Senate Republican leaders are planning to put out a new health care bill this week, with revisions aimed at winning over enough holdout GOP members to get the plan over the finish line. The 52-member GOP caucus can only afford to lose two votes. But when Congress returned from its July Fourth recess Monday, several policy disputes remained — leaving the bill’s chances of passage in serious jeopardy.

As the Senate picks up the health care debate, here’s a guide to the make-or-break sticking points that stand between Republicans and their longtime goal of rolling back former President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Full vs. partial repeal

The years-long fight in Washington over the Affordable Care Act has always been about more than just health care. The law that Obama signed in 2010 was criticized by some on the left, but overall it reflected the Democratic Party’s preferred method of governing: it expanded the social safety net; introduced basic private sector regulations; and paid for the changes by boosting government spending and shifting resources from wealthy individuals and companies to the less fortunate. For conservatives, the law has always represented a costly federal overreach into Americans’ lives — the kind of government-driven, regulation-heavy solution that Ronald Reagan famously decried in his first inaugural address. At its core, the debate is as much about the size and role of government as it is about complex, nuts-and-bolts health care policy.

That’s why Republicans have struggled this year over how far to go in repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. Republicans promised to gut the law for four straight election cycles — going all the way back to the 2010 midterm election. But since President Donald Trump took office and the GOP began crafting its health care overhaul in earnest in January, the party has been pulled in opposite directions by its conservative and moderate wings.

The intraparty debate over a full-versus-partial repeal nearly sank the House GOP’s bill. The same dynamic has played out in the Senate, where conservative Republicans like Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah have tried to push the bill as far to the right as possible. Moderate Republicans have insisted on a plan that would stop well short of a full repeal and replace, while maintaining popular parts of the law like protections for people with pre-existing conditions and the rule allowing young people to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.

The final decision will be driven as much by politics as anything else — and if there is a vote in the Senate, it’ll be one of the hardest votes for Republicans in years. Some Republicans have already concluded that they’re willing to oppose the bill and face the backlash from the party’s conservative base. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., has said she would vote against the Senate’s current bill even if she was the deciding vote. “If I have to be that one person, I will be it,” Capito told Politico last weekend.

On the other side, Cruz and Lee are pushing an amendment that would effectively undercut the Affordable Care Act’s insurance regulations by allowing insurers to sell bare-bones policies that don’t comply with the current law. The proposal is a concession from conservatives: even with the change, the law would still keep the basic framework of the Affordable Care Act intact. But the proposal also amounts to a red line that Cruz and Lee appear unwilling to cross.

If in the end Republicans like Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., are partially responsible for killing the bill — along with some moderates like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — they’ll face questions from voters next year about why they failed to meet one of the party’s principal promises. They could also face anger from conservative voters if Republicans fail to pass a bill and are forced to negotiate changes to the existing law with Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a hated figure on the right. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has already dismissed a repeal-now, replace-later approach, and warned that GOP leaders would have to sit down with Schumer if this bill fails.

Medicaid

While the Senate health care bill would roll back some provisions of the Affordable Care Act, it would completely overhaul the Medicaid program. And over the week-long July Fourth recess, more Republicans came out against the bill’s proposed Medicaid cuts. Even some Republicans who consistently support the Senate GOP leadership’s policy agenda came out against the bill, among them Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota. Hoeven said in a statement that he does not “support the Senate health care bill in its current form.”

Although Hoeven focused on premiums and deductibles, he mentioned Medicaid while outlining steps to reform the health care system. In opposing the bill, Hoeven joined a growing number of Republican senators who have said they won’t vote for the bill since it was released last month. For most, Medicaid has been the main sticking point.

The Senate bill would cap and reduce Medicaid funding. Beginning in 2020, states would have to decide between receiving a block grant or a set amount of funding for each person enrolled in the program, which serves low-income people and the disabled. Under the current system, there is no cap on Medicaid spending. Republicans have long called for cutting spending on Medicaid, arguing that spending on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are the biggest drivers of the nation’s long-term federal deficit.

As part of the proposal, the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act would phase out by 2024. That change would cause 14 million people to lose their health insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Some Republicans who came out against the bill last month, like Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, represent states that expanded Medicaid under Obama’s health care reform, and covered hundreds of thousands more people. Nevada, for instance, had an 89 percent increase in monthly Medicaid enrollment after the Affordable Care Act took effect, the second fastest growth in the country after Kentucky, Kaiser found. Capito’s home state of West Virginia saw a 59 percent increase in monthly Medicaid enrollment after the law.

The resistance to the bill from Republicans like Capito and Collins reflects a long-established truth in Washington: once Americans start receiving a new social service, it’s hard for lawmakers to take it away, even when the policy — or the politics behind the policy — goes against their deepest-held beliefs. For that reason, the Medicaid cuts were a non-starter when the bill came out last month, and they remain a non-starter now as McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP leadership forge ahead with their health care plan.

Tax credits

The Senate broke from the House on the issue of tax credits, a feature under the Affordable Care Act that helps people cover health insurance costs. The House bill called for an age-based tax credit system, that would start at $2,000 for young people and go up to $4,000 for people in their sixties. The revised Senate bill would keep the current law’s tax credit system in place, by including subsidies based on income, not age.

But the bill would change the eligibility standard so that people earning up to 350 percent of the federal poverty line — but no more — would qualify for credits to help pay for plans on the health care exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act. Currently anyone earning up to 400 percent of the poverty line is eligible. The Senate bill would also lower the subsidies as people grow older, helping make the credits less generous overall than they are under the current health care law.

Democrats argue that the bill’s tax structure would lower premiums, but still keep them out of reach for many Americans. In its report on the bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that “despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan.” While some Republicans have defended the proposal, others — like Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota — have called for more generous subsidies.

The disagreement puts Senate GOP leaders in a difficult position. Raising subsidies, or taking other steps to move the bill to the left, would risk losing support from the caucus’ conservative wing.

Tax cuts

The Affordable Care Act raised taxes on high-income earners, drug companies, health insurers and medical device makers to help cover millions of low and middle-income Americans. The law included an 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income, both of which applied to individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and married couples who file joint tax returns and earn more than $250,000 annually.

Nearly all of the law’s taxes would be eliminated under the Senate bill, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on expensive employer-provided health care plans. To critics of Obamacare, the Cadillac tax came to symbolize the law’s excessive taxation and regulation. Republicans have argued for years that the law is a thinly-veiled redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom.

That argument was popular on the right back in 2010. But now, the tax issue is coming back to bite Republicans as they try to push through their health care bill. Democrats have characterized the bill as a give back to the rich that would kick millions of poor people off their insurance, and so far Republicans have failed to come up with a solid response. According to the Tax Policy Center, 44.6 percent of the tax cuts would go to the nation’s wealthiest 1 percent of households, which earn $875,000 or more per year.

Normally, Republicans could ignore or dismiss the criticism as run-of-the-mill liberal opposition. Senate GOP leaders have tried doing that. But the combination of a tax cut for wealthy people and the Medicaid overhaul has significantly weakened their position. The politics are bad for Republicans, no matter how they try to spin the bill. The bill’s fate isn’t riding on the tax cuts alone. But it makes a tough vote for Senate Republicans that much harder.

Opioid funding

The original Senate bill included $2 billion in funding to fight the nation’s opioid crisis. The new plan will reportedly increase the funding to $45 billion over the next decade. It’s a major jump, aimed at winning over senators in states with high rates of opioid addiction who remain on the fence on the bill. The higher funding level would also send a signal that the Senate is taking the issue more seriously, at a time when the opioid epidemic appears to be spiraling out of control, and after an election where the problem was a top priority for candidates on both sides of the aisle, including Mr. Trump.

But the funding is likely not enough to get holdout GOP senators to flip their votes. If the revised Senate bill also scaled back the proposed Medicaid cuts, the increased opioid addiction funding would be a sweetener that might convince a skeptical Republican to get on board. But without significant protections for Medicaid, several senators have signaled that they won’t vote for the bill, regardless of other concessions that McConnell and his team might come up with.

That isn’t to say that senators opposed to the health care bill aren’t invested in dealing with the opioid crisis. But with any major piece of legislation, lawmakers have to pick and choose their battles, and Republicans like Capito, Collins and Heller have decided that Medicaid is a priority. If the bill goes down in defeat, however, the opioid addiction provision could spur momentum for lawmakers to tackle the issue again in the future.

The post The 5 sticking points holding up the GOP health care bill appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

For many Republicans in Congress, President Donald Trump’s vulgar outburst at a female journalist Thursday crossed the line.

Yet as they expressed disappointment with the president for disparaging the physical appearance of MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski on Twitter, an all-too-familiar political reality for Republicans set in.

Whether they like it or not, when it comes to passing legislation, Republicans are largely stuck with Mr. Trump, controversial statements on Twitter and all.

To enact longtime Republican Party goals, such as rolling back the Affordable Care Act and cutting taxes, GOP lawmakers have little choice but to work with a president who has broken every modern standard of presidential decorum and respect.

“I obviously don’t accept what he says,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a brief interview Thursday. But Collins said that refusing to work with Trump and the White House was not an option.

“The president is still the president, and I will continue to work with him. But I implore him to stop issuing such inappropriate” comments, Collins said.

“I sure don’t like what I heard,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told reporters at the Capitol when asked to respond to Trump’s tweet.

Murkowski later sharply rebuked Trump on Twitter, joining a growing chorus of lawmakers, including Collins, who urged the president to reign in his behavior. “Stop it! The Presidential platform should be used for more than bringing people down,” Murkowski wrote.

In his Twitter attack on Brzezinski, Trump called her “low I.Q. Crazy Mika” and claimed “she was bleeding badly from a face-lift” during a visit to his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago. The tweet drew widespread criticism for being deeply offensive to women.

Republicans understand the political damage Trump’s tweeting has had on his image with voters. Trump’s approval rating remains stuck below 40 percent, the lowest for a new president in the history of modern polling.

According to a recent PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll, a majority of Americans believe Trump’s use of Twitter is “reckless and distracting.”

“The stronger a president is, the more influence a president has. And the lower those approval ratings are, the weaker a president is. That’s just the way the system works,” Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told PBS NewsHour.

But McCain said he remained focused on Trump’s policy agenda, not his attacks on Twitter. “A long time ago, I said I don’t pay much attention to what he says, I pay attention to what he does,” McCain said.

Democrats acknowledged the tough place Republicans find themselves in, as they seek to strike a balance between distancing themselves from Trump’s most explosive comments, and working with him on issues like health care.

“I really do think they’re very embarrassed by his conduct,” Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said in a brief interview, referring to Republican lawmakers. Trump is “the most powerful person in the most powerful country in the world, and his actions have somewhat cheapened the office,” he added.

Still, Republicans are dependent on Trump, Tester argued, making it harder for them to break with the president over his personal actions. “He is carrying forward their agenda,” Tester said.

The post For Republicans, Trump’s Twitter attacks pose unprecedented political challenge appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

A growing number of independent voters disapprove of President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy, as the president’s job approval rating remains stuck at historic lows. This is according to a new PBS Newshour/NPR/Marist poll, released Wednesday.

Forty-nine percent of self-identified independents said they believed Mr. Trump’s decisions in office have weakened the United States economy, the poll found. Just 31 percent said they felt that the economy has grown stronger under Trump.

In March, the last time the survey asked independents about Trump’s impact on the economy, 44 percent had a positive outlook, while 38 percent held an unfavorable view.

The shift represents a broader political problem for Trump: his inability so far to widen his base of support to include more independents and moderate Republicans, many of whom appear increasingly skeptical that he can deliver on his campaign promise to grow the American economy and create millions of new jobs.

Five months into Trump’s presidency, independent voters have “soured about how things are going economically, and are having doubts about what President Trump can do on the economy,” said Barbara Carvalho, the director of the Marist Poll.

The survey underscored other areas of concern for Trump, beyond voter attitudes about his economic policies. The poll of 1,205 U.S. adults was conducted June 21-25, and has a 2.8-point margin of error. Of those polled, 995 were registered voters.

Overall, 61 percent of U.S. adults said they believed the country was headed in the wrong direction. Fifty-six percent said they held an unfavorable view of Trump, compared to just 37 percent who view him positively.

The results largely broke down along party lines. Eighty percent of Republicans approved of Trump’s job performance, compared to just 8 percent of Democrats who felt the same way.

Still, the poll found that Republicans and Democrats alike are dissatisfied on a range of issues, including the Trump administration’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord, and the House and Senate Republicans’ plans to overhaul the nation’s health care system.

For Trump, the poll was the latest reminder that he remains unpopular with a majority of Americans.

Trump’s approval ratings have varied since Marist began tracking the numbers in mid-2016. In Marist’s first poll last July, just 30 percent of voters said they viewed Trump favorably. The survey was taken about two weeks before the start of the Republican National Convention, as Trump was emerging from a bruising GOP primary race.

Trump’s approval among voters has been higher in every Marist poll taken since then, but it has never reached a majority. So far, Trump’s best showing in the Marist poll came last December, when 43 percent of voters said they viewed him favorably.

That poll was conducted as Trump was preparing to take office, before a string of setbacks including court challenges to his travel bans and a widenening of the federal investigations into Russian meddling in last year’s election.

Since December 2016, Trump’s favorability among voters in the Marist survey has remained below 40 percent.

Trump’s approval rating in most major polls has consistently hovered at just under 40 percent, the lowest number for a newly elected president in the history of modern polling.

When Marist polled voters on President Barack Obama at the same juncture in his presidency, in June 2009, his approval rating was 56 percent, according to Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion.

“Not only is 37 a low number,” Miringoff said, referring to Trump’s approval rating, “but in comparison to President Obama, it clearly stands out.”

Laura Santhanam contributed reporting.

The NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll surveyed 1,205 adults from June 21-25 contacted by live interviewers using a mix of landline and mobile numbers. There is a 2.8-percentage point margin of error. A sub-sample of 995 registered voters were also surveyed, with a 3.1-percentage point margin of error. Read more about our methods here.

The post Independent voters sour on Trump’s handling of the economy appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Several Senate Republicans have announced their opposition to the health care bill unveiled Thursday, leaving the caucus short of the support it needs to pass the legislation ahead of a final vote next week.

Senate Republican leaders published the draft bill Thursday morning — making public for the first time the details of their plan to scale back the Affordable Care Act, a longtime GOP goal that President Donald Trump campaigned on last year.

But shortly after the bill was released, four Republicans — Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky — said they were open to making changes to the bill, but opposed the plan as it is currently written.

“It does not appear this draft as written will accomplish the most important promise that we made to Americans: to repeal Obamacare and lower their healthcare costs,” the group said in a statement.

On Friday, Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., who is up for reelection in 2018, also came out against the bill. “It’s simply not the answer,” Heller said of the bill at a press conference. “In this form, I will not support it.”

Senate Republicans hold 52 seats in the Senate. They need 51 votes to pass the bill, meaning they can only afford two defections and still use Vice President Mike Pence to cast the tie-breaking 51st vote.

But significant differences remain within the Senate Republican caucus on key parts of the legislation. “There’s a lot of misunderstanding and still a lot of things that have to be discussed and straightened out,” Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told reporters Thursday.

The current bill would cap federal funding for Medicaid, a significant change to the program that most health experts believe would lower overall spending in the long term. The bill would also phase out the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care act by 2024. The Medicaid expansion covered 14 million people, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

READ MORE: What’s in the Senate Republican health care bill

The plan would keep the tax credit structure under the Affordable Care Act largely intact, and give states flexibility in extending subsidies to help people who have trouble paying for health insurance.

Senate Republicans also left in place protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The House health care bill, which passed in May, included an amendment that would allow states to opt out of requiring insurers to provide coverage for people with the pre-existing conditions.

That provision in the Senate plan could become a sticking point once the House and Senate begin negotiating a final bill that could pass both chambers and be sent to President Donald Trump’s desk to be signed into law.

But to get to that point, the Senate must first pass its bill, a task that will require winning over moderate Republicans, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who have signaled opposition to any bill that would potentially strip health coverage from millions of Americans.

The Senate bill will also need support from conservative members, like Paul, who have said the House bill did not go far enough in repealing the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Paul told reporters Thursday that in order for him to vote for the Senate bill, it “would need to look more like repeal of Obamacare, and less like we’re keeping Obamacare.”

Republicans have made repealing and replacing former President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement a top priority for years. Mr. Trump campaigned on the issue, and has said that Congress must pass a health care overhaul before proceeding with other parts of his agenda.

Trump addressed the Senate health care bill briefly in comments to reporters at the White House on Thursday. “Obamacare is dead, and we’re putting a plan out today that is going to be negotiated. We’d love to have some Democrats’ support, but they’re obstructionists,” Trump said.

Democrats, in both the House and Senate, have been staunchly opposed to the Republicans’ efforts to overhaul the Affordable Care Act. The Senate bill is not expected to get any support from Democrats. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., signaled his opposition Thursday by highlighting sections of the bill in a series of posts on Twitter.

After the Senate GOP caucus meeting Thursday, a spokesperson for Collins said in a statement that the senator “has a number of concerns” about the Republican plan.

Collins will be “particularly interested in examining the forthcoming CBO analysis on the impact on insurance coverage, the effect on insurance premiums, and the changes in the Medicaid program,” the senator’s communications director, Annie Clark, said.

The Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the potential financial impact of legislation, said Thursday that it plans to release a score of the Senate Republican bill next week. The CBO projected that the initial House bill would result in 24 million people losing their health coverage by 2026.

Several senators on Thursday said they needed to read the entire bill before deciding how they would vote. The bill is expected to undergo changes before a final version comes to the floor. Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said he wants to hold a final vote before the Senate breaks for its July Fourth recess. A vote is expected next week.

It remained unclear Thursday if the bill could pass without significant changes. By midday, reports began circulating on Capitol Hill that at least three Republicans planned to announce their opposition to the bill.

“Obviously, we have a lot to look at,” Murkowski said Thursday.

The post Senate Republicans still lack consensus on health care bill appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Republican Karen Handel’s victory in the Georgia special election Tuesday dealt a blow to Democrats. The party wanted to deliver President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress a warning shot ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. Instead, Democrats are now winless in the four congressional races that have been held since Mr. Trump took office. Here are some takeaways as the dust settles on the most expensive House election in history.

Just being anti-Trump isn’t enough

Jon Ossoff’s campaign in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District was not devoid of policy or substance. The Democrat called for more research and funding for the biotech sector, a reduction in wasteful government spending, and increased investment in education, among other issues. But at its core, Ossoff’s campaign — for many of his supporters, donors and national Democrats — was about one thing and one thing only: opposing Trump. And that wasn’t enough.

It rarely is. Voters like to feel that they’re voting for something or someone. Barack Obama ran against George W. Bush’s record in 2008, but his campaign also had a set of unifying principles, however vague they might have been, that gave his supporters something to rally around. The same thing goes for Trump. Part of his message last year was that establishment politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton had failed; but he also ran on a platform of economic populism that motivated his base to go to the polls.

Of course, presidential elections are bigger and more complex than congressional races, not to mention off-year special elections. And sometimes, simply being against something is enough. In 2010, Republicans won 63 House seats — and retook control of the chamber — on a platform that largely consisted of opposing Obama and Obamacare. But in that case, the GOP had a specific Democratic achievement to oppose.

Trump is not linked to a comparable accomplishment, at least not yet. Until Republicans in Congress make progress on their legislative agenda, all Democrats like Ossoff have to rail against is Trump’s 2016 campaign rhetoric, and his stumbles and crises in office. The Russia investigations could grow into a potent campaign issue by this time next year. And there could be new laws for Democrats to latch onto when it’s time to vote in 2018, including, potentially, a Republican health care overhaul. Still, Ossoff’s loss demonstrates that Democrats will need to offer their own vision for the future, and it can’t just be NeverTrump.

Special elections aren’t the best predictors

For all the attention on the Ossoff-Handel race, it’s worth remembering that it was only one contest — and a special election at that. Special elections are a window into a narrow slice of the electorate, comprised mainly of hardcore supporters on both sides who don’t seem to suffer from election fatigue. After the grueling 2016 presidential race, many Americans were ready for a break from politics. The people who voted in Georgia’s special election had no such fatigue, and for that reason alone, they aren’t representative of the national electorate.

Special elections tell us some basic things about the political mood of the country. The Georgia race reinforced the political divides that defined the 2016 presidential election, and it highlighted the Democrats’ ongoing struggle to craft a strong campaign message. Those snapshots matter.

But when it comes to predicting the future, special elections often aren’t the best barometer. As the debate about Georgia’s race raged on social media Tuesday night, some observers noted that Democrats won the first seven special elections under Obama, only to lose dozens of House seats in the 2010 midterms. A lot can and will happen between now and November 2018.

Republicans can breathe easy. Sort of.

Handel’s nearly four-point win was a welcome sign for Republicans. The GOP would have had good reason to worry if it lost a seat the party has held since 1979. Top Republicans campaigned for Handel, including Trump. The party invested political capital in the race, and it paid off. From a purely symbolic perspective, the outcome helped Republicans maintain their undefeated streak during Trump’s first months in office.

Still, the party had to work hard — and spend millions — to make sure Handel could withstand a challenge from an unknown, 30-year-old former congressional aide. That’s not a great sign for Republicans as they prepare for 2018. Worse still for the GOP, Democrats generated a lot of energy around the race despite the fact that Trump hasn’t yet signed any major bills into law. The left’s energy could grow if Trump delivers on more of his campaign promises. The election was a win for Republicans, but it still pointed to potential weak spots for the party next year.

For Democrats especially, redistricting matters

The biggest political battle of the year (so far) didn’t take place in Atlanta’s politically moderate suburbs by accident. Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District belongs to a dying breed of moderate House seats. The reality is, there aren’t many left. In the midterm elections next year, Democrats will undoubtedly target the 23 Republican House seats that Clinton carried in 2016. But even if they won every single one, that still wouldn’t be enough for them to flip the House.

People on both sides of the aisle like to blame gerrymandering for the dearth of swing seats in the House, and the rise of partisanship in recent decades. There are other factors at play, including the unprecedented influence of outside political groups in local races like the special election in Georgia. Nevertheless, the Democrats’ outcry over gerrymandered districts will grow louder in the wake of Ossoff’s loss.

Both parties have a stake in the redistricting debate. But Democrats, as the minority party in Congress, have more to lose in the short-term if the status quo doesn’t change. That’s why their hopes of flipping the House hinge in large part on redistricting reform — and why liberals should thank Obama and his ally and former attorney general Eric Holder for making redistricting their top political priority under Trump.

It won’t be easy. Republicans will fight reform efforts, and redistricting is a convoluted issue that doesn’t pull at voters’ heartstrings. Holder, the chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, acknowledged as much this week, saying that “part of my job is to make redistricting sexy.” The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to hear a case on partisan gerrymandering will help. As the Georgia election showed, Democrats have a lot riding on the outcome.

Money talks

The Georgia election shattered spending records for a House race. Some $42 million was spent on television and radio advertisements alone. The overall cost of the race is expected to exceed $50 million. The previous record for a house race was $29 million.

All that spending likely had some impact on the race. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price won the seat by 23 points in 2016. Price vacated the seat to join Trump’s Cabinet this year. But it’s not clear exactly how much impact the money had in the end. If Democrats hadn’t poured so much money into the contest, would Ossoff have lost by as many points as Price’s opponent last year? Or would the race have been just as close, given the opposition on the left to Trump’s presidency?

It’s impossible to say. One thing is clear, though: the midterm elections next year aren’t going to be cheap. New spending records will be set, and voters in key swing states and districts will be besieged by T.V. ads and campaign literature. And when the polls close in November 2018, the 2020 election will kick off in earnest.

The post 5 important takeaways from Georgia’s record-breaking special election appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

President Donald Trump lashed out this week in response to news that the special counsel investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election had widened to include an inquiry into his possible attempt to obstruct justice.

“They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on Thursday.

There is no sign, however, that the inquiry into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is off the table. To the contrary, Robert Mueller, the special counsel, has assembled a legal “dream team” whose members have expertise investigating a broad range of illegal acts that fall under the general rubric of collusion.

But unlike obstruction of justice — which is clearly defined in the United States Code — there is no specific statute for collusion. Acts of collusion span the legal gamut, and include campaign finance violations, conspiracy, bribery, and fraud.

For investigators in the Trump-Russia probe, “the initial problem is, what’s collusion?” said John Hueston, a former assistant U.S. attorney who served as the lead prosecutor for the Enron trial. “It’s just a very broad, ambiguous term.”

In searching for evidence of collusion, investigators will need to decide which areas of the law to focus on, said Nate Persily, a constitutional law expert at Stanford University.

“People have been analyzing this as a national security issue, with the relevant laws being ones that deal with treason, espionage, or other related crimes,” Persily said. But the rules governing campaign finance in the U.S. could prove to be the best starting point, he said.

Federal Election Commission rules prohibit foreigners and foreign governments from spending money to influence American elections. The law works both ways: it’s also illegal for campaigns to accept financial contributions from individuals who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents, or from any foreign entities, including companies and governments.

If the Trump campaign or a pro-Trump political group accepted funds from a Russian source, that would represent an obvious case of illegal “coordination,” the official term under Federal Election Commission law that most closely resembles collusion, according to Larry Noble, who served as the agency’s general counsel from 1987 to 2000.

But the guidelines against coordination cover a wide spectrum of activities that go well beyond a clear-cut transfer of money from a foreign bank account to a campaign’s coffers in the U.S.

Foreign entities are barred from providing a campaign with any “thing of value,” such as useful information on a political opponent. In cases that don’t involve a direct transfer of money, there must be proof that a campaign understood the information it exchanged with a foreign entity would be used for the illegal purpose of influencing an election, said Noble, one of the nation’s leading experts on campaign finance law.

“Let’s say you meet a Russian diplomat at a party and you say, ‘We have a great campaign and a shot of winning if we can win the Midwest,’” Noble said, describing in hypothetical terms the type of conversation that might have occurred during documented meetings that took place last year between Trump campaign associates and Russian officials.

That exchange would not violate FEC law if the Trump campaign was unaware that Russia was trying to meddle in the election. But if the campaign believed Russia was interfering in the race, and went one step further by sharing information with Russian officials that campaign advisers knew could be helpful for Trump, that would constitute illegal coordination.

It would not matter who initiated the dialogue, Noble said. The coordination standard would apply regardless of whether Trump campaign officials shared the information unprompted with Russia, or Russian officials reached out to the campaign to request information they could use to meddle in the election on Trump’s behalf.

But even then, proving coordination, or collusion, under campaign finance law would hinge on the type of information that was potentially shared between Russia and Trump’s campaign.

The exchange of publicly available information before the Nov. 8 election would not violate FEC regulations. But an exchange of private or classified information, such as internal tracking polls or voter records, would be considered an illegal act of coordination.

Some legal experts believe the rules apply to the emails of Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign officials that were stolen and given to Wikileaks, which released them publicly in several waves over the final months of the 2016 election. U.S. intelligence agencies believe Russian hackers backed by the Kremlin stole the emails as part of a broader effort to interfere in the race on Trump’s behalf.

The stolen emails qualify as collusion under campaign finance law, because they provided a valuable resource for Trump, who touted the Wikileaks documents numerous times throughout the election, Robert Bauer, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, wrote in a recent essay on collusion regulations.

Given candidate Trump’s praise of Wikileaks and his public call for Russia to find more Clinton emails, “the Russians could only have been strengthened in the conviction that their efforts were welcome and had value,” Bauer wrote.

Still, proving other aspects of potential collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign might be more difficult to do under campaign finance law, Noble said.

The regulations include a media exemption that allows U.S. news organizations to express opinions of candidates, including ones that criticize or endorse an individual. It’s unclear if the exemption would extend to foreign media outlets, like the state-owned media organizations and twitter bots in Russia that are widely believed to have spread fake news online during the 2016 election in an attempt to undermine Clinton’s candidacy.

“When you start getting into the specifics of the law, there are some issues that are not necessarily resolved. And when you bring in foreign activity, you have to figure out how the law applies,” Noble said.

In examining the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, both during and after the election, the special counsel investigation will likely also focus on other areas of the law outside of campaign finance.

There are laws on the books against hacking, bribery and tampering with votes that could come into play in the Trump-Russia investigation. A failure to properly disclose financial transactions with a foreign entity — something Michael Flynn is reportedly under investigation for — could also fall under the broad umbrella of collusion.

Additionally, investigators could focus on bribery law if evidence turned up that individuals linked to Trump’s campaign were paid by Russia in exchange for promising future United States action on a specific policy, like lifting economic sanctions.

In this case, however, recent court decisions have narrowed the definition of bribery. It remains unclear if a promise made by a candidate or campaign official in exchange for payment from a foreign government would constitute a “quid pro quo” bribe under federal law. A similar deal by an administration official would be easier to prosecute, legal experts said.

And while the U.S. intelligence community and lawmakers from both parties agree that Russia meddled in the election, proving that Moscow colluded with the Trump campaign would have to be accompanied by clear evidence of intent.

The Trump campaign could be investigated for conspiracy, if the probe turns up evidence that it devised a plan with Russia to change the outcome of the election and then took concrete steps to carry it out.

If Russia came up with a plan to influence the election independently of the Trump campaign, but the campaign found out about it and “knowingly took a step to assist [in the effort], that could fall under what is colloquially called collusion, but would technically be called by a prosecutor aiding and abetting,” said Hueston, the former assistant U.S. attorney.

Under the statutes for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, investigators would need to show that the Trump campaign acted intentionally in a manner that broke U.S. law. But proving intent is often the biggest challenge for prosecutors in cases concerning collusion, legal experts said. The same challenge exists in investigations into potential obstruction of justice.

When it comes to collusion, it’s too early to know where Mueller’s special counsel investigation will lead, because there appear to be so many different angles to pursue, said Noble, who has worked in campaign finance law for four decades.

“I’m not aware of another situation where we’ve seen allegations of a foreign country being this involved in our elections,” Noble said. “If there’s evidence of collusion under multiple different laws or agencies, Mueller will look at all of them.”

The post Collusion is broad, murky and hard to prove appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

WASHINGTON — In an emotional speech on the House floor Wednesday, hours after a gunman opened fire on the Republican congressional baseball team, Speaker Paul Ryan called for a political detente.

“An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us,” Ryan said. “For all the noise and all the fury, we are one family,” he said, and added, “we are being tested right now.”

Ryan’s speech received a standing ovation from House Republicans and Democrats — a rare event in a chamber where both parties remain deeply divided over everything from health care and immigration to government spending and gun control.

But the surface-level bipartisanship belied political tensions over the shooting that emerged within hours of the attack, which injured House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, two Capitol Hill police officers, a congressional aide and a lobbyist. The lone gunman, James T. Hodgkinson, died later Wednesday of gunshot wounds sustained during the attack, officials said.

If Ryan is right that the shooting represented a test, the earliest signs suggested that members of both parties will have difficulty setting their long-term differences aside.

That became clear as House lawmakers gathered at the Capitol for a security briefing roughly four hours after the shooting took place at a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C.

The atmosphere was unusually tense, as lawmakers who had witnessed the attack described a chaotic shootout between the gunman and members of Scalise’s security detail.

Some House members who participated in the practice arrived on Capitol Hill still wearing their red baseball uniforms, without having had time to change.

The shootout “went on and on and on,” said Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., who was on the field and said he hid on the ground in the third-base dugout when the shooting started. “My back was turned to” the gunman, Fleischmann said. “I could have been his first victim.”

“I’m shaken up,” Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., who left the field shortly before the shooting started, told reporters. “My colleagues were targeted today by somebody who wanted to kill them.”

Duncan said the shooter approached him in the parking lot as he was preparing to drive to the Capitol, and asked who the players on the field were. Duncan said he told Hodgkinson that they were members of Congress.

“He asked me if this team was the Republican or Democrat team,” Duncan said. “I responded that it was the Republican team, and he proceeded to shoot Republicans. Take that for what it’s worth.”

READ MORE: Eyewitness video captures congressional baseball shooting

At first other lawmakers declined to say if they also believed the shooting had been politically motivated. But as the closed-door security briefing started, news reports began circulating that Hodgkinson’s Facebook page was filled with posts criticizing President Donald Trump, and praising progressive Democratic policies.

By the time House members emerged from the private security meeting around noon, evidence of Hodgkinson’s allegiance to Senator Bernie Sanders — which apparently included volunteering on his 2016 presidential campaign — was bouncing across social media, and the topic of politics and last year’s election was impossible to ignore.

“The presidential campaign we just went through has coarsened and made more angry the [political] debate,” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. There are “people who may take that tone as some sort of justification to act out.”

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said the meeting had produced a “clear consensus that the tonality of our public discourse has deteriorated, and that it’s incumbent upon the leadership of the country to try to restore a sense of dignity.”

Mr. Trump offered a measured response to the shooting in an appearance at the White House Wednesday. “We are stronger when we are unified, and when we work together for the common good,” he said.

Yet as the day wore on, neither Republicans nor Democrats offered up new ideas on bridging the political divide, and the parties’ differences on gun control in particular became clearer than ever.

On the left, Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called for tougher gun laws in response to the shooting. On the right, Republicans signaled they were not interested in being drawn into a discussion about gun violence.

“Now is not the time to talk policy.” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said. “I don’t see this as a gun control issue. The default to that would be a missed opportunity.”

Instead, the shooting sparked a debate among House members about their own security, and the safety of their staffs. One lawmaker, Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., said he planned to carry a gun at public events in the future.

Veteran lawmakers said the shooting might bring the parties together, at least temporarily. “People come together” in moments of crisis, said Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. But “it may not be lasting.”

The post House Speaker Ryan calls for unity, but shooting reveals stark political divide appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

]]> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/house-speaker-ryan-calls-unity-shooting-reveals-stark-political-divide/feed/ 0 The surface-level bipartisanship after the Virginia shooting Wednesday belied political tensions over the attack, which injured House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, two Capitol Hill police officers, a congressional aide and a lobbyist. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-paul-ryan-nancy-pelosi-address-congressional-baseball-shooting/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-paul-ryan-nancy-pelosi-address-congressional-baseball-shooting/#respond Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:07:57 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/?post_type=rundown&p=218933

House Speaker Paul Ryan said he was “horrified” by the shooting of lawmakers and staff at a congressional baseball practice early Wednesday morning.

“We are united in our shock, we are united in our anguish,” Ryan, R-Wisc., said in a speech on the House floor at noon. “An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.”

Appearing visibly emotional at times, Ryan called on his colleagues to come together and put political differences aside. “For all the noise and all the fury, we are one family,” he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi echoed Ryan’s call for unity.

The shooting “is an injury in the family,” Pelosi said from the well of the House, in a short speech after Ryan’s. She added, “we will use this occasion as one that brings us together, not separates us further.”

The brief remarks came roughly five hours after a man opened fire on a group of House Republicans practicing at a field in Alexandria, Va. for the upcoming congressional baseball game.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was injured along with several Capitol Hill police officers and a congressional staffer.

Scalise was taken to MedStar Washington Hospital Center for surgery. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif, said later that Scalise was out of surgery and in recovery.

President Donald Trump condemned the shooting in brief remarks at the White House. Trump also said that the shooter, identified as 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson, had died.

House Republicans said they plan to go forward with the game, which is scheduled for Thursday.

WATCH: Trump addresses shooting at congressional baseball practice

The post WATCH: Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi address congressional baseball shooting appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

]]>

House Speaker Paul Ryan said he was “horrified” by the shooting of lawmakers and staff at a congressional baseball practice early Wednesday morning.

“We are united in our shock, we are united in our anguish,” Ryan, R-Wisc., said in a speech on the House floor at noon. “An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.”

Appearing visibly emotional at times, Ryan called on his colleagues to come together and put political differences aside. “For all the noise and all the fury, we are one family,” he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi echoed Ryan’s call for unity.

The shooting “is an injury in the family,” Pelosi said from the well of the House, in a short speech after Ryan’s. She added, “we will use this occasion as one that brings us together, not separates us further.”

The brief remarks came roughly five hours after a man opened fire on a group of House Republicans practicing at a field in Alexandria, Va. for the upcoming congressional baseball game.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was injured along with several Capitol Hill police officers and a congressional staffer.

Scalise was taken to MedStar Washington Hospital Center for surgery. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif, said later that Scalise was out of surgery and in recovery.

President Donald Trump condemned the shooting in brief remarks at the White House. Trump also said that the shooter, identified as 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson, had died.

House Republicans said they plan to go forward with the game, which is scheduled for Thursday.

WATCH: Trump addresses shooting at congressional baseball practice

The post WATCH: Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi address congressional baseball shooting appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

]]> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-paul-ryan-nancy-pelosi-address-congressional-baseball-shooting/feed/ 0 House Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi Nancy Pelosi are expected to deliver statements about today's shooting at a congressional baseball practice. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/important-takeaways-comeys-senate-hearing/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/important-takeaways-comeys-senate-hearing/#respond Thu, 08 Jun 2017 19:49:38 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/?post_type=updates&p=218407

Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on “Russian Federation Efforts to Interfere in the 2016 U.S. Elections” on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. June 8, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein – RTX39OMX

Former FBI director James Comey did not drop any major bombshells in his much-anticipated testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. But the confrontation did reveal new information about the FBI investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, and it showcased the Republicans’ and Democrats’ approach to the controversy. Here are some takeaways from the hearing:

A punt on obstruction of justice

It was one of the most important questions coming into the hearing: Would Comey say under oath that he believed President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice by asking him to drop the FBI’s investigation into Michael Flynn? Comey quickly laid it to rest. Near the start of the hearing, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., asked him point-blank if Trump’s request represented obstruction of justice, one of the impeachment charges leveled against President Richard Nixon.

READ MORE: The special prosecutor Democrats want no longer exists

“I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Comey answered. He said the request was worrisome – a point he made in his written testimony – but declined to go further. “That’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel [Robert Mueller] will work towards,” Comey said.

Comey’s answer was a reminder that the biggest decisions surrounding the Russia investigations will be made by Mueller and others. From here on out, Comey will continue to play an important role. But the final outcome isn’t up to him.

Politics ruled the day

In his opening statement, Burr implored his colleagues to “keep these questions above partisanship and politics.” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the panel’s top Democrat, echoed the sentiment moments later. “This investigation is not about re-litigating the election,” Warner said. “It’s not about Democrats versus Republicans.”

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting.”

Their colleagues seemed to have a different idea. The Democrats and Republicans on the committee took two markedly different approaches in their questioning of the former FBI chief. Democrats focused on the behavior of Trump, his campaign associates and top administration officials. Republicans focused on Comey’s behavior, casting doubts on his actions and statements going all the way back to the 2016 campaign and his handling of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Republicans’ questions to Comey ranged widely from the Clinton email case to his note-taking abilities and failure to confront Trump over the president’s request to drop the Michael Flynn probe. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., noted that Comey seemed to have “serious concerns” about the president’s intervention in the FBI investigation. Yet “you had taken no action” to make that public, Blunt told Comey. He added, “Do you have a sense of that looking back, that that was a mistake?” “No,” Comey said.

But the exchange and others like it reinforced the view, held by many on the right, that Comey can’t be trusted. To that end, a conservative group launched campaign-style television ads Thursday morning attacking Comey ahead of the hearing. The attacks likely won’t impact Comey’s reputation in Washington, where he is widely seen as a respected public servant. But the ads and Republican line of questioning at the hearing won’t help Comey’s reputation outside the Beltway— and that could have a big impact on his credibility as the investigations continue.

Was Trump’s request on Flynn a direct order?

According to Comey’s memo and written testimony, Trump told Comey that it was his “hope” Comey would drop the Flynn investigation. On Thursday, Republicans honed in on the word, and argued that it did not amount to a direct order on Trump’s part.

But the exchange and others like it reinforced the view, held by many on the right, that Comey can’t be trusted.

At one point, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Comey: “Did [Trump] order you” to drop the investigation into Flynn? “No,” Comey acknowledged, the words were “not an order.” But he said that, in the private, Oval Office conversation with the president of the United States, “I took it as a direction.”

Right now, the debate over obstruction of justice hinges on Trump’s conversations with Comey, so every word matters. And Comey’s testimony left plenty of room for interpretation, depending on your political persuasion. While the Democrats on the committee made clear they were concerned by Trump’s request, the Republicans suggested they were open to reaching a different conclusion.

Sen. Roy Lankford, R-Okla., asked Comey if he was aware of Trump making the Flynn request to any other intelligence official. When Comey said he didn’t think so, Lankford answered, “This seems like a pretty light touch to drop it.” Special Counsel Mueller will make the ultimate determination. But it was a signal from Republicans – at least for now – that they’re willing to live with Trump’s behavior.

Comey called Trump a liar

Public officials rarely call a president a liar outright— but Comey made it clear that he thinks Trump has a habit of not telling the truth. When asked by Warner why he took notes on his conversations with Trump, Comey answered:

“The nature of the person. I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting.” Comey added that because of the gravity of the topics being discussed with Trump, he “knew that there might come a day where I would need a record” of their talks.

Comey went on to say that he did not feel a need to document the three one-on-one conversations he had with Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, a point he also made in his written testimony. “The combination of those factors just wasn’t there with President Bush or President Obama,” he said.

The message was clear: Comey trusted Bush and Obama, and does not trust Trump. That Comey thought Trump had a propensity to lie was clear before the hearing. But Comey’s blunt public confirmation was his strongest personal criticism of Trump at the hearing. Comey also pushed back on Trump’s claims that he had lost the confidence of the agents at the FBI. “Lies, plain and simple,” Comey said.

The remarks likely stung a president who is known to focus on perceived slights and harbor deep personal grudges. If Trump disliked Comey before the hearing, being called a liar probably only made things worse. The question is, will Trump shelve his personal feelings about Comey, or let them influence his behavior? As a candidate and president, Trump has feuded with individual political opponents and reporters, sometimes using ugly language that sparked distracting headlines.

Comey hoped memo leak would lead to special counsel

Comey acknowledged that he shared his memo of the Feb. 14 meeting with Trump — in which the president asked him to drop the Flynn investigation — to a friend who works as a professor at Columbia Law School. “I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” Comey said.

It was a frank admission on Comey’s part that, after he was fired, he hoped the scope of the Russia investigation would be expanded— and that he took concrete action to further that goal. The comment showed a willingness on Comey’s part to be honest about his motivations. But it also opened him up to further criticism from the right that the Russia probes are a political witch hunt aimed at hurting Trump.

The special counsel has Comey’s memos. Senate investigators do not

Comey revealed for the first time that he handed all of his memos over to Mueller, the special counsel. That puts Mueller one step ahead of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has still not received the documents from Comey. Comey said he was open to releasing his memos more widely. He also said he hoped that, if Trump taped their conversations, the president would release the recordings.

“I’ve seen the tweet about tapes,” Comey said. “Lordy, I hope there are tapes.”

The post Important takeaways from Comey’s Senate hearing appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

]]>

Former FBI director James Comey did not drop any major bombshells in his much-anticipated testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. But the confrontation did reveal new information about the FBI investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, and it showcased the Republicans’ and Democrats’ approach to the controversy. Here are some takeaways from the hearing:

A punt on obstruction of justice

It was one of the most important questions coming into the hearing: Would Comey say under oath that he believed President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice by asking him to drop the FBI’s investigation into Michael Flynn? Comey quickly laid it to rest. Near the start of the hearing, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., asked him point-blank if Trump’s request represented obstruction of justice, one of the impeachment charges leveled against President Richard Nixon.

READ MORE: The special prosecutor Democrats want no longer exists

“I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Comey answered. He said the request was worrisome – a point he made in his written testimony – but declined to go further. “That’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel [Robert Mueller] will work towards,” Comey said.

Comey’s answer was a reminder that the biggest decisions surrounding the Russia investigations will be made by Mueller and others. From here on out, Comey will continue to play an important role. But the final outcome isn’t up to him.

Politics ruled the day

In his opening statement, Burr implored his colleagues to “keep these questions above partisanship and politics.” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the panel’s top Democrat, echoed the sentiment moments later. “This investigation is not about re-litigating the election,” Warner said. “It’s not about Democrats versus Republicans.”

Their colleagues seemed to have a different idea. The Democrats and Republicans on the committee took two markedly different approaches in their questioning of the former FBI chief. Democrats focused on the behavior of Trump, his campaign associates and top administration officials. Republicans focused on Comey’s behavior, casting doubts on his actions and statements going all the way back to the 2016 campaign and his handling of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Republicans’ questions to Comey ranged widely from the Clinton email case to his note-taking abilities and failure to confront Trump over the president’s request to drop the Michael Flynn probe. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., noted that Comey seemed to have “serious concerns” about the president’s intervention in the FBI investigation. Yet “you had taken no action” to make that public, Blunt told Comey. He added, “Do you have a sense of that looking back, that that was a mistake?” “No,” Comey said.

But the exchange and others like it reinforced the view, held by many on the right, that Comey can’t be trusted. To that end, a conservative group launched campaign-style television ads Thursday morning attacking Comey ahead of the hearing. The attacks likely won’t impact Comey’s reputation in Washington, where he is widely seen as a respected public servant. But the ads and Republican line of questioning at the hearing won’t help Comey’s reputation outside the Beltway— and that could have a big impact on his credibility as the investigations continue.

Was Trump’s request on Flynn a direct order?

According to Comey’s memo and written testimony, Trump told Comey that it was his “hope” Comey would drop the Flynn investigation. On Thursday, Republicans honed in on the word, and argued that it did not amount to a direct order on Trump’s part.

At one point, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Comey: “Did [Trump] order you” to drop the investigation into Flynn? “No,” Comey acknowledged, the words were “not an order.” But he said that, in the private, Oval Office conversation with the president of the United States, “I took it as a direction.”

Right now, the debate over obstruction of justice hinges on Trump’s conversations with Comey, so every word matters. And Comey’s testimony left plenty of room for interpretation, depending on your political persuasion. While the Democrats on the committee made clear they were concerned by Trump’s request, the Republicans suggested they were open to reaching a different conclusion.

Sen. Roy Lankford, R-Okla., asked Comey if he was aware of Trump making the Flynn request to any other intelligence official. When Comey said he didn’t think so, Lankford answered, “This seems like a pretty light touch to drop it.” Special Counsel Mueller will make the ultimate determination. But it was a signal from Republicans – at least for now – that they’re willing to live with Trump’s behavior.

Comey called Trump a liar

Public officials rarely call a president a liar outright— but Comey made it clear that he thinks Trump has a habit of not telling the truth. When asked by Warner why he took notes on his conversations with Trump, Comey answered:

“The nature of the person. I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting.” Comey added that because of the gravity of the topics being discussed with Trump, he “knew that there might come a day where I would need a record” of their talks.

Comey went on to say that he did not feel a need to document the three one-on-one conversations he had with Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, a point he also made in his written testimony. “The combination of those factors just wasn’t there with President Bush or President Obama,” he said.

The message was clear: Comey trusted Bush and Obama, and does not trust Trump. That Comey thought Trump had a propensity to lie was clear before the hearing. But Comey’s blunt public confirmation was his strongest personal criticism of Trump at the hearing. Comey also pushed back on Trump’s claims that he had lost the confidence of the agents at the FBI. “Lies, plain and simple,” Comey said.

The remarks likely stung a president who is known to focus on perceived slights and harbor deep personal grudges. If Trump disliked Comey before the hearing, being called a liar probably only made things worse. The question is, will Trump shelve his personal feelings about Comey, or let them influence his behavior? As a candidate and president, Trump has feuded with individual political opponents and reporters, sometimes using ugly language that sparked distracting headlines.

Comey hoped memo leak would lead to special counsel

Comey acknowledged that he shared his memo of the Feb. 14 meeting with Trump — in which the president asked him to drop the Flynn investigation — to a friend who works as a professor at Columbia Law School. “I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” Comey said.

It was a frank admission on Comey’s part that, after he was fired, he hoped the scope of the Russia investigation would be expanded— and that he took concrete action to further that goal. The comment showed a willingness on Comey’s part to be honest about his motivations. But it also opened him up to further criticism from the right that the Russia probes are a political witch hunt aimed at hurting Trump.

The special counsel has Comey’s memos. Senate investigators do not

Comey revealed for the first time that he handed all of his memos over to Mueller, the special counsel. That puts Mueller one step ahead of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has still not received the documents from Comey. Comey said he was open to releasing his memos more widely. He also said he hoped that, if Trump taped their conversations, the president would release the recordings.

“I’ve seen the tweet about tapes,” Comey said. “Lordy, I hope there are tapes.”

The post Important takeaways from Comey’s Senate hearing appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Former FBI director James Comey is scheduled to testify publicly before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday in one of the most highly-anticipated hearings in Washington in recent memory. Senators are expected to ask Comey if President Donald Trump tried to block the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s possible ties to his 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump fired Comey last month. Here are things we’ll be watching at the hearing.

PBS NewsHour will stream Comey’s hearing live starting at 10 a.m. EST Thursday. Watch in the player above. NewsHour will also run a live on-air special for the duration of his testimony.

Will Comey confirm the memo?

Comey will surely be asked about the memo he wrote after a meeting with Trump on Feb. 14. In the memo, Comey wrote that the president asked him to drop the FBI’s investigation into ties between Russia and Michael Flynn, who resigned as national security adviser the previous day over questions about his own ties to Russian officials.

Trump has denied making the request. But the memo is one of several detailed reports Comey reportedly wrote after speaking with Trump in order to document the conversations. The contrasting accounts of the meeting have pitted the president’s word against that of a former top law enforcement official.

Feinstein: Comey memos will be turned over one way or another

Comey’s description of the February meeting with Trump will be one of the most riveting, and important, moments of the hearing. If Comey confirms his story under oath, it would be a sharp rebuke of Trump and top White House officials, who have also denied that the president tried to have the Flynn case dropped.

Moreover, if Comey doubles down on his version of events, he would go on record with the claim that Trump may have acted illegally. Many legal experts believe that Trump’s request to Comey qualifies as an attempt to obstruct justice under federal law. It will be interesting to see how far Comey goes at the hearing: Will he essentially accuse Trump of obstruction of justice, or will he stop short of leveling that charge?

How much will Comey reveal in public?

Once the public hearing is over, Comey is slated to testify at a private afternoon closed session with the Senate Intelligence Committee. The schedule raises a key question: How much will Comey feel comfortable revealing in public, and how much will he save for the hearing behind closed doors?

Several factors will weigh into Comey’s approach. The scope of the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and its possible ties to Trump’s campaign — which is now being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller — includes the circumstances surrounding Comey’s firing. That means Comey will be asked to comment on an open, ongoing FBI probe that could potentially result in criminal charges down the line.

Additionally, some of the information that senators may wish to ask might be classified. Comey can speak more freely now than if he were still the director of the FBI. But it remains unclear exactly how much and what kind of information Comey can share in public as a private citizen who until very recently had access to some of the government’s top secrets. The opening round of questions at the public hearing will be telling, as Comey could signal early on how much he plans on opening up.

What approach will Republicans take?

Up until now, the Senate investigations into Russia have been smooth, bipartisan affairs. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has worked closely with the panel’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. But the Comey hearing is the most high-profile moment yet in the investigations. Republicans will be forced, on live national television, to give some indication of the direction of their investigation.

READ MORE: Obstruction of justice, explained

This puts Republicans on the panel in somewhat of a bind. The Russia-Trump controversy has been a major distraction for Republicans in Congress, who are eager to move forward with their legislative agenda. But appearing impatient at the Comey hearing would risk signaling a lack of concern about the possibility that Russia interfered with the election and colluded with Trump’s campaign to help him win. On the other hand, if Republicans go too far in the opposite direction — by appearing highly critical of the president — they risk angering Trump, who will certainly be following the hearing closely and could lash out on social media.

That leaves a third, middle-of-the-road option: calling for all the facts and refusing to rush to any conclusions. Most Republicans have fallen back on that strategy so far. That will likely continue at the hearing on Thursday.

Will Democrats use the “I” word?

Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee will face a similar dilemma. Since Trump took office, party leaders have faced tremendous pressure to oppose the administration’s every move. That has extended to the investigations over the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia, with some lawmakers on the left calling for impeachment proceedings against the president.

READ MORE: The complete Watergate timeline (it took longer than you realize)

But sounding the alarm so early has political downsides. The investigations are still open, and the special counsel probe is only just getting underway. If Democrats question Comey too aggressively, they risk playing into Trump’s claims that the entire affair is a political “witch hunt.” For that reason, Democrats have tried so far to strike a cautious tone. If one or more decide to throw caution aside on Thursday, it would significantly ramp up the drama.

Will Trump tweet?

The president is known to watch a lot of cable news— and then tweet out his reactions to the coverage, occasionally in real time. It’s unclear if Trump will watch Thursday’s hearing live. If he does, his running commentary could become an important side story. Even if he doesn’t, and is briefed on the hearing afterwards, he could still take to Twitter to share his thoughts.

WATCH LIVE: James Comey to testify in Senate hearing on Russia

The post What to watch for in Comey’s Senate testimony appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Amid the controversy over James Comey’s firing and the Russia investigations, President Donald Trump’s critics — most notably Rep. Al Green, D-Texas — have already begun calling for his impeachment. But it could take months, if not longer, for Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller to finish their investigations into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and connections to Mr. Trump’s campaign. Which means the final outcome could still be a long way off.

Critics have been quick to compare the controversy surrounding the White House and Russia to the Watergate scandal that forced President Richard Nixon to resign. But the Watergate drama took longer to unfold — more than two years — than many people may remember. Here’s a quick refresher of the events that led to Nixon’s resignation, along with a reminder that despite the recent pace of news in Washington, political crises are often slow-burning affairs.

June 17, 1972

Five men are arrested while trying to bug the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters at the Watergate, a hotel and office building in Washington, D.C. A day later, White House press secretary Ronald Ziegler famously called the Watergate break-in a “third-rate burglary.” At a press conference June 22, President Nixon denied that the White House was involved in the incident.

Aug. 1, 1972

The Washington Post reported that a $25,000 check intended for Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign was deposited in the bank account of one of the Watergate burglars. It was one of the first developments linking the DNC break-in to Nixon’s campaign.

Oct. 10, 1972

The Post reports the FBI had concluded the Watergate break-in was part of a broader spying effort connected to Nixon’s campaign. News of the FBI’s findings came two weeks after the Post reported that former Attorney General John Mitchell, who stepped down earlier that year, had controlled a secret fund that paid for spying on the Democratic Party.

Jan. 8, 1973

The trial for the Watergate break-in begins.

Jan. 30, 1973

G. Gordon Liddy, a former Nixon aide, and James McCord, a one-time Nixon aide and former CIA operative, are convicted for their role in spearheading the Watergate break-in.

April 30, 1973

The scandal reaches the White House, as senior White House aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman resign over Watergate. Attorney General Richard Kleindienst also resigns, and John Dean, the White House counsel, gets fired.

May 18, 1973

Attorney General Elliot Richardson appoints Archibald Cox as special prosecutor to lead the investigation into Nixon’s reelection campaign and Watergate. Cox was a respected attorney and law professor, and had served as the United States solicitor general under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

READ MORE: The ‘special prosecutor’ Democrats want no longer exists

Cox’s appointment comes one day after the Senate Watergate Committee begins its public hearings on the scandal. The committee’s hearings are nationally televised and, along with Cox’s investigation, marke a new phase in the Watergate scandal. It is at these Senate hearings that then-Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn., asks one of the most famous questions in American politics: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

July 23, 1973

Nixon, who taped his conversations and calls in office, refuses to give Cox and Senate Watergate investigators the recordings, which became known as the “Nixon tapes.” The tapes were believed to contain critical evidence of a cover-up of Nixon’s involvement in the break-in; the previous month, Dean, the former White House counsel, acknowledged that he had talked with Nixon about the Watergate matter dozens of times. After Nixon refused to turn the tapes over, both Cox and Senate investigators issue subpoenas for the material.

Oct. 20, 1973

The day that becomes known as the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resign in the same night after refusing Nixon’s order to fire Cox. Robert Bork, the solicitor general who was acting as attorney general, then followed Nixon’s order and fired Cox. Nixon’s push to oust Cox, who was leading the independent investigation into the White House misconduct, sparked intense criticism across the political spectrum. Four weeks later, on Nov. 17, Nixon issued his memorable denial: “I’m not a crook.”

May 9, 1974

The House Judiciary Committee starts impeachment proceedings against Nixon.

July 24, 1974

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court orders Nixon to release the tape recordings. The decision came two months after the White House gave the House Judiciary Committee edited transcripts of Nixon’s conversations, but did not turn over the actual tapes.

July 27-30, 1974

The House Judiciary Committee passes three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, misuse of power and contempt of Congress. By approving the charges, the committee sent the impeachment to the floor for a full House vote, but it never occurred.

Aug. 8, 1974

Nixon resigns. In his resignation speech, Nixon said: “I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as president, I must put the interest of America first.”

The post The complete Watergate timeline (it took longer than you realize) appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

For most politicians, comparisons to Watergate are a sure sign of trouble. But President Donald Trump, as he has often reminded the American public, is not your average politician.

Mr. Trump put that claim to the test this month by firing the director of the FBI. The move drew immediate comparisons to Richard Nixon’s dismissal of Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating his presidency, after an extraordinary turn of events known in Washington shorthand as the “Saturday Night Massacre.”

James Comey’s firing and the whiplash pace of developments since then, including the appointment of a special counsel last week, bears some resemblance to Watergate. But it’s still too soon to tell how much the scandals have in common.

At this early stage, the differences between the Nixon and Trump eras stand out more than the similarities. The Comey firing and Russia investigations form a case study of the massive shifts in U.S. politics and media since the early 1970s.

The biggest change has to do with political polarization. The country is much more divided than it was four decades ago, and this fact will play a key role in determining how Trump’s current crisis plays out. In the end, the political division that Trump fomented as a candidate could help save his presidency.

Partisanship will shape the debate in two separate arenas: on Capitol Hill, and in the court of public opinion.

When the Watergate break-in took place, Republicans held the White House, and Democrats were in control of Congress. As a result, Nixon’s party was powerless to stop Democrats from initiating impeachment proceedings. Republicans also had less incentive to protect the president at all costs.

At the time, Republicans had a smaller “stake in keeping Nixon at the helm in order to pursue their policy agenda,” said Robert Shapiro, a political science professor at Columbia University.

“Now, Republican leaders in Congress have a huge incentive to stick by Trump because they have a legislative agenda to push through,” Shapiro said. “And they’re willing to ignore all else to see that happen.”

Republicans could potentially survive this crisis with their majority in Congress intact. They would retain their hold on the White House as well, if Trump resigned or was impeached for obstruction of justice or another charge in connection to the congressional and special counsel investigations into potential collusion between Russia and his 2016 campaign.

But a real fight over Trump’s hold on power would bring legislative activity in Congress to a halt. And while some Republicans would welcome the chance to install Vice President Mike Pence in the Oval Office, the process of replacing Trump would exact a heavy toll on the party. Republicans are already struggling to make progress on issues like health care and tax reform, and the partisan atmosphere in Washington today pales in comparison to a full-blown impeachment drama.

Then there is the issue of public opinion.

In Nixon’s case, “it took a lot of information, a lot of revelations and a lot of time until he lost” the backing of Republican lawmakers and his core supporters, said Thomas Patterson, an expert on government and the media at the Harvard Kennedy School.

But once solid evidence of a White House coverup emerged, and Nixon’s efforts to block Cox’s independent investigation became clear, public opinion of the president turned, and Republicans had no choice but to follow suit. By the October night in 1973 when Elliot Richardson, the attorney general, and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resigned after refusing Nixon’s order to fire Cox, and then Nixon fired the special prosecutor anyway — the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” — Republicans in Congress were ready to see Nixon go.

“Republicans weren’t super aggressive in pursuing Nixon” at first, said Michael Greenberger, an aide to Richardson at the time who went on to serve in the Department of Justice under President Bill Clinton. “When the evidence was clear, the Republicans fell in line.”

The political dynamic is different this time around. In the 1970s, incumbent lawmakers from both parties faced far fewer primary challenges than they do now. Today, a Republican who abandons Trump runs the risk of angering the president’s supporters, and drawing a primary opponent from the far right.

“The understanding in Washington is that all of these problems are beneficial for Democrats,” Patterson said. “If you join the parade as a Republican, it’s not going to help with Trump voters. You’re going to anger Trump’s base.”

READ MORE: Obstruction of justice, explained.

The only way that would change, Patterson argued, is if Trump’s job approval rating plummeted in conservative parts of the country, and he became a liability for the Republican Party in the 2018 midterm election. Trump’s approval rating among all voters has hovered around 40 percent since he took office, and he remains extremely popular with conservatives.

Among Republican voters, 84 percent approve of the president’s job performance, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, compared to six percent of Democrats. Poll numbers will likely influence Republican lawmakers’ response to the investigations going forward, Patterson said, a reflection of the fact that many politicians today are more “electorally minded than institutionally minded.”

Peter Wallison, who served as White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan in the late 1980s, said Republican leaders in Congress deserved credit for launching several investigations into Russia’s interference in last year’s election. But he said it was clear that a fundamental shift has taken place.

“Unfortunately, we’re in a time now in which partisan politics are much more important than the institutional loyalties people have to the Senate and House,” Wallison said. In the past, he said, lawmakers were willing to stand up to a president from their own party. “That’s not true anymore.”

Wallison and others pointed to another important change from the Nixon era: the public’s growing distrust of the news media. It’s far less likely that a majority of Americans will come to a consensus about a president’s actions today, as happened during Watergate, in an era of “fake news” where Democrats and Republicans often disagree about the basic facts.

“We’re a lot more polarized than we were in the early seventies,” Patterson said, “and that creates barriers to movement” in public opinion.

The investigations into Trump’s associates and Russia have only begun, cautioned Greenberger, the former Justice Department official. Right now, “there’s still people who call it fake news and don’t want to believe it. But every day it gets worse and worse. I just don’t think it’s going to get better.”

“With Watergate, in the end, the facts and the evidence were just overwhelming,” said Shapiro, the polling expert at Columbia University. “At this juncture with Trump, a lot more remains to come out.”

“The question is,” Shapiro added, “even when we know all the facts, how much will polarization come into play? And how much will Trump supporters care?”

The post During Watergate, it was country first, party second. What about now? appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., doubled down Wednesday on her call for former FBI director James Comey to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and provide it with documents detailing his interactions with President Donald Trump.

“He should provide those documents and make an appearance at Judiciary and explain them,” Feinstein, the panel’s top Democrat, told PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff in an interview.

WATCH: Feinstein: Comey memos will be turned over one way or another

“They’re going to be turned over. I think it’s just a question of time,” Feinstein added of the documents, which presumably include a memo of a February meeting between Comey and Mr. Trump where the president allegedly asked Comey to drop the FBI’s investigation into Michael Flynn.

Feinstein said the memos would shed light on Comey’s firing May 9. Comey’s removal sparked questions about whether Trump committed obstruction of justice by trying to block the federal probe into Flynn’s contacts with Russia.

The firing led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to lead the federal probe into potential collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Last week, Feinstein and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, announced that Comey had declined an invitation to testify publicly before the panel. Feinstein and Grassley said in a joint statement they were “extremely disappointed” with Comey’s decision.

Though Comey declined to appear before the Judiciary panel, he agreed to testify publicly before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to Trump’s campaign.

Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee will take place after Memorial Day, the committee’s leaders said last week. The panel is one of several congressional committees investigating the issue.

In the PBS NewsHour interview, Feinstein said she hoped the House and Senate committees would add staff with “prosecutorial expertise” to aid in the investigations.

When asked if the scope of the investigations were growing, Feinstein said “that is happening.” She said as more “comments are made by principal parties, it adds to the investigative material that’s out there.”

Feinstein’s comments came as Trump wrapped up his first foreign trip as president, and as new developments in the Russia investigations continued this week, despite the administration’s focus on foreign policy and the White House budget.

Wednesday evening, CNN reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to tell the Department of Justice about meetings he had with Russian officials last year when he applied for security clearance.

Watch the full interview below.

The post Feinstein confident Senate will see Comey’s memos appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Former FBI director Robert Mueller is back in the spotlight, with his appointment Wednesday as the special counsel in charge of the federal investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with Donald Trump’s campaign.

The selection of Mueller, who lead the agency from 2001 to 2013, drew praise from Democrats and Republicans in Washington. But President Trump criticized the appointment in a statement Wednesday and again at a White House news conference Thursday.

“I look forward to this matter concluding quickly,” Mr. Trump said in the statement.

But Mueller’s investigation could go on for a while, according to Garrett Graff, the author of the 2011 book “The Threat Matrix: The FBI at War in the Age of Global Terror,” an inside look at the FBI and Mueller’s tenure at the agency.

“FBI investigations are not fast, and Bob Mueller is unlikely to launch a particularly fast investigation,” Graff told me in an interview Thursday.

A lengthy probe could “really paralyze Donald Trump’s agenda as long as his staff is consumed by this investigation and as long as Bob Mueller is out there toiling away,” Graff added.

As Mueller prepares to wade into the controversy, I sat down with Graff to talk about Mueller’s career and how he might handle the Russian investigation. Watch our conversation in the player above.

The post Was Mueller the right choice for special counsel in Russia investigation? appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Did President Donald Trump commit obstruction of justice when he reportedly asked then-FBI Director James Comey in February to end the agency’s investigation into Michael Flynn?

The question became critical for the White House this week, after the New York Times and other news organizations reported Tuesday that Comey wrote a memo detailing this request by Mr. Trump. The White House has denied that Trump urged Comey to drop the FBI’s probe into Flynn, who resigned as national security adviser in February over his contacts with a Russian official.

Comey’s memo — coming on the heels of his dismissal May 9 — raised new concerns over whether Trump intended to thwart the FBI investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia. Democrats have ramped up calls for a special counsel or independent commission.

READ MORE: The ‘special prosecutor’ Democrats want no longer exists

“At best, President Trump has committed a grave abuse of executive power,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., said in a statement Tuesday. “At worst, he has obstructed justice.”

But proving obstruction of justice is difficult. Different sets of criteria are used to determine whether a president’s alleged obstruction of justice is a federal criminal offense, and whether it’s an impeachable offense. Here’s a guide to the issue:

Obstruction of justice under federal statute

There are a number of relevant federal statutes, all under Title 18 of the United States Code, that Trump could have possibly violated. An obstruction of justice charge would need to meet three key requirements under the law, Joshua Matz, an attorney and constitutional law expert, wrote in an email: “1) there must have been a pending federal investigation or proceeding; 2) the defendant must have known about it; and 3) the defendant must have corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the investigation or proceeding.”

Was Trump acting corruptly?

That’s a tricky question to answer. Proving that Trump acted corruptly with the specific intent of impeding the FBI’s investigation isn’t easy, said Michael Gerhardt, the National Constitution Center’s scholar in residence.

“It’s hard to do generally as part of a criminal case, because you have to show bad intent beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“We can never know what [Trump] was actually thinking,” said Julie O’Sullivan, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

But there are several ways a prosecutor could build a case, O’Sullivan said. Prosecutors could question Trump’s top aides, or call Trump before a grand jury. (You might remember that independent counsel Kenneth Starr called President Bill Clinton to testify before a grand jury during his probe into the Clinton White House). Prosecutors could also look at circumstantial evidence, such as Trump’s decision to fire Flynn and Comey and the timing of those dismissals, O’Sullivan said.

For example, Trump’s conversation with Comey, along with the fact that he fired Comey just days after the FBI director asked for more resources for his Russia probe, could look bad for Trump, O’Sullivan said.

“A good prosecutor could probably put together an incredible case,” O’Sullivan said. She added: “There’s enough to warrant an investigation.”

What stands in the way of a criminal case?

It’s unlikely the Department of Justice, led by Trump ally Attorney General Jeff Sessions, would rush to launch a federal case against the president. And some experts have argued that there’s still no damning evidence.

Media reports of Comey’s memo remain incomplete, leaving a lot of unknowns about what exactly was said in the meeting between him and Trump. In a letter to the FBI Tuesday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Committee, demanded a copy of Comey’s memo.

With so many impediments to a federal charge, attention has turned to potential impeachment proceedings.

How would impeachment proceedings work?

Impeachment proceedings go through Congress. The House initiates, and requires a majority vote. The Senate tries the proceedings, and needs a two-thirds vote for conviction. “Obstruction of justice” has motivated past congressional attempts to impeach presidents: it was the first article of impeachment leveled against President Richard Nixon (before he resigned), and it was the third article of impeachment for Clinton.

But impeachment proceedings operate differently than federal court cases. “It depends on what the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate believe is an impeachable offense,” O’Sullivan said. “It’s not a criminal trial, it’s a public trial of accountability.”

The Senate could consider broader questions of intent and purpose, not just the high legal bar of “corrupt” intent. While Trump’s habits and history would be on the table, the Senate could also choose to ignore his actions.

And of course, coloring all of this is the fact that impeachment proceedings are innately political. What Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, thinks about Trump’s guiltiness, for example, could differ widely from the views held by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.

“The party composition of Congress is” important,” Gerhardt said. “The Republican control of the House and Senate [would likely] slow down the process.”

The post Obstruction of justice, explained appeared first on PBS NewsHour.