It's 'Business as Usual' at DoJ

Over at the Justice Department, it’s “business as usual here.”

That’s what a DOJ source close to Jeff Sessions tells me, even as the attorney general’s position remains awkwardly tenuous. On Tuesday President Trump repeated that he was “disappointed” in Sessions for the AG’s recusal from the Russian investigation in March. When asked if Trump intended to fire Sessions, the president said this: “I told you before, I’m very disappointed with the attorney general, but we will see what happens. Time will tell. Time will tell.”

Where does all the ire toward Sessions come from, and why has the president decided only now to put the squeeze on his AG? In a Tuesday interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump expressed how he believes Sessions is to blame for the investigation into his campaign’s possible collusion with Russian interference in the election. “If Jeff Sessions didn’t recuse himself, we wouldn’t even be talking about this subject,” he said.

That gets the agency of the whole Russia matter backwards, of course, but it does provide a certain clarity: Trump views Sessions’s recusal as the font from which all of his legal problems have arisen. But in floating his displeasure with Sessions so publicly—in the New York Times interview and his tweets—Trump has boxed himself in.

If he fires Sessions, it will be clear the president expects his attorney general to play “hockey goalie” for him. Any replacement at the Justice Department would need to agree to this condition, implicitly or otherwise. How would such a nominee get through a Senate confirmation hearing? Republicans won’t want to have the burden of supporting a nominee who will act to protect the president from an investigation. And if Trump’s new nominee does publicly promise to allow the special counsel’s investigation to continue unmolested, then the president is back where he began.

That’s why it’s “business as usual” at DoJ. For the time being, Trump will either have to fire him—and face the daunting task of filling the job of attorney general—or live with Sessions.

Obamacare Repeal Gets a Debate

After weeks of stagnation and frustration, Senate Republicans and President Trump achieved a breakthrough of sorts on health care. A razor-thin vote to open debate on repealing Obamacare was punctuated by the emotional return of Arizona senator John McCain, who had recently been diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor. With a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence, the Senate approved the procedural measure.

“I applaud the Senate for taking a giant step to end the Obamacare nightmare,” President Trump said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. “As this vote shows, inaction is not an option, and now the legislative process can move forward as intended to produce a bill that lowers costs and increases options for all Americans. The Senate must now pass a bill and get it to my desk so we can finally end the Obamacare disaster once and for all.”

Here’s more from my colleague Chris Deaton:

The Senate can now move on to molding the bill—getting Republicans closer to passing some repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act in theory, even if they aren’t closer in practice. Skeptical moderates like Sens. Dean Heller and Shelly Moore Capito, both of whom slammed the final iteration of the Senate proposal, had to be swayed just to “get on the bill,” as McConnell described his modest goal last week. “If the final product isn’t improved for the state of Nevada, then I will not vote for it; if it is improved, I will support it,” Heller stated in announcing his intention to vote yea on the motion. The process is guaranteed to be complicated and difficult, the same as it has been all along this year. Right after the motion was approved, McConnell moved to substitute the language of a 2015 repeal bill for the language of the American Health Care Act. Democrats forced the Senate clerk to read the language in full, a time-consuming requirement usually waived in Senate proceedings—and protesters again interrupted the speaking partway through. Standard fare for what’s been a disagreeable process. But after a few false starts, it will finally be an active one. Majority whip John Cornyn of Texas told reporters that the budget committee will weigh in on amendments to the legislation to make sure they meet rules requirements. Once they do, it’s on. “We’re going to be doing a lot of voting this week. I hope you all have eaten your Cheerios.”

Russia Sanctions Pass, But Will Trump Veto?

My colleague Jenna Lifhits reports on the House of Representatives’ overwhelming passage of a sanctions package that includes tough action against Russia for its interference in the 2016 election:

House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Ed Royce defended the review provision on the floor Tuesday, as has his Senate counterpart, foreign relations committee chairman Bob Corker. “This bill empowers Congress to review and disapprove any sanctions relief. This strong oversight is necessary, it is appropriate,” Royce said. “After all, it is Congress that the Constitution empowers to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” White House officials have come around and indicated support for the bill, complimenting the revised version for answering some of its concerns. The president’s stance on it, however, remains an open question.

One reason I’ve heard from the White House why there remains some skepticism is the view that this updated sanctions bill takes away presidential powers to conduct foreign policy.

It’s ‘Business as Usual’ at DoJ

Related Content

NEWS

POLICY

COMMENTARY

RESTORING AMERICA