Here are 10 ways the House GOP's hearing with James Comey massively backfired on Trump

For over six hours on Friday, former FBI Director James Comey participated in a voluntary, transcribed interview with the House Oversight and Judiciary committees. Republicans are enjoying the last few weeks of their House majority, and seem determined to use every ounce of power they have left before it goes away in January. But if their goal was to use Friday’s testimony to undermine Robert Mueller’s probe, they surely left Capitol Hill disappointed.

Keep reading...Show less

Former Republican is glad he left -- because the GOP's authoritarianism and hypocrisy are getting worse

In 2016, the Republican Party declared internet pornography a “public health crisis” and voted to insert that phrase into the official party platform. Republican delegates ratified that document at the very convention they would nominate Donald J. Trump, a man who allegedly had an affair with an actual porn star and paid her $130,000 to be quiet about it, to be their candidate for president of the United States.

Keep reading...Show less

Donald Trump's worst nightmare may come in the form of Rep. Elijah Cummings

An agenda is taking shape that could have a paralyzing effect on the Trump administration, as Democrats on the House oversight committee begin to take decisive action in response to recent revelations and the conduct of the president.

In the last week, the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), has requested documents to investigate how and why President Donald Trump revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan. Cummings also wrote to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to express concern over the appointment of Brian Hook to the State Department’s Iran Action Group despite Hook’s hostile relationship with employees in the department.

On Wednesday, Cummings wrote to oversight committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) requesting that he convene “a hearing with President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty to multiple federal crimes and implicated President Trump in directing these crimes.”

The White House and Gowdy will, of course, ignore Cummings’ letters and requests. To date, the committee’s Republicans have blocked 52 attempts by Democrats to force votes on subpoena motions. Without the power of the majority, Democrats have been relegated to spectator status as the Republican majority abdicates its oversight responsibilities to protect Trump.

Come November, however, the Trump administration may face a situation where there’s no Republican majority there to protect the president. For the first time, it could be facing legitimate scrutiny and oversight from the legislative branch and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (OGR).

The thing you should know about OGR is that unlike all of the other congressional committees, this one exists to serve as the watchdog of the federal government. OGR’s mandate is to investigate, not legislate. The chairman wields a tremendous amount of power, with unlimited jurisdiction and the unilateral authority to issue subpoenas and compel testimony for public congressional hearings.

Former Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), for whom I worked, issued more than 100 subpoenas to the Obama administration. To date, Gowdy has issued a grand total of zero subpoenas to the Trump administration. The OGR Republicans have refused to hold the Trump administration to the same standard of oversight we established during the Obama presidency. The committee’s Republicans have cravenly abdicated their oversight responsibilities, choosing instead to look the other way despite exhaustive displays of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.

But thanks to voters and Elijah Cummings, that might change.

When Republicans took the majority in 2010, Democrats elevated Elijah Cummings to the ranking member position to act as a foil to the hyper-aggressive Issa, who for two years in the minority ran roughshod over the mild-mannered Democratic Chairman Ed Towns of New York. Cummings was patient, strategic and most importantly disciplined. He was everything that we in the new majority were not, and it’s no accident that as time went on, Cummings’ stature grew while Issa’s shrank.

If Democrats retake the majority in November, Cummings will no longer have to rely on Trey Gowdy to call hearings, summon witnesses and subpoena documents. He will have the authority to pursue answers to all of his questions. To call hearings on any topic he sees fit. To depose any administration official he wants to question. There’s no question in my mind that White House chief of staff John Kelly will be the focal point of a hearing about White House security clearance procedures. White House senior adviser Jared Kushner will be asked to explain the questionable intersection of his government job and his business enterprises. Veterans Affairs chief Robert Wilkie will be called to testify about the relationship between officials at the department and members of Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago club.

The Trump administration will be put on trial and the full scope of its corruption will be exposed. Congressional hearings will be covered wall-to-wall on cable news, dominating news cycle after news cycle. Trump, more than any president in history, evaluates his success based on how the media covers the day. A barrage of hearings and subpoenas will have a deteriorating effect on Trump and completely stall the White House’s agenda.

Cummings is a forceful speaker and a deliberate operator. He cannot be bullied or intimidated. He will not be goaded into making a mistake. He has the tools and the authority to compel cooperation and documents. Unlike special counsel Robert Mueller, he cannot be fired by the president or dismissed by the attorney general. Make no mistake about it: Elijah Cummings could turn out to be Donald Trump’s worst nightmare.

Kurt Bardella is a HuffPost columnist and the former spokesman and senior adviser for the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee. Follow him on Twitter: @kurtbardella

Keep reading...Show less

I quit Breitbart because of the lying -- Sarah Huckabee Sanders should take a cue

Everybody lies. It’s just a fact of life.

We lie to our spouses when they ask, “Do you like my shoes?” and we say “yes.” We lie to our friends when we say we can’t go out because of another obligation when we’re really binge-watching “Game of Thrones” on the couch. We lie to our bosses when we call in sick to work when really, we hit it a little too hard at happy hour the night before. We lie to our kids when they ask us if a certain mythical creature who trespasses every Christmas Eve is real. When we are kids, we lie to our parents to avoid getting into trouble, even though it rarely works.

These “white lies” of course are completely harmless and can even be an act of friendship or love.

But what happens when your job requires you to lie or when you know your boss is lying to you? What happens when the lies you tell aren’t harmless, but are incredibly consequential?

This is the predicament White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders found herself in Thursday afternoon at the White House press briefing.

In the wake of Trump legal adviser Rudy Giuliani’s revelation that President Donald Trump reimbursed his attorney Michael Cohen for a six-figure payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels, Sanders was besieged with questions about her own statements to the press about the payment.

In March, Sanders was quoted in The New York Times saying, “I’ve had conversations with the president about this. … There was no knowledge of any payments from the president, and he has denied all these allegations.”

On Thursday, Sanders was confronted by the White House press corps with direct questions no spokesperson ever wants to hear: “Were you lying to us at the time? Or were you in the dark?”

It’s a fair question.

Either Sanders was lying about her conversations with the president in March or the president lied to her in those conversations. Neither answer is a good one if you’re Sanders.

There is always an inherent tension between the media and spokespeople like Sanders. The media always wants more information than what you may be willing or able to share. Just because a reporter asks you a question doesn’t mean they are entitled to an answer. Sometimes there are classified actions or materials in play that would be inappropriate and illegal to share in the public domain. Sometimes there are ongoing negotiations between different policymakers that would be undone if the media got involved prematurely. Sometimes it really is none of their damn business.

I’ve been on just about every side of this equation in my 10-plus years working as a spokesman in Washington.

I’ve leaked things to further a narrative that was politically advantageous for my boss. I’ve had to respond to things leaked by other people to derail our agenda. In one remarkable act of stupidity, I leaked emails to a book writer that ended up getting leaked to another reporter and cost me my job.

But what Sanders is going through right now reminds me very much of what I went through before I made the decision to resign working with Breitbart News in the wake of an incident between then-Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields and then-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

On the one hand, I was being asked to craft and put out statements to the media that painted a picture of a media company standing by its own reporter. On the other hand, Breitbart was publishing stories on its homepage undermining Fields’ story.

When you get to a point when you are being lied to, you know you are being lied to, and the reporters you are talking to know you are lying to them, it’s time to walk away.

I remember so vividly the moment I came to this realization.

When you are in a fight and under siege, your instinct, right or wrong, is to fight back. Sometimes you get so caught up in the fight, you don’t even stop to think if you’re on the right side of it because you just want to win. James Carville and Paul Begala once wrote that in business, 49 percent market share means you’re rich, but in politics it means you’re through. That’s why politics is so inherently nasty. If you lose, your whole career can be derailed.

And yet, in the midst of this national controversy with Fields and Lewandowski, I had a moment of clarity that changed the course of my entire professional life. After an insane morning, I finally had a few minutes to grab a shower. It was the first time that I could finally just stand still and process everything going on. And then it hit me like a lightning bolt.

“What the hell am I doing?” I asked myself out loud.

I literally jumped out of the shower, ran to my laptop, and at 2 p.m. on Friday March 11, 2016, I sent the Breitbart leadership an email resigning. I said at the time that I had reached the point where I could no longer represent them to the best of my ability, “and when you reach that point, it is time to move on.”

Sanders said on Thursday, “with all due respect, you actually don’t know much about me in terms of what I feel and what I don’t.”

That might be true, but the reality is by staying, Sanders is speaking volumes. As The Washington Post tabulated, in Trump’s first 466 days in office, he made 3,001 false or misleading claims. If Sanders is uncomfortable with lying and being lied to, why does she stay in the job that makes her the mouthpiece of a presidency that lies 6 1/2 times a day? Why doesn’t she find that moment of moral clarity, resign and, more importantly, speak out about the White House’s casual relationship with truth and fact?

I know better than most that walking away is not an easy thing to do. But at some point, you should be able to look yourself in the mirror and own the choices you have made. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is at an inflection point in her career where she can be remembered either as the person who helped Donald Trump lie every day or as the person who said “enough is enough” and did something about it.

This article was originally published at HuffPost

Keep reading...Show less