McConnell Splits From Trump on Voter Fraud, Russia Sanctions

The Republican leader tells National Journal he doesn’t see “any evidence” that millions voted illegally—contradicting a repeated claim by the president.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is interviewed in his Capitol office on Friday.
Chet Susslin
Alex Rogers
Add to Briefcase
Alex Rogers
Jan. 27, 2017, 7:45 p.m.

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell said on Fri­day that voter fraud should be dealt with at the state level and that he doesn’t see “any evid­ence” that mil­lions of people il­leg­ally voted in the 2016 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, as Pres­id­ent Trump has claimed.

“I don’t be­lieve the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment needs to look at this,” said Mc­Con­nell in an in­ter­view with Na­tion­al Journ­al in his of­fice at the Cap­it­ol. “Our whole elec­tion sys­tem is state-based. There are a num­ber of states who have been con­cerned about bal­lot se­cur­ity that have done something about it.”

In the wide-ran­ging ses­sion, Mc­Con­nell also urged the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion not to roll back sanc­tions on Rus­sia, hours after Trump ad­viser Kel­ly­anne Con­way said that do­ing so was “un­der con­sid­er­a­tion.” Trump is sched­uled to speak with Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin on Sat­urday.

“I’d be op­posed to that,” said Mc­Con­nell. “The sanc­tions I as­sume you were re­fer­ring to [came] as a res­ult of the an­nex­a­tion of Crimea and the in­cur­sion in­to east­ern Ukraine. And you can now add to that mess­ing around in the U.S. elec­tion. I would be vig­or­ously op­posed to any re­duc­tion of those sanc­tions.

“I think the first step is to en­cour­age the ad­min­is­tra­tion not to use any kind of waiver that may be in the ex­ist­ing law,” Mc­Con­nell ad­ded. “If there’s any coun­try in the world that doesn’t de­serve any kind of sanc­tions re­lief, it’s the Rus­si­ans.”

Mc­Con­nell’s com­ments echoed con­cerns shared by Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors, par­tic­u­larly Armed Ser­vices Chair­man John Mc­Cain, who said in a state­ment Fri­day that he would work to “co­di­fy sanc­tions against Rus­sia in­to law” if ne­ces­sary.

The in­ter­view with Mc­Con­nell also touched on his three mo­ment­ous goals this year: con­firm­ing the pres­id­ent’s Su­preme Court justice nom­in­ee, re­pla­cing Obama­care, and passing com­pre­hens­ive tax re­form.

While ef­forts to fun­da­ment­ally re­form the coun­try’s health care sys­tem and tax code have only be­gun, what does ap­pear cer­tain is that Trump will get his Su­preme Court justice, who is ex­pec­ted to be an­nounced on Thursday. When asked wheth­er Re­pub­lic­ans would change the fili­buster rules if Demo­crats at­tempt to block the pick, Mc­Con­nell said in no un­cer­tain terms, “We’re go­ing to get the nom­in­ee con­firmed.”

The Ken­tucky Re­pub­lic­an seemed less en­thu­si­ast­ic on di­vert­ing con­gres­sion­al at­ten­tion to­wards a rumored $1 tril­lion in­fra­struc­ture pack­age, an­oth­er top pri­or­ity for the pres­id­ent. Mc­Con­nell said trans­port­a­tion pro­jects are bet­ter left to the states.

But first, Na­tion­al Journ­al began by ask­ing Mc­Con­nell, a his­tory buff, what he’s read­ing. Here’s a tran­script:

I wanted to start off, be­fore get­ting in­to the top­ics of today—I know that you’re a his­tory buff. At the end of last year, I saw that you had The Gen­er­al vs. the Pres­id­ent: Ma­cAr­thur and Tru­man at the Brink of Nuc­le­ar War on your [read­ing] list.

Yeah, I’m in­to Brands’ The Gen­er­al and the Pres­id­ent. One of my kids gave it to me for Christ­mas. I’m a big fan of H.W. Brands any­way, but I’m sort of end­lessly fas­cin­ated by the Korean War. My dad fought in World War II, and he came back home and a bunch of his bud­dies said, “You know, why don’t you join the Na­tion­al Guard? It meets once a month. A little ex­tra pay.” My dad said, “Well, you know, I’ve had my war, I’ll take a pass.” All those guys ended up go­ing to Korea. He had been at the thick of the fight in World War II. In fact, they lost two-thirds of the com­pany in one night.

I think he prob­ably felt like he had done his part. And, as it turned out, they all ended up go­ing to Korea. Some of them didn’t come back. [Dav­id] Hal­ber­stam’s The Cold­est Winter is the best book on—every­body thinks it’s the best book on the Korean War. I’m not through with Brands’ book, but it’ll be in­ter­est­ing to see his take on all of that be­cause it’s also about the Korean War, ob­vi­ously, which is the biggest feud between Ma­cAr­thur and Tru­man.

Is there any­thing that relates to today when you’re read­ing this book? Are you mak­ing any com­par­is­ons?

No, he’s just fo­cus­ing more on the re­la­tion­ship between Tru­man and Ma­cAr­thur. … But you can’t write about the Korean War without deal­ing with that.

I know Pres­id­ent Trump talks about Ma­cAr­thur…

Trump? Is he a Ma­cAr­thur ad­mirer?

I think so. He talks about it at some of his ral­lies.

I’m not. [Laughs] I think Ma­cAr­thur was kind of a mixed bag.

Why’s that?

Well, I think his mis­cal­cu­la­tion about the pos­sib­il­ity of Chinese in­volve­ment was a pretty ser­i­ous mis­cal­cu­la­tion. Wheth­er they would’ve come over the Yalu River and done what they did no mat­ter what, I don’t know—no one will ever know. But I think he thought that the Chinese would not come over. And it turned out we were lucky to fight to a stale­mate.

But if you look at the Korean War writ large, it ended up be­ing a huge suc­cess be­cause of what South Korea has be­come. It gave us a mod­el, right on one pen­in­sula, of what works and what doesn’t, and the trans­form­a­tion of South Korea from a mil­it­ary dic­tat­or­ship to a Peace Corps re­cip­i­ent, a for­eign aid re­cip­i­ent, to what they are today—their own Peace Corps, their own for­eign as­sist­ance, something like the 13th-largest eco­nomy in the world. Any Amer­ic­an sol­diers who came back from Korea’s wars and said, “Did it make a dif­fer­ence?”—the Korean sol­diers, I think, could look back and say, “Hey man, that al­lowed something really in­cred­ibly im­port­ant to hap­pen.”

Well, I’d like to pivot to for­eign policy today. Kel­ly­anne Con­way said on Fox that elim­in­at­ing sanc­tions on Rus­sia is un­der con­sid­er­a­tion. I was won­der­ing if you would sup­port or op­pose elim­in­at­ing sanc­tions on Rus­sia.

I’d be op­posed to that. The sanc­tions I as­sume you were re­fer­ring to [came] as a res­ult of the an­nex­a­tion of Crimea and the in­cur­sion in­to east­ern Ukraine. And you can now add to that mess­ing around in the U.S. elec­tion. I would be vig­or­ously op­posed to any re­duc­tion of those sanc­tions.

I know Sen­at­or Mc­Cain said today that he’s go­ing to try to co­di­fy sanc­tions in­to law.

I think the first step is to en­cour­age the ad­min­is­tra­tion not to use any kind of waiver that may be in the ex­ist­ing law. If there’s any coun­try in the world that doesn’t de­serve any kind of sanc­tions re­lief, it’s the Rus­si­ans.

On the Su­preme Court, on Thursday Pres­id­ent Trump is ex­pec­ted to make his nom­in­a­tion to fill that va­cancy. … Will Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans do whatever is ne­ces­sary to con­firm the nom­in­ee?

Well, we’re go­ing to con­firm the nom­in­ee. I’m op­tim­ist­ic we’re go­ing to get an out­stand­ing nom­in­ee, one who’s ex­tremely well qual­i­fied. Wheth­er we would have to get clo­ture or not re­mains to be seen. What I would hope is that we’d be treated the same way as Bill Clin­ton was treated in his first ad­min­is­tra­tion. Gins­burg and Brey­er—clo­ture was not re­quired. Barack Obama: So­to­may­or and Kagan—clo­ture not re­quired.

If clo­ture is re­quired, we’ll have a clo­ture vote. And if we have a clo­ture vote like we had with Sam Alito, hope­fully clo­ture will be in­voked. Those are the pos­sible scen­ari­os that we’ve ex­per­i­enced in the past. All I can tell you—and all I will tell you no mat­ter times you ask me—is that we in­tend to get the nom­in­ee con­firmed.

I in­ter­viewed Sen­at­or Schu­mer a few weeks back and he still re­grets the Alito con­firm­a­tion. He still thinks he should’ve done more per­son­ally to block that.

He op­posed clo­ture. … Well, you’re go­ing to have to ask him what he in­tends to do. What I’m telling you is that we’re go­ing to get the nom­in­ee con­firmed.

Even if chan­ging the fili­buster rules [is re­quired]?

We’re go­ing to get the nom­in­ee con­firmed.

Onto health care. Your top goal this year is to re­peal and re­place Obama­care. I’m curi­ous what that meant for the Medi­caid ex­pan­sion.

We’ll see. That’s part of the whole pack­age—and go­ing for­ward to re­place what Bill Clin­ton called the cra­zi­est thing you’ve ever seen, what 8 out of 10 Amer­ic­ans say ought to be re­placed en­tirely or dra­mat­ic­ally changed.

If Hil­lary Clin­ton had been elec­ted, we’d be re­vis­it­ing Obama­care. We prob­ably would be re­vis­it­ing it in a dif­fer­ent way than what we had in mind, but the status quo is un­sus­tain­able. We were not elec­ted to con­tin­ue with the status quo on Obama­care. Ex­actly all the de­tails of what re­place­ment will look like, I couldn’t tell you right now, but we’re fully in­tend­ing to go for­ward.

There’s a few dif­fer­ent con­ser­vat­ive op­tions—provid­ing tax cred­its to en­cour­age [people to buy] health in­sur­ance, block grants, chan­ging [Medi­caid] to a per cap­ita al­lot­ment—are any of those the most at­tract­ive to you?

All of the vari­ous pos­sib­il­it­ies are un­der dis­cus­sion. And I’m not go­ing to sit here and ne­go­ti­ate with you. [Laughs]

There are hun­dreds of thou­sands of people in Ken­tucky who have got­ten health in­sur­ance through the ex­pan­sion.

It’s over­whelm­ingly un­pop­u­lar in Ken­tucky. In fact, it was a big factor in my reelec­tion in 2014 and the gov­ernor’s elec­tion in 2015. I think our mem­bers know that the Amer­ic­an people think we can do bet­ter.

On tax re­form—the oth­er big thing that you’re look­ing to get done this year with a pretty ag­gress­ive, bold agenda—the bor­der ad­just­ment tax is what people are really talk­ing about now. Mem­bers were talk­ing about it in Phil­adelphia. Do you sup­port a bor­der tax in a broad­er com­pre­hens­ive tax re­form?

What I sup­port is do­ing com­pre­hens­ive tax re­form. I had just got­ten here when we did it the last time. I was just a back­bench­er, but I was very much fa­mil­i­ar with how chal­len­ging it is. And it is really chal­len­ging.

It was ac­tu­ally easi­er then, be­cause you had a Demo­crat­ic House. Re­agan and O’Neill had agreed that it would be rev­en­ue-neut­ral to the gov­ern­ment. And Bill Brad­ley, a prom­in­ent lib­er­al Demo­crat in the Sen­ate, was ac­tu­ally on our side. I don’t an­ti­cip­ate that’s go­ing to hap­pen this time. So this will prob­ably be a Re­pub­lic­ans-only ex­er­cise, us­ing the re­con­cili­ation pro­cess, and we’re talk­ing about all the things that you’d like for me to han­di­cap or eval­u­ate—I don’t blame you for ask­ing the ques­tion, but I’m not go­ing to cri­tique each of the pro­pos­als that could al­low us to have com­pre­hens­ive tax re­form.

But you won’t come out in sup­port of it either?

I’m not go­ing to take a po­s­i­tion on any of the mov­ing parts right now. I do think it ought to be rev­en­ue-neut­ral. I think it prob­ably will have to be rev­en­ue-neut­ral us­ing the re­con­cili­ation ap­proach. With a $21 tril­lion debt, I don’t think we ought to blow a hole in that. And so with­in those para­met­ers, if the goal is to get the rates down, the ques­tion is: Whose pref­er­ences are lost? How do you make up for it?

I think Sen­at­or Lind­sey Gra­ham said that it would be “mucho sad” to do tar­iffs so mar­gar­itas are more ex­pens­ive today.

[Laughs] Well, you know, I’m will­ing to listen to the ar­gu­ments. We talked about the thing you raised—the bor­der ad­just­ment—we talked about cor­por­ate in­terest de­duct­ib­il­ity and the im­pacts of los­ing that. … Rev­en­ue-neut­ral tax re­form is not rev­en­ue-neut­ral to every­body. It may be rev­en­ue-neut­ral to the gov­ern­ment. But when pref­er­ences start go­ing away, it’s not rev­en­ue-neut­ral to that par­tic­u­lar pref­er­ence or those people who be­ne­fit from that par­tic­u­lar pref­er­ence. What we hope is that over­all when you get the rates down as dra­mat­ic­ally as the speak­er’s pro­pos­al would like to do, it com­pensates for a lot of that.

And we also think a more ra­tion­al code will help us have eco­nom­ic growth. The growth has been tep­id throughout the Obama years. And I think the stat­ute of lim­it­a­tions is run [out] on blam­ing that on Bush. This was the worst re­cov­ery after a deep re­ces­sion since World War II. And I think I saw a stat­ist­ic today that the growth rate for last year was 1.6 or something like that. I mean that’s really un­der­per­form­ing.

We need to get our foot off the brake and put it onto the ac­cel­er­at­or, and there’s two ways to do that: pro-growth, com­pre­hens­ive tax re­form and reg­u­lat­ory re­lief. And we’re go­ing to start the pro­cess of reg­u­lat­ory re­lief this week in the House. Those re­peals un­der the [Con­gres­sion­al Re­view Act] will come over to us, the ad­min­is­tra­tion will keep look­ing for ways to get reg­u­lat­ory changes [through the] ex­ec­ut­ive branch. … And we’re go­ing to try and get the coun­try grow­ing again.

Do you think that tax re­form could be tied to in­fra­struc­ture?

You’re ask­ing me all kinds of hy­po­thet­ic­als. We do have the chal­lenge, if we’re go­ing to do a big in­fra­struc­ture bill, of how do you pay for it? What I have said to the pres­id­ent and said pub­licly and say again to you now, I’m not in­ter­ested in do­ing any­thing like the stim­u­lus. $800 or $900 [bil­lion] of bor­rowed money and you can’t find a pro­ject al­most any­where in the coun­try that be­nefited from it. It’s like with­draw­ing the funds from the bank and light­ing a match to it and adding that much to the de­fi­cit.

So whatever we do needs to be cred­ibly paid for. And I think the way trans­port­a­tion pro­jects really, ac­tu­ally oc­cur is at the state level. They’re the ones who build roads, re­pair roads, and ac­tu­ally spend the gas-tax money that we col­lect and send down to them on a for­mula basis.

You wouldn’t want to in­crease that tax to pay for it.

That’s part of the whole dis­cus­sion. What is the ad­min­is­tra­tion go­ing—I’m open to hear­ing a re­com­mend­a­tion. What’re they go­ing to re­com­mend? How big is it? And how do we pay for it? And how’s it go­ing to be struc­tured?

I think those dis­cus­sions have just be­gun. I be­lieve there’s a task force with­in the ad­min­is­tra­tion. I think, for ex­ample, the per­son likely to be sec­ret­ary of Trans­port­a­tion [Elaine Chao, former Labor sec­ret­ary and Mc­Con­nell’s wife] is on [it]. They’re dis­cuss­ing ex­actly what I’m talk­ing about. We all love it—in­fra­struc­ture—Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans ab­so­lutely love in­fra­struc­ture. The is­sue is how are we go­ing to pay for it?

Do you think that there is enough? A tril­lion dol­lars worth?

I have no idea. We’re anxious to see what they re­com­mend.

On the bor­der wall—you said at the re­treat, [it is] go­ing to be $12 to $15 bil­lion, I be­lieve. Is that also go­ing to be off­set?

That’s also un­der dis­cus­sion. They have not sent the pro­pos­al up yet. We ex­pect the ad­min­is­tra­tion to send up a pro­pos­al. How much and how do you pay for it?

There are some people who noted that Re­pub­lic­ans his­tor­ic­ally wanted off­sets for Zika fund­ing or what-not. Do you think it’s ap­pro­pri­ate to do something like a bor­der wall, bor­der se­cur­ity that’s not off­set?

We haven’t got­ten a pro­pos­al.

The oth­er big thing that the pres­id­ent has con­tinu­ously talked about and tweeted re­cently is about the in­teg­rity of the bal­lot box. … This week, I be­lieve you said that fraud ex­ists. Speak­er Ry­an said that there wasn’t any evid­ence of mil­lions of people vot­ing il­leg­ally. I was in­ter­ested by the jux­ta­pos­i­tion of those two re­marks. I was won­der­ing why you think that is.

I think a lot of it de­pends on where you’re from. In Ken­tucky, we have a sig­ni­fic­ant amount of voter fraud. There are oth­er states where it’s al­most nonex­ist­ent. But what I can safely tell you is it’s a state mat­ter. In a num­ber of states where this has been an is­sue, they’ve gone to photo ID at the polls. That’s ac­tu­ally been up­held by the Su­preme Court—a 6-to-3 de­cision in a case arising out of In­di­ana. I don’t be­lieve the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment needs to look at this. Our whole elec­tion sys­tem is state-based. There are a num­ber of states who have been con­cerned about bal­lot se­cur­ity that have done something about it. One thing that happened to our state is that a num­ber of people got sent to jail. It had an in­ter­est­ing im­pact on the propensity to buy votes, which was ap­par­ently pre­val­ent in our state un­til a few years ago. I think it ought to be dealt with at the state level.

Do you see any evid­ence for those claims that mil­lions of people voted il­leg­ally in the 2016 elec­tion?

I don’t see any evid­ence of that, no.

What We're Following See More »
FROM YEARS AGO
Rep. Joe Barton Apologizes for Nude Selfie
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
THE QUESTION
How Many People Have Signed Up for Obamacare So Far?
11 hours ago
THE ANSWER

About 2.3 million, after three weeks of open enrollment. That exceeds the pace of sign-ups last year.

Source:
19 FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS
Latest Count: 12 Trump Campaign Staffers Had Contact with Russians
15 hours ago
THE LATEST
AT ISSUE: COMEY FIRING, SESSIONS’S RECUSAL
Mueller Seeks Documents from DOJ
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Special counsel Robert Mueller "is now demanding documents from the department overseeing his investigation." A source tells ABC News that "Mueller's investigators are keen to obtain emails related to the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the earlier decision of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the entire matter."

Source:
MULVANEY SAYS PROVISION ISN’T A DEALBREAKER
Trump May Be OK with Dropping Mandate Repeal
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Donald Trump would not insist on including repeal of an Obama-era health insurance mandate in a bill intended to enact the biggest overhaul of the tax code since the 1980s, a senior White House aide said on Sunday. The version of tax legislation put forward by Senate Republican leaders would remove a requirement in former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law that taxes Americans who decline to buy health insurance."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login