Paul Waldman/WaPo:
President Trump is dragging Republicans down with him
And as we reach November 2020, we could see a repeat of 2018, with Trump insisting that political victory will be his if only he tells a few more lurid stories of immigrant crime and holds a few more rallies so that his rabid supporters can chant “Build that wall!” (or “Finish that wall!” or “Paint that wall!” or whatever he decides the latest slogan should be), despite all evidence pointing toward defeat. Should that happen, Republicans whose own necks are on the line will wonder whether they might have done anything to prevent being taken down with him. But by then it will be too late. In fact, it probably already is.
NPR:
Poll: 6-In-10 Disapprove Of Trump's Declaration Of A National Emergency
Nearly 6-in-10 also don't believe there is an emergency at the southern border and that the president is misusing his presidential authority. They also believe that his decision should be challenged in court.
"All things related to the declaring of a national emergency, the president is striking out in the court of public opinion," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the survey. "He's maintaining his base and little else."
Pro tip: There is no pivot. Now, that doesn’t mean Trump is guaranteed to lose, but be realistic, folks. He’s in big political trouble and is being challenged in primaries. That’s a sign of weakness, not strength. And this time there is no James Comey to save him.
The fact remains that his base is not enough to win with.
Trump is doing for the national GOP what Pete Wilson did for the California GOP.
Dan Hopkins (political scientist, no axe to grind) with some Bernie observations:
Sanders' backers were much more likely than Clinton backers to talk about either his policy proposals or the social groups he'd help, often defined in class terms.
That's more evidence that while Sanders benefited from being anti-Clinton candidate in '16, he was also preferred by many voters because of his policy positions. Questions moving forward: 1) how much of that left-leaning core can he hold in a very different 2020 Dem field?
In a multi-candidate field, will the anti-establishment Dem vote coalesce around a single candidate--and if so, will it be Sanders? My guess is that this will be tough--in 2016, Clinton was a quasi-incumbent. But we will see...
Bernie’s still got juice, but it’s a different paying field. As Hopkins says, we will see...
And that’s my takeaway.
Dan Drezner/WaPo:
A man who is too weak occupies an office that is too strong
The thing is, he has a decent chance of winning. The economy is still strong, and this time he is running as the incumbent. Democrats will have plenty of opportunities to shoot themselves in the foot over the next eighteen months, and if they don’t, Howard Schultz might shoot them instead. 2016 should have taught observers that it is possible for a man with low approval ratings to get win an election. And if Trump is reelected, then all of this talk of weakness needs to be discarded.
Yes, Trump is a weak, disorganized president. But the office he occupies is so strong that even a weak-minded fool can leave lasting scars.
In telling you not to assume things, this assumes many things: no Mueller effect, economy stays good, no foreign policy disasters, tax plan blowback doesn’t matter, Dems will beat themselves, etc.
It is true on paper. But I’m not buying, not after 2018.
Here is your must read news story, NY Times, about obstruction of justice:
Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump’s Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him
As federal prosecutors in Manhattan gathered evidence late last year about President Trump’s role in silencing women with hush payments during the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump called Matthew G. Whitaker, his newly installed attorney general, with a question. He asked whether Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Trump ally, could be put in charge of the widening investigation, according to several American officials with direct knowledge of the call.
Mr. Whitaker, who had privately told associates that part of his role at the Justice Department was to “jump on a grenade” for the president, knew he could not put Mr. Berman in charge because Mr. Berman had already recused himself from the investigation. …
The story of Mr. Trump’s attempts to defang the investigations has been voluminously covered in the news media, to such a degree that many Americans have lost track of how unusual his behavior is. But fusing the strands reveals an extraordinary story of a president who has attacked the law enforcement apparatus of his own government like no other president in history, and who has turned the effort into an obsession. Mr. Trump has done it with the same tactics he once used in his business empire: demanding fierce loyalty from employees, applying pressure tactics to keep people in line and protecting the brand — himself — at all costs.
Here’s another thread on the courts from Josh Chafetz:
Dan's piece is excellent and (as always!) well worth your time! But a couple of thoughts on his response to Doug's and my piece [Trump’s emergency declaration doesn’t show his power. It shows his weakness.] …
Even if Trump "wins" in court--and for the record, I the the odds are high but not overwhelming that the current Supreme Court would rule in his favor--the real issue in my view is how long it would take. Winning in court takes a long time. So does "building wall."
It's not clear to me that Trump could get all that much wall built by 2024 without Congress playing along, much less by 2020.
Always remember the “courts” are people who read newspapers. They are political actors who will have a sense of the appeal/unpopularity of that which they rule on.
Charlotte Observer:
Operative at center of NC election fraud hearing won’t testify
Britt’s testimony was the beginning of the attempt by a new, five-member state board to prove what Executive Director Kim Westbrook Strach called “a coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme operated during the 2018 general election in Bladen and Robeson counties.”
The hearing took place in a makeshift courtroom at the state bar and drew dozens of potential witnesses as well as national media. When it ends, the board will vote to either certify the victory of Republican Mark Harris, call for a new election or deadlock, which would throw the matter into limbo.
IOW the Republicans in NC stole an election but got caught.
Here’s a great simulator of what it means to be vaccinated/not vaccinated from the Guardian:
Watch how the measles outbreak spreads when kids get vaccinated – and when they don't
Measles will infect 9 of 10 unvaccinated exposed people and Emergency Rooms need to know you’re coming to take precautions, especially since the immunosuppressed, babies and other vulnerable people might be there. Call ahead and follow instructions.
It’s 2019. “Vaccinate your kids” is highly relevant.
Barbara McQuade/USA Today:
Why Mueller tucked a big Roger Stone reveal in a Russia filing on a technical matter
Mueller says Stone communicated with WikiLeaks and the GRU. He could be holding back charges for strategic reasons. That's what I did as a prosecutor.
One detail in the new filing jumps out. It says “the government obtained and executed dozens of search warrants on various accounts used to facilitate the transfer of stolen documents for release, as well as to discuss the timing and promotion of their release. Several of those search warrants were executed on accounts that contained Stone’s communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with Organization 1.”
Guccifer 2.0 is alleged to be a persona operated by the GRU, and Organization 1 is believed to be WikiLeaks.
This passage is revealing for several reasons. First, the filing discloses that the government has evidence of Stone’s direct communications with Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks. This revelation goes much further than the Stone indictment itself and establishes a direct link between Russia and Stone, a Trump campaign adviser.
Referring to these communications as “evidence” suggests that the special counsel considers the communications probative and relevant to proving Stone’s guilt. Whatever these communications are, we can reasonably conclude that they are incriminating.