The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

Mar-a-Lago Comes for British Health

Probably everyone who followed Donald Trump’s visit to Britain has a favorite scene of diplomatic debacle. But the moment that probably did the most to poison relations with our oldest ally — and undermine whatever chance there was for the “phenomenal” trade deal Trump claimed to be offering — was Trump’s apparent suggestion that such a deal would involve opening up Britain’s National Health Service to U.S. private companies.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. He does, however, know what the N.H.S. is — he just doesn’t understand its role in British life.

After all, last year he tweeted that Britons were marching in the streets to protest a health system that was “going broke and not working.” Actually, the demonstrations were in favor of the N.H.S., calling for more government funding.

But never mind what was going on in Trump’s mind. Let’s focus instead on the fact that no American politician, Trump least of all, has any business giving other countries advice on health care. For we have the worst-performing health care system in the advanced world — and Trump is doing all he can to degrade it further.

As it happens, the British and American health systems lie at opposite ends of a spectrum defined by the relative roles of the private and public sectors.

Although the Affordable Care Act expanded health coverage and increased the role of Medicaid, most Americans still get their insurance (if they get it at all) from private companies and get treated at for-profit hospitals and clinics. In other countries, like Canada, the government pays the bills, but health providers are private. Britain, however, has true socialized medicine: The government owns the hospitals and pays the doctors.

So how does that system work? Far better than is dreamed of in conservative philosophy.

First of all, medical bills simply aren’t an issue for British families. They don’t have to worry about being bankrupted by the cost of treatment, or having to forgo essential care because they can’t afford the deductibles.

You might think that providing this kind of universal coverage is prohibitively expensive. In reality, however, Britain spends less than half as much per person on health care as we do.

Editors’ Picks

‘The Prospect of Getting Up and Leaving Seemed Inconvenient’

The Man Who Told America the Truth About D-Day

Waking Up at 4 A.M. Every Day Is the Key to Success. Or to Getting a Cold.
Is the health care any good? Judging from the results, yes. Britons have higher life expectancy than we do, much lower infant mortality, and much lower “mortality amenable to health care.”

Does this mean that America should adopt a British-type system? Not necessarily.

There are, it turns out, multiple ways to provide universal health care: Canadian-style single-payer also works, as do systems of competing private providers, as in Switzerland, as long as the government does a good job of regulation and provides adequate subsidies for lower-income families.

But the N.H.S. works. It has its problems — what system doesn’t? — but there’s a reason the British love it.

Now, my experience in dealing with U.S. conservatives on health care issues is that they simply refuse to believe that other countries’ systems work better than our own. Their ideology says that the private sector is always better than government, and this trumps any and all evidence.

Indeed, it leads them to reject the government-run pieces of our own system that work fairly well. Which brings me to the reason Donald Trump is the last person who should be criticizing the N.H.S.

You see, America does have its own miniature version of the N.H.S.: the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Veterans Health Administration, which runs a network of hospitals and clinics. And like the N.H.S., the V.H.A. works pretty well.

Some of you are probably shaking your heads, because you’ve heard terrible things about the V.H.A. — tales of vast inefficiency and long waits for treatment. But there’s a reason you’ve heard these tales: They’ve been systematically spread by politicians and right-wing organizations that seize on problem cases as part of a drive to dismantle and privatize the system.

Sign Up for Jamelle Bouie's Newsletter
Join Jamelle Bouie as he shines a light on overlooked writing, culture and ideas from around the internet.

SIGN UP
The reality, according to independent studies, is that on average, V.H.A. wait times are if anything shorter than those in the private sector, and V.H.A. hospitals provide better care.

But this good record may soon change. Historically policy at the V.H.A., like policy at the N.H.S., has been set largely by medical professionals. But last year reporting by ProPublica revealed that much of Veterans Affairs’ policy is now being set, not by duly appointed officials, but by a trio of Trump cronies whom insiders call the “Mar-a-Lago crowd.”

Leading the troika, by the way, is Ike Perlmutter, the chairman of Marvel Entertainment. And if you believe that Perlmutter’s influence will lead to lower costs and better care for our nation’s veterans, you probably also believe that Captain America is real.

Which brings us back to those N.H.S. remarks. Whatever the president thought he was saying, his host country had every reason to hear them as a hint that a trade deal would bring Trump-style privatization and cronyism to British health care. And that would indeed be “phenomenal.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump’s Tariffs Have Already Wiped Out Tax Bill Savings for Average Americans

President Donald Trump’s trade wars have already wiped out all but $100 of the average American household’s windfall from Trump’s 2017 tax law. And that’s just the beginning.

That last $100 in tax-cut gains also could soon disappear -- and then some -- because of additional tariffs Trump has announced or is considering. If the president makes good on his threats to impose levies on virtually all imports from China and Mexico, those middle-earning households could pay nearly $4,000 more as they shell out more for a vast range of goods -- from avocados to iPhones.

Subtract the tax cut, and the average household will effectively be paying about $3,000 more a year in additional costs.

“It’s giving with one hand and taking with the other,” said Kim Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, who’s written a book promoting free trade.

Here’s how the math works: middle earners got an average tax cut of $930 for the tax overhaul passed in late 2017, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The tariffs already in effect cost the average household about $831, according to research from the New York Federal Reserve.

China Goods

Add in the additional tariffs on another $300 billion in Chinese goods that Trump proposed in May, and is still considering, and that increases the cost for an average family of four to about $2,294 annually, according to research from “Tariffs Hurt the Heartland,” a coalition of business groups.

Trump has also threatened to levy tariffs on all imports from Mexico, starting with a 5% tax beginning as soon as Monday that would increase monthly to 25% in October unless Mexico curbs illegal migration to the president’s satisfaction.

If the tariffs reach their highest level, the annual cost to households would increase by $1,700, according to Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the centrist Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The full force of the Chinese and Mexican tariffs and subsequent retaliation would mean that consumers are facing an additional $3,994 in costs because of tariffs, more than four times the $930 tax cut for middle earners that the Republican Party touts as its signature legislative achievement under Trump.

These comparisons attempt to measure the direct benefit to households of the tax cuts -- including larger paychecks -- with the direct and indirect effects of tariffs, including lost jobs, higher prices, and retaliatory tariffs from trading partners.

The tariffs are “clearly demolishing” the benefits of the tax cuts for both businesses and consumers, said Daniel Ikenson, who directs trade policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Many households and consumers have been spared so far, but the next round of tariffs will be more problematic.”

In the beginning of the trade dispute, Trump and his advisers sought to put tariffs on products that consumers don’t directly buy, such as steel and aluminum. But as the trade feud with China has escalated, they ran out of non-consumer goods on which to put levies. The most recent round of announced tariffs includes consumer products, such as apparel, sporting goods and kitchen ware.

Trump has disputed that American companies and consumers pay higher prices because of the tariffs placed on the imports they buy. He has said tariffs are beneficial because the levies are paid to the U.S. Treasury. “No visible increase in costs or inflation, but U.S. is taking in Billions!” he said in a tweet Friday.

Trump’s most recent threat on all imports from Mexico would increase prices on cars and auto parts, televisions, phones and air conditioners, as well as produce including avocados, citrus fruits and pineapples.

Only the top 5% of earners would continue to see a net tax cut of more than 1%, according to the right-leaning Tax Foundation. Tariffs would also depress wages by about 0.5% and result in the loss of nearly 610,000 full-time jobs, according to the foundation.

That creates political problems for Republicans in Congress who’ve continued to back Trump even as they disagreed with his trade policies. Republicans have cited the passage of the tax-cut law, low unemployment rates and wage increases as signs that Trump’s policies have buoyed the economy. But there are signs that support is beginning to fracture.

The tax cuts “vaulted America back into the most competitive economy,” said Representative Kevin Brady, the Texas Republican who led the passage of the tax cut legislation in the House. “Higher tariffs and the uncertainty that comes with trade disputes" hurt the economy, he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged the administration this week to delay imposing the tariffs on Mexico until Republicans in Congress could plead their case to Trump. Most Senate Republicans have objected to Trump using tariffs to force tougher border enforcement by Mexico. Lawmakers are weighing moves to block the levies.

“This is a man-made disaster, because Donald Trump is not focused in any way on advancing a well-thought-out doctrine,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a top Democrat from New York. “He seems to be carrying out at times personal vendettas, at other times political objectives and sometimes an effort to distract from the news of the day.”

Little Noticed

The effects of tariffs have yet to become noticeable to average consumers. That could soon change. The tariffs on goods from Mexico are slated to go into effect Monday, barring a last-minute deal between Mexican and U.S. negotiators. The Chinese tariffs targeting consumer goods could go into effect in the coming months.

U.S. and Mexican negotiators planned a third day of talks on Friday to try to reach an agreement that would avert the tariffs. Mexico is pushing for more time, but Vice President Mike Pence and other officials said the U.S. plans to impose tariffs on Monday.

“It’s not like all of sudden prices will jump 25%, but they could increase 10% or 11%,” said Brian Yarbrough, a senior equity analyst at Edward Jones, said of tariffs of 25% or more. “At some point, price increases will choke off demand, resulting in fewer sales.”

Republicans are hoping to campaign in 2020 on the message of a strong economy buoyed by their tax reductions and deregulation, which began two years ago. But the fresh sting of tariffs risk erasing any economic goodwill those policies generated.

“For the average household it will be a net loss, no doubt,” the Peterson Institutes’s Hufbauer said. “It will be painful.”

#Resist

[Jed_]

John Dean
@JohnWDean
‘Would someone get Trump a dog. He needs a friend so he won’t endlessly vent on Twitter. He’s uninterested in government and policy. He doesn’t read. He doesn’t exercise. He has no real friends. A dog might save humankind. Admittedly, it a lot to ask of a dog. But help is needed.’



I agree with John Dean, but I doubt Trump likes dogs at all.  Plus, I’m sure any dog would have the good sense to bite him.

[_priapism]

During his rally in El Paso, Trump finally explained that he doesn’t have a dog because the idea of getting one seems “phony” to him, and his base likes him just fine regardless. Plus, he said, he doesn’t have time.

The explanation came amid an extended riff about the superior abilities of German shepherds to sniff out drugs being smuggled across the border. “You do love your dogs, don’t you?” Trump said, as the crowd whistled and cheered. “I wouldn’t mind having one, honestly, but I don’t have any time. How would I look walking a dog on the White House lawn?”

The supporters seated behind the riser apparently thought that he would look great with a hound or two because they stood up and clapped. But Trump wasn’t having it.

“I don’t know, I don’t feel good,” he said. “Feels a little phony to me.” A lot of people had told him to get a dog because it would look good politically, he added, but he hadn’t felt the need because “that’s not the relationship I have with my people.”

[Jed_]

John Dean
@JohnWDean
‘Would someone get Trump a dog. He needs a friend so he won’t endlessly vent on Twitter. He’s uninterested in government and policy. He doesn’t read. He doesn’t exercise. He has no real friends. A dog might save humankind. Admittedly, it a lot to ask of a dog. But help is needed.’



I agree with John Dean, but I doubt Trump likes dogs at all.  Plus, I’m sure any dog would have the good sense to bite him.

I enjoyed reading the Twitter responses to Dean:


https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnWDean/status/1137577319512596481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1137577319512596481&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F

[_priapism]

@jaybookman. Trump doesn't need a dog. He already has Lindsey Graham.

[Athos_131]

No canis domesticus deserves to be subjected to that asshelmet.

#Resist

[Jed_]

@jaybookman. Trump doesn't need a dog. He already has Lindsey Graham.

Yes, that was my favorite too.

Although the reply I found the most insightful was the one stating that owning a dog requires empathy, something completely lacking in Trump.

[Athos_131]

Homeland Security watchdog retires early after his office was forced to retract ‘feel-good’ audits of disaster response

John V. Kelly, the acting inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, announced his retirement Monday following revelations that he directed his staff to whitewash audits of the agency’s performance after federal disasters.

Kelly, 64, a career auditor who rose to the top job in 2017, announced his retirement in a brief email Monday morning to hundreds of DHS employees and contractors.

“It has been an honor and privilege to serve the American citizens for over 40 years,” he wrote. “However, it is time for me to retire.”

Kelly, who had planned to retire after the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee for the position, wrote in an email to The Washington Post that he “accelerated my retirement because I feel it’s in the best interest of the organization and its employees.”

“As I told the staff, I have truly enjoyed my 11-year tenure with the DHS OIG, an organization with a very important mission and extraordinary staff and managers that successfully execute that mission on a daily basis,” Kelly wrote. “Nobody in DHS leadership or any member of Congress asked me retire.”

Kelly’s announcement follows The Post’s report last week that an internal review found that Kelly overrode auditors who had found problems with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to various disasters.

When teams of auditors flew to local communities to assess how well FEMA was helping residents recover, Kelly — then in charge of the emergency management auditing staff — directed them to ignore most problems, according to the internal review and interviews. Instead, he told them to produce what the staff dubbed “feel-good reports.”

John V. Kelly, the acting inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, announced his retirement Monday following revelations that he directed his staff to whitewash audits of the agency’s performance after federal disasters.

Kelly, 64, a career auditor who rose to the top job in 2017, announced his retirement in a brief email Monday morning to hundreds of DHS employees and contractors.

“It has been an honor and privilege to serve the American citizens for over 40 years,” he wrote. “However, it is time for me to retire.”

Kelly, who had planned to retire after the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee for the position, wrote in an email to The Washington Post that he “accelerated my retirement because I feel it’s in the best interest of the organization and its employees.”

“As I told the staff, I have truly enjoyed my 11-year tenure with the DHS OIG, an organization with a very important mission and extraordinary staff and managers that successfully execute that mission on a daily basis,” Kelly wrote. “Nobody in DHS leadership or any member of Congress asked me retire.”

Kelly’s announcement follows The Post’s report last week that an internal review found that Kelly overrode auditors who had found problems with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to various disasters.

When teams of auditors flew to local communities to assess how well FEMA was helping residents recover, Kelly — then in charge of the emergency management auditing staff — directed them to ignore most problems, according to the internal review and interviews. Instead, he told them to produce what the staff dubbed “feel-good reports.”

#Resist

[Lois]

More bad news for Trump:


In a first look at head-to-head 2020 presidential matchups nationwide, several Democratic challengers lead President Donald Trump, with former Vice President Joseph Biden ahead 53 - 40 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.

In other matchups, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over President Trump 51 - 42 percent;
California Sen. Kamala Harris ahead of Trump 49 - 41 percent;
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tops Trump 49 - 42 percent;
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg edges Trump 47 - 42 percent;
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker by a nose over Trump 47 - 42 percent.

From https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2627

[joan1984]

Interesting that President Trump holds the voters favor of 40% to 42% in each early matchup of the polls, against all comers, and 7% to 10% are not counted in most of the poll numbers listed.

The Democrat challengers seem to pull most of the non-Trump voters, the any one but Trump voters in these polls, as of now, about 17 months before the 2020 Election. Bootigeg, Harris, Booker, whoever with a D behind their name, pulls about the same in the noted examples, so again, a anti-Trump sentiment, not a specific campaign value, promise, or sentiment draw.

Bernie and "Ole Joe" with the name recognition still at the top.

Where will Bernie's fans go, when the Democrats stiff them again in the 2020 Primaries? And Warner's? And Booker's? So much to learn, yet.

Is there anyone now announced as running for President who has to give up their current job, if they do not win?

[Athos_131]

Interesting that President Trump holds the voters favor of 40% to 42% in each early matchup of the polls, against all comers, and 7% to 10% are not counted in most of the poll numbers listed.

The Democrat challengers seem to pull most of the non-Trump voters, the any one but Trump voters in these polls, as of now, about 17 months before the 2020 Election. Bootigeg, Harris, Booker, whoever with a D behind their name, pulls about the same in the noted examples, so again, a anti-Trump sentiment, not a specific campaign value, promise, or sentiment draw.

Bernie and "Ole Joe" with the name recognition still at the top.

Where will Bernie's fans go, when the Democrats stiff them again in the 2020 Primaries? And Warner's? And Booker's? So much to learn, yet.

Is there anyone now announced as running for President who has to give up their current job, if they do not win?

You are still terrified to post in the Mueller report thread I see.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

House panel votes to hold attorney general, commerce secretary in contempt over census probe, the next step toward a court battle

The House Oversight Committee voted on Wednesday to hold Attorney General William P. Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt for failing to turn over documents about the administration’s decision to a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

The nearly party-line vote of 24-to-15 came hours after President Trump asserted executive privilege to shield the materials from Congress. Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.), who has accused Trump of impeachable acts, was the lone Republican to join Democrats on the contempt vote.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department had warned the committee that if it moved toward holding Barr in contempt, the attorney general would ask Trump to assert privilege to protect the materials. The department revealed the assertion in a letter to the committee, which called the contempt vote “unnecessary and premature.”

In the Justice Department’s view, the privilege assertion undercuts the contempt finding because it prevents the attorney general from turning over materials lawmakers had subpoenaed.

With the new development, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) delayed the contempt vote until later in the day so that members could read the Justice Department letter.

“We must protect the integrity of the census and stand up for Congress’ authority under the Constitution to conduct meaningful oversight,” Cummings said in explaining the need for a contempt vote.

He also questioned why Trump had waited to assert executive privilege on the brink of a contempt vote, given that the subpoenas in question were issued two months ago.

“This begs the question,” Cummings said. “What is being hidden?”

Wednesday’s developments marked a further escalation in the fight between House Democrats and the Republican administration over the investigatory powers of Congress that is playing out in multiple committees and the courts.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Trump voiced frustration with the intensity of the House oversight.

“Every day, they’re going to be going more and more, after, after,” he said in the Oval Office. “It’s the only way they think they can win the election.”

If the Oversight Committee contempt resolution is approved by the full House, Cummings would be empowered to ask a federal court to order Barr and Ross to comply with subpoenas that sought documents related to the 2020 Census decision and testimony from a senior Justice Department official.

It’s also possible that Democratic lawmakers and the Justice Department could still work out a deal before any court ruling.

The Justice Department and the Oversight Committee are essentially on the same trajectory as the Department and the House Judiciary Committee were last month, when the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt for failing to turn over materials related to former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe.

In that case, though, the Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department later worked out a compromise. That contempt process is in “abeyance,” though Democrats have taken steps to make sure they have the ability to sue the department in court.

Democrats say the larger issue is that the White House is almost completely rejecting congressional oversight — stonewalling requests for documents and blocking witnesses from testifying on various subjects. The administration, meanwhile, argues that Democrats are requesting far more materials than they should legally have access to in an attempt to embarrass the president, and they have been unwilling to negotiate.

Democrats have already gone to federal judges in Washington and New York to seek enforcement of subpoenas targeting Trump’s financial records in the possession of private companies. They have scored initial wins in trial courts, but appeals are likely to play out over the coming months.

The Oversight Committee authorized Cummings in April to issue subpoenas to Barr and Ross for documents related to the census decision and for a deposition of John Gore, principal deputy assistant attorney general.

But the Justice Department said it would not comply with the subpoena for Gore to testify. In a letter last week to Barr, Cummings cited the attorney general’s “unprecedented order” to Gore to defy the subpoena as part of the reason for the contempt votes.

Democratic lawmakers have accused the Trump administration of stonewalling their efforts to investigate Ross’s March 2018 decision to add the citizenship question, which the government says it needs to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.

In a statement last week, the Commerce Department noted that Ross has previously testified before the committee and that the department has turned over nearly 14,000 pages of documents to the panel.

Cummings said Wednesday that many of those documents were already publicly available, had heavy redactions or were not responsive to the committee’s request.

Opponents of the citizenship question have argued that it will suppress responses to the survey among immigrant communities, resulting in an undercount in the areas where they live.

The population count from the Decennial Census is used to allocate $800 billion a year in federal funding and determine congressional representation and redistricting.

A key issue in the challenges to the citizenship question is how it came to be added. Ross originally told Congress that his decision to add it came solely in response to a December 2017 request from the Justice Department, but lawsuits later produced emails showing that Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, had been pushing for the question for months before that.

On Wednesday, Cummings said evidence showed that Ross was pushing for the addition of the question at the urging of the White House.

In March of this year, Democrats on the Oversight Committee grilled Ross about the citizenship extensively, with several asking whether he had lied under oath, and one demanding his resignation.

The committee also met with Gore that month on the matter, but Cummings said he refused to answer more than 150 questions, citing ongoing litigation.

Three federal judges have struck down the census question, saying Ross’s actions in adding it were in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court heard the case April 23. Evidence in the case concluded with oral arguments that day, and it appeared that the conservative majority seemed inclined to agree with the government that the decision to add the question was within the authority of the commerce secretary.

During Wednesday’s Oversight Committee meeting, Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), the top Republican on the panel, questioned why Democrats were opposing the addition of a citizenship question.

“Why don’t the Democrats want to know how many citizens are in the country?” he asked.

Last month, new evidence emerged suggesting that the citizenship question was crafted specifically to give an electoral advantage to Republicans and whites.

The evidence was found in the files of the prominent Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller after his death in August. According to lawyers challenging the question, it reveals that Hofeller “played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.’ ”

The lawyers also argued that Trump administration officials purposely obscured Hofeller’s role in court proceedings.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) questioned why it appeared a deliberative process for adding a question to the census was abandoned, with the administration instead moving quickly to include the question of citizenship.

“I want to know why this question was magically added, after we have seen that a political operative knew and detailed an intent to intimidate racial and immigrant communities for a partisan purpose, saying this will hurt Democrats and help Republicans,” she said.

During a closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Wednesday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Democrats were determined to continue investigating the Trump administration.

“It’s not about Democrats or Republicans, partisanship or anything like that, it’s about patriotism,” Pelosi she said, according to a senior Democratic official who requested anonymity to relay remarks that were not public.

During the meeting, several committee chairmen with investigative powers updated the caucus on their work, the Democratic official said.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

The census is a sleeping giant of a potential Trump administration scandal

The White House has repeatedly threatened or reserved the right to use executive privilege to protect documents and Trump administration officials from House Democrats’ investigations. But on Wednesday, it actually asserted it.

And the subject on which it has been invoked — the census — is a sleeping giant of a potential scandal.

Ever since the Trump administration moved last year to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, questions have been asked about the true motivation. The stated reason is that it is needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act, but that has never been a huge point of emphasis for the Republican Party. Indeed, GOP officials have worked to dismantle the VRA in recent years.

And as we’ve found out over the last few months, there are reasons to doubt those initial explanations. Exactly where the idea to add the question came from has been obscured, including apparently by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and now evidence exists that its earliest proponents may have had other, very political motivations.

The problem with the census kerfuffle is that it, well, involves the census. The second problem is that it involves gerrymandering and complex calculations that most people inside political circles in Washington don’t fully understand. You layer those two things, and it’s a recipe for people’s eyes glazing over.

But, the inclusion of a citizenship question is the kind of thing that could be used to cement the GOP’s already very strong advantage when it comes to the composition of the districts we use to elect our representatives. And that’s a system the GOP has already gamed to great effect. Given the GOP’s existing advantages, some have wagered that the Democrats would never be able to win back the House until they can win power in key states and redraw some of the maps. Those suggestions proved wrong in 2018, but Democrats’ hold on the House is and will be tenuous, at best, for the foreseeable future.

(My favorite stat on this: The median House district voted for Trump by more than three points in 2016, even though he lost the popular vote by two points — a more than five-point difference. All Republicans need to do to lock down the House is win territory where they are clearly favored; Democrats have no such luxury.)

What adding a citizenship question would potentially do for Republicans is twofold: 1) It could dissuade undocumented immigrants from responding (for fear of disclosing their status to the government), which would dilute their representation and transfer it to areas that are more likely to be Republican-leaning. And 2) It would give Republicans a potential game-changing tool to rejigger maps in the future. The GOP would very much like to draw maps according to citizen voting-age population, rather than total population, because that benefits more rural areas. That’s questionable from a constitutional standpoint, but without a citizenship question to give it the data it would need, Republicans can’t even really attempt it.

Which is where the story starts getting interesting. Two weeks ago, we learned that the daughter of a recently deceased Republican redistricting guru, Thomas Hofeller, had been sorting through his files and discovered evidence that he was more involved in this process than we believed. That’s significant, because this same consultant had also conducted a 2015 study showing the political benefit Republicans could glean from drawing districts according to citizen voting-age population.

The revelation is not a smoking gun; Hofeller was ubiquitous when it came to this kind of thing — I spoke with him frequently while reporting on redistricting early in this decade — and the idea that he would be involved on such a topic in a Republican administration makes complete sense.

The issue is whether his lobbying for this change and apparent involvement in drafting the Justice Department’s VRA justification obscured what happened behind closed doors. If he or anyone else was pitching this to any part of the administration as a way for Republicans to gain politically, that’s hugely significant. And intriguingly, plaintiffs in a federal-court case say the structure of the Justice Department request for the citizenship question mirrors Hofeller’s 2015 study.

Via the New York Times:

The second instance involves the official version of the Justice Department’s request for a citizenship question, a longer and more detailed letter sent to the Census Bureau in December 2017. That letter presents nuanced and technical arguments that current citizenship data falls short of Voting Rights Act requirements — arguments that the plaintiffs say are presented in exactly the same order, and sometimes with identical descriptions like “building blocks” — as in Mr. Hofeller’s 2015 study.

There are other reasons to be suspicious. Ross, whose department oversees the census, testified in March 2018 that the Justice Department “initiated the request for inclusion of the citizenship question.” Emails released later, though, showed that he himself had pushed for its inclusion as early as May 2017 — seven months before the Justice Department’s formal request. And Ross, in that May 2017 email, referred to “my months old request that we include the citizenship question.” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker gave Ross four Pinocchios . . . for his sworn testimony.

How this situation might come to a head is the question. Despite lower courts blocking the use of the citizenship question, the Supreme Court in oral arguments sounded as though it favored the administration. It is expected to issue its ruling by the end of the month.

Assuming it upholds the question, it’s up to House Democrats to press the case — including by applying pressure on the administration and winning legal battles over access to documents and officials such as Ross, whom Democrats are threatening to hold in contempt, along with Attorney General William P. Barr.

Wednesday’s maneuvering was a major development in that ongoing battle. It’s worth tuning in for the rest of it.

#Resist

[Lois]

Interesting that President Trump holds the voters favor of 40% to 42% in each early matchup of the polls, against all comers, and 7% to 10% are not counted in most of the poll numbers listed.

The Democrat challengers seem to pull most of the non-Trump voters, the any one but Trump voters in these polls, as of now, about 17 months before the 2020 Election. Bootigeg, Harris, Booker, whoever with a D behind their name, pulls about the same in the noted examples, so again, a anti-Trump sentiment, not a specific campaign value, promise, or sentiment draw.

Bernie and "Ole Joe" with the name recognition still at the top.

Where will Bernie's fans go, when the Democrats stiff them again in the 2020 Primaries? And Warner's? And Booker's? So much to learn, yet.

Is there anyone now announced as running for President who has to give up their current job, if they do not win?

Nationally it shows Trump loosing against just about any Democratic candidate.

The real question is the swing states, because the President is not elected by popular vote.

In the swing states Biden rules.

[_priapism]

[Athos_131]

'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents

President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign's interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office on Wednesday whether his campaign would accept such information from foreigners -- such as China or Russia -- or hand it over the FBI, Trump said, "I think maybe you do both."

"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

President Trump made the remark during an exclusive interview with ABC News over the course of two days, wherein Stephanopoulos joined the president on a visit to Iowa and back to Washington for a day inside the White House.

Trump disputed the idea that if a foreign government provided information on a political opponent, it would be considered interference in our election process.

"It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it," Trump said. "If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, 'oh let's call the FBI.' The FBI doesn't have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called oppo research."

President Trump lamented the attention on his son, Donald Trump Jr., for his role in the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting in June 2016. Stephanopoulos asked whether Trump Jr. should have taken the Russians' offer for "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton to the FBI.

"Somebody comes up and says, ‘hey, I have information on your opponent,' do you call the FBI?" Trump responded.

"I'll tell you what, I've seen a lot of things over my life. I don't think in my whole life I've ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don't call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do," Trump continued. "Oh, give me a break – life doesn't work that way."

"The FBI director said that is what should happen," Stephanopoulos replied, referring to comments FBI Director Christopher Wray made during congressional testimony last month, when he told lawmakers "the FBI would want to know about" any foreign election meddling.

But on Wednesday, the president refuted Wray's sentiment.

"The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn't happen like that in life," Trump said. "Now maybe it will start happening, maybe today you'd think differently."

#Resist

[Athos_131]

"An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents."

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 75.

#Resist

[Jed_]

"An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents."

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 75.

#Resist

So let’s sum up treasonous Trump on this topic:

‘No collusion, but I’d do it again. . . . ‘

[Athos_131]

Trump betrays his country again by inviting foreign interference

In an extraordinary interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, President Trump said that he would be open to listening to a foreign country’s opposition research against his 2020 rival, suggested that all congressmen have done the same and said FBI Director Christopher Wray was “wrong” in saying that a candidate should report such interference to the FBI.

"I think you might want to listen; there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump said. “If somebody called from a country, Norway, ‘We have information on your opponent,’ oh, I think I’d want to hear it.” He denied that this was interference at all. "It’s not an interference, they have information — I think I’d take it,” Trump said. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI, if I thought there was something wrong.”

He does not seem to appreciate that conducting and spreading opposition research and seeking to help one candidate are exactly how Russia and other bad actors interfere with Western democracies. He seems entirely unaware of the campaign finance law that prohibits one from soliciting something of value from a foreign national. Worst of all, he seems oblivious to the betrayal of American democracy that he is advocating.

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III explained the relevant statute in his report: “Foreign nationals may not make — and no one may ‘solicit, accept, or receive’ from them — 'a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value’ or ‘an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.’ 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)." He wrote, “Several areas of the Office’s investigation involved efforts or offers by foreign nationals to provide negative information about candidate [Hillary] Clinton to the Trump Campaign or to distribute that information to the public, to the anticipated benefit of the Campaign.” Mueller ultimately declined to prosecute because Trump’s ignorance of the law made proving intent difficult and because it wasn’t clear that what Russia was offering was “something of value" (“no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law”). Here, however, Trump declares his intent to repeat his conduct and brazenly opens the door to foreign interference, which he implicitly acknowledges would be of value to him.

Aside from declaring his intent to repeat the very same conduct that gave Russia a green light to interfere in 2016, Trump reveals he is totally at a loss to comprehend his role is to defend American democracy from foreign meddling. Someone so lacking in loyalty to the Constitution and respect for our national security cannot perform his duties as commander in chief. And even worse, discouraging cooperation with the FBI directly violates his oath as chief of the executive branch that is charged with enforcing our laws.

As presidential candidate Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) put it: “He is the commander in chief and has a duty and responsibility to the American people to be a defender, if not the greatest defender, of our democracy. And quite the contrary, what we hear tonight is that he is yet again open to the idea of working with foreign governments to undermine the integrity of our election system. It is outrageous. And it tells me the guy just doesn’t understand the job and doesn’t do it very well.”

Trump has now publicly encouraged foreign governments to interfere with our democracy and advised that his team wouldn’t necessarily report the meddling to the FBI. He is quite simply a willing mark in any influence-peddling operation or counterintelligence operation from a foreign government. Quite apart from any illegality, this is a monstrously immoral view. Trump is willing to betray his country to win reelection to the presidency.

We don’t know whether this will affect Democrats’ calculus on impeachment, but that’s the wrong inquiry to be making. Rather, we should be demanding to know why there is not a single Republican other than Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) who is willing to denounce such conduct, read the Mueller report’s findings on obstruction and seek to protect our democracy by removing a menace to our national security. Republicans have so debased themselves and disregarded their oaths of office that they disqualify themselves from holding any position of power. Trump is perhaps incapable of even recognizing that his behavior is malicious and anti-constitutional, but his Republican lackeys in Congress and in the right-wing media have no excuse. They know that he is shredding the Constitution and endangering our security and yet choose to back him anyway.

There should be no doubt that Trump committed and continues to commit impeachable acts. The only question is whether impeaching him and seeing the Senate decline to remove him would pose a greater danger to the country (e.g. emboldening him and helping him win reelection) than not seeking impeachment. What is certain is that no patriotic American in good faith should defend him or support his reelection. That we have an entire party willing to do both of those things speaks to the need to put the GOP out of business.

#Resist