The House of Representatives

Issues ››› The House of Representatives
  • Right-Wing Media Refuses To Blame Trump For GOP Health Care Defeat 

    ››› ››› JARED HOLT

    Republicans “abruptly” withdrew their health care bill, which signaled the first legislative defeat for President Donald Trump. After the bill's failure, media figures blamed Democrats, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI), and legislators instead of  Trump who adopted and pushed for the bill’s passage.

  • Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Rep. Nunes Vindicated Trump’s Wiretap Lie

    Trump Was Not Referring To “Incidental” Legal Surveillance

    ››› ››› ALEX KAPLAN

    Right-wing media figures are claiming that House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-CA) statement that President Donald Trump’s transition aides were surveilled “vindicates” Trump and prove he “was right” about his unfounded claim that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. But Nunes’ report -- that Trump aides were caught in “incidental collection” while surveilling other targets -- was already widely suspected, and Nunes himself admitted it does not prove Trump’s false claim is correct. Multiple current and former government officials have said Trump’s claim is false.

  • Rep. King Finds Safe Haven For His White Nationalism On Jan Mickelson’s Radio Show

    Iowa Radio Host Mickelson Is Notorious For His Bigotry Against Muslims, LGBTQ Individuals, And Immigrants

    Blog ››› ››› ZACHARY PLEAT

    Rep. Steve King (R-IA) appeared on Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson’s show to address the outrage over his racist tweet in which he claimed that “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” Mickelson, who is notorious for his bigotry against Muslims and LGBTQ Americans, as well as for calling for undocumented immigrants to be enslaved, helped King defend his tweet, and the interview ended with King urging Mickelson’s listeners to read the novel The Camp of the Saints, which The Huffington Post called “breathtakingly racist.”

    On March 12, King drew fire after tweeting, “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies,” in apparent support of a prominent anti-Muslim Dutch politician, Geert Wilders. King’s tweet was cheered on by white nationalists and neo-Nazis, who rallied around the Republican congressman, calling him a “hero” for “openly endorsing White nationalism.”

    King defended his tweet during a CNN interview with Chris Cuomo on Monday, saying, “I meant exactly what I said,” and again on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight, where the host agreed with King’s tweet. King additionally appeared on Mickelson’s show for a nearly 20-minute interview in which Mickelson offered defenses of King’s tweet by quoting John Jay, the country's first chief justice of the Supreme Court, criticizing diversity. Later Mickelson said, “You were accused of being a white supremist” (sic), but “you’re not talking about race, are you, at all?” CNN’s KFile first reported on this interview by highlighting a comment King made in which he predicted that “Hispanics and the blacks will be fighting each other” before they outnumber white people in America.

    Despite his claim that the tweet had nothing to do with race, at the end of the interview King recommended that Mickelson’s listeners read a novel titled The Camp of the Saints. The Huffington Post reported earlier this month that Stephen Bannon, the president’s chief strategist, has spent years telling people that this novel explains the European refugee crisis. The article explained why it’s so alarming that someone in power is citing this book:

    The book is a cult favorite on the far right, yet it’s never found a wider audience. There’s a good reason for that: It’s breathtakingly racist.

    “[This book is] racist in the literal sense of the term. It uses race as the main characterization of characters,” said Cécile Alduy, professor of French at Stanford University and an expert on the contemporary French far right. “It describes the takeover of Europe by waves of immigrants that wash ashore like the plague.”

    The book, she said, “reframes everything as the fight to death between races.”

    Upon the novel’s release in the United States in 1975, the influential book review magazine Kirkus Reviews pulled no punches: “The publishers are presenting The Camp of the Saints as a major event, and it probably is, in much the same sense that Mein Kampf was a major event.”

    Linda Chavez, a Republican commentator who has worked for GOP presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush but opposed Trump’s election, also reviewed the book back then. Forty years later, she hasn’t forgotten it.

    “It is really shockingly racist,” Chavez told The Huffington Post, “and to have the counselor to the president see this as one of his touchstones, I think, says volumes about his attitude.”

    Mickelson’s show is an interesting choice for King to defend himself from accusations of racism, given the radio host’s own bigoted statements. In late 2015, Mickelson repeatedly characterized Muslims in America as not culturally compatible with the country. Mickelson also called LGBTQ advocates “same-gender Nazis” and said they are part of a “gay Taliban,” agreed with ex-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that homosexuality is “ugly behavior,” and, years earlier, suggested that God invented AIDS to punish homosexuality. In August 2015, Mickelson suggested that the U.S. enslave undocumented immigrants who don’t leave America.

  • White Nationalists Fete Racist Iowa Congressman Steve King For Openly Advocating White Nationalism

    ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    After Rep. Steve King (R-IA) wrote that “we can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies," white nationalist and neo-Nazi media rallied around the Republican congressman, calling him a “hero” for “openly endorsing White nationalism,” and saying they hoped the comment “is a signal that conservatives are moving in the right direction under [President Donald] Trump.”

  • Fox Host Presses GOP Congressman On His Characterization Of GOP Health Care Bill As "A Stinking Pile Of Garbage" 

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) Highlights Republican Party Civil War Over Health Care

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) doubled down on his characterization of the Republican health care proposal, the American Health Care Act, as “a stinking pile of garbage.” Massie’s criticism underscores the growing “GOP civil war” over repealing Obamacare, similar to the extensive Republican infighting over Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. From the March 9 edition of Fox News’ America’s News Headquarters:

    SANDRA SMITH (CO-HOST): So Congressman, let's get to these words that you have used to explain how you think of this Obamacare repeal plan. Let’s see. “It's a stinking pile of garbage.” Why did you choose those words? 

    REP THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Probably because it was off the cuff and it was -- I committed candor. I said what I was thinking. This is a new entitlement program and it's just bad all around. I mean, there are a few good things about it, but we shouldn't replace one entitlement program with another. It's not a Republican conservative bill. 

    SMITH: OK. So it was an off the cuff remark. Is that something you're walking back at this point, to be clear? 

    MASSIE: No, it's still a stinking pile of garbage.

    [...]

    SMITH: Congressman, what sort of response are you getting to your Republican colleagues, especially using those kind of words to describe this effort? 

    MASSIE: Most of them appreciate my frankness. Most, for instance, of the Freedom Caucus. They feel that way, a lot of them haven't spoken that strongly about it. But behind the scenes, they’re -- the speaker's missing at least 40 of the votes that he needs to get to 218, and he can only afford to lose 24 votes. That's a problem in the House. Then in the Senate, it looks like Senator Paul and Senator Lee are strongly against this and other senators for different reasons. It seems dead on arrival in the Senate, but I don't even think it's going to get out of the House. 

  • When Jeff Sessions Feverishly Urged The Recusal Of An Attorney General On Fox News

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    In November, then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called on the sitting attorney general to recuse herself and appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations related to Hillary Clinton's use of private email. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are now demanding that now-Attorney General Sessions do the same thing amid reporting that he failed to acknowledge during his confirmation hearing that he met with Russia’s ambassador as a Donald Trump surrogate during the 2016 presidential campaign season.

    In a November 5 letter posted on FoxNews.com that was signed by Sessions, he berated then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for not recusing herself from the Clinton email investigation, and called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate instead:

    Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton met on the Phoenix, Arizona tarmac days before Secretary Clinton was to be interviewed by the FBI for possible criminal activity. It has been reported that her staff ordered witnesses not to take pictures and no one was present during their 39-minute conversation. General Lynch never recused herself from decisions on the Clinton investigation after her self-admitted “mistake,” as it has also been reported that she continues to deny the FBI the authority to convene a Grand Jury, which is necessary for any meaningful investigation.

    It has also been reported that General Lynch opposed Director Comey from fulfilling his obligation to Congress by informing members of the discovery of 650,000 emails on Anthony Weiner’s and Huma Abedin’s computer, the existence of which had been concealed from government authorities.

    Recusal is a formal process. It is a written document specifically describing the scope of the recusal and designating the official in charge of the recused matter. If General Lynch went through the proper procedure for recusal, she has not publicly shared it.

    [...]

    In 1991-1992, a Special Counsel was appointed for three separate matters: House Bank, Iraqgate, and Inslaw. It was also done in 2003 in the Valerie Plame matter.

    Instead of moving with dispatch to ensure a vigorous investigation of Secretary Clinton, it appears that the Justice Department, along with State, have enabled the Clinton campaign to “slow roll” the inquiry.

    General Lynch continues to exert control of a matter that she should have assigned to another official.

    We are distressed by widespread and credible reports that FBI agents have been hindered by the Justice Department’s withholding of basic investigative tools, such as grand jury subpoenas, which are fundamental in a complex investigation.

    It is time to do what should have been done long ago – appoint a Special Counsel.

    Sessions doubled down on this claim during a November 6 interview on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, saying “We need an independent person, person that's not politically connected, that people in America can have confidence in to take over this investigation and make sure it's done correctly, to bring charges if need. Hopefully not charges. Hopefully they're not needed. But there are some serious allegations here that the American people need to know are fully investigated”:

    MARIA BARTIROMO (HOST): I want to talk about this letter that you penned along with others like Rudy Giuliani, Frank Keating, Victoria Toensing and Henry McMaster. This is a letter basically saying, look, it is time for Loretta Lynch to appoint a special counsel because this brings me to the question of the morning after. Regardless who wins, Senator, you're going to have the next day and you're going to have real issues on the table. Will Hillary Clinton be able to make important decisions when she's got these investigations overhanging? What does the morning after look like for Trump? And what do you want to see in terms of this special counsel?

    SESSIONS: Well, you should never politicize criminal investigations or prosecutions. We should never do that. But the situation is such and the facts are such that we have an investigation going now, and there's a lack of confidence, in fact, zero confidence really that the attorney general is doing anything other than delaying this investigation and not pursuing it effectively. It's been ongoing for over a year. A special prosecutor would have been the appropriate thing to do to take it out of politics and maybe would already have been completed, but the rumors we hear are that the FBI is being obstructed and delayed and blocked by the Department of Justice, Attorney General Lynch. So, I think this is a serious matter. We've just got to have integrity in our criminal justice system. Everybody deserves a fair day in court, but we need a fair investigation, too, and I'm afraid that's not happening.

    BARTIROMO: Well, in the letter, you and your colleagues write, look, the Department of Justice has been thwarted by top officials' refusal to conduct a proper investigation of former Secretary [Hillary] Clinton's unsecured email server and the pay-for-play accusations. So if Donald Trump were to win the presidency, is he going to move to remove Loretta Lynch?

    SESSIONS: Well, of course, there will be a change in the attorney general, as well in every cabinet position. Remember, Loretta Lynch serves at the pleasure of President Obama. She doesn't have a termed office. She knows who appointed her and she knows whose pleasure she serves at. So we need an independent person, a person that's not politically connected that people in America can have confidence in to take over this investigation and make sure it's done correctly, to bring charges if need -- hopefully not charges. Hopefully they're not needed. But there are some serious allegations here that the American people need to know are fully investigated. You know, FBI Director Comey did the right thing when he found new evidence. He had no choice but to report to the American Congress where he had under oath testified the investigation was over. He had to correct that and say, this investigation is ongoing now. I'm sure it's significant or he wouldn't have announced that.

    BARTIROMO: Right, which is the question I'm trying to get at in terms of Hillary Clinton. Should she win the presidency, what is she going to do in terms of governance? Can she govern effectively if she's got these investigations going on? Will she have to change FBI directors knowing that Jim Comey is pursuing this? Or are we going to have four years of, you can't get anything done because of these investigations and the challenge from the Republicans like naming new Supreme Court justices?

    SESSIONS: Well, it is a dangerous thing, no doubt. It puts a cloud over her tenure as president. What is she going to do about the attorney general? Who will she appoint? Will it be an utter loyalist, as it appears Loretta Lynch is and Eric Holder was during his tenure, or will it be someone that has the respect of the American people who can handle a complex matter and do it right with confidence. To me, at this point, it's so off track and so badly handled that an independent counsel is the right thing, I have no doubt about that.

    Sessions is now facing demands from even Republican members of Congress that he recuse himself from the Department of Justice investigation into ties between President Trump’s associates and Russian officials, following revelations that Sessions met with the Russian ambassador but told his confirmation committee, under oath, that he had not met with any Russian officials. From The Washington Post:

    Top Republicans said Thursday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should recuse himself from federal investigations of whether Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

    House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) tweeted early Thursday that “AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself.”

    Later, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said in a statement, “Jeff Sessions is a former colleague and a friend, but I think it would be best for him and for the country to recuse himself from the DOJ Russia probe.”

    [...]

    Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is also demanding a special counsel to investigate the Trump administration for ties to Russia, “given AG Sessions’ false statements about contacts with Russia.”

  • MSNBC’S Greta Van Susteren Lets VP Pence Get Away With Hypocrisy On Infrastructure Stimulus

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    MSNBC host Greta Van Susteren allowed Vice President Mike Pence to push the Trump administration’s budget proposals, including plans for new infrastructure spending, as he hypocritically condemned the Obama-era stimulus package for not including enough infrastructure money. In reality, Pence was one of the Republican congressional leaders who helped stymie new spending in the 2009 stimulus bill, which he continues to publicly condemn despite having secretly used funds provided by the bill to prop up Indiana’s economy during his tenure as governor.

    In a March 1 interview with the vice president, Van Susteren asked Pence why Republicans are supporting Trump’s expensive infrastructure program when they opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly referred to as “the stimulus,” during the Obama administration. Pence claimed that more Republicans would have voted for the stimulus bill in 2009, had the bill been “mostly infrastructure.” From MSNBC’s For the Record:

    Pence and most of his GOP cohort resisted the Obama-era stimulus package, including its infrastructure provisions, which they worked to reduce. In a February 24, 2009, speech from the floor of the House of Representatives, Pence not only opposed the recently-signed stimulus bill, which he voted against, he called on Congress to “freeze federal spending” entirely. After the ARRA passed the House and Senate despite near-unanimous Republican opposition, Pence praised the GOP’s obstruction, declaring that “Republicans will be faithful and loyal in our opposition to the liberal Democrats' agenda.” More than a year after the stimulus had passed and the economy was showing signs of a stimulus-driven recovery, Pence still claimed publicly that the bill was a “failure.”

    The Huffington Post reported in August 2016 that six months after the passage of the stimulus bill, then-Rep. Pence “privately wrote the administration and requested more than $6 million in stimulus funds for his district” in the form of transportation infrastructure grants. As governor of Indiana, Pence praised infrastructure improvements to the state’s rail system paid for by the stimulus bill he claimed didn’t focus enough on infrastructure. Pence explained away his hypocrisy by arguing the last governor did the same thing. From Right Wing Watch:

    “I do support the state of Indiana’s efforts, over the last administration and this administration, to marshal those dollars and put them to work in ways that I think are going to help Northwest Indiana’s economy grow and really maintain our posture as the Crossroads of America,” Pence said.

    Pence also noted he is not the first Hoosier governor to blast stimulus spending on one hand, and grab for stimulus cash with the other.

    Former Gov. Mitch Daniels also condemned the stimulus. But the Republican had no qualms about taking some $1 billion in stimulus money that was intended to provide “extra” funds for Indiana schools, and instead using it to replace a regular state payment to school corporations.

    Van Susteren failed to challenge Pence on his hypocrisy, never mentioned that he voted against the stimulus, and didn’t even gain greater clarification on how the Trump administration’s supposed infrastructure agenda is a substantive improvement on President Obama’s.