Oli Scarff/Getty

Trump baffles politicians around the globe by hitting them up for cash.

Earlier this week, Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, who represents the Independence Party in the Icelandic Parliament, was taken aback by a letter from Donald Trump, Jr. asking for a donation to help his father defeat “crooked Hillary.” Þór Þórðarson wasn’t the only one puzzled. Parliamentarians all over the planet, in the United Kingdom and Australia as well as Iceland, have been importuned for funds to help Make America Great Again.

These emails are genuinely bewildering. For one thing, they seem in violation of campaign finance laws against collecting money from non-Americans. But beyond legality, they raise some disturbing questions about Trump’s campaign. It’s known that Trump is having trouble fundraising and is reluctant to spend much more of his purported billions on the campaign. But is he really in so much trouble that he needs to turn to Icelandic nationalists?

The other possibility is that this is just a screw-up. It’s easy to imagine that the Trump campaign bought or acquired an email list of possible donors and didn’t make any effort to scrub out the names of foreign donors. Given the fact that Trump’s leading campaign adviser Paul Manafort has been involved in political campaigns around the globe, this scenario makes some sense.

But with four and a half months to go until Election Day, both theories are troubling. Whether operating out of desperation or incompetence, the Trump campaign is in deep trouble.

March 28, 2017

Mandel Ngan/Getty

The White House sure looks like it’s doing a cover-up of the Russia story.

Citing executive communication privilege, officials from the Trump administration tried to prevent former acting Attorney General Sally Yates from testifying before the House Intelligence Committee about connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to the Washington Post. Yates, who informed the White House that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had lied to the press and Mike Pence about the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition, was fired in February after declining to defend the Trump administration’s travel ban.

The Post received letters sent by Yates’s attorney to the Department of Justice, which describe the Department of Justice’s position:

The Department of Justice has advised that it believes there are further constraints on the testimony Ms. Yates may provide at the [House intelligence committee] hearing. Generally, we understand that the department takes the position that all information Ms. Yates received or actions she took in her capacity as Deputy Attorney General and acting Attorney General are client confidences that she may not disclose absent written consent of the department.

We believe that the department’s position in this regard is overbroad, incorrect, and inconsistent with the department’s historical approach to the congressional testimony of current and former officials. In particular, we believe that Ms. Yates should not be obligated to refuse to provide non-classified facts about the department’s notification to the White House of concerns about the conduct of a senior official. Requiring Ms. Yates to refuse to provide such information is particularly untenable given that multiple senior administration officials have publicly described the same events.’

It’s clear that the White House is trying to use executive privilege to block Yates from saying anything at all about her time as acting attorney general—a time in which she informed Trump that his very own national security adviser had lied to the administration about his contacts with an official representing a foreign government. Yates apparently informed the House Intelligence Committee on Friday that she intended to present it with information regarding Michael Flynn. Devin Nunes, the committee’s chair who is in hot water himself for being shady as hell, canceled the hearing the next day.

At the very least, this is the latest in a long line of examples of the Trump administration appearing to cover up ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. It’s still unclear if it is merely trying to cover up the appearance of complicity and wrongdoing, or if there’s something more serious going on.

The administration’s willingness to use executive privilege here is notable insofar as it suggests that it is taking the Russia-Trump story extremely seriously and wants to do everything it can to block it. This is, of course, what administrations do. But given the scope of this story—which now involves Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, Devin Nunes, Jeff Sessions, and Jared Kushner (and that’s only people who served in the administration!)—it’s increasingly clear that an independent commission is necessary. What’s ironic is that the Trump administration’s behavior only makes that commission more likely.


Donald Trump’s attempts at muddying the Russia scandal are extremely stupid.

Trump treated the tweeting public to a rare late-night barrage on Monday evening. Unsurprisingly, his recent troubles—the Russia scandal, which has been spinning out of control for weeks now, and the disastrous attempt at repealing and replacing Obamacare—were at the forefront of his mind. Trump’s tweets about Obamacare were predictable: He blamed the Freedom Caucus yet again for killing the bill, and he claimed, as he did a few minutes after pulling the bill, that Obamacare is collapsing (it isn’t). His tweets about Russia were stranger—and they continued the next morning.

So what’s going on here? Trump starts by rehashing the very, very old story of John Podesta, the Clinton Foundation, and the Russian uranium deal—a story that helped kick off the right’s anti-Clinton war back in 2015 and that served as a kind of grace note to Clinton’s eventual defeat in the 2016 election. That story emerged out of the book Clinton Cash, which was written by Peter Schweizer, the head of the Steve Bannon–funded the Government Accountability Institute. In many ways, the uranium story and Clinton Cash set the pattern for the attacks that Bannon and Trump would use against the Clintons: that they were part of a corrupt global elite that was undermining America. When Wikileaks released John Podesta’s emails in the summer of 2016, the organization would once again spotlight the Russian uranium story.

But that is a very old story at this point. Trump is also spotlighting a newer dubious story about the Clinton campaign and Russia. A number of rightwing sources have boosted a Daily Caller story that alleges that Podesta “may have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014.” This story relies on—you guessed it—Wikileaks emails and the Government Accountability Institute.

Trump is doing what he’s done for the last several years: He is signal-boosting dubious stories from right-wing outlets to muddy a damaging narrative. But this is not a particularly good time for Trump to be jumping up and down telling people to look at reporting based on Wikileaks investigations. He’s also reminding us that he is the president—not Hillary Clinton, not John Podesta, neither of whom have been accused of receiving help from the Russians in an election that they lost.

All Trump is doing is spotlighting his own, well-documented connections with the Russians. And he’s doing so at a time when there’s a news vacuum, following his health care fiasco. The Russia story already seems poised to rush into that vacuum—and Donald Trump is helping.

March 27, 2017


It looks like Devin Nunes messed up.

His bizarre press conference last week raised a host of questions: Why did the chair of the House Intelligence Committee rush to the White House to claim that the government had “incidentally” collected some of the Trump team’s communications in 2016? Why did he insist that these communications had nothing to do with the Trump team’s suspected ties to Russia, or Trump’s claim that he had been “wiretapped” by the Obama administration? Why did Nunes keep other members of the House Intelligence Committee in the dark? Why wouldn’t Nunes identify his source, especially after spending much of Monday haranguing FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers about anonymous sources leaking to the press? And what motivated him to hold the press conference, which damaged his already broken credibility as an impartial investigator and further emboldened those calling for an independent probe?

Over the weekend, more information emerged about the series of events that culminated in Nunes’s press conference. Nunes reportedly made a secret trip to the White House the evening before the press conference—the suspicion was that he went there to meet his source. On Monday, he confirmed that he went there but claimed he only did so “in order to have proximity to a secure location where he could view the information provided by the source.” He told Bloomberg he went to the White House because it was convenient: “We don’t have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress,” Nunes said. But this is not true: As Jake Sherman reported on MSNBC today, there are secure facilities in the Capitol.

Nunes is saying that the optics are bad, and that is all there is to the story. Certainly, secretly visiting the White House while investigating the White House doesn’t look very good! Whatever the intention of his meeting or of the subsequent press conference, he’s bungled this situation. On Monday, Chuck Schumer upped the pressure and called on Paul Ryan to replace Nunes as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee—a new tactic and an escalation of previous calls for an independent commission.

Bloomberg / Getty Images

No, Jeff Sessions, sanctuary cities don’t make America less safe.

Speaking at the White House on Monday, the attorney general asserted that “when cities and states refuse to help enforce immigration laws our nation is less safe,” while announcing that the federal government will sever grant money to sanctuary cities.

In fact, Tom K. Wong, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego, came to the exact opposite conclusion in a study published by the Center for American Progress in January:

Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties—from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment.

Moreover, Wong points out, “local law enforcement officials have argued against assisting federal immigration enforcement agencies such as ICE. Assisting in federal immigration enforcement efforts can drive a wedge between local law enforcement officials and the communities they serve, which undermines public safety.”

It’s not just Wong who’s made these findings either. “No Evidence Sanctuary Cities ‘Breed Crime’,” Factcheck.org at the University of Pennsylvania concluded in a comprehensive post last month. The website cited a separate study from the University of California, Riverside, and Highline College, which also noted that the well-established body of research showing immigrants don’t commit crimes at higher rates than non-immigrants.

Of course, none of these studies suggest that becoming a sanctuary city makes a city safer. But they make it abundantly clear that Sessions’s claim that sanctuary cities make America less safe is bogus.


Donald Trump is baiting the Freedom Caucus to shut down the government.

Trump’s last week in office was by far his worst yet—no small achievement, given that his first 65 days in office have been characterized by chaos, infighting, and incompetence. His failure to repeal and replace Obamacare means that he will most likely end his first 100 days in office with zero legislative achievements, despite Republicans controlling both the executive and legislative branches.

Trump’s response to the failure of Trumpcare was characteristically contradictory. On one hand, he signaled that he was ready to move on, that less than three weeks of health care debate was already too much, and that it was time to focus on tax reform. According to Politico, Trump was “less upset about the death of the health bill than he had been about the crowd size controversy at his inauguration.”

On the other hand, the White House spent the weekend playing the blame game (also: golf). And while Trump is clearly blaming everyone not named “Donald John Trump” for his failure, the House Freedom Caucus has emerged as the most public target of his wrath. He tweeted at them before the fateful non-vote:

And then again on Saturday after the bill had failed:

Hatred of the Freedom Caucus makes strange bedfellows. It was perhaps the only thing that ever brought Barack Obama and John Boehner together, however briefly. But by going to war with the Freedom Caucus—particularly by going to war with the Freedom Caucus over abortion—Trump is giving it ammunition in next month’s continuing resolution fight, which could shut down the government.

As Axios Presented By Koch Industries’ Jonathan Swan wrote over the weekend, “the conservative House Freedom Caucus—the group Trump blamed on Twitter this morning for killing his Obamacare replacement bill—will almost certainly make defunding the women’s health group and country’s biggest abortion provider a non-negotiable condition for it to support the government funding bill.” Trump’s attacks on the group for failing to defund Planned Parenthood in the Obamacare repeal will only further embolden them.

This is not, to put it mildly, the kind of move you’d predict from a supposed master negotiator, or from someone who has supposedly moved on to the next fight. Forget tax reform—the continuing resolution is most likely the Trump administration’s next big fight. And Trump is botching this one, too.

The Washington Post / Getty Images

Democrats are stronger than they’ve been since the election. Now they need to not blow it.

Following the failure of the American Health Care Act last week, the Democratic Party and the progressive movement are better positioned politically than at any point since Donald Trump’s surprise victory in November. The post-inaugural protests were heartening, the Women’s March was inspiring, and the ongoing Russian revelations continue to damage Trump’s presidency. But it was only Friday, with the complete collapse of Republican governance on what should have been the ultimate unifying issue for the GOP, that proved Democrats in Washington are truly relevant again.

As Politico reported Monday morning, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is particularly emboldened, poised to continue capitalizing off Republican divisions like Trump’s split with the hard-right Freedom Caucus. “The leader of the seemingly powerless House minority,” Politico’s Heather Caygle wrote, “might actually have some juice. ... The Democratic leader, known for her business-like manner, kicked off her heels on the Capitol grounds Friday, jumping up and down in her stocking feet with supporters.”

The challenge now, though, is for the party to wield its modest influence strategically—knowing when to shape the Republican agenda when possible and when to try to stop it in its tracks. In April, Democrats may find themselves in a tough spot: Congress will be charged with keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling. But when it comes to tax reform, infrastructure spending, and certainly Trump’s signature wall on the Mexican border, the party should be ready to resist.

Keep in mind that Republicans aren’t talking about the kind of bipartisan tax reform former President Barack Obama used to float. The White House and House Speaker Paul Ryan are eying changes that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, like abolishing the estate tax. And on infrastructure, Trump isn’t pushing for traditional public investment. He’s honed in on tax incentives for private companies—an approach doomed to fail since the whole problem with infrastructure is that there are simply some public goods the private sector doesn’t want to provide.

These are perfect opportunities for Democrats to hold their ground—and draw clear contrast with Republicans. The downside of this approach is getting blamed for obstruction, but as the Republicans proved during the Obama years it is usually the ruling party that gets blamed for inaction in Washington. Trump is already blaming Democrats for Republican incompetence, and progressives might as well thwart more of his plans in the process.


Jared Kushner’s “SWAT Team” to run government like a business reveals what he doesn’t know about government (and business).

The Count of Monte Cristo cosplayer was skiing when Trumpcare died—a good place to be, I suppose, given the fact that the Trump White House and Republican House of Representatives spent the weekend throwing blame around. But that doesn’t mean that Kushner is disengaging. Far from it. Only Kushner’s wife, Ivanka Trump, and maybe Steve Bannon can compete with Kushner’s influence in the presidential orbit. 

Despite having no history of public service and a business record that’s entirely dependent on inherited wealth and inherited proximity to power, Kushner’s fingerprints are all over the White House’s domestic and foreign policy (Kushner is Trump’s point man for China, Mexico, Canada, and the Middle East). And he’ll add another helmet: Late Sunday The Washington Post reported that Kushner would lead The White House Office of American Innovation which is (emphasis added) “viewed internally as a SWAT team of strategic consultants.”  

Uh huh. If you’re able to set aside the terrible and disturbing SWAT team metaphor, which you shouldn’t because it’s terrible, this is not a terrible idea in and of itself. The Obama administration started two startup-ish programs to bring digital innovation to the White House that have both made government programs more efficient without being disruptive—the US Digital Services and 18F. Neither of these programs, strangely, are mentioned in the Post’s report or by the White House, perhaps because it’s not entirely clear how Kushner’s SWAT Team will be different. 

The Office of American Innovation seems to be an outgrowth of the Strategic Initiatives Group, which Kushner worked on with Bannon, who famously said that his goal is to “destroy the state.” So, while the USDS has worked tirelessly to improve the functioning of the VA and Medicare, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Kushner’s programs try to improve the functionality of government programs—on the right, after all, “efficiency” is often a euphemism for “cutting budgets and staff.” If Kushner really wanted to make the White House work efficiently, he might start by hiring people—key government offices are currently empty. 

But the most revealing part of the Post piece about Kushner’s new role is this quote: “We should have excellence in government. The government should be run like a great American company. Our hope is that we can achieve successes and efficiencies for our customers, who are the citizens.” The idea that the government should be run like a company is not a new one—judging by Trump’s performance in his first nine weeks in office, it’s also not a good one. But this quote is revealing in that it has the relationship between government and the citizenry backwards: Citizens are not the government’s “customers,” they’re its bosses. 

But Kushner has other things on his mind besides making the government function like Fuddruckers. On Monday morning, The New York Times reported that Kushner is the latest Trump White House official to have obscured meetings with Russians—he apparently met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice, although the White House did not disclose those meetings. He’ll soon be taking a break from throwing flash grenades and kicking down doors in the federal government to testify before the Senate.  

March 24, 2017

Mandel Ngan/Getty

Donald Trump is hilariously trying to blame the Democrats for how badly he and Paul Ryan bungled Trumpcare.

Trumpcare went down in flames on Friday and Trump had only himself (and, to a very slightly lesser degree, Paul Ryan) to blame. Trump did a terrible job selling the public and whipping congressmen, showing that he had no understanding of how health care or Congress works. He completely screwed up negotiations with a number of parties by repeatedly and transparently bluffing. It was, moreover, never clear, at least to the public, why Trump and Ryan were pushing health care so fast and why there were doing so now, before tax reform or Trump’s proposed $1 trillion infrastructure package. Nothing about the American Health Care act made sense—not the content of the bill, not the timing, and not the series of dramatic escalations Trump made over over the past three weeks.

Its failure on Friday, though still shocking, was inevitable from the outset: This was a terrible bill being sold to a Republican Congress that has no idea what it means to be in the majority, by a president who has no idea how to govern. Which, of course, means that Donald Trump blamed the Democrats for the bill’s failure during a very strange press conference in which he was flanked by Tom Price and Mike Pence for some reason:

“We had no Democrat support. They weren’t going to give us a single vote so it’s a very difficult thing to do,” Trump said. “I’ve been saying for the last year and a half that the best thing we can do politically speaking is to let Obamacare explode—it’s exploding right now. ... What would be really good is—when it explodes—if the Democrats got together with us and did a real health care bill. I’d be totally open to it. I think the losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Because now they own it—they own Obamacare. 100 percent. They own health care. This is not a Republican health care. This is not anything but a Democrat health care.”

This is a very odd analysis of the situation. While it’s true that they had no Democratic support, Trump did not reach out to Democrats. More importantly, he and Ryan didn’t need to. The Republicans control the House: They should have been able to pass this bill with zero Democratic support. If they wanted to pass a bipartisan bill, as President Obama wanted to do with the Affordable Care Act in 2010, they could have reached out to negotiate. They didn’t.

That basic fact—that the Republicans are in control of the legislative branch as well as the executive branch—means that the rest of Trump’s statement is just as nutty. Because the Republican Party controls the government, they effectively own health care. They are the ones with the means to fix this system. That Trump is now actively rooting for Obamacare to fail only puts the burden of responsibility even more squarely on his shoulders.


Ding dong, Trumpcare is dead.

The American Health Care Act, aka Trumpcare, aka Ryancare, aka the worst goddamn bill in living memory, died today, 19 days after it first emerged from its cold womb in the Capitol. The House was scheduled to vote on the bill at 3:30 p.m. on Friday, even though it had been abundantly clear for hours that Speaker Paul Ryan did not have the votes. He told Donald Trump that the bill was cooked over an hour before the vote was scheduled, and looked like he got popped in the jaw in the process.

It’s still not entirely clear who pulled the bill. Trump claimed credit first:

But it is more likely that this was a defensive maneuver, meant to make it look like he was in control of a situation spiraling out of his control. Ryan and House Republicans likely decided not to go through with the politically damaging process of voting on a bill they knew would not pass.

Trump’s decision to take credit for folding the GOP’s cards, however, will have consequences. The supposed master of the deal will begin the next negotiation (and probably every negotiation thereafter) in a weakened position because of it. Trump’s one negotiating tactic for this bill was to bluff and bluff and then bluff some more, going so far as to force his fellow Republicans to vote on something they hate to punish them politically. That bluff has been taken off the table for future use.

Trump and House Republicans have indicated that they simply want to move on and use reconciliation, which they were planning to use for health care, on tax reform instead. But it’s hard to overstate just how badly both Trump and Ryan played this situation. Republicans still control both chambers of Congress, so it’s possible that they’ll be able to pull something together on tax reform. But this debacle has been incredibly damaging to both of them, to the relationship bewteen the White House and Congress, and to the Republican Party in general.

After seven years of screaming about Obamacare, they essentially came together as a party and endorsed it. This is an amazing fact, likely inexplicable to Republican voters who were expecting a swift repeal of a law that was supposedly destroying America. It’s possible that these clowns will take another shot at health care, but given how badly this played out, it seems unlikely, at least in the near future.