Pool/Getty

Donald Trump is trying to bully his way to 51 votes on health care.

On Monday, in a ghoulish speech to the Boy Scouts Jamboree, Trump threatened to fire Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price if Republican senators failed to repeal Obamacare. He then turned his attention to Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, who had yet to decide how she was going to vote on the motion to proceed:

[Price] better get Senator Capito to vote for it. You got to get the other senators to vote for it. It’s time. After seven years of saying repeal and replace Obamacare, we have a chance to now do it. They better do it. Hopefully they’ll do it.”

It was a surreal moment in a surreal speech; a crowd of 40,000 Boy Scouts is not exactly the audience one would expect for this kind of arm-twisting. But on Tuesday, when it came time to cast her vote, Capito voted to proceed.

This is really Trump’s only move, whether dealing with a member of his own party or a foreign adversary, so it’s no surprise that he’s doubling down in advance of a pivotal health care vote that’s expected to go down late Thursday evening or early Friday morning.

This is a message not just for Murkowski, who, along with Maine Senator Susan Collins, is expected to vote no on whatever bill the Senate ultimately produces. It is also for other Republicans: Vote against this destructive health care bill and President Trump will hound you on Twitter forever.

Trump has been widely and justly criticized for his complete lack of engagement with Congress and his total disinterest in the details of health care policy, but he’s been successful so far at bullying and cajoling Congress forward. He doesn’t have the relationships, the policy is wildly unpopular, and so it’s a partisan pitch all the way down. It worked on Capito on Tuesday, so why wouldn’t it work on other waverers on Thursday?

December 12, 2018

Alex Wong/Getty

Trump believes public will “revolt” if he is impeached.

In an interview with Reuters conducted in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump dismissed the possibility of impeachment. “It’s hard to impeach somebody who hasn’t done anything wrong and who’s created the greatest economy in the history of our country,” Trump said. “I’m not concerned, no. I think that the people would revolt if that happened.”

Trump also blamed the payment he made to Stormy Daniels on his former attorney Michael Cohen. The president further disputed that the payment was a criminal offense, and indeed argued it was not a violation of any sort.

Democrats, Trump insisted, had a choice to either work with him or to fight him. “We’re going to go down one of two tracks. We’re either going to start the campaign and they’re going to do presidential harassment. Or we’re going to get tremendous amounts of legislation passed working together. There’s not a third track,” he told Reuters. “Look, they’ve been looking for two years about collusion. There’s no collusion.”

As often in the past, he tried to deflect attention from his own scandals by calling attention to the alleged misdeeds of Bill and Hillary Clinton. “Why doesn’t somebody talk about that?” he wanted to know.

December 11, 2018

Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images

Did China just detain a former Canadian diplomat to retaliate for the arrest of a Chinese executive?

Michael Kovrig, once a Canadian diplomat stationed in Beijing, has been missing for two days in China. He currently works as a consultant to the think tank International Crisis Group, which provides security consulting.

“International Crisis Group is aware of reports that its North East Asia Senior Adviser, Michael Kovrig, has been detained in China,” a statement from the organization states. “We are doing everything possible to secure additional information on Michael’s whereabouts as well as his prompt and safe release.”

On Saturday, Canada had arrested Meng Wanzhou, an executive in the Chinese telecommunication firm Huawei. Meng faces possible extradition to the United States for breaking a sanction against trade with Iran.

The Chinese government has strenuously objected to this arrest and there were fears of reprisals against Canadians in China. In a statement, the Chinese government said, “China strongly urges the Canadian side to immediately release the detained person, and earnestly protect their lawful, legitimate rights, otherwise Canada must accept full responsibility for the serious consequences caused.”

It’s unclear whether the Kovrig’s detention is an attempt to punish Canada for Meng’s arrest. However, some observers, like Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, are drawing the possible connection.

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty

“I am proud to shut down the government for border security,” says Trump.

In an awkward meeting with incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, President Donald Trump said that he was willing to shut down the government if he didn’t get funding for his border wall. Going further, the president said he would take full responsibility for such an eventuality. 

“If we don’t get what we want, one way or the other, whether it’s through you, through military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government,” Trump said. “And I am proud. I’ll tell you what. I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck. Because the people of this country don’t want criminals and peoples that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into the country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame your for it.  The last time you shut it down, it didn’t work. I will the mantle of shutting down. I’m going to shut it down for border security.”

During the exchange, Schumer was smiling, as well he might since the president handed the Democrats a powerful sound bite they can replay if a shutdown occurs. Vice President Mike Pence, also present at the meeting, looked uncomfortable.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo sees a few notable takeaways from this exchange: “One is Schumer at the very end baiting Trump into defiantly insisting he’ll be ‘proud’ to shut down the government,” Marshall notes. “Another is Pelosi, steel without bluster, formidable in any circumstance but particularly for Trump who couldn’t seem to find either weakness or escalation. He would switch over to Schumer for a break.” 

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty

A bipartisan group of 44 former Senators publish a banal, poorly written statement.

The Washington Post has published a curious op-ed written by 44 former Senators who vaguely warn of an impending threat to American democracy. “As former members of the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans, it is our shared view that we are entering a dangerous period, and we feel an obligation to speak up about serious challenges to the rule of law, the Constitution, our governing institutions and our national security,” the statement reads.

The signatories are bipartisan: 32 are Democrats, ten are Republicans, and two are independents. The Republicans tend to skew towards the more moderate wing of the GOP, including figures known for working with Democrats such as Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar.

The bipartisan authorship might explain why the statement is so anodyne, with no clarity about what exactly the former senators want. The Mueller investigation is mentioned but President Donald Trump goes unnamed.

The statement asks that the Senate defend democracy but that could mean anything. Supporters of Trump could believe they are defending democracy by protecting the president from what they see as Mueller’s witch hunt.

As Susan Hennessey of the Brookings Institution notes:

Because the statement amounts to a nothing more than a collection of patriotic bromides, it is also ineptly composed. Consider this sentence: “It is a time, like other critical junctures in our history, when our nation must engage at every level with strategic precision and the hand of both the president and the Senate.” It’s difficult to figure out what this might mean. Jello has more solidity and fog more clarity of shape.

Equally vacuous is this line: “We are at an inflection point in which the foundational principles of our democracy and our national security interests are at stake, and the rule of law and the ability of our institutions to function freely and independently must be upheld.”

It’s true that America is facing a constitutional crisis that will test its institutions. But that nature of the crisis can only be confronted if it is named: There is accumulating evidence that President Donald Trump has committed crimes that warrant impeachment.

The fact that many members of the political elite, including even former senators, can’t bring themselves to be blunt about this matter is itself part of the problem.

Elsa/Getty

Trump’s cronies are raking in large sums lobbying for regimes that want sanction relief.

The New York Times is reporting that former Trump advisors and campaign officials are carving out a lucrative niche as lobbyists to governments that want to avoid sanctions. A key conduit for this activity is the Israeli security consulting firm Mer Security and Communication Systems, which was paid $8 million by the Democratic Republic of Congo to lobby against sanctions. Congo is facing sanctions because of the human rights abuses of the nation’s president, Joseph Kabila.

Mer dispersed large payments to many Trump cronies and associates. As The New York Times reports: 

Lobbying filings show $360,000 paid by Mer to Adnan Jalil, a former congressional liaison for Mr. Trump’s campaign; $250,000 to the firm of Nancye Miller, the wife of the Trump campaign adviser and former C.I.A. chief R. James Woolsey Jr.; $680,000 to the firm of former Representative Robert L. Livingston, an early Trump endorser; and $598,000 to the firm of Brian Glicklich, who has represented Trump allies such as Breitbart News and Rush Limbaugh.

One of Mer’s great successes was an event promoting Congo at the Hay-Adams hotel in July, which was attended by Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani. As the Times notes, “Mer also agreed to pay $1.25 million to the firm of Robert Stryk, who had worked with Trump campaign officials, to organize the Hay-Adams event and meetings around it for Mr. Kabila’s special envoy to the United States.” During the event, “Trump administration officials and allies, including the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, gathered with investors atop the Hay-Adams hotel overlooking the White House for a cocktail reception featuring a short presentation by the Democratic Republic of Congo’s special envoy to the United States.”

Giuliani denies he’s acted as a lobbyist for Congo but has also given conflicting accounted the Hay-Adams event. He first said he went there to impress a woman, because the hotel has a great view. Later, Giuliani said he thought there could be business opportunities at the event. “We’ve always wanted to see what’s Africa all about,” the former New York mayor claimed.

The New York Times notes that Giuliani’s business has been discussing providing security consulting to Congo “possibly through Mer.” Giuliani himself seems to think that security consulting is distinct from lobbying. In a text message to the newspaper, Giuliani said if he did business for Congo  “it would only be security consulting.” He added that, “Beyond that, I can’t say anything other than you can assume if we are working in a foreign country, we are doing security — physical and cyber, antiterrorism, emergency management.” 

December 10, 2018

Sean Gallup/Getty

Macron apologizes and offers French protestors grudging concessions.

Speaking on television, French President Emmanuel Macron made some concessions to the so-called Yellow Vest protestors whose rioting has disrupted his country for weeks. The Yellow Vests, he admitted, were people who “had not been listened to”—over the last four decades “malaise” has gripped  “villages and neighborhoods where public services have been diminishing, where living conditions had deteriorated.” Going further, he said “I feel in many ways that the anger of the Yellow Vests is right.” France, he acknowledged, is facing “a state of social and economic emergency.”

“I assume my share of the situation,” Macron said. “I may have given you the feeling I have other concerns and priorities. I know some of you have been hurt by my words.” Macron had been widely criticized in France for being aloof and for policies favoring the rich. 

In redress, he promised an increase of the minimum wage by 100 Euros a month (to be instituted in 2019). He also said a planned increase in taxation on pensioners would be canceled. Finally, he called on businesses to increase their bonuses to workers and to pay overtime. 

In comparison to his talk of “emergency,” these remedies seem minor, if welcome. It’s unlikely that they will be enough to satisfy protestors. 

pencer Platt/Getty

Wall Street is getting jittery after finally paying attention to the news.

Until a few months ago, the stock market seemed to respond to the tumultuous news of the Trump era with blissful equanimity. It didn’t matter what Trump tweeted, what investigations were underway, or which countries he threatened with trade war or even nuclear destruction. Stocks kept going up and down of their own accord. But this period of Wall Street being kept separate from politics seems to be ending.

As The New York Times reports, news that had previously been shrugged off by Wall Street (notably trade war, rising interest rates, and the slowdown of other large economies) is suddenly making investors nervous.

Last week, elements of all of those combined to drive the S&P 500-stock index down by 4.6 percent, its worst weekly drop since March and one marked by stomach-churning price swings. Stocks are now down 1.5 percent this year,” the newspaper notes. “More volatility could be in store, as investors assess the allegations by prosecutors that President Trump directed illegal payments to ward off a potential sex scandal, and the possibility that he sought to secretly do business in Russia during his 2016 campaign for the White House.”

The Washington Post also sees signs that the stock market is taking stock of a storm global landscape. “U.S. markets deepened their losses Monday as Britain’s political crisis around Brexit clouded investors’ outlook. British Prime Minister Theresa May put off a key parliamentary vote on her country’s exit from the European Union,” the Post notes. “Investors are also on edge about developments in the U.S.-China trade dispute.”

Investment strategist Julian Emanuel argues the sway of the news cycle on politics is out of the ordinary. “The fact is that politics is driving the economy to an extent that is very atypical,” he told The New York Times. “We would say probably to the greatest extent that we’ve seen in our investing lifetime.”

While the stock market is not the same as the economy as a whole, the current nervousness on Wall Street could presage a recession. If so, there is a real possibility of a feedback effect. President Donald Trump has taken comfort in the success of the stock market under his watch. But once that source of boasting is gone, Trump could become even more erratic. This would create a situation where the president and Wall Street are egging each other on in a downward spiral.

STANSALL/AFP/Getty I

Theresa May admits she doesn’t have the votes for her Brexit deal.

On Monday, British Prime Minister Theresa May delayed the planned vote on the deal her government has negotiated for exiting the European Union, acknowledging that there wasn’t enough support in Parliament to push it through. The major stumbling block remains Northern Ireland, which wants its borders with Ireland (a member of the European Union) to remain open. The so-called “backstop” in Northern Ireland to ensure the open border is deeply unpopular with Brexit supporters. As Reuters notes, “May’s opponents say the backstop could leave Britain subject indefinitely to EU rules, long after it gives up say in drafting them.”

Addressing Parliament, May conceded that, “On one issue, the Northern Ireland backstop, there remains widespread and deep concern.”

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn responded to the news by saying that “the government has decided Theresa May’s Brexit deal is so disastrous that it has taken the desperate step of delaying its own vote at the eleventh hour.”

Corbyn is not alone in seeing the news as a sign of a government in shambles. Analyzing the situation, Reuters concludes that “the move thrusts the United Kingdom’s divorce from the European Union into chaos, with possible options including a disorderly Brexit with no deal, another referendum on EU membership, or a last minute renegotiation of May’s deal.”

JABIN BOTSFORD/AFP/Getty Images

Is the Supreme Court avoiding abortion cases?

That’s what three of the conservative justices suggested after the court announced on Monday that they wouldn’t hear Gee v. Planned Parenthood and Anderson v. Planned Parenthood. The two cases involve challenges to state efforts to cut off the organization from state Medicaid funds.

The court declines to hear thousands of cases each year without explanation. In a dissent, however, justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch put forward their own interpretation of the court’s inaction here. Because only four votes are needed to hear a case, their dissent signals that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted against taking up the decision, alongside the court’s four liberals.

Both cases address whether Medicaid recipients have the legal standing to challenge a state’s decision to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving state Medicaid funds. There’s a divide among the lower counts on the question, Thomas noted, which is one of the most common circumstances in which the justices intervene. “So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?” he wrote. “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’”

Thomas is being somewhat coy; he, Alito, and Gorsuch are better positioned than anyone else to know why Roberts and Kavanaugh voted against hearing the cases. Their suggestion sends an interesting signal in the legal fight over abortion rights after Justice Kennedy’s retirement. Supporters and opponents alike assumed that Kavanaugh would provide conservatives with their long-awaited fifth vote to sharply curtail the practice or even overturn Roe v. Wade. Monday’s decision suggests that the damage inflicted on the court’s public image by Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle may have changed that calculus, and that a substantive move against abortion rights may be further away than many previously thought.

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty

Nick Ayers, expected to be named White House Chief of Staff, turns down the job.

The White House is scrambling to find a replacement for outgoing Chief of Staff John Kelly, after the presumptive replacement rejected the job. As The New York Times reports, “Nick Ayers, the main focus of President Trump’s search to replace John F. Kelly as chief of staff in recent weeks, said on Sunday that he was leaving the administration at the end of the year.” Ayers had been in negotiations with the White House to take the position, but talks broke down over several issues, including how long Ayers was expected to stay on the job. Ayers wanted the job to be temporary while the president preferred a chief of staff willing to commit to at least two years.

Kelly’s tenure as chief of staff had been a tumultuous one, marked by repeated failures to impose the promised order that the former general was hired to bring to the White House. Any successor would face an even more difficulties, given the president’s mounting political troubles.

“The decision leaves Mr. Trump to contend with fresh uncertainty as he enters the 2020 campaign amid growing danger from the Russia investigation and from Democrats who have vowed tougher oversight, and could even pursue impeachment, after they take over the House next month,” The New York Times notes. “As the president hastily restarted the search process, speculation focused on a group that was led by Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican who is the hard-edge chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, but also included the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin; Mr. Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney; and the United States trade representative, Robert Lighthizer.”

By the end of Sunday night, even this shortlist seemed like a grasping at straws since some of the those on it were reportedly not interested in the job. As Politico reporter Nancy Cook tweeted: