

The Republican budget hawks will have allies in the Trump Administration. Mr. Mulvaney, a proponent of entitlement reform during his four terms in Congress, said, “I haven’t been quiet and shy since I’ve been here. The president knew what he was getting when he asked me to fill this role.”

Likewise, the fiscally conservative Heritage Foundation was influential in the Trump transition team. Since the group holds President Trump’s ear, reports like the one that advise him to “not be taken in by hyperbolic rhetoric about the state of the nation’s infrastructure or lured by false promises of stimulus-induced job creation” may prove influential in the long term.

The Trump campaign has led to a Trump Administration that is filled with contradictions. Trump’s promises of spending, some made as recently as last week, conflict with his appointment of fiscal conservatives like Mulvaney. Other appointees, such as Steven Mnuchin, seem to be more squishy on deficit spending.

Will Trump follow his advisors or his instincts? Will Republicans back him if Trump follows his liberal inclinations on spending? Stay tuned and find out.

Originally published on The Resurgent