The General US Politics Thread

WASHINGTON — Senate negotiators found themselves back at Square 1 on immigration on Tuesday, as the Senate Democratic leader withdrew the biggest gesture he had made to strike a deal: an offer to fully fund President Trump’s proposed wall at the Mexican border. “The wall offer’s off the table,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.

His decision to renege, revealed publicly on Tuesday, marked another turn in the debate over how to shield from deportation hundreds of thousands of young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. As part of a deal to end the shutdown, Sen. Mitch Mc Connell, the majority leader, promised what he called a “fair and open” immigration debate.

But when that debate will happen, and what legislation will serve as its starting point, was unclear. Several bipartisan groups were meeting to try to address the fate of the young immigrants, known as Dreamers, but the withdrawal of Schumer’s offer brought a fresh round of partisan recriminations.

“If he wants a solution, that’s a step backward,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate. Further muddying the conversation, the White House refuses to acknowledge the offer that Senate leaders have confirmed.

Roughly 800,000 young people brought to this country illegally have been protected from deportation under an Obama-era initiative, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. But Trump rescinded the program in September, giving Congress six months — until March 5 — to come up with a replacement. Now the Senate has a new immigration deadline: Feb. 8, the date that a stopgap spending measure approved on Monday will expire. Mc Connell has said that if the fate of the young undocumented immigrants is not resolved by then, he will allow the floor debate on immigration.

WASHINGTON — The bipartisan group of senators who intervened to help end the government shutdown faces an even more formidable task: freeing the Senate from its dysfunctional rut. Members of the group have taken it upon themselves to quickly resolve an immigration dispute that has long defied answers, and to prove the Senate’s frozen legislative gears can still turn. “Part of our biggest challenge is letting the Senate be the Senate,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.

It is a group of centrists from both parties — a mix of red-state Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota; independent-minded conservative Republicans; a possible presidential prospect in Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and a past vice-presidential nominee in Tim Kaine, D-Va. It has senior Republican committee leaders such as Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, fellow Tennesseans, as well as Doug Jones, D-Ala. Alexander identified a common thread in their drive for an immigration answer. “There is a pent-up demand by accomplished senators who want to act like senators,” he said. With a few more Democrats than Republicans among its members, the group intends to show it can produce critical mass behind new immigration legislation.

“Twenty-five senators is a quarter of the Senate so that’s a pretty powerful number of people who are able to make a difference with their votes and their voices,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who led the effort to organize the group.

For all their good intentions, they are not going to have an easy time. The Senate has become an arena for political warfare, allowing the parties to thrive on doing their best to sabotage one another’s priorities. Breaking those entrenched habits will be difficult if not impossible. Powerful forces will be aligned to prevent any immigration measure from even clearing the Senate so as to avoid putting pressure on the House and the White House to act. While Jones just arrived from Alabama, most of the others have been venting their frustrations over the polarized nature and inertia of the Senate. They share a desire to show that Congress can work if given the opportunity for free-flowing debate and contend party divisions can be bridged.

“Maybe it’s an alternative to some of the constant tribal warfare that goes on around here,” said Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, another of the red-state Democrats in the group who will be fighting for re-election this year. Their independent push to end the shutdown sprang out of a view that the two respective Senate leaders — Mitch Mc Connell, the Kentucky Republican, and Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat — were locked in a partisan stare down that was leading nowhere.

Apple is selling out. It’s not about the latest version of the iPhone, but the huge cache of personal data that will go directly to the Communist government of China.

Apple’s policies in China have far-reaching implications for us all. Last summer, Apple announced it would be partnering with Guizhou-Cloud Big Data, a state-owned company with Communist Party connections, to build Apple’s first data-storage center in China. Customers registered in China, according to Apple’s new terms and conditions agreement for the country, must “understand and agree that Apple and G.C.B.D. will have access to all data that you store on this service.”

Under the agreement, Apple seems to be absolving itself of responsibility for what the authorities may choose to do with personal data in G.C.B.D.’s hands. Users who refuse Apple’s terms will be denied iCloud services. Users who accept run the risk of unwittingly provoking the ire of the aggressive police state, resulting in deleted data or accounts, or harassment and imprisonment. This kind of partnership between an American company and a dictatorial regime is at odds with the image Apple has built as a company committed to privacy and a willingness to stand up to pressure from larger entities like the United States government.

Unfortunately, it now seems that such “values” are taking a back seat to profits. The Chinese regime makes no apologies about its human rights violations and seems not to care whom it crushes in its quest for power and control. When dealing with the Chinese regime, American companies should likewise not apologize for their commitment to the fundamental values — human rights, democracy, freedom of information, the rule of law — that have allowed them to flourish.

It’s hard to believe that Apple is caving in to the regime like this. The only conclusion I am left to draw is that the company is O.K. with taking part in the suppression of freedoms abroad while espousing high-minded values at home. To be fair, many American tech companies have been tripping over themselves to get into China. Facebook has reportedly been developing censorship software so that it can win approval to operate in China, while the company’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has long been courting the Chinese leadership.

The Chinese people have been fighting for human rights for decades, including the rights to privacy, freedom of speech and democracy. Many have lost their lives doing so. Instead of aiding dictatorships and following a misguided path to the future, Apple should return to its core values and protect the rights of its users at home and abroad.

A government watchdog suggested that Congress might want to prohibit the Defense Department from spending money on Afghan military units whose members sexually abuse children or commit other human rights violations. But the Pentagon disagreed with that idea, saying such incidents must be weighed against U.S. national security interests.

The suggestion was made by the office of the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in a previously classified report released Tuesday. It highlights the challenges the U.S. military faces in partnering with forces abroad that do not always adhere to the same codes of conduct. U.S. troops have long complained that some Afghan commanders sexually abuse boys.

Ninety-three members of Congress requested that SIGAR investigate the issue after a 2015 New York Times report alleged that sexual abuse of children was “rampant” in Afghan units, putting U.S. troops in emotionally charged and challenging situations. The review focused on the implementation of the Leahy law, which restricts the U.S. government from assisting a foreign security unit found to be in gross violation of human rights.

The law allows for exceptions when the defense secretary determines that continuing support to a problematic unit meets a national security concern. SIGAR suggested that Congress might want to eliminate that exception, and the Pentagon balked when it viewed a draft of SIGAR’s report.

“The draft report does not fully convey the unique and difficult challenges of implementing the Leahy law in Afghanistan consistent with both the U.S. commitment to human rights and U.S. national security objectives in Afghanistan,” Jedidiah Royal, a Pentagon official, wrote in a May 2017 response included in the report. “In particular, the draft report does not reflect an understanding of the challenges faced by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in developing and sustaining the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.”

The Pentagon resisted when lawmakers asked SIGAR to launch the investigation, an aide to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the namesake of the Leahy law, told The Washington Post in November. The Defense Department argued that SIGAR did not have the jurisdiction to examine the issue, even though SIGAR has routinely dissected U.S. work in Afghanistan, said the aide, Tim Rieser.

A Defense Department inspector general report released in November concluded that U.S. troops have been inadequately trained to report sexual abuse in Afghanistan for years. The Pentagon watchdog made several recommendations, including building a central database of gross violations of human rights, and noted that the Defense Department has historically decided to withhold funding over human rights violations in Afghanistan about once a year.

However, the Pentagon report did not suggest that Congress consider eliminating the defense secretary’s ability to make exceptions to the Leahy law on the basis of U.S. national security.

The SIGAR report states that data provided by the Pentagon showed that as of Aug. 12, 2016, the Defense Department was tracking 75 gross human rights violation allegations. Seven involved child sexual assault, 46 involved other human rights violations and 22 were classified secret and weren’t discussed in the report. U.S. officials found one child-sex allegation to be credible, with five others under review, and one was determined not credible. Although the Defense and State departments have taken steps to identify and investigate child-sex abuse in Afghanistan, the full extent of the problem may never be known, SIGAR found.

The Defense Department called the SIGAR report “speculative and not well-substantiated,” pointing out that investigators “only interviewed 16 service members during this review.”

The Alabama House voted 67-31 to end special elections for U.S. Senate appointments, per the Montgomery Advertiser's Brian Lyman.

Why it matters: Democrat Doug Jones was elected to the Senate in a special election, rocking a deep red state. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Steve Clouse, said it was meant to save the state money as last year's election cost $11 million. The bill now advances to the Alabama Senate.

Shortly after voting to end a government shutdown on Monday afternoon, a group of a 10 or so centrist Senate Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, gave a press conference outside the chamber to congratulate themselves on the extraordinary bipartisan achievement of funding the government at current spending levels for another 17 days. This informal “common sense caucus”—or as Indiana Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly called it, “the potato chips and oranges caucus”—had been meeting in Maine Sen. Susan Collins’ office over the weekend to negotiate the handshake “arrangement” that will reopen the government.

The group included several Democrats who had voted to filibuster the previous spending bill on Friday, like Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, and New Hampshire Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen. They congratulated each other for what they’d secured: a commitment from the majority leader to debate immigration through regular order after Feb. 8 if no deal is struck beforehand.

That process could produce a bipartisan bill, such as the Gang of Six legislation, that Majority Leader Mitch Mc Connell had not previously agreed to allow on the floor.

Looking at the smiles and backslapping among these Democrats, one couldn’t help but wonder: Do they have the faintest idea how pissed off the Democratic base is?

Democrats were not able to secure an immigration deal through the three-day shutdown, only a commitment to a future process that could produce such legislation. They also were not able to secure any commitment that House Republicans would take up the fruits of their labor. And yet cloture was invoked easily, 81 to 18, with only 16 of 49 Democrats voting nay.

The rage from activists was swift and unsparing.

“Today’s cave by Senate Democrats—led by weak-kneed, right-of-center Democrats—is why people don’t believe the Democratic Party stands for anything,” Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Stephanie Taylor said in a statement. “These weak Democrats hurt the party brand for everyone and make it harder to elect Democrats everywhere in 2018.”

“A lot of Democrats are channeling their inner Marco Rubio today,” tweeted Move On Washington Director Ben Wikler, referring to the oft-caving Florida senator. Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, called it a “betrayal.” CREDO labeled Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer “the worst negotiator in Washington—even worse than Trump.”

Much of the criticism came from within the building, too, especially from the House side. “I do not see how a vague promise from the Senate Majority Leader about a vague policy to be voted on in the future helps the Dreamers or maximizes leverage the Democrats and American people have over the Republicans right now,” Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the most vocal advocate for Dreamers in Congress, said in a statement.

The furor mostly stemmed from a total lack of faith in Mc Connell’s willingness to uphold such a handshake agreement. It’s only been a few weeks, after all, since the majority leader failed to make good on agreements he reached with both Collins and Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake in exchange for their votes on tax reform. Why do Senate Democrats suddenly trust him to follow through on his immigration commitment?

A couple of Democrats said that while they don’t personally trust Mc Connell, they have faith in their colleagues who do.

“You’ve got to start trusting each other and working together at some point,” Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth said. “I have no trust in the Republican leadership, but I’m going to take a deep breath and show some trust in my moderate Republican colleagues who were willing to step forward on this.”

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey—who argued that Mc Connell made not just a promise to Senate Democrats, but “to the country”—said “I don’t know [Mc Connell] enough to say that I trust him, but I do trust the people who were in [Collins’ office] the last couple of days.”

Bill Nelson reiterated several times that the commitment from Mc Connell was “ironclad,” but his evidence for that was largely Mc Connell’s public statements and the “glare of the spotlight” applied to them. In other words: words.

“Bottom line,” Nelson said, cutting to the chase, “in order to get anything done, you’ve got to have good will and the ability to work together.”

New Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama, meanwhile, said that “I’m going to take everybody at their word.” Ah, to be a freshman.

No one could really say the truth about why Democrats accepted this offer from Mc Connell: that it was the best they were going to get.

This shutdown was always going to be decided by the “blame game,” as annoying as that is to say. As each side made their arguments in recent days, Republicans had the more straightforward one—Democrats were responsible for the shutdown because they filibustered a funding bill in order to secure something else. A DACA fix is popular; shutting down the government over one is much less so, especially in many of the states Senate Democrats are trying to hold in November. The polling was beginning to gravitate in Republicans’ favor.

“I hear our numbers are dropping like a rock,” Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York told Bloomberg on Monday.

There is no compelling evidence that rejecting Mc Connell’s offer would have resulted in a better outcome for Democrats. Polling would have drifted further to Republicans’ side, and Mc Connell would have waited patiently to accept Schumer’s unconditional surrender. It is surprising that Mc Connell even offered a handshake agreement, and may have only done so to bring Flake and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham back on the team. Democrats chose to save face by accepting a less-than-“ironclad” commitment because that is what you do when you’ve made a losing tactical decision.

Mc Connell is a liar and planning anything around his cooperation or support is a fool's errand. I hope Schumer has a backup plan.

Shark-related nonprofits say they have received a stream of donations mentioning President Trump since an adult film star who allegedly had an affair with Trump said he told her he hoped sharks die.

The Atlantic White Shark Conservancy and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have both said they have received a flood of donations since Trump's comments were reported, Market Watch reported.

"We have been receiving donations in Trump's name since the story was published," said Cynthia Wilgren, chief executive officer and co-founder of Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, based in Chatham, Mass.

She added that most of the donations the charity has received have been from people giving for the first time, noting that it is difficult "to raise money for a for a species that most people fear."

Paul Watson, founder of the Burbank, Calif., based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, said the nonprofit has gotten "quite a few" donations from people who have mentioned Trump's comments.

"Anything that focuses attention on the plight of sharks worldwide is valuable, so I guess in that way the president did good service," Watson said.

Watson said it's "actually more dangerous to play golf than it is to go swimming in the ocean with sharks."

"Quite a few more die from lightning strikes and bee stings while playing golf than from sharks," Watson told Market Watch.

The reported donations come after an interview was published in which an adult film star who says she had an affair with President Trump in 2006 said that Trump was obsessed with sharks and revealed to her that he was "terrified of sharks."

Stormy Daniels - whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford - said in a 2011 interview with In Touch that one night she and Trump were having dinner and that programming from the Discovery Channel's "Shark Week" was on television.

"He is obsessed with sharks. Terrified of sharks. He was like, 'I donate to all these charities and I would never donate to any charity that helps sharks. I hope all the sharks die,' " she said.

"He was like riveted. He was like obsessed. It's so strange, I know."

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, had arranged a $130,000 payment to Clifford for her to remain quiet about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump.

Cohen and the White House have denied that Trump had an affair with Clifford and Cohen has denied the report of a $130,000 payment.