Thứ Bảy, 15 tháng 12, 2018

News on Youtube Dec 16 2018

ROBERT COSTA: Michael Cohen is going to prison and the former fixer brings the president's

conduct into the spotlight. I'm Robert Costa. Welcome to Washington Week. Former Trump

attorney Michael Cohen speaks out about hush-money schemes during the 2016 campaign.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (From video.) Let me tell you, I never directed him to do anything wrong.

ROBERT COSTA: Mr. Trump's statements come as the National Enquirer publisher admits to

federal prosecutors that the organization was involved. All this as another criminal

investigation looks into the Trump Inaugural Committee's fundraising. Plus -

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (From video.) I am proud to shut down the government for border security.

ROBERT COSTA: A showdown over the federal budget and border policy.

HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): (From video.) He's taking full responsibility

for the Trump shutdown.

ROBERT COSTA: We cover these stories next.

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

ROBERT COSTA: Good evening. President Trump is facing a barrage of investigations and

political challenges ahead of divided government next year. And the probes from the

special counsel to U.S. attorneys in New York continue to vex this White House, bringing

figures from the president's past to this turbulent present. The president's former

personal attorney, Michael Cohen, once said he'd take a bullet for Mr. Trump,

but now Cohen is a convicted felon who is cooperating with prosecutors. He was sentenced

this week to three years in prison for lying to Congress and other crimes. Cohen insists

Mr. Trump knew the hush payments he made to women in the weeks before the 2016 election were

illegal, a charge the president denies. In a related federal case, prosecutors say the

publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, admitted the tabloid paid thousands to

a woman who claims she once had an affair with Mr. Trump. A lot to cover.

And joining me tonight are four respected and deeply-sourced White House correspondents:

Maggie Haberman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The New York Times and a CNN

contributor; Kristen Welker of NBC News; Jeff Zeleny of CNN; and Seung Min Kim of The

Washington Post and an analyst for CNN.

Maggie, welcome to Washington Week. Really appreciate you being here.

MAGGIE HABERMAN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

ROBERT COSTA: What does this week tell us, Maggie, about President Trump amid all this

Michael Cohen news? You've covered both men for many years.

What does it tell us? What does it reveal about the president?

MAGGIE HABERMAN: I think, look, Michael Cohen described a different Donald Trump in an

interview with George Stephanopoulos that aired earlier today.

He talked about Trump being different than the man he knew.

I personally think this is the same man that we saw in New York over many, many years,

but it reveals this incredibly, you know, unusual - certainly for what we see from

presidents - relationship where you have a person who is talking about his blind loyalty

in terms that we don't normally hear, even in the crucible of politics, talking about in

- by Michael Cohen, I mean - talking about that he was essentially, you know, brainwashed.

That's not his word, but he was - he was part - he was devoted and devout in the service

of Donald Trump, and that that led him to commit all sorts of dirty deeds, as he put it.

The president, you know, insisted Michael Cohen should have known what he was doing was

against the law. And I think you have a - in the case of what Michael Cohen is saying,

that Donald Trump certainly knew about it and nothing happened at Trump Tower without

his knowledge, that is definitely the experience for those of us who have covered him

and his business and his relationship with someone like Michael Cohen for a very long

time. Where this goes now I think remains to be seen.

I think the question is does Michael Cohen get called before Congress to say these things

again, you know, facing possible perjury charges if he lies under oath?

Remember, that's something that he pleaded to, or lying to Congress is something that he

pleaded guilty to a few weeks ago. What does he do?

How much more potential damage does he cause the president before he goes down?

ROBERT COSTA: How does the White House stop that damage, Maggie?

When you talk about Rudy Giuliani and the White House, are they - is there a high level

of anxiety about this argument they're now making that it was a personal matter, not a

campaign matter? Do they feel like that's going to hold?

MAGGIE HABERMAN: It's bifurcated. Take out the White House and insert Trump and his

private lawyers and people at The Trump Organization. The White House is operating as

if this is not happening. It's sort of yet another day in this administration for

people who are staff members there. For the president, for his legal team, for

people at The Trump Organization, it's a very different ballgame.

You have Rudy Giuliani trying to suggest that, you know, this was a private transaction,

that Michael Cohen is a liar, that he was disloyal to the president and made that clear

in the fact that he secretly tape-recorded him, a tape recording that - or audio

recording that has become a key piece of evidence in this case, and we know that it was

used by prosecutors. They are arguing that the president does not have any legal exposure. He

certainly has legal exposure. Whether that means he's in legal jeopardy I think remains to be seen.

ROBERT COSTA: That is so true.

MAGGIE HABERMAN: Again, their argument is you can't believe anything Michael Cohen says,

and yet the government clearly did believe him on this issue and said that it was

corroborated, his statements, by other pieces of evidence.

ROBERT COSTA: Well, part of the reason - that's a smart point because part of the reason

the government seems to back up Michael Cohen here, Jeff, is you have David Pecker from

the National Enquirer and American Media saying - cooperating with the government and

saying Michael Cohen is telling a straight story.

JEFF ZELENY: Right, and that, I think, was - when you sum up everything that happened

this week - and these weeks get confusing because there's so many internal movements.

The David Pecker news, I think, he's not a household name by any means, but the National

Enquirer certainly is. He's a longtime friend of the president.

The president has been utterly silent about David Pecker, but he has a cooperation

agreement and an immunity agreement. And this is why the prosecutors believe Michael

Cohen is telling the truth, because it corroborates this story.

So I think that we learned this week - confirmed this week that President Trump was in

the room - Donald Trump, candidate Trump, was in the room during those conversations.

So that's why this week I think is different than other weeks.

That's why this week I think matters more, because you see so many friends of the

president who now are agreeing - cooperating with prosecutors, and that has to get to the

president. You can see it in his demeanor. You can see it in his actions.

You talk to people behind the scenes, it bothers him in that respect.

I mean, we've seen so many times the president has dismissed aides - I wasn't that close

to Paul Manafort. That's somewhat true. But not this week.

Michael Cohen and David Pecker, longtime friends of this - of this president.

ROBERT COSTA: And you brought up that President Trump was in the room the summer of

2015. Kristen, does that point to the president's conduct not just during the closing

days of the campaign, but for two years now being under scrutiny from prosecutors?

KRISTEN WELKER: It points to his deepening involvement in this, Bob, there's no doubt

about that. That was two months after candidate Trump had announced his candidacy for the

presidency. And so I think that that is what is so striking about the fact that we now know,

according to our sources, that he was in that room when they were discussing ways to

quash these stories by women making these allegations against then-candidate Trump.

Now, we don't know specifically what Trump was saying in those meetings. I think it's

important to point that out. But again, you're starting to see puzzle pieces come together.

And that's why I think President Trump, the White House increasingly concerned about the

potential legal exposure, but also the political peril that President Trump may be in.

Publicly he's said, look, he's not concerned about this, he's not concerned about

impeachment - the I-word, of course, what all of Washington has started to talk about.

But privately he's started to tell his friends and his allies that he is concerned, that

he worries it could be a real possibility.

ROBERT COSTA: What about, Seung Min, when you think about - we also learned this week

about information gathered from the raid of Cohen's office and home this year launched

yet another criminal investigation into the Trump Inaugural Committee.

When you're up on Capitol Hill talking to Republicans, what do they think about this now

being added to mix and all of the Cohen news on top of it?

SEUNG MIN KIM: They are just overwhelmed, like - (laughs) - well, like we are, with all

the legal woes. And I think a lot of - it's getting difficult - you can tell, it's getting

more difficult for congressional Republicans to buy into the president's explanations,

because we've seen, particularly regarding the Cohen information, that his explanation

about whether he knew of the payments at all or whether he directed them, they've just

shifted so much over time. And I had a lot of interesting conversations with -

particularly with Republican senators about can you believe this president anymore,

when he tweets on Thursday morning that he never directed Cohen to make these payments.

You know, can you buy that explanation? And you get varying answers. His allies will

say yes, I do trust him. Look at Cohen. He is not a valid source either. Others say,

we got to let all the prosecutors, both in New York and Washington, do their work.

Or others saying, look, we like his policies. Let's kind of brush that stuff aside.

But on the Democratic end, you're just getting more ammunition. Again, they are still

kind of afraid to touch that I-word. It's pretty politically toxic for a lot of members

of their party. But they're seeing a little bits here and there from each legal filing.

Potential impeachment fodder? You have Jerry Nadler saying certainly these look like

impeachable offenses should that prove out to be true.

I was having some conversations with a Democratic senator, who - obviously, they will

remain in the minority - don't have control of the Senate to do investigations.

But he is writing a letter saying: I want DOJ to reevaluate whether - their guidance that

a sitting president can't be indicted. There's a lot going on here.

ROBERT COSTA: Maggie, what do you make of that?

The Republican Party seems to be holding for now behind President Trump.

But will that base stick with this president amid what's happened with Michael Cohen?

The president's changed his story. Do those Trump voters care?

MAGGIE HABERMAN: I think right now they don't care. I think your point, though, is an

important one that I was thinking about before, which is that he has changed his story.

This is - this president is very used to leading a consequence-free life, where he can

say basically whatever he wants and there are minimal ramifications for it.

And I think this is the first week where we are seeing he is just hitting a - sort of a

harder wall of reality, given what happened with Michael Cohen. I do think that his

base is going to say, this is a personal issue. This is a private matter.

This is his private life. This is his marriage. I think if it stays here, I think in

all likelihood Republicans continue to stand by the president. I think we just don't

know what else Michael Cohen has told investigators and prosecutors.

And I think that is going to come out in the - in the coming weeks and months.

And I think that is the big threat for the president.

And also remember, the president's advisors have always viewed the Michael Cohen case as

more perilous to the president than the Mueller case.

They always believed that that's was where there was vulnerability. And I don't

think the vulnerability necessarily ends with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

ROBERT COSTA: And, Maggie, on that point, you're the scholar of all things Trump.

We know David Pecker's cooperating. We know Michael Cohen's cooperating. Allen

Weisselberg, the long-time finance head of The Trump Organization, he's been pretty quiet.

MAGGIE HABERMAN: Yes. He's been pretty quiet, but he - what he has been doing is

being pretty careful about getting his own lawyer, which is not nothing.

We reported over the weekend that he is no longer being represented by the group counsel

representing The Trump Organization, Alan Futerfas. He has his own attorney now, Allen

Weisselberg. He is the person who has worked for The Trump Organization for over 30

years. He was the one who truly was involved in all of these deals, in all of these

expenditures. He knows basically where every penny has gone. He was involved in the

Trump Foundation, which the New York state attorney general is looking at.

He handled the Trump private trust, which essentially is the president's own personal

money once he took office. And he knows where everything is spent in the business.

This is going to be a pressure point that prosecutors are going to try to squeeze.

And people around the president are very concerned about it.

ROBERT COSTA: Speaking about squeeze, if you're a House Democrat right now, forget about

Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation. You could say there's a felony right

here in all these sentencing documents. Could the Democrats say next year - maybe they

wait a little while. I know you say they're being careful.

But maybe they say this is enough for impeachment.

JEFF ZELENY: And that'll be the test for House Democrats, but there's a lot of wise

House Democrats or former Democrats who say: Slow down, allow the investigation to

proceed, don't get yourselves in the middle of all of this.

And I think I was struck by the advice of Rahm Emanuel, of course, you know, the mayor of

Chicago, but long-time House Democrat, and certainly lived through the Clinton White

House. He urged the Democrats in the House to focus on the Cabinet, other things, not the

president. We'll see. But in terms of one word the president said this week that

I've not heard him say before, he they were trying to embarrass me. To me, that

was a sign, taking us back to maybe the Bill Clinton stuff, it's just about sex.

What we learned though this week, every facet of Donald Trump's life is likely now being

investigated - the inaugural committee, the super PAC, The Trump Organization, and indeed

his White House. So it's more than just the hush money. So I think the campaign

finance violation, it's more glamorous maybe, more sexy, if you will. But I think there

are signs this week that there are more deepening worries to come for this White House.

ROBERT COSTA: Is the White House ready for this political storm?

On Friday, the president announced Mick Mulvaney, the budget director, will be his acting

chief of staff. But from the chief of staff position to the White House Counsel's

Office, are they prepared for this storm?

KRISTEN WELKER: I think you raise the critical point. It's not clear that they are, Bob.

It's not clear that they have an apparatus in place to deal with what we know is coming

from Democrats. They are unified on one point, which is that they think that there

should be more oversight of this president. And so there are going to be investigations

and likely subpoenas as well. And it's not clear that he has a team in place to deal

with that. You mentioned Mick Mulvaney. We got that announcement at the end of the day

today, that he's going to serve as the acting chief of staff. There was a very rocky

process to get here today. Remember his first pick, Nick Ayers, talks with him fell

apart. This is a 36-year-old political upstart who everyone thought would be jumping

at the chance for the job. And there have been a lot of twists and turns along the way.

The president felt like he needed to have someone in that role to start to sort of brace

for what is coming in the new year.

ROBERT COSTA: Maggie, real quick, what's your read on the Mulvaney appointment?

MAGGIE HABERMAN: I think that the president engaged in fair amount of willful

misdirection about where he was going with this. But I think that as one administration

official put it to me that, you know, it was the eternal plan B is Mick Mulvaney.

He was already wearing two different hats for two different jobs. And now he is taking

on, you know, another one. Look, I think he is somebody who fit - checks a fair number

of boxes for the president that he was looking for.

He is a former member of Congress, so he can at least help him understand and navigate

certain aspects of what's coming when you have the change of the guard, the House

Democratic majority taking over. And he is somebody who the president personally is

comfortable with. They've played many rounds of golf together. You know, he is somebody

who has a rapport with the president. What he is not is sort of the scrappy type of

fighter that you would have seen in a Chris Christie, or some other choices.

And he is somebody who knows the building, which I think appeals to the president.

He is not somebody who's going to have to take some time to come in. And I think by

calling him "acting" the president gave himself some flexibility. He can - he didn't

put a time limit on it. He can stretch - acting can suddenly last into 2020, or acting

could be, you know, a couple of months long, and I don't think we know where it's going

to go. I do think that it is interesting that he would not have Nick Ayers as the acting

chief of staff or interim, which is what Nick Ayers had been from the very beginning

of that negotiation, as I understand it, saying he would do, is roughly six months.

The president didn't want that. It was a time limit he rejected. But he is OK with

this one, because it's on his own terms. There is a lot more to this story than we know.

ROBERT COSTA: In mid-December he wanted to make a move, Kristen said and as you just

said so well. But it was not just Michael Cohen and the chief of staff news this week.

There was a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill. The Senate voted to withdraw U.S.

military assistance for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen as punishment for the killing of

journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Lawmakers also agreed to overhaul how sexual misconduct

allegations against members of Congress are handled. But the issue that hovers is the

possibility of a partial government shutdown next Friday.

In the Oval Office this week, there was a spirited exchange, to say the least, as the

president and Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi sparred over a spending

bill. The president's demanding 5 billion (dollars) to build a border wall.

Democrats say they're willing to provide up to 1.6 billion (dollars).

SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): (From video.) One thing I think we can

agree on is we shouldn't shut down the government over a dispute.

And you want to shut it down. You keep talking about it.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (From video.) Oh, no, no, no. I am proud to shut down

the government for border security.

ROBERT COSTA: Seung Min, are we going to have a shutdown next week, or it's going to be

a stopgap that keeps the government funded for a few weeks and it's a fight for divided

government next year?

SEUNG MIN KIM: Well, things don't look great at this point, I will say, a week out from

a potential shutdown.

There has been some discussion already, particularly from Richard Shelby, who is the

Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, a powerful guy in the mix, that some kind of

stopgap funding through, perhaps, the beginning of the new year, through January 3rd,

might be necessary to avert a partial government shutdown.

But it is fascinating how the two sides are just so dug in.

And, look, there was probably a less than 1 percent chance that Democrats would agree on

$5 billion of border wall, even before that remarkable Oval Office exchange. And now,

after Trump proudly said he would take ownership for a shutdown, there is a zero chance.

And there is no - there is barely a constituency on Capitol Hill for instigating a

shutdown for border wall funding, like the president wants.

Perhaps some of his allies in the House Freedom Caucus are willing to go with that.

But I talked to a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill this week just about that remarkable

Oval Office moment and his owning that shutdown, and I found John Cornyn, the number two

in the Senate from Texas, comments to me remarkable. He just said flat out to me I

don't understand the strategy; maybe he'll explain it, but I don't get it.

ROBERT COSTA: The White House even seemed to walk it back, Kristen.

KRISTEN WELKER: The president seemed to walk it back in a tweet the very next day,

saying, look, we don't want a shutdown, hopefully Democrats will do the right thing.

It was almost as though he realized he'd gone -

ROBERT COSTA: Would he accept a deal that's a little less than 5 billion (dollars)?

Would he accept even a 1.6, 2 billion (dollars)?

KRISTEN WELKER: I think so. I think so. I've been speaking to White House officials

who haven't said that exactly, but they've said he wants a better deal. They won't get

into the figures with me, but it is clear they don't want to own a shutdown.

As we were just saying, bottom line is Republicans don't want to own that and the

president doesn't really feel as though he has the leverage.

And so I think if they can find a way to find some type of common ground, perhaps that

would avert a shutdown. But to your point, what's most likely is that stopgap measure.

ROBERT COSTA: That scene inside of the Oval Office - a silent Vice President Pence, the

sparring between the daughter of a former Baltimore mayor, now San Francisco likely

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, President Trump from New York, Chuck Schumer from New

York - is that a preview of 2019, Jeff?

JEFF ZELENY: I think it is. And of all the extraordinary scenes we have seen in the Oval

Office, and there have been a lot of them, this certainly is a window into what's to come.

I think a lot of - all three of the participants, and four if you count the silent vice

president - (laughter) - learned how the dynamic is different.

President Trump has never been confronted like that in his house, in his Oval Office.

He's largely surrounded himself by aides who are generally in agreement.

Certainly, the Republican leaders of Congress have been. But it's clear, A, why the

Republicans weren't invited, because he wanted that moment too. Don't forget that was

supposed to be off-camera. He invited the cameras in. So all sides were, you know,

showing off a little bit. A, it solidified Nancy Pelosi's speakership position, you

know, or certainly helped her toward that. But this is a window into the fact that

President Trump is not going to get everything he wants.

But an unspoken dynamic there was the one between Schumer and Pelosi, which we don't talk

a lot about; we'll talk about it next year, but that is interesting as well. So I wonder

if the president will try and divide them at all, but they cannot give him an inch.

His presidency could have been so much different had he started with infrastructure with

his old friend Chuck Schumer, but that's water under the bridge.

ROBERT COSTA: Seung Min, a moment for Leader Pelosi. She fends off a moderate rebellion,

rebels inside of her conference, almost immediately after that whole meeting.

SEUNG MIN KIM: Exactly, and this is one of the arguments that she and her allies have

been making all along. Look, she is a fighter. She has been at the top of the House

Democratic ranks for 16 years. She has negotiated with multiple presidents. She knows

what she's doing and she's the best vote-counter on the Hill. You can't have a newbie

in the position that she was in, on that couch, sparring with President Trump.

And a combination of that moment plus the fact that she was able to agree to - she was

able to come to a deal with these so-called rebels who are threatening her potential

speakership by essentially term-limiting herself, says she'll be out by 2022, that really

helped her solidify just her hold on that gavel. I mean, we've talked on the show for weeks

now how we all expect Nancy Pelosi to get there, we just didn't know how, and she did.

ROBERT COSTA: Maggie, when you think about the real story here, there is the political

theater of everything we all watch, but we also heard that President Trump was on the

phone with Leader Pelosi hours after that whole scene talking through a possible deal.

We saw a criminal justice reform bill get some real action this week on Capitol Hill.

Beyond the theater, is this a president who could be pretty transactional next year, or not?

MAGGIE HABERMAN: Oh, I think - I think if he's able to be, almost definitely.

And as we know, he tends to treat everything as if it's an open-ended negotiation.

I mean, that - you put it very well, what happened in the Oval Office was theater, and he

got something out of it. You know, he had a base that was rather upset about that

criminal justice reform bill going through, and so he got to look tough about the wall,

which was a core campaign promise. And Nancy Pelosi got what she wanted, which was

taking the fight to him. And then, of course, they're back on the phone in sort of

old-school style trying to work something out.

I think that he is going to do what he can to be transactional.

I don't - I think that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are going to have the leverage in

that relationship, especially if they - to Jeff's good point - if they stick together.

And so I think that while the president feels like he can extract all kinds of

concessions, he's just not in a position to get that much right now.

I mean, witness them talking about this stopgap measure to avert a shutdown that will

allow him to leave, nobody - and go on vacation to Palm Beach.

Nobody - he doesn't want a shutdown, the Democrats don't want a shutdown, and I think

that where you are going to see him behaviorally is going to be very different than what

we have seen over the last few years.

ROBERT COSTA: That's such a sharp point. The president wants to go to Mar-a-Lago,

play some golf, see some family. Members want to go home.

Is this all about, on both sides, scoring points and cutting a deal?

JEFF ZELENY: Sure, and I mean, Congress is not working through the weekend.

All members of Congress, House and Senate, were leaving Washington on Friday.

They're coming back Monday night, Tuesday. So, no, like every shutdown, right, before

this, you get the sense that something will be worked out. The question here, though,

is, you know, is the president - is his word ever going to be good? He said he would

own it. You know, you always have to leave open the window of possibility that

he may do something unpredictable.

But in this sense, right before Christmas, I don't think he wants to spoil Christmas.

KRISTEN WELKER: Well, I think that's right. This is a president who understands optics.

He's a genius when it comes to that in many ways.

And imagine the optics of a government shutdown, even if it's partial, on Christmas Day.

That's going to be tough for President Trump politically, and I think one of the pressure

points is they don't really have a plan B for reopening the government.

When you talk to folks inside the White House and on Capitol Hill and you say what if

there is a government shutdown, well, it's likely going to go through the new year.

And one Republican said to me if that happens we could lose the support of the country.

ROBERT COSTA: We'll have to leave it there tonight. Thanks, everybody, for joining us,

really appreciate it. Our conversation will continue on the Washington Week Podcast.

You can find it on your favorite podcast app or download it from our website.

I'm Robert Costa. Thanks for joining us and have a great weekend.

For more infomation >> Legal dilemmas and a shutdown showdown - Duration: 25:10.

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

Why Ryan Zinke is under investigation - Duration: 2:18.

For more infomation >> Why Ryan Zinke is under investigation - Duration: 2:18.

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

Beto O'Rourke says goodbye to his constituents. But they want him to run for president - Duration: 2:24.

For more infomation >> Beto O'Rourke says goodbye to his constituents. But they want him to run for president - Duration: 2:24.

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

White House chief of staff search - Duration: 9:56.

ROBERT COSTA: Hello. I'm Robert Costa. And this is the Washington Week Podcast.

Today we take a closer look at President Trump's search for the next White House chief of

staff. Joining me, NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker, CNN White House

correspondent Jeff Zeleny, and Washington Post White House reporter and CNN analyst Seung

Min Kim. For those in the political world the White House chief of staff job has traditionally

been seen as one of the best posts in Washington, but these days there is nothing

traditional about the world of politics.

President Trump announced last week that General John Kelly would be stepping down by the

end of the year, but the president did not immediately name his replacement. Nick Ayers,

Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff, came close to taking the job, but he declined.

Several more names were then floated as successors: former New Jersey Governor Chris

Christie, Trump's former deputy campaign manager David Bossie, Budget Director Mick

Mulvaney, and Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, along with even Assistant to the

President Johnny DeStefano.

Every name in the book seemed to be floating to reporters this week, but on Friday

President Trump announced Mulvaney would step in as acting chief of staff.

He's currently the acting director - he just recently served as the acting director of

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As well, he's the current director of the

Office of Management and Budget. Seung Min, Mulvaney out of the blue through a tweet.

What does that tell us about President Trump? Is he just here in mid-December trying to

make a decision, get this search process a little bit more quieter for a full-time replacement?

SEUNG MIN KIM: Well, it's interesting how earlier in the week it looked like Mick

Mulvaney had kind of quietly taken himself out of the running, indicating that he wasn't

interested, but the president had seen so many bad headlines over the course of these

last weeks declaring just how many people had essentially turned him down for the chief

of staff job. So right after five p.m. tonight he, you know, announced Mulvaney as

the pick. And also, he felt compelled to go a little bit after that tweet saying, for

the record there was - there were a lot of people interested in that job.

So you could tell the negative coverage was getting under his skin a little bit there.

ROBERT COSTA: Kristen, what was the scene like this week at the White House as they went

from Nick Ayers to this big search to Mulvaney? How did you track that whole evolution?

KRISTEN WELKER: Well, I think there was this scramble. There was this assumption that

it would work out with Nick Ayers. It didn't. The talks fell apart. He wanted to stay

there for two years, or the president wanted him to. He didn't want to commit to that

timeline. He wanted hiring and firing responsibilities, and they just couldn't get on

the same page. And so I think the president was left feeling flat-footed, and he was -

frankly, felt to some extent embarrassed. We are told he was desperate to change the

storyline, the fact that you had various people dropping out - Meadows, Christie.

He wanted to put someone in place. So that is significant. I also think - think about

the timing of this. This comes amid these daily developments in the Russia

investigation. He wants someone there at the helm to help him navigate that.

Given that Mulvaney is a former congressman, he has a unique, I think, understanding of

how Capitol Hill operates, and that's going to be critical moving forward.

ROBERT COSTA: Jeff, you have a former congressman in Mulvaney, someone who knows the White

House. At the same time, does President Trump at some level want to be his own chief of staff?

JEFF ZELENY: No question, and his own press secretary, and his own communications

director, and essentially everything. So I think that it doesn't necessarily matter

who is in that office. Just to give people a sense, the best real estate outside the

Oval Office is, in fact, the chief of staff's office. It's in the corner of the West

Wing, a fireplace, a balcony outside. It's the only office with outdoor space like that.

It's just about 10 or 15 steps from the Oval Office. They can see who's going in and who's

going out. There is no essential traditional role of the gatekeeper for President Trump.

He calls people at all hours. He largely works out of the residence of the White House.

So that chief of staff real estate is not nearly as good as it used to be, and that's a

metaphor for it is not the same job. So whoever takes this position, they largely are there

to try and control the staff, not the president, and that is a big job no question about it.

But the president was clearly wounded and stung by all of these headlines that people

were turning him down. So initially he said a couple days ago, you know, we can wait a

couple weeks; that was only 48 hours ago, so he clearly wanted to make this kind of

abrupt move. I'm not sure it matters who is in that position. You saw the smiling John

Kelly with his arm around Reince Priebus - (laughter) - at a holiday party on Thursday

at the White House. Those two are not friends at all, but they do have something in

common now: they are now the fraternity, people who - former chiefs of staff.

And Mick Mulvaney at some point sooner or later will end up there as well.

ROBERT COSTA: What about the role, Seung Min, of Jared Kushner, the president's

son-in-law and senior advisor, and the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump? They seem to

hover over a lot of these discussions. Do they - do they want Mulvaney in there as

acting chief? Are they trying to increase their own role, or not?

SEUNG MIN KIM: Well, it was fascinating when the Chris Christie boomlet happened, we

know Christie's role, particularly directly with Jared Kushner and his father.

ROBERT COSTA: He prosecuted Charles Kushner as U.S. attorney.

SEUNG MIN KIM: Correct, he - and that's actually what led Jared to push his biggest

project yet, which is criminal justice reform.

But it really does show the power of the Trump kids in the White House.

And while - whether they favored Mulvaney or not, I think, will wait.

The other interesting thing about Mulvaney too is that while he does know Capitol Hill

very well, he doesn't have a lot of great relationships on Capitol Hill because when he

was a congressman he was a member of that confrontational House Freedom Caucus, who drove

the House Republican leadership crazy. Speaker Paul Ryan had a very warm, gracious

comment when John Kelly's formal departure was announced.

He most likely would not have similar words for Mulvaney.

(Laughter.) And Democrats are already pointing to the fact that Mulvaney had very - has

endorsed very confrontational tactics in terms of a shutdown during his time on Capitol

Hill. And I mean, how does that - does that Mulvaney get in the president's ear?

We don't know. It'll be interesting to watch.

KRISTEN WELKER: I think the president feels as though his confrontational tactics could

potentially be an asset. Again, this is a White House, this a president that is bracing

for a fight, potentially to go on a war footing, as the president said, depending on how

many investigations House Democrats launch in the new year, depending on how many

subpoenas they issue. So I think that that's one of the assets that President Trump

is hoping for. But, again, I think Jeff's point is significant.

This is a president who is largely running his own show. And so the chief of

staff is a partner in that, but not necessarily the leading character.

JEFF ZELENY: And the chief of staff, regardless of who it is, they are not going to be

able to control the next meeting with Pelosi, Schumer and the president.

KRISTEN WELKER: That's right.

JEFF ZELENY: They're going to a bystander there, as John Kelly was, in the room.

So I think that the - and the Democrats in the wake of the announcement weren't

necessarily congratulating Mick Mulvaney. They said, oh, he's the architect of the

last budget shutdown. So not someone - but the job, though, is also working with all

branches of the government, with the Pentagon most importantly. That's the relationship

I'm looking for. What is his relationship with Jim Mattis, who's now sort of standing

alone as the general - really the last standing general of the president's - you know,

when he was coming out of his election.

So that is more interesting, perhaps, than his congressional relationship.

KRISTEN WELKER: I think it's also interesting that this is an acting role.

I mean, don't forget, this is not permanent.

ROBERT COSTA: Do you believe that?

JEFF ZELENY: Which is really weird, actually. Isn't that diminishing, though, to Mick Mulvaney?

KRISTEN WELKER: Well, it is diminishing. ROBERT COSTA: Well, maybe it becomes permanent.

KRISTEN WELKER: It may become permanent, but both sides sort of giving themselves a way

out. Now, our sources telling us, actually, Mick Mulvaney wanted that. But it is

striking, because effectively that's what Nick Ayers wanted. And so President Trump,

perhaps his back was against the wall because he wanted to put someone in place, so he

agreed to Mick Mulvaney's ask. But it's not yet official. And so there's a little

bit of wiggle room there, a little bit of room for if President Trump were to

encounter more controversies along the way, for him to make a change in that role.

ROBERT COSTA: Frankly, that's why, in part as a reporter, I was surprised David Bossie

didn't get it, because he's facing the Mueller investigation, the president's facing the

Mueller investigation, House Democrats.

Bossie may not have all the experience on - he worked on Capitol Hill, but he's never

worked in the White House, but he's at least someone who knows congressional

investigations. The president - who's going to help the president?

Is it Pat Cipollone, the new White House counsel, if it's not Mick Mulvaney?

SEUNG MIN KIM: Well, he had - so after a little bit of a delay, Pat Cipollone has

started in the White House Counsel's Office.

So at least he's in there and kind of starting to run the ship.

But, you know, you and others - and other of our colleagues at The Washington Post have

reported for a while just how decimated how the White House counsel staff has been for

some time. I mean, usually it's a - that office should have around, like, 50 to

60-or-so folks. A lot less than that. I mean, I think at one point it was around 20-25.

That is not the firepower you need when you're going to be showered with investigations,

potential subpoenas. So once the first request for information goes out from a newly

empowered House Democratic majority, and how the White House deals with that - when

that request from the House Ways and Means Committee goes out for his tax returns, you

know, how do they respond? Are they ready to go? Do they have a plan? We don't yet know.

ROBERT COSTA: That's it for this edition of the Washington Week Podcast.

You can listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on the Washington Week website.

While you're online check out the Washington Week-ly News Quiz.

I'm Robert Costa. See you next time.

For more infomation >> White House chief of staff search - Duration: 9:56.

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

Amazing 2018 Basecamp Tiny Home Floor Model for Sale in Vancouver, Washington - Duration: 1:26.

Amazing 2018 Basecamp Tiny Home Floor Model for Sale in Vancouver, Washington

For more infomation >> Amazing 2018 Basecamp Tiny Home Floor Model for Sale in Vancouver, Washington - Duration: 1:26.

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

Trump names Mick Mulvaney acting chief of staff - Duration: 1:21.

For more infomation >> Trump names Mick Mulvaney acting chief of staff - Duration: 1:21.

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

Federal judge in Texas rules entire Obama health care law is unconstitutional The Washington Post - Duration: 4:09.

Federal judge in Texas rules entire Obama health care law is unconstitutional The Washington Post

Desktop notifications are on |

Get breaking news alerts from The Washington Post

Turn on desktop notifications?

A federal judge in Texas threw a dagger into the Affordable Care Act on Friday night, ruling that the entire health care law is unconstitutional because of a recent change in federal tax law.

The opinion by U.S. District Judge Reed OConnor overturns all of the sprawling law nationwide.

The ruling came on the eve of the deadline for Americans to sign up for coverage in the federal insurance exchange created under the law.

Since the suit was filed in January, many health law specialists have viewed its logic as weak but nevertheless have regarded the case as the greatest looming legal threat to the 2010 law, which has been a GOP whipping post ever since and assailed repeatedly in the courts.

A spokeswoman for California Attorney General Xavier Becerra D , who leads a group of states opposing the lawsuit, said that the Democratic defenders of the law are ready to challenge the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional in 2012 and 2015, though the first of those opinions struck down the ACAs provision that was to expand Medicaid nationwide, letting each state choose instead. No matter how OConnor ruled, legal experts have been forecasting that the Texas case would be appealed and could well place the law again before the high court, giving its conservative newest member, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, a first opportunity to take part.

OConnor is a conservative judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was appointed by President George W. Bush. OConnor ruled once before on an issue arising from the ACA, issuing a nationwide injunction two years ago on an Obama administration rule that forbade health care providers from discriminating based on gender identity.

And in June, the administration took the unusual step of telling the court that the ACA against this latest challenge. Typically, the executive branches argues to uphold existing statutes in court cases.

The lawsuit was initiated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who describes himself as a tea party conservative, with support from 18 GOP counterparts and a governor. The plaintiffs argue that the entire ACA is invalid. They trace their argument to the Supreme Courts 2012 ruling in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority that the penalty the law created for Americans who do not carry health insurance is constitutional because Congress does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.

As part of a tax overhaul a year ago, congressional Republicans pushed through a change in which that ACA penalty will be eliminated, starting in January. The lawsuit argues that, with the enforcement of the insurance requirement gone, there is no longer a tax so the law no longer is constitutional.

Once the heart of the ACA — the individual mandate — is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall, the lawsuit said.

In his 55 page opinion, OConnor writes that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, saying that it can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress tax power.

The judge also concludes that this insurance requirement is essential to and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA.

In a court brief and an accompanying letter to congressional leaders, the Justice Department did not go that far. Justice officials contended that, once the insurance mandates penalty is gone next month, that move will invalidate the ACAs consumer protections, such as its ban on charging more or refusing to cover people with preexisting medical conditions. But the administration argued that many other parts of the law could be considered legally distinct and thus can continue.

Just before the briefs deadline, three Justice attorneys involved with the case withdrew from it.

In the letter to Congress, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that Justice was taking this position with the approval of the president of the United States. President Trump has vowed since his campaign to dismantle the law, a main domestic achievement of his predecessor, and the administration has been taking steps on its own to foster alternative insurance that tends to be less expensive because it skirts ACA requirements.

The lawsuit has been opposed by a coalition of 17 Democratic attorneys general, led by Californias Becerra, a former congressman. The Democrats contend that while the Republican tax law will eliminate the federal penalty for being uninsured, it does not negate the ACAs constitutionality.

Todays misguided ruling will not deter us. Our coalition will continue to fight in court for the health and well being for all Americans, Becerra said in a statement after the ruling Friday.

During oral arguments in September, OConnor of the Democratic attorneys general than of the Republicans.

The midterm elections last month have altered the political map in the case. In Wisconsin, an incoming Democratic attorney general, Josh Kaul, campaigned on a promise to withdraw the state from the lawsuit, but Wisconsins Republican legislature and outgoing Gov. Scott Walker R have tried in a lame duck session to block his ability to do that. In Maine, outgoing Gov. Paul LePage R joined the lawsuit, but the state attorney generals office told the court last month that the governor did not have power to do so on his own.

Read more

Sign up for email updates from the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

You have signed up for the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

For more infomation >> Federal judge in Texas rules entire Obama health care law is unconstitutional The Washington Post - Duration: 4:09.

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

Washington vs Bosse - Duration: 0:38.

For more infomation >> Washington vs Bosse - Duration: 0:38.

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

Washington Elementary shares the holiday spirit with Christmas program - Duration: 0:14.

For more infomation >> Washington Elementary shares the holiday spirit with Christmas program - Duration: 0:14.

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

Public transit system in Washington DC struggles with privatization US news - Duration: 4:30.

Public transit system in Washington DC struggles with privatization US news

Union employees are fighting the effort in favor of better benefits and working conditions, as well as keeping public costs down

Union employees are fighting the effort in favor of better benefits and working conditions, as well as keeping public costs down

Kewanna Battle Mason has worked for the privately operated bus service, the DC Circulator, in Washington DC for 10 years. But she has campaigned as a union activist against any attempt to privatize the capital's giant public transit system – even after she suffered a stroke last year. After all, she believes life is much better for transit workers outside the private sector.

"We want to be city-owned, have city benefits, in the long term, not just by contract. You can't have that with these contractors," she said. "We should be a city-owned company, we provide a city-owned service."

The fight over who owns and runs public transit in Washington DC has been a long struggle that has seen an ebb and flow of privatization efforts in the fourth largest public transit system in the United States. In the 1970s, the capital's Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) took over private bus operations in the wake of rampant abuses and safety issues caused by private contractors.

But now WMATA has increasingly shifted back toward favoring privatisation of some of its operations. In August, WMATA's Metro Bus entered its first contract under a private contractor; a five-year, $89m contract with TransDev, a French-based transportation company. Union members opposed the deal, and fear it could pave the way to further privatization.

WMATA is also looking to make its Silver Line extension the first subway line in the United States to be under a private contract. The line is currently considering proposals from private contractors to operate and maintain the six-station line scheduled to open in 2020.

These contracts with private corporations come at a cost to the public, argue drivers and labor organizers fighting to keep the DC transit system public.

Within WMATA's MetroAccess Paratransit service – which helps disabled people access a shared-ride service – drivers cite high employee turnover, forced overtime hours and lower benefits after it became one of the first operations to come under private contract.

"They just keep hiring because they keep firing. They can't keep anybody," said Kimberly Wilson Lynch, a MetroAccess Paratransit driver for six years.

According to a WMATA spokesperson, turnover in 2017 for MetroAccess drivers was between 8% and 13%.

Drivers are scheduled to work in 12-hour shifts, but Lynch noted she often goes beyond that time, sometimes up to 16 hours in a single shift.

"You get an hour break, and we're supposed to get two 15-minute breaks, which we don't get," she said. Lynch also explained drivers have to call in to ask permission to stop to use the bathroom during their shift, which dispatch frequently won't authorize.

"The way they treat the drivers is unbelievable," said Genoa Greene, a MetroAccess Paratransit driver for 12 years. As a union steward, Greene explained she often has to fight wrongful terminations of drivers, and drivers often work sick due to only receiving two days of sick leave per year.

Greene noted riders are negatively affected by how the private contractor runs the paratransit service. According to Greene, clients are often still scheduled for rides after death, or wrongly listed as using a wheelchair because it is profitable for the private contractor. "I go to this client's home. The wife was livid. I go knock on the door. She said the client has been dead for five years," Greene recounted.

A WMATA spokesperson told the Guardian in an email: "Metro is committed to ensuring the best possible paratransit service for our MetroAccess customers, something we enforce through rigorous standards, including those related to safety, performance, and efficiency, outlined in each contract."We use contractors to facilitate the scheduling and delivery of trips on MetroAccess, but maintain full oversight and responsibility to ensure our providers adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for all aspects of MetroAccess service."TransDev did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Private contractors have won contracts from WMATA under promises of saving money. But unions claim the contracts result in lower wages for workers and poor maintenance of the transit system. They also point to service cuts in communities where the ridership is predominantly people of color from a low-income background.

"We got involved in the transit fight because it was wrong on so many levels. It was an attack on the livelihood of middle-class folks, in particular, black middle class because the majority of the drivers are African American," said the Rev Lionel Edmonds, a pastor at Mount Lebanon Baptist church and co-founder of the Washington Interfaith Network.

"Most of the lines being talked about cutting are in poor areas," added Edmonds. "They say it's going to make the city better but they never say who it's going to hurt."

Some religious leaders were inspired to action after bus routes in their communities were slated for cuts.

In suburban Vienna, Virginia, a bus line was cut that served hundreds of low-incoming housing units. "This bus route was the only way for them to get groceries, get to work. So I started meeting with parents. I had moms walking four miles round trip just to get to the grocery store," said the Rev Austen Almaguer from Vienna Baptist church.

That bus route is still in the process of being revived after Almaguer's congregation gathered hundreds of public comments and met with Fairfax county department of traffic officials, but a temporary service was put in place in the meantime.

Marjorie Green from St Mary's Episcopal church in Arlington, Virginia, was also outraged after drastic bus route cuts were proposed in her community. "I think we as a society, especially from the nation's capital, do we want to live in an area where we would inflict this kind of pain on people?" she said.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét