Beating Down Trump's Phony National Emergency

Yesterday, the House voted, 245-182 to void Trump's absurd declaration of a national emergency on the southern border. Every single Democrat voted for it-- as did 13 Republicans:

• Justin Amash (MI)
• Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)
• Mike Gallagher (WI)
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA)
• Will Hurd (TX)
• Dusty Johnson (SD)
• Tom Massie (KY)
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA)
• Tom Rooney (FL)
• James Sensenbrenner (WI)
• Elise Stefanik (NY)
• Fred Upton (MI)
• Greg Walden (OR)

Is your Republican congressman on that list? No? Why not? Nate McMurray is running for a western New York seat occupied by one of the Republicans who refused to vote to uphold the Constitution, Chris Collins, a zombie-like Trump enabler. Nate told us that Collins "has proven again and again to be unwilling to do anything that might conflict with the will of the President. His chief value is not conservatism; it’s obedience. Look at the record. He has shown that he will defend the President no matter how base, strange, or unjust the act committed. We can only speculate why, but what is certain is that Collins is denying the true emergencies that too many of the people of this region face-- lack healthcare, jobs, opportunity."

Don Bacon is another one who talks about patriotism but has always and will always put Trump before country. His Democratic opponent, Kara Eastman, told us that Bacon "clearly said that an end-run around Congress is 'not healthy.' Of course, he did not support the executive actions of Obama. Yet he then voted in favor of this manufactured 'national emergency' yesterday, despite the fact that we know border crossings and apprehensions were much higher under the George W. Bush administration."

Mike Siegel is running for a Texas seat occupied by Trump crony Michael McCaul, who was chair of the House Homeland Security Committee and was the congressional architect of Trump's family separation agenda and babies-in-cages policy. "No surprise, but McCaul would rather pass Trump's loyalty test than honor the United States Constitution," said Mike this morning. "This is a guy who fashions himself a 'security expert,' who three years ago gave public interviews saying a Border Wall is 'not the answer' to addressing cartel activity, but who now would give Congress' most fundamental power, the power of the purse, to an authoritarian megalomaniac."

Burgess Everett reported after the House vote that Senate Republicans unloaded their angst on Pence for many of the same reasons we just read from Mike Siegel, Kara Eastman and Nate McMurray. At a GOP lunch, he "faced a wall of resistance" as he begged pissed off Republican senators to stick with Trump. Pence’s robot-like pitch "did little to move wavering GOP senators."

As many as 10 Senate Republicans could support a resolution of disapproval if a vote were held today, according to four GOP senators who attended the lunch and heard Republican senators' complaints. That’s far more than the four needed to pass the legislation on a simple majority and force Trump to issue the first veto of his presidency. Currently there are three public “yes” votes in the Senate GOP conference.

...Trump’s supporters are confident that at least there aren’t 20 Republicans who will join 47 Senate Democrats to muster a veto-proof majority. Still, a rebuke by a large bloc of GOP senators would be an embarrassing result for the White House, and Tuesday’s meeting with Pence underscored the tensions lingering between the White House and Senate Republicans.

As the vice president stumped for Trump’s national emergency maneuver, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky argued to Pence that his party would be ceding the high ground on the issue, one of about a half-dozen Republicans to raise questions about the move during the lunch.

“The vice president pushed back,” said a source familiar with the exchange. Pence “gave the explanation that this diverges from DACA,” the source said, referring to an Obama administration action protecting some undocumented immigrants. “We would characterize it as a very productive discussion.”

"Sen. Paul had a friendly discussion with the vice president, that if we do go down this path it will damage our ability to be considered the party of rule of law," said a Paul spokesman.

...Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who previously warned the president against declaring the emergency, acknowledged Tuesday that there was a “fulsome discussion” at the lunch between GOP senators and Pence and Justice Department officials.

And the Kentucky Republican said he himself is not sure about the legality of the national emergency declaration, though he has previously vowed to support the president in a floor vote.

“The [DOJ] lawyer was there to make his arguments. There were some counter arguments. I haven’t reached a total conclusion,” McConnell told reporters. “I personally couldn’t handicap the outcome at this point … but we will certainly be voting on it.”

More than a half-dozen Republican senators are mulling voting for the resolution, though they are hesitant to become the deciding vote to defy Trump and make an announcement before they know exactly what they are voting on and how it might affect military projects back home.

..."I am very worried prudentially about the slippery slope that could occur, emboldening future democratic presidents to implement radical policies contrary to law and contrary to the constitution," added Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is undecided and has privately voiced skepticism of Trump's declaration.

And it was clear that Trump was doing little to convince the rank and file, despite a tweet Monday urging the party to hang together.

“I’m getting to the bottom of some stuff. But I don’t know yet,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) of his stance. He spoke to Trump over the weekend about disaster relief for his state and said the border emergency never came up.