The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

White House officials concerned about being exposed by Mueller report

WASHINGTON — Some of the more than one dozen current and former White House officials who cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller are worried that the version of his report expected to be made public on Thursday will expose them as the source of damaging information about President Donald Trump, according to multiple witnesses in the investigation.

Some of the officials and their lawyers have sought clarity from the Justice Department on whether the names of those who cooperated with Mueller’s team will be redacted or if the public report will be written in a way that makes it obvious who shared certain details of Trump’s actions that were part of the obstruction of justice probe, people familiar with the discussions said. But, they said, the Justice Department has refused to elaborate.

Of particular concern is how Trump — and his allies — will react if it appears to be clear precisely who shared information with Mueller, these people said.

“They got asked questions and told the truth, and now they’re worried the wrath will follow,” one former White House official said.

Some of those who spoke with Mueller's team, such as former White House counsel Don McGahn, witnessed Trump’s actions up close and were privy to key moments in the obstruction investigation and spent many hours with investigators.

One person close to the White House said there is “breakdown-level anxiety” among some current and former staffers who cooperated with the investigation at the direction of Trump’s legal team at the time.

There is also concern that new facts in the report could be disclosed that do not reflect favorably on the president, two people familiar with the discussions said.

“You have a whole bunch of former White House officials and current White House officials, but especially former White House officials, who were told to cooperate,” the former White House official said. “So people went and did that, and now the uncertainty is just how much of that information is going to be in that report and how identifiable to individuals is it going to be. And nobody knows.”

Another person familiar with the discussions said the officials who are worried are those who said negative things about Trump. This person said the “million-dollar question” swirling around Trump world is how much of the report will be redacted, specifically if it will be a “net plus or minus” 100 pages of the more than 300-page report.

Fueling officials' concern is that Attorney General William Barr hasn’t been clear about what the report might entail. Barr has said he wants to make as much of the report public as he can, while also making clear parts of it will be redacted for grand jury testimony, classified information and material that could affect ongoing investigations. He also said information that could "infringe on the personal privacy" and reputations of "peripheral third parties” could be redacted, a phrase unclear to some witnesses in the investigation.

“Even if names are redacted or names aren’t in the report to begin with, it could be situations people were asked about and they answered truthfully that at least for some people — specifically the president — would be identifiable because the situation applies to just one person,” the former White House official said. “Nobody has any idea what this is going to look like on Thursday.”

#Resist

[joan1984]

 Snitches get stitches!  Can buy such a T-Shirt in DC, many places.  

  That may happen when criminals are on trial, and is not relevant in this case, especially when no charges against anyone in the Administration, having to do with the Mueller Investigation instructions from the former Acting Attorney General.

  Those who worry about telling the truth, when they were asked to testify and tell the truth, should not be too concerned. The truth shall set you free...

  I am sure our President is aware about most folks in the Administration, and knows who is trustworthy, and valued, and will continue to treat all fairly, no matter what Democrats may quote them as having said, if the report leaks from the various Democrat lead House committees.

[Athos_131]

 Snitches get stitches!  Can buy such a T-Shirt in DC, many places.

I am not surprised you would support not being truthful.  You lie regularly.  The only catch is, lying to the Special Counsel is a crime.  Several have already ended up in legal peril over this.

Witness intimidation is also a crime.  Ask Roger Stone.

#Resist

[Lois]

 
  I am sure our President is aware about most folks in the Administration, and knows who is trustworthy, ......

Good luck finding the leakers and those involved in the many scandals!

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/trump-administration-conflicts/

[Athos_131]

Wisconsin Assembly approves up to $3 billion offer to lure Foxconn

Congratulations Badger State, I'm sure Foxconn needs every penny.

Foxconn got a really good deal from Wisconsin. And it's getting better

Foxconn package cost Wisconsin eight times as much per job as similar 2017 state jobs deals

At more than $200,000 in state taxpayer money per job, the incentive package for the Taiwanese company is easily the state's most expensive deal of 2017, totaling more than three times as much per job as the next most costly deal. 

Foxconn scraps plan to build factory in Wisconsin, will hire white-collar workers instead

A major jobs deal President Trump has touted with former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker now looks uncertain: Foxconn, a prominent supplier for Apple and other electronics makers, says it’s scrapping plans to build a giant new factory in Wisconsin, opting to hire American engineers and researchers instead of a promised fleet of blue-collar workers.

"As we have previously noted, the global market environment that existed when the project was first announced has changed,” Foxconn said in a statement Wednesday. “As our plans are driven by those of our customers, this has necessitated the adjustment of plans for all projects, including Wisconsin.”

The Taiwanese technology juggernaut initially pledged in 2017 to construct a $10 billion display panel plant and create up to 13,000 jobs in the state’s southeastern corner over the next 15 years. The positions would pay an average annual wage of $53,000, the firm said — a solid salary in the manufacturing realm.

In exchange, Wisconsin agreed to give Foxconn at least $3 billion in state tax credits and breaks, according to the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, a public-private agency that helped negotiate the package. The deal drew criticism after it emerged that Wisconsin would not make money for 25 years.

Foxconn said Wednesday it still aimed to create 13,000 jobs in the state but did not respond to questions about the nature of the positions, when they would arrive and what precisely inspired the shift.

“In Wisconsin we’re not building a factory,” Louis Woo, special assistant to Foxconn chief executive Terry Gou, told Reuters. “You can’t use a factory to view our Wisconsin investment.”

Trump celebrated the deal in the East Room of the White House in 2017 and attended a groundbreaking ceremony last summer in Racine County.

“I would see Terry, and I would say, ‘Terry, you have to give us one of these massive places you do great work with,’ ” he said two years ago in front of news cameras, adding that he told the company head, “The American worker will not let you down.”

Gov. Tony Evers wants to renegotiate Foxconn deal, says company won't employ 13,000

MADISON - Gov. Tony Evers said Wednesday he wants to renegotiate the state's contract with Foxconn Technology Group because the Taiwanese company won't be creating 13,000 jobs in Wisconsin as originally envisioned. 

"Clearly the deal that was struck is no longer in play and so we will be working with individuals at Foxconn and of course with (the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp.) to figure out how a new set of parameters should be negotiated," Evers told reporters in his Capitol office.

He said it was premature to say what specific changes he would be seeking. Under existing deals, the state and local governments could provide the company up to $4 billion to establish a massive facility in Racine County employing as many as 13,000 people.

"All's we know is that the present contract deals with a situation that no longer exists, so it's our goal to make sure that the taxpayers are protected and environmental standards are protected," he said. "And we believe we need to take a look at that contract and see if it needs to be downsized as a result."

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald ripped into Evers' latest comments, saying they showed the Democratic governor "wanted to undermine the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation from day one."

"If the state is willing to renege on its commitment to Foxconn and open up a contract without agreement by both parties, then what guarantee can Wisconsin make to any other company that wants to expand here?” the Juneau Republican said in a statement.

Once hailed as "transformational" by former Gov. Scott Walker and other advocates, and touted by President Donald Trump as the "eighth wonder of the world," the Foxconn project has been drawing increasing skepticism for the last year as the company shifted its stated plans.

First came a sharp change in the proportion of factory workers to engineers. Then Foxconn gradually acknowledged that it would not build the massive "Gen 10" flat-screen plant specified in its contracts with state and local governments, but rather would construct a smaller, less costly "Gen 6" facility.

Earlier this year, it looked like the company might back away from building any sort of factory in Wisconsin - news that prompted Trump to get on the phone to Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou, quickly followed by a public pledge by the company to forge ahead with a Gen 6 plant.

Through it all, however, Foxconn continued to say it would create 13,000 Wisconsin jobs.

That won't happen, Evers said Wednesday. 

"I think at this point in time that would be an unrealistic expectation when they are downsizing the footprint of what they're doing," he said. "So 13,000 people as Foxconn employees is probably difficult to imagine for me right now, but I suppose it could take in a different reaction."

He said state officials have a better understanding of where the project stands than they have in the past.

"I think we're at a point now where we're relatively confident that the original footprint of that project is going to be much smaller but it seems to be a footprint that everybody agrees is likely," Evers said.

The deal with Foxconn was reached under Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Evers, a Democrat, defeated Walker in November.

Evers during his campaign was critical of the Foxconn deal but in the early weeks of his administration said he would abide by it because the state had made a legally binding agreement with the company.

The existing contract provides up to $3 billion in state payments to Foxconn. The vast majority of that — up to $2.85 billion — would come as Foxconn creates jobs and spends money on its complex in Mount Pleasant.

Foxconn hasn’t gotten any of the job creation or investment subsidies, which are to be awarded only after the company hits targets specified in the contract. The company fell short of the minimum number of jobs required for 2018.

The up-to-$2.85 billion in job creation and investment incentives are in the form of "refundable" tax credits. That means Foxconn would receive the payments whether or not it owes state taxes. Wisconsin exempts almost all manufacturing profits from taxation, so the payments likely would be in cash.

The pay-for-performance provisions provide protection for state taxpayers if Foxconn fails to create jobs and investment, but the payments the company stands to earn if it follows through on its pledges are generous.

Where state incentive deals with companies typically have taxpayers covering 7 percent of salaries, Foxconn would get 17 percent. Foxconn would also get 15% of its capital investment paid back instead of the usual 10%.

Racine County and the Village of Mount Pleasant, meanwhile, have been spending money up front to buy land and provide infrastructure such as water lines to Foxconn's proposed factory site.Those are the first of what had been envisioned as more than $900 million in local expenses to prepare the way for a manufacturing complex spread over about 1,200 acres, and related development expected on an adjacent 1,600 acres.

Should the project be greatly reduced in size, it's likely that some of that $900 million - which includes money for beefed up police and fire services and up to $100 million in direct incentive payments to Foxconn itself - won't get spent.

Between them, the local governments so far have borrowed $350 million through three separate bond issues.

Moody's Investors Service lowered Mount Pleasant's credit rating last September because of the borrowing. In January Moody's issued a subsequent cautionary note after Foxconn disclosed that it would not hit the hiring target for 2018.

In its contract with Mount Pleasant and Racine County, Foxconn guaranteed that its project area would generate new tax revenue that officials say would be enough to cover the local spending. Unlike the state's pay-as-you-go arrangement, however, the local governments would have to seek to enforce the contract provision after the fact if the development falls short of expectations.

#Resist

[Katiebee]

Mueller put an interesting footnote in his report quoted below.

A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official's conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment.

Basically he says whether Trump is impeachednot not, the criminal liability for his actions remain.

This is not exoneration. Mueller followed rules of the DOJ about indicting a sitting President. It says that the actions are impeachable, and they are also prosecutable for criminality.

[Athos_131]

How Michael Cohen Turned Against Trump

Michael D. Cohen was at a breaking point. He told friends he was suicidal. He insisted to lawyers he would never go to jail. Most of all, he feared that President Trump, his longtime boss, had forsaken him.

“Basically he needs a little loving and respect booster,” one of Mr. Cohen’s legal advisers at the time, Robert J. Costello, wrote in a text message to Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s lead lawyer. “He is not thinking clearly because he feels abandoned.”

That was last June. The “booster” from Mr. Trump never arrived. And by August, Mr. Cohen’s relationship with him had gone from fraught to hostile, casting a shadow on the Trump presidency and helping drive multiple criminal investigations into the president’s inner circle, including some that continued after the special counsel’s work ended.

In the biggest blow to the president personally, federal prosecutors in Manhattan effectively characterized Mr. Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case against Mr. Cohen involving hush money payments to a pornographic film actress. Mr. Cohen, and evidence gathered by prosecutors, implicated the president.

Now, as Mr. Cohen prepares to head to prison in two weeks, dozens of previously unreported emails, text messages and other confidential documents reviewed by The New York Times suggest that his falling out with Mr. Trump may have been avoidable.

Missed cues, clashing egos, veiled threats and unaddressed money worries all contributed to Mr. Cohen’s halting decision to turn on a man he had long idolized and even once vowed to take a bullet for, according to the documents and interviews with people close to the events. Some of the documents have been turned over to the prosecutors in Manhattan, and a small number were mentioned in the special counsel’s report released on Thursday, which dealt extensively with Mr. Cohen and referred to him more than 800 times.

Mr. Cohen held out hope for a different outcome until the very end, when he pleaded guilty and confessed to paying the illegal hush money to avert a potential sex scandal during the presidential campaign. Just hours earlier, wracked with indecision, he was still seeking guidance, looking, as one informal adviser put it, “for another way out.”

Mr. Cohen’s anxiety, on display in the documents, played a role in the undoing of his relationship with Mr. Trump, as did Mr. Costello’s lack of success in serving as a bridge to the White House. But also looming large were Mr. Giuliani’s and Mr. Trump’s failures to understand the threat that Mr. Cohen posed, and their inability — or unwillingness — to put his financial and emotional insecurities to rest.

After the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided Mr. Cohen’s home, office and hotel room last April, two of Mr. Cohen’s advisers explored whether the president might be open to a pardon, but Mr. Giuliani offered no assurances.

In June, Mr. Costello proposed that he and Mr. Giuliani, who have been friends for decades, meet urgently with Mr. Cohen to address his grievances and ease his anxieties. “Are we going to meet Thursday or Friday?” Mr. Costello texted Mr. Giuliani on a Monday. “I would like to get back to Michael with a response.”

But Mr. Giuliani did not respond. And when Mr. Costello followed up, “Can I get a response on the possible meeting?” Mr. Giuliani hesitated, replying, “Not yet because haven’t talked to President,” who was out of the country.

The next day, Mr. Cohen’s private admission to friends that he was open to cooperating with prosecutors suddenly appeared in the news. And Mr. Cohen relayed his growing displeasure with the Trump camp to Mr. Costello, sending the lawyer an article that suggested the president and his allies intended “to discredit Michael Cohen” and commenting in the email that “they are again on a bad path.” He also complained to Mr. Costello that the president had stopped covering his legal expenses.

Mr. Costello, who spoke with The Times after Mr. Cohen waived attorney-client privilege in February, said that without Mr. Cohen’s team and the president’s lawyers in sync, it was impossible to navigate the tumultuous relationship.

“What we had here was a failure to communicate,” said Mr. Costello, who was never formally retained by Mr. Cohen. “My mission was to get everyone tuned in to the same channel. My thought was a face-to-face meeting among all the lawyers together with Cohen would put everyone on the same channel. The meeting never happened, and the rest is history.”

Mr. Cohen declined to comment.

In an interview, Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that the Trump team had pulled back from Mr. Cohen, saying it did so because prosecutors might have viewed friendly overtures as witness tampering, and because Mr. Cohen’s legal problems extended beyond his relationship with the president.

“It seemed like an unfortunate but sensible decision,” he said of the Trump team’s reticence toward Mr. Cohen. “The more I look back at it, the more I wonder if it was inevitable that Michael was going to crack.”

After pleading guilty in August, and hoping to reduce his three-year prison sentence, Mr. Cohen told federal prosecutors about Mr. Trump’s role in the hush-money scheme, as well as other aspects of the president’s company, where he had worked for a decade. He also suggested Mr. Trump’s team had dangled a pardon to keep him loyal, a claim denied by Mr. Giuliani. In a recent meeting requested by the prosecutors, Mr. Costello said, he told them the pardon discussion was initiated by Mr. Cohen and rejected by Mr. Giuliani.

Unencumbered by the restraints on the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, the prosecutors are now scrutinizing a wider swath of the president’s associates. About a dozen investigations are underway, including an inquiry into the Trump inaugural committee, which Mr. Cohen had assisted. Mr. Cohen also delivered congressional testimony that accused Mr. Trump of being a racist and a “con man.”

‘Blowing This Whole Thing’
The relationship between Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump was looking up, at least for a brief period, last April.

Just days after F.B.I. agents searched his hotel room on Park Avenue, Mr. Cohen received a phone call from the president. “Stay strong,” Mr. Trump told him, according to the Mueller report and a person with knowledge of the call.

Mr. Cohen thanked Mr. Trump repeatedly, and later told people the message was clear: The president, who had a history of treating Mr. Cohen poorly, wanted to keep him on his team.

As federal prosecutors in Manhattan built a criminal case against Mr. Cohen, he set out to find a lawyer who had experience with the Manhattan United States attorney’s office, known as the Southern District of New York. That’s when an acquaintance at a local law firm emailed him to pitch the services of his colleague Mr. Costello. The firm was eager to become associated with such a high-profile case, and quickly embraced Mr. Cohen.

“I am really sorry to read about your troubles,” the acquaintance, Jeffrey Citron, wrote. “My partner Bob Costello was formerly the deputy chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District.” He said that if Mr. Cohen wanted to connect with Mr. Costello and obtain “his insight into your situation, it would be my pleasure to arrange.”

Mr. Cohen jumped at the offer: “I do. Can you connect me to him?”

Mr. Cohen met that day with Mr. Citron and Mr. Costello in a conference room at the Loews Regency Hotel, where he had been staying while his home underwent renovations. After drawing the curtains, Mr. Cohen revealed the depths of his despair.

“I was up on the roof. I was thinking of jumping,” Mr. Cohen told the two men, according to Mr. Costello.

Over the course of the two-hour meeting, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Costello discussed options for digging out of the mess, including possibly seeking immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperation. They also talked about whether state prosecutors could charge Mr. Cohen even if the president pardoned him, Mr. Costello said. And they discussed, in passing, Mr. Costello’s friendship with Mr. Giuliani.

When Mr. Giuliani was hired by the president a few days later, Mr. Costello emailed Mr. Cohen: “I told you my relationship with Rudy which could be very very useful for you.”

“Great news,” Mr. Cohen replied.

The next day, after speaking to Mr. Giuliani by phone, Mr. Costello wrote in an email to Mr. Citron that the president’s lead lawyer had been “thrilled that I reached out to him about Cohen.” He added that Mr. Giuliani was “calling the president tonight.”

Mr. Costello also shared his upbeat assessment with Mr. Cohen. “I just spoke to Rudy Giuliani and told him I was on your team,” he wrote in an email sent late that night. “Rudy was thrilled and said this could not be a better situation for the president or you.” He continued, “He said thank you for opening this back channel of communication and asked me to keep in touch.”

Mr. Trump praised Mr. Cohen on Twitter the next day, calling him “a fine person” and predicting he would not flip. After another conversation with Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Costello sent Mr. Cohen an update: “They are in our corner,” he wrote in an email. “You have friends in high places.”

Mr. Cohen believed at the time that “he had the support of the White House if he continued to toe the party line,” according to the special counsel’s report. “He determined to stay on message and be part of the team.”

The glow faded quickly, however, as a series of developments stoked Mr. Cohen’s suspicions about Mr. Trump’s intentions toward him.

First, later in April, Mr. Giuliani rebuffed Mr. Costello’s question about whether Mr. Trump might entertain the idea of a pardon, according to Mr. Costello. Mr. Cohen also asked his Washington-based lawyer, Stephen Ryan, to make a similar inquiry, and Mr. Giuliani was noncommittal. Mr. Ryan had been working at the time with the president’s legal team to prevent prosecutors from reviewing materials seized in the F.B.I. raids that were protected by attorney-client privilege.

Next, Mr. Trump called in to the television program “Fox & Friends” and tried to minimize the legal work that Mr. Cohen had performed for him — “a tiny, tiny little fraction,” he said. Those comments appeared to undermine Mr. Cohen’s argument that many of the seized materials might be privileged.

A week after that, in early May, it was a television appearance by Mr. Giuliani that upset Mr. Cohen.

Under an information-sharing agreement among the lawyers, Mr. Ryan had discussed with Mr. Giuliani that the Trumps had reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the hush money he paid to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels. Without notifying Mr. Cohen or his representatives, Mr. Giuliani then delivered the revelation on Fox News. Mr. Cohen became concerned that the Trump team was disseminating information about him gleaned from the agreement, and that it was being done with Mr. Trump’s knowledge.

As the president’s lead lawyer continued to publicly discuss the hush-money scheme in the days and weeks that followed, Mr. Cohen told associates that Mr. Giuliani was “blowing this whole thing.”

‘Keep on Punching’
Days after Mr. Giuliani appeared on Fox News, Mr. Costello confided to Mr. Citron, his partner, about his mounting concerns that Mr. Cohen was stringing them along.

“There are simply too many facts that he is not sharing with us to give me a level of comfort,” Mr. Costello wrote to Mr. Citron. He suggested that Mr. Cohen’s distrust of Mr. Giuliani was also a factor. “I do not think that Rudy doing his Press Tour is helping us in our relationship with Michael Cohen,” he wrote.

Soon after, Mr. Cohen was dealt another blow when confidential financial records were leaked, showing that he had collected more than $1 million in consulting fees from major corporations and from a New York private equity firm tied to a Russian oligarch. With the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mr. Cohen was suddenly back in the discussion about Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.

Mr. Costello emailed him words of encouragement — “keep on punching” — but Mr. Cohen did not reply. Mr. Costello doubled down, later emailing Mr. Cohen in all caps that Mr. Mueller had “REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO RUSSIAN ANGLE TO THE MICHAEL COHEN INVESTIGATION OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE KEPT THE CASE FOR HIMSELF.”

Mr. Costello made the same point in a text message to Mr. Giuliani, who “thought it was very important to get that message out there,” Mr. Costello recounted in an email to Mr. Citron. But, Mr. Costello said, Mr. Giuliani suggested he could not make that case himself, “because it will look like he is defending Michael Cohen.”

The challenge, Mr. Costello continued, was “to get Cohen on the right page without giving him the appearance that we are following instructions from Giuliani or the president.”

By mid-June, despite warning signs that Mr. Cohen might turn on the president, some members of Mr. Trump’s team concluded that he did not pose a real threat, interviews show. Mr. Giuliani never met with Mr. Cohen, though Mr. Costello had suggested it might help. And the same day that ABC News reported that Mr. Cohen was “likely to cooperate” with prosecutors, Mr. Giuliani appeared on Fox News and played down the possibility of Mr. Cohen’s flipping, saying he had “checked into this last night” and it was not true.

The next day, Mr. Costello sent Mr. Cohen a link to Mr. Giuliani’s interview. And when Mr. Cohen asked, “Why send this to me?” Mr. Costello explained, “You are under the impression that Trump and Giuliani are trying to discredit you.” He continued, “I think you are wrong because you are believing the narrative promoted by the left-wing media.”

Mr. Costello also texted Mr. Giuliani a note praising the interview, adding that he had sent a YouTube clip of it to Mr. Cohen in hopes that it would calm him down.

But later that month, any good will dissipated when The Times reported that the F.B.I. had seized in its raid a tape recording of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump from 2016. The two men were discussing hush money paid to another woman, Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump.

Each side blamed the other for the explosive revelation, pushing the relationship to a near breaking point.

‘Is He Totally Nuts?’
Later in June, Vanity Fair reported that Mr. Cohen had hired a new lawyer — not Mr. Costello, but Guy Petrillo, a former federal prosecutor who had worked in the Southern District alongside James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director and a Trump foil.

Mr. Costello raised concerns with Mr. Giuliani. “Does Cohen really want a friend of Comey as his lawyer?” he asked in a text message.

At the same time, Mr. Cohen’s concerns about money were reaching a crisis, according to court records. Mr. Trump’s business and campaign had paid about $1.7 million of Mr. Cohen’s legal bills, but stopped paying in June, around the time Mr. Ryan finished reviewing the documents seized in the F.B.I. raid and withdrew from the case. An official with Mr. Ryan’s firm declined to comment.

Mr. Cohen wanted the Trump Organization to also help pay Mr. Petrillo, which never happened.

In the interview with The Times, Mr. Giuliani said that he was new to the issue of the legal fees at the time, having just been hired by Mr. Trump a couple of months earlier. He said that the decision was made by the Trump Organization to pay for legal work only if it was expressly connected to Mr. Trump or the company.

A lawyer for the Trump Organization said Mr. Cohen’s criminal problems were of his own making. “He should quit lying and take responsibility for his actions,” said the lawyer, Marc L. Mukasey. “The idea that the Trump Organization should have paid his legal fees and expenses is a total crock.”

Distrust between the two sides only grew in June when the comedian Tom Arnold tweeted a selfie with Mr. Cohen and later claimed that they were teaming up to take down the president. Mr. Giuliani, sounding alarmed, phoned Mr. Costello while he was having lunch at Bobby Van’s Steakhouse — the president wanted to know what this was about.

After lunch, Mr. Costello tried to reach Mr. Cohen, who was slow to reply. “Is he totally nuts???” Mr. Costello wrote in frustration to his law partner. “He is playing with the most powerful man on the planet.”

When Mr. Cohen finally sent along a clarification from Mr. Arnold, Mr. Costello texted Mr. Giuliani. “Make sure your client knows this,” he wrote. “He will sleep better.”

Mr. Cohen then asked Mr. Costello to make things right with Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Costello recalled, and assure Mr. Trump that he remained loyal. So Mr. Costello had lunch in late June with Mr. Giuliani at the Grand Havana Room on the top floor of 666 Fifth Avenue. Afterward, he assured Mr. Cohen in an email that he had “conveyed all of your expressed concerns” to Mr. Giuliani “for transmission to his client” — the president. Mr. Cohen replied, thanking him for “speaking to your friend.”

Still, Mr. Cohen heard nothing from the Trump legal team, and no additional legal fees were paid by the Trump Organization.

By early July, Mr. Cohen was making overtly hostile moves toward the president. He appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and declared, “My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will.” He deleted the line in his Twitter biography about working for Mr. Trump. And he hired Lanny Davis, a Democrat and a friend of the Clintons, as a spokesman.

A person who was familiar with Mr. Cohen’s decision-making at the time said the moves might have been a cry for help, but Mr. Costello and others saw them as evidence that he had “chosen a different path,” as Mr. Costello wrote to Mr. Cohen in an email.

“We will not be involved in that journey and therefore Jeff Citron asked me to let you know that he will be sending you a bill,” the email said.

Within weeks, Mr. Giuliani, who had previously referred to Mr. Cohen as “an honest, honorable lawyer,” was instead casting him as a “pathological liar.”

A Scotch on the Rocks
His bond with Mr. Trump all but broken, Mr. Cohen decided to cooperate with law enforcement officials. And so he traveled to Washington to meet on Aug. 7 with Mr. Mueller’s team for the first of many discussions.

The next week, his lawyer, Mr. Petrillo, arranged to talk with prosecutors in Manhattan, interviews show. The prosecutors had been putting him off but suddenly agreed to meet a couple of days later, on Friday, an indication that criminal charges against Mr. Cohen were imminent.

Mr. Petrillo asked for a deferred prosecution agreement relating to the hush money, a lighter punishment that might have spared Mr. Cohen from prison so long as he stayed out of trouble. That weekend the prosecutors signaled there would be no such deal, but they were willing to consider a guilty plea.

Over the next day, Mr. Cohen and his wife huddled in Mr. Petrillo’s office debating their options. And throughout the day on Monday, his lawyers went back and forth with prosecutors over the details of the plea to campaign finance, banking and tax crimes.

But that evening, Mr. Cohen was still unsure whether to plead guilty at all. He poured a glass of 12-year-old Glenlivet Scotch on the rocks and debated his future.

Early on Tuesday, he was still having second thoughts, but ultimately stuck to the plan. Standing at the defense table, Mr. Cohen said he had worked with Mr. Trump to cover up two potential sex scandals, including the one involving Ms. Daniels. He confessed that he had arranged the hush money “in coordination with, and at the direction of, a candidate for federal office,” implicating the president publicly for the first time in a federal campaign finance crime.

“Time and time again,” Mr. Cohen later told the judge at his sentencing, “I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump sues in bid to block congressional subpoena of financial records

President Trump and his business on Monday sued House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) in a bid to block a congressional subpoena of his financial records.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to prevent Trump’s accounting firm from complying with what his lawyers say is an improper use of subpoena power by congressional Democrats.

“Democrats are using their new control of congressional committees to investigate every aspect of President Trump’s personal finances, businesses, and even his family,” the filing by Trump claims. “Instead of working with the President to pass bipartisan legislation that would actually benefit Americans, House Democrats are singularly obsessed with finding something they can use to damage the President politically.”

The filing, in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, further escalates a clash between the White House and the Democratic-controlled House over congressional oversight.

President Trump and his business on Monday sued House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) in a bid to block a congressional subpoena of his financial records.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to prevent Trump’s accounting firm from complying with what his lawyers say is an improper use of subpoena power by congressional Democrats.

“Democrats are using their new control of congressional committees to investigate every aspect of President Trump’s personal finances, businesses, and even his family,” the filing by Trump claims. “Instead of working with the President to pass bipartisan legislation that would actually benefit Americans, House Democrats are singularly obsessed with finding something they can use to damage the President politically.”

The filing, in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, further escalates a clash between the White House and the Democratic-controlled House over congressional oversight.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump’s Taxes Are Fair Game. Just Ask Warren Harding.

If Democrats in Congress succeed in their quest to get Donald Trump to cough up his tax returns, they’ll have another Republican president to thank: Warren G. Harding.

A century ago, the Teapot Dome corruption scandal engulfed Harding’s administration, spurring Congress to pass legislation that finally reclaimed its right to review private tax returns. It was a solid law, and remains so today: The legislative branch has the power to tax and spend, and the review of personal tax returns falls well within its rights and obligations.

The battle over the privacy of returns is as old as the income tax itself. The nation’s first such levy originated during the Civil War, and anyone could get the information. In fact, newspapers regularly published the amounts paid by the wealthy – a radical form of transparency that critics said went too far.

Congress prohibited the practice in 1870, and the income tax itself was rolled back not long afterward. In 1894, as part of a drive to reinstate the tax, Congress made the unauthorized disclosure of tax returns a misdemeanor, further strengthening privacy protections. But the Supreme Court soon ruled the tax unconstitutional, making the point moot.

In 1910, Congress moved to protect the privacy of corporate tax returns on the grounds that their release could reveal trade secrets to competitors. Under the new law, only the president – via the secretary of the Treasury -- could release corporate returns. When Congress passed a new income tax law in 1913, it quietly extended this protection to personal returns as well.

Lawmakers soon realized that this effectively deprived their own committees of the right to review tax returns – even in cases where they were considering legislation directly related to Congress’s authority to tax and spend. This struck legislators as absurd, and in 1920 Congress came close to restoring its authority to request tax returns – but the provision was inexplicably removed by the conference committee.

The matter would have rested there, but along came Harding, who presided over one of the more inept and corrupt administrations in U.S. history. He never really expected to be president, and described himself as “a man of limited talents,” who wasn't "fit for the office and should never have been here.”

Harding surrounded himself with toadies and yes-men who swiftly began helping themselves to the spoils of office. The president abruptly died two years into his term, but the resulting scandals would keep Congress busy with investigations for several years afterward. The most famous of these, the Teapot Dome, involved oil interests that had bribed public officials in exchange for leases on public land.

Congress eventually asked Calvin Coolidge, Harding’s successor, to release the tax returns of some of the Teapot conspirators. Coolidge reluctantly complied after some delay, and the experience left many in Congress concerned that not all presidents might be forthcoming.

This provided the primary impetus for reform. A scholar of this episode, George K. Yin, has identified another reason for the shift in sentiment: a little-known controversy involving Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon and Senator James Couzens.

The two men – both extremely rich -- had been locked in a policy dispute over the appropriate rate of taxes on the wealthy. Couzens came to believe that his confidential tax information had been released by Mellon to prove a political point (namely, that Couzens was a hypocrite).

Representative Edward Browne of Wisconsin, an ally of Couzens, declared that Mellon “had access to all the income returns and he used the information and made it public. Why give him any more rights in making these facts public than the rest of the people of the United States?”

The accusation may or may not have been true, but the idea that the executive branch should have exclusive control over access to tax returns became increasingly untenable.

In 1924, Representative John Nance Garner shrewdly put the matter to his colleagues in the House. He asked them to imagine wanting to see his own (Garner’s) tax returns because of an ethics investigation – only to be rebuffed because they had no legal authority to obtain the returns.

In offering himself up as a hypothetical target of investigation, Garner underscored the impotence of Congress.  Representative Ralph Lozier, a Missouri Democrat, made a more populist pitch, saying that “the country has the right to know whether or not the tax returns made by the idle rich and the gigantic corporations are fair and reasonable or based on evasion, fraud, and circumlocution.”

The final legislation established safeguards against the reckless dissemination of private tax information. As Yin has observed, Congress ultimately choose an evenhanded strategy, refusing to prohibit committees from sharing tax information, but also refusing to mandate that they must share whatever information they gathered.

Moreover, the threshold for determining what was suitable for release was set very low: The committee could share any information it deemed “relevant or useful.”

Since then, the balance of power has shifted to Congress. After Richard Nixon’s downfall, and in particular revelations that the president has used his access to income tax returns for political purposes, Congress drastically limited the executive’s ability to inspect and release tax returns.

At the same time, the words “relevant or useful” were removed from the statutory language, though Congress also restricted the ability of non-tax committees to make public disclosures of tax information.

Which brings us to now. The chairman of the House Tax Committee, Representative Richard Neal, invoked this law to demand six years of the president’s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service by April 23.

The Trump administration can certainly fight the case in court. But the deep history of this particular provision in the tax code is unequivocal. Sooner or later, the president is going to have to surrender the returns.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

It sure looks like Donnie is gonna be eventually forced to tell the truth.

The whole truth.

And nothing but the truth.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump Fed pick Stephen Moore called it a 'travesty' that women 'feel free' to play sports with men

One of President Donald Trump's picks to serve on the Federal Reserve Board has written that women should be banned from refereeing, announcing or beer vending at men's college basketball games, asking if there was any area in life "where men can take vacation from women."

Stephen Moore, an economic commentator and former Trump campaign adviser, made those and similar comments in several columns reviewed by CNN's KFile that were published on the website of the conservative National Review magazine in 2001, twice in 2002 and 2003.

In a 2000 column, Moore complained about his wife voting for Democrats, writing, "Women are sooo malleable! No wonder there's a gender gap." In another column in 2000, Moore criticized female athletes advocating for pay equality, writing that they wanted "equal pay for inferior work."

Moore, who subsequently worked as a Wall Street Journal editorial board member, was at the time the president of the Club for Growth, a conservative political organization. He was a CNN contributor from 2017 until last month.

Moore told CNN's KFile in an email, "This was a spoof. I have a sense of humor."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The columns are attracting renewed attention as his prior views and statements face scrutiny ahead of what could be a contentious confirmation process to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Trump said in March he intends to nominate Moore to the position, but Moore has not officially been nominated yet.

The resurfaced comments come as Trump's other pick for a seat on Fed board, Herman Cain, faces scrutiny over allegations of sexual harassment that ended his 2012 presidential campaign. Cain denies the allegations and has said he has no plans to remove himself from consideration, but he has no clear path for Senate approval as four Republican senators have announced that they would not vote for him.

In one of his 2002 columns, Moore suggested changes to March Madness tournament to get rid of "un-American" aspects of it. The first rule proposed by Moore was "no women."
"Here's the rule change I propose: No more women refs, no women announcers, no women beer venders, no women anything," he wrote in March 2002. "There is, of course, an exception to this rule. Women are permitted to participate, if and only if, they look like Bonnie Bernstein. The fact that Bonnie knows nothing about basketball is entirely irrelevant." He later wrote that Bernstein, a CBS sports journalist at the time, should wear halter tops.

Earlier the column, Moore expressed disgust at a woman refereeing an NCAA game.
"How outrageous is this? This year they allowed a woman ref a men's NCAA game. Liberals celebrate this breakthrough as a triumph for gender equity," Moore wrote. "The NCAA has been touting this as example of how progressive they are. I see it as an obscenity. Is there no area in life where men can take vacation from women? What's next? Women invited to bachelor parties? Women in combat? (Oh yeah, they've done that already.) Why can't women ref he women's games and men the men's games. I can't wait to see the first lady ref have a run in with Bobby Knight."

Moore wrote that this was part of the "bigger and more serious social problem in America" which was "the feminization of basketball generally." Moore added he didn't care about watching women's basketball and he was upset games were shown on ESPN.

"And while I'm venting on the subject, here's another travesty: in playground games and rec leagues these days, women now feel free to play with the men — uninvited in almost every case," added Moore. "There's no joy in dunking over a girl. Never mind that I can't dunk (except on the eight-foot baskets). If I could, I wouldn't celebrate dunking over someone named Tina."

Moore addressed complaints about his column the 13 days later, mocking claims of sexism.
"Several readers (all women) have called and e-mailed complaining about my last column as 'sexist' because I said that women shouldn't be permitted to ref the men's game," wrote Moore. "Their retort was: 'Well then why should men ref the women's games?' Look, for all I care the women can use chimpanzees to ref their games. I hate women's basketball."
In another column in 2003, Moore again wrote there should be "no women announcers." And in 2001, Moore wrote, "Another problem is that CBS now has women announcers and commentators. Is nothing sacred?"

Writing in another column in 2000, Moore said the real issue of inequality in sports was women making more than "collegiate level" men who Moore said "could beat them handily."

"The women tennis pros don't really want equal pay for equal work. They want equal pay for inferior work. There's a very practical reason why Pete Sampras, for example, makes a lot more money than Martina Hingis does," wrote Moore. "He's much, much better than she is. The day that Martina can return Pete's serve is the day she should get paid what he does. If there is an injustice in tennis, it's that women like Martina Hingis and Monica Seles make millions of dollars a year, even though there are hundreds of men at the collegiate level (assuming their schools haven't dropped the sport) who could beat them handily."

"Yet these men make nothing. Venus Williams is a multi-millionaire not in spite of the fact that she is a women, but precisely because she's a woman," continued Moore. "She receives much higher pay than an equally skilled man. Isn't that precisely the opposite of what is meant by pay equity?"

#Resist

[Athos_131]

U.S. to Reciprocate on ‘Unfair’ EU Harley Tariffs, Trump Says

The U.S. will respond to the European Union’s tariffs on motorcycle-maker Harley-Davidson Inc., which has shifted some production overseas to avoid rising levies, President Donald Trump said.

“So unfair to U.S. We will Reciprocate!” Trump said Tuesday on Twitter in a post that quoted Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo.

Harley-Davidson reported slumping first-quarter profit Tuesday, though it beat analysts’ expectations.

Harley is moving some U.S. production overseas to sidestep EU tariffs that jumped to 31 percent from 6 percent after Trump hiked levies on steel and aluminum imports.

The company’s move sparked the ire of Trump, who said he’d back a boycott of the company’s bikes. Tariffs will cost the company between $100 million and $120 million in 2019, executives said in January.

Trump is scheduled to hold a political rally in Harley’s home state of Wisconsin later this week. He said on Twitter the rally will be held Saturday night in Green Bay.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump says he is opposed to White House aides testifying to Congress, deepening power struggle with Hill

President Trump on Tuesday said he is opposed to current and former White House aides providing testimony to congressional panels in the wake of the special counsel report, intensifying a power struggle between his administration and House Democrats.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said that complying with congressional requests was unnecessary after the White House cooperated with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference and the president’s own conduct in office.

“There is no reason to go any further, and especially in Congress where it’s very partisan — obviously very partisan,” Trump said.

Trump’s comments came as the White House made it clear that it plans to broadly defy requests for information from Capitol Hill, moving the two branches of government closer to a constitutional collision.

On Tuesday, two White House officials said the administration plans to fight a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for former White House counsel Donald McGahn by asserting executive privilege over his testimony.

Separately, the administration directed a former White House official not to comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee, prompting the panel to move to hold him in contempt of Congress. And the Treasury Department defied a second demand from House Democrats to turn over six years of President Trump’s tax returns.

Taken together, the moves mark a dramatic escalation of tensions between the president and congressional Democrats — deepening a fight that may ultimately be resolved only by a protracted court battle.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday the findings of the Mueller report, the investigations by congressional committees and the White House response had created a pivotal “moment in our history.”

“Now we see the administration engaging in stonewalling of the facts coming to the American people,” Pelosi said in an interview for the Time 100 Summit in New York.

White House lawyers plan to tell attorneys for administration witnesses called by the House that they will be asserting executive privilege over their testimony, according to two officials familiar with internal plans who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In his interview with The Post, Trump maintained that the White House Counsel’s Office has not “made a final, final decision” about whether it will formally assert executive privilege and try to block congressional testimony. But he said he opposes cooperation with House Democrats, who he claimed are trying to score political points against him.

“I don’t want people testifying to a party, because that is what they’re doing if they do this,” Trump said.

The president said Democrats should be satisfied with what McGahn and other officials told Mueller, calling his decision to allow them to meet with federal investigators an act of transparency that made further congressional cooperation unreasonable.

“I allowed my lawyers and all the people to go and testify to Mueller — and you know how I feel about that whole group of people that did the Mueller report,” Trump said. “I was so transparent; they testified for so many hours. They have all of that information that’s been given.”

“I fully understood that at the beginning. I had my choice,” Trump added of his decision to allow his aides to testify as part of Mueller’s probe. “I could have taken the absolute opposite route.”

Legal experts said that a White House effort to assert executive privilege over possible testimony by McGahn and other former and current aides who spoke to the special counsel will face legal challenges.

“It seems to me executive privilege was waived when McGahn was permitted to give testimony and to be interviewed by special counsel Mueller,” said former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste. “I don’t see how the White House can assert executive privilege with something that has already been revealed. To use the Watergate expression, ‘You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.’”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that the panel is specifically seeking McGahn’s testimony related to subjects described in Mueller’s report, which is now public in a redacted form.

“As such, the moment for the White House to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed,” Nadler said in a statement.

McGahn was mentioned more than 150 times in Mueller’s report and told investigators about how the president pressured him to oust the special counsel and then pushed him to publicly deny the episode.

Public testimony by McGahn could create a spectacle that would parallel the June 1973 testimony of President Richard Nixon’s former White House counsel, John Dean, whose live, televised appearance before a Senate committee painted a vivid portrait for the country of the White House coverup of the Watergate burglary.

McGahn’s lawyer, William Burck, began discussions with the Judiciary Committee about his potential testimony after the panel issued a subpoena Monday, according to people familiar with the matter.

People close to McGahn, who were not authorized to speak publicly, said McGahn is “following the process” and working with the White House on his next steps, despite Trump’s public and private anger about his former counsel’s prominence in the Mueller report.

“He’s not eager to testify. He’s not reluctant. He got a subpoena. It compels him to testify. But there are some countervailing legal reasons that might prevent that,” said one person close to McGahn, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions. “He doesn’t want to be in contempt of Congress, nor does he want to be in contempt of his ethical obligations and legal obligations as a former White House official.”

Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee moved Tuesday to hold former White House personnel security director Carl Kline in contempt of Congress for failing to appear at a hearing investigating alleged lapses in White House security clearance procedures.

The panel subpoenaed Kline following testimony from a White House whistleblower, Tricia Newbold, who alleged that the White House recklessly granted security clearances to individuals — including presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner — over the objections of career staff members.

Newbold, who processed security clearances under Kline at the White House for the first two years of the administration, told the panel that more than two dozen recommended denials for security clearances had been overturned during the Trump administration. She said that Congress was her “last hope” for addressing what she considered to be improper conduct that left the nation’s secrets exposed.

White House deputy counsel Michael M. Purpura wrote a letter Monday instructing Kline, who now works at the Defense Department, not to show up for a scheduled deposition before the committee Tuesday.

In a letter to Kline’s lawyer obtained by The Post, Purpura wrote that a committee subpoena asking Kline to appear “unconstitutionally encroaches on fundamental executive branch interests.”

White House aides said the administration will seek to block Kline from giving any testimony and to prevent other administration officials from speaking to the panel about security clearances.

In a separate letter Monday, Kline’s attorney, Robert Driscoll, told the panel that his client would adhere to the White House recommendation.

“With two masters from two equal branches of government, we will follow the instructions of the one that employs him,” Driscoll wrote.

In response, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the Oversight Committee, said he would consult with the House counsel and members of the panel about scheduling a vote to hold Kline in contempt of Congress.

“The White House and Mr. Kline now stand in open defiance of a duly authorized congressional subpoena with no assertion of any privilege of any kind by President Trump,” Cummings said in a statement. “Based on these actions, it appears that the President believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight.”

On Tuesday, Driscoll said that he and his client “take seriously” both the committee’s concerns and the direction of the White House.

“We will continue to review the proceedings and make the best judgments we can,” he said.

House Democratic legal advisers have been poring over past congressional subpoena litigation as a guide as they map out a strategy to enforce a contempt citation without the backing of the Justice Department.

In that case, the House would be forced to use civil litigation.

A similar dynamic played out during the Obama administration, when then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. faced a subpoena and a contempt resolution from the House Oversight Committee, which was seeking information about a controversial gun-trafficking enforcement program called Operation Fast and Furious.

The effort to secure information from Holder began in 2011 but was not fully resolved until 2016, long after he left office.

A person close to Pelosi said she fully supports the efforts of her committee chairs to ensure House investigators secure the information lawmakers believe they need to hold the White House accountable.

Efforts to block Congress have also extended to Trump’s finances. On Monday, the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit to prevent an accounting firm from complying with a committee subpoena for eight years’ worth of Trump’s financial records.

And Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Tuesday told a key lawmaker he would make a final decision as to whether to furnish Trump’s tax returns by May 6, committing for the first time to a specific deadline in what has become a major power struggle.

In a 10-page letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), Mnuchin said the Democrats’ request for Trump’s tax returns raised constitutional and privacy issues that needed to be resolved by the Justice Department before he could make a decision on how to proceed.

The administration is continuing to work on a legal rationale for not turning over Trump’s taxes, White House aides said.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Treasury secretary misses deadline for providing Trump tax returns to House panel, says he will make final decision by May 6

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Tuesday told a key lawmaker he would make a final decision as to whether to furnish President Trump’s tax returns by May 6, committing for the first time to a specific deadline in what has become a major Washington power struggle.

In a 10-page letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), Mnuchin said the Democrats’ request for Trump’s tax returns raised constitutional and privacy issues that needed to be resolved by the Justice Department before he could make a decision on how to proceed.

The letter repeatedly cast doubt on the motivations of Democrats in seeking the tax return information. Mnuchin served as Trump’s finance chairman during the 2016 presidential campaign, and the president already has signaled he does not want the information released, but multiple legal scholars have said they don’t see much precedent for Mnuchin to ignore the congressional inquiry.

Still, Treasury Department officials have taken steps to make their reluctance to turn over the records legally defensible. Tuesday’s letter contained 48 footnotes.

Neal has twice formally requested the tax returns from Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles P. Rettig, and the latest deadline was Tuesday at 5 p.m. Mnuchin has responded to both requests with a letter of his own, saying more time was needed while also casting doubt as to why Democrats are seeking the records in the first place.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that exposure for the sake of exposure is never a permissible purpose of congressional inquiries, and this principle is all the more important when private and legally protected tax information is at stake,” Mnuchin wrote.

House Democrats must now decide how forcefully to respond. They could wait until May 6 or move more aggressively and subpoena the records under a 1924 law that appears to give them access to virtually any tax return. Several House Democrats have accused the White House of stalling and implored their colleagues to ratchet up pressure.

One House Democrat asked his colleagues Monday to consider whether they should seek to impeach Rettig for failing to comply with their legal demands.

The White House has not offered any legal precedent for so far refusing to turn over the records. Instead, they have said that Trump is not releasing his tax returns because they are being audited.

“There is nothing nefarious there at all,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said Tuesday on Fox News. “This was litigated in 2016, and [Democrats] are going to keep pushing.”

Trump has not provided any details of the audit, however, and Trump’s former lawyer — Michael Cohen — has said he doesn’t believe the records are actually under audit.

Last week, Neal sent Rettig a pointed request for six years of Trump’s personal and business tax returns, giving him the new Tuesday deadline. The IRS is a division of the Treasury Department, and Mnuchin has said he has taken charge of the administration’s response.

Mnuchin’s resistance so far is part of a broader Trump administration effort to block myriad congressional investigations into the White House and Trump’s business background. The White House instructed a former personnel security director not to show up for questioning before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Tuesday, and Monday the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit to prevent an accounting firm from complying with a committee subpoena for eight years’ worth of Trump’s financial records.

As the White House tries to mobilize opposition to the congressional investigations, some Democrats said they will ultimately prevail.

“We can squeeze these birds,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “We can go to court. . . . Anyone who denies us is at risk.”

During a call with other House Democrats on Monday, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) asked other lawmakers whether they should consider beginning impeachment proceedings against Rettig for failing to comply with the law.

“I think it’s important to put this commissioner on notice that all of the legal backstops are in play here,” he said in an interview. “You don’t just get to follow Donald Trump’s orders when he is telling you to violate the law.”

House Democratic leaders were noncommittal on Huffman’s request. IRS and Treasury Department spokesmen did not respond to requests for comment.

Tuesday’s deadline was set by Neal after the IRS missed an initial April 10 cutoff date to produce six years’ worth of Trump’s personal and business returns.

Neal’s request relies on a 1924 federal law that says the IRS “shall furnish” any individual’s tax returns if they are sought by a chairman of Congress’s tax-writing committees. The law was written this way to make it nearly impossible for the White House to block disclosure of tax returns, following the Teapot Dome scandal during the Harding administration.

Neal contends that his request for Trump’s returns is part of his committee’s oversight responsibilities. IRS guidance directs the agency to audit the tax returns of presidents and vice presidents, and Neal said that he wants to determine if such an audit is taking place as appropriate, among other things.

Mnuchin has questioned the legitimacy of the request, while Trump’s personal attorney has dismissed it as a politically motivated fishing expedition and rejected Neal’s stated reasons.

In his letter Tuesday, Mnuchin said the historic nature of Neal’s request for the tax returns could play out long into the future.

“The resolution of this issue could set a precedent that will reverberate for years to come — again, regardless of which party is in power,” he wrote.

The wording of the statute does not appear to offer discretion to the commissioner of the IRS to refuse Neal’s request. However, the situation amounts to “uncharted territory” given that there has not previously been an occasion where a request for tax returns under the little-used statute has been refused, according to George K. Yin, a University of Virginia law professor who has testified on the topic before the Ways and Means Committee.

The statute itself does not specify a timeline for compliance or a penalty for an IRS commissioner or treasury secretary who fails to comply.

“Presumably if there was a refusal, and if the Congress doesn’t simply back off the request, there would be some type of conflict that would be resolved in court in some way, and then it would be up to the court to make a determination of at what point the treasury secretary has violated the law,” Yin said.

Although Neal has proceeded carefully with his request and rejected suggestions that politics are at play, other Democrats have been more open about their desire to get the returns in time to examine their contents ahead of the next presidential election. As Democrats proceed to investigate Trump and his administration on various fronts, some of them say that the contents of Trump’s tax returns could be key to their efforts.

The returns could provide insight into Trump’s entanglement with foreign governments, whether he improperly inflated or deflated the value of his assets in dealing with financial institutions, and potentially whether he benefited personally from the 2017 tax law.

“The center of this discussion better be the finances of the president of the United States. If it isn’t, it’s going to wind up as a draw, a jump ball, and that’s where we are,” said Pascrell, the New Jersey congressman, adding that the returns could show whether Trump is “fit for office.”

The issue has become a rallying cry for liberal activists, who staged a rally outside the IRS on Tax Day, April 15, to demand Trump release his returns. But Republicans have closed ranks around the president and objected to Democrats’ pursuit of the topic, particularly after special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report concluded without accusing Trump of collusion or obstruction of justice.

“The Democratic request for the President’s tax returns is unprecedented and sets a dangerous precedent,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), the top Ways and Means Republican, said in a statement this month. “The intent of Section 6103 is clear: the tax code must not to be used for political fishing expeditions.”

Both sides anticipate the issue will turn into a heated court battle, and some Democrats fear the Trump administration’s strategy will be to drag the issue out past the election.

“At some point you do have to have the House attorneys go to court for you,” said Janice Mays, a managing director at PwC who formerly served as the longtime staff director for Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee. “My personal view, I don’t know why this wouldn’t be summary judgment on the side of Richie Neal because the statute is so clear, but my instinct is the lawyers for the administration would be doing their damnedest to push against that.”

Presuming Democrats ultimately are successful in obtaining the returns, they would not become public but instead would have to be closely held by Neal as confidential taxpayer information. At some point, the Ways and Means Committee could vote to begin a process that would make the returns public.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Wisconsin Assembly approves up to $3 billion offer to lure Foxconn

Congratulations Badger State, I'm sure Foxconn needs every penny.

Foxconn got a really good deal from Wisconsin. And it's getting better

Foxconn package cost Wisconsin eight times as much per job as similar 2017 state jobs deals

At more than $200,000 in state taxpayer money per job, the incentive package for the Taiwanese company is easily the state's most expensive deal of 2017, totaling more than three times as much per job as the next most costly deal. 

Foxconn scraps plan to build factory in Wisconsin, will hire white-collar workers instead

A major jobs deal President Trump has touted with former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker now looks uncertain: Foxconn, a prominent supplier for Apple and other electronics makers, says it’s scrapping plans to build a giant new factory in Wisconsin, opting to hire American engineers and researchers instead of a promised fleet of blue-collar workers.

"As we have previously noted, the global market environment that existed when the project was first announced has changed,” Foxconn said in a statement Wednesday. “As our plans are driven by those of our customers, this has necessitated the adjustment of plans for all projects, including Wisconsin.”

The Taiwanese technology juggernaut initially pledged in 2017 to construct a $10 billion display panel plant and create up to 13,000 jobs in the state’s southeastern corner over the next 15 years. The positions would pay an average annual wage of $53,000, the firm said — a solid salary in the manufacturing realm.

In exchange, Wisconsin agreed to give Foxconn at least $3 billion in state tax credits and breaks, according to the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, a public-private agency that helped negotiate the package. The deal drew criticism after it emerged that Wisconsin would not make money for 25 years.

Foxconn said Wednesday it still aimed to create 13,000 jobs in the state but did not respond to questions about the nature of the positions, when they would arrive and what precisely inspired the shift.

“In Wisconsin we’re not building a factory,” Louis Woo, special assistant to Foxconn chief executive Terry Gou, told Reuters. “You can’t use a factory to view our Wisconsin investment.”

Trump celebrated the deal in the East Room of the White House in 2017 and attended a groundbreaking ceremony last summer in Racine County.

“I would see Terry, and I would say, ‘Terry, you have to give us one of these massive places you do great work with,’ ” he said two years ago in front of news cameras, adding that he told the company head, “The American worker will not let you down.”

Gov. Tony Evers wants to renegotiate Foxconn deal, says company won't employ 13,000

MADISON - Gov. Tony Evers said Wednesday he wants to renegotiate the state's contract with Foxconn Technology Group because the Taiwanese company won't be creating 13,000 jobs in Wisconsin as originally envisioned. 

"Clearly the deal that was struck is no longer in play and so we will be working with individuals at Foxconn and of course with (the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp.) to figure out how a new set of parameters should be negotiated," Evers told reporters in his Capitol office.

He said it was premature to say what specific changes he would be seeking. Under existing deals, the state and local governments could provide the company up to $4 billion to establish a massive facility in Racine County employing as many as 13,000 people.

"All's we know is that the present contract deals with a situation that no longer exists, so it's our goal to make sure that the taxpayers are protected and environmental standards are protected," he said. "And we believe we need to take a look at that contract and see if it needs to be downsized as a result."

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald ripped into Evers' latest comments, saying they showed the Democratic governor "wanted to undermine the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation from day one."

"If the state is willing to renege on its commitment to Foxconn and open up a contract without agreement by both parties, then what guarantee can Wisconsin make to any other company that wants to expand here?” the Juneau Republican said in a statement.

Once hailed as "transformational" by former Gov. Scott Walker and other advocates, and touted by President Donald Trump as the "eighth wonder of the world," the Foxconn project has been drawing increasing skepticism for the last year as the company shifted its stated plans.

First came a sharp change in the proportion of factory workers to engineers. Then Foxconn gradually acknowledged that it would not build the massive "Gen 10" flat-screen plant specified in its contracts with state and local governments, but rather would construct a smaller, less costly "Gen 6" facility.

Earlier this year, it looked like the company might back away from building any sort of factory in Wisconsin - news that prompted Trump to get on the phone to Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou, quickly followed by a public pledge by the company to forge ahead with a Gen 6 plant.

Through it all, however, Foxconn continued to say it would create 13,000 Wisconsin jobs.

That won't happen, Evers said Wednesday. 

"I think at this point in time that would be an unrealistic expectation when they are downsizing the footprint of what they're doing," he said. "So 13,000 people as Foxconn employees is probably difficult to imagine for me right now, but I suppose it could take in a different reaction."

He said state officials have a better understanding of where the project stands than they have in the past.

"I think we're at a point now where we're relatively confident that the original footprint of that project is going to be much smaller but it seems to be a footprint that everybody agrees is likely," Evers said.

The deal with Foxconn was reached under Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Evers, a Democrat, defeated Walker in November.

Evers during his campaign was critical of the Foxconn deal but in the early weeks of his administration said he would abide by it because the state had made a legally binding agreement with the company.

The existing contract provides up to $3 billion in state payments to Foxconn. The vast majority of that — up to $2.85 billion — would come as Foxconn creates jobs and spends money on its complex in Mount Pleasant.

Foxconn hasn’t gotten any of the job creation or investment subsidies, which are to be awarded only after the company hits targets specified in the contract. The company fell short of the minimum number of jobs required for 2018.

The up-to-$2.85 billion in job creation and investment incentives are in the form of "refundable" tax credits. That means Foxconn would receive the payments whether or not it owes state taxes. Wisconsin exempts almost all manufacturing profits from taxation, so the payments likely would be in cash.

The pay-for-performance provisions provide protection for state taxpayers if Foxconn fails to create jobs and investment, but the payments the company stands to earn if it follows through on its pledges are generous.

Where state incentive deals with companies typically have taxpayers covering 7 percent of salaries, Foxconn would get 17 percent. Foxconn would also get 15% of its capital investment paid back instead of the usual 10%.

Racine County and the Village of Mount Pleasant, meanwhile, have been spending money up front to buy land and provide infrastructure such as water lines to Foxconn's proposed factory site.Those are the first of what had been envisioned as more than $900 million in local expenses to prepare the way for a manufacturing complex spread over about 1,200 acres, and related development expected on an adjacent 1,600 acres.

Should the project be greatly reduced in size, it's likely that some of that $900 million - which includes money for beefed up police and fire services and up to $100 million in direct incentive payments to Foxconn itself - won't get spent.

Between them, the local governments so far have borrowed $350 million through three separate bond issues.

Moody's Investors Service lowered Mount Pleasant's credit rating last September because of the borrowing. In January Moody's issued a subsequent cautionary note after Foxconn disclosed that it would not hit the hiring target for 2018.

In its contract with Mount Pleasant and Racine County, Foxconn guaranteed that its project area would generate new tax revenue that officials say would be enough to cover the local spending. Unlike the state's pay-as-you-go arrangement, however, the local governments would have to seek to enforce the contract provision after the fact if the development falls short of expectations.

Foxconn: So, About That Factory in Wisconsin You Offered Us $4 Billion in Incentives to Build

Taiwanese manufacturer Foxconn wants to reopen negotiations with Wisconsin officials over its heavily subsidized, troubled plans to build a massive facility in the state, CNBC reported on Tuesday, though the exact nature of what is up for discussion is not clear.

According to CNBC, the “disclosure comes in a letter from [Democratic Governor Tony Evers] to Foxconn executive Louis Woo, a special assistant to Chairman Terry Gou and the company’s point person on the project.” The letter itself states that it’s not Evers—who criticized the project, which was negotiated under Republican predecessor Scott Walker and heavily promoted by Donald Trump, as a “lousy deal” on the campaign trail—or the state that is seeking to alter the terms. Rather, it claims that Foxconn broached the topic in March 2019.

Foxconn scored over $4 billion in local and state tax credits and other incentives to build what it originally said would be a 20 million square foot, Gen 10.5 facility making large TV screens, which would create 13,000 new jobs. But it’s seemed hesitant to move forward with the project, which has stumbled, to say the least. Earlier this year, Foxconn briefly stated they wouldn’t be building a factory at all; they backtracked, but over the lifetime of the project it has scaled down its plans to a Gen 6 facility making smaller screens for phones.

Numerous projects announced in the state appear to have stalled out—the Verge recently reported that some Foxconn-run projects appear to be empty or understaffed, while other buildings were never actually purchased, and there did not seem to be any plan for making good on promised investments. Meanwhile, the Verge wrote, “Taxpayers have already spent more than $300 million on roadwork, infrastructure, and land acquisition related to the project.”

The grounds for the plant core to the deal have remained somewhat of a ghost town, with little activity beyond landscaping and some last-stage assembly work reported. Republicans have continually accused Evers of tanking the deal by trying to have it renegotiated, but the letter says it was Foxconn that first brought up its desire to change the terms of the deal with state officials in March.

Evers did call for the agreement to be revised last week, saying the 13,000 jobs figure “would be an unreal expectation when they’re downsizing the footprint of what they’re doing.” However, the Verge wrote that up until Tuesday, both Foxconn and state officials were insisting everything was just peachy:

“Foxconn remains committed to our contract,” the company said on Friday as it recommitted to opening an LCD plant. “We have a solid contract,” Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) CEO Mark Hogan assured reporters earlier today, according to The Associated Press.

According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Mark Hogan has insisted that the deal is “scalable” and a “solid contract,” since the amount of tax credits fluctuates with the number of people Foxconn actually ends up employing. He added that “there’s no need to renegotiate the contract” if the Gen 6 plant is built.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

In Push for 2020 Election Security, Top Official Was Warned: Don’t Tell Trump

WASHINGTON — In the months before Kirstjen Nielsen was forced to resign, she tried to focus the White House on one of her highest priorities as homeland security secretary: preparing for new and different Russian forms of interference in the 2020 election.

President Trump’s chief of staff told her not to bring it up in front of the president.

Ms. Nielsen left the Department of Homeland Security early this month after a tumultuous 16-month tenure and tensions with the White House. Officials said she had become increasingly concerned about Russia’s continued activity in the United States during and after the 2018 midterm elections — ranging from its search for new techniques to divide Americans using social media, to experiments by hackers, to rerouting internet traffic and infiltrating power grids.

But in a meeting this year, Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff, made it clear that Mr. Trump still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory. According to one senior administration official, Mr. Mulvaney said it “wasn’t a great subject and should be kept below his level.”

Even though the Department of Homeland Security has primary responsibility for civilian cyberdefense, Ms. Nielsen eventually gave up on her effort to organize a White House meeting of cabinet secretaries to coordinate a strategy to protect next year’s elections.

As a result, the issue did not gain the urgency or widespread attention that a president can command. And it meant that many Americans remain unaware of the latest versions of Russian interference.

This account of Ms. Nielsen’s frustrations was described to The New York Times by three senior Trump administration officials and one former senior administration official, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity. The White House did not provide comment after multiple requests on Tuesday.

While American intelligence agencies have warned of the dangers of new influence campaigns penetrating the 2020 elections, Mr. Trump and those closest to him have maintained that the effects of Russia’s interference in 2016 was overblown.

“You look at what Russia did — you know, buying some Facebook ads to try to sow dissent and do it — and it’s a terrible thing,” Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, said on Tuesday during an interview at the Time 100 Summit in New York.

“But I think the investigations, and all of the speculation that’s happened for the last two years, has had a much harsher impact on our democracy than a couple of Facebook ads,” he said.

Editors’ Picks

The Company That Sells Love to America Had a Dark Secret

‘He Nodded, Apparently Took the Sign Literally and Rushed Up the Steps’

‘Will You Stay With Me Until I Die?’
Before she resigned under pressure on April 7, Ms. Nielsen and other officials looked for other ways to raise the alarm.

The opening page of the Worldwide Threat Assessment, a public document compiled by government intelligence agencies that was delivered to Congress in late January, warned that “the threat landscape could look very different in 2020 and future elections.”

“Russia’s social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians,” the report noted. It also predicted that “Moscow may employ additional influence tool kits — such as spreading disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations or manipulating data — in a more targeted fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions and elections.”

By comparison, cyberthreats have taken a back seat among security priorities at the White House.

Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, John R. Bolton, eliminated the position of cybersecurity coordinator at the White House last year, leaving junior aides to deal with the issue. In January, Ms. Nielsen fumed when 45 percent of her cyberdefense work force was furloughed during the government shutdown.

Ms. Nielsen grew so frustrated with White House reluctance to convene top-level officials to come up with a governmentwide strategy that she twice pulled together her own meetings of cabinet secretaries and agency heads. They included top Justice Department, F.B.I. and intelligence officials to chart a path forward, many of whom later periodically issued public warnings about indicators that Russia was both looking for new ways to interfere and experimenting with techniques in Ukraine and Europe.

One senior official described homeland security officials as adamant that the United States government needed to significantly step up its efforts to urge the American public and companies to block foreign influence campaigns. But the department was stymied by the White House’s refusal to discuss it, the official said.

As a result, the official said, the government was failing to adequately inform Americans about continuing influence efforts.

A second senior administration official said Ms. Nielsen began pushing after the November midterms for the governmentwide efforts to protect the 2020 elections, but only after it became increasingly clear that she had fallen out of Mr. Trump’s favor for not taking a harder line against immigration.

That official said Ms. Nielsen wanted to make election security a top priority at meetings of Mr. Trump’s principal national security aides, who resisted making it a focus of the discussions given that the 2020 vote was, at the time, nearly two years away.

Since last week’s publication of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, on Russian interference in the election that Mr. Trump won, the president has accused the Obama administration of doing nothing in 2016 to push back at Moscow’s intrusion.

The reality is more complex: President Barack Obama gave a private warning to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at a meeting in China in September 2016, and issued sanctions against Russians and expelled 35 suspected spies after the vote. The Trump administration has added to those sanctions.

On Friday, the day after Mr. Mueller’s conclusions were made public, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Trump administration would continue to confront Moscow on its attempts to meddle in the 2020 elections.

“Russia interferes in a number of places,” Mr. Pompeo said. “I don’t think there’s been a discussion between a senior U.S. official and Russians in this administration where we have not raised this issue about our concern about Russia’s interference in our elections.”

“We will make very clear to them this is unacceptable behavior,” he said.

But former Obama administration officials said Mr. Trump’s aversion to even discussing the looming threat remains a concern.

“I do believe the Department of Homeland Security and the White House should be prioritizing this threat and should be doing so consistent with the intelligence community’s own assessment,” said Lisa Monaco, who ran the efforts to counter Russian cyberinterference in 2016 as the White House homeland security adviser to Mr. Obama.

She said parts of Mr. Mueller’s report showed how the threat from Russia had grown.

More recently, officials at the Department of Homeland Security credited unprecedented help from Facebook, Google and Microsoft to block malicious influence campaigns in the 2018 elections, including by taking down inauthentic posts or other suspect activity quickly. Microsoft also warned of attacks on the offices of two senators.

Before the midterms, the United States Cyber Command created a so-called Russia Small Group of American officials to disrupt election influence campaigns by two groups whose members were indicted as part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation: the G.R.U., which is Moscow’s military intelligence agency, and the Internet Research Agency, a troll farm with ties to Mr. Putin.

The United States disrupted the Internet Research Agency’s servers around the midterm elections in November, according to officials briefed on the actions. A declassified after-action report on the 2018 countermeasures by the United States government was expected to be released early this year but has never been published.

Matthew Masterson, a senior adviser at the Department of Homeland Security who coordinates its election cybersecurity, said Russian interference remained a threat as the 2020 presidential campaign approached.

“We continue to expect a pervasive messaging campaign by the Russians to undermine our democratic institutions,” Mr. Masterson said in an interview. “We saw it in 2018, continue to see it and don’t expect it to subside.”

“For us, we recognize that the goal is to undermine confidence in the elections and sow doubt,” Mr. Masterson said.

He said the department’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is working with American states to fortify election systems to prevent Russians and other hackers from penetrating voter registration records. The department is also working with other federal agencies to provide state officials with more information about election interference efforts.

“Russian intelligence’s 2016 covert actions to divide Americans by interfering in our election were so successful,” said Kevin T. Carroll, a former C.I.A. officer who was a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security during the first two years of the Trump administration.

“Putin will amplify them in 2020,” he said.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump promotes baseless accusation of British spying a day after accepting an invitation for a state visit from the queen

A day after accepting an invitation from Queen Elizabeth II for a state visit to Britain, President Trump on Wednesday promoted a baseless accusation that the United Kingdom had helped the Obama administration spy on his 2016 presidential campaign.

Taking to Twitter, Trump cited a report, attributed to the conservative One America News Network, that cited an accusation of British spying made by Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and blogger who has spurred controversies over other false claims as well.

“WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!” Trump wrote.

The spying claim was roundly denied by U.S. and British intelligence officials when it surfaced two years ago.

At that time, Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano raised the prospect of British spying on air, and Johnson later acknowledged being a source for Napolitano.

Then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer angered the British government by mentioning the claim during a news briefing. The White House subsequently backed away from the claim, and Fox News disavowed it.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said at the time that her government had made clear to U.S. authorities that Johnson’s claims were “ridiculous and should have been ignored.”

During his planned visit to Britain in early June, Trump is scheduled to meet with the May as well as the queen.

In a statement Tuesday, the White House said the trip would “reaffirm the steadfast and special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.”

Johnson, a longtime critic of U.S. intelligence, has been at the center of several other controversies.

In 2008, he spread a false claim that Michelle Obama had been videotaped using a slur against white people.

In 2013, Johnson falsely accused then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry of having committed war crimes in Vietnam, alleging that Kerry had “raped some poor Vietnamese woman.”

More recently, he has maintained that the CIA rather than Russia might have been behind the 2016 hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

‘If this is the new normal, I want no part of it’: Citing Trump, Iowa’s longest-serving Republican leaves party

Iowa’s longest-serving Republican legislator, state Rep. Andy McKean, ditched the GOP on Tuesday as he offered a searing renunciation of President Trump, saying he could no longer support Trump as the party’s standard-bearer because of his “unacceptable behavior” and “reckless spending."

McKean revealed he would join the Democratic Party, a decision he described as “very difficult” after spending nearly a half-century as a registered Republican and 26 years in the legislature. But ultimately, he said, “I feel as a Republican that I need to be able to support the standard-bearer of our party.”

And “unfortunately,” he said, he could not bring himself to support Trump.

“Unacceptable behavior should be called out for what it is,” he said during the news conference at the Iowa Statehouse in Des Moines, “and Americans of all parties should insist on something far better in the leader of their country and the free world.”

McKean now joins the ranks of state Republican officials who have fled the party amid a divisive presidency and shifting political landscape. From Kansas to New Jersey, a slow succession of state lawmakers and officials, largely in suburban districts that have become less red, has both startled and appeased constituents by crossing the aisle, oftentimes citing Trump’s rhetoric, policies and a disagreement with their party’s responses to his behavior.

In explaining his decision, McKean said he returned to the Iowa legislature in 2017 after a long hiatus to find the party-line divide more gaping than ever. Upon his return to politics, he felt “increasingly uncomfortable” siding with the GOP on many high-profile issues, he said.

And then there was Trump.

As the 2020 election approaches, McKean said he believed it was “just a matter of time” before the country “pays a heavy price for Trump’s reckless spending and shortsighted financial policies,” as well as his administration’s environmental and “destabilizing” foreign policies.

“He sets, in my opinion, a poor example for the nation and particularly for our children by personally insulting, often in a crude and juvenile fashion, those who disagree with him, being a bully at a time when we’re attempting to discourage bullying,” McKean said.

He continued: “I believe his actions have coarsened political discourse, have resulted in unprecedented divisiveness and have created an atmosphere that is a breeding ground for hateful rhetoric and actions. Some would excuse this behavior as ‘telling it like it is’ and the new normal. If this is the new normal, I want no part of it.”

McKean’s announcement comes as Republicans, lawmakers or otherwise, have grappled with how to respond to the damning portrait of Trump’s presidency presented in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. On Tuesday, a member of Trump’s 2016 transition team published an essay in the Atlantic detailing why the report has led him to feel comfortable calling for Trump’s impeachment, even as a longtime Republican.

“I wanted to share my experience transitioning from Trump team member to pragmatist about Trump to advocate for his impeachment, because I think many other Republicans are starting a similar transition,” wrote J.W. Verret, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School who served as deputy director of economic policy for Trump’s transition team until October 2016.

A relatively small number of Republicans began moving toward the Democratic Party after Trump took office. In March 2017, for example, Hawaii state Rep. Beth Fukumoto announced that she was switching to the Democratic Party after the GOP failed to condemn remarks by Trump that she said were racist and sexist. (She has since resigned.) Others, such as longtime GOP operative Steve Schmidt and California Assemblyman Brian Maienschein, left the party citing a disagreement with the Trump administration’s immigration policies, among other things.

In Kansas, four female Republican state lawmakers strengthened the state Democratic Party after defecting in December, in part citing Trump’s degrading comments about women and his “burn-it-all-down attitude” that has turned off women in their district, as state Rep. Stephanie Clayton put it.

State Sen. Barbara Bollier, one of the four lawmakers, told The Washington Post she could no longer “stand up and say, ‘It’s fine to blindly support Trump Republicanism.’"

On the flip side, some Democrats in conservative or rural districts, such as Oklahoma state Rep. Johnny Tadlock, have moved the opposite direction. West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice became a Republican in 2017, just six months after taking office. He announced his decision alongside Trump at one of the president’s rallies.

On Tuesday, while the Democratic Party welcomed McKean, some top Republicans condemned his decision.

Jeff Kaufmann, the state GOP chairman, said McKean “violated the trust of the voters of his district.” McKean represents an eastern Iowa district in Anamosa, near Cedar Rapids.

“It’s disappointing that he felt the need to deceive Iowans,” Kaufmann wrote on Twitter. “If the people of District 58 can’t trust him on something as simple and fundamental as what party he belongs to, how can they trust him on any issue?”

McKean, a retired attorney and square-dance caller, said he anticipated some friends and colleagues would be disappointed. He served in both the Iowa House and Senate from 1979 until 2003, when he left the legislature to spend more time with family. He decided to return to public office for the 2016 election and was ultimately reelected.

Since then, he has voted with the Democrats on numerous occasions, he said Tuesday. Had it not been for Trump, he said he “might have limped along” within the Republican caucus, attempting to do what was best for his constituents.

“However,” he said in closing, “the time comes when you have to be true to yourself and follow the dictates of your conscience. For me, that time has come.”

He said he intends to run for reelection as a Democrat in 2020.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump says he would challenge impeachment in Supreme Court

President Trump on Wednesday said that he would attempt to challenge impeachment in the Supreme Court if Democrats carried out such proceedings, though it's unclear the high court would hear such a case.

"The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG," Trump tweeted.

"If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only are there no 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' there are no Crimes by me at all," he continued.

The president accused Democrats, Hillary Clinton and "dirty cops" of being guilty of criminal activity.

"We waited for Mueller and WON, so now the Dems look to Congress as last hope!" Trump concluded.

The House holds the power to carry out impeachment proceedings, while the Senate is responsible for whether to convict the individual in question. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, currently John Roberts, would preside over the Senate trial.

There is little precedent to support the idea of the Supreme Court weighing in on the merits of impeachment, as a sitting president has not previously challenged impeachment proceedings in the high court.

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1993 case of federal Judge Walter Nixon that whether the Senate properly conducted an impeachment trial was a political question, and therefore nonjusticiable.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, rejected the possibility of Trump taking an impeachment to the Supreme Court.

"Not even a SCOTUS filled with Trump appointees would get in the way of the House or Senate, where [Chief Justice] Roberts would preside over Trump’s Impeachment Trial," tweeted Tribe, an outspoken critic of the president.

The president has been fixated in recent days on pushing back against the specter of impeachment proceedings, while maintaining that he is "not even a little bit" concerned about the possibility of removal from office.

Democratic leaders have largely said they don't yet support starting the impeachment process, but remained open to the possibility in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller's full report.

In the partly redacted document, investigators did not establish that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election, but did not exonerate Trump on the question of obstruction of justice.

Investigators instead detailed 10 episodes they reviewed for potential obstruction by the president, with Mueller saying that Congress has the authority to conduct potential obstruction probes.

Talk of whether to carry out impeachment hearings has split Democrats, and discussions have intensified in the aftermath of Mueller's report.

"I do believe that impeachment is one of the most divisive forces, paths that we could go down to in our country," Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday. "But if the facts, the path of fact-finding takes us there, we have no choice. But we're not there yet."

House Democrats have launched a flurry of investigations into the president, seeking to review his finances, potential abuse of power and corruption within the administration.

"Dumb never takes a day off."

#Resist

[Katiebee]

Let’s see, who hasn’t Trump blamed for his poor decisions and illegal actions?