Skip navigation

This is about Trump trying to push his faulty agenda at any cost and at the same time save (take) money from cities that aids in policing (keeping people safe). MA

By Chris Kenning and Joseph Ax, Reuters 13 hours ago

By Chris Kenning and Joseph Ax
CHICAGO/NEW YORK (Reuters) – Chicago will sue the Trump administration on Monday over threats to withhold public safety grant money from so-called sanctuary cities, escalating a pushback against a federal immigration crackdown, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced on Sunday.
The federal lawsuit comes less than two weeks after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the U.S. Justice Department would bar cities from a certain grant program unless they allow immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provide 48 hours’ notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.
“Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate,” Emanuel, a Democrat, said at a news conference. “Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated. And Chicago will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city.”
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants provide money to hundreds of cities, and the Trump administration has requested $380 million in funding next year. Chicago, a regular target of Republican President Donald Trump because of its murder rate, expected to receive $3.2 million this year for purchasing equipment.
Emanuel said the lawsuit would prevent the Trump administration from setting a precedent that could be used to target other funding.
Under Trump and Sessions, the federal government has sought to crack down on sanctuary cities, which generally offer illegal immigrants safe harbor by declining to use municipal resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the growing sanctuary movement.
The Justice Department said more Chicagoans were murdered last year than residents of Los Angeles and New York combined, and cited comments by Sessions last week saying sanctuary cities “make all of us less safe.”
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a Sunday statement: “It’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens and putting Chicago’s law enforcement at greater risk.”
Police and city officials in sanctuary cities have said deporting illegal immigrants who are not accused of serious crimes harms public safety by discouraging immigrants from coming forward to report crimes.
Chicago’s lawsuit is the first to challenge the department over the Byrne program, though city officials said they are in contact with other cities. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is also considering a similar lawsuit, the Sacramento Bee has reported.
The Trump administration has already faced legal battles over its sanctuary city policies. Last month, a U.S. judge refused to revisit a court order that blocked Trump’s January executive order denying broader federal funds to such jurisdictions, in a case filed by San Francisco and the California county of Santa Clara.
(Reporting by Chris Kenning in Chicago and Joseph Ax in New York; Additional reporting by Pete Schroeder in Washington; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Please Donate

Typical Trump usage of incomplete or incorrect facts in describing serious matters. MA

AUGUST 4, 2017
A throwaway comment undercuts the president’s own drug addiction commission and spotlights his tone-deafness on combatting a national epidemic in one of the worst-hit states.

New Hampshire can be safely added to the encyclopedia of people, places, and things that the 45th president of the United States has publicly insulted or, in the case of the Granite State, denigrated on the phone with foreign leaders. In his continuing desire to remind the world that Americans elected him and not Hillary Clinton to put his business acumen to work on drug abuse and trafficking across the southern border, he told Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in late January, “I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den.” (As usual, Trump has a tenuous acquaintance with verifiable facts. He did win the first-in-the-nation Republican presidential primary but Clinton inched to victory in New Hampshire in November 2016.)
No topic is safe from Trump’s loose lips and poor judgment. It’s not the first time that he has trivialized New Hampshire’s drug abuse epidemic. “You know what really amazed me when I came here and I got to know so many people?” he said at a campaign rally in the state last fall. “They said the biggest single problem they have up here is heroin. … And I said how does heroin work with these beautiful lakes and trees?” The president’s effortless way of getting in his own way on New Hampshire’s most serious health problem by riling up people on both sides of the partisan divide, underscoring the Republican Party’s health-care debacle and renewed commitment to losing the war on drugs, and undercutting the work of his much-vaunted opioid commission takes uncommon skill.

New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, a conservative Republican who signed a bill establishing needle exchange programs in June, labeled Trump’s comments “disappointing.” “The president is wrong,” Sununu said in a statement. “Our administration inherited one of the worst health crises this state has ever experienced, but we are facing this challenge head on. We have doubled our resources to support prevention, treatment, and recovery; dedicated millions to law enforcements efforts to keep drugs out of our state; increased the availability of naloxone; and are rebuilding our prevention programs for our kids.”
If Trump and his White House communications gurus took a respite from their full-frontal assault on the First Amendment and an unhealthy preoccupation with the mainstream media, they might better focus not only on the epidemic but on the innovative effort that one New Hampshire town has taken to address the drug abuse.
Last month, The New York Times Magazine delivered a compelling profile of Eric Davis, a pioneering Laconia, New Hampshire, police department prevention, enforcement, and treatment coordinator who, single-handedly, takes an intensive, 24/7 approach to dealing with the epidemic that includes everything from finding housing for addicts, to handling relatives’ pleas for interventions and buttonholing skeptical public officials. New Hampshire has the second highest rate of death from drug overdoses in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only West Virginia has a higher overdose mortality rate.
The writer, Benjamin Rachlin, a New Hampshire native, explored Davis’s Sisyphean work with addicts and people in recovery and continues to ponder how that effort could be scaled up from small rural communities to larger towns and cities. “What is important about what’s happening in Laconia is not simply that you have one officer, social worker, or nonprofit doing this particular thing but that there has been a community-wide reckoning with the situation that the region has found itself in,” Rachlin told The American Prospect.
Not surprisingly, Trump has offered inconsistent views on drug abuse. Most of the Republican Senate’s forays into repealing and replacing Obamacare had Trump’s full-throated support even though the proposals would have decimated the already scarce treatment options in New Hampshire and elsewhere. The Better Health Care Reconciliation Act framework proposed a paltry $2 billion in 2018 alone to cover substance abuse and treatment. Republicans also were posed to slash Medicaid, the largest insurer for addiction treatment services. At the same time, various Republican versions of repeal-and-replaced had modest increases in sums for dealing with opiate addition, to provide window-dressing for legislators from heavily afflicted states.
On the enforcement side of the drug policy ledger, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has turned national drug enforcement back to the 1980s with his revival of the war on drugs, a fight that many local enforcement agencies no longer want to wage, given the failure of current efforts and the new prevalence of deadly and powerful (and easily manufactured) synthetic drugs. Sessions’s interest in criminalizing medical marijuana will also set him on a collision course with more than half of U.S. states, along with almost dozen others that have legalized recreational marijuana. Medical research is also stacking up against the attorney general. Marijuana has been demonstrated to be a viable remedy for chronic pain management, one that even the National Football League is ready to embrace, and could preclude prescribing the opioids that have spawned widespread abuse.
The New Hampshire dustup has even overshadowed the interim report from President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, which already suffered ignominy by being released on the same day that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly fired communications director Anthony Scaramucci. The commission has called for a national public health declaration of emergency under either the Public Health Service Act or the Stafford Act and for the elimination of certain existing restrictions on Medicaid drug treatment programs. With more than 140 deaths every day, “America is enduring a death toll equal to September 11 every three weeks,” the report said.
Treating opioid-driven substance abuse as a public health crisis is not new. Six states, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Virginia, have already declared states of emergency. Four of these have Republican governors. What would be new is a serious or at least scripted commitment by President Trump to address a problem that has killed tens of thousands of Americans with the seriousness it merits rather than as a detail in his obsession with campaigning instead of governing.

Please Donate

During the last 10 years we have had many high profile TV and radio commentators, pundits and other so called experts extolling the virtues of, or condemning some politicians. These utterances are usually quite political aka Democrat, Republican, conservative or liberal. It has become apparent to me that many of the well known people are pushing hate speech as truth, exhorting people to take back something that was never gone and pushing agendas that do more harm than good. All the while writing books that sound right but have no new information beyond what is common knowledge and available to anyone who will look for it. These folks have one aim and that is to sell books. Several of the book sellers have been publicly outed as racists, misogynists and supporters of the highest payers for their services. There is no need to enumerate or name any of these people as this entire post will be taken up by the list. The point is: we ALL need to begin the trek to reading as many opinions, writings and news sources as you deem necessary to your path of learning. There is no greater need now than an informed voter and not someone who respond to half truths and innuendo.


Please Donate

This article  explains a question I have had and found hard to get an answer for. MA.


The Atlantic


The word is invoked to refer to a number of surprisingly diverse worldviews — and politicians take advantage of that.
Roughly two-fifths of Americans call themselves “conservative.” What do they mean by the word? It depends. And during a Republican primary, that can be problematic. Every candidate is vying to be the standard-bearer for conservatism, and exploiting the fact that its meaning is variable.
Thus, the need for this exercise.
What follows is an attempt to tease out the many different worldviews Americans are referring to when they invoke the word conservative — and then to figure out which of these worldviews best describe Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul, the choices before Republicans. Bear in mind that what follows aren’t my definitions of conservatism, but what various Americans mean when they use the word.
1. An aversion to rapid change; a belief that tradition and prevailing social norms often contain within them handed down wisdom; and mistrust of attempts to remake society so that it conforms to an abstract account of what would be just or efficient.
2. A desire to preserve the political philosophy and rules of government articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
3. A belief that it is imperative to preserve traditional morality, as it is articulated in the Bible, through cultural norms.
4. A belief that it is imperative to preserve traditional morality, as it is articulated in the Bible, using cultural norms and the power of the state.
5. An embrace of free-market capitalism, and a belief in the legitimacy of market outcomes.
6. A belief that America is an exceptional nation, a shining city on a hill, whose rightful role is leader of the free world.
7. A belief that America should export its brand of democracy through force of arms.
8. The conviction that government should undertake, on behalf of the American polity, grand projects that advance our “national greatness” and ennoble our characters.
9. An embrace of localism, community and family ties, human scale, and a responsibility to the future.
10. A belief that America shouldn’t intervene in the affairs of other nations except to defend ourselves from aggression and enforce contracts and treaties.
11. A desire to return to the way things once were.
12. Affinity for, identification with, or embrace of Red America’s various cultural cues. (For example, gun ownership, a preference for single-family homes oriented around highways rather than urban enclaves organized around public transit, embrace of country music, disdain for arugula and fancy mustard, etc.)
13. Disdain for American liberalism, multiculturalism, identity politics, affirmative action, welfare, European-style social policies, and the left and its ideas generally.
14. A desire to be left alone by government, often coupled with a belief that being left alone is a natural right.
15. A principled belief in federalism.
16. The belief that taxes should be lower and government smaller.
17. The belief that the national debt and deficits put America in peril.
18. The belief that whenever possible, government budgets should be balanced.
19. Consciousness of the fallibility of man, and an awareness of the value of skepticism, doubt and humility.
20. Realism in foreign policy.
21. Non-interventionism in foreign policy.

Granting that any list of this kind is imperfect, I contend the foregoing is sufficient for our purposes. So where do the presidential candidates I’ve mentioned fall?
As best I can tell, Mitt Romney definitely shares the attitudes in 2, 3, 5, 6, 16, and 17. There is controversy about whether he in fact believes in 4 or 13. And he may well believe in 15, but if so it isn’t a defining part of his worldview.
Newt Gingrich definitely subscribes to 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13. He inconsistently invokes 15 and 16, taking actions contrary to them on many occasions.
Rick Santorum is a believer in 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, and 19. He claims to believe in 16 but has been inconsistent.
Ron Paul subscribes to 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21.
Unwieldy as this approach to grappling with the candidates is, it complicates the conversation about who is “most conservative” in a way that increases rather than detracts from clarity. And for that reason, I hope this is the beginning of a conversation, for I’m sure my imperfect product can be improved upon, especially by folks who actually self-identify as conservatives. Are there any significant strains I’ve missed? Are distinct ways of thinking conflated in a single item? Are the beliefs of the candidates accurately summed up? Is there a more concise way to lay all this out? I’ll be checking comments, reading email, and surveying the blogosphere to see how this might be improved.

Please Donate


Was there a fire extinguisher nearby during this press conference? MA


Jenna Amatulli, HuffPost 12 hours ago

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at Wednesday’s briefing that she didn’t think it was “appropriate to lie from the podium or any other place.”
Sanders’ job is to defend President Donald Trump’s actions, and defend she does. But despite her saying that her job is to “communicate the president’s agenda” and “answer questions as honestly” as she can, Sanders has a history of not doing that with complete truth.
Here are just a few examples of Sanders giving us reasons to pause:
1. When she said at Wednesday’s press briefing that Trump didn’t lie about calls from the Mexican president and leaders of Boy Scouts of America.
Trump said Monday that the president of Mexico called him directly to offer praise for his immigration policies. President Enrique Peña Nieto said in a statement that he “has not had any recent telephone communication with President Donald Trump.” Sanders said in the briefing that this call Trump claimed to have had was actually a reference to a conversation the two presidents shared at the G20 summit. As for the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America, Sanders said they “congratulated” and “praised” Trump after his controversial speech at the National Scout Jamboree last week (though the group says this never happened).
Sanders then admitted that no “actual phone calls” took place; rather, they were in-person conversations. When ABC News’ Cecilia Vega indicated that the president lied, Sanders said she “wouldn’t say it was a lie.”
2. When she said “the president is not a liar.”
In June, former FBI Director James Comey said in his Senate testimony that the Trump administration had spread ‘‘lies, plain and simple,’’ “defaming’’ him at the agency. Sanders then disputed this testimony amid an off-camera briefing at the White House by saying, “The president’s not a liar.’’
According to The New York Times, Trump “told public lies or falsehoods every day for his first 40 days.”
3. When she said that the White House heard from “countless members” of the FBI about their respective lack of confidence in James Comey.
The acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, told lawmakers in a congressional hearing May 11 that that was inaccurate and said that Comey “enjoyed broad support within the FBI, and still does to this day.”
4. When she said that Trump has never “promoted or encouraged violence” after a slew of tweets about the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
During his presidential campaign, in February 2016, Trump said to a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?”
“Seriously. Just knock the hell … I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees,” he added.
5. When she said “multiple news outlets” reported that former President Barack Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump.
Sanders said “high-profile sources” like The New York Times and BBC had reported this, but the only claim appears to have come from “a November 2016 blog post based on anonymous sources that has not been corroborated by independent U.S. journalists.”
Sanders clearly needs to rethink her definition of honesty ― we’re not even 200 days into this administration.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost .

Please Donate


So we can see with clarity that Mitch McConnell is useless and not a legislator, he is without a doubt a self serving politician whose legacy will be remembered in the harshest terms. He is the true definition of a :Snollygoster”.MA
08/02/17 11:28 AM

By Steve Benen
The last major overhaul of the federal tax code was in 1986. It was the result of a multi-year effort, which was largely bipartisan. That’s not to say it was easy – the process was excruciating at times – but the Democratic House and Republican Senate eventually reached an agreement, which the Reagan White House accepted.
With this in mind, the Senate Democratic minority acknowledged yesterday that another tax-reform push is poised to get underway, and they released a letter presenting some benchmarks, including a package that doesn’t cut taxes for the top 1% and doesn’t increase the deficit.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) didn’t exactly welcome the Democratic recommendations. Politico reported:
Senate Republicans are sticking to their plans to pass a tax bill with 50 Republican votes, despite Democratic pleas not to be sidelined as they were on health care.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday reaffirmed the GOP’s long-standing intention to shield any tax overhaul from a likely Democratic filibuster by using the procedural protections of budget reconciliation.
The GOP leader pointed to the Democrats’ letter as a justification to exclude Democrats from the process. Politico’s report added that, as far as McConnell is concerned, Dems are “not interested in addressing” Republican priorities.
McConnell added, “I don’t think this is going to be 1986” – which is true, because apparently he doesn’t want it to be like 1986.

It’s worth emphasizing that House Republican leaders have, at least in recent months, suggested they don’t want to use the reconciliation process, because they want permanent changes to the tax code, and reconciliation opens the door to temporary changes (such as the Bush/Cheney tax cuts approved in 2001).
In other words, this will be something GOP leaders will have to figure out among themselves while working on the legislative blueprint.
Either way, however, Democrats seem prepared to play a role in the process, and Mitch McConnell appears to have a different plan in mind. It’s an inauspicious beginning to the broader tax-reform push.
The MaddowBlog, Economy, Mitch McConnell, Tax Policy, Tax Reform and Taxes

Please Donate

Again we see the Governor doing the know it all shuffle. After 2 years of no budget and having his veto overrode , the Gov is attacking schools (again). His cutting of parts of the school budget specifically targeting the pensions of Chicago teachers is appalling and small minded, short sighted and possibly just mean spirited. It is well known that the mayor of Chicago and the Governor are not “friends” however to punish the teachers and by extension the students of Chicago schools is poor judgement and uncalled for. With the upcoming election there is sure to be a backlash in spite of the obscene amount of money the Governor will surely spend to get his way. Essentially the Governor wants to stay in office and get his way “by hook or by crook “. If we as voters do not pay attention to what the Governor is doing to us, we are doomed to another round of hurtful actions by a small minded man with a lot of money.

Please Donate

The Trump White house has apparently had a revolving door installed. Now Reince Priebus is out and Scaramucci is definitely in. It seems that TOTUS is attempting to get rid of evidence of something. He temporarily silenced Kellyanne Conwoman, shoved Steve Bannon off to the side, fired James Comey and has threatened Jeff Sessions. We have in the mix the departure of Sean Spicer (pushed by the now ousted “Mooch”). The majority party is definitely not looking favorably on all of this along with the ever present tweet storm. With the appointment of General Kelly, Scaramucci is out, who is next in the revolving door?


Please Donate

Natasha Geiling
Reporter at ThinkProgress. Contact me:
Aug 1

“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth.”

A senior official with the Environmental Protection Agency has resigned from her post, citing the Trump administration’s anti-environment and anti-regulatory agenda in her exit statement as part of her reason for leaving.
Elizabeth Southerland worked for the EPA for 30 years, most recently as Director of the Office of Science and Technology for the agency’s Water Office.
In her farewell letter, posted publicly by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Southerland singles out several Trump-era regulatory rollbacks, which she argues are threatening the core mission of the EPA.
Southerland criticized EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s approach to working with states on environmental enforcement, arguing that Pruitt’s desire to shift environmental protection to the states while cutting funding for federally-funded state environmental programs would merely force states to either increase taxes or decrease environmental enforcement.
She also raised concerns over the administration’s new requirement that for every new regulation, one regulation must be repealed.
“This poses a real Sophie’s choice for public health agencies like EPA,” Southerland wrote. “Should EPA repeal two existing rules protecting infants from neurotoxins in order to promulgate a new rule protecting adults from a newly discovered liver toxin? Faced with such painful choices, the best possible outcome for the American people would be regulatory paralysis where no new rules are released so that existing protections remain in place.”
EPA environmental justice leader on his resignation: ‘I needed to stand up’

Mustafa Ali has been with the EPA since 1992. He told ThinkProgress that he “saw something that was significantly…

But Southerland noted that Pruitt has already begun repealing 30 existing environmental regulations, like the Clean Power Plan, the Clean Water Rule, and a rule requiring stricter emissions monitoring for oil and gas operations on federal lands.
“When the federal government abandons the polluter pays principle, it will be up to the states, tribes and local government to decide how much of the polluters bills they will ask their residents to take on,” Southerland wrote of the Trump administration’s deregulatory approach. “The best case for our children and grandchildren is that they will pay the polluters bills through increased state taxes, new user fees, and higher water and sewer bills. The worst case is that they will have to live with increased public health and safety risks and a degraded environment.”
Southerland concluded her letter by railing against the Trump administration’s antagonism towards scientific fact. Under Pruitt, the EPA has begun a red-team, blue-team initiative aimed at challenging consensus climate science, and has regularly chastised the Obama administration for it’s “war on coal.” Pruitt, meanwhile, is under review by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General for comments he made suggesting that carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of climate change — a statement contradicted by broad scientific consensus.
“Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth,” she wrote. “The truth is there is NO war on coal, there is NO economic crisis caused by environmental protection, and climate change IS caused by man’s activities.”
Southerland told the Washington Post that she wrote the letter because she felt it was her “civic duty to explain the impact of this administration’s policies on public health and safety.”
Southerland is not the only senior EPA official to voice criticism of the current administration upon their resignation. Mustafa Ali, former head of the environmental justice program at the Environmental Protection Agency, told ThinkProgress in March after his resignation that he “needed to stand up” to the new administration. And Mike Cox, who retired from the agency in April after three decades, wrote in his resignation letter that “this is the first time I remember staff openly dismissing and mocking the environmental policies of an administration” and, by extension, the EPA administrator.
Thanks to Samantha Page.


Please Donate

Robert Kuttner
August 1, 2017

The president looks to be on the verge of repeating Richard Nixon’s fatal miscalculations.
An earlier version of this article appeared at The Huffington Post.
Donald Trump’s vendetta against Attorney General Jeff Sessions has gone underground for a few days, as the president deals with the serial firings of White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Anthony Scaramucci. But Trump’s rancor at Sessions has not gone away.
His obvious motive in wanting Sessions out is getting an attorney general willing to do Trump’s bidding and fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller. In this chess game, key Republican senators have indicated their support for Mueller, even warning Trump that they would refuse to confirm a successor and that they would block a recess appointment by keeping the Senate technically in session during the August break.
But the string of recent firings reinforces the sense that Trump, even when he knows the stakes, is incapable of restraining himself when he wants someone fired.
In the case of Scaramucci, Trump made the mistake of auditioning the Mooch for the communications director job in real time, as in reality TV. Scaramucci evidently failed the test, making the calamitous error of thinking that the White House had room for two Trumps.
Trump looks to be on the verge of repeating Richard Nixon’s fatal miscalculations in the October 20, 1973, Saturday Night Massacre, in which both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than following Nixon’s order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Nixon kept working his way down the Justice Department hierarchy until he found someone willing to do his bidding, Solicitor General Robert Bork.
This move got rid of Cox, but fatally damaged Nixon’s relations with Congress and public opinion. A successor special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, picked up Cox’s investigation, and Nixon was brought up on impeachment charges and was compelled to resign once his removal looked inevitable.
Trump is not famous for reading history, much less learning from it. Once Trump makes up his mind that Mueller has to go, he will likely go as far down the Justice Department food chain as he needs to until he finds someone willing to do the deed.

Trump has a penchant for firing prosecutors when they begin getting too close to his affairs. He fired the FBI director James Comey, after Comey refused to follow Trump’s suggestion that he go easy on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. And he fired Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was investigating the Trump family’s financial dealings.
Trump has clumsily tried to impugn Mueller’s integrity by suggesting that Mueller or his associates have conflicts of interest, and he as much as told The New York Times that if he didn’t like where Mueller’s investigation was heading, he would be inclined to force Mueller out.
Senator Lindsey Graham said flatly that firing Mueller would be “the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency.”
But Republicans have warned Trump that if he fired Mueller they would change the law to make the special counsel fireproof. Senator Lindsey Graham said flatly that firing Mueller would be “the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency.”
However, that remedy could take some time. And in the meantime, Trump’s designee could fire Mueller and order his files and his investigation to be turned over to the main Justice Department, thus slowing things down.
One thing Mueller might do is to give an interim report to key congressional committees. If Trump or his henchmen try to fire Mueller, he could also provide Congress with key documents, as well as litigate the firing.
Republicans in Congress, many of whom loathe Trump and his behavior, have been willing to work with him, opportunistically, because he serves their purposes of destroying government regulation, weakening public institutions, cutting taxes, and undermining several policies of the Obama era.
But after last week’s serial reversals, Republican patience may be coming to an end.
On the heels of the defeat of the effort to repeal Obamacare and the astonishing way Trump used Anthony Scaramucci to oust Priebus and then dumped Scaramucci, at least two dozen key Republican legislators have warned Trump not to fire Sessions.
For Trump to oust Sessions and then Mueller would be reckless, and ultimately self-annihilating, for it would undermine what’s left of Republican loyalty to this president. But everything in Trump’s character and recent behavior suggests he will try to force Mueller out anyway. And that could indeed be the beginning of the end.

Please Donate

%d bloggers like this: