Document 3Qp4NnENb1j8xjMRwRRqEJ11O

Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Americans for Limited Government [media@limitgov.org] 4/5/2018 1:31:46 PM Abboud, Michael [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b6f5af791al842fladcc088cbf9ed3ce-Abboud, Mic] The gloves come off: President Trump rises as he delivers big-time on trade, immigration Make no mistake, the tariffs and moving the military to the southern border increases the President's leverage, and could help to persuade Mexico and China to come to the negotiating table April 5, 2018 Permission to republish original op-eds and cartoons granted. The gloves come off: President Trump rises as he delivers big-time on trade, immigration After Congress failed to deliver the border wall and the goods trade deficit with China hit an all-time high in 2017 at $375 billion, President Trump has taken the gloves off, levying his first round of major tariffs and sending the military to secure the southern border. EPA Chief Scott Pruitt gets results -- that's why he's a target of the left President Donald Trump is standing by his embattled Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, according to reports. Let's be clear, that is good thing for both Trump and the country. Pruitt is one of the shining stars of the Trump administration, and no one who supports the president's "Make America Great Again" agenda should want him replaced. Mueller's gross prosecutorial misconduct exposes need for dismissal Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning: "The revelation that once again Special Counsel Robert Mueller failed in his basic constitutional responsibility to turn over all exculpatory evidence to Paul Manafort, including the Aug. 2 memo, is inexcusable and yet another fireable offense. " Roll Call: Republicans Mulling Budget Gambit to Avoid Spending Some Omnibus Funds "The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 -- more frequently referred to as the Budget Act, the sections of the law that are more commonly used -- provides an expedited process for the president to propose and Congress to review a rescission resolution identifying appropriations that the administration does not want to spend. Multiple rescissions can be grouped in a single message, and Congress has 45 legislative days to approve all, part or none of the Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003591-00001 president's request. The budget law would provide a path for the Senate to consider a rescission resolution with only a simple majority support. " The gloves come off: President Trump rises as lie delivers big-time on trade, immigration By Robert Romano In the past month, President Donald Trump has levied a 25 percent tariff on steel and 10 percent on aluminum, hit China with $60 billion of tariffs for intellectual property theft and steel dumping, got South Korea to give major concessions on steel dumping and importing U.S.-made cars and has now activated the National Guard to help secure the nation's southern border. The President also threatened NAFTA over a caravan of refugees headed from Honduras through Mexico with the intention of reaching the U.S.: "The big Caravan of People from Honduras, now coming across Mexico and heading to our `Weak Laws' Border, had better be stopped before it gets there. Cash cow NAFTA is in play, as is foreign aid to Honduras and the countries that allow this to happen," Trump tweeted on April 3. Mexico has since replied that it is disbanding the caravan. We'll see how successful they are. The President's attitude appears be, that's a nice trade agreement you have there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it. Congress should be paying attention, too. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003591-00002 In the meantime, President Trump has taken Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals off the table as something for Congress to barter with. On April 1, he tweeted, "Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!" As a result, the President's approval rating has soared to 51 percent, according to Rasmussen Reports, which is little wonder. Trump is delivering on the issues that won him the Republican nomination and ultimately the election in 2016: trade and immigration. The pushback, of course, has also been fairly predictable. On the tariffs, despite immediately getting concessions from South Korea, the punditry class wasted no time in worrying over a new trade war. Trump shot back on Twitter on April 4, arguing, "We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion." Trump added, "When you're already $500 Billion DOWN, you can't lose!" Here, the President has a point. China, could have a lot more to lose than the U S. In 2017, it shipped $505 billion of goods to the U.S., compared with $130 billion of U S. exports to China, according to U S. Census data. As a result, the goods trade deficit with China hit an all-time high of $375 billion in 2017. In the meantime, Congress failed to fully fund the President's signature legislative promise to build a southern border wall in the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill, instead only delivering the $1.6 billion supplemental for some additional fencing -- a year late. All of which helps to explain Trump moving to be more aggressive in 2018. Waiting to see what Congress might deliver on border security, and simply exchanging pleasantries between trade officials was not moving the needle on the issues that got Trump elected, particularly in the Rust Belt states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. A year on the job, with no wall being built and the trade deficit ballooning, Trump has responded with major actions. Thanks to Congress' inaction on the wall and even DACA, the odds Trump will withdraw from NAFTA is probably rising. Just saying. Make no mistake, the tariffs and moving the military to the southern border increases the President's leverage, and could help to persuade Mexico and China to come to the negotiating table. National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow hinted on April 4 that the tariffs might not go into effect, but only if China deals. In the meantime, stay tuned. Mexico and China may yet need a few more reminders. It looks like the gloves have finally come off. Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. T11E ll IILL EPA Chief Scott Pruitt gets results -- that's why he's a target of the left Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003591-00003 By Richard Manning President Donald Trump is standing by his embattled Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, according to reports. Let's be clear, that is good thing for both Trump and the country. Pruitt is one of the shining stars of the Trump administration, and no one who supports the president's "Make America Great Again" agenda should want him replaced. Current complaints about Pruitt's Washington, D C., condo, rented at the fair-market value from a lobbyist, are mostly politically motivated. As the designated agency ethics official for the EPA explained: "Entering into the lease was consistent with federal ethics regulations regarding gifts, and use of the property in accordance with the lease agreement did not constitute a gift as defined in those regulations." Yet some hope that by attacking Pruitt on fake ethics charges, the media-created scandal will cause the Trump White House to either foolishly force Pruitt out or cause him to throw up his hands in disgust and resign. This would be a disaster for President Trump and all of us who care about his success. EPA Administrator Pruitt has been instrumental in taking on the difficult task of rolling back Obama era regulations and in his first year has already completed 22 derequlatory actions, saving more than a billion dollars in regulatory costs. Something as benign as Pruitt's recently announced effort to make certain that the methodology of the science the EPA uses to make regulatory determinations is transparent and the results are repeatable, has come underfire from former Obama-era EPA administrators Gina McCarthy and Janet McCabe called it, "his latest effort to cripple the agency." It would seem that making sure the science behind major economy-shattering regulations is actually accurate and that the data is available for public scrutiny should be standard. Yet, incredibly, Pruitt is having to fightfor the sake of establishing sound science that meets the basic criteria of the scientific method in order to restore valid underpinnings for environmental regulations. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003591-00004 Pruitt is even having to re-evaluate the Obama administration's controversial and arbitrary fuel efficiency standard that set a car and light truck fleet average of 50 miles per gallon by 2025, regardless of whether it was technologically possible to achieve it. Effectively, this policy would force auto makers to sell expensive-to-produce electric vehicles to consumers at a loss in order to be able to sell customers the trucks and other gasoline-consuming vehicles that they want at significantly increased prices. The changes announced by the EPA have left open what the fuel efficiency standards will be, and likely will end the state of California's waiver to federal law allowing the rogue state to compel stricter standards under the Clean Air Act. President Trump can expect to hear an uproar from states like California and New York over Pruitt's smart decision on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, but when Administrator Pruitt prevails on this issue, it will help the president achieve his goal of putting the American auto industry back on top. Pruitt is doing the hard work to achieve the Trump agenda and taking the political and personal attacks that are part of battling the environmental industry driving American manufacturing to the breaking point. We are talking about more than angry letter writing. In fact, Pruitt and his family have been subjected to a significant stream of personal threats. The threats have become so severe that the EPA inspector general, who is tasked with the physical safety of the administrator, now provides 24/7 protection for him and his family. Incredibly, Pruitt gets zero credit from the left for increasing Superfund clean-up efforts designed to restore polluted sites to usability. He gets zero credit for enforcement actions that resulted in the second highest level of civil and administrative fine collections in the past decade, falling short of only FY 2016 which included a massive BP settlement. He gets zero credit because these critics are less concerned with cleaning up legitimate messes, than strangling the American manufacturing sector today and into the future. President Donald Trump can and should be proud of his administrator's efforts at the EPA. Scott Pruitt is moving the Trump agenda forward and ensuring that the environment remains protected while our economic engines roar back to life. Scott Pruitt is excelling at his job, and that is why he is the target of those who want to see the Trump administration fail. The president needs to recognize this and continue to stand by his chief general in the war against the regulatory stranglehold that was left by Obama. To be persuaded to make a personnel change at the EPA would be a disastrous mistake for his policy agenda. Most importantly, it would be a bad, bad decision for America's future. Click here for the original article. Rick Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003591-00005 Mueller's gross prosecutorial misconduct exposes need for dismissal Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement urging Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to dismiss to Robert Mueller as Special Counsel for withholding exculpatory evidence from Paul Manafort including the Aug. 2, 2017 order only authorizing the investigation into Manafort a week after his home was raided by Mueller: "The revelation that once again Special Counsel Robert Mueller failed in his basic constitutional responsibility to turn over all exculpatory evidence to Paul Manafort, including the Aug. 2 memo, is inexcusable and yet another fireable offense. Mueller himself knows the importance of following the law as it relates to evidence, as in the 2008 Ted Stevens case that was eventually dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct and withholding evidence, he had to testify before Congress about the actions of FBI agents under his control involved in the case. "Mueller's failure to follow basic evidentiary principles is dwarfed by the revelation that his legal invasion into Paul Manafort's home complete with groping Manafort's wife in bed was not originally authorized by Rosenstein, with the authorization to investigate Manafort only coming a week later in a post hoc legal rationalization of the raid. "The likelihood that Michael Flynn pled guilty prior to learning that the FBI agents who interviewed him recommended against charges being filed is another example of Mueller's gross misconduct. There is no place for Mueller's bullying tactics designed to get guilty pleas from defendants in clear violation of Fifth Amendment due process requirements to have all evidence presented affirmed in Brady v Maryland in 1963. "Mueller's actions are a stain on the American system of jurisprudence. While they may make for good television show script fodder, they are anything but in the best interests of justice being served. "Once again, it is befuddling how Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein can continue to allow this high-profile destruction of the public confidence in our prosecutorial system to continue. It is time for civil liberties advocates on the left to wake up to the importance of maintaining constitutional rights even for your political opponents. Mueller's conduct has become grotesque in its abuse of the Bill of Rights and in the least he should be dismissed if not also held legally accountable by those he's abused." Click here for the full press release ALG Editor's Note: In the following article from Roll Call, John Bennett reports on a little known rule in the 1974 Budget Law that allows Congress to rescind parts of the recently passed budget: Republicans Hulling Budget Gambit to Avoid Spending Some Omnibus Funds By John T. Bennett Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003591-00006 President Donald Trump and congressional Republican leaders, frustrated they had to work with Democrats to pass a fiscal 2018 omnibus spending measure, are mulling a way for their party to effectively cut some of the funds they just approved. The idea would be to deploy lesser-used provisions of the 1974 budget law to roll back spending by impounding some of the appropriated funds. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 -- more frequently referred to as the Budget Act, the sections of the law that are more commonly used -- provides an expedited process for the president to propose and Congress to review a rescission resolution identifying appropriations that the administration does not want to spend. Multiple rescissions can be grouped in a single message, and Congress has 45 legislative days to approve all, part or none of the president's request. The budget law would provide a path for the Senate to consider a rescission resolution with only a simple majority support. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has been discussing the possibility of a rescission package with White House officials as a way to curb domestic spending in the omnibus, a GOP aide confirmed Monday evening following reports from ABC News. McCarthy and Trump personally discussed the idea during a phone call this week, while the speaker's office has had staff level discussions with the White House about the concept, a senior GOP source added. Since the rescission process has not been used in a long time, congressional leaders are still discussing how it all might play out but it is an idea they're taking seriously, the source said. The White House and the Office of Management and Budget did not return requests for comment. The discussions come after Congress passed and Trump begrudgingly signed into law a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill last month. Republicans celebrated a boost to defense spending, while lamenting the increase to domestic spending that was necessary to win Democratic support. Trump, in an an omnibus signing ceremony held hours after he threatened to veto the measure, called on Congress to give him line-item veto authority on spending bills -- a law Congress passed in 1996 but the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional just two years later. The impound procedure provides the president with similar power to reject specific spending but only with the constitutionally required approval of Congress, which holds the power of the purse. The maneuver may succeed in the House but would be a tough lift in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim 50-49 majority (soon to be 51-49 after Cindy Hyde-Smith is sworn in to fill the Mississippi Senate seat vacated by Thad Cochran). Getting 50 Republican votes to roll back spending the Congress just approved might be a long shot given the delicate nature of crafting the omnibus itself. Such an effort would almost certainly make it harder for appropriators to negotiate future bipartisan spending deals. Congress has just six months to attempt to pass all 12 appropriations bills, whether individually or packaged again as an omnibus, before the start of fiscal 2019 on Oct. 1. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003591-00007 Click here for the full story. Americansfor Limited Government 10332 Main Street # 326None Fairfax Virginia 22030 United States This email is intended for abboud.michael@epa.gov. Update your preferences or Unsubscribe Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00003591-00008