Just as I was sitting down to write up the APR overnight, the supporting documents for Carter Page’s FISA warrant became available. Though still redacted, it’s clear from what’s available that: Devin Nunes was lying all along— the Christopher Steele documents did not constitute the only, or even a major part of, the evidence that justified a warrant against Page. Secondly, the wording of this warrant certainly suggests that Page wasn’t just a patsy for Russian agents, but was himself considered a Russian intelligence asset. This would seem to suggest that a review may be in order of how Page became part of the Trump campaign. Earlier stories had suggested that the Russians made serious attempts to recruit page. But these documents .., make it seem that they were successful.
Okay … pundit time.
Leonard Pitts has some advice for a new Democratic talking point … stop talking.
Democrats must realize that they’re in a back-alley brawl, not a pillow fight. That they don’t get this yet can be inferred from the new slogan House Democrats unveiled last week: “For The People.” While that’s an improvement over last year’s, “A Better Deal,” with its musty scent of leftover Roosevelt, it still doesn’t suggest a party ready to rumble.
In that, the party is disconnected from its people, who are viscerally furious. Democratic leaders don’t seem to know what to do with that anger. Indeed, they seem to fear it.
There’s always been a deep, abiding fear of leaders who were “riding a whirlwind” of political opinion, and suddenly finding themselves at the front of a movement. That fear is especially strong among people who are too timid to grab the reins, and find themselves instead holding the bag.
Next month marks 50 years since the Chicago convention wherein Democratic anger — and police brutality — split the party, alienated voters and helped make Richard Nixon president. But their palpable discomfort with the outrage of their constituents suggests Democrats have over-learned the lessons of that debacle. …
They seem to be holding out hope of an eventual return to “normal.” But normal — i.e., the pre-Trump world — is gone for good.
There’s no going back. There never is. But forward is available for those who are willing to lead — and leading in 2018 is going to include a willingness to channel anger and frustration. Maybe into something positive. Maybe into still more anger.
But definitely into votes.
Trump—Russia
Anne Applebaum provides some analysis of how Trump directly benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Data is the energy, the lifeblood, the food and drink of any modern election campaign. From the mundane — names, addresses, voting districts — to the specifics of habits and interest, data matters more than television time, more than space on billboards, more than speeches and debates. In the olden days, it helped candidates figure out which doors to knock on. Now it involves sophisticated algorithms and highly controversial, carefully targeted campaigns designed to evoke primitive emotions — hope, fear, anger, joy — on social media. …
Now we need to ask a new question: Was data also at the heart of the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia? Nearly a year ago, I speculated that the Trump campaign might have shared data with the Russian Internet Research Agency, the team that created fake personas and put up fake Facebook pages with the goal of spreading false stories about Hillary Clinton. The Russians certainly seemed to know what they were doing. On the one hand, the Russian team targeted people who they thought might be moved to support Trump by anti-immigration slogans and messages; on the other hand, they targeted black voters with messages designed to discourage them from voting at all.
It’s absolutely clear that critical data — the voter turnout model that Democrats used in both planning their campaign and allocating resources, along with names and contact information for Democratic voters — was stolen by the Russians, turned to GOP strategist, identified as valuable, passed to Trump’s campaign, and followed up with notes to make sure its importance was recognized. All of that is completely public in just indictments that have been made so far.
The Russian hackers, in other words, are the modern equivalents of the Watergate burglars in 1972. The only difference is the technology. The Watergate burglars broke into the Democratic campaign offices to tap phones and steal documents; the Russian hackers used malware and “cloud-based accounts” to achieve the same goal.
Jackson Diehl on how Putin shouldn’t feel too comfortable just because he has Trump in his pocket.
Vladimir Putin is probably still smirking about the chaos created by President Trump’s European tour, which has led thoughtful people on both sides of the Atlantic to conclude that not just NATO but the whole post-World War II liberal order led by the United States is doomed.
They may be proved right. But I suspect that before they are, Putin, too, will come to regret the Helsinki summit. More than likely, it has torpedoed the Russian president’s chances of extracting practical benefits from Trump’s fervent attempt to court him — favors Putin badly needs. As the foreign relations scholar Stephen Sestanovich put it on Twitter, “an idiot who’s too big an idiot can’t be a useful idiot.”
One day, the United States will genuinely fail. All nations do. One day, the system that has given us western liberal democracy will end. All systems must. One day there will absolutely be a last president. But damned if I see any reason why it should be Donald Trump.
What’s coming could be intuited from the State Department’s icy description of the summit. At her daily briefing Wednesday, department spokeswoman Heather Nauert began by condemning Putin’s proposal to investigate U.S. officials — which Trump had called “an incredible offer” — as “absolutely absurd.” Then she described the “takeaways” of Helsinki as the creation of three discussion groups among U.S. and Russian business executives, political scientists and the two national security councils. In other words, next to nothing.
Andrew Gawthorpe on the importance of US intelligence agencies in the ongoing fight to bring Trump to justice, and justice to Trump.
Donald Trump’s performance at his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki has convinced many observers that the US president has crossed the line into overtly colluding with a foreign power against the United States. As Trump parroted Russia’s line over that of his own intelligence agencies, the former CIA director John Brennan even said that his actions were “nothing short of treasonous”.
I think of it more as “confirmed” than “convinced.” But otherwise … treason, yup.
For all his denials of collusion – and his later back-pedalling – Trump himself publicly asked Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails during the presidential campaign. And according to a new indictment handed down by Robert Mueller, Moscow’s agents attempted to do just that for the first time later the same day.
The latest indictments show that there was a two-way discussion going on at all levels between Republicans and Russians. It would be nice if Robert Mueller would hang around until we catch them all.
In the run-up to this year’s midterm elections, US cyber-intelligence officials report that Russia is continuing efforts “to undermine our democracy” and that “the warning lights are blinking red again”. Trump’s performance in Helsinki places the question of whether he will act appropriately on these warnings – pushing back against an interference campaign that aims to benefit him politically, just as it did in 2016 – in grave doubt.
Honestly, I don’t think anyone should have any doubts about how Trump will act in 2018.
Trump’s Morals … where are they?
David Von Drehle on how Trump is bringing back old times. And not in the sense of “Happy days are here again.” More like “Uber Deutschland.”
Von Drehle starts with a tough opening, looking at the insane proportions of loss in World War II, then focusing down on a single soldier, one who plunged into D-Day knowing that it was likely his final day on the planet.
I’ve been wondering how I could explain to such a man that many of his fellow Americans — most notably the president — have already forgotten where his war came from and why he had to fight it. America in the age of Trump is undermining, if not dismantling, the international framework put in place to prevent such a catastrophe from happening again.
At 25, Lundberg was no stranger to America First, protective tariffs and nationalism. No American of his age or older could be. These themes had been among the most prominent topics for public debate throughout his short life. And each had contributed, in one way or another, to the chain of events that took Lundberg to war. The isolationism that fueled the original America First movement died with the first bomb at Pearl Harbor. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930 had deepened the Great Depression, and that crisis fanned nationalism from Berlin to Tokyo.
And I’m stopping for a moment for no other reason than to set this sentence off on its own.
The danger and folly of these policies were written in an ocean of blood — Lundberg’s and all the others’.
And yet, we’re repeating them. The kindest interpretation is that Trump doesn’t understand. Or has forgotten. Or doesn’t see how his actions mirror that previous time. But the truth is he does. He hasn’t. He sees. This isn’t accident. It’s intent.
This U.S.-led network of international institutions has produced the longest period without a war between great powers since the days of the Roman Empire. We’re at 73 years and counting. Prior to its creation, Europe had plunged the world into two global wars in the span of just 25 years. This alone — peace among the great powers — has been worth every penny spent and every hour of haggling.
Every penny that Donald Trump has made in his life was purchased on the back of US investment in NATO, on benefits of the Marshall Plan, and on the sacrifices of the people like Lundberg who made this world possible. The horrible thing is, he knows that.
Nouriel Roubini on how Donald Trump may single-handedly send the world into the kind of economic crisis that helped create the conditions for World War II.
In 2017, the world economy was undergoing a synchronised expansion, with growth accelerating both in advanced economies and emerging markets. Moreover, despite stronger growth, inflation was tame – if not falling – even in economies such as the United States, where goods and labour markets were tightening. …
Fast forward to 2018 and the picture looks very different. Though the world economy is still experiencing a lukewarm expansion, growth is no longer synchronised. Economic growth in the eurozone, the United Kingdom, Japan and a number of fragile emerging markets is slowing. And while the US and Chinese economies are still expanding, the former is being driven by unsustainable fiscal stimulus.
One of the things often overlooked about the tax plan and tax holiday pressed by the Republicans is that they were expressly designed to generate a temporary benefit. Because the money allocated by the plans is so narrowly focused, they won’t have the long-term stimulation of a working class tax cut. This is more like a weekend bender for those companies and individuals so wealthy already that the tax cut was more bonus pay than vital income. But it has been a boost for a few weeks that otherwise would have already started feeling the pinch.
The danger is that a negative feedback loop between economies and markets will take hold. The slowdown in some economies could lead to even tighter financial conditions in equity, bond and credit markets, which could further limit growth.
Trump, whose total understand of economics comes from reading Heritage talking points, is now pressing down hard on the “give me inflation” button. Which will compound the issues created by his tariffs.
Colbert King on the ethical and moral failings of Donald Trump — based on just a few of many examples.
Trump tweet: “Everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. . . . Before taking office, people were assuming that we were going to War with North Korea.”
Facts: During the five-hour meeting, North Korea did not stipulate how or when it would denuclearize. The nuclear threat from North Korea has not gone away. There was no assumption before Trump took office that the United States was going to war with North Korea. North Korea tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile only after Trump took office. It was the bellicose rhetoric and name-calling between Trump and Kim that raised concern about possible military conflict.
The part of Trump’s tweet about “before taking office.” where he states that under President Obama “everybody thought we were going to war” is the single most blatant attempt to rewrite history in Trump’s tenure. Sure, he flat out lies every day. But this isn’t just lying on a grand scale, it’s the quantity-has-a-quality-all-its-own of lying. I lie so large that it needs its own category. Because it was Trump who took a delicate situation in North Korea and made it infinitely worse, Trump who seemed to be pressing North Korea so hard, and so without evident reason, that he seemed determined to begin a conflict. And now it’s Trump who is trying to present himself as the savior for tensions raised by Barack Obama. It’s not insane. It’s just crooked to the Nth degree.
Trump at the summit: “Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply [energy]. They got rid of their coal plants. They got rid of their nuclear. They’re getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it’s something that NATO has to look at.”
From an Associated Press fact check: “In 2017, Germany got more than one-third of its energy for electricity from coal and nearly 12 percent from nuclear plants. . . . Only 13 percent came from natural gas, with Russia as the major supplier. . . . Germany plans to retire nuclear plants by 2022 and intends to reduce its reliance on coal. But Germany has not ‘got rid’ of either.”
Trump has continually depended on visits with foreign leaders as Prime Time for Lying. There is no nation too large or small to be exempt from his attacks. Except of course, for the one that attacked the US.
Dana Milbank looks into how Donald Trump’s powers as a huckster extends into channeling dead loved ones. And no, it’s not the most critical Trump issue in a week where his treason and his sleaze are vying for headlines. But it’s kind of funny.
A few weeks ago, while posthumously honoring a World War II hero, Trump gave the man’s family a report on their departed loved one. He was “looking down from Heaven, proud of this incredible honor, but even prouder of the legacy that lives on in each of you. So true.” …
Honestly, you should read this just for the compiled list of Trump passing on messages from the Great Beyond. The man’s act is lifted so thoroughly from a bottom-dollar spiritualist act that he might as well throw in a little knocking on tables and declare that his hair is actually ectoplasm.
Occasionally, something must get lost in the cloud and Trump receives a heavenly miscommunication. Speaking to a steelworker at the White House in March, Trump informed the man: “Your father, Herman, he’s looking down, and he’s very proud of you right now.”
“Oh, he’s still alive,” the steelworker said.
“Then he’s even more proud of you,” Trump said.
Maybe we’ve been going about this all wrong. This Trump guy, we don’t need to have him impeached. We need to get the Ghostbusters. Or wait … could we get the nation exorcised? That seems completely appropriate.
Immigration
Elizabeth Wydra hits back at a pair of essays published earlier in he week suggesting that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says when it makes those born in the United States citizens.
The 14th Amendment is perhaps the greatest provision of our Constitution, in part because of its profound guarantee of citizenship to all who are born on American soil. After the Civil War, when members of the Reconstruction Congress assembled to draft the amendment’s birthright citizenship clause, they were writing against a backdrop of prejudice not only against African Americans but also immigrant communities including the Chinese and Roma. Much of the hostility against these immigrants was based on the same resentment toward immigrants in the United States today: that they would take away good jobs from people already here (while exhibiting a willingness to allow them to take jobs perceived as undesirable); that waves of immigrants were “invading,” or, in the words of President Trump, “infesting” the country; and that they were arriving with different cultures and languages.
Republican efforts to limit birthright citizenship go hand in hand with the efforts to revoke the citizenship of some who they claim lied on their application—even when they didn’t. They made that step … and got away it. Next they go for birthright citizenship … but whether they get that or not, it won’t be the last attempt to redefine who counts as a “real” American.
Those who attack birthright citizenship, as did former Trump official Michael Anton in a recent Post op-ed, often go out of their way not only to misrepresent the plain meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment and those who drafted and ratified it, but also to ignore the racist and bloody history that required it in the first place. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, for example, a leading advocate in Congress for the citizenship clause, was quoted by Anton as somehow supporting his twisted reading of the clause.
If you want to brush up on this topic, read this op-ed. It gives a good answer for the most common alt-Reich arguments put forward in attempting limit citizenship.