July 21, 2017

TRUMP FIRES SPICER, HIRES SCARAMOOCH (Sorry; SCARAMUCCI)


Spicer's infamous  January 21 news conference. That baggy, dated suit! (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Washington Post; By Amber Phillips

White House press secretary Sean Spicer resigned  amid staffing turmoil.

He was the most visible — and most publicly pummeled  — member of the Trump White House. 
Spicer's job had become nearly impossible. The president routinely undermined his statements, his job and his reputation.
From Day One, Spicer became the story instead of delivering the story. Remember when the president told Spicer to hold a Saturday news conference to demand the press report on a bigger crowd size for the inauguration? “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe,” Spicer said, which [ of course]  isn't true.
Over the next few months, Spicer would publicly deny that a policy the White House called a travel ban was a travel ban. He misspoke in a reference to Hitler and gas chambers during the Holocaust. He was parodied on “Saturday Night Live.”  He said covfefe meant something. He didn't get invited to meet Pope Francis, the one celebrity he apparently wanted to meet through this job.
When Trump suddenly fired FBI director James B. Comey, The Post's Jenna Johnson reported Spicer “spent several minutes hidden in the darkness among the bushes” before he'd speak with reporters in the darkness, cameras off.
Eventually, Spicer wasn't even on camera at all as his deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders (who is now his replacement) filled in.
Spicer was the most ridiculed man in Washington, and the Fix's Aaron Blake writes forfeited his credibility to do his job. So his departure isn't really surprising.
But why now? Which brings me to:
A name you should know: Anthony Scaramucci
Anthony Scaramucci, at Trump Tower in November, doesn't mind the spotlight. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
First, how to pronounce his name: ScAruhmoochey  
Who he is: A former hedge fund manager, cable news bulldog and as of  now,  the director of the Trump White House's communications team. ...But Scaramucci won't be on the podium, he will direct communications behind-the-scenes.
Did his hiring cause Spicer to leave? The Post's Ashley Parker, Abby Phillip and Damian Paletta report Spicer's resignation was abrupt and angry and caught top West Wing officials off guard. So, reading between the lines, it sure seems like it.
Why Scaramucci's hiring matters: He is a Trump ally with conservative credentials and, even though he dissed Trump during the campaign, he's been a "killer" (adviser Kellyanne Conway's words) on TV defending Trump now. But his hiring came at the opposition of senior advisers. He even has a crude name for Trump's chief of staff, whose last name is Priebus. (Think about it...).
Bringing Scaramucci on is a clue that Trump believes the answer to his chaotic presidency is to get more combative with the world, not less.
Think Trump was tough on Spicer? Nixon once shoved his press secretary. 

Ron Ziegler, former President Nixon press secretary (White House Photo Courtesy Richard Nixon Library)
Michael Rosenwald, writing for The Post's history-focused blog The Retropolis, explains:
In late August 1973, as the Watergate scandal ate away at President Richard Nixon’s psyche and presidency, CBS News correspondent Dan Rather filed an astonishing report on the evening news.
“What you are about to see,” Rather said, “is a rare glimpse in public of presidential irritation.”
And there it was on tape: The president of the United States grabbing press secretary Ron Ziegler by the shoulders and shoving him away.
… He stuck his finger in Ziegler’s chest, turned him around, and then shoved him in the back hard with both hands, saying “I don’t want any press with me and you take care of it.”
If there's one kernel of comfort I can offer Spicer and his fans: It could have been worse?
(Framepool)

July 18, 2017

ZOMBIE TRUMPCARE SHOT IN THE HEAD AGAIN.


Mark Wilson / Getty Images
  • The Republican Senate bill to repeal and replace Obamacare is dead, and its eleventh-hour bid to repeal Obamacare with no replacement is too. [Vox / Dylan Scott]
  • This stunning blow to the Republican legislative agenda all happened in the past 24 hours. [Vox / Dylan Scott]
  • Last night, two Republican senators, Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas, dealt the BCRA its final blow when they said they would not vote to proceed to debate on the bill. The BCRA had been hanging by a thread of one vote before they made the announcement. [CNN / MJ Lee, Ted Barrett, and Phil Mattingly]
  • Zach Gibson/Getty Images:             Moran was the sleeper "no" vote. Later explaining his reasoning, the Kansas senator said he believed the BCRA was bad policy, plain and simple. He advocated going back to the drawing board. [NPR / Jim McLean

  • Late Monday night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called for a vote on so-called “repeal and delay,” where Republicans would repeal the Affordable Care Act immediately and come up with a replacement later. [Vox / Sarah Kliff]
  • Senator Shelley Moore Capito, center, Republican of West Virginia, said she was opposed to simply repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times                                                                                                As with the BCRA, McConnell could only afford to lose two votes on straight repeal. Over the course of today, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska all announced they would block the effort. [NYT / Thomas Kaplan]

  • From the beginning, the bill’s problem was that conservative and moderate Republicans simply couldn’t come to a consensus. Read the explainer from Vox's Dylan Scott on the persistent problems with the BCRA. [Vox / Dylan Scott]
  • This crushing defeat underscores an uncomfortable reality for the GOP: They have not netted any major policy wins, despite having majorities in all three branches of government. [The Atlantic / Molly Ball]

July 17, 2017

Trump Tower Russia meeting: At least eight people in the room






  • We now know that there was another person at Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer last June. And that person is a former counterintelligence officer for the Soviet Union who could also currently be working for Russian intelligence, per US officials. [NBC News / Ken Dilanian, Nathash Lebedeva, and Hallie Jackson]
  • His name is Rinat Akhmetshin, and he’s a Russian-American lobbyist. Today, Akhmetshin told the AP he was at the meeting, but pushed back on reports that he has worked as a spy for the Russians. (Specifically, he said he did work for Soviet counterintelligence but was never trained as a spy). [AP / Desmond Butler and Chad Day]
  • Akhmetshin also told reporters about the meeting, which he described as not having much substance. He candidly told one reporter that the situation was a “clusterf***.” [Laura Rozen via Twitter]
  • It’s also been reported that there were at least eight people attending the meeting, though only six have been named so far. [CNN]
  • The story has changed a lot over the past week, so if you want to check the timeline for yourself, Vox’s Dara Lind has you covered. [Vox / Dara Lind]

July 13, 2017

MORE ON TRUMP JR.'S RUSSIAN MEETING


 CreditWilliam Campbell/Corbis, via Getty Images


Last night, the New York Times reported: “Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email. The email to the younger Mr. Trump was sent by Rob Goldstone, a publicist and former British tabloid reporter who helped broker the June 2016 meeting. In a statement on Sunday, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he was interested in receiving damaging information about Mrs. Clinton, but gave no indication that he thought the lawyer might have been a Kremlin proxy. Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information."

The pop star at the center of the latest Russia controversy
New details from others involved in arranging the meeting point to additional Trump links to Moscow. Our Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Greg Miller report: “The session was set up at the request of Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop star whose Kremlin-connected family has done business with Trump in the past … Emin Agalarov and his father, Aras Agalarov, a wealthy Moscow real estate developer, helped sponsor the Miss Universe pageant, then owned by Trump, in Russia in 2013. After the pageant, the Agalarovs signed a preliminary deal with Trump to build a tower bearing his name in Moscow, though the deal has been on hold since Trump started his campaign for president. ...

“Goldstone previously told The Washington Post that he set up and attended the meeting so Veselnitskaya could discuss the adoption of Russian children by Americans. In a new statement, Goldstone confirmed what Trump Jr. said Sunday: that he enticed the then-candidate’s son by indicating that (Natalia) Veselnitskaya could provide damaging information about Democrats …
The involvement of the Agalarovs brings the meeting closer to Trump’s past business interests and to the Kremlin. Trump has spent time with both Emin Agalarov and his father — appearing in a music video for the pop singer that was filmed at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel in 2013. … The Agalarovs are also close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Aras Agalarov’s company has been awarded several large state building contracts, and shortly after the 2013 pageant, Putin awarded the elder Agalarov the ‘Order of Honor of the Russian Federation,’ a prestigious designation.”

-- Trump Jr., 39, has hired criminal defense lawyer Alan Futerfas to represent him in the Russia probes. His past clients have included alleged organized-crime associates. In a statement sent late last night, the New York-based attorney neither confirmed nor denied the Times story about the email on Russia’s intentions. He called the June meeting “much ado about nothing” and said Trump Jr. believed he was being offered information about “alleged wrongdoing” by Clinton in her dealings with Russia. “Don Jr.’s takeaway from this communication was that someone had information potentially helpful to the campaign and it was coming from someone he knew,” he said.
-- Susan Hennessey, the managing editor of Lawfare and a Brookings Fellow, drops a truth bomb. A Harvard Law graduate, she was previously an attorney in the general counsel’s office at the National Security Agency:
-- Eugene Robinson calls the Russia meeting “a legal game-changer”: “From now on, ignore the conventional wisdom about how the Russia scandal is not ‘resonating’ with President Trump’s still-loyal base. The question at this point is what strikes a chord with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — and what kind of legal jeopardy Trump’s closest associates, including his eldest son and son-in-law, might eventually face. … Is this all too complicated for voters to follow? Would Americans beyond the Beltway rather hear about jobs or health care? Perhaps so. But the questions that should be concentrating the minds of the president’s inner circle are legal, not political — and Mueller’s high-powered team of lawyers is experienced at connecting dots.”

-- “This is a very simple test of the common English understanding of the term ‘collusion,’” New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait writes“Your campaign is told that Russia wants to help you win the electionIf you refuse to take the meeting, or perhaps take it only to angrily tell your interlocutor you want no part … then it isn’t collusion. If you take the meeting on the proposed terms, you are colluding. If somehow the information on offer turned out to have no value … then the meeting was ineffectual collusion. But Donald Trump Jr.’s response clearly indicates that he accepted the meeting in order to collude. The most sinister versions of the collusion scenario have been treated as unlikely or paranoid hypotheses. But it is the explanation most consistent with distinct sleaziness that defines Trump … To imagine that [he] might have had the chance to benefit politically from Russian espionage, and turned it down out of a sense of responsibility, is the unlikeliest scenario of all.”

[here's the bar for collusion (which is actually a political, not legal, term): You can't accept any gift from a foreign government, and you can't knowingly conspire with a foreign government to undermine the election. If you do, you could be convicted of conspiracy to work with a foreign adversary or election fraud.]
Warner calls news of Trump son's meeting with Russia lawyer 'remarkable'
-- Don Jr. must also contend with the ongoing congressional investigations. A Republican senator on the Intelligence committee, Susan Collins of Maine, said the panel “needs to interview” the president’s namesake and the others who attended the meeting. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the committee, gaggled outside his office yesterday afternoon to explain the significance of the latest revelation: “This is the first time the public has seen clear evidence that senior-level officials of the Trump campaign met with potentially an agent of a foreign government to try to obtain information that would discredit Hillary Clinton,” he said.

Huckabee Sanders plays down Trump son's meeting with Russian lawyer
-- What did the president know and when did he know it? Administration officials, who spent months vehemently and categorically denying that there was any contact between the campaign and Russians, are now trying to downplay the significance of an encounter that undercuts many of their previous claims.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed during her off-camera briefing that the president only learned of his son’s meeting with Veselnitskaya “in the last couple of days.” Don Jr. also said in his Sunday statement that his father “knew nothing of the meeting or these events.”

This is very hard to believe. Don Jr. pulled in his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort. “This was three people who were closer to him and to the campaign than just about anybody else,” Aaron Blake explains. “This meeting was seen as significant enough for all three of them to make a point to attend, and yet nobody shared details of the meeting with the guy whose campaign they were acting as members of? The president is going to have to address this.”

Why has the White House failed to get its story straight on so many occasions? “When you are treading water in situations like these, the best strategy is generally to get all the bad news out at once, and to understand the truth so that you don't keep getting caught in falsehoods that make it look like you have something to hide,” Aaron writes. “There are basically two options for the White House officials here: They are trying to hide something, or they are completely derelict in dealing with — and getting out in front of — all of this.”

-- John Wagner and Ros Helderman quickly turned a good profile of Don Jr.“As an executive in his father’s company, Trump Jr. was active in pursuing Trump Organization business prospects in Russia. He traveled to Moscow along with Ivanka Trump in 2006 and also helped pitch Trump-branded real estate to Russians. ‘Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,’ Trump Jr. told a real estate conference in 2008, according to a trade publication. ‘We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.’  In the speech, he said he had traveled to Russia half a dozen times in the previous 18 months. In October 2016, just weeks before his father’s election, Trump Jr. delivered a paid speech in Paris to a group whose leaders are close to Russia.”

AFP_Q27O8
Nominee for FBI Director Christopher Wray.     Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

 The Post’s Editorial Board says the latest news further raises the stakes for FBI nominee Chris Wray’s confirmation hearing tomorrow“The latest revelations only intensify the questions surrounding Mr. Trump’s firing of FBI Director James B. Comey after Mr. Comey, according to his own testimony, declined to pledge personal loyalty to the president. They also intensify the urgency of a careful Senate vetting of Mr. Trump’s nominee to replace Mr. Comey, Christopher Wray, who will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. Mr. Wray must commit to the independence of the FBI by detailing any conversations he had with Mr. Trump, and in particular whether the president asked him for his loyalty. He must be able to say that he made no such commitment. And he must promise that he will do everything to cooperate with, and nothing to impede, the special counsel’s Russia investigation.”

 Donald Jr. speaks at last summer's Republican National Convention in Cleveland. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)
 Donald Jr. speaks at last summer's Republican National Convention in Cleveland. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)
-- More than ever, a Russia sanctions bill that’s floundering in the House is becoming a test of congressional will to stop Trump from continuing to cozy up to Putin. “Popular legislation that would limit President Trump’s ability to lift financial sanctions on Russia is mired in a partisan dispute in the House, with Democrats charging that a recent change would weaken the bill,” Karoun Demirjian and Mike DeBonis report this morning. “The pending legislation, which passed the Senate on a 98-to-2 vote last month, is effectively a congressional check on Trump: any time the president wants to make a change to sanctions policy on Russia, lawmakers would have a chance to block him. House Democrats said they do not trust that House GOP leaders are serious about the effort — and are now worried a recent change to the bill would effectively rob them of their ability to raise objections to Trump’s Russia sanctions moves in the future.”

The state of play: “(Speaker Paul) Ryan has spoken in favor of the Senate sanctions bill but has not specifically pledged to bring it to the House floor intact, deferring instead to the House committees with jurisdiction over the matter. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is close to the president, has also officially deferred to the committees. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward R. Royce (R-Calif.) is in favor of holding a floor vote soon.”
-- How cable commentators are talking about the NYT email news:
-- Three alumni of George W. Bush's presidential campaigns pushed back on the White House's talking point that Don Jr.'s meeting was no big deal:

July 12, 2017






The State of Play When Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort Met Natalia Veselnitskaya



PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY THE DAILY BEAST


Three days after the big, secret meeting, Julian Assange said Clinton-related emails were coming. Two days after that, the DNC said it had been hacked.


MICHAEL TOMASKY, DAILY BEAST

So what was happening last year around June 9, when Donald Trump Jr. met with Natalia Veselnitskaya? Quite a lot, as it turns out....

----

[What]  made this a crucial period is that this is when the cyber-conspiracy wheels really started turning. Three days after the meeting, on June 12, Julian Assange went on British TV to say for the first time that he had a trove of Clinton-related emails he was going to be releasing (he started doing so in late July, right before the Democratic convention, timed to inflict maximum damage). On June 14, the Democratic National Committee announced that it was hacked. The next day, Guccifer 2.0 took credit for the DNC hack (the cyber-security firm that investigated the breach said it didn’t believe Guccifer’s claims and that it believed Russia was behind the hack).


Were they all coordinating on some level in those early June days? I know how easily such a question can be dismissed as conspiracy-theorizing. And I’m not a conspiracy theorist. At the same time, to use a phrase coined as far as I know by the great Wayne Barrett, there’s also such a thing as a coincidence theorist, to whom everything is just an odd little fluke that can surely be explained away.
It was these people who were saying two or three weeks ago that if this is we’ve got so far on the whole Russia story, let’s just drop it and admit Trump is right and move on. But we have no idea what Robert Mueller and his investigators know. And we now know that high figures in Trumpland were eager to collude. This is far from over.


July 11, 2017

trump-putin.jpg
 BPA via Getty Images




Why deciding to ‘move forward’ with Putin is a big mistake.


Putin has been the major source of problems in the U.S.-Russia relationship, not Washington.



MICHAEL MCFAUL, WASHINGTON POST

----

It has been Putin’s actions, not decisions taken by Presidents Barack Obama or George W. Bush, that have contributed directly to the most contentious issues in U.S.-Russia relations today, as well as the tensions between Russia and many of our allies. To pledge to forget about these problems created by Putin lets the Kremlin off the hook without generating any positive outcome for the United States in return. That’s a bad deal for the American people and our allies. In fact, it’s not a deal at all – it’s a perfect gift to Putin.
Most obviously, Putin solely created the contentious “question” (Tillerson’s euphemism, not mine) in our bilateral relations regarding Russian interference in our 2016 presidential elections. Obama did not spark this confrontation; Putin did so single-handedly. To remove this issue from the agenda of U.S.-Russia relations in the name of fostering future cooperation is complete capitulation. Trump and Putin can agree to disagree about policies, but we cannot agree to disagree about facts, especially when those facts concern the violation of American sovereignty.
Similarly, Putin created our current bilateral impasse over Ukraine, not Obama. Putin made the decision to occupy and annex Crimea, and intervened in eastern Ukraine to assist the separatist movement there. Obama, our NATO allies and other world leaders who believe in international law reacted to Putin’s actions, not the other way around. To pretend that the United States and Russia are equal, neutral partners in trying to resolve this crisis today, or equal culprits in creating the conflict in the first place, is simply not true. Trump and his administration cannot just forget this tragic recent history that Putin himself made in the name of better relations with Putin.
In Syria, Putin did not start this horrible conflict, but his actions most certainly contributed to the problem, both inside that broken country and between the United States and Russia. At the beginning of the Arab Spring, Putin could have used his influence to help push out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, leaving intact parts of the government, not unlike what Obama did regarding longtime American ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt in 2011. To be sure, those of us hopeful for democracy in the wake of Mubarak’s ouster have been deeply disappointed. But Egyptians are much better off today than Syrians; who knows what carnage might have erupted in Egypt had Obama doubled down in support of Mubarak. But that’s exactly what Putin did with Assad, sparking first a civil war and then an even wider war with foreign terrorist organizations participating on both sides. And when Assad began to lose, after killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, Putin intervened militarily to save his Syrian ally. To forget about this history or, worse yet, to suggest that Russia’s approach to Syria is better than ours — as the Trump administration has now done — ignores Russian participation in these crimes.
For any other American president, Putin’s erosion of democracy within Russia might be another issue of contention in U.S.-Russia relations again created by the Kremlin, not the White House. Trump’s complete indifference to this issue, however, means that he already has removed this agenda item from U.S.-Russia relations.
There may be some marginal grievances from the Obama administration that the Russian government would point to and might say have to be forgotten in the quest to improve relations. Putin might bring up the signing of the Magnitsky Act in 2012 to punish human rights abusers. He might point to Obama’s refusal to cooperate with Russia on missile defense, because he would not agree to put limits on U.S. systems. Or Montenegro’s membership in NATO. Or Obama’s refusal to release Russian criminal Viktor Bout from an American jail. Note, of course, that all these outcomes served U.S. national interests and values. But these Russian grievances are small compared to Putin’s messes. And neither Putin nor his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pledged in Hamburg to forget about past differences as a step toward cooperation today. Putin is happy to accept our concessions without giving anything in return.
There are some difficult agenda items in U.S.-Russia relations not of Putin’s making, including addressing North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. The two presidents must seek to cooperate in addressing this truly confounding challenge. Moreover, Trump and Putin can work to develop a common agenda based on mutual interests regarding other economic and security issues. But we can do so without wiping the past slate clean and without pretending to forget who caused these previous contentious issues in the first place.

July 10, 2017

DONALD TRUMP JR. SPOKE TO RUSSIAN LAWYER DURING CAMPAIGN.

Donald Trump Jr. rides the elevator at Trump Tower in New York City during the transition. (Stephanie Keith/Reuters)
(Stephanie Keith/Reuters)

The New York Times reported on the front page of Sunday’s paper that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort sat down with a Russian lawyer who has ties to the Kremlin last June.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is pictured.
 AP Photo
On “ Fox News Sunday,” White House chief of staff ReincePriebus dismissed the meeting as “a big nothing burger” that was about adoption and not at all out of the ordinary. “Talking about issues of foreign policy, issues related to our place in the world (or) issues important to the American people is not unusual,” he told Chris Wallace.

But just a few hours later, the president’s son acknowledged that he had actually agreed to meet with the Russian lawyer because she claimed she could provide potentially damaging information about Hillary Clinton. In a statement, Donald Jr. said he met with her at the request of an acquaintance. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.” He said that’s when she turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. “It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” he said.

Natalia Veselnitskaya
The New York Times’ Jo Becker, Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman reported last night: “It is unclear whether the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, actually produced the promised compromising information … But [the people interviewed] said the expectation was that she would do so. [The meeting] represents the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help.” A spokesman for Donald Trump’s personal lawyer claims the president was unaware of the meeting.

-- Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger scoop who set up the meeting: Donald Jr. said Sunday that he was approached about the meeting by “an acquaintance” he knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant. In an interview Sunday, Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who is friendly with Donald Jr., told The Post that he had arranged the meeting at request of a Russian client and had attended it along with Veselnitskaya. 
President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, also attended the meeting last year at Trump Tower.CreditRuth Fremson/The New York Times

-- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to question “everyone that was at that meeting.” “There’s no reason for this Russian government advocate to be meeting with Paul Manafort or with Mr. Kushner or the president’s son if it wasn’t about the campaign and Russia policy,” he said.

-- A former White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush said what happened “borders on treason.” “This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians,” Richard Painter said on MSNBC. “We do not get our opposition research from spies, we do not collaborate with Russian spies.” Painter said the Bush administration would not have allowed the meeting to happen. “If this story is true, we’d have one of them if not both of them in custody by now, and we’d be asking them a lot of questions. ... This is unacceptable ...This borders on treason, if it is not itself treason.” 

-- “Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission,” Callum Borchers writes on The Fix. “The rest of Trump Jr.’s statement is an attempt to minimize the value of what the lawyer actually told him. ...

-- “The Trump Administration should not win any moral or political plaudits even if it turns out, in the end, that there was no collusion between the President’s campaign and the Russian government,” the New Yorker’s David Remnick writes. “Its countless sins of lying, conflict of interest, shady business transactions, character assassination, and so much else assures it a place in history as a uniquely grimy Administration. And we are not yet a half year into its reign ... For now, we live in a moment when the President of the United States is, without shame, trying to intimidate the people whose business it is to come to an honest reckoning. He tries to intimidate the press. He has fired an F.B.I. director and considered going further. It’s reasonable to wonder why.”