Following reporting on attendees honoring the late Rep. John Lewis whose body lies in state at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, MSNBC ” Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough queried Associated Press White House correspondent Jonathan Lemire about Donald Trump’s refusal to make an appearance and his reasoning.
According to Lemire, there was a big difference between what White House aides said in public and what they know to be the truth.
“I was on the White House lawn when we asked if the president was going to attend to pay his respects to the congressman lying in state at the Capitol, and he said no,” Lemire recalled. “That took aides by surprise because there had been discussions about the president going over there at some point today, they thought that might be something he would want to do. We should note that Vice President Pence, who served with Congressman Lewis in the house, did go over there yesterday. ”
“Did they provide any explanation why he is, in fact, doing something that no other president would do, Republican or Democrat alike?” Scarborough pressed. “Does he think going to see a civil rights hero, an American saint, does he think that would hurt him with white voters?”
“Publicly White House aides are saying it’s the president’s decision, privately there is some frustration,” the AP reporter replied. “They do feel that the president is too mindful of that, the signal he might be sending to white voters. And also it’s someone with whom he feuded before, we know how he holds grudges. We know that he did the same when Senator McCain died, he did not attend or pay his respects in any public way then either. He had to be convinced to put the flag at half-mast at the White House when Senator McCain died. For Congressman Lewis, it was put at half-mast but only half a day.”
‘You’re right,” he continued. “There’s a growing recognition among his advisers, that they’re going to lean into the cultural efforts, the preservations of the statues, confederate bases and the real push of law and order using federal troops in the cities, most notably Portland. It’s part of a piece, a signal to white and suburban voters, the same ones he’s trying to court there, we’ve seen out of the 1950s, a message to white families about black and brown families moving to the suburbs. To this point the polling has not suggested that’s working.”
Outrage against Dianne Feinstein as potential Judiciary chair comes out against Senate reform
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) received harsh criticism on Monday after coming out against Senate reform of the filibuster.
“I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose," Feinstein argued.
"It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself," Feinstein falsely claimed.
Feinstein is in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee if Democrats regain the Senate, despite never attending law school or having ever tried a case.
Lindsey Graham announces embattled Sen. Joni Ernst will vote for whomever Trump nominates to replace RBG
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday announced that GOP members of the body would be united in voting for whomever President Donald Trump nominates to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The nominee’s going to be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, as reported by The Washington Post's Aaron Blake.
If Graham is correct, that would mean that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) would be backing the nomination, despite trailing Democratic challenger Theresa Greenfield.
A Never-Trump Republican changed her mind — then crumbled when she tried to explain why
In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, Republican Danielle Pletka declared that despite the fact that she refused to vote for Donald Trump in 2016, she now feels compelled to support him in 2020. The piece quickly caught fire online, inspiring ridicule and sympathy from differing corners and triggering a surprising amount of discussion.
In one sense, it’s hard to see what the big deal was. The Post publishes opinion pieces in support of Trump frequently, and this one was not particularly special. Pletka herself is not a particularly notable figure. Like many op-eds, it was sloppy and unpersuasive, making huge leaps of reasoning and glossing over critical points in the argument. It didn’t take seriously any compelling counterarguments. It was, in other words, a mere display of partisan loyalty from a Republican who would prefer to be inside the tent than outside of it.