Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts

December 5, 2018

In The US Rich Minority Rules Through The Senate and Needs To be Abolished as in Wyyoming 1/2 Mil Same Power As New York 20 Mil





One question answers it all: What does the Senate do with its two senators per state and 6 years minimum power that the House with its 435 members in two years minimum power not able to do? Nothing but obstruct..please think about this. I know the senators are not going to vote themselves out of a job but americans could, And the senators could always be mix in with the house with the same power.

Usually what ever the house passes no matter how good,  the senate can just not even bring it to a vote even if it had enough votes in the senate itself to pass the legislation.
The house can't impechor pass legislation the senate dissaproves. The health benefits and the salary of these guys will save us enough to make every hungry family in america have a meal. 
For now, A bill that passes the house should get a vote in the senate.      Adam🦊
These are not just the beliefs of this blog but the belief of the longest living member of Congress:



The senate considerably dilutes the voting power of African-Americans and Latinos and Asians to a degree that should be unacceptable in polite company


 {{An Atlantic excerpt from his new memoir}}
The end of minority rule in our legislative and executive branches. The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitution’s Framers, required that all states, big and small, have two senators. The idea that Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect itself from being bullied by Massachusetts emerged under a system that governed only 4 million Americans.
Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that. Yet because of an 18th-century political deal, those 20 states have 40 senators, while California has just two. These sparsely populated, usually conservative states can block legislation supported by a majority of the American people. That’s just plain crazy.
The math is even starker when you look at places like Wyoming and Vermont, each of which has fewer people in the entire state (575,000 and 625,000, respectively) than does the Twelfth Congressional District of Michigan, which I last represented and whose more than 700,000 residents are now in the hands of my wife, Debbie. She fights her heart out for them every single day. Yet her efforts are often stymied simply because it is understood that even should a good bill make it through the hyper-partisan House, it will die a quiet death in the Senate because of the disproportionate influence of small states.
With my own eyes, I’ve watched in horror and increasing anger as that imbalance in power has become the primary cause of our national legislative paralysis. In primaries, the vocal rump of a minority of obnoxious asses can hold the entire country hostage to extremist views. This insanity has sent true public servants fleeing for the exits. The Electoral College has the same structural flaw. Along with 337 of my colleagues, I voted in 1969 to amend the Constitution to abolish it. Twice in the past 18 years, we’ve seen the loser of the popular vote become president through the Electoral College formula, which gives that same disproportionate weight to small states, each of which gets two automatic votes for its two senators.
My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that “in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.”
How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.
There is a solution, however, that could gain immediate popular support: Abolish the Senate. At a minimum, combine the two chambers into one, and the problem will be solved. It will take a national movement, starting at the grassroots level, and will require massive organizing, strategic voting, and strong leadership over the course of a generation. But it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? “Abolish the Senate.” I’m having blue caps printed up with that slogan right now. They will be made in America.
The protection of an independent press. This is where the Founding Fathers got it exactly right. Jefferson said, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Trump has said of reporters, “I would never kill them, but I do hate them. And some of them are such lying, disgusting people.”
My father started out life as a cub reporter for the Detroit Free Press. He always believed that journalism was a tremendously honorable profession. We cannot restore respect to our institutions of government until we put an end to the systematic attacks on journalism that have become prevalent. The playbook is simple: Lie. Repeat the lie. Then attack the journalists who expose those lies as being liars themselves—or, in modern parlance, “promoters of fake news.” The Nazis’ propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, replaced journalism with state-run propaganda and created a political climate based on fear and falsehoods.
The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Fourth Estate is not a branch of government, but none of the branches of government can be trusted to function honestly without an unfettered free press vigilantly holding it accountable.
Thomas Jefferson had the first word and he should have the last word: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” 
As a young man, I served in the Army during World War II. My father was a member of Congress. I learned from him and, later, from my own experience that history always repeats itself unless we remember it with clarity and conscience.
Now I am an old man. My age bears with it a responsibility to share what I’ve witnessed so that future generations avoid making the same mistakes. My advice always begins with the truth, which is why would-be despots and demagogues try so hard to discredit it. They hate it like the devil hates holy water.
The conduct and outcome of the 2016 presidential election have put the future of our country in mortal peril. After a lifetime spent in public service, I never believed that day would come. Yet it has. And we now find ourselves on the precipice of a great cliff. Our next step is either into the abyss or toward a higher moral ground. Since before the Civil War, we’ve been told that “Providence watches over fools, drunkards, and the United States.” Yet the good Lord also granted us free will. The direction we choose to follow is ours alone to make. We ask only that he guide our choice with his wisdom and his grace.
It’s up to you, my dear friends.

November 13, 2018

LATEST: Kyrsten Sinema has flipped Jeff Flake’s SENATE seat to the Democrats



 Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call






 Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema has picked up an insurmountable lead over Republican opponent Rep. Martha McSally, handing Democrats a seat Republicans have held since 1994.

Why it matters: Sinema will replace retiring Republican Sen. Jeff Flake and is set to becoming the first woman to represent Arizona in the Senate. Even though Republicans will maintain control of the Senate next year, Sinema’s victory has chipped away the durable majority they were hoping to cement. The bitterly fought contest comes to an end after President Trump and some national and state Republicans cast doubt on the elections legitimacy as Sinema’s lead was expanding each day as new ballots were being counted. 

October 4, 2018

Beto O'Rourke is Dazzling The Democrats



 Beto is taken for his own what was considered a secured seat for GOP Texas but it really wasn't. All it needed was the right candidate. Take a look at this Cuban-something. I'm not even sure because for a while he tried to pass as totally Anglican even change his name. Ted Cruz, it's even just a big balloon of hot air and it's been one since he came to Congress with the Tea Baggers. Besides preaching for immigration what else has he done? He barely got his snake boots wet during the stormwater floods. The only place you find him is when there is something national that he can talk about because that is something he does well, talk. But he preached Texas and Texas needed both Senators to be if only verbally to be working for the state. Afraid to lose a seat in the Senate the RNC always came thru with help and money. But Having someone with ideas not just talk, someone real not just someone made up to look like a good worker for the people, that is all Texas needed and it seems is getting it.



A rising star in the Democratic Party could pull off an unlikely victory in the upcoming US mid-term elections by unseating a big-name Republican in the traditionally conservative state of Texas.
O'Rourke supporters
Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke is bouncing on a small stage in Edinburg, waving his arms wildly, all 6ft 4ins (193cm) of his gangly frame crackling with energy.
His toes are well over the edge of the boards and his suede shoes are soaking up dark splashes of sweat from his brow.
Mr. O'Rourke, who has represented El Paso and its surrounds in the US House of Representatives since 2013, is running for the Senate - and you can't fault him for effort.
"Everyone is welcome," he smiles to the packed audience, insisting that the invitation even extends to "the dude in the Make America Great Again cap".
For today at least, the offer is rhetorical. 
There are no red-and-white Donald Trump hats in sight and, one suspects, precious few anywhere in Hidalgo County, where Edinburg bakes in the Rio Grande Valley, just north of the Mexican border. 
This is deeply Hispanic, deeply Democratic territory. You can spend a long time here before you hear a word of English.
While Texas voted for Mr Trump as president in 2016 by 52% to Hillary Clinton's 43%, Hidalgo County went for the Democrat by 68% to 28%.
Mr O'Rourke may not have Latin roots but he is fluent in Spanish and he leans heavily on his "Beto" nickname - a common contraction of Roberto - which he picked up as a child in El Paso.
But the congressman is not only campaigning on favorable ground. He has spent much of the past year crisscrossing Texas, boasting that he has visited all 254 of its counties. It appears that he is following a twin-track strategy, enthusing his left-wing base by calling for reform of criminal justice and immigration laws while also trying to attract disillusioned Trump supporters by promising improved education and universal healthcare - and appealing to both groups by accusing the White House of lavishing a giant tax cut on millionaires at the expense of ordinary Americans.
The biggest cheers come when he vows to end the nexus between politics and big business, to drain the swamp if you will.
He is almost drowned out as he looks out at the audience and declares "I see people instead of corporations! I see people instead of special interests!"
Mr. O'Rourke's passionate delivery along with his good looks and background as a skateboarder and a punk rocker has endeared him to liberals across the country, earning flattering comparisons with another Irish-American, that hero of modern American liberalism Bobby Kennedy.

Mr O'Rourke held a campaign concert with famed country musician Willie NelsonImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionA huge crowd topping 50,000 greeted him and Willie Nelson

Mr O'Rourke has said he is "open to" replacing the controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), he favours tightening restrictions on guns and has said he would vote to impeach President Trump.
On Saturday, he took to the stage in the left-leaning state capital Austin with the country music legend Willie Nelson, briefly joining in on the chorus of On the Road Again. Tens of thousands of Texans flocked to watch.
Mr O'Rourke's speech was described by the Dallas Morning News as "impassioned" and "brimming with his trademark optimism." 
"We will be defined not by our fears - when we allow that to happen we build walls, we ban people based on their religion, we describe the press as the enemy of the people," he said, rebuking President Trump.
"We should be defined by our ambitions, our aspirations."
Mr O'Rourke has benefited from a flurry of small donations from all over the United States, raising millions of dollars more than his rival in a race which may help determine who controls Congress for the next two years of the Trump presidency.
The Democrats are favored to win control of the House of Representatives but are in a much tougher battle for the Senate, where they need a net gain of two seats but are defending 10 seats in states which Mr. Trump won in 2016.
The man trying to fight off this challenge is Ted Cruz, a former (and perhaps future) presidential candidate who ran Mr. Trump close for the Republican nomination in 2016. 
Mr Cruz is in many ways the opposite of his rival, an astute lawyer with a studied, precise delivery and a bête noir of the left who is also infamous for attracting the enmity of some Republican colleagues in Washington.
Yet with his campaign slogan "Tough as Texas", he epitomizes the strong streak of conservative self-reliance which runs through the heart of this vast rural state, as much a part of its identity as cowboy boots and barbecue sauce. 
He should be strolling towards re-election.

Cruz and O'Rourke debateImage copyrightPOOL
Image captionCruz is a darling of the evangelical wing of the Republican Party

Either way, in Buddy Holly's hometown of Lubbock, in the north-west of the state, Mr Cruz isn't taking any chances.
He spends most of his stump speech lambasting Mr O'Rourke whom he accuses of taking "radical" positions on drugs, policing, immigration and the right to bear arms.
Mr Cruz punctuates his criticism with the crowd-pleasing phrase "and that ain't Texas!"
"This is a debate between two approaches," he tells his overwhelmingly white audience, "between socialism and the American free enterprise system. Between tyranny and liberty... between the crazy left wing and the great people of the state of Texas."
That draws a big cheer. Here they love the style of the man in the ostrich skin boots.

Mr Cruz's ostrich skin boots were regularly seen during stump speeches during his 2016 presidential campaignImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

When asked what he likes about the senator, one member of the crowd, Monti Bandiber replies with just three words - "his conservative values".
"I just really like his morals," says another supporter, Lyn Vandiver. "I think he's a very Christian man. And that's the most important thing to me."
By contrast, she regards Mr O'Rourke as "a liar" both for his account of the events around a youthful conviction for drink driving and in the way he has spoken about his support for black athletes who kneel at sporting events during the national anthem to protest against police violence and racial inequality.
This stress on morality is interesting given the identity of the current president, a man who was heard bragging that he can force himself on women because of his fame.
Ms Vandiver is not fond of Mr Trump personally, well aware that Mr Cruz exchanged insults with the New York property tycoon during the presidential campaign, calling him a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," and "a serial philanderer" among other things.
Now the Texan senator is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Mr Trump's dominance of his party is such that a Republican candidate cannot be rude about him and expect grassroots support.
And so Mr Cruz finds himself praising the president and his policies, swallowing a dollop of hypocrisy mixed with a measure of humiliation.
It is another reason why he is spending as much time as possible attacking Mr O'Rourke as "a socialist", a dirty word in much of the US and particularly in Texas, which prides itself on a disdain for government.
When I point out to Mr Cruz that his opponent hasn't actually advocated state ownership of the means of production - a widely accepted definition of socialism - the senator shoots back "he supports socialized medicine".
The senator adds that "as Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money".
Intriguingly when I ask Mr O'Rourke the same question - do you support common ownership of the means of production, he is coy. 
It is hard to think of another mainstream US politician who would answer with anything other than the word "no". But even given several chances, Mr O'Rourke does not disavow socialism as a creed, instead insisting "the party labels just do not matter anymore. I'm convinced of it. It's not Republican or Democrat. It's Texan and American and that's what we're standing for in this campaign".
"Investing in the ability for everyone to be well enough to live to their full potential," does not need a label, he says, adding "it's also the most fiscally conservative thing possible".
Matthew Wilson, associate professor of political science at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, says Mr. O'Rourke is "well to the left" of other Texan Democrats and yet is managing to sound more moderate.
Prof Wilson says it will be interesting to see whether voters are "more interested in someone who has a conciliatory style" or "in evaluating the ideological substance of the positions".

A trucks sponsored by a pro-Democrat group features a Trump tweet critical of Mr CruzImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionA trucks sponsored by a pro-Democrat group features a Trump tweet critical of Mr Cruz

In the Dallas suburb of Deep Ellum, there are plenty of young people who are interested in both.
In The Three Links, which offers drinkers the chance to try their hand at punk karaoke (we are treated to a decent rendition of Kids in America), supporters of Beto O'Rourke gathered to watch the two candidates go head to head in a televised debate.
"You can't go a mile in Dallas without seeing Beto signs," said Chris Cude, 29, a lawyer. "They're attracting people who want to be a part of it. He associates with a younger, more adaptable, accepting, millennial crowd."
Sunny Gruber, 30, a technology worker said she too had noticed a profusion of black and white Beto signs in the city and "a lot of folks campaigning for Beto" whose campaign she describes as "really invigorating and exciting for America".

Cruz supporters snap a selfie ahead of the September debateImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionCruz supporters snap a selfie ahead of the September debate

Success in the big cities of Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio is one thing but Mr O'Rourke faces a formidable challenge if he wants to win over rural voters too.
Whereas Ted Cruz plays on fears about the impact of a Democratic Senate victory in Texas, comparing his challenger unfavorably to the democratic socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke is projecting a message of hope, trying to tap into the same disenchantment which propelled Mr. Trump into the White House.
Mr. O'Rourke's task remains very tough. 
For years, Democrats have been waking up disappointed from dreams of victory in Texas, where they haven't won a US Senate seat in 30 years.
Still, Texas is changing, becoming more urban and less white, and assuming Mr. O'Rourke can generate a high turnout among his base, a liberal victory in the Lone Star State no longer looks impossible, which in itself is pretty remarkable. 


September 29, 2018

Thank To Sen Jeff Flake White House Orders An FBI Investigation to Find Facts About Judge Kavanaugh




Trump's statements appear to have backed off a bit from the defiant attack on Democrats for a "search and destroy strategy" against the nominee that he tweeted Thursday night.

Speaking to reporters at the White House before a meeting with Chile's President Sebastián Piñera, Trump said that undecided senators must do what makes them "comfortable" regarding his nomination, adding that he had "no message whatsoever" for the senators who now face a vote to confirm Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice.

"They have to do what they think is right," he said. "There is no message whatsoever. They have to do what they think is right. They have to be comfortable with themselves and I’m sure that’s what they want."
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday voted to advance Kavanaugh's nomination, but only after Republican Sen. Jeff Flake called for a one-week delay on a final vote to allow the FBI to investigate the sexual misconduct allegations.

 GOP Sem Jeff Flake, with the weight of the Senate on his shoulders



Republican Sen. Jeff Flake after speaking during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Sept. 28, 2018.
Flake said he would oppose moving forward with Kavanaugh's nomination in the full Senate if Republicans try to bring it up before then.
Asked about the delay, Trump said, "I’m going to let the Senate handle that."
"They’ll make their decisions," he added. "They’ve been doing a good job and very professional. I’m just hearing a little bit about it because I’ve been with the president of Chile and we're talking about some very important subjects. I’m sure it will all be very good."

"I guess the vote was a positive vote but there seems to be a delay. I’ll learn more about it as the day goes on. I just heard about it because we were together."
Look at Senator (R) Jeff Flake. His face shows all the turmoil he is going through and his disagreement at all the political wrangling. Getting an FBI investigation should be the least to ask about of an appointment of this magnitude when there is a credible testimony from a credible witness about Kavanaugh's behavior and maybe lying under oath.
Thanks to Se. Flake, there will be an FBI investigation and this locomotive will be delayed one more week or so until the FBI is done.

September 28, 2018

NYT Mentions 4 Takeaways From What We Saw Yesterday on The Confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh







Since the story is on every paper and cable channel I just wanted to give you in condensed way what we can take away from a nice well educated woman who was nearly rape by a someone who thought because of his standing in school and his parents money could get away with even rape.
I went in with my mind open and after Dr. Ford answered all her questions candidadly and even politely we got to Mr. K who los it. He came into the meeting like if Trump had just coached him. This is a Superior Court Judge and he comes in there with no decorum and not answering the question but to arguing with the Democratic Senators.You could see how a drunken K would have no control because  even f he was sober he had no control of himself.He is terrified of an FBI investigation! There is something he is hidding and do not want it to be discovered. 🦊Adam





WASHINGTON — Two weeks of chaos clouding Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation process culminated Thursday in a hearing that was stunning, even in a town notorious for partisan pageantry and intrigue.
Christine Blasey Ford, the first accuser to come forward and accuse Judge Kavanaugh of grave sexual misconduct, says that he assaulted her when they were teenagers, pushing her onto a bed, groping her, grinding his body against hers and covering her mouth with his hand when she tried to scream.
Viewers across the country — including a critical group of undecided senators who will decide the confirmation — were captivated as Dr. Blasey came forward to tell her story and Judge Kavanaugh fought to clear his name and salvage his spot on the nation’s highest court.
Here are the takeaways.
Dr. Blasey delivered raw, gripping testimony to the committee.
Dressed in a navy suit, Dr. Blasey maintained her composure throughout the hearing, though her voice often broke or shook as she detailed in raw testimony how “Brett’s assault on me drastically altered my life.” 

 “I struggled with a terrible choice: Do I share the facts with the Senate and put myself and my family in the public spotlight?” she said during her opening statement. “Or do I preserve our privacy and allow the Senate to make its decision without knowing the full truth of his past behaviors?”
Judge Kavanaugh was aggressive, tearful and partisan in his own defense.
Judge Kavanaugh mounted a defiant and tearful defense that stood in stark contrast to the measured and passive interview he gave with his wife to Fox News, denying Dr. Blasey’s accusations forcefully and hitting back at Senate Democrats.“My family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional allegations,” he said.He seemed intent on rebutting each point that has been used to cast aspersions on his character. 
The result was wide-ranging, 45-minute remarks that addressed how he spent his summer weekends as a teenager; the encouraging texts his friends sent him in the days preceding the hearing; and that he repeatedly that as a teen he drank beer, but never to the point of blacking out. Before the Senate, his family and God, Judge Kavanaugh said, “I am innocent of this charge.”

Early in his prepared remarks, he went directly at the Democrats, accusing them of inciting a “frenzy” to “come up with something, anything, to block my nomination.”
“Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready,” he said.
He also proved to be a combative witness. Asked by Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, if he had ever blacked out from drinking, he batted the question back: “Have you?”
The committee avoided an Anita Hill moment, but Republicans made their fury known.
Eager to avoid the optics of an all-male Republican panel of senators grilling a sexual assault victim, Senate Republicans chose to employ Rachel Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona, to question Dr. Blasey.

The result of the format proved jarring at times, as the hearing moved rapidly back and forth between Senate Democrats’ politically freighted questions and Ms. Mitchell’s meticulous, prosecutorial style. But the effect of Ms. Mitchell’s careful, granular questions was limited by her five-minute blocks of time, and Senate Republicans expressed frustration at the impediment, though they defended their choice to retain an outside questioner.

While Dr. Blasey provided some small clarifications, she remained consistent in her testimony and appeared to gain confidence as the hearing went on.

When it came to questioning Judge Kavanaugh, however, Senate Republicans quickly took matters into their own hands — Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina exploded into a tirade directed at his Democratic colleagues.
“Boy, you all want power,” he said. “God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham that you knew about it and you held it. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford. None. She’s as much of a victim as you.”
That outburst changed the tenor of hearings, and one by one, Senate Republicans, dismissing Ms. Mitchell, used their five minutes to apologize to Judge Kavanaugh and denounce their Democratic colleagues.
“You’re the first major target of a new strategy that’s developed here, and I think you’re right,” Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, told Judge Kavanaugh. “I think it’s just basically attack, attack, attack.”
All eyes will stay on the undecided senators.
Republicans on the committee, including Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the chamber, said they expect the committee to vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Friday morning, as scheduled. But while Mr. Kavanaugh’s scorched-earth testimony was well received by his conservative backers, he must also persuade a moderate group of senators known to break from party lines.

One senator who could delay a committee vote is Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who fought to have the hearing in the first place. Mr. Flake, who is retiring at the end of the year, has offered few hints into his reactions to the testimony, and he declined to ask Judge Kavanaugh any questions during the hearing. But he previously offered his own test to reporters: “If you believe” Dr. Blasey, “you vote no.”
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, both undecided critical votes, also maintained low profiles on Thursday. Both pledged to refrain from making a decision until they heard both Dr. Blasey’s and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimonies.
Undecided Democrats running for re-election in Republican states will also be scrutinized, including Senators Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia.

April 20, 2018

Some GOP's Push Bill to Protect Mueller But Mitch McConnell Wants to Protect Trump not The Prosecutor Instead





 "To be scared of a a man with small everything is to believe you have less of everything"



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., does not support a measure that would make it harder for President Trump to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, but that isn't stopping some Republicans from forcing the debate.
North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis said Wednesday that he will continue working on a bill to allow Mueller access to speedy judicial review if Trump tries to force him out of his job leading the Justice Department investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election — with or without McConnell's support.
"We'll have a markup and a vote in committee," Tillis told reporters. "It's something that can lie in the Senate chamber. Facts may lead to passage or not."
Tillis said he plans to continue lobbying leadership on the bill, even after McConnell explicitly rejected the legislation.
"This is not necessary, there's no indication that Mueller is going to be fired," McConnell said in a Fox News interview on Tuesday. He added, "We'll not be having this on the floor of the Senate."
But Tillis and other supporters of the bill say they aren't backing down. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said Wednesday that the goal isn't necessarily to pass a measure with the hope of forcing Trump to decide between signing the bill or issuing a veto. The real goal, he said, is to send the president a message. 
"If the goal — and I think it should be — is to convince the president not to take this action," Flake told reporters, "I think the message needs to be that we take this very seriously."
There are plenty of Republicans who say they agree the issue should be taken seriously, but they want to lobby Trump quietly — not through an aggressive public measure like voting on this bill.
Supporters of the legislation say that's just wishful thinking. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Tuesday that Republicans who hope they can persuade Trump not to fire Mueller through such discussions aren't facing reality.
"If he's not listening to his own lawyers, I don't think he's going to listen to a bunch of U.S. senators," Blumenthal said.
Trump has crossed Republicans on a number of issues, like the recent tariffs on China. Many in Congress have grown wary of a string of White House firings — like that of former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — that came without any warning. Blumenthal said Trump could do the same to Mueller.
Another group of Republicans, including McConnell and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, simply believe Trump won't fire Mueller.
"It's hard for me to just hypothetically think in this direction because I just don't think it's going to happen," Hatch said on Tuesday. "It would be a mistake."
There are also political reasons for Republicans to want to avoid a public display of support for Mueller. Forcing a vote could also create an impossible choice for Republicans running for re-election against strong Democratic challengers.
Either they vote against the president and commit what would be considered a cardinal sin by many in Trump's fervent base, or they vote against protecting Mueller, which could anger moderates worried Republicans won't stand up to Trump.
Either way, Democrats like Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois want Republicans on the record.
"It isn't a question of whether Trump might one day veto it," Durbin said Tuesday. "It's whether they believe in the integrity of the special counsel or they believe anybody, including the president, should be above criminal investigation."
For now, a majority of Republicans say they agree that the special counsel should be allowed to finish his investigation. And they say they trust that Trump won't get in his way.
Speaking at a news conference with Japan's prime minister Wednesday in Florida, Trump provided little clarity about the fate of Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the Justice Department investigation since last year.
Trump repeated his charge that the Russia matter is a "hoax," but he stopped short of saying he would fire Mueller or Rosenstein.
"They've been saying I'm going to get rid of them for the last three months, four months, five months, and they're still here," Trump said.
The president also reiterated his view that there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russians involved in the election interference. He also said that the White House has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation and "we want to get it over with, done with, put it behind us."


Featured Posts

Behind The Back of The Vice-Cheney Family

The Cheneys at former Vice President Dick Cheney's swearing-in in 2005   EMILY DAVIES People ...