Merkel’s thunderbolt is starting gun for European defense drive
German chancellor sees unreliability of Trump and Britain as stimulus for next stage in EU integration.
By PAUL TAYLOR
Angela Merkel rarely drops thunderbolts, and never by accident.
The cautious, conservative German chancellor, who has governed mostly incrementally for 12 years, has made two such game-changing pronouncements in the last two years. The first time — controversially — she threw Germany’s doors open to nearly a million refugees from Syria and elsewhere in 2015.
The second time was on Sunday, when she described the NATO and G7 summits she attended last week with U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa May as “unsatisfactory,” adding that Europeans needed to take more responsibility for their security.
“The era in which we could fully rely on others is over to some extent — that’s what I experienced over the past several days,” she said in Munich on Sunday. “We Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands.”
To be sure, the veteran German leader was rallying her Bavarian conservative allies at a campaign event in a beer tent. She has not given up all faith in the United States’ commitment to European security. Nor is she yanking up the drawbridge with Britain after the U.K.’s damaging vote to pull out of the European Union or suggesting the EU will have to go it entirely by itself.
Merkel is well aware that Europe has neither the military capability, the intelligence resources nor the political organization — let alone the resolve — to face off alone against Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
What she is doing is making it clear, following the election of resolutely pro-European President Emmanuel Macron in France, that the answer to increasing transatlantic and cross-Channel uncertainty should be to strengthen the EU, shore up the eurozone and take the next steps in building a European security and defense union.
The appropriate historical parallel might be with post-war West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer’s reaction to the 1956 Suez crisis, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union forced Britain and France to abandon a joint invasion of Egypt with Israel.
Adenauer was meeting with French Prime Minister Guy Mollet in Paris on the day when Mollet took a phone call from British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, informing him that Britain was pulling out of the Suez operation under U.S. pressure, forcing France to follow suit. “A united Europe will be our revenge,” Adenauer told Mollet, who responded by dropping French objections to the establishment of the European common market, the forerunner of the EU.
France and Britain drew opposite lessons from the Suez humiliation, which effectively ended their era as colonial powers. The French concluded that neither the perfidious British nor the overbearing Americans — often lumped together as “les anglo-saxons” — could be trusted. Henceforth France would develop its own nuclear deterrent and pursue an independent European foreign policy. The British concluded they would never be able to act without the United States again, and that they should hug America tight.
Brexit followed by the election of an “America first” president puts international relationships at a less obviously dramatic but equally important turning point. Trump has cast doubt on NATO’s mutual defense guarantee and disparaged multilateral trade and climate agreements. Britain has vote to cut itself loose from the main economic and political community in Europe.
Merkel has responded with an act of leadership. Having steadied the European ship after the shock of Brexit, she is telling her fellow Germans that they need to overcome their historically rooted squeamishness about defense and get over their fears that other Europeans are out to take advantage of them.
This positions her to run a resolutely pro-EU election campaign, as Macron did in France. In doing so, she’s robbing the mantle from her strongest opponent — Social Democratic Party leader Martin Schulz, who has the aura of “Mr. Europe” after his time as European Parliament president — and rubbing salt into the SPD’s divisions over greater defense spending and a more active military role for Germany.
She is also telling Macron that he will find a willing co-leader in building the EU into a more effective player in international security and diplomacy. And she is charging Trump and May a public political price for their countries’ rejection of multilateral governance.
Her message, directed at Trump as much as it was directed at anybody, was a result of her exasperation at his refusal, despite intense pre-summit pleading from European allies, to make an unequivocal commitment to NATO’s Article V mutual defense clause — the backbone of the alliance’s deterrence for decades.
Instead, Trump publicly lambasted his allies for their weak defense spending, implying that many owed America or NATO billions in past military spending. The nationalist president seems intent on turning NATO’s d’Artagnan doctrine — “one for all and all for one” — into a mafia tough’s protection racket: “Nice territory you got there; hate to see anything happen to it.”
Some British commentators have suggested it was unfair of Merkel to lump May in with Trump, since Britain has stood on Germany’s side when it comes to NATO, free trade and the Paris climate change agreement. The British prime minister has stressed that the U.K. is not leaving Europe and that it remains committed to cooperation on security and defense and the closest possible relationship with the EU.
To be sure, the next steps in European integration will neither be quick nor easy.
But the U.K.’s looming departure is a severe blow to German interests, and Merkel’s message to Britain is that it cannot expect to preserve the trade benefits of EU membership without abiding by the club’s rules. It comes as May has been trying to rescue her faltering general election campaign with a fresh round of Europe-bashing, suggesting the other 27 EU members are ganging up to punish Britain.
To be sure, the next steps in European integration will neither be quick nor easy. Berlin and Paris are far from full agreement on how to build a more effective European defense capability, how far and under what circumstances to intervene abroad, and above all how to strengthen the eurozone. And others, such as Poland and Hungary, present an illiberal challenge from within to further EU unity.
But whatever comes next, historians will look back on Merkel’s Munich beer tent speech as pivotal — the moment when the leader of Europe’s most powerful economy decided the time had come for greater emancipation from the U.S.’s incoherent leadership.
May 31, 2017
Middle finger
Trump bailing on the the Paris Agreement would be a middle finger to the future
By John D. Sutter
If the United States bails on the Paris Agreement on climate change, as CNN is reporting, the results could be catastrophic both for this country and the planet.
It would be a middle finger to the future.
The worst part: There is absolutely no reason for it. Aside, perhaps, from bravado and arrogance.
In walking away from the Paris Agreement, President Donald Trump would be turning his back on the entire world and on the consensus of climate science. Every nation except Syria, Nicaragua and now, potentially, the United States, is part of the accord, which calls for an end to the fossil fuel era -- and limiting global warming to at most 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. (Nearly 200 countries or parties have adopted the agreement and 147, including the United States, at least for now, have ratified or approved it, indicating a stronger level of commitment, according to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change).
I'm sure that target -- considered the "north star" of climate policy -- sounds
ridiculously abstract and wonky. But the 2 degrees goal is incredibly consequential. The fate of the planet -- and the mess we shove on future generations -- hangs in the balance.
Inaction on climate change will have disastrous consequences
Consider for a moment what is at stake with climate change: rising seas, flooded coastal cities, mass extinction, searing drought, human displacement, migration crises, deadlier heatwaves, crop failures, stronger storms.
This isn't some meaningless list plucked from an Al Gore PowerPoint. Our fingerprints are on many of these disasters now. As humans burn fossil fuels, chop down rainforests and pursue inefficient and polluting agricultural practices, we are causing heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide to build up in the atmosphere. That acts like a blanket, gradually warming Earth.
Already, we've warmed the atmosphere about 1 degree Celsius in the fossil-fuel era.
The science on this is solid. US officials saying otherwise is negligent.
That's because warming has real consequences for real people. I've met them. In the Marshall Islands, I talked with people terrified their entire country, culture and language ("Iakwe" is the word for "hello," "I love you" and "You are a rainbow" in Marshallese) will be lost because of our indifference.
I spent a week with people in Madagascar whose livelihoods are dependent on coral reefs, which are struggling and may disappear or become utterly unrecognizable as we contribute to the rapid warming and acidification of the oceans. "We're as good as dead," a young mother told me. I met a man in Miami Beach, Florida, who was selling his homes because he fears his property will be regularly flooded. And a girl in Louisiana who had to be evacuated from her home during record rainstorms that scientists linked to global warming.
"It says to me and my community that they don't care what they do with the environment," Esau Sinnok, a college student from Shishmaref, Alaska, a community that voted in 2016 to relocate because of climate change, told me on Wednesday. "They don't care. They don't believe in climate change."
I've talked with biologists who say we are on the verge of Earth's sixth mass extinction event, with climate change being a major driver. Without massive changes, three-quarters of all known species could disappear in a couple centuries.
This stuff is just absolutely beyond nasty. It's abhorrent. And it's unthinkable to me that we could know these stories and still choose to do nothing. Because we know this:
The more pollution we create, the greater the risks. Smoking is an analogy many climate scientists use often, and for good reason. Can you keep smoking cigarettes for four more years and avoid dying from lung cancer. Maybe? But...
The rest of the world should move ahead without the United States
There's a terrifying math to climate change: We can only create so much pollution before we ensure the Earth will cross that dangerous 2-degree threshold, with consequences that are both immoral -- we can stop this if we want to -- and expensive.
Some estimates put that tipping point years or at most decades in the future.
Even with the full participation of the US, the Paris Agreement wasn't nearly enough -- on its own -- to avoid the very worst of global warming. Trump's withdrawal from the agreement would only up the odds of catastrophe -- and would do so considerably.
The exit would deliver a considerable blow to what needs to be a global agreement that includes the world's second biggest polluter. Greenhouse gases spread across the atmosphere. They don't adhere to national borders. So the process of fixing climate change, too, must be an international effort. Some will argue that the Paris Agreement will survive without Trump and without the US. I certainly hope that is true.
A recent report from Climate Action Tracker, a research group, finds China and India -- the other two of the top three global climate offenders -- are doing so much better than expected at cutting their emissions that the agreement can survive and meet its goals without US participation, at least temporarily.
The risk remains, however, that the Paris Agreement falls apart without the United States.
A China-US partnership on climate action is the main reason the world agreed to this accord.
Without the US as its partner, China -- with India and the EU -- could emerge as the global leader on climate. The agreement could succeed in spite of the United States. Or it could be weakened to the point of irrelevance.
Then, our best hopes for a livable, safe and clean future would start to fall apart, too.
Doing something about climate change is an 'America first' strategy
Again, the worst part of this: The US withdrawal is completely nonsensical.
Nearly seven in 10 American voters support the Paris Agreement, according to a November 2016 survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. So, there's little need for political cover.
And legal experts have said the Trump administration could remain part of the agreement without being held to the promises the Obama administration made to cut emissions and slow global warming. No, that's not ideal. But it's far and away preferable to a complete exit. Think of the Paris Agreement like a global party, former Obama climate negotiator Todd Stern told me recently. It's a party that gets way less interesting if one of the coolest and most important people just up and leaves -- with fanfare.
"All of a sudden it feels like, well, this isn't a very interesting party," Stern said in early May.
Plus, it's in America's interest to pursue a clean energy economy. There are more jobs in the United States right now in the solar industry than in coal mining. Yes, California and other states (Iowa got more than 35% of its electricity from wind power last year, amazingly) are moving ahead with or without Trump. But the federal policies -- both the signal they send and the emissions they control -- matter. They could point the United States toward a cleaner future or, as now seems apparent, back into the dirty fossil fuel era, with all the associated dangers.
The other gamble: The US risks getting left behind by China in the clean energy economy.
The best those of us who care about the Earth and its future can hope for is that Trump would change his mind. Officials have told reporters Trump will withdraw. But Trump is known for changing his mind at a moment's notice. On Wednesday, the President tweeted that he "will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days."
Other than that, the best case scenario is for China and the EU to take the lead on climate. For the US to be left behind. And for the rest of the world to spite Trump and the United States by picking up the slack for American pollution.
The worst case scenario? I almost don't want to go there.
By John D. Sutter
If the United States bails on the Paris Agreement on climate change, as CNN is reporting, the results could be catastrophic both for this country and the planet.
It would be a middle finger to the future.
The worst part: There is absolutely no reason for it. Aside, perhaps, from bravado and arrogance.
In walking away from the Paris Agreement, President Donald Trump would be turning his back on the entire world and on the consensus of climate science. Every nation except Syria, Nicaragua and now, potentially, the United States, is part of the accord, which calls for an end to the fossil fuel era -- and limiting global warming to at most 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. (Nearly 200 countries or parties have adopted the agreement and 147, including the United States, at least for now, have ratified or approved it, indicating a stronger level of commitment, according to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change).
I'm sure that target -- considered the "north star" of climate policy -- sounds
ridiculously abstract and wonky. But the 2 degrees goal is incredibly consequential. The fate of the planet -- and the mess we shove on future generations -- hangs in the balance.
Inaction on climate change will have disastrous consequences
Consider for a moment what is at stake with climate change: rising seas, flooded coastal cities, mass extinction, searing drought, human displacement, migration crises, deadlier heatwaves, crop failures, stronger storms.
This isn't some meaningless list plucked from an Al Gore PowerPoint. Our fingerprints are on many of these disasters now. As humans burn fossil fuels, chop down rainforests and pursue inefficient and polluting agricultural practices, we are causing heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide to build up in the atmosphere. That acts like a blanket, gradually warming Earth.
Already, we've warmed the atmosphere about 1 degree Celsius in the fossil-fuel era.
The science on this is solid. US officials saying otherwise is negligent.
That's because warming has real consequences for real people. I've met them. In the Marshall Islands, I talked with people terrified their entire country, culture and language ("Iakwe" is the word for "hello," "I love you" and "You are a rainbow" in Marshallese) will be lost because of our indifference.
I spent a week with people in Madagascar whose livelihoods are dependent on coral reefs, which are struggling and may disappear or become utterly unrecognizable as we contribute to the rapid warming and acidification of the oceans. "We're as good as dead," a young mother told me. I met a man in Miami Beach, Florida, who was selling his homes because he fears his property will be regularly flooded. And a girl in Louisiana who had to be evacuated from her home during record rainstorms that scientists linked to global warming.
"It says to me and my community that they don't care what they do with the environment," Esau Sinnok, a college student from Shishmaref, Alaska, a community that voted in 2016 to relocate because of climate change, told me on Wednesday. "They don't care. They don't believe in climate change."
I've talked with biologists who say we are on the verge of Earth's sixth mass extinction event, with climate change being a major driver. Without massive changes, three-quarters of all known species could disappear in a couple centuries.
This stuff is just absolutely beyond nasty. It's abhorrent. And it's unthinkable to me that we could know these stories and still choose to do nothing. Because we know this:
The more pollution we create, the greater the risks. Smoking is an analogy many climate scientists use often, and for good reason. Can you keep smoking cigarettes for four more years and avoid dying from lung cancer. Maybe? But...
The rest of the world should move ahead without the United States
There's a terrifying math to climate change: We can only create so much pollution before we ensure the Earth will cross that dangerous 2-degree threshold, with consequences that are both immoral -- we can stop this if we want to -- and expensive.
Some estimates put that tipping point years or at most decades in the future.
Even with the full participation of the US, the Paris Agreement wasn't nearly enough -- on its own -- to avoid the very worst of global warming. Trump's withdrawal from the agreement would only up the odds of catastrophe -- and would do so considerably.
The exit would deliver a considerable blow to what needs to be a global agreement that includes the world's second biggest polluter. Greenhouse gases spread across the atmosphere. They don't adhere to national borders. So the process of fixing climate change, too, must be an international effort. Some will argue that the Paris Agreement will survive without Trump and without the US. I certainly hope that is true.
A recent report from Climate Action Tracker, a research group, finds China and India -- the other two of the top three global climate offenders -- are doing so much better than expected at cutting their emissions that the agreement can survive and meet its goals without US participation, at least temporarily.
The risk remains, however, that the Paris Agreement falls apart without the United States.
A China-US partnership on climate action is the main reason the world agreed to this accord.
Without the US as its partner, China -- with India and the EU -- could emerge as the global leader on climate. The agreement could succeed in spite of the United States. Or it could be weakened to the point of irrelevance.
Then, our best hopes for a livable, safe and clean future would start to fall apart, too.
Doing something about climate change is an 'America first' strategy
Again, the worst part of this: The US withdrawal is completely nonsensical.
Nearly seven in 10 American voters support the Paris Agreement, according to a November 2016 survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. So, there's little need for political cover.
And legal experts have said the Trump administration could remain part of the agreement without being held to the promises the Obama administration made to cut emissions and slow global warming. No, that's not ideal. But it's far and away preferable to a complete exit. Think of the Paris Agreement like a global party, former Obama climate negotiator Todd Stern told me recently. It's a party that gets way less interesting if one of the coolest and most important people just up and leaves -- with fanfare.
"All of a sudden it feels like, well, this isn't a very interesting party," Stern said in early May.
Plus, it's in America's interest to pursue a clean energy economy. There are more jobs in the United States right now in the solar industry than in coal mining. Yes, California and other states (Iowa got more than 35% of its electricity from wind power last year, amazingly) are moving ahead with or without Trump. But the federal policies -- both the signal they send and the emissions they control -- matter. They could point the United States toward a cleaner future or, as now seems apparent, back into the dirty fossil fuel era, with all the associated dangers.
The other gamble: The US risks getting left behind by China in the clean energy economy.
The best those of us who care about the Earth and its future can hope for is that Trump would change his mind. Officials have told reporters Trump will withdraw. But Trump is known for changing his mind at a moment's notice. On Wednesday, the President tweeted that he "will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days."
Other than that, the best case scenario is for China and the EU to take the lead on climate. For the US to be left behind. And for the rest of the world to spite Trump and the United States by picking up the slack for American pollution.
The worst case scenario? I almost don't want to go there.
Flee to Building Roof
Darrell Issa Appears to Flee to Building Roof to Avoid Protesters
Republican members of Congress are getting creative.
INAE OH
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) was seen taking refuge on the roof of his office building in Vista, California, Tuesday, taking photos of angry constituents who had gathered below to protest the congressman's voting record. The incident comes before a much-anticipated town hall meeting this Saturday at San Juan Hills High School, where the nine-term congressman is expected to face a hostile crowd because of his support for various Trump administration policies, including the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.
Democrat Mike Levin, an environmental lawyer who recently announced his bid to challenge Issa in 2018, shared an image of the congressman appearing to avoid demonstrators on social media, where it was roundly mocked.
Twit:
"Yes, this is really @DarrellIssa on the roof of his district office building. Too afraid to come speak with assembled constituents below."
Others saw his retreating to a rooftop as reminiscent of Michael Scott, Steve Carrell's character in The Office who memorably took to the roof in the episode titled "Safety Training."
Twit:
"Sean Spicer: I hid in the bushes to avoid people! No one can top that!
Darrell Issa: Hold my beer. "
Twit:
"@MikeLevinCA @DarrellIssa You have to treat him like Michael Scott and tell him you have a present for him if he comes down."
Issa, on the other hand, described his trip to the roof a bit differently. Shortly after the criticism, he took to Twitter to offer this narrative. We recommend zooming in to take a closer look at the signs:
Twit:
"Spent the morning talking with constituents gathered outside the office today, then popped upstairs to take a quick pic!"
Republican members of Congress are getting creative.
INAE OH
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) was seen taking refuge on the roof of his office building in Vista, California, Tuesday, taking photos of angry constituents who had gathered below to protest the congressman's voting record. The incident comes before a much-anticipated town hall meeting this Saturday at San Juan Hills High School, where the nine-term congressman is expected to face a hostile crowd because of his support for various Trump administration policies, including the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.
Democrat Mike Levin, an environmental lawyer who recently announced his bid to challenge Issa in 2018, shared an image of the congressman appearing to avoid demonstrators on social media, where it was roundly mocked.
Twit:
"Yes, this is really @DarrellIssa on the roof of his district office building. Too afraid to come speak with assembled constituents below."
Others saw his retreating to a rooftop as reminiscent of Michael Scott, Steve Carrell's character in The Office who memorably took to the roof in the episode titled "Safety Training."
Twit:
"Sean Spicer: I hid in the bushes to avoid people! No one can top that!
Darrell Issa: Hold my beer. "
Twit:
"@MikeLevinCA @DarrellIssa You have to treat him like Michael Scott and tell him you have a present for him if he comes down."
Issa, on the other hand, described his trip to the roof a bit differently. Shortly after the criticism, he took to Twitter to offer this narrative. We recommend zooming in to take a closer look at the signs:
Twit:
"Spent the morning talking with constituents gathered outside the office today, then popped upstairs to take a quick pic!"
Failing on everything... Here's one failure...
There is no boom in coal jobs
by Chris Isidore
There is no boom in coal jobs, despite what President Trump and his surrogates say.
Trump has been promising that his actions to lift environmental regulations on coal will bring back coal mining jobs.
"You're going back to work," Trump told a group of miners when he signed an executive order reversing limits on the use of coal in March. "Ready?"
"We will put our miners back to work," he promised. "We've already eliminated a devastating anti-coal regulation."
Vice President Mike Pence and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke have also said that Trump's actions are bringing back coal jobs.
The most bullish jobs claim comes from Stephen Moore, an economic adviser to Trump during the campaign, who now works as a contributor for CNN. He has said repeatedly said that there have been 43,000 mining jobs added since Trump was elected president.
But that's not true.
While it is true is that the Labor Department figures show that 43,000 jobs have been added to "mining" jobs category since the final October jobs report just before the election, that category includes employment in oil and gas extraction, as well as traditional mining jobs.
At least 21,000 of the new positions were in the oil and gas industries, or related businesses. Another 6,000 more are in nonmetallic mining and quarrying, digging for things like granite and marble.
Only 1,300 jobs were added at coal mines.
When CNNMoney walked Moore through the Labor Department statistics, he said that even 1,300 new coal mining jobs is good news for the battered industry. But, he conceded, "That's a lot less than 43,000."
At the same time that Trump says he's trying to help coal, he's also signing orders that will boost the production of natural gas, which is cheaper than coal and poses the biggest threat to the industry and coal jobs.
Indeed, not everyone in the Trump administration is gung-ho about coal. President Trump's chief economist, Gary Cohen, has publicly questioned coal's future.
"Coal doesn't even make that much sense anymore," Cohen told reporters traveling with the president on his recent trip overseas. He added that natural gas is not only cheaper but it is cleaner.
But Moore said that the use of coal should increase in the future, if environmental regulations are eased.
"Coal mining has been highly affected by the price of natural gas. They're direct competitors," Moore said. "But it's also true the regulatory framework hurt coal. A reason to be optimistic about the future of coal is you no longer have a president who hates coal."
Moore says even with cheap natural gas, coal is poised for a comeback.
"The coal producers are getting a lot better in terms of mining techniques," he said to CNNMoney. "They're adapting to the new normal of very cheap natural gas."
But Moore also conceded that greater efficiency means mining more coal with fewer miners.
by Chris Isidore
There is no boom in coal jobs, despite what President Trump and his surrogates say.
Trump has been promising that his actions to lift environmental regulations on coal will bring back coal mining jobs.
"You're going back to work," Trump told a group of miners when he signed an executive order reversing limits on the use of coal in March. "Ready?"
"We will put our miners back to work," he promised. "We've already eliminated a devastating anti-coal regulation."
Vice President Mike Pence and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke have also said that Trump's actions are bringing back coal jobs.
The most bullish jobs claim comes from Stephen Moore, an economic adviser to Trump during the campaign, who now works as a contributor for CNN. He has said repeatedly said that there have been 43,000 mining jobs added since Trump was elected president.
But that's not true.
While it is true is that the Labor Department figures show that 43,000 jobs have been added to "mining" jobs category since the final October jobs report just before the election, that category includes employment in oil and gas extraction, as well as traditional mining jobs.
At least 21,000 of the new positions were in the oil and gas industries, or related businesses. Another 6,000 more are in nonmetallic mining and quarrying, digging for things like granite and marble.
Only 1,300 jobs were added at coal mines.
When CNNMoney walked Moore through the Labor Department statistics, he said that even 1,300 new coal mining jobs is good news for the battered industry. But, he conceded, "That's a lot less than 43,000."
At the same time that Trump says he's trying to help coal, he's also signing orders that will boost the production of natural gas, which is cheaper than coal and poses the biggest threat to the industry and coal jobs.
Indeed, not everyone in the Trump administration is gung-ho about coal. President Trump's chief economist, Gary Cohen, has publicly questioned coal's future.
"Coal doesn't even make that much sense anymore," Cohen told reporters traveling with the president on his recent trip overseas. He added that natural gas is not only cheaper but it is cleaner.
But Moore said that the use of coal should increase in the future, if environmental regulations are eased.
"Coal mining has been highly affected by the price of natural gas. They're direct competitors," Moore said. "But it's also true the regulatory framework hurt coal. A reason to be optimistic about the future of coal is you no longer have a president who hates coal."
Moore says even with cheap natural gas, coal is poised for a comeback.
"The coal producers are getting a lot better in terms of mining techniques," he said to CNNMoney. "They're adapting to the new normal of very cheap natural gas."
But Moore also conceded that greater efficiency means mining more coal with fewer miners.
Climate Accord
The Paris Climate Accord Is Superficial. That's Why Trump Wants to Kill It.
KEVIN DRUM
The Paris climate accord is not legally binding. At any time, the United States can simply announce that its goals have changed and release a new, less ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (a "Nationally Determined Contribution" in Paris-speak). Since everything is entirely voluntary, and there's no legal enforcement mechanism for any of it, David Roberts says there's no reason to consider pulling out:
Trump can weaken the US NDC, without penalty. He can roll back all of Obama’s carbon regulations, without penalty. He can simply fail to meet the targets of the NDC, without penalty. All he has to do is explain himself at the five-year review, and the explanation can be as minimal as he likes.
Paris’s only constraint on Trump comes through intangibles like reputation and influence. It imposes absolutely no practical or legal constraint on his actions — not on trade policy, not on domestic energy policy, nothing.
That means all talk of Paris being a “bad deal” for the US, or hurting US trade, or affecting the US coal industry in any way, is nonsense. Paris does not and cannot do any of those things. The US voluntarily offered up an NDC and can voluntarily offer up a different or weaker NDC any time it wants.
This is an awkward fact for the nationalist contingent. They need Paris to be a boogey man. So they’ve ginned up a novel legal argument.
This novel legal argument is even more comical than these kinds of paper-thin justifications usually are, and you can read all about it at the link. But I think Roberts misses the point. Since Paris is voluntary, there's no concrete reason for Trump to pull out or to stay in. The United States can do whatever it wants either way. The whole thing is about signaling, and that's something that rules Trump's world. Barack Obama considered it important to signal that America was committed to addressing climate change. Donald Trump is committed to a worldview in which climate change is a hoax. He wants a dramatic way to signal this, and pulling out of Paris would be just the ticket.
Needless to say, you can decide for y
ourself if it's a hoax. The data is very clear and easily obtainable.
KEVIN DRUM
The Paris climate accord is not legally binding. At any time, the United States can simply announce that its goals have changed and release a new, less ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (a "Nationally Determined Contribution" in Paris-speak). Since everything is entirely voluntary, and there's no legal enforcement mechanism for any of it, David Roberts says there's no reason to consider pulling out:
Trump can weaken the US NDC, without penalty. He can roll back all of Obama’s carbon regulations, without penalty. He can simply fail to meet the targets of the NDC, without penalty. All he has to do is explain himself at the five-year review, and the explanation can be as minimal as he likes.
Paris’s only constraint on Trump comes through intangibles like reputation and influence. It imposes absolutely no practical or legal constraint on his actions — not on trade policy, not on domestic energy policy, nothing.
That means all talk of Paris being a “bad deal” for the US, or hurting US trade, or affecting the US coal industry in any way, is nonsense. Paris does not and cannot do any of those things. The US voluntarily offered up an NDC and can voluntarily offer up a different or weaker NDC any time it wants.
This is an awkward fact for the nationalist contingent. They need Paris to be a boogey man. So they’ve ginned up a novel legal argument.
This novel legal argument is even more comical than these kinds of paper-thin justifications usually are, and you can read all about it at the link. But I think Roberts misses the point. Since Paris is voluntary, there's no concrete reason for Trump to pull out or to stay in. The United States can do whatever it wants either way. The whole thing is about signaling, and that's something that rules Trump's world. Barack Obama considered it important to signal that America was committed to addressing climate change. Donald Trump is committed to a worldview in which climate change is a hoax. He wants a dramatic way to signal this, and pulling out of Paris would be just the ticket.
Needless to say, you can decide for y
Defend ...
Defend the EPA and NOAA’s Budget
Surfrider Foundation
The President's Budget for FY 2018 proposes steep and sweeping budget cuts for both the EPA and NOAA. If Congress does not push back against these debilitating cuts, neither agency will be able to effectively function past October 1rst at the start of the next fiscal year.
The EPA is tasked with protecting public health and the environment – clean air, water & land - and NOAA is responsible for conserving and managing our nation’s coastal and marine ecosystems and resources through science, service and stewardship. Critical programs that protect the health of swimmers at the beach and help coastal communities prepare for changing weather patterns and rising sea levels are at risk of being completely eliminated by the President’s budget proposal.
Clean water, healthy beaches and resilient coasts are important to those of us who live, work and play at the coast, and they are critical to the quality of life and economic vitality of coastal communities across the country. In fact, coastal recreation and tourism economies that rely on safe and healthy beaches are valued at over $100 billion and support 2.15 million jobs nationwide!
Please join us in asking Congress to reject the President’s budget proposal and to instead ensure at least level funding for both the EPA and NOAA in next year’s federal budget. Make your voice heard and send your email to Congress. Your beach, your health and even the jobs of millions of Americans could depend on it.
Surfrider Foundation
The President's Budget for FY 2018 proposes steep and sweeping budget cuts for both the EPA and NOAA. If Congress does not push back against these debilitating cuts, neither agency will be able to effectively function past October 1rst at the start of the next fiscal year.
The EPA is tasked with protecting public health and the environment – clean air, water & land - and NOAA is responsible for conserving and managing our nation’s coastal and marine ecosystems and resources through science, service and stewardship. Critical programs that protect the health of swimmers at the beach and help coastal communities prepare for changing weather patterns and rising sea levels are at risk of being completely eliminated by the President’s budget proposal.
Clean water, healthy beaches and resilient coasts are important to those of us who live, work and play at the coast, and they are critical to the quality of life and economic vitality of coastal communities across the country. In fact, coastal recreation and tourism economies that rely on safe and healthy beaches are valued at over $100 billion and support 2.15 million jobs nationwide!
Please join us in asking Congress to reject the President’s budget proposal and to instead ensure at least level funding for both the EPA and NOAA in next year’s federal budget. Make your voice heard and send your email to Congress. Your beach, your health and even the jobs of millions of Americans could depend on it.
The Problem...
Fox News Voters Are The Problem
By Bill Maher
America has been invaded by a culture that doesn’t share our values. But it’s not Muslims or Mexicans; it’s the Fox News voter. I’m guessing if you polled American Muslims or Hispanic immigrants they’d agree that health care is a right, that science means something, and that Presidents shouldn’t have family members soliciting business in Russia – but not the Fox News voter. Almost half the country now has values that aren’t what I think of as American values. I’m not talking conservative vs. liberal here, I’m talking about basic Bill of Rights stuff, and the notion of America as a country of disparate people united by a set of political beliefs.
The irony here is that the very people who are constantly complaining that American values are being lost are the ones who lost them.
I guess it’s because we’re the furthest thing from a homogeneous culture there is. We’re the “if it feels good, do it” country – which only works as long as we have an agreed up set of ground rules to keep a check on our rampant individualism. But now those ground rules are gone, and it’s not because of the hippies or rap music or Sharia law – it’s because Fox News (and the Internet) has made it okay to be a selfish dick.
By Bill Maher
America has been invaded by a culture that doesn’t share our values. But it’s not Muslims or Mexicans; it’s the Fox News voter. I’m guessing if you polled American Muslims or Hispanic immigrants they’d agree that health care is a right, that science means something, and that Presidents shouldn’t have family members soliciting business in Russia – but not the Fox News voter. Almost half the country now has values that aren’t what I think of as American values. I’m not talking conservative vs. liberal here, I’m talking about basic Bill of Rights stuff, and the notion of America as a country of disparate people united by a set of political beliefs.
The irony here is that the very people who are constantly complaining that American values are being lost are the ones who lost them.
I guess it’s because we’re the furthest thing from a homogeneous culture there is. We’re the “if it feels good, do it” country – which only works as long as we have an agreed up set of ground rules to keep a check on our rampant individualism. But now those ground rules are gone, and it’s not because of the hippies or rap music or Sharia law – it’s because Fox News (and the Internet) has made it okay to be a selfish dick.
Miseducation
The Miseducation of Betsy DeVos
By Ian Thompson & Jennifer Bellamy
Earlier this week, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos referred to opponents of vouchers as “flat Earthers” who have “chilled creativity” in the education system. While jarring, her comments will not come as a surprise to those who followed her confirmation. It was clear then, and remains so now, that Secretary DeVos is a dogged opponent of public education. She has dedicated years and a considerable fortune into working to attack public schools.
Secretary DeVos is entitled to her opinion, but not her own facts. Study after study has shown that voucher programs do not result in improved academic achievement. In fact, students who participate in the programs actually fare worse than their peers.
Voucher programs drain public schools of desperately needed resources and divert them to private and religious schools. Taxpayer dollars are then, often times, used to fund the religious education of students. In addition, students who attend private and religious schools through vouchers are deprived of critical civil rights protections that would otherwise be afforded to them in the public system, including students with disabilities.
In fact, students with disabilities are often systematically excluded from voucher programs. For example, a report from the U.S. Department of Education (the agency DeVos now heads) on the voucher program in Washington, D.C., found that the main reason why students didn’t use a voucher offered to them was that they were unable to find a participating school with appropriate services for their learning or physical disability or other special needs.
Despite all of this, the Trump administration budget proposal that was unveiled on Tuesday includes a request for a new $250 million dollar voucher program. This request comes at the same time as the administration is proposing jaw-dropping cuts in education funding.
Additionally, the Trump/DeVos budget proposal includes $1 billion in “portable” grant funding under Title I, meaning that the money follows individual children rather than being dedicated to high-poverty districts and schools. This allows states to redirect funds away from low-income schools towards schools with a large percentage of wealthier students.
The law says that separate but equal is never equal and recognizes the need to ensure state compliance with federal civil rights laws and to create equal opportunity for low-income students. There is an essential role for the federal government to play in working to eliminate discriminatory barriers, including the discrimination, segregation, and criminalization of students of color at schools. Adding insult to significant injury, Secretary DeVos either fails to recognize this need or is indifferent to it. Neither option is acceptable.
While there has been very little “swamp draining” since the start of the Trump administration, this budget proposal and similar efforts coming from the Department of Education make clear that the intention of Secretary DeVos is to drain as many resources as possible away from our public schools and the students who need them the most.
By Ian Thompson & Jennifer Bellamy
Earlier this week, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos referred to opponents of vouchers as “flat Earthers” who have “chilled creativity” in the education system. While jarring, her comments will not come as a surprise to those who followed her confirmation. It was clear then, and remains so now, that Secretary DeVos is a dogged opponent of public education. She has dedicated years and a considerable fortune into working to attack public schools.
Secretary DeVos is entitled to her opinion, but not her own facts. Study after study has shown that voucher programs do not result in improved academic achievement. In fact, students who participate in the programs actually fare worse than their peers.
Voucher programs drain public schools of desperately needed resources and divert them to private and religious schools. Taxpayer dollars are then, often times, used to fund the religious education of students. In addition, students who attend private and religious schools through vouchers are deprived of critical civil rights protections that would otherwise be afforded to them in the public system, including students with disabilities.
In fact, students with disabilities are often systematically excluded from voucher programs. For example, a report from the U.S. Department of Education (the agency DeVos now heads) on the voucher program in Washington, D.C., found that the main reason why students didn’t use a voucher offered to them was that they were unable to find a participating school with appropriate services for their learning or physical disability or other special needs.
Despite all of this, the Trump administration budget proposal that was unveiled on Tuesday includes a request for a new $250 million dollar voucher program. This request comes at the same time as the administration is proposing jaw-dropping cuts in education funding.
Additionally, the Trump/DeVos budget proposal includes $1 billion in “portable” grant funding under Title I, meaning that the money follows individual children rather than being dedicated to high-poverty districts and schools. This allows states to redirect funds away from low-income schools towards schools with a large percentage of wealthier students.
The law says that separate but equal is never equal and recognizes the need to ensure state compliance with federal civil rights laws and to create equal opportunity for low-income students. There is an essential role for the federal government to play in working to eliminate discriminatory barriers, including the discrimination, segregation, and criminalization of students of color at schools. Adding insult to significant injury, Secretary DeVos either fails to recognize this need or is indifferent to it. Neither option is acceptable.
While there has been very little “swamp draining” since the start of the Trump administration, this budget proposal and similar efforts coming from the Department of Education make clear that the intention of Secretary DeVos is to drain as many resources as possible away from our public schools and the students who need them the most.
Hold Ditsy's feet to the fire...
Warren: It's time to hold DeVos accountable
By Elizabeth Warren
Betsy DeVos recently completed her 100th day as Secretary of Education, and the resistance to her agenda has spread across this country like wildfire.
Last week, Secretary DeVos and President Trump's Department of Education released a budget that would upend the student aid program and make it much harder for students to afford college and repay their student loans. At the same time, the head of the federal student aid office abruptly resigned amid reports of political meddling by DeVos.
With the educational and financial futures of millions of people hanging in the balance, here's a place to start scrutinizing Secretary DeVos.
Early in the Obama administration, Congress gave full ownership of the federal student loan portfolio to the Department of Education, removing middlemen from the program and cutting out the profits that private banks skimmed off the system. This was a brave move that required standing up to some very powerful banks and private businesses that wanted to keep on skimming.
But now, years after the transition, the Department of Education often seems to ignore the original intent of this change and instead administers the trillion-dollar loan program for the financial benefit of nearly everyone except the students it is supposed to serve.
To the irritation of many in my own party, I regularly challenged the Democrat-led Department of Education to clean up its act on student loans. I pushed federal officials to tighten the spigot of federal funds that let fraudulent schools suck down billions in taxpayer dollars. I also fought to persuade the Department to cancel the loans of defrauded students, including thousands in Massachusetts. We made real progress.
When the Department failed to hold giant student loan servicer Navient accountable after the company was fined nearly $100 million by other federal law enforcement agencies for allegedly overcharging thousands of active-duty military personnel, I called them out and helped trigger an independent investigation. Those efforts ultimately helped push the secretary of education to begin refunding money to over 80,000 military borrowers and to commit to a complete overhaul of the federal contracts with student loan servicers. More progress.
These stories show that oversight matters -- and, with DeVos as secretary of education, oversight now matters even more. During her confirmation hearing, Secretary DeVos made it clear that she knew very little about running the federal student aid program. In her first weeks, she assembled a team that highlighted her plans to actively undermine efforts to protect students from being cheated.
Two of Secretary DeVos' first hires at the Department were Robert Eitel and Taylor Hansen, both with deep connections to institutions that make big money by abusing the student aid program and preying on students. Eitel was a top lawyer from a for-profit college that recently paid a more than $30 million fine to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for allegedly "deceiving students into taking out private student loans that cost more than advertised;" that for-profit college is currently under both state and federal investigation for breaking laws meant to protect students. Meanwhile, Hansen had been a top lobbyist for the entire for-profit college industry, which has paid out hundreds of millions in fines for defrauding students.
The revolving door that shuttles people between government jobs and the corporations they police is corrosive -- but it is rarely this brazen. One of Secretary DeVos' first actions on higher education was to delay a critical rule preventing fly-by-night colleges from loading students up with gigantic debts for worthless degrees, a move that directly benefited those same colleges that have paid Eitel and Hansen for years.
It also notably benefits these for-profit colleges that have been fined and have settled before, including Education Management Corp. (EDMC), which paid out $95.5 million after allegations of illegal recruitment and consumer fraud in 2015. At the time of the settlement, EDMC was a member of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, which Hansen represented.
Next, DeVos reversed a policy preventing student loan debt collectors from charging sky-high fees to students desperately trying to catch up on their student loans -- a policy whose loudest opponent was a major student loan debt collector that was headed by Hansen's father.
As news stories exposed these relationships, I wrote to Secretary DeVos, citing Hansen's and Eitel's conflicts and the Department's recent actions, asking for information about their roles. The day my letter arrived, Hansen resigned.
Oversight still works, but we've only just started. Eitel is still at the Department -- now as senior counselor to the secretary. Secretary DeVos' destructive policies on debt collection remain in place. And she recently ripped up critical reform policies that protect student loan borrowers from loan servicing companies like Navient that have demonstrated over and over their lack of concern for students. Notably, industry stocks have risen pretty much every time she has touched federal student loan policy -- including her recent announcement letting servicing companies off the hook from requirements that they affirmatively reach out and try to help struggling borrowers.
Now that DeVos is responsible for appointing the next head of the trillion dollar federal student aid office, we should all be very concerned that she may pick another person who also prioritizes the student loan industry and predatory colleges above students.
That's why today I am announcing a new project to hold Secretary DeVos' Department of Education accountable. DeVos Watch will seek information about the Department's actions and inactions around federal student loans and grants and highlight the findings. People can also participate directly by tracking the Department's actions, submitting oversight suggestions or filing whistleblower tips.
Where there are reasonable answers to the issues raised, the public will benefit from hearing them. Where there are no reasonable answers, the public will see that as well. And where Secretary DeVos and her agency refuse to answer, additional tools are available to get to the truth, including Freedom of Information Act requests, public interest litigation by student advocates and state law enforcement officials and investigations by the Department's nonpartisan Inspector General. Oversight will be a joint effort.
Accountability is about making government work for everyone. Regardless of political party, I'm hopeful that other policymakers will join me in efforts to hold the Department of Education accountable for serving our students -- not the industries that make money off them. We all have an interest in a well-run, fiscally responsible, corruption-free student aid program that puts students first. That is Secretary DeVos' job -- and it is Congress' job to make sure she does it.
By Elizabeth Warren
Betsy DeVos recently completed her 100th day as Secretary of Education, and the resistance to her agenda has spread across this country like wildfire.
Last week, Secretary DeVos and President Trump's Department of Education released a budget that would upend the student aid program and make it much harder for students to afford college and repay their student loans. At the same time, the head of the federal student aid office abruptly resigned amid reports of political meddling by DeVos.
With the educational and financial futures of millions of people hanging in the balance, here's a place to start scrutinizing Secretary DeVos.
Early in the Obama administration, Congress gave full ownership of the federal student loan portfolio to the Department of Education, removing middlemen from the program and cutting out the profits that private banks skimmed off the system. This was a brave move that required standing up to some very powerful banks and private businesses that wanted to keep on skimming.
But now, years after the transition, the Department of Education often seems to ignore the original intent of this change and instead administers the trillion-dollar loan program for the financial benefit of nearly everyone except the students it is supposed to serve.
To the irritation of many in my own party, I regularly challenged the Democrat-led Department of Education to clean up its act on student loans. I pushed federal officials to tighten the spigot of federal funds that let fraudulent schools suck down billions in taxpayer dollars. I also fought to persuade the Department to cancel the loans of defrauded students, including thousands in Massachusetts. We made real progress.
When the Department failed to hold giant student loan servicer Navient accountable after the company was fined nearly $100 million by other federal law enforcement agencies for allegedly overcharging thousands of active-duty military personnel, I called them out and helped trigger an independent investigation. Those efforts ultimately helped push the secretary of education to begin refunding money to over 80,000 military borrowers and to commit to a complete overhaul of the federal contracts with student loan servicers. More progress.
These stories show that oversight matters -- and, with DeVos as secretary of education, oversight now matters even more. During her confirmation hearing, Secretary DeVos made it clear that she knew very little about running the federal student aid program. In her first weeks, she assembled a team that highlighted her plans to actively undermine efforts to protect students from being cheated.
Two of Secretary DeVos' first hires at the Department were Robert Eitel and Taylor Hansen, both with deep connections to institutions that make big money by abusing the student aid program and preying on students. Eitel was a top lawyer from a for-profit college that recently paid a more than $30 million fine to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for allegedly "deceiving students into taking out private student loans that cost more than advertised;" that for-profit college is currently under both state and federal investigation for breaking laws meant to protect students. Meanwhile, Hansen had been a top lobbyist for the entire for-profit college industry, which has paid out hundreds of millions in fines for defrauding students.
The revolving door that shuttles people between government jobs and the corporations they police is corrosive -- but it is rarely this brazen. One of Secretary DeVos' first actions on higher education was to delay a critical rule preventing fly-by-night colleges from loading students up with gigantic debts for worthless degrees, a move that directly benefited those same colleges that have paid Eitel and Hansen for years.
It also notably benefits these for-profit colleges that have been fined and have settled before, including Education Management Corp. (EDMC), which paid out $95.5 million after allegations of illegal recruitment and consumer fraud in 2015. At the time of the settlement, EDMC was a member of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, which Hansen represented.
Next, DeVos reversed a policy preventing student loan debt collectors from charging sky-high fees to students desperately trying to catch up on their student loans -- a policy whose loudest opponent was a major student loan debt collector that was headed by Hansen's father.
As news stories exposed these relationships, I wrote to Secretary DeVos, citing Hansen's and Eitel's conflicts and the Department's recent actions, asking for information about their roles. The day my letter arrived, Hansen resigned.
Oversight still works, but we've only just started. Eitel is still at the Department -- now as senior counselor to the secretary. Secretary DeVos' destructive policies on debt collection remain in place. And she recently ripped up critical reform policies that protect student loan borrowers from loan servicing companies like Navient that have demonstrated over and over their lack of concern for students. Notably, industry stocks have risen pretty much every time she has touched federal student loan policy -- including her recent announcement letting servicing companies off the hook from requirements that they affirmatively reach out and try to help struggling borrowers.
Now that DeVos is responsible for appointing the next head of the trillion dollar federal student aid office, we should all be very concerned that she may pick another person who also prioritizes the student loan industry and predatory colleges above students.
That's why today I am announcing a new project to hold Secretary DeVos' Department of Education accountable. DeVos Watch will seek information about the Department's actions and inactions around federal student loans and grants and highlight the findings. People can also participate directly by tracking the Department's actions, submitting oversight suggestions or filing whistleblower tips.
Where there are reasonable answers to the issues raised, the public will benefit from hearing them. Where there are no reasonable answers, the public will see that as well. And where Secretary DeVos and her agency refuse to answer, additional tools are available to get to the truth, including Freedom of Information Act requests, public interest litigation by student advocates and state law enforcement officials and investigations by the Department's nonpartisan Inspector General. Oversight will be a joint effort.
Accountability is about making government work for everyone. Regardless of political party, I'm hopeful that other policymakers will join me in efforts to hold the Department of Education accountable for serving our students -- not the industries that make money off them. We all have an interest in a well-run, fiscally responsible, corruption-free student aid program that puts students first. That is Secretary DeVos' job -- and it is Congress' job to make sure she does it.
Nightmare
Awakening from the Trump Nightmare
In post-modern democracies, there is one and only one boss: public opinion. And the signs of public disgust are mounting.
BY BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY
The American people can escape from the ordeal of Donald Trump’s presidency in one of three ways. But if and when they do is an irreducibly political question, not one that hinges on legal possibilities.
First, there’s the Nixonian method, in which the president, worn down by the fight, simply resigns, scared and unwilling to submit to the proceedings that he sees mounting around him. But could that really be the exit taken by Trump? Does he share with his distant Republican predecessor a strong enough predisposition to melancholy? Can one picture a childish man, compulsive and narcissistic, surrendering without a fight the larger-than-life toy that is the top job in the most powerful country on the planet? I doubt it.
Second, there is Article 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1967, which spells out a process by which the vice president and Cabinet can act to replace a president who has died or is prevented by reasons of health from governing. Such might have been the case, four years earlier, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, had Kennedy not died from his wounds. The possibility briefly resurfaced when President Ronald Reagan began to show the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease.
But the current situation does not resemble those cases. Trump may be unstable and unfit to govern, as his detractors claim. But is he any more so now than he was when the American people elected him? Probably not.
Finally, there remains the remedy of impeachment, which is being discussed more and more openly in Washington these days, accompanied (in a sign of the times) by a book, The Case for Impeachment, by Allan J. Lichtman. (A political historian, Lichtman is famous for having devised a model that has enabled him to predict the election of every American president from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump.)
Impeachment, set out in Article 2 of the Constitution, is a procedure for the removal from office of a president, vice president or other top executive official (or judge) suspected of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is a complex process that unfolds in two phases: first, the House of Representatives must decide, by a simple majority, that the charges are serious enough to be tried; second, a full-fledged trial is conducted in the Senate, which must reach a two-thirds majority to convict the official and trigger immediate removal from office.
There are two main reasons to doubt that impeachment would rid the world of Trump. First, there is the balance of power in the Senate. At least 19 Republican senators would have to join the Democrats to convict Trump. At the moment, at most five can be counted on to do so. The only two presidential precedents (Andrew Johnson, impeached in 1868 for abuse of power, and Bill Clinton, impeached in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice) are hardly encouraging: both ended in acquittal by the Senate.
Second, there is the reluctance of Democratic Party bosses to see ultraconservative Vice President Mike Pence assume the place vacated by a fallen Trump. Wouldn’t he enjoy the same state of grace enjoyed by recent vice presidents who entered the Oval Office under exceptional circumstances (Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy; Gerald Ford after Nixon)? And what if he remained in office, not only for the remainder of Trump’s term, but for two four-year terms of his own?
All of this is logical enough. But times have changed since Johnson, Ford and even Clinton.
In post-modern democracies, there is one and only one boss: public opinion. And public opinion operates according to its own logic. How long will the American public tolerate the almost-daily doses of new evidence of conflicts of interest, starting with the licensing to Chinese investors, at the height of the presidential primary, of the Trump brand for use on spas, luxury hotels and other real-estate projects?
What about Trump’s financial ties with Russia, and those of his associates, including his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort? What leverage can be wielded by the Russian oligarchs who, in 2004, when Trump was mired in one of his bankruptcies, stepped in for the American banks that had blacklisted him to recapitalize his companies and bought — sight unseen and at premium prices — luxury apartments in Trump Tower? Won’t all of this eventually take its toll?
And, finally, there is the gross obstruction of justice represented by the firing of FBI Director James Comey, whose main offense seems to have been his refusal to exclude Trump from his investigation of the Kremlin’s criminal interference in the 2016 campaign. What will voters make of the damning revelations that are sure to come to light, now that Comey’s predecessor, Robert Mueller, has been appointed as special counsel to investigate the ties between Russia and Trump’s election campaign?
The signs of public disgust are mounting. A petition drive to impeach Trump, organized by Massachusetts lawyer John Bonifaz, has gathered more than a million signatures. Polls indicate that a majority of the electorate would favor Trump’s resignation if it were proved that his campaign colluded with Russia to sway the election. And growing numbers of voters are now saying as much to their representatives, who, sooner or later, will have to start listening if they want to avoid imperiling their own electoral chances.
For Trump, the real danger will come as the crowd he captivated and captured during the campaign begins to turn on him. That crowd, as astute political observers from Plato to de Tocqueville amply demonstrated, becomes harder to evade the more you make it master.
The worst case is never inevitable. May the mob of the populist tide become once again the great American people, a people of citizens. When that happens, Trump will be history.
In post-modern democracies, there is one and only one boss: public opinion. And the signs of public disgust are mounting.
BY BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY
The American people can escape from the ordeal of Donald Trump’s presidency in one of three ways. But if and when they do is an irreducibly political question, not one that hinges on legal possibilities.
First, there’s the Nixonian method, in which the president, worn down by the fight, simply resigns, scared and unwilling to submit to the proceedings that he sees mounting around him. But could that really be the exit taken by Trump? Does he share with his distant Republican predecessor a strong enough predisposition to melancholy? Can one picture a childish man, compulsive and narcissistic, surrendering without a fight the larger-than-life toy that is the top job in the most powerful country on the planet? I doubt it.
Second, there is Article 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1967, which spells out a process by which the vice president and Cabinet can act to replace a president who has died or is prevented by reasons of health from governing. Such might have been the case, four years earlier, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, had Kennedy not died from his wounds. The possibility briefly resurfaced when President Ronald Reagan began to show the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease.
But the current situation does not resemble those cases. Trump may be unstable and unfit to govern, as his detractors claim. But is he any more so now than he was when the American people elected him? Probably not.
Finally, there remains the remedy of impeachment, which is being discussed more and more openly in Washington these days, accompanied (in a sign of the times) by a book, The Case for Impeachment, by Allan J. Lichtman. (A political historian, Lichtman is famous for having devised a model that has enabled him to predict the election of every American president from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump.)
Impeachment, set out in Article 2 of the Constitution, is a procedure for the removal from office of a president, vice president or other top executive official (or judge) suspected of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is a complex process that unfolds in two phases: first, the House of Representatives must decide, by a simple majority, that the charges are serious enough to be tried; second, a full-fledged trial is conducted in the Senate, which must reach a two-thirds majority to convict the official and trigger immediate removal from office.
There are two main reasons to doubt that impeachment would rid the world of Trump. First, there is the balance of power in the Senate. At least 19 Republican senators would have to join the Democrats to convict Trump. At the moment, at most five can be counted on to do so. The only two presidential precedents (Andrew Johnson, impeached in 1868 for abuse of power, and Bill Clinton, impeached in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice) are hardly encouraging: both ended in acquittal by the Senate.
Second, there is the reluctance of Democratic Party bosses to see ultraconservative Vice President Mike Pence assume the place vacated by a fallen Trump. Wouldn’t he enjoy the same state of grace enjoyed by recent vice presidents who entered the Oval Office under exceptional circumstances (Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy; Gerald Ford after Nixon)? And what if he remained in office, not only for the remainder of Trump’s term, but for two four-year terms of his own?
All of this is logical enough. But times have changed since Johnson, Ford and even Clinton.
In post-modern democracies, there is one and only one boss: public opinion. And public opinion operates according to its own logic. How long will the American public tolerate the almost-daily doses of new evidence of conflicts of interest, starting with the licensing to Chinese investors, at the height of the presidential primary, of the Trump brand for use on spas, luxury hotels and other real-estate projects?
What about Trump’s financial ties with Russia, and those of his associates, including his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort? What leverage can be wielded by the Russian oligarchs who, in 2004, when Trump was mired in one of his bankruptcies, stepped in for the American banks that had blacklisted him to recapitalize his companies and bought — sight unseen and at premium prices — luxury apartments in Trump Tower? Won’t all of this eventually take its toll?
And, finally, there is the gross obstruction of justice represented by the firing of FBI Director James Comey, whose main offense seems to have been his refusal to exclude Trump from his investigation of the Kremlin’s criminal interference in the 2016 campaign. What will voters make of the damning revelations that are sure to come to light, now that Comey’s predecessor, Robert Mueller, has been appointed as special counsel to investigate the ties between Russia and Trump’s election campaign?
The signs of public disgust are mounting. A petition drive to impeach Trump, organized by Massachusetts lawyer John Bonifaz, has gathered more than a million signatures. Polls indicate that a majority of the electorate would favor Trump’s resignation if it were proved that his campaign colluded with Russia to sway the election. And growing numbers of voters are now saying as much to their representatives, who, sooner or later, will have to start listening if they want to avoid imperiling their own electoral chances.
For Trump, the real danger will come as the crowd he captivated and captured during the campaign begins to turn on him. That crowd, as astute political observers from Plato to de Tocqueville amply demonstrated, becomes harder to evade the more you make it master.
The worst case is never inevitable. May the mob of the populist tide become once again the great American people, a people of citizens. When that happens, Trump will be history.
Little Big Man
America’s Little Big Man
Trump is teaching us how deeply disturbed our American world actually is.
BY TOM ENGELHARDT
He’s huge. Outsized. He fills the news hole at any moment of any day. His over-tanned face glows unceasingly in living rooms across America. Never has a president been quite so big. So absolutely monstrous. Or quite so small.
He’s our Little Big Man.
I know, I know… he induces panic, fear, anxiety, insomnia. Shrinks in liberal America will tell you that, since November 2016, their patients are more heavily medicated and in worse shape. He’s a nightmare, a unique monster. It’s been almost two years since he first entered the presidential race and in all that time I doubt there’s been a moment when the cameras haven’t been trained on him, when he wasn’t “breaking news.” (By May 2016, he had already reportedly received the equivalent in “earned media” of nearly $3 billion in free advertising.) He and his endless controversial statements, flubs, tweets, lies, insults, boasts, tales from outer space and over-the-moon adjectives are covered daily the way, once upon a time, only Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination was.
Think of him as the end of the world as we, or maybe anyone, including Vladimir Putin, knew it. To me, that means one thing, even though most of you won’t agree: I think we owe Donald Trump a small bow of thanks and a genuine debt of gratitude. He’s teaching us something invaluable, something we probably wouldn’t have grasped without him. He’s teaching us just how deeply disturbed our American world actually is, or he wouldn’t be where he is.
A Quagmire Country
Think of him as a messenger from the gods, the deities of empire gone astray. They sent us a man without a center, undoubtedly because 17 years into the 21st century our country lacks a center, and a man without a fixed opinion or a single conviction, except about himself and his family, because this country is now a swirling mess of contradictory beliefs and groups at each other’s throats. They sent us our first billionaire president who left countless people holding the bag in his various, often failed, business dealings. He brings to mind that classic phrase “those that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind” just as we’re now reaping the results of the 1 percent politics that gained such traction in recent years; and of a kind of war-making, American style, that initially seemed aimed at global supremacy, but now seems to have no conceivable goal. We’re evidently destined to go on killing ever more people, producing ever more refugees, cracking open ever more nations, and spreading ever more terror movements until the end of time. They sent a man ready to build a vanity wall on the Mexican border and pour more money into the US military at a time when it’s becoming harder for Americans to imagine investing in anything but an ever-more powerful national security state, even as the country’s infrastructure begins to crumble. They sent a billionaire who once deep-sixed a startling number of his businesses to save a country that couldn’t be more powerful and yet has proven incapable of building a single mile of high-speed rail.
Into this quagmire, the gods dispatched the man who loves MOAB, who drools over “my generals,” who wants to build a “big, fat, beautiful wall” on our southern border, but was beyond clueless about where power actually lay in Washington.
He’s a man with a history but without a sense of history, a man for whom anything is imaginable and everything is mutable, including the past. In this, too, he’s symptomatic of the nation he now “leads.” Who among us even remembers the set of Washington officials who, only a decade and a half ago, had such glorious dreams about establishing a global Pax Americana and who led us so unerringly into an unending hell in the Greater Middle East? Who remembers that those officials of the George W. Bush administration had another dream as well — of a Pax Republicana, a one-party imperial state that would stretch across the American South deep into the Midwest, Southwest and parts of the West, kneecapping the Democratic Party for an eternity and leaving that artifact of a two-party past confined to the country’s coastal areas. Their dream — and it couldn’t have been more immodest — was to rule the world and its great remaining superpower for… well… more or less ever.
They were to dominate America and America was to dominate everything else in a way no country in history — not the Romans, not the British — had ever done. As they saw it, in the wake of the implosion of the Soviet Union, there would be no other superpower, nor even a bloc of great powers, capable of obstructing America’s destined future. They and their successors would see to that.
The United States would be the land of wealth and power in a previously unimaginable fashion. It would be the land that made everything that went bang in the night — and in that (and perhaps that alone) their dreams would be fulfilled. To this day, Hollywood and its action films dominate planetary screens, while American arms merchants have a near monopoly on selling the world their dangerous toys. As our new president recently put it, their energies and those of the US government should remain focused on getting countries across the globe to engage in “the purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment.” Indeed.
As for the rest of their dream of geopolitical dominance, it began to come a cropper remarkably quickly. As it turned out, the military that American presidents regularly hailedin these years as the “greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known” or “the finest fighting force in the history of the world” couldn’t even win wars against lightly armed insurgents or deal with enemies employing roadside bombs that could be built off the internet for the price of a pizza. The US military (and its allied warrior corporations) turned out not to be a force for eternal order and triumph but, at least across the Greater Middle East and Africa, for eternal chaos and the spread of terror movements. They were the whirlwind, which meant that neither that “pax” nor that “Americana” would come to pass.
While Rome Burned…
Meanwhile, back at home, a gerrymandered, near-one-party state did indeed come into existence as the Republicans swept most governorships, gained control of a significant majority of state legislatures, nailed down the House and the Senate and finally, when Little Big Man entered the Oval Office, took it all. It was a feat for the history books — or so it briefly seemed. Instead, the result has been chaos, thanks in part to a Republican Party that is actually three or four parties and a president barely associated with it, as a war of all against all broke out. None of this should have been surprising, given a congressional party that had honed its skills not on ruling but on blocking rule. In the last months, it has largely proved incapable even of ruling itself, no less the wild man and his unpredictable team of advisers in the White House.
From his “big, fat, beautiful wall” to his “big league,” “phenomenal” tax plan to his “insurance for everybody” health care program, the president promises to be the living proof that the long dreamed of Pax Republicana is just another form of war without end on the domestic front.
His victory was, in a sense, a revelation that both political parties had been hollowed out, as every Republican presidential candidate except him was swept unceremoniously off stage and out of contention in a hail of insults. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, by now a remarkably mindless (and spineless) political machine without much to underpin it, came to seem ever more like the domestic equivalent of those failed states the war on terror was creating in the Greater Middle East. In short, American politics was visibly faltering and, in the whirlwind that deposited Little Big Man in office, a far wider range of Americans seemed in danger of going down, too, including Medicaid users, Obamacare enrollees, meals-on-wheels seniors and food stamp recipients in what could become a slow-motion collapse of livable lives amid a proliferation of billionaires. Think of us as a nation in the process of consuming itself, even as our president turns the White House into a private business. If this is imperial “decline,” it’s certainly a curious version of it.
It was into the growing hell that passed for the planet’s “sole superpower” that those gods dispatched Little Big Man — not a shape-shifting creature but a man without shape and lacking all fixed ideas (except about himself). He was perfectly capable of saying anything in any situation, and then, in altered circumstances, of saying the opposite without blinking or evidently even noticing. His recent trip to Saudi Arabia was a classic case of just that. Gone were the election campaign denunciations of the Saudis for their human rights record and for possibly being behind the 9/11 attacks, as well as of Islam as a religion that “hates us”; gone was his criticism of Michelle Obama for not wearing a headscarf on her visit to Riyadh (Melania and Ivanka did the same), and of Barack Obama for bowing to a Saudi king (he did, too). Out the window went his previous insistence that any self-respecting American politician must use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” which he carefully avoided. And none of this was different from, say, swearing on the campaign trail that he would never touch Medicaid and then, in his first budget, offering plans to slash $880 billion from that program over the next decade.
Admittedly, Donald Trump — and yes, that’s the first time I’ve used his name, but there was no need, was there? — has yet to appoint his horse (or perhaps his golf cart) as a senator or, as far as we know, commit acts of incest in the tradition of Caligula, the first mad Roman emperor. Yet in many ways, doesn’t he feel something like an updated version of that figure or perhaps of Nero who so famously fiddled — actually, according to historian Mary Beard in her book SPQR, played the lyre — while Rome burned?
Fortunately, unlike every psychiatrist in town, I’m not bound by the “Goldwater Rule,” which prohibits a diagnosis of a public figure you haven’t personally examined. While I have no expertise in whether Donald Trump has a “narcissistic personality disorder,” I see no reason not to say the obvious: He’s a distinctly disturbed individual. That he was nonetheless elected president tells us a good deal about where we are as a country today. As Tony Schwartz, who actually wrote his bestselling book The Art of the Deal, put it recently, “Trump was equally clear with me that he didn’t value — nor even necessarily recognize — the qualities that tend to emerge as people grow more secure, such as empathy, generosity, reflectiveness, the capacity to delay gratification or above all, a conscience, an inner sense of right and wrong.”
Now, that should be frightening. After all, given who he is, given his fear of “losing,” of rejection, of not being loved (or more accurately, adulated), of in short being obliterated, who knows what such a man might do in a crisis, including obliterating the rest of us. After all, he already lives in a world without fixed boundaries, definitions or history, which is why nothing he says has real meaning. And yet he couldn’t be more meaningful. He’s a message, a warning of the first order, and if that were all he were, he would just be an inadvertent teacher about the nature of our American world and we could indeed thank him and do our best to move on.
Unfortunately, there’s another factor to take into account. Humanity had, in the years before his arrival, come up with two quite different and devastating ways of doing ourselves in, one an instant Armageddon, the other a slow-motion trip to hell. Each of them threatens to cripple or destroy the very planet that has nurtured us these tens of thousands of years. It was not, of course, Donald Trump who put us in this peril. He’s just a particularly grim reminder of how dangerous our world has truly become.
After all, Little Big Man now has unparalleled access to the most “beautiful” weapons of all and he’s eager to update and expand an already vast US arsenal of them. I’m talking, of course, about nuclear weapons. Any president we elect has, since the 1950s, had the power to take out the planet. Only once have we come truly close. Nonetheless, for the control over such weaponry to be in the hands of a deeply unpredictable and visibly disturbed president is obviously a danger to us all.
It could be assumed that the gods who sent him into the Oval Office at such a moment have a perverse sense of humor. Certainly, on the second of those deadly dangers, climate change, he’s already taken action based on another of his fantasies: that making America great again means taking it back to the fossil-fueled 1950s. His ignorance about, and actions to increase the effects of, climate change have already taken the US, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet, out of the climate change sweepstakes and into uncharted territory. These acts and the desire to promote fossil fuels in every way imaginable will someday undoubtedly be seen as crimes against humanity. But by then they will already have done their dirty deed.
If luck doesn’t hold, Donald Trump may end up making Caligula and Nero look like statesmen. If luck doesn’t hold he may be the Littlest Big Man of all.
Trump is teaching us how deeply disturbed our American world actually is.
BY TOM ENGELHARDT
He’s huge. Outsized. He fills the news hole at any moment of any day. His over-tanned face glows unceasingly in living rooms across America. Never has a president been quite so big. So absolutely monstrous. Or quite so small.
He’s our Little Big Man.
I know, I know… he induces panic, fear, anxiety, insomnia. Shrinks in liberal America will tell you that, since November 2016, their patients are more heavily medicated and in worse shape. He’s a nightmare, a unique monster. It’s been almost two years since he first entered the presidential race and in all that time I doubt there’s been a moment when the cameras haven’t been trained on him, when he wasn’t “breaking news.” (By May 2016, he had already reportedly received the equivalent in “earned media” of nearly $3 billion in free advertising.) He and his endless controversial statements, flubs, tweets, lies, insults, boasts, tales from outer space and over-the-moon adjectives are covered daily the way, once upon a time, only Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination was.
Think of him as the end of the world as we, or maybe anyone, including Vladimir Putin, knew it. To me, that means one thing, even though most of you won’t agree: I think we owe Donald Trump a small bow of thanks and a genuine debt of gratitude. He’s teaching us something invaluable, something we probably wouldn’t have grasped without him. He’s teaching us just how deeply disturbed our American world actually is, or he wouldn’t be where he is.
A Quagmire Country
Think of him as a messenger from the gods, the deities of empire gone astray. They sent us a man without a center, undoubtedly because 17 years into the 21st century our country lacks a center, and a man without a fixed opinion or a single conviction, except about himself and his family, because this country is now a swirling mess of contradictory beliefs and groups at each other’s throats. They sent us our first billionaire president who left countless people holding the bag in his various, often failed, business dealings. He brings to mind that classic phrase “those that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind” just as we’re now reaping the results of the 1 percent politics that gained such traction in recent years; and of a kind of war-making, American style, that initially seemed aimed at global supremacy, but now seems to have no conceivable goal. We’re evidently destined to go on killing ever more people, producing ever more refugees, cracking open ever more nations, and spreading ever more terror movements until the end of time. They sent a man ready to build a vanity wall on the Mexican border and pour more money into the US military at a time when it’s becoming harder for Americans to imagine investing in anything but an ever-more powerful national security state, even as the country’s infrastructure begins to crumble. They sent a billionaire who once deep-sixed a startling number of his businesses to save a country that couldn’t be more powerful and yet has proven incapable of building a single mile of high-speed rail.
Into this quagmire, the gods dispatched the man who loves MOAB, who drools over “my generals,” who wants to build a “big, fat, beautiful wall” on our southern border, but was beyond clueless about where power actually lay in Washington.
He’s a man with a history but without a sense of history, a man for whom anything is imaginable and everything is mutable, including the past. In this, too, he’s symptomatic of the nation he now “leads.” Who among us even remembers the set of Washington officials who, only a decade and a half ago, had such glorious dreams about establishing a global Pax Americana and who led us so unerringly into an unending hell in the Greater Middle East? Who remembers that those officials of the George W. Bush administration had another dream as well — of a Pax Republicana, a one-party imperial state that would stretch across the American South deep into the Midwest, Southwest and parts of the West, kneecapping the Democratic Party for an eternity and leaving that artifact of a two-party past confined to the country’s coastal areas. Their dream — and it couldn’t have been more immodest — was to rule the world and its great remaining superpower for… well… more or less ever.
They were to dominate America and America was to dominate everything else in a way no country in history — not the Romans, not the British — had ever done. As they saw it, in the wake of the implosion of the Soviet Union, there would be no other superpower, nor even a bloc of great powers, capable of obstructing America’s destined future. They and their successors would see to that.
The United States would be the land of wealth and power in a previously unimaginable fashion. It would be the land that made everything that went bang in the night — and in that (and perhaps that alone) their dreams would be fulfilled. To this day, Hollywood and its action films dominate planetary screens, while American arms merchants have a near monopoly on selling the world their dangerous toys. As our new president recently put it, their energies and those of the US government should remain focused on getting countries across the globe to engage in “the purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment.” Indeed.
As for the rest of their dream of geopolitical dominance, it began to come a cropper remarkably quickly. As it turned out, the military that American presidents regularly hailedin these years as the “greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known” or “the finest fighting force in the history of the world” couldn’t even win wars against lightly armed insurgents or deal with enemies employing roadside bombs that could be built off the internet for the price of a pizza. The US military (and its allied warrior corporations) turned out not to be a force for eternal order and triumph but, at least across the Greater Middle East and Africa, for eternal chaos and the spread of terror movements. They were the whirlwind, which meant that neither that “pax” nor that “Americana” would come to pass.
While Rome Burned…
Meanwhile, back at home, a gerrymandered, near-one-party state did indeed come into existence as the Republicans swept most governorships, gained control of a significant majority of state legislatures, nailed down the House and the Senate and finally, when Little Big Man entered the Oval Office, took it all. It was a feat for the history books — or so it briefly seemed. Instead, the result has been chaos, thanks in part to a Republican Party that is actually three or four parties and a president barely associated with it, as a war of all against all broke out. None of this should have been surprising, given a congressional party that had honed its skills not on ruling but on blocking rule. In the last months, it has largely proved incapable even of ruling itself, no less the wild man and his unpredictable team of advisers in the White House.
From his “big, fat, beautiful wall” to his “big league,” “phenomenal” tax plan to his “insurance for everybody” health care program, the president promises to be the living proof that the long dreamed of Pax Republicana is just another form of war without end on the domestic front.
His victory was, in a sense, a revelation that both political parties had been hollowed out, as every Republican presidential candidate except him was swept unceremoniously off stage and out of contention in a hail of insults. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, by now a remarkably mindless (and spineless) political machine without much to underpin it, came to seem ever more like the domestic equivalent of those failed states the war on terror was creating in the Greater Middle East. In short, American politics was visibly faltering and, in the whirlwind that deposited Little Big Man in office, a far wider range of Americans seemed in danger of going down, too, including Medicaid users, Obamacare enrollees, meals-on-wheels seniors and food stamp recipients in what could become a slow-motion collapse of livable lives amid a proliferation of billionaires. Think of us as a nation in the process of consuming itself, even as our president turns the White House into a private business. If this is imperial “decline,” it’s certainly a curious version of it.
It was into the growing hell that passed for the planet’s “sole superpower” that those gods dispatched Little Big Man — not a shape-shifting creature but a man without shape and lacking all fixed ideas (except about himself). He was perfectly capable of saying anything in any situation, and then, in altered circumstances, of saying the opposite without blinking or evidently even noticing. His recent trip to Saudi Arabia was a classic case of just that. Gone were the election campaign denunciations of the Saudis for their human rights record and for possibly being behind the 9/11 attacks, as well as of Islam as a religion that “hates us”; gone was his criticism of Michelle Obama for not wearing a headscarf on her visit to Riyadh (Melania and Ivanka did the same), and of Barack Obama for bowing to a Saudi king (he did, too). Out the window went his previous insistence that any self-respecting American politician must use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” which he carefully avoided. And none of this was different from, say, swearing on the campaign trail that he would never touch Medicaid and then, in his first budget, offering plans to slash $880 billion from that program over the next decade.
Admittedly, Donald Trump — and yes, that’s the first time I’ve used his name, but there was no need, was there? — has yet to appoint his horse (or perhaps his golf cart) as a senator or, as far as we know, commit acts of incest in the tradition of Caligula, the first mad Roman emperor. Yet in many ways, doesn’t he feel something like an updated version of that figure or perhaps of Nero who so famously fiddled — actually, according to historian Mary Beard in her book SPQR, played the lyre — while Rome burned?
Fortunately, unlike every psychiatrist in town, I’m not bound by the “Goldwater Rule,” which prohibits a diagnosis of a public figure you haven’t personally examined. While I have no expertise in whether Donald Trump has a “narcissistic personality disorder,” I see no reason not to say the obvious: He’s a distinctly disturbed individual. That he was nonetheless elected president tells us a good deal about where we are as a country today. As Tony Schwartz, who actually wrote his bestselling book The Art of the Deal, put it recently, “Trump was equally clear with me that he didn’t value — nor even necessarily recognize — the qualities that tend to emerge as people grow more secure, such as empathy, generosity, reflectiveness, the capacity to delay gratification or above all, a conscience, an inner sense of right and wrong.”
Now, that should be frightening. After all, given who he is, given his fear of “losing,” of rejection, of not being loved (or more accurately, adulated), of in short being obliterated, who knows what such a man might do in a crisis, including obliterating the rest of us. After all, he already lives in a world without fixed boundaries, definitions or history, which is why nothing he says has real meaning. And yet he couldn’t be more meaningful. He’s a message, a warning of the first order, and if that were all he were, he would just be an inadvertent teacher about the nature of our American world and we could indeed thank him and do our best to move on.
Unfortunately, there’s another factor to take into account. Humanity had, in the years before his arrival, come up with two quite different and devastating ways of doing ourselves in, one an instant Armageddon, the other a slow-motion trip to hell. Each of them threatens to cripple or destroy the very planet that has nurtured us these tens of thousands of years. It was not, of course, Donald Trump who put us in this peril. He’s just a particularly grim reminder of how dangerous our world has truly become.
After all, Little Big Man now has unparalleled access to the most “beautiful” weapons of all and he’s eager to update and expand an already vast US arsenal of them. I’m talking, of course, about nuclear weapons. Any president we elect has, since the 1950s, had the power to take out the planet. Only once have we come truly close. Nonetheless, for the control over such weaponry to be in the hands of a deeply unpredictable and visibly disturbed president is obviously a danger to us all.
It could be assumed that the gods who sent him into the Oval Office at such a moment have a perverse sense of humor. Certainly, on the second of those deadly dangers, climate change, he’s already taken action based on another of his fantasies: that making America great again means taking it back to the fossil-fueled 1950s. His ignorance about, and actions to increase the effects of, climate change have already taken the US, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet, out of the climate change sweepstakes and into uncharted territory. These acts and the desire to promote fossil fuels in every way imaginable will someday undoubtedly be seen as crimes against humanity. But by then they will already have done their dirty deed.
If luck doesn’t hold, Donald Trump may end up making Caligula and Nero look like statesmen. If luck doesn’t hold he may be the Littlest Big Man of all.
Tipped Over
Cassini Finds Saturn Moon May Have Tipped Over
Saturn's icy, ocean-bearing moon Enceladus may have tipped over in the distant past, according to recent research from NASA's Cassini mission. Researchers with the mission found evidence that the moon's spin axis -- the line through the north and south poles -- has reoriented, possibly due to a collision with a smaller body, such as an asteroid.
Examining the moon's features, the team showed that Enceladus appears to have tipped away from its original axis by about 55 degrees -- more than halfway toward rolling completely onto its side. "We found a chain of low areas, or basins, that trace a belt across the moon's surface that we believe are the fossil remnants of an earlier, previous equator and poles," said Radwan Tajeddine, a Cassini imaging team associate at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, and lead author of the paper.
The area around the icy moon's current south pole is a geologically active region where long, linear fractures referred to as tiger stripes slice across the surface. Tajeddine and colleagues speculate that an asteroid may have struck the region in the past when it was closer to the equator. "The geological activity in this terrain is unlikely to have been initiated by internal processes," he said. "We think that, in order to drive such a large reorientation of the moon, it's possible that an impact was behind the formation of this anomalous terrain."
In 2005, Cassini discovered that jets of water vapor and icy particles spray from the tiger stripe fractures -- evidence that an underground ocean is venting directly into space from beneath the active south polar terrain.
Whether it was caused by an impact or some other process, Tajeddine and colleagues think the disruption and creation of the tiger-stripe terrain caused some of Enceladus' mass to be redistributed, making the moon's rotation unsteady and wobbly. The rotation would have eventually stabilized, likely taking more than a million years. By the time the rotation settled down, the north-south axis would have reoriented to pass through different points on the surface -- a mechanism researchers call "true polar wander."
The polar wander idea helps to explain why Enceladus' modern-day north and south poles appear quite different. The south is active and geologically young, while the north is covered in craters and appears much older. The moon's original poles would have looked more alike before the event that caused Enceladus to tip over and relocate the disrupted tiger-stripe terrain to the moon's south polar region.
The results were published in the online edition of the journal Icarus on April 30, 2017.
Saturn's icy, ocean-bearing moon Enceladus may have tipped over in the distant past, according to recent research from NASA's Cassini mission. Researchers with the mission found evidence that the moon's spin axis -- the line through the north and south poles -- has reoriented, possibly due to a collision with a smaller body, such as an asteroid.Examining the moon's features, the team showed that Enceladus appears to have tipped away from its original axis by about 55 degrees -- more than halfway toward rolling completely onto its side. "We found a chain of low areas, or basins, that trace a belt across the moon's surface that we believe are the fossil remnants of an earlier, previous equator and poles," said Radwan Tajeddine, a Cassini imaging team associate at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, and lead author of the paper.
The area around the icy moon's current south pole is a geologically active region where long, linear fractures referred to as tiger stripes slice across the surface. Tajeddine and colleagues speculate that an asteroid may have struck the region in the past when it was closer to the equator. "The geological activity in this terrain is unlikely to have been initiated by internal processes," he said. "We think that, in order to drive such a large reorientation of the moon, it's possible that an impact was behind the formation of this anomalous terrain."
In 2005, Cassini discovered that jets of water vapor and icy particles spray from the tiger stripe fractures -- evidence that an underground ocean is venting directly into space from beneath the active south polar terrain.
Whether it was caused by an impact or some other process, Tajeddine and colleagues think the disruption and creation of the tiger-stripe terrain caused some of Enceladus' mass to be redistributed, making the moon's rotation unsteady and wobbly. The rotation would have eventually stabilized, likely taking more than a million years. By the time the rotation settled down, the north-south axis would have reoriented to pass through different points on the surface -- a mechanism researchers call "true polar wander."The polar wander idea helps to explain why Enceladus' modern-day north and south poles appear quite different. The south is active and geologically young, while the north is covered in craters and appears much older. The moon's original poles would have looked more alike before the event that caused Enceladus to tip over and relocate the disrupted tiger-stripe terrain to the moon's south polar region.
The results were published in the online edition of the journal Icarus on April 30, 2017.
The world at stake.
The Question Sean Spicer Hasn't Asked the President
It's only the world at stake.
By REBECCA LEBER
You'd think President Donald Trump's opinion of climate change might inform the decision he promised to make on the Paris climate accord this week, following meetings with G7 leaders who pressured him to keep the US engaged. But it seems his team doesn't know what his position actually is.
At a White House briefing on Tuesday, here is Press Secretary Sean Spicer's response to a reporter's question about whether Trump believes human activity is contributing to global warming: "Honestly, I haven't asked him. I can get back to you."
The reporter then asked if he feels as if Trump is still trying to make up his mind. "I don't know," Spicer responded.
Though Spicer didn't hint at what his boss will ultimately decide, he mentioned that Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Chief Scott Pruitt met on Tuesday. That might be a bad sign, as Pruitt has been leading the Trump administration's "leave" contingent.
It's not just Spicer who's sent mixed signals about whether Trump still thinks global warming is a "total, and very expensive, hoax," as he's tweeted.
During a press briefing in late March, when Trump was rolling out his anti-climate executive orders, a reporter asked a senior White House official whether the president accepted that humans contribute to climate change. "Sure. Yes, I think the president understands the disagreement over the policy response," he replied. But pressed further, he couldn't fully explain Trump's position, his advisers, or his own, for that matter. "I guess the key question is to what extent, over what period of time," he said. "Those are the big questions that I think still we need to answer."
His advisers have recently suggested that Trump's views on the Paris deal and climate change were, in the words of economic adviser Gary Cohn, "evolving," though they've offered little evidence of what those views now are. "I think he is learning to understand the European position," Cohn said during the G7 meetings last week. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who acknowledges climate change as a threat, claimed Trump was "curious about why others were in the position they were" on the Paris deal, and that he was "wide open" on the issue.
Regardless what Trump thinks of the Paris agreement, he's been clear that his policy choices won't reflect the best available science. Our timeline of Trump's comments on global warming should give you a better idea of the ebbs and flows of his position since 2009.
It's only the world at stake.
By REBECCA LEBER
You'd think President Donald Trump's opinion of climate change might inform the decision he promised to make on the Paris climate accord this week, following meetings with G7 leaders who pressured him to keep the US engaged. But it seems his team doesn't know what his position actually is.
At a White House briefing on Tuesday, here is Press Secretary Sean Spicer's response to a reporter's question about whether Trump believes human activity is contributing to global warming: "Honestly, I haven't asked him. I can get back to you."
The reporter then asked if he feels as if Trump is still trying to make up his mind. "I don't know," Spicer responded.
Though Spicer didn't hint at what his boss will ultimately decide, he mentioned that Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Chief Scott Pruitt met on Tuesday. That might be a bad sign, as Pruitt has been leading the Trump administration's "leave" contingent.
It's not just Spicer who's sent mixed signals about whether Trump still thinks global warming is a "total, and very expensive, hoax," as he's tweeted.
During a press briefing in late March, when Trump was rolling out his anti-climate executive orders, a reporter asked a senior White House official whether the president accepted that humans contribute to climate change. "Sure. Yes, I think the president understands the disagreement over the policy response," he replied. But pressed further, he couldn't fully explain Trump's position, his advisers, or his own, for that matter. "I guess the key question is to what extent, over what period of time," he said. "Those are the big questions that I think still we need to answer."
His advisers have recently suggested that Trump's views on the Paris deal and climate change were, in the words of economic adviser Gary Cohn, "evolving," though they've offered little evidence of what those views now are. "I think he is learning to understand the European position," Cohn said during the G7 meetings last week. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who acknowledges climate change as a threat, claimed Trump was "curious about why others were in the position they were" on the Paris deal, and that he was "wide open" on the issue.
Regardless what Trump thinks of the Paris agreement, he's been clear that his policy choices won't reflect the best available science. Our timeline of Trump's comments on global warming should give you a better idea of the ebbs and flows of his position since 2009.
Not Safe
A Federal Judge Slams Trump: "Even the 'Good Hombres' Are Not Safe"
A fiery opinion denounces a deportation for "ripping apart a family."
By PEMA LEVY
Today, a federal appeals court judge in California rebuked the Trump administration for its zealous deportation policy and for "ripping apart a family." Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that he had no power to stop the removal of Andres Magana Ortiz, but nevertheless took the time to write a short opinion blasting his deportation as "inhumane."
"We are unable to prevent Magana Ortiz's removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system," Reinhardt wrote in a six-page concurring opinion. "Indeed, the government's decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice…I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not."
As Reinhardt detailed in his opinion, Magana Ortiz came to the United States from Mexico 28 years ago, built a family and a career, and paid his taxes. His wife and three children are American citizens. His only legal transgressions were two DUIs, the last one 14 years ago. "[E]ven the government conceded during the immigration proceedings that there was no question as to Magana Ortiz's good moral character," Reinhardt noted. Nonetheless, in March the government decided to deny Magana Ortiz's application for a stay of removal while he applied for legal residency status, a process that is still underway, and moved to deport him to Mexico.
Reinhardt took particular aim at the fact, demonstrated repeatedly in the first months of Donald Trump's presidency, that the administration's immigration crackdown is not only targeting violent criminals. "President Trump has claimed that his immigration policies would target the 'bad hombres,'" he wrote. "The government's decision to remove Magana Ortiz shows that even the 'good hombres' are not safe. Magana Ortiz is by all accounts a pillar of his community and a devoted father and husband. It is difficult to see how the government's decision to expel him is consistent with the President's promise of an immigration system with 'a lot of heart.' I find no such compassion in the government's choice to deport Magana Ortiz."
A fiery opinion denounces a deportation for "ripping apart a family."
By PEMA LEVY
Today, a federal appeals court judge in California rebuked the Trump administration for its zealous deportation policy and for "ripping apart a family." Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that he had no power to stop the removal of Andres Magana Ortiz, but nevertheless took the time to write a short opinion blasting his deportation as "inhumane."
"We are unable to prevent Magana Ortiz's removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system," Reinhardt wrote in a six-page concurring opinion. "Indeed, the government's decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice…I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not."
As Reinhardt detailed in his opinion, Magana Ortiz came to the United States from Mexico 28 years ago, built a family and a career, and paid his taxes. His wife and three children are American citizens. His only legal transgressions were two DUIs, the last one 14 years ago. "[E]ven the government conceded during the immigration proceedings that there was no question as to Magana Ortiz's good moral character," Reinhardt noted. Nonetheless, in March the government decided to deny Magana Ortiz's application for a stay of removal while he applied for legal residency status, a process that is still underway, and moved to deport him to Mexico.
Reinhardt took particular aim at the fact, demonstrated repeatedly in the first months of Donald Trump's presidency, that the administration's immigration crackdown is not only targeting violent criminals. "President Trump has claimed that his immigration policies would target the 'bad hombres,'" he wrote. "The government's decision to remove Magana Ortiz shows that even the 'good hombres' are not safe. Magana Ortiz is by all accounts a pillar of his community and a devoted father and husband. It is difficult to see how the government's decision to expel him is consistent with the President's promise of an immigration system with 'a lot of heart.' I find no such compassion in the government's choice to deport Magana Ortiz."
China activists
Arrested, missing China activists spark criticism of Trump
By Erika Kinetz
The arrest and disappearance of three labor activists investigating a Chinese company that produces Ivanka Trump-branded shoes in China prompted a call for her brand to cease working with the supplier and raised questions about whether the first family's commercial interests would muddy U.S. leadership on human rights.
The men were working with a U.S. nonprofit to publish a report next month alleging low pay, excessive overtime and possible misuse of student labor, according to China Labor Watch executive director Li Qiang, who lost contact with the investigators over the weekend. China Labor Watch has been exposing poor working conditions at suppliers to some of the world's best-known companies for nearly two decades, but Li said his work has never before attracted this level of scrutiny from China's state security apparatus.
The arrest and disappearances come amid a crackdown on perceived threats to the stability of China's ruling Communist Party, particularly from sources with foreign ties such as China Labor Watch. Faced with rising labor unrest and a slowing economy, Beijing has taken a stern approach to activism in southern China's manufacturing belt and to human rights advocates generally, sparking a wave of critical reports about disappearances, public confessions, forced repatriation and torture in custody.
China Labor Watch's investigation also had an unusual target: a brand owned by the daughter of the president of the United States.
"Ivanka's brand should immediately cease its work with this supplier, and the Trump administration should reverse its current course and confront China on its human rights abuses," Adrienne Watson, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a Wednesday email. Ivanka Trump must decide, she added, "whether she can ignore the Chinese government's apparent attempt to silence an investigation into those worker abuses."
Conditions at a Chinese factory where designer clothes are manufactured, including for Ivanka Trump's fashion line, were not entirely up-to-snuff for the 80 workers there:
They logged nearly 60 hours a week and many made just over $60 in that period, according to an outside audit last fall. That same facility was producing its clothes for New York-based G-III Apparel Group Ltd., which has the exclusive license to manufacture blouses, dresses and other items under Trump's fashion line.
Ivanka Trump's lifestyle brand imports most of its merchandise from China, trade data show. She and her father both have extensive trademark portfolios in China, though neither has managed to build up a large retail or real estate presence here. The sister of Jared Kushner, a Trump adviser and husband of Ivanka, travelled to China this past month to court investment from Chinese families for a real estate project in New Jersey.
"The eagerness of members of the family to do business in China while airbrushing very troubling human rights and labor rights records of the country is troubling," said Nicholas Bequelin, East Asia director for Amnesty International. We'll have to wait and see, he added, "to what extent business is trumping any kind of consideration of the diplomatic capital of the U.S. in promoting human rights, labor rights and democracy." Amnesty International called for the release of Hua Haifeng on Wednesday, as well as his two colleagues, who are feared to have been detained.
White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks referred questions to Ivanka Trump's brand. The Ivanka Trump brand declined to comment.
Abigail Klem, who took over day-to-day management when the first daughter became a White House presidential adviser, has said the brand requires licensees and their manufacturers to "comply with all applicable laws and to maintain acceptable working conditions."
China tightened control over foreign NGOs starting this year by requiring them to register with state security. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a regular press briefing Wednesday that she was not aware of the arrest and disappearances. She said China welcomed international NGOs to carry out research, but added, "we also hope that NGOs can also observe Chinese laws and regulations and don't engage in any illegal actions or behavior."
Hua Haifeng was accused of illegal surveillance, according to his wife, Deng Guilian, who said the police called her Tuesday afternoon. Deng said the caller told her she didn't need to know the details, only that she would not be able to see, speak with or receive money from her husband, the family's breadwinner.
Li said China Labor Watch asked police about the Deng and the two other investigators, Li Zhao and Su Heng, on Monday but received no reply. Li added that a friend had tried to file a missing person report on Li Zhao in Jiangxi province, but was told he had to do so in the man's hometown.
AP was unable to reach the other investigators' families. China's Ministry of Public Security and police could not be reached for comment Tuesday, which was a national holiday in China. Calls went unanswered Wednesday morning.
The men were investigating Huajian Group factories in the southern Chinese cities of Ganzhou and Dongguan. Su Heng had been working undercover at the Ganzhou factory since April, Li said.
In January, Liu Shiyuan, then spokesman for the Huajian Group, told AP the company makes 10,000 to 20,000 pairs of shoes a year for Ivanka Trump's brand — a fraction of the 20 million pairs the company produces a year. A current spokeswoman for the company, Long Shan, did not reply to questions Tuesday or Wednesday morning.
Li said investigators had seen Ivanka Trump-brand merchandise, as well as production orders for Ivanka Trump, Marc Fisher, Nine West and Easy Spirit.
"We were unaware of the allegations and will look into them immediately," a spokeswoman for Marc Fisher, which manufactures Ivanka Trump, Easy Spirit and its own branded shoes, said in an email Tuesday. Nine West did not respond to requests for comment.
Li Zhao and Hua Haifeng were blocked from leaving mainland China for Hong Kong in April and May — something that had never happened to his colleagues before, Li said. Hua Haifeng was stopped at the border May 25 and later questioned by police, Li said.
During their final phone conversation on Saturday, Hua told Li that police had asked him to stop investigating the Huajian factory — another turn of events that Li said was unprecedented.
Li said the men had documented excessive overtime, with working days sometimes stretching longer than 18 hours, and a base salary below minimum wage. They were working to confirm evidence suggesting that student interns — some of whom allegedly quit in protest — were putting in excessive hours on work unrelated to their field of study, in violation of Chinese law, Li said.
Hua's wife, Deng, meanwhile, has yet to tell the couple's children, ages 3 and 7, about their father's plight. But they seem to know anyway, she said.
"My son suddenly burst into tears. He said he missed Papa," Deng said by phone from her home in central China's Hubei province. "I said Papa would come home soon and buy you toys."
She said the child looked at her and answered: "Papa was taken away by a monster."
By Erika Kinetz
The arrest and disappearance of three labor activists investigating a Chinese company that produces Ivanka Trump-branded shoes in China prompted a call for her brand to cease working with the supplier and raised questions about whether the first family's commercial interests would muddy U.S. leadership on human rights.
The men were working with a U.S. nonprofit to publish a report next month alleging low pay, excessive overtime and possible misuse of student labor, according to China Labor Watch executive director Li Qiang, who lost contact with the investigators over the weekend. China Labor Watch has been exposing poor working conditions at suppliers to some of the world's best-known companies for nearly two decades, but Li said his work has never before attracted this level of scrutiny from China's state security apparatus.
The arrest and disappearances come amid a crackdown on perceived threats to the stability of China's ruling Communist Party, particularly from sources with foreign ties such as China Labor Watch. Faced with rising labor unrest and a slowing economy, Beijing has taken a stern approach to activism in southern China's manufacturing belt and to human rights advocates generally, sparking a wave of critical reports about disappearances, public confessions, forced repatriation and torture in custody.
China Labor Watch's investigation also had an unusual target: a brand owned by the daughter of the president of the United States.
"Ivanka's brand should immediately cease its work with this supplier, and the Trump administration should reverse its current course and confront China on its human rights abuses," Adrienne Watson, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a Wednesday email. Ivanka Trump must decide, she added, "whether she can ignore the Chinese government's apparent attempt to silence an investigation into those worker abuses."
Conditions at a Chinese factory where designer clothes are manufactured, including for Ivanka Trump's fashion line, were not entirely up-to-snuff for the 80 workers there:
They logged nearly 60 hours a week and many made just over $60 in that period, according to an outside audit last fall. That same facility was producing its clothes for New York-based G-III Apparel Group Ltd., which has the exclusive license to manufacture blouses, dresses and other items under Trump's fashion line.
Ivanka Trump's lifestyle brand imports most of its merchandise from China, trade data show. She and her father both have extensive trademark portfolios in China, though neither has managed to build up a large retail or real estate presence here. The sister of Jared Kushner, a Trump adviser and husband of Ivanka, travelled to China this past month to court investment from Chinese families for a real estate project in New Jersey.
"The eagerness of members of the family to do business in China while airbrushing very troubling human rights and labor rights records of the country is troubling," said Nicholas Bequelin, East Asia director for Amnesty International. We'll have to wait and see, he added, "to what extent business is trumping any kind of consideration of the diplomatic capital of the U.S. in promoting human rights, labor rights and democracy." Amnesty International called for the release of Hua Haifeng on Wednesday, as well as his two colleagues, who are feared to have been detained.
White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks referred questions to Ivanka Trump's brand. The Ivanka Trump brand declined to comment.
Abigail Klem, who took over day-to-day management when the first daughter became a White House presidential adviser, has said the brand requires licensees and their manufacturers to "comply with all applicable laws and to maintain acceptable working conditions."
China tightened control over foreign NGOs starting this year by requiring them to register with state security. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a regular press briefing Wednesday that she was not aware of the arrest and disappearances. She said China welcomed international NGOs to carry out research, but added, "we also hope that NGOs can also observe Chinese laws and regulations and don't engage in any illegal actions or behavior."
Hua Haifeng was accused of illegal surveillance, according to his wife, Deng Guilian, who said the police called her Tuesday afternoon. Deng said the caller told her she didn't need to know the details, only that she would not be able to see, speak with or receive money from her husband, the family's breadwinner.
Li said China Labor Watch asked police about the Deng and the two other investigators, Li Zhao and Su Heng, on Monday but received no reply. Li added that a friend had tried to file a missing person report on Li Zhao in Jiangxi province, but was told he had to do so in the man's hometown.
AP was unable to reach the other investigators' families. China's Ministry of Public Security and police could not be reached for comment Tuesday, which was a national holiday in China. Calls went unanswered Wednesday morning.
The men were investigating Huajian Group factories in the southern Chinese cities of Ganzhou and Dongguan. Su Heng had been working undercover at the Ganzhou factory since April, Li said.
In January, Liu Shiyuan, then spokesman for the Huajian Group, told AP the company makes 10,000 to 20,000 pairs of shoes a year for Ivanka Trump's brand — a fraction of the 20 million pairs the company produces a year. A current spokeswoman for the company, Long Shan, did not reply to questions Tuesday or Wednesday morning.
Li said investigators had seen Ivanka Trump-brand merchandise, as well as production orders for Ivanka Trump, Marc Fisher, Nine West and Easy Spirit.
"We were unaware of the allegations and will look into them immediately," a spokeswoman for Marc Fisher, which manufactures Ivanka Trump, Easy Spirit and its own branded shoes, said in an email Tuesday. Nine West did not respond to requests for comment.
Li Zhao and Hua Haifeng were blocked from leaving mainland China for Hong Kong in April and May — something that had never happened to his colleagues before, Li said. Hua Haifeng was stopped at the border May 25 and later questioned by police, Li said.
During their final phone conversation on Saturday, Hua told Li that police had asked him to stop investigating the Huajian factory — another turn of events that Li said was unprecedented.
Li said the men had documented excessive overtime, with working days sometimes stretching longer than 18 hours, and a base salary below minimum wage. They were working to confirm evidence suggesting that student interns — some of whom allegedly quit in protest — were putting in excessive hours on work unrelated to their field of study, in violation of Chinese law, Li said.
Hua's wife, Deng, meanwhile, has yet to tell the couple's children, ages 3 and 7, about their father's plight. But they seem to know anyway, she said.
"My son suddenly burst into tears. He said he missed Papa," Deng said by phone from her home in central China's Hubei province. "I said Papa would come home soon and buy you toys."
She said the child looked at her and answered: "Papa was taken away by a monster."
British election
An English Hillary Clinton? Left-wing Trump?
How the British election looks like America's.
By SUSAN B. GLASSER
Is Prime Minister Theresa May a British Hillary Clinton? Is Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn a sort of left-wing Donald Trump?
Britain votes next week in a general election that was supposed to be effectively a coronation for May, the unlikely prime minister who came to power last summer as a result of Britain’s surprise decision last June to vote to leave the European Union. But instead of “the Brexit Election,” as May called it, strengthening her hand as she heads into tough negotiations with the European Union over the terms of their divorce, May now finds herself in a real contest on June 8 with a Labour leader previously seen as utterly unelectable.
For an American columnist fresh off the 2016 election, there are some striking similarities to ponder. Both leading candidates seem to have taken their cues from the U.S. in ways that could prove risky. Like Clinton when faced with Trump, May has chosen to turn the contest into a referendum on her opponent, the hard-left Corbyn, whose views are far outside the British mainstream and whose party members in parliament voted 80 percent in favor of dumping him as their leader. As a top May adviser put it to me, “Any day we’re talking about May versus Corbyn, we’re winning. Anything else, and we are not.”
But many days lately they have not been talking about Corbyn—or even much about the future of Britain at all.
“It was going to be ‘the Brexit Election’ but it seems that other concerns were dominating,” says Steve Hilton, who served as the Conservatives’ top strategist in the last British general election before falling out with his close friend, May’s predecessor David Cameron, over Brexit. In a new interview for The Global Politico, Hilton says May has not followed through on the “political revolution” that brought Brexit and Trump to the U.S. with a comparable “policy revolution”—nor does she seem likely to after a campaign that at times now seems reminiscent of last year’s American contest.
Indeed, May’s own leadership style and decision-making became the issue in ways she could hardly have anticipated when she called the “snap” election in April. In loud echoes of the rap on Clinton, May has been dinged in recent days on everything from her insular way of running 10 Downing St. and small circle of confidants to talking points-laden speeches and lack of a positive vision for the country.
May promised British voters “strong and stable” leadership—in theory an appealing slogan at a time of massive uncertainty about the country’s post-Europe future—but then was forced to abandon a key plank in her party platform just four days after issuing the campaign manifesto. She proposed and quickly withdrew a so-called “dementia tax” to make Britons pay more out of pocket for long-term care, resulting in days of punishing press coverage; the Tories’ lead in the polls quickly collapsed from some 22 points to as little as 5 points. Headlines, like this one in the left-leaning Independent, started warning: “Theresa May will meet the same fate as Hillary Clinton.”
And meantime, the much-maligned Corbyn has been running what many British pols this week told me they consider a near-flawless campaign. His advisers speak openly of how they Trumpified their leftist boss, courting controversy rather than avoiding it, doubling down on the party’s left wing rather than worrying about pivoting to the center, rallying the public with populist pledges to skip the messy foreign entanglements in favor of investing more back home.
Then came Manchester.
Massacre of the Innocents. Fortress Britain. Pure Evil.
All week long the tabloids screamed out the horror of the terrorist attack in this football-obsessed, proudly working-class hub of the industrial revolution turned booming center of the new economy, with 22 dead in the Monday night bombing of an Ariana Grande concert full of young girls and their mothers. By the time I arrived Tuesday afternoon, all national campaigning had been suspended as Britain stopped to mourn the dead. At the vigil that night in Manchester’s Albert Square, I stood amid a silent, tearful crowd of thousands. There was shock but not necessarily surprise that Manchester had been added to the long list of European cities like Paris, Brussels and Berlin that have been hit by such attacks in the last few years.
On his first international trip as president, Trump took time out to condemn the Manchester attack, calling the bomber who did it an “evil loser.” Even many Brits who said they didn’t like Trump thought that was just about the right tone to strike.
By Wednesday, May had ordered armed police to the streets and the British military to take up positions at key posts and raised the nation’s threat level to the highest in a decade, assessing the chances of another attack as “imminent.” The papers were no longer talking about her “U-turn” on the “dementia tax” but about whether the national police budget had been cut too much in recent years and how security should play in May’s favor over Corbyn, nobody’s idea of a get-tough-on-terrorists hawk.
By Friday, campaigning was back on, and the subject was most decidedly not May’s social program. As Corbyn complained that British foreign policy was partly to blame for the terrorist attack, May went on the offensive.
Mixing partisan politics with a G-7 summit in Sicily, she said Corbyn’s statement amounted to an “excuse for terrorism,” adding: “The choice that people face at the general election has just become starker. It’s a choice between me, working constantly to protect the national interest and to protect our security—and Jeremy Corbyn, who frankly isn’t up to the job.”
After a painful detour of more than a week, May was back doing what her campaign believed she had to do to win: Make it a him-or-me kind of a race.
But those nagging, haven’t-we-seen-this-play-before doubts continue to follow May, and how could they not, with memories so fresh of Clinton’s decision to make the election a referendum on Trump? May is very much a creature of the British Tory establishment whose careful political persona would seem to be not only Clintonian, but out of step with the to-hell-with-that ethos that led to the Brexit vote less than a year ago.
Then again, her advisers reckon that might not matter so much, and there are several broad developments that might help May even if her own political skills undercut her. Most important: she’s pulled perhaps the most important flip-flop possible in going from Brexit opponent before last year’s referendum to portraying herself as the strong-willed negotiator who can deliver on Brexit in this year’s race, pitching even more explicitly to the white working-class voters who fueled the referendum win at just the moment when the insurgent party that helped fuel the referendum, the UK Independence Party and its immigrant-bashing leader Nigel Farage, has seemingly imploded.
And besides, it’s still hard to see a realistic scenario for a Prime Minister Corbyn.
Can a Labour leader who repeatedly voted against counterterrorism funding, who has been attacked for calling the killing of Osama bin Laden a “tragedy,” and whose party manifesto is the most left-wing document the party has produced since 1983, really have a chance? What are the odds?
“Zero percent,” a veteran BBC producer told me me—except, he quickly added that, in this age of Brexit and Trump, he no longer trusts the polls, or his own political instincts honed over three decades of covering British elections, or anything really.
How the British election looks like America's.
By SUSAN B. GLASSER
Is Prime Minister Theresa May a British Hillary Clinton? Is Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn a sort of left-wing Donald Trump?
Britain votes next week in a general election that was supposed to be effectively a coronation for May, the unlikely prime minister who came to power last summer as a result of Britain’s surprise decision last June to vote to leave the European Union. But instead of “the Brexit Election,” as May called it, strengthening her hand as she heads into tough negotiations with the European Union over the terms of their divorce, May now finds herself in a real contest on June 8 with a Labour leader previously seen as utterly unelectable.
For an American columnist fresh off the 2016 election, there are some striking similarities to ponder. Both leading candidates seem to have taken their cues from the U.S. in ways that could prove risky. Like Clinton when faced with Trump, May has chosen to turn the contest into a referendum on her opponent, the hard-left Corbyn, whose views are far outside the British mainstream and whose party members in parliament voted 80 percent in favor of dumping him as their leader. As a top May adviser put it to me, “Any day we’re talking about May versus Corbyn, we’re winning. Anything else, and we are not.”
But many days lately they have not been talking about Corbyn—or even much about the future of Britain at all.
“It was going to be ‘the Brexit Election’ but it seems that other concerns were dominating,” says Steve Hilton, who served as the Conservatives’ top strategist in the last British general election before falling out with his close friend, May’s predecessor David Cameron, over Brexit. In a new interview for The Global Politico, Hilton says May has not followed through on the “political revolution” that brought Brexit and Trump to the U.S. with a comparable “policy revolution”—nor does she seem likely to after a campaign that at times now seems reminiscent of last year’s American contest.
Indeed, May’s own leadership style and decision-making became the issue in ways she could hardly have anticipated when she called the “snap” election in April. In loud echoes of the rap on Clinton, May has been dinged in recent days on everything from her insular way of running 10 Downing St. and small circle of confidants to talking points-laden speeches and lack of a positive vision for the country.
May promised British voters “strong and stable” leadership—in theory an appealing slogan at a time of massive uncertainty about the country’s post-Europe future—but then was forced to abandon a key plank in her party platform just four days after issuing the campaign manifesto. She proposed and quickly withdrew a so-called “dementia tax” to make Britons pay more out of pocket for long-term care, resulting in days of punishing press coverage; the Tories’ lead in the polls quickly collapsed from some 22 points to as little as 5 points. Headlines, like this one in the left-leaning Independent, started warning: “Theresa May will meet the same fate as Hillary Clinton.”
And meantime, the much-maligned Corbyn has been running what many British pols this week told me they consider a near-flawless campaign. His advisers speak openly of how they Trumpified their leftist boss, courting controversy rather than avoiding it, doubling down on the party’s left wing rather than worrying about pivoting to the center, rallying the public with populist pledges to skip the messy foreign entanglements in favor of investing more back home.
Then came Manchester.
Massacre of the Innocents. Fortress Britain. Pure Evil.
All week long the tabloids screamed out the horror of the terrorist attack in this football-obsessed, proudly working-class hub of the industrial revolution turned booming center of the new economy, with 22 dead in the Monday night bombing of an Ariana Grande concert full of young girls and their mothers. By the time I arrived Tuesday afternoon, all national campaigning had been suspended as Britain stopped to mourn the dead. At the vigil that night in Manchester’s Albert Square, I stood amid a silent, tearful crowd of thousands. There was shock but not necessarily surprise that Manchester had been added to the long list of European cities like Paris, Brussels and Berlin that have been hit by such attacks in the last few years.
On his first international trip as president, Trump took time out to condemn the Manchester attack, calling the bomber who did it an “evil loser.” Even many Brits who said they didn’t like Trump thought that was just about the right tone to strike.
By Wednesday, May had ordered armed police to the streets and the British military to take up positions at key posts and raised the nation’s threat level to the highest in a decade, assessing the chances of another attack as “imminent.” The papers were no longer talking about her “U-turn” on the “dementia tax” but about whether the national police budget had been cut too much in recent years and how security should play in May’s favor over Corbyn, nobody’s idea of a get-tough-on-terrorists hawk.
By Friday, campaigning was back on, and the subject was most decidedly not May’s social program. As Corbyn complained that British foreign policy was partly to blame for the terrorist attack, May went on the offensive.
Mixing partisan politics with a G-7 summit in Sicily, she said Corbyn’s statement amounted to an “excuse for terrorism,” adding: “The choice that people face at the general election has just become starker. It’s a choice between me, working constantly to protect the national interest and to protect our security—and Jeremy Corbyn, who frankly isn’t up to the job.”
After a painful detour of more than a week, May was back doing what her campaign believed she had to do to win: Make it a him-or-me kind of a race.
But those nagging, haven’t-we-seen-this-play-before doubts continue to follow May, and how could they not, with memories so fresh of Clinton’s decision to make the election a referendum on Trump? May is very much a creature of the British Tory establishment whose careful political persona would seem to be not only Clintonian, but out of step with the to-hell-with-that ethos that led to the Brexit vote less than a year ago.
Then again, her advisers reckon that might not matter so much, and there are several broad developments that might help May even if her own political skills undercut her. Most important: she’s pulled perhaps the most important flip-flop possible in going from Brexit opponent before last year’s referendum to portraying herself as the strong-willed negotiator who can deliver on Brexit in this year’s race, pitching even more explicitly to the white working-class voters who fueled the referendum win at just the moment when the insurgent party that helped fuel the referendum, the UK Independence Party and its immigrant-bashing leader Nigel Farage, has seemingly imploded.
And besides, it’s still hard to see a realistic scenario for a Prime Minister Corbyn.
Can a Labour leader who repeatedly voted against counterterrorism funding, who has been attacked for calling the killing of Osama bin Laden a “tragedy,” and whose party manifesto is the most left-wing document the party has produced since 1983, really have a chance? What are the odds?
“Zero percent,” a veteran BBC producer told me me—except, he quickly added that, in this age of Brexit and Trump, he no longer trusts the polls, or his own political instincts honed over three decades of covering British elections, or anything really.
Denounces
Lance, during town hall, denounces Trump budget proposal
By KATIE JENNINGS
U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance told hundreds of constituents Tuesday evening that he does not back President Donald Trump’s proposed budget, but the five-term Republican congressman remained guarded in his criticism of the growing scandals involving the administration’s communication with Russian officials.
“Regarding the budget document, I do not support it,” Lance told a packed auditorium of around 400 people during a town hall at Union County College in Cranford. “The president proposes and Congress disposes.”
Trump’s recently released budget proposal contains significant cuts to social safety net programs, including Medicaid, food stamps and Social Security disability benefits.
The proposal, Lance said, was “merely a blueprint as to how to move forward.” But, he said, cuts it calls for “are too significant.”
Lance also voiced confidence in his fellow Republican state delegation colleague, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, though Frelinghuysen’s name was greeted with a loud chorus of boos from the audience. The congressman from North Jersey has come under intense criticism for refusing to hold a town hall and for supporting the House Republican Obamacare repeal plan.
For his part, Lance broke with the GOP line earlier this month when he voted against the Obamacare repeal plan, but many of the audience members on Tuesday were pushing for him to further distance himself from Trump.
Lance represents the 7th Congressional District, which includes parts of Essex, Morris, Somerset, Union and Warren counties and all of Hunterdon County. Historically, it has been a solid Republican district. However, it swung for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and was recently changed from “likely Republican” to “lean Republican” by The Cook Political Report in the wake of the Obamacare repeal vote.
During the 90-minute town hall, Alan from Somerville, who identified himself as a registered Republican, told Lance he had lost faith in GOP, given the “clear criminality of the current administration and the lack of outcry or action from the party in control.”
Alan asked Lance when he would call on the administration to release the president’s tax returns, financial disclosure forms regarding Trump family investments and more information about Russia's involvement in the November election.
“When will you call them out? What will it take to make a clear statement?” Alan asked.
The mild-mannered Lance carefully selected his responses, gliding over some of the more charged components.
The congressman said he supported the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller by the Justice Department as special counsel to investigate the issue.
“I think that is an excellent step and I believe that Mr. Mueller will investigate the matters that you have raised and he will do so in a completely impartial and above board manner,” Lance said.
He also said he believed Trump’s tax returns “are likely to be subpoenaed by the special counsel.”
Lance kicked the issue of whether the Trump family’s financial interests violated the U.S. Constitution to the Supreme Court.
The Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars federal officials from accepting payments from foreign governments. Lance gave a theoretical example of whether a foreign government paying to rent the ballroom at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., would constitute a violation.
“That is an open question, ladies and gentlemen. I believe that should be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States," he said.
Pressed further by cries from the audience to denounce the president, Lance responded, “I criticize the president where I disagree with him. I indicate where I support him.”
“A fair and impartial investigation regarding the whole Russian situation should occur,” he said. “I think that Bob Mueller will do a superb job and let the chips fall where they may.”
By KATIE JENNINGS
U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance told hundreds of constituents Tuesday evening that he does not back President Donald Trump’s proposed budget, but the five-term Republican congressman remained guarded in his criticism of the growing scandals involving the administration’s communication with Russian officials.
“Regarding the budget document, I do not support it,” Lance told a packed auditorium of around 400 people during a town hall at Union County College in Cranford. “The president proposes and Congress disposes.”
Trump’s recently released budget proposal contains significant cuts to social safety net programs, including Medicaid, food stamps and Social Security disability benefits.
The proposal, Lance said, was “merely a blueprint as to how to move forward.” But, he said, cuts it calls for “are too significant.”
Lance also voiced confidence in his fellow Republican state delegation colleague, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, though Frelinghuysen’s name was greeted with a loud chorus of boos from the audience. The congressman from North Jersey has come under intense criticism for refusing to hold a town hall and for supporting the House Republican Obamacare repeal plan.
For his part, Lance broke with the GOP line earlier this month when he voted against the Obamacare repeal plan, but many of the audience members on Tuesday were pushing for him to further distance himself from Trump.
Lance represents the 7th Congressional District, which includes parts of Essex, Morris, Somerset, Union and Warren counties and all of Hunterdon County. Historically, it has been a solid Republican district. However, it swung for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and was recently changed from “likely Republican” to “lean Republican” by The Cook Political Report in the wake of the Obamacare repeal vote.
During the 90-minute town hall, Alan from Somerville, who identified himself as a registered Republican, told Lance he had lost faith in GOP, given the “clear criminality of the current administration and the lack of outcry or action from the party in control.”
Alan asked Lance when he would call on the administration to release the president’s tax returns, financial disclosure forms regarding Trump family investments and more information about Russia's involvement in the November election.
“When will you call them out? What will it take to make a clear statement?” Alan asked.
The mild-mannered Lance carefully selected his responses, gliding over some of the more charged components.
The congressman said he supported the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller by the Justice Department as special counsel to investigate the issue.
“I think that is an excellent step and I believe that Mr. Mueller will investigate the matters that you have raised and he will do so in a completely impartial and above board manner,” Lance said.
He also said he believed Trump’s tax returns “are likely to be subpoenaed by the special counsel.”
Lance kicked the issue of whether the Trump family’s financial interests violated the U.S. Constitution to the Supreme Court.
The Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars federal officials from accepting payments from foreign governments. Lance gave a theoretical example of whether a foreign government paying to rent the ballroom at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., would constitute a violation.
“That is an open question, ladies and gentlemen. I believe that should be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States," he said.
Pressed further by cries from the audience to denounce the president, Lance responded, “I criticize the president where I disagree with him. I indicate where I support him.”
“A fair and impartial investigation regarding the whole Russian situation should occur,” he said. “I think that Bob Mueller will do a superb job and let the chips fall where they may.”
Scares off potential appointees
Russia probe scares off potential appointees
The growing scandal is giving some candidates cold feet — and distracting aides from finding new recruits.
By ANDREW RESTUCCIA and JOSH DAWSEY
President Donald Trump’s effort to fill hundreds of vacant jobs across the federal government has hit a new snag: Russia.
Potential hires are paying close attention to the expanding investigations, which have now begun to touch senior Trump aides, with some questioning whether they want to join the administration.
Four people who work closely with prospective nominees told POLITICO that some potential hires are having second thoughts about trying to land executive branch appointments as federal and congressional investigations threaten to pose a serious distraction to Trump’s agenda.
“It’s an additional factor that makes what was an already complicated process of staffing the government even harder,” said Max Stier, head of the Partnership for Public Service, which has advised the Trump transition on hiring.
According to the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, the White House has announced nominees for just 117 of the 559 most important Senate-confirmed positions.
That trails the records of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who had each nominated about twice as many people by this point in the first year of their first terms.
Trump has not yet nominated a No. 2 at the Agriculture Department, Education Department, Department of Veterans Affairs or Environmental Protection Agency, and dozens of top positions at every federal agency remain vacant. Trump’s nominees for deputy secretary of Commerce and Treasury both withdrew.
One lawyer who represents prospective political appointees told POLITICO that three clients said over the past two weeks that they are no longer interested in working for the Trump administration following the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel overseeing the federal investigation into Trump associates’ contacts with Russian officials during the campaign.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that people are being very cautious, to put it mildly,” this lawyer said, adding that there is growing concern in Republican circles that the caliber of hires could deteriorate if the administration’s top picks drop out.
“You’re going to have a situation where they’re going to have trouble getting A-list or even B-list people to sign up,” the lawyer added.
Others agreed. “With all that is going on now, there is certainly a greater amount of hesitation,” said a former government official who regularly speaks with one of Trump’s Cabinet secretaries. “They have a real talent problem that continues to grow.”
A White House spokeswoman said the Russia investigation and the series of news stories that have pummeled the administration in recent weeks have had no impact on hiring. She said the president is recruiting individuals “of the highest quality.”
But the steady stream of palace intrigue stories about internal tensions and plans for a staff shakeup — after months of rumors about various senior officials getting pushed out — are making it harder to persuade people to join the administration, another White House official said.
White House communications director Michael Dubke said Tuesday he will leave his role, while Trump is weighing the possibility of bringing former campaign aides Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie into the White House.
“It’s not the best place to work right now, but you’re still working at the White House, so there are far worse jobs,” the official said.
Former Bush and Obama administration officials who worked on personnel issues told POLITICO they never struggled to find qualified candidates for top jobs.
“I can’t speak to Republicans not wanting to join this administration but, as a general matter, we didn’t have trouble recruiting people — quite the opposite,” said Lisa Brown, who served as White House staff secretary under Obama for two years.
Along with distracting from lower-level hires, the Russia probe has slowed and complicated the process of filling the administration’s highest-profile vacancy — director of the FBI.
Trump administration officials have been frustrated by the difficulties they’ve faced in finding a new FBI director. Top White House officials, including chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon, hoped to have made a decision made by now.
Instead, leading candidates Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and former Sen. Joe Lieberman have all withdrawn from consideration. The White House is now looking at a new field of candidates, and Trump met with two possibilities — John Pistole and Chris Wray — on Tuesday.
“It’s not so easy to find an FBI director in the Trump administration,” the White House official said.
The official added that Trump and his senior team are aware that hiring is not moving fast enough at agencies but said that, right now, “It’s just not priority No. 1.”
A second White House official said he was not aware of any potential nominees dropping out because of the recent news but echoed concerns that the Russia probe would inevitably add to further delays filling empty jobs.
“The problem we are likely to have is it may be difficult to get people to focus on hiring with all of this going on,” the official said.
The growing scandal is giving some candidates cold feet — and distracting aides from finding new recruits.
By ANDREW RESTUCCIA and JOSH DAWSEY
President Donald Trump’s effort to fill hundreds of vacant jobs across the federal government has hit a new snag: Russia.
Potential hires are paying close attention to the expanding investigations, which have now begun to touch senior Trump aides, with some questioning whether they want to join the administration.
Four people who work closely with prospective nominees told POLITICO that some potential hires are having second thoughts about trying to land executive branch appointments as federal and congressional investigations threaten to pose a serious distraction to Trump’s agenda.
“It’s an additional factor that makes what was an already complicated process of staffing the government even harder,” said Max Stier, head of the Partnership for Public Service, which has advised the Trump transition on hiring.
According to the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, the White House has announced nominees for just 117 of the 559 most important Senate-confirmed positions.
That trails the records of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who had each nominated about twice as many people by this point in the first year of their first terms.
Trump has not yet nominated a No. 2 at the Agriculture Department, Education Department, Department of Veterans Affairs or Environmental Protection Agency, and dozens of top positions at every federal agency remain vacant. Trump’s nominees for deputy secretary of Commerce and Treasury both withdrew.
One lawyer who represents prospective political appointees told POLITICO that three clients said over the past two weeks that they are no longer interested in working for the Trump administration following the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel overseeing the federal investigation into Trump associates’ contacts with Russian officials during the campaign.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that people are being very cautious, to put it mildly,” this lawyer said, adding that there is growing concern in Republican circles that the caliber of hires could deteriorate if the administration’s top picks drop out.
“You’re going to have a situation where they’re going to have trouble getting A-list or even B-list people to sign up,” the lawyer added.
Others agreed. “With all that is going on now, there is certainly a greater amount of hesitation,” said a former government official who regularly speaks with one of Trump’s Cabinet secretaries. “They have a real talent problem that continues to grow.”
A White House spokeswoman said the Russia investigation and the series of news stories that have pummeled the administration in recent weeks have had no impact on hiring. She said the president is recruiting individuals “of the highest quality.”
But the steady stream of palace intrigue stories about internal tensions and plans for a staff shakeup — after months of rumors about various senior officials getting pushed out — are making it harder to persuade people to join the administration, another White House official said.
White House communications director Michael Dubke said Tuesday he will leave his role, while Trump is weighing the possibility of bringing former campaign aides Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie into the White House.
“It’s not the best place to work right now, but you’re still working at the White House, so there are far worse jobs,” the official said.
Former Bush and Obama administration officials who worked on personnel issues told POLITICO they never struggled to find qualified candidates for top jobs.
“I can’t speak to Republicans not wanting to join this administration but, as a general matter, we didn’t have trouble recruiting people — quite the opposite,” said Lisa Brown, who served as White House staff secretary under Obama for two years.
Along with distracting from lower-level hires, the Russia probe has slowed and complicated the process of filling the administration’s highest-profile vacancy — director of the FBI.
Trump administration officials have been frustrated by the difficulties they’ve faced in finding a new FBI director. Top White House officials, including chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon, hoped to have made a decision made by now.
Instead, leading candidates Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and former Sen. Joe Lieberman have all withdrawn from consideration. The White House is now looking at a new field of candidates, and Trump met with two possibilities — John Pistole and Chris Wray — on Tuesday.
“It’s not so easy to find an FBI director in the Trump administration,” the White House official said.
The official added that Trump and his senior team are aware that hiring is not moving fast enough at agencies but said that, right now, “It’s just not priority No. 1.”
A second White House official said he was not aware of any potential nominees dropping out because of the recent news but echoed concerns that the Russia probe would inevitably add to further delays filling empty jobs.
“The problem we are likely to have is it may be difficult to get people to focus on hiring with all of this going on,” the official said.
Impeachment...
Poll: Support for Trump impeachment rises
By STEVEN SHEPARD
An increasing percentage of voters want Congress to impeach President Donald Trump — even if they don't think Trump has committed the “high crimes and misdemeanors” the Constitution requires.
Forty-three percent of voters want Congress to begin impeachment proceedings, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, up from 38 percent last week.
"If President Trump was hoping his foreign trip would shift the conversation away from scandals, he may be out of luck," said Morning Consult Co-Founder and Chief Research Officer Kyle Dropp. "Over the last week, support for beginning impeachment proceedings among voters rose from 38 percent to 43 percent."
But that's still less than the 45 percent who don't want Congress to impeach Trump, down a tick from 46 percent the week before.
Only three American presidents in history have faced legitimate impeachment threats.
Much of the support for impeaching Trump comes from political considerations, the poll shows — not a belief that Trump is actually guilty of impeachable offenses, like treason, bribery or obstructing justice.
Of those who want Congress to move toward impeachment, a 54-percent majority of those believe Trump “has proven he is unfit to serve and should be removed from office, regardless of whether he committed an impeachable offense or not.” Only 43 percent of those seeking impeachment believe Trump has committed an offense that meets the high constitutional standards for removal.
The results underscore the intense partisan divisions following last year’s rancorous election. A wide majority of self-identified Democratic voters, 71 percent, want Congress to impeach Trump. But more than three-quarters of GOP voters, 76 percent, don’t think Congress should begin impeachment proceedings.
Despite the sharp split on impeachment, Trump’s approval ratings as president have stabilized, the poll shows. For the second consecutive week, 45 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing, while half disapprove. That has recovered from a low of 41 percent prior to Trump’s trip overseas this month.
While poll respondents were not asked explicitly to react to Trump’s first foreign trip, the poll shows voters are skeptical of Trump’s aspirations to help Israel and the Palestinians strike a long-sought peace deal. Only 9 percent think it’s very likely Trump will be able to broker such an agreement. More say it’s either somewhat likely (18 percent), not too likely (28 percent) or not likely at all (31 percent).
The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted May 25-30, beginning just after the Congressional Budget Office weighed in on Trump’s chief legislative goal in the opening months of his presidency: the health care bill the House passed earlier this month. The CBO’s report projected the bill, if enacted, would save the federal government $119 billion over the next decade, but 23 million fewer Americans would have health insurance.
The poll shows more voters continue to disapprove of the GOP health care bill, 47 percent, than approve, 38 percent. And the 33 percent who disapprove of the bill “strongly” far outpaces the 14 percent who approve strongly.
A 47-percent plurality of voters think the bill would make the U.S. health care system worse — more than the 32 percent who think it would make the system better. Twenty-two percent say it won’t make a difference on the health care system.
Forty-seven percent of voters also believe the bill will increase their health care costs, while only 18 percent think it will lower their costs and 17 percent don’t think it will have an impact.
Last week’s CBO report is unlikely to improve voter perceptions of the bill. Told about both the bill’s deficit savings and the reductions in health insurance coverage, only 20 percent say it would make them more likely to support the bill. Nearly twice as many, 39 percent, say it makes them more likely to oppose the measure.
The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll included interviews with 1,991 registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
By STEVEN SHEPARD
An increasing percentage of voters want Congress to impeach President Donald Trump — even if they don't think Trump has committed the “high crimes and misdemeanors” the Constitution requires.
Forty-three percent of voters want Congress to begin impeachment proceedings, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, up from 38 percent last week.
"If President Trump was hoping his foreign trip would shift the conversation away from scandals, he may be out of luck," said Morning Consult Co-Founder and Chief Research Officer Kyle Dropp. "Over the last week, support for beginning impeachment proceedings among voters rose from 38 percent to 43 percent."
But that's still less than the 45 percent who don't want Congress to impeach Trump, down a tick from 46 percent the week before.
Only three American presidents in history have faced legitimate impeachment threats.
Much of the support for impeaching Trump comes from political considerations, the poll shows — not a belief that Trump is actually guilty of impeachable offenses, like treason, bribery or obstructing justice.
Of those who want Congress to move toward impeachment, a 54-percent majority of those believe Trump “has proven he is unfit to serve and should be removed from office, regardless of whether he committed an impeachable offense or not.” Only 43 percent of those seeking impeachment believe Trump has committed an offense that meets the high constitutional standards for removal.
The results underscore the intense partisan divisions following last year’s rancorous election. A wide majority of self-identified Democratic voters, 71 percent, want Congress to impeach Trump. But more than three-quarters of GOP voters, 76 percent, don’t think Congress should begin impeachment proceedings.
Despite the sharp split on impeachment, Trump’s approval ratings as president have stabilized, the poll shows. For the second consecutive week, 45 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing, while half disapprove. That has recovered from a low of 41 percent prior to Trump’s trip overseas this month.
While poll respondents were not asked explicitly to react to Trump’s first foreign trip, the poll shows voters are skeptical of Trump’s aspirations to help Israel and the Palestinians strike a long-sought peace deal. Only 9 percent think it’s very likely Trump will be able to broker such an agreement. More say it’s either somewhat likely (18 percent), not too likely (28 percent) or not likely at all (31 percent).
The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted May 25-30, beginning just after the Congressional Budget Office weighed in on Trump’s chief legislative goal in the opening months of his presidency: the health care bill the House passed earlier this month. The CBO’s report projected the bill, if enacted, would save the federal government $119 billion over the next decade, but 23 million fewer Americans would have health insurance.
The poll shows more voters continue to disapprove of the GOP health care bill, 47 percent, than approve, 38 percent. And the 33 percent who disapprove of the bill “strongly” far outpaces the 14 percent who approve strongly.
A 47-percent plurality of voters think the bill would make the U.S. health care system worse — more than the 32 percent who think it would make the system better. Twenty-two percent say it won’t make a difference on the health care system.
Forty-seven percent of voters also believe the bill will increase their health care costs, while only 18 percent think it will lower their costs and 17 percent don’t think it will have an impact.
Last week’s CBO report is unlikely to improve voter perceptions of the bill. Told about both the bill’s deficit savings and the reductions in health insurance coverage, only 20 percent say it would make them more likely to support the bill. Nearly twice as many, 39 percent, say it makes them more likely to oppose the measure.
The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll included interviews with 1,991 registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Preexisting relationship
Lewandowski: Trump needs staff who have a 'preexisting relationship' with him
By LOUIS NELSON
With a shakeup of the White House communications staff already underway, the president’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, offered his own prescription to fix President Donald Trump’s messaging team: more people like Corey Lewandowski.
The former Trump campaign manager, who resigned last summer amid allegations that he had assaulted a reporter, said the president would be better served by longtime allies with whom he has a “preexisting relationship.”
“When you have a communications team, they have to have that relationship with the president to understand how he communicates. Because he is the greatest communicator, as a president, we’ve ever had. He's better than the staff. He knows the media better,” Lewandowski said on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends” Wednesday morning.
Lewandowski called Mike Dubke, Trump’s former communications director whose May 18 resignation was made public on Tuesday, “a very capable guy” who was nonetheless unable to adequately fulfill his duties because he arrived in the job without an understanding of how the president operates.
“When you have a president who is so active, who is so articulate, who is so good at communicating with the media, sometimes you’ve got staff who have to keep up with him, and it's much easier I think if you ask people who had a preexisting relationship to understand how the president functions,” Trump’s former campaign manager said. “That makes it much more cohesive. So just getting up to speed in a very difficult environment when you have so much negative media attention is a hard thing to do, I think, for anybody.”
Dubke’s resignation comes amid reports of a looming larger shakeup of the White House’s communications staff, one believed to include a reduction in visibility for press secretary Sean Spicer, who is no longer expected to hold daily, on-camera press briefings.
Lewandowski stopped short Wednesday morning of suggesting that he is in line for a job inside the White House, but said he would be interested in serving the president’s agenda either inside or outside the administration. POLITICO reported last week that Lewandowski and former Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie were in talks with the president to join the White House as crisis managers.
Lewandowski, who recently left the lobbying firm he started shortly after Trump’s election, was spotted at a Peet’s Coffee on Monday across the street from the White House.
“If I can be helpful, you know, I've been very clear, I want to make sure that this president's agenda gets done, which is tax reform and health care reform and building the wall on our southern border and all the things that he pledged during the campaign that he gets to execute,” Lewandowski said. “It's very important to know that I can be helpful on the outside, if they want me to be helpful on the inside and the right role is there, you know, I would be willing to consider that.”
By LOUIS NELSON
With a shakeup of the White House communications staff already underway, the president’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, offered his own prescription to fix President Donald Trump’s messaging team: more people like Corey Lewandowski.
The former Trump campaign manager, who resigned last summer amid allegations that he had assaulted a reporter, said the president would be better served by longtime allies with whom he has a “preexisting relationship.”
“When you have a communications team, they have to have that relationship with the president to understand how he communicates. Because he is the greatest communicator, as a president, we’ve ever had. He's better than the staff. He knows the media better,” Lewandowski said on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends” Wednesday morning.
Lewandowski called Mike Dubke, Trump’s former communications director whose May 18 resignation was made public on Tuesday, “a very capable guy” who was nonetheless unable to adequately fulfill his duties because he arrived in the job without an understanding of how the president operates.
“When you have a president who is so active, who is so articulate, who is so good at communicating with the media, sometimes you’ve got staff who have to keep up with him, and it's much easier I think if you ask people who had a preexisting relationship to understand how the president functions,” Trump’s former campaign manager said. “That makes it much more cohesive. So just getting up to speed in a very difficult environment when you have so much negative media attention is a hard thing to do, I think, for anybody.”
Dubke’s resignation comes amid reports of a looming larger shakeup of the White House’s communications staff, one believed to include a reduction in visibility for press secretary Sean Spicer, who is no longer expected to hold daily, on-camera press briefings.
Lewandowski stopped short Wednesday morning of suggesting that he is in line for a job inside the White House, but said he would be interested in serving the president’s agenda either inside or outside the administration. POLITICO reported last week that Lewandowski and former Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie were in talks with the president to join the White House as crisis managers.
Lewandowski, who recently left the lobbying firm he started shortly after Trump’s election, was spotted at a Peet’s Coffee on Monday across the street from the White House.
“If I can be helpful, you know, I've been very clear, I want to make sure that this president's agenda gets done, which is tax reform and health care reform and building the wall on our southern border and all the things that he pledged during the campaign that he gets to execute,” Lewandowski said. “It's very important to know that I can be helpful on the outside, if they want me to be helpful on the inside and the right role is there, you know, I would be willing to consider that.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)