Forget “No Collusion.” Trump Is Now Pro-Collusion

There is no such thing as an outrage-free week anymore. On Wednesday, President Trump offered us a particularly stunning example of this new political reality, telling the ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos that he would welcome foreign interference in an election and probably wouldn’t bother to tell the F.B.I. about any outside governments bringing him dirt on his opponent. On Thursday, he doubled down on this position, arguing, in effect, that accepting help from Vladimir Putin would be no different from dining with the Queen of England and the “Prince of Whales,” as he put it in a tweet. Trump, instead of proclaiming “no collusion,” now seemed to be announcing that he is pro-collusion. It didn’t take long for commentators to wonder about his strategy here as much as about his poor spelling: Does the President actually want Congress to impeach him?

One of Trump’s great skills has been to confound his opponents. In the third year of his Presidency, this is as true as it was on his first day in office, and his critics, at home and abroad, have, in the intervening time, become more skilled at reading Trump but hardly less capable or united in agreeing what to do about him. They have received the message that he is a threat to the established order—just about any established order—but resistance has often been more loud than effective, and the divisions over how to take him on seem to widen by the day. He is historically unpopular for a President by many measures, but no matter what he does the allegiance of some forty per cent of the American public has so far remained unwavering.

In Washington, Democrats currently have two opposite and contradictory theories of the case. They cannot both be right. For the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the idea is to beat Trump politically in the 2020 election and, while using Congress’s powers to aggressively investigate him and his Administration, refuse to be drawn into a politicized impeachment proceeding that will not result in his removal from office. “A reluctance to drop the hammer is a healthy thing in a democracy,” Representative Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat who agrees with the Speaker’s approach, told reporters on Thursday, when confronted with the President’s latest insult to his own law-enforcement agencies. Many of the nearly two dozen Democrats running for President are also believers in a version of this theory. Though some have endorsed impeachment and all are vociferously anti-Trump, they are focussing their campaigns less on the damage that the President poses to the constitutional order than on wonky, issues-oriented appeals to voters.

Then there is the Biden school. The former Vice-President regularly called Trump an “existential threat” to the country this week, in an Iowa campaign swing. In this, he is more or less in synch with those lawmakers back in Washington who believe that the evidence of Presidential obstruction assembled by the special counsel Robert Mueller warrants immediate impeachment proceedings, regardless of whether they turn out to be politically advantageous for the Democrats. So far, there are about sixty members of the House (including a majority of the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee and a lone Republican, Justin Amash, of Michigan) who are on the record as supporting this course, which leaves a couple hundred more to convince. On the campaign trail, Biden leads early polls with his “Make America America Again” approach, but, if his opponents are right that voters want more than just an anti-Trump crusade, then his theory of the case will be not just wrong but disastrously so.

A fight between Pelosi and her fellow-Democrats is exactly what Trump wants. He seeks division and discord; he benefits from it. It is surely one reason, among many, why the damaging revelations reported by Mueller have had almost no effect on his public standing. If anything, this week’s tiresome outrage cycle is a reminder of Trump’s uniquely successful brand of public crazy. Does anyone remember that he also announced this week that he will soon meet alone with Putin again, despite the uproar over their still mysterious one-on-one summit this past year, in Helsinki? Or that Trump said that he wouldn’t allow the C.I.A. to spy on his “friend,” the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un, after revelations that Kim’s murdered half-brother had been an American informant? Or that Trump spent the first part of the week claiming that he had cut a secret deal with Mexico on illegal immigration, a deal which Mexico denies exists and whose particulars he has yet to produce?

Trump is a political octopus, squirting so much diversionary black ink at us that diversion is the new normal. The new issue of Foreign Affairs out this week declares this historical moment “the self-destruction of American power” and offers a depressing autopsy on the vanishing of U.S. global leadership. But there are too many outrages of the day, of every day, to think about it. Some members of Congress are now publicly confessing that they haven’t had time even to read the Mueller report (and more are saying so in private, as I myself have heard). I doubt that they are stopping to consider the collapse of the liberal international order.

I happened to watch this week’s edition of the Trump show from the shadow of the Brandenburg Gate, in Berlin, which, later this year, will celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the American-midwifed reunification of Germany that followed. I attended a meeting of fervent transatlanticists that was dominated, as conversations invariably are these days, by the question of what to do about Trump. The Germans are no less confounded than the Democrats.

Trump to America: Who’s Going to Stop Me?

An unbound president invites more foreign election interference.

In a new interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, parts of which were released on Wednesday evening, Donald Trump announced his willingness to betray and subvert American democracy, again. Asked what he would do if he were offered foreign dirt on an opponent in 2020, he said he’d take it, and pooh-poohed the idea of calling federal law enforcement.

“Oh, let me call the F.B.I.,” he said derisively. “Give me a break, life doesn’t work that way.”

That Trump has no loyalty to his country, its institutions and the integrity of its elections is not surprising. That he feels no need to fake it is alarming. With the end of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, House Democrats’ craven fear of launching an impeachment inquiry, and the abject capitulation of Republicans to Trumpian authoritarianism, the president is reveling in his own impunity.

.. Just this week, the administration announced plans to move migrant children to an Oklahoma military base that formerly served as a Japanese internment camp. On Tuesday, responding to reports that the murdered half brother of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un was a C.I.A. source, Trump sided with the totalitarian dictator. “I would tell him that would not happen under my auspices,” he said, meaning, as best as anyone could make out, that he wouldn’t let American intelligence spy on his dear homicidal friend.

It’s all shocking and outrageous, but few can summon shock or outrage anymore. Many of us are struggling to ward off learned helplessness, the depressed, withdrawn state created when terrible things keep happening and you feel powerless to stop them.

But Trump’s opponents are not powerless. They helped halt at least the first iteration of Trump’s Muslim ban when they rushed to airports in protest. They saved the Affordable Care Act when they flooded congressional town halls. They flipped the House despite the advantage Republicans secured for themselves through gerrymandering. And they could demand, now, that their representatives shore up our democracy against a president determined to defile it.

Trump’s professed willingness to accept foreign intelligence on domestic political foes represents more than just another norm-eviscerating outburst. It’s an action in and of itself. On July 27, 2016, Trump publicly asked Russia for help obtaining Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. Thanks to Mueller, we now know that Russian intelligence started trying to hack Clinton’s server just hours later. Intelligence services in countries that benefit from the Trump presidency — including Russia, North Korea and Saudi Arabia — may take this latest invitation equally seriously.

Shields and Brooks on Trump and foreign campaign help, Democratic debates

Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including President Trump’s comments about willingness to accept foreign opposition research, the status of election security legislation, candidate lineups for the upcoming Democratic presidential debates and the politics of Democratic socialism.

 

 

Trump Tries To Clean Up Comments On Accepting Intel From Foreign Governments | Deadline | MSNBC

 

(12:18)
AND NBC’S PETER ALEXANDER ADDING THIS REPORTING TO OUR
ADDING THIS REPORTING TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOW WAR OF
UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOW WAR OF WORDS TODAY BETWEEN DON McGHAN
WORDS TODAY BETWEEN DON McGHAN AND DONALD TRUMP.
AND DONALD TRUMP. PETER’S REPORTING THAT A PERSON
PETER’S REPORTING THAT A PERSON CLOSE TO FORMER WHITE HOUSE
CLOSE TO FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGHAN IS DISMISSING
COUNSEL DON McGHAN IS DISMISSING PRESIDENT TRUMP’S COMMENTS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S COMMENTS TO ABC NEWS WHERE HE DISPUTES McGAHN’S TESTIMONY SAYING,
QUOTE, IT’S NOT FANTASY LAND. SO WE HAVE FANTASY LAND, WE HAVE
SO WE HAVE FANTASY LAND, WE HAVE THE TOOTH FAIRY.
THE TOOTH FAIRY. McGAHN PUSHING BACK MORE THAN HE
McGAHN PUSHING BACK MORE THAN HE DID THE FIRST COUPLE ROUNDS OF
DID THE FIRST COUPLE ROUNDS OF SMEARS AGAINST McGAHN.
SMEARS AGAINST McGAHN. DO YOU THINK McGAHN IS SOMEONE
DO YOU THINK McGAHN IS SOMEONE WHO MIGHT EVENTUALLY GET
WHO MIGHT EVENTUALLY GET BATTERED ENOUGH TO TESTIFY?
BATTERED ENOUGH TO TESTIFY? >> I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE SENSE
>> I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE SENSE IN PUBLICLY ATTACKING DON
IN PUBLICLY ATTACKING DON McGHAN.
McGHAN. I — I CAN’T FATHOM IT.
I — I CAN’T FATHOM IT. I REALLY CAN’T FATHOM IT.
I REALLY CAN’T FATHOM IT. >> EXPLAIN THAT.
>> EXPLAIN THAT. >> YOU’RE GOADING HIM INTO — I
>> YOU’RE GOADING HIM INTO — I KNOW THIS IS JUST WHAT THE
KNOW THIS IS JUST WHAT THE PRESIDENT DOES AND I DON’T THINK
–PRESIDENT DOES AND I DON’T THINK HE’S THINKING ABOUT IT IN A
STRATEGIC FASHION
BECAUSE WHO SHOULD EXPECT A PRESIDENT TO THINK
STRATEGICALLY. >> I DON’T BELIEVE HE IS
>> I DON’T BELIEVE HE IS THINKING STRATEGICALLY.
THINKING STRATEGICALLY. BUT IS HE JUST TRYING TO GOAD
BUT IS HE JUST TRYING TO GOAD DON McGHAN INTO MAKING A PUBLIC
DON McGHAN INTO MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT?
STATEMENT? I MEAN, IT’S KIND OF — AND NOW
I MEAN, IT’S KIND OF — AND NOW WE’RE SEEING, AGAIN, I WONDER IF
WE’RE SEEING, AGAIN, I WONDER IF IT’S THE SAME SOURCE, BUT
IT’S THE SAME SOURCE, BUT SOURCES CLOSE TO McGAHN WE’RE
SOURCES CLOSE TO McGAHN WE’RE SEEING THESE VERY SIMILAR
SEEING THESE VERY SIMILAR STATEMENTS.
STATEMENTS. I DON’T KNOW.
I DON’T KNOW. I MEAN, I DON’T THINK THIS
I MEAN, I DON’T THINK THIS CHANGES THE CALCULUS IN THE
CHANGES THE CALCULUS IN THE SHORT-TERM ABOUT WHETHER HE
SHORT-TERM ABOUT WHETHER HE TESTIFIES OR NOT, BUT I DON’T
TESTIFIES OR NOT, BUT I DON’T SEE THE SENSE IN IT.
SEE THE SENSE IN IT. >> ASHLEY PARKER?
>> ASHLEY PARKER? >> AGAIN IT MAKES NO SENSE.
>> AGAIN IT MAKES NO SENSE. THE PRESIDENT IS GETTING
THE PRESIDENT IS GETTING DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO ALMOST
DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO ALMOST PUSHING FOR AN OUTCOME THAT HE
PUSHING FOR AN OUTCOME THAT HE DOESN’T WANT AND WOULDN’T
DOESN’T WANT AND WOULDN’T BENEFIT HIM.
BENEFIT HIM. YOU HAVE DON McGHAN WHO IS
YOU HAVE DON McGHAN WHO IS SOMEONE BASED ON THE MUELLER
SOMEONE BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT AND EVERYTHING WE
REPORT AND EVERYTHING WE UNDERSTAND, REPEATEDLY ACTUALLY
UNDERSTAND, REPEATEDLY ACTUALLY SAVED THE PRESIDENT FROM
SAVED THE PRESIDENT FROM HIMSELF.
HIMSELF. AND THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT HAVE
AND THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT HAVE LIKED IT IN THOSE MOMENTS AND,
LIKED IT IN THOSE MOMENTS AND, IN FACT, HE DIDN’T AT THE TIME
IN FACT, HE DIDN’T AT THE TIME WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT CLASHES
WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT CLASHES WITH DON McGHAN AND HE DIDN’T
WITH DON McGHAN AND HE DIDN’T LIKE DON McGHAN BECAUSE DON
LIKE DON McGHAN BECAUSE DON McGHAN WOULD STAND UP TO HIM AND
McGHAN WOULD STAND UP TO HIM AND GIVE HIM THE LAWYER’S POINT OF
GIVE HIM THE LAWYER’S POINT OF VIEW, IT TURNS OUT IN HINDSIGHT
VIEW, IT TURNS OUT IN HINDSIGHT THE PRESIDENT IS LUCKY DON
THE PRESIDENT IS LUCKY DON McGHAN WAS THERE PLAYING THAT
McGHAN WAS THERE PLAYING THAT ROLE.
ROLE. DON McGHAN ONLY TESTIFIED FOR
DON McGHAN ONLY TESTIFIED FOR THOSE 30 HOURS YOU MENTIONED
THOSE 30 HOURS YOU MENTIONED BECAUSE HE WAS ABIDING BY — YOU
BECAUSE HE WAS ABIDING BY — YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH IF IT’S GOOD
CAN DISAGREE WITH IF IT’S GOOD OR BAD STRATEGY, HE WAS ABIDING
OR BAD STRATEGY, HE WAS ABIDING BY A STRATEGY COOKED UP BY THE
BY A STRATEGY COOKED UP BY THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS AT THE TIME,
PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS AT THE TIME, AND NOW HE’S RISKING POSSIBLE
AND NOW HE’S RISKING POSSIBLE CON TEMPT TO DEFY A
CON TEMPT TO DEFY A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA.
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA. HE’S NOT LIKE THESE DEMOCRATS,
HE’S NOT LIKE THESE DEMOCRATS, HE’S NOT THE PERSON YOU WANT TO
HE’S NOT THE PERSON YOU WANT TO GOAD INTO FINALLY SAYING I’VE
GOAD INTO FINALLY SAYING I’VE HAD ENOUGH.
HAD ENOUGH. THAT’S NOT A SAVVY STRATEGY.
THAT’S NOT A SAVVY STRATEGY. >>> HE’S ALSO ONE OF THESE SORT
>>> HE’S ALSO ONE OF THESE SORT OF FIGURES IN TRUMP LAND WITH
OF FIGURES IN TRUMP LAND WITH ULTIMATE CREDIBILITY.
ULTIMATE CREDIBILITY. HE’S NOT A LIBERAL’S FANTASY,
HE’S NOT A LIBERAL’S FANTASY, NOT A WHISTLE BLOWER, HE STANDS
NOT A WHISTLE BLOWER, HE STANDS BEHIND THE SUPREME COURT PICKS.
BEHIND THE SUPREME COURT PICKS. HIS LEGACY IS THIS VAST BODY OF
HIS LEGACY IS THIS VAST BODY OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS.
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS. HIS CLOSE ALLY IN THE SENATE IS
HIS CLOSE ALLY IN THE SENATE IS MITCH McCONNELL.
MITCH McCONNELL. HE’S NOT GOING TO BE THIS
HE’S NOT GOING TO BE THIS SATISFYING WITNESS FOR THE LEFT
SATISFYING WITNESS FOR THE LEFT AND HE’S NOT, IT WOULD APPEAR,
AND HE’S NOT, IT WOULD APPEAR, ANYMORE FEEL BEHOLDEN PERSONALLY
ANYMORE FEEL BEHOLDEN PERSONALLY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
TO THE WHITE HOUSE. HE IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH TELLER,
HE IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH TELLER, AND IF HE SIMPLY TESTIFIES TO
AND IF HE SIMPLY TESTIFIES TO WHAT IS IN THE MUELLER REPORT ON
WHAT IS IN THE MUELLER REPORT ON TELEVISION, IN FRONT OF CAMERAS,
TELEVISION, IN FRONT OF CAMERAS, IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO THIS
IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO THIS PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. >> IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING BUT I
>> IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING BUT I THINK ALL THE THINGS YOU JUST
THINK ALL THE THINGS YOU JUST MENTIONED ARE THE REASONS WHY
MENTIONED ARE THE REASONS WHY DON McGHAN IS NOT TESTIFYING.
DON McGHAN IS NOT TESTIFYING. THE PRESIDENT KEEPS ATTACKING
THE PRESIDENT KEEPS ATTACKING HIM BECAUSE OF THE LAST THREE OR
HIM BECAUSE OF THE LAST THREE OR SO YEARS, THE PRESIDENT HAS
SO YEARS, THE PRESIDENT HAS LEARNED ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN
LEARNED ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT HE CAN BEAT THEM
ESTABLISHMENT HE CAN BEAT THEM UP, ATTACK THEM, AND THEY’LL
UP, ATTACK THEM, AND THEY’LL CAVE EVERY TIME.
CAVE EVERY TIME. FROM EVERYTHING YOU HEAR, DON
FROM EVERYTHING YOU HEAR, DON McGHAN AND TRUMP HATE EACH
McGHAN AND TRUMP HATE EACH OTHER.
OTHER. >> ISN’T HIS INTEGRITY ON THE
>> ISN’T HIS INTEGRITY ON THE LINE, HIS REPUTATION, AND HASN’T
LINE, HIS REPUTATION, AND HASN’T HE TESTIFIED IN THE MUELLER
HE TESTIFIED IN THE MUELLER REPORT TO THE TRUTH?
REPORT TO THE TRUTH? >> THE PLACE HE CARES ABOUT HIS
>> THE PLACE HE CARES ABOUT HIS REPUTATION IS WITH MITCH
REPUTATION IS WITH MITCH McCONNELL, THE REPUBLICAN
McCONNELL, THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT AND NONE OF THOSE
ESTABLISHMENT AND NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE HIM BRING
PEOPLE WANT TO SEE HIM BRING DONALD TRUMP DONE.
DONALD TRUMP DONE. >> HE WOULD BE THE RARE FIGURE
>> HE WOULD BE THE RARE FIGURE BECAUSE HE HAS THOSE ALLIES WHO
BECAUSE HE HAS THOSE ALLIES WHO COULD SUSTAIN TELLING A FEW
COULD SUSTAIN TELLING A FEW MINUTES OF TRUTH OF THE GARBAGE
MINUTES OF TRUTH OF THE GARBAGE THAT WENT ON IN THE WEST WING.
THAT WENT ON IN THE WEST WING. HE ASKED TO WRITE A FOE ANY
HE ASKED TO WRITE A FOE ANY LETTER.
LETTER. >> HE MIGHT OR HE MIGHT BE AN
>> HE MIGHT OR HE MIGHT BE AN OUTCAST IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
OUTCAST IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.
FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO JUSTIN
LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO JUSTIN AMASH WHEN HE STOOD UP AND TOLD
AMASH WHEN HE STOOD UP AND TOLD THE TRUTH.
THE TRUTH. HIS DAYS AS A HERO OF THE
HIS DAYS AS A HERO OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE PROBABLY
REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE PROBABLY OVER.
OVER. >> I WANT TO ASK ALL OF YOU