Latest StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 6/18/2019
E.g., 6/18/2019
Image: U.S. ICE officers conduct a targeted enforcement operation in Atlanta

Why Trump's new vow to use ICE to deport 'millions' matters

06/18/19 08:00AM

Donald Trump appeared to make some important news via Twitter last night, announcing a dramatic new plan to use Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to remove "millions" of people from American soil.

"Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in."

It was a striking announcement for a variety of reasons, not the last of which is the fact that we can't say with certainty whether the plan exists outside of the president's imagination. After all, Trump has made related vows -- on immigration and other issues -- with no real intention of following through. It's unsettling, but in 2019, Americans have a president who occasionally announces major policy developments that he has no intention of actually implementing.

What's more, this appears to be the latest in a series of incidents in which Trump blindsided his own team by making an announcement without alerting the relevant officials first. The Washington Post reported, "U.S. officials with knowledge of the preparations have said in recent days that the operation was not imminent, and ICE officials said late Monday night that they were not aware that the president planned to divulge their enforcement plans on Twitter."

It's not even clear if Trump's declaration could be true. While the Justice Department has expedited deportation orders, the Post's report added, "The president's claim that ICE would be deporting 'millions' also was at odds with the reality of the agency's staffing and budgetary challenges. ICE arrests in the U.S. interior have been declining in recent months because so many agents are busy managing the record surge of migrant families across the southern border with Mexico."

The logistical challenges associated with removing "millions" of immigrants -- a plan that would require extensive planning and personnel -- are significant, and there's little to suggest the Department of Homeland Security is prepared to execute such a scheme. (Trump tapped Mark Morgan to lead ICE only a few weeks ago.)

But then there's that other nagging problem: if ICE was actually planning to launch such a plan next week, wouldn't that be the sort of thing a president keeps under wraps?

read more

Monday's Mini-Report, 6.17.19

06/17/19 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:

* A scary scene in Dallas: "A rifle-toting gunman wearing tactical gear and carrying multiple magazines was fatally shot Monday after exchanging fire with federal officers outside a downtown Dallas court building, police said."

* A scary scene in Toronto: "Two people were shot at a rally celebrating the Toronto Raptors' first NBA championship on Monday afternoon, according to police, amid a celebration that saw thousands of fans crowd into the city's downtown core. Police also said that two firearms were recovered and two people were in custody."

* Terrorism in Nigeria: "At least 30 people were killed in a triple suicide bombing in northeastern Nigeria, emergency services reported on Monday, in an attack bearing the hallmarks of the Boko Haram jihadist group."

* A 7-2 ruling: "The Supreme Court declined on Monday to change the longstanding rule that says putting someone on trial more than once for the same crime does not violate the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy -- a case that drew attention because of its possible implications for President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort."

* More from SCOTUS: "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt a partial victory to the owners of an Oregon bakery who were fined for refusing to provide a cake for a lesbian commitment ceremony. The justices wiped out lower court rulings against the bakers and sent the case back for another round of hearings."

* Unexpected news out of Cairo: "Egypt's former president, Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who rose to office in the country's first free elections in 2012 and was ousted a year later by the military, collapsed in court during a trial and died Monday, state TV and his family said."

* A discouraging record: "Lawmakers set a new record Sunday by leaving the federal minimum wage untouched since July 24, 2009, the first year of former President Barack Obama's first term. The rate hasn't been increased from $7.25 in a whopping 3,615 days, making it the longest dry spell since the federal minimum wage was enacted under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1938."

read more

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) listens to a question during a press conference following the weekly policy meeting at the U.S. Capitol Dec. 1, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty)

Mitch McConnell's curious definition of 'full-bore socialism'

06/17/19 02:23PM

In March, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) condemned the House Democrats' voting-rights legislation -- the "For the People Act" (H.R. 1) -- as a "half-baked socialist proposal." That didn't make any sense, since there's nothing socialistic about ideas such as ending partisan gerrymandering and creating a system of automatic voter registration, but the GOP leader didn't much care.

A few days ago, McConnell appeared on Fox News and made a similar pitch on a similar issue to Laura Ingraham.

"They plan to make the District of Columbia a state, that'd give them two new Democratic senators. Puerto Rico a state, that'd give them two more new Democratic senators. And as a former Supreme Court clerk yourself, you've surely noticed that they plan to expand the Supreme Court.

"So this is full-bore socialism on the march in the House."

Look, I realize some on the right have gotten a little lazy when it comes to crafting political insults. In much the same as "judicial activism" has become a conservative shorthand for "court rulings we don't like," the word "socialism" is starting to become synonymous with "policy reforms Republicans oppose."

But the laziness isn't helping anyone. For one thing, if giving Americans a voice in the U.S. Senate is "socialism," McConnell is necessarily going to make socialism more popular.

read more

Image: President Trump Signs Executive Order In Oval Office

Trump cryptically refers to release of his 'financial statement'

06/17/19 12:48PM

One of the parts of Donald Trump's interview with George Stephanopoulos that's generated some chatter was the president's willingness to scold acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney for coughing during part of the interview. It was, to be sure, odd: Trump went on and on about how unacceptable he considered Mulvaney's coughing, before asking for another take.

But what I found even more notable was what the president was saying before he interrupted the interview to chastise his aide.

TRUMP: When you will see my financial statement, at some point I assume it's going to be released, you'll be very impressed by the job I've done. Much, much bigger, much, much better than anybody.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Which financial statement?

TRUMP: Uh, they're after my financial statement. The Senate, they'd like to get my financial statement. At some point I hope they get it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're going to turn it over?

TRUMP: No, at some point I might, but at some point, I hope they get it because it's a fantastic financial statement. It's a fantastic financial statement.

At that point, the president interrupted the interview, said, "Let's do that over," and admonished Mulvaney.

When they returned, the ABC News anchor reminded Trump that it's up to him when people see the materials. "No, it's not up to me," the Republican responded. "It's up to lawyers, it's up to everything else. But they're asking for things that they should never be asking for, that they've never asked another president for." Trump added that people are trying to "demean" him.

The president's response to coughing was weird, but his comments about his "financial statement" weren't any better -- because it wasn't at all clear what in the world he was referring to.

read more

Monday's Campaign Round-Up, 6.17.19

06/17/19 12:00PM

Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In an unexpected 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning rejected a challenge to a lower court ruling on Virginia's racially gerrymandered legislative districts. The outcome increases the odds of Democrats winning a majority in Richmond this fall.

* The latest national Fox News poll found former Vice President Joe Biden (D) maintaining his position atop the Democratic presidential primary field, leading Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 32% to 13%. In March, the same poll found Biden leading Sanders by just eight points. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was third in the new results with 9%, followed by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) with 8% each.

* That same poll found each of the top five Democratic contenders leading Donald Trump in hypothetical match-ups, though Biden, who led the president by 10 points, enjoyed the largest advantage.

* The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was also released over the weekend, and it found just 37% of registered voters are enthusiastic or comfortable about voting for Trump. In contrast, the poll found 52% said they're "very uncomfortable" backing the president.

* In South Carolina, a Post and Courier-Change Research Poll found Biden leading Warren, 37% to 17%, followed by Buttigieg with 11%. Harris and Sanders are tied in this poll for fourth with 9% each.

* Speaking of the Palmetto State, several Democratic contenders appeared at the Black Economic Alliance Presidential Forum in South Carolina on Saturday. The candidates -- Warren, Buttigieg, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) -- spoke at the event, which was specifically focused on economic problems affecting African-American communities.

read more

St Basil's Cathedral

US officials target Russia's power grid, but leave Trump in the dark: NYT

06/17/19 11:20AM

The New York Times published a striking front-page article over the weekend, reporting that the United States is "stepping up digital incursions into Russia's electric power grid." The piece added that in recent months, officials have described previously unreported "deployment of American computer code inside Russia's grid and other targets."

It's a solid scoop, though U.S. officials didn't appear overly eager to hide their handiwork. The article went on to note, "Officials at the National Security Council also declined to comment but said they had no national security concerns about the details of The New York Times's reporting about the targeting of the Russian grid, perhaps an indication that some of the intrusions were intended to be noticed by the Russians."

Or put another way, U.S. officials were comfortable throwing a brushback pitch at Moscow, letting Russia know what's possible.

But perhaps the most notable part of the Times' reporting came halfway through the article:

Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place "implants" — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid.

Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.

At face value, this is an extraordinary dynamic: Trump administration officials were reluctant to brief their president because they weren't sure they could trust him.

Evidently, those concerns are no longer valid -- if they intended to keep Trump in the dark, they probably wouldn't have told the New York Times about the deployment of these cybertools -- though as Mother Jones' Kevin Drum noted, it's possible these officials hoped the public reporting would make it difficult for the president to reverse course.

read more


Trump hedges on whether it's possible for him to obstruct justice

06/17/19 10:44AM

The first sign of trouble came in December 2017. As the investigation into the Russia scandal intensified, and credible allegations that Donald Trump obstructed justice came into focus, one of the president’s attorneys argued on the record that Trump “cannot obstruct justice.”

A day later, the same lawyer, John Dowd, added that because the president is the nation’s “chief law enforcement officer,” it’s simply not possible for him to “obstruct himself.”

As regular readers may recall, it was around this time that Trump's lawyers sent a 20-page memo to the special counsel's office, telling Robert Mueller and his team that the president has the authority to, "if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon." It's why, in their minds, it's not even possible for the president to have obstructed justice.

In his interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, Donald Trump didn't explicitly endorse the argument, but he came awfully close.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You talk about Article II. So your position is that you can hire or fire anybody, stop or start, in any investigation --

TRUMP: That is the position of a lot of great lawyers. That's the position of some of the most talented lawyers. And you have to have a position like that because you're the president. But without even bringing up Article II, which absolutely gives you every right --

STEPHANOPOULOS: So a president can't obstruct justice?

TRUMP: A president can run the country. And that's what happened, George. I run the country, and I run it well.

In 1977, three years after Americans saw their president resign in disgrace for the first time, Martin Frost sat down with Richard Nixon, who argued, "When the president does it, that means that is not illegal."

It led the ABC News anchor to ask the relevant question, 42 years later: "When the president does it, it's not illegal?"

read more