Friday, March 31, 2017

New York Times: 'We the People' Demand Mr. Trump Release His Tax Returns

By Times Editorial Board:

The administration dismisses these pleas for honesty, arguing that only journalists care about Mr. Trump’s tax returns and conflicts of interest — a claim that a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll disproved. It found that 74 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of Republicans, believe that Mr. Trump’s tax returns should be made public.

Kellyanne Conway, counselor to Mr. Trump and his chief obfuscator, told ABC News on Sunday that “he’s not going to release his tax returns,” adding that the election showed that “people didn’t care.” On Monday, she pulled back a tad, tweeting that “POTUS is under audit and will not release until that is completed.” Of course, even that comment is a ruse. The Internal Revenue Service has made clear that being under audit wouldn’t preclude Mr. Trump from making his returns public.

Yet, the Trump campaign used that excuse over and over, and now Mr. Trump has carried it into the White House. White House officials are probably hoping that the longer they stonewall, the more likely that public demands on this matter will be pushed aside as torrents of controversial policies and statements from Mr. Trump dominate the news cycle. Even so, voters and members of Congress who care about ethics in the nation’s highest office should not let up.

Washington Post: Federal Agencies Ordered to Restrict Their Communications

By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis:

Trump administration officials instructed employees at multiple agencies in recent days to cease communicating with the public through news releases, official social media accounts and correspondence, raising concerns that federal employees will be able to convey only information that supports the new president’s agenda.

The new limits on public communications appear to be targeting agencies that are charged with overseeing environmental and scientific policy, prompting criticism from officials within the agencies and from outside groups focused on climate change.

The Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Agriculture and Interior departments now have formal policies restricting what they should convey to the public about their work.

Think Progress: Experts in Authoritarianism Are Very Concerned About Trump’s First Few Days as President

By Justin Salhani:

Sheri Berman, a political scientist at Barnard College, said that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway’s invocation of “alternative facts” was particularly alarming.

“It’s one thing to bash journalists but when you start talking about facts not being facts, and bar people from access to information, major red flags are going up,” said Berman.

“There is no doubt he is an authoritarian, which is completely logical because he has always worked in a structure in which he has absolute power and to me that is clear in his understanding that he sees politics as a business,” said Cas Mudde, an associate professor at the University of Georgia. “He sees democracy as ‘I have won, so I can do whatever I want or whatever I think is best for the country and I’m allowed to do that because I’m the CEO of America, Inc.’”

Full Story (January 24, 2017)

[Special] Wall Street Journal: Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity

By Shane Harris, Carol E. Lee and Julian E. Barnes:

Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

As an adviser to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and later one of Mr. Trump’s top aides in the White House, Mr. Flynn was privy to some of the most sensitive foreign-policy deliberations of the new administration and was directly involved in discussions about the possible lifting of sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration.

The Full Story (March 31, 2017)*

*Editor's Note: The article is behind a pay wall. However, Alex Whiting of Just Security has an article explaining why this request for immunity may just amount to nothing more than a hill of beans: Flynn’s Public Offer to Testify for Immunity Suggests He May Have Nothing to Say


Thursday, March 30, 2017

Washington Post: Closing Doors on Trade Isn’t Smart Negotiating

By WaPo Editorial Board:

Mr. Trump now turns his attention to the North American Free Trade Agreement, under which the flow of goods and services among the United States, Canada and Mexico has multiplied many times over since the pact took effect in 1994. Mr. Trump talks endlessly and extravagantly of jobs “stolen” by Mexico under NAFTA, and much manufacturing work has migrated from American factories to Mexican ones. A renegotiation of NAFTA, which Mr. Trump claims to want, beginning with upcoming conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, is not inherently a bad idea. What relationship wouldn’t benefit from a tuneup after a quarter-century? Specifically, there may be a need to revisit NAFTA’s “domestic content” rules to make sure products that flow tariff-free among the three countries truly originate within one of them.

That assumes Mr. Trump comes to the table in good faith and with a balanced view of relevant facts. His fixation on high-profile automobile plant sitings in Mexico — coupled with his repeated threats of a “border tax” on firms that exercise their rights to produce there — does not inspire confidence.

Automation, not trade, is the real culprit in manufacturing job loss. And while NAFTA has surely created winners and losers within the United States, overall it has not been the horrific deal Mr. Trump suggests. The combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada was $73.4 billion in 2015 (the most recent full year for which data exist). Subtract petroleum and it shrinks to $13.9 billion, a rounding error for the $18 trillion U.S. economy. Chances are that the deficit will shrink as American oil producers crank up for exports.

A smart negotiator would take all that into account before risking trade wars that might do far more damage to American companies, workers and consumers than the status quo allegedly does.

Full Story (January 24, 2017)

Time: President Trump Wants to Kill These 17 Federal Agencies and Programs. Here's What They Actually Cost (and Do)

By Taylor Tepper:

To put this in context: The total cost, per American, of the following 17 programs said to be on the chopping block is $22.36 per year-- of which more than a third comes from a single clean-energy program. By contrast, housing subsidies, like the mortgage interest deduction, which are disproportionately used by the wealthy, cost $296.29 per American.

Here's a list of the various federal agencies reportedly on the chopping block, along with some of their key initiatives -- and some of the jobs supported.

* * *
International Trade Administration
Budget: $521 million
Cost per American: $1.60

The ITA helps American businesses sell more products to overseas markets. One beneficiary was the Iron Fist Brewing Company, located in Vista, California. A representative of the San Diego U.S. Export Assistance Center connected with the brewery at a convention in 2013, and helped them export to Australia, Canada, Finland, Hong Kong, among others. Iron Fist hired two more employees thanks to new export revenue, the ITA reports.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Budget: $142 million
Cost per American: $0.43

This is a so-called public-private partnership that helps small to medium-size manufacturers become more efficient, build new products, and improve sales and marketing techniques. Missoula, Mont.-based organic soap wholesaler Botanie used their local MEP affiliate to help keep pace with their growing business -- by, for instance, using more sophisticated technologies to track inventory. The MEP says it helped Botanie save $280,000 and retain six jobs.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
Budget: $286 million
Cost per American: $0.88

The majority of COPS' annual budget is dedicated to hiring more police personnel to help local communities improve their policing. Last October, the Justice Department announced $119 million in grant funding for 184 law enforcement agencies across the country -- resulting in 900 created or saved jobs, the office reports. Among the recipients was the Dallas Police Department, which had lost five officers in an ambush a few months earlier; it got $3.1 million to hire 25 officers.

New York: Say Good-bye to the Last Pillar of the Free, Open Internet

By Brian Feldman:

The Trump administration yesterday named Republican Ajit Pai to head the Federal Communications Commission. Pai’s appointment was a foregone conclusion, given that he is the ranking Republican on the five-member body, but it’s important for one reason: Pai is an outspoken critic of net neutrality — one of the fundamental principles of the free, open internet we’ve all been using for the past several decades.

During the Obama administration, the commission was headed by Tom Wheeler, a Democrat who most famously used his majority to pass what is informally known as the Open Internet Order. That order classified broadband internet as a telecommunications utility, though did not subject internet-service providers to the intense regulations that other common carriers often are.

The Open Internet Order bolsters a principle known as net neutrality (the specific term was coined by law professor Tim Wu in 2003). To understand it, we need to first understand how the internet works. The internet is literally a network of data cables that crisscross the globe. When you open your computer, say, you connect to a network most likely owned by one of a handful of private internet-service providers — the dreaded Comcast, Time Warner, and so on. (Same thing on your iPhone: Thanks to smartphones, cellular providers like Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile are also ISPs.) That network communicates with the networks owned and operated by other ISPs, and those owned by a handful of other organizations — government bodies, academic institutions, and independent nonprofits, generally — and those many, global, interconnected networks, some public, some private, make up the internet.

The internet took off, as did the World Wide Web which rests on top of it, because it’s “open.” In other words, if you’re connected to Comcast, you can send data to someone connected via Time Warner, without issue or negotiation. Neither Comcast nor Time Warner is allowed to (or able) to slow down or speed up your connection — or, for that matter, cut it off. Unlike phone service, you don’t have things like long-distance fees either.

Perhaps the single most important aspect of the internet as it was first conceived is that it was designed as a “dumb pipe,” or one that does not give priority to certain types of data or certain sources of said data. Video of a presidential speech gets the same bandwidth as video of a dude getting hit in the nuts.

Market conditions change, however, and the unchallenged freedom under which the internet blossomed is now regarded as a liability for the ISPs — which are, as you probably have experienced, de facto monopolies. If we own the highway, their thinking goes, why can’t we charge tolls? To that end, some have proposed so-called “fast lanes” for companies willing to pony up for faster bandwidth.

In practice, this could radically change our experience of the internet. For example, if Netflix cuts a deal with Verizon for a fast lane and Hulu doesn’t, Hulu loads more slowly, and users would presumably favor Netflix. More likely than that is that video-streaming services owned and operated by the ISPs themselves get preference over independent streaming services. This is a clear pay-to-play system in which an upstart little guy could easily get crowded out by industry incumbents. The most extreme scenario would be one in which businesses have to pay in order to get onto an ISP’s network at all — imagine, let’s say, SBC customers can’t access Google because the company refuses to pay SBC for access.

The Full Story (January 24, 2017)

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Mother Jones: Trump Just Ordered Government Scientists to Hide Facts From the Public

By Tom Philpott:

Throughout Donald Trump's campaign, he and his proxies consistently expressed hostility to government regulation, particularly of the fossil fuel and agriculture industries. Within days of taking over, the Trump administration has already put a squeeze on the two agencies that most directly regulate Big Energy and Big Ag, the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture.

At the EPA, the administration has  ordered that "all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately," ProPublica writers Andrew Revkin and Jesse Eisinger report, quoting an internal EPA email they obtained. Myron Ebell, the climate change denier who led the Trump team's EPA transition and directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, confirmed the suspension, Revkin and Eisenger report.

That's potentially a massive blow to the agency's core functions, says Patty Lovera, assistant director of the environmental watchdog group Food & Water Watch. "The EPA's not necessarily out there running a bulldozer to clean up a toxic site," she says. Superfund, an EPA program responsible for cleaning up the nation's most contaminated land, is executed through contracts, she said. The EPA turns to contractors for "tons of water stuff, too"—from monitoring water quality downstream from polluters to helping municipalities update water infrastructure to avoid toxins.

"It's one thing to put a pause on new contracts so they can be reviewed, but to reach back and stop existing ones is a whole other can of worms," Lovera said.

In Flint, Michigan, where lead contamination has led to the nation's most notorious drinking-water catastrophe in years, the announcement brought uncertainty and confusion. "State officials are seeking more information on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency freeze on grants and contracts and what it could mean to $100 million in federal funds already appropriated for the Flint water crisis," the news site MLive.com reported Tuesday. In statement quoted by MLive.com, the press secretary for Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder noted that "we haven't received any guidance from the federal government" about the EPA's funding to address the Flint crisis.

Andrew Rosenberg, who directs the Center for Science and Democracy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, adds research to the list. The agency funds crucial environmental science through contracts with outside scientists, and interruptions to their funding can be devastating, he said. He likened the situation to the government shutdown of 2013, which temporarily blocked research funding throughout the federal government, including the EPA.

The Full Story (January 24, 2017)

Talking Points Memo: Dems Use Trump's Words To Slam Price's Health Care Plans

By Tierney Sneed:

Republicans' plans for repealing the Affordable Care Act quickly became a focus in the confirmation hearing for Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).

* * *

In his opening remarks, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, used Trump's own words to attack Price's proposals to replace the Affordable Care Act.

"The Price plan takes America back to the dark days when health care worked only for the health and the wealthy," Wyden said, according to his prepared opening remarks. "Congressman Price's other proposals don’t offer much hope that the damage will be undone. By the Trump rubric of 'insurance for everybody,' 'great health care … much less expensive and much better,' the congressman’s plans get a failing grade."

The Full Story (January 24, 2017)

Think Progress: Trump Promised to Save Entitlements. His Budget Director Pick Wants Him to Break His Vow.

By Aaron Rupar:

During his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), President Trump’s pick to run the Office of Management and Budget, vowed that if he’s approved, he’ll try and persuade Trump to cut entitlements.

Asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) if he agrees that younger workers may have to work more years to “save” the Social Security program, Mulvaney replied, “I have already told my children to prepare for exactly that.” Mulvaney also replied in the affirmative when asked by Graham if he supports raising the retirement age for Social Security.

Mulvaney’s position on entitlements differs significantly from what President Trump promised during his campaign.

“[I will] save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts,” Trump said during the June 2015 speech that launched his campaign. “Have to do it… People have been paying in for years, and now many of these candidates want to cut it.”

Last June, Trump told a crowd in Phoenix, “We’re going to save your Social Security without killing it like so many people want to do, and your Medicare.”

The inconsistency between Trump’s statements and the position of the person he’s nominated to be his budget director was highlighted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

“Will you tell the president of the United States — Mr. President, keep your word, be honest with the American people, do not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?” Sanders asked.

But Mulvaney suggested he isn’t concerned about promises Trump made during his campaign.

“The only thing I know to do is to tell the president the truth,” he replied. “And the truth is that if we do not reform these programs that are so important to your constituents in Vermont and to mine in South Carolina, I believe in nine or 10 years the Medicaid trust fund is empty. And in roughly 17 or 18 years, the Social Security trust fund is empty.”

In response, Sanders pointed out that there are ways to ensure the long-term solvency of entitlement programs besides slashing benefits.

Washington Post: Donald Trump’s Indefensible Claims of Rampant Voter Fraud are Now White House Policy

By Philip Bump:

The day before, Trump met with congressional leaders and reiterated a claim that millions of people had voted illegally for his opponent. In fact, he upped his estimate from 3 million to as many as 5 million — 3.6 percent of all votes cast in the election.

There are various levels at which this is total unsubstantiated nonsense — a claim even more nonsensical than his assertion that 1.5 million people attended his inauguration. The idea that millions of people voted illegally stems most immediately from one tweet from one guy in Texas that was picked up by the conspiracy-hawking site InfoWars. Repeatedly asked for proof of his claim that millions had voted illegally, that guy, Gregg Phillips (who is associated with a group called True the Vote), repeatedly declined to do so. There’s simply no available evidence that Phillips’s claim was true. (True the Vote also declined to substantiate his claims.)

What’s more, Phillips himself admits that the 3-million-vote number he threw out doesn’t necessarily mean that all of these alleged illegal voters backed Hillary Clinton. So Trump took that number, added a possible 2 million more and asserted that all of those ballots were cast in opposition to him. Why? Probably for the same reason that he lied about the turnout at his inauguration: to make himself look better. If 3 million people voted illegally for Clinton, that would mean that he won the popular vote after all. They didn’t; he didn’t. But that clearly stings.

Another likely reason, raised by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in a statement, is that Trump was “sending a message to every Republican governor in this country to go forward with voter suppression.” In other words, by making the case for rampant fraud, the case for anti-fraud measures is bolstered. Those measures often disproportionately filter Democrats and people of color out of the voting pool, to Republicans’ advantage.

The Full Story (January 24, 2017)

Axios: Trump 101 - What He Reads and Watches

By Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei:

President Trump spends substantial time and energy ridiculing the media. He spends even more time consuming —and obsessing about — it.

Print copies of three newspapers. When Billy Bush was on, "Access Hollywood" every night. TiVo of the morning and evening news shows so he can watch the tops of all of them. Always "60 Minutes." Often "Meet the Press." Lots of New York talk radio.

He's not a book guy: In fact, some advisers say they don't recall seeing him read one or even talking about one beyond his own, "The Art of the Deal." And, as he told us, he's not one for long reports or detailed briefings. One page usually suffices. Bullet points are even better. But he does consume — often in huge doses — lots of traditional media.

"He's an analog guy," one top adviser told us, saying he never sees the boss on a computer or using his phone for anything but calls.

The president's media diet:
  • When Trump was in the tower, he got hard copies of the N.Y. Times and N.Y. Post (which a friend calls "the paper of record for him" — he especially studies Page Six). He "skims The Wall Street Journal," the friend said. No Washington Post, although friends assume he'll add it now. He had started skipping the other New York tab, the Daily News, because he thought it treated him shabbily.
  • Trump knows specific bylines in the papers and when he's interviewed by a reporter, he can recite how the reporter has treated him over the years, even in previous jobs.
  • Before the campaign, his aides subscribed to an electronic clipping service that flagged any mention of his name, then his staff printed out the key articles. He'll scroll through Twitter, but he doesn't surf the web himself.
  • With an allergy to computers and phones, he works the papers. With a black Sharpie in hand, he marks up the Times or other printed stories. When he wants action or response, he scrawls the staffers' names on that paper and either hands the clip to them in person, or has a staffer create a PDF of it — with handwritten commentary — and email it to them. An amazed senior adviser recently pulled out his phone to show us a string of the emailed PDFs, all demanding response. It was like something from the early 90s. Even when he gets worked up enough to tweet, Trump told us in our interview he will often simply dictate it, and let his staff hit "send" on Twitter.
  • Most mornings, Trump flicks on the TV and watches "Morning Joe," often for long periods of time, sometimes interrupted with texts to the hosts or panelists. After the 6 a.m. hour of "Joe," he's often on to "Fox & Friends" by 7 a.m., with a little CNN before or after. He also catches the Sunday shows, especially "Meet the Press." "The shows," as he calls them, often provoke his tweets. The day of our interview with him, all of his tweet topics were discussed during the first two hours of "Morning Joe."
  • "60 Minutes" is usually on his DVR. "He's so old-school that he thinks it's awesome to go on '60 Minutes," a friend said. "He loves being one of Barbara Walters' '10 Most Fascinating People' of the year." Before Trump ran, a staple that he watched every weeknight was Billy Bush's "Access Hollywood." Same with Time Magazine. His office and hotels are full of framed copies of him on the cover.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

The Hill: Trump, GOP Set to Battle on Spending Cuts

By Alexander Bolton:

One likely target is the Legal Services Corporation, a federal agency providing financial support for civil legal aid to low-income people.
Conservatives have long sought its elimination, arguing it has become beholden to liberal causes and noting the Congressional Budget Office has included its defunding as an option to the Senate and House. Eliminating it would save nearly $400 million next year.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, this week warned that it’s not a battle worth fighting.

“I think that would be hard thing to do. Even if you wanted to do that, you couldn’t get it through the Senate,” he said.

President Reagan tried to abolish the agency shortly after taking office in 1981 but ran into a wall in Congress.

“It’s been repeatedly tried, but the reality is it’s the only way that a lot of poor folks, especially rural poor, get any kind of legal help,” said Jim Dyer, who served for 13 years as the Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee.

“It’s almost like they sat down over there and dragged out all of their old wish list, most of which of has been discarded, and said to themselves, 'Let’s put it on the table and see who salutes,'” he added.

Another proposal embraced by Heritage and the RSC budget plans is the elimination of the essential air service program, a program that subsidizes rural airports serving sparsely populated communities.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she would pull out all the stops to fight for it.

Washington Post: Without Evidence, Trump Tells Lawmakers 3 million to 5 million Illegal Ballots Cost Him the Popular Vote

By Abby Phillip and Mike DeBonis:

Days after being sworn in, President Trump insisted to congressional leaders invited to a reception at the White House that he would have won the popular vote had it not been for millions of illegal votes, according to people familiar with the meeting. 

Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud caused him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, even while he clinched the presidency with an electoral college victory. 

Two people familiar with the meeting said Trump spent about 10 minutes at the start of the bipartisan gathering rehashing the campaign. He also told them that between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused him to lose the popular vote. 

The discussion about Trump's election victory and his claim that he would have won the popular vote was confirmed by a third person familiar with the meeting. 

The claim is not supported by any verifiable facts, and analyses of the election found virtually no confirmed cases of voter fraud, let alone millions.a
The Full Story (January 23, 2017)

Talking Points Memo: Democrats To GSA - Trump Is Now In Violation Of His DC Hotel Lease

By Allegra Kirkland:

President Donald Trump has officially violated the lease agreement he entered into with the federal government for his Washington, D.C. hotel, Democratic lawmakers charged Monday.

The General Services Administration, which manages the Old Post Office building in which his Trump International Hotel is housed, until now declined to take a position on whether Trump was violating a clause preventing elected officials from benefiting from the contract. Now that he has been sworn in and has formally announced that he will not divest ownership interest in the Trump Organization, House and Senate Democrats want answers.

In twin letters to GSA Acting Administrator Timothy Horne, House and Senate Democrats asked what steps the agency was taking to address this apparent breach of contract.

“The violation of the terms of the lease is no longer hypothetical, as President Trump will soon oversee GSA and appoint a new GSA administrator, effectively making him simultaneously landlord and tenant of the Old Post Office building,” Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tom Carper (D-DE) wrote.

In another letter, Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings (DE), Peter DeFazio (OR), Gerald Connolly (VA) and Andre Carson (IN) asked Horne to turn over correspondence with the Trump team to prove it is working to address the issue.

"Our hope has always been that President Trump would resolve these breach-of-lease and conflict of interest issues prior to being sworn in as President on January 20,” the Democrats said. "Unfortunately, President Trump has refused to address these concerns, and taxpayer dollars may now be squandered as career public servants are forced to take remedial action to cure this breach.”

CNBC: Trump Declares National Day of Patriotic Devotion...but You Already Missed it

By Christine Wang:

According to a document published by the office of the Federal Register, the 45th president of the United States proclaimed Jan. 20, 2017 — Trump's Inauguration Day — to be a National Day of Patriotic Devotion. Trump made the proclamation "in order to strengthen our bonds to each other and to our country — and to renew the duties of Government to the people."

"A new national pride stirs the American soul and inspires the American heart. We are one people, united by a common destiny and a shared purpose," the proclamation said.

The Full Story (January 23, 2017)

Monday, March 27, 2017

Washington Post: ‘Make America Big Again’? The Headache of Translating Trump Into Foreign Languages.

By Samantha Schmidt:

Since the beginning of his political rise, Trump’s remarks have been translated into a slew of languages worldwide, and his official swearing-in only elevates the power of his words. For some, his simple vocabulary and grammatical structure make his speeches easy to follow. But for others, his confusing logic, his tendency to jump quickly from topic to topic and his lack of attributions for so-called facts make his remarks sound like a puzzling jumble, and that creates a headache when translating Trump’s speeches for non-English audiences.

Bérengère Viennot, a professional French translator, said in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Review of Books that Trump’s broken syntax, often limited vocabulary and repetition of phrases make it difficult to create texts that read coherently in French, a very structured and logical language.

“Most of the time, when he speaks he seems not to know quite where he’s going,” Viennot said. “It’s as if he had thematic clouds in his head that he would pick from with no need of a logical thread to link them.”

She is left with a dilemma: either translate Trump exactly as he speaks — and let French readers struggle with the content — or keep the content, but smooth out the style, “so that it is a little bit more intelligible, leading non-English speakers to believe that Trump is an ordinary politician who speaks properly.”

Talking Points Memo: WH Spokesman [Says] Flynn Had 2 Calls With Russian Ambassador

By Esme Cribb:

He said that on the call, Flynn and the ambassador discussed the crash of a plane carrying the Russian military choir, exchanged holiday greetings, talked about "a conference in Syria on ISIS" and discussed setting up a future call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I don't believe that has been set up yet," Spicer said. "They did follow up, I'm sorry, two days ago about how to facilitate that call, once again. So there have been a total of two calls with the ambassador and General Flynn."

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday night that U.S. counterintelligence officials were investigating Flynn's communications with Russia.

Earlier in the month, the Associated Press reported that Flynn was in frequent contact with Russia's ambassador to the United States, including on the day that former President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for election-related hacking. According to a Reuters report citing three sources familiar with the matter, Flynn actually had five phone calls with the Russian ambassador on the day Obama announced the retaliatory sanctions.

Later in the briefing, Spicer corrected himself and said that what he said was the second call between Flynn and the ambassador took place three days ago.

Chicago Tribune: Trump's Team Suspended a Mortgage Insurance Rate Cut

By Andrew Khouri:

If you are shopping for a home and planned to use an FHA-backed loan, it means you will be paying the same premium rate for required mortgage insurance that you would have since January 2015.

For most borrowers getting an FHA-backed loan that means that after paying an upfront insurance fee, you will pay 0.85% of your loan amount for premiums each year. The Obama administration had planned to drop that rate to 0.60%. In 2014, the rate was 1.35%, after several increases to shore up FHA finances after the housing crash.

If the recent cut had gone into effect as expected Jan. 27, the California Assn. of Realtors estimates borrowers in the state using FHA loans would have saved an average of $860 a year.

The Full Story (January 23, 2017)

CBS: Sources Say Trump's CIA Visit Made Relations With Intel Community Worse

By Jeff Pegues:

An official said the visit “made relations with the intelligence community worse” and described the visit as “uncomfortable.”

Authorities are also pushing back against the perception that the CIA workforce was cheering for the president. They say the first three rows in front of the president were largely made up of supporters of Mr. Trump’s campaign. 

An official with knowledge of the make-up of the crowd says that there were about 40 people who’d been invited by the Trump, Mike Pence and Rep. Mike Pompeo teams. The Trump team originally expected Rep. Pompeo, R-Kansas, to be sworn in during the event as the next CIA director, but the vote to confirm him was delayed on Friday by Senate  Democrats. Also sitting in the first several rows in front of the president was the CIA’s senior leadership, which was not cheering the remarks.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday denied that there were “Trump or White House folks” in the first rows. 

“There were no Trump or White House folks sitting down. They were all CIA (unintelligible). So, not in rows one-through-anything, from what I’m told.” Spicer said at the White House briefing Monday. He did not address whether Pompeo invitees were in the first rows.

A source who is familiar with the planning of the president’s CIA visit saw Spicer’s briefing, however, and firmly denied Spicer’s response was accurate.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

[Special] NPR: Can Trump Take The Money?

By Planet Money (Episode 758):

In 1776, just after the U.S. declared independence, Benjamin Franklin traveled to France to serve as an ambassador. Franklin was a hit in Paris. When he returned home, King Louis XVI gave Franklin an extravagant gift - a portrait of the king ringed by 408 fine diamonds.

This gift from kicked off a conversation among the Founding Fathers as as they were drafting the constitution: Should politicians be able to benefit from their offices? How would we ensure elected officials stay independent? How do we prevent them from being influenced by foreign governments?

The founders wrote the Emoluments Clause into the U.S. Constitution.

It reads:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Now, these 49 words have been thrust into the spotlight.

A group of lawyers filed a suit against President Trump, days after he took office. They claim he is violating the Emoluments Clause. That he's profiting from his office: foreign diplomats are paying to stay in his hotels, the Apprentice airs on state-owned networks abroad, and China just granted the Trump name trademark protection.

We've never had a president like Donald Trump, and so we're only now testing the limits of the emoluments clause.

Today on the show: profits, diplomacy, ancient Rome, and a lawsuit against the president.

Friday, March 24, 2017

New York Times: Trump Abandons Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama’s Signature Trade Deal

By Peter Baker:

Mr. Trump may also move quickly to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. He is scheduling meetings with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, the two main partners in that pact, which was negotiated by President George Bush and pushed through Congress by President Bill Clinton. While Nafta has been a major driver of American trade for nearly two decades, it has long been divisive, with critics blaming it for lost jobs and lower wages.

But free-trade advocates said that in canceling the Pacific pact, Mr. Trump lost an agreement that had already renegotiated Nafta under more modern rules governing intellectual property, internet access and agriculture, since both Mexico and Canada were signatories. He also undercut Mr. Obama’s so-called pivot to Asia and, critics said, essentially ceded the field to China, which was not part of the agreement.

“There’s no doubt that this action will be seen as a huge, huge win for China,” Michael B. Froman, the trade representative who negotiated the pact for Mr. Obama, said in an interview. “For the Trump administration, after all this talk about being tough on China, for their first action to basically hand the keys to China and say we’re withdrawing from our leadership position in this region is geostrategically damaging.”

Some Republicans agreed, but only a few would publicly challenge the president. Senator John McCain of Arizona called the decision “a serious mistake” that would hurt America. “It will send a troubling signal of American disengagement in the Asia-Pacific region at a time we can least afford it,” he said in a statement.

Washington Post: Withdrawal From Trans-Pacific Partnership Shifts U.S. Role in World Economy

By Ylan Q. Mui:

Trump’s executive order formally ending the United States’ participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a largely symbolic move intended to signal that his tough talk on trade during the campaign will carry over to his new administration. The action came as China and other emerging economies are seeking to increase their leverage in global affairs, seizing on America’s turn inward.

Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto declared Monday that his country hopes to bolster trade with other nations and limit its reliance on the United States. Chinese state media derided Western democracy as having “reached its limits”; President Xi Jinping had touted Beijing’s commitment to globalization during his first appearance at the annual gathering of the world’s economic elite last week in Davos, Switzerland.

“This abrupt action so early in the Trump administration puts the world on notice that all of America’s traditional economic and political alliances are now open to reassessment and renegotiation,” said Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. “This could have an adverse long-run impact on the ability of the U.S. to maintain its influence and leadership in world economic and political affairs.”

The Full Story (January 23, 2017)

The Atlantic: Cheapening a Sacred Space

By Andrew Exum:

The Memorial Wall is one of the most haunting memorials I have ever seen in the U.S. federal government—more unsettling than any military cemetery I have visited, from Gettysburg to Normandy. Below the famous anonymous stars themselves sits a book that explains the year each star was added and, sometimes, offers the name of the Agency case officer or analyst killed. Some stars—even some stars going back decades, to the height of the Cold War—do not have a name that accompanies them.

It is sobering to realize that each of those stars on that wall represent hundreds of men and women who had the courage to do what I could not bring myself to do: leave their friends and family and sign up for one of the most lonely, demanding jobs in the U.S. government—all with the knowledge that if they were caught, they faced not only torture and a gruesome death but the prospect that their families might never learn how or why they died.

That’s why the Agency employees with whom I spoke over the weekend were appalled by the president’s speech—that he would cheapen the most sacred space at the Agency, that their leadership would allow it to happen, and that some of their co-workers would disgrace themselves and the Agency by raucously applauding lines from a stump speech.

It’s tough to place too much blame on the Agency’s leadership: Their position with the new president is tenuous, at best. The Agency needs some very important things from the president. It needs him to take his daily briefing, and to take seriously—and keep quiet about—the clandestine operations for which the Agency puts the lives of Americans at grave danger. There is little reason for optimism thus far that the president will deliver on either requirement.

But while it’s tough for anyone to say no to the boss—especially when placed at such a disadvantage up front—the Agency’s leadership is going to encounter a staff today that is livid with the way in which the speech was delivered. The fact the speech was given on a Saturday, when only those Agency employees most enthusiastic about the new president would come in off their weekends, will also be a point of dissatisfaction. For those who weren’t there or for the leaders sitting in the front row, some may feel they were made to look a fool, seeing their Agency turned into another campaign rally and hearing their professionalism questioned—yet again—by the media.

Quite apart from the Agency, though, all Americans should have been worried by the substance of what the president said. I have spent much of my adult life in the national-security institutions of this country and am inclined to consider them largely benign. But even I was unnerved by the president going before the world’s most powerful intelligence service and declaring war on the media.

Think about this, for one moment: The president stood before an organization that runs innumerable clandestine, deniable operations and called out, by name, a journalist who had displeased him before a laughing, clapping crowd. You do not have to be a member of the American Civil Liberties Union to be scared by that.

You also don’t have to be one of the several thousand Americans deployed to Iraq to understand how the line about taking Iraq’s oil will go down there. Trump’s rhetoric along these lines was a problem when he was a candidate. Now that he is the president, Iran’s militias and their media will have a field day, putting the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk.

The Full Story (January 23, 2017)

[Special] Time: Read President Trump's Interview With TIME on Truth and Falsehoods

By Michael Scherer (transcribed by Time Staff):

[Michael:] But even in that Sweden quote, you said look at what happened on Friday in Sweden. But you are now saying you were referring to something that happened the following day.

[President Trump:] No I am saying I was right. I am talking about Sweden. I’m talking about what Sweden has done to themselves is very sad, that is what I am talking about. That is what I am talking about. You can phrase it any way you want. A day later they had a horrible, horrible riot in Sweden and you saw what happened. I talked about Brussels. I was on the front page of the New York Times for my quote. I said Brussels is not what it used to be, very sad what has happened to Brussels. I was absolutely lambasted. A short time later they had the major attack in Brussels. One year ago today. Exactly one year ago today. And then people said you know Trump was right. What am I going to tell you? I tend to be right. I’m an instinctual person, I happen to be a person that knows how life works. I said I was going to win the election, I won the election, in fact I was number one the entire route, in the primaries, from the day I announced, I was number one. And the New York Times and CNN and all of them, they did these polls, which were extremely bad and they turned out to be totally wrong, and my polls showed I was going to win. We thought we were going to win the night of the election.

So when you…

And then TIME magazine, which treats me horribly, but obviously I sell, I assume this is going to be a cover too, have I set the record? I guess, right? Covers, nobody’s had more covers.

I think Richard Nixon still has you beat. But he was in office for longer, so give yourself time.

Ok good. I’m sure I’ll win.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Washington Post: President Trump Signs Order to Withdraw From Trans-Pacific Partnership

By Ylan Q. Mui:

“This abrupt action so early in the Trump administration puts the world on notice that all of America's traditional economic and political alliances are now open to reassessment and renegotiation,” said Eswar Prasad, trade policy professor at Cornell University. “This could have an adverse long-run impact on the ability of the U.S. to maintain its influence and leadership in world economic and political affairs.”

The TPP was one of former president Barack Obama’s signature efforts, part of a broader strategy to increase American clout in Asia and provide a check on China’s economic and military ambitions. Several of the executives Trump met with Monday initially had supported the agreement, while the chief architect of the administration’s trade policy, Commerce secretary nominee Wilbur Ross, was also once a booster for the deal.

But ending TPP was one of the clarion calls of Trump’s campaign, part of a global backlash against the drive toward greater internationalization that has defined the world economy since the end of World War II. British Prime Minister Theresa May, who is in the midst of navigating her country’s own break from established trading partners, is slated to visit with Trump later this week. A White House spokesman said meetings with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto are in the works.

The Full Story (January 23, 2017)

Talking Points Memo:: A Few Thoughts on Mike Flynn

By Josh Marshall:

To do his or her job the National Security Advisor must have access to literally all of the US government's secrets. Their role is to bring together and synthesize the information coming from every part of the US government touching on national defense, security and diplomacy. The Pentagon, the various intelligence services, diplomacy emerging from the State Department - the NSC Advisor must have a full view into all of those. Nothing can be secret or hidden from the them because what is secret from the National Security Advisor is essentially secret from the President.

Any restrictions on the National Security Advisor's right to know, let only any question about his loyalty or ties to foreign governments, makes his position untenable. In terms of the impracticality of the situation, as opposed to the consequences, it is almost tantamount to the President himself being under such scrutiny.

The Full Story (January 23, 2017)

[Special] AP: Manafort Had Plan to Benefit Putin Government

By Jeff Horwitz and Chad Day:

"We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success," Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, "will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government."

Manafort's plans were laid out in documents obtained by the AP that included strategy memoranda and records showing international wire transfers for millions of dollars. How much work Manafort performed under the contract was unclear.

President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse. Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Rolling Stone: The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

By Stephen Rodrick:

During my travels across the self-proclaimed Crossroads of America, I learned that Mike Pence had once paid his mortgage with campaign funds, dragged his feet during an HIV epidemic and a lead-poisoning outbreak, signed an anti-gay-rights bill that nearly cost Indiana millions of dollars, lost his mind on national TV with George Stephanopoulos, and turned away Syrian refugees in an unconstitutional ploy laughed out of federal court. And he ended his gubernatorial term unpopular enough that his re-election bid in a Republican state seemed dicey at best.

Pence is the nation's 48th vice president. Nine vice presidents have assumed the presidency as a result of death or resignation. That's a 19 percent ascendancy rate. Between Trump's trigger-happy Twitter persona, the ethical nightmare of his business empire, his KFC addiction and possible entanglements with Vladimir Putin, I'd say the chances for Mike Pence are more than 50-50.

So what do we know about Pence? The governor benefited greatly from the wall-to-wall "Trump is a crazy monkey throwing feces" media coverage during the fall campaign, in that his record was undercovered, but it's out there and suggests that his impact as vice president will screw African-Americans, women, the poor and any other square peg in round America. His concerns for the parts of Indiana outside his comfort zone toggled between disinterest and disdain.
And here's the frightening thing: Unlike his boss, Mike Pence has an actual ideology. Pence proclaimed at the 2016 GOP convention that "I am a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." However, his actual record – including turning down up to $80 million in federal pre-K funding – is the antithesis of Jesus' "whatever you do for one of the least of my brothers, you do for me" theology.

Here's a quick story.
While Mike Pence was governor, his relationship with the Democratic minority in the legislature was crap. Someone on his staff suggested having the Democratic leaders over to the governor's mansion for dinner. The table was set for 20, but there were only around seven in attendance. One unlucky legislator stuck next to Pence tried to make conversation, but found even at dinner she couldn't shift Pence off his talking points. Gov. Pence shouted to his wife, Karen, his closest adviser, at the other end of the table.
"Mother, Mother, who prepared our meal this evening?"
The legislators looked at one another, speaking with their eyes: He just called his wife "Mother."
Maybe it was a joke, the legislator reasoned. But a few minutes later, Pence shouted again.
"Mother, Mother, whose china are we eating on?"
Mother Pence went on a long discourse about where the china was from. A little later, the legislators stumbled out, wondering what was weirder: Pence's inability to make conversation, or calling his wife "Mother" in the second decade of the 21st century.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Washington Post: The First Days Inside Trump’s White House - Fury, Tumult and a Reboot

By Ashley Parker, Philip Rucker and Matea Gold:

President Trump had just returned to the White House on Saturday from his final inauguration event, a tranquil interfaith prayer service, when the flashes of anger began to build.

Trump turned on the television to see a jarring juxtaposition — massive demonstrations around the globe protesting his day-old presidency and footage of the sparser crowd at his inauguration, with large patches of white empty space on the Mall.

As his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was still unpacking boxes in his spacious new West Wing office, Trump grew increasingly and visibly enraged.

Pundits were dissing his turnout. The National Park Service had retweeted a photo unfavorably comparing the size of his inauguration crowd with the one that attended Barack Obama’s swearing-in ceremony in 2009. A journalist had misreported that Trump had removed the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. And celebrities at the protests were denouncing the new commander in chief — Madonna even referenced “blowing up the White House.”

Trump’s advisers suggested that he could push back in a simple tweet. Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a Trump confidant and the chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, offered to deliver a statement addressing the crowd size.

But Trump was adamant, aides said. Over the objections of his aides and advisers — who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency — the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary.


Spicer’s resulting statement — delivered in an extended shout and brimming with falsehoods — underscores the extent to which the turbulence and competing factions that were a hallmark of Trump’s campaign have been transported to the White House.

The Full Story (January 23, 2017)

New Republic: Donald Trump Is Becoming an Authoritarian Leader Before Our Very Eyes

By Jeet Heer:

The purpose of the Trump administration’s lies is not necessarily to deceive, but to separate the believers from the disbelievers—for the purpose of rewarding the former and punishing the latter. As chess champion Garry Kasparov, an expert in authoritarianism as an outspoken opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, tweeted on Saturday:

In an already hyper-partisan political landscape, the Trump administration can blatantly lie, knowing that his base trusts him more than the “dishonest media.” And that’s exactly what Trump did in his CIA speech, which was rife with deceptions and examples of a narcissistic will to reshape the truth. While telling a story about a Time magazine reporter who wrongly reported that Trump removed the Martin Luther King, Jr. bust from the Oval Office (a mistake that was quickly corrected, but which the Trump staff continues to harp on), the president went on a tangent about Time.

“I have been on their cover, like, 14 or 15 times,” he said. “I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine. Like, if Tom Brady is on the cover, it’s one time, because he won the Super Bowl or something, right?  I’ve been on it for 15 times this year. I don’t think that’s a record...that can ever be broken. Do you agree with that? What do you think?” (The all-time record is held by Richard Nixon, who appeared on 55 Time covers.)

Aside from these lies and factual mistakes, Trump’s speech was genuinely weird on a number of a counts. His intended purpose was to mend fences with the agency, with which he’s feuded over their conclusion that Russia interfered in the election to help him defeat Hillary Clinton. Yet he did very little to reassure CIA staff, only briefly acknowledging their sacrifice and service by alluding to a wall commemorating agents who died in line of duty.

Rather, Trump was in full campaign mode, attacking the media (“among the most dishonest human beings on Earth”) and praising himself (“they say, ‘is Donald Trump an intellectual?’ Trust me, I’m like a smart person”). He also indicated the U.S. might reinvade Iraq for imperial plunder. “The old expression, ‘to the victor belong the spoils’—you remember,” he said. “I always used to say, keep the oil...So we should have kept the oil. But okay. Maybe you’ll have another chance.” The entire event was orchestrated like a campaign stop, so much so that Trump even brought along around 40 supporters, who could be heard cheering and clapping during his applause lines.

Turning a speech at an intelligence agency into a political rally is a deep betrayal of political norms. But it is very much in keeping with Trump’s disturbing habit of claiming the armed wing of the state, including the military and law enforcement, as his political allies. He said early in the CIA speech that “the military gave us tremendous percentages of votes. We were unbelievably successful in the election with getting the vote of the military. And probably almost everybody in this room voted for me, but I will not ask you to raise your hands if you did.” At the end of his speech, Trump sounded like a pathetic suitor making his final pitch: “I just wanted to really say that I love you, I respect you. There’s nobody I respect more.”

The Full Story (January 22, 2017)

New Yorker: Trump's Vainglorious Affront to the C.I.A.

By Robin Wright:

Trump’s remarks caused astonishment and anger among current and former C.I.A. officials. The former C.I.A. director John Brennan, who retired on Friday, called it a “despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of C.I.A.’s Memorial Wall of Agency heroes,” according to a statement released through a former aide. Brennan said he thought Trump “should be ashamed of himself.”

[Ryan] Crocker, who was among the last to see [Deceased CIA Officer Robert] Ames and the local C.I.A. team alive in Beirut, was “appalled” by Trump’s comments. “Whatever his intentions, it was horrible,” Crocker, who went on to serve as the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Kuwait, told me. “As he stood there talking about how great Trump is, I kept looking at the wall behind him—as I’m sure everyone in the room was, too. He has no understanding of the world and what is going on. It was really ugly.”

“Why,” Crocker added, “did he even bother? I can’t imagine a worse Day One scenario. And what’s next?”

John McLaughlin is a thirty-year C.I.A. veteran and a former acting director of the C.I.A. who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He also chairs a foundation that raises funds to educate children of intelligence officers killed on the job. “It’s simply inappropriate to engage in self obsession on a spot that memorializes those who obsessed about others, and about mission, more than themselves,” he wrote to me in an e-mail on Sunday. “Also, people there spent their lives trying to figure out what’s true, so it’s hard to make the case that the media created a feud with Trump. It just ain’t so.”

John MacGaffin, another thirty-year veteran who rose to become the No. 2 in the C.I.A. directorate for clandestine espionage, said that Trump’s appearance should have been a “slam dunk,” calming deep unease within the intelligence community about the new President. According to MacGaffin, Trump should have talked about the mutual reliance between the White House and the C.I.A. in dealing with global crises and acknowledged those who had given their lives doing just that.

“What self-centered, irrational decision process got him to this travesty?” MacGaffin told me. “Most importantly, how will that process serve us when the issues he must address are dangerous and incredibly complex? This is scary stuff!”

The Full Story (January 22, 2017)

Washington Post: Kellyanne Conway Says Donald Trump’s Team Has ‘Alternative Facts.’


“Why put him out there for the very first time, in front of that podium, to utter a provable falsehood?” Chuck Todd asked Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president. “It's a small thing, but the first time he confronts the public, it's a falsehood?”

After some tense back and forth, Conway offered this: "Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. You're saying it's a falsehood, and they're giving — our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that. But the point really is —"

At this point, a visibly exasperated Todd cut in. “Wait a minute. Alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered . . . were just not true. Alternative facts are not facts; they're falsehoods.”

The Full Story (January 22, 2017)

[Edit: New tag added that was sorely needed: "Honesty"]

[Special] Washington Post: FBI Director Comey Confirms the Bureau is Investigating Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election

By Ellen Nakashima and Karoun Demirjian:

FBI Director James B. Comey acknowledged on Monday the existence of a counterintelligence investigation into the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, and said that probe extends to the nature of any links between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government.

Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, Comey said the investigation is also exploring whether there was any coordination between the campaign and the Kremlin.

The acknowledgment was an unusual move, given that the FBI’s practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations. “But in unusual circumstances, where it is in the public interest,” Comey said, “it may be appropriate to do so.”

Comey said he had been authorized by the Justice Department to confirm the wide-ranging probe’s existence.

He spoke at the first intelligence committee public hearing on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, along with National Security Agency head Michael S. Rogers.

The hearing comes amid the controversy fired up by Trump two weeks ago when he tweeted, without providing evidence, that President Barack Obama ordered his phones tapped at Trump Tower.

Comey privately told lawmakers last week that there was no basis to the charge.

[Special] Washington Post: White House Installs Political Aides at Cabinet Agencies to be Trump’s Eyes and Ears

By Lisa Rein and Juliet Eilperin:

The political appointee charged with keeping watch over Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and his aides has offered unsolicited advice so often that after just four weeks on the job, Pruitt has shut him out of many staff meetings, according to two senior administration officials.

At the Pentagon, they’re privately calling the former Marine officer and fighter pilot who’s supposed to keep his eye on Defense Secretary Jim Mattis “the commissar,” according to a high-ranking defense official with knowledge of the situation. It’s a reference to Soviet-era Communist Party officials who were assigned to military units to ensure their commanders remained loyal.

Most members of President Trump’s Cabinet do not yet have leadership teams in place or even nominees for top deputies. But they do have an influential coterie of senior aides installed by the White House who are charged — above all — with monitoring the secretaries’ loyalty, according to eight officials in and outside the administration.

This shadow government of political appointees with the title of senior White House adviser is embedded at every Cabinet agency, with offices in or just outside the secretary’s suite. The White House has installed at least 16 of the advisers at departments including Energy and Health and Human Services and at some smaller agencies such as NASA, according to records first obtained by ProPublica through a Freedom of Information Act request.

These aides report not to the secretary, but to the Office of Cabinet Affairs, which is overseen by Rick Dearborn, a White House deputy chief of staff, according to administration officials. A top Dearborn aide, John Mashburn, leads a weekly conference call with the advisers, who are in constant contact with the White House.


(Editor: New tag - "paranoia")

Friday, March 17, 2017

Washington Post: With Executive Order, Trump Tosses a ‘Bomb’ into Fragile Health Insurance Markets

By Juliet Eilperin and Sean Sullivan:

The political signal of the order, which Trump signed just hours after being sworn into office, was clear: Even before the Republican-led Congress acts to repeal the 2010 law, the new administration will move swiftly to unwind as many elements as it can on its own — elements that have changed how 20 million Americans get health coverage and what benefits insurers must offer some of their customers.

But the practical implications of Trump’s action on Friday are harder to decipher. Its language instructs all federal agencies to “waive, defer, grant ­exemptions from or delay” any part of the law that imposes a financial or regulatory burden on those affected by it. That would cover consumers, doctors, hospitals and other providers, as well as insurers and drug companies.

The prospect of what could flow from pulling back or eliminating administrative rules — including no longer enforcing the individual mandate, which requires Americans to get coverage or pay an annual penalty, and ending health plans’ “essential benefits” — could affect how many people sign up on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces before open enrollment ends Jan. 31 for 2017 coverage, as well as how many companies decide to participate next year.

Robert Laszewski, president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates, called the executive order a “bomb” lobbed into the law’s “already shaky” insurance market. Given the time it will take Republicans to fashion a replacement, he expects that federal and state insurance exchanges will continue to operate at least through 2018.

“Instead of sending a signal that there’s going to be an orderly transition, they’ve sent a signal that it’s going to be a disorderly transition,” said Laszewski, a longtime critic of the law, which is also known as Obamacare. “How does the Trump administration think this is not going to make the situation worse?” [emphasis added]

Washington Post: Trump Speaks With Netanyahu

By Karen DeYoung:

Meanwhile, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat said that Trump was a “true friend” to Israel, referring to a reported statement by Trump press secretary Sean Spicer that the administration was at the “very beginning stages” of discussing a move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“We will offer them all the assistance necessary,” Barkat said in a statement. “The U.S. has sent a message to the world that it recognizes Jerusalem as the united capital of Israel.”

No country in the world has its Israel embassy in Jerusalem, which is also claimed by the Palestinians as their capital. While Congress long ago passed a resolution ordering the move, both Republican and Democratic presidents have repeatedly waived the order on national security grounds.


Trump pledged during his campaign to move the embassy, and his designated ambassador to Israel, New York bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman, has called the move a “big priority” for the new administration.

The Full Story (January 22, 2017)

[Editor: there's a new tag moving forward, "Middle East"]

Politico: Trump Struggles to Shake his Erratic Campaign Habits

By Josh Dawsey:

First, his team will be very combative, even when the facts are not on their side, trusting that their political base dislikes the news media and will believe them no matter what. Sometimes, they are likely to muddy the water or throw a hand grenade into a political debate just to change the headlines.

"What you're seeing with the press secretary is what the administration is going to do, they are going to challenge the press," said Rep. Tom Reed, a New York Republican on Trump's executive committee. "A lot of people in the Beltway forget that the news media doesn't have much credibility. This is the way he ran his campaign, and it worked."

And second, when Trump grows angry, he will usually want the strongest response possible, unless he is told no, and that he will often govern or make decisions based off news coverage.

"Most of the people around him are new to him. One of the things they don't understand about him is he likes pushback. They are not giving him the pushback he needs when he's giving advice. He's a strong guy. He's intimidating to a lot of people," said Christopher Ruddy, a Trump friend who talks to him often and is the CEO of Newsmax. "If he doesn't have people who can tell him no, this is not going to go very well."

He added: "They got off to a very rocky start because they see everyone as adversaries. They haven't moved out of campaign mode into White House mode."

The Full Story (January 22, 2017)

Washington Post: The Traditional Way of Reporting on a President is Dead. And Trump’s Press Secretary Killed it.

By Margaret Sullivan:

The presidency is not a reality show, but President Trump on his first full day in office made clear that he’s still obsessed with being what he once proudly called “a ratings machine.”

He cares enough about it to send his press secretary, Sean Spicer, out to brazenly lie to the media in his first official briefing.

“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe,” Spicer said. And he added a scolding about widespread reports that differ from his evidence-free assessment: “These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong.”

Crowd size experts estimate Trump’s audience at far fewer than the million or more that Trump is claiming, and at far less than the size of the following day’s women’s march, which the new president has said little about. And side-by-side photographs showed the contrast between the comparatively thin gathering for Trump’s inauguration and the record-setting one in 2009 for former president Barack Obama’s first.

Ari Fleischer, a former George W. Bush press secretary, saw Saturday’s bizarre session for what it was.

“This is called a statement you’re told to make by the President. And you know the President is watching,” Fleischer wrote. (MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski pegged it as “Sean Spicer’s first hostage video.”)

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

CNN: Trump's Pick for CIA Says He's Open to Waterboarding

By Ryan Browne:

President Donald Trump's pick to run the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, has told Congress that he would consider bringing back waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation measures under certain circumstances.

In a series of written responses on Wednesday to questions from members of the Senate intelligence committee, Pompeo said that while current permitted interrogation techniques are limited to those contained in the Army Field Manual, he was open to making changes to that policy.

"If confirmed, I will consult with experts at the Agency and at other organizations in the US government on whether the Army Field Manual uniform application is an impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect the country," he wrote.

New York Times: Inaugural Speech Dims G.O.P. Hopes for a More Conservative Trump Agenda

By Jonathan Martin:

But Mr. Trump is about to discover that his hopes for a realignment may not come easily. As in his campaign, he faces an array of obstacles: his historic unpopularity and lack of discipline, advisers who hope to nudge him back toward conventional Republicanism and, perhaps most significant, other party leaders who have a more conservative outlook on domestic policy and government spending and a more hawkish attitude on foreign affairs.

The alarm and anxiety within the Republican Party’s congressional wing toward its own president are remarkable. And among Mr. Trump’s most outspoken intraparty critics, the warnings of resistance are unambiguous.

The Full Story (January 21, 2017)

Washington Post: Trump Wages War Against the Media as Demonstrators Protest His Presidency

By Philip Rucker, John Wagner and Greg Miller:

President Trump used his first full day in office to wage war on the media, accusing news organizations of lying about the size of his inauguration crowd as Saturday’s huge protests served notice that a vocal and resolute opposition would be a hallmark of his presidency.

With Americans taking to the streets in red and blue states alike to emphatically decry a president they consider reprehensible and, even, illegitimate, Trump visited the Central Intelligence Agency for a stream-of-consciousness airing of grievances — including against journalists, whom he called “the most dishonest human beings on Earth.”

Shortly thereafter, press secretary Sean Spicer addressed the media for the first time from the White House, where he yelled at the assembled press corps and charged it with “sowing division” with “deliberately false reporting” of Trump’s inauguration crowd.

Trump claimed that the crowd for his swearing-in stretched down the Mall to the Washington Monument. It did not. Trump accused television networks of showing “an empty field” and reporting that he drew just 250,000 people to witness Friday’s ceremony.

“It looked like a million, a million and a half people,” Trump said. “It’s a lie. We caught [the media]. We caught them in a beauty.”

The Full Story (January 21, 2017)

CNN: White House Press Secretary Attacks Media for Accurately Reporting Inauguration Crowds

By Brian Stelter:

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said, contradicting all available data.

Aerial photos have indicated that former president Barack Obama's first inauguration attracted a much larger crowd. Nielsen ratings show that Obama also had a bigger television audience.

Spicer said, without any evidence, that some photos were "intentionally framed" to downplay Trump's crowd.

He also expressed objections to specific Twitter posts from journalists. And he said, "we're going to hold the press accountable," partly by reaching the public through social networking sites.

His statement included several specific misstatements of fact in addition to the overarching one.

"This is the first time in our nation's history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall," Spicer said, claiming that this "had the effect of highlighting areas people were not standing whereas in years past the grass eliminated this visual."

In fact, coverings were used for Obama's second inauguration in 2013.

"This was also the first time that fencing and magnetometers went as far back on the Mall, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from being able to access the Mall as quickly as they had in inaugurations past," Spicer said.

In fact, a United States Secret Service spokesperson told CNN, no magnetometers were used on the Mall.

And Spicer said, "We know that 420,000 people used the D.C, Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 for president Obama's last inaugural."

Spicer's number for ridership on Friday was actually low -- the correct number, according to Metro itself, was 570,557. But there were actually 782,000 trips taken for Obama's second inaugural in 2013.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

New York Times: With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Matthew Rosenberg:

President Trump used his first full day in office on Saturday to unleash a remarkably bitter attack on the news media, falsely accusing journalists of both inventing a rift between him and intelligence agencies and deliberately understating the size of his inauguration crowd.

In a visit to the Central Intelligence Agency intended to showcase his support for the intelligence community, Mr. Trump ignored his own repeated public statements criticizing the intelligence community, a group he compared to Nazis just over a week ago.

He also called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” and he said that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration, a claim that photographs disproved.

Later, at the White House, he dispatched Sean Spicer, the press secretary, to the briefing room in the West Wing, where Mr. Spicer scolded reporters and made a series of false statements.

He said news organizations had deliberately misstated the size of the crowd at Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Friday in an attempt to sow divisions at a time when Mr. Trump was trying to unify the country, warning that the new administration would hold them to account.
The Full Story (January 21, 2017)


Washington Post: Trump Signs Executive Order That Could Effectively Gut Affordable Care Act’s Individual Mandate

By Ashley Parker and Amy Goldstein:

“Potentially the biggest effect of this order could be widespread waivers from the individual mandate, which would likely create chaos in the individual insurance market,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. In addition, he said, the order suggests that insurers may have new flexibility on the benefits they must provide.

“This doesn’t grant any new powers to federal agencies, but it sends a clear signal that they should use whatever authority they have to scale back regulations and penalties. The Trump administration is looking to unwind the ACA, not necessarily waiting for Congress,” Levitt said.

The order, several paragraphs long, does not identify which of the many federal rules that exist under the ACA the new administration intends to rewrite or eliminate. In general, federal rules cannot be undone with a pen stroke but require a new ­rulemaking process to replace or delete them.

But in giving agencies permission to “waive, defer, grant ­exemptions from or delay” ACA rules, the order appears to create room for the Department of Health and Human Services to narrow or gut a set of medical benefits that the ACA compels insurers to include in health plans that they sell to individuals and small businesses.

The Full Story (January 21, 2017)

Truth-Out: For Trump's Rich Appointees, Death May Be Certain but Taxes Aren't

By Allan Sloan and Cezary Podkul:

Rather, we want to show you how combining this tax break with repeal of the estate tax -- a cherished Republican goal that could be achieved this year - can turn a temporary tax benefit into permanent tax avoidance, enriching the appointees and their heirs.

We're dealing with substantial money here: at a minimum, tens of millions of deferred capital gains taxes; at a maximum, hundreds of millions. We can't tell until we analyze filings that appointees haven't yet made with the Office of Government Ethics. One wild card is their holdings outside of the publicly traded companies with which some of them are associated, because we don't know what they would have to sell, how much of a gain they would have and how much in capital gains taxes they could defer. Rex Tillerson, for example, owns $28 million to $100 million in land and securities other than ExxonMobil, according to a Dec. 31 report he filed with the ethics office that listed more than 400 holdings.

Other very-well-off Trump appointees whose pending jobs will almost surely make them tax deferral candidates include Wilbur Ross, who made vast sums restructuring bankrupt steel companies; Gary Cohn, former No. 2 executive at Goldman Sachs; Steven Mnuchin, who made a huge profit buying a dead savings institution from the FDIC, reviving it and selling it to CIT, and also has extensive private holdings; Andy Puzder, chief executive of privately held CKE, a big restaurant chain; Linda McMahon, former chief executive of World Wrestling Entertainment; and Betsy DeVos, a scion of a rich family who married into the family of the co-founder of the Amway multilevel marketing firm, now known as Quixtar.

The Full Story (January 20, 2017)

Salon: President Trump, Torture Fan

By Heather Digby Parton:

One of the great misconceptions about Donald Trump throughout the presidential campaign was the mistaken idea that because he said kind words about Vladimir Putin and insisted he had been against the Iraq invasion that he was an old-school isolationist. For some reason these people ignored the fact that Trump’s stated philosophy of life is very consistent and very explicit:

Get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades. I really mean it. I really mean it. You’ve got to hit people hard and it’s not so much for that person; it’s that other people watch.

He believes in demonstrating power against people who “disrespect” him personally and who, in his mind, disrespect the United States. Over many years he has said that he believes the rest of the world is laughing at us and he is determined to make them stop.

* * *

He is rather childlike in many respects, so watching things that go boom undoubtedly excites him. But other countries have done this to prove their military superiority and that’s surely what Trump thinks is necessary as well. He truly does not understand that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the United States has the mightiest military on Earth. Indeed, a  decision by the U.S. that it needs to “show” this would probably be seen as a sign of insecurity and weakness, if it weren’t for the fact that everyone can see that the country is now being led by the American version of Kim Jong-un.

With all the hubbub around the inauguration, a lot of things that would normally call for scrutiny and discussion are falling through the cracks. A story in The New York Times about newly released documents from the George W. Bush administration’s torture program is one of them; that’s unfortunate. After all, our new president isn’t just a man who believes waterboarding is a regrettable necessity. He’s a big fan as he has said[.]

The Full Story (January 20, 2017)

Monday, March 13, 2017

Bloomberg: Trump Reverses Obama's Mortgage Fee Cuts on First Day

By Joe Light:

Soon after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, his administration undid one of Barack Obama’s last-minute economic-policy actions: a mortgage-fee cut under a government program that’s popular with first-time home buyers and low-income borrowers.

The new administration on Friday said it’s canceling a reduction in the Federal Housing Administration’s annual fee for most borrowers. The cut would have reduced the annual premium for someone borrowing $200,000 by $500 in the first year.

* * *

“This action is completely out of alignment with President Trump’s words about having the government work for the people,” said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, through a spokesman. “Exactly how does raising the cost of buying a home help average people?”

Sarah Edelman, director of housing policy for the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in an e-mail wrote, “On Day 1, the president has turned his back on middle-class families -- this decision effectively takes $500 out of the pocketbooks of families that were planning to buy a home in 2017. This is not the way to build a strong economy.”

The Full Story (January 20, 2017)

Talking Points Memo: First Lady Melania Trump’s White House Bio Promotes Her Products

By Matt Shuham:

A lengthy biography posted on whitehouse.gov highlights Melania Trump’s jewelry line, yet another example of the newly-minted first family plugging their product in political, and now official, settings.

“In April 2010, Melania Trump launched her own jewelry collection, ‘Melania™ Timepieces & Jewelry’, on QVC,” the bio notes, after listing a slew of modeling gigs and philanthropic positions.

Previously, President Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, came under fire for plugging her own products following campaign appearances. After her speech at the Republican National Convention, Ivanka Trump advertised the dress she'd worn during the speech on her Twitter page. Reporters also received an email from a representative of her company advertising the bracelet she wore during the Trump family's first post-election interview.

The Full Story (January 20, 2017)