Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear on Thursday what would happen if President Donald Trump fires his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. “If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” he told CNN. Graham also said he is looking to introduce legislation next week that would block the firing of special counsels without a judicial review.

Rumors have been swirling around Capitol Hill this week that Trump is looking to dispose of Sessions and Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russia’s election interference, and any potential links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

“This effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the Senate,” Graham told CNN. “If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences.”

On Monday, Trump fired off a tweet calling Sessions “beleaguered,” asking why he has not looked into “Crooked Hillarys [sic] crimes & Russia relations.” Trump is reportedly upset that Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which left an opening filled by Mueller, a widely respected prosecutor who Trump is also unhappy with.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Sessions was one of Trump’s earliest advocates, and the first senator to embrace his candidacy. The attorney general has also faithfully pursued Trump’s campaign vision–perhaps more than any other cabinet appointee–adopting a hard-line immigration stance and a law and order philosophy on crime.

Republican senators rushed to Sessions’ defense following Trump’s Twitter barrage. They were joined by some Democrats, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who warned that firing Sessions could provoke a “constitutional crisis.” Others said it would further prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the investigations involving Russia and his campaign.

Sessions had been largely mum on the topic of his potential firing until Thursday afternoon. In an interview with Fox, he called Trump’s attacks “hurtful,” but said that Trump “is determined to move this country in the direction he believes it needs to go to make us great again.” He added that Trump “wants all of us to do our jobs and that’s what I intend to do.”

Graham’s legislation would essentially make it more difficult for Trump, and future presidents, to fire a special counsel, which includes Mueller. Dismissing a special counsel would require a judicial review to determine if reasons behind the firing “meet the statutory definitions,” Graham said.

The effort is likely to be a bi-partisan endeavor. Graham’s Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have said they are working on the bill. Blumenthal said it “might be a committee effort,” adding that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.”

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 Lindsey Graham: If Trump Fires Sessions, “There Will be Holy Hell to Pay” appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate held a hearing on Wednesday to consider the Taylor Force Act, legislation that seeks to end the Palestinian Authority’s support of violence against Israeli citizens. The bill proposes to cut U.S. funding to the PA, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, until it stops paying families of Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks against Israelis and others.

Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham in February, the bill would “condition assistance to the West Bank and Gaza on steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to end violence and terrorism against Israeli citizens.” Funding would resume if the PA takes “credible steps to end acts of violence against United States and Israeli citizens that are perpetrated by individuals under its jurisdictional control,” the bill says.

After Taylor Force hearing, @AIPAC not ready to endorse: “Discussions continue to find a bipartisan path forward.” https://t.co/wPQIOTTCtB

— Michael Wilner (@mawilner) July 12, 2017

The State Department provides about $400 million annually to the PA, led by Mahmoud Abbas, as the chief political body of the Palestinians. For years, Israel and the U.S. have criticized payments the PA provides to families of “martyrs,” or Palestinians who have killed Israelis and others in acts of terror. Stability in the West Bank is paramount to Israel’s security, however, so Israel has not conditioned its financial assistance on the PA’s practice of paying the families of jailed terrorists.

But Congress decided to act after the death of Taylor Force–for whom the act is named.

In March 2016, Taylor Force, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was visiting Tel Aviv with a delegation from Vanderbilt University Business School. The group had come to build connections with the Israeli tech sector. Force, 29 at the time, was stabbed to death by a 21-year-old Palestinian man while walking in Jaffa, the oldest section of Tel Aviv, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

We have an opportunity to send a message to the Palestinian Authority that ‘Pay to Slay’ must end.

WATCH: https://t.co/vvWU3phT2c

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 12, 2017

If the bill passes–it has not been considered by either chamber yet–the only funds the U.S. would provide to the PA would be for security assistance. Bipartisan support for the legislation has slowly been building since its introduction. The bill was introduced by a Republican and, early on, championed by Republicans. But a number of high-ranking Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have recently signaled they would support the bill.

Wednesday’s hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), featured testimony from men with decades of experience in both Washington and Israel. Elliott Abrams, a diplomat in the Reagan and George W. Bush Administrations, said the PA’s payments to the families of imprisoned terrorists “reward and incentivize acts of terror.”

“There are cases of unemployed and desperate men who commit acts of terror in order to get these payments—which can amount to a permanent government salary,” he said. He added that “all the payments that give assistance to or directly benefit the PA itself should be stopped,” but the U.S. should continue funding NGOs and municipalities in the West Bank that do development work.

Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador for Israel from 2011 to 2017, also provided testimony. He called the payments an “abominable practice” that “must stop,” adding “there should be no extra bonuses for someone who attacks Israelis. It incentivizes the killing of innocents, and it is just wrong.”

But Shapiro said that the Taylor Force Act, in its current form, would tackle the problem with a hammer, effectively choking aid to the PA entirely. He would prefer to use a scalpel.

“Stability in the West Bank, both economic and political, serves Israel’s security interests by dampening the atmosphere in which more Palestinians might be drawn to extremism,” he said. Shapiro said he supports the bill’s intentions, but would like to see it address the problem “without cutting off aid that goes directly to the Palestinian people, provides humanitarian relief, or bolsters stability and security.”

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 Taylor Force Act: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Weeks after House Republicans passed a health care bill, GOP senators are drafting their own version of a law that would repeal and replace Obamacare. Among a variety of differences between the two Republican efforts, one is especially rankling to Democrats: the senators of the Budget Committee are cobbling together their bill in secret. According to a number of Senate aides, nobody outside that committee, including a number of Republican senators, has seen the bill’s precise language.

Influential Senate Democrats took to Twitter to pillory the secretive Republican process:

My advice today: focus 10% of your attention/outrage on Sessions testimony, 90% on the secret health care bill that is speeding to a vote.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 13, 2017

 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Republicans “are trying to pass a health care bill in the dead of night.” He added:

If they were proud of this plan, they wouldn’t hide anything – they’d crow all about it! What exactly are they trying to cover up? 5/7

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 12, 2017

Republicans are hoping to vote on the bill by the July 4 recess, which gives them a window of a couple of weeks to finish drafting the bill, and send it to the Congressional Budget Office for a review. The CBO, a non-partisan analysis agency, released its evaluation of the House health care effort a few weeks after the bill was passed. It found that the bill could result in 23 million more uninsured Americans.

A CBO evaluation could take up to two weeks, so if Republicans hope to vote on the Senate bill by July 4, it would have to be completed in the coming days. But even as the bill nears completion, some high-ranking Republican senators are being kept in the dark as well.

“I want to know exactly what’s going to be in the Senate bill, I don’t know it yet,” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) recently told reporters. “It’s not a good process.” And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said “this is not the best way to do health care, but it’s the way we’re having to do it,” adding that the only thing about the bill he’s aware of is that “they’re writing it.”

While the particulars of the bill are largely unknown, there have been reports about some of its broad outlines. Overall, the bill is expected to be left of the legislation the House passed last month. Medicaid expansions would be phased-out over seven years instead of two, and tax credits would be offered to a broader range of low-income individuals.

Once the bill is out in the open, and hits the Senate floor for a vote, it faces a fractured chamber, not to mention a complete lack of Democratic support. To pass, the bill will need the support of a diverse contingent of Republican Senators–the more conservative members, like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and more moderate ones, like Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), tweeted perhaps the most creative critique of the secretive Republican effort:

BREAKING: Senate Republicans just released the schedule of hearings, committee markups and public testimony for their health care bill. pic.twitter.com/iHtXyZqyMW

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 12, 2017

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 Republicans’ Health Care Effort is Cloaked in Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like an unlikely new friendship has formed in Washington. On Thursday, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham apologized to Texas Senator Ted Cruz for joking in February that it would be okay to kill Cruz on the Senate floor. The two senators have not been seemingly on the friendliest terms since last year when they both ran for the Republican presidential nomination. But when they appeared side by side in a segment on MSNBC on Thursday, it was a remarkably amiable atmosphere and both men were even giggly. “Love is everywhere,” Graham said. “I want to apologize to Ted for saying he should be killed on the Senate floor.” At least we’re not on the Senate floor now,” replied Cruz.

Also, @SenTedCruz and I spoke with @MSNBCMorningJoe about our legislation to cut off funding to the UN. WATCH: https://t.co/HhcTZBHA2H

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 13, 2017

But this new friendship is not just for fun. They joined forces because they are on the same page about a new bill that would halt American funding for the United Nations. This comes after the United Nations Security Council voted 14-0 on the proposal to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east part of Jerusalem. The U.S. abstained from voting, and immediately faced backlash from both Republicans and Democrats.

On MSNBC, Graham said that 22 percent of the money funding the UN comes from American taxpayers, and that it’s not a good idea for Americans to invest in an organization that works against the only democracy in the Middle East. “This was John Kerry and Obama taking a slap at Israel,” Graham said. He added that the UN has become increasingly anti-Semitic, and that they will stop any money from going to the organization until “this is fixed.” Cruz called Obama’s move “profoundly anti-Israel.”

Republicans filed the bill on Thursday, and if passed it will stop all U.S. funding to the U.N. unless or until the resolution is reversed. Ted Cruz said that this move was the only way to get the U.N.’s attention.

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 Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz Team Up to Take on the U.N. appeared first on Law Street.

Good news, everyone! We don’t have to worry about Trump contesting the election and claiming it was rigged…if he wins. Here’s a video:

JUST IN: Trump: “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election… if I win” https://t.co/4z453rVzqK

— CNN (@CNN) October 20, 2016

This speech from Trump was a follow up to last night’s debate, when Trump was asked if he would respect the outcome of the election. He said: “I will tell you at the time,” and “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?” Trump has been claiming the election is rigged for a while now (check out fellow Law Street Alec Siegel’s article on the distrust Trump has been sowing among the electorate for more on that.) But this ambiguity about whether or not he’ll accept the election results if he loses seems to go a step further.

There’s more to this than just a narcissistic celebrity who, by almost every definition, is a sore loser. Refusing to accept the democratic outcome of an election is deeply problematic–and can undermine our political system. That’s not to say that when there is corruption or election fraud we shouldn’t be vigilant, but rather to say that when we know that there’s not voter fraud, it’s irresponsible to keep encouraging the narrative that there is. Shaun Bowler, who teaches political science at the University of California Riverside wrote for Vox:

Donald Trump is a candidate who seems to want to claim that, whenever he loses, it is not because more people voted against him than for him, but because the election is rigged. From this assumption arises his frequent call for ‘poll watchers’ with no legal authority and questionable roles. (Will they intimidate voters? Will they interfere with the process?) The longer-term consequence will be the same as in Mexico, Ukraine and elsewhere: They will undermine voter support for the system. The difference is that in the US, the claims have very little basis in actual levels of election fraud.

Donald Trump, by constantly positing that this is a rigged election, and saying he’s not sure that he’ll accept the outcome of the vote, is encouraging even more mistrust in our democracy than there already is. In fact, Trump’s claims are so outrageous that a lot of Republicans are speaking out against them. Both Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) refuted the idea that the election is rigged last night, as did Senator Lindsey Graham:

My thoughts on a ‘rigged’ presidential election. pic.twitter.com/075n83NXMH

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 20, 2016

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had perhaps the strongest condemnation of Trump’s “rigged” comments, saying:

This election is not rigged, and it’s irresponsible to say that it is. Faith in the democratic process is one of America’s greatest strengths, and it’s more important than the outcome of any election.

Clinton’s chances to win on November 8 are looking even more promising, given recent polling results. Whether Trump will accept that reality remains to be seen.

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 Don’t Worry, Trump Will Accept the Outcome of the Election…If He Wins appeared first on Law Street.

It’s understandable that some of the Democratic and Republican candidates may not have put too much thought into their Halloween costumes yet–after all, it’s been a busy few weeks. So, we here at Law Street thought we’d help them out, and come up with some suggestions for a few of the candidates. Check them out below:

Bernie Sanders could go as Larry David

The senator from Vermont wouldn’t even have to get too creative on this one. He’s a dead ringer for comedian Larry David, who actually impersonated him on SNL a few weeks ago.

Bernie Sanders Thinks Larry David Impersonation Was ‘Pretty Good’ – ABC News https://t.co/33XTm0A2rZ#Headlinespic.twitter.com/EMjdzxtusv

— Stormbreaker (@iTwit_News) October 22, 2015

Ted Cruz as Grandpa Munster

According to some, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas looks an awful lot like Grandpa Munster from the Munsters–a 1980s CBS sitcom. It’s seasonally appropriate too, given that Grandpa Munster’s real name was Vladimir Dracula, Count of Transylvania, and a vampire.

Ted Cruz literally is grandpa Munster #GOPDebate@tedcruzpic.twitter.com/BCWQH4gPSa

— Lawyer with wine (@Esq_Wine) October 29, 2015

Martin O’Malley as Taylor Swift

After he regaled the hosts of the “View” with his rendition of “Bad Blood,” O’Malley should reprise his role as T-Swift for Halloween.

Lindsey Graham Could be an iPhone

Given his aversion to technology and email, and the earlier controversy when Donald Trump gave out his personal cell phone number, Lindsey Graham could make a convincing iPhone for Halloween.

Making my iPhone costume! @MaesieKostynuik @MegsDeAngelis #iphonecostume pic.twitter.com/Y2mzeiRvmX

— Julie (@JulieGeneroux) October 30, 2015

Jeb Bush Could be His Brother, or Father

Bush might as well save some money, and repurpose an old costume. I’m sure there are plenty of George W. and George H.W. costumes floating around out there.

Image courtesy of Steve Shupe via Flickr

Hillary Should Dress up as Tech Support

Given all the issues she has had with her email so far in this campaign, Hillary could moonlight as a member of tech support–Geek Squad, perhaps?

Image courtesy of Mike Mozart via Flickr

So there you have it–some suggestions for the 2016 candidates to celebrate Halloween in style. With only hope, they’ll take these suggestions seriously. 

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 Halloween Costume Suggestions for the 2016 Presidential Candidates 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.