Trump, Comey, and the Russians

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign

ABC News interview:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think the Russians have something on Donald Trump?

JAMES COMEY: I think it's possible. I don't know. These are more words I never thought I'd utter about a president of the United States, but it's possible.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That's stunning. You can't say for certain that the president of the United States is not compromised by the Russians?

JAMES COMEY: It is stunning and I wish I wasn't saying it, but it's just-- it's the truth. I cannot say that. It always struck me and still strikes me as unlikely, and I woulda been able to say with high confidence about any other president I dealt with, but I can't. It's possible.

Trump suggests the imprisonment of a critic.

The big questions in Comey’s badly reviewed book aren’t answered like, how come he gave up Classified Information (jail), why did he lie to Congress (jail), why did the DNC refuse to give Server to the FBI (why didn’t they TAKE it), why the phony memos, McCabe’s $700,000 & more?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 15, 2018

Blue Wave, Mid-April

In Defying the Odds, we discuss congressional elections as well as the presidential race.

Lloyd Green at The Hill:

History, geography and demography are the go-to guideposts as we head towards the 2018 midterm elections. The magic number for control of the Speaker’s gavel is 218, and the House Democrats hold 193 seats. With Paul Ryan set to pack his bags come January, the Democratic electoral roadmap is clear: Build out from the suburbs.

For starters, there are the 23 districts that went for Hillary Clinton but are represented by Republicans in Congress. The bulk of these seats are located in upscale suburbs, with an above average number of white voters holding a college degree or better. For the record, this demographic that has markedly soured on Donald Trump and the GOP. According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, whites college graduates who are 60 and older now lean Democratic by 2 points on the generic ballot, after favoring Republicans by 10 points in the first quarter of 2016.

Mark Murray at NBC:

An advantage in intensity — against President Donald Trump and for voting in November — is fueling Democrats ahead of the midterm elections that take place more than six months from now, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
...

In the poll, Democrats enjoy a 7-point advantage in congressional preference, with 47 percent of voters wanting a Democratic-controlled Congress, and with 40 percent preferring a GOP-controlled Congress.

That’s down from the Democrats’ 10-point edge in March, 50 percent to 40 percent, although the change is well within the poll’s margin of error.

In past wave cycles for Democrats — in 2006 and 2008 — the NBC/WSJ poll typically found Democrats with a solid double-digit lead in congressional preference.

But the current poll shows Democrats with a significant advantage in enthusiasm, with 66 percent of Democrats expressing a high level of interest (either a “9” or “10” on a 10-point scale) in November’s elections, versus 49 percent for Republicans.

That’s a reversal from the merged NBC/WSJ polling data in 2010 — a wave year for Republicans — when 66 percent of Republicans expressed a high level of interest, compared with 49 percent for Democrats.

Three Californias? A Bizarro Deal for Republicans

 In Defying the Odds,  we have a discussion of California's role the 2016 campaign.

Tim Draper wants to split California into three states:  the Democratic Bay Area and Northern California, the Democratic Los Angeles area, and everything else.  For Republicans thinking that they might gain something in the Electoral College, think again.  Clinton would have carried all three states.  So instead of carrying one big state with 55 electoral votes, she would have carried three smaller states with a total of 59 electoral votes.

Clinton Trump San Diego 735,476 477,766 San Bernardino 340,833 271,240 Orange 609,961 507,148 Riverside 373,695 333,243 Mono 2,773 2,111 Madera 17,029 23,357 Inyo 3,155 4,248 Tulare 47,585 58,299 Fresno 141,341 124,049 Kings 13,617 18,093 Kern 98,689 129,584 Imperial 32,667 12,704 2,416,821 1,961,842 Los Angeles 2,464,364 769,743 Ventura 194,402 132,323 Santa Barbara 107,142 56,365 San Luis Obispo 67,107 56,164 Monterey 89,088 34,895 San Benito 12,521 7,841 2,934,624 1,057,331 Alameda 514,842 95,922 Alpine 334 217 Amador 6,004 10,485 Butte 41,567 45,144 Calaveras 7,944 13,511 Colusa 2,661 3,551 Contra Costa 319,287 115,956 Del Norte 3,485 5,134 El Dorado 36,404 49,247 Glenn 3,065 5,788 Humboldt 33,200 18,373 Lake 11,500 10,603 Lassen 2,224 7,574 Marin 108,707 21,771 Mariposa 3,122 5,185 Mendocino 22,079 10,888 Merced 37,317 28,725 Modoc 877 2,696 Napa 39,199 17,411 Nevada 26,053 23,365 Placer 73,509 95,138 Plumas 3,459 5,420 Sacramento 326,023 189,789 San Francisco 345,084 37,688 San Joaquin 121,124 88,936 San Mateo 237,882 57,929 Santa Clara 511,684 144,826 Santa Cruz 95,249 22,438 Shasta 22,301 51,778 Sierra 601 1,048 Siskiyou 7,234 11,341 Solano 102,360 51,920 Sonoma 160,435 51,408 Stanislaus 81,647 78,494 Sutter 13,076 18,176 Tehama 6,809 15,494 Trinity 2,214 2,812 Tuolumne 9,123 14,551 Yolo 54,752 20,739 Yuba 7,910 13,170 3,402,347 1,464,641

"Mission Accomplished"

Margaret Talev at Bloomberg:

President Donald Trump declared “Mission Accomplished!” hours after joint strikes on Syria by the U.S. and key allies, inviting immediate comparisons to President George W. Bush’s early, misplaced optimism about the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“A perfectly executed strike last night,” Trump said in a Twitter message. “Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine military. Could not have had a better result. Mission accomplished!”

Um...I would have recommended ending this tweet with not those two words. https://t.co/h5Fl7kjea6

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) April 14, 2018

On August 27, 2013, Newt Gingrich wrote:

News that the United States is considering a military strike on Syria in response to the Bashar al-Assad regime's suspected use of chemical weapons suggests we could soon see an American bombing campaign on the war-torn country.

The atrocities that took place in Syria recently, such as those that have been taking place there for almost two years, are deplorable and inhuman.

Before bombing Syria over the regime's latest crimes, however, we should stand back and ask, "And then what?"

A brief bombing campaign in Syria might make the United States and its allies feel like they are doing something, but it will prove nothing.

We have already abstained from getting involved in the civil war for two years and have chosen not to respond to evidence (albeit less clear) of another chemical attack this year.

We have already concluded that as terrible as the civil war is, it cannot be our war. The bombing will not change this -- and then what?

RNC, 2018

In  Defying the Odds, we discuss the odd people surrounding Trump.

The choice of servants is of no little importance to a prince, and they are good or not according to the discrimination of the prince. And the first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them.

-- Machiavelli

Joe Palazzolo and Michael Rothfeld report at WSJ:

President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer negotiated a deal in late 2017 to pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model who said she was impregnated by a top Republican fundraiser, according to people familiar with the matter.

Michael Cohen, whose office, home and hotel room were raided by federal agents this week, arranged the payments to the woman on behalf of Elliott Broidy, a deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee with ties to Mr. Trump, the people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Broidy, a Los Angeles-based venture capitalist, works on the Republican committee with Mr. Cohen, who is also a national deputy finance chairman.

On April 3, 2017, the RNC issued this release:

WASHINGTON – Today Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and RNC Finance Chairman Steve Wynn announced additional members of the RNC’s Finance leadership team:

“I am delighted to announce the addition of these longtime friends of the Party and supporters of this administration to our Finance leadership team,” said Chairwoman McDaniel. “Elliott Broidy, Michael Cohen, and Louis DeJoy will serve as National Deputy Finance Chairmen, 

...

"Our team is dedicated to the goal of increasing the number of Republican senators and representatives in the Congress, with the firm belief that all Americans will enjoy the benefits of a better future," said Chairman Wynn. "The challenge of guiding a swollen and overreaching government to a position that serves its citizens in a truly efficient manner will be best served by the leadership our team hopes to achieve."

Elliott Broidy, National Deputy Chairman
Mr. Broidy is Chairman and CEO of Broidy Capital Management. He served as a National Vice Chairman of the Trump Victory Campaign during the 2016 election cycle and Vice Chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee. He has previously held the position of RNC Finance Chairman, and during the Bush Administration he served on the Homeland Security Advisory Council and was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Michael Cohen, National Deputy Chairman
Mr. Cohen is currently the personal attorney to President Donald J. Trump. He served for more than a decade as Executive Vice President Special Counsel to President Trump at the Trump Organization and has sat on the boards of multiple Trump organizations, including Trump Productions, the Eric Trump Foundation, and the Miss Universe Organization. In addition to raising millions of dollars for his campaign, Mr. Cohen has been an active spokesperson and advisor for the President during his interest in seeking office since 2011.

Glorious Invective

 In  Defying the Odds, we discuss  Trump's record of scandal.

Rick Wilson at The Daily Beast:

Trump must know this may be one of the most dangerous moments in his entire life, not just his presidency. The likelihood is that Mueller and the FBI are now in possession of the Black Books of Trump, NDAs from enough of Trump’s various affairs that you can staff a 12-pole strip club with plenty of girls left for the Champagne rooms. It’s only speculation at this point, but it’s quite likely that Cohen was the keeper of many of Trump’s lending documents, contracts, business arrangements, and the Kryptonite of Trump’s fragile self-worth: the long-sought tax returns.

It’s an open secret and has been for quite a while, but Trump isn’t worth $10 billion. As one of my hedge-fund friends (an actual billionaire) said of Trump in 2015, “He’s a clown living on credit.” For Trump to have the public learn that he may not be as wealthy as he has continued to claim as the central element of his branding would hurt him more than if Mueller then proved he took sacks of cash and a foot massage from Vladimir Putin. Collusion with the Russians is nothing compared to having his baroque finances revealed. Trump would rather be known as a traitor than as someone who isn’t one of the Masters of the Universe.

Wilson on Paul Ryan's retirement:

[H]e was a fluent translator of Conservative to English, a bridge between Hayek and hope. He lacked the needy edge and insecurities so evident in this president and so beloved of the new GOP. Ryan had been the endpoint of a conservative philosophical movement that combined Jack Kemp’s optimism about growth, opportunity, economic freedom, and the value of work with a profound understanding of the painful need to reform how the Federal government operates.

Kiss that goodbye. Trump’s economic message is profoundly, inalterably negative, defensive, small, and bitter. It’s about how stupid Americans are, and how the wily Chinese and murderous Mexicans are stealing from us, tricking us, and robbing us blind.
His base is conditioned to having their fear centers endlessly stimulated by his constant drip of apocalyptic, conspiratorial rhetoric and fed hazy promises of the creation of walls, the smiting of the Asians, the launching of trade wars, and the kicking of asses.

The collapse of the economic leg of the GOP’s coalition is complete. We’re now the party of Credit Card Don, the King of Debt. Our base worships a man who’s own Bhagavad Gita reads: “Now I become Debt, destroyer of Republicans.”

Paul Ryan’s monument will be the the putrid and smoldering ruins of the Republican Party and conservative movement that he betrayed with his complicity and cowardice. He lacked the guts to stand for decency and the wisdom to confront the threat of Trumpism.

— Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) April 12, 2018

Paul Waldman at WP:

Let’s take a step back. One remarkable thing about the 2016 election is the way Trump’s business career was given such a superficial examination by the media as a whole. Again and again, some crazy story or unusual aspect of his financial life would be the topic of one or two investigative stories, but those stories wouldn’t get picked up by other outlets.

Making this more problematic, Trump isn’t someone who played close to the line a time or two, or once did a shady deal. He may well be the single most corrupt major business figure in the United States of America. He ran scams like Trump University to con struggling people out of their money. He lent his name to pyramid schemes. He bankrupted casinos and still somehow made millions while others were left holding the bag. He refused to pay vendors. He exploited foreign workers. He used illegal labor. He discriminated against African American renters. He violated Federal Trade Commission rules on stock purchases. He did business with the mob and with Eastern European kleptocrats. His properties became the go-to vehicle for Russian oligarchs and mobsters to launder their money.

So it was no accident that when he ran for president, the people who joined him in his quest were also a collection of grifters, liars, and crooks — people such as Paul Manafort. Those were the kind of operators Trump has attracted all his life. Honest, upright people with a deep respect for the law don’t go to work for Donald Trump.

"Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind."

In Defying the Odds, we talk about the political impact of economic policy.

On November 17, 2011, Representative David Dreier (R-CA) explained why he had abandoned his support for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.  

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to both of my friends from Florida who serve on the Rules Committee.

This is a very, very important debate. It's a debate that we haven't had since January of 1995, which is the last time that the House of Representatives had a vote on the issue of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Back in 1995, when we had just won our majority, Mr. Speaker, I was one of the enthusiastic supporters, one of the two-thirds of the House of Representatives who voted in favor of the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I felt very strongly at the time that as we looked at the fiscal challenges that we as a Nation faced that the only thing that we could do to achieve a balanced budget would be to have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would call for that.

Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind. I have changed my mind, and I will be voting against the constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget.

Now, this is not something that I have done lightly. My friend from Spring Hill was absolutely right when he said that looking at the tough challenge of amending the Constitution is something that needs to be addressed; but I will say that I agree with a number of the arguments that were put forward by my friend from Fort Lauderdale and with a lot of the arguments put forward by my friend from Spring Hill. At the end of the day, I concluded that we should not amend the U.S. Constitution in calling for a balanced budget.

I said I've changed my mind, and I am reminded of a statement that was made by our former colleague, the mentor of our friend Jeb Hensarling, who is working tirelessly to ensure that we get our fiscal house in order with the work of the Joint Select Committee. His mentor was Phil Gramm-a Democrat, then a Republican-who served in the House and the Senate. Phil Gramm once said that ours is one job where you can never admit to having learned anything.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I've learned something, and I'd like to take just a few minutes to explain why it is that I've come to the conclusion that I have.

I said at the outset that I believed when I cast that vote in January of 1995 in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that it was the only way that we would be able to achieve a balanced budget. I was wrong. Two short years later, we balanced the Federal budget. We balanced the Federal budget, and that went on for several years. It went on until 2001.

My friend was talking about the fact that we had two wars. We've got to remember that it took literally billions and billions of dollars to deal with national security issues, like establishing the Department of Homeland Security and many other things that were very, very costly; but what I found, Mr. Speaker, is that we were able to balance the Federal budget without touching that inspired document, the U.S. Constitution.

Now, James Madison in Federalist No. 58, I believe, gave the real description of the power that lies here in the House of Representatives. He said that the power over the purse is the most complete and effectual weapon that can empower any group of elected representatives of the people.

We in this institution, Mr. Speaker, have the power of the purse. We have the power of the purse, and we proved in the late 1990s that we have the will to balance the Federal budget without touching that inspired document, the U.S. Constitution. Those were the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 58, that the power over the purse is the most complete and effectual weapon that elected representatives have.

Now some people point to Thomas Jefferson who famously, in a letter to John Taylor written November 26, 1798, talked about how it was essential for us to have a single amendment to the Constitution that would call for a balanced budget. Well, I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, it appears that Thomas Jefferson obviously learned something as well, because 5 short years later, in the third year of the first term of his Presidency, he embarked on the largest deficit expenditure to take place since the Revolutionary War. It was not a war expenditure. It was not any kind of emergency expenditure. It was the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. And that was a decision that Thomas Jefferson made that most of us inferred led to a change in his position from the November 1798 letter that he wrote to John Taylor.

As we look at some of the other arguments-my friend from Fort Lauderdale went through the Fried, Barr, Archibald, Bork arguments on the court. I think it's important for us to look at not just that part of it, but we also need to look at the enumerated powers provision in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that not only could we create, as these brilliant jurists said, a real problem within the court structure, but what we create is a transfer of power from the first branch to the third branch of government, something that is completely contrary to Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, where the power lies right here in the United States House of Representatives. Why? Because most have said that if we were to get into these protracted legal battles, this could end up in the court, and we could have, several years from now, a court deliberating over a budget that had passed, again, literally years before.

So, as we look at these arguments, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to our commitment to get our fiscal house in order. I do happen to believe that our former colleague Jack Kemp was right when he said we shouldn't have to worship at the altar of a balanced budget; but we all know that with this $15 trillion figure that my friend from Spring Hill pointed to, we need to do everything we can to reduce that debt and our annual deficit. But it's important for us to focus on economic growth. And that's why I congratulate those on the Joint Select Committee who are working on that, and I believe that that's something that we need to do.

But having a balanced budget does not guarantee job creation and economic growth. Yes, of course having a degree of fiscal solvency goes a long way towards generating a climate that can make that happen; but we need to have pro-growth economic policies, and fiscal restraint is only one of those tools. That's why I believe that, as we look at the challenges that lie ahead, I don't want to say to the American people that I'm going to protect you from your future leaders that you are going to elect.

The American people deserve the Congress that they elect. I personally think they deserve better than some of what we have had here over the past several years. Right now we all know we've got a 9 percent approval rating. But the American people cannot have Representatives who say, We are going to say to you that you can't have the leaders that you elect do what you think is right. Maybe there is another Louisiana Purchase out there, and that decision is something that should be made by leaders.

I believe in very carefully amending the Constitution. And I will say that I have always been troubled by some who argue that the level of your commitment to a public policy issue is based only on your willingness to amend the Constitution to implement it. Well, I think that's silly. I think that's ridiculous. I think that someone can be passionately committed to an issue like saying we shouldn't burn the American flag and yet be willing to say it shouldn't be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. I feel the same way about the issue of a balanced budget.

I'm proud to have voted to bring about these kinds of spending cuts. I'm proud to have done everything possible to try to reduce the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. I do think that a lot of work has to be done. And my friend from Spring Hill, again, correctly pointed to the fact that both sides have responsibility for increases in spending. But I think we can come together. I think we can have the will to do this.

Even if we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we all know very well we're not going to balance the budget overnight with a $15 trillion debt and now multitrillion-dollar deficits. We're not going to do it overnight. But we have to get ourselves on that road, and I'm convinced that we can. And I don't think that amending the Constitution is going to do anything to help us get there.

So I do support the rule, and I think the rule-by the way, I should say to my friend-is one that was used when the Equal Rights Amendment passed the House of Representatives. The argument was made that somehow having this done under suspension of the rules is not fair. There's going to be 5 hours of debate. There's going to be an opportunity to do this.

I've had the opportunity to say my peace. I know that I'm in the minority in my party. I know that there's not a lot of enthusiastic support on my side. I know that there are many Democrats who are going to be supporting the amendment to this. So we are going to have a chance to discuss these as we move through today and tomorrow.

I do support the rule and the work of the Rules Committee. We've worked long and hard on this. But at the end of the day, I have come to the conclusion that I have.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.