May 5, 2017


News and Views


TO QUOTE DONALD TRUMP, THIS IS A BIG, BIG NEWS DAY, SO I’M SIMPLY PLACING RELATED ARTICLES TOGETHER AND POSTING IT. 7:32 PM POSTING TIME.


http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-house-republicans-didnt-read-ahca-healthcare-bill-2017-5
A bunch of House Republicans admitted that they didn't read the GOP healthcare bill
Bob Bryan
May 5, 2017

On March 7, the day after the original version of the American Health Care Act was unveiled, House Speaker Paul Ryan told Americans where they could go read the 129-page bill.

"I encourage all Americans to read this bill online at readthebill.gop," Ryan said. "Go online and read the bill at readthebill.gop."

The day after the legislation finally sailed through the House, it has become apparent that many of Ryan's colleagues didn't heed his advice.

Several Republican House members have admitted after the legislation's passage that they did not actually read the bill, instead relying on staff or the media to understand its potential effects.

Rep. Chris Collins of New York told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he did not read the entire bill, instead relying on staff to do so.

"I will fully admit, Wolf, that I did not," Collins said. "But I can also assure you my staff did. We have to rely on our staff."

Collins also had to ask a reporter from the Buffalo News to explain a provision of the AHCA to him that would cut $3 billion in funding that goes to low- and middle-income New Yorkers to help pay for healthcare.

Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, who flipped his voted to a "yes" on the AHCA just days before its passage, told CNN that he looked at the bill but did not absorb all of it.

"I turned through every page," Sanford said. "As to whether I got through some of the detail in all the pages … I attempted to read the entire bill."

Sanford did say that he "thoroughly" read the amendments to the bill.

On Thursday, before the vote, Rep. Thomas Garrett of Virginia told MSNBC that he also did not read the bill.

"Oh, gosh. Let’s put it this way, people in my office have read all the parts of the bill," said Garrett. "I don’t think any individual has read the whole bill, but that’s why we have staff."

Republican leaders long criticized Democrats for supposedly not reading the the Affordable Care Act before that bill was passed.

The 129-page long AHCA had three amendments added totaling 15 pages. The Affordable Care Act and an additional reconciliation bill attached to it comprised 974 pages.

Ryan wasn't the only Republican leader to boast about how short and easy to read the bill was. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer even held up the ACA, comparing it to the AHCA's length during a press briefing.

"For all the people who have concerns about this, especially on the right," Spicer said. "Look at the size."

SEE ALSO: Senate Republicans signal they plan to scrap bill the House just passed and write their own
NOW WATCH: Yale history professor: Trump's path to tyranny is unfolding



INTERESTING SIDELINE – TRUMP’S UNETHICAL, AND POSSIBLY UNLAWFUL, INTERFERENCE WITH THE HOUSE ACTIVITIES WITH THREATS

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/23/politics/mark-sanford-donald-trump/index.html
Rep. Mark Sanford: Trump's threat on my seat 'counterproductive'
By Eli Watkins, CNN
Updated 12:03 PM ET, Sun April 23, 2017

Related Article: Sec. Kelly: Trump will 'be insistent' on funding border wall
Related Article: Republicans hope to avert shutdown, enter the week unclear on details
Video -- Sanford: Trump threatened me for opposing him 01:48
Story highlights:
Sanford was opposed to Trump's preferred health care bill
He said Trump had made similar threats to other Republicans


Washington (CNN) — A prominent Republican member of Congress on Sunday called the White House's threats to stir up primary challenges against those who opposed the GOP health care proposal in March "counterproductive."

Rep. Mark Sanford, the former South Carolina governor, said on CNN's "State of the Union" that White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former fellow congressman from Sanford's home state, delivered the threat to him from President Donald Trump.

. . . . DUPLICATE.

"He said, 'The President hopes you vote against this because he wants to run somebody against you if you do,'" Sanford said.

Sanford said Trump made similar threats "to any number" of other Republicans, adding that he viewed those threats as "counterproductive."

"I don't think it's particularly productive to his own legislative agenda," Sanford said.

Despite the threat, Sanford remained opposed to the American Health Care Act, the bill Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan backed to repeal and replace major portions of Obamacare. With the bill's failure imminent, Ryan pulled a scheduled vote in late March, saying the GOP would be "moving on."

Republicans have continued to negotiate a health care bill since then.

Sanford said a vote could happen at some point in the near future and cited loyalty to his constituents in explaining his opposition to the previous attempt at overhauling health care.

"It doesn't make anybody's day when the President of the United States says, 'I want to take you out,'" Sanford said. "I don't work for him. I work for about 750,000 people here in the 1st congressional district."

Sanford said it was more important for the GOP to get health care right than deliver a speedy political win for Trump.

"The idea of checking the box saying we dealt with health care but not taking into account both the considerations of the left and right on this one, I think, ultimately, (is) not my job," Sanford said. "My job is to watch out for the folks that I'm hearing from here at home."

Despite his indirect clash with Trump, Sanford denied he would attempt to turn the tables and primary Trump in the 2020 election. He said he was focused on winning re-election in his congressional district.



TRUMPTHINK IS BEING STRONGLY CHALLENGED AGAIN, AND THESE PEOPLE HAVE SOME TEETH!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-health-groups-denounce-ahca-health-care-vote/
By MARY BROPHY MARCUS CBS NEWS May 5, 2017, 10:38 AM
Prestigious medical groups denounce health care vote

Many of the country's most respected doctors' groups and consumer health organizations are decrying Thursday's vote in the House for a Republican health care bill that could cut health benefits for millions of Americans.

The bill, which passed by a narrow margin, is an amended version of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), a GOP plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Within hours of the vote, many of the country's top medical organizations representing hundreds of thousands of physicians and doctors in training, made public statements and spoke out on social media.

Health care CEO talks new bill, coverage in America
Play VIDEO
Health care CEO talks new bill, coverage in America

"Our organizations, which represent over 560,000 physicians and medical students, are deeply disappointed that the U.S. House of Representatives today passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), an inherently flawed bill that would do great harm to our patients," a joint statement from six medical groups whose members include family physicians, pediatricians, obstetricians, gynecologists, osteopathic physicians, psychiatrists and medical students said.

What's actually in the House GOP health care bill?

The six organizations that teamed up on the statement noted their members are the frontline physicians who provide physical and mental health care services to millions of Americans every day; the groups are:

American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Physicians
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Psychiatric Association American
American Osteopathic Association

Despite their efforts to educate lawmakers prior to the vote about the implications of the Trump-endorsed legislation, the organizations said, "Regrettably, the AHCA, as amended and passed by the House, violates our principles, dramatically increasing costs for older individuals, resulting in millions of people losing their health care coverage, and returning to a system that allows insurers to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. "

Trump, House Republicans celebrate health care victory
Play VIDEO
Trump, House Republicans celebrate health care victory

The bill will now head to the Senate, where lawmakers are expected to make substantial changes. The medical organizations urged senators to "promptly put aside the AHCA, and instead work with our organizations to achieve real bipartisan solutions to improve affordability, access, and coverage for all."

The American Medical Association issued a separate statement noting that it had strongly opposed the bill. "If the AHCA were to become law, millions of Americans would lose health insurance coverage, and the safety net provided by Medicaid would be severely eroded," the AMA said.

Dr. Andrew Gurman, president of the AMA, said people with pre-existing health conditions face the possibility of going back to the time when insurance companies could charge premiums that made access to coverage out of the question. He urged the Senate and the administration to work with physicians, patients, hospitals and other provider groups "to craft bipartisan solutions so all American families can access affordable and meaningful coverage, while preserving the safety net for vulnerable populations."

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
AMA ✔ @AmerMedicalAssn
#AHCA will harm patients & #healthcare. We're committed to working w/the #Senate to address flaws. http://spr.ly/60108gG4w #ACA
2:33 PM - 4 May 2017
268 268 Retweets 184 184 likes

The American Academy of Pediatrics also published a statement of its own, focusing on the bill's potential impact on children. Passage of AHCA is "putting into motion a dangerous policy precedent and clearing the first hurdle to reversing the tremendous progress we've made in children's health care coverage," the group said.

The rate of children's health coverage in the country is at a historic high of 95 percent, but "the AHCA would not only halt this progress, it would tear it down," the AAP statement said. "AHCA is bad policy for children and dangerous policy for our country, and the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to speak out against it."

View image on Twitter
Follow
Amer Acad Pediatrics ✔ @AmerAcadPeds
#AHCA just passed the House, reversing progress to #KeepKidsCovered. Our statement: http://ow.ly/G9k030brh1F
2:46 PM - 4 May 2017
647 647 Retweets 421 421 likes

Pediatrician Dr. Nathaniel Beers, CEO and president of the HSC Health Care System in Washington, D.C., told CBS News, "I think the initial reaction is just disappointment that a group of adults would not be willing to think about the implications for over 37 million children and their families."

Beers, whose health system focuses on children with disabilities, said, "The lack of awareness of what the loss of support for pre-existing conditions of services that school systems are able to bill for will have real implications in the quality of life and outcomes for kids."

The American Nurses Association, which represents more than 3.6 million registered nurses, also strongly opposed the AHCA, stating that it is "deeply disappointed with the passage of this legislation."

"Over the past several weeks, nurses from across the country expressed their strong disapproval of this bill which would negatively impact the health of the nation. Today, Congress not only ignored the voice of the nation's most honest and ethical profession and largest group of health care professionals," said ANA President Pamela Cipriano.

Some of the country's largest health organizations spoke out as well.

American Heart Association CEO Dr. Nancy Brown tweeted, "Very disappointed in #AHCA vote. We will not stop fighting for accessible, adequate & affordable health care for all."

Follow
Nancy Brown @NancyatHeart
Very disappointed in #AHCA vote. We will not stop fighting for accessible, adequate & affordable health care for all http://newsroom.heart.org/news/house-fails-cvd-patients-with-ahca-vote-says-american-heart-association#.WQt9UIbOVwY.twitter …
3:13 PM - 4 May 2017
69 69 Retweets 86 86 likes

The American Diabetes Association, which advocates for the more 29 million Americans living with diabetes and 86 million with prediabetes, tweeted, "We are extremely disappointed with the House's passage of the #AHCA."

A statement on the group's website elaborated on those concerns: "The most alarming last minute changes to the bill will allow states to waive the requirement for essential health benefits and health status rating. Weakening these rules will give insurers the ability to charge people with pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes, higher prices. It will also allow insurers to deny people with diabetes coverage for the care and services they need to treat their disease."

The American Lung Association tweeted: "#AHCA fails millions of Americans with lung & other serious diseases. We call on the #Senate to protect patients."

Follow
American Lung Assoc. @LungAssociation
#AHCA fails millions of Americans with lung & other serious diseases. We call on the #Senate to protect patients. http://bit.ly/2qwAPuk
3:50 PM - 4 May 2017
65 65 Retweets 33 33 likes

Rebecca Parker, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told CBS News, "We're pretty concerned that the AHCA passed in the house today, in particular providing the ability for states to waive essential benefits of emergency services. People can't choose when they're going to have an emergency and can't worry about whether they're going to be covered or not."

In a statement echoing those remarks, the American College of Emergency Physicians also noted, "In a recent poll, Americans overwhelmingly — 95 percent— wanted health insurance companies to cover emergency medical care, and we agree with them."

State health organizations voiced their concern, too. The California Medical Association (CMA), which represents more than 43,000 physicians in all medical specialties, warned that "this flawed policy will worsen both coverage and access to care for Californians, especially for Medicaid (Medi-Cal) patients, women and Californians living with pre-existing health conditions.

CMA president Dr. Ruth Haskins said, "Today the House of Representatives turned their backs on 24 million Americans and 3 million Californians who will be left without health coverage or access to care."




https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/if-house-passes-gop-health-care-bill-a-steeper-climb-awaits-in-the-senate/2017/05/04/26a901da-30bd-11e7-8674-437ddb6e813e_story.html?utm_term=.1b5174b25f0f
PowerPost
While House passes GOP health-care bill, Senate prepares to do its own thing
By Sean Sullivan, Paige Winfield Cunningham and Kelsey Snell
May 4 at 7:24 PM

Photograph -- There's a whole other set of obstacles the Republican health-care bill would face in the Senate. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

House Republicans journeyed to the White House on Thursday for a health-care victory lap in the Rose Garden, but Senate Republicans were in no mood for celebration.

Instead, they sent an unmistakable message: When it comes to health care, we’re going to do our own thing.

“I think there will be essentially a Senate bill,” explained Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the fourth-ranking Senate Republican.

“It’s going to be a Senate bill, so we’ll look at it,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

“We will be working to put together a package that reflects our member’s priorities with the explicit goal of getting 51 votes,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) reasoned.

What’s next for the Obamacare replacement bill VIEW GRAPHIC
What’s next for the Obamacare replacement bill

Now that the House has narrowly passed legislation overhauling the nation’s health-care system, the measure is headed to the Senate, where Republican leaders will wrestle with political and procedural challenges complicating chances for final passage.

Republican senators are signaling that their strategy will be rooted in crafting their own replacement for the Affordable Care Act. It remains unclear how closely that measure will resemble the one narrowly passed in the House on Thursday or whether Republican senators will resolve their stark differences.

A small group of GOP senators met Thursday morning in the office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to begin outlining their health-care priorities, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), McConnell’s top deputy.

“It was designed by the leader to be a smaller group of people that represent the different perspectives and points of view in our conference,” “If that group can get to ‘Yes,’ then [we will] take it to the rest of the conference,” Cornyn commented.

Cornyn would not commit to a timeline for a Senate vote, simply saying: “When we get 51 senators, we’ll vote.”

Republicans hold a 52-to-48 advantage over Democrats in the upper chamber, leaving GOP leaders with a narrower margin for error than in the House, where infighting among Republican lawmakers nearly derailed the push on multiple occasions.

Signaling the frustration some Republican senators already have with the House bill, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) posted a skeptical note Thursday on Twitter: “A bill — finalized yesterday, has not been scored, amendments not allowed, and 3 hours final debate — should be viewed with caution.”

Photograph -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), flanked by Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), speaks to the media this week on Capitol Hill. (Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)
RELATED: [Republicans plan health-care vote today, capping weeks of fits and starts]

Senate Republicans have opted to use a maneuver known as reconciliation to try to pass the bill with a simple majority instead of having to clear the 60-vote threshold required for most legislation. In the current balance of power, that would require Democratic votes. Even getting to a simple majority will be no small task.

GOP senators from states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, such as Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), have voiced concerns about rollbacks to that program in the House bill.

“Absolutely,” replied Capito, when asked if she has still has [sic] worries.

Meanwhile, a trio of conservative senators — Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — are also wild cards.

They have been willing to buck party leadership: Earlier this year, they pushed for a more-aggressive repeal of the health-care law than many of their colleagues favored.

[What is in the Republican health-care bill? Your questions answered.]

“I think that the House Freedom Caucus was able to make the bill a lot less bad,” said Paul. “I think there’s still some fundamental problems that I have with it.”

Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have already introduced an alternative plan, giving lawmakers a second measure to look at should talks over the current bill fall apart.

Then there are the procedural hoops Senate Republicans must clear, which could steer them to strip away some of the House bill’s signature provisions.

The measure’s original version, introduced in March by Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), already contained elements at risk of being struck out in the Senate under budget reconciliation rules that allow tax and spending changes but not broader policy changes.

That proposal initially left many of the ACA’s insurance regulations alone — with the goal of ensuring it would pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan officer of the Senate who decides on what may go in a reconciliation bill — but not all of them.

The version of the bill the House passed Thursday undercuts the ACA’s insurance regulations even more by giving states a path to opt out of federal requirements for insurers to cover certain “essential” health benefits — and to allow them to charge sick people the same premiums as healthy people.

The GOP bill would allow insurers to charge older Americans five times what they charge younger people, as opposed to three times as much under current law.

And it would enable insurers to hike premiums by 30 percent for people who don’t remain continuously covered. Health-policy experts, including conservative ones, have noted that the parliamentarian may decide those provisions need to be stripped out.

Additionally, members of the House voted on their bill before they received a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which measures how much the legislation would cost and how many people stand to lose coverage under it. Senate budget rules require a CBO score, and that proves the legislation will not increase the deficit after 10 years. the Senate parliamentarian can’t even start reviewing the AHCA without a score from the CBO, which is expected to take several weeks.

“I sincerely hope the Senate won’t mimic the House and try to rush it through without hearings or debate or analysis,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The CBO projected in late March that an earlier version of the GOP health-care plan would result in 14 million more people being uninsured in 2018 than under current law. It projected the plan would slash the federal deficit by $150 billion between 2017 and 2026.

Even if Senate Republicans pass their own version of a health-care overhaul, it would have to be reconciled with the House version, creating complications. And if getting House conservatives and moderates to pass their initial measure was a challenge, it could be next to impossible to get enough of them to sign on to whatever the Senate decided to pass.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus that Paul referenced, said he will not necessarily back any changes made by the Senate.

“Obviously, the upper chamber has their own personalities and their own agendas,” Meadows said. “Certainly, it’s their agenda and not mine.”

“If they revise it, there’s no way,” Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), another Freedom Caucus member, said earlier this week. Brat refused to support the Ryan bill until provisions were added for states to opt out of more insurance regulations.

“Have you been watching for the last few months how tight this is, and you’re going to shift this one or the other?” Brat said. “Good luck. You don’t have to be Einstein to game theory that one.”



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-law-enforcement-officials-concerned-russia-is-trying-to-discredit-fbi-probe/
Congress, law enforcement officials concerned Russia is trying to discredit FBI probe
By Jeff Pegues, Julia Kimani Burnam and Katie Ross Dominick
CBS NEWS May 5, 2017, 1:17 PM

CBS News has learned that members of Congress and U.S. law enforcement officials are increasingly concerned that Russia is already trying or will try to discredit the FBI counterintelligence investigation. The probe into whether Trump campaign representatives coordinated with the Russians during the 2016 campaign has been underway for about ten months. Former U.S. intelligence officials and current congressional sources say Russians will try to exploit vulnerabilities and spread misinformation as the investigation unfolds and as the FBI gets closer to a conclusion.

Multiple sources say Russian operatives are skilled at planting false information and watching it spread. Just this week, FBI Director James Comey testified on Capitol Hill that he believed the Russians were still meddling in U.S. politics and that he expected more Russian interference in upcoming 2018 elections and beyond.

The Senate Intelligence Committee continues its investigation into Russian meddling in the election and recently sent a letter to Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, requesting that he provide them with information including the following:

A list of all his meetings with Russian officials or businessmen from June 6 up until Inauguration Day; and the meetings he knows of between any Trump campaign affiliates who may have met with Russians;
Emails, text messages, written correspondence and phone records during that time frame involving Russian officials or businessmen and Page or other Trump campaign affiliates;
All information regarding his financial and real estate holdings related to Russia in the same time period.
In response, Page sent a letter to the top members on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sens. Richard Burr and Mark Warner deriding their "comically fake inquiry," which he also referred to in the letter as "pathetic Russia storyline fabrications" and a "fanciful witch hunt."

While he said he was committed to helping the committee in the investigation, Page told the senators that any "records I may have saved as a private citizen with limited technology capabilities" would be "miniscule," compared the information "collected under the direction of the Obama administration during last year's completely unjustified FISA warrant." He advised the committee that their requests "will have been largely completed" by the NSA's surveillance efforts.

Page pointed out that he had chosen the National Day of Prayer to respond to their requests because prayer in his church "has remained a core source of support throughout this ongoing comically fake inquiry and the complete lies that precipitated it."

In the letter, he also mocked the Warner's reading of Russian fiction -- Nabokhov and Tolstoy -- which was noted in a New York Times story last month. "A few months ago, Senator Warner was reportedly searching for new sources of insights about Russia," Page wrote.

Burr and Warner declined to take up Page's flippant suggestion to gather his information from NSA surveillance data, insisting again in a joint statement that Page himself "must supply the requested documents to the committee."



HUFF POST ON WAR POWERS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/100-days-trump-and-precaution_us_590396c9e4b05c39767f6706?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000314&yptr=yahoo
100 Days, Trump, And Precaution
04/28/2017 03:50 pm ET

William C. Banks, SU College of Law Board of Advisors Distinguished Professor & SU Maxwell School Professor of Public Administration and International Affair
David M. Driesen, University Professor at the College of Law, focuses on environmental law, law and economics, and constitutional law.

Environmental law embraces the “precautionary principle” as a guide for decision makers in dealing with uncertainty. The precautionary principle supports taking cost effective measures to address catastrophic or irreversible harm even before we have a complete understanding of an environmental threat, lest we act too late. We act on this common-sense principle when we look both ways before crossing a street or purchase insurance before a flood or hurricane occurs.

The precautionary principle may prove useful in managing the potential threats that an erratic and unpredictable Trump Administration may pose to national security in the next 100 days and beyond. Troubling revelations about the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia and Russian influence on the election dominated much of the first 100 days. Trump’s surprising decision to bomb Syria in response to a horrific gas attack on civilians and to claim that he was sending an armada to North Korea (when the ships were headed in the opposite direction) have commanded more attention than the Russian ties toward the end of the first 100 days, in spite of a new revelation that a special court found that the government had probable cause to believe that former Trump advisor Carter Page was a Russian agent.

Just as we often do not have a complete understanding of potential environmental threats that we must manage, we cannot know for sure what dangers the unpredictable Trump administration may pose to national security. Trump’s strike against Syria, while widely applauded as an appealing response to a horrific chemical weapons attack, may do more harm than good to our national security by further marginalizing the role of Congress in authorizing military force and causing Russia to repudiate an agreement to avoid interfering with our efforts to defeat Al Queda.

To what extent will Trump’s unconstitutional travel bans aid ISIS and Al Queda recruitment by suggesting that we disrespect Muslims? Will Russia dangerously assume that we will not defend the Ukraine because of Russia’s ties to Donald Trump? And how much damage may future impetuous decisions cause? We just don’t know.

Furthermore, impulsive unilateral measures can cause catastrophic and irreversible harms—the sort of harm that the precautionary principle is designed to address. the President’s bellicose threats to attack North Korea may make for good television sound bites, but they could lead to nuclear war. And by promising to send a battleship toward North Korea whilst it steamed off in another direction, Trump increased the odds of grave miscalculation by adversaries.

Instead of reacting to each new tweet and tick of the Trump administration we should take precautionary measures before irreversible and catastrophic harm takes place. The Constitution places the war power in the Congress precisely to prevent a single person from making decisions that imperil the country. Congress must now exercise its authority to explicitly limit Trump’s discretion to act unilaterally. Congressmen Edward Markey and Ted Lieu have introduced legislation to prohibit first strikes with nuclear weapons. Congress should hold hearings on that bill and consider other limits on Trump’s war power, such as geographic or enemy-specific limits on the use of military force. And, regardless of the views of individual Congressmen on the wisdom or desirability of the Syrian air strike or the evolving aggressive approach to Korea, they should reaffirm that President Trump does not have the constitutional authority to attack countries on his own unless they attack us first. That principle needs reassertion not just because of the dangers that Trump’s actions have already created, but because of our inability to know the scope of dangers to national security future impetuous foreign policy may create. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has made it perfectly clear that President Trump is willing to violate his oath of office by attacking North Korea without Congressional authorization, relying on his constitutional powers. The Commander-in-Chief has authority to direct troops in battle once Congress declares war, but has no power to initiate a war without Congressional authorization.

Trump’s ties with Russia and his praise of Putin also create the possibility that Trump may find waging war an attractive way of shoring up his own standing and of assuming more and more autocratic powers. The Senate investigation of Trump’s ties with Russia must be aggressive and Congress should authorize a joint bipartisan commission to investigate as well. And we should demand the release of Trump’s tax returns. Even if the horror of seeing “beautiful babies” slaughtered motivated the last strike, we need to know what private or foreign interests may influence the next one.