Senate GOP Vows to Quickly Quash Impeachment
Harriet Tubman Already Appearing on $20 Bills
Trump’s Formidable 2020 Tailwind
Happy Memorial Day!
Trump’s Tweets Lose Their Potency
Biden’s Campaign of Limited Exposure
• Deutsche Bank Case Will Be Expedited
• Some Candidates Are Betting the Farm on the Early States
• SCOTUS Blocks Gerrymandering Rulings
• Perez Is Scared Witless of the One Percenters
• Buttigieg Is Pushing for a Massive Q2 Money Haul
• Republicans Have Spent $4 Million at Trump Properties
• Trump Takes Steps that Hurt His Base--Again
• Facebook Will Not Remove Doctored Pelosi Video
• EU Elections Go Against Trend, Sort Of
• Monday Q&A
Donald Trump is in Japan playing golf with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe. He also managed to send off this tweet:
North Korea fired off some small weapons, which disturbed some of my people, and others, but not me. I have confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me, & also smiled when he called Swampman Joe Biden a low IQ individual, & worse. Perhaps that’s sending me a signal?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2019
In other words, the President doesn't think that Kim Jong-Un's recent missile launches are a big deal. That would be news to NSA John Bolton, who has condemned them, saying that they violated a U.N. Security Council resolution. Why Trump would defend Kim when his own NSA has a very different view of the threat they pose is not clear. Most likely, Trump doesn't understand what Kim is doing, and does not realize that he has no intention at all of getting rid of his nuclear weapons.
The dig at Joe Biden as a "low-IQ individual" is one that Trump has used before. In particular, he is fond of calling House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) a low-IQ individual. He has also referred to Robert De Niro the same way. It remains the case that, essentially without fail, people with actual high IQs are smart enough to know that IQ scores don't tell us all that much. And so, such people do not tend to brag about their scores, nor denigrate anyone else's. (V)
Lawyers for the House Financial Services Committee, and those working for Donald Trump, have reached an agreement to expedite the case in which the Committee has issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One for Trump's financial information. In return, the Committee won't enforce the subpoenas, even though Judge Edgardo Ramos last week threw out a motion from Trump's lawyers to block them.
The next step, then, is for an appeals court to take a look at Ramos' decision. Until it has made a ruling, the Committee, run by Maxine Waters, won't take any action.
Trump has long done business with Deutsche Bank, which has extensive records about his finances. A 2017 disclosure showed that Trump had outstanding loans of at least $130 million to the bank. The subpoena sent to Capital One is more about the Trump Organization's hotel business. The Democrats are interested in learning whether he has any conflicts of interest or any potential violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause. (V)
Different Democratic presidential candidates have different strategies for dealing with the early states. In general, the candidates who are barely known realize that their only chance lies in winning or at least coming in somewhere in the top three of one of the early states. Better-known candidates can afford to put more effort into the Super Tuesday states. For example, if Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) doesn't do well in lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire, it won't be fatal, especially if she wins a lot of delegates in California on March 3. Here is a chart showing how many events the candidates have held in Iowa and New Hampshire since Jan. 1, 2019:
As can be seen, John Delaney and Andrew Yang, two of the least known candidates, have held the most events in Iowa and New Hampshire. For them, those states are do or die. In contrast, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) isn't so interested. He is more focused on a national campaign because he knows his supporters won't drop him if he doesn't do well in the early states. Joe Biden scores the lowest of all, but that is because he announced his candidacy quite late and hasn't been campaigning very long. (V)
Recently, federal judges have ordered the states of Ohio and Michigan to go back and redraw their electoral maps. In the former, the issue was congressional districts, while in the latter, the issue was both congressional and state legislative districts. Late Friday, the Supreme Court issued an order that put both rulings on hold.
Friday's order offered no comment on the merits of the particular cases. However, SCOTUS already has two other gerrymanders that it is considering, in North Carolina and Maryland. There is every indication that the Court intends to use those two states (conveniently, one a Democratic gerrymander and one a Republican gerrymander) to issue a definitive statement on the legality of political gerrymanders (racial gerrymanders are already verboten). Presumably, the North Carolina/Maryland ruling will also address the situations in Ohio and Michigan. The decision is expected in late June and, given that it involves three swing states, should be pretty significant in terms of the 2020 elections. (Z)
No, DNC Chairman Tom Perez is not worried that the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson will interfere in the Democratic primary or even that they will shower money on Donald Trump in the general election. It's the new one percenters that Perez is concerned about: the Democratic candidates that are polling at 1% or lower. In a somewhat more rational system, candidates polling below 1% wouldn't be taken all that seriously, but Perez knows very well that in 2016, many of the supporters of Bernie Sanders felt that the DNC had its thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton (which is certainly true, although whether it mattered in the end is something else). Some of Sanders' supporters were so angry with the DNC that they voted for Jill Stein or didn't vote. That might have been the difference between Clinton winning or losing, and could be the difference in 2020, too. Hence Perez is terrified of offending anyone.
Consequently, he is absolutely bending himself into a pretzel to make sure that no Democratic candidate, no matter how marginal (yes, Marianne Williamson, we are looking at you) ends the primary season feeling cheated. And more importantly, he wants to make sure the supporters of the 23 current candidates who fail to land the nomination don't go off and sulk. For this reason, he is trying to make sure that every candidate is treated equally in the first two debates. In particular, he wants to make sure that none of the 20 candidates who will be allowed on the stage for either night of the first debate feels they are in the undercard debate.
Perez' first plan was to draw the candidates' names out of a hat to see who goes on the first night and who goes on the second night. But recently, he has had second thoughts about that, because that could potentially result in, say, Sanders, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris all being chosen for the same night, which might give viewers the feeling of that one being the grown-ups' debate and the other one being the kiddies' debate. To prevent dumb luck from turning one of the nights into the main attraction, he has instituted a new rule. The 20 qualifying candidates will be divided into two pools: (1) those polling at 2% or more and, (2) those below 2%. Half of each pool will be on stage each night. This will greatly reduce the chance of all the main players appearing together. Currently, eight candidates are polling at 2% or more, namely Biden, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Harris, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN), Beto O'Rourke, Sanders, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). If these remain the only two-percenters, four would be randomly chosen to appear the first night and four the second night. Will everyone be happy with this? Probably not, but what else can poor Perez do to make everyone happy? (V)
Pete Buttigieg has a strategy: raise so much money in the second quarter that he will be regarded as part of the top tier of candidates going into the summer and fall. His plan is to get his bundlers to raise between $25,000 and $250,000 in order to get special perks, such as briefings with the candidate and senior staff. Furthermore, he wants them to pony up half of their commitment by the end of June, so he can make a big splash when the Q2 numbers are released in mid-July.
Some of his supporters think he can pull it off. For example Charles Adams Jr.—a former U.S. ambassador to Finland who raised more than half a million dollars for Barack Obama—has said Buttigieg is like a breath of fresh air.
Buttigieg is working very hard on raising money. He will visit the Bay Area shortly and hold four fundraisers on the same day. First he will go to one in Oakland, hosted by a former Facebook executive. Then on to San Francisco for one held by Adams and one held by former U.S. Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich. Finally he heads off to Hillsborough, CA, a sleepy hamlet where the median household income is $263,000. Willie Sutton famously robbed banks because that's where the money was. Buttigieg is clearly applying the same principle to fundraising.
Buttigieg's strategy is different from the many other Democrats who are focused on raising their money in small donations online. He is going after Democratic donors in person. That said, he is also open to small donations at his in-person events. In San Francisco, for example, the cheap seats start at $25, but it takes $2,800 to get VIP treatment. In July we will find out how well his strategy works. (V)
Since Donald Trump was inaugurated in 2017, Republicans have spent over $4 million at his properties. More than a quarter of that money has come directly from Trump's campaign organization, which has rented space in Trump's properties at the full commercial price and held numerous events there as well. The RNC has also been a big spender, dumping over $1 million at Trump's properties in D.C. and Florida.
None of this is illegal. Nothing in the Constitution or any law says that a party committee or campaign may not spend money at a facility that benefits a candidate financially, although no candidate has ever done this before. Trump's hotel in D.C., Trump Tower in New York, and Trump's Doral golf resort in Florida have gotten the lion's share of the action.
It isn't that Trump properties are so good that any Republican would want to use them. Before he became president, few, if any, Republicans used Trump properties for anything. What is different now is that Trump has actively steered business to his properties and encouraged other GOP groups to do the same. He clearly regards the White House as a profit center and intends to make as much money as he can from it. (V)
Donald Trump's tariffs have provoked China to respond in a way that hurts Trump's base—in particular, pig farmers and soybean growers. Now he has done something else that predominantly hurts his own base. He is cracking down on the Chinese telecomm company Huawei. The situation is a bit complicated here, and Trump is probably not even aware of it.
On paper, Huawei is a private company, but many observers believe it has close ties to the Chinese government. Its equipment may well spy on the people using it and send the data back to Huawei, and thus to the Chinese government. Huawei's equipment is appreciably cheaper than the antennas, routers, base stations, and more made by any American or European company. For this reason, rural network operators largely use Huawei equipment (or, in some cases, equipment made by ZTE, another Chinese company that works closely with the Chinese government).
Here is an example of the problem: The Nemont phone company serves Valley County in northern Montana. Its footprint is 14,000 square miles, which is bigger than Maryland. However, it has only 11,000 paying customers, fewer than one per square mile. Stringing a line for miles out to a single farm or putting a cellular tower out in the middle of nowhere for five customers is not a financially rewarding proposition. With such a small subscriber base, Nemont bought the cheapest equipment it could, namely Huawei. If Nemont were forced to stop using Huawei equipment, it would have to shut down and the 11,000 customers would be cut off. People who live in big cities use Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Comcast, or one of the other big carriers, which are not forced to buy the cheapest equipment on the market because they have millions of customers and plenty of money. Consequently, a ban on Huawei (possibly followed by a ban on ZTE) would strike directly at Trump's rural base and have little or no effect on people who live in more densely populated areas, precisely where most Democrats live. (V)
A video circulating on Facebook shows Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) addressing reporters after her meeting with Donald Trump. In it, she appears to be drunk or mentally incapacitated. The original video is widely available, and it is clear that someone used their iMovie skills to doctor the clip. So, Democrats have blasted it as false and misleading and asked Facebook to remove the clip. Facebook has refused to do so, saying that Facebook has no policy that information must be accurate and it is better to let users make their own decisions.
Donald Trump is obviously happy with this decision. Last week he shared with his 60 million Twitter followers another doctored clip that suggests Pelosi is in mental decline. Of course, he may be less happy if he is the one targeted. For example, did you know that he was drunk while giving his inaugural address? Here's the evidence:
Ok, he wasn't really drunk (unlike, say, Andrew Johnson during his VP inauguration in 1865). However, this was done in under 5 minutes using easily available tools, and it's no better or worse, quality-wise, than the Pelosi video (which has pretty poor production values).
As computer technology improves, it is going to be easier and easier for more and more people to produce doctored videos showing things that never happened, and to make those doctored videos look absolutely real. Political partisans on both sides are going to be using them, and supporters will be pointing them out repeatedly. Fake news may become the norm in the not-too-distant future. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, commented on the videos, saying: "Doctored videos like this are not only vile, partisan trash, they are a sad omen of what is to come." (V)
We've had a number of items recently about elections worldwide veering in a populist, nationalistic, reactionary, and/or isolationist direction. This weekend, elections were held for the European Union's parliament, and they did not take a particularly populist/reactionary turn. While such folks did increase their share of seats in the EU's governing body, it was from about 20% (before the election) to about 25% (after the election).
This result, then, is a disappointment for Eurosceptics, who expected to do much better. It's also a victory for centrists like Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Emmanuel Macron, who made the case that the "future" and the "destiny" of Europe lie with the EU. The biggest success for anti-EU forces was, naturally enough, in the UK, where Nigel Farage's Brexit Party took more votes than any other in that country. However, Team Farage is not likely to have much voice in the new EU parliament. And, of course, they will likely be vacating their seats sometime later this year. (Z)
Lots of questions about last week's items!
Last week, (V) wrote: "There is always the dynamic that Chief Justice John Roberts cares very much about being seen as a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes, so he needs to rule against the Republicans from time to time on minor cases (like this one) so he can rule for them on the important ones (like gerrymandering and voter suppression)." What is the evidence that Roberts will rule against voting rights in the future? And would he not find a ruling against partisan gerrymandering to be too juicy an historical trophy to resist? S.L., Monrovia, CA
Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court takes a limited number of cases in any given area, one very significant ruling in that area is, well, significant. On some level saying, "besides Shelby County v. Holder, what has John Roberts done to reveal his position on voting rights?" is not unlike saying, "besides Plessy v. Ferguson, what has Melville Fuller done to reveal his position on racial equality?" With that said, the Roberts court actually has made other anti-voting rights rulings, even if they weren't as high-profile as Shelby. For example, they upheld Ohio's aggressive purge of voter rolls. They also allowed a gerrymander in Texas that a lower court had found to be discriminatory against Latinos. Both of these cases were decided by a 5-4 vote, naturally.
So, is it possible that Roberts will take his chance to go down in the history books as the man who helped kill the gerrymander? Sure, anything is possible. But his history suggests you shouldn't bet on it.
Over the last week, you noted several instances of polls underestimating right-wing populism. However, the elections in Sweden last fall were the other way round. The ruling Social Democrats scored about 4 points better than expected, the right-wing populists about 4 points less. In the elections in Germany and Spain recently, the polls were almost spot on. What is your opinion on this? Further, if there is such a thing as a 'shy Tory'/Bradley effect, it would seem that some people are willing to vote against their own best interests. I find that really difficult to fathom. S.T., Copenhagen, Denmark
Let's start with your latter points, because it (somewhat) sets up the answer to your first point. In polls prior to the 2016 election, roughly 60% of respondents said they did not think Donald Trump was qualified to be president. He got nearly 50% of the vote, which means that at least one in five of his voters apparently pulled the lever for him while simultaneously believing he was not qualified to be president.
In other words, it is clear that there is a certain lack of rationality, as the term is commonly understood, in modern voting. And, although it is harder to put into numbers, that also extends to voters' "interests." It is doubtful that people cast their ballots in a manner that they believe is actively harmful to their self-interest. But, it is obvious that many of them—more than in past generations—are prioritizing "culture wars" issues over more tangible things like "pocketbook" issues, national security, etc. There is also clear evidence of a reverse Bradley effect (instead of telling a socially acceptable lie, they falsely deliver a socially acceptable truth). For example, poll after poll had Trump's support among black voters in 2016 barely registering—often less than 1%. However, he actually got 8% of the black vote—clearly some of these folks were not telling pollsters the truth.
Also consider this: many people may have believed that Donald Trump was unfit to be president, but they hated Hillary Clinton with such a passion that they quite reasonably felt voting for an incompetent person was better than voting for a horrendous monster. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine that the Democrats somehow nominate Marianne Williamson in 2020. Polls of Democrats could show that 80% think she is totally unfit to be president but they still vote for her because they hate the other candidate with a fiery-hot passion. Is that so irrational?
And that leads us to your first question. Polling is based on modeling, and models are based on past experience. Polling also requires accurate data. If past experience is no longer predictive and people are not giving truthful responses, it is clear how pollsters could produce erratic results, sometimes on target, but sometimes veering several points wrong in either direction. And this is before we consider the cell phone problem we talked about last week.
Note that everything we say here is with the U.S. electorate in mind, although much of this undoubtedly extends to other countries as well.
Boris Johnson's eligibility to be U.S. president is an interesting possibility. You didn't mention, however, that it would have to be at least 14 years down the road, as the Constitution specifies that length of residency in the U.S. in addition to the minimum age of 35 and the ambiguous "natural-born citizen" requirement. And since this would not be Mr. Johnson's priority at the moment, it probably would be a lot longer than 14 years. R.T., Fresno, CA
You're right. The main point there was about the ambiguous nature of the "natural-born citizen" clause, since someone who is potentially going to become the leader of a foreign nation (and the nation that was America's #1 enemy when the Constitution was written, no less) could plausibly clear that bar, but people with clear loyalties to the United States (Madeleine Albright, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Elaine Chao) cannot.
Anyhow, the 14 years need not be consecutive, nor do they need to be the 14 years immediately prior to election. So, Johnson's got six months he spent here as an infant under his belt. But if he actually wants to run, he's going to have to move back to the U.S., and then start planning for the election of 2036 (or one of the elections thereafter).
Do historians in general, and/or you two in particular, have a way of evaluating the likelihood that a particular current event will be seen, in hindsight, as a significant historical event that will appear in the textbooks in 10/20/50/100 years later—as opposed to seeming terribly important at the time it happens, but vanishing from the historical consciousness? I have in mind, of course, the various events related to the Trump administration (and indeed, the election of Trump itself). You occasionally tell fascinating stories of the scandals and turmoils of past administrations (Lincoln, for example), but as a non-historian, they never made it to my history classes (or, at least, to my memory). In short, is there a method for judging if Donald Trump will be as well-remembered as Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, and George Washington, or as forgotten as Martin Van Buren? K.W., Bellevue, WA
We wish we had a more satisfying answer for you, but in the end, the only basis for such judgments is, well, the historian's best judgment. And, of course, predicting the future like this doesn't always work out so well. Various tombs of the unknown soldier (U.S., U.K., France, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Poland, etc.) were built in the 1920s to commemorate the last major war in human history. Oops. The 1949 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to António Egas Moniz for changing the face of psychiatric treatment with his invention of the lobotomy. Oops again. When Disneyland opened in 1955, its Tomorrowland section was, per the opening day TV broadcast, "set in the future, 1986, where a trip to the moon is an everday occurrence." Another oops.
You're also right that a lot of the juicy details of history don't find their way into a history course, primarily because there is so much material to (potentially) cover and so little time. However, we are 100% confident that Trump will be remembered for a very, very long time. Either he represents a sea change in American politics, along the lines of Andrew Jackson, or he represents a backlash that will set the stage for the next era of U.S. history, along the lines of William Jennings Bryan. And both of those men are definitely still taught in U.S. history classes. In fact, on the first day of his modern U.S. history course, (Z) does a brief exercise where he runs through the various "eras" of American history (Civil War, Reconstruction, Gilded Age, Progressive Era, World War I, Roaring Twenties, etc.). He notes that the current era has no name other than "the Modern Era," because we are still living it and we don't know what the main story will be, but that it's entirely possible that it may acquire the name "The Age of Trump." That is not a judgment of merit, but merely an observation that Trump may prove to embody the themes of his times as fully as the only other person who has an era named for them (Jackson, with the Jacksonian Era, roughly 1824-1844).
Too many people are seemingly unaware that the U.S. government does indeed get tariff revenues, collected by Customs and Border Protection on behalf of the Commerce Department. Thus, the recent increase on tariffs from 10% to 25% on the $200 billion of imports from China could yield as much as an additional $30 billion in tariff revenues. Admittedly, the cost of the tariffs is borne by either the importer or ultimate purchaser (if there is one), but to overlook the fact that the government will see some level of increased tariff revenues (theoretically enough to cover the farm bailout) as was done in your recent item shades the truth a bit. A.R.S., West Chester, PA
As we've noted a few times, (Z) lives in California. And so he is reminded of what happened when the state legalized the lottery, with the politicians claiming that the proceeds would go to schools. It is technically true that the proceeds did go to schools, but school funding from other sources was cut in equal measure. So, "schools got money from the lottery" is only true through bookkeeping trickery. Undoubtedly the same is true with whatever "cause" lottery money was supposed to go to in other states.
Anyhow, we certainly recognize that tariff revenues go into the coffers of the federal government. And (Z), who wrote that item, particularly recognizes it, since tariffs were the primary source of revenue for the federal government until the establishment of the income tax. If we seemed to be suggesting otherwise, that is probably another example of inartful writing. In fact, the key sentence in that item was clunky enough that one of the folks who kindly volunteers as a copy editor suggested that (Z) go back and rewrite it.
That said, suggesting that the tariff money is going into the government's vaults, and then out to the farmers is just like suggesting that lottery money is going to California's schools. The point was that Team Trump is making choices about who is and is not worthy of federal funds, and pretending otherwise is misleading. This semi-dishonesty is made worse when both the President and the Secretary of Agriculture claim that "China" is paying that money. That clearly implies that the Chinese government is ponying up, which is certainly not true.
What does the bench for the Democrats look like in North Carolina? You wrote on 5/24 that Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is vulnerable. Who are the potential challengers, and are any of them actually interested in doing so? D.E., Kennett Square, PA
The blue team certainly has a bench, although their dream candidate—state AG Josh Stein—has said he's not interested. He's a good campaigner and a good fundraiser and he's already won statewide, so the Democrats are really hoping he changes his mind.
Failing that, the North Carolina congressional delegation currently has three Democrats (G. K. Butterfield, David Price, and Alma Adams), though the three of them are all septuagenarians who will likely prefer to stick with their safe House districts (D+17/D+18) for the remainder of their careers. There's also Marine Corps veteran Dan McCready, who is half the age of that trio, and may join them in Washington, depending on what happens when the new election is held in NC-09. If he can win an R+8 district, he'll certainly pique the interest of Democratic pooh-bahs. Heck, he may pique their interest even if he doesn't. Another alternative is a blast from the past, namely former congressman and college football quarterback Heath Shuler. He's a centrist, and Southerners do like football players. Or how about Charlotte mayor Vi Lyles, who would presumably have the backing of the state's largest city (by a lot), as well as the state's black voters? That could be potent.
Thus far, the only declared candidates are Mecklenburg County Commissioner Trevor Fuller and State Senator Erica D. Smith. Both are black, and Mecklenburg County is where Charlotte is located, so both would be going after many of the same voters that Lyles would be, if she declared. Whoever the candidate is, however, recall that few people had ever heard of Stacey Abrams or Beto O'Rourke at this point in the process in 2017, so even a second- or third-tier candidate can surprise, particularly if they have the backing of the Democratic establishment. And given Tillis' weaknesses, his eventual opponent will definitely have that support.
I'm confused about why the U.K. is holding elections for the European Parliament. Isn't the U.K. on its way out of the EU? Are they not far enough along in the Brexit progress, or are they hedging just in case something gets reversed? C.J., Lowell, MA
You've pretty much got the right of it. Until the U.K. leaves the EU, they are still a member and are entitled to representation. And there's still the possibility they will remain. If they do, it would be a little awkward if their seats in the EU parliament had already been taken away.
That said, the already longshot possibility of no Brexit became an even longer shot this weekend, given how much success Nigel Farage had with the pro-Brexit party that he founded mere weeks ago (see above). He is going to present the results, with some justification, as a mandate. At very least, that will give him a powerful hammer to wield against the next PM. At most, it could propel Farage himself to the premiership. That said, the majority of the votes actually went to anti-Brexit candidates (51-48%), so this situation is not going to resolve itself easily or quickly, even with Theresa May's departure.
If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer, click here for submission instructions and previous Q & A's. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at firstname.lastname@example.org.Email a link to a friend or share:
---The Votemaster and Zenger
May24 Robbing Peter to Pay Paul?
May24 Spring Storm Was Apparently a Summer Breeze
May24 Another Day, Another Indictment
May24 Secretaries of State Give Trump Headaches
May24 Democrats: State of the Race
May24 Alabamians Want More Moore
May24 Tillis a Top Target...for Republicans
May24 The Backlash Continues...
May24 ...And it Claims Another Victim
May23 Trump Storms Out of Meeting with Pelosi and Schumer
May23 Judge Allows Deutsche Bank Subpoena to Stand
May23 New York State Is about to Become a Problem for Trump
May23 Schiff and Department of Justice Reach Agreement
May23 Trump and Biden in a Dead Heat in Florida
May23 Poll: Enough about Russia Already
May23 Mnuchin Wants to Find Out Who Wrote the Memo on Trump's Tax Returns
May23 Investigators Can't Tell If Northam Was in Blackface Photo
May23 Thursday Q&A
May22 Who Will Talk To Congress?
May22 Impeachment Pressure on Democratic Leadership Increases
May22 Trump Appears to Be Losing the Trade War
May22 Trump Also Appears to Be Losing the Financial Secrets War
May22 Amash May Run as Libertarian
May22 Trump To Appoint Cuccinelli to DHS Post
May22 Republican Wins in PA-12; Kentucky Governor's Race Set
May21 Judge Rules Against Trump
May21 White House Orders McGahn Not to Testify
May21 Trump Slams Fox News
May21 Amash Becomes a Pariah
May21 Elizabeth Warren Did OK in West Virginia
May21 Pollsters Fret Over 2020
May21 Austrian Government Falls
May20 Biden Kicks Off His Campaign
May20 Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Are Not Interchangeable
May20 How Will the Move to Primaries Affect the Democratic Race?
May20 Americans Are Not So Keen on Old Candidates
May20 Republican Congressman: Trump Has Committed Impeachable Offenses
May20 Alabama Abortion Law Could Have Consequences
May20 Report: Deutsche Bank Employees Saw Suspicious Trump and Kushner Activity
May20 National Republicans Are Mobilizing to Stop Kris Kobach from Becoming a Senator
May20 A Surprise Down Under
May20 Monday Q&A
May17 Trump Unveils Immigration Plan
May17 Trump Clips Hawks' Wings
May17 Trump Says He Made $434 Million in 2018
May17 Flynn Sang Like a Canary, Disregarded Influence from Unknown Congressman
May17 Walmart to Raise Prices due to Tariffs
May17 Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week: Bill de Blasio
May16 Trump Will Stonewall Congress on Everything