Military holds enter fifth month as Republicans struggle to appease Tuberville

The chance that Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) will lift his hold on military promotions over the Pentagon's abortion policy anytime soon has dimmed drastically as Senate Republicans struggle to make a deal with him to end the months-long saga. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee this week failed to advance a bill that would have overturned the Pentagon's policy that covers some expenses for service members who must travel for an abortion. That, coupled with a bitter back-and-forth between Tuberville and the Biden administration and lack of progress in talks with Republicans, means the holds are set to enter their fifth month with no end in sight. 

"Either side could make a move and right now neither side seems to think that these nominations are important enough to override the position that they find themselves in," Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told The Hill. "So we're at a stalemate."

As of this week, Tuberville is holding up 250 promotions for general and flag officers that are normally approved on the Senate floor via unanimous consent, and the anger among Democrats has not dissipated. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) on Tuesday made the 10th attempt by Senate Democrats to advance the military promotions, only to be blocked by the Alabama Republican. 

President Biden and the Pentagon also heaped more pressure on Tuberville this week. The president referred to the “former football coach from Alabama” during a fundraiser in Los Gatos, Calif., earlier this week, calling his hold “bizarre.” 

“I don’t remember it happening before,” Biden said. “I know I don’t look like I’ve been around, but I’ve been around a long time.”

The Pentagon also slammed at Tuberville earlier this week; Sabrina Singh, the Department of Defense’s deputy press secretary, criticized him for setting a “dangerous precedent” with his actions. 

Tuberville remains unmoved. 

He told The Hill earlier this week that there has not been internal pressure from Republicans to release his holds and that he has not heard directly from anyone in the administration or the Democratic side in recent weeks, outside of public missives. 

“We’ve probably gone backwards on that. Everyone’s gotten a closed mouth on this whole deal,” Tuberville told The Hill. 

But what it would take to move him off of his hold remains unclear to many. 

Tuberville told reporters that three things could get him to lift the hold on military promotions: A reversal of Pentagon policy, a successful vote to codify the policy or a failed vote to do so, with the latter two options coming both via a bill proposed by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). Tuberville’s staff clarified his comments, saying that a failed vote would not do the trick unless the Department of Defense dropped the policy ahead of a hypothetical vote on the Shaheen bill. 

None of the three options are likely, and no one has been willing to budge, meaning stalemate will likely go on for the foreseeable future. 

“It seems like everyone’s confused,” one Senate GOP aide said of the Tuberville situation. “I don’t know how we get to a solution here. I’m not sure there’s anyone on this planet that can talk him off of this. Plenty have tried.” 

Multiple Senate Republicans in recent weeks have talked to Tuberville about just that, but all have been stymied. Sen Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) brought up an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would rescind the Pentagon’s abortion policy that was put into place late last year, but it was blocked during the markup on the bill this week. 

On top of that, Tuberville had indicated already that a committee level vote on the item would not move him off of his hold, even though he voted for it.

“I’m not going for a committee vote,” Tuberville said.

Even those supportive of his push have tried to find a resolution. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told The Hill that he has talked with the Alabama Republican about the situation and was hopeful something could be done to rectify things via the annual defense authorization bill. 

“I don’t disagree with Sen. Tuberville’s point. But … there needs to be a means to accomplish that,” Cornyn said. “I believe in counting the votes, as opposed to depending on my optimism, and I’m not sure they’re there yet. I’m not sure they’re not there, but I think that’s the way to go.” 

Others, however, indicated they are tired of discussing the prolonged back-and-forth.

“I’ve answered a lot of questions about [this],” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), an Armed Services Committee member, said when asked if she’s sensed any movement on the holds. Fischer initially said that she was not supportive of Tuberville’s tactics before telling reporters that she supports his efforts.  

Lawmakers are starting to ask whether they could move certain nominees one by one, burning floor time. The situation will be especially acute next month as five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Chairman Mark Milley, will start to be replaced. 

Senate Democrats indicated this week that they are not prepared to do that and are leaning on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has said he does not back Tuberville’s hold, and other Senate GOP members to pressure their colleague from Alabama. 

“I don’t know what we’ll do if we have to explore other options,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said. “Right now, the most feasible and readily available and timely way to solve it is for him to back down and for his colleagues to persuade him that’s the wise course.” 

Pentagon slams Tuberville for setting ‘dangerous precedent’ by holding up nominations

The Pentagon on Tuesday slammed Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) for setting a "dangerous precedent" by holding up more than 200 general and flag officer nominations over the Defense Department's new abortion policy.

"Without these leaders in place, these holes severely limit the department's ability to ensure the right person is in place at the right time, and to ensure a strategic readiness and operational success," said Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh at a Tuesday briefing.

Singh said the holdup was placing Washington's ability to counter Russia and China at risk.

"These holds set a dangerous precedent and puts our military readiness at risk at a time when our military is expected to defend the nation and meet the acute threat of Russia and address the pacing challenge of the PRC," she continued, referring to the People's Republic of China.


More Tommy Tuberville coverage from The Hill


Tuberville has been blocking the nominees from confirmation in the Senate since March over the Pentagon's policy, which provides paid time off and reimburses travel costs for servicemembers who travel for an abortion.

Last week, the White House also blasted the holdup, following rebukes from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and seven former Pentagon chiefs who have also warned about the precedent of blocking the nomination of important military officers.

The blockade could also end up impacting nominees for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including the replacement for chairman and Gen. Mark Milley later this year.

President Biden this week said Tuberville's block on the nominees was "bizarre," prompting a response from the senator.

"What is actually bizarre is Joe Biden's obsession with making taxpayers pay for abortion without Congress ever taking a vote," Tuberville tweeted. "It’s bizarre and it’s wrong."

Tuberville says the policy, enacted last year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, is a violation of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds to pay for abortion services.

The Alabama senator is refusing to back down and has reportedly rejected off-ramps from fellow Republican colleagues, saying he will only support an end to the blockade if the Pentagon drops the policy or if the policy is codified in law.

President Trump’s Former Defense Secretary Blames Him For Capitol Riot

On Thursday, former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller accused his former boss, President Donald Trump, of helping cause the January 6 riot at the Capitol with his speech earlier that day.

Miller’s remarks came during an interview on VICE on Showtime about one month after Trump was acquitted by the Senate on an incitement charge.

Watch the interview below.

RELATED: Pelosi Claims Americans ‘Overwhelmingly’ Support Democrats’ Gun Control Bill In The House

Trump’s Defense Secretary Blames Him For Violence

VICE News’ Seb Walker asked Miller, “Did you listen to the president’s speech in the morning? What did you make of it what you heard the kinds of things he was saying?”

Miller replied, “Concerning.”

Walker continued his line of questioning, “When you heard him say, ‘We’re gonna walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,’ ‘take our country back,’ that is what was concerning to you?”

Miller responded, “Sure, yeah. But by the same token, there had been a lot of rhetoric spewed over the previous bunch of years.”

 

Walker continued, not letting up.

“But on this day, more than any other, when the vote is being certified in Congress, that must of set alarms bells off ringing in your head,” Walker queried.

Miller said, “Yes.”

Then Walker asked his question, point blank.

“Do you think the president was responsible for what happened on the 6th?” Walked pressed.

Miller said he did not think the violence would have unfolded if not for the president’s speech.

“I don’t know, but it seems cause and effect,” Miller said. “Yeah.”

RELATED: GOP Rep. Cawthorn Taunts Pro-Gun Control Democrats: ‘Come And Take Them’

Miller: Violence Wouldn’t Have Happened Without Trump’s Speech

Miller added, “Would anybody have marched on the Capitol, and overrun the Capitol, without the president’s speech? I think it’s pretty much definitive that wouldn’t have happened.”

As to whether or not he believes Trump was actually encouraging the crowd that day to riot, Miller said, “So yes, the question is, did he know he was enraging the crowd to do that? I don’t know.”

Many have speculated that the president telling the crowd to march down streets and be “strong” contributed to what unfolded.

However, Trump explicitly told the crowd that day to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Former President Trump was acquitted of the charge “incitement of insurrection” in relation to the January 6 riot at the United States Capitol on February 13.

Watch the interview with Miller here:

 

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #16 on Feedspot’s “Top 70 Conservative Political Blogs, Websites & Influencers in 2021.”

 

The post President Trump’s Former Defense Secretary Blames Him For Capitol Riot appeared first on The Political Insider.

In Fox appearance, Trump lawyer argued only his followers were ‘dedicated’ enough to turn violent

Donald Trump's impeachment lawyers on Friday centered their defense around several embarrassingly incoherent video montages of Democrats repeatedly using the word "fight" in speeches over the years. One 11-minute montage alone featured some 238 utterances of the word, none of which included a lick of context. Frankly, it should have been an embarrassing defense presentation. But once wasn't enough for the shoddy lawyering of Trump's defense team—they played three separate montages of the recycled clips aimed at absolving Trump of culpability for inciting the murderous mob at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The flimsy idea was that Democrats repeatedly employing the word got Trump off the hook for telling his rally goers to “fight like hell” and then directing them to Capitol, where they proceeded to beat, bludgeon, and kill people. The one small hiccup in the logic was that none of the Democrats' followers ever ended up marching to the Capitol to attack the U.S. seat of government and murder people in the process. And in fact, Trump lawyer David Schoen helpfully made that exact point in a Fox News appearance just days before deploying that defense video, according to The Washington Post.

On Tuesday, Schoen and Fox host Sean Hannity were discussing that Democrats had been using the word “fight” for years when Schoen voluntarily drew a distinction in outcomes. 

“They’re using rhetoric that’s just as inflammatory, or more so,” he said of the Democrats. “The problem is, they don’t really have followers, you know, their dedicated followers and so — you know, when they give their speeches.”

Right, the Democrats' "problem" (i.e., their inability to actuate violence) was that they don't have "dedicated followers" (i.e., people who will haul off and commit murder on instruction).

Exactly. Schoen's characterization of Democrats' nonviolent followers as a "problem" is pretty stunning on its own. But even better, he completely undercut the insinuation of the video that Democrats use the word "fight" too, just like Trump did. 

Nope, not just like Trump did. Democrats didn't spend months predicting they would lose the election because it was "rigged" and assuring their followers that they both would be and had been disenfranchised. Democrats didn't spend years stoking the grievances of their followers, encouraging their violence, praising them for beating people up, and promising to pay for their defense if their violent acts landed them on the wrong side of the law. Democrats didn't encourage their followers to believe that their personal satisfaction and gratification superseded someone else's right to personal and physical safety. 

Nope. Trump and his GOP conspirators did that—which is why Trump’s supporters went off to murder people in plain sight on Jan. 6. And they succeeded, just not on the scale they had hoped. 

‘Masterful’ McConnell’s GOP caucus now in an all-out defensive crouch clinging to seats

Remember when political reporters crowed about what a masterful play Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had made when he lined up his caucus to acquit Donald Trump without hearing from a single witness? Yeah, that acquittal came on February 6 when U.S. senators were already getting briefed on the seriousness of the coronavirus' spread abroad. 

But Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, fell all over themselves to make sure Trump was at the helm when the pandemic hit U.S. shores. Now, what once looked like a promising cycle for Senate Republicans has turned entirely treacherous precisely because the caucus is saddled with Trump as their standard bearer. 

Let's give Mitch McConnell and his GOP majority the boot. Give $2 right now for bragging rights on election night!

Politico reports the party is directing nearly its entire $100 million war chest at saving the seats of eight incumbent senators while the few GOP candidates aiming to defeat a Democrat have been left almost entirely to their own devices. With the exception of funneling a little money into the effort to defeat Democratic Sen. Doug Jones in Alabama, they simply don't have the resources to play offense. 

The seat of Democratic Sen. Gary Peters from Michigan, for instance, once seemed like a flippable seat. But as Trump has tanked in the state and Joe Biden is presently positioned very well there, Senate Republicans have left Republican candidate John James to fend for himself. 

Instead, GOP groups, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the McConnell-aligned Senate Leadership Fund have been trying to bolster their defenses in Georgia, Iowa, and Montana—three states that weren't even on the radar as potential Democratic pick ups when the cycle started. 

Perhaps even more striking has been the GOP spending to protect seats that Democrats weren't even truly contesting yet. In Montana and Georgia, for example, Republicans went up with defensive ads before Democrats even got there.

“It's unusual when the other side goes there first and expands the map for you,” said J.B. Poersch, president of the Democratic super PAC Senate Majority PAC.

The bottom line is that Republicans have been left with little choice but to protect a growing map of incumbents who are inextricably linked to a president who has presided over 165,000 American deaths and counting while decimating a decade of economic growth. In fact, Trump is such a drag now that McConnell has reportedly given GOP senators the green light to distance themselves from him whenever necessary. Yeah, good luck with that after four years of letting Trump trash the country without raising hardly a single objection. 

"They're just not making the early investments they would if the president or the party was running better in the polls," said Saul Anuzis, a former GOP state party chair in Michigan.

And a giant part of the party's downfall is due to McConnell jamming that acquittal vote down the throats of his caucus members. Masterful. 

Want a safe, effective way to get out the vote this fall? Set up an account with Vote Forward, and start writing personalized letters to infrequent, but Democratic-leaning, swing state voters.

Wednesday night owls: ‘Letting the Pentagon Loose With Your Tax Dollars’

Night Owls, a themed open thread, is a regular feature at Daily Kos .

Mandy Smithberger is the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). At TomDispatch, she writes—Letting the Pentagon Loose With Your Tax DollarsCreating a National Insecurity State. Spending More, Seeing Less:

Hold on to your helmets! It’s true the White House is reporting that its proposed new Pentagon budget is only $740.5 billion, a relatively small increase from the previous year’s staggering number. In reality, however, when you also include war and security costs buried in the budgets of other agencies, the actual national security figure comes in at more than $1.2 trillion, as the Trump administration continues to give the Pentagon free reign over taxpayer dollars.

You would think that the country’s congressional representatives might want to take control of this process and roll back that budget—especially given the way the White House has repeatedly violated its constitutional authority by essentially stealing billions of dollars from the Defense Department for the president’s “Great Wall” (that Congress refused to fund). Recently, even some of the usual congressional Pentagon budget boosters have begun to lament how difficult it is to take the Department’s requests for more money seriously, given the way the military continues to demand yet more (ever more expensive) weaponry and advanced technologies on the (largely bogus) grounds that Uncle Sam is losing an innovation war with Russia and China.

And if this wasn’t bad enough, keep in mind that the Defense Department remains the only major federal agency that has proven itself incapable of even passing an audit. An investigation by my colleague Jason Paladino at the Project On Government Oversight found that increased secrecy around the operations of the Pentagon is making it ever more difficult to assess whether any of its money is well spent, which is why it’s important to track where all the money in this country’s national security budget actually goes.

The Pentagon’s “Base” Budget

This year’s Pentagon request includes $636.4 billion for what’s called its “base” budget—for the routine expenses of the Defense Department. However, claiming that those funds were insufficient, Congress and the Pentagon created a separate slush fund to cover both actual war expenses and other items on their wish lists (on which more to come). Add in mandatory spending, which includes payments to veterans’ retirement and illness compensation funds and that base budget comes to $647.2 billion.

Ahead of the recent budget roll out, the Pentagon issued a review of potential “reforms” to supposedly cut or control soaring costs. While a few of them deserve serious consideration and debate, the majority reveal just how focused the Pentagon is on protecting its own interests. Ironically, one major area of investment it wants to slash involves oversight of the billions of dollars to be spent. Perhaps least surprising was a proposal to slash programs for operational testing and evaluation—otherwise known as the process of determining whether the billions Americans spend on shiny new weaponry will result in products that actually work. The Pentagon’s Office of Operational Test and Evaluation has found itself repeatedly under attack from arms manufacturers and their boosters who would prefer to be in charge of grading their own performances. [...]

TOP COMMENTS 

QUOTATION

"Feminism isn't about making women stronger. Women are already strong. It's about changing the way the world perceives that strength."          ~~G.D. Anderson

TWEET OF THE DAY

It's not just the food service industry�27% of private-sector workers in the U.S. don't have the ability to stay home from work without losing a paycheck. We need to make sure our response to the coronavirus includes solutions that protect workers, their families, & communities. https://t.co/suV0mzUscM

— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) March 4, 2020

BLAST FROM THE PAST

At Daily Kos on this date in 2004—FDR’s “Hundred Days” Honeymoon—1933:

Whether you count from the inaugural or, as historians do, from March 9, the Hundred Days, like the Hundred Years’ War, didn’t actually add up to a hundred, but they have nonetheless been the measure—usually in negative terms— for what succeeding administrations have accomplished. A study has even gone so far as to determine how effective presidents before Roosevelt were in their first 100 days. None came close. During the emergency session of Congress FDR called 15 major laws were passed and signed, all by June 16.

That legislation—some of it conservative, most of it moderate, none of it radical, all of it experimental—derived from no over-arching plan, and certainly not from any liberal ideology that Roosevelt presented during the campaign and brought with him into the White House. Rather than a package of legislation, as implied by the Hundred Days label, what Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust" of academics and economic theorists produced was a mish-mash, exactly what would be expected of experimentation in the face of a daunting crisis. "The notion that the New Deal had a preconceived theoretical position is ridiculous," said Frances Perkins, who would become FDR’s, Secretary of Labor from 1933-45, the first woman ever to serve in the Cabinet.

The experiments worked not just for what they actually achieved—which was a mixed bag—but also for how their very coming into being changed the nation’s somber mood. As Roosevelt said at his inaugural: "This nation asks for action, and action now"; "We must act, we must act quickly"; People want "direct, vigorous action." As Jonathan Alter wrote in The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, "In the argot of a later age, Roosevelt was relentlessly on message." He spurred hope in the face of despair by force of personality.

On today’s Kagro in the Morning show: What's so super about Tuesday? Well, Joan McCarter, for one thing. And you probably weren't expecting Sexy Vinyl Vixen Brit Hume! How Trump's been gaming the FVRA. Coronavirus, continued. Impeachment vs. pardons: Let's all say we believe it!

Embedded Content

RadioPublic|LibSyn|YouTube|Patreon|Square Cash (Share code: Send $5, get $5!)

LINK TO DAILY KOS STORE

Trump Attorney: Not Simply Going on Defense, We’re Going to Attack the Democrats

Attorney to the President, Jay Sekulow, explained that the legal team isn’t content to offer a rebuttal to Democrats impeachment arguments, they plan on attacking them.

Sekulow made the comments during an appearance on ‘Fox and Friends First,’ where he accused the resistance party of selectively editing witness testimony to fit their argument that the President should be impeached and removed from office.

“Adam Schiff, who is the House management leader, has had a problem with the truth since he’s been holding these hearings in the House of Representatives, all the way back to the Mueller report,” Sekulow told viewers. “So, we will not, in a sense, it’s not a rebuttal.”

Instead, he added, “what we are going to do is attack.”

RELATED: Trey Gowdy Unloads On Adam Schiff’s ‘Wildly Stupid’ Trial Strategy

On the Offensive

Sekulow went on to suggest the President’s legal team would be more proactive than defensive when it came to swatting back the impeachment sham.

We will “attack all the misstatements, all of the half-played clips that didn’t play the entire clip, the entire statement, which ends up changing the entire meaning of what they tried to imply,” he said.

“I mean, how many times in those videos did you hear, did you see someone’s mouth keep going and the clip stop?”

Heck, we even saw it well before the impeachment trial got underway, as Democrats and their kindred spirits in the media doctored a phone transcript to turn a mundane phone conversation into something more nefarious.

RELATED: Media, Democrats Blatantly Doctor Trump-Ukraine Transcript to Create Fake News

Attack!

It shouldn’t be all that difficult for Trump’s team to dismantle the many lies coming out of Schiff, or Jerry Nadler, or any of the other Democrat impeachment team’s mouths.

Former South Carolina congressman Trey Gowdy chastised Schiff for presenting unto the American people a “wildly stupid trial strategy.”

Sekulow and his team will find their biggest challenge in getting the facts out to the American people.

President Trump took to social media to complain that his team is forced to present their case on a Saturday when it’s nearly guaranteed to audience will be much smaller.

Aside from that, there will be the usual media bias in which the legal team for the President is shut down if they make a good point.

Exhibit A:

Still, Sekulow believes they’ll get the message out.

“We’re going to make sure the American people and all one hundred U.S. senators get to see exactly what those Democrat witnesses – that’s all they were: 17 Democrat witnesses – what they had to say, in full,” he insisted.

“Because, what they had to say – in full – is on our side.”

The post Trump Attorney: Not Simply Going on Defense, We’re Going to Attack the Democrats appeared first on The Political Insider.