Thứ Bảy, 23 tháng 6, 2018

News on Youtube Jun 24 2018

ROBERT COSTA: A crisis at the border and in Washington. I'm Robert Costa.

We discuss President Trump's zero-tolerance immigration policy and its cost, both

political and human, tonight on Washington Week.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (From video.) We're going to keep families together, but the

border is going to be just as tough as it's been. (Cheers, applause.)

ROBERT COSTA: President Trump insists the administration's hardline immigration stance

remains, but does an about-face on his policy of separating children from parents who

enter the country illegally. Amid the firestorm, the president blames Democrats.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (From video.) Democrats don't care about the impact of uncontrolled

migration on your communities, your schools, your hospitals, your jobs or your safety.

ROBERT COSTA: And Mexico.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (From video.) Mexico is doing nothing for us except taking our

money and sending us drugs.

ROBERT COSTA: On Capitol Hill, House Republicans postpone a vote on a long-term legislative fix.

REPRESENTATIVE JEFF DENHAM (R-CA): (From video.) Well, we've all been in negotiations

for the last several weeks. We're going to spend the weekend, delay a vote till next week.

ROBERT COSTA: But the president tells them to stop wasting their time trying to pass

legislation before the midterm elections. What's next for the more than 2,000

children waiting to be reunited with their parents, and what's next in Congress?

We examine the challenges ahead with Nancy Cordes of CBS News, Michael Shear of The New

York Times, Yeganeh Torbati of Reuters, and Dan Balz of The Washington Post.

ANNOUNCER: This is Washington Week. Once again, from Washington, moderator Robert Costa.

ROBERT COSTA: Good evening. Dramatic and stark images of thousands of children at

the border separated from their families transfixed Americans and people abroad, and

stoked international outrage. More than 2,300 children have been taken from their

parents since early May since they crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without documentation.

Inside the converted warehouses and tents, children alone without parents, confined in

chain-link spaces and sleeping on floor mats. Reports that the government was holding

infants and toddlers in so-called tender age shelters proved to be a tipping point.

Lawmakers visited the border and there was global outrage.

British Prime Minister Theresa May delivered a sharp rebuke.

BRITISH PRIME MINISTER THERESA MAY: (From video.) The pictures of children being held in

what appear to be cages are deeply disturbing. This is wrong.

ROBERT COSTA: Pope Francis called the policy immoral.

For days the president and his administration blamed others.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (From video.) I hate the children being taken away.

The Democrats have to change their law. That's their law.

HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY KIRSTJEN NIELSEN: (From video.) Congress and the courts

created this problem, and Congress alone can fix it.

ROBERT COSTA: On Wednesday the president did what he said he couldn't do: he signed an

executive order stopping the government from separating families.

The action allows families to be detained together, but not for more than 20 days.

Nancy, we saw the president signing his name on that executive order, and that executive

order could be challenged in the courts. We also saw those images of stone-faced

congressional Republicans. What's next for them on Capitol Hill?

NANCY CORDES: It's very unclear. You know, on one hand they've got this legislation,

this compromise bill, a compromise between moderate and conservative Republicans. They were

hoping to hold a vote on Thursday, then that got shifted to Friday, now perhaps next week.

But as the president tweets that they should just give it all up, that's leading some

Republicans to say why should I stick my neck out there and vote for legislation when I

don't even know that the president is going to back it. And then you've got moderates

who say but if you don't hold this vote, we want to try and push our own legislation.

And so Republican leaders are really caught in a Catch-22 here, holding a vote next week

on a piece of legislation that could fail, looks even worse for the GOP, and then what

does Congress do?

ROBERT COSTA: Could there be something narrow?

Something that maybe increases the amount of judges who are dealing with these cases?

NANCY CORDES: That's plan B. And you've got a lot of Senate Republicans who are pushing

for something that looks like that. But then the question is can they get any Democratic

support? They'll need it. And it's not at all clear that Democrats are going to back

even a narrow piece of legislation that says, OK, you can hold these children with their

parents, they'll no longer be separated, but you can hold them indefinitely, or even for

a year or two until their parents finally get an asylum hearing.

There are a lot of Democrats who say that that is inhumane.

MICHAEL SHEAR: It's also not entirely clear that Congress even has the legal authority

to do that, to say that the children could be held indefinitely, because the basis of the

restrictions on - the current restrictions on children being held is a court decision

that was based on constitutional premises of due process and not on legal authority

created by a congressional piece of legislation. And so it's unclear, the legal experts

that I talked to, whether or not Congress could even pass a piece of legislation that

says, sure, go ahead and keep families and children together for months or years.

ROBERT COSTA: When you think about the families, as they watch all this, with the

administration, with Congress, you've been reporting this week for Reuters about how the

Department of Health and Human Services is looking at perhaps fingerprinting adults who

are coming in to try to make it easier to connect the children with their parents.

Is that possible? What's being done to reconnect these families?

YEGANEH TORBATI: So that's a little separate, actually.

What the HHS has told us a few weeks ago was that they were now going to be expanding the

category of people that they're going to be fingerprinting who are coming to claim

children. This was sort of before this migrant crisis kind of exploded onto the news.

Now, experts and advocates are really fearful and kind of worry a lot about that decision

because they fear that with greater cooperation between HHS and ICE, which is responsible

for deporting people here illegally, that, you know, potential sponsors, parents, family

members of these kids who could come and claim them are going to be afraid to do so

because they, you know, may find themselves deported, may find that information given to

ICE. And so, I mean, it's just, like, sort of one example of the ways in which we

don't really quite know what's going to happen to these children.

You know, the children who were separated from their parents are just a subset of a

larger portion of children that, you know, crossed here without their parents and are

also in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.

And it's just very unclear what the path is for reuniting them with their parents.

ROBERT COSTA: What's unclear, Yeganeh, is what's being done. These

are not units; these are people. What's being done from the federal perspective?

You wrote this week for Reuters about how one child stopped eating and fell into a

depression at one of these centers. Another who could previously walk on his own

now has to ask his mother to carry him everywhere. A third child started biting

other children. Is there a federal response to the medical, psychological issues

these children are facing?

YEGANEH TORBATI: So, you know, those stories were all from children who had been kept at

family detention centers. And these are centers - there's only three of them in the

United States that are able to house families together.

But experts have found that any sort of detention for a child - whether it's in one of

these centers or, you know, at a - at a harsher facility, is damaging to the child.

And they really, really urge the government to be limited in their use of family

detention. You know, even putting aside those issues, the government only has, like,

3,200 beds in these family detention centers. And so we - you know, in one month

alone they detained, like, 9,400 families crossing the border illegally.

And so it's very unclear where - if the zero-tolerance policy continues, even if they're

able to kind of get the permission to hold families longer than 20 days, where those

families would go. Would they start building sort of tent cities on military bases?

What kind of standards are those going to have? What effect is that going to have on children?

ROBERT COSTA: Mike, real quick, and then I want to get Dan on the big picture.

You've been reporting, though, on could the Pentagon be providing 20,000 new beds for

these children, for these families?

MICHAEL SHEAR: So the Department of HHS, which is the agency that really takes custody

of children in this system, has asked the Pentagon to asses where it might have

facilities that could provide up to 20,000 beds over the course of the next several

months. It is indicative of the confusion that we find ourselves in and that, more to

the point, the government finds itself in after this very sort of last minute

executive order, that the story from the Pentagon about who would be in those

beds has changed back and forth literally almost by the hour.

Last night when I was doing reporting, initially it was these are 20,000 beds for what

they call unaccompanied children, which would mean the parents aren't there.

Then the Pentagon said, well, actually, maybe the parents would be there, it would be the

families. And then they went back to, well, no it's just for the kids.

And today when we talked to them, they said, well, it's not determined yet.

It might well be facilities that would be used for families, but it's up to HHS.

So I think, you know, they're scrambling to find space, because they understand that if

this goes on for weeks or months, they need lots more space.

If they don't have the space to hold the families, then the only option probably would be

either to release them - which President Trump doesn't want to do - or to separate them

again, which obviously led to the crisis that we're in. So that's the dilemma.

ROBERT COSTA: Let's bring it back to President Trump. Dan, I thought of you this

week when I saw the president in Minnesota for a rally. And you've studied and done

a lot of reporting this year on Midwestern voters who support President Trump. They

were right there with him amid all of this that was going on on immigration. The president,

whether it's on Twitter or on stage, remains defiant. What do you make of it all?

DAN BALZ: Immigration was one of the central messages of his campaign and one of the

issues that struck hardest and with most intensity among the core supporters of the

president. And it is an issue that he is unwilling to back off on or unwilling to give up.

And I think it's one of the reasons that there's still so much difficulty trying to get

anything done in Congress. There's a question of is he prepared to actually make a

deal to take this issue off the table? Or does he prefer to have the issue?

That rally was another example of the power of that issue.

You know, as bad politically as all the images were this week of the children and the

chaos on the border, there's another reality, which is the issue of open borders is still

an issue that plays well with a lot of the country and a lot of those Trump supporters.

And he's not going to give that up. And I think that there's understanding that as

long as we have these kinds of situations he's going to continue to push hard on that.

NANCY CORDES: And yet, with voters who are in the middle, it's hard to think of two more

sympathetic aspects of the immigration debate than DACA recipients, these DREAMers who

were brought here through no fault of their own, and young children - toddlers, little

girls, little boys, separated from their parents at the border.

And the president has now managed to put those two populations front and center in the

immigration debate, which Republicans think is a nightmare for them in November.

And that's why this week you saw Republicans in Congress, who even just a week ago were

rationalizing the zero-tolerance policy, saying - well, it's very important, it needs to

serve as a deterrent - turning around this week and saying: It's inhumane.

It needs to stop. The president is the person who can stop it.

DAN BALZ: I think the president and his party obviously have different motivations here.

I mean, they are obviously thinking of November. And, you know, a Democrat who I

contacted today and said: How do you think this affects November? He said, it will

have an effect in the suburban districts, but we have to see whether it fades.

But for the president, a Republican I talked to last week said one of the things to think

about the president is that he has traded approval - which is to say he's less worried

about his approval rating - he has traded it for intensity. And his particular

style of politics is to generate intensity among the people that are with him.

ROBERT COSTA: That phrase, "particular style of politics," it matters, Mike, because

you've done a story this week about how Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House

advisor Stephen Miller have been cultivating many of these ideas and policies for years.

This isn't something that just came out of the blue.

MICHAEL SHEAR: No, exactly. And in fact, a lot of people date the sort of first

utterance that President Trump or, then-candidate Trump made about sort of immigration

and sort of anti-immigrant sentiment, from the time that he - that the announcement

of his campaign, when he came down and talked about rapists and murders coming over

from Mexico. In fact, it goes back much farther. There were - there was a speech that

he gave before he announced for the presidency in Texas, in which he called people

coming across the border from Mexico vomit. He said they're coming over like vomit.

If you go back further, in his sort of personal history he - you know, obviously, there

was the anti-Muslim -

ROBERT COSTA: But Sessions and Miller, they talked about the separation of the families for years.

MICHAEL SHEAR: Right, and I was going to say - and part of that was what drew Sessions

and Miller to him, was that they saw in him a kindred spirit. And they had been

talking - Miller has been talking about the issue of deterrence and how you deter

people from coming into this country. And one of those things is by separating the

families. And I interviewed Miller for almost 90 minutes in his office in the West

Wing a couple of weeks ago now. And he made it clear, amid all of the confusing

rhetoric that the other administration officials - is it a deterrent, is it not

a deterrent - Miller was absolutely clear. He said of course it's a deterrent

and of course there's no stepping back from it because we need to send a message.

ROBERT COSTA: Is it a deterrent? Because you've been studying and reporting on

immigration, and you know President Obama dealt with a surge of migrants in 2014.

We saw border crossings drop in early 2017. What is the actual reality at the

border with these crossings? Who's coming over and what does the data tell us?

YEGANEH TORBATI: So a lot of these are, you know, children and their parents, usually

their mothers. And, you know, I spent some time in Guatemala this year.

You know, there is an epidemic of, you know, domestic violence, gang violence, real like

threats to, you know, people's safety that they're fleeing. And also there is,

obviously, an economic element to this as well. When people feel they don't have

an option, they're going to leave. And, you know, they may hear news stories - first

of all, it takes some time for some of this to trickle down. But, I mean, we'll

wait and see when - we'll have new border crossing numbers at the beginning of July.

We'll see if there's been a big drop off. But, you know, for the last three months,

even as the administration's rhetoric has sort of heated up, those border - those

numbers have not ceased. They've continued to increase especially over last year,

when there was, as you mentioned, a pretty significant drop in the first few months

of the Trump administration. I just wanted to sort of build off of Michael's point.

I mean, the rhetoric that President Trump used during the campaign has continued up

until, like, you know, this very moment.

He's talking about, you know, comparing immigrants essentially to like an infestation,

and that affects his ability to get Democrats onboard with any sort of immigration

compromise because Democrats have their own base to worry about.

And even if the Republicans were to offer a bill that would have some things that they

would like - for instance, a path to citizenship for DREAMers - Democrats can't sign onto

something when they're dealing with someone who's referring to immigrants in terms like

that. Yeah, it just doesn't work.

ROBERT COSTA: That's such a good point. Why won't the Democrats give President

Trump the 25 billion (dollars) he wants for a border wall?

NANCY CORDES: Well, they might be willing to give him the 25 billion (dollars) he wants

for a border wall. In fact, Chuck - in fact, Chuck Schumer tried to give him that

25 billion (dollars) and he says the president wouldn't take yes for an answer.

They're willing to do that as part of a larger negotiation, but there are some aspects of

the Republican plan that are just a no-go for them. To Yeganeh's point, they're

not going to accept, for example, you know, something that deals with the DACA

population but doesn't give them legal certainty that they can stay in this country,

or that cuts legal immigration in half, doesn't allow people to bring family members.

MICHAEL SHEAR: Right. I mean, it goes back to Miller and Sessions. There are -

there are changes to the immigration system, both legal and illegal, that Sessions and

Miller have been, you know, wanting to put in place in this country for many, many years.

The so-called moderate bill that the House was - I guess is going to vote on next week is

filled with changes that Miller and Sessions have been trying to do for a long time that

are - that are viewed by the Democrats and viewed by the advocacy community on behalf of

immigrants as really awful. And so, you know, could there be a kind of wall for DACA?

Absolutely. I mean, I think that the votes are probably there for that,

but not with all this other stuff in it.

DAN BALZ: Some of the - some of the Democrats came away from that episode, as you know,

convinced that having offered that money and Trump not being willing to make the deal

that he prefers the political issue to a deal.

ROBERT COSTA: Is this a turning point, Dan? I think back to the ban on Muslim

country - people coming from Muslim countries. It's barely talked about in Washington

some days. You think about even the North Korea summit. It seems to fade from the

headlines. This is the issue this week. Does this become a real pivot for the

whole midterm scene as both parties barrel toward November, or not?

DAN BALZ: Bob, I think it's premature to make that assessment, just for the reasons you

say - things move past us and we forget what happened three days ago, five days ago, let

alone two months ago or anything. I think one element of this - two points.

One, this is the biggest reversal that the president has had to make in his presidency.

It's the biggest climbdown, even though he's continuing very tough rhetoric toward the

Democrats. It's the biggest reversal he's had to do. So that's an important thing.

But the second is everything that we've been talking about so far tonight are questions

that are unresolved and problems that are not yet fixed, and that don't seem likely to be

fixed in the next 20 days or 30 days.

So the degree to which those kinds of issues are continuing to fester into the fall could

continue to make this issue a really problematic one for the Republicans.

NANCY CORDES: I also think that chapter one of this story still isn't over.

I mean, until you're able to find the children who belong to the parents and reunite

them, we are still sort of squarely in the first chapter of this story.

And then there's a whole second chapter that has to do with competence.

There's the morality story, but there's also the competence story; which is that if this

administration was not even able to impose its own policy, which as you point out they've

been thinking about for years, in a competent manner, keeping track of children so that

you don't lose them, being able to tell people where those children are, how much

credibility is the administration going to have the next time it tries to argue not just

to Democrats, but to Republicans that it's time for a new policy?

MICHAEL SHEAR: But keep - but keep in mind, to Dan's point, there are different

interests for the president and for the lawmakers who are - who are facing the voters

this year. The president doesn't face the voters for another two-and-a-half years,

and you know, for all of the stuff that's been happening here his base isn't going

to believe that he backed down. His base isn't really going to think, oh, well,

you know, now he's not one of us anymore, because he's got them locked in.

And I do - I do wonder whether the closer we get to the - to the elections, to the

midterms, that the gulf between President Trump's interest and a given member of Congress

who is running for reelection, that widens.

DAN BALZ: Nancy's point about the policy is an important one. I mean, this is

policy chaos that we are seeing. It's kind of a textbook example of a policy put

in place without much thinking and then a policy suddenly reversed again without

much thinking. And so they are trying to square all that.

There's a quote that we had in one of our stories today from a person from the Texas

Civil Rights Project who said either the government wasn't thinking at all about how they

were going to put these families back together or they decided they just didn't care.

I mean, the administration faces an internal problem. If you're - if you're one of

the people at, you know, HHS who's having to deal with this, how do you try to fix it?

ROBERT COSTA: And it's about is it HHS, is it the Border Patrol, is it the Department of

Homeland Security? I was in the newsroom this week, and just listening to all

the different agencies it wasn't clear who's actually taking the lead.

And it's the images that we may continue to see.

But I'm also wondering, when you talk to advocates and experts, do they expect migrants

to continue to come, perhaps with their children, in the coming months?

So it's not just about those who are already here, but those who may still come.

YEGANEH TORBATI: Absolutely.

I haven't talked to anyone who thinks that this is going to effectively shut off - I

mean, people may think twice, but they are still going to, you know, take their chances.

Let's remember, like, they called this a zero tolerance, 100 percent prosecution policy,

but even at its height they were really only prosecuting 60 percent.

I mean, they just don't have the capacity to prosecute every single person that they

cross - that they catch crossing the border illegally, and so people are going to still

take their chances and hope that they'll, you know, be able to cross, claim asylum, and

eventually be released.

And on the question of, you know, the competence and sort of thinking through their

policies, this week reminded me so much of the week that the first travel ban -

MICHAEL SHEAR: Travel ban, yeah. (Laughs.)

YEGANEH TORBATI: I was at the airport, at Dulles, interviewing people who were waiting

for their family members to get out. There were lots of lawyers there. And then

throughout the weeks just reporting, I mean, we didn't even know who exactly the ban

applied to in the beginning. Did it apply to green-card holders? At first it did,

then it didn't. It was just - it is frustrating trying to answer editors' questions

when you just have no idea what the - what the policy is, and I felt that way this

week too. There was just - it was just so difficult trying to figure it out

because I think even our sources in the government didn't know.

ROBERT COSTA: And the Republican Party, a party that's stood by this president for over

a year now, finally seemed to gently say stop.

NANCY CORDES: Right, and you know, in some cases not so gently.

I mean, you had Republican senators and members of Congress who have been so reluctant to

cross this president, really saving that up, suddenly saying this is not humane; you have

to change it. And a growing frustration that just in the past four days first the

president said I'm 1,000 percent behind your legislation; then he said, well, I'm going

to change it after you pass it, which by the way is not how government works.

Doesn't work that way. And then he said I need you to pass it.

And then he said just rip it all up and we'll do it after the midterms.

I mean, if you're a member of Congress and you're getting these messages -

ROBERT COSTA: Right, we got to go.

NANCY CORDES: - you know, it leaves you extremely confused.

ROBERT COSTA: Well, we have to keep an eye on Congress. I know I say these stories

can come and go, but we'll keep an eye on Congress, Republicans, Democrats, and most

importantly the people who are affected by policy. Thanks, everybody. And our

conversation will continue online on the Washington Week Extra. You can find that

later tonight at PBS.org/WashingtonWeek. I'm Robert Costa. Thanks for joining us.

For more infomation >> Crisis at the border and in Washington - Duration: 23:54.

-------------------------------------------

President Trump's plan to streamline the government - Duration: 9:30.

ROBERT COSTA: Hello. I'm Robert Costa. And this is the Washington Week Extra, where we

pick up online where we left off on our broadcast.

Joining me around the table, Yeganeh Torbati of Reuters, Michael Shear of The New York

Times, Nancy Cordes of CBS News, and Dan Balz of The Washington Post.

Tonight we pick up with President Trump's promise to streamline the federal government.

The plan, outlined in Thursday's Cabinet meeting, is part of the president's pledge to

make government more efficient. Proposals include a possible merger of the Education

and Labor Departments; taking the food-stamp program out of the Department of

Agriculture and moving it into the Department of Human and Health (sic; Health and Human)

Services, HHS; and merging the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug

Administration's food-safety regulators. Why now, Mike, is this administration - amid

all of the immigration talk, they're moving on the federal government.

MICHAEL SHEAR: Well, look, I think there's a lot of suspicion among advocates for these

various programs that this is not a sincere effort to try to improve the programs and

consolidate waste and fraud and abuse, but rather is a - is kind of undergirded by the

president's antipathy towards and conservative Republicans' antipathy towards the big,

sprawling bureaucracy, and that what's really intended here is to try to shrink some of

these programs and eliminate the ones that they don't want to - that they don't think are

effective, that they don't think should be in existence. And I think, you know, nothing

that this administration does makes a whole of sense in terms of timing, in terms of,

you know, when something would happen makes a lot of sense, so you know, I think this

is when the - you know, this particular piece of the project came forward. And the

fact that it's swamped by the immigration debate I don't think they managed very well.

ROBERT COSTA: Where does this go on Capitol Hill?

There are a lot of conservatives in the Republican Party on Capitol Hill.

Is this something that they want to champion ahead of the midterms?

NANCY CORDES: I think it's amazing how little attention this got on Capitol Hill.

I mean, partly there was -

ROBERT COSTA: That's why it's in the webcast. That's why it's the webcast. (Laughter.)

NANCY CORDES: No, but it really is striking. Normally this is the kind of thing that

Democrats would be railing against and conservatives would be cheering. But, first of

all, it got overshadowed by the immigration crisis. But also, you know - well, two things.

First of all, it requires congressional approval and, you know, Congress is unlikely to

take a move like this, especially in an election year. But second, there are real

questions about whether this administration really has the staff and the expertise to

successfully make huge changes to the federal bureaucracy like this.

I mean, they're saying if you can't even keep track of children and who they - which

parents they belong to, how do we know that you could efficiently merge multiple

agencies? So it really just got very little attention.

ROBERT COSTA: But these agencies, Education and Health, used to be together.

DAN BALZ: Well, there - between 1932 and 1984 there were 100 proposals put forward by

presidents to reorganize parts of the federal government. Almost every president at

one point in their presidency decides the federal government needs to be reorganized.

One of the things in this proposal is to consolidate job-training programs.

This has been a proposal that goes back -

MICHAEL SHEAR: Obama did it multiple times, yeah.

DAN BALZ: - many presidencies. It rarely gets done. It's a very complicated thing to do.

I think on the one hand give them the benefit of the doubt: the federal government is

big, sprawling, inefficient, and things get put in places for no particular reason other

than that there's some constituency that puts them there, and it creates inefficiencies

that if you're trying to run these programs you would like to fix them. But the other

reality is, as Nancy says, it's very difficult to get these through Congress. And even

if you were able to reorganize in the way they are proposing, it doesn't necessarily mean

the laws will get changed easily because those they would have to change legislatively.

ROBERT COSTA: I wonder what the Cabinet secretaries think. Who gets to keep the top job? (Laughter.)

YEGANEH TORBATI: Betsy DeVos is in favor of consolidating, you know, Education and

Labor. And, you know, the Education Department dates back to Jimmy Carter. It's not

like we have to keep these departments forever just because we had them at one point.

In some ways it makes a lot of sense to consolidate Education and Labor together.

But I think even people who would support such a move in theory are suspicious of the

Trump administration's motives and also ability to actually carry it out.

And of course, I mean, they're against waste and abuse and fraud and bloat in some parts

of the government, but then when it comes to the part that I cover - DHS, or immigration

enforcement and Border Patrol - they're very much in favor of expanding those capacities.

ROBERT COSTA: Another thing that I noticed was Mick Mulvaney, the head of the OMB and

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, out in front, always mentioned as a possible

chief of staff if General Kelly should step down from his post - Mulvaney everywhere in

this administration. (Laughter.)

MICHAEL SHEAR: Yeah, I mean, you know, once you have at least two jobs, I mean, the

sky's the limit, it seems like. (Laughter.) But, look, part of that is that

President Trump is - you know, he likes loyalty, but he also in particular

likes people who are pushing forward his particular agenda, right? This is why Scott

Pruitt is still in his job at EPA, because it's - you know, amid all the scandals

involving him, he's pushing forward President Trump's deregulatory agenda. And Mulvaney

has been particularly effective in - you know, in doing what President Trump wants to do.

DAN BALZ: the seeds of this were actually in the first Mulvaney budget a year ago.

MICHAEL SHEAR: Right. That's right.

DAN BALZ: An idea to shrink the federal government dramatically -

MICHAEL SHEAR: Which was dismissed - DAN BALZ: Which was dismissed.

MICHAEL SHEAR: - because the president's first budget proposal is always dismissed

as sort of dead on arrival. But that's right. It was there.

DAN BALZ: Right. It was a signal of where he thought they ought to try to go.

ROBERT COSTA: And finally, the passing of an editorial icon of the right.

Charles Krauthammer was a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and pundit who helped shape

Republican ideology and, at times, broke with it. He is credited with defining the

Reagan doctrine, to explain President Reagan's foreign policy, and he was an advocate

for the Iraq War. He was also a critic of both President Barack Obama and President Trump.

A diving accident while attending Harvard Medical School left him paralyzed from the

waist down. Despite his disability, he graduated and went on to become a leading

political commentator. He died Thursday from cancer. He was 68 years old.

We've seen from Republicans on Capitol Hill this outpouring for Krauthammer.

To me, what was notable about what I heard from those on Capitol Hill, there are still

traditional Republicans, traditional conservatives who do crave that ideology, that kind

of conservatism, even in the era of President Trump.

NANCY CORDES: And the civility. I think that's something that you heard from both

Democrats and Republicans this week, is that, you know, they miss the kind of civility

that both sides employed to debate, to agree, to disagree.

And to a lot of them, Charles Krauthammer really exemplified that. I thought it was

really touching, and a greater reminder, what he said in his last column, when he

said that he doesn't have any regrets and he lived the life he wanted to live.

And I think it's a great reminder to all of us to think about what kind of life - you

know, it can be really difficult, you know, just day to day keeping track of everything

that's going on and everything that you need to do. But, you know, important to

think about the big picture and what kind of life you want to lead.

DAN BALZ: He had a very clear conservative views, although, ironically, he wrote

speeches for Walter Mondale many years ago. But in having those conservative views,

he brought subtlety and nuance to it. He had an independence of mind in the way he

approached those. So whether you agreed or disagreed with the basic overarching

point, there were things in the way he made arguments that made him quite readable.

And I know he - you know, he was a columnist on our op-ed page. And almost every Friday,

when his column posted on our website, it became the number-one read piece on the website.

MICHAEL SHEAR: And I think that both the column and the tone and the voice in the

column, and his sort of mannerism, you know, on shows like this or, you know, television

shows and the like, where people got to know him that way, people crave that kind of

civility, that kind of gentlemanly - I mean, you know, his points were tough.

His points were - I mean, he didn't mince words when he was going after, you know, an

ideology or a politician that he disagreed with.

But in this era in particular, when we have become, you know, over the last two, two and

half years, used to the kind of language from the Oval Office and from a lot of other

parts of the - you know, of the political process, it's in some ways reassuring that

people are kind of looking to somebody like that and saying, gee, we need more of that.

ROBERT COSTA: And he was a - it's a human story. I used to see him at different

things in Washington. And for someone who was disabled, he was a fighter. Always

showed up. Tough man. And we will miss Charles Krauthammer. That's it for this

edition of the Washington Week Extra. While you're online, take the Washington

Week-ly Quiz, where we test your knowledge of national news, sports, and even a

little entertainment. I'm Robert Costa. See you next time.

For more infomation >> President Trump's plan to streamline the government - Duration: 9:30.

-------------------------------------------

Afschaffing fooien in Washington? Vlog #45 - Duration: 2:10.

For more infomation >> Afschaffing fooien in Washington? Vlog #45 - Duration: 2:10.

-------------------------------------------

Rain may soak Washington on Friday and then mess with another weekend - Duration: 4:50.

Storm clouds gather over the Mall on June 20. (Robert Miller/The Washington Post) More than a foot of rain has fallen since mid-May in Washington, and we're going to keep adding to that total through the weekend

The rain won't fall all the time, but a front near the region will act as the focus for occasional showers and storms

Of the next several days, Friday will probably be the wettest one. The weekend shouldn't be a washout, and Sunday looks nicer than Saturday

Compared with some recent rainy weekends (last weekend, mercifully, we caught a break), this shouldn't be that bad

But the National Weather Service shows the potential for about an inch of rain through Sunday, with higher amounts to the west and southwest

And these amounts may be conservative. The National Weather Service rainfall forecast through Sunday night

(WeatherBell.com) Let's break down the rain chances through the weekend, starting with Friday

Friday Chance of rain: 70 percent Most likely timing: On and off much of the day, tapering in the evening Possible amounts: 0

5 to 1.0 inches, locally higher Possible hazards: Pockets of flooding Temperatures: 70 to 75

Rain showers and perhaps a little embedded thunder are likely as a warm front slowly lifts north through the region

The latest models suggest the heaviest rain may fall in the morning into the early afternoon and then diminish

It's difficult to say where the heaviest rain will fall, but localized amounts of 1 to 3 inches may occur, even as amounts average around 0

75 inches. Areas of flooding are possible. The NAM model forecast radar shows rain in the region Friday morning, which could be heavy in some spots

Saturday Chance of rain: 40 to 50 percent Most likely timing: Late afternoon and evening Possible amounts: Highly variable, depending on where storms hit Possible hazards: Lightning, damaging winds, hail Temperatures: 83 to 88

We're back into the warm, sticky air on Saturday as the warm front will have pushed through

The showers, from morning through early to midafternoon, should be mostly dry. Although, a brief pop-up shower can't be ruled out

Later in the day, a cold front pushing in from the west should trigger scattered thunderstorms, and a few may be intense

The National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center has placed our region in its marginal-risk zone for severe thunderstorms, and the environment could even support an isolated tornado somewhere

The National Weather Service forecast map shows a cold front approaching Saturday evening at 8 p

m. The highest chance for severe storms may focus east and southeast of the metro region

Sunday Chance of rain: 20 to 30 percent Most likely timing: Late afternoon and evening Possible amounts: Highly variable, depending on where storms hit Possible hazards: Lightning, damaging winds, hail Temperatures: 85 to 90 The cold front pushing through Saturday isn't going to cool things down much

In fact, with more sunshine on Sunday, it's probably going to be even warmer, and some spots could make a run at 90

A follow-on cold front approach could trigger a few widely scattered storms late in the day, but many areas may end up dry

The NAM model shows highs in the upper 80s on Sunday.

For more infomation >> Rain may soak Washington on Friday and then mess with another weekend - Duration: 4:50.

-------------------------------------------

Washington - Anderthalb Wochen nach dem historischen Gipfel mit dem nordkoreanischen Machthaber Kim - Duration: 3:17.

 Anderthalb Wochen nach dem historischen Gipfel mit dem nordkoreanischen Machthaber Kim Jong Un haben die USA konkrete Schritte zur weiteren Deeskalation angekündigt

 Verteidigungsminister James Mattis habe in Abstimmung mit dem Verbündeten Südkorea ausgewählte Manöver auf unbestimmte Zeit ausgesetzt, teilte Pentagon-Sprecherin Dana White mit

Betroffen seien das im August geplante Manöver «Freedom Guardian», dazu zwei Austauschprogramm-Übungsmanöver der koreanischen Marine, die in den kommenden drei Monaten stattfinden sollten

Damit sollten die Ergebnisse des Gipfels von Singapur unterstützt werden.  White fügte hinzu, weitere Entscheidungen zur Unterstützung der bevorstehenden, von Außenminister Mike Pompeo geleiteten Verhandlungen mit Nordkorea würden von deren Verlauf abhängig gemacht

US-Präsident Donald Trump hatte am Donnerstag mitgeteilt, die Gespräche über eine atomare Abrüstung in Nordkorea gingen voran

Die Denuklearisierung, wie die USA und Nordkorea den Prozess der Abrüstung nennen, sei bereits im Gange

 Trump hatte nach dem Gipfel mit Kim am 12. Juni in Singapur bereits angekündigt, die gemeinsamen Militärmanöver seines Landes mit Südkorea zu stoppen, hatte aber offen gelassen, wann die Übungen eingestellt werden sollten

Die jährlichen Manöver der USA mit Südkorea sind ein wichtiger Bestandteil ihres Sicherheitsbündnisses

Die USA haben derzeit 28.500 Soldaten in Südkorea als Abschreckung gegen Bedrohungen durch Nordkorea stationiert

 Trump hatte die Manöver provokant genannt. Er liegt mit dieser Einschätzung auf der Linie Nordkoreas

Das Pentagon hatte stets betont, die Übungen seien rein defensiver Natur. Der Stopp der Planungen gilt als Konzession sowohl an Nordkorea als auch an China

For more infomation >> Washington - Anderthalb Wochen nach dem historischen Gipfel mit dem nordkoreanischen Machthaber Kim - Duration: 3:17.

-------------------------------------------

Missoula Mavericks open Memorial Tournament with 8-6 win over Central Washington Spuds - Duration: 0:31.

For more infomation >> Missoula Mavericks open Memorial Tournament with 8-6 win over Central Washington Spuds - Duration: 0:31.

-------------------------------------------

Joe Washington, Jr. stops by to talk about the 'Gift of Life Health Screening' in Port Arthur on Jun - Duration: 3:11.

For more infomation >> Joe Washington, Jr. stops by to talk about the 'Gift of Life Health Screening' in Port Arthur on Jun - Duration: 3:11.

-------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C.: the Psychopath Capital of America - Duration: 13:25.

 As Washington's shock over winning the Stanley Cup demonstrates, the nation's capital isn't used to being first in anything

As a city, it's not the oldest, nor the biggest, nor the richest, and its sports teams are notoriously snakebitten

But finally, the capital has a claim to No. 1—and unfortunately, it's not just in hockey

 Ryan Murphy, an economist at Southern Methodist University, recently published a working paper in which he ranked each of the states by the predominance of—there's no nice way to put it—psychopaths

The winner? Washington in a walk. In fact, the capital scored higher on Murphy's scale than the next two runners-up combined

 "I had previously written on politicians and psychopathy, but I had no expectation D

C. would stand out as much as it does," Murphy wrote in an email.  When Murphy matched up the "constellation of disinhibition, boldness and meanness" that marks psychopathy with a previously existing map of the states' predominant personality traits, he found that dense, coastal areas scored highest by far—with Washington dominant among them

"The District of Columbia is measured to be far more psychopathic than any individual state in the country," Murphy writes in the paper

The runner-up, Connecticut, registered only 1.89 on Murphy's scale, compared with the overwhelming 3

48 clocked by the District.  What's going on? There's one big structural reason: There tend to be more psychopathic personalities in denser areas, and the District of Columbia is denser than even the densest state, so it makes sense that it would top the list

But even when you correct the rankings for density, Murphy says, Washington still ranks first

 This, Murphy hypothesizes, is because psychopaths are attracted to the kinds of jobs Washington offers—jobs that reward raw ambition, a relentless single-mindedness and, let's admit it, the willingness to step over a few bodies along the way

"Psychopaths have an awfully grandiose way of thinking about themselves, and D.C

has numerous means of seeking and attaining power," he wrote in an email. The television critics who dismissed Netflix's "House of Cards" as cartoonish and unrealistic—surely nobody could be that villainous— may have a few apologies to make

"The presence of psychopaths in the District of Columbia is consistent with the conjecture … that psychopaths are likely to be effective in the political sphere," Murphy writes in the paper

 To psychologists, a "psychopath" isn't necessarily a Norman Bates or Patrick Bateman lurking with an ax in the shadows; it's a person with a particular collection of antisocial traits, including a powerful sense of spite and an inability to consider the welfare of others

Murphy realized it might be possible to plot them on a map of America when he came across a forthcoming paper from of psychologists at the University of Georgia and Purdue University that projects those antisocial traits onto the "Big Five" personality traits—openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—which had already been mapped geographically

By combining those studies, he could get a rough idea of which areas have the most psychopathic personalities

 Psychologists study psychopathy because when it combines with other undesirable personality traits in what they call the "dark triad," it can lead to dangerous and even criminal behavior

For Washingtonians who might now worry about walking out the front door every day, there's no more reason to fret than anywhere else in the country

Although D.C., like most major urban centers, struggles with a high crime rate, it's nowhere near the outlier in that department that it is in psychopathy

In their less dangerous form, the traits might combine in that person rudely elbowing past you on the Metro in the morning, or cutting the taxi line with a smirk, determined to get her way at your expense if necessary

 Not all Murphy's colleagues buy his analysis. As a working paper, it hasn't yet been through peer review

Josh Miller, a University of Georgia psychologist whose work Murphy used to map psychopathic traits onto the already-existing map of those across the country, points out that Murphy's measurement of "psychopathic" traits includes some positive ones, like low neuroticism and high extraversion

A city high in civic-minded Type A personalities might very well rate high on this scale without producing many harmful psychopaths

And people tend to rate as more "disagreeable" when they're younger—so highly millennial cities, like Washington, can get skewed results

 Still, Murphy notes that other work supports his broad conclusions. Washington is awfully rich in the kinds of jobs rated "disproportionately psychopathic" by the psychologist Kevin Dutton, author of The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success

These include lawyers, journalists, civil servants, as well as CEOs and chefs. (What are the low-psychopathy jobs? Nurse, therapist, craftsperson, beautician/stylist, charity worker, teacher, artist, doctor, and accountant

)  Among psychologists, it's become accepted wisdom that psychopaths can be eerily effective in their given professions

Paul Babiak, a New York psychologist who specializes in business and management, developed, alongside the Canadian psychopathy pioneer Bob Hare, the B-Scan 360, a business tool intended to identify the psychopath in your workplace

According to some psychologists, there's a good chance it's the person in the corner office

"Their natural tendency is to be charming," Babiak told a BBC documentary crew in 2011

"Take that charm and couch it in the right business language, and it sounds like charismatic leadership

"  The top five habitats for such people, by Murphy's measure, are D.C., Connecticut, California, New Jersey, and New York and Wyoming tied for fifth

The five least psychopathic states are West Virginia, Vermont, Tennessee, North Carolina and New Mexico

("This is a rare ranking of states where West Virginia is rated as 'best,'" Murphy points out, "in the sense that psychopathy is generally viewed as a social bad

")  If that sounds like a pattern, it is: The psychopath/nonpsychopath binary matches up, with a few exceptions, with the urban/rural divide, although there's still disagreement among experts as to why

A psychopath map of the U.S. would also look quite a bit like the red-blue political map, with the red areas notably lower in psychopathy

(Though not universally: Vermont, a deep-blue state, is extremely low on the list, while red Wyoming is up in the top five

)  Murphy warns against drawing any partisan conclusions, given the diversity in both the data and the country's political makeup

"The literature supports the idea that psychopaths are attracted to cities, but I don't think there is strong theoretical support [that] 'Democratic voters are psychopaths

'"  Politicians as a class, however, may be another story. In a previous paper, impishly titled "Kissing Babies to Prove You Are Not a Psychopath"—which explored the motivations behind our collective need to witness our leaders displaying empathy—Murphy foreshadowed his findings here, writing that in a system designed to reward the power-hungry, voters are given the unenviable but important responsibility of weeding out the phonies

 Murphy's findings might ring true to anyone in D.C. who's found themselves on the wrong end of a ruthless bureaucratic knife-fighter, or just anyone who's been cut off one too many times by a BMW in downtown Bethesda

On a national level, it raises the troubling question as to what it means to live in a country whose institutions are set up to reward some very dubious human traits

Like it or not, we're more likely than not to wind up with some alarming personalities in positions of power

 That may or may not always be a bad thing, according to some psychologists. "I always joke that I wish I were more fearlessly dominant," said Miller, referring to one trait that psychopaths have in spades

"These people are resilient to depression and anxiety, well-liked, and there's little to link [that trait] to anti-social behavior

"  But that doesn't relieve of us the responsibility to consider the darker side and somehow allow for it

"The way we design our political institutions," Murphy wrote in an email, "should reflect the fact that psychopaths are more likely to be effective politicians

" Share on Facebook Share on Twitter The Friday Cover Read more 

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét