Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Health Care Bill Fails in a Senate Vote Shocker

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

While McCain is getting much of the credit for being the third “no” vote, many are also calling for more recognition for Collins and Murkowski. After all, had McCain not come back to vote in favor of discussing the bill in the first place, he wouldn’t have needed to dramatically vote against it.

Tomorrow the headlines will focus on McCain, but let’s not forget it was Susan Collins and Senator Murkowski who held the line all the way. https://t.co/J2TWixYHC9

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 28, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

And the beat goes on: Republicans on Tuesday voted–with a tiebreaking assist from Vice President Mike Pence–to move forward and debate health care legislation. Next up in the seven-year Republican crusade against Obamacare: hours of debate, possibly dozens of amendments, and, eventually, a floor vote. But the ultimate trophy of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act with a Republican-backed alternative remains elusive. Here is what comes next:

Debate then Vote-o-Rama

With the 51-50 vote Tuesday night on the motion to proceed, Senate Republicans are in for a long couple of days. First, they will debate for dozens of hours the various versions of the bill that have been proposed in the House and the Senate. Senators will also debate what will likely amount to dozens of amendments.

A so-called “vote-o-rama” will commence after the debate. Lawmakers from both parties will be permitted to introduce amendments to the health bill–Democratic aides have hinted the party will flood Republicans with amendments to trip up their efforts. Each amendment will be allotted one minute of debate before a vote, and the entire process can go on as long as is needed.

Option 1: Repeal and Replace

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been leading the repeal-and-replace charge over the past seven years, and it falls to him to corral his fellow Republican senators to agree on a bill. McConnell’s ideal scenario would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a health law that suits Republican priorities.

But the majority leader has so far struggled to align moderate GOP lawmakers and the Senate’s most conservative members behind a single bill. Several Senators have stated their opposition to prior health care legislation either because of Medicaid cuts or its insufficient conservative bona fides. McConnell scored a small victory with Tuesday’s motion to proceed vote, but can he rally enough of his troops to agree on a common strategy?

The first attempt at passing comprehensive legislation failed on Tuesday evening, as nine Republicans broke ranks and opposed the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) by a 43-57 margin in a crucial procedural vote. That bill was Republicans’ primary choice to repeal and replace Obamacare and included two amendments to try to reconcile the party’s disparate corners.

The first, introduced by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), would add $100 billion to a stability fund to help offset slashed Medicaid funds. A second amendment, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), would allow insurers to sell pared down plans as long as they concurrently sell more comprehensive plans that meet certain Obamacare requirements. Further votes on various versions of the BCRA or alternative bills could happen later this week.

Option 2: Repeal Only

A number of Republican Senators have already stated they will not support a repeal bill in the absence of replacement legislation. As early as Wednesday afternoon, a vote could be held on a repeal bill similar to one vetoed by President Barack Obama in 2016. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that bill would lead to 32 million more uninsured Americans within 10 years.

Another idea that has been floated is known as a “skinny repeal,” which would eliminate a few of Obamacare’s provisions while still leaving intact others. The narrow repeal would get rid of Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, which required individuals to have health insurance coverage and employers to provide insurance or pay a penalty. It may also repeal Obamacare’s medical device tax. It’s possible that the “skinny repeal” bill could dramatically change when the House and Senate meet to reconcile each chamber’s respective bills.

The road ahead is still long and filled with potentially unbridgeable divides. Immediately following Tuesday’s vote, a number of Republicans suggested they would not support a bill that is not significantly different than what has already been presented.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) said: “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.” And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who returned from his week-long absence on Tuesday to cast a “yea” vote on the motion to proceed, said: “Asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition–I don’t think that’s going to work in the end, and probably shouldn’t.” McCain, who was recently diagnosed with brain cancer, said it “seems likely” the effort would fail.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Next in the Republicans’ Effort to Repeal and Replace Obamacare? appeared first on Law Street.

Health Care Bill Vote Will be Delayed Due to John McCain’s Surgery

On Saturday evening, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the vote on the new health care bill will be delayed. This is the second time a vote on the bill has been delayed. As no Democrats will vote in favor of the bill, Republicans can only afford to lose two votes to pass it. Senators Susan Collins and Rand Paul have already said “nope” to voting for the bill as it is now, and as Senator John McCain is recovering from a Friday surgery and would not be able to attend, McConnell’s only choice was to delay.

McCain had surgery to remove a blood clot from above his eye, but yesterday, medical experts said it could be more serious than what has been previously described. The recovery period from such an operation is normally a few weeks, said an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Dr. Nrupen Baxi. He also said that this type of blood clot would not be found in a regular check up, but only if doctors had seen symptoms that prompted a closer look. But many commented on the irony of delaying the health care vote over a health-related issue that could happen to anyone.

We’re going to wait for John McCain to recover from his excellent care so he can help us vote to take yours away. https://t.co/q36beNVl7H

— Jesse Berney (@jesseberney) July 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After the tragic death of University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier following his release from North Korea, Arizona Senator John McCain wants to reform the system of tourism to the totalitarian country.

McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that North Korea “murdered” Warmbier and that Americans who are “stupid” enough to travel to the dangerous country despite State Department warnings should sign a waiver clearing the United States of any blame should they get in trouble.

Approximately 800 Americans visit North Korea each year. There are several tour companies that help these curious American travel the country, but many are now questioning whether they should accept Americans for future trips.

Warmbier was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor after he was convicted of stealing a propaganda sign while on vacation there. He was in a coma when North Korea released him to the United States and less than a week after his return, the 22-year old passed away in Cincinnati, Ohio.

McCain expanded on his thoughts in an interview with the Associated Press:

There should at least be a form for them to fill out that says, ‘If I go to North Korea, I understand I am taking great risk and I do not hold the American government responsible.‘ Now I hope the American government will help, etc., etc. But I realize what has happened to previous American citizens, including their deaths.

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, went even further and proposed banning American citizens from visiting the dangerous nation.

“I think we should strongly consider it,” Corker said. “It puts us in a really precarious situation when Americans are detained there.”

McCain also used his platform to remind the American public that Warmbier experienced just a bit of the “forced labor, mass starvation, systematic cruelty, torture, and murder” that the North Korean population has had to endure for decades.

McCain said that while he doesn’t wish ill on anyone, he hopes that those who visit North Korea in future years will “assume the responsibility of their welfare.”

These ideas for reform haven’t been turned into concrete legislation, but they are powerful comments from politicians who serve in key roles on congressional committees.

Whether either McCain’s or Corker’s proposals become reality remains to be seen, but Warmbier’s death likely will have consequences for American tourism to North Korea.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senators Discuss New Rules for Travel to North Korea After Otto Warmbier’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

John McCain Says Trump Scandal is “Watergate Size”

Here’s the latest development in the White House drama: President Donald Trump asked James Comey to stop investigating Michael Flynn, his former National Security Adviser, back in February. According to Trump’s critics, this proves once and for all that Trump did try to influence the FBI investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia. Last night, Senator John McCain talked to Bob Schieffer, the retired former host of “Face the Nation.” “I think we’ve seen this movie before. I think it appears at a point where it’s of Watergate size and scale… the shoes continue to drop, and every couple days there’s a new aspect,” McCain said.

Buried in our story: Trump said to Comey that he should consider putting reporters in prison https://t.co/7nlT6gaY1G

— Michael S. Schmidt (@nytmike) May 16, 2017

He recommended that Trump “get it all out” and said that it won’t be over until every detail of this story has been examined–“the same thing that you advised Richard Nixon, which he didn’t do,” he told Schieffer. He also criticized the move to invite Russian officials to the White House. I’ve known this guy [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov for 30 years. He’s an old KGB apparatchik stooge, and Putin is a murderer and a thug,” McCain said and added that it is unacceptable.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In a meeting last week with top Russian officials, President Donald Trump discussed classified information regarding an Islamic State threat, according to current and former U.S. officials. The revelations sparked outrage in Washington, even among high-ranking Republicans, and raised international questions about whether the U.S. under Trump is a reliable intelligence-sharing partner.

According to the Washington Post report, Trump shared an ISIS plot involving commercial aircraft and laptop computers with the Russian officials, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The president also reportedly shared the name of a Syrian city in which the intel was collected by an unnamed ally in the Middle East. White House officials denied the report, and said Trump did not disclose how the classified intelligence was gathered, or by which Middle Eastern ally.

But early Tuesday morning, Trump took to Twitter to confirm that he did indeed share intel with the Russians concerning an ISIS plot, for “humanitarian reasons.” The president tweeted:

As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

…to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

Still, the main concern is that Russia, which is backing Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime, could glean how and from whom the U.S. receives its intelligence in regard to the fight against ISIS. A senior European intelligence official, speaking anonymously, told the Associated Press on Tuesday morning that if the Post’s report was accurate, his country, which the official did not want to be named, could stop sharing intelligence with the U.S.

Top Republicans were dismayed by the report that the Trump Administration was embroiled in yet another controversy, less than a week after Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey. “The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “To compromise a source is something that you just don’t do, and that’s why we keep the information that we get from intelligence sources so close as to prevent that from happening.”

Sen. John McCain, perhaps the most vocal Republican critic of Trump, called the intelligence sharing “deeply disturbing.” He continued, in a statement on Tuesday: “Reports that this information was provided by a U.S. ally and shared without its knowledge sends a troubling signal to America’s allies and partners around the world and may impair their willingness to share intelligence with us in the future.” Top Senate Democrats also responded with concern:

If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians. https://t.co/CRiSC024F7

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) May 15, 2017

Before the Post story was published on Monday, the White House denied its claims. For its part, the Kremlin derided the report as “complete nonsense.” National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said the sources and methods of the intelligence gathering was not discussed in the meeting, “and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.” In a press conference on Tuesday, McMaster indicated that Trump was unaware the information he shared with the Russian officials was classified, and that the discussion that took place was “wholly appropriate.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Confirms He Shared Classified Intel with Russian Officials appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s vow to renegotiate NAFTA is one step closer to materializing: the Senate confirmed Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s U.S. Trade Representative nominee, on Thursday afternoon. The 82-14 vote ended months of uncertainty surrounding the Trump Administration’s trade plans, because it had been functioning without a chief trade envoy. Trump has repeatedly promised to retool the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. The president has called the 1994 deal a “disaster.”

Lighthizer, 69, has decades of trade experience, both in the public and private sectors. He served as a senior trade official in the Reagan Administration. Since then, Lighthizer has worked as a trade lawyer, representing clients in the U.S. and abroad. His work for foreign firms–between 1985 and 1990, he represented five foreign clients, including Brazil’s government–threatened to derail his nomination.

UPDATE: U.S. Senate confirms Trump’s pick for trade czar, Robert Lighthizer, setting stage for NAFTA renegotiation https://t.co/nlr5Ql8DWS pic.twitter.com/XcnxhXKb2M

— CTV News (@CTVNews) May 11, 2017

A 1995 amendment to the 1974 Trade Act stipulates a nominee who “directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity” cannot serve as the U.S. Trade Representative, unless granted a waiver from Congress. But in spite of the potential legal landfalls, the Senate decided that it was high time to install the chief U.S. trade representative, and confirmed Lighthizer by a landslide.

“Mr. Lighthizer’s years of experience in public service, including as staff director for the Senate Finance Committee, as deputy USTR during the Reagan administration, and in private practice make him extremely well qualified to serve as our nation’s trade representative,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told his colleagues on Thursday from the Senate floor.

Now that he has been confirmed, Lighthizer will move to carry out the Trump Administration’s trade agenda, including exploring ways to renegotiate NAFTA. Lighthizer has also expressed concerns that China is indeed a currency manipulator, a worry Trump promulgated throughout the campaign, but has since walked back on. During his confirmation hearing in March, Lighthizer said he previously believed China “was a substantial currency manipulator,” but whether it still is “is another question.”

Still, though a vast majority of Democrats and Republicans ultimately supported his confirmation, two Republican Senators were in the “nay” camp, Senators John McCain (AZ) and Ben Sasse (NE). In a recent letter to Lighthizer, the two explained their hesitation, saying “your confirmation process has failed to reassure us that you understand the North American Free Trade Agreement’s positive economic benefits to our respective States and the nation as a whole.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Overwhelmingly Approves U.S. Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer appeared first on Law Street.

Three Republican Senators joined the entire field of Democrats on Wednesday to uphold an Obama-era environmental regulation, the first to withstand the Trump Administration’s pointed efforts to roll back the previous administration’s environmental agenda. The Methane Waste Prevention Rule was drafted by the Obama Administration late in his term, part of a flurry of executive actions aimed at bolstering his environmental legacy.

In the weeks leading up to Wednesday’s vote, a handful of Republican Senators were on the fence about withholding or repealing the regulation. A few Democrats were up in the air well. Because of the hurried drafting of the rule in the waning days of the Obama Administration, some saw it as potentially burdensome and not as effective as it could be. In the end, all 48 Democrats and Independents, as well as three Republicans–Senators Lindsey Graham (SC), John McCain (AZ), and Susan Collins (ME)–voted to keep the measure in place.

McCain, who was targeted in an intense lobbying effort by environmental groups in the weeks leading up to the vote, said controlling methane emissions “is an important public health and air quality issue.” He added: “I join the call for strong action to reduce pollution from venting, flaring and leaks associated with oil and gas production operations on public and Indian land.” However McCain, like many Republicans and some Democrats, urged Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to re-write the rule.

The Bureau of Land Management enacted the regulation last November. It effectively forces oil and gas companies operating on public lands to capture methane, a greenhouse gas, rather than burning it off into the atmosphere. The rule would prevent 180,000 tons of methane from being burned into the atmosphere each year, according to federal estimates. Supporters of the rule contend it is a necessary addition in the fight against climate change. Critics say it is redundant–as many states already draft protections against methane emissions–and inhibits job creation.

“Unfortunately, the previous administration’s methane rule was not a balanced approach,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), one of the Republicans who nearly supported keeping the rule, wrote in a statement. “As written, it would have hurt our economy and cost jobs in Ohio by forcing small independent operators to close existing wells and slowing responsible energy production on federal lands. There’s a better way.”

Portman added the Interior Department “should do more to prevent methane venting and flaring on federal lands.” In a letter to Portman, Zinke, the Interior Department secretary, said he would “act within my authority as Secretary to craft solutions that incentivize responsible development.” Zinke added that he shares “concerns regarding methane waste and agree that we must manage our public lands in a pragmatic way.”

Over the past few months, the Trump Administration has been using a 1996 law, the Congressional Review Act, to dismantle a trove of Obama-era environmental regulations. Previously, the law was seldom used by presidents to undo executive actions of their predecessors. The Trump Administration has pushed Congress to utilize its powers 13 times over the past 60 days. But the window allowing the administration to use the bill is expected to end on Thursday; it is only effective within the first 60 days after a regulation is drafted.

But despite the successful preservation of the rule, White House officials signaled that they still intend on drastically reshaping it. Kate MacGregor, the Interior Department’s acting assistant secretary for land and minerals, said: “The vote today in the Senate doesn’t impact the administration’s commitment to spurring investment in responsible energy development and ensuring smart regulatory protections.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Three Republicans Rebuke Trump’s Efforts to Dismantle Environmental Protections appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Veterans Affairs announced a new pilot program on Tuesday that would allow veterans in Phoenix to receive outside care at CVS MinuteClinics. The program is a new effort designed to alleviate the exorbitant wait times veterans face when seeking care at VA facilities. For now, the program is limited to the Phoenix area, where VA facilities treat about 120,000 veterans.

“Our number one priority is getting veterans’ access to care when and where they need it,” Baligh Yehia, the VA’s deputy undersecretary for health for community care, told the Associated Press. “The launch of this partnership will enable VA to provide more care for veterans in their neighborhoods.”

The current Veterans Choice Program (VCP) restricts veterans from seeking outside care unless they have to wait more than 30 days for an appointment. If the nearest VA clinic is over 40 miles away, then a veteran is allowed to seek outside care as well. The new Phoenix-area program allows VA staff to recommend a veteran to go to a MinuteClinic when “clinically appropriate.” VA Secretary David Shulkin has indicated he would like to scrap the current VCP restrictions.

Congress recently passed legislation that would funnel $10 billion into the VCP program. “Congress has once again demonstrated that the country stands firmly united when it comes to supporting our nation’s Veterans,” Shulkin said at the time. President Donald Trump, who promised throughout his campaign to reform the VA, is expected to sign the legislation on Wednesday.

In 2014, then-VA Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned after it was revealed that officials in Phoenix falsified reports about the wait times veterans faced at VA clinics. The fake reports covered up the fact that in some instances, veterans died while waiting for care. In a recent survey conducted by the VA, only 61 percent of veterans said they could get a medical appointment for primary care when they needed one.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) a veteran of the Vietnam War, where he was also a POW, supports the new program. “Veterans in need of routine health care services should not have to wait in line for weeks to get an appointment when they can visit community health centers like MinuteClinic to receive timely and convenient care,” he said.

And Tobias Barker, the chief medical officer of CVS MinuteClinic, told the AP he hopes the new program can be one of several solutions to providing medical care to America’s veterans. “We believe in the MinuteClinic model of care and are excited to offer our health care services as one potential solution for the Phoenix VA Health Care System and its patients,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post VA Announces New Program Allowing Veterans to Get Treatment at CVS appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military struck a Syrian airfield with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles late Thursday night, marking its first direct strike against the Syrian regime in the country’s six-year civil war. Authorizing the strike from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, on the first day of a two-day meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump said the attack was meant to signal the U.S.’s willingness to escalate its role in the conflict. He said it was a response to the chemical attack on Tuesday, which killed up to 100 civilians, and was believed to be carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Trump said in remarks at Mar-a-Lago. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” The strikes, which commenced at 8:40 p.m. EST and lasted three to four minutes, launched from two U.S. ships in the Mediterranean.

With the strike, Trump signaled to Syria, its allies Russia and Iran, and the rest of the world that the U.S. is changing its calculus in a region where it has long resisted direct action. Former President Barack Obama–whose “weakness and irresolution” was to blame for Tuesday’s chemical attack, the new administration said–was reluctant to directly strike the Syrian regime, afraid that deposing Assad would only make things worse.

As a result of Obama’s failure to stop Assad, Trump said on Thursday, “the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.” According to U.S. officials, in a meeting on Wednesday with military advisers, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Trump was presented with three options in responding to the chemical attack. He chose the “one-off” missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield, which advisers describe as the tamest option.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said an early review indicated the strike “severely damages or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment…reducing the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons.” Trump’s decisiveness was welcome by a host of international and domestic actors–from Israel and Syrian activist groups to a bipartisan cohort of senators and some former Obama officials.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a joint-statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also applauded the decision to strike. “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do,” he said in a statement. Others said his decision was rushed and, if unaccompanied by a long-term vision, potentially dangerous and ineffectual. 

By directly striking Assad, Trump could jeopardize any further cooperation with Russia in fighting Islamic State, which has a substantive–yet shrinking–footprint in the country. A Russian spokesman said the strike “deals a significant blow” to U.S.-Russia relations, and “creates a serious obstacle” to fighting terrorism. Though its stated goal in joining the fight in Syria a few years ago was to combat terrorism, Russia has played a significant role in propping up the Assad regime. Russia, the Pentagon said, was notified of the strike beforehand; no Russians were killed in the attack.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to meet with Russian officials next week in Moscow. U.S. officials said Thursday’s strike was meant to provide leverage in the talks, and to show the Russians they can no longer act with impunity in Syria. “This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,” Tillerson said. “The more we fail to respond to the use of these weapons, the more we begin to normalize their use.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Missile Strike in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

After the ouster of Michael Flynn last week, President Donald Trump on Monday chose another highly decorated general as his National Security Adviser: Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster. The appointment was met with widespread approval; McMaster is as respected for his battlefield strategy as he is for his intellectual rigor.

McMaster was not Trump’s first choice to replace Flynn, however. Robert Harward, also a general, declined the post last week. Flynn resigned after reports surfaced that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his phone calls with the Russian ambassador during the transition period.

At a press conference on Monday, Trump called McMaster, 54, a “man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience.” He added that McMaster “is highly respected by everyone in the military, and we’re very honored to have him.” Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), a vocal critic of Trump over the past few weeks, said the president made an “outstanding choice,” and called McMaster a “man of genuine intellect, character, and ability.”

Congratulations to our new National Security Advisor, General H.R. McMaster. Video: https://t.co/BKn9r225Kk pic.twitter.com/VBXcJ1b6Pv

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2017

But despite his qualifications and reputation, McMaster is set to lead a national security apparatus that is largely dismayed by Trump’s first month in office, and is trying to navigate the outsize influence of Trump’s Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. Unlike Flynn, and others in Trump’s orbit, McMaster does not see the West as being in a “clash of civilizations” with Islam. In fact, while serving in the Iraq War, he allied his forces with Islamic militants who had killed Americans in order to defeat al-Qaeda. Instead of vilifying all of Islam, he sought to turn Muslims against the more radical, jihadist strains. He also forbid his troops from using derogatory terms for Muslims.

Time will tell if McMaster, known for being an independent-minded leader who is unafraid to stand up to his superiors, will advise the president on national security issues, as his post is meant to, or if he will be forced to yield to the vision of Bannon and Trump. For his part, McMaster said he is “grateful” for the opportunity. Sitting with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach on Monday, McMaster said he will do “everything I can to advance and protect the interests of the American people.”

Though he is lauded for his battlefield exploits–he earned a Silver Star during the Persian Gulf war in 1991–his 1997 book “Dereliction of Duty” was widely acclaimed, and serves as a sort of blueprint for his views. The book was an in-depth critique of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for failing to stand up to President Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War.

“The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the New York Times or the college campuses,” he wrote. “It was lost in Washington, D.C.” McMaster will now be plunging deep into the place and the system he has previously critiqued, at a time when its leader, Trump, has not shown much deference to his appointees, no matter their experience or expertise.

But for now, McMaster is a welcome maven of stability for an administration that has been anything but. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the highest ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted his approval of McMaster on Monday: “McMaster is solid choice, bright & strategic. Wrote the book on importance of standing up to POTUS. May need to show same independence here.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the New National Security Adviser: H.R. McMaster appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Intelligence Officials: Trump Campaign Had Regular Contact With Russia Before Election

Donald Trump’s campaign team had regular communication with Russian officials before the election, U.S. intelligence officials said yesterday. Though contact between campaigns and foreign governments is not unusual, the frequency of these incidents and the fact that the interactions involved some high-level members of Trump’s team raised suspicions. The reasons for the communication are unknown, but officials claim it happened concurrently with Russia’s apparent election-related hacking. Some are claiming that Trump aides collaborated with Russian intelligence to release information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but there is currently no evidence to prove that claim.

This raises fundamental questions about Russia’s influence on the presidential election. We need answers now. https://t.co/EGTNYpxTi8

— Martin Heinrich (@MartinHeinrich) February 15, 2017

This morning, Donald Trump took to Twitter (of course) to criticize the “fake news media,” Russia, the NSA, and the FBI. He also tweeted that the “illegal” leaking is an attempt to “cover up” mistakes made by Clinton’s campaign.

This Russian connection non-sense is merely an attempt to cover-up the many mistakes made in Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned late Monday night, after less than one month of service. Last week, U.S. officials said that in his phone calls with the Russian ambassador in late December, Flynn discussed the sanctions President Barack Obama levied on the Kremlin after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded it interfered in the U.S. election. Flynn reportedly cautioned Kislyak against a harsh response, and suggested the sanctions could change under President Donald Trump, who was set to take office a few weeks later.

Though Trump’s team publicly supported Flynn last week and even early Monday, the external pressure proved too heavy. “I am tendering my resignation, honored to have served our nation and the American people in such a distinguished way,” Flynn wrote in his resignation letter, which the White House sent to reporters. On Tuesday morning, Trump gave his take on the matter via Twitter:

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2017

While the White House publicly supported Flynn–Trump’s Counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday morning said he had the “full confidence” of the president–privately, things were different. For one, Vice President Mike Pence was apparently incensed that Flynn had lied to him about the content of his calls with Kislyak. Because he was led to believe Flynn and Kislyak discussed nothing out of the ordinary, Pence publicly defended Flynn last week.

In his letter, Flynn said he “held numerous phone calls with foreign counterparts, ministers, and ambassadors” during the transition. “Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology.”

Lt. Gen. Joseph Kellogg Jr. will temporarily replace Flynn until the White House chooses a permanent replacement. Kellogg is a retired Vietnam War veteran with decades of military experience. The leading candidate to replace Flynn is retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward, according to an anonymous source that is close to the Trump Administration. Former CIA Director David Petraeus and Kellogg are also in the running.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a fervent critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, issued a statement early Tuesday on Flynn’s resignation, which he said was “a troubling indication of the dysfunction of the current national security apparatus.” McCain, who also chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, continued:

General Flynn’s resignation also raises further questions about the Trump administration’s intentions toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia, including statements by the President suggesting moral equivalence between the United States and Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, threats to our NATO allies, and attempted interference in American elections.

According to a report by The Washington Post, the White House has known about Flynn’s potentially damaging phone calls for at least a month. Sally Yates, the acting attorney general who Trump fired after she refused to enforce his travel ban, told the administration that Flynn misled Pence about the content of his communications with Kislyak. Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan echoed the Justice Department’s warning.

Yates and the intelligence leaders worried that Russia could use the content of the calls to blackmail him in the future. If Russia wanted something, for instance, they could tell Flynn that they would expose the true nature of the calls unless he capitulated to Russia’s demands. But it took a public outcry and external pressure to finally uproot Flynn from his post, though according to administration officials, it was not easy for Trump to nudge Flynn to finally resign, because of the loyalty he showed throughout the campaign.

Even as he was heading out the door, Flynn showered praise on the Trump Administration. In his resignation letter, Flynn wrote: “this team will go down in history as one of the greatest presidencies in U.S. history, and I firmly believe the American people will be well served as they all work together to help Make American Great Again.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michael Flynn is Out: What You Need to Know About his Resignation appeared first on Law Street.

Though he has toyed with a number of candidates with various levels of government experience in choosing the next secretary of state, in the end President-elect Donald Trump selected a man with a résumé more in line with his own. His pick is Rex Tillerson, the CEO of petroleum giant Exxon Mobil. Tillerson, 64, has no experience in public service–he is the model “outsider” that Trump has sought out in assembling his cabinet–and has spent his entire four-decade career with Exxon.

As the nation’s top diplomat, Tillerson will have to reconcile the deep business ties he has formed with Russia. Under Tillerson’s leadership, Exxon agreed to billions of dollars worth of contracts with Rosneft, a Kremlin-backed oil outfit, to drill in Siberia and the Black Sea. Those deals were frozen, however, when the U.S. slapped heavy sanctions on Russia, after it intervened in Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014.

Last weekend, as Tillerson emerged as the leading candidate, a number of Republican senators expressed alarm over his extensive business dealings with Russia, whose hacks into the email servers of U.S. political operatives were done with the intention of aiding Trump, the CIA said. On Saturday, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), said Tillerson’s relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin is “a matter of concern to me.” He added: “Vladimir Putin is a thug, bully and a murderer, and anybody else who describes him as anything else is lying.”

McCain wasn’t the only senator to question Tillerson’s relationship to Russia, and it seems the business magnate is in for a tense Senate confirmation hearing. On Sunday, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), tweeted: “Being a ‘friend of Vladimir’ is not an attribute I am hoping for from a #SecretaryOfState.” Putin awarded Tillerson with the Order of Friendship in 2013. While that is not necessarily a rare honor, or even one that indicates an unusual personal relationship with Russia or Putin, it’s Tillerson’s business dealings, specifically the ones that hinge on U.S. sanctions being lifted, that most trouble his skeptics.

But for Trump, those same dealings seem to have attracted him to Tillerson. “He’s much more than a business executive; he’s a world-class player,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Sunday. “He knows many of the players, and he knows them well. He does massive deals in Russia — for the company, not for himself.” Tweeting on Tuesday morning, Trump doubled down on his support of Tillerson’s massive network of business deals, which span six continents and 50 countries, including the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan and Qatar:

The thing I like best about Rex Tillerson is that he has vast experience at dealing successfully with all types of foreign governments.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2016

Tillerson, a native of Wichita Falls, Texas, has been at the fore of Exxon’s shift from being a company that denied climate change to one that cleaned up its practices and even advocated for a carbon tax. He also helped the company reduce its emissions. And in 2012, Tillerson played a key role in allowing openly gay children to join the Boy Scouts, an organization which he was a member of and remains actively engaged in.

Though he beat out Mitt Romney, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) for the position, Tillerson will likely face tough questioning from the Senate, and will have trouble getting confirmed if three or more Republicans vote to block him. Aside from Rubio and McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also expressed concern about Trump’s appointee: “I expect the US-Russian relationship to be front and center in his confirmation process,” he said, adding that his Order of Friendship from Putin is “unnerving.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who is Rex Tillerson? appeared first on Law Street.

During the Cincinnati stop of President-elect Donald Trump’s “thank you tour” on Thursday, he made the unofficial announcement that he will be selecting General James Mattis, a widely respected 40-year veteran of the Marines, to serve as his secretary of defense. An official announcement is expected to come Monday. Mattis, if confirmed by the Senate, would be the first general to serve as defense secretary since George Marshall in 1950.

The blunt 66-year-old, nicknamed “Mad Dog” and “Warrior Monk,” most recently served as the head of the U.S. Central Command under President Barack Obama. He retired from that post in 2013, about five months before his service was through, which some speculated was the result of his disagreements with Obama on the president’s policy in the Middle East, specifically his nuclear pact with Iran. Mattis has spoken frequently about Iran and the danger it poses. He once said Iran is “the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East.”

Mattis’ most recent rebuke of Obama’s “policy of disengagement in the Middle East” came at a Congressional hearing in 2015, when he told lawmakers the U.S. must “come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values.” And though he has expressed his disapproval of the Iran deal, he is not in favor of withdrawing from the commitment, and thinks the best path forward is cooperating with American allies.

Mattis is a widely respected general who was courted by both the Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns to speak at their respective political conventions. He declined both offers. Mattis is perhaps best known for his work in the Middle East following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He led the first forces into Afghanistan, and established the first U.S. base in the country.

“I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”
General James #MadDog Mattis pic.twitter.com/W2QklT5F1N

— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) December 2, 2016

Mattis also led the sacking of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003 and the retaking of Fallujah in 2004. In a statement, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Mattis is “without a doubt one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader who inspires a rare and special admiration of his troops.”

As a former general, Mattis does face obstacles in getting confirmed. Former members of the military must spend at least seven years out of service before being allowed to serve as defense secretary, according to federal law. Congress must pass a waiver allowing him to skirt that stipulation. And though the former general is widely regarded in Congress, at least one lawmaker opposes his confirmation.

In a statement on Thursday, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said she would oppose a waiver. “Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy,” she said, while adding she deeply respects Mattis’ service.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who Is James Mattis? appeared first on Law Street.

Without explicitly withdrawing his support for his party’s presidential candidate, Donald Trump, Paul Ryan instructed House members on Monday to shift their focus to their own races. “You all need to do what’s best for you in your district,” Ryan said in a conference call with House lawmakers, according to an anonymous member on the call.

In light of a video from 2005 that emerged last week in which Trump made crass remarks regarding women, the Speaker of the House also said he will not defend Trump moving forward, nor will he campaign with him, according to lawmakers and congressional staff.

According to the anonymous source who participated in the call, Ryan said he was “willing to endure political pressure to help protect our majority.” He expressed, with urgency, the need to prevent Hillary Clinton from governing with a Democrat-controlled Congress. With many Senate and House seats up for grabs in November, Ryan wishes for his party to focus on maintaining their majority in the Senate, a rockier prospect than holding on to the House, where the GOP holds a 246 to 186 advantage.

Before Sunday night’s debate, and following the release of the damaging 2005 video, Republican politicians reneged on their support of Trump, the most notable of which was Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Rumors began to spread that Trump’s running mate, Governor Mike Pence (R-IN), would drop himself from the ticket. Pence clarified his position on Monday: “This is a choice between two futures,” he said in an interview on CNN. “I’m honored to be standing with him.”

After the House conference call on Monday, Ryan’s support is murkier. His office did deny that he is ceding the race to Clinton, however. Pro-Trump House members felt Ryan was doing just that; some called Ryan and other conservatives who have disavowed Trump “cowards.”

Ryan, it seems, is aiming for the best of both worlds: distancing himself and his party from the tarnish of Trump, while not abandoning him entirely, perhaps in the hopes his supporters will remain loyal to the party. How that strategy will turn out remains to be seen. It could be a cold winter for Paul Ryan.

For more of Law Street’s debate coverage, head over here.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paul Ryan Shifts Focus to Congress, Won’t Defend Donald Trump Anymore appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate passed a defense bill yesterday that will require women to sign up for Selective Service, and potentially be drafted in the future. The bill will place the existing requirements for young men on women as well, and the new rules will apply to any woman who turns 18 beginning in 2018.

Senator John McCain, who serves as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee stated:

The fact is every single leader in this country, both men and women, members of the military leadership, believe that it’s fair since we opened up all aspects of the military to women that they would also be registering for Selective Services.

The head of each military branch has also stated support for the inclusion of women in the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act passed 85-13–some of the votes against it came from Republicans who oppose including women in the draft. Right now this provision is only in the Senate version of the bill–the House chose not to include it–so that will have to get ironed out before this even goes to President Obama for consideration. But it seems like a common-sense next step after the military has made moves to fully integrate women into combat. The debate over whether or not to include women in the draft really heated up this winter; check out our coverage back when the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony about the idea from top military officials.

But, the debate continues. Senator Ted Cruz, for example, spoke out against including women in the draft, saying:

It is a radical change that is attempting to be foisted on the American people. The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls into combat, to my mind, makes little or no sense. It is at a minimum a radical proposition. I could not vote for a bill that did so, particularly that did so without public debate.

It’s important to remember that the draft hasn’t been used by the United States since the Vietnam War. But depending on the how the House responds, women may start having to sign up with Selective Service soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Passes Defense Bill That Includes Women in the Draft appeared first on Law Street.

At this point, the disbelief that Donald Trump could actually win a primary has worn off. But worry still remains for many, especially after hearing about Trump’s support of waterboarding and other more severe forms of torture. Other candidates such as Cruz and Rubio were also in support of waterboarding in the most recent Republican debate. But these candidates’ desire to be tough on terrorism seems to only be a test of masculinity, leaving basic human rights unrecognized.

At recent debates, Ted Cruz spoke in support of waterboarding in an all-means-necessary approach to interrogation; Rubio took a similar approach. The collective opinions of these three candidates has ignited backlash from their own party, and again raises awareness of the dissonance within the Republican Party as its candidates endorse compromising measures. Senator John McCain had to distance himself from the words of these candidates, and remind them of the severe impact of torture. He responded to their statements in a Senate address, highlighting:

It might be easy to dismiss this bluster as cheap campaign rhetoric, but these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the American people about the realities of interrogation, how to gather intelligence, what it takes to defend our security, and at the most fundamental level what we are fighting for as a nation.

One American already mislead by these comments is none other than Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump. In defense of his father’s torture stance, the younger Trump actually said that waterboarding was no different from hazing in frat houses across American college campuses.

These comments had several people doing a double take just to ensure he actually said those words. Eric Trump and these candidates want people to see torture as a sign of toughness, and candidates are able to capitalize off the fear and tragedy of Americans after terrorism attacks.

Infighting between the candidates over their toughness has occurred too–Donald Trump actually laughed when one of his supporters called Ted Cruz a pussy during his speech because Cruz’s support of waterboarding did not measure up to the strictness of Trump’s future plans for torture. After laughing, he went on to repeat the words of his supporter to his entire audience after laughing.

This long back and forth over the use of torture begs the question: is this a race for presidency or a contest in masculinity?

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macho Enough to Torture?: Cruz, Trump, and Rubio All Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced Monday morning that he will be running in the 2016 presidential race, making him the first Republican candidate to officially declare his bid for the presidency.  But if you thought all election birth certificate drama ended with Obama, you were wrong. This time Cruz’s citizenship is under scrutiny, causing some people to wonder if the Canadian-born U.S. Senator can actually become president.

It’s common knowledge that according to the Constitution you must be a “natural-born-citizen” in the United States in order to become its president or vice president. Sorry Arnold Schwarzenegger. But how is it possible for Canadian born Senator Cruz to run for office?

For starters Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada to an American mother and Cuban émigré father, received U.S. citizenship from his mother, but also maintained Canadian citizenship by way of birth. In 2013 when he was being considered as a potential candidate, questions regarding Cruz’s citizenship began to surface, prompting him to release a statement:

Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter.

Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.

Cruz’s became “All-American” in 2014 when he signed his official “Canadian Renunciation Letter” absolving him of his Canadian citizenship. Despite this, some conservatives like Donald Trump have continued to question Cruz’s eligibility, albeit quite passively, calling it a “hurdle” for Cruz. That’s a stark difference from the attack dog-like aggressiveness from birthers like Trump who not too long ago demanded to see Obama’s birth certificate with their own eyes. That group went so far as to claim that the president was really born in Kenya and his birth certificate was a forgery.

In case you were wondering, Cruz isn’t the first presidential candidate to be born outside of the United States. ABC News was quick to point out that both John McCain and George Romney ran for president, despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone and Mexico, respectively.

So just to make it clear yes, Cruz is American and yes, he is allowed to run for President. Whether or not he’ll even become the Republican nominee is another story, but for now lets put an end to another round of trivial “birth certificate drama.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz’s Presidential Bid: Will There Be Citizenship Questions? appeared first on Law Street.

Right now there’s a controversy over emails in the U.S. government. It all started with the news that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email address to conduct her job in the State Department. However, the controversy has continued with politicians and prominent figures from both sides of the aisle coming out in support or condemnation, and raising what could have been an interesting conversation about the use of email in our government.

In terms of Clinton’s emails, it’s unclear whether or not what she did was technically illegal. However, it’s definitely frowned upon, especially in light of the scrutiny that Clinton herself levied against the private email accounts used in the Bush Administration. That being said, Clinton has now turned over many pages of her correspondence, roughly 55,000 pages worth. Some of the criticism toward Clinton has to do with concerns that the American people still don’t have full information over the terrorist attack against the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya in 2012. However, Representative Aaron Schiff (D-CA) has said that the committee looking into the Benghazi incident got everything they asked for from Clinton, and that there was nothing that they found probative.

Colin Powell, another former Secretary of State, has also come to Clinton’s defense, explaining with regard to his emails:

I don’t have any to turn over, I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files. And, in fact, a lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and the state.gov domain. But I don’t know if the servers at the State Department captured those or not. They were all unclassified and most of them, I think, are pretty benign. So I’m not terribly concerned even if they were able to recover them.

It’s not just her predecessors who are weighing in on this debate. While some Democrats have shown strong support, others have urged her to give an explanation for why her personal account was used during that period. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), for example, declared that Clinton needs to explain exactly what happened with the email mix up, and emphasized that continued silence would just hurt her moving forward.

On the other hand, some Republicans have taken advantage of the confusion and controversy to slam the likely 2016 presidential candidate. That’s to be expected, of course, but some have also taken the opportunity to prove how different they are than Clinton–and presumably by extension, all Democrats. The most obvious example is Senator Lindsey Graham, who on “Meet the Press” this week told everyone “I don’t email. No, you can have every email I’ve ever sent. I’ve never sent one.”

In some ways I suppose that’s not that surprising. As Philip Bump of the Washington Post pointed out, 15 percent of American adults don’t use the Internet. That being said, Graham is also on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, so his admission that he doesn’t use email could definitely be considered troublesome.

Graham wasn’t the only Republican figure who proclaimed that he shies away from e-mail. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) of 2008 election fame explained that he doesn’t use e-mail because:

I’m afraid that if I was emailing, given my solid, always calm temperament that I might email something that I might regret. You could send out an email that you would regret later on and would be maybe taken out of context And frankly, I don’t have any trouble communicating with my constituents without it.

This entire debate truly strikes me as odd, because what could have actually been a productive discussion about the ethics of communicating with private or business email addresses has sparked a lot of other, significantly less productive talking points. Besides feeding into the incredibly inane Benghazi speculation that seems like it will go on forever, our politicians are now bragging about their detachment from technology. Are we suddenly going to have all the potential 2016 candidates proclaiming whether or not they use e-mail? It’s a pretty ubiquitous tool that most of us use in daily life–I don’t think it’s really a political position.

I’ve long thought that the 2016 elections were going to be particularly nasty–even nastier than 2008 and 2012 in many ways. I think we’re starting to see the beginning of what will be a lot of highly publicized debates over, quite frankly, nothing of consequence.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Clinton Email Controversy: Here Comes the Partisan Bickering appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of Russians marched in Moscow today mourning the death of Boris Nemtsov. The human rights activist and critic of President Vladimir Putin’s government was shot to death on the night of Friday, February 27 while walking in the capital city. It is widely believed by Putin’s opposition that the Kremlin is responsible for the act.

Boris #Nemtsov killing spurs thousands to march in Moscow, as motives debated – http://t.co/Lc7cAFUl7S pic.twitter.com/ab9t03LBib

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 1, 2015

Reports from the ground spoke to the solemn and quiet mood of the march. Participants broke into anti-Putin chants from time to time, but for the most part the “only sound was the steady thwack of police helicopters overhead or the hum of police boats patrolling the shores of the Moscow River.” Widescale marches for a variety of causes from climate change to social justice are a hallmark of American culture; many of us have likely experienced at least one in our lifetimes and can easily recall the vibrations of the crowd, the yelling and clapping, and general energy. The near-silence reported today in Moscow is difficult to imagine. Nemtsov was an outspoken critic of the Putin government, calling out its actions in Ukraine in a radio interview only hours before his death. Fellow opposition leader Ilya Yashin weighed in on Nemtsov’s killing and lent weight to the belief that it was ordered by the government:

Essentially it is an act of terror. It is a political murder aimed at frightening the population, or the part of the population that supported Nemtsov or did not agree with the government. I hope we won’t get scared, that we will continue what Boris was doing.

Secretary of State John Kerry took to the Sunday morning shows to lend the official American perspective on the killing. He asserted that the U.S. does not have any information what happened or who shot Netsov, but that he is pushing for a “thorough, transparent, real investigation, not just of who fired the shots, but who, if anyone, may have ordered or instructed [the shooting].” Members of Congress expressed their condolences and outrage over Nemtsov’s death, including Senator John McCain (R-A) via Twitter:

I am heartbroken by murder of my friend #BorisNemtsov – a voice for human rights in #Russia. My stmt: http://t.co/f1yHqEtWpj — John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) February 28, 2015

McCain also released a statement that directly addressed Nemtsov’s fight against the Kremlin and the need for continued pressure to decrease human rights abuses in Russia.

That Boris’ murder occurred in a secure part of the Russian capital raises legitimate questions about the circumstances of his killing and who was responsible. But regardless of who actually pulled the trigger, Boris is dead because of the environment of impunity that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs.

Whether or not a fair investigation will be conducted into Boris Nemtsov’s death, the fact remains that tensions in Russia are nearing a boiling point, and the international community can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the region.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russians March in Mourning of Opposition Leader’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a very pointless fight going on in the world of American politics right now. It’s over whether or not President Obama “loves” America. See? It really is as stupid as it sounds.

It seemingly started a few days ago when Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, made statements speculating about how President Obama feels about America. He stated on Wednesday:

I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America … He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.

When accused of being racist, Giuliani got even weirder, saying:

Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people.

He also blamed America’s supposed antipathy to America on socialism. Overall, it was a weird, yet not entirely unexpected outburst. After all, in the almost ten years since Obama has been on the national stage, there’s been plenty of speculation about his beliefs, ideologies, and thoughts.

It hasn’t just stayed with Giuliani though, because now possible Republican 2016 Presidential candidate, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has jumped into the discussion. He essentially said that he didn’t know how Obama feels about America, and also doesn’t know if Obama’s Christian, because he’s never asked him.

Walker has now run in circles around those comments, saying

I assume most people in this country love America. And to me I don’t think it’s worth getting into the battle over whether he does or he doesn’t. He can handle that himself. I know I do.

And his spokesman stated:

Of course the governor thinks the president is a Christian. He thinks these kinds of gotcha questions distract from what he’s doing as governor of Wisconsin to make the state better and make life better for people in his state.

The entire thing is such a bizarre and pointless debate. First of all, any discussion of Obama’s religion again, is exhausting. Walker saying that he’s not sure what Obama’s religion is because he hasn’t asked him is ridiculous, especially after the continuous media coverage and Obama’s constant reaffirmation of his beliefs in 2008. The fact that Walker is feeding into that speculation is just as bad–remember when McCain at least corrected that one insane lady at his event who thought that Obama was Muslim?

The debate over whether or not Obama “loves America” is equally exhausting. It’s polarizing, it’s pointless, and it’s ridiculous. First of all, why does it matter that much? Should we follow this implication through and assume that if Obama doesn’t “love” America, he’s currently attempting to destroy it? That’s insane and beyond paranoid.

What it really is is a way to call Obama elitist, and different than the American ideal of country above self. It’s a debate that we’ve been having for years now, and it’s silly. I hope that in 2016, everyone will focus on getting the best person for the job, and not just silly paranoid speculation.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Candidates Speculate Whether Obama “Loves” America appeared first on Law Street.

If you have bought something from any store that does not sell products made in the United States, be it a local small business or a corporate giant like Walmart, the transportation of products that you bought was likely governed by a law known as the Jones Act. Find out what the Jones Act is and why people are fighting to repeal it.

What does the Jones Act do?

The Jones Act requires that all merchandise transported between two ports within the jurisdiction of the United States be carried by a U.S.-flagged vessel that was built in America, is owned by an American citizen, and crewed by American merchant mariners. This act not only encompasses inland bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River, but also extends to areas beyond the continent including the states of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.

Also called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, it was put into place in the same year and has been updated over the decades with its last update in 2006. The Jones Act supplies the United States with the following:

• $14 billion in annual economic output and 84,000 jobs in U.S. shipyards.
• 70,000 jobs working on or with Jones Act vessels, including shipyards and those who crew the ships.

The S.S. United States. Image courtesy of Stewart Clamen via Flickr.

A merchant marine is a civilian sailor whose ships can be used by the United States in the event of war. A historic example of a ship that was part of the merchant marine is the S.S. United States, pictured above. She was designed that in the event that the Cold War heated up, the United States could be quickly turned into a troopship; however, she never had to be called to serve in this function.

What is the debate over the Jones Act?

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced an amendment to the Keystone XL Pipeline bill on January 13, 2015 that would repeal the Jones Act.

The two camps that are involved are those that wish to see McCain’s amendment to scrap the Jones Act pass and those that wish to see it fail so that the Jones Act remains law. For those who do not support the Jones Act, they see it as an antiquated law that is hindering economic growth in territories that are under United States jurisdiction, as well as the two states that are not part of mainland America. They also state that the United States has too few ships that qualify under the Jones Act to make it cost effective. On the flip side, those who support the Jones Act state that the act promotes economic growth for the shipping industry and that scrapping the act would cost a lot of jobs. Furthermore they state that scrapping the act would allow foreign ships to sail up America’s waterways, which could pose a national security hazard.

Concerns if the Jones Act is Scrapped

There could be a loss of jobs due to the closing of ship building and maintenance. There are also worries that there could be a loss of transportation for armed forces, which would negatively impact future conflicts in which the United States becomes embroiled. To give an example from a previous conflict, during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 90 percent of all needed material was moved to the war zones via water transportation.

Supporters of the Jones Act also worry about the loss of border security, as ships from all nations, even those who are hostile against us, could have access to inland rivers such as the Mississippi.

Arguments for Eliminating the Jones Act

Opponents of the Jones Act highlight the possible decreases in the cost of living in the territories, Alaska, and Hawaii, though this benefit could be offset by increase in prices to foreign shipping companies. It is thought that repealing the Jones Act could benefit the American economy, as it may be cheaper to build ships elsewhere. It additionally will increase competition in the shipping industry, also thought to be a benefit to the economy.

Repealing the Jones Act

Prior Attempts to Repeal

McCain has attempted to repeal the act before. In 2010 with support from co-sponsor and fellow Republican Senator James Risch of Idaho, McCain put forward a bill similar to the current amendment; however, S3525, the Open America’s Waters Act, died in committee, meaning that it never got past a small group of senators who debated its merits. As a result, the 2010 version had no chance to make it to the Senate floor to be debated upon by the whole of the Senate.

Current Fight to Repeal

McCain is the leader of the current charge to repeal the Jones Act, stating when he filed the amendment that he has “long advocated for a full repeal of The Jones Act, an antiquated law that has for too long hindered free trade, made U.S. industry less competitive and raised prices for American consumers.”

Who Else is on Board to Repeal?

The main group in favor of repealing the Jones Act is the Heritage Foundation. Chief among the Heritage Foundation’s touted benefits from repeal is having better access to requisition foreign ships to fill in gaps that United States shipping cannot fill, and the cost savings and economic gain that small islands under United States control would experience. The group also cites a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which found that it costs an estimated $3,063 to ship a 20-foot container of household and commercial goods from the East Coast of the United States to Puerto Rico while the same shipment costs $1,504 to the nearby Dominican Republic city of Santo Domingo and $1,687 to Kingston, Jamaica. While the New York Fed does not go so far as to call for the removal of the Jones Act, it  does point out that the act is often cited as a factor that raises business costs.

Lawmakers from Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Guam are also major proponents of the Jones Act’s repeal. Their main complaint with the amendment is that repealing it would help to make the cost of living cheaper for the affected states and territories. According to Hawaiian State Senator Sam Slom it costs about $790 to ship a 40-foot container from Los Angeles to Shanghai, but it costs $8,700 to ship the same container from Los Angeles to Honolulu. This means that it costs 11 times more money to ship something to some domestic locations than international ones. They feel that if the Jones Act is repealed, the cost of living would decrease as residents would not have to spend as much money to get goods, be they from mainland America or from a foreign nation.

Support for the Jones Act

While a single leader in support of the Jones Act has not fully been identified at this point–the amendment is still in committee–Representative Duncan Hunter (D-CA) and Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) were strong defenders of the act in the past when it was brought under question in 2014. Their actions helped to enact legislation last December that reaffirmed the Jones Act. The legislation also called a strong commercial shipbuilding industry particularly important as Federal budget cuts may reduce the number of newly constructed military vessels

The American Maritime Partnership (AMP) opposes the amendment on the grounds that it would gut America’s shipbuilding industry and outsource U.S. Naval shipbuilding to foreign builders, which would cost hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs across this country.

The United States Navy and United States Navy League also opposed the amendment on the grounds that:

For decades, U.S. merchant mariners have provided essential support for the U.S. Navy during times of war and national crisis.  Repealing the Jones Act would remove that support at a time when we are fighting two wars and facing a continuing threat from international terrorism.

The Navy League added that repealing the Jones Act would hinder the commercial maritime industry that is vital to the United States of America.

Finally, the Lexington Institute stated in an article that America has always had a special relationship with water. The institute goes on to state that adversaries of the United States recognize the advantage conferred on the United States by its military preeminence on the seas and are working assiduously to deny it access to that domain and that to prevent that the country needs a Navy that is second to none. In order to maintain it, the Lexington Institute asserts that American shipyards are vital.

Conclusion

The Jones Act has been a major part of America’s merchant marine infrastructure for decades. While there are currently many arguments about the efficacy of keeping the Jones Act in place, the fight certainly isn’t over. However, the benefits of keeping this document have been shown to be beneficial to the United States both in terms of economically and national security, and changing the law may be more harmful than good.

Resources

Primary

Department of Transportation Maritime Administration: Maritime Statistics

Additional

AP: Hawaii, Alaska, Territories Team Up on Jones Act 

Heritage Foundation: Sink the Jones Act

American Maritime Partnership: Congress Reaffirms Support for Jones Act

Maritime Executive: US Navy Opposes Congressional Efforts to Repeal Jones Act 

American Maritime Partnership: McCain Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding Would Outsource US Jobs and Security

Marine Link: AMP Opposes Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding

American Maritime Partnership: Jones Act Truth Squad

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Jones Act: Outdated or Vital? appeared first on Law Street.