Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3373

Friday's Mini-Report

Today's edition of quick hits:

* Watching Malala Yousufzai, a year after being shot in the head by the Taliban, draw standing ovations at the UN Youth Assembly today was a truly beautiful sight.

* Egypt: "Hundreds of thousands of Egyptian Islamists and other supporters of Mohamed Morsi, the country's first freely elected president who was ousted and detained by the military last week, filled public squares in Cairo and other cities on Friday in an intensified campaign aimed at returning him to power. The United States also dialed up its criticism, calling on Egypt's interim authorities to release Mr. Morsi."

* Iraq: "A bomb struck a crowded coffee shop late Friday in the ethnically disputed northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, killing at least 19 and wounding more than two dozen in the latest in a string of bloody attacks pounding Iraq since the start of the holy month of Ramadan this week."

* Snowden: "Edward J. Snowden, the fugitive American intelligence contractor, broke his silence after three weeks of seclusion on Friday, inviting a handpicked group of Russian human rights figures to visit him in a small conference room at Sheremetyevo Airport, where he told them he hopes to receive political asylum in Russia."

* On a related note: "President Obama plans to lobby Russian President Vladimir Putin to return Edward Snowden to the U.S. during a phone conversation Friday afternoon, amid news that the intelligence leaker was requesting temporary asylum in the country."

* Among the most serious victims of the ridiculous sequestration policy? Native American Indians.

* Progress: "The Social Security Administration has begun taking claims from married same-sex couples who believe they are eligible for benefits, although the administration will not process them until the instructions for handling such claims is finalized."

* San Diego Mayor Bob Filner (D) has admitted to sexually harassing numerous women, has apologized, conceded he needs "help," but insists he won't give up his office.

* The only part of the IRS story that remains unresolved: "The investigator who found the IRS targeted conservative groups withheld key information from Congress, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee charged Friday."

* A list of new potential DHS nominees appears to be quickly taking shape.

* And I'll confess, I really do love the White House White Board.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

McCrory to sign motorcycle-turned-abortion bill

Associated Press

With remarkable speed this week, Republicans in the North Carolina state legislature amended a bill on motorcycle safety, included new restrictions on reproductive health, and got to work passing it. Would the state's freshman Republican governor, Pat McCrory, go along with this?

As it turns out, yes.

North Carolina's governor says he will sign a new version of a bill that raises standards for abortion clinics into law if it reaches his desk.

Gov. Pat McCrory announced his decision Friday, two days after he threatened to veto the previous legislation for how it addressed raising standards for abortion clinics through rules similar to outpatient surgery centers. The House changed the language to satisfy McCrory's health and human services department.

McCrory says the version that passed the House on Thursday will ensure women's safety and not limit their access to abortion.

Keep in mind, as a gubernatorial candidate just last year, McCrory was asked what changes to the state's abortion laws he would support. His answer, which helped him get elected, was unambiguous: "None." As in, if elected, McCrory wouldn't support any changes to the state's abortion laws.

Given his promise, what makes the governor think he can break his word so quickly and shamelessly? Because as McCrory sees it, the motorcycle-turned-abortion bill doesn't restrict reproductive rights so much as it ensures "safety" at abortion clinics.

The truth, however, as Rachel explained on the show Wednesday night, is that the Republican proposal is what's called a "trap law," which in North Carolina is slated to close 15 of the state's 16 clinics where abortion services are provided.

Apparently, Pat McCrory's promises come with fine print the voters of the state weren't aware of.

The bill has not yet cleared the state Senate, but with a Republican majority, its passage appears all but assured.

Update: In case you missed it, this is turning out to be a busy afternoon for restrictions on reproductive rights. In addition to North Carolina, don't miss what's going on in Texas.

Only a good guy with a tampon can stop a bad guy with a tampon

Inside Texas' state legislature, loaded guns are fairly common. As the New York Times reported in March, "Just as Texas has long embraced its guns, so has the Capitol. Legislators have walked the terrazzo hallways, attended committee hearings, met with constituents in their offices and voted on the floors of their respective chambers while armed with licensed high-powered pistols tucked beneath their suits or slipped into their boots or purses."

But as debate begins in the state Senate on sweeping restrictions to reproductive rights, tampons are being confiscated. No, seriously.

Women are being forced to throw out tampons and maxi pads to enter the Senate gallery, which has been confirmed by DPS. [...]

However, people with concealed handgun licenses are allowed to bypass long lines to enter the Gallery through the expedited CHL entrance, and per DPS, if a person has a CHL, they can take their gun into the gallery.

For the record, this is not a joke. I've confirmed this with many people in Austin this afternoon.

Apparently, conservatives believe progressive activists will, after the vote, throw tampons at Republican state lawmakers who approve the bill. So, anything that "can be thrown at" the senators is being confiscated before citizens can enter the gallery.

Sometimes the war on women is offensive, and sometimes, it's just farcical. When tampons are considered more dangerous than loaded firearms, I think it's safe to say Texas Republicans have gone off the deep end.

Ironically, GOP leaders in Austin said they intended to prevent a "circus atmosphere" in the state Senate today. So much for that idea.

Update: For more on this story, you can reference our previous coverage, including yesterday's state House vote and state Sen. Wendy Davis' (D) dramatic filibuster two weeks ago. There's also Stand With Texas Women on Tumblr and the #txlege hastag on Twitter.

Second Update: It's not just Texas; Republicans in North Carolina are advancing new restrictions on reproductive rights this afternoon, too. 

Third Update: It appears the public attention was too embarrassing -- according to the Texas Tribune, law enforcement eventually stopped the confiscation of tampons. It's not clear if women whose tampons were taken from them unfairly will be able to reclaim them from police at the Capitol, but I rather doubt it.

Iowa Supreme Court OKs firing attractive people

Iowa's state Supreme Court

This one's a doozy.

A dentist acted legally when he fired a longtime assistant because he had grown too attracted to her and worried he would try to start an affair, the Iowa Supreme Court reaffirmed Friday in its second crack at the controversial case.

Coming to the same outcome as it did in December, but clarifying its rationale, the court found that bosses can fire employees that they and their spouses see as threats to their marriages. The court said such firings do not count as sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender.

Let's recap the basics of what happened. James Knight, a married Iowa dentist, employed Melissa Nelson, who is two decades his junior, and who is also married. Nelson showed no interest in a romantic relationship and did not make any advances towards her boss.

She was nevertheless fired, not because Nelson was bad at her job, but because Knight said he might be tempted to have an extramarital affair with her, and in fact, made unrequited advances. In other words, the dentist, with his wife's encouragement, fired his assistant so he wouldn't be tempted to pursue a woman who'd expressed no romantic interest in him.

The Iowa Supreme Court, made up entirely of male justices, said that's legal because it wasn't technically gender discrimination -- Knight didn't fire Nelson because she's a woman; he fired her because he found her attractive. Indeed, as part of Knight's defense, his lawyers noted Nelson was replaced by a different woman (whom he presumably found less pretty), which helped prove that he wasn't motivated by misogyny.

From a distance, it certainly looks like another step backwards for workplace gender equity.

Holder to strengthen guidelines on obtaining journalists' data

Associated Press

At the height of Scandal Mania a few months ago, Republicans and a few too many reporters tried to tie together three disparate stories in the hopes of presenting a "White House in crisis." The first was the attack in Benghazi, and those political allegations were quickly discredited. The second was the IRS scrutiny of tax-exempt applications, and those allegations were disproven soon after.

The third was ... what was the third one, again? Ah yes, it was the Justice Department investigating a national-security leak and subpoenaing the phone logs of Associated Press reporters. It was never clear why the Beltway considered this a "White House scandal," exactly, except for the apparent need to have three elements instead of two.

Ironically, it was this AP story that actually had some real significance. It was a policy dispute about the scope of subpoena powers, not a political scandal about abuse of power, and my hope was that the story might lead to constructive reforms, perhaps even a media shield law.

That, of course, was a pipe dream -- Congress can barely keep its lights on, making constructive reforms on subpoena powers completely impossible, and besides, Republicans actually liked the subpoenas and didn't really see this as a scandal in need of a remedy anyway.

The good news is, the DOJ is acting on its own, tightening its own internal guidelines.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been criticized for the Justice Department's aggressive tactics in secretly obtaining phone logs and e-mails of reporters as part of leak investigations, is expected to issue new guidelines on Friday that would significantly narrow the circumstances under which journalists' records could be obtained, a Justice Department official said.

The new guidelines, which the official said would take effect almost immediately, would prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from portraying a reporter as a co-conspirator in a criminal leak as a way to get around a legal bar on secret search warrants for reporting materials, as an agent did in a recently revealed search warrant affidavit involving a Fox News reporter.

It's important to emphasize that federal prosecutors will still be able to obtain reporters' phone logs, but this policy shift will make it more difficult through higher search-warrant standards, while ensuring more advance notice for news organizations. To go further, the Justice Department would need Congress to change the law, and, well, Congress is a dysfunctional embarrassment that's unlikely to take up the issue anytime soon.

On the whole, then, today's announcement represents real progress for the freedom of the press.

McDonnell allies 'privately express doubt' about his political survival

Associated Press

If you haven't already put your "McDonnell 2016" swag on ebay, because you think there's still a chance the Virginia governor can bounce back, forget it.

With a federal investigation well underway, downcast McDonnell allies say they see little hope that the governor's reputation will recover, and some privately express doubt that he'll be able to serve out his term. They describe a pervasive mood of shock and gloom throughout the governor's extended political family.

The editorial board of the Washington Post, which is hardly reflexively liberal, slammed the governor awfully hard yesterday: "Mr. McDonnell's head-spinning hypocrisy has stained his reputation and shredded the bonds of trust that any governor must maintain with the public if he wishes to be effective and credible. It's time for him to stop dodging hard questions and hiding behind legal niceties; it's time for Mr. McDonnell to level with Virginians about what has become the state's most toxic scandal in years."

The editorial board of the Charlottesville Daily Progress published this today: "McDonnell can't get out of the way of his ethical lapses. His defenses hold water like a sieve." The editorial added that a "nightmare" is now "being lived out in the state's highest office."

Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus added this morning that the governor is "obviously ... unfit for office."

For his part, state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican who hopes to replace McDonnell, has his own connections to the controversy, and has begun to put just a little distance between himself and his scandal-plagued ally. "What we've all been seeing is very painful for Virginia, and it's completely inconsistent with Virginia's very reserved traditions," Cuccinelli said in a statement released by his campaign.

It was a mild rebuke, to be sure, but it was a far cry from "I stand by the governor and look forward to campaigning with him."

The education of Charles Boustany

Associated Press

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.)

When it comes to the debate over health care policy, Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) has long been an interesting character. Remember when President Obama delivered a speech on reform to a joint session of Congress in September 2009? Republicans tapped Boustany, a cardiovascular surgeon by trade, to deliver the official GOP response.

But even then, he seemed unsure of his own message. The night of his national address, Boustany said he wanted the majority party to throw away the progress they'd made and "start over" on a proposal intended to make Republicans happy. Less than 24 hours later, Boustany told MSNBC he agreed with "about 80 percent" of the Democratic plan, which made his "start over" demands seem rather odd.

His confusion hasn't gone away. Here was the Louisiana congressman just last week:

A powerful Republican congressman from Louisiana wants his state to take up the Medicaid expansion made optional by Obamacare and build an insurance exchange to implement the law, breaking with his GOP governor and conservatives on an explosive issue.

Rep. Charles Boustany, the chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, told constituents last week that if he had his way, Louisiana would accept the offer under the Affordable Care Act and reform Medicaid into a "21st century program," according to the The Daily Advertiser in Lafayette.

Boustany reportedly told constituents that failing to take advantage of the Affordable Care Act "could put Louisiana in a very bad place," adding, "To sit back and do nothing is not an answer."

Once these comments came to public light, wouldn't you know it, Boustany changed his mind. This week, the congressman insisted, "To expand Medicaid without a significant reform ... would be a big mistake." He added, "My efforts right now are in opposition to Obamacare. Medicaid is a deeply flawed program."

Less than a week after encouraging Louisiana to create an exchange, Boustany now says he agrees with Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) decision not to create an exchange.

Apparently, one of the congressional Republicans' top lawmakers on health care policy discovered it doesn't matter whether Louisiana is in "a very bad place" or not?

Why Boehner should care about Jorge Ramos

When House Republicans think about who they'll offend if/when they kill immigration reform, it's a lengthy list. After all, the bill enjoys broad public support, and is backed by leaders of both parties, leaders from the Latino community, private-sector employers, labor, and deficit hawks.

But let's not overlook Spanish-language media, which as John Sides and Greg Sargent explained yesterday, is poised to be unrelenting in its criticisms of Republicans for killing the bipartisan bill. Indeed, by some measures, it's already begun.

Univision's Jorge Ramos delivered this message last night to his 912,000 Twitter followers, connecting House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to anti-immigrant sheriff Joe Arpaio in the minds of the Hispanic community. Following up on that message, Ramos added this tweet this morning:

Remember, in Spanish-language media, Ramos is unrivaled in his reach and influence. "Spanish-language news has almost the same pull as the priest in the pulpit," said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.). "And Jorge Ramos is the pope, he's the big kahuna."

Three months ago, the Republican National Committee said it intended to vastly improve its relationships with Latino media outlets. How's that outreach effort going, Reince?

The more GOP lawmakers tear down efforts to reform the immigration system, the worse this is going to get.

Still waiting for accountability as IRS 'scandal' unravels

Getty Images

Republican officials and the Beltway media gambled on the IRS "scandal," betting heavily on its viability and seriousness, convinced that the odds were in their favor.

With each new revelation, it's clear the gamble did not pay off.

The House Oversight committee's top Democrat on Friday will release new evidence that the Internal Revenue Service targeted both progressive and conservative groups for extra scrutiny during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said in a draft letter to committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif) that congressional investigators have discovered training materials from an July 2010 "Screening Workshop" that prove IRS agents were told to be on the lookout for groups from both sides of the political spectrum.

A PowerPoint presentation from the workshop told IRS processors to screen for names that look like "tea party," "patriots," " 9/12 Project," and "progressive." It noted that such groups "may be more than 50% political," which could disqualify them from tax-exempt status.

This follows evidence from last week that IRS scrutiny was not ideologically based at all, which followed evidence from the week before that groups on the left were subjected to identical treatment as groups on the right.

Everything about this entire political controversy has been discredited; all of the allegations have proven baseless.

Ideally, this would a time for at least some accountability. There were countless Republicans and mainstream pundits -- left, right, and center, from Limbaugh to Jon Stewart -- who were absolutely convinced that this story was legitimate and President Obama bore responsibility for the wrongdoing we now know didn't exist.

If I had a nickel for every unnecessary Nixon comparison, every headline about the White House in "crisis," every soundbite about "enemies lists," "cover-ups," the "second-term curse," and using the IRS as a political weapon, I could retire comfortably.

And yet, the scandal that evaporated into nothing has led to precious little introspection among those who demanded the public take it seriously. The political world flubbed this one, and instead of acknowledging that, it's simply moved on as if it hadn't made a mistake.

As we talked about a couple of weeks ago, the walkbacks from the politicians and commentators who were wrong never appear, because that's just not how our discourse seems to work. The political world treated Scandal Mania as a toy for several weeks, which eventually grew tiresome, which in turn led to a search for something new to play with.

As Jon Chait put it, "The entire scandal narrative was an illusion." But instead of the Beltway acknowledging this, we see largely the opposite -- there is no effort to look back and explain to voters that Scandal Mania was itself a mirage, and the widespread disgust was misplaced.

How not to play the blame game

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) talked to MSNBC's Alex Wagner yesterday and raised a point I hadn't heard elsewhere about the politics of immigration reform.

"Chuck Schumer said yesterday, for example, that any bill without a pathway to citizenship is dead in the Senate. So if Chuck Schumer's not going to accept anything unless he gets 100 percent of what he wants, then he's the one who's killing immigration reform, he's the one who's seeing that 80 percent is not enough," Labrador said.

Wagner noted the fact that the Senate bill has broad, bipartisan support from Republican leaders and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, adding, "And you're going to blame Democrats?" Labrador responded, "Yeah, if Chuck Schumer does not accept the solution from the House, if he says that 80 percent is not good enough for him because he wants 100 percent, then it is his fault."

There are a few angles to keep in mind here. The first is that Labrador, like many House Republicans, is confused about the nature of the Senate bill. Neither Schumer nor any other Democrat looked at the comprehensive legislation has "100 percent" of what they wanted -- rather, it was a bipartisan compromise, written with several conservative Republicans. What Labrador is arguing is that Dems accept a compromise of a compromise, while the House GOP makes no concessions whatsoever. That's plainly silly, whether he understands the debate well enough to realize these details or not.

Second, Labrador seems to believe that a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is just another provision that Democrats should be prepared to trade away for the sake of a deal. It's not. Rather, this is the point of working on immigration reform.

And finally, there's just a hint of desperation here, which will matter quite a bit in the coming months.

The Senate produced a popular, bipartisan bill, comprehensive bill that doubles the border patrol, shrinks the deficit, boosts the economy, improves the finances of the Social Security and Medicare systems, and help private-sector employers. It enjoys the support of the White House, business leaders, GOP strategists, leaders from the Latino community, and a clear majority of the country.

Labrador and his friends are poised to kill it, and they haven't come up with a reason why. And so, the scramble is on to avoid the inevitable blame when they're caught standing over immigration reform with a smoking gun.

It's Schumer's fault. It's Obama's fault. It's the Affordable Care Act's fault. It's Rubio's fault. Maybe it's Reagan's fault. For the GOP, the demise of immigration reform belongs with everyone except those who were responsible for the demise of immigration reform.

This is a fight Republicans will lose. I'm not sure this has sunk in yet for the party's rank-and-file members.