RealClear

Subscribe to RealClear feed RealClear
Updated: 2 hours 1 min ago

Warren: Trump Budget "One Punch In The Face After Another To Hardworking People"

2 hours 9 min ago
In an interview with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warned, "Republicans in Washington are still advancing the Trump agenda more so than ever." SEN. WARREN: It appears that their view of compassion is that we make sure that we could knock 24 million people off health coverage. That we take the legs out from underneath Medicaid which one of the principle users are seniors who are in nursing homes, who otherwise have no alternatives and no way to pay for nursing home care. And that somehow he thinks he's going to get in front of that with a statement about compassion. This really is -- this is just -- this is beyond farce. Look at things like -- what they want to do to Education that Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump now propose about an $11 billion cut to public education and among the programs that they just want to cut out any Federal help for are things like AP classes, foreign languages, physical education, even support for the special Olympics that they just think, no, let's just see where all of those are at. And for young people who are trying to go to college, they want to take the whole loan forgiveness program that's there for people who have decide today go into public service who said I'm going to work for a lower paying job in public service and the American tax payers who said OK, we'll do a little loan forgiveness to help you pay the college debts off. No, zero that program out, take good programs like Gear Up and TRIA that help students get into college and make it through college you might have had a chance, zero that program out, increase the cost of student loans for low income students. It's like one punch in the face after another to hardworking people, to people who are trying to make something of their lives. If these guys really did believe an opportunity, if these guys did believe in helping build their own future then they'd be doubling the funding in programs like this not trying to take the legs out from underneath it. Let's be clear, what these guys really want to give is yes, they want to slash and burn in these programs. But the reason for that is so that they can produce tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Look at this so-called health care plan. It's a tax cut plan, 24 million people off health care. Raise cost for middle class families, increase cost for people over 50, open the door to discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions and people with mental health issues and people with Opioid addiction problems. And do all of that for what reason? In order to produce a tax break for a handful of millionaires and billionaires. Donald Trump is making it clear who he wants to run this government for on steroids and the answer is, for the rich and powerful and kick everybody else in the teeth. That's what this is all about. O'DONNELL: What is the effect of all of this Russian influence scandal in terms of the Trump agenda in Congress? Is it creating a legislative smoke screen where this unpopular agenda has a better chance of advancing or is it just gumming up the works and nothing has a real chance of advancing? WARREN: No, I'm actually very concerned. Keep in mind, the House went ahead and passed this horrible health care bill, moved it over to the Senate and right now behind closed doors. The Republicans in the United States Senate are actively negotiating what kind of a health care bill can they get out and then spring on the American people and see if they can ram it through before people actually understand what's in it and really push back on it. That's where they are right now and we all have to be on alert. And that's all happening while all of the Russia stuff continues to go forward. So now we've got Russia, we've got health care and we've got the budget rolling in. Now the Republicans in Washington are still advancing the Trump agenda more so than ever.

Hannity: I Am No Longer Going To Discuss The Seth Rich Matter At This Time

2 hours 16 min ago
FOX News' host Sean Hannity delivers a message on the unsolved murder of DNC employee Seth Rich and how he will no longer discuss the issue for the time being. SEAN HANNITY: Also tonight, the unsolved murder of former DNC staffer Seth Rich continues to get a huge amount of attention. I want to say something. I totally, completely understand how upset, how hard this is on this family, especially over the recent coverage of Seth's death. I've been communicating with them. I got a very heartfelt note. I also sent them a heartfelt note back. I reached out personally today to Seth's brother, Aaron. I expressed my condolences over how hard, how difficult this has been for him and his family. As I told Aaron, my heart, my soul, my prayers -- everything goes out to them in this very difficult time. I'm a father. I know I personally -- I don't think I'd ever recover from losing a child or a brother. I honestly don't think I would. I cannot imagine the pain that they are in. And as a father, when I saw the video of the parents on line saying they want answers -- and I know the brother Aaron started a GoFundMe page -- it truly pained me. However, out of respect for the family's wishes, for now, I am not discussing this matter at this time. Let me explain this. There are so many issues here, not the least of which is the Democratic push of their Russia narrative, collusion, Trump Russia narrative, Trump Russia narrative. There's something clearly happening here. The destroy Trump media, the Democrats -- they have been pushing that Russian tinfoil hat conspiracy theory with zero evidence.

Tucker Carlson on Terrorism: Defend What You Believe In, Or Lose It

14 hours 58 min ago
FNC host Tucker Carlson discusses the long term implications of regular terrorist attacks on Western culture and what will happen if people don't stand up for what they believe in. TUCKER CARLSON: Our leaders like to boast they believe in Science, that they let data and hard evidence drive policy. They are lying. And never more obviously than in this case. They don't want to see the numbers, and they actively suppress them. If you really cared about America, you wouldn't want it to become Europe: dangerous, divided, unstable. You wouldn't import a massive Muslim minority into your country, simply because it made you feel open minded and virtuous, and then hope for the best. That is a faith based approach and it is nuts. We know exactly what will happen if we do that, because we are watching it on television in Manchester right now. If you really cared about the country you led, you would figure out how to make sure that every person you imported, of any religion, enthusiastically supported your cherished values -- tolerance, pluralism, free speech, equality under the law, just for starters. Tell them not to litter while they're here by the way too. We're doing the opposite. Our leaders worship multiculturalism, so we encourage immigrants to reject our culture in favor of their own, because all cultures are equal. Except they are not all equal as we were reminded last night in Manchester. Defend what you believe in or lose it. That is the lesson of Manchester. It is also the basic lesson of all of history. But what if you don't believe in anything at all? Our leaders don't. Maybe that's why they can't defend us.

Chris Matthews: Mulvaney Said We Need A Budget For People Who Pay Bills; "In Other Words, The Wealthy"

14 hours 58 min ago
On Tuesday's broadcast of his MSNBC show Hardball, host Chris Matthews reacted to Trump Budget Director Mick Mulvaney's description that the upcoming budget was written "through the eyes of the people who are actually paying the bills." "In other words, the wealthy people," Matthews said.

Krauthammer On Russia: "Nobody Can Locate The Crime," Unhelpful That Trump Is Acting Like There Is One

15 hours 45 min ago
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the issue of a cover-up in a crime is really quite remarkable. I don't think I've ever seen a situation where nobody can locate the crime. There are all these accusations, collusion is thrown around all the time. We've had a year of investigations. We've had opportunity after opportunity for some official to say here's what happened. And there's been none of that. Now there may be, we could get an avalanche of evidence of collusion. But so far there is none. The president insists that there is no 'there' there, but he acts as if the there is everywhere. And that, I think, is the origin of what's happened here. He's trying to get people -- I can understand sort of the motive. He says I didn't do anything, so let me get the people who are in charge of some of these agencies to come out and say we have no evidence. I don't see that as obstruction, but I think it is improper. It's something you shouldn't be asking these people to do. And that creates this firestorm. Up until now, it's entirely self-created, and we could end up with an enormous issue, and it's going to dog Trump and all of his associates who are now lawyering up, even the president himself, until the end of time because as you say, Mueller has an endless mandate, and he cannot be fired. That's omnipotence and omniscience at once. He's Godlike.

Mulvaney: No Regrets Cutting Funding For Climate Change Musical

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 21:05
Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney asks if a federally funded musical about climate change is a good use of taxpayer money.

MSNBC's Ron Reagan: Donald Trump A "National Security Threat" Guilty Of "Treasonable" Offenses

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 20:56
MSNBC's Ron Reagan says that President Trump is guilty of treason and needs to be removed from office immediately.

Brennan: "It Should Be Clear To Everyone That Russia Brazenly Interfered In Our 2016 Election"

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 19:38
Former CIA director John Brennan remarks on Russia' "brazen" interference int he 2016 American presidential election JOHN BRENNAN: I'm exceptionally proud of the work done by the women and men of the CIA who along with their talented colleagues from the FBI, NSA, and the office of the DNI, tracked and exposed Russian active measures against our presidential election. When it became clear to me last summer that Russia was engaged in a very aggressive and wide-ranging effort to interfere in one of the key pillars of our democracy, we pulled together experts from CIA, NSA, and FBI in late July to focus on the issue, drawing in multiple perspectives and subject matter experts with broad expertise to assess Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. presidential election.BRENNAN: The purpose was to ensure that experts in key agencies had access to information and intelligence relevant to Russian actions so that we could have as full an appreciation as possible on the scope, nature, and intentions of this Russian activity. The experts provided regular updates and assessments through the summer and fall, which we used to inform senior U.S. officials, including President Obama. The work also was leveraged for the intelligence community assessments that was completed in early January, under the aegis of the director of national intelligence. Second, it should be clear to everyone that Russia brazenly interfered in our 2016 present election process and that they undertook these activities, despite our strong protests and expose a warning that they not do so. Along these lines on 4, August of last year, I spoke to Alexander Bortnikov, the head of Russia's Federal security Bureau, the FSB, Russia's internal security and intelligence service. The bulk of the schedule call focused on Syria, as Bortnikov was my principal Russian interlocutor on tourism matters. In consultation with the White House, I took the opportunity to raise two additional issues with him. I first told Mr. Bortnikov, as I had several times previously that the continued mistreatment and harassment of U.S. diplomats in Moscow was irresponsible, reckless, intolerable and needed to stop. Over the years it has been Mr. Bortnikov's FSB that has been most responsible for this outrageous behavior.

Hemingway: Trump's "Principled Realism" Represents A New Direction In U.S. Foreign Policy

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 18:36
'The Federalist' senior editor Mollie Hemingway responds to President Trump's major foreign policy address delivered this weekend in Saudi Arabia and the $100 billion military deal inked between the U.S. and the Kingdom. Related Video: Trump: We are adopting a principled realism, rooted in common values, shared interests, and common sense. Our friends will never question our support, and our enemies will never doubt our determination. MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: It is a significant deal, it bolsters the development of Saudi Arabis, it gives a ton of new jobs in the United States. It bring Saudi Arabi, presumably into the fight against both ISIS and Iran. It is all a part of this foreign policy President Trump laid out in his speech in Riyadh -- Principled Realism. This is a really new direction in foreign poicy, rejecting both the lecturing and the moralism of the Obama era, as well a the poorly designed invasions of both the Obama and Bush era. This is a radical change, and we're starting to get more understanding of how it looks.

Gowdy Grills Brennan: Do You Have Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion Or Not? Brennan: "I Don't Do Evidence"

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 17:58
Rep. Trey Gowdy grills former CIA director John Brennan at a House Intelligence Committee meeting Tuesday morning on Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Gowdy repeatedly presses Brennan for some kind of hard evidence, or even the admission that such evidence exists, that President Trump or his campaign were inolved with the Russian attempt to influence the election. Brennan repeatedly dodged, saying: "As I said Mr. Gowdy, I don't do evidence." "I appreciate that you don't do evidence, Director Brennan. Unfortunately, that's what I do," Gowdy fired back. "That's the word we use, you use the word assessment, you use the word tradecraft. I use the word evidence. And the good news for me is lots of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use the word evidence, too. One of my colleagues said there is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign." Eventually Brennan replied: "I don't know whether or not such collusion -- and that's your term, such collusion existed. I don't know. But I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials." More segments of Gowdy grilling Brenna below. Transcript: GOWDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for your service to our country. Let's go back to where we were a couple minutes ago, you mentioned or you testify that you had a conversation in August of 2016 with your Russian counterpart, you testified that you briefed at least eight members of Congress throughout (inaudible) of your investigation. When you learned of Russian efforts -- and we'll get to that in a minute because my understanding from your unclassified report is, Russia has historically attempted to interfere with our electoral process. And they did so without coordination, collusion or conspiring with any of the candidates, so they have a history of doing it. We'll lay that aside for a minute, 2016 electoral process. When you learned of Russian efforts, did you have evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors? BRENNAN: As I said Mr. Gowdy, I don't do evidence... GOWDY: Well, I... BRENNAN: ... and we were uncovering information intelligence about interactions and contacts between U.S. persons and the Russians. And as we came upon that, we would share it with the bureau. GOWDY: I appreciate that you don't do evidence, Director Brennan. Unfortunately, that's what I do. That's the word we use, you use the word assessment, you use the word tradecraft. I use the word evidence. And the good news for me is lots of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use the word evidence, too. One of my colleagues said there is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Now, there are only two types of evidence; there's circumstantial and direct. So if it's more than circumstantial, by necessity, it has to be direct. Those aren't my words; those are the words of one of my colleagues on the other side of this very committee. Another Democrat colleague on the other side of this committee also used the word evidence, that he has seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians and yet a third California Democrat, said she had seen no evidence of collusion. So that's three different members of Congress from the same state, using the same word, which is evidence. And that's the word that my fellow citizens understand, evidence. Assessment is -- is your vernacular. Tradecraft is your vernacular. You and I both know worth the word evidence makes. And we're not getting into whether or not you corroborated, contradicted, examined, cross-examined. We're not getting into how you tested and probed the reliability of that evidence; it's a really simple question. Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy, between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts? BRENNAN: I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals. I don't know whether or not such collusion -- and that's your term, such collusion existed. I don't know. But I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials. GOWDY: Do you know the basis of that information that you shared with the bureau? What was -- the nature of the evidence? BRENNAN: I think, Mr. Gowdy, this committee has now been provided information that relates to that issue in terms of information that the agency shared with the bureau and that is something that is appropriately classified. GOWDY: All right, and you learned that when? When in this chronology did you learn of the contacts between these official members of the Trump campaign or -- because there's kind of a tripartite hierarchy. There's Trump himself, there are official members of the campaign, and then there are folks who represented themselves as being connected with him. BRENNAN: I'm not going to try to identify individuals nor try to parse it. GOWDY: I don't want you to parse it, I just want you to identify the individuals. I don't want you to parse it. BRENNAN: I'm not going to identify the individuals because this is information that, again, is based on classified sources and intelligence. And I think this committee has access to it... GOWDY: Were they official members of the campaign? BRENNAN: I'm going to defer to current agency officials to be able to further provide to you information related to that. But my understanding is that this committee has access to the documents that we would have provided to the bureau. GOWDY: All right. Last question because I'm out of time, we can use the word onus, we both know what the other one's talking about. How did you test, probe, examine, cross-examine, otherwise test the reliability or believability, credibility, of that evidence you uncovered? BRENNAN: I made sure that the components within CIA that have responsible for counterintelligence, cyber, and Russia, were actively working to understand as much as possible about the reliability, accuracy of the information that they already collected and information that was available that needed further corroboration. GOWDY: We'll come back to it next round. All of Gowdy's questions:

Trump's Budget Director: Written "Through The Eyes Of The People Who Are Actually Paying The Bills"

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 17:46
Trump's Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Tuesday afternoon in apress conference that President Trump's 2018 budget was design with "the people actually paying the bills" in mind: taxpayers. "We looked at this budget through the eyes of the people actually paying the bills," he said. "Compassion has to be on both sides of this equation. Yes, you have to have compasion for folks who are receiving the federal funds, but also you have to have compassion for those who are paying it." He added: "We're not going to measure compassion by the amount of money we spend, but by the number of people we help."

Mick Mulvaney: Washington's Definition Of A 'Budget Cut' Is A Joke

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 17:40
Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney vents about the idea that a 6% year-by-year increase in spending is considered a "freeze" in Washington D.C. budgets. QUESTION: So, President Trump sticking to his campaign promise not to touch Medicare, Social Security retirement benefits, but not Medicaid. So how does he intend to square that with his supporters? MULVANEY: Yeah, a couple of things about Medicaid, and this is one of my favorite stories to tell about Washington spending; keeping in mind, and I know that you all probably get this, but if you're watching this at home -- in Washington, D.C., if you spent $100 last year on something, OK, and we spend $100 on it this year on that same thing, in Washington people call that a cut. OK? $100 last year, $100 this year, y'all call it a cut. In fact, I've seen several occasions where we spent $100 last year and $102 this year and many people will still call that a cut because the budget is hardwired by the Congressional Budget Office to go up every single year. And if the Congressional Budget Office says we spent $100 last year and we're supposed to spend $106 this year, for a lot of people anything less than $107 is a cut. In fact, I've actually heard $106 referred to as a freeze because it simply stays in line with the Congressional Budget Office. A classic example of how Washington speaks differently than the world back home. So a couple of things about Medicaid. OK? There are no Medicaid cuts in the terms of what ordinary human beings would refer to as a cut. We are not spending less money one year than we spent before. What we are doing is growing Medicaid more slowly over the 10-year budget window than the Congressional Budget Office says that we should or says that we will under current law. Why do we change it? We change it -- we change those -- those growth rates in Medicaid spending because of the American Health Care Act, which this president does support. We've said from the very beginning, we support the House efforts; looking forward and are working right now with the Senate on working on what they're health care bill would look like. But we support the American Health Care Act and that does change Medicaid.

Bernie Sanders Condemns Trump Budget: Could Save Trump Family $4 Billion

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 17:28
Senator Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Congressman John Yarmuth, ranking member of the House Budget Committee, and Democratic Leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi hold a press conference to respond to the release of the Trump budget. Sanders highlights the tax savings the wealthiest Americans will see and the cuts to welfare programs. "This is a budget that says if you are a member of the Trump family, you will get a tax break of up to $4 billion, but if you are a child of a working class family, you could well lose the health insurance you currently have," Sanders said. "This budget makes a bad situation worse -- in terms of healthcare." "This is a budget that is immoral, and will cause an immense amount of pain," he added.

Hemingway: Media's Cartoonish Hostility To Trump Causes People To Tune Out, Not Take Their News Seriously

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 16:23
Mollie Hemingway commentary on Monday's edition of Special Report: MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, THE FEDERALIST: The media had about this level of coverage in terms of hostility to the president before he was elected and that speaks to how much people are tuning out negative media coverage which is actually dangerous because you want to media that can hold powerful people accountable. And when everything is negative, it's very hard to distinguish between legitimate stories and many of these stories that have been put out that are negative is just completely fake or they're based on faulty information or they're based on incomplete information. This is not good for media to be this hostile, cartoonishly hostile, to a president. It just causes people to tune out and not take their news seriously.

Brennan: IC Says Trump Has Not Tried To Get Them To Drop Investigations Or Push Back On Narratives

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 16:21
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff questions former CIA Director John Brennan about reports that President Trump tried to pressure leaders of the intelligence community to drop investigations into the role Russia played in the 2016 election. "No sir," Brennan responded to each question. Brennan also said that evidence of contact between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign did not constitute evidence of 'collusion.'

'Morning Joe' Rips President Trump: "The Presidency Itself" Is "In Question"

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 15:27
'Morning Joe' cohosts comment on the reports that President Trump asked several major intelligence officials to publicly deny that there was any evidence connecting him to Russia. They all refused. JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's one more example of this president using his position as a leader of the free world to try to end an investigation against him, to try to use his position of power to intimidate James Comey, the head of the FBI, Coats, the head of the DNI, and then, of course, Rogers, the head of the NSA, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein. He used his position of authority to try to get each one of these men, each one of these leaders, to stop the investigation against him and say, we Americans can be grateful that as he tried to turn them into his patsy, each one of these men put their duty and their honor and their country first. And they refused. And they wrote it down. And they reported it. And now we find ourselves in a position, after all of these efforts to obstruct justice, to kill an investigation, we are all left with a single question: What is Donald Trump so fearful of that we Americans will find out about, that investigators will learn about, that he's willing to be self-destructive to a degree that he's basically setting fire to his entire White House operation, turning these administration officials against him, turning people inside the White House into liars. What's he trying to hide? There may be no fire yet, but there is so much smoke right now, political smoke engulfing the White House. He's down to 37% in the latest gallup tracking poll. Republicans are on the run in Congress. Their approval ratings are at record lows. We heard in Georgia-7 addition or 6, I think, a predictably Republican district, the Democratic challenger is up by seven points in a poll that was released yesterday. What's he hiding? What's so bad that he is willing to throw the entire Republican party overboard in trying to protect himself? MIKA: I think it's more than the Republican party, unfortunately, because everything is in question at this point. The presidency itself is in question. Trust in the president himself, in question. Beyond in question. And it's truly his weak team and his personal connections that are literally doing him in. Every problem he has has to do with a personal connection that he would not let go for the good of the country to have good people around him. Instead he has bad people around him that he's had to fire or weak people around him, which is almost worse... It is personal. There could have been Chris Christie in there, who might have been willing to speak a little bit of truth to power, but it was personal. Jared didn't want him. Jared is in there. Ivanka has an office in the White House. What experience do they bring to the table? What do they bring to the table at all? What influence to they have on the president that is positive? None? Why are they there? It is personal. All the others -- weak links. Can't speak to him, to scared for themselves, it is a complete cluster. A complete cluster.

GOP Rep. Dave Brat: Trump's Budget Will Bring Economic Growth To U.S.

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 15:13
Rep. Dave Brat, a member of the House Budget Committee and a Republican from Virginia, discusses President Donald Trump's 2018 budget. He speaks with Bloomberg's David Westin on "Bloomberg Daybreak: Americas."

Watch Live: WH Budget Director Mick Mulvaney Introduces Latest Trump Budget

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 14:32
Trump administration budget director Mick Mulvaney is scheduled to brief members of the media on President Trump's latest budget proposal, Tuesday morning around 11:00 am.

Trump to Israel: "The Palestinians Are Ready To Reach For Peace... I'm Telling You, That's What I Do"

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 14:29
In Israel, President Trump says that after speaking with the leaders of both Israel and Palestine, peace is possible.

Trump: Iran Wants Nuclear Weapons To Destroy Israel; "Not With Donald J. Trump"

Tue, 05/23/2017 - 14:28
President Trump speaks at the Israeli histor museum, during his visit Tuesday to Jerusalem. DONALD TRUMP: Israelis have experienced firsthand the hatred and terror of radical violence. Israelis are murdered by terrorists wielding knives and bombs. Hamas and Hezbollah launch rockets into Israeli communities, where schoolchildren have to be trained to hear the sirens and to run to the bomb shelters with fear, but with speed. ISIS targets Jewish neighborhoods, synagogues and store fronts. And Iran's leaders routinely call for Israel's destruction. Not with Donald J. Trump, believe me.(APPLAUSE) TRUMP: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) I like you too. (LAUGHTER)

Pages