Trump enters the stage

Those last few posts, wow! :open_mouth:

Yeah, minus the built in possible slant to them, which to all account, may one of these fine days, demand total transparency.

Or, may be they are working on the coverups of all uncharted territory, connecting dots, even before any are noticeable.

Nowedays with greatly progressing super intelligence, no missing possibility of damage control may be a feasable contingency.

The idea that the departments of security and national defense, and homeland security plus CIA and FBI assets coinjointly working on this is no
Sci-fi conjecture. Not to leave out Interpol .

Leave it to gut level, which as of yet has not been invaded, but for a Very Good Reason!


TheHill
ADMINISTRATION
April 30, 2019 - 09:13 AM EDT
Biden: If Trump blocks investigations, Congress has no choice but to impeach him
Loading video
BY JOHN BOWDEN
TWEET SHARE EMAIL

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that Congress should move forward with impeachment proceedings if the White House and Republicans work to block Democratic efforts to investigate matters “left undone” by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

In an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” the 2020 presidential candidate said that Democrats would have “no alternative” but to impeach President Trump if he were to block a congressional investigation into whether he obstructed justice by firing former FBI Director James Comey and attempting to fire Mueller.

“There are elements of the report … about seven or eight things that are left undone, he was not within his purview to investigate, he thought,” Biden said of Mueller. “The Congress is attempting to take that up.”

“If in fact they block the investigation, they have no alternative but to go to the only other constitutional resort they have, [which] is impeachment,” he added. “But my job, in the meantime, is to make sure he’s not back as president of the United States.”

Biden’s call for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings if the White House blocks its investigation falls short of the position of his fellow 2020 primary contender Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who said at a town hall last week that Congress should begin impeachment proceedings now.

“We have very good reason to believe that there is an investigation that has been conducted which has produced evidence that tells us that this president and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice. I believe Congress should take the steps toward impeachment,” she told a CNN town hall in New Hampshire.

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are ©2019 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

News
US
WORLD
POLITICS
ENTERTAINMENT
HEALTH
MONEYWATCH
TECHNOLOGY
SCIENCE
CRIME
SPORTS
Shows
CBS THIS MORNING
CBS EVENING NEWS
60 MINUTES
FACE THE NATION
SUNDAY MORNING
48 HOURS
CBSN ORIGINALS
Live
LATEST HEADLINES
CBSN NEW YORK
CBS SPORTS HQ
ET LIVE
LIVE
More
LATEST
VIDEO
PHOTOS
PODCASTS
IN DEPTH
LOCAL
LOG IN
ALERTS
MOBILE
RSS
SHOP

Search CBS News
Barr testifies on Mueller report before Senate Judiciary Committee – live updates
BY GRACE SEGERS, EMILY TILLETT

UPDATED ON: MAY 1, 2019 / 10:28 AM / CBS NEWS

Attorney General William Barr is testifying about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday following the revelation Tuesday that Mueller confronted Barr about his four-page characterization of the report.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham in opening remarks said Mueller had left it to Barr to decide on whether the president had committed obstruction of justice. “He said, Mr. Barr, you decide,” and Graham agreed with Barr that there must be an underlying crime in order to commit obstruction. Graham also said the committee would take a hard look at the origins of the Russia investigation, including the FISA process. Of the special counsel investigation and the Mueller report, Graham said, “For me, it is over.”
The Justice Department confirmed that Mueller sent a letter to Barr in late March to express frustration with the public rollout of his report. This revelation drew immediate rebukes from Democrats, with the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee demanding the letter from the Justice Department ahead of Barr’s testimony in the Senate.

Democrats have accused Barr of trying to protect Mr. Trump by making the determination that the president did not obstruct justice. Mueller found there was no conspiracy between Trump campaign officials and individuals associated with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

Trending News
Schiff: Barr “misleading” public
Iowa Flooding
UNCC Shooting
Swarthmore Fraternities
However, Mueller did detail several instances of potential obstruction of justice by the president, although he ultimately did not make a determination on this issue. Congressional Democrats believe Mueller punted the issue to Congress, and now it is up to Congress – not Barr – to determine whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice.

Feinstein questions whether Barr was protecting the president
Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, used her opening statement to question why Barr did not release the introductions and executive summaries of the report, contrary to Mueller’s wishes.

She condemned Barr’s March 24 letter to Congress and the public summarizing the main points of the report, which the White House then used as a basis to publicly declare that the report found there was “no collusion,” “no obstruction,” and was a “total exoneration.”

Unlike Graham, Feinstein emphasized that the report found several ties between Trump campaign officials and individuals associated with the Russian government, and that Mr. Trump’s campaign expected to benefit from Russian interference in the election, although there was no direct conspiracy. She outlined the evidence Mueller presented of instances where the president may have obstructed justice.

Graham says Mueller was the “right guy” to conduct the investigation
Graham opened the hearing with testimony praising Mueller and calling the report very “thorough.”

“Mr. Mueller was the right guy to do this job,” Graham said about the investigation. He then pivoted to emphasize that the report had found “no collusion” between the Trump campaign and individuals associated with the Russian government.

“The president never did anything to stop Mueller from doing his job,” Graham said. However, the report said that Mr. Trump asked his White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, but McGahn did not do so.

Graham took a hard line on Russian interference in the 2016 election, saying that he would work with Democrats in an effort to strengthen American election infrastructure.

“My takeaway from this report is that we’ve got a lot of work to do to defend democracy from bad actors,” Graham said.

He also took some time in his opening statement to question the origins of Mueller’s investigation, and criticize Hillary Clinton – two favorite topics of the president.

Of the special counsel investigation and the Mueller report, Graham said, “For me, it is over.”

Mueller’s letter to Barr urged DOJ to release special counsel’s summaries
In a letter to Barr dated March 27, Mueller requested that Barr release the introduction and executive summaries for each part of the special counsel’s report.

“As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarizes the Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller said in the letter.

CBS News reported Tuesday night that Mueller was dissatisfied with Barr’s March 24 letter summarizing the report to Congress.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler told reporters that he had received a copy of Mueller’s letter to Barr Wednesday morning. He also said that he has not reached a final agreement with Barr for his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee expected Thursday.

Democrats prepare for Barr testimony
Democrats have been preparing and re-writing questions after news that Mueller wrote to Barr expressing his concerns with Barr’s characterization of his report. But the hearing will be controlled by Republican Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the president’s most ardent supporters. He will control the timing of the hearing.

Outside the White House Tuesday night, protesters strung lights that said “HUGE LIAR,” and set up a cut-out of the attorney general with a sign around his neck and the words, “I lied to the American people for Trump.”

Protesters hold up letters that reads “Huge Liar” beside a cardboard cutout of Attorney General William Barr ahead of Barr’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, following the release of the Mueller report, in front of the White House in Washington, U.S., April 30, 2019.
CLODAGH KILCOYNE / REUTERS
Schiff says Barr’s “misleading” statements are “serious business”
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff said that Attorney General William Barr has “deliberately” misled the U.S. Congress and the American public after he denied knowing about how Special Counsel Robert Mueller felt about his summary of the Russia report.

Schiff, speaking to “CBS This Morning” on Wednesday, said that Barr’s false statements are “serious business” for the Congress.

“After getting now two or three misleading summaries from the Justice Department through the attorney general, I don’t think we can rely on the Justice Department to be summarizing what Bob Mueller said in that conversation to Bill Barr,” Schiff said.

Democrats take aim at Barr’s previous testimony
Democrats are starting to accuse Barr of perjury in his representation of Robert Mueller’s report, citing his previous testimony to Congress.

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen tweeted ahead of Wednesday’s hearing that during his earlier testimony last month, he asked Barr if Mueller supported his conclusion.

On April 20th, I asked Barr, “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” His answer was, “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”

We now know Mueller stated his concerns on March 27th, and that Barr totally misled me, the Congress, and the public. He must resign. pic.twitter.com/rod404BbYo

— Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) May 1, 2019
His answer to the senator: “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.” But CBS News confirmed that not only did Mueller send Barr a letter complaining about the way Barr described the special counsel’s findings, but the two men also spoke on the phone.

During that conversation, Mueller asked for additional information to be released, but the attorney general only promised to release the full report as soon as possible, according to CBS News correspondent Paula Reid.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made similar claims, tweeting Tuesday evening that Barr “misled the public and owes the American people answers.”

Barr on obstruction of justice claim
In his testimony, Barr is expected to defend the decision to weigh in on whether the president obstructed justice, asserting that “it would not have been appropriate” for him “simply to release Volume II of the report (the part addressing obstruction) without making a prosecutorial judgment.”

He is expected to testify that, as he has said in the past, that he and Rosenstein disagreed with some of Mueller’s legal theories regarding the possibility that President Trump obstructed justice.

According to his prepared remarks, Barr is expected to tell the committee that the two “felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law” but still “accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion.”

“We concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense,” Barr is expected to say, according to his prepared remarks.

His opening statement concludes, “From here on, the exercise of responding and reacting to the report is a matter for the American people and the political process. As I am sure you agree, it is vitally important for the Department of Justice to stand apart from the political process and not to become an adjunct of it.”

Barr to testify on redaction process, White House input
Barr is expected to defend the Justice Department’s handling of the Mueller report, saying that it made every effort to be as transparent as possible in its delivery of the report. According to his prepared remarks, he will point to one analysis found just eight percent of the report had been redacted, adding, “The Deputy Attorney General and I did not overrule any of the redaction decisions, nor did we request that any additional material be redacted.”

Barr also asserts that while the Justice Department allowed the White House Counsel’s office and the president’s legal team to review the report before its release, “neither played any role in the redaction process.”

Allowing the White House to review the report before its public release “was a mater of fairness,” he is expected to say.

Mueller complained to Barr about letter summarizing the report
Mueller wrote a letter to Barr expressing his dissatisfaction with Barr’s March 24 letter summarizing the key points of the report, the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday. In the March letter, Barr said Mueller concluded there was no collusion with Russia, and said Barr had determined that Mr. Trump did not obstruct justice.

Barr called Mueller to discuss the special counsel’s letter, which was first reported by The Washington Post Tuesday night.

“In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said in a statement.

“They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released. However, the Attorney General ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion,” the statement continued. “The next day, the Attorney General sent a letter to Congress reiterating that his March 24 letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but instead only stated the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions, and volunteered to testify before both Senate and House Judiciary Committees on May 1st and 2nd.”

Although Barr did not intend it to be a summary of the report, Mr. Trump took it as such, and has repeatedly asserted the report found “no collusion” and “no obstruction.” However, Mueller’s report explicitly said that it “did not exonerate” the president.

Congressional Democrats have called on Mueller to testify before Congress.

Barr, House Democrats spar over scheduled testimony
Attorney General William Barr speaks during a press conference on the release of the redacted version of the Mueller report at the Department of Justice on April 18, 2019 in Washington, D.C.
WIN MCNAMEE / GETTY IMAGES
Barr quarreled with congressional Democrats on Sunday over the conditions for his highly anticipated testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday.

Barr wants to be questioned only by lawmakers on the committee – not by their staff and lawyers. But House Democrats believe Barr, as the committee’s witness, should not dictate the parameters of the hearing.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, the committee chair, scheduled a vote on Wednesday to approve an additional hour of questioning – by both lawmakers and their staff and counsel – during Barr’s testimony. The New York Democrat said he expects the attorney general to show up on Thursday, but vowed to issue subpoenas if Barr refuses to testify.

– Paula Reid, Rebecca Kaplan, Camilo Montoya-Galvez

Barr claimed there was “spying” on Trump campaign in recent testimony
Barr testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 10, before the redacted report was released to the public. The attorney general’s remark that there had been unauthorized “spying” on the Trump campaign attracted attention, although he later seemed to soften that assertion.

“I’m not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that. And I’m not just talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly,” Barr said.

“I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all,” Barr also said.

He told the Senate panel, “I just want to satisfy myself that there were no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers.”

© 2019 CBS Interactive Inc.
Copyright © 2019 CBS Interactive Inc.


BBC News
menu
US Fed defies Trump and holds interest rates
01 May 2019 Business
Share this with Email Share this with Facebook Share this with Twitter Share this with Whatsapp
Image copyright GETTY IMAGES US President Donald Trump
The US Federal Reserve has kept interest rates on hold despite pressure from President Donald Trump to announce a cut.

The central bank said borrowing costs will remain at between 2.25%-2.5%.

The Fed made the decision despite Mr Trump tweeting on Tuesday that it should reduce rates by 1% to help the US economy “go up like a rocket”.

The Fed indicated earlier this year that it would not change rates for the rest of 2019.

In his latest attack on the Fed, Mr Trump criticised the central bank for “incessantly” raising rates.

He said that although growth is strong at 3.2% in the first quarter, if the Fed cut interest rates “with our wonderfully low inflation, we could be setting major records”.

Commenting on whether comments such as these affect the Fed’s decisions, chairman Jerome Powell said: “We are a non-political institution and that means we don’t think about short-term political considerations, we don’t discuss them and we don’t consider them in making our decisions one way or the other.”

Interest rate graphic
In a statement explaining its decision, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) maintained its “patient” approach to interest rates.

It said that economic activity rose at a “solid rate” but said that “growth of household spending and business fixed investment slowed in the first quarter”.

It also noted that inflation is below the Fed’s target of 2%.

Inflation growth slowed to 1.6% in the year to March compared with 1.7% in February,

Mr Powell said the FOMC had “good reasons” to think that lower inflation growth “may wind up being transient”.

But he said: “We did see inflation running persistently below, then that’s something the committee would be concerned about.”

At present, Mr Powell said the Fed is “comfortable” with its current stance.

Analysis: Andrew Walker, economics correspondent:
If you wanted some clear guidance on the Fed’s plans you must be disappointed.

Continued patience was what Jerome Powell had to offer. He did not see a strong case for moving interest rates in either direction. Risks to the economic outlook have moderated he said, referring particularly to international developments.

Data from Europe and China have improved, there have been signs of progress in US China trade talks and the possibility of a disorderly Brexit has been pushed off for now he said.

Less risk means less need to hold back from raising interest rates. But the Fed statement also noted that inflation is now running below 2%, the Fed’s target. Last time, in March, the statement said price rises remained near that rate.

Lower inflation is a reason for holding off on rate rises and could support the case for cuts if the economy weakens.

More on this story
Trump urges Fed to help economy ‘go up like a rocket’
30 April 2019

Slower US growth means no rate rise for 2019, says Fed
20 March 2019

Copyright © 2019 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

CNN Poll: Trump’s approval rating on the economy hits a new high
By Grace Sparks, CNN
Updated 6:00 AM EDT, Thu May 02, 2019

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 26: U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions as he departs the White House April 26, 2019 in Washington, DC. Trump is scheduled to speak at the annual National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis later today before returning to Washington. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(CNN) President Donald Trump hits a new high on his economic approval ratings in a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS, reaching 56% of Americans saying he’s doing a good job on the economy.

The result comes on the heels of the announcement that the US economy grew at a much better rate than expected in the first quarter, and Trump’s performance on the economy becomes one of his prime selling points for next year’s general election.

Trump’s previous high mark in CNN polling on handling the economy came in March 2017 when 55% approved. Since then, he’s edged above 50% four times, but this is the first time it’s been meaningfully over the 50% line.

White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney spelled out Trump’s 2020 economic message on Tuesday – suggesting voters would still be willing to support the President even if they don’t like him personally.

“You hate to sound like a cliché, but are you better off than you were four years ago? It’s pretty simple, right? It’s the economy, stupid. I think that’s easy. People will vote for somebody they don’t like if they think it’s good for them,” Mulvaney said during a talk at the Milken conference in Los Angeles.

The economy is the President’s best issue tested in the new poll, with his other approval ratings all below 50%. Even among those who disapprove of the way the president is handling his job generally, 20% say they approve of his work on the economy. That’s larger than crossover approval for any other issue by 12 points.

The President’s approval rating on the economy dipped to 48% earlier this year on the heels of the government shutdown. Since then, Trump has improved his ratings on the economy by double-digits among those under age 35 (up 16 points), non-whites (up 13 percentage points), independents (up 11 points), women (up 10 points) and even Democrats (up 10 points).

Trump’s approval on health care policy has improved slightly since June 2018, up five points to 38%, his worst approval rating tested in the poll. Slightly more, 42% approve of how he’s handling immigration and foreign affairs, and 39% approve of his handling of race relations.

His approval on race relations has increased since September 2017 – up 6 percentage points – but the last poll was taken amidst the protesting in the NFL by kneeling, when Trump called for owners to fire protesting players. His increases since 2017 came largely among conservatives, Republicans and whites.

At the same time, Trump’s favorability rating has hit its highest point since the 100-day mark of his presidency: 45% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the President.

More, 54%, continue to hold a negative view. But the latest movement marks a 5-percentage point increase since a December 2018 poll. His largest favorability increases come among independents (up 9 percentage points), those with a college education (9 percentage points) and women (8 percentage points).

Half of Americans say Trump is doing a good job keeping the important promises he made during his presidential campaign, steady from October 2018.

Those numbers on the economy, favorability and promise-keeping – along with the President’s best approval ratings since April 2017 – ought to bode well for his chances in 2020. But head-to-head match-ups with the top Democratic contenders for the nomination in this poll aren’t overwhelmingly positive for the President.

Registered voters in the survey were randomly assigned three of the top six Democratic contenders and asked whether they would be more likely to vote for that person or for Trump in 2020. Support for each Democrat tested ranged from a low of 47% backing South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren over Trump to a high of 52% backing Beto O’Rourke over the president.

Joe Biden (51%), Bernie Sanders (50%) and Kamala Harris (49%) fell in between. Trump’s numbers ranged from 42% to 48%.

Although some of the Democratic contenders do hold a meaningful edge over the President, these results suggest a close race at this point, and there is a lot of time for voters to change their minds. In CNN’s first test of a general election matchup between Trump and Hillary Clinton in June of 2015, Clinton led Trump by 14 points among registered voters.

Although it is very early in the process, some patterns emerged across all these matchups that are worth noting.

Each Democratic candidate topped Trump by a double-digit margin among women, while Trump held an edge among men over each candidate tested. Whites without college degrees broke for Trump in each case, but whites with degrees split, favoring Trump in match-ups with Buttigieg, Warren, Sanders and Biden, but breaking in the Democratic Party’s favor for Harris and O’Rourke.

Harris prompts the largest gap between whites without degrees and those who hold a four-year degree, with a nearly 40-point swing in preferences between the two groups. Non-whites favored the Democratic candidate in each matchup.

The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS April 25 through April 28 among a random national sample of 1,007 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Random half-samples can result in smaller subgroup sizes that fall below our minimum for publishing crosstabs for those groups. Members of groups not shown in the published crosstabs are fully represented in the results for each question in the poll. Unweighted sample sizes for registered voters under age 45 for each of the hypothetical 2020 matchups ranged from 111 to 127, for non-white voters they ranged from 107 to 130.

View on CNN
© 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Is there any sense of drawing some kind of comment on the predelictipn of economic changes having effects on the political agenda?

Maybe the art of politics surprisingly has changed, since Nixon days , to focus on the mode of survival in an increasing uncertain world, where people feel well, the permeable effect a that our shrinking planet has on the disappearance of national and ethnic differences per equal human rights.
There enters the political machinations, where by to enter the New World Order.


Barr under fire by the Congress:

Out of USA Today, Thursday, May 2, 2019:

Briefly, leaving out the content of the appearance, (to be disclosed later as it becomes available), the nite of interest here, is the observation, that prior to the appearance, hours earlier, "the Justice Department confirmed Mueller had privately objected to a letter Barr delivered to Congress in March clearing Trump of having obstructed the investigation. In his March 27 letter, Mueller said Barr’s summary three days earlier ‘did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,’ which led to ’ public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.’

According to Mueller’s letter and a Justice Department statement released late Tuesday, the special counsel expressed his differences with Barr at least three times: in March 25, the day after the attorney General reeased his summary of Mueller’s conclusions; then in the March 27 letter; and when the two spike by telephone March 28."

The disclosure of Mueller’s letter promoted calls for Barr’s resignation from lawmakers.

Sarah Sanders countered , " Democrats only disgrace and humiliate themselves with their baseless attacks on such a fine public servant."

"Barr, meanwhile, defended his March 24 letter disclosing Mueller’s 'bittom-line objections, because the “body politic was in a high state of agitation.”

POLITICO

Pelosi accuses Barr of committing a crime by lying to Congress
‘Nobody is above the law. Not the president of the United States, and not the attorney general.’

By HEATHER CAYGLE and ANDREW DESIDERIO

05/02/2019 10:35 AM EDT

Updated 05/02/2019 12:21 PM EDT

Facebook Twitter Email Print
Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused Attorney General William Barr of committing a crime by lying to Congress, blasting him in a closed-door meeting and later at a news conference.

“We saw [Barr] commit a crime when he answered your question,” Pelosi told Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) during a private caucus meeting Thursday morning, according to two sources present for the gathering.

“He lied to Congress. He lied to Congress,” Pelosi said soon after at a news conference. “And if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law. Not the president of the United States, and not the attorney general.“

The allegation comes as Democrats have intensified their criticisms of the attorney general over his handling of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, his refusal to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, and the Justice Department’s unwillingness to comply with a subpoena for the full unredacted report.

Pelosi’s comments were an apparent reference to Barr’s response to Crist last month during a House Appropriations Committee hearing, when the attorney general said he was not aware of any concerns that Mueller’s investigators might have expressed about his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings.

Barr’s response appeared to contradict the revelation earlier this week that Mueller himself wrote to the attorney general saying he was worried that Barr’s summary “threatens to undermine … public confidence” in the Russia probe. Mueller also said Barr’s memo “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the investigation.

Barr defended himself Wednesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, saying he made a distinction between comments from members of Mueller’s team and Mueller himself.

The Justice Department also quickly hit back at Pelosi.

“Speaker Pelosi’s baseless attack on the attorney general is reckless, irresponsible, and false,” said Kerri Kupec, a DOJ spokeswoman.

Pelosi also told her colleagues at the caucus meeting that she couldn’t sleep Wednesday night after watching Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, during which he challenged Mueller’s legal theories and further endeared himself to President Donald Trump and his GOP allies.

Crist later told POLITICO he agrees with Pelosi that Barr committed a crime.

“It’s called perjury,” he said.

Asked what the result should be, Crist said, “We ought to have somebody who is in a law enforcement space charge him.”

When a reporter asked Pelosi if Barr should go to jail, she said, “There’s a process involved here, and as I said, I’ll say it again, the committee will act upon how we will proceed.“

Crist said he was also open to holding Barr in contempt of Congress or beginning impeachment proceedings against him, echoing comments from other Democrats who have ratcheted up their rhetoric against Barr and other Trump administration officials in recent days.

“I don’t think we should rule out anything. We’ve got the real essence of our form of government in jeopardy right now,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), who supports impeaching Trump.

But even as more Democrats demand impeaching the president, Pelosi is still resisting. During the closed-door meeting, Pelosi said impeachment is “too good for” Trump.

Asked at the news conference if it was time to consider impeachment in light of the administration’s broad rejection of Democratic oversight requests, Pelosi said no, even as she added that “a blanket statement that he’s not going to honor any subpoenas is obstruction of justice.”

The speaker’s remarks underscored Democrats’ deep frustrations with the White House’s refusal to comply with their oversight demands and subpoenas as part of their investigations targeting the president and his administration.

CONGRESS

House Dems threaten to hold Barr in contempt
By ANDREW DESIDERIO
Barr refused to show up for a scheduled House Judiciary Committee testimony on Thursday amid a standoff with Democrats over the ground rules, and the Justice Department has said it would not comply with the panel’s subpoena for the full unredacted Mueller report and all of the underlying evidence and grand-jury information.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders hit back at House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) Thursday, saying he should resign if he can’t do his job — a reference to Democrats’ desire to allow staff attorneys to ask Barr questions at the hearing.

“I think what we’re seeing from Chairman Nadler is he’s incapable of holding power. If he and his committee aren’t capable of actually asking the attorney general questions themselves and need to staff that out it seems like a pretty pathetic moment for the chairman of that committee.”

Some Democrats have called on Barr to resign, and Nadler threatened on Thursday to hold Barr in contempt of Congress for not complying with the subpoena for the Mueller report. Those proceedings could begin as early as Monday.

“We must do all we can in the name of the American people to ensure that when the Trump administration ends, we have as robust a democracy to hand to our children as was handed to us,” Nadler said.

Kyle Cheney and Laura Barròn-Lopez contributed to this report.

© 2019 POLITICO LLC

!!! !!! !!!

DONALD TRUMP
Hillary Clinton: ‘I’m living rent free inside of Donald Trump’s brain’
The former secretary of state and 2016 presidential contender appeared on “The Rachel Maddow Show” to discuss Trump, Barr, the Mueller report and more.

Secretary Hillary Clinton speaks with Rachel Maddow on May 1, 2019.Mackenzie Calle / MSNBC

By Bridget Brown
Hillary Clinton said Wednesday night that President Donald Trump keeps attacking her to distract the country from his own problems and to fire up his Republican base of supporters.

Appearing on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Clinton discussed the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report that the president had pressed his then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate Clinton.

“I’m living rent free inside of Donald Trump’s brain, and it’s not a very nice place to be, I can tell you that,” the former Secretary of State told Maddow in her first television interview this year, calling the president’s ongoing fixation on her a “diversion attack.”

“I guess it is one of their tools to fire up their hard-core base,” Clinton said.

“When in doubt, go after me…They know better. But this is part of their whole technique to divert attention from what the real story is. The real story is the Russians interfered in our election. And Trump committed obstruction of justice. That’s the real story.”

On Attorney General William Barr’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Clinton said calling for his resignation “makes perfect sense,” although she did not explicitly do so herself, as some Democrats have, and she cautioned that his conduct should not draw attention away from the Mueller report’s findings.

She criticized Barr for behaving as “the president’s defense lawyer.”

“He is not the attorney general of the United States in the way he has conducted himself,” Clinton added.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Clinton also did not call for launching impeachment proceedings against Trump, but urged Congress first to continue to investigate the president and see where it goes.

“There’s a lot of important material to be explored, so you have to do it in a way that creates a narrative,” Clinton told Maddow. “What is it you’re finding out? Where does it lead? But, if it leads to the conclusion that this president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, that’s what should motivate the Congress to act.”

Clinton said she was speaking out because of her concerns about continuing Russian efforts to interfere in U.S. elections, as Moscow did in 2016.

“I don’t want it to happen again,” she said.

© 2019 NBC UNIVERSAL

ABCNews
Hillary Clinton: Barr is acting as Trump’s ‘defense lawyer’
By Cheyenne Haslett
May 2, 2019, 11:42 AM ET

WATCH: Barr testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Hillary Clinton said Democrats had rightfully exposed Attorney General William Barr as “the president’s defense lawyer” at his hearing on Capitol Hill Wednesday and that calling for his resignation “makes perfect sense.”

“I think that the Democrats on the committee did a good job today in exposing that, that he is the president’s defense lawyer. He is not the attorney general of the United States in the way that he has conducted himself,” Clinton said in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Wednesday night. Clinton added that Barr was doing the job the president “hired him to do.”

“Now, calling for his resignation makes perfect sense, because he’s not discharging the duties of the office,” Clinton said. The interview followed a day of testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee that focused on Barr’s rollout of special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings.

Despite the calls for Barr’s resignation, however, Clinton said that was unlikely to happen.

“He is not going to resign. And at this point, I think that we know what we need to know about him,” she said, referencing a letter made public just before the hearing that showed Mueller believed Barr’s initial summary to the public “did not fully capture the context” of the special counsel’s investigation.

“I think now we need to get into the investigation, because let’s not let Barr be the big shiny object that diverts people’s attention from the two major findings of the Mueller report,” Clinton said, one of which she said was Russia’s “sweeping and systemic interference in our election.”

“What I learned is that the Russians were successful. I don’t think there is any way to read that report and not conclude they accomplished what they set out to do. They had an objective to sow discord and divisiveness within our society at large, and to help Donald Trump. And they succeeded,” Clinton said.

The special counsel’s report did find that the Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” Mueller wrote, though it did not establish members of the campaign “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Attorney General William Barr testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee May 1, 2019, in Washington.
Clinton said she’s met with “most of the candidates” running in 2020 to answer questions and one of her constant warnings has been about foreign interference.

“I always tell them, you know, you can run the best campaign. You can be the person who gets the nomination, but unless we know how to protect our election from what happened before and what could happen again, because there is greater sophistication about it, you could lose. And I don’t mean it to scare anybody, but I do want every candidate to understand that this remains a threat,” Clinton said.

“I worry a lot that there’s a greater sophistication. They’ve learned some things that they now are going to deploy against us. And us means the country, not just Democrats,” Clinton said.

In a moment of sarcasm, Clinton described a hypothetical situation of escalated foreign involvement in 2020 that showed “how absurd” the election climate could be, saying because Trump was not held accountable, other candidates could seemingly also engage with foreign governments.

“Imagine, Rachel, that you had one of the Democratic nominees for 2020 on your show, and that person said, you know, the only other adversary of ours who is anywhere near as good as the Russians is China. So why should Russia have all the fun? And since Russia is clearly backing Republicans, why don’t we ask China to back us,” Clinton said.

“And not only that, China, if you’re listening, why don’t you get Trump’s tax returns? I’m sure our media would richly reward you,” Clinton said. As is described in Mueller’s report, during a 2016 campaign rally Trump encouraged Russians “to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from Clinton. Mueller found that “the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.”

“Now, according to the Mueller report, that is not conspiracy, because it’s done right out in the open,” Clinton said.

“So, hey, let’s have a great power contest, and let’s get the Chinese in on the side of somebody else,” Clinton said in jest. “Just saying that shows how absurd the situation we find ourselves in,” Clinton said.

© 2019 ABC News Internet Ventures. All rights reserved.

Trump says he won’t let McGahn testify to Congress: ‘It’s done’
Then-White House counsel Don McGahn and President Donald Trump on June 21, 2018.
Then-White House counsel Don McGahn and President Donald Trump on June 21, 2018.
JIM LO SCALZO/EPA-EFE
REBECCA MORIN | USA TODAY | 2 hours ago

President Trump said Thursday that he won’t allow former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before Congress.

“I don’t think I can let him and then tell everybody else you can because especially him because he was the counsel,” Trump said during a clip of a 20-minute interview aired on Fox News.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, last week issued a subpoena to McGahn to testify before the committee. Senate Democrats have also indicated that they want McGahn to testify before Congress as Democrats on Capitol Hill seek to follow up on Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential race, an investigation that widened to include an inquiry into possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

Trump’s comments come a day after Attorney General William Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the same day Barr refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

More: Attorney General William Barr refuses to testify at House hearing about special counsel Robert Mueller

According to Mueller’s report, the president ordered McGahn to have the special counsel removed in mid-2017. McGahn refused and later told another White House aide that the president asked him to “do crazy s—.” McGahn also told investigators that the president had asked him to deny having been asked to fire Mueller.

Barr, in a summary of Mueller’s report, said he and the deputy attorney general concluded that Trump’s actions did not constitute obstruction of justice. Barr, who on Wednesday testified on Capitol Hill, stood by his summary of the Russia probe report, despite Mueller’s recently revealed rebuke of the attorney general’s characterization on the issue of obstruction of justice.

According to The New York Times, President Donald Trump ordered White House lawyer Don McGahn to fire special counsel Robert Mueller last June. Trump pushed back Friday against the report calling it “Fake news.” (Jan. 26)
AP
Trump has hinted that he intended to block aides — both current and former — from testifying before Congress, saying last month that the White House was looking into invoking executive privilege to block such testimony.

In an interview with the Washington Post last month, Trump said the investigations led by Democrats in the House are unnecessary given the results of Mueller’s report.

More: Barr’s vacant chair at House hearing wasn’t the first empty seat to make waves in US politics

“There is no reason to go any further, and especially in Congress where it’s very partisan — obviously very partisan,” Trump told the Post. “I don’t want people testifying to a party, because that is what they’re doing if they do this.”

He told the Post that the White House Counsel’s Office was seriously debating asserting executive privilege, which it did not do with information compiled in Mueller’s report, to block congressional testimony. Trump said White House lawyers had yet to make a "final, final decision.”

Attorney General William Barr skipped a House hearing Thursday on special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia report, escalating an already acrimonious battle between Democrats and President Donald Trump’s Justice Department. (May 2)
AP
The Post had reported that the White House was specifically looking into asserting privilege to block McGahn’s testimony, as he was one of the star witnesses for Mueller’s investigation and outlined some of the most damning, behind-the-scenes episodes at the White House.

More: Trump: White House considering asserting executive privilege to hinder congressional probes

Trump maintained that there is no need to investigate further now after Mueller’s report.

“I would say it’s done,” the president said Thursday in the Fox News sit-down. "Nobody has ever done what I’ve done, I’ve given total transparency. It’s never happened before like this.

“Congress shouldn’t be looking anymore. It’s done,” he said.

Contributing: Christal Hayes

Attorney General William Barr refuses to appear before House Judiciary Committee

© Copyright Gannett 2019

At this time, as a showing of not being totally unaware of social cues, feeling that the brazen persisting anomalies that I suggest is as present in a narcissistic personality, I shall limit my contribution to occasional earth shaking events which may further effect not merely the constant prodding, but expose the overt ways in which the executive function tries to overreach.
By this token, the effect is doubly anti Democratic, as it tries to encapsulate the intelligentsia’s opinions, which showes a certain kind of saturation point, that is nothing else but the changing of the effect on others of such a relentless politically used devices , as to alienate and divide by such fragmented contextual unusual tricks.

Such tricks were used less skillfulky in another era of similar executive (Nixon) overreach, but that era was different, because here certain limits were allowed to pass.

Why? I n my case I tried to solve a seeming appearance of an exposed nerve, a sensitive psyche of others:reacting to execution of sudden and drastic changes , as a conflation of the singular ok to the constituency , to which more is owed. by way of responsibility than representation.

It appears that Congress has indeed been conflated in this way, negatively, and the judicial as well. My recognition of the persisting daily erosion of this forum , has achieved this as well, and I must assume social responsibility within these limits. Presently here, a microcosmic shadowy realm I personally would prefer not to be identified with.

I consider myself suffering from more then appropriate self identification with similar situ, as has been prevy to , as society itself can create weary resemblance with an intentional underlying and overbearing political process .

While I do find the necessity of indicating personal opinion, regarding the extreme possibility of the opposite effecting negative value as well, differentiating the intentional and unabiding refusal to recognise a social problem, is indication of good will and social consciousness., as well to avoid marginalizing and alienating myself.
Which I have recognized and plan to represent otherwise, as non intentional reaction of the imminent and ongoing climate.

In the year remaining, or even further, the transparency can either get better or worse, and I will reduce the frequency of publishing to show a more personal and intentionally motive of a more objective sign of resistance against propaganda. social commitment and factual honesty.as a goal I hope will come out from further posts, because enough has been exposed over the past year, to enable to show a systemic delineation of procedural misconduct, at the very least.

Thank You for bearing with it so far.

photos.app.goo.gl/KtzSTvT1rDhokgKN7


California bill: President Trump won’t appear on ballot unless he releases tax returns
ASSOCIATED PRESS | USA TODAY | 4 hours ago

President Donald Trump says he “would not be inclined” to provide his tax returns in response to a request from a House committee chairman. (April 3)
AP, AP
The California Legislature is attempting to force presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns — a move that could bar President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s primary ballot if he does not make the documents public.

The state Senate voted 27-10 on Thursday to require anyone appearing on the state’s presidential primary ballot to publicly release five years’ worth of income tax returns. The proposal is in response to Trump, who bucked 40 years of tradition by refusing to release his tax returns prior to his election in 2016.

California’s presidential primary is scheduled for March 3. If the bill becomes law, Trump could not appear on the state’s primary ballot without filing his tax returns with the California secretary of state.

“We believe that President Trump, if he truly doesn’t have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns,” said Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat from Healdsburg and the co-author of the bill along with Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat.

Congress fights for returns: Treasury misses second deadline to release Trump’s tax returns, will make decision by May 6

Opinion: It’s April 15. Do you know where President Trump’s tax returns are?

Sarah Sanders: This Congress not ‘smart enough’ to understand Trump’s tax returns

The Legislature passed a nearly identical bill in 2017, only to have it vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown, telling lawmakers he was concerned the law was unconstitutional. Brown, a Democrat, refused to release his tax returns while in office.

He left office in January and was replaced by Gavin Newsom, who has released his tax returns and embraced his role as a national “resistance” leader to Trump and his policies.

Newsom’s office didn’t say whether he’d sign it. If the bill reaches his desk, “it would be evaluated on its own merits,” spokesman Brian Ferguson said.

McGuire said he has had “initial discussions” with the Newsom administration about the proposal.

“I never want to put words into his mouth, but here’s what I’ll say: Gov. Newsom has led by example,” by releasing his own tax returns, McGuire said.

The bill would also apply to the more than a dozen candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. But many of them have already released their tax returns. They include California Sen. Kamala Harris and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who released his tax returns last month after refusing to do so in 2016.

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney has a strong message for the Democrats about President Donald Trump’s tax returns.
BUZZ60, BUZZ60
Candidates would have to submit tax returns to the secretary of state’s office, which would work with the candidates to redact some information before posting the returns online.

The bill echoes similar legislation being considered in Illinois, Washington and New Jersey.

In New York, Democrats have examined multiple approaches in hopes of helping release Trump’s tax returns, including bills requiring officials to release tax returns to appear on the ballot. State lawmakers last month introduced a bill that would allow the state to release Trump’s state tax returns if any of three congressional committees — the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation — ask for the documents.

Trump is a resident of New York and does much of his business in the state.

‘I’m not gonna do it’: Donald Trump says he won’t give his tax returns to Congress

All of the bills come as Democrats in Washington continue to fight for access to Trump’s returns.

Ways and Means Committee chairman Richard Neal officially requested six years of the president’s tax returns last month from the IRS but it hasn’t been easy. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who also oversees the IRS, has missed two deadlines, imposed by Neal, to hand over the documents and instead said he would wait for the Justice Department to weigh in on the legality before making a decision.

In his latest letter last month to Neal, Mnuchin detailed both the constitutional concerns and his department’s worries with releasing the president’s financial information. He also accused Democrats of attempting to skirt the law in order to obtain the documents, something they have been after since even before Trump was elected.

© Copyright Gannett 2019

…?..?..???..??..???

POLITICO

Nadler delivers ultimatum to Barr before holding AG in contempt
By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY

Jerrold Nadler
As part of his new offer, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is asking the Justice Department to allow more members of Congress to immediately view a less redacted version of Robert Mueller’s report. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Facebook Twitter Email Print
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is making what he calls a final “counter offer” to Attorney General William Barr’s refusal to grant immediate access to the underlying evidence in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

In a new letter to Barr on Friday, Nadler (D-N.Y.) gave the Justice Department until 9 a.m. Monday to comply with his adjusted request before moving forward with an effort to hold Barr in contempt of Congress for defying a committee subpoena demanding Mueller’s full unredacted report and underlying documents by May 1.

“The committee is prepared to make every realistic effort to reach an accommodation with the department,” Nadler wrote. “But if the department persists in its baseless refusal to comply with a validly issued subpoena, the committee will move to contempt proceedings and seek further legal recourse.”

Democrats have said they’re trying to show that they’re engaging in good-faith negotiations with Barr before rushing to take punitive actions — like holding him in contempt or fighting Barr in court.

Nadler’s new offer comes as the Justice Department said earlier this week it would not comply with Nadler’s subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report and all of the underlying evidence and grand jury information. In a letter to Nadler, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd said Congress is not entitled to the information, adding that the request is “not legitimate oversight.”

Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle
A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

As part of his new offer, Nadler is asking the Justice Department to allow more members of Congress to immediately view a less-redacted version of Mueller’s report. The chairman is not backing off his demand that Barr join Congress to seek a court order granting lawmakers access to grand-jury material that Barr has already blocked from public view, citing statutes prohibiting him from disclosing such information.

Nadler also said he’s willing to prioritize Mueller’s underlying evidence in order to streamline its production to Congress, with a focus on materials that were specifically mentioned in the redacted version of the report.

“[T]he department has offered no reason whatsoever for failing to produce the evidence underlying the report, except for a complaint that there is too much of it and a vague assertion about the sensitivity of law enforcement files,” Nadler wrote.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Friday said Nadler’s Monday deadline makes Democrats “look ridiculous and silly.” Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said Nadler was placing “absurd demands” on the Justice Department.

“His accusations do not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this situation,” Collins said, borrowing Mueller’s exact words from a letter the special counsel wrote to Barr last month expressing concerns about the attorney general’s handling of the probe.

“Democrats continue to deliver inaccurate statements and abusive politics, while demanding the attorney general either break the law or face contempt charges,” Collins said. “Their chief complaint against the attorney general is his upholding the rule of law when they wish him to disregard it.”

The committee is conducting its own obstruction of justice investigation into President Donald Trump, and Democrats have demanded that they have access to all of Mueller’s evidence so they could use it for their own probe. Mueller outlined evidence in his report that Trump obstructed justice, but he ultimately decided not to charge the president with a crime, citing in part a long-standing Justice Department stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

“As the Mueller report makes clear, this need is amplified where, as here, department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president and instead relies upon Congress to evaluate whether constitutional remedies are appropriate,” Nadler wrote, likely referencing impeachment.

CONGRESS

House Dems threaten to hold Barr in contempt
By ANDREW DESIDERIO
The Justice Department has already offered for a select number of lawmakers and staffers to view a less redacted version of Mueller’s report in a secure setting. Nadler has objected to those restrictions, and Democrats have yet to view the less redacted version.

Nadler’s new offer also comes amid escalating tensions between the Trump administration and congressional Democrats over House committees’ various investigations targeting the president and his administration.

On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee held an empty-chair hearing on Barr’s handling of the Mueller report after the attorney general backed out of the testimony amid a disagreement with the panel over its insistence that committee lawyers be allowed to question Barr. Nadler has threatened to issue a subpoena to compel Barr’s attendance at a future hearing.

Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and challenged many of Mueller’s legal theories. Democrats said Barr was trying to spin the contents of the report in the most favorable light possible for the president.

This story tagged under:
House Judiciary Committee DOJ Jerry Nadler Jerrold Nadler Mueller Investigation William Barr The Mueller
© Sat May 04 00:29:06 EDT 2019 POLITICO LLC

!!! !!! ???

Live TV
This is not the '60s and Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon
Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN
Updated 1:12 AM EDT, Sat May 04, 2019

(CNN) The last time the unemployment rate was this low, the Beatles were still together. Woodstock was right around the corner. There was a new President named Richard Nixon and Donald Trump was just a recent college grad.

That’s how long it’s been.

The unemployment rate was at or under 4%, as it is now, from December of 1965 until January of 1970, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was a pivotal time in US history – but now it is not remembered for the unemployment rate.

US economy has added jobs for 103 straight months. Unemployment rate falls to 3.6%
US economy has added jobs for 103 straight months. Unemployment rate falls to 3.6%

They were not quiet years. Those were the years in which Medicare was passed into law and the Civil Rights movement was in full swing. They also saw most of the US casualties in Vietnam. Things were so bad that Lyndon B. Johnson decided not to run for reelection in 1968, which ultimately led to violence at the Democratic convention that year and gave Nixon an opening to return from his political wilderness.

So what’s the lesson?

“A good economy is not the be-all and end-all to elections,” said Princeton political historian Julian Zelizer, asked about the 1960s vs. today. “That was a period when the economy was still doing very well – even better than today in many ways.”

Today there is no war like Vietnam, although Trump does his best to make things seem uncertain with his trade wars and his tweets and his complaints about the Russia investigation. But there is vigorous debate about social change and progress, particularly for minorities and women.

Americans have time to focus on those efforts, perhaps, because they’re not looking for work.

“A good economy can create expectations for social movement politics,” said Zelizer. “In the 1960s, the strong economy gave support to civil rights movement, with demands that African Americans be included in the growing middle class; it produced more educated young people who were the heart of movement politics with the war; and it gave support to ideas like fighting poverty, since the country could afford to do so.”

Fast forward 50 years and a lot of the change that started in the '60s feels unfinished, particularly to Democrats talking about economic inequality even as, according to the data over which economists obsess, everyone who wants a job has one and that the economy continues to grow.

The unemployment rate was 3.6% in April and annualized GDP growth was over 4% for the first quarter of the year.

Trump’s argument is things are going really well
Trump should be the beneficiary of all this good economic news. But he has seen his approval ratings on the economy pop up even if his general approval ratings hang below 50%.

His chief of staff this week said it doesn’t really matter how voters feel about Trump, they’ll give him another four years in the White House if it means sitting pretty like they are now.

“You hate to sound like a cliche, but are you better off than you were four years ago? It’s pretty simple, right? ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ I think that’s easy,” Mick Mulvaney told an audience at the Milken Conference in Los Angeles. “People will vote for somebody they don’t like if they think it’s good for them.”

And by some pretty objective standards that won’t make your eyes glaze over, people are sitting pretty.

Trump is struggling despite a strong economy. Here's why.
Trump is struggling despite a strong economy. Here’s why.
Most people in the country just got a tax cut, even if some people in mostly blue states didn’t realize it at the time because their tax refunds were lower.

Contentedness with the economy extends nationwide if you drill down into the most recent CNN data. Seventy-three percent of Americans generally in the South said the economy was good or somewhat good. That matched 71% of Northeasterners and only a slightly lower percentage (69%) of Westerners and Midwesterners, which includes several of the key Rust Belt states.

If the economy is to carry Trump to a second term, it will be in spite of the divisions he has spread in the country, said Timothy Naftali, a professor at NYU and former director of the Nixon presidential library.

“Certainly there have been times where the economy is strong, but the country is stressed because of a foreign policy challenge, as in the case of Vietnam,” Naftali said. “In this case, we’re not stressed by a foreign policy problem; I would argue it’s the nature of the President himself, who is creating stresses. If Donald Trump were a unifier, I would think the public would be much more behind him given the strength of the economy.”

A time for transformation?
It is not at all clear there is enough pressure to create change today. Democrats have seized on the issue of inequality and some, particularly Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, progressives running for the Democratic presidential nomination, have argued the fact of the good economy is exactly the reason to transform US society.

“I’ve spent my career getting to the bottom of why America’s promise works for some families, but others who work just as hard slip through the cracks into disaster,” Warren said in her campaign announcement video.

She and Sanders have proposed sweeping reforms to remake the health care and education systems and create a stronger safety net with the country’s wealth. Trump and Republicans are already painting these ideas as socialism.

Dems' town hall was socialism on parade
Dems’ town hall was socialism on parade
Arguing the government should do more is certainly in stark contrast to Republicans, who will point to their permanent tax cuts for corporations as evidence that giving more to business can help the economy.

But that may not even ultimately be a debate Americans have in 2020. Only 13% in the most recent monthly Gallup survey said the economy is the most important issue, down from more than 80% at points during the financial crisis. To the extent the economy affects voters, it may be a lack of economic urgency.

Joe Biden, the former vice president and current Democratic front-runner, entered the race last month without mentioning the economy in his kickoff video. He wanted to focus entirely on Trump’s rhetoric and white nationalists and argue Trump is changing the moral fabric of the country.

Plus, Trump has shown an innate ability to distract Americans from the news that benefits him, such as his preoccupation with the Russia investigation, his divisive insistence that a wall be built on the southern border or that the Affordable Care Act be repealed.

These issues may ultimately be more important to voters.

“The point is the good economic news does help an incumbent, but other problems, policies and challenges can undercut that advantage,” Zelizer said. “Whereas in 1968 it was a war in Southeast Asia, today it is a political war over the meaning of this presidency.”

And sometimes there’s nothing to explain what happens. By November 1972, the unemployment rate was over 5% and had been for more than two years. The country already knew a lot about Watergate. It didn’t matter. Nixon, promising to end the war he’d prolonged, won in a landslide.

© 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


The New York Times

James Comey: How Trump Co-opts Leaders Like Bill Barr
Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive this president.

By James Comey
Mr. Comey is the former F.B.I. director.

May 1, 2019
People have been asking me hard questions. What happened to the leaders in the Trump administration, especially the attorney general, Bill Barr, who I have said was due the benefit of the doubt?

How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like “no collusion” and F.B.I. “spying”? And downplaying acts of obstruction of justice as products of the president’s being “frustrated and angry,” something he would never say to justify the thousands of crimes prosecuted every day that are the product of frustration and anger?

How could he write and say things about the report by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, that were apparently so misleading that they prompted written protest from the special counsel himself?

How could Mr. Barr go before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and downplay President Trump’s attempt to fire Mr. Mueller before he completed his work?

And how could Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, after the release of Mr. Mueller’s report that detailed Mr. Trump’s determined efforts to obstruct justice, give a speech quoting the president on the importance of the rule of law? Or on resigning, thank a president who relentlessly attacked both him and the Department of Justice he led for “the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations”?

What happened to these people?

I don’t know for sure. People are complicated, so the answer is most likely complicated. But I have some idea from four months of working close to Mr. Trump and many more months of watching him shape others.

Amoral leaders have a way of revealing the character of those around them. Sometimes what they reveal is inspiring. For example, James Mattis, the former secretary of defense, resigned over principle, a concept so alien to Mr. Trump that it took days for the president to realize what had happened, before he could start lying about the man.

But more often, proximity to an amoral leader reveals something depressing. I think that’s at least part of what we’ve seen with Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein. Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from. It takes character like Mr. Mattis’s to avoid the damage, because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites.

It starts with your sitting silent while he lies, both in public and private, making you complicit by your silence. In meetings with him, his assertions about what “everyone thinks” and what is “obviously true” wash over you, unchallenged, as they did at our private dinner on Jan. 27, 2017, because he’s the president and he rarely stops talking. As a result, Mr. Trump pulls all of those present into a silent circle of assent.

Speaking rapid-fire with no spot for others to jump into the conversation, Mr. Trump makes everyone a co-conspirator to his preferred set of facts, or delusions. I have felt it — this president building with his words a web of alternative reality and busily wrapping it around all of us in the room.

I must have agreed that he had the largest inauguration crowd in history because I didn’t challenge that. Everyone must agree that he has been treated very unfairly. The web building never stops.

From the private circle of assent, it moves to public displays of personal fealty at places like cabinet meetings. While the entire world is watching, you do what everyone else around the table does — you talk about how amazing the leader is and what an honor it is to be associated with him.

Sure, you notice that Mr. Mattis never actually praises the president, always speaking instead of the honor of representing the men and women of our military. But he’s a special case, right? Former Marine general and all. No way the rest of us could get away with that. So you praise, while the world watches, and the web gets tighter.

Next comes Mr. Trump attacking institutions and values you hold dear — things you have always said must be protected and which you criticized past leaders for not supporting strongly enough. Yet you are silent. Because, after all, what are you supposed to say? He’s the president of the United States.

You feel this happening. It bothers you, at least to some extent. But his outrageous conduct convinces you that you simply must stay, to preserve and protect the people and institutions and values you hold dear. Along with Republican members of Congress, you tell yourself you are too important for this nation to lose, especially now.

You can’t say this out loud — maybe not even to your family — but in a time of emergency, with the nation led by a deeply unethical person, this will be your contribution, your personal sacrifice for America. You are smarter than Donald Trump, and you are playing a long game for your country, so you can pull it off where lesser leaders have failed and gotten fired by tweet.

ADVERTISEMENT
Of course, to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values.

And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.

James Comey is the former F.B.I. director and author of “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

© 2019 New York Times Company

Another deadline approaching Monday:

(CNN)A showdown between the White House and House Democrats over the release of President Donald Trump’s personal tax returns comes down to one man: Charles Rettig, head of the Internal Revenue Service.

Rettig, 62, a veteran California tax attorney, spent more than 35 years representing taxpayers in disputes with federal and state tax agencies until he was sworn in as IRS commissioner last October.

That makes him the only person in Washington with the authority to turn over the President’s personal tax returns under an obscure tax law-- though Rettig has argued in hearings that the decision to comply with Democratic requests nonetheless rests with his boss, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Trump has refused to release his returns, first as a candidate and now as president, breaking precedent going back to Watergate. And he has held fast to that argument even after House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal of Massachusetts formally asked Rettig to release six years of Trump’s personal tax returns.

Read: House Committee letter to the IRS demanding Trump’s tax returns

The latest deadline is Monday, after Mnuchin asked for more time to consult with Department of Justice lawyers.

Treasury and IRS spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rettig was not a traditional choice by Trump to run an underfunded bureaucracy with nearly 80,000 employees.

Previous commissioners from the past two decades were picked for their deep business management experience. Rettig’s predecessor, John Koskinen, who left the job in November 2017, spent two decades as an executive of management consulting firm Palmieri Co. His predecessor, Douglas Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee, came to the agency after serving as vice chairman of the Finra, the finance industry self-regulator.

Instead, Rettig, a Beverly Hills lawyer, who earned his economics degree from UCLA and went to Pepperdine University for law school, spent more three decades of his career representing wealthy taxpayers and businesses in complex disputes with the government.

Democrats blasted him during his June confirmation hearing for failing to disclose that he had a stake in two rental units in Hawaii at a Trump-branded hotel. Those ties were resurfaced last week by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known as CREW, after disclosure documents showed Rettig earned as much as $1 million in rental income from his Trump-related branded properties while under political pressure to release the President’s tax returns.

Rettig previously noted the existence of those properties on his disclosure form but did not specify that they were located at a Trump-branded hotel. Instead, he described them at the time as a “Honolulu, Hawai’i residential rental property,” according to a memo from committee staff obtained by CNN.

At the same June hearing, Democratic senators also pressed Rettig on whether he would resist political pressure from the White House given the prospect Democrats were likely to demand the President’s tax returns if either chamber seized control after the 2018 midterm elections.

Rettig pledged he would remain independent from the Trump White House during his five-year term, which expires in November 2022, and would serve in an “impartial, unbiased” manner. He renewed his pledge not to cave to political pressure to senators before the same committee last month.

Today, Rettig’s role following Neal’s request for Trump’s tax returns has been blurred by Mnuchin’s intervention in the process, arguing that as Rettig’s boss, the responsibility falls to him to oversee the decision. Mnuchin has also separately asked the Justice Department to review the matter.

Democrats argue that the authority lies solely with Rettig. They claim that Treasury long ago delegated the responsibility to comply with congressional demands by the heads of the respective tax-writing committee to the IRS commissioner. They also argue that any change would require notification to Congress, which hasn’t happened.

“It’s your job and your job alone to respond to Chairman Neal’s request,” Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, told Rettig at a hearing in April.

Rettig replied, “We are a bureau of the Treasury. We are supervised by Treasury.”

So far, Mnuchin has interceded twice in responding to Democratic congressional demands to release Trump’s tax returns despite directing their request to Rettig.

In his response, Mnuchin has argued the “unprecedented” request raises “serious constitutional issues” that could have dire consequences for taxpayers’ privacy, and has made the case for his oversight of the matter.

“This is a decision that has enormous precedence in potentially weaponizing the IRS,” Mnuchin told reporters in April on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund annual meeting in Washington.

View on CNN

© 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights

!!! !!!

Trump on collision course with Supreme Court; justices may avoid interference in 2020 election

RICHARD WOLF | USA TODAY | 41 minutes ago

   

The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to look at some legacy cases before the lower courts have finished with them.

HANNAH GABER SALETAN, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – President Trump is on a collision course with the Supreme Court, a trajectory that threatens to put the justices in the middle of the 2020 election.

Disputes over congressional subpoenas for documents and testimony, as well as legal battles over administration policies and Trump’s businesses, finances and personal affairs, are moving inexorably toward a court Trump has sought to shape in his image.

In one box are myriad disputes over immigration, as well as health care and transgender troops in the military. In another are lawsuits seeking to pry open – or keep secret – Trump’s business dealings, financial records and tax returns. Even his Twitter account is a target.

Most recently, the president’s vow to fight all subpoenas from House Democrats and Attorney General William Barr’s refusal to testifybefore a House panel have threatened to add another layer to the looming high court showdown.

Some battles already have reached the justices. They ruled narrowly last year in favor of the president’s travel ban on several majority-Muslim countries. They seemed inclined last month to allow the Commerce Department to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census, again by the slimmest of margins.

The question now is how many hot-button squabbles the high court will settle or sidestep in the 18 months remaining before Election Day.

Several factors may delay or derail many of the confrontations. The wheels of justice turn slowly. The Supreme Court turns down 99 of every 100 cases that come its way.

And the justices likely want to stay “three ZIP codes away” from political controversy, as their newest colleague, Brett Kavanaugh, put it during his confirmation hearing last year.

“All these cases are long shots for multiple, independent reasons,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who follows the high court closely. “If this is a one-term presidency, the clock will run out while these cases are still percolating.”

The likelihood that the Supreme Court will face a flurry of Trump-related cases increases exponentially if he wins re-election, however. Second terms tend to be litigious; think Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal and Bill Clinton’s Whitewater investigation. If Democrats retain control of the House or win the Senate in 2020, the collisions could come in bunches.

Special interest groups challenging Trump up and down the federal court system hope they don’t have to wait that long.

“I think it could be next year that we get the beginnings of the Trump rule-of-law docket,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. “You don’t want the court to essentially sit on these issues simply to avoid grappling with the tough questions.”

Mixing politics and law

President Donald Trump shakes hands with federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his Supreme Court nominee, in the East Room of the White House last July.

Mueller. Now what?

Trump reverses stance and says Mueller should not testify – live updates
The president has backed away from an earlier claim that he would support William Barr’s decision on the special counsel testifying

The morning sky over the White House in Washington DC Monday.

Amanda Holpuch in New York

Mon 6 May 2019 10.13 EDT First published on Mon 6 May 2019 08.59 EDT
Key events
10.13am

The US House Judiciary Committee took its first step to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress this morning, after Barr failed to provide a copy of the unredacted Mueller report before the committee’s deadline.

On Wednesday, the committee will debate a resolution and a 27-page report on Barr being held in contempt, then hold a vote on the resolution. If the vote goes through, it will move to a full vote in the House to authorize legal proceedings.

House Judiciary committee chairman, Jerrold Nadler, said in a statement:

Even in redacted form, the Special Counsel’s report offers disturbing evidence and analysis that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice at the highest levels. Congress must see the full report and underlying evidence to determine how to best move forward with oversight, legislation, and other constitutional responsibilities.

Facebook Twitter
10.05am

Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, just navigated through a swarm of photographers and television cameras outside his apartment in New York City, before hopping into a black SUV to take him to prison, about 70 miles north of the city.

Cohen made a brief statement to reporters:

I hope that when I rejoin my family and friends that the country will be in a place without xenophobia, injustice and lies at the helm of our country. There still remains much to be told and I look forward to the day the day I can tell the truth.

Cohen was sentenced last December to three years in prison for tax evasion, lying to Congress and campaign finance violations. He is the third former Trump aide to go to prison in the past 12 months.

Khaki uniform, jingling keys, snoring: what Michael Cohen will find in prison

Facebook Twitter
9.51am

2020: Booker unveils gun violence prevention plan
2020 update: New Jersey senator Cory Booker, a Democrat, this morning unveiled his plan to tackle gun violence – which in 2017 saw gun deaths in the US rise to its highest rate in more than 20 years.

Booker’s campaign outlined the ambitious plan on Medium. It included several measures which Booker said would be a focus on day one of his presidency:

Universal background checks.
Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
More funding for gun violence research.
Requiring gun owners to obtain a license to purchase and own a firearm.
A national database to register and track guns.
Repealing a law that protects the gun industry from nearly all lawsuits.
Require “microstamping,” which helps trace shell casings to a specific weapon.
Expand the law so people found guilty of non-felony abuse for violence against a partner of former partner are prohibited from purchasing a firearm - known as the “boyfriend loophole.”
Facebook Twitter
9.23am

Donald Trump shocked global financial markets this morning with an unexpected threat to further raise tariffs on Chinese-made goods.

In September, Trump imposed a 10% tariff on $200bn in goods from China, including food, chemicals and electronics. On Twitter last night, Trump said he planned to hike that tariff to 25%. He also said another $325bn in goods would be subject to the 25% tariff.

This has upended global stock markets after months of seemingly positive negotiations between the US and China. Trump himself has declared that the discussions were moving in a positive direction, helping to boost global markets anticipating a positive outcome from the talks.

China’s market closed down 5.8% on Monday, its worst day since Feb 2016. Europe and US markets also fell, with oil prices – a benchmark for global trade – falling sharply.

Liu He, Beijing’s lead trade negotiator, was due in Washington this week for trade talks that experts predicted would be the last round of discussions before reaching a deal. China has not announced how Trump’s announcement will impact Liu’s travel plans.

And if you’re wondering, who pays for these tariffs? A long explanation is here. The quick version: Companies pay these tariffs when they import goods from China, despite Trump’s claims they are paid by China. US importers then decide to either pass the increased costs on to consumers by raising prices, absorb the cost and take a hit to their profits, try to negotiate costs down or find outside suppliers.

Nick Twidale, Sydney-based analyst at Rakuten Securities Australia, told the Guardian:

There is still a question of whether this is one of the famous Trump negotiation tactic, or are we really going to see some drastic increase in tariffs. If it’s the latter we’ll see massive downside pressure across all markets.

Facebook Twitter
8.59am

Trump reverses position on Mueller testimony
Happy Monday and welcome to today’s politics live blog. The Mueller report saga is far from over.

Donald Trump has reversed his earlier position on whether special counsel Robert Mueller should be allowed to testify before a Congressional committee about his 448-page report into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Last night, Trump tweeted “Bob Mueller should not testify,” backing away from an earlier claim that he would support William Barr’s decision on whether Mueller should testify. The attorney general has said it would be fine if he did.

Barr is also due to respond to Representative Jerry Nadler, the House judiciary committee chairman, who gave the attorney general a Monday deadline to provide an unredacted version of the Mueller report.

Trump has repeatedly mischaracterized the report’s findings. Mueller did not assess collusion because it is not a legal term and instead focused on potential criminal conspiracy between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia. Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges for obstruction, but wrote the president couldn’t be exonerated from such allegations, either.

Elsewhere:

The president’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is set to begin serving his three-year prison sentence today in New York. Cohen is the third Trump campaign aide to go to prison in the past 12 months.
Trump unexpectedly announced he would further raise tariffs on Chinese-made goods, sending global financial markets tumbling.
And the US is sending an aircraft carrier and a bomber task force to the Middle East in response to “escaltory indications” from Iran, according to National Security Adviser, John Bolton, who did not identify what caused the US to escalate tensions in the region.
We’ll have more on all this throughout the morning, as well as rolling updates through the day.

© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

!!!

Democrats move to hold Barr in contempt over failure to release full Mueller report – live
House takes first step to hold attorney general in contempt of Congress after Barr failed to provide unredacted copy of Mueller report before deadline

On Wednesday, the committee will debate a resolution and a 27-page report on Barr being held in contempt, then hold a vote on the resolution.

Amanda Holpuch in New York

Mon 6 May 2019 11.20 EDT First published on Mon 6 May 2019 08.59 EDT
Key events
11.20am

The top Republican on the House Judiciary committee, representative Doug Collins, of Georgia, was critical of Wednesday’s planned vote on contempt for Attorney General William Barr.

“Democrats have launched a proxy war smearing the attorney general when their anger actually lies with the president and the special counsel, who found neither conspiracy nor obstruction,” Collins said.

Collins said the upcoming vote is “illogical and disingenuous” as negotiations are underway with the Justice Department for access, according to the AP.

Facebook Twitter
10.47am

Donald Trump is complaining about disaster funding to Puerto Rico, again.

On Twitter, Trump said Puerto Rico has already received more money from Congress than any state in the history of the US and complained Democrats won’t back a bill that gives disaster relief money to states including Georgia, North Carolina and Alabama.

“Puerto Rico should be very happy and the Dems should stop blocking much needed Disaster Relief!” Trump tweeted.

The president is in a standoff with Democrats, who want a disaster aid funding bill to include money for Puerto Rico, as well as the others states.

In the tweets, Trump said Puerto Rico had received $91bn in disaster relief funding - which is not true. There has been $41bn in announced funding. The additional $50bn is money that one internal estimate said could need to be committed in the long-term.

This weekend, Boston Red Sox manager, Alex Cora, said he wouldn’t visit the White House to celebrate the team’s 2018 World Series win because of the Trump administration’s response to the hurricane. Cora is Puerto Rican. Several other Red Sox players have also said they would be skipping the ceremony.

Since Hurricane Maria devastated the entire island of Puerto Rico in September 2017, Trump has routinely minimized, dismissed or ignored the scale of destruction– including denying the official death toll.

Facebook Twitter
10.13am

The US House judiciary committee took its first step to hold the attorney general, William Barr, in contempt of Congress this morning, after Barr failed to provide a copy of the unredacted Mueller report before the committee’s deadline.

On Wednesday, the committee will debate a resolution and a 27-page report on Barr being held in contempt, then hold a vote on the resolution. If the vote goes through, it will move to a full vote in the House to authorize legal proceedings.

House Judiciary committee chairman, Jerrold Nadler, said in a statement:

Even in redacted form, the Special Counsel’s report offers disturbing evidence and analysis that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice at the highest levels. Congress must see the full report and underlying evidence to determine how to best move forward with oversight, legislation, and other constitutional responsibilities.

Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, just navigated through a swarm of photographers and television cameras outside his apartment in New York City, before hopping into a black SUV to take him to prison, about 70 miles north of the city.

Cohen made a brief statement to reporters:

I hope that when I rejoin my family and friends that the country will be in a place without xenophobia, injustice and lies at the helm of our country. There still remains much to be told and I look forward to the day the day I can tell the truth.

Cohen was sentenced last December to three years in prison for tax evasion, lying to Congress and campaign finance violations. He is the third former Trump aide to go to prison in the past 12 months.

Khaki uniform, jingling keys, snoring: what Michael Cohen will find in prison

Facebook Twitter
9.51am

2020: Booker unveils gun violence prevention plan
2020 update: New Jersey senator Cory Booker, a Democrat, this morning unveiled his plan to tackle gun violence – which in 2017 saw gun deaths in the US rise to its highest rate in more than 20 years.

Booker’s campaign outlined the ambitious plan on Medium. It included several measures which Booker said would be a focus on day one of his presidency:

Universal background checks.
Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
More funding for gun violence research.
Requiring gun owners to obtain a license to purchase and own a firearm.
A national database to register and track guns.
Repealing a law that protects the gun industry from nearly all lawsuits.
Require “microstamping,” which helps trace shell casings to a specific weapon.
Expand the law so people found guilty of non-felony abuse for violence against a partner of former partner are prohibited from purchasing a firearm - known as the “boyfriend loophole.”

9.23am

Donald Trump shocked global financial markets this morning with an unexpected threat to further raise tariffs on Chinese-made goods.

In September, Trump imposed a 10% tariff on $200bn in goods from China, including food, chemicals and electronics. On Twitter last night, Trump said he planned to hike that tariff to 25%. He also said another $325bn in goods would be subject to the 25% tariff.

This has upended global stock markets after months of seemingly positive negotiations between the US and China. Trump himself has declared that the discussions were moving in a positive direction, helping to boost global markets anticipating a positive outcome from the talks.

China’s market closed down 5.8% on Monday, its worst day since Feb 2016. Europe and US markets also fell, with oil prices – a benchmark for global trade – falling sharply.

Liu He, Beijing’s lead trade negotiator, was due in Washington this week for trade talks that experts predicted would be the last round of discussions before reaching a deal. China has not announced how Trump’s announcement will impact Liu’s travel plans.

And if you’re wondering, who pays for these tariffs? A long explanation is here. The quick version: Companies pay these tariffs when they import goods from China, despite Trump’s claims they are paid by China. US importers then decide to either pass the increased costs on to consumers by raising prices, absorb the cost and take a hit to their profits, try to negotiate costs down or find outside suppliers.

Nick Twidale, Sydney-based analyst at Rakuten Securities Australia, told the Guardian:

There is still a question of whether this is one of the famous Trump negotiation tactic, or are we really going to see some drastic increase in tariffs. If it’s the latter we’ll see massive downside pressure across all markets.

Trump reverses position on Mueller testimony
Happy Monday and welcome to today’s politics live blog. The Mueller report saga is far from over.

Donald Trump has reversed his earlier position on whether special counsel Robert Mueller should be allowed to testify before a Congressional committee about his 448-page report into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Last night, Trump tweeted “Bob Mueller should not testify,” backing away from an earlier claim that he would support William Barr’s decision on whether Mueller should testify. The attorney general has said it would be fine if he did.

Barr is also due to respond to Representative Jerry Nadler, the House judiciary committee chairman, who gave the attorney general a Monday deadline to provide an unredacted version of the Mueller report.

Trump has repeatedly mischaracterized the report’s findings. Mueller did not assess collusion because it is not a legal term and instead focused on potential criminal conspiracy between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia. Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges for obstruction, but wrote the president couldn’t be exonerated from such allegations, either.

Elsewhere:

The president’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is set to begin serving his three-year prison sentence today in New York. Cohen is the third Trump campaign aide to go to prison in the past 12 months.
Trump unexpectedly announced he would further raise tariffs on Chinese-made goods, sending global financial markets tumbling.
And the US is sending an aircraft carrier and a bomber task force to the Middle East in response to “escaltory indications” from Iran, according to National Security Adviser, John Bolton, who did not identify what caused the US to escalate tensions in the region.
We’ll have more on all this throughout the morning, as well as rolling updates through the day.

© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.


The Guardian -

Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he wasn’t president, say prosecutors – live
More than 370 former federal prosecutors signed a statement saying Mueller’s investigation would have resulted in charges for Trump

Mon 6 May 2019 15.47 EDT First published on Mon 6 May 2019 08.59 EDT
Key events
3.47pm

Donald Trump’s bitter confrontation with his political opponents continued to intensify on Monday, after House Democrats set up a vote to hold his attorney general, William Barr, in contempt of Congress, writes David Smith, the Guardian’s Washington Bureau Chief.

A contempt vote would carry symbolic force but it would not compel Barr to hand over the report. The full House would need to approve it, sending a criminal referral to the US attorney for the District of Columbia – a justice department official likely to defend the attorney general.

Democrats argue they need to see the full report, including underlying materials, in order to conduct a complete review of Mueller’s investigation. Nadler said the committee wants to see witness interviews and “items such as contemporaneous notes” that are cited in the report. He also asked that all members of Congress be allowed to review an unredacted version.

As the conflict with Barr has worsened, Democrats have been in negotiations to hear from Mueller himself. Trump complicated those negotiations on Sunday when he tweeted that he would oppose Mueller’s testimony. Trump had previously said he would leave the question to Barr, who has said he has no objection to Mueller testifying.

Nadler said last week the committee was “firming up the date” for Mueller’s testimony, hoping it would be 15 May.

Trump escalates fight with Democrats as they move to hold Barr in contempt

Facebook Twitter
3.30pm

The prosecutors, who have worked for administrations hailing from both sides of the political aisle, contradicts the conclusion made by attorney general William Barr after Mueller did not come to a decision on whether the president should be indicted, that there was not a criminal case for obstruction.

Mueller had specifically said that Trump was not exonerated.

The prosecutors say in their statement:

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”

Facebook Twitter
1.24pm

Prosecutors sign statement saying Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he wasn’t president
More than 370 former federal prosecutors have signed a statement saying they believe special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation would have resulted in obstruction of justice charges for Donald Trump if he wasn’t the president of the United States.

The statement has been issued on publishing platform Medium this afternoon. More details in the coming moments.

Facebook Twitter
12.56pm

Republican Rick Scott, Florida’s ex-governor and now US Senator, really doesn’t like 2020 Dem candidate Cory Booker’s progressive gun violence prevention plan, unveiled this morning.

Scott tweeted the, to him, outrageous notion that “if you want to buy a gun, @CoryBooker wants you to register with the federal government”, adding: “This would be scary if Booker had any chance of becoming president.”

He called it the latest terrible idea from Dems in the 2020 race.

He then went on, or possibly off the rails, in the second of a two-post tweet shower, thus: “What’s next? Will we have to register sharp knives? Maybe @AOC will make us register every time we buy meat as part of her #GreenNewDeal.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez promptly countered with her trademark blast of straight-talking fresh air.

The freshman Democratic representative from New York, aka @AOC, tweeted: “That a sitting US Senator can say something lacking so much critical thinking + honesty is embarrassing to the institution. If you were a female candidate, maybe you’d be called “unlikeable,” “crazy,” or “uninformed.” But since you’re not, this inadequacy is accepted as normal.”

Updated at 12.58pm EDT
Facebook Twitter
12.28pm

Afternoon summary
Donald’s Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, just arrived at prison in New York to begin serving his three-year prison sentence today in New York. Cohen is the third Trump campaign aide to go to prison in the past 12 months. Outside his New York City apartment this morning, Cohen promised: “There still remains much to be told and I look forward to the day the day I can tell the truth.”
In a series of Tweets last night, Trump attempted to control the aftermath of the Muller report, which has seen Congressional committees calling up Trump associates for testimonies and requests for additional, unredacted documents.
The House Judiciary committee announced it would vote Wednesday on whether to find attorney general William Barr in contempt of Congress.
Trump unexpectedly announced he would further raise tariffs on Chinese-made goods, sending global financial markets tumbling.
Trump complained about disaster relief funding in Puerto Rico, amid a standoff with Democrats to approve a disaster aid bill that includes Puerto Rico as well as several US states.
US senator Cory Booker, a 2020 Democratic hopeful, unveiled an ambitious gun violence prevention plan.
Facebook Twitter
12.05pm

Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, has arrived at an upstate New York prison around 11:30 am on Monday.

Here’s what he can expect, writes the Guardian’s Tom McCarthy:

The prison, which houses about 800 inmates, has been rated among the country’s cushiest, thanks to its facilities for non-violent offenders which include bunkhouse-style sleeping and personal lockers.

It is also especially set up for Jewish inmates, such as Cohen will be, with availability of such specialty foods as matzoh ball soup, gefilte fish and rugelach pastries, as well as access to a full-time rabbi.

Prison consultants say Otisville has become a requested destination for Jewish inmates due to its proximity to New York City’s large Jewish population and upstate New York’s Orthodox Jewish enclaves.

But it’s still prison, former Otisville case manager Jack Donson said.

“Prison is disrespectful. It’s impersonal,” Donson said. “He’s never going to get any sleep because there’s always lights on, there’s always inmates snoring. There are officers walking around jingling keys. You shower out in the open. It’s very demeaning.”

Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen leaves Manhattan apartment to serve three-year prison sentence
Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Facebook Twitter
11.42am

A majority of Americans support getting rid of the Electoral College and having elections determined exclusively by the popular vote, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Of those polled, 53% said the presidential election should use a popular vote, while 43% should continue to use the electoral college.

The findings fall pretty closely in line with whether people backed Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, while Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232 electoral votes

Of the people surveyed who voted for Trump in 2016, 74% wanted to keep using the electoral college, while 78% of Clinton voters want to use the popular vote.

The Electoral College allocates electoral votes to each state based on how many representatives and senators it has. Because each state has two senators, electoral votes tilt toward giving smaller states more power in the election. For instance, California has one electoral vote per 712,000 people and Wyoming has one for 195,000 people, according to NBC News.

How does the US electoral college work?
Facebook Twitter
11.20am

The top Republican on the House Judiciary committee, representative Doug Collins, of Georgia, was critical of Wednesday’s planned vote on contempt for Attorney General William Barr.

“Democrats have launched a proxy war smearing the attorney general when their anger actually lies with the president and the special counsel, who found neither conspiracy nor obstruction,” Collins said.

Collins said the upcoming vote is “illogical and disingenuous” as negotiations are underway with the Justice Department for access, according to the AP.

Facebook Twitter
10.47am

Donald Trump is complaining about disaster funding to Puerto Rico, again.

On Twitter, Trump said Puerto Rico has already received more money from Congress than any state in the history of the US and complained Democrats won’t back a bill that gives disaster relief money to states including Georgia, North Carolina and Alabama.

“Puerto Rico should be very happy and the Dems should stop blocking much needed Disaster Relief!” Trump tweeted.

The president is in a standoff with Democrats, who want a disaster aid funding bill to include money for Puerto Rico, as well as the others states.

In the tweets, Trump said Puerto Rico had received $91bn in disaster relief funding - which is not true. There has been $41bn in announced funding. The additional $50bn is money that one internal estimate said could need to be committed in the long-term.

This weekend, Boston Red Sox manager, Alex Cora, said he wouldn’t visit the White House to celebrate the team’s 2018 World Series win because of the Trump administration’s response to the hurricane. Cora is Puerto Rican. Several other Red Sox players have also said they would be skipping the ceremony.

Since Hurricane Maria devastated the entire island of Puerto Rico in September 2017, Trump has routinely minimized, dismissed or ignored the scale of destruction– including denying the official death toll.

Facebook Twitter
10.13am

The US House judiciary committee took its first step to hold the attorney general, William Barr, in contempt of Congress this morning, after Barr failed to provide a copy of the unredacted Mueller report before the committee’s deadline.

On Wednesday, the committee will debate a resolution and a 27-page report on Barr being held in contempt, then hold a vote on the resolution. If the vote goes through, it will move to a full vote in the House to authorize legal proceedings.

House Judiciary committee chairman, Jerrold Nadler, said in a statement:

Even in redacted form, the Special Counsel’s report offers disturbing evidence and analysis that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice at the highest levels. Congress must see the full report and underlying evidence to determine how to best move forward with oversight, legislation, and other constitutional responsibilities.

Updated at 10.46am EDT
Facebook Twitter
10.05am

Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, just navigated through a swarm of photographers and television cameras outside his apartment in New York City, before hopping into a black SUV to take him to prison, about 70 miles north of the city.

Cohen made a brief statement to reporters:

I hope that when I rejoin my family and friends that the country will be in a place without xenophobia, injustice and lies at the helm of our country. There still remains much to be told and I look forward to the day the day I can tell the truth.

Loading video
Michael Cohen hints at more Trump revelations on way to prison – video
Cohen was sentenced last December to three years in prison for tax evasion, lying to Congress and campaign finance violations. He is the third former Trump aide to go to prison in the past 12 months.

Khaki uniform, jingling keys, snoring: what Michael Cohen will find in prison

Updated at 1.51pm EDT
Facebook Twitter
9.51am

2020: Booker unveils gun violence prevention plan
2020 update: New Jersey senator Cory Booker, a Democrat, this morning unveiled his plan to tackle gun violence – which in 2017 saw gun deaths in the US rise to its highest rate in more than 20 years.

Booker’s campaign outlined the ambitious plan on Medium. It included several measures which Booker said would be a focus on day one of his presidency:

Universal background checks.
Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
More funding for gun violence research.
Requiring gun owners to obtain a license to purchase and own a firearm.
A national database to register and track guns.
Repealing a law that protects the gun industry from nearly all lawsuits.
Require “microstamping,” which helps trace shell casings to a specific weapon.
Expand the law so people found guilty of non-felony abuse for violence against a partner of former partner are prohibited from purchasing a firearm - known as the “boyfriend loophole.”
Facebook Twitter
9.23am

Donald Trump shocked global financial markets this morning with an unexpected threat to further raise tariffs on Chinese-made goods.

In September, Trump imposed a 10% tariff on $200bn in goods from China, including food, chemicals and electronics. On Twitter last night, Trump said he planned to hike that tariff to 25%. He also said another $325bn in goods would be subject to the 25% tariff.

This has upended global stock markets after months of seemingly positive negotiations between the US and China. Trump himself has declared that the discussions were moving in a positive direction, helping to boost global markets anticipating a positive outcome from the talks.

China’s market closed down 5.8% on Monday, its worst day since Feb 2016. Europe and US markets also fell, with oil prices – a benchmark for global trade – falling sharply.

Liu He, Beijing’s lead trade negotiator, was due in Washington this week for trade talks that experts predicted would be the last round of discussions before reaching a deal. China has not announced how Trump’s announcement will impact Liu’s travel plans.

And if you’re wondering, who pays for these tariffs? A long explanation is here. The quick version: Companies pay these tariffs when they import goods from China, despite Trump’s claims they are paid by China. US importers then decide to either pass the increased costs on to consumers by raising prices, absorb the cost and take a hit to their profits, try to negotiate costs down or find outside suppliers.

Nick Twidale, Sydney-based analyst at Rakuten Securities Australia, told the Guardian:

There is still a question of whether this is one of the famous Trump negotiation tactic, or are we really going to see some drastic increase in tariffs. If it’s the latter we’ll see massive downside pressure across all markets.

Facebook Twitter
8.59am

Trump reverses position on Mueller testimony
Happy Monday and welcome to today’s politics live blog. The Mueller report saga is far from over.

Donald Trump has reversed his earlier position on whether special counsel Robert Mueller should be allowed to testify before a Congressional committee about his 448-page report into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Last night, Trump tweeted “Bob Mueller should not testify,” backing away from an earlier claim that he would support William Barr’s decision on whether Mueller should testify. The attorney general has said it would be fine if he did.

Barr is also due to respond to Representative Jerry Nadler, the House judiciary committee chairman, who gave the attorney general a Monday deadline to provide an unredacted version of the Mueller report.

Trump has repeatedly mischaracterized the report’s findings. Mueller did not assess collusion because it is not a legal term and instead focused on potential criminal conspiracy between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia. Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges for obstruction, but wrote the president couldn’t be exonerated from such allegations, either.

Elsewhere:

The president’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is set to begin serving his three-year prison sentence today in New York. Cohen is the third Trump campaign aide to go to prison in the past 12 months.
Trump unexpectedly announced he would further raise tariffs on Chinese-made goods, sending global financial markets tumbling.
And the US is sending an aircraft carrier and a bomber task force to the Middle East in response to “escaltory indications” from Iran, according to National Security Adviser, John Bolton, who did not identify what caused the US to escalate tensions in the region.
We’ll have more on all this throughout the morning, as well as rolling updates through the day

Fired by Trump: former US attorney Preet Bharara on American justice
Fired by Trump: former US attorney Preet Bharara on American justice
‘The NRA is in grave danger’: group’s troubles are blow to Trump’s 2020 bid
‘The NRA is in grave danger’: group’s troubles are blow to Trump’s 2020 bid
Why did Trump threaten to raise China tariffs – and what now?
Why did Trump threaten to raise China tariffs – and what now?
Markets slide after Trump threatens to dramatically increase China tariffs
Markets slide after Trump threatens to dramatically increase China tariffs
‘Tentative date’ of 15 May agreed for Mueller to testify before Congress
‘Tentative date’ of 15 May agreed for Mueller to testify before Congress
American democracy is broken.
© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Steven Mnuchin Refuses to Release Trump’s Tax Returns to Congress

POLITICO

House Republicans want Mueller to testify despite Trump opposition
By KYLE CHENEY and JOHN BRESNAHAN

05/06/2019 07:05 PM EDT

Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins
“I think Mueller should testify,” said Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

Facebook Twitter Email Print
House Republicans say they’re eager for special counsel Robert Mueller to testify about the findings of his investigation into links between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia — despite Trump’s Sunday declaration that “Mueller should not testify.”

Though Republicans have largely sided with Trump’s claim that Mueller’s 448-page report absolved the president of wrongdoing — despite laying out vivid details of Trump’s repeated efforts to thwart Mueller’s probe — the president’s GOP House allies say they want to hear from the former FBI director.

“I think Mueller should testify,” Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Monday. “There was no collusion, no obstruction, and that’s what Bob Mueller will tell everyone.”

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), another member of the House Judiciary Committee, said he has “a lot of questions” for Mueller. “So I hope that happens.”

Both House Republicans say their interest is less in Mueller’s report than in whether he has any insight into how the FBI launched an investigation of the Trump campaign in 2016. Trump has amplified those concerns, claiming he was targeted by Trump-hating FBI officials rather than the numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russia-linked figures.

“I think the president is just frustrated here, and I get that,” Collins added. “I’ve wanted Mueller to come before the committee all along. Then I can ask [Mueller] about how this investigation got started in the first place, what he was told about how it all began.”

Collins had previously urged Democrats to quickly call Mueller to the Capitol, even suggesting last month that they cut short a two-week recess to hear from the special counsel about his findings.

“I think we can agree this business is too important to wait, and Members of the Committee will surely return to Washington at such a critical moment in our country’s history,” Collins wrote at the time, a plea that was rejected by the committee’s chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) as premature.

In private, several top House Republicans believe it would be a mistake for Trump to prevent Mueller from appearing before the Judiciary Committee. To these GOP lawmakers and aides, that would allow Democrats to focus on the issue of Mueller’s non-appearance rather than the findings in his report.

“Then the issue becomes ‘Trump is stonewalling,’ rather than ‘Mueller didn’t find anything,’” said an aide to one senior Republican. “This will be a bad move.”

LEGAL

Ex-DOJ prosecutors: Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he weren’t president
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
If Mueller testifies, however, Democrats will surely ask the special counsel about issues that could greatly damage the president and his administration, including evidence that Trump tried to stymie the Russia probe or letters Mueller wrote to Attorney General William Barr disputing Barr’s four-page summary of his findings.

But House Republicans’ efforts to secure Mueller testimony stands in contrast with their counterparts in the Senate. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham has said he has no interest in a full hearing with Mueller, but is willing to hear testimony on the narrow issue of whether Mueller disputes Barr’s characterization of his findings.

Graham, though, is brushing aside demands from Democrats that Mueller be given a platform to discuss the findings of the report itself.

“Enough already,” Graham told reporters last week. “It’s over.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) similarly said he’s satisfied without a hearing from Mueller.

Trump: ‘Mueller should not testify’
By QUINT FORGEY
“It really would probably be healthy for the country to move on," Cornyn told reporters on Monday. "Otherwise the charade is just going to continue, people are going to try and parse and pick apart every sentence and punctuation mark of that. And it’s not going to change the outcome.”

Barr released a redacted version of Mueller’s report last month which indicated the special counsel lacked sufficient evidence to establish that any Americans conspired with the Russian effort to interfere in the 2016 election. Mueller’s report also described numerous episodes in which Trump attempted to thwart the probe or affect witnesses’ testimony, but Mueller stopped short alleging the president obstructed justice, in part because he said Justice Department guidelines prohibit the indictment of a sitting president.

Barr, who received Mueller’s report in late March, rejected several of the special counsel’s legal theories and determined that the evidence failed to show the president committed obstruction, absolving him in a four-page letter to Congress several days later. Barr then spent several weeks reviewing the report and making redactions based on several categories of sensitive information before releasing a version on April 18.

Democrats have ripped Barr for what they said was attempted to spin Mueller’s findings before the public had a chance to view the report. Nadler has been working with the Justice Department, to little avail, to arrange public testimony for Mueller.

© 2019 POLITICO LLC

Mueller report: Democrats slam Republicans for ‘stunning act of cynicism’ – live
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer called Mitch McConnell’s ‘case closed’ speech ‘a brazen violation of the oath we all take’ in a joint letter

Tom McCarthy in New York

Tue 7 May 2019 12.38 EDT First published on Tue 7 May 2019 09.00 EDT
Key events
12.38pm

Democrats call McConnell ‘case closed’ speech ‘a stunning act of political cynicism’
House speaker Nancy Pelosi and senate minority leader Chuck Schumer have issued a joint letter calling McConnell’s “case closed” speech this morning “a stunning act of political cynicism and a brazen violation of the oath we all take”:

Facebook Twitter
12.35pm

On Senate floor, Warren calls for impeachment
Warren brings her call for Trump’s impeachment from the campaign trail to the floor of the US senate:

Facebook Twitter
12.33pm

Senator Elizabeth Warren, also a 2020 candidate, as much as calls the president a criminal, speaking this morning on the Senate floor:

Facebook Twitter
12.30pm

As the White House stonewalls Congress in its effort to follow special counsel Robert Mueller’s road map to what many regard as Donald Trump’s criminal misconduct, Senator Kamala Harris, a candidate to unseat Trump in 2020, is preparing to introduce a law demanding transparency between the White House and attorney general on certain matters, she tells NBC’s Andrea Mitchell:

White House orders McGahn not to comply with subpoena
The White House has informed Congress that it has ordered former counsel Don McGahn not to hand over documents subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller.

In a letter to House judiciary committee chairman Jerrold Nadler, White House lawyer Pat Cipollone cited “significant Executive Branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege.”

McGahn in February 2018. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP
In a subpoena, Congress had requested documents from McGahn pertaining to 36 matters, including discrete episodes in the Russia affair ranging from the resignation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn to the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

Cipollone said McGahn “does not have the legal right to disclose these documents to third persons.”

In a follow-up letter to Congress, a lawyer for McGahn said he intended to follow the White House direction. “Where co-equal branches of government are making contradictory demands on Mr McGahn concerning the same set of documents,” the letter reads, “the appropriate response for Mr McGahn is to maintain the status quo unless and until the committee and the executive branch can reach an accommodation.”

The order came a day after the Treasury Department denied a Congressional request for Donald Trump’s tax returns. Both document denials appeared to be subject to immediate legal challenge by Democrats.

Testimony by McGahn was central to Mueller’s record of conduct by Trump that critics from both parties, including hundreds of former federal prosecutors, have said amounted to felony obstruction of justice.

Updated at 11.33am EDT
Facebook Twitter
11.14am

Nixon, again:

Trump tax returns: Democrats to fight for release after Mnuchin refusal

Facebook Twitter
10.55am

After not tweeting all morning, the president is warming up for a planned meeting this afternoon with Republican senators to talk immigration:

Trump and Republican senators are scheduled to meet to discuss a new White House immigration plan, the AP reports:

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway describes the plan as “fairly comprehensive,” saying it aims to beef up border security and maximize merit-based immigration. Conway says it will cover other changes favored by Trump, including ending some family migration and visa lottery programs.

Conway says the plan could also touch on the plight of thousands who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

The proposals are being developed by senior adviser Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. A previous attempt by Trump to reach a comprehensive immigration deal with Congress collapsed.

Trump put immigration at the center of his presidential campaign, including a promise to build a wall on the U.S-Mexico border.

Facebook Twitter
10.51am

Wray: authorized surveillance is not ‘spying’
FBI Director Chris Wray says “spying” is not the term he would use for court-authorized surveillance conducted by the bureau, the Associated Press reports:

Wray was asked at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday about Attorney General William Barr’s assertion last month that the Trump campaign had been spied on during the 2016 election.

Asked if he believes that the FBI is involved in spying when it conducts surveillance with a warrant, Wray replied, “That’s not the term I would use.”

He acknowledged that different people use different language, but that the key question for him is “making sure it’s done by the book.”

Wray declined to discuss the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign because it’s part of an ongoing Justice Department inspector general investigation.

Having fun on the Hill back in April. Photograph: Carlos Barría/Reuters
In testimony before the Senate last week, Barr refused to back down from his use of the word “spying” to describe surveillance of the Trump campaign, then engaged in extensive secret contacts with Russian operatives.

“I’m not going to abjure the use of the word spying,” Barr said, noting he previously worked for the CIA. “I don’t think the word spying has any pejorative connotation at all.”

Updated at 10.52am EDT
Facebook Twitter
10.34am

Pompeo cancels talks with Merkel
Patrick Wintour
The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, has abruptly cancelled a long-established plan to hold talks with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, in Berlin, citing unspecified “international security issues”.

The unusual last-minute schedule change follows brief talks between Pompeo and the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, on the sidelines of an Arctic Council meeting in Finland on Monday.

Journalists travelling with Pompeo were not informed where they were going instead of Berlin, with Pompeo’s staff saying they may not be able to reveal the next destination until after they had left. Their plane has been tracked heading east.

Pompeo rang the German foreign minister, Heiko Maas, to explain the decision to drop his first meeting in Berlin as secretary of state, and promised to reschedule soon.

Norbert Röttgen, the chair of the German foreign affairs committee, described the cancellation as “very regrettable”, adding: “There is a lot to discuss about common challenges, but also about the internal relationship between Germany and the US. Even if there were unavoidable reasons for the cancellation, it unfortunately fits into the current climate in the relationship of the two governments.”

British and US sources said the Berlin cancellation did not mean talks planned for later on Wednesday between Pompeo, the UK prime minister, Theresa May, and the foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, would also be dropped.

Trump tax returns: Democrats to fight for release after Mnuchin refusal
Trump pardons former US soldier convicted of killing Iraqi prisoner

© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.


WORST CASE SCENARIO: Here’s what it looks like if Trump starts a trade war with China
Thomas Franck | @tomwfranck
Published 8 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago
CNBC.com
Wall Street’s top investment banks are preparing clients for the worst case scenario following President Trump’s surprise threat to hike tariffs on Chinese imports.
Jitters stemming from an escalated trade fight could be so bad that it could send the S&P 500 in a correction (10% slide), said UBS strategist Keith Parker.
“Fasten your seatbelt and don’t hold your breath,” Bank of America wrote Monday. “The latest escalation of the trade war was completely unexpected.”

All signs point to an escalation of the trade war between the United States and China, the world’s two-largest economies.

President Donald Trump tweeted Sunday that he would seek to increase tariffs to 25% on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods starting at 12:01 a.m. ET Friday due to China pulling back on trade promises. China is still sending a delegation to negotiate this week, but right now it looks like an all-out trade war is about to begin.

The worst-case outcome there, say experts, is a fight that sends the S&P 500 into a correction — which would be 10% off that key indicator. The companies likely to be hardest hit, say the experts, are likely Boeing, Apple and Caterpillar. They are all down about 5% this week already.

Then the pain ripples into the metals, mining and automobiles sectors.

“Fasten your seatbelt and don’t hold your breath,” Bank of America strategists wrote in a note this week. “The latest escalation of the trade war was completely unexpected, despite the strength of the economy and the markets.”

Stock market impact
Global equities have been on edge this week after Trump tweeted Sunday that the current 10% tax on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods will rise to 25% on Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average is down about 450 points this week, while the S&P 500 shed 1.9%.

“With risks having increased, it is worth asking where the largest asset market moves could occur if trade tensions were to rise further,” Keith Parker of UBS wrote Tuesday.

For its part, Bank of America Merrill Lynch said its bear case includes a U.S. tariff hike and a response from China on U.S.-made cars. Beijing could also decide to buy more soybeans from Brazil instead of the U.S., putting the pressure on farmers throughout the country.

An inflamed trade war would have sizable impacts on European and Asian markets, too.

Based on models complied by UBS’ Parker, the Stoxx 600 index — which tracks large-, mid- and small-capitalization companies among 17 European countries — could see another approximate slide of 7% if trade tensions worsen. The index is already 3.3% off its 52-week high.

WATCH: Jeremy Siegel: ‘Big blow to the markets’ if trade deal falls apart

Economic impact
He added that a full-blown trade war would shave off 45 basis points from global economic growth, while China’s GDP would take a hit of between 1.2% and 1.5%.

For his part, Morgan Stanley’s head of U.S. public policy strategy, Michael Zezas, wrote that while his base case expects China’s GDP growth to recover to 6.5% in the second and third quarters, a U.S. tariff hike could cut that estimate by 0.3 percentage point.

“While we expect a re-escalation would be temporary, as market weakness would help bring both sides back together, any escalation inherently augments uncertainty and further undercuts risk markets,” Zezas said.

Further, if China responds by raising its weighted tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. goods to 15% from the current 7%, that could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.1 percentage point.

“Negative surprises like a potential re-escalation of trade tensions can have a greater price impact than fundamentals might dictate,” Zezas told clients. “Near-term downside risk for Chinese equities onshore and offshore could be down 8% to 12%, arguably the biggest among major markets we cover.”

Will Fed step in?
To be sure, trade deliberations aren’t the only force at play in the markets. Any continued turbulence between the U.S. and China could be mediated by the Federal Reserve by lowering interest rates, suggested DataTrek co-founder Nick Colas.

“With US equity volatility looking to rise this week, markets will inevitably back into an ever-stronger view that Fed policy will have to shift,” Colas wrote Monday. “On the plus side, that should limit daily slides in stock prices. On the downside, it paints the Fed into an ever-tighter corner. And it will force equity investors to have higher conviction that a rate cut is coming than the central bank itself has just now.”

Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in March that weaker Chinese and European economies are undermining U.S. growth.

“Now we see a situation where the European economy has slowed substantially and so has the Chinese economy, although the European economy more,” he said at the time. “Just as strong global growth was a tail wind, weaker global growth can be a headwind to our economy.”

That Powell and other Fed members spent so much time in a recent meeting discussing softer growth in Asia and Europe could mean that the central bank could step in and lower borrowing costs if it felt the U.S. economy needed a boost.

Still, many Wall Street insiders had assumed that the relative calm in U.S.-Chinese trade relations to start the year would soon lead to a permanent resolution. Instead, Trump’s weekend remarks that trade progress is moving “too slowly” caught many — including UBS Washington strategist Chris Krueger — by surprise.

Paying homage to the doomed British cavalry charge of the 1850s, Krueger poked fun at the renewed barbs between the two nations in a portion of his market warning entitled “The Charge of the Lighthizer Brigade.”

Prior to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s Monday comments, Cowen had assumed the “‘Great Man’ theory would hold, Trump and Xi would have the best conversation, talks would continue, and Trump would put tariffs on hold for ~30 days,” Krueger wrote.

Lighthizer told reporters Monday that the planned tariff increased will take effect at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, but added that Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is expected to join a trade delegation in the United States this week.

“This was Trump acting out on a rainy Sunday in Washington with nothing on the public schedule,” he added. “To paraphrase Lenin: there are decades where nothing happens and there are weeks when decades happen…and then there is a single week in the Trump Presidency. What a time to be alive.”

© 2019 CNBC LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Division of NBCUniversal

At this point, a little over a year of following the phenomenon which came to be known as ‘Trumpism’, a few words as to why the resiliency it displays to all the world to see, a phenomenon which it appears, has no bounds or the effect that the application of reason may dispel it.

One very simple answer may fill the inquiring mind as perhaps any other, be it complex analysis , or statutory or even institutionalized support.

That the Nazi era has parallels in a very discouraged German society, is no mere fantasy, for institutions were well caught up with politocal momentum covering the ethos and pathos of post ww1 futility.

Where does the parallel begin here in the United States, the ultimate winner of world wars , a techno politocal economic superpower of unprecedented dimensions, covering more body politic then any other empire has attained previously.

That simple answer lies in a new coin, of which Jesus said, let it convey to Ceasar, whereas those which belong to God, ceede to God.

The ages parallel as well, the 3 rd Reich was preceded by a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, which flew from the Greco Roman.

So what is the simple formula formulating this continuum of empire?
Why exactly the very coin, from which mine- that of human nature itself can be extracted.

That coin in Trumpistic terms is Brand.

You’ve seen poor people shopping for brand to elevate the prescription for their self image, that is at the base political reality today, and the greatest branded today is TRUMP. That it has been shown to be built on very thin ice, that of debt and hypocracy , does not matter in the least. The market buys it, banks buy it, and institutions have to buy it because they are invested in it.
That is the program, the branding not only of economic edifices, but politocal superstructure as well.
The rest is left to the ad men, who nowadays consist of equally vested politicians, lawyers whose basic function have been reduced to the role of sales. They have been caught in the pinched of supply and demand as well, of promotion, with the slow erosion of black letter they have played the game of deception as competence players .
Trump, a non lawyer, may as well be one, in a power game of striking after the largest payoff.
The brand used to be scarlet, in a time when colors seemed to matter, and in the most indigenous sense, that color sense has been equally reduced from socio political individuation, through so called civil rights’ gains through expansion from the blinders’ removal through some deus ex machina, and so on , biting through politocal and fiscal conservatism, - when in fact, it was the omnipresent and sudswm realization that money mattwred most, and it’s the economy stupid.

That’s it in a nutshell, and that is the reason behind the panic of the constitutional makeup of this Nation.
This is the result of bringing practice into the arena of ideas, which was so very unique and extraordinary in 1776.

That Marxism has come to describe well the euthanasia that the effects of consumerism has been effected, os quite suggestive of how that idea has been very cleverly dissuaded and remarketed as did poisonous loans sold in overspeculatee real estate recently.

The sales of the soul , the the sole proprietor of the hermetic philosophy going nowhere in a futuristic sense of post modern recognition, ashews
and gives rationale of something that has been so solidly built in, that it can be aggregiously be renamed a systemic uncertainty , not to be messed with, even at the heaviest price of large scale annihilation.

To support this idea, I will quote a recent book on self improvement , quite generic in it’s approach to sales:

Dean Del Dad to ‘Shift Your Thinking 200 Ways’ 2013.

"If you were a brand, would you buy yourself or keep shopping?

You may not give it much thought, but you are a “brand” to everyone who knows you. Your personal brand is always speaking, and like all brands , it is subject to constant scrutiny and potential breakdown.Comprising your integrity, way of being, and, of course, your track record in day-to-day life, the way your personal brand resonates with others will profoundly impact your relationships, career opportunities, and life momentum. At the same time, your brand can stop you in your tracks if you are not clear about what you stand for and how you make yourself relevant and beneficial to those around you"

What is this but not an overt sell of self prescription as a product, in an age of technosocially programmed branding?

Incidemtally , this work was given nihil on star by leading Forbes CEO’s and educational leaders. To note, I am again taking a neutral position, not being critical of industry driven technology and artificial intelligence; only to point out the subliminal techniques behind sales through branding as it reinforces and feeds back into socially prescribed values.

The hypocracy begins at the level of contradiction, where Trump is pitching to a regional audience, in sync with their primary understanding, while that.becoming incomparable with it in more then a long term relevance.

That is systemic, you may say, with built in obsolescence, where down the line, a new model must be purchased, to keep the assembly moving along.
Well that would be ok, of major perimeters were not involved , such as environmental issues which may evoke an early 20 th century indifference on part of the manufacturers of the American Dream.

But again, may be it’s a matter of an apparent free will hiding in a gross determinancy.

And how does his middle road manifest contradictically?

Lets rise below the clouds or sink above to toward reality.

The middle is the point of most pressure, where from can be noticed the aggregates of how at the very seem, classes fall into two, not at the periphery where only the very rich and the extremely poor can be gleaned, and how this continuum, is spread, intentionally , to be hidden, the source of which, value is transcribed from hidden wealth, toward it’s fair value so called, by superinflating one side while metadecomposing the other, but unwittingly, those moving from the center are induced to buy in and finance the whole structural eddificacy.

How far cam this inflation go on? Until fair parity runs out of value in the supply demand chain, that is why Trump wants to deflate by going against the aFed’s more modest change ininterest rate .

Trump really is no economist, lawyer politician, he started branding through a desperate bankruptcy of affect, wishful and behest by those hiding the line to fill it, the brand with materially credible short term devices.

That long term it’s disfuntional is graphically evident on the DOW, s retreat on long term call buys. For that the environment is sacrificed.
And speculation will witness anotjer crisis of hyperinflative and speculative crisis, with unpredictability leaving the China tariff a crisis unfactored in an already unstable fodder for a possible huge death star with the 2020 election.

The whatnut political game plan, may end sorely as a unquestionable prisoner’s dilemma, albeit world wide.

The present timberbox is exemplified by the cancelled meet between Trump and Markel as planned to forth come in Berlin.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the foreign policy setbacks of Venezuela, the Middle East, and North Korea added bad international news to the internal political problems Trump is facing this week.

Contempt against Barr

May 8, 2019

WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to recommend the House hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over Robert S. Mueller III’s unredacted report, hours after President Trump asserted executive privilege to shield the full report and underlying evidence from public view.

The committee’s 24-16 contempt vote, taken after hours of debate that featured apocalyptic language about the future of American democracy, marked the first time that the House has taken official action to punish a government official or witness amid a standoff between the legislative and executive branch. The Justice Department decried it as an unnecessary and overwrought reaction designed to stoke a fight.

The drama raised the stakes yet again in an increasingly tense battle over evidence and witnesses as Democrats investigate Mr. Trump and his administration. By the day’s end, it seemed all but inevitable that the competing claims would have to be settled in the nation’s courts rather than on Capitol Hill, as Democrats had initially hoped after the initial delivery of Mr. Mueller’s report.

Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report
By Meg Wagner, Amanda Wills and Veronica Rocha, CNN
Updated 4:38 PM ET, Wed May 8, 2019

Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report What we covered here
Contempt vote: The House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress.
Executive privilege: The Justice Department informed the committee that President Trump is asserting executive privilege.
What this is about: It comes after the Justice Department declined to provide an unredacted version of the Mueller report to Congress.
6:01 p.m. ET, May 8, 2019
Our live coverage has ended. Scroll through the posts below to see how the committee vote unfolded or follow CNN Politics.
5:04 p.m. ET, May 8, 2019
Justice Department spokesperson slams contempt vote as “politically motivated”
The Department of Justice called the vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress “politically motivated and unnecessary.”

“It is deeply disappointing that elected representatives of the American people have chosen to engage in such inappropriate political theatrics,” department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

Read the DOJ’s full statement:
“The accommodation process between co-equal branches of government is supposed to be a two-way street. Unfortunately, the only side who has made accommodations is the attorney general, who made extraordinary efforts to provide Congress and the public with information about the special counsel’s work. The attorney general could not comply with the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena without violating the law, court rules, and court orders, and without threatening the independence of the Department’s prosecutorial functions. Despite this, the Department of Justice engaged with the committee in good faith in an effort to accommodate its stated interest in these materials. Unfortunately, rather than allowing negotiations to continue, chairman Nadler short-circuited these efforts by proceeding with a politically motivated and unnecessary contempt vote, which he refused to postpone to allow additional time to explore discussion and compromise. It is deeply disappointing that elected representatives of the American people have chosen to engage in such inappropriate political theatrics. Regrettably, chairman Nadler’s actions have prematurely terminated the accommodation process and forced the President to assert executive privilege to preserve the status quo. No one, including chairman Nadler and his committee, will force the Department of Justice to break the law.”
4:58 p.m. ET, May 8, 2019
Judiciary chairman: “We are now in a constitutional crisis”
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler called today’s vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress “a very grave and momentous step.”

He went on to say the committee had no other choice but to take this action.

“This was a very grave and momentous step we were forced to take today to move a contempt citation against the attorney general of the United States. We did not relish doing this but we have no choice. Attorney General Barr having proved himself to be the personal attorney to President Trump rather than to the United States by misleading the public as to the contents of the Mueller report twice, by not being truthful with Congress has not shown himself to be the personal attorney of the United States rather than the attorney general,” Nadler said.
The Democratic congressman accused Barr of turning the Department of Justice “into an instrument of Trump personally rather than an instrument of justice and representative of the United States.”

“We are now in a constitutional crisis,” Nadler declared.

4:34 p.m. ET, May 8, 2019
NOW: House Judiciary Committee votes 24 to 16 to hold Barr in contempt
From CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Manu Raju
The House Judiciary Committee just voted along party lines to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, escalating the looming constitutional collision over the Mueller report between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration.

The party-line vote was 24-16.

What happens next: The contempt resolution now moves to the full House for consideration.
Barr was held in contempt for not complying with the committee’s subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence. The contempt vote came after President Trump asserted executive privilege this morning over the materials that the committee had subpoenaed, following through on a threat the Justice Department made last night if the committee moved forward with the contempt vote.

4:26 p.m. ET, May 8, 2019
House Judiciary Committee is voting right now on holding Barr in contempt
The House Judiciary Committee is voting right now on whether it will hold Attorney General William Bar in contempt of Congress after the Justice Department declined to provide an unredacted version of the Mueller report to Congress.

This marks the first time that House Democrats are moving to punish a Trump administration official for defying a congressional subpoena and represents a dramatic escalation in tensions between Democrats and the White House.

1:45 p.m. ET, May 8, 2019
House Judiciary Committee adopts amendment related to executive privilege
From CNN’s Jeremy Herb
The House Judiciary Committee has adopted an amendment from chairman Jerry Nadler adding a section to the contempt report that responds to President Trump’s assertion of executive privilege.
The amendment passed along party lines.

Why this matters: Earlier today, the Justice Department informed Nadler that the “President has asserted executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials."
What happens next: The committee is now in recess until 2:30 p.m. ET, when Nadler said they would resume the markup.
11:53 a.m. ET, May 8, 2019
White House says House Democrat is trying to “break the law” by requesting unredacted Mueller report
From CNN’s Betsy Klein

Moments after the White House announced President Trump would assert executive privilege over special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders slammed House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, whom she said is seeking to “break the law” with his requests for the unredacted report.

“They’re asking for information they know they can’t have. The attorney general is actually upholding the law,” Sanders said, adding, “Chairman Nadler is asking the attorney general of the United States to break the law and commit a crime by releasing information that he knows he has no legal authority to have. It’s truly outrageous and absurd what the chairman is doing and he should be embarrassed that he’s behaving this way.”
She attacked Nadler’s understanding of the law, saying that she feels she “(understands) it better than he does.”

11:40 a.m. ET, May 8, 2019
White House says executive privilege assertion doesn’t change Trump’s position that Mueller should not testify
From CNN’s Joe Johns and Betsy Klein
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was just asked how the invocation of executive privilege affects the President’s position on special counsel Robert Mueller testifying and if Mueller’s employment with DOJ might be extended under the circumstances.

She said she wasn’t aware of anything new on that.

Some context: On Sunday, President Trump reversed course and said Mueller should not testify before Congress. That remark came just two days after he told reporters that the attorney general should make that decision.
“The President’s made his feelings on that very clear,” Sanders said today. “This is over, and just because the Democrats didn’t like the result doesn’t mean they get to redo this process."

The special counsel’s office would not comment when CNN asked if his employment is being extended under the circumstances.

11:34 a.m. ET, May 8, 2019
Trump’s cabinet meeting was supposed to be open to press. Now, it’s closed.
The White House now says there will be no press coverage of the President’s cabinet meeting, which was scheduled for 11:30 a.m. ET.
Typically, coverage is allowed.

© 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

The Trump Impeachment
Unfit To Lead
‘We Are in a Constitutional Crisis’: Groups Deliver 10 Million Petitions to Congress Demanding Trump Impeachment

@womensmarch / Twitter We are in a dark time
@womensmarch / Twitter
A coalition of grassroots progressive advocacy groups on Thursday delivered 10 million petitions to Congress demanding that House Democrats uphold their “constitutional obligation” by immediately launching impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

The petition delivery—which one organizer described as “likely the biggest” in U.S. history—came just hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the country is in the midst of a “constitutional crisis” due to the Trump administration’s refusal to comply with congressional oversight.

During a rally on Capitol Hill Thursday, Jane Slusser—organizing director for Need to Impeach—urged Pelosi to take action in line with the gravity of her words.

“On behalf of a growing movement of 10 million, we ask Democratic leadership to be bold in standing up for democracy,” Slusser said. “We agree with Speaker Pelosi: We are in a constitutional crisis. And there is a remedy: Start impeachment hearings now.”

10,000,000 & counting to #ImpeachTrump. Add your name: t.co/wQHfGSXJbu pic.twitter.com/xkBS6EvJmV

— MoveOn (@MoveOn) May 9, 2019

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) told the crowd at Thursday’s rally that the U.S. Congress cannot continue to stand by and “allow the rule of law to be eroded.”

“Movements happen with actions like this where millions of us speak up, demanding that our representatives work on our behalf,” said Tlaib, who submitted a resolution to begin impeachment hearings before the redacted Mueller report was made public last month.

“We are in a dark time in our country but this moment is a moment of light. This is about our country and our democracy.” Rep. @RashidaTlaib #ImpeachTrump pic.twitter.com/9jtj3n7K9a

— Women’s March (@womensmarch) May 9, 2019

Mueller’s findings provided a detailed look into the Trump administration’s corrupt and possibly criminal behavior around the Russia investigation, including numerous instances of potential obstruction of justice.

Since the release of the special counsel’s 400-page report, a growing number of Democrats in Congress have expressed support for launching impeachment proceedings against Trump, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

With their delivery of 10 million petitions on Thursday, activists hoped to get the attention of Democrats who have yet to join their fellow lawmakers and constituents in backing impeachment hearings.

“I ask: How much more do we need to see to take action?” said Joseline Garcia, a volunteer with advocacy group By the People. “What kind of message are we going to be sending to future administrations and generations of people if we do not hold Donald Trump accountable for the numerous violations he has committed?”

“Congress, you have a choice,” Garcia added. “Are you going to be on the right side of history? Are you going to be on our side, or Trump’s side?”

‘We Are in a Constitutional Crisis’:

Daily dose of outrage at what is going on in Washington.

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.


OPINION
No, the case against President Trump is far from closed
There’s much in the redacted Mueller report that Congress has a right to discretely examine, no matter what Sen. Mitch McConnell says: Our view
THE EDITORIAL BOARD | USA TODAY | 7 minutes ago

President Trump’s executive privilege claim over the full Mueller report has stirred heated debate in Congress. Is it even constitutional?

Congressional Republicans want to end investigations into the presidency of Donald Trump and the unusual circumstances surrounding his rise to power. Several have made this case, most notably Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who on Tuesday used the disclosure of parts of the Mueller report to declare “case closed.”

The tactic is not entirely new. In 1998, supporters of President Bill Clinton, who was then under siege over his relationship with a former White House intern, created a group called MoveOn.org to urge Congress to, well, move on. The group exists to this day supporting liberal causes.

In this case, the call to move on is being made by actual members of Congress who are undermining their institution and their authority.

One day, they will regret this. They will regret it when a Democrat is next elected president and abuses his or her power. They will regret it when their grandchildren ask about their role in fostering democracy. Perhaps they will even regret it when they next look in the mirror.

McConnell’s “move along, folks, there’s nothing to see here” approach is contradicted by more than 800 former prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats, who have signed a letter saying the Mueller report provided more than enough evidence to indict Trump for obstruction of justice, were he anyone else but the president.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report.
ERIK S. LESSER, EPA-EFE
SEAN SPICER: Democrats should accept the conclusions of the Mueller report

Similarly, by refusing to provide the House Ways and Means Committee with the tax documents it has demanded, the Trump administration is in clear violation of law. The relevant statute, passed in the wake of a previous presidential scandal, is unambiguous that these documents “shall” be provided upon the request of the chairman. In backing up Trump, Republicans are essentially playing the role of accessories.

Worse, in providing cover for Trump’s refusal to provide other material, including the complete Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, the GOP is debasing the Constitution.

If it weren’t enough that most Republicans countenanced Trump as he usurped Congress’ power of the purse with his border emergency declaration earlier this year, now they are ceding Congress’ oversight role and vital function as a check on presidential power.

Previous presidents might not have always agreed with decisions of Congress or the courts, but they recognized and honored the Constitution’s precept of separation of powers. They saw the genius in having three distinct branches sometimes in conflict or competition. Trump, on the other hand, treats laws and critics with contempt.

There is much that the American people still need to know about Trump’s finances, particularly his relationship to Russia in the years after massive real estate losses made him radioactive to most Western banks. There is much in the Mueller report, including supporting evidence and what is behind some of those blacked-out sections, that Congress has a right to discretely examine.

Now is most assuredly not the time to arbitrarily end investigations.

© Copyright Gannett 2019


The Guardian -

Security officials monitoring a Chinese container ship at the port of Humen in
Even Trump may ultimately retreat from the cost of the China trade war
The president’s bullish advisers may be taking a hard line, but the chances of a deal are better than they look
Phillip Inman
@phillipinman
Sat 11 May 2019 11.00 EDT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
During Donald Trump’s campaign to be president, he regularly cited China’s export subsidies as “evil”, and in his manifesto he pledged to “cut a better deal with China that helps American businesses and workers compete”.

The president turned decades of musings into a policy mission after his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, handed him a book by the academics Peter Navarro and Greg Autry – Death by China – which set out to explain how China manipulated the global trade system for its own ends.

Navarro has since become Trump’s trade tsar and – with Robert Lighthizer, the White House’s chief negotiator – provides the intellectual underpinning for Trump’s attempt to prise open China’s markets.

Autry was cheerleading for Trump on the BBC’s Today programme last week after the president increased the tariff from 10% to 25% on Chinese goods worth $200bn on Friday, including transport equipment, chemicals and an array of foods.

The message from the White House was that backsliding by Beijing over previously agreed liberalising trade reforms meant another $300bn of Chinese imports could soon be added to the list, which would effectively cover all imports to the US from the world’s second largest economy.

Autry said that it would be better if countries traded with each other without barriers, but that the global economy could still grow in a world of high tariffs – or at least the US could.

He likened the situation to the 19th century and Britain’s preference for free trade, which he said was pursued to its detriment when countries such as the US hid behind a protectionist wall of tariffs. After the second world war, the US had followed the free-trade lead set by the UK and that had been a mistake, he said. Free trade had been Britain’s downfall while protectionism played a large role in America’s success.

That is not a view of history shared by many economic historians. There were too many other factors at play in the 19th century that could have been more important, from slavery in the US providing farmers with free labour to Britain’s burgeoning empire, which became so costly to maintain.

White House observers are not sure that Trump has even read Navarro’s book, given that his goals appear to be so narrow: for example, declaring China “a currency manipulator” and putting “an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labour and environmental standards”.

Trump’s senior trade advisers are thought to be at the heart of the renewed tension between the US and China. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
Lighthizer and Navarro are more concerned that Beijing tear up laws that force foreign companies to go into partnership with – and hand over technological knowhow to – domestic businesses when they sell goods in China. They also want to agree an arbitration process that bypasses communist-party-controlled arrangements.

These more structural issues are at the heart of Navarro’s book and are the crux of the current dispute, which those close to the president say is being driven by Lighthizer.

Most analysts believe there would be a high cost to both sides from higher tariffs, though the impact on the global economy might be cumulative as economies in Europe and the US lose momentum. A fall in trade might knock between 0.2% and 0.3% off global GDP, says Angus Armstrong, a former head of macroeconomics at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. “That doesn’t sound like much, but if it happens when there’s a broader slowdown, it adds to the momentum and can make matters much worse,” he says.

Analysts at the Oxford Economics consultancy say the likely cost of the tariff rises – arising from lost Chinese demand for US goods due to retaliatory measures and extra expense for US consumers – would rebound on the US and hurt key states and industries, rippling out to the rest of the world. “The Trump administration’s tariff hike will cost the US economy $62bn in lost output by 2020, or 0.3% of GDP, relative to the expected level of US GDP in our baseline forecasts,” the analysts say. “The cost to the global economy will surpass $360bn in foregone output relative to what would otherwise have been the case under our baseline for 2020.”

The conciliatory language and the measured response from Beijing is reassuring
Bo Zhuang and Eleanor Olcott, economists at the consultancy TS Lombard, say the costly implications for both sides of a prolonged fight means a deal is still likely.

“Even if the tariffs remain in place, the fundamentals call for a deal. Trump will maintain talks with China, just as he has done with North Korea following the fallout from the Hanoi summit. The rising bankruptcy rate of US farmers and greater volatility in the markets will sharpen his resolve for a deal,” they say.

“Some commentators have said Beijing will now call for boycotts of US goods and place non-tariff barriers on US goods. At this stage, we believe that such harsh retaliatory measures are unlikely. This week’s events have pushed back our timeline for a deal but the conciliatory language and the measured response from Beijing is reassuring,” they add.

To some extent, Trump is already winning. The US trade deficit with China decreased to the narrowest in almost three years in March – $28.3bn – as imports slowed and exports advanced.

That turnaround offers Trump a chance to claim his trade war was yielding desired results. Add to that the clamour from Iowa soya bean farmers, who are already suffering from lost sales in China due to counter-tariffs, and the pressure on Trump to agree a deal could be overwhelming.

© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

CONGRESS
Pelosi’s Trump impeachment approach is coming together
Analysis: The president’s recent actions have helped Pelosi start to resolve the conflicts in her caucus — and unite them around a deliberate, relentless investigative approach.

“It’s not about pressure. It’s about patriotism,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday of Congress’ attempts to get the full unredacted Mueller report released.Win McNamee
May 9, 2019, 5:03 PM ET
By Jonathan Allen
WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi portrayed herself Thursday as the protector of the Constitution, Congress and the country as House Democrats braced for war with President Donald Trump over his refusal to give them full access to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, related documents and witnesses.

“This is very methodical, it’s very Constitution-based, it’s very law-based, it’s very factually based,” Pelosi said about House plans to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for withholding documents. “It’s not about pressure. It’s about patriotism.”

Trump and his Republican allies say Democrats are simply dressing up a partisan witch hunt in the haberdashery of constitutional principle. They express confidence that recent polls showing a lack of support for impeachment, particularly among independents, is evidence that the public agrees with them and that Democrats will only hurt themselves — and help the president — if they continue on their current course.

“If we’re already seeing that before any of the investigations begin, then moving toward impeachment will more than likely result in a backlash for Democrats,” said one source close to the White House who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak on behalf of Trump.

While the courts are likely to decide the scope of what Democrats can get their hands on, the fight over the terms of the public debate — partisan or constitutional — figures to have a significant impact on the political outcome, especially during a period in which the Trump’s assertion of executive privilege limits the House’s ability to produce any new evidence.

In any period in which one party controls the House and the other controls the White House, the impeachment process is inherently both a matter of solemn constitutional duty and partisan politics.

All of that helps explain why it’s Pelosi’s defense of another institution — the Democratic caucus — that is at the core of her approach to the investigations and possible impeachment of Trump. Though the cable talk shows and digital press have been full of speculation about what Pelosi wants — or believes — about impeachment, people who know her well say that she is driven in large measure by keeping solidarity in her ranks.

“She’s moving at a pace that all the spectrum of her caucus can tolerate right now,” said former Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards. “She is very protective of the institution and the prerogatives of the institution, and you can see that, that she wants to insulate this from the politics and the electoral politics, and that is in keeping with her protection of the unity of the caucus.”

In other words, when Trump’s liberal critics put the impeachment cart before the process horse, moderate Democrats are quick to jump out. But when the question is framed as one of pursuing legitimate oversight of the executive branch, following investigations where they lead and maintaining the Constitution’s balance of power, it is much easier for her to keep her troops in line.

In that way, Trump’s actions have helped Pelosi start to resolve the conflicts in her caucus.

“There’s a deep concern, particularly among institutionalists, about the balance of power,” said a senior aide to one moderate Democrat who noted that the administration’s refusal to comply with subpoenas has angered some lawmakers who had been reluctant to escalate the fight.

That is, the pace is speeding up even for most Democrats who have been reluctant to go down a path that could lead to impeachment.

Pelosi has said she believes Trump is “goading” Democrats into impeaching him, and many Republicans and Democrats in Washington believe that a House impeachment followed by a Senate acquittal would be a political gift to Trump and House Republicans.

There’s even some concern among House Democrats that the very act of impeaching Trump would hand over power by giving the savvy Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., control of the timetable and process for trying the case with the 2020 election approaching.

And yet Trump’s blanket defiance of Congress on the Mueller report and a range of other issues, from declining to provide his tax returns to declaring a national emergency so he could shift funds to build a border wall, has put Democrats in the position of acquiescing or escalating.

“The president and the attorney general have left the Congress, and the House in particular, not many choices,” Edwards said.

For the moment, Democrats may have been handed some ammunition by an unlikely source as they try to make their case that Trump is tampering with the Constitution’s checks and balances. It was reported Wednesday that the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, issued a subpoena to Donald Trump Jr. after the panel was unable to secure a second round of testimony from him in its Russia probe.

While Trump Jr. is not an administration official — and the subpoena was actually sent in mid-April —the off-pitch sound from the GOP’s previously harmonious message was discordant enough to trigger a response from Burr’s fellow Republicans.

“The Mueller report cleared @DonaldJTrumpJr and he’s already spent 27 hours testifying before Congress,” GOP Sen. Thom Tillis, Burr’s home-state colleague, wrote in a tweet. “Dems have made it clear this is all about politics. It’s time to move on & start focusing on issues that matter to Americans.”

To win, Pelosi has to convince Americans that the fight is more about checks and balances than partisan politics — and that they should side with House Democrats over the Republican in the White House.

A divided caucus undermines that message. A united one helps to sell it.

Jonathan Allen
Jonathan Allen is a Washington-based national political reporter for NBC News who focuses on the presidency.
© 2019 NBC UNIVERSAL

And now this: another absurd twist, help to whitewash the counter punches? A legitimization of a novel political dirty trick?

May 10, 2019, 8:27 AM ET
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann
WASHINGTON — In 2016, the Trump campaign gladly accepted Russia’s help to defeat Hillary Clinton.

And heading into the 2020 race, Rudy Giuliani is headed to Ukraine to push the country’s president to pursue an investigation into Joe Biden’s son, the New York Times writes.

“We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do,” Giuliani told the Times about his upcoming visit to Ukraine.

“There’s nothing illegal about it,” he added. “Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”

How isn’t this the biggest political story in America right now — Team Trump wants the help from another foreign government to dig up dirt on an opponent?

If you don’t think this is a five-alarm scandal — and instead you’re shrugging your shoulders at this story — then we’ve truly gone down the power-hungry rabbit hole, where anything and everything is fair game.

!!! !!!

The New York Times

|

White House Asked McGahn to Declare Trump Never Obstructed Justice

President Trump believed that Donald F. McGahn II, his former White House counsel, showed disloyalty by telling investigators about Mr. Trump’s attempts to maintain control over the Russia investigation.CreditAndrew Harnik/Associated Press
By Michael S. Schmidt
May 10, 2019
WASHINGTON — White House officials asked at least twice in the past month for the key witness against President Trump in the Mueller report, Donald F. McGahn II, to say publicly that he never believed the president obstructed justice, according to two people briefed on the requests.

Mr. Trump asked White House officials to make the request to Mr. McGahn, who was the president’s first White House counsel, one of the people said. Mr. McGahn declined. His reluctance angered the president, who believed that Mr. McGahn showed disloyalty by telling investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, about Mr. Trump’s attempts to maintain control over the Russia investigation.

The White House made one of the requests to Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, before the Mueller report was released publicly but after the Justice Department gave a copy to Mr. Trump’s lawyers in the preceding days. Reading the report, the president’s lawyers saw that Mr. Mueller left out that Mr. McGahn had told investigators that he believed the president never obstructed justice. Mr. Burck had told them months earlier about his client’s belief on the matter and that he had shared it with investigators.

Mr. McGahn initially entertained the White House request. “We did not perceive it as any kind of threat or something sinister,” Mr. Burck said in a statement. “It was a request, professionally and cordially made.” A White House spokeswoman did not respond to a message seeking comment.

But after the report was released, detailing the range of actions Mr. Trump took to try to impede the inquiry, Mr. McGahn decided to pass on putting out a statement supportive of the president. The report also revealed that Mr. Trump told aides he believed Mr. McGahn had leaked to the news media to make himself look good.

See Which Witnesses the Mueller Report Relied on Most A partially redacted report of the special counsel’s findings released on April 18 cited interviews with 43 individuals at least 10 times.
The episodes show the lengths the White House has gone around the release of the Mueller report to push back on the notion that Mr. Trump obstructed justice. House Democrats have used the report to open investigations into whether Mr. Trump abused his position to insulate himself from the Russia inquiry.

The revelations came as the Democrats on Friday increased their pressure on the White House on other fronts. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Richard E. Neal, subpoenaed the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service for six years of Mr. Trump’s personal and business tax returns. Democrats are also pursuing testimony from Mr. Mueller but have not agreed on a date, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters.

In the days after the report was released, White House officials asked Mr. McGahn again to put out a statement as Mr. Trump fumed about his disclosures but Mr. McGahn rebuffed the second request as well.

White House officials believed that Mr. McGahn publicly asserting his belief would calm the president and help the administration push back on the episodes that Mr. Mueller detailed in the obstruction section of the report, said one of the people. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations involving the White House.

Around the time Mr. McGahn declined the second request, the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani began publicly attacking his credibility, saying that Mr. McGahn had a bad memory. “It can’t be taken at face value,” Mr. Giuliani said of Mr. McGahn’s account one day after the Mueller report was released. “It could be the product of an inaccurate recollection or could be the product of something else.”

The White House learned in August that Mr. McGahn had told Mr. Mueller’s investigators that he believed the president had not obstructed justice, according to one of the people. After a New York Times article revealed that Mr. McGahn had spoken to investigators for at least 30 hours, Mr. Burck tried to reassure the White House by explaining that his client told Mr. Mueller that he never believed Mr. Trump had committed an obstruction offense.

Mr. McGahn’s cooperation with Mr. Mueller played a crucial role in allowing the special counsel’s investigators to paint a picture in their report of a president determined to use his power atop the executive branch to protect himself from the Russia investigation.

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index The findings from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, are now available to the public. The redacted report details his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The president’s lawyers are particularly concerned about two episodes that Mr. McGahn detailed to prosecutors. In one, Mr. Trump asked him to fire the special counsel but backed off after Mr. McGahn refused. After that episode was revealed, the president asked Mr. McGahn to create a White House document falsely rebutting his account. Mr. McGahn declined to go along but told Mr. Mueller about the encounters.

It makes no difference legally whether Mr. McGahn believes Mr. Trump obstructed justice. That is a determination made by prosecutors, not witnesses. But politically, such a statement could have been a powerful argument for Mr. Trump, who faces scrutiny from House Democrats about whether he obstructed justice and abused his power.

Mr. Mueller declined to make a determination about whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice, saying that because a sitting president cannot be indicted, it was unfair to accuse him of committing a crime. Attorney General William P. Barr stepped in and decided with his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, to clear Mr. Trump of wrongdoing.

But because Mr. Mueller made no determination — and wrote a damning report that showed repeated efforts by Mr. Trump to interfere with his inquiry — questions about whether the president obstructed justice have lingered as Democrats have sought to gain momentum in their investigation of Mr. Trump.

The Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed Mr. McGahn to testify. But White House advisers have indicated they will try to block him from appearing before lawmakers, and Mr. Trump has said that there is no reason for Mr. McGahn to speak with congressional investigators because he had cooperated so extensively with Mr. Mueller’s team.

“I’ve had him testifying already for 30 hours and it’s really — so I don’t think I can let him and then tell everybody else you can’t,” Mr. Trump said last week in an interview with Fox News. “Especially him, because he was a counsel, so they’ve testified for many hours, all of them, many, many, many people. I can’t say, ‘Well, one can and the others can’t.’ I would say it’s done.”

Mr. McGahn left the White House last year but is still entangled with the president on matters related to the Mueller investigation. The White House instructed Mr. McGahn on Tuesday to not turn over documents he had to the House in response to a subpoena. Mr. McGahn followed the White House’s advice and is now waiting to see whether Democrats will hold him in contempt.

RELATED COVERAGE
Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump’s Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him

© 2019 The New York Times

The Washington Post logoDemocracy Dies in Darkness

House committee subpoenas Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig over Trump tax returns
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin arrives at the Office of the United States Trade Representative in Washington, Friday, May 10, 2019 for trade talks between the United States and China. (Andrew Harnik/AP)
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin arrives at the Office of the United States Trade Representative in Washington, Friday, May 10, 2019 for trade talks between the United States and China. (Andrew Harnik/AP)

By Jeff Stein
May 10, 2019 at 5:06 PM EDT
A House committee issued subpoenas Friday ordering Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig to turn over President Trump’s tax returns by next Friday at 5 p.m., according to copies of the subpoenas provided by the committee.

House Ways and Means Chair Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) authorized the subpoenas following months of disagreements with the Trump administration over whether federal law mandates Congress can obtain the records.

“The IRS is under a mandatory obligation to provide the information requested,” the subpoena states. “The IRS has had more than four weeks to comply with the Committee’s straightforward request. Therefore, please see the enclosed subpoena.”

Read the letter from the Ways and Means Committee to Rettig and Mnuchin

Trump refused to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential campaign in a break with decades of precedent from previous presidents. Legal experts have said Mnuchin’s refusal to turn over the returns is unprecedented, noting a 1924 law explicitly gives lawmakers the authority to seek the records.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 6 denied House Democrats’ request to turn over President Trump’s tax returns. (Reuters)
A Treasury Department spokeswoman confirmed receipt of the subpoena.

The subpoenas come amid a widening legal conflict between House Democrats and the White House over a range of oversight issues, with the administration invoking executive privilege to prevent Trump’s former counsel from giving certain records to Congress.

Neal first demanded six years of Trump’s personal and business returns, from 2013 to 2018, in letters to the administration this April.

Neal’s subpoenas demand Mnuchin and Rettig turn over Trump’s individual income tax returns, all “administrative files” such as affidavits for those income tax returns, and income tax returns for a number of Trump’s business holdings, such as the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, an umbrella entity that controls dozens of other businesses, such as the Mar-A-Lago club in Florida

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., who is demanding President Donald Trump’s tax returns for six years, is joined at right by Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., at a hearing on taxpayer noncompliance on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 9, 2019. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
The Trump administration has rejected Democrats’ requests for the president’s tax returns as violations of taxpayer privacy, with an attorney hired by the president and congressional Republicans echoing similar concerns. Mnuchin repeatedly asked for more time to respond to Neal’s request before rejecting it outright earlier this month.

“I think we’re coming to the point where we’re running out of letters to write,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, in an interview on Thursday.

If Mnuchin and Rettig do not turn over the returns, Neal could respond by going to a congressional body to authorize a lawsuit in federal court against the two Trump administration officials. That body, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, is controlled by Democrats.

The subpoena could bolster Neal’s position in federal court because it will help him demonstrate he pursued all possible avenues to obtain the returns before filing a lawsuit against the administration, said Steve Rosenthal, a legal expert at the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think-tank. That, at least in theory, will make it less likely for the court to strike down his claim on procedural grounds.

“A week now could save many months later,” Rosenthal said.

Even if House Democrats receive Trump’s tax returns, there is still no guarantee they will necessarily be made public. Legal experts say leaking the returns is a violation of privacy law that could be punishable with up to five years in prison, a provision intended to ensure taxpayer privacy, said George Yin, a legal expert at the University of Virginia.

Earlier this week, the New York Times published a report, based on data from 10 years of Trump’s federal tax returns, showing Trump reported more than $1 billion in losses to the IRS and lost more money than almost every other taxpayer in America from 1985 to 1994.

Earlier on Friday, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, cautioned Neal against issuing a subpoena, arguing, “Such actions would be an abuse of the committee’s oversight powers and further examples of the Democrat majority’s coordinated attempt to weaponize the tax code.”

Jeff Stein is a policy reporter for The Washington Post. He was a crime reporter for the Syracuse Post-Standard and, in 2014, founded the local news nonprofit the Ithaca Voice in Upstate New York. He was also a reporter for Vox. Follow
washingtonpost.com
© 1996-2019 The Washington Post

And now:

Congress, put country over party on Trump’s claim of ‘executive privilege’
By Wayne Gilchrest and Nick Rahall, CNN
Updated 5:40 PM EDT, Sat May 11, 2019

Editor’s Note: (Former Rep. Wayne Gilchrest was a Republican member of Congress who represented Maryland’s 1st District from 1991-2009. Former Rep. Nick Rahall was a Democratic member of Congress who represented West Virginia’s 4th and 3rd districts from 1977-2015. The views expressed in this commentary belong to the authors. View more opinion articles at CNN.)

(CNN) For members of Congress, there are some principles that should take precedence over others. The first of those is to uphold and defend the Constitution, which includes the systems of separation of powers and checks and balances. Another is to preserve the integrity of the institution of Congress as a coequal branch of government by conducting legitimate oversight and holding the other branches accountable. Sometimes, members have to make the choice to prioritize these fundamentals of our democracy over party loyalty. We know firsthand that it can be hard to do, but we urge today’s members to rise to the occasion.

Wayne Gilchrest

Overseeing the executive branch is often a contentious process, but there are rules in place to make sure that the process works. In fact, congressional authority to conduct oversight is rooted in its most fundamental constitutional power: legislating. In order to assess existing laws or consider new ones, Congress has to be able to uncover, and even compel, information. As the Supreme Court has noted, Congress’s power clearly extends to oversight of executive agencies, which Congress created and funds. Congress can get the information it needs in many ways, whether by holding hearings or requesting documents. When asking doesn’t work, Congress can compel responses through subpoenas and punish people by holding them in contempt.

Though it is unfortunately and dishearteningly normal for presidents to resist congressional oversight to a certain extent, the Trump administration may be taking such resistance to a new level. Attorney General William Barr recently refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee while simultaneously refusing to comply with a subpoena from the committee requesting access to the unredacted Mueller report and supporting documents. The Trump administration has also refused to provide the House Ways and Means Committee with the President’s tax documents that it has requested.

Recent comments by President Trump and other administration officials indicate that they may go so far as to categorically defy all oversight subpoenas. And indeed, individuals tied to the Trump administration are actively defying multiple subpoenas. Meanwhile, Trump has sued multiple banks to block the House Intelligence and Financial Services committees from gaining access to his financial records, which they had requested.

Nick Rahall
Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of particular investigations, but what we should all be able to agree on is the constitutionally embedded reality that Congress has both the right and the duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch, and that congressional subpoenas in particular must be honored – no matter the context. If these subpoenas are ignored, it is incumbent upon all members of Congress, regardless of party, to consider citations of contempt against the relevant administration officials.

In light of stonewalling and defiance, a contempt citation is a vital step to assert Congress’s authority. These votes can be defining moments for those of us who have the privilege to be elected to the United States Congress.

Our experiences could be instructive today.

In February 2008, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest took such a vote across party lines to hold George W. Bush’s former counsel, Harriet Miers, and former chief of staff Joshua Bolten in contempt for failing to testify before Congress and provide documents. In this case, the House was pursuing a legitimate inquiry into the potentially unscrupulous and politically motivated mass termination of federal prosecutors in 2006. There was evidence that Miers was involved in plans to fire the prosecutors and Bolten possessed potentially relevant documents.

In June 2012, Rep. Nick Rahall faced a similar choice. In this instance, the Obama administration had resisted and ultimately did not comply with congressional subpoenas related to the failed “Operation Fast and Furious.” In this case, the subpoena concerned an undercover operation that tried to track illegally purchased guns that the government knew were being sold. The Justice Department refused to turn over documents Congress requested for its investigation into the program and, as a result, the House voted to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. All told, 17 Democrats voted in favor of the contempt citation.

Trump-Congress confrontation goes to Defcon 1
Our contempt votes in 2008 and 2012 are by no means the only examples of lawmakers taking difficult stances for the right reason. History shows us how important it is for members of Congress to act in the broad interest of the country as opposed to the narrow interest of a party. Remember that it was a bipartisan group of senators who formed the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973, some putting their politics aside to do what was necessary to hold the executive branch to account.

The committee and the report it produced in 1974 ultimately helped resolve one of the most shocking scandals in American political history. The committee’s Democratic chairman, Sen. Sam Ervin, its Republican vice-chairman, Sen. Howard Baker, and their five colleagues worked cooperatively in the pursuit of the truth around the Watergate scandal and toward the eventual healing of a national wound.

We do not write to chastise current members of Congress, but rather to urge action in the institutional interest. We know how hard it can be to vote against the party line. Above all else, we write this because we are strong supporters of the institution of Congress and do not wish to see its legitimacy and authority undermined for partisan advantage.

If Congress conducts oversight and demands accountability only when the majority party faces a White House controlled by the opposing party, then Congress is not conducting true oversight at all. Accountability will become a mere matter of political point scoring, not the good stewardship of public trust it should be. In such an environment, the American people will continue to lose faith in Congress and the efficacy of our democracy. We urge all members of Congress to remember why we chose a life of public service in the first place – and remember that we were all elected to serve the people, not the party.

View on CNN
© 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Subscribe
‘We’re courting danger’: Trump suffers foreign policy setbacks in Iran, North Korea
DEIRDRE SHESGREEN AND DAVID JACKSON | USA TODAY | 11 minutes ago

Venezuela is in crisis after an attempt overthrow corrupt dictator Nicolas Maduro. But is this just another proxy war between the U.S. and Russia?
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is deriding President Donald Trump as foolish for trying to oust him. Kim Jong Un is testing Trump’s “love” – and his resolve – in the North Korea negotiations. And Iran’s leaders are finding new ways to threaten the U.S. and to defy the president’s “maximum pressure” campaign.

In short, Trump’s foreign policy agenda is hitting the diplomatic rocks, with potentially disastrous results.

Some say it’s by design – Trump doesn’t mind sowing chaos and confusion, and he has. Others say it’s a result of misguided policies and contradictory, undisciplined decision-making inside the White House.

Either way, the president has suffered a series of stunning foreign policy setbacks this week, raising fresh questions about his approach to military engagement and international affairs.

“What you see is a mismatch between means and ends across the board – whether it’s in Venezuela, whether it’s in North Korea, whether it’s in Iran – where the end’s always extremely ambitious and the diplomatic means tend to be quite de minimis,” said Robert Malley, a senior White House adviser on the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region in the Obama administration. “We’re courting danger where there’s no reason to.”

Jon B. Alterman, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, said the series of foreign policy crises that have come to a head in recent days seem part of Trump’s design.

“The president is a lot more comfortable with chaos than any president in recent memory,” Alterman said. “The president doesn’t see uncertainty and disorder as a liability. He sees it as an asset.”

So escalating tensions in Iran and the stalemate in Venezuela, he said, are not necessarily an aberration but a feature of Trump’s sometimes erratic and contradictory approach to world affairs.

President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
ALEX BRANDON, AP
The result has been on full display in recent days:

On Tuesday, the Pentagon rushed B-52 bombers and a carrier strike group to the Middle East in response to intercepted intelligence indicating Iran or its proxies in the region might be preparing attacks on American military troops and facilities. A day later, Iran’s president declared his country would pull back on its compliance with a sweeping, multilateral nuclear agreement aimed at preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.

On Thursday, North Korea tested a suspected short-range missile, the second time in less than a week that Kim’s regime has taken that kind of provocative step.

On Friday, Trump roiled markets and sowed confusion when he deleted and then reposted a Twitter thread in which he said Chinese trade talks were progressing in “a very congenial manner” and that there is “no need to rush” a new agreement – right after his administration imposed new U.S. tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods because the two sides were unable to reach a new trade deal.

Last week, top Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, touted the possibility of U.S. military action in Venezuela as a U.S.-backed uprising led by opposition leader Juan Guaido fizzled and Maduro mocked the failed effort as “foolishness by coup mongers” in the Trump White House.

For his part, Trump says he is cleaning up “the mess” left behind by predecessors, from bad trade deals across the globe to protracted military conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan.

“We have made a decisive break from the failed foreign policy establishment that sacrificed our sovereignty, surrendered our jobs and tied us down to endless foreign wars,” Trump said during a political rally Wednesday in Florida.

Democrats scoff at Trump’s efforts to blame his foreign policy troubles on previous presidents.

“Everything the president has touched internationally has gone to crap,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said at a national security forum on Friday sponsored by former Obama administration officials.

“We have split our alliances," said Murphy, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We have engaged in a trade war that’s cost Americans money. We have allowed Iran to restart their nuclear program. We have made no substantial progress in North Korea. The Middle East is more chaotic, not less chaotic. There’s still 20,000 members of ISIS who are getting ready to regroup.”

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the fundamental problem with Trump’s approach to foreign policy is that he sets sky-high goals, but is unwilling or unable to deliver on them.

“The president has articulated wildly ambitious goals that he almost certainly is going to fail to meet,” he said.

For example, Trump says he wants North Korea to give up its entire nuclear arsenal, and to do it quickly. He wants Iran’s regime to collapse or to radically alter its behavior across the Middle East. He wants fundamental changes in China trade policy.

All these are long shots, at best, Haass said.

“In all three of those cases he will have to compromise, or he will fail,” said Haass, author of the book “A World In Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order.”

Others echoed that assessment but said Trump has exacerbated that disconnect with contradictory positions coming from within the White House.

Take the current crisis in Venezuela, where Trump had forcefully backed Guaido’s bid to oust Maduro, a socialist leader who had helped drive his country to the brink of economic collapse. Trump’s position has been driven by hawks inside his administration, including Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton.

After Maduro’s uprising floundered last week, Bolton and Pompeo went to the Pentagon to talk to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan about possible U.S. military options. But such intervention would run directly counter to Trump’s own instincts, and his campaign promises, to steer clear of military interventions.

Trump’s advisers seem “more willing to bandy about the threat of the use of military force, whereas he is far less inclined to do so,” Malley said. That split between Trump and his advisers creates one layer of confusion, Malley said, and a second one comes from “a tug of war within (Trump’s) own mind.”

While Trump says he wants to avoid messy military entanglements, he also wants “to project a sense not just of power but of a willingness to go the brink and to court confrontation,” Malley said.

That has fed a sense of failure or stalemate in places like Venezuela, he added, where Bolton predicted Maduro’s ouster was just a matter of time. And it’s created whiplash on North Korea, where Trump went from threatening Kim with “fire and fury” to declaring that they “fell in love.”

Alterman said economic pressure, like the sanctions that Trump has slapped on the Maduro government, almost never lead to regime change or a popular revolt against an authoritarian leader. But Trump doesn’t seem to really want to take the next step of military intervention in places like Venezuela.

The same is true with Iran, he said, where Trump has set himself up for failure by outlining a policy that shoots for the stars – complete transformation of the Iranian regime, or what Alterman called “self-regime change.” But the president is relying on economic pressure and bellicose rhetoric to achieve that, which Alterman said will almost certainly not work.

View | 8 Photos
The day in pictures
Brian Hook, the State Department’s special envoy for Iran, argues that Trump’s approach to Iran has borne fruit. Exhibit A, Hook says, is that Iran appears to be cutting back its financial support for militant groups in Syria and Lebanon.

But he and others concede that Iran is not close to reopening talks with the U.S. on a broader agreement that would curb its ballistic missile program or halt its support for terrorism. And just days after the Pentagon rushed its bombers to the region in response to an Iranian threat, Trump told supporters he would like to sit-down with Iran’s president and negotiate.

“I hope to be able at some point … to sit down and work out a fair deal,” he said during Wednesday’s rally in Florida. “We’re not looking to hurt anybody … We just don’t want them to have nuclear weapons.”

Like what you’re reading? Download the USA TODAY app for more

Related coverage:

‘We need to know why’: Lawmakers wary as Trump aides weigh military options for Venezuela

President Donald Trump hopes to ‘sit down’ with Iran over nuclear deal

North Korea launches second projectile in less than a week

Originally Published 2 hours ago
Updated 11 minutes ago
Subscribe Now – Get Your Offer
THE SHORT LIST NEWSLETTER
The news everyone’s talking about, delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign up now
Help • Terms of Service • Privacy Notice

© Copyright Gannett 2019

‘We’re courting danger’: Trump suffers foreign policy setbacks in Iran, North Korea
DEIRDRE SHESGREEN AND DAVID JACKSON | USA TODAY | 11 minutes ago

Venezuela is in crisis after an attempt overthrow corrupt dictator Nicolas Maduro. But is this just another proxy war between the U.S. and Russia?
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is deriding President Donald Trump as foolish for trying to oust him. Kim Jong Un is testing Trump’s “love” – and his resolve – in the North Korea negotiations. And Iran’s leaders are finding new ways to threaten the U.S. and to defy the president’s “maximum pressure” campaign.

In short, Trump’s foreign policy agenda is hitting the diplomatic rocks, with potentially disastrous results.

Some say it’s by design – Trump doesn’t mind sowing chaos and confusion, and he has. Others say it’s a result of misguided policies and contradictory, undisciplined decision-making inside the White House.

Either way, the president has suffered a series of stunning foreign policy setbacks this week, raising fresh questions about his approach to military engagement and international affairs.

“What you see is a mismatch between means and ends across the board – whether it’s in Venezuela, whether it’s in North Korea, whether it’s in Iran – where the end’s always extremely ambitious and the diplomatic means tend to be quite de minimis,” said Robert Malley, a senior White House adviser on the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region in the Obama administration. “We’re courting danger where there’s no reason to.”

Jon B. Alterman, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, said the series of foreign policy crises that have come to a head in recent days seem part of Trump’s design.

“The president is a lot more comfortable with chaos than any president in recent memory,” Alterman said. “The president doesn’t see uncertainty and disorder as a liability. He sees it as an asset.”

So escalating tensions in Iran and the stalemate in Venezuela, he said, are not necessarily an aberration but a feature of Trump’s sometimes erratic and contradictory approach to world affairs.

President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
ALEX BRANDON, AP
The result has been on full display in recent days:

On Tuesday, the Pentagon rushed B-52 bombers and a carrier strike group to the Middle East in response to intercepted intelligence indicating Iran or its proxies in the region might be preparing attacks on American military troops and facilities. A day later, Iran’s president declared his country would pull back on its compliance with a sweeping, multilateral nuclear agreement aimed at preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.

On Thursday, North Korea tested a suspected short-range missile, the second time in less than a week that Kim’s regime has taken that kind of provocative step.

On Friday, Trump roiled markets and sowed confusion when he deleted and then reposted a Twitter thread in which he said Chinese trade talks were progressing in “a very congenial manner” and that there is “no need to rush” a new agreement – right after his administration imposed new U.S. tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods because the two sides were unable to reach a new trade deal.

Last week, top Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, touted the possibility of U.S. military action in Venezuela as a U.S.-backed uprising led by opposition leader Juan Guaido fizzled and Maduro mocked the failed effort as “foolishness by coup mongers” in the Trump White House.

For his part, Trump says he is cleaning up “the mess” left behind by predecessors, from bad trade deals across the globe to protracted military conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan.

“We have made a decisive break from the failed foreign policy establishment that sacrificed our sovereignty, surrendered our jobs and tied us down to endless foreign wars,” Trump said during a political rally Wednesday in Florida.

Democrats scoff at Trump’s efforts to blame his foreign policy troubles on previous presidents.

“Everything the president has touched internationally has gone to crap,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said at a national security forum on Friday sponsored by former Obama administration officials.

“We have split our alliances," said Murphy, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We have engaged in a trade war that’s cost Americans money. We have allowed Iran to restart their nuclear program. We have made no substantial progress in North Korea. The Middle East is more chaotic, not less chaotic. There’s still 20,000 members of ISIS who are getting ready to regroup.”

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the fundamental problem with Trump’s approach to foreign policy is that he sets sky-high goals, but is unwilling or unable to deliver on them.

“The president has articulated wildly ambitious goals that he almost certainly is going to fail to meet,” he said.

For example, Trump says he wants North Korea to give up its entire nuclear arsenal, and to do it quickly. He wants Iran’s regime to collapse or to radically alter its behavior across the Middle East. He wants fundamental changes in China trade policy.

All these are long shots, at best, Haass said.

“In all three of those cases he will have to compromise, or he will fail,” said Haass, author of the book “A World In Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order.”

Others echoed that assessment but said Trump has exacerbated that disconnect with contradictory positions coming from within the White House.

Take the current crisis in Venezuela, where Trump had forcefully backed Guaido’s bid to oust Maduro, a socialist leader who had helped drive his country to the brink of economic collapse. Trump’s position has been driven by hawks inside his administration, including Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton.

After Maduro’s uprising floundered last week, Bolton and Pompeo went to the Pentagon to talk to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan about possible U.S. military options. But such intervention would run directly counter to Trump’s own instincts, and his campaign promises, to steer clear of military interventions.

Trump’s advisers seem “more willing to bandy about the threat of the use of military force, whereas he is far less inclined to do so,” Malley said. That split between Trump and his advisers creates one layer of confusion, Malley said, and a second one comes from “a tug of war within (Trump’s) own mind.”

While Trump says he wants to avoid messy military entanglements, he also wants “to project a sense not just of power but of a willingness to go the brink and to court confrontation,” Malley said.

That has fed a sense of failure or stalemate in places like Venezuela, he added, where Bolton predicted Maduro’s ouster was just a matter of time. And it’s created whiplash on North Korea, where Trump went from threatening Kim with “fire and fury” to declaring that they “fell in love.”

Alterman said economic pressure, like the sanctions that Trump has slapped on the Maduro government, almost never lead to regime change or a popular revolt against an authoritarian leader. But Trump doesn’t seem to really want to take the next step of military intervention in places like Venezuela.

The same is true with Iran, he said, where Trump has set himself up for failure by outlining a policy that shoots for the stars – complete transformation of the Iranian regime, or what Alterman called “self-regime change.” But the president is relying on economic pressure and bellicose rhetoric to achieve that, which Alterman said will almost certainly not work.

View | 8 Photos
The day in pictures
Brian Hook, the State Department’s special envoy for Iran, argues that Trump’s approach to Iran has borne fruit. Exhibit A, Hook says, is that Iran appears to be cutting back its financial support for militant groups in Syria and Lebanon.

But he and others concede that Iran is not close to reopening talks with the U.S. on a broader agreement that would curb its ballistic missile program or halt its support for terrorism. And just days after the Pentagon rushed its bombers to the region in response to an Iranian threat, Trump told supporters he would like to sit-down with Iran’s president and negotiate.

“I hope to be able at some point … to sit down and work out a fair deal,” he said during Wednesday’s rally in Florida. “We’re not looking to hurt anybody … We just don’t want them to have nuclear weapons.”

Like what you’re reading? Download the USA TODAY app for more

Related coverage:

‘We need to know why’: Lawmakers wary as Trump aides weigh military options for Venezuela

President Donald Trump hopes to ‘sit down’ with Iran over nuclear deal

© Copyright Gannett 2019

////////////////////\\\*\\//////////

The Washington Post logoDemocracy Dies in Darkness
Europe
Trump’s interest in stirring Ukraine investigations sows confusion in Kiev
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani speaks in Washington last year. Giuliani said Friday he was canceling a planned trip to Ukraine. (Andrew Harnik/AP)
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani speaks in Washington last year. Giuliani said Friday he was canceling a planned trip to Ukraine. (Andrew Harnik/AP)
By Anton Troianovski, Josh Dawsey and Paul Sonne
May 11, 2019 at 2:58 PM EDT
MOSCOW — As President Trump and his inner circle appear increasingly focused on Ukraine as a potential tripwire for Joe Biden and other Democrats, officials about to take power in Kiev are pushing their own message: Leave us out of it.

Supporters of Ukrainian President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky — who is expected to take office in the coming weeks — said in interviews Saturday that they feared they were being pulled into a domestic political conflict in the United States, potentially at Ukraine’s expense.

Pete Buttigieg says Donald Trump’s white ‘identity politics’ creating a ‘crisis of belonging’
MAUREEN GROPPE | USA TODAY | 40 minutes ago

Pete Buttigieg, a two-term mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is now running for president at the age of 37. Here’s what we know about the man and his campaign.
DWIGHT ADAMS, DWIGHT.ADAMS@INDYSTAR.COM
Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg on Saturday accused President Donald Trump of dividing America and creating a “crisis of belonging” for people of color, immigrants, gay people and others.

While Trump’s proposed border wall is a fantasy, the South Bend, Ind. mayor said, the administration is erecting real walls with what he called the most divisive form of “identity politics” – white identity politics.

That can leave black women, immigrants, the disabled, displaced auto workers and others feeling like they’re living in a different country, Buttigieg told a gala of gay rights activists.

Who is running in 2020?An ineractive guide to the presidential candidates

Courting the black caucus:Candidates fight for support of black lawmakers and their powerful voting bloc

Buttigieg, who is openly gay, said there is also some schismatic thinking in the Democratic Party, such as when “we’re told we need to choose between supporting an auto worker and supporting a trans women of color, without stopping to think about the fact that sometimes the auto worker is a trans woman of color and she definitely needs all the support that she can get.”

Buttigieg said at the Human Rights Campaign gala in Las Vegas that each person has a story that can be used to either separate – or connect – them to others.

“What every gay person has in common with every excluded person of any kind is knowing what it’s like to see a wall between you and the rest of the world and wonder what it’s like on the other side,” he said. “I am here to build bridges and to tear down walls.”

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg delivers a keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) 14th annual Las Vegas Gala at Caesars Palace on May 11, 2019 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Buttigieg is the first openly gay candidate to run for the Democratic presidential nomination. The HRC is the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the United States.
ETHAN MILLER, GETTY IMAGES
Buttigieg’s remarks were a continuation of a unity theme he’s emphasized since officially launching his presidential campaign last month. His campaign logo includes a bridge that encapsulates his first name.

Trump sounded out his potential rival’s harder-to-pronounce last name at a campaign rally in Florida Wednesday, while ticking through Democratic presidential contenders: “Boot-edge-edge,” the president sounded out, “They say ‘edge-edge.’”

On Friday, Trump compared Buttigieg to the longtime mascot of Mad Magazine, a freckled-faced cartoon boy.

“Alfred E. Neuman cannot become president of the United States,” he told Politico.

Buttigieg, who had to Google the character that was popular long before he was born to understand the jab, made an oblique reference to it Saturday.

He said his teenage self would not have been able to comprehend the fact that he would wake up in Las Vegas one day “to reports that the president of the United States was apparently trying to get his attention.”

“Let alone if you told him that the president somehow pronounced his name right,” Buttigieg said as the audience laughed.

Buttigieg to Pence: If you have a problem with who I am, your quarrel is with my creator

Pence answers Buttigieg’s criticism: ‘He knows better. He knows me’

Rising star? 7 hurdles facing Democrat Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 presidential campaign

Saturday’s event at Caesars Palace was one of more than a dozen local dinners the Human Rights Campaign is holding before their national dinner in September in Washington.

Two other presidential candidates – California Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey – spoke at a March dinner in Los Angeles.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer civil rights organization, will co-host a forum for 2020 Democratic presidential candidates this fall.

“Anyone in this room understands that politics isn’t theoretical; it is personal," Buttigieg said. “So many of us have a marriage that exists by the grace of a single vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

That’s why, he said, what matters in Washington is “not the show.” But “the way a chain of events starts in one of those big white buildings and reaches into our lives, into our homes, our paychecks, our doctors’ offices, our marriages,” he said. “That’s what’s at stake today.”

Originally Published 4 hours ago
Updated 40 minutes ago

© Copyright Gannett 2019