The night John McCain killed the GOP’s health-care fight

It was the most dramatic night in the United States Senate in recent history. Just ask the senators who witnessed it.

A seven-year quest to undo the Affordable Care Act collapsed — at least for now — as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) kept his colleagues and the press corps in suspense over a little more than two hours late Thursday into early Friday.

Not since September 2008, when the House of Representatives rejected the Troubled Asset Relief Program — causing the Dow Jones industrial average to plunge nearly 800 points in a single afternoon — had such an unexpected vote caused such a striking twist.

The bold move by the nation’s most famous senator stunned his colleagues and possibly put the Senate on the verge of protracted bipartisan talks that McCain is unlikely to witness as he begins treatment for an aggressive form of brain cancer.

“I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict party-line basis without a single Republican vote,” he said in a statement explaining his vote. “We should not make the mistakes of the past.”

Rumors swirled late Thursday that the Arizona Republican, who had captured the nation’s sympathy this week after delaying his cancer treatment in order to return to Washington, might vote against the GOP’s “skinny repeal” plan — a watered-down version of earlier Republican proposals to repeal the 2010 health-care law.

McCain warned at a hastily arranged news conference Thursday afternoon that he was leaning against supporting the legislation unless House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) assured GOP senators that the House would not move to quickly approve the bill in its current form. McCain and Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wanted Ryan to launch broad House-Senate negotiations for a wider rollback of the law. Two hours later, Ryan issued a statement signaling he would launch negotiations, and Graham and Johnson announced their support.

But not McCain.

Reporters spotted him around 11 p.m.

“Have you decided how you’ll vote?” they asked.

“Yes,” McCain replied.

“How?”

“Wait for the show,” he said.

McCain headed for the stage — the Senate floor — around midnight, emerging from his office in the Russell Senate Office Building for the subway ride to the U.S. Capitol.

When he arrived, he held a brief conversation with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ( D-N.Y.), an exchange that left the New Yorker smiling.

“I knew it when he walked on the floor,” Schumer later recounted, explaining that McCain had already called to share his plans.

But few, if any, of his Republican colleagues realized what was about to transpire.

Two votes were called just after midnight. The first was on a Democratic proposal to refer the “skinny repeal” bill back to a committee. The second vote was to pass “skinny repeal,” which would have repealed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and rolled back a tax on medical devices.

“Let’s vote against skinny repeal,” Schumer told his colleagues before the votes as he once again derided the rushed nature of the health-care debate.

McCain stood on the Republican side of the room nodding in agreement.

With Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) already planning to vote against the plan, Republicans could not afford to lose McCain. Vice President Pence was already at the Capitol prepared to break a tie. Instead, he launched a last-ditch effort to win McCain’s support.

As the first vote began, McCain took his seat next to Graham, his closest friend in the Senate. The South Carolinian mostly nodded as McCain gesticulated, and signaled — through his body language — that he was likely to vote no. When Murkowski walked over to join the conversation, McCain winked and gave her a thumbs down — signaling his intentions.

Collins joined the group as another clutch of Republican senators formed in the well of the Senate Chamber. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who operates in McCain’s long shadow, stood next to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who counts GOP votes, and Pence. Eventually, Flake was dispatched to talk to McCain.

He obliged, walked over to McCain and asked Graham to move over one seat. But McCain did not acknowledge Flake, focusing instead on Murkowski and Collins.

That left Flake, one of the most polite members of the Senate, leaning into the conversation uncomfortably with a pained look on his face, as if he had to tell his father that he had run over the family dog with his car.

Seeing that Flake was not making progress, Pence walked over at 12:44 a.m. McCain smiled, pointed at Collins and Murkowski, said something about “marching orders,” and stood up.

“Mr. Vice President,” he said, greeting Pence. For the next 21 minutes, the vice president cajoled McCain, Collins and Murkowski. Twice during the conversation, a Pence aide came to whisper in the vice president’s ear — other reporters learned it was the White House calling. Pence finally left to take a call, but later returned to speak with McCain.

By then, other senators around the room realized what was happening.

“You could see the body language in the entire chamber change in two hours,” Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) recalled. “One side was kind of ebullient, moving around and talking and the other side was subdued, and all of a sudden it began to change. There was an instinctive reaction that maybe this thing wasn’t going to pass. Nobody knew for sure.”

“It was pretty somber,” added Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

At 1:10 a.m., McCain crossed the Senate Chamber to talk to Schumer, Klobuchar and other Democrats, including Sens. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). As he approached, McCain told them he worried that reporters watching from the gallery above could read his lips. When he realized that the press was indeed watching, he looked up at the ceiling and shouted, “No!” as senators and reporters laughed. Then, Democrats beamed when McCain shared his news. Feinstein gave him a hug.

Walking back to the Republican side of the room, McCain was stopped by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) who also offered a hug.

“I love John McCain. He’s one of the great heroes of this country,” Hatch explained later. “Whether we agree or not, I still love the guy.”

The vote on “skinny repeal” began at 1:24 a.m., but McCain was out in the lobby once again conferring with Pence. In his absence, Collins and Murkowski cast their “no” votes along with the 48 members of the Democratic caucus.

McCain returned at 1:29 a.m. without Pence, approached the Senate clerk and gave a thumbs down — the third “no” vote.

Several people gasped. Others applauded. Reporters dashed out to report the news.

McCain returned to his seat, walking past Cornyn and Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who stood grim-faced and despondent. Cassidy rubbed his face several times with his hands. Thune’s face contorted. The color in Cornyn’s face seemed to drain.

“Certainly Senator McCain knows how to improve the drama,” Cassidy recalled later.

The vote concluded, and the results were announced — the bill was voted down, 51 to 49. Just days before, McCain had fired a warning shot with a lengthy floor speech that criticized the rushed, secretive process that led to “skinny repeal.” Early Friday morning, McCain, Collins and Murkowski delivered the fatal blow.

McConnell, humiliated by the results, stood to address his colleagues. The color of his face now matched the pink in his necktie.

“This is clearly a disappointing moment,” he said.

In: thewashingtonpost

Here’s how much the healthcare industry paid John McCain to take away your healthcare

Senator John McCain returned to the Senate Chamber on Tuesday to cast a deciding vote allowing the legislative body to begin debating a bill put together behind closed doors by Republicans that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

And while many doctors and provider associations are opposed to a repeal — alongside at least half of Americans — major health industry players, especially on the insurance side, have been vocal in their opposition to the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the health industry donated millions more to Republicans than Democrats in every election cycle since 2010, as the Republican alternatives are expected to substantially enrich the industry.

So why would Senator McCain — who is treating his recently diagnosed brain cancer with taxpayer funded healthcare — vote to discuss a bill that could take healthcare away from around 32 million Americans

Health industry professionals have overwhelmingly supported Republicans seeking federal office, and one could imagine McCain and others who benefit from that support might push policy that would be more financially beneficial to their benefactors.

Healthcare providers are among the top 5 contributors by industry to McCain’s campaign coffers, having given $7,184,854 since 1989, according to OpenSecrets.org.

When the insurance industry is factored in, total contributions from the health-related sectors amount to $25,272,446.

full list of donors in the health and insurance industries provided by FollowTheMoney.org reveals that USAA, Humana, Liberty Mutual, American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Cigna Corp, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, National Association of Insurance & Financial Advisors and others have been top donors to McCain throughout his career, providing as much as $20,000 (USAA’s contribution) each to his campaigns.

Selecting just for health industry contributions, here are some of the top donors to McCain ranked by contribution amount, from the Institute for Money in State Politics:

Image: http://reverepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/top-donors-e1501033453524.jpg

Here’s the top of the donor list when sorted by Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE):

Image: http://reverepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/insurance-e1501033932436.jpg

In: reverepress.com

Pentagon spends 10 times more on erectile disfunction meds than transgender services

The Pentagon spent $84 million on erectile disfunction medications in 2014, 10 times the estimated annual medical costs for transgender services.

Military Times reported in 2015 that the military spent $84 million on erectile disfunction medications such as Viagra and Cialis the year before. Meanwhile, a 2016 Rand Corporation study estimated that the maximum annual medical costs for transgender military members would be around $8.4 million, Business Insider reports.

“You’re talking about .000001% of the military budget,” being spent on transgender services, Navy SEAL veteran Kristin Beck, who is transgender, told Business Insider.

President Trump announced Wednesday on Twitter his decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military “in any capacity.” He cited the “tremendous” costs for providing medical services for transgender troops.

“Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you,” Trump tweeted.

His announcement sparked widespread condemnation from members of both parties, including Republicans who broke with the president to speak out against the ban.

Image: Facebook

In: thehill

Read also:

Trump to ban transgender people from all military service

Retired transgender Navy SEAL: Tell me to my face I’m not worthy of serving

 

What ‘SNL’ got wrong in its Spicer satire

Sean Spicer and actress Melissa Mccarthy as “Spicey”. Image: http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3345475.1500661053!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/trump.jpg

By: Dean Obeidallah

(CNN) – Thanks to “Saturday Night Live,’ we have two versions of Sean Spicer. There’s the sympathetic one who Melissa McCarthy plays hilariously on the late-night show. And then there’s the Spicer who has defended many of Donald Trump’s outrageous claims with false statements and outright lies.

The problem is that the “SNL” version made Spicer far more endearing than he actually is. And this gives us a sense of the power of political comedy. Comedy can be used to make us laugh while reminding us of a politician’s transgressions. But the risk is that comedy can make a flawed political figure seem sympathetic and even help us overlook his misconduct.

Just look at the reactions when Spicer announced his resignation as press secretary on Friday. Democratic Rep. Pramila Jaypal tweeted, “Huge blow for “SNL.” Farewell, Sean Spicer.” Journalist and CNN contributor April Ryan, who had battled with Spicer in the past tweeted, “It is over no more Melissa McCarthy!” While actor Zach Braff wrote on Twitter “actual footage of Sean Spicer” and shared a clip of McCarthy looking forlorn on the streets of New York.

Don’t get me wrong — I had a similar reaction to the news of his resignation. But if McCarthy and “SNL” had not depicted Spicer in the fashion they had, do you think we would’ve seen such a strong reaction?

Instead, many of us would have responded the way The New York Times “eulogized” Spicer on Saturday — as the person who began by lying on day one as the White House spokesperson and only continued from there.

As a reminder, Spicer lied to us at his very first press conference after Trump was sworn in, defending Trump’s baseless claims about the size of the inauguration crowd. Spicer emphatically declared, “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period.” But, as the fact checkers at the Washington Post put it, “This is an appalling performance by the new press secretary,” as he made “a series of false and misleading claims in service of a relatively minor issue.” They concluded Spicer’s statements that day earned him the maximum four Pinocchios but added, “we wish we could give five.”

And we can’t forget Spicer defending Trump’s fact free claims of mass voter fraud by making up sources to help Trump cope with losing the popular vote. At the January 25 press conference, Spicer claimed that a 2008 Pew poll “showed 14% of people who voted were noncitizens.” However, the nonpartisan Politifact dubbed that statement false since the Pew poll “makes no mention of noncitizens voting or registering to vote.

And the list goes on of Spicer’s outlandish statements in defense of Trump — from his remark that Adolf Hitler “didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons” in an effort to gin up support for Trump’s bombing of Syria to false statements about the role Paul Manafort played in the campaign in an effort to help distance Trump from his former campaign manager.

But, for many, McCarthy’s wildly popular depiction of “Spicey” as a likable bumbling character has come to define the former press secretary. In fact, the last time we saw McCarthy as Spicer on “SNL” in May makes this very point. While “Spicey” was defending a Trump lie, one reporter asked isn’t there a chance Trump is lying to you, to which McCarthy sympathetically responded, “he wouldn’t do that, he’s my friend.”

“Spicey” then headed off to confront Trump, played by Alec Baldwin, demanding to know if Trump ever lied to him. Baldwin replied, “Only since you started working here.” Through comedy, “SNL” had erased Spicer’s moral culpability for lying to us by making it all Trump’s fault.

In contrast and thankfully, however, “SNL” has been careful not to forgive Trump’s transgressions. In fact, in that same “SNL” sketch, Baldwin tells McCarthy to “kiss me.” “Spicey” responded, “I can’t — I have a wife and took vows.” “SNL” then reminded us of Trump’s vile comments on the Access Hollywood bus when Baldwin tells McCarthy, “I’m famous — it’s okay.”

In the time of Trump, comedy is playing a critical role in serving as both a cathartic release and source of empowerment for those who oppose Trump. But comedy shows must be aware that there’s a fine line between causing us to laugh at a political figure’s misconduct and minimizing them through comedy that makes him undeservedly likable.

Given the stakes, hopefully comedians will continue to use their skills to remind us of Trump’s misconduct and not turn him into an orange haired version of “Spicey.”

Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM’s radio’s daily program “The Dean Obeidallah Show” and a columnist for The Daily Beast. Follow him @deanofcomedy. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. For more on humor, watch CNN’s “The History of Comedy” Sundays at 10 p.m. ET/PT.

In: CNN

Read:

In Trump’s America, comedians lead the resistance

Can SNL topple the Trump Administration?

 

Donald Trump’s Addled and Ominous Interview with the Times

The big “get” of President Trump’s interview with the New York Times was confirmation of a story that’s been going around Washington for months. Photograph by Mark Peterson / Redux

It is often said, and with ample reason, that much of what Donald Trump says isn’t worth a jot. As Tony Schwartz, Trump’s ghostwriter, noted last year, “lying is second nature to him.” When he isn’t telling outright whoppers, he exaggerates things outrageously, and his utterances often bear little resemblance from one day to the next. On Tuesday, he said that Republicans should let Obamacare crash and burn. On Wednesday, he said that he wanted to see it replaced.

But, whereas Trump’s statements often fail to withstand inspection when examined individually, analyzing a group of them together can sometimes provide valuable insights into his mind-set, which, at this time, appears to be even more addled than usual. The interview that Trump gave on Wednesday to three reporters from the Times offers us that opportunity.

A partial transcript of the interview, which the Times posted online, shows him eager to impress his interlocutors despite the fact that they work for a publication he has many times described as “failing” and “fake news.” He boasted about the response he received to the speech he recently gave in Poland, and how much the French President, Emmanuel Macron, likes him. (“He’s a great guy. Smart. Strong. Loves holding my hand.”)

At one point, Trump even played the role of amateur historian, pointing out how the armies of Napoleon and Hitler came to grief in the Russian winter, and adding that Napoleon “didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.”

That claim might be dubbed “fake history,” but it wouldn’t do to dwell on it because the interview also covered many more consequential subjects, including the Russia investigation and the now infamous meeting that his son, Donald Trump, Jr., arranged at Trump Tower last June. The overwhelming impression from the transcript is of a President who considers himself above the law, and who believes himself to be, through no fault of his own, besieged by internal and external enemies, particularly in the Justice Department and the F.B.I. As he put it at one point, “I have headaches, that’s what I have, I have headaches.”

As usual, Trump reserved some of his vitriol for James Comey, the man he fired as F.B.I. director. He repeated his unfounded claim that Comey leaked classified information, and accused him of lying to Congress. He also claimed that Comey had been looking for “leverage” when he warned Trump in January about an opposition-research dossier that contained salacious allegations about the President. (How would this be leverage? It is unwise to follow Trump’s logic too closely.)

The big news “get” in the interview was confirmation of a story that’s been going around Washington for months: Trump blames many of his woes on one of his own key lieutenants, Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, who recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation.

TRUMP: So Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself. I then have—which, frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, “Thanks, Jeff, but I can’t, you know, I’m not going to take you.”

Although Trump doesn’t say it straight out, this transcript makes it clear that he thinks that Sessions, despite all the questions he was facing about his own contacts with the Russian Ambassador, should have refused to recuse himself from the investigation and protected the White House as the Russia investigation proceeded. Instead, Sessions failed him, with consequences that Trump immediately went on to detail.

TRUMP: It’s extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president. So he recuses himself. I then end up with a second man, who’s a deputy.

HABERMAN: Rosenstein.

TRUMP: Who is he? And Jeff hardly knew. He’s from Baltimore.

Actually, Rod Rosenstein, the deputy Attorney General, grew up in Pennsylvania. He did serve for twelve years as the U.S. Attorney for a district encompassing Baltimore, a city that Trump views as a Democratic swamp. And it was Rosenstein, with Sessions recused, who appointed Robert Mueller as a special counsel to investigate the alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Trump also considers this appointment to have been unnecessary. “I have done nothing wrong,” he said. “A special counsel should never have been appointed in this case.”

Of course, Rosenstein also did Trump a favor earlier on in his Administration: he submitted a letter to Sessions saying that James Comey should be replaced as F.B.I. director because of his mishandling of the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. In the interview, Trump concedes as much, saying, “O.K., he gives me a letter about Comey . . . and it certainly didn’t hurt to have the letter.”

But in Trump’s mind it is clear that that incident was ancient history, and Rosenstein is now part of a cabal of Washington insiders—officials, prosecutors, and investigators—who are out to get him, regardless of his innocence. In addition to Rosenstein, these insiders include Mueller, whom he accused of having undisclosed conflicts of interest, and Andrew McCabe, the deputy director of the F.B.I., whose wife, Jill, ran as a Democrat for a seat in the Virginia state Senate in 2015.

To Trump, who views everything through a lens of self-interest, there are no matters of legitimate public interest at stake in the Russia story; no public-spirited officials trying to fulfill their duty to the public; no duty on his part to respect the need for distance between the White House and the Justice Department when it comes to matters having to do with the President. It is all just a political racket, and he is the one getting screwed.

In truth, of course, Trump has himself to blame for Mueller’s appointment. By going ahead and firing Comey, Trump prompted Comey to leak incriminating details about their meetings. And that left Rosenstein little choice but to set up an investigation that was independent of the Justice Department.

Practically everybody in Washington agrees that Trump made a monumental error in firing Comey. But when one of the Timesreporters raised this possibility, Trump, characteristically, refused to admit it, saying, merely, “I think I did a great thing for the American people.”

Another problem with Trump’s narrative is that significant new information keeps emerging about links between Russia and his campaign, including the now infamous sitdown that Trump, Jr., had with a Russian lawyer. When the Times reporters pressed him on this, Trump restated his position: it was a routine meeting, and he wasn’t told about it at the time. But he also made a new point—new to me, anyway—arguing that, by last June, when the meeting took place, he didn’t even need any more dirt to hurl at Clinton: he already had plenty.

“There wasn’t much I could say about Hillary Clinton that was worse than what I was already saying,” he said. “I was talking about, she deleted and bleached, which nobody does because of the cost . . . 33,000 emails. I talked about the back of the plane, I talked about the uranium deal, I talked about the speech that Russia gave Clinton — $500,000 while she was secretary of state . . . honestly, Peter, I mean, unless somebody said that she shot somebody in the back, there wasn’t much I could add to my repertoire.”

You have to give points for creativity, I suppose. Like many con men, Trump never lacks a defense. But what he said in the interview was directly contradicted by his own words on July 27, 2016, just weeks after the Trump Tower meeting, when he publicly urged the Kremlin to hack Clinton’s e-mail, saying, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the thirty thousand e-mails that are missing.”

It is a pity the Times reporters didn’t present this quote to Trump. No doubt, he would have come up with another bogus explanation. He always does. At some point, though, as the Russia investigation gets ever closer to him, he will almost certainly have to answer questions under oath, and there is no knowing how he might react. At the end of the interview, one of the reporters asked Trump if he would fire Mueller if his investigation “went outside of certain parameters.” Trump’s answer was instructive: “ I can’t answer that question because I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

El fracaso de Trump en la reforma sanitaria destapa sus problemas de liderazgo

El republicano sigue siendo un presidente de excepción, apoyado por un núcleo duro, pero rechazado por el resto.

Donald Trump en su reunión con senadores republicanos tras el fracaso de la reforma sanitaria. REUTERS

Donald Trump sigue solo. Tras seis meses en el poder y una agenda en agitación permanente, el multimillonario neoyorquino no ha sido capaz de romper con la maldición de su mandato. Continúa siendo un presidente de excepción, apoyado por un núcleo duro de votantes, pero rechazado por el resto. Una fractura, cristalizada en su bajísima valoración en las encuestas, que el fracaso en la aprobación reforma sanitaria ha dejado en evidencia. Ni siquiera en el proyecto más emblemático y anhelado de la derecha ha logrado unir a su propio partido.

La división republicana ha dejado el liderazgo de Trump por los suelos. El legado de Barack Obama ha mostrado mucha más resistencia de la que se suponía y ha permitido que las carencias del multimillonario afloren. Las encuestas lo han señalado desde el primer día. Su valoración es la más débil de un presidente a esta altura del mandato, y su vertiginosa gestión solo polariza más. Pero esta limitación no implica que haya perdido el apoyo de sus bases. Los sondeos, como indica a este periódico el profesor Larry Sabato, director del Centro para la Política de la Universidad de Virginia, se elaboran sobre población general pero a efectos electorales solo importan los votantes registrados, y ahí Trump permanece incólume. Sin otros aliados, pero fuerte.

Con este bagaje, Trump ha entrado en el laberinto. Fracasado su plan de liquidar el Obamacare y aprobar al mismo tiempo un proyecto propio, está tratando de hallar una nueva salida: votar la eliminación del actual sistema y dejar para una discusión posterior su alternativa. El plan es de alto riesgo. Tres republicanos moderados ya han alertado de que no piensan dar ese paso y que sumaran sus votos a los demócratas. Dada la exigua mayoría republicana en el Senado (52 escaños frente a 48), es casi imposible que la iniciativa prospere.

Pero Trump no ha tirado la toalla. Ha pedido al líder de la mayoría republicana en el Senado, Mitch McConnell, que someta a votación el fin del Obamacare la semana que viene, y paralelamente él mismo ha convocado una serie de reuniones con los senadores, la primera este miércoles, con el objetivo de recuperar terreno perdido y taponar una fuga irreversible en su presidencia. “La inacción no es solución. Tengo una pluma en la mano lista para firmar. No deberíamos dejar la ciudad hasta tener un plan y sacarlo adelante”, les dijo.

La Casa Blanca es consciente de que sin una mayoría estable en el Senado no sólo la reforma sanitaria, sino su plan fiscal y los presupuestos del año próximo corren peligro. Ante este espectro, Trump, el antisistema que venía a drenar el pantano, ha empezado a buscar su apoyo. No será tarea fácil.

Los republicanos tienen la mayoría en las dos Cámaras, pero forman un universo fractal que hizo de la obstrucción un arma mortal contra Obama y cuyo aguijón sigue vivo. Irredentos, centrados en sus intereses de circunscripción y ultrasensibles a las elecciones de 2018 (renovación total en la Cámara de Representantes y un tercio en el Senado), usan su poder hasta la extenuación y no perdonan los deslices. Trump lo ha sentido en carne propia.

El líder que se presentaba como el gran hacedor de pactos ha cometido en la tramitación de la reforma sanitaria graves errores de estrategia. El primero se vio en marzo cuando intentó forzar la votación de una primera versión en la Cámara de Representantes sin tener mayoría asegurada. In extremis tuvo que retirarla y volver a negociar a puerta cerrada.

El bochorno se ha repetido ahora. En esta segunda fase, obligó al líder de la mayoría republicana en el Senado, Mitch McConell a imponer un doble juego:eliminar el Obamacare y aprobar un proyecto alternativo al mismo tiempo. McConnell y otros senadores le advirtieron de la complejidad de la jugada. Demasiado ambiciosa para lograrla de una sola tacada. Trump insistió. Y la fractura volvió a emerger.

Para los moderados, el plan presentado era excesivamente duro en sus recortes a los más desfavorecidos y hacía prever un colapso en la cifra de asegurados de clase trabajadora (unos 15 millones menos en dos años). Y para los radicales, la ley dejaba escapar con vida el Obamacare. El descontento era evidente. Y Trump no supo manejarlo.

El mismo lunes el presidente cenó con un nutrido grupo de senadores y dedicó la mayor parte de la reunión a recordar sus viajes. “No habló más que de Francia y del Día de la Bastilla”, señaló con sorna un senador republicano. Poco después, la rebelión tomó cuerpo y con la oposición de solo cuatro legisladores la ley se hundió.

JUGANDO CONTRA LAS ENCUESTAS

Donald Trump ha jugado contra las encuestas en la reforma sanitaria. La última elaborada por The Washington Post-ABC y publicada este domingo pasado ya revelaba la falta de confianza en su proyecto. Aunque es cierto que el Obamacare no gusta del todo (sólo el 37% lo apoya con fuerza), aún gusta menos el proyecto alternativo auspiciado por la Casa Blanca (sólo 17% lo apoya con fuerza). Un resultado que se repite incluso entre los trabajadores blancos sin estudios superiores, el sector de voto duro de Trump.

A este factor se suma la propia polaridad del presidente. Excepto en el área económica, donde el 43% aprueba su gestión frente 41% que la rechaza, en el resto de baremos el mandatario suspende. Así el 58% es contrario a su gestión presidencial (36% a favor) y el 55% considera que no ha logrado avances significativos, frente al 38% que sí.

MÁS DE 30 MILLONES DE PERSONAS MÁS SIN SEGURO CON LA DEROGACIÓN DE OBAMACARE

En pleno debate interno, el Partido Republicano sufrió un nuevo jarro de agua fría. La Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso, un organismo independiente, pronosticó este miércoles que derogar partes de la ley sanitaria actual sin sustituirlas por una alternativa dispararía el número de personas sin seguro médico en EE UU: 17 millones más en 2018 y 32 millones en 2026. Es una cifra muy superior a los 22 millones de personas más sin seguro en nueve años que había calculado el organismo ante la primera propuesta de reforma republicana.

Ante la incapacidad de sumar los votos republicanos necesarios para avanzar con su propia reforma, Donald Trump ha instado a los senadores a derogar primero Obamacare y luego votar por una propuesta que lo sustituya. Pero esa estrategia parece contar con aún menos apoyos entre los legisladores, lo que posiblemente se acentuará con el pronóstico de la Oficina Presupuestaria.

En: elpais

Todos los hombres del Rusiagate

Donald Trump Jr., hijo del presidente de EEUU, sale de un ascensor de la Torre Trump. BLOOMBERG

Apenas ha comenzado julio y, como las series de televisión pasadas de moda, el Rusiagate – el escándalo causado por la presunta interferencia de Rusia en las elecciones de EEUU de 2016 – ha vuelto. Ahora, con un nuevo personaje: el hijo del protagonista. O sea, Donald Trump ‘junior’, primogénito del presidente de EEUU.

En la nueva temporada del ‘culebrón’, resulta que el joven Trump celebró el 9 de junio de 2016 una reunión con la abogada rusa Natalia Veselnitskaya, muy cercana al Kremlin, porque ésta le había ofrecido información comprometedora sobre Hillary Clinton. Al encuentro también asistieron dos de los asesores de Trump más involucrados en la trama rusa: su yerno y máximo asesor en la Casa Blanca, Jared Kushner, que entonces dirigía la operación ‘online’ de la campaña del ahora presidente, y el entonces jefe de campaña de Trump, Paul Manafort.

Pero el encuentro no ha sentado nada bien a los enemigos políticos de Trump. El domingo por la noche, el republicano -como Trump- Richard Painter, que sirvió en Oficina de Ética de la Casa Blanca con George W. Bush entre 2005 y 2007, declaró en la cadena de televisión MSNBC que la reunión entre Trump ‘junior’, Kushner, Manafort, y Veselnitskaya, “roza la traición”. Painter continuó ayer los ataques en Twitter, donde escribió que, “cuando un agente ruso llama ofreciendo información sucia [sobre un candidato, en este caso Hillary Clinton], un estadounidense leal llama al FBI”.

Quien más daño se ha hecho a si mismo es el propio Turmp ‘junior’, porque ha dado cuatro explicaciones diferentes. En marzo, en una entrevista al ‘New York Times’, negó todo tipo de encuentro. “¿Me he reunido con rusos? Desde luego. Pero en ningún caso en encuentros organizados”, dijo entonces. El sábado, cuando ese mismo diario publicó la reunión, el hijo del presidente dijo que “discutimos sobre todo un programa sobre la adopción de niños rusos”, y trató de distraer la atención al estilo de su padre: retuiteando un vídeo en el que el actor Tom Cruise, en la película de los ochenta Top Gun, derriba dos aviones con el logo de la cadena de televisión CNN.

Imagen: http://e03-elmundo.uecdn.es/elmundo/2017/graficos/jul/trump-rusia660.jpg

El truco funcionó a Donald padre, pero no al hijo. Así que éste emitió un comunicado el domingo declarando que “la mujer [sic] dijo que tenía información de que individuos conectados a Rusia estaban financiando el Comité Nacional Demócrata y apoyando a la señora Clinton”. Finalmente, ayer, en Twitter, admitió que se había reunido con Veselnitskaya para lograr información sobre Hillary Clinton.

Esto es lo que ha enfurecido a muchos en EEUU. Una cosa es investigar a los rivales políticos – algo para lo que hay incluso empresas especializadas en EEUU – y otra, muy diferente, pedir ayuda para ello a una potencia extranjera. Lo segundo es susceptible de ser considerado, como señala Painter, como traición. Trump ‘junior’ reaccionó ayer a la tormenta ofreciéndose a testificar ante el Congreso sobre la reunión.

Encima, ‘The Washington Post’ publicó ayer que la reunión fue organizada por Aras Agalarov, un empresario ruso muy bien conectado con Vladimir Putin, que ha sido calificado como el ‘Trump ruso’ por su propensión a poner su nombre en todo lo que construye, y que, además, es amigo personal del presidente estadounidense desde que ambos organizaron el concurso de Miss Universo en Moscú en 2013. Ahí la trama da un giro más propio de Berlanga que de Ian Fleming (el creador de James Bond): la reunión del joven Trump con Veselnitskaya fue organizada por Emin Agalarov, hijo del empresario y estrella del pop ruso.

Así que Donald Trump ‘junior’ ya está hasta las orejas en el ‘Rusiagate’. Su nombre, así, se une a una larga lista de involucrados. Entre las más de dos docenas de personas investigadas por Richard Mueller, el fiscal especial del caso, destacan:

1. Mike Flynn. Él es, por ahora, el centro de la trama. Tuvo que dimitir del cargo de consejero de Seguridad Nacional en febrero después de que el ‘Washington Post’ informara que había hablado con el embajador ruso, Sergey Kislyak, sobre el levantamiento de las sanciones de EEUU a ese país cuando Obama todavía era presidente, aunque Trump había ganado las elecciones.

2. Donald Trump. El presidente podría estar siendo investigado por su decisión de cesar al director del FBI, James Comey, por su investigación acerca de los lazos del general retirado Mike Flynn con Rusia.

3. Jared Kushner. El yerno y máximo asesor del presidente celebró encuentros secretos con Flynn, Kislyak, y Sergey Gorkov, el máximo responsable de VEB, un banco del Estado ruso actualmente en quiebra que ha llevado a cabo operaciones de espionaje en EEUU.

4. Jeff Sessions. Del máximo responsable del Departamento de Justicia de EEUU ha ocultado tres reuniones que mantuvo con Kislyak y otros altos cargos rusos durante la campaña electoral de 2016.

5. Paul Manafort. El jefe de campaña de Trump tuvo que dimitir del cargo en agosto de 2016 tras haber ocultado que había trabajado en secreto para el Gobierno proruso de Viktor Yanukovich, en Ucrania.

6. Roger Stone. El asesor electoral de Trump estuvo con WikiLeaks y con Guccifer, el ‘hacker’ que entró en los servidores del Comité Nacional Demócrata.

7. Carter Page. El ex asesor electoral de Trump lleva tiempo siendo investigado por el FBI por posibles actividades de espionaje en favor de Rusia.

En: elmundo.es

¿Quién es Richard Concepción Carhuancho, el juez amenazado de muerte?

Encarcelado ‘Peter Ferrari’ estaría detrás de este plan.

Juez Richard Concepción Carhuancho. Imagen: http://cdne.diariocorreo.pe/thumbs/uploads/articles/images/juez-carhuancho-ratificado-en-caso-del-crime-22777-jpg_604x0.jpg

Este artículo fue publicado originalmente en febrero de 2017; sin embargo, la actualizamos debido a que se reveló que la Policía detectó un plan para asesinar al juez Concepción Carhuancho. Atribuyeron la autoría de la conspiración al investigado Pedro Pérez Miranda, alias ‘Peter Ferrari’, quien se encuentra recluido en el penal de Piedra Gordas.

[Detectan plan para asesinar al juez Concepción Carhuancho]

“Se ordena prisión preventiva por el plazo de 18 meses contra el investigado Alejandro Toledo Manrique”. Las palabras del juez Richard Concepción Carhuancho contra el ex presidente del Perú, acusado de soborno, se alzan como las más importantes en la historia de la política peruana desde los tiempos en que el también ex presidente peruano Alberto Fujimori fue sentenciado.

“…Se dispone cursar los oficios correspondientes para la ubicación, captura e internamiento en un establecimiento penitenciario del Perú. Para tal efecto se debe cursar orden de captura nacional e internacional”, dijo cansado, tras las casi 12 horas de audiencia Carhuancho, quien se ha convertido en el hombre de justicia más importante de los últimos días.

¿Quién es Concepción Carhuancho?

No es la primera vez que Richard Concepción Carhuancho, tarmeño de 45 años, es designado para un caso de interés nacional. De hecho su hoja de vida también nos muestra que estuvo al frente de las investigaciones sobre La Centralita, Nadine Heredia, ‘Peter Ferrari’, ‘Pancho’ Boza, entre otros.

Concepción Carhuancho estudió Derecho en la Universidad San Martín de Porres, logrando graduarse poco antes de 2000. Tres años más tarde lograría su título de maestría en Derecho de Empresas e iniciaría un Doctorado en la misma materia en 2013. Según su hoja de vida, publicada en el Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura, aún no lo acaba.

Su carrera como magistrado la inició el 2006 en Junín cuando fue designado como juez especializado suplente del 1° juzgado penal de Tarma. A partir de allí comenzó a escalar posiciones hasta ser nombrado como titular del 1° juzgado de investigación preparatoria nacional. Cargo que asume hasta hoy

La Centralita

 

Apenas fue designado en su nuevo cargo, tuvo en sus manos el caso ‘La Centralita’, convirtiéndose en un blanco directo de ataques. En su calidad de juez encargado de la investigación logró llevar a prisión al ex gobernador regional de Áncash, César Álvarez, principal implicado en el caso.

Junto al fiscal Elmer Chirre, Richard Concepción Carhuancho también tuvo a cargo la solicitud de extradición de Martín Belaunde Lossio de Bolivia. Finalmente logró traer de vuelta al exasesor presidencial y posteriormente, dictarle prisión preventiva.

Nadine Heredia

 

El pasado 22 de noviembre, una fotografía reveló que la ex primera dama, Nadine Heredia, se encontraba dentro de un avión rumbo a España. Inmediatamente se encendieron las alertas de una posible fuga de la esposa de Ollanta Humala, quien es investigada por los aportes que recibió el Partido Nacionalista para las campañas presidenciales 2006 y 2011.

Pero, si ya se tenían sospechas de una posible salida del país de la esposa de Ollanta Humala, ¿Por qué no se le negó?

Las miradas voltearon al Juez Richard Concepción Carhuancho, encargado de la investigación por presunto lavado de activos. Luego de explicar que no impidió la salida del país debido a que el fiscal del caso no lo solicitó, dio paso a la presión y ordenó la vuelta de Heredia Alarcón en 10 días. Aún no se resuelven las apelaciones que definirán su situación legal y el juez afronta una investigación de la Oficina de Control de la Magistratura (OCMA).

Consultado sobre la complejidad del caso Nadine, Concepción Carhuancho le dijo a *Perú21* una frase contundente, frase que quizás lo acompaña en cada uno de los casos que lleva adelante: “Estoy preparado para todo”.

Ahora, Toledo

El jueves fue una jornada maratónica en la Sala Penal Nacional. Luego de doce horas de iniciada la sesión y tras llamar al orden innumerables veces, el juez dio a conocer su decisión final: 18 meses de prisión preventiva para Alejandro Toledo. De esta forma colocó al hombre que se presentó al mundo como un humilde lustrabotas que triunfó en Harvard cada vez más cerca de ingresar a los libros de historia como el segundo ex presidente peruano tras las rejas.

Así como Fujimori nunca olvidará al juez César San Martín, el ahora prófugo de la justicia posiblemente siempre lleve en el recuerdo a Richard Concepción Carhuancho.

En una de las pocas entrevistas brindadas, el juez Richard Concepción Carhuancho explicó que la justicia “es darle a cada uno lo que le corresponde, ni más ni menos. Utilizar el aparato penal para que en caso se advierta que alguien es responsable, imponga las medidas que correspondan. Si también se detecta que alguien ha sido injustamente procesado, deben existir los correctivos para que se le excluya de una investigación y un proceso penal”.

En: peru21

1 9 10 11 12 13 23