Badly exposed...

Trump's latest spin on Russia just left him badly exposed - again

Greg Sargent

At a news conference in Warsaw on Thursday morning, President Donald Trump tiptoed gingerly up to the edge of acknowledging that Russia did indeed try to sabotage the 2016 election. Our intelligence agencies have long insisted that Russia engaged in active, multifaceted efforts to tip the election to Trump. While declining to fully endorse the conclusion that Russia did meddle in our democracy, Trump did manage to simultaneously blame it on Barack Obama's failure to act in the face of it.

Which gives rise to a question: Given this criticism of Obama's inaction last time, and given that the intelligence community has also concluded that Russia will try to meddle in the next election, too, what does Trump's administration intend to do about it? Surely Trump does not intend to duplicate a performance on Obama's part that he derides as feckless, does he?

At the presser, Trump was asked point blank by NBC reporter Hallie Jackson: "Will you once and for all, yes or no, definitively say that Russia interfered in the 2016 election?"

"Well, I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries," Trump replied. He then excoriated Obama for doing "nothing" in the face of the Obama administration's own conclusion that Russian meddling was underway. "The reason is, he thought Hillary was going to win," Trump said. He has tweeted this in the past, but now he said it at a press conference in Eastern Europe.

Pressed again on whether he agreed with the "definitive" conclusion of his own intelligence agencies that Russia did meddle in the election, Trump said: "I think it was Russia," but added, "I think it was probably others, also." He said: "Nobody really knows for sure. I remember . . . how everybody was 100 percent sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Guess what - that led to one big mess. They were wrong."

To be clear, it is of course possible that the intelligence community is getting this one wrong, too. Criticism of Obama's well documented inaction is also fair game, though it is questionable coming from a messenger who himself has steadily downplayed the idea of Russian meddling (which, again, the intel community concluded was designed to help him win) for many months. And let's not forget that during the election, Democrats asked congressional Republican leaders such as Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to present a united front against Russian meddling. They refused, with McConnell questioning whether it even happened.

But all of that aside, if Trump is going to fault his predecessor's failure to act in the face of the intel community's warnings, his own administration should face more media scrutiny as to how seriously it is taking the intel community's conclusion that Russia will try to do this again - and what it is doing about it.

Pressed again on whether he agreed with the "definitive" conclusion of his own intelligence agencies that Russia did meddle in the election, Trump said: "I think it was Russia," but added, "I think it was probably others, also." He said: "Nobody really knows for sure. I remember . . . how everybody was 100 percent sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Guess what - that led to one big mess. They were wrong."

To be clear, it is of course possible that the intelligence community is getting this one wrong, too. Criticism of Obama's well documented inaction is also fair game, though it is questionable coming from a messenger who himself has steadily downplayed the idea of Russian meddling (which, again, the intel community concluded was designed to help him win) for many months. And let's not forget that during the election, Democrats asked congressional Republican leaders such as Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to present a united front against Russian meddling. They refused, with McConnell questioning whether it even happened.

But all of that aside, if Trump is going to fault his predecessor's failure to act in the face of the intel community's warnings, his own administration should face more media scrutiny as to how seriously it is taking the intel community's conclusion that Russia will try to do this again - and what it is doing about it.

The new CBO score will likely conclude at best that the coverage loss would be a few million lower than 22 million. Will that be enough to get moderates to cave?

* TENSIONS RISE AROUND TED CRUZ IDEA: The Hill reports that tensions are rising between GOP leaders and Sen. Ted Cruz, who wants to add a measure to the health bill: that would weaken protections for preexisting conditions:
---

The proposal would allow insurance companies the freedom to sell any kinds of health plans they want as long as they also sell at least one plan that qualifies under the regulatory requirements of the Affordable Care Act. "I would say that if we voted on the Cruz proposal, it would be in the neighborhood of 37 to 15 against, 37 no votes and 15 yeses, and that's probably generous," said a GOP aide familiar with the Senate negotiations.
---

As Margot Sanger-Katz explains in The New York Times, Cruz's plan would segment the insurance pool into healthy and sick, with the latter's premiums soaring, leading to more government subsidies to cover them.

* HOPES OF A 'TRUMP BUMP' FADE: The New York Times reports that economists expect the economy to grow at a pace of no more than two percent this year, which is underwhelming compared to the smashing success Trump predicted his presidency would usher in:
---

While hardly terrible, it is not the burst of growth - a "Trump bump" - that many expected to result from an upturn in consumer and business sentiment after President Trump's election. Mr. Trump himself declared upon taking office that his policies would produce 4 percent annual growth, and just this week said on Twitter to affirm that "things are starting to kick in now."
---

As the Times notes, this is basically a continuation of the recovery we were seeing under Obama, which Trump depicted as a smoldering ruin.

* MAJORITY DISTRUSTS TRUMP ON RUSSIA: A new PBS/NPR/Marist poll finds that 54 percent of Americans believe Trump's dealings with Russia have been "unethical" or "illegal." But:
---

Only 4 percent of Republicans think Trump broke the law and another 15 percent said he acted unethically.
---

The total of 19 percent of Republicans who are dubious about Trump's dealings with Russia is actually somewhat high, given how much we keep hearing about the base sticking with him.

* TRUMP FEUD WITH CNN TAKES NEW TURN: Michael Grynbaum reports in The New York Times:
---

White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN's parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Mr. Trump's Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president's animus toward CNN remains a wild card.
---
Note that this comes from a senior administration official, who seemingly wanted this to be out there.