Mar. 01

Pres map

Pres polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Previous | Next

Programming Note: We pushed the Thursday Q&A because of all the Michael Cohen news. We're going to push it one more day, which means we will definitely be having a Saturday post this week.

Following Cohen Testimony, Members of Congress Make Their Next Moves

Well, that didn't take long. On Wednesday, Michael Cohen dished all kinds of dirt about Donald Trump that, if true, would be deeply problematic for the President. Clearly, the members of Congress burned the midnight oil on Wednesday night, because folks on both sides of the aisle were ready to take their next steps by Thursday morning.

Let's start with the Democrats. The moment they got subpoena power in the House, there was approximately a 99.9% chance that they would eventually have a chat with Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg. When Cohen advised that the longtime Trump employee is definitely someone worth talking to, those odds jumped to approximately 99.999%. And, on Thursday, it became 100%. House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), who really hates Trump and really loves publicity, announced that he will be calling Weisselberg in to testify. His stated concern, which is not unreasonable, is that Trump may have financial obligations that allow him to be compromised by foreign governments. There's a good chance that as long as Weisselberg is going to be in town anyhow, a few other committee chairs will also want to hear from him.

Weisselberg is not the next target of House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings (D-MD), however. Instead, the Representative told reporters on Thursday that he thinks the time has come to talk to Trump's kids about what they knew and when they knew it. That does not mean Weisselberg or anyone else is off the hook, of course. Cummings also noted that, "All you have to do is follow the transcript. If there are names that were mentioned or records that were mentioned during the hearing, we want to take a look at all of that."

On the other side, meanwhile, Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) were Trump's loudest and staunchest defenders on Wednesday, using their questioning time to cross-examine Cohen and to condemn the whole hearing. On Thursday, they made a move too, asking the Justice Department to investigate Cohen for perjury, and claiming that they have evidence he is guilty of such. It appears that Meadows and Jordan plan to focus on Cohen's claim that he did not want a job in the Trump administration, a statement that does not appear to be entirely truthful. Maybe they will nail him to the wall, and maybe that will render all of his testimony moot. CNN's Chris Cillizza thinks that is a distinct possibility.

On the other hand, maybe not. Proving what someone truly "wanted" is a tricky business, and Cohen could easily (and possibly truthfully) claim that any "lobbying" he did for a White House job was out of obligation, and not out of a true desire to serve. Further, even if he demonstrably lied about that, it would be a form of face-saving lie, like lying about one's net worth or weight or SAT score. A falsehood of that sort may or may not invalidate claims made about more concrete matters like financial transactions or interactions with the Russians, particularly if those claims are backed by documentary evidence and/or corroborating testimony from other people.

Meadows, incidentally, has a minor headache of his own to deal with. During Wednesday's hearings, he grew enraged by the insinuation that he is a racist, observing that he has nieces and nephews of color. He didn't say so, but he probably also has a black friend, too. Anyhow, this inspired quite a few people to do some digging, and to unearth three different recordings from 2012 of Meadows talking about how Barack Obama really needs to go back to Kenya. Given the racist undertones of Obama birtherism, Meadows' embrace of that conspiracy does not help his argument that he's not racist. And while his views clearly did not hurt his reelection chances in past years, they aren't going to help in 2020, when his opponent will undoubtedly remind voters about what the Congressman said. Of course, depending on what happens with Donald Trump, Meadows' leadership of the Trump cheer squad could be even more poisonous by then. (Z)

GOP Senators to Trump: Drop the Emergency

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who is retiring and thus has little to lose, addressed the Senate on Thursday. His subject was Donald Trump's national emergency proclamation, and his message was: "Cancel the proclamation." Alexander argued that the President has ways to scrape together $5.7 billion without setting a "dangerous precedent."

Despite giving the speech, the Senator was unwilling to commit to voting for the House-passed measure that would cancel the resolution (making that promise would, in effect, make him the deciding vote). Since Alexander is finished with running for office, he's clearly not worried about aggravating Trump-loving voters, so it must be that he (and his colleagues) fear Trump himself. Or they still want things from him, like lots of dyed-in-the-wool-conservative judicial nominees. Whatever the case may be, it is also very clear that the Republican senators do not want to support an expansion of presidential power that Trump might deploy again, and that the next Democratic president would almost certainly deploy.

The odds are that Trump does not heed Alexander's advice, since withdrawing the national emergency declaration would be "weak," and would also hand a(nother) victory to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Further, if the administration thought there was a way to scrape the money together, they would presumably have chosen that path initially. If and when Trump holds firm, then the rubber will meet the road for the GOP senators. None of them wants to be the 51st vote that secures passage of the resolution, and that might just be enough to cause them to hold the line and to give the President a narrow 50-50 win (with VP Mike Pence breaking the tie). On the other hand, if they break ranks en masse, then none of them can be specifically blamed for "passing" the measure. Alexander's speech is presumably a not-so-subtle message that a plan of this sort is in the works.

If Trump were to stick to his guns, then lose a vote in the Senate by a margin of, say, 60-40, and then issue a veto, we would be in a brave new world. Every president is aggravated when Congress fails to do their bidding, but none of them took it quite so personally as Trump is liable to do. Meanwhile, it's now clear why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is taking his time with the joint resolution. It's not to give him extra opportunities to lobby his caucus, it's to give his caucus extra opportunities to lobby Trump. (Z)

Trump Sides with a Strongman Again

Following his unsuccessful summit with Kim Jong-Un, Donald Trump talked to reporters on Thursday. Not surprisingly, the press asked questions about Otto Warmbier, the American student who was arrested and imprisoned by North Korean authorities for 15 months. Though he was eventually returned to the U.S. by the North Korean government, he was in a coma by that time, and he died without regaining consciousness.

In response to the questions, Trump said that he had indeed broached the subject with Kim, that Kim denied any involvement on his part, and that he (Trump) believes the North Korean dictator. Here are the President's exact words:

I did speak to [Kim about Warmbier]. He felt very badly. He knew the case very well, but he knew it later. And, you know, you got a lot of people—big country, lot of people. And in those prisons and those camps, you have a lot of people. And some really bad things happened to Otto. Some really, really bad things. But he tells me that he didn't know about it and I will take him at his word.

This, of course, is hardly the first time that Trump has decided to put his trust in the words of a less-than-trustworthy strongman. He bought Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman's claims that he had nothing to do with the death of Jamal Khashoggi, and Vlad Putin's denials about Russian interference with the 2016 election. Kim's story is no more truthful than either of these; there is absolutely no chance that his underlings would do something as provocative as arresting an American without the Dear Leader's say-so.

Why does Trump so predictably take sides with strongmen who talk out of both sides of their mouths? This will be something that historians grapple with long after this presidency ends, but from where we sit, there appear to be three plausible explanations. The first is that, for someone who is allegedly a great negotiator, he's actually very credulous and is easily manipulated. Alternatively, he's always had a very clear need to be accepted into the "club" by powerful people, and maybe this is a part of that dynamic. The third possibility is that this is the art of diplomacy, Trump-style, and he thinks that by turning a blind eye to these men's crimes, it will facilitate future cooperation. If that's it, it's not a very admirable philosophy, nor is it likely to be a correct one. For folks like Kim and Putin, "give me an inch and I'll take a mile" is their mantra, and they feast on those who show weakness.

Whatever the underlying dynamic is, Thursday's remarks were a bad look for Trump, especially since they dishonor the memory of an American who was young and innocent of any bad behavior, and who is now dead. Not surprisingly, he was slammed by partisans on both sides of the aisle. Many of them could not help but draw the same parallel that we did. For example, former ambassador Michael McFaul:

And of course, Trump gives Kim Jong Un a pass. Just like MBS. https://t.co/T9Yg0xD7Ne

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) February 28, 2019

McFaul's a Democrat; how about a Republican, like Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)?

On the @SenateFloor this afternoon I honored the life of #Ohioan Otto Warmbier & urged everyone not to forget the brutal nature of #NorthKorea’s regime. We can’t be naïve about what they did to Otto & what their gov’t continues to do to their own people.

— Rob Portman (@senrobportman) February 28, 2019

So, between this and the national emergency declaration, Trump is getting some pretty big pushback from his own party, just 24 hours after John Dean...er, Michael Cohen testified. Time will tell if the troops fall back in line, or if we will look back on February 27, 2019, as the tipping point. (Z)

RNC Chair Tacitly Threatens Potential Trump Challengers

There are a number of GOP senators who are cranky with Donald Trump, at least for now. However, the RNC still has his back. Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel appeared at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, and had a few thoughts about any Republican who might mount a primary challenge against Donald Trump:

They have the right to jump in and lose. That's fine. They will lose horribly. The president has a 90 percent approval in our party. What would any Republican be thinking saying, "This is a guy I'm going to run against?"

What they are thinking, of course, is, "90% now, yes, but if he craters, Nixon-style, I'd like to be in a position to pick up the pieces."

McDaniel's loyalty is not surprising, since she has been on the Trump bandwagon from very early, and it was he who effectively chose her as RNC chair (a privilege afforded by both parties to a sitting president). But could her very overt efforts to cook the books for Trump backfire? It's certainly possible. We saw in 2016 what happens when the party machinery appears to be in the bag for a candidate, like Hillary Clinton, who is disliked by a sizable portion of the party's voters. Further, if the Trump presidency does go up in flames, it will be much harder for the RNC to distance themselves from him. Of course, if that does come to pass, then McDaniel will likely have to resign, so there's no particular need for her, personally, to hedge her bets. (Z)

Wheeler Confirmed to Lead EPA

When Scott Pruitt was leading the EPA (and when he was serving in every other political office he ever held), he was pretty obviously in bed with the lobbyists. For his replacement, Donald Trump decided to try something different, and to pick someone who literally is a lobbyist. And on Thursday, the Senate made it official, confirming former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler by a 52-47 vote. It was a party-line vote, excepting that Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voted with the Democrats, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) did not vote (presumably because she is en route to New Zealand to participate in a triathlon this weekend).

It cannot be any clearer that the Trump administration has no interest in protecting the environment, and that for the next couple of years at least, the 'P' in EPA really stands for 'plunder.' That said, it's remarkable that they could not be a little more subtle about it, and find someone—anyone—whose immediate past employment was not promoting the most environment-damaging fuel the world has to offer. In any event, if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal did not make this clear enough, global warming is going to be central to the Democrats' 2020 platform. And young voters—the same ones that sometimes struggle to get to the polls—are highly motivated by this issue, perhaps because they think they might actually have a use for planet Earth in 30 or 40 or 50 years. Appointing someone like Wheeler, and then approving him on a near-party-line vote, will just make it that much easier to illustrate that when it comes to the blue team and the red team, there is a black and white difference on this very green issue. (Z)

Netanyahu Indicted on Corruption Charges

In some countries, if a leader appears to be up to no good, the law enforcement apparatus actually does something about it. Israel is one of those countries, and on Thursday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was indicted on charges of bribery and breach of trust. He promptly denounced the charges as categorically false and claimed that he was the victim of a media-led witch hunt. He will stand for reelection to a fifth term before the criminal process begins, so people around the world will be watching to see if Israelis vote for someone who is plausibly accused, but not yet convicted.

Quite a few folks in the media, like the editorial board of Haaretz, wondered if this is not a potential preview of American politics in 2020. By then, Donald Trump could well stand accused of specific crimes, he might be running for reelection without those accusations having been resolved, and he would certainly deny everything and claim "witch hunt." In any event, it's pretty clear why Trump and Netanyahu get along so well, and it's interesting that seemingly every world leader who prefers Trump over Barack Obama turns out to be a crook, a hoodlum, a murderer, or some combination of the three. (Z)

Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week: Jeff Merkley

We've worked our way through most or all of the frontrunner-type candidates. Now, we're delving into some of the longer shots, although this fellow certainly isn't as long a shot as some of the names that have been bandied about (e.g., John Kerry).

Jeff Merkley

You can access the list of candidate profiles by clicking on the 2020 Dem candidates link in the menu to the left of the map. (Z)


Back to the main page